A thread for members to post verified sources only on the feedback on the OW interview.
Please do not use biased sources, no YT links or channels to be mentioned unless they are ones like BBC or Sky., no links, no mention of any political figures, no racist comments, no attacking of other members of the RF (criticisms are fine, but accusations are not), and no conspiracy or speculation.
Please do not promote websites, YT channels or other social media accounts as this gets abused, and it is asumed that I recommend them. I do not, because each platform varies from reporter to reporter.
These guidelines are to prevent people abusing the thread for their own agenda. If to many people abuse this, then I will lock this thread or delete it.
@Harry-Markle, thank you for opening this thread. Per H-M's additional guidelines, may I please add to everyone, NO going OT. Will be back shortly after fixing some coffee.
Okay, first, by way of explanation, I collected comments on the night of the Oprah interview with H and M from the H-M forum and others, and from the next day or two. People have expressed interest in (re)seeing them. H-M has approved posting user names, as forums are open source, but in some cases I did not collect user names, only the comments themselves.
DISCLOSURE: Many comments were obviously made before additional details came out on a particular issue. However, I collected only those comments on issues that can be verified by a publication. Please keep that in mind if you've got something to add -- Thanks!
(NOTE: I used double slashes (//) between comments to distinguish them more easily -- E)
PC56 min ago
What is the etiquette about wearing a white dress and veil to your fourth wedding?//Lynn22 min ago
The ‘secret wedding’ was a blatant lie, the Archbishop should clarify today whether that was a figment of her imagination or not.//AnonOneThree (Banned)20 min ago
I imagine TQ calling him and asking wtf.
Ana Ross5 hr ago
If the RF knew about it, or participated in it, it will really not sit well with Brit taxpayers. The rumbles of republicanism can be heard all the way over here. The question remains, what level of delusion would enable H and M to think they warranted a huge public wedding at all?! A twice married, divorced woman was really pushing the barrow of grandiosity to think she was justified in having a massively expensive, televised church wedding IMO. She goes out of her way to trample on Royal customs, and protocols are like a red rag to a bull to her. Publicity and fame are her gods, not the C of E one, imo.//
Ana Ross1 hr ago
If they got married, for real and privately, I do profoundly hope there is a formal investigation into that disgracefully OTT and obscenely expensive wedding, as it would have been just a theatrical performance, paid for by RF and taxpayers. I would expect all 30mill would be reimbursed by the Harkles ASAP!
The wedding certificate will confirm date of real wedding, let's have proof from from the framed one on their kitchen wall! Or is it one you could buy on the Internet and fill in the blanks? 🙄
Rev Oilwellsby as they call him in Private Eye (used to work for Shell) was woke before woke was invented and he would have done anything to burnish his credentials. Having said that this is also a further example of how TRF have had that testablishment that the Harkles hate so much do everything for them They have had monarchy clergy and judiciary do everything for them . The three pillars of the nation state and establishment but because they and their supporters are both so driven by jealousy and hate nothing has been good enough.
[Note: Mr. Welby was in fact an oil company employee, but my research shows he worked for Elf Aquitaine (DM and Nigeriana news). -- E]
@Alison, no worries -- I myself wouldn't have picked up on it, but for not knowing anything about the Archbishop's previous career and doing a general search.
As long as a Monarch is the head of the CofE anything can happen and does. We have had a considerable number of what would have been *enormous scandals* had they not been covered up by State and Church
Sarah Vine in her DM column today says that if as Markle stated to OW inside her chicken coop that the big tax payed wedding was for the great unwashed but she and H wanted their own personal wedding just for themselves, what was all that borrowed tiara nonsense about?
Narcissists want total control. Hence the oft reported "What Meghan wants Meghan gets". They wanted the bling wedding. As the Sarah Vine article goes on to say, 'why have a wedding with all those A list Hollywood guests and no family? The private wedding was more likely a case of : I even have the head of the CoE at my private beck and call and I've put the framed proof of it on the wall of our private mansion (but have to tell you about it because you'll never be allowed in to see it)
I'm not sure this thread is going to work for most of us because it takes too much time to go back and find the articles we recall reading, quote them accurately and not get tied in knots wanting to elaborate with our own responses.
Understood -- Everything I'm sharing that I copy-pasted has been talked about in the press or TV, or video. No need to go on an extensive fact-checking dive, unless it's an issue not brought up before.
The Archbishop is the ecclesiastical head of the CofE but the Queen is the Head of the Church of England and it is SHE who appoints all Archbishop's and Bishops on the advice of the PM
What a mixture,they can do just what they want regardless of the people and laws.
Isn’t the “private wedding” an attempt to deflect the criticism that has been leveled for the absolutely OTT public wedding, money that was spent when MM was already planning her run back to LA. The Harkles saying, “it wasn’t what we wanted, this was a show put on by ‘the institution.” A blatant lie, BTW. The press was reporting yesterday that both of them were making demands that their wedding should cost as much as William and Catherine’s wedding, adjusted for inflation.
No @Lynn, it was created in part because of a request made to me to share copy/pastes I kept the night of the O interview and shortly thereafter -- so a lot of the posts are mine, but they're running out pretty soon, so @H-M expanded this thread to include "what the media said" on what is true or not true. (Hope that makes sense!)
DM has written officially to Vogue to ask them to apologise and recall their accusation by one of their fashion editors that Sarah Vine's use of the word "niggling" in the headline of a story about Markle was a racial slur. The article in DM today gives the dictionary definition and origins of the word tallying the number (in the thousands) of times that word has been employed by various other newspapers without complaints.
Does anyone else think it is more than a coincidence that Rachel Johnson and Sarah Vine have both been targeted now? Given who they are related/married to, I mean. Or is it just me?!
[Unnamed comments] they wanted him called “Master “ .. and to have a normal life//'Archie' does have a courtesy title. Earl of Dumbarton. Does she not know this?//Well she just succeeded in getting angry people of color to sympathize with her by suggesting her kid was refused a title because he might be too dark. It doesn't get much lower.
JMF3 hr ago
So, Harry was asked by an unnamed relative (so her fanatics can accuse all of them) how ‘dark’ Archie would be (I don’t believe that) which has jumped to ‘Royals refused to make Archie a prince because they were worried how 'dark' he would be’ ? That’s a giant leap.
Kathleen Hardy1 hr ago
Right on here. Announce that there will be an inquiry that will take place after the birth as the RF do not wish to place additional stress on the pregnant one. If racism is charged against a member of the ‘firm’ then this is a serious issue (even illegal in UK) and the ‘firm’ is required to investigate. Megain should have to name the accused or will Harry have to withdraw the accusation ... cleverly played Megain. Wasn’t me, it was him said that!!//Royalist57 min ago
Exactly, a legal representative for the Royals can make a formal statement to that effect and additionally, if such a serious accusation is made regardless of whether she heard about it from Hapless, SHE announced it in her own words on international TV/media so is complicit and has made the accusation in her own words from her own big fat mouth.
Compare herself to the Little Mermaid who found her prince, but then LOST HER VOICE. Then she got her voice back.
Harry "I didn't have any one to turn to." family said "We've all been through it." Harry: What was different for me was there was the race element."//JS Florida7 hr ago
So his entire family and all of the UK are racist.
Ali West7 hr ago
Meghan: "The tabloids are hosted at parties by the palace." "Racist... Level of death threats."
Angela Levin spoke to Canadian TV and pointed out all the holes in the narrative put forward by MM and PH. She went on to say that PH was not the man she spent over a year with as she researched her biography of him
Meghan: "Not for myself or for Archie, I wrote to the family begging please keep my husband safe."
Ali West7 hr ago
Harry: Canada: "It's not safe, it's not secure." Security was removed because of change of status.
Galadriel2 hr ago
I’m listening to a recap on a YT channel and oh my heavens, That Woman actually claims that her passport was taken from her so she couldn’t leave?! Then how did she get to even fly to NYC for that bloody expensive baby shower?!?! This woman is truly a pathological liar!
I've read two articles that plainly show she took THIRTEEN overseas trips... apparently all without a passport! The taking of the keys? What keys? She was living with Henry at the time and had given up her rental property/rental car in Toronto. Might it have been the keys to her chastity belt?
Security issues Part 2 (contains security issues in a catch-all kind of post)
LSA poster: "I grew up not knowing a lot about the Royal Family"
"I never looked up my husband online"
"I never did any research about the family"
"When you are being judged on the perception but you are living the reality"
"I didn't know I had to curtesy to the HMTQ-- it was just lunch"
Lady C mentioned Samantha confirmed that M was lying about the grandmother she talked about making jam with. Said her jam making days were over a decade before M was born.
Told y'all: M lied about having such relationships because she thought it made her more relatable and hence marketable. Everything about her is smoke and mirrors
This is shocking. Meghan claims that in the final months of her pregnancy with Archie, those in the royal institution said that, because Archie wouldn't be a prince, he'd be afforded no security.
"Our son needs to be safe," says Meghan, clearly still baffled by the decision.
She says there was "no explanation" as to why Archie would not be a prince, as tradition would dictate. "It was a decision they felt was appropriate."
"All the grandeur surrounding this is an attachment I don't personally have," says Meghan, but "the idea of our son not being safe – and the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way as other grandchildren…"
"It's not their right to take it away. When I was pregnant they said they want to change that convention, for Archie."
She denies that she and Harry didn't want Archie to be a prince: "It's not true, and it's not our decision to make."
Is she copying Diana right down to almost throwing herself down the stairs? [Note: DM headline said MM was suicidal when she was 5 months pregnant. -- E]
Build-a-Bridge5 hr ago
I realize people are angry at this entire situation, but spewing and making fun of individuals with special needs and/or psychiatric disabilities is not the answer. The RF is a family in crisis whether you love them or hate them. Autism and certain other conditions usually present this way in families whether rich or poor and are highly under-diagnosed. In fact, the UK and Australia lead the way in adult (and female) late diagnosis of autism, which we here in the states desperately need to understand. Please be kind, listen, and learn. Lastly, I am not suggesting that autism spectrum disorder is the only thing going on in this situation. There are definitely co-morbidities and other forces at work here that will eventually come forth.
ABL5 hr ago
The only special needs these two have is the need to spew hate, get attention and make $$$$$ from their titles. I don't know why anyone would think they are on the spectrum. My son on the spectrum and I can assure you that most people with autism don't like being in the spotlight, its frightening for them. These two display signs of malignant narcissism and arrogance. They are over privileged, using real race issues and victimhood to try and twist social opinion and make the public believe they're victims. They're not. MM's behavior has been nothing short of vile and the way she has bullied just about everyone is sickening.
Even medical professionals can't make a diagnosis without a personal interview, most of the world seems to have labelled her as a narcissist. As have I, under the age old concept of "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...then it IS a duck".
Harry said they left because they were asking for help, but they could not get it.
Harry: "We were told this is just how it is, we've all been through it."
lonestar7 hr ago
He is lying, he previously stated he got mental counseling a few years ago.
Ali West7 hr ago
Oprah says Harry is doing therapy and Meghan says the therapist has saved them, "Certainly saved my life."
Ali West7 hr ago
... almost unsurvivable ..."Meg, they are not protecting you." "I just didn't want to be alive any more." "I wanted to go for help, they said I couldn't." "In my old job there was a union." [Me, E: Cf interview about “being a fraud” for not getting SAG card, on video] "I'm concerned for my mental welfare." "I reached out to one of Diana's best friends." Says she was on the verge of suicide on the day of an event at the Albert Hall. "I cant be left alone." "We were smiling and doing our job." "Go upstairs and put your make up on." "It takes so much courage to admit that you need help."
Ali West7 hr ago
"I'm not going to live my life in fear." "You guys, someone just tell the truth." "I grieved a lot, I lost my father." "Life is worth living."
Update : "Asked if he would have left or ever stepped back were it not for Meghan, Harry replied, 'No.'
He added: 'I wouldn't have been able to, because I myself was trapped, as well. I didn't see a way out. You know, I was trapped, but I didn't know I was trapped."// lonestar7 hr ago
And there is the clincher. He didn't know he was a victim until he was told.//
V.D6 hr ago
So why is he clinging to his titles if he feels trapped? //JS Florida6 hr ago
Why’s he clinging to the line of succession? Clearly unfit to lead the country as Monarch//
JS Florida6 hr ago
“I didn’t know I was trapped til Meghan told me I was” there Harry...fixed it for you
Galadriel2 hr ago
I’m listening to a recap on a YT channel and oh my heavens, That Woman actually claims that her passport was taken from her so she couldn’t leave?! Then how did she get to even fly to NYC for that bloody expensive baby shower?!?! This woman is truly a pathological liar!
Ali West7 hr ago
Harry: "I myself was trapped. Trapped within the system." My father and my brother, they are trapped, and I have compassion for that."
[Unnamed poster] Oprah: did you ask to check yourself in? a hospital?
MM: Can't call an Uber to the palace. When you join that family, that was the last time that we came here, that I saw my passport, drivers license, keys - all that gets turned over. [Me, E: Wrong about Uber not being able to stop at Royal residences. Cf. Bryony Gordon on record as stating that after a visit with H and M at Windsor Castle, H walked her to her Uber waiting at the gates.]
Oprah: Sounds like you were trapped and couldn't get help even though you were on the verge of suicide, that's what you're describing.
MM: Yes, that's the truth.
LSA poster:
I'm so confused. How come when they were under massive scrutiny as the world waited for Archie's birth she was able to get to a hospital, have Archie, and get home without anyone finding out, but she couldn't get to a hospital for psychiatric help?
That’s a good point...we all want Harry (and his issue) removed from line of succession, but Harry would be incapable and unfit to rule a country he despises - and also, he seems oblivious to Royal Protocol which is common knowledge to the UK Public (Archie/Title issue being one).
Harry: "My family literally cut me off financially. All we had to live on was Diana’s inheritance.//
Galadriel7 hr ago
Well, didn’t they say that they wanted to be financially independent? And now he’s whining about how the RF cut him off financially? Does he even understand what he’s saying?//
JA2 hr ago
Oh dear. Only $40+million to live on in the mansion. A true global tragedy. Won't someone pass me the smelling salts?
Galadriel46 min ago
Oh, definitely a payback! It’s my understanding that the Halfwit is listed on IMDb as a producer of that accursed interview. Now, CBS supposedly charged advertisers upward of £200K (approx. US$275K) for a 30-second slot. Surely a part of those profits will go to the Halfwit, as the producer, so what this all amounts to is that the Halfwit has just betrayed his family for quite a few pieces of silver, hasn’t he?
One thing I find especially galling is how the Halfwit claims that he had to sign those Netflix deals because he had to earn money, as PC had cut off his funding. Well, boo-hoo, didn’t the Halfwit himself say that they wanted to be financially independent? So why, when they did become financially independent, is he now blaming his father?
In the USA many of the right media-Fox news / breitbart etc had stories mocking the Sussex duo. But the left is fawning and making her into Mother Theresa and Joan of Arc. I think Meghan planned this with the Oprahs et al and plan on riding the race wars in the USA so they can milk it-as many in the USA do. The BRF is just collateral damage-as she does not need them anymore-as she thinks and she needs to be seen as David slaying Goliath.-the big bad white racist institution. This is planned and she has a whole team behind her who are helping and hoping to profit when she hits it big. They probably already signed deals.
@V.D. -- I have no doubt that you're right. I'm hoping that the media attention will begin to fade on the R thing, at least become more balanced and reasoned ... but if M and O keep on milking it for $$$, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
She has already come out with a statement saying that she wishes she had named names and that there is a lot more she could have said. Part 2, on it's way.
And this is what is so phony about MM and H. They disparage the BRF and “institution” as “r word,” yet are keeping the pressure on for HRH titles for their children? Don’t worry. Many (even left-leaning POC) Americans, see this position as ridiculous. Not to mention the continued use of the D and D titles themselves.
@Becky, and to this day, not a SINGLE media outlet, in print, online, broadcast, or social media has answered the question: WHY, if H and M are so opposed to the RF and titles, do they cling on to them so hard?
We were told OW wanted this interview for 3 years. I am finding it curious how last summer Ellen DeGeneres was one of the first to visit the new neighbors and after it received mass press, the accusations against Ellen started and almost destroyed her. Does anyone think someone was worried Ellen would get the big interview instead of them? I know hollywood is an echo chamber and OW has way more power than Ellen.
Who is going to "eat" O then? Is there someone bigger who will want to knock her off the top of the sign? Please no. We might have to go through this all over again.
1. Archie isn’t a Prince because he’s mixed race and might be dark.
RF welcomed her, approved the marriage and KNEW she would have children.
2. She knew nothing about the RF, Harry or the Institution.
She’s a highly educated “actress” who traveled the world, but is totally ignorant of other cultures. She knew and she studied. Now Sh he wants us to believe she is naive.
3. She was suicidal at 5 months pregnant.
She realized she was going to walk behind Kate the rest of her life. Curtesy to Kate Meg. She wasn’t getting her way. She was bullying people out of their job.
4. Kate made her cry at the dress fitting
Are you kidding me. Tights would have looked better.
Unnamed poster: "The Queen has always been wonderful to me." "Everyone welcomed me."
Ali West7 hr ago
Harry: on family "They were really welcoming at first, it all changed after Australia."
Oprah: "Why did you leave?" Harry: "Lack of support." "I never blindsided my grandmother, I have too much respect for her." Said Charles stopped taking his calls. Harry put it all in writing.
Ali West7 hr ago
Harry, ref Charles: "I feel really let down." "I will always love him." "Will make it a priority to heal that relationship." "I tried to educate them." "I love William to bits. " We are on different paths."
Lynda Thornton4 min ago
... So are they saying the BRF forced them to have a wedding, I mean I don't know BRF wedding protocols, if they had asked for a small wedding would the RF not have obliged seeing that it would save taxpayers some coins or just what is the purpose of that statement?
She basically alluded to multiple members of Harry’s family asking how dark Archie would be and also alluded to that being the reason why he wasn’t made a prince ... in addition to the security thing !
LSA poster: Did anyone catch the plug about the apple mental health thing?? #sponsor #ad
Another LSA poster (sarcasm re: copying Diana): Has she got to the bit where she danced with John Travolta yet? Or is she still sitting in front of the Taj Mahal?
#2). IIRC, there were news articles published prior to the wedding describing MM carrying around “binders” filled with information about protocol that she was studying. Am I dreaming about this or did MM just not read anything in the binders?
@RD -- I also remember seeing published reports on M's famous "binders". Seems by the time of the O interview she had "forgotten" about her copious research into protocol and chose to blame BP for "not preparing her". 🙄
Hypocritical of H to claim he would never blindside his grandmother. At the very moment he made that statement, he was yet again in the midst of blindsiding his grandmother by giving a scandalous interview without her knowledge and later springing it on her in the news. That's blindsiding!
Just read that Sharon Osbourne, who had defended on a CBS talk show P Morgan's opinion that he didn't believe a word Markle said in that OW interview has now backed down and apologised in a thoroughly confusing, contradictory, and rambling post for possibly offending her loved and beloved black community supporters. I believe (if I'm allowed to comment) that all the people who are backing down on what they have said and actually believe because of backlash over Saint Meghan the Unassailable, see dollar and pound signs melting away and are more afraid of losing their incomes than their integrity.
@JM -- I think so too -- either they see the moola fading away, or they're caving to peer pressure, IMO. As for Sharon Osbourne she was clearly defending Piers' Morgan's right to freedom of speech on the TV show, and asking honestly what exactly did PM say that was racist, but somehow it got twisted around to "defending PM's racism," a charge that was only substantiated by the one host saying, "Oh, well, it was his TONE that was racist." So Sharon caves along with the rest of them ... sheesh.
What we are seeing is Cancel Culture in action IMO. $$$$ and £££££ I think may be no more important than their acceptance by the woke tribes which give them their audience. Add to that the present day disease that denies the legitimacy of personal opinion; the social media and populist talk shows that endorse the gross over-simplification of complex issues - nothing is permitted to be anything but left / right; black / white; right / wrong; good / evil. I have nothing invested in Sharon Osborne and her ilk. Personally, I am contemptuous of the entire talk show circus and its talking heads. If the mouthy spokespersons don’t have the courage of their personal beliefs and don’t publicly uphold their own values when those beliefs and values run counter to the egotism, deceits, lies and half truths of That Woman, what use are they?
@Ana, Dunno about the UK, but over here "The View" gets laughably tiny ratings (just over 3M in January 2021, latest figures I could find). And yes, you're right, canceling is the "in" sport these days -- these *ladies* are a happy little echo chamber, yakking about this, that or the other celeb or politician who is the latest to be canceled. Along comes Sharon Osbourne, who *strays out of bounds* by defending Piers M. Just like white blood cells sensing an antibody or virus, they rush to the scene and *attack* the strayer. Sooner or later, (the $$$ as you say) brings her back around.
More miscellaneous posts from the interview/immediate aftermath --
L.1 hr ago
There are many things about their 'interview' diatribe which I found concerning and which will hopefully be addressed by the press this weekend in full page spreads, fact vs fiction. I will see. But there are other things which need to be highlighted, one of M's friends (Janina?) has stated 'But I can also say that I am personally glad people are doing their due diligence because I also know why someone had to leave, and it was for gross misconduct.' Which means that M has been discussing PRIVATE and CONFIDENTIAL disciplinary matters of a member of the Palace staff with her friends, in emails and texts? This is now in the public domain. I DO hope Justice Warby sees this. This is appalling behaviour and needs picking up and investigating by the Palace and the Papers. It is a clear Breach of Confidentiality. What other confidential information has she shared with her friend? ALSO very strange that she was able to email and text with 'no access to her phone' and without being listened in to, which totally debunks another of her claims.
EricaBlair said: ↑
What Markle said happened: "There was no guidance...there’s no class on how to . . . how to speak, how to cross your legs, how to be royal. There’s none of that training. That might exist for other members of the family. That was not something that was offered to me".
What actually happened: "The American-born former actress is now set to undergo six months of training with the Queen's assistant and private secretary, Samantha Cohen". [Link to Harper's Bazaar article]
LSA poster: I don't know what the staffers said. It just makes sense to me why Meghan was unduly malicious toward Eugenie between stealing her wedding date, trying to use the tiara Eugenie wanted, and announcing her pregnancy at E's wedding.
It's beyond bizarre that Meghan's now putting out PR articles that she and Eugenie are pregnancy BFFs now. Sure, Jan.
[Re: "Senior royal" making "racist remark" about Archie] [LSA poster] Ceruleanblue said: ↑
Maybe George was the one who asked about the baby's skin color. He's high ranking and it's the type of question kids ask when you least expect it.
I seriously doubt any of the adults asked it and this way Meghan has stirred the pot over nothing again.
The problem is, Harry’s story and Meghan’s differ. Harry said the statement was made before their marriage. Meghan insinuated it was when she was pregnant.
Lady C Campbell is on the record as having tried to engage some of her friends who are of colour to rebut the accusations of racism made by Markle in the OW interview that reflect on the royals and the nation as a whole. Sadly, so very very sadly, but perfectly understandably, these friends don't want to stick their heads above the parapet because they fear they will be personally attacked, their livelihoods will be threatened, and there will be a negative impact on the wellbeing of their children. What on earth is happening to us? Can we as a nation really allow two toxic narcissists to put an entire country into a stranglehold of fear? The more I think of the ramifications of a single 1 and 1/2 hr interview on the freedoms and rights of this nation's peoples it seems completely incomprehensible. Yet here we are.
Bravo. Watching on as the actual harm and potential consequences are being dissected is sobering and alarming. The people ( incl some of my family and friends) who say “Oh who cares? She’s nothing and Harry has cooked his goose” are missing the point entirely.
I have just emailed Lambeth Palace and requesed for clarification on the matter from Archbishop Welby by supposedly marrying dumb and dumber in a private, but possibly invalid, ceremony as two witnesses are required. Welby must come clean about this!
@me -- I completely and totally agree. It's no good having junior clergy come out and say things for the press like "They might have mistaken their ceremony for some kind of private vow thing." Mr. Welby himself must speak out. Thanks for writing, I hope Lambeth got plenty more letters like yours!
Harry Markle, I hope that two polls taken by You.Gov.uk count as verified media feedback? If not, apologies, but here goes. YouGov took a poll on 1 March, a week before the interview (both polls are up along with editorial explanations of same on You.Gov's site). Harry's ratings had improved very slightly from the last one, in which he had already fallen behind William, the Queen, and Kate (occupying the top three slots for favourability ratings).
Now, YouGov has just released a poll it took over 10-12 March a few days after the interview. Harry's favourability ratings had plunged to the lowest of his adult life, for the first time in negative territory, whilst MM's had plunged even lower than her previous rating, deep into negative territory.
But the favourability ratings for William, the Queen, and Kate remained virtually unchanged: they still occupy the top three slots, in that order, with ratings well over 65% and about 80% for the Queen, with two-thirds of those polled still in favour of retaining the monarchy. Charles still remains discouragingly behind his mother, elder son, and daughter-in-law.
These stats did break down somewhat, although not entirely, between the youngest and oldest Britons.
Whilst basing the line of succession on popularity polls is a slippery slope that otherwise I might not support, in this particular case, these polls demonstrate to me even more clearly why, if he wants the monarchy to survive, Charles must bite the bullet and step back in favour of his elder son being named Heir Apparent.
In this climate, with the young far less persuaded than older Britons, it is imperative that Charles not saddle Britain with a half century of aged Sovereigns, and make way for the couple that stands a chance of pulling in those younger sets.
I think this is the truly important feedback. The rest of the media is based on whatever is getting clicks today. YouGov is a highly respected polling agency with a worldwide clientele.
Lastly, this feedback, I think, indicates that the Queen has a better bead on the British people than MM and H do, and that her response, so far, however galling to some of us, is the right one.
Yes, it would avoid that issue. That wouldn't be Charles' major reason for doing so, but it would certainly sidestep the issue neatly and avoid either gulping and allowing MM the triumph of royal children, or issuing Letters Patent to deprive them of same upon his accession, which would only fuel further charges of racism.
Another benefit would be to ensure that if William accedes to the throne instead of Charles when the Queen goes, Charles is available as Regent should William die before Prince George is of age. Otherwise, it is Harry who would be in line as Regent, a situation everyone except, of course, MM and H would find impossible.
So, Charles stepping back would serve three important aims: giving the monarchy a better chance of surviving the Queen; blocking H's children from receiving HRHs without having to do it via Letters Patent; and blocking H as a potential Regent if William dies before George is of age.
@Pamela, good question. I don't think it matters whether a regent is male or female, but can't do a fact-dive just now, must pay at least lip service to job, :)
Moreover, H and M could hardly claim he had taken such a drastic step to spite them. A very personal sacrifice for him, but one which quite independently of them has for some time seemed to have support.
@Mr. Cullem -- Very good share -- it's one thing for this, that and the other news publication to make claims about popularity, and another for a government site to make them based on methodology open to scrutiny. Thanks for that. (One caveat -- not sure if government links are acceptable to @H-M, s/he can clarify)
Thank you, Eowyn. As it happens, YouGov is not a government site, although its name suggests that - I should have clarified that, apologies. It is an international research and data analytics group, and has been in the polling and market research, and branding business for a long time. The importance of these polls is that they aren't based on "clickbait" value, and you are correct: their methodology is always explained and open to scrutiny. TC
Edit: I should also point out that YouGov's poll after the interview, was also done AFTER the Queen's statement on 9 March, and therefore does take into account reaction to the Palace's formal response. Sigh - perhaps HM does know better than hot-headed TC.
I agree with TC’s reasoning and support his conclusions but I wonder if stepping aside from being the heir in favour of William would leave Charles open to the supposition that it was he who remarked on the baby’s possible skin colour? (I seem to call that it was said by H or That Woman that to name the culprit would damage future positions?) I do not for a nanosecond think he was - he is effectively and properly colour blind IMO. But MM’s gang would not hesitate to cast aspersions in that direction IMO.
@CDW, Awesome, thanks!! As a fellow Yank, in despair over Britons worrying about lack of M and H pushback coverage in the U.S., you've done my heart good :)
Bless you, Eowyn! There are quite a few of us Yanks who see through the sham, I believe. You are doing an awesome job of documenting. I hope HMTQ is going to put a stop to the duo's shenanigans, but I guess we will have to wait and see!
I only hope the Palace's legal eagles are keeping their own documentation of media reports -- my clumsy collection is hardly admissible in a court of law, LOL -- but an official report is another story!
No, I do not want to be seen advocating or promoting any website. You may post a specific article or comment that is from a verified source or a comment that you feel many people would like to read.
Finding neutral can be hard. I have never been comfortable with platforms that veer to far left or too far right, as their followers assume they can use this as their platform if they are mentioned or promoted.
Yes, it IS hard, harder than I thought! But once again, this particular guideline (as others have) has forced me to be scrupulous about this kind of thing, not only for the Blog but my own personal viewpoint ... thanks :)
It's okay. On twitter, some far right outlets decided to tag me in all their propaganda to make it look as if I supported them. That's why I support no one at all.
Good to know -- definitely don't want to be the vehicle that draws that type in -- I will check references to publications and/or allegations made by individuals from here on in.
LSA poster: She claimed to have gotten a standing O after her UN speech while video shows she didn't. It shows indifference.
She claimed she and Anna Wintour bonded in a Wimbledon box and Anna Wintour lent her her cardigan. Photos of the day show Wintour ignoring her.
And I need to get this whole pregnant and suicidal thing straight. She wasn't living in the [*****] palace while pregnant. She was in the Cotswolds. Harry sued over an aerial real estate shot or something like that. Why isn't that pointed out?
[NOTE: A The Guardian article, dated May 16, 2019, shortly after Archie's birth announcement, states that as a result of a successful lawsuit filed by PH against Splash News and Picture Agency, PH and M had to move from their Cotswold house as a result of a photo-taking "security breach" on or after January 9, 2019. Therefore, LSA poster's timeline is fuzzy, and needs clarification. Could not find corroborating articles. -- E]
Harry Markle blog
Pepper11 min ago
In the book Finding Freedom, Dr. Penelope Law is mentioned as MM's ob-gyn who delivered Archie. However, Penelope's husband Richard Bradford posted on social media: "My wife did not deliver Archie, but the Sun never contacted us to check if she had, typical shabby journalism. Whereas the Daily Mail rang me the day before to check and I was able to tell them that she hadn't delivered Archie." This needs to be investigated.
[NOTE: The Sun article in question has been pulled. However, there still exists a DM article dated August 12, 2020, quoting Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand in "Finding Freedom," as saying 'The only people who did know [where H and M planned to baby] were Doria and Meghan's medical team including her ob-gyn Penelope Law.' ... and further: 'It was soon after Archie was born, but Dr Penny had given the all clear [to go home to Frogmore Cottage] and Meghan felt up to getting back home, where she could continue to be monitored.', as poster Pepper said. I have been unable to find the social media post by Dr. Law's husband refuting the claim. --E]
And finally -- Questions Oprah should have asked --
[Daily Mail] sususi, wagga, Australia, 5 hours ago
Oprah did not ask any of the right questions, such as, why didnt harry, a patron of many mental health initiatives, demand help for meghan? He demanded stuff for his wedding, why not her mental health?? This was a practiced discussion as shown by Orpah's fake shock face. Worst interview ever.
[H-M Blog] Marie Carr5 hr ago
Why didn’t Oprah ask Meghan what exactly those “falsehoods” are that they are spreading about her?
------------------------------
A couple of observations: (H-M Blog]
AnonOneThree12 min ago
All of this is down to BP wanting a minority in the family to show how modern the Monarchy is.
Kyzo44 min ago
So much of what was said tonight was vague and impossible for the palace to refute because of the vagueness.
If you look at the pictures on the Harry Markle website, showing MM in New York with a pancake flat belly attending the ‘baby shower’, and in consideration of the fact that the Throne is inherited, Oprah should have asked about the multiple strange and unique circumstances relating to Archies’ gestation and birth - eg no doctor signed the announcement. Nobody saw MM either going to or returning from the hospital where Archies is said to have been born. Etc etc etc.
Watched the interview again. I’m a glutton for punishment. Wanted to pay attention without the new or shock value. Not gonna point out (for the time being) the many,many,many lies and inconsistencies, and just bullis**t. But I’m towards the end and it just kills me how often they discuss the media and several references to the RF using the media to be painted in a good light. Then here at the end, again about the media and you should be yourself and not worry about the media seeing your bad side. It is all just so ironic to watch them preach this s**t KNOWING that they pay SS $millions to portray them in a good light and silence any negative. They literally effing pay people for good PR, they pay people to say nice things, they pay people to photograph every act of kindness they do. Which is what EVERY single celebrity out there, A-Z do. But sit here and judge his family for working with press ( when it is sometimes necessary for their job) and trying to to make it seem so shady. I just can’t believe the audacity of these two. I know they are hypocrites and liars, I know that and have known it. But it is still unbelievable to watch it in action.
If I may say, it is said that PC wanted to issue a point by point rebuttal of the erroneous truth, but was not permitted. Between us we did it for him. Pats on the back all round.
Wow-my admiration for PC has gone up tremendously. I think the Queen should step aside-this problem would not have grown this big without her enabling these dolts.
@V.D. -- The Queen will probably "die in harness," as she's stated all along she intends to "give her life" to duty and service. As for PC's reign, I'm apprehensive about it for several reasons, but he has pleasantly surprised me in several ways as well.
What a shame that just when PC needs the nation to see that he is not a wimp where his son is concerned, it's HM that put the stoppers on it. We deserved to hear it from the palace, the nation has been slammed just as much as they have and we deserve to hear a public rebuttal. PC deserved that endorsement by the Queen if she expects him to be well received as king when she is gone. Very disappointed to hear that HM is playing the weak hand and suggest this means she will do nothing about the titles.
Harry Markle, I'm thinking this thread is a very good starting point, but we are really very few here. What is needed is for someone with a media presence to chronicle and catalogue every single instance of lying, contradiction, false claims that Markle has made with photographs taken by parties other than her own PR photographers that are in the public domain or have been published in the paper - and produce it as a mega article for the whole world to see. Lots of commentators and YouTubers have followed her along the road of her deceptions and bad behaviour and commented at the time, but it needs to be set out in one long article only this specific point. Digging out the hidden skeletons that are buried deep needs to be done as well. I know you are doing a book on the whole story but I'm talking specifically of Markle's behaviours and lies. For all the books written about the two grifters, surely someone can put this together?
@JM -- I did a search (not a lengthy one) on whether any reputable outfit has done a compilation, and didn't find one. I did find a good article on America Magazine (a Jesuit publication, therefore an orgg suffix) dated March 8, 2021, by Father Matt Malone. He takes his time in the beginning, being very nostalgic about Osborne House on the Isle of Wight, but he makes some pretty good points.
Thanks for the lead on the Father Malone article. Unfortunately I find it quite weak, primarily because A/ he believes the false 'story' that she was suicidal B/ that he believes in this instance reconciliation although unlikely, could be achieved with mercy and forgiveness extended. On the first count this is one of her most heinous and damaging lies to all who have every truly suffered from suicidal thoughts or with the grief of someone who did commit suicide. To acknowledge her claims as truthful is naive at best. On the second count, anyone who has ever had acquaintance with a narcissist knows that mercy, kindness, apology, conciliation, meeting half way, understanding...are all met with the same respond Markle gave to Kate when she offered flowers as a means of achieving peace. She got the door slammed in her face, and her efforts turned against her publicly. Narcs don't do personal accountability, personal responsibility, or forgiveness. If a priest doesn't get that, he needs to delve a bit deeper into human nature.
Yeah ... I had to hold my nose at the "we must believe her" bit. And, being a priest, he either doesn't know about, or doesn't believe, the narcissist mentality. I was actually pleased to see a religious person bring up contradictions at all, tho.
I have to say that I still can't bring myself to watch the 'interview', but what I have read of the claims made, it seems there is an awful lot of evidence building up to counter her 'truths' and H's too. I have kept a rough mental list myself but as I am new to this thread (although not to the blog, thank you Harry Markle) I don't feel confident putting it 'out there'. I really hope you are doing the donkey work for us Harry Markle? Perhaps Piers will do a point by point 'fact vs fiction' on a Fox News Special for the US, that would be wonderful.
@Eowyn - you have conflated Archie’s race/finance issue and left out the ‘security’ complaint, so I don’t know where to post this observation which I don’t believe has been cited before:
Why did MM think that were Archie a Prince he would get ‘security’? Her own husband is a Prince and to his horror, has to pay for his own ‘security’. Why did Oprah not ask the question ...?
@Lynn -- Hmm ... thought my headers were probably more obvious than they appear to be, maybe -- and excellent point! Not a peep from O on that question -- which was totally not struck off beforehand by H and M because "we didn't see questions beforehand" ... 🙄
Archewell sent a letter to the school MM went to last year. This is the 3rd contact I've read about where they contacted places they went when representing TQ. Are they targeting any place they went on behalf of the RF for their own charity?
How can JCMH be so upset with his father when PC paid for most of the wedding, her clothing, their expenses for a long time, and we were told Frogmore? What exactly is his problem with his father?
MM said in the interview that Catherine made her cry and the incident was a few days before the wedding. Isn't that when all the stuff with her father happened? Did the situation with her father make her cry at all?
The only thing that makes Meghan cry is not getting her own way, and it's the tears of fury and rage. I can't imagine what poor Angela Kelly had to deal with
Angela Kelly is a scouser! She would have coped. She had the unequivocal backing of TQ. I very much TQ has maintained her steely resolve where the Markles are concerned
The original story at the time said that MM made Catherine cry at one of the wedding rehearsal, or possibly it was at a dress fitting. Issue was related to the wearing or not wearing of the white tights by the little flower girls, one of whom was Charlotte. Catherine was upholding RF and UK posh wedding practice by saying tights are customary. That Woman disputed the matter. Catherine was only weeks past delivering Prince Louis. I have never read ANYwhere, until this abomination of an “interview” that Catherine provoked tears from That Woman. She really is.......no, can’t say 🤬 As to being emotionally conflicted about her father’s situation at the time, IMO as ‘nothing was off limits’, it should have been honestly addressed in that interview but of course flying pigs would circle the globe a hundred times before that ever happened. She is a heat-seeking missile where dramas, hurt feelings and fabrications are concerned IMO.
Correct, not an interview. A spiteful grudge fest and an advert for future woke business. Think about how long ago some of these offences actually took place and ask why weren't they dealt with at the time. M & H are not exactly the types to stay quiet if they aren't getting what they want. What M wants M gets - repeat after me very loudly!
It just demonstrates they don't do forgive and forget. Real families do. Doesn't it suggest that for M there never has been any emotional attachment to the RF?
We forgive, but don't always forget. My older sisters used a magic marker on my brand new bridal doll face and dress. Never forgotten, as it was my main Christmas present when I was 7. They still think it is funny.
Ali West has mentioned Harry including in the OW interview his view that his father and brother are trapped in their inherited roles. He claims Charles dropped his financial support. MM has to lay blame for the who-made-who-cry at Kate's feet, true or not, but festering for 3 years. Who believes the pair wouldn't jump at the chance to be King and Queen, on their own terms that is? One of their targets has regrettably been the Cambridges, who some feel are the ones who can save the monarchy that H+M are trying to burn down, one chat show at a time. As the dust has settled, the tragedy is their deep-rooted antimosity toward the Cambridges knows no bounds or limits. Before the interview, the Cambridges were happily interacting with individuals of all ages,, smiling and enjoying their Zoom chats. This morning they looked pained and weary.
And both looked as if several good meals need to be consumed, followed by sound, restful sleep. William had a bout of Covid less than 6 months ago, as did Charles. Full recovery takes time. None of them needs nor deserves to have the grief and anxiety that is being heaped on their shoulders. And now I gather a second “interview” is threatened!
I hope that others will flood Ofcom with complaints about the ITV broadcast which perpetrated relentless, merciless cruelty and invasion of privacy on elderly family members. Piers did a good job of opposing the three evil bum-kissers.
@Ali West -- Time difference means I don't get back to conversations until many hours later -- but would very much like to THANK YOU for live-posting the *interview*. There are almost too many points to follow and rebut, but you shared the main ones. Thanks again :)
DT: Prince Charles is all too aware of his gilded cage By Selina Scott: "What struck many British viewers as most hypocritical, while he and Meghan played the grieving victims, was not just their display of narcissism before an audience riven by the pandemic, but that they seek to make their fortune out of their association with the Royal Family, with lucrative Netflix and Spotify deals, while rubbishing it at the same time. Note that though they threw Charles under the bus, they took great care to eulogise their gold-plated association with the Queen. There can be no doubt that Charles is deeply hurt and must recognise the damage to public perception of him as our future king. And, like many of us, will be wondering: what happened to the Harry we used to love?"
What happened to H is blindingly obvious. He was never intelligent, he was coddled as a child, promoted to a high public profile in The Firm though unworthy of the roles, and then he was snared by That Woman.
@Anna, excellent share, thanks. Kind of reminds me of reports that came out about Harvey Weinstein -- victims quoted as saying he would alternately plead with them to have s*x and physically abuse them at the same time. According to psychologists I've read, this is another classic narcissist tactic. It's all about getting *fuel* and maintaining control at the same time.
Ah! The DM has a new piece up about how claims in the interview have been debunked, and asking if CBS/Oprah will investigate. The title is "Harry and Meghan, the inconvenient truth: Dossier reveals many explosive claims which rocked the Royal Family were contradictory or wrong... so will CBS and Oprah Winfrey now investigate the true story?"
Yes just read it. It beggars belief that the so many people, some very intelligent people, have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Markle's fantasy fiction. Lord of the Rings has more basis in fact than that "interview".
Nigel Farage speaking in the US. Fox News March 11,2021. The left breeding a culture of Victimhood. Accused RF and Queen, next year will have reigned 70 years of racism. The Queen is head of the UK and the Commonwealth countries: over 50 countries, 2.3 billion people, the vast majority are black or Asian. Our RF has done a huge amount for people of colour all over the world her claims of racism unsubstantiated. Much else of what she said was untrue- they wouldn't give poor little Archie a princedom- the great grandchild doesn't get one; it was a falsehood. The whole thing was a fabrication. For MM it was an acting performance to emote, to plead with the people she had a victim status and also fo say she suffered badly from mental health prkblems and had thought perhaps about taking her own life. All I can say is that young woman the other night, didn't appear to me to have any mental health problems. But it is shocking, that if you attack somebody who claims they've got a mental health problem, you are suddenly the villian. I don't want to underplay the importance of mental health, but people using it as an excuse...The host: you can't claim racism generally and not name anybody... thanks Oprah for the interview. You cannot do that, she did it and got away with it, because she is in the elite club. They cover for each other, they protect one another and then sign lucrative deals and we are supposed to cry all the way to the bank for them. It's ridiculous and demeaning to true discrimination and hardship of all these people suffering around the world and in tbe US. Hilary Clinton weighed in on the big Markle drama." Nibgel Farage: I've been called the names under the sun, but then I challenged the establishment. Meghan arrived in the UK, had a fairytale wedding, the country took her to their heart, the press were gushing with praise about her. I'll tell you when the criticism started; it started when she and Harry started lecturing us on carbon emissions and climate change and yet flying around the world in a private jet. ..Everyone gets a tough time in the press.
@KMT -- According to psychologists/psychiatrists that I've read, the best answer is "they are extremely difficult to treat if at all" and that there are very, very few "cure" cases. According to HG Tudor, the narcissist who maintains a website/business exposing fellow narcissists like M, says no way in h*ll can they be treated.
I also read HG Tudor, so my question was rather tongue in cheek. In fact, it was through reading his A Very Royal Narcissist that I realised just how MM operates
Just this morning I was listening to the one on the future of H and M ... pretty depressing, either for H or for those who believe/wish like anything they'd get divorced. Won't happen unless 1) H bolts on his own, with or without intervention from the RF, 2) He's outlived his usefulness to M and thus discarded by her (divorce), ain't happening anytime soon, or 3) They stay together till the bitter end, with her alternately tearing him down and occasionally throwing small bones of *happy M* at him. According to HG Tudor, and I tend to agree.
People with disordered personalities, as compared with people who have bipolar disorder, major depression, or schizophrenia, do not have the insight and awareness that they are the one with the problem in the family, workplace, or relationship. Almost all of the personality disorders have characteristics of blaming others, self-aggrandizing, paranoia, and extremes of emotions, whether flat or overly vibrant. People with personality disorders don’t get better in a mental hospital. They usually don’t stay with a therapist long enough to get results because he or she makes them angry, and there are no prescription meds that treat personality disorders per se. These folks are in your neighborhoods, workplaces, churches, and in our families. They exasperate us. Some are dangerous by way of the havoc they cause.
@Harry-Markle, thank you for opening this thread. Per H-M's additional guidelines, may I please add to everyone, NO going OT. Will be back shortly after fixing some coffee.
Okay, first, by way of explanation, I collected comments on the night of the Oprah interview with H and M from the H-M forum and others, and from the next day or two. People have expressed interest in (re)seeing them. H-M has approved posting user names, as forums are open source, but in some cases I did not collect user names, only the comments themselves.
DISCLOSURE: Many comments were obviously made before additional details came out on a particular issue. However, I collected only those comments on issues that can be verified by a publication. Please keep that in mind if you've got something to add -- Thanks!
I'll begin with the *wedding* that allegedly took place 3 days before the *actual* wedding --
(NOTE: I used double slashes (//) between comments to distinguish them more easily -- E)
PC56 min ago
What is the etiquette about wearing a white dress and veil to your fourth wedding?//Lynn22 min ago
The ‘secret wedding’ was a blatant lie, the Archbishop should clarify today whether that was a figment of her imagination or not.//AnonOneThree (Banned)20 min ago
I imagine TQ calling him and asking wtf.
Ana Ross5 hr ago
If the RF knew about it, or participated in it, it will really not sit well with Brit taxpayers. The rumbles of republicanism can be heard all the way over here. The question remains, what level of delusion would enable H and M to think they warranted a huge public wedding at all?! A twice married, divorced woman was really pushing the barrow of grandiosity to think she was justified in having a massively expensive, televised church wedding IMO. She goes out of her way to trample on Royal customs, and protocols are like a red rag to a bull to her. Publicity and fame are her gods, not the C of E one, imo.//
Ana Ross1 hr ago
If they got married, for real and privately, I do profoundly hope there is a formal investigation into that disgracefully OTT and obscenely expensive wedding, as it would have been just a theatrical performance, paid for by RF and taxpayers. I would expect all 30mill would be reimbursed by the Harkles ASAP!
The wedding certificate will confirm date of real wedding, let's have proof from from the framed one on their kitchen wall! Or is it one you could buy on the Internet and fill in the blanks? 🙄
😆
Wedding Part 2 --
Alison Bennion1 hr ago
Rev Oilwellsby as they call him in Private Eye (used to work for Shell) was woke before woke was invented and he would have done anything to burnish his credentials. Having said that this is also a further example of how TRF have had that testablishment that the Harkles hate so much do everything for them They have had monarchy clergy and judiciary do everything for them . The three pillars of the nation state and establishment but because they and their supporters are both so driven by jealousy and hate nothing has been good enough.
[Note: Mr. Welby was in fact an oil company employee, but my research shows he worked for Elf Aquitaine (DM and Nigeriana news). -- E]
Thank you for the correction and clarification. I should check my facts rather than rely on others.
@Alison, no worries -- I myself wouldn't have picked up on it, but for not knowing anything about the Archbishop's previous career and doing a general search.
As long as a Monarch is the head of the CofE anything can happen and does. We have had a considerable number of what would have been *enormous scandals* had they not been covered up by State and Church
Sarah Vine in her DM column today says that if as Markle stated to OW inside her chicken coop that the big tax payed wedding was for the great unwashed but she and H wanted their own personal wedding just for themselves, what was all that borrowed tiara nonsense about?
Narcissists want total control. Hence the oft reported "What Meghan wants Meghan gets". They wanted the bling wedding. As the Sarah Vine article goes on to say, 'why have a wedding with all those A list Hollywood guests and no family? The private wedding was more likely a case of : I even have the head of the CoE at my private beck and call and I've put the framed proof of it on the wall of our private mansion (but have to tell you about it because you'll never be allowed in to see it)
Am deleting my previous reply to you, as I've promised not to go OT (not because of anything you said, I would gladly answer in the main forum!)
I'm not sure this thread is going to work for most of us because it takes too much time to go back and find the articles we recall reading, quote them accurately and not get tied in knots wanting to elaborate with our own responses.
Understood -- Everything I'm sharing that I copy-pasted has been talked about in the press or TV, or video. No need to go on an extensive fact-checking dive, unless it's an issue not brought up before.
The Archbishop is the ecclesiastical head of the CofE but the Queen is the Head of the Church of England and it is SHE who appoints all Archbishop's and Bishops on the advice of the PM
What a mixture,they can do just what they want regardless of the people and laws.
We the serfs haven't got a chance in hell !!!!
Wedding Part 2 continued --
RD7 min ago
Isn’t the “private wedding” an attempt to deflect the criticism that has been leveled for the absolutely OTT public wedding, money that was spent when MM was already planning her run back to LA. The Harkles saying, “it wasn’t what we wanted, this was a show put on by ‘the institution.” A blatant lie, BTW. The press was reporting yesterday that both of them were making demands that their wedding should cost as much as William and Catherine’s wedding, adjusted for inflation.
(Advice to people newly coming in, probably best if you sort by chronological order! -- E)
Have changed the settings so chronological is default.
@Lynn -- The intent is to post what allegations were made in the O interview, and comments about it afterward.
No @Lynn, it was created in part because of a request made to me to share copy/pastes I kept the night of the O interview and shortly thereafter -- so a lot of the posts are mine, but they're running out pretty soon, so @H-M expanded this thread to include "what the media said" on what is true or not true. (Hope that makes sense!)
@H-M, thanks :)
DM has written officially to Vogue to ask them to apologise and recall their accusation by one of their fashion editors that Sarah Vine's use of the word "niggling" in the headline of a story about Markle was a racial slur. The article in DM today gives the dictionary definition and origins of the word tallying the number (in the thousands) of times that word has been employed by various other newspapers without complaints.
(@JM -- Thanks, but must watch my P's and Q's and not go off topic, sorry! :( This thread is for feedback on the interview)
Does anyone else think it is more than a coincidence that Rachel Johnson and Sarah Vine have both been targeted now? Given who they are related/married to, I mean. Or is it just me?!
Its no coincidence.
Now for race allegations --
[Unnamed comments] they wanted him called “Master “ .. and to have a normal life//'Archie' does have a courtesy title. Earl of Dumbarton. Does she not know this?//Well she just succeeded in getting angry people of color to sympathize with her by suggesting her kid was refused a title because he might be too dark. It doesn't get much lower.
JMF3 hr ago
So, Harry was asked by an unnamed relative (so her fanatics can accuse all of them) how ‘dark’ Archie would be (I don’t believe that) which has jumped to ‘Royals refused to make Archie a prince because they were worried how 'dark' he would be’ ? That’s a giant leap.
Kathleen Hardy1 hr ago
Right on here. Announce that there will be an inquiry that will take place after the birth as the RF do not wish to place additional stress on the pregnant one. If racism is charged against a member of the ‘firm’ then this is a serious issue (even illegal in UK) and the ‘firm’ is required to investigate. Megain should have to name the accused or will Harry have to withdraw the accusation ... cleverly played Megain. Wasn’t me, it was him said that!!//Royalist57 min ago
Exactly, a legal representative for the Royals can make a formal statement to that effect and additionally, if such a serious accusation is made regardless of whether she heard about it from Hapless, SHE announced it in her own words on international TV/media so is complicit and has made the accusation in her own words from her own big fat mouth.
That is still often the case
Has anyone read the story of Rose Hulse at DM? A California, African American, who married a blue bloodied Brit, George Hulse?
Race allegations Part 2 --
Ali West7 hr ago
Compare herself to the Little Mermaid who found her prince, but then LOST HER VOICE. Then she got her voice back.
Harry "I didn't have any one to turn to." family said "We've all been through it." Harry: What was different for me was there was the race element."//JS Florida7 hr ago
So his entire family and all of the UK are racist.
Ali West7 hr ago
Meghan: "The tabloids are hosted at parties by the palace." "Racist... Level of death threats."
Now to move on to security issues --
Angela Levin spoke to Canadian TV and pointed out all the holes in the narrative put forward by MM and PH. She went on to say that PH was not the man she spent over a year with as she researched her biography of him
Security issues Part 1
Ali West7 hr agoLiked by Harry Markle
Meghan: "Not for myself or for Archie, I wrote to the family begging please keep my husband safe."
Ali West7 hr ago
Harry: Canada: "It's not safe, it's not secure." Security was removed because of change of status.
Galadriel2 hr ago
I’m listening to a recap on a YT channel and oh my heavens, That Woman actually claims that her passport was taken from her so she couldn’t leave?! Then how did she get to even fly to NYC for that bloody expensive baby shower?!?! This woman is truly a pathological liar!
I've read two articles that plainly show she took THIRTEEN overseas trips... apparently all without a passport! The taking of the keys? What keys? She was living with Henry at the time and had given up her rental property/rental car in Toronto. Might it have been the keys to her chastity belt?
Security issues Part 2 (contains security issues in a catch-all kind of post)
LSA poster: "I grew up not knowing a lot about the Royal Family"
"I never looked up my husband online"
"I never did any research about the family"
"When you are being judged on the perception but you are living the reality"
"I didn't know I had to curtesy to the HMTQ-- it was just lunch"
Lady C mentioned Samantha confirmed that M was lying about the grandmother she talked about making jam with. Said her jam making days were over a decade before M was born.
Told y'all: M lied about having such relationships because she thought it made her more relatable and hence marketable. Everything about her is smoke and mirrors
This is shocking. Meghan claims that in the final months of her pregnancy with Archie, those in the royal institution said that, because Archie wouldn't be a prince, he'd be afforded no security.
"Our son needs to be safe," says Meghan, clearly still baffled by the decision.
She says there was "no explanation" as to why Archie would not be a prince, as tradition would dictate. "It was a decision they felt was appropriate."
"All the grandeur surrounding this is an attachment I don't personally have," says Meghan, but "the idea of our son not being safe – and the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way as other grandchildren…"
"It's not their right to take it away. When I was pregnant they said they want to change that convention, for Archie."
She denies that she and Harry didn't want Archie to be a prince: "It's not true, and it's not our decision to make."
And O talked about their finances but nobody said the dreaded words " You've got enough money to pay for your own security".
Now on to mental health issues --
Mental health issues Part 1
lonestar7 hr ago
Is she copying Diana right down to almost throwing herself down the stairs? [Note: DM headline said MM was suicidal when she was 5 months pregnant. -- E]
Build-a-Bridge5 hr ago
I realize people are angry at this entire situation, but spewing and making fun of individuals with special needs and/or psychiatric disabilities is not the answer. The RF is a family in crisis whether you love them or hate them. Autism and certain other conditions usually present this way in families whether rich or poor and are highly under-diagnosed. In fact, the UK and Australia lead the way in adult (and female) late diagnosis of autism, which we here in the states desperately need to understand. Please be kind, listen, and learn. Lastly, I am not suggesting that autism spectrum disorder is the only thing going on in this situation. There are definitely co-morbidities and other forces at work here that will eventually come forth.
ABL5 hr ago
The only special needs these two have is the need to spew hate, get attention and make $$$$$ from their titles. I don't know why anyone would think they are on the spectrum. My son on the spectrum and I can assure you that most people with autism don't like being in the spotlight, its frightening for them. These two display signs of malignant narcissism and arrogance. They are over privileged, using real race issues and victimhood to try and twist social opinion and make the public believe they're victims. They're not. MM's behavior has been nothing short of vile and the way she has bullied just about everyone is sickening.
Even medical professionals can't make a diagnosis without a personal interview, most of the world seems to have labelled her as a narcissist. As have I, under the age old concept of "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...then it IS a duck".
Those who can't, or won't, get help to heal their own mental health issues, set out to heal the world.
Mental health issues Part 2
Ali West7 hr ago
Harry said they left because they were asking for help, but they could not get it.
Harry: "We were told this is just how it is, we've all been through it."
lonestar7 hr ago
He is lying, he previously stated he got mental counseling a few years ago.
Ali West7 hr ago
Oprah says Harry is doing therapy and Meghan says the therapist has saved them, "Certainly saved my life."
Ali West7 hr ago
... almost unsurvivable ..."Meg, they are not protecting you." "I just didn't want to be alive any more." "I wanted to go for help, they said I couldn't." "In my old job there was a union." [Me, E: Cf interview about “being a fraud” for not getting SAG card, on video] "I'm concerned for my mental welfare." "I reached out to one of Diana's best friends." Says she was on the verge of suicide on the day of an event at the Albert Hall. "I cant be left alone." "We were smiling and doing our job." "Go upstairs and put your make up on." "It takes so much courage to admit that you need help."
Ali West7 hr ago
"I'm not going to live my life in fear." "You guys, someone just tell the truth." "I grieved a lot, I lost my father." "Life is worth living."
Hope I can say this, but isn’t the live you life in fear from strictly Ballroom, an Australian film
@Lady P -- I looked it up, and you're right. Numerous references to the film and your quotation. Only slightly different wording from La M.
I imagine she has a leather bound notebook that she carries everywhere and is constantly writing down quotes that will come in handy later.
Now onto "Trapped" --
PIPPA7 hr ago
Update : "Asked if he would have left or ever stepped back were it not for Meghan, Harry replied, 'No.'
He added: 'I wouldn't have been able to, because I myself was trapped, as well. I didn't see a way out. You know, I was trapped, but I didn't know I was trapped."// lonestar7 hr ago
And there is the clincher. He didn't know he was a victim until he was told.//
V.D6 hr ago
So why is he clinging to his titles if he feels trapped? //JS Florida6 hr ago
Why’s he clinging to the line of succession? Clearly unfit to lead the country as Monarch//
JS Florida6 hr ago
“I didn’t know I was trapped til Meghan told me I was” there Harry...fixed it for you
Galadriel2 hr ago
I’m listening to a recap on a YT channel and oh my heavens, That Woman actually claims that her passport was taken from her so she couldn’t leave?! Then how did she get to even fly to NYC for that bloody expensive baby shower?!?! This woman is truly a pathological liar!
Ali West7 hr ago
Harry: "I myself was trapped. Trapped within the system." My father and my brother, they are trapped, and I have compassion for that."
[Unnamed poster] Oprah: did you ask to check yourself in? a hospital?
MM: Can't call an Uber to the palace. When you join that family, that was the last time that we came here, that I saw my passport, drivers license, keys - all that gets turned over. [Me, E: Wrong about Uber not being able to stop at Royal residences. Cf. Bryony Gordon on record as stating that after a visit with H and M at Windsor Castle, H walked her to her Uber waiting at the gates.]
Oprah: Sounds like you were trapped and couldn't get help even though you were on the verge of suicide, that's what you're describing.
MM: Yes, that's the truth.
LSA poster:
I'm so confused. How come when they were under massive scrutiny as the world waited for Archie's birth she was able to get to a hospital, have Archie, and get home without anyone finding out, but she couldn't get to a hospital for psychiatric help?
That’s a good point...we all want Harry (and his issue) removed from line of succession, but Harry would be incapable and unfit to rule a country he despises - and also, he seems oblivious to Royal Protocol which is common knowledge to the UK Public (Archie/Title issue being one).
Now for Finances --
Finances
Ali West7 hr ago
Harry: "My family literally cut me off financially. All we had to live on was Diana’s inheritance.//
Galadriel7 hr ago
Well, didn’t they say that they wanted to be financially independent? And now he’s whining about how the RF cut him off financially? Does he even understand what he’s saying?//
JA2 hr ago
Oh dear. Only $40+million to live on in the mansion. A true global tragedy. Won't someone pass me the smelling salts?
Galadriel46 min ago
Oh, definitely a payback! It’s my understanding that the Halfwit is listed on IMDb as a producer of that accursed interview. Now, CBS supposedly charged advertisers upward of £200K (approx. US$275K) for a 30-second slot. Surely a part of those profits will go to the Halfwit, as the producer, so what this all amounts to is that the Halfwit has just betrayed his family for quite a few pieces of silver, hasn’t he?
One thing I find especially galling is how the Halfwit claims that he had to sign those Netflix deals because he had to earn money, as PC had cut off his funding. Well, boo-hoo, didn’t the Halfwit himself say that they wanted to be financially independent? So why, when they did become financially independent, is he now blaming his father?
Now for Miscellaneous posts (running gamut of issues) --
There is a "Times" podcast by Valentine Lowe on his well written article on The Sussex's, very balanced, well researched Worth a listen..
@Jane -- Thanks for the heads-up, will look for it -- Mr. Low is a stellar journalist, IMO.
In the USA many of the right media-Fox news / breitbart etc had stories mocking the Sussex duo. But the left is fawning and making her into Mother Theresa and Joan of Arc. I think Meghan planned this with the Oprahs et al and plan on riding the race wars in the USA so they can milk it-as many in the USA do. The BRF is just collateral damage-as she does not need them anymore-as she thinks and she needs to be seen as David slaying Goliath.-the big bad white racist institution. This is planned and she has a whole team behind her who are helping and hoping to profit when she hits it big. They probably already signed deals.
@V.D. -- I have no doubt that you're right. I'm hoping that the media attention will begin to fade on the R thing, at least become more balanced and reasoned ... but if M and O keep on milking it for $$$, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
She has already come out with a statement saying that she wishes she had named names and that there is a lot more she could have said. Part 2, on it's way.
And this is what is so phony about MM and H. They disparage the BRF and “institution” as “r word,” yet are keeping the pressure on for HRH titles for their children? Don’t worry. Many (even left-leaning POC) Americans, see this position as ridiculous. Not to mention the continued use of the D and D titles themselves.
@Becky, and to this day, not a SINGLE media outlet, in print, online, broadcast, or social media has answered the question: WHY, if H and M are so opposed to the RF and titles, do they cling on to them so hard?
We were told OW wanted this interview for 3 years. I am finding it curious how last summer Ellen DeGeneres was one of the first to visit the new neighbors and after it received mass press, the accusations against Ellen started and almost destroyed her. Does anyone think someone was worried Ellen would get the big interview instead of them? I know hollywood is an echo chamber and OW has way more power than Ellen.
Who is going to "eat" O then? Is there someone bigger who will want to knock her off the top of the sign? Please no. We might have to go through this all over again.
Miscellaneous posts --
GloJeanSWFL7 hr ago
Omg. I’ve read the articles at DM.
1. Archie isn’t a Prince because he’s mixed race and might be dark.
RF welcomed her, approved the marriage and KNEW she would have children.
2. She knew nothing about the RF, Harry or the Institution.
She’s a highly educated “actress” who traveled the world, but is totally ignorant of other cultures. She knew and she studied. Now Sh he wants us to believe she is naive.
3. She was suicidal at 5 months pregnant.
She realized she was going to walk behind Kate the rest of her life. Curtesy to Kate Meg. She wasn’t getting her way. She was bullying people out of their job.
4. Kate made her cry at the dress fitting
Are you kidding me. Tights would have looked better.
Unnamed poster: "The Queen has always been wonderful to me." "Everyone welcomed me."
Ali West7 hr ago
Harry: on family "They were really welcoming at first, it all changed after Australia."
Oprah: "Why did you leave?" Harry: "Lack of support." "I never blindsided my grandmother, I have too much respect for her." Said Charles stopped taking his calls. Harry put it all in writing.
Ali West7 hr ago
Harry, ref Charles: "I feel really let down." "I will always love him." "Will make it a priority to heal that relationship." "I tried to educate them." "I love William to bits. " We are on different paths."
Lynda Thornton4 min ago
... So are they saying the BRF forced them to have a wedding, I mean I don't know BRF wedding protocols, if they had asked for a small wedding would the RF not have obliged seeing that it would save taxpayers some coins or just what is the purpose of that statement?
She basically alluded to multiple members of Harry’s family asking how dark Archie would be and also alluded to that being the reason why he wasn’t made a prince ... in addition to the security thing !
LSA poster: Did anyone catch the plug about the apple mental health thing?? #sponsor #ad
Another LSA poster (sarcasm re: copying Diana): Has she got to the bit where she danced with John Travolta yet? Or is she still sitting in front of the Taj Mahal?
#2). IIRC, there were news articles published prior to the wedding describing MM carrying around “binders” filled with information about protocol that she was studying. Am I dreaming about this or did MM just not read anything in the binders?
@RD -- I also remember seeing published reports on M's famous "binders". Seems by the time of the O interview she had "forgotten" about her copious research into protocol and chose to blame BP for "not preparing her". 🙄
See The New Daily article dated December 8, 2017 on her being prepped on protocol prior to the wedding.
Yes, and there are many others, both from mainstream publications and off-mainstream (Page Six for one) as well. Good share, thanks.
Hypocritical of H to claim he would never blindside his grandmother. At the very moment he made that statement, he was yet again in the midst of blindsiding his grandmother by giving a scandalous interview without her knowledge and later springing it on her in the news. That's blindsiding!
@C A Gribble -- YES. All those "Granny dearest" statements are nothing but hypocrisy. Good catch.
Love the sarc
Me too 😄😈
I have to triple check my grammar and spelling on DM. Usually I read something and react with frustration with these two.
Just read that Sharon Osbourne, who had defended on a CBS talk show P Morgan's opinion that he didn't believe a word Markle said in that OW interview has now backed down and apologised in a thoroughly confusing, contradictory, and rambling post for possibly offending her loved and beloved black community supporters. I believe (if I'm allowed to comment) that all the people who are backing down on what they have said and actually believe because of backlash over Saint Meghan the Unassailable, see dollar and pound signs melting away and are more afraid of losing their incomes than their integrity.
@JM -- I think so too -- either they see the moola fading away, or they're caving to peer pressure, IMO. As for Sharon Osbourne she was clearly defending Piers' Morgan's right to freedom of speech on the TV show, and asking honestly what exactly did PM say that was racist, but somehow it got twisted around to "defending PM's racism," a charge that was only substantiated by the one host saying, "Oh, well, it was his TONE that was racist." So Sharon caves along with the rest of them ... sheesh.
What we are seeing is Cancel Culture in action IMO. $$$$ and £££££ I think may be no more important than their acceptance by the woke tribes which give them their audience. Add to that the present day disease that denies the legitimacy of personal opinion; the social media and populist talk shows that endorse the gross over-simplification of complex issues - nothing is permitted to be anything but left / right; black / white; right / wrong; good / evil. I have nothing invested in Sharon Osborne and her ilk. Personally, I am contemptuous of the entire talk show circus and its talking heads. If the mouthy spokespersons don’t have the courage of their personal beliefs and don’t publicly uphold their own values when those beliefs and values run counter to the egotism, deceits, lies and half truths of That Woman, what use are they?
@Ana, Dunno about the UK, but over here "The View" gets laughably tiny ratings (just over 3M in January 2021, latest figures I could find). And yes, you're right, canceling is the "in" sport these days -- these *ladies* are a happy little echo chamber, yakking about this, that or the other celeb or politician who is the latest to be canceled. Along comes Sharon Osbourne, who *strays out of bounds* by defending Piers M. Just like white blood cells sensing an antibody or virus, they rush to the scene and *attack* the strayer. Sooner or later, (the $$$ as you say) brings her back around.
More miscellaneous posts from the interview/immediate aftermath --
L.1 hr ago
There are many things about their 'interview' diatribe which I found concerning and which will hopefully be addressed by the press this weekend in full page spreads, fact vs fiction. I will see. But there are other things which need to be highlighted, one of M's friends (Janina?) has stated 'But I can also say that I am personally glad people are doing their due diligence because I also know why someone had to leave, and it was for gross misconduct.' Which means that M has been discussing PRIVATE and CONFIDENTIAL disciplinary matters of a member of the Palace staff with her friends, in emails and texts? This is now in the public domain. I DO hope Justice Warby sees this. This is appalling behaviour and needs picking up and investigating by the Palace and the Papers. It is a clear Breach of Confidentiality. What other confidential information has she shared with her friend? ALSO very strange that she was able to email and text with 'no access to her phone' and without being listened in to, which totally debunks another of her claims.
EricaBlair said: ↑
What Markle said happened: "There was no guidance...there’s no class on how to . . . how to speak, how to cross your legs, how to be royal. There’s none of that training. That might exist for other members of the family. That was not something that was offered to me".
What actually happened: "The American-born former actress is now set to undergo six months of training with the Queen's assistant and private secretary, Samantha Cohen". [Link to Harper's Bazaar article]
LSA poster: I don't know what the staffers said. It just makes sense to me why Meghan was unduly malicious toward Eugenie between stealing her wedding date, trying to use the tiara Eugenie wanted, and announcing her pregnancy at E's wedding.
It's beyond bizarre that Meghan's now putting out PR articles that she and Eugenie are pregnancy BFFs now. Sure, Jan.
[Re: "Senior royal" making "racist remark" about Archie] [LSA poster] Ceruleanblue said: ↑
Maybe George was the one who asked about the baby's skin color. He's high ranking and it's the type of question kids ask when you least expect it.
I seriously doubt any of the adults asked it and this way Meghan has stirred the pot over nothing again.
The problem is, Harry’s story and Meghan’s differ. Harry said the statement was made before their marriage. Meghan insinuated it was when she was pregnant.
Lady C Campbell is on the record as having tried to engage some of her friends who are of colour to rebut the accusations of racism made by Markle in the OW interview that reflect on the royals and the nation as a whole. Sadly, so very very sadly, but perfectly understandably, these friends don't want to stick their heads above the parapet because they fear they will be personally attacked, their livelihoods will be threatened, and there will be a negative impact on the wellbeing of their children. What on earth is happening to us? Can we as a nation really allow two toxic narcissists to put an entire country into a stranglehold of fear? The more I think of the ramifications of a single 1 and 1/2 hr interview on the freedoms and rights of this nation's peoples it seems completely incomprehensible. Yet here we are.
I agree. The fallout has become beyond mind boggling and frightening. The gravity of this situation cannot be underestimated.
Bravo. Watching on as the actual harm and potential consequences are being dissected is sobering and alarming. The people ( incl some of my family and friends) who say “Oh who cares? She’s nothing and Harry has cooked his goose” are missing the point entirely.
I have just emailed Lambeth Palace and requesed for clarification on the matter from Archbishop Welby by supposedly marrying dumb and dumber in a private, but possibly invalid, ceremony as two witnesses are required. Welby must come clean about this!
@me -- I completely and totally agree. It's no good having junior clergy come out and say things for the press like "They might have mistaken their ceremony for some kind of private vow thing." Mr. Welby himself must speak out. Thanks for writing, I hope Lambeth got plenty more letters like yours!
Thanks @Eowyn! I kept the email short, to the point and polite.
Harry Markle, I hope that two polls taken by You.Gov.uk count as verified media feedback? If not, apologies, but here goes. YouGov took a poll on 1 March, a week before the interview (both polls are up along with editorial explanations of same on You.Gov's site). Harry's ratings had improved very slightly from the last one, in which he had already fallen behind William, the Queen, and Kate (occupying the top three slots for favourability ratings).
Now, YouGov has just released a poll it took over 10-12 March a few days after the interview. Harry's favourability ratings had plunged to the lowest of his adult life, for the first time in negative territory, whilst MM's had plunged even lower than her previous rating, deep into negative territory.
But the favourability ratings for William, the Queen, and Kate remained virtually unchanged: they still occupy the top three slots, in that order, with ratings well over 65% and about 80% for the Queen, with two-thirds of those polled still in favour of retaining the monarchy. Charles still remains discouragingly behind his mother, elder son, and daughter-in-law.
These stats did break down somewhat, although not entirely, between the youngest and oldest Britons.
Whilst basing the line of succession on popularity polls is a slippery slope that otherwise I might not support, in this particular case, these polls demonstrate to me even more clearly why, if he wants the monarchy to survive, Charles must bite the bullet and step back in favour of his elder son being named Heir Apparent.
In this climate, with the young far less persuaded than older Britons, it is imperative that Charles not saddle Britain with a half century of aged Sovereigns, and make way for the couple that stands a chance of pulling in those younger sets.
I think this is the truly important feedback. The rest of the media is based on whatever is getting clicks today. YouGov is a highly respected polling agency with a worldwide clientele.
Lastly, this feedback, I think, indicates that the Queen has a better bead on the British people than MM and H do, and that her response, so far, however galling to some of us, is the right one.
Cheers, TC
Plus if PC steps back, doesn't that avoid more issues with titles and princedoms for PH's family?
Yes, it would avoid that issue. That wouldn't be Charles' major reason for doing so, but it would certainly sidestep the issue neatly and avoid either gulping and allowing MM the triumph of royal children, or issuing Letters Patent to deprive them of same upon his accession, which would only fuel further charges of racism.
Another benefit would be to ensure that if William accedes to the throne instead of Charles when the Queen goes, Charles is available as Regent should William die before Prince George is of age. Otherwise, it is Harry who would be in line as Regent, a situation everyone except, of course, MM and H would find impossible.
So, Charles stepping back would serve three important aims: giving the monarchy a better chance of surviving the Queen; blocking H's children from receiving HRHs without having to do it via Letters Patent; and blocking H as a potential Regent if William dies before George is of age.
If William were to die before George is of age, wouldn't Catherine be regent?
@Pamela, good question. I don't think it matters whether a regent is male or female, but can't do a fact-dive just now, must pay at least lip service to job, :)
A refreshingly strategic response. Brilliant, longer term thinking. Hope BP realises (or sees) this, Tom. (And hope compliments are allowed...)
Moreover, H and M could hardly claim he had taken such a drastic step to spite them. A very personal sacrifice for him, but one which quite independently of them has for some time seemed to have support.
@Mr. Cullem -- Very good share -- it's one thing for this, that and the other news publication to make claims about popularity, and another for a government site to make them based on methodology open to scrutiny. Thanks for that. (One caveat -- not sure if government links are acceptable to @H-M, s/he can clarify)
Thank you, Eowyn. As it happens, YouGov is not a government site, although its name suggests that - I should have clarified that, apologies. It is an international research and data analytics group, and has been in the polling and market research, and branding business for a long time. The importance of these polls is that they aren't based on "clickbait" value, and you are correct: their methodology is always explained and open to scrutiny. TC
Edit: I should also point out that YouGov's poll after the interview, was also done AFTER the Queen's statement on 9 March, and therefore does take into account reaction to the Palace's formal response. Sigh - perhaps HM does know better than hot-headed TC.
I agree with TC’s reasoning and support his conclusions but I wonder if stepping aside from being the heir in favour of William would leave Charles open to the supposition that it was he who remarked on the baby’s possible skin colour? (I seem to call that it was said by H or That Woman that to name the culprit would damage future positions?) I do not for a nanosecond think he was - he is effectively and properly colour blind IMO. But MM’s gang would not hesitate to cast aspersions in that direction IMO.
Good morning! May I list the names of specific websites?
@CDW, Awesome, thanks!! As a fellow Yank, in despair over Britons worrying about lack of M and H pushback coverage in the U.S., you've done my heart good :)
Bless you, Eowyn! There are quite a few of us Yanks who see through the sham, I believe. You are doing an awesome job of documenting. I hope HMTQ is going to put a stop to the duo's shenanigans, but I guess we will have to wait and see!
I only hope the Palace's legal eagles are keeping their own documentation of media reports -- my clumsy collection is hardly admissible in a court of law, LOL -- but an official report is another story!
No, I do not want to be seen advocating or promoting any website. You may post a specific article or comment that is from a verified source or a comment that you feel many people would like to read.
@CDW and everyone -- I was in error with this response, which I am now deleting. See H-M's response below.
No, because some are biased unofficial ones.
@H-M, thanks for clarification. I've tried to distinguish mainstream from off-mainstream, tho others may not be aware. Will amend my answer to CDW.
Finding neutral can be hard. I have never been comfortable with platforms that veer to far left or too far right, as their followers assume they can use this as their platform if they are mentioned or promoted.
Yes, it IS hard, harder than I thought! But once again, this particular guideline (as others have) has forced me to be scrupulous about this kind of thing, not only for the Blog but my own personal viewpoint ... thanks :)
Sorry, Harry Markle! Thanks for letting me know! You, too, Eowyn!
😊
It's okay. On twitter, some far right outlets decided to tag me in all their propaganda to make it look as if I supported them. That's why I support no one at all.
Good to know -- definitely don't want to be the vehicle that draws that type in -- I will check references to publications and/or allegations made by individuals from here on in.
And yet more miscellaneous posts --
LSA poster: She claimed to have gotten a standing O after her UN speech while video shows she didn't. It shows indifference.
She claimed she and Anna Wintour bonded in a Wimbledon box and Anna Wintour lent her her cardigan. Photos of the day show Wintour ignoring her.
And I need to get this whole pregnant and suicidal thing straight. She wasn't living in the [*****] palace while pregnant. She was in the Cotswolds. Harry sued over an aerial real estate shot or something like that. Why isn't that pointed out?
[NOTE: A The Guardian article, dated May 16, 2019, shortly after Archie's birth announcement, states that as a result of a successful lawsuit filed by PH against Splash News and Picture Agency, PH and M had to move from their Cotswold house as a result of a photo-taking "security breach" on or after January 9, 2019. Therefore, LSA poster's timeline is fuzzy, and needs clarification. Could not find corroborating articles. -- E]
Harry Markle blog
Pepper11 min ago
In the book Finding Freedom, Dr. Penelope Law is mentioned as MM's ob-gyn who delivered Archie. However, Penelope's husband Richard Bradford posted on social media: "My wife did not deliver Archie, but the Sun never contacted us to check if she had, typical shabby journalism. Whereas the Daily Mail rang me the day before to check and I was able to tell them that she hadn't delivered Archie." This needs to be investigated.
[NOTE: The Sun article in question has been pulled. However, there still exists a DM article dated August 12, 2020, quoting Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand in "Finding Freedom," as saying 'The only people who did know [where H and M planned to baby] were Doria and Meghan's medical team including her ob-gyn Penelope Law.' ... and further: 'It was soon after Archie was born, but Dr Penny had given the all clear [to go home to Frogmore Cottage] and Meghan felt up to getting back home, where she could continue to be monitored.', as poster Pepper said. I have been unable to find the social media post by Dr. Law's husband refuting the claim. --E]
And finally -- Questions Oprah should have asked --
[Daily Mail] sususi, wagga, Australia, 5 hours ago
Oprah did not ask any of the right questions, such as, why didnt harry, a patron of many mental health initiatives, demand help for meghan? He demanded stuff for his wedding, why not her mental health?? This was a practiced discussion as shown by Orpah's fake shock face. Worst interview ever.
[H-M Blog] Marie Carr5 hr ago
Why didn’t Oprah ask Meghan what exactly those “falsehoods” are that they are spreading about her?
------------------------------
A couple of observations: (H-M Blog]
AnonOneThree12 min ago
All of this is down to BP wanting a minority in the family to show how modern the Monarchy is.
Kyzo44 min ago
So much of what was said tonight was vague and impossible for the palace to refute because of the vagueness.
If you look at the pictures on the Harry Markle website, showing MM in New York with a pancake flat belly attending the ‘baby shower’, and in consideration of the fact that the Throne is inherited, Oprah should have asked about the multiple strange and unique circumstances relating to Archies’ gestation and birth - eg no doctor signed the announcement. Nobody saw MM either going to or returning from the hospital where Archies is said to have been born. Etc etc etc.
Agreed!!! FAR too many questions involved with the pregnancy/birth/christening etc. that should have been all over the media.
From LSA: debbs said: ↑
Watched the interview again. I’m a glutton for punishment. Wanted to pay attention without the new or shock value. Not gonna point out (for the time being) the many,many,many lies and inconsistencies, and just bullis**t. But I’m towards the end and it just kills me how often they discuss the media and several references to the RF using the media to be painted in a good light. Then here at the end, again about the media and you should be yourself and not worry about the media seeing your bad side. It is all just so ironic to watch them preach this s**t KNOWING that they pay SS $millions to portray them in a good light and silence any negative. They literally effing pay people for good PR, they pay people to say nice things, they pay people to photograph every act of kindness they do. Which is what EVERY single celebrity out there, A-Z do. But sit here and judge his family for working with press ( when it is sometimes necessary for their job) and trying to to make it seem so shady. I just can’t believe the audacity of these two. I know they are hypocrites and liars, I know that and have known it. But it is still unbelievable to watch it in action.
If I may say, it is said that PC wanted to issue a point by point rebuttal of the erroneous truth, but was not permitted. Between us we did it for him. Pats on the back all round.
@Alison -- I can't blame PC in the slightest. And I hope we HAVE added our own measure of helping to keep the record straight.
Wow-my admiration for PC has gone up tremendously. I think the Queen should step aside-this problem would not have grown this big without her enabling these dolts.
@V.D. -- The Queen will probably "die in harness," as she's stated all along she intends to "give her life" to duty and service. As for PC's reign, I'm apprehensive about it for several reasons, but he has pleasantly surprised me in several ways as well.
Let's be honest it must be very difficult for anyone of 72 to have to constantly get agreement from a parent
What a shame that just when PC needs the nation to see that he is not a wimp where his son is concerned, it's HM that put the stoppers on it. We deserved to hear it from the palace, the nation has been slammed just as much as they have and we deserve to hear a public rebuttal. PC deserved that endorsement by the Queen if she expects him to be well received as king when she is gone. Very disappointed to hear that HM is playing the weak hand and suggest this means she will do nothing about the titles.
Harry Markle, I'm thinking this thread is a very good starting point, but we are really very few here. What is needed is for someone with a media presence to chronicle and catalogue every single instance of lying, contradiction, false claims that Markle has made with photographs taken by parties other than her own PR photographers that are in the public domain or have been published in the paper - and produce it as a mega article for the whole world to see. Lots of commentators and YouTubers have followed her along the road of her deceptions and bad behaviour and commented at the time, but it needs to be set out in one long article only this specific point. Digging out the hidden skeletons that are buried deep needs to be done as well. I know you are doing a book on the whole story but I'm talking specifically of Markle's behaviours and lies. For all the books written about the two grifters, surely someone can put this together?
@JM -- I did a search (not a lengthy one) on whether any reputable outfit has done a compilation, and didn't find one. I did find a good article on America Magazine (a Jesuit publication, therefore an orgg suffix) dated March 8, 2021, by Father Matt Malone. He takes his time in the beginning, being very nostalgic about Osborne House on the Isle of Wight, but he makes some pretty good points.
Thanks for the lead on the Father Malone article. Unfortunately I find it quite weak, primarily because A/ he believes the false 'story' that she was suicidal B/ that he believes in this instance reconciliation although unlikely, could be achieved with mercy and forgiveness extended. On the first count this is one of her most heinous and damaging lies to all who have every truly suffered from suicidal thoughts or with the grief of someone who did commit suicide. To acknowledge her claims as truthful is naive at best. On the second count, anyone who has ever had acquaintance with a narcissist knows that mercy, kindness, apology, conciliation, meeting half way, understanding...are all met with the same respond Markle gave to Kate when she offered flowers as a means of achieving peace. She got the door slammed in her face, and her efforts turned against her publicly. Narcs don't do personal accountability, personal responsibility, or forgiveness. If a priest doesn't get that, he needs to delve a bit deeper into human nature.
Yeah ... I had to hold my nose at the "we must believe her" bit. And, being a priest, he either doesn't know about, or doesn't believe, the narcissist mentality. I was actually pleased to see a religious person bring up contradictions at all, tho.
Who says that it isn't being done already?
🤞
Well well...what can I say to that? May the Force be with our 'secret squirrel'.
I have faith in what HM ( her Maj) will do and even more so what HM ( HarryMarkle )will do.
I have to say that I still can't bring myself to watch the 'interview', but what I have read of the claims made, it seems there is an awful lot of evidence building up to counter her 'truths' and H's too. I have kept a rough mental list myself but as I am new to this thread (although not to the blog, thank you Harry Markle) I don't feel confident putting it 'out there'. I really hope you are doing the donkey work for us Harry Markle? Perhaps Piers will do a point by point 'fact vs fiction' on a Fox News Special for the US, that would be wonderful.
Do you trust DM? There was a story there a few days ago listing contradictions? Also, a great article about Rose Hulse.
There is a Telegraph article on the YOUGOV poll. Their popularity worst it's ever been.
@Pamela -- Best news I've heard all day!
Has HMTQ has lost any ground?
I don't know. The article is behind a paywall, I could just see the headline and it's also on twitter
I have had a chance to look further and HMTQ remains most popular.
@Eowyn - you have conflated Archie’s race/finance issue and left out the ‘security’ complaint, so I don’t know where to post this observation which I don’t believe has been cited before:
Why did MM think that were Archie a Prince he would get ‘security’? Her own husband is a Prince and to his horror, has to pay for his own ‘security’. Why did Oprah not ask the question ...?
@Lynn -- Hmm ... thought my headers were probably more obvious than they appear to be, maybe -- and excellent point! Not a peep from O on that question -- which was totally not struck off beforehand by H and M because "we didn't see questions beforehand" ... 🙄
Archewell sent a letter to the school MM went to last year. This is the 3rd contact I've read about where they contacted places they went when representing TQ. Are they targeting any place they went on behalf of the RF for their own charity?
I hadn't heard that. What did the letter say? Was it soliciting money?
How can JCMH be so upset with his father when PC paid for most of the wedding, her clothing, their expenses for a long time, and we were told Frogmore? What exactly is his problem with his father?
MM said in the interview that Catherine made her cry and the incident was a few days before the wedding. Isn't that when all the stuff with her father happened? Did the situation with her father make her cry at all?
The only thing that makes Meghan cry is not getting her own way, and it's the tears of fury and rage. I can't imagine what poor Angela Kelly had to deal with
Angela Kelly is a scouser! She would have coped. She had the unequivocal backing of TQ. I very much TQ has maintained her steely resolve where the Markles are concerned
The original story at the time said that MM made Catherine cry at one of the wedding rehearsal, or possibly it was at a dress fitting. Issue was related to the wearing or not wearing of the white tights by the little flower girls, one of whom was Charlotte. Catherine was upholding RF and UK posh wedding practice by saying tights are customary. That Woman disputed the matter. Catherine was only weeks past delivering Prince Louis. I have never read ANYwhere, until this abomination of an “interview” that Catherine provoked tears from That Woman. She really is.......no, can’t say 🤬 As to being emotionally conflicted about her father’s situation at the time, IMO as ‘nothing was off limits’, it should have been honestly addressed in that interview but of course flying pigs would circle the globe a hundred times before that ever happened. She is a heat-seeking missile where dramas, hurt feelings and fabrications are concerned IMO.
OW didn't challenge anything H&M said. She only asked for further info about whatever grievance they had. Not an interview.
Correct, not an interview. A spiteful grudge fest and an advert for future woke business. Think about how long ago some of these offences actually took place and ask why weren't they dealt with at the time. M & H are not exactly the types to stay quiet if they aren't getting what they want. What M wants M gets - repeat after me very loudly!
It just demonstrates they don't do forgive and forget. Real families do. Doesn't it suggest that for M there never has been any emotional attachment to the RF?
We forgive, but don't always forget. My older sisters used a magic marker on my brand new bridal doll face and dress. Never forgotten, as it was my main Christmas present when I was 7. They still think it is funny.
Yes, but you were 7 years old, not pushing 40.
Ali West has mentioned Harry including in the OW interview his view that his father and brother are trapped in their inherited roles. He claims Charles dropped his financial support. MM has to lay blame for the who-made-who-cry at Kate's feet, true or not, but festering for 3 years. Who believes the pair wouldn't jump at the chance to be King and Queen, on their own terms that is? One of their targets has regrettably been the Cambridges, who some feel are the ones who can save the monarchy that H+M are trying to burn down, one chat show at a time. As the dust has settled, the tragedy is their deep-rooted antimosity toward the Cambridges knows no bounds or limits. Before the interview, the Cambridges were happily interacting with individuals of all ages,, smiling and enjoying their Zoom chats. This morning they looked pained and weary.
But Harry tried to educate them!
And both looked as if several good meals need to be consumed, followed by sound, restful sleep. William had a bout of Covid less than 6 months ago, as did Charles. Full recovery takes time. None of them needs nor deserves to have the grief and anxiety that is being heaped on their shoulders. And now I gather a second “interview” is threatened!
I hope that others will flood Ofcom with complaints about the ITV broadcast which perpetrated relentless, merciless cruelty and invasion of privacy on elderly family members. Piers did a good job of opposing the three evil bum-kissers.
@Ali West -- Time difference means I don't get back to conversations until many hours later -- but would very much like to THANK YOU for live-posting the *interview*. There are almost too many points to follow and rebut, but you shared the main ones. Thanks again :)
DT: Prince Charles is all too aware of his gilded cage By Selina Scott: "What struck many British viewers as most hypocritical, while he and Meghan played the grieving victims, was not just their display of narcissism before an audience riven by the pandemic, but that they seek to make their fortune out of their association with the Royal Family, with lucrative Netflix and Spotify deals, while rubbishing it at the same time. Note that though they threw Charles under the bus, they took great care to eulogise their gold-plated association with the Queen. There can be no doubt that Charles is deeply hurt and must recognise the damage to public perception of him as our future king. And, like many of us, will be wondering: what happened to the Harry we used to love?"
What happened to H is blindingly obvious. He was never intelligent, he was coddled as a child, promoted to a high public profile in The Firm though unworthy of the roles, and then he was snared by That Woman.
Ironically, if their interview resulted in Charles not taking the throne then Archie and the baby would not get their Prince/Princess titles.
@Anna, excellent share, thanks. Kind of reminds me of reports that came out about Harvey Weinstein -- victims quoted as saying he would alternately plead with them to have s*x and physically abuse them at the same time. According to psychologists I've read, this is another classic narcissist tactic. It's all about getting *fuel* and maintaining control at the same time.
Ah! The DM has a new piece up about how claims in the interview have been debunked, and asking if CBS/Oprah will investigate. The title is "Harry and Meghan, the inconvenient truth: Dossier reveals many explosive claims which rocked the Royal Family were contradictory or wrong... so will CBS and Oprah Winfrey now investigate the true story?"
Now that I'm reading the piece entire, it is actually the DM that is completely scorching all the lies. It is glorious!
Yes just read it. It beggars belief that the so many people, some very intelligent people, have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Markle's fantasy fiction. Lord of the Rings has more basis in fact than that "interview".
Her 'squad' I'm sure. They show up on twitter calling Lady C all sorts of names
Nigel Farage speaking in the US. Fox News March 11,2021. The left breeding a culture of Victimhood. Accused RF and Queen, next year will have reigned 70 years of racism. The Queen is head of the UK and the Commonwealth countries: over 50 countries, 2.3 billion people, the vast majority are black or Asian. Our RF has done a huge amount for people of colour all over the world her claims of racism unsubstantiated. Much else of what she said was untrue- they wouldn't give poor little Archie a princedom- the great grandchild doesn't get one; it was a falsehood. The whole thing was a fabrication. For MM it was an acting performance to emote, to plead with the people she had a victim status and also fo say she suffered badly from mental health prkblems and had thought perhaps about taking her own life. All I can say is that young woman the other night, didn't appear to me to have any mental health problems. But it is shocking, that if you attack somebody who claims they've got a mental health problem, you are suddenly the villian. I don't want to underplay the importance of mental health, but people using it as an excuse...The host: you can't claim racism generally and not name anybody... thanks Oprah for the interview. You cannot do that, she did it and got away with it, because she is in the elite club. They cover for each other, they protect one another and then sign lucrative deals and we are supposed to cry all the way to the bank for them. It's ridiculous and demeaning to true discrimination and hardship of all these people suffering around the world and in tbe US. Hilary Clinton weighed in on the big Markle drama." Nibgel Farage: I've been called the names under the sun, but then I challenged the establishment. Meghan arrived in the UK, had a fairytale wedding, the country took her to their heart, the press were gushing with praise about her. I'll tell you when the criticism started; it started when she and Harry started lecturing us on carbon emissions and climate change and yet flying around the world in a private jet. ..Everyone gets a tough time in the press.
The claim that the Sussex's made during the Oprah interview that she needed help with her mental wellbeing was quite obviously true.
Can you actually treat megalomania and narcissism though?
@KMT -- According to psychologists/psychiatrists that I've read, the best answer is "they are extremely difficult to treat if at all" and that there are very, very few "cure" cases. According to HG Tudor, the narcissist who maintains a website/business exposing fellow narcissists like M, says no way in h*ll can they be treated.
I also read HG Tudor, so my question was rather tongue in cheek. In fact, it was through reading his A Very Royal Narcissist that I realised just how MM operates
Just this morning I was listening to the one on the future of H and M ... pretty depressing, either for H or for those who believe/wish like anything they'd get divorced. Won't happen unless 1) H bolts on his own, with or without intervention from the RF, 2) He's outlived his usefulness to M and thus discarded by her (divorce), ain't happening anytime soon, or 3) They stay together till the bitter end, with her alternately tearing him down and occasionally throwing small bones of *happy M* at him. According to HG Tudor, and I tend to agree.
People with disordered personalities, as compared with people who have bipolar disorder, major depression, or schizophrenia, do not have the insight and awareness that they are the one with the problem in the family, workplace, or relationship. Almost all of the personality disorders have characteristics of blaming others, self-aggrandizing, paranoia, and extremes of emotions, whether flat or overly vibrant. People with personality disorders don’t get better in a mental hospital. They usually don’t stay with a therapist long enough to get results because he or she makes them angry, and there are no prescription meds that treat personality disorders per se. These folks are in your neighborhoods, workplaces, churches, and in our families. They exasperate us. Some are dangerous by way of the havoc they cause.
So a formal challenge issued by DM to CBS to set the record straight based on thorough and evidenced rebuttals of the claims made by H & M.
Seeing how the laws are different between u.s. and u.k. , the interview was shown in u.k., so a libel case in u.k.??