Prince Harry and Meghan Markle thread

[Vlad]

I kindly request that all members participating in the MM and Harry thread dial back the vile rhetoric.

I am not opposed to discussing public personas on TPF, including the constant torrent of news surrounding the couple from this thread. But I find it troubling when their looks are being nitpicked apart to a degree that is just not appropriate.

This thread has drawn criticism over the years, and I discussed it at great length with Megs and the mods. I am not looking to close it down, but the vitriol needs to be dialed back.

My personal feelings about hate threads aside, this ultra-negative vibe is something better suited for other forums, Reddit, or elsewhere. I am holding our community to higher standards.

Thanks for reading.

 

[gracekelly]

Cate Blanchett at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival

Cate Blanchett always put in a stylish appearance at red carpet events.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Guess who wasn't invited even though they could have gone very easily.

 

[QueenofWrapDress]

So much disgusting hatred. Can you imagine if they focussed the energy they put into making other people miserable on actually leading a happy life? They'd be thriving.

 

[gracekelly]

So much disgusting hatred. Can you imagine if they focussed the energy they put into making other people miserable on actually leading a happy life? They'd be thriving.

My reply to Lady C is DUH!

 

[CarryOn2020]

For what it’s worth indeed. As I recall a lot of the documentation we’ve gone over in this thread came from books written years after Diana died. From what we’ve learned recently, I can’t give as much credibility to books as I did before. It turns out writers aren’t all truthful. By relying on the anecdotes of conveniently unnamed sources, they spice up what otherwise would be a dull read. They also outright lie, as we’ve seen quite recently.

There was a time when I assumed if it was written in a book, by a respectable author, that what I was reading was factual. I don’t make that assumption anymore.

I agree - none of what we have read about the royals is trustworthy imo. It’s all designed to present a particular image, either to support or criticize the monarchy.

I do apologize for my comment. After re-reading it, I detected an unwanted and unwelcome attitude on my part. It was not my intention to be that way and does not reflect who I am or want to be. No excuses, all my fault.

 

[gracekelly]

For what it’s worth indeed. As I recall a lot of the documentation we’ve gone over in this thread came from books written years after Diana died. From what we’ve learned recently, I can’t give as much credibility to books as I did before. It turns out writers aren’t all truthful. By relying on the anecdotes of conveniently unnamed sources, they spice up what otherwise would be a dull read. They also outright lie, as we’ve seen quite recently.

There was a time when I assumed if it was written in a book, by a respectable author, that what I was reading was factual. I don’t make that assumption anymore.

I think the problem was that her death was still fresh enough and her popularity still so high, that they didn't want to dull it with more truthful revelations. They sensed that the people buying the books wanted flowery stories. Plus they were written at a time when social medial hadn't taken over and there wasn't more muckraking and sharing of it. The internet has given all of us the ability to be investigative reporters if we want to expend the effort. The gossip is that the reporters in UK knew about Sasha and kept it quiet for her privacy and the only reason she showed herself was because she didn't think it would last. All it shows that one of the last bastions of a woman's intimate personal history is not safe.

 

[880]

I agree - none of what we have read about the royals is trustworthy imo. It’s all designed to present a particular image, either to support or criticize the monarchy.

I do apologize for my comment. After re-reading it, I detected an unwanted and unwelcome attitude on my part. It was not my intention to be that way and does not reflect who I am or want to be. No excuses, all my fault.

Though this wasn’t directed at me, just wanted to say, I always enjoy reading your comments and didn’t detect anything

 

[bag-mania]

I agree - none of what we have read about the royals is trustworthy imo. It’s all designed to present a particular image, either to support or criticize the monarchy.

I do apologize for my comment. After re-reading it, I detected an unwanted and unwelcome attitude on my part. It was not my intention to be that way and does not reflect who I am or want to be. No excuses, all my fault.

I hope you don’t think I was angry about your comment. I wanted to remind everyone to always question the motivations behind what we read and never take it purely at face value. These tell-all biographers don’t come into a project as a blank slate. They know before they begin what kind of story they want and expect to tell.

The problem I have with people saying Diana was a horrible mother is we are condemning a dead woman over a few anecdotes from people who, if I recall, are not identified by name. That rubs me the wrong way. I bet we could find a handful of individual instances in every mother’s life where she would not come off looking like a good mother.

One of the few good things about being older is I remember how these people were seen and perceived at the time it was happening. Diana was not on a pedestal when she was alive. The British tabloids wrote brutal stuff about her regularly but I never remember anyone criticizing her as a mother. Believe me they would have if there was anything to tell.

Sorry for the long rant. Obviously I have issues with disparaging dead people who cannot refute what is being said.

 

[DoggieBags]

I hope you don’t think I was angry about your comment. I wanted to remind everyone to always question the motivations behind what we read and never take it purely at face value. These tell-all biographers don’t come into a project as a blank slate. They know before they begin what kind of story they want and expect to tell.

The problem I have with people saying Diana was a horrible mother is we are condemning a dead woman over a few anecdotes from people who, if I recall, are not identified by name. That rubs me the wrong way. I bet we could find a handful of individual instances in every mother’s life where she would not come off looking like a good mother.

One of the few good things about being older is I remember how these people were seen and perceived at the time it was happening. Diana was not on a pedestal when she was alive. The British tabloids wrote brutal stuff about her regularly but I never remember anyone criticizing her as a mother. Believe me they would have if there was anything to tell.

Sorry for the long rant. Obviously I have issues with disparaging dead people who cannot refute what is being said.

For those who are saying Diana spoiled both boys rotten, I remember her spanking William in public and how that generated headlines at the time. So she could be strict with the boys when she had to be it seems.

Prince William Given Royal Slap by Princess Diana

A barefooted Princess Diana and an aproned Prince Charles didn't fare too well in the parents' race at their sons' school, but it was the spanking that Di gave Prince William that made the news.

www.latimes.com

 

[papertiger]

I hope you don’t think I was angry about your comment. I wanted to remind everyone to always question the motivations behind what we read and never take it purely at face value. These tell-all biographers don’t come into a project as a blank slate. They know before they begin what kind of story they want and expect to tell.

The problem I have with people saying Diana was a horrible mother is we are condemning a dead woman over a few anecdotes from people who, if I recall, are not identified by name. That rubs me the wrong way. I bet we could find a handful of individual instances in every mother’s life where she would not come off looking like a good mother.

One of the few good things about being older is I remember how these people were seen and perceived at the time it was happening. Diana was not on a pedestal when she was alive. The British tabloids wrote brutal stuff about her regularly but I never remember anyone criticizing her as a mother. Believe me they would have if there was anything to tell.

Sorry for the long rant. Obviously I have issues with disparaging dead people who cannot refute what is being said.

I agree - none of what we have read about the royals is trustworthy imo. It’s all designed to present a particular image, either to support or criticize the monarchy.

I do apologize for my comment. After re-reading it, I detected an unwanted and unwelcome attitude on my part. It was not my intention to be that way and does not reflect who I am or want to be. No excuses, all my fault.

Harry (and TW) are compulsive liars, but it's not biographers that cast Diana as encouraging naughty behaviour per sae, but Harry's remembering. Even if he misremembers (his truth) that is the lasting impression his mother gave to him, and what he wants us to know about his (and William's) mother.

The quote came from Harry fed through OS in Finding Freedom 2020 “You can be naughty. Just don’t get caught.” In the book ‘Finding Freedom’ by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand as reported by Express and Telegraph etc

Although they denied it, there is now plenty of (email) evidence Markle fed OS directly for the book (TRG re. Markle V Markle case 2023 and Sussex (Markle) V DMoS 2020). If MegZ was feeding stuff directly, of course Harry was feeding OS too.

Harry wrote in Spare even pushes Diana's encouraging bad behaviour from beyond the grave "a psychic told him Diana was 'giggling' after Archie broke a bauble shaped like his grandmother" 10 Jan '23

It's clear to me, that even if Diana didn't bring-up Harry to be naughty (and not get caught) or hate the BRF, that's what Harry wants us to believe to justify his own behaviour. He even uses his child to prove the point.

 

[papertiger]

Putting this here but watching tomorrow:

 

[KEG66]

My mother gave us all extensive need for therapy (not all of us followed through). We don't generally use that as an excuse to be a disfunctional, sh*tty person who doesn't even try though.

Hear hear mine did too but I don’t think it’s an excuse either.

 

[bag-mania]

It's clear to me, that even if Diana didn't bring-up Harry to be naughty (and not get caught) or hate the BRF, that's what Harry wants us to believe to justify his own behaviour. He even uses his child to prove the point.

If I were a psychiatrist maybe I would understand how Harry’s twisted mind has morphed his mother’s memory into an always supportive guardian angel who looks over him, blessing everything he and Meghan do.

He never talked about his mother that way pre-Meghan, did he?

 

[Toby93]

Oh. My.

I saw that article and found it hilarious that she thinks Archie shows the "racial diversity" of the royal family. Those kids are whiter than white

 

[needlv]

Lol….

 

[Jayne1]

Harry wrote in Spare even pushes Diana's encouraging bad behaviour from beyond the grave "a psychic told him Diana was 'giggling' after Archie broke a bauble shaped like his grandmother" 10 Jan '23

Hard to go to a psychic when you're that well known. If I ever go, I'm not even telling them my real name, I want to see how well they do.