[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Do people on tibb believe that the average person who watched that interview were aware it wasn't a proper interview - that it was a set up?

I get the feeling that for many in America and maybe the 16-24 demographic think that Oprah is a proper interviewer and not a chat show host/pal doing a favour?

That is a huge concern

Is it?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Of course they do, it must be **** not to be able to just be happy and support your family in whatever makes them happy, I know it's not my country so none of my business what you do or who you have as your head of state but it just seems so out of date and draconian the whole Royal stuff. I really couldn't think of anything worse than to have been born into that fish bowl life

....when you think that some ‘Royal traditions’ were made so many years ago and are still applied in the modern world and in the modern workplace because it is a workplace institution as well...and yet policies (traditions..)...are updated so frequently in most other areas...the concept of ‘royal tradition’ as a static thing and that being a good thing just doesn’t feel right to me..

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

In all honesty any one of us if you think about it honestly would be shaken by the lack of control you would experience if you were in that life. To go from living independently for however many years to having someone else control near enough every aspect of your life would feel to most like you were a prisoner. Kate was a little more readied for it for a number of reasons, she was younger, had been dating William for longer and was British so a little more aware of Royalty. I couldn't relinquish control of my life easily and I doubt most others could too. It would be a massive shock and probably would feel like we were being held prisoner. Look how the Covid restrictions have impacted on a lot of people's mental health.

How refreshing to read this.

In my view it is like being institutionalised with the Royal set up as it is.
Too much has gone wrong and failed.

Much of which with the secrecy within it likely brushed under the carpet too, the public must never get to know if.

Still at the end of the day, no one can help who they fall in love with.
Charles couldn't have Camilla, he had to find someone to have an accepted heir at least with.
Enter Diana to be used by him and the Royals.
While he still had only real affection for Camilla

So Prince Harry and Meghan fell in love.
If we had every word and act we've done gone through with a fine tooth comb as is being done with Meghan Markle.

I very much, if I'm being honest, that discrepancies and contradictory statements would never be found including my own statements too.
I say again, no one is always right or always wrong.

I agree, marrying into the Royal family, is like surrendering your freedom and indeed life.
Meghan Markle may have been under the illusion, that Prince Harry so far down the line of being Monarch.
Things could be more relaxed.
Maybe he should and could have prepared her better for the nightmare of the Royal set up.

The thing is they fell in love with each other and that was what they wanted, to be together.

To have likely even the time and periods you can be together within the Royal set up, is possibly another issue.
They tried it, it was affecting their mental health, as it possibly wouldn't have re Harry, while he was single.
Once he saw the stress caused to his wife.
What was he to do?

Just tell her to put up with it he'd do nothing to ease that stress either.
What kind of husband is that .
One like Charles to Diana.

I have to use the word I was told was insulting I'm afraid.
Unbelievable.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I mean this is probably the most sensible analysis of the whole thing that I've read so far. This whole idea especially that Meghan is some evil master manipulator who had all this planned out since she was a teenager (according to some people) is just so unrealistic

My overall impression is that Harry has been deeply frustrated with the situation since he was in his teens, and she's simply been the d I eat person - because she doesn't come from that world - to say to him "you know, you could just... stop taking part." and its been a light bulb moment for him.

Basically I think he's always hated it but was surrounded by people telling him that because he's a direct bloodline royal, it's "just the way things are" and something he had to come to terms with.

Really it's likely why he was so attracted to Meghan, being so different to the people in usual "Royal circles".

If you think back to pre-Meghan he was clearly always happiest and most comfortable in his active Army days... i.e. surrounded by people who treated him like an Army peer and not a Prince.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

My overall impression is that Harry has been deeply frustrated with the situation since he was in his teens, and she's simply been the d I eat person - because she doesn't come from that world - to say to him "you know, you could just... stop taking part." and its been a light bulb moment for him.

Basically I think he's always hated it but was surrounded by people telling him that because he's a direct bloodline royal, it's "just the way things are" and something he had to come to terms with.

Really it's likely why he was so attracted to Meghan, being so different to the people in usual "Royal circles".

If you think back to pre-Meghan he was clearly always happiest and most comfortable in his active Army days... i.e. surrounded by people who treated him like an Army peer and not a Prince.

...and away from his family......

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Do people on tibb believe that the average person who watched that interview were aware it wasn't a proper interview - that it was a set up?

I get the feeling that for many in America and maybe the 16-24 demographic think that Oprah is a proper interviewer and not a chat show host/pal doing a favour?

That is a huge concern

Are the majority of people aware that the media is bull****? No, but at least this bull**** came from the other direction and counterbalanced some of the other torrent of bull**** from the Daily Mail and Cucky Morgan's flapping jaw.

Would I prefer a balanced account of things all round? Well yes but that's not the world is it.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Then why have people been repeatedly saying that Meghan could have sought out support on her own if Royal Management refused to get someone in to see her? You're literally confirming that you KNOW the management team had to sign off on her access to a doctor, and thus her claim that they refused on the grounds that it would look bad for the family is perfectly legitimate or at least possible? It's previously been poo-poo'd away as unrealistic because "Oh you're telling me they couldn't seek that help without going through the institution lol?"

Some real inconsistencies here jet, don't be doing any Oprah interviews, the Internet will tear them to bits

Just correcting you on the point you made about the Royals GOING to doctors TS.
Harry and William set up Mental Health charities ans work closely with mental health organisations. Harry has had therapy himself - he couldn't get in touch with anyone independently in the emergency of his wife being suicidal?
Do you REALLY believe that TS? (If the Palace refused help, which is frankly a ridiculous claim.)

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

....when you think that some ‘Royal traditions’ were made so many years ago and are still applied in the modern world and in the modern workplace because it is a workplace institution as well...and yet policies (traditions..)...are updated so frequently in most other areas...the concept of ‘royal tradition’ as a static thing and that being a good thing just doesn’t feel right to me..

Yeah, didn't they only change that sexist thing about passing over girls in favour of boys in the succession line recently? Was it when Kate was pregnant with George?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

My overall impression is that Harry has been deeply frustrated with the situation since he was in his teens, and she's simply been the d I eat person - because she doesn't come from that world - to say to him "you know, you could just... stop taking part." and its been a light bulb moment for him.

Basically I think he's always hated it but was surrounded by people telling him that because he's a direct bloodline royal, it's "just the way things are" and something he had to come to terms with.

Really it's likely why he was so attracted to Meghan, being so different to the people in usual "Royal circles".

If you think back to pre-Meghan he was clearly always happiest and most comfortable in his active Army days... i.e. surrounded by people who treated him like an Army peer and not a Prince.

You would have to wonder had his mother not died when he was a kid what would have happened with him? I think he may have followed her away from the Institute. So sad she seemed to be finally happy with her life when she was killed

[bots]

To me it's obvious that Harry and Meghan feed off each others thoughts, which is a normal event. At that point recollections of events are re-enforced as factual, whether they are or not. Their problem is that when you start throwing accusations around, you need to make sure they are always accurate or credibility drops to zero, whether the events actually happened or not. For various reasons Meghan's accounts of events have become questionable due to proven previous inaccuracies, so many don't believe a word she says. As Harry is closely associated with Meghan his credibility has also dropped to zero by default. They have been very naive when it comes to public perception, and I don't think they will easily recover from that position.

That being said, the rest of the royal family, including the queen, are a nasty, nasty bunch. For example, I couldn't imagine any scenario where my father would have cut me off, certainly not because of wanting to forge my own career rather than being in the family firm, which is basically what Charlie has done .... nasty bastard

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Of course they do, it must be **** not to be able to just be happy and support your family in whatever makes them happy, I know it's not my country so none of my business what you do or who you have as your head of state but it just seems so out of date and draconian the whole Royal stuff. I really couldn't think of anything worse than to have been born into that fish bowl life

It is your business, the Irish have suffered under our Royals in history.
I get that from my Mum endlessly.

I support a Monarchy over a likely President however, as I dwell more on this and look back over others who've found the Royal set up too authorative and restrictive, under the heading of duty.
I can see the likely end of our Monarch without massive updating and reform.

Your last line sums so much up.
It certainly seems to be one the worst things to be born into that fish bowl, equally joining it too.

Then becoming into a scenario where you're expected out of duty, to exist but not live.

Also to TS, honestly, from me great posts all through from you on this.
I want to commend you on them.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Is it?

yes it really is:

“Prince Harry’s son was not going to receive security”, laments the Duchess
at one point. “Whaaat?”, replies Oprah, with slapstick incredulity. Frost-
Nixon, this was not.

Certain claims were instantly uncredible; such as the suggestion Archie was
denied the title “Prince” because he was mixed-race, or that the Archbishop
of Canterbury performed an official wedding ceremony in their garden, days
before the global spectacle of their Windsor nuptials. Many of the headlines
used to illustrate the couple’s ‘mistreatment’ by the UK media were at best,
taken out of context – at worst, outrageously misappropriated. All told, the
Sussexes’ ‘truth’ bears more than a passing resemblance to Trump’s
‘alternative facts’.

Very little of this seems to matter, however, in a world where ‘lived
experience’ can, and often does, supersede objective reality. Questioning
individuals may expect to be accused of racism, downplaying mental health,
or both. “Believe her, no matter what”, seems to be the demand – even when it doesn’t make sense.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ans-truth-now/

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Are the majority of people aware that the media is bull****? No, but at least this bull**** came from the other direction and counterbalanced some of the other torrent of bull**** from the Daily Mail and Cucky Morgan's flapping jaw.

Would I prefer a balanced account of things all round? Well yes but that's not the world is it.

At least Andrew sat with Maitlis - it did not end well but then it was a far more honest revealing spectacle (even if his honesty wasnt the best )

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

My overall impression is that Harry has been deeply frustrated with the situation since he was in his teens, and she's simply been the d I eat person - because she doesn't come from that world - to say to him "you know, you could just... stop taking part." and its been a light bulb moment for him.

Basically I think he's always hated it but was surrounded by people telling him that because he's a direct bloodline royal, it's "just the way things are" and something he had to come to terms with.

Really it's likely why he was so attracted to Meghan, being so different to the people in usual "Royal circles".

If you think back to pre-Meghan he was clearly always happiest and most comfortable in his active Army days... i.e. surrounded by people who treated him like an Army peer and not a Prince.

And we have a winner

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

At least Andrew sat with Maitlis - it did not end well but then it was a far more honest revealing spectacle (even if his honesty wasnt the best )

Andrew was defending himself against allegations that he's been complicit in child sex trafficking. Harry and Meghan were discussing minor family dramas, mental health, their decision to move away, the Royal institution etc.

Trying to compare the two or say that "oh well he submitted himself to a harsh interviewer why didn't they?" is an unreasonable comparison. When Harry and Meghan are accused of rubbing shoulders with criminals and paedophiles then yes I'll concede that a harder interview would be more appropriate than an informal discussion style "audience".

People pretending that this is unusual is entirely disingenuous too - have a look at the Letterman stuff on Netflix (with RDJ, Kanye, etc) and you will find it is EXACTLY the same format as this Oprah one.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Andrew was defending himself against allegations that he's been complicit in child sex trafficking. Harry and Meghan were discussing minor family dramas, mental health, their decision to move away, the Royal institution etc.

Trying to compare the two or say that "oh well he submitted himself to a harsh interviewer why didn't they?" is an unreasonable comparison. When Harry and Meghan are accused of rubbing shoulders with criminals and paedophiles then yes I'll concede that a harder interview would be more appropriate than an informal discussion style "audience".

People pretending that this is unusual is entirely disingenuous too - have a look at the Letterman stuff on Netflix (with RDJ, Kanye, etc) and you will find it is EXACTLY the same format as this Oprah one.

"Harry and Meghan were discussing minor family dramas"

The accusation of racism and that a suicidal woman could not get help as a bit more than minor family dramas


Letterman isnt a journalist he is anothe rtalk show host who is a front for promotions and adverts

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

"Harry and Meghan were discussing minor family dramas"

The accusation of racism and that a suicidal woman could not get help as a bit more than minor family dramas


Letterman isnt a journalist he is anothe rtalk show host who is a front for promotions and adverts

If you're trying to say that racism and suicidal ideations aren't issues faced by a large number of families at various points I'd have to say that, sadly, you're wrong. "Minor" might have been a bit flippant but they are not unusual family issues.

Billionaire underage sex trafficking rings are a little more niche.

There was no need for this to be a hard hitting interview - Harry and Meghan haven't been accused of anything. Not by anyone other than the gutter press, Piers Morgan and overly-irked observers.

[Parmy]

There must be a pow wow at the palace today as I've just seen william being escorted up the mall

[jet]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

To me it's obvious that Harry and Meghan feed off each others thoughts, which is a normal event. At that point recollections of events are re-enforced as factual, whether they are or not. Their problem is that when you start throwing accusations around, you need to make sure they are always accurate or credibility drops to zero, whether the events actually happened or not. For various reasons Meghan's accounts of events have become questionable due to proven previous inaccuracies, so many don't believe a word she says. As Harry is closely associated with Meghan his credibility has also dropped to zero by default. They have been very naive when it comes to public perception, and I don't think they will easily recover from that position.

That being said, the rest of the royal family, including the queen, are a nasty, nasty bunch. For example, I couldn't imagine any scenario where my father would have cut me off, certainly not because of wanting to forge my own career rather than being in the family firm, which is basically what Charlie has done .... nasty bastard

Totally agree with your first paragraph BOTS.
But the Charles cutting off Harry claim is another thing yet again under question:

https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/10/princ...-off-14217471/

Prince Charles ‘let down’ by Harry complaining about money tap being turned off
Joe Roberts Wednesday 10 Mar 2021 7:57 am

Prince Charles did NOT ‘cut off’ Prince Harry’s funding when he left ‘The Firm’ with Meghan Markle last year, reports have claimed. During the tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, the Duke of Sussex said he made deals with Netflix and Spotify as he ‘had to afford security’ for his wife and son. ‘My family literally cut me off financially,’ he told Oprah.
This was rejected by an ally of Charles, who said he feels ‘let down’ by the claim, insisting he supported the duke and duchess ‘more than he would care to say'.

[jet]

...and really, what independently wealthy man in his 30's would expect to be supported by their father when they leave home? They live in a mansion surrounded by top notch celebs - maybe he could have expected to make a few sacrifices to go along with his decision and buy a slightly less showy home and Meghan could do without spending $4,000 a dress.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by jet

...and really, what independently wealthy man in his 30's would expect to be supported by their father when they leave home? They live in a mansion surrounded by top notch celebs - maybe he could have expected to make a few sacrifices to go along with his decision and buy a slightly less showy home and Meghan could do without spending $4,000 a dress.

She didn't endure 18 months shaking hands with the plebs to end up living like a pauper

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

It was a relaxed interview with Oprah to tell her story, it was NOT an interrogation debate .

As I said already the interview would of been farr too long if they went on about her dad & sister etc, and Meghan would get more critism if the interview broadcast over a few days rather than just 1 day.

But don't worry there's plenty of long winded interviews out there, that go on forever that you'll probably enjoy better than Harry & Meghan's 2 hour one.

A relaxed interview...a chat between two/three people in the garden. You get told something outrageous and all you say is WWHHHAAAAT....who said it?..we are not saying...convo over..

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by jet

Totally agree with your first paragraph BOTS.
But the Charles cutting off Harry claim is another thing yet again under question:

https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/10/princ...-off-14217471/

Prince Charles ‘let down’ by Harry complaining about money tap being turned off
Joe Roberts Wednesday 10 Mar 2021 7:57 am

Prince Charles did NOT ‘cut off’ Prince Harry’s funding when he left ‘The Firm’ with Meghan Markle last year, reports have claimed. During the tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, the Duke of Sussex said he made deals with Netflix and Spotify as he ‘had to afford security’ for his wife and son. ‘My family literally cut me off financially,’ he told Oprah.
This was rejected by an ally of Charles, who said he feels ‘let down’ by the claim, insisting he supported the duke and duchess ‘more than he would care to say'.

An ally of Charles said that.
A friend if Meghan said there is email proof of them refusing her help.

Its all more he said, she said rubbish.

[arista]

at Last
Talking about, Racism.

[jet]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

A relaxed interview...a chat between two/three people in the garden. You get told something outrageous and all you say is WWHHHAAAAT....who said it?..we are not saying...convo over..

That spectacle can't be called an 'interview'. It was a "here is my story about all the horrible things that happened to me by horrid people and if everyone doesn't take every word I say as gospel its proof of how I am victimized, I told you so!" SEE!!!! "