Prince Harry and Meghan Markle thread

I feel for her, but I have to admit, as soon as I saw her announcement I knew I wasn’t going to go down well. Did she speak with anyone at the tournament before she posted it?

Since it was so poorly handled, I’m guessing she did not. She admits that she did not want to cause this much drama.

ETA: Piers makes a good point about clay not being her service, so she was unlikely to win and likely would have been asked about why she is not a better player on clay. The big question is why did she even enter RG?? And will Serena win???

ETA2: this has been going on for awhile:

Naomi revealed in an "appreciation post" for Cordae that he is as supportive as a partner should be. According to Naomi, while quarantining during the US Open last year, she FaceTimed Cordae and told him she was feeling "sad and lonely"
 
Last edited:
Lots more to this story than we know. She chose to turn pro, so she needs to follow their rules, their expectations. With her insta posts, she turned this into a major drama. Not fair of her to distract from the game and the other players.

Right, the irony is Piers behaved the same way when he walked off his set. Can’t stand the heat I guess...

Either way it has nothing to do with MM, other than the fact that they are both women of color. He would have been better off staying out of it or not mentioning H&M at all. It makes him seem obsessed and fuels critics who believe he is racist and misogynist.
 
Even after Diana and Charles' divorce the public still loved Diana. What confuses Meghan is that the public still loved Diana after the divorce (essentially the divorce of the BRF) and Meghan wonders why ME GAIN shrines aren't being built in her honor all over the globe. The public saw Charles as an awkward, cold, not very personable guy and could understand why the relationship between him and the personable and warm Diana broke apart.

On the other hand, Harry and Meghan are two peas in a pod and Harry said "whatever M wants M gets", a 180 degree difference from Charles' relationship with Diana. To this day Harry seems ga-ga over Meghan. Much of the public can't understand why Meghan loved every minute (and the zillions of perks) of being part of the BRF during the two years they dated and then after wedding, her every whim catered to, adored by her husband etc--THEN splitting off from the BRF--coupled with the EXPECTATION of the BRF financially supporting them even after the split.
ITA
Methane doesn't see anything wrong with what she is doing. Maybe in her heart of hearts of hearts (the really miniscule cell left), she may wonder why she is not getting more support from the world, but she would probably conclude it's because the world lacks COMPASSION! Perhaps she also sees continued financial support from the BRF as her due, as alimony and as ransom money.

BTW, Mr Markle made this claim during the OW interview. Is there any truth to it?
Harry: And I guess one of the most telling parts — and the saddest parts, I guess — was over 70 Members of Parliament, female Members of Parliament, both Conservative and Labour — came out and called out the . . . the colonial undertones of articles and headlines written about Meghan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starflower2305
This. :clap:
IMO
Plenty of other points to make about why Diana was no saint, just Google it. Beautifully photogenic, absolutely. Saint, nah.
Imo the important points are - She chose to marry the future king. She chose to hang out with the billionaires in her ‘free’ time. She chose Bashir and Morton to tell her story. She chose to drop most of her charities after her separation, then divorce. As we approach this statue reveal show, I expect we will see more Diana-glorification stories. Sad because the younger people who did not follow her will be duped by the Diana myth. So it goes.

We all know why Hazz is no saint which makes his global do-gooder stance all the more inconsistent with reality.
When reality collides with the myth, disappointment always follows. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the media presented a balanced view. IMO, ymmv.
As far as I know, Diana came from a rather unstable family and married Charles at a very young age. The marriage was disappointing, which didn't help to give her the emotional security she needed. I believe she was still discovering herself at the time of her death. To my knowledge, she was not a greedy person, had empathy for other people, and loved her kids. I never heard of her preaching to others or showing signs of hypocrisy. She was a decent human being in my book, nobody is perfect!

I wonder who had the idea of the statue, it doesn't make much sense imo. What H is doing to his mother's memory doesn't seem right, she should be let to rest in peace.
 
Plenty of books that debate all of this.

Which part? Celebrity books are not written by archivists and scholars dedicated to preserving an accurate history for posterity. There’s plenty of leeway for authors to insert creative embellishment into those celeb bios. It’s what helps boost sales.

Finding Freedom is a celebrity biography. I hate to think that that book will ever be quoted as being fact, but I suppose it’s inevitable that it will be.
 
Not a good look for Piers Morgan, this has nothing to do with M&H and he's getting ratioed for his comments about Osaka, deservedly so...



I don't see any similarity between Naomi and M/H so it's weird of Piers to say that. Naomi doesn't WANT press, she's 23 and clearly out of her element in those situations, especially as a shy girl.

I have sympathy for her but I don't think what she did was right. She says it herself, she's struggling to meet some of these expectations of her role. She's hardly the first to hate those press interviews during tournaments but others usually chalk it up to an annoying part of the job and get on. She's so young, I understand her struggling in these daunting situations. Hopefully she learns how to cope and finds a better way to deal with it.
 
Staying on topic here:

Seems like H&M are following Diana’s playbook:
[Full article in spoiler]

The truth about Princess Diana and the myth she created
By Maureen Callahan
The 20th anniversary of Princess Diana’s death is more than a month out, yet the summer of 2017 seems all Di, all the time.

Three primetime network specials have already aired in May. US Weekly published a special bookazine that same month; People plans one for July 21, to tie in with a two-night ABC special in early August. A repackaged edition of Andrew Morton’s 1992 blockbuster expose “Diana: Her True Story” hits shelves on Tuesday; National Geographic publishes “Remembering Diana: A Life In Photographs” Aug. 1. HBO has announced its own Princess Diana documentary, and the Weinstein Company, working with AMI Media, has their own August project for TLC.

Enlarge ImagePrince Charles and Princess Diana in 1981 following the announcement of their engagement.AP
As The Post reported Wednesday, a Princess Diana musical is likely coming to Broadway. The second season of Ryan Murphy’s anthology “Feud” will retell Diana’s acrimonious 1996 divorce from Prince Charles, heir to the British throne.

“It’s about that pain, of the dissolving of a fairy tale, particularly for Diana,” Murphy said in April. “It starts with the filing of divorce papers and takes you up to her death.”

Though there’s nothing revelatory here — no new information, no counter-narrative — the collective hunger for all things Diana remains. Hers clearly is a story we like to be told over and over again, a post-modern parable about the vicissitudes of wealth, fame, beauty and idolatry — everything that goes to the true power of myth.

Yet amid all these retellings, one inexorable truth will be ignored: Diana actively created her own mythology.

Not since Jackie Kennedy’s masterful post-assassination theater — from deplaning in her blood-spattered pink Chanel to staging her husband’s funeral to demanding that her “Camelot” anecdote, which was a total lie, end the interview she granted to Life magazine days later — had a post-modern public figure so assiduously crafted her own narrative.

Like Jackie, Diana claimed to hate the press while expertly manipulating it to her own ends. Both became global celebrities through their first marriages, and when those marriages ended, each used the mass media not just to maintain their status but enlarge it, crying victim all the way.

“My life is just torture,” Diana said in 1992, a complaint that made tabloid headlines in the UK. Her marriage was unraveling, and she was plotting her life after Charles. “Bloody hell, after all I’ve done for this f – – king family . . . I’ll go out and conquer the world . . . do my bit in the way I know how and leave him behind.”

Enlarge Image Princess Diana sits in front of the Taj Mahal on Feb. 11, 1992.AP
Diana often lamented her lack of intellect, but she was an intuitive genius, a savant at branding and marketing. Here she was, the latest member of an institution whose leaders had, among other things, beheaded wives, imprisoned relatives, executed staffers, and abdicated the throne while sympathizing with Hitler, yet she somehow transformed her husband’s pedestrian infidelity into the biggest scandal facing the monarchy ever.

Her famous pose outside the Taj Mahal in February 1992, a forlorn and lonely princess at the world’s largest monument to love, laid the groundwork for her story arc — no matter that Charles was actually on the trip.

Princess Diana was the first ‘Real Housewife,’ and as all the best housewives do, she understood that survival depends on scripting and selling your narrative.
“Diana, driven to five suicide bids by ‘uncaring’ Charles,” read the headline of the UK’s Sunday Times on July 7, 1992. “Marriage collapse led to illness; Princess says she will not be Queen.”

Given how stringent libel laws are in the UK, and the institutional power that the monarchy exerts over the British press, these headlines were bombshells in one sense only: They had to be coming from inside the house. For the first time since the invention of the printing press, a top-level member of the royal family was committing a form of treason.

Diana had, in fact, spent most of 1991 secretly working with British reporter and admirer Andrew Morton on a book, one that would ostensibly reveal all. Here too, her particular genius is on display: Diana presaged confessional culture by years.

She understood that by stripping away the royal artifice and revealing her dirty little secrets — bulimia and self-harm, suicide attempts and a sexless marriage — the public would love her more, not less. Princess Diana was the first “Real Housewife,” and as all the best housewives do, she understood that survival depends on scripting and selling your narrative.


On July 16, 1992, “Diana: Her True Story” was published. Shrewdly, Diana had never met with Morton face to face, which gave her plausible deniability — yet as even Morton acknowledges in a new foreword, Diana easily defaulted to her fawn-in-the-woods act.

“It was a part she played with aplomb,” Morton writes. “The author and TV star Clive James fondly recalled asking her over lunch whether she was behind the book. He wrote, ‘At least once, however, she lied to me outright. “I really had nothing to do with that Andrew Morton book,” she said. “But after my friends talked to him I had to stand by them.” She looked me straight in the eye when she said this, so I could see how plausible she could be when she was telling a whopper.’”

Whopper indeed: In his new foreword, Morton reproduces Diana’s own handwritten line-edits.

Enlarge ImageReuters
Just as she depicted herself as a lamb to the slaughter on her wedding day, a 19-year-old virgin victimized by a bloodless cabal of royals, Diana knew well before her wedding that her fiancé was in love with Camilla Parker-Bowles. An aristocrat herself, she knew that royals, especially monarchs and monarchs-in-waiting, had affairs more often than not, and she went ahead with it.

She was insider cast as outsider, a role the media was complicit in propagating. Diana branded herself the only member of the royal family who cared about the little people — no matter that her mother-in-law, Queen Elizabeth, had braved the Blitz — and she could be clueless and *****y while doing so.

Enlarge ImagePrince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles at Windsor Castle on their wedding day on April 9, 2005.Getty Images
She wrote to Morton of her vision for the royal family, her dream of hosting garden parties at Buckingham Palace for “all the handicapped and wheelchairs — which we did just before we got married — people who’ve never seen Buckingham Palace let alone been on the grass. But they are not allowed too many wheelchairs because it ruins the grass.”

She told friends she considered “POW” short not for Princess of Wales but Prisoner of War — not a good look for a burgeoning humanitarian.

Diana also refused to take any blame in the collapse of her marriage, to acknowledge that her increasing hysteria — her constant self-harm, suicide attempts and rage-filled tantrums — were enough to push anyone away. Instead, she told Morton of her shrink’s succinct diagnosis upon first meeting. “He said: ‘There’s nothing wrong with you; it’s your husband.’”

More crucially, Diana hid key information from Morton: She herself had cheated on Charles, with more than one man, early and often.

There was her bodyguard, 37-year-old Barry Mannakee, in 1986; car salesman James Gilbey, circa 1989, followed by Oliver Hoare, a married art dealer who broke it off, only to have Diana stalk him, calling his home up to 300 times. Then came rugby player Will Carling and, most famously, James Hewitt, who publicly claimed he was involved with Diana from 1986 through 1991.

Yet as this information slowly dripped out, public opinion remained heavily pro-Diana.

An aging palace couldn’t grasp how to dismantle her swift-moving character arc. Post-separation, Diana was photographed in workout gear, driving to and from her London gym, picking her children up from school, taking them to Disney for vacation — just another modern single mom on the go, albeit one making sure her boys wouldn’t be contaminated by the crown.

Enlarge ImagePrincess Diana in “The Revenge Dress”Getty Images
It took Prince Charles two years to give his version, sitting for a primetime interview with star journalist Jonathan Dimbleby.

This was an unprecedented move for a future king of England, and Charles, looking and sounding uncomfortable, admitted to cheating on Diana only after the marriage had “irretrievably broken down, us both having tried.” But Charles couldn’t win. The British public felt no sympathy; instead, they felt he’d debased himself and the monarchy.

The same night Charles’ interview aired, Diana scored another coup with what came to be called “The Revenge Dress”: For a party at the Serpentine Gallery, she wore a tight black strapless cocktail dress, cut well above the knee, neckline plunging.

Enlarge ImageDiana reinvented herself again, this time as a globetrotting humanitarian.Getty Images
“She wanted to look a million dollars,” said Anna Harvey, Diana’s stylist. “And she did.”

Diana made Charles’ admission look feeble and weak, and, more importantly, knocked him off the front page. Her message: You may prefer the older, haggard Camilla, but to look at me, the rest of the world will never understand why.

Diana did it again in 1995, granting a wide-ranging interview to Martin Bashir. Dressed in a smart black suit, eyes rimmed with kohl, Diana sought to blunt her own infidelity by volleying right back at Charles and Camilla.

“There were three of us in this marriage,” she said, damp eyes looking up from a bowed head. “So it was a bit crowded.”

More than 25 million people watched the interview, which was announced on Charles’ 47th birthday and aired on Queen Elizabeth’s 48th wedding anniversary — another piece of nonverbal jujitsu.

In it, Diana also claimed to be a victim of palace backstabbing, of orchestrated attempts to depict her as mentally ill, and as a target of sinister plots to get her to “go quietly.” The knife twist: Diana claimed her husband wasn’t fit for the British throne, his sole purpose in a life otherwise spent in purgatory.

As for herself, Diana said she had no more humble aspiration than to be “a queen of people’s hearts.”

After the couple divorced at the Queen’s insistence in 1996, Diana reinvented herself again, this time as a globetrotting humanitarian. Now her focus was on sick kids and landmines and meeting with Mother Teresa rather than movie stars — but still, she fought hard to retain her title.

Enlarge ImagePrincess Diana with Dodi al-Fayed in Paris on Aug. 31, 1997.Splash News
In the summer of 1997, Diana allowed paparazzi to catch her on vacation with Egyptian playboy Dodi al-Fayed, though she was fresh off a secret, two-year relationship with Hasnat Khan, a Pakistani heart surgeon she called “the love of her life.” She’d even visited Khan’s extended family in Pakistan in May 1996, proof that she could live a private life when she chose.

In the weeks and months after Diana’s death, chased through a Paris tunnel by paparazzi, there was much recrimination of the media.

Even today — even as those who knew Diana admit she used the press to cover her romance with al-Fayed, hoping to make Khan jealous — the prevailing narrative paints Diana as pure victim, hounded by a soulless media, consumed by our own prurient interest. Why couldn’t we all just leave her alone?

That, truly, is the biggest fairy tale of all, and one much more interesting to hear.
 
Why should she be treated any differently to the other players?' Mats Wilander, the former world No 1, told Eurosport. 'She definitely has to do press. We are all struggling with mental issues these days during the pandemic, but Naomi, I think you need to reconsider or, I would say, don't play in the tournament until you are ready to face the job.'

The top-ranked woman player, Ash Barty, suggested Osaka take herself a tad less seriously: 'Press is part of the job. We know what we sign up for as professional tennis players. At times, press conferences are hard, of course, but it's also not something that bothers me. ... For me, personally, it doesn't keep me up at night what I say and hear or what you guys ask me. So, I try and make it a little bit lighter and have a bit of fun with you guys.'

Daniil Medvedev, the No. 2-ranked man in tennis, even said that press scrutiny can help his mental health – finding it cathartic after a loss.

'I try always to come to a press conference,' he said, 'bad mood or good mood. And I feel like, even sometimes in the bad mood, I can be in a better mood after talking to you guys.'

This Osaka nonsense sadly epitomises the state of the woke-ravaged world today.

We're seeing mental health being used more and more as an excuse for deplorable behaviour.
It is ok that she withdraws, no? Very important to pay attention to what the other players are saying:

From your article:
Commendably, and ironically, many other top tennis stars have criticized her stance.

'Without the press,' said Rafael Nadal, 'without the people who normally travel, who are writing the news and achievements that we are having around the world, probably we will not be the athletes that we are today. We (aren't) going to have the recognition that we have around the world, and we will not be that popular, no?'

He was backed by Billie-Jean King who said: 'I have always believed that as professional athletes we have a responsibility to make ourselves available to the media. In our day, without the press, nobody would have known who we are or what we thought. They helped build and grow our sport into what it is today.'

Exactly.
I'll defend anybody's right to reject media interviews, it shows that the person of interest wants to either illustrate how the media are opportunistic vulture whores or that the person of interest is too ashamed/arrogant/humiliated/disgusted/bothered to face the press.

John McEnroe was a real jerk of a gifted tennis player. His tantrums were historic. He was fined and/or penalized from tournaments as a result yet he continued to have tantrums. Anybody can do as they wish. McEnroe paid dearly for his horrific behavior. Good!

Apparently Osaka decided not to face the media. So what. Maybe she has so much money she feels liberated from having to face the media for whatever reason. Maybe she feels that the media are a bunch of jerks. She wouldn't be alone. She must also realize that her sponsors have the same decision making abilities to nullify their contracts based on her actions in general. The wealthiest athletes make most of their money from sponsor deals.

Morgan can also do whatever he wants. So he criticizes Osaka. Who cares? Has he ever criticized Serena Williams or Venus Williams or Tiger Woods or any football/baseball/basketball players, jockeys, or other athletes of color? I've no idea. If he hasn't, how can one say he's racist for calling out Osaka? Has he ever criticized any Caucasian athletes? I've no idea either.

Some people look/lust/pray for ANYTHING to make anybody's comments to be based on racism.

And this is what prevents progress against racism.

Based on what I've seen/heard/read--IMHO there is more to be gained ($$$$$$$$ and PPPOOOWWEEERRR) for race baiters by claiming there is racism where none exists than there is for REAL TRUE PROGRESS against racism.

And there's a lot of racism out there. But calling somebody a racist based on no proof hurts GENUINE efforts against racism. But that doesn't matter if the end goal is $$ and power.

Does anyone think that Meghan Markle really gives a damn about racism? Who said "IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS, BABY!!"? I think that applies to Meghan even though she isn't the one who said it. She never gave the time of day to the cause of racism until it became fashionable to do so. She erred by claiming one of the world's most famous families with a thousand year pedigree was racist and threw them under bus in the hopes of cashing in. womp womp womp. Where's the hundreds of millions, Meghan??? I guess that didn't work!! :crybaby:

To compensate, Meghan and Harry gotta do something MAJOR. What'll it be? Another interview with a 67 year old ex talk show host?? Where are all the A Lister celebrities lining up to defend her claims of suicidal suffering she endured while living in palaces and Frogmore? Surely they love nothing better than to line up for fashionable causes. So where ARE they???

We can count on some things. Osaka will continue to be a great tennis player. Morgan will continue to open his big mouth. And Meghan and Harry will continue to beg for pity and sob about how horrible their lives have been in their 19 bathroom mansion even though Daddy-Aisle-Walkin'-Chuck isn't footing their security :crybaby:.
 
A bit lost on Osaka's drama, so I can't comment on it.:noworry:

On our topic, some of us will learn about Silent Birth! :biggrin:

A source recently told New Idea that the couple is planning to have their child through silent birth, "Meghan and Harry feel they've been through enough in their own lives and are anxious to start over with their baby girl, and that means giving her the most peaceful entrance possible into the world," the source stated.

WHAT IS SILENT BIRTH?
According to The Church of Scientology, reported by The Bump, the words that a newly-birth child hears during its labor may have an impact throughout its life that's why they want to eliminate any noises...

L Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, explains the importance of silence during birth. Giving birth without any noise can avoid "engrams" which is "the impressions formed in the brain because of "physical pain or painful" experiences."

"Maintain silence in the presence of birth to save both the sanity of the mother and the child. And the maintaining of silence does not mean a volley of sh*ts", Hubbard wrote in his book "Dianetics"



 
Lots of things being said today.
Yes, I do indeed believe MM ‘gives a damn’ about racism.
Yes, I do indeed believe H&M are interested in $$$$. Both of them are. They have 2 small children.
Yes, I do indeed believe Diana was as manipulative and competitive as both H&M are.

No, it was not Diana’s youth, naivete, that caused her issues. Back in that day, women did marry ‘young’. That is ok, it was her choice. Diana was an aristocrat who knew the Royal life quite well. Before the wedding, she knew Charles was an ‘iffy’ choice, but she went through with the wedding anyway. She was raised on a constant diet of reading and believing romance novels and never received a proper education. She had a fantasy view of the world. Hazz has that same view and behaves accordingly.
=======

So, they are Scientologists now?
Okaaaay.

A bit lost on Osaka's drama, so I can't comment on it.:noworry:

On our topic, some of us will learn about Silent Birth! :biggrin:

A source recently told New Idea that the couple is planning to have their child through silent birth, "Meghan and Harry feel they've been through enough in their own lives and are anxious to start over with their baby girl, and that means giving her the most peaceful entrance possible into the world," the source stated.

WHAT IS SILENT BIRTH?
According to The Church of Scientology, reported by The Bump, the words that a newly-birth child hears during its labor may have an impact throughout its life that's why they want to eliminate any noises...

L Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, explains the importance of silence during birth. Giving birth without any noise can avoid "engrams" which is "the impressions formed in the brain because of "physical pain or painful" experiences."

"Maintain silence in the presence of birth to save both the sanity of the mother and the child. And the maintaining of silence does not mean a volley of sh*ts", Hubbard wrote in his book "Dianetics"