Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Meghan & Harry & Oprah


UnkNuk
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, DonLever said:

This is the point I don't get about this whole affair.   Harry and Meghan say they want privacy, yet they spill their beans stories to Oprah for  a world wide audience?

 

How can you have a private life while at the same time you blab everything to strangers.

 

So why?   They said they did not get any money.  What is the purpose of the interview except to make The Royal Family look bad.

It's only a guess, so take it FWIW, but from what I've seen, the press (especially the UK tabloid press) have continued to write "stories" about the two. Much of it nothing but clickbait.

 

Agreeing to an interview with the highest profile host on the planet gives them an opportunity to tell their side and set the story straight.

 

I know there are some more cynical people ITT who will insist on characterizing it as an attempt to boost their image, or for some bizarre reason, continue to talk about money, even though this clearly was not financially motivated, but from what I can tell, it was an honest attempt to get out in front of the narrative.

 

Whether people decide to believe them, or like Piers Morgan, believe that they're lying, is up to the individual.

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DonLever said:

This is the point I don't get about this whole affair.   Harry and Meghan say they want privacy, yet they spill their beans stories to Oprah for  a world wide audience?

 

How can you have a private life while at the same time you blab everything to strangers.

 

So why?   They said they did not get any money.  What is the purpose of the interview except to make The Royal Family look bad.

 

 

you can't put a price on good publicity, can you? the royals weren't paid, and oprah claims they didn't know what she was going to ask... but do we really care? oprah's production company made $7-10 million from the interview. oprah is literally their neighbour. she went to their wedding. need we say more about the angle of the interview?

 

meanwhile, harry and meghan's stock has never been higher -- which is good for them, because their budding media empire signed a reported $140m worth of contracts in the last few months. what better way to kick off a media empire than with the mogul of all moguls?

 

but no, this is just about "setting the story straight." nothing sets a story straight like lobbing vague accusations at the royal family while the media swarms looking for details

 

i think i'm with piers on this one -- are we really to believe that poor meghan markle was suicidal... and yet her prince husband couldn't even fly in a therapist privately? there's not a single therapist or psychologist in the whole of britain that could have helped markle out of the public eye? meanwhile, harry's narcissistic windbag mother was allowed to use taxpayer money to fly helicopters all over the england to visit psychics? 

Edited by GLASSJAW
  • Like 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

It's only a guess, so take it FWIW, but from what I've seen, the press (especially the UK tabloid press) have continued to write "stories" about the two. Much of it nothing but clickbait.

 

Agreeing to an interview with the highest profile host on the planet gives them an opportunity to tell their side and set the story straight.

 

I know there are some more cynical people ITT who will insist on characterizing it as an attempt to boost their image, or for some bizarre reason, continue to talk about money, even though this clearly was not financially motivated, but from what I can tell, it was an honest attempt to get out in front of the narrative.

 

Whether people decide to believe them, or like Piers Morgan, believe that they're lying, is up to the individual.

The British tabloid has always been barely better than liner for a bird cage.... not sure how Meghan wouldn't have known about that.  As a Hollywood celebrity, she should be aware of it as well.  

 

What I have issue is that Meghan is throwing out lots of accusations and inferring racism on issues that may seem believable to those who doesn't understand the full context of things.

An example would be complaining that Archie not be officially a prince (at birth).... some may say it's due to him being partially black.... but it makes more sense if Archie isn't a prince.  He isn't in the primogeniture family.... many of the non-primogeniture members aren't bestowed the title of prince or princess either.  Prince Edward's kids are just Lady and Viscount, Princess Anne's children and grandchildren (same tier as Archie) doesn't have any titles (not even noble titles)... probably way more if you really start digging the family tree.  

 

Meghan (and Harry) definitely comes off as entitled and calculated.  Prince Philip is still hospitalized and probably on his death bed, but you come out blasting your family.  Imagine if it was some socialite like.... Paris Hilton doing the exact same thing... would people be as understanding or would people just write her off as some opportunistic gold digger?  Or if Meghan was 100% white.  

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a Brit I was always taught that the Royals were very evil and very powerful. My brother told me the day Diana died that she will have been killed because of who she was dating. I have no doubt that racism exists in their family. Heck, I'm so far down the rabbit hole that I think they probably turfed Epstein too. 

The British media has always been tabloidy and trashy.

Megan has every right to speak her mind but she also must have known what she was getting into.

It's not strange or discriminatory that the baby wasn't given the title of Prince. 

 

i suppose Megan and the Firm deserve each other. 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having finally got around to watching this and reading up  around it. My view is that as always there are 3 sides to the story.

 

in regards to the funding aspect and security - that is tax payer money that comes as being part of the royal family and fulfilling duties as a royal. Them being cut off from that is of their own making and not a choice by the royal family. 
 

however is Charles decided to not use any of the funds from the Dutchy of Cornwall that’s different (although any crown estate funds wouldn’t be eligible) also the security funding in Canada would have fallen on the Canadian tax payer which quite rightly so the Canadian government said nope. 

 

in regards to Megan - I think people give her to much credit for the acting. She wasn’t a great actress and yet now she’s a method actor who seems to be on top of her game, hmm. 
 

I also think she was exceptionally naive about what the royal family is and how much of an institution it is. You cannot go in and want to rip up all the norms because that’s not how it works. Also one little talked about aspect is that because she is American unless she revoked her citizenship she would have to declare her income streams from the Royal Family and UK government which makes them potentially liable as taxable, Americans and the Royal family don’t mix for many reasons and this is an important issue. 
 

in regards to the racism levelled at her and their child - I don’t condone it and it’s wrong. But she seems to want to conflate the racism and the bullying claims into one issue. They are two separate ones and each should be judged on their own standing. 
 

inalso don’t blame them for leaving, Harry as a second child already would have been treated differently to his brother who is in direct line to the throne. You could see him actually up when he was younger so it shouldn’t be a surprise that he wouldn’t want out. I don’t blame Megan for this I just think she gave him the clarity and the strength to do what he probably already wanted to do. 
 

in regards to the issue about their kids not getting titles- that’s from a royal dictate from George V I think. Where only grandkids of the current monarch would get that. Hense why Beatrice and Eugeni have it but Harry’s kids wouldn’t until Charles took over (at which point they would get the title) that’s not about racism. Also Williams eldest would get it outside of this because of being in the direct line. The other two having it while an exception was made for them, it’s not an unreasonable one, and shouldn’t mean that carries over. 
 

 

Overall I think a lot of the nuances got lost by the American outrage and when you delve into the detail it’s not a simple as they wanted to leave got cut off and because of racism her kids won’t get titles.

 

there is a lot that is wrong that needs unpacking but it sure as hell isn’t simple 

  • Hydration 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...