Harry and Meghan interview

[seahermit]

Just read the first reports of the interview conducted by Oprah Winfrey. Phew! Hits you right between the eyes. Princess Diana's revelations were extraordinary enough but it seems to me this stuff is equally explosive.

I will watch the full interview, may well post some further comments, but at first sight it all comes over as very sad and a poor reflection on the Royal "firm" and its inability to move with the times or prove its relevance today. Many echoes of Diana's complaints about her individuality being overwhelmed (and ignored) by the system, appalling that Megan was compelled to hand over her passport, driving licence, keys .. I can hardly believe what I am reading!

What is chiefly demonstrated is that the Royal Family as an institution has learned very little from previous events and traumas, remains a monolithic and oppressive organisation which closes ranks to protect its reputation in the face of criticism.

I still think the monarchy should continue, as part of our history and tradition, as a symbolic and potentially unifying keystone in our constitution. But it should be utterly changed, divorce itself from much of the undeserved "privilege" and get much more in touch with the realities of modern society.

[Derek Jempson]

In my opinion, the monarchy is an anachronism, and one that we can't afford. I feel that when the Queen dies, it will signal the beginning of the end of the monarchy. There will be no need for a revolution - just give then enough rope and they will hang themselves. By the way, I am not a monarchist!

[Richard]

I wouldn't want to watch the interview, another soppy female, at the centre of attention, looking for understanding and sympathy from a staged Press interview.

I rather prefer royalty (at the top) to presidents.
We have tried to restrain royal powers over the centuries, from the Barons at Runnymede (Magna Carta) to Simon de Montforte and his attempts create a parliamentary system, to Cromwell and his wars against the royalists.
I don't particularly agree with money and privileges paid for no return, as often seems to be the case, but I neither think our Queen has put a foot wrong.
However, once she goes I believe Australia (for one) will opt out and change their system of having the next U.K. royal in line as their head of state.

[Richard]

Unfortunately I did happen to watch some the interview.

I can only say that Harry was a thoroughly likeable person until miss personality disorder came into his life and controlled his thoughts and emotions.
Meghan seems to be narcissistic and manipulative.
I can sort of see that they may need some sort of body guard protection but that is just about money and they are not exactly penniless are they.
As for the colour of the baby issue, so what! They are big and mature enough (or are they?) to brush it off.
Or are they just being unrealistic in general?
Two young adults with a baby and money and they want to allow (paid) interviews to air their dirty washing in public because they did not get what they think was owed to them.
Meghan is a wretched train-wreck of a woman!

[seahermit]

Richard, you often make statements which miss the point at issue or which meander off along your own path .. but this is something different. I clearly have misjudged the kind of person you are, I am rather shocked and disgusted by your dismissive and quite nasty remarks – I hope that you would reconsider and acknowledge that maybe they were ill-judged and made off-the-cuff, because on other forums they would certainly cause great offence and attract much flak.

The debate about monarchy versus republicanism is a valid one and there should certainly be changes in the archaic and often irrelevant structure which is the Royal Family "Firm". The need for change is only accentuated by the current revelations about what goes on behind closed doors. But much of that has little to do with the very personal issues raised in the interview with Megan and Harry.

There is no evidence that Megan Markle has an ongoing personality disorder, is controlling, narcissistic, manipulative .. or soppy either. On the contrary, Megan is rather more articulate, shrewd and capable than yourself (and many of us), has worked all her life, shown herself to be talented, worked hard at her royal duties and the couple have come over as being charming and have therefore been welcomed across the world. Curiously, your churlish attitude is precisely similar to what Megan complained of – when individuals within the Firm encounter stress and pain arising from the lies, distortions and relentless attention of the media, just close ranks, deny, fail to support and even claim that the problem is really Megan, not an archaic, dysfunctional and insensitive institution.

The Royal Family, as an institution as opposed to the private side, is a workplace like any other, to which proper standards of behaviour should apply. Megan has every right (and a great deal of courage) to air her views publicly when she sees things as being wrong and bad practices and attitudes impingeing upon the wellbeing of herself and her family. But “they want to allow (paid) interviews to air their dirty washing in public because they did not get what they think was owed to them. Meghan is a wretched train-wreck of a woman!” Richard, those are disgusting remarks, it was made clear that the interview was unpaid .. and is that seriously all you think this is about, a bitchy woman trying to get back at the Royal Family?! That suggests that you don’t understand the real issues and that you are quite likely to be more of a train-wreck than Megan Markle ..

“A staged press interview” – can you explain what other kinds of interview there could be? In any case, that is a nonsense remark, because it was not the press, it was a chat-show host, the whole thing was done in a very informal, intimate way in a garden setting, with everyone appearing to be very natural and honest, whilst being more restrained in their criticisms than the topics justly deserved.

“As for the colour of the baby issue, so what! They are big and mature enough (or are they?) to brush it off” – I was appalled by Megan’s revelations about this and I am appalled by your endorsement of the attitudes involved. Are you saying that bullying, racism (unspoken or open), indifference to the pain and stress suffered by individuals in the face of relentless and aggressive media attention, even lies to protect the Firm's reputation should all be tolerated because, as Megan was told by Buckingham Palace, "that's the way it is and you just have to lump it"? So, it's ok then, nothing should change ..

I intend to much more guarded about contributing to this forum in the future - I am certainly not indulging in further debates of this kind where major issues which affect us all in the end are just repudiated, rubbished and treated with contempt and bigotry. If you or others wish to post views which I find completely repellent (and which would be savaged if they were aired on social networks), that is up to you but you will do it alone.

[Richard]

Why did Harry fall out with his brother?
Because Meghan tried to rule the roost.
She is both manipulative and selfish.
Meghan and Harry have more wealth than we can imagine, they have love and a baby, and a huge property.
Yet she wanted more (money) to protect her own self-interests.
It all kicked off with Canada refusing to provide free personal protection when they took up residence there.
She kept complaining about personal protection being denied by the Royal family.
They are no longer royalty.

It was disloyal to complain in the way that they did, paid or not.
Plus I think at Harry could at least wear a decent suit - for a change.
Perhaps the Palace should have a grievance procedure for ex-employees?

[Richard]

There are people with much more serious issues.
Children who are seen as vermin, to be exterminated, in Brazil if they live on the streets.
Starving children in poor countries.
Yet we have to feel sorry for wealthy westerners with royal connections who feel they are badly done to.
I feel sorry that they have only thoughts for themselves.

[seahermit]

I think that you have very much shown your true colours and a side of yourself which I didn't realise existed.

I find your statements repellant and offensive. Starving children in Brazil, deplorable as such things are, have nothing to do with this situation. So, because Harry and Megan have some wealth, that makes them a legitimate target for the torrent of abuse, misrepresentation and aggressive media attention which they have endured? If you believe that, you are either going a little off your head or you are at heart a thoroughly nasty person.

Nobody is denying that Harry and now Megan have enjoyed what many see as privilege. But what a two-edged sword! Harry did not ask to be born into that situation and, like all Royals, he has had to pay a heavy price . He has made little secret of his discomfort with the whole set-up (he and even William have at times hinted at their desire for change) and Harry has done just the right thing and gone his own, independent way, good luck to him.

Richard, could you atleast make some effort to get your facts right? Nobody has ever suggested that Megan came between Harry and William, the idea is ridiculous. Harry himself made it quite clear that circumstances and diverging paths created the distance between them.

Nor did Canada "refuse to pay for protection" - the issue never arose, because Canada had no automatic obligation to finance security for the couple. The Royal household arguably had some obligation to in some way protect one of their own - whether you like it or not, the reality is that the security risk for Harry and his family remains huge, even if the "Prince" title and all other labels were removed - makes no difference to the mindset of terrorists.

You clearly did not watch the interview properly. Harry was dressed in a well-fitting suit and looked very much smarter than you probably look most of the time. And he came over as a far nicer person than the curmudgeonly, misogynistic and bigoted person that you appear to be.

[seahermit]

There are of course different sides to this situation with Prince Harry and Meghan and there are reasonable subjects for debate. But I find it deplorable that the argument has swiftly deteriorated into a vehicle for one person's apparent animosity and resentment towards the Royal family.

The British monarchy is a strange, monolithic and archaic institution and few have denied that change is desperately needed. That is NOT an excuse for expressions of personal prejudice and for offensive attacks on the personalities and motivations of the individuals involved - not even supported by real evidence and smacking very much of the misrepresentation/distortion which has been prevalent in the media and is the whole cause of the problem.

Many of the Royals are just trying to do the best they can in a situation which they didn't ask for and which they find difficult to escape or to change. That much is obvious and has been well-aired by Prince Harry, good for him.

But it is noticeable that others have not become involved in this thread and that is probably the best thing. Please leave it alone! In view of the very disreputable and uncharitable direction in which things have gone, it would be much better to let the thread die a swift and ignominious death, no?

[number9]

I find your statements repellant and offensive.

seahermit ...all Richard was doing was expressing an opinion where you found his choice of words unsatisfactory.I think some of the remarks you have made about him were not very pleasant against a forum member, by suggesting he appears to be curmudgeonly,misogynistic etc. Not that I am suggesting Richard is right in what he said, but can you remember back in 2009

Maybe also the soldier that Harry made a racist comment about in 2009 by calling him " My little " P " found that comment repellant and offensive.
And yes..... I do accept that Harry has matured and no longer makes racist remarks.