 sj |
||
|
||
BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
|
|
|
Subject: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: robomatic Date: 07 Mar 21 - 11:22 PM OPRAH with Meghan & Harry Sunday 7 March 2021 As Steve Colbert said: "It's incredible when you get to meet royalty, and now it's Meghan's and Harry's turn!" I told my friends I would not get sucked into watching this bit of onlooker's orgasm. And here I am, watching Oprah, who I have enjoyed watching, meet Meghan, who I enjoyed when I was watching "SUITS". I am enjoying it. I will worry about what that means about me later. Much later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:19 AM It was a fascinating interview. I think they did a remarkable job of illustrating not only how difficult things were in that situation, but by extension, how difficult it was for Diana and how she had the foresight to leave her money to her son/s. Did she leave money to William also? Probably, but as the heir, I wonder how it worked out. At any rate, she made it possible for them to walk away and for Meghan to get out alive. This really does all hark back to Diana and what Harry saw and learned of her experiences. His ability to walk away from it is because of her example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: robomatic Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:33 AM I'm picking up so many different references and places these subjects could go: Palace infrastructure management of the publicity given to the institution of the Royals. Communication between Harry and his father probably severely affected by the relationship between his father and his late mother. Racial overtones throughout the institution. And some of those overtones seem to be related to what a GOOD idea it is to have a bit of color to show from the royal family itself. And the question of: How do we learn from the past? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:52 AM The decision to not extend protection to a woman of color who entered the family, and to not make her son a prince, when there are so many others in the family of that generation, is stupefyingly racist. The "prince" part meant his safety, as far as she was concerned. And the point made again and again by Twitter users is that Prince Andrew is such a cretin and still draws his salary. Friend of Jeffrey Epstein, no problem. Black woman, Hell no! For those who missed the interview, here is a good summing up in Forbes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 11:59 AM I'll not be watching this - but seriously - she took the pet because her little darlings aren't to be made wee princes and princesses??? When most folk worry about just getting them into a good nursery and feeding them and things like that. What planet are folk on???? I don't imagine after first Edward's offspring then Harry's that any baby will be made a prince or princess again apart from the actual person of that generation who is directly in line! So Charles, William then the eldest of his brood when they have kids. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jeri Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:10 PM No, Allan, but I can understand how you'd get it wrong, having not watched the interview. I suspect they're happy their children aren't trapped in that situation. Speaking only for myself, I (possibly most Americans) don't understand how royal succession works. The comment by SRS was as interpreted by SRS. It sounded to me like they had more of a problem with the denial of security. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:26 PM Ok Jeri undertood!! It was SRS suggesting that it was racist that her children were not made princes or princesses so I assumed that was on the prog. The children of Edward and Sophie weren't made princes or princesses either. Nothing racist about it. Neither were the children of Princess Anne though that was down to an 'ism' at the time but it was 'sexism' not racism. The truth of it is there is a move towards a slim downed royal family and they were big news just now because they are a young glamorous couple but their offspring through time would perhaps become middling royals at best. There is a spoof show in the UK called the Windsors where the lot of them are lampooned and castigated. It can be pretty silly but every now and again it hits the nail on the head. In one episode the actress playing Meghan says to Prince Charles "Oh haven't things come along when I am accepted for marrying Harry when I am an American when the Wallace Simpson thing caused such an outrage" Charles looked at her and said "You have to remember dear that Mrs Simpson was marrying the heir to the throne but neither of your or Harry's arses will get anywhere near the throne!" It was a funny scene but strikingly true. But no I avoid anything to do with the bunch of them anyway. Apart from spoof comedy shows. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:31 PM Well we've read snippets this end but we haven't seen it yet. We're all sitting here with bated breath and massive sacks of popcorn... I'm going to love indulging my confirmation bias and every scrap of naked prejudice I can muster whilst siding with Meghan before I've heard even a word of it, even though I intensely dislike the whole damn shower... (...Or should I learn the ukelele instead...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:37 PM Aye the world would be better served by you grabbing a uke! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: The Sandman Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:43 PM i do not have a television so i might play some music instead |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:43 PM Harry and Meghan don't, of course, mind the huge income from their association with royalty & the Oprah interview. Capitalism produces revoltingly unfair inequality & monarchism is even worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:45 PM They weren't paid anything for the interview. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Charmion Date: 08 Mar 21 - 01:06 PM When her eldest was born, Princess Anne herself announced that her children would be commoners (i.e., have no title). That is consistent with the British tradition of assigning children to the social rank of their father. Mark Phillips was then, and is now, not an aristocrat, let alone royal. Prince Andrew's rank passed automatically to his daughters, Eugenie and Beatrice. Prince Edward is the rebel of the family, having opted his children out of the system. Being the youngest, and waiting to marry until years after the death of Princess Diana, he was allowed to do what he thought best. Harry had his example to follow. I believe that the denial of much-needed security services did not arise solely from Meghan's perceived racial otherness. Both Harry and Meghan were resisting the long-standing Buck House way of doing things, so withholding security was a way to bring them into line. The American and Canadian variants of racism are nasty enough, God knows, but the UK kind is extra-specially nasty. I'm not sure if it's the class component, or the way the news media can apparently publish libellous and childishly offensive material with impunity. I'm too Canadian to figure it out and I don't think I can stand to try. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 02:11 PM My understanding is that Harry and Meghan's son has not actually even really been denied the title Prince. He doesn't as yet actually qualify for the title. It is something granted to sons and grandsons of monarchs with that only stretching another generation for the sons of the person directly in line for the throne. So the only one of the new generation that actually qualifies automatically as a Prince at the moment is George who is the son of William who will be heir to the throne once his father becomes king. Harry's children would only actually qualify as Prince or Princess when the Queen dies and Charles takes the throne. The Queen gave the title by special dispensation to the other children of William and Kate I take it because William is directly in line to the throne. They are the kids of someone who is destined to be, and is being groomed as, a future king. Whether folks in America like it or not. William and Kate have the nuclear family that will one day sit around the throne. Not Harry and Meghan who are the also rans of the family like Anne and Edward were - and Margaret before that. I find it hard to have sympathy for the idea that one incredibly spoiled family unit thought themselves slightly less spoiled in the way of receiving titles than the older sibling and his family. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 02:33 PM Re the security thing. That is a red herring too. It is 10 years since Andrew's girls, both princesses, were told they would have to pay for their own security except on occassions when they were officially carrying out royal engagements. These families are wealthy and the wider family can pay for their own security. Don't see why we UK tax payers should pay for it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Charmion Date: 08 Mar 21 - 03:05 PM Canadians still have skin in the game, Allan, and we are part of North America, too. But thanks for explaining how the titles of royal descendants get iffier as the generations go by. As for the issue of paying for security, I rather think it would be less expensive if the British media were less rapacious in their pursuit of royal tittle-tattle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 03:12 PM Here in Scotland we are less pro Royal than the UK as a whole (personally I am not a royalist) so I find it a bit hard to understand why we put one family on such a pedastal. Find it even harder to comprehend why other countries still accept them. But we're all different I suppose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: robomatic Date: 08 Mar 21 - 03:25 PM This is just one of the places this could go: Meghan is an American and not a part of the blood royal: But she has married into it and her kids are a part of it in some context. So where is her royal privilege? In other words, it is part of human nature to exploit an advantage, and the concept of 'unfair advantage' changes with one's, er, vantage. Just sayin'... Another place this could go: Meghan said, if I understood correctly, that she did not get the most basic of instruction in behaviour. As in, "you know how to curtsy, right?" Well she did not know how to curtsy. This apparently happened when she and Harry were dating, so it comes off as delightfully impromptu as narrated. But then she actually is married into the family and all at once she needs to be educated on a lot of ceremony and formal behaviourisms. She claims she got no help on this. So we're beyond impromptu at this point. I'd guess there is as much detail and history on this sort of thing that one can get sucked into a rabbit hole in no time. So she needed someone who could figure out what actually mattered and also what would matter most to Meghan. That is a tall order which apparently didn't get filled. And it is different but related to the depth of press coverage and that added coverage of tabloid sensationalism and stuff-made-up-ism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Rain Dog Date: 08 Mar 21 - 03:28 PM Not seen the programme but according to one of the news reports Megan was not asked any questions about her relationship with her own family. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jeri Date: 08 Mar 21 - 03:35 PM As I understand it, they're not getting any income from being a royal. They got money from Princess Diana, and William has a company. It also seemed to me that the racism, apart from an un-named member of the family, was mostly from the tabloids, and William thought it looked like history repeating itself. The tabloid-fueled hatred certainly reminds me of what's been happening in the US. Hatred is popular these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 03:56 PM Robomatic what privilege do you think the royals should have? And perhaps more significantly why should they keep any privileges they have once they walk away from the job? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Backwoodsman Date: 08 Mar 21 - 03:58 PM William, Jeri? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jeri Date: 08 Mar 21 - 04:03 PM Wrong prince -Harry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Backwoodsman Date: 08 Mar 21 - 04:03 PM And this is nothing more than opium for the masses, a distraction for the dullard cap-doffers, forelock-tuggers, and flag-worshippers. In simple words, it’s a pile of horse-shit, and best avoided. IMHO, of yourse, and YMMV. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Mar 21 - 04:12 PM I've ended up watching Masterchef instead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 04:20 PM We're on the last two episodes of 'Engrenages'series 4.called "Spiral" in English. A Parisian cop series. Good if anyone wants to binge watch something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Senoufou Date: 08 Mar 21 - 06:06 PM It seems to be on numerous channels but I refuse to watch it, not a bit interested. I'm watching 'Classic Who Wants To Be A Millionaire' and being insufferably smug when I know the answer and the contestant doesn't. The bloke on earlier this evening didn't know in which US state is Death Valley. Duh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 08 Mar 21 - 08:20 PM For someone who didn't watch it. Allan has an incredible amount to say about it. And quite a few red herrings flying through the commentary as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Malcolm Storey Date: 08 Mar 21 - 08:24 PM Should the whole of the current royal family be wiped out by the lurgi or covid - whichever comes first - then a German postmistress will probably be the next queen or maybe Trump - who knows? Our succession system makes about as much sense as the American election system. By the way it is reported that 17+ million watched the programme. That means nearly 50 million didn't - nuff said! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 08 Mar 21 - 08:41 PM Fewer people sit down in front of a television to get their news today. There will be multiple outlets (the interview also streamed on the "O" channel on cable, for example). The numbers will grow over time. From the Wall Street Journal: Whether the interview will cause a more sympathetic light to be shone on Ms. Markle and Prince Harry for their decision to leave England for California remains to be seen. But it reaffirmed Ms. Winfrey’s status as America’s grand inquisitor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jeri Date: 08 Mar 21 - 08:44 PM Stilly, folks who "don't care" are proving their apathy by making some fairly vehement commentary. Like "the interview was stupid, the thread is stupid, so I'm going to post a bunch to it." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jeri Date: 08 Mar 21 - 08:50 PM I think it was good to get their side of the story out. The only thing we've been getting is tabloid crap and rumors, which is likely all what some people want to hear, but... Oprah's interviewing was bothering me a bit. She'd interrupt, and I think "Let him/her finish!". But she's the professional, and the questions went good places. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Mar 21 - 08:55 PM I note that Mrs Steve has recorded it. Most of the juicy bits have been flooding the news bulletins all day. There appears to me to be a goodly dash of insincerity running through the whole thing. It's the spectacle, stupid! The theatrical pause from Oprah when Meghan stiltedly made the skin colour claim, then "...Wow...". The laughably leading line of questions about the suicidal feelings... Still, to be fair, and before the yank ultra-analysts go for my throat, I suppose I'd better stop there until I've watched it end to tedious end. Maybe. I shouldn't judge, even though I appear to be viscerally on Meghan's side. But I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when some of those alleged adverse comments about skin colour, etc., were made. Context is everything.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Rapparee Date: 08 Mar 21 - 09:01 PM Frankly, I don't know either of them or any of their family and will probably never meet any of them. And, frankly, I don't give a rodent's rectum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Mar 21 - 09:06 PM But it leavens the dull flatbread which is life, as does your rodent's rectum point. I hope you haven't copyrighted that... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 09 Mar 21 - 02:19 AM Steve hits the nail on the head. If comments were made suggesting the hope that a baby was not too dark skinned then yes it would be racist. And that of course is far from impossible. Though as yet it is a very vague someone said something from a one sided staged interview. On the other hand if the comments were of the type "I wonder if the baby will look more like Meghan or Harry" then it is the kind of comment every family makes before the arrival of a baby. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jack Campin Date: 09 Mar 21 - 02:39 AM Haven't seen any of it, and won't, but it seems a common reaction from UK viewers was not to the interview but to the adverts - UK viewers never ordinarily see American TV advertising. Ads for prescription drugs? WTF??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: The Sandman Date: 09 Mar 21 - 03:28 AM I agree with jack. ah, the pharmaceutical industry. In the USA, it is more obvious what goes on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: The Sandman Date: 09 Mar 21 - 03:43 AM mean while the attention is off prince andrew, its all very clever |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 09 Mar 21 - 06:02 AM I agree with Sandman. The real royal scandal at the moment is not that a pushy mum hasn't seen honours thrown at her wee darling or that they are having to actually pay for their own security - it is that Andrew hasn't been forced to go to the US and answer these very serious accusations and help the US law authorities with their investigation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Mar 21 - 06:19 AM Wading through the froth of outrage from both sides of this argument is quite entertaining (you know me: entertainment is the only useful thing I can ever extract from the royal clownery). Here's a great example taken from the Guardian website, penned by a chap called Archie (would you believe) Bland: "Among the public, too, the split in opinion appeared to align with familiar dividing lines, with 71% of Brexit supporters viewing the interview as inappropriate against 37% of remainers, according to a snap YouGov poll..." Heheh. Who'd have thought it! Who'd have thought of even asking! The piece also points out that sympathy for Meghan is easier to find on the US side of the Atlantic and among the young generally. I think I might be slightly more on her side meself but I'm not up for too much dwelling on it. Then there's always Piers Morgan of course... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Mar 21 - 06:23 AM I've just had a great idea. Let's do a thing akin to a prisoner swap: Anne Sacoolas for Prince Andrew! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Backwoodsman Date: 09 Mar 21 - 07:23 AM ”Among the public, too, the split in opinion appeared to align with familiar dividing lines, with 71% of Brexit supporters viewing the interview as inappropriate against 37% of remainers, according to a snap YouGov poll..." Mmmmm, very appropriate...I quote from my earlier post - ”A distraction for the dullard cap-doffers, forelock-tuggers, and flag-worshippers”. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Howard Jones Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:09 AM My thought was where was Harry in all of this? Why did he apparently not prepare her for what to expect as part of the Royal Family? Was he afraid he'd lose her if she knew what she was getting into? And who was preventing her from seeking treatment when she was feeling suicidal? Harry had therapy without the roof falling in, and it would be even less remarkable for an American, who we believe are all in therapy anyway. Had he no authority in his own household to call a doctor for her? Her other grievances seemed to be largely insignificant, and showed no understanding (still) of how things work. The Palace's response to newspaper tittle-tattle is to ignore it, except in the most egregious situations - a tale about a pre-wedding tiff between future sisters-in-law (surely a common enough occurance) would not merit a denial. Archie was never entitled to be called a prince. Whilst Harry may be the son and brother of future kings, he is now some way down the pecking order, and his children even further. Having a title would have no bearing on the provision of security. It must come as a shock to have to start bearing so many costs themselves, but they'll just have to get by like ordinary mult-millionaires. My biggest question is, what did they expect to achieve by it? It may have done them no harm in the US, but any reconciliation with the family must now be a long way off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Charmion's brother Andrew Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:12 AM "There is nothing to see here, folks. Move along." This whole thing is bait for people who cannot operate computers, and clickbait for those who can. I do not click on the links. They point to the foetid offspring of Robin Leech's "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" that polluted the media in the 1980s with the advent of cable news networks. When it comes up in a BBC, CBC, CNN, or MSNBC teaser, I turn to the Weather Network and check out information that I can use. I can live with Canada being a constitutional monarchy, but Canada's Royal Family is necessarily a more limited set than that supported by the Civil List in the U.K. I was saddened that Megan and Harry found that they could not make life on Vancouver Island work for them, but they would have been private citizens, and the costs of their security requirements could not be imposed on the community there nor on the Canadian public, as they learned after trying to settle in there. (Time spent in reconnaissance would not have been wasted.) I wish them well and hope they find a modus vivendi--modus non vivendi?--with Harry's relations. When that happens, I doubt I will click on the links then, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: gillymor Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:22 AM If these people were truly concerned about the security of their young family perhaps they should be keeping a lower profile and not potentially piquing the interest of all the whackjobs that seem to be running loose in this country at present. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:22 AM Well, Howard, it's as well to remember that we got half the yarn and very little context for the allegations. As I've said before, a friend of a friend of a friend who knows Harry very well thinks that he's, er, not the sharpest knife in the drawer... As for who's entitled to be a prince, etc., I know nothing of the rules and don't give a damn. What's in a name...? They've got more than enough dough to get round any restrictions that not being a prince might impose (I wish I had). I once worked with a bloke who was an important African tribal chief. We all had a lot of fun with that, including him... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Nigel Parsons Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:52 AM Good timing for the release of the sequel: "Coming 2 America". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Big Al Whittle Date: 09 Mar 21 - 09:25 AM I hope you will all lend generous financial support to my projects Harry and Meghan - The concept album Harry and Meghan - the opera If I can raise a couple of million quid, i will book Abbey Road Studio and Covent garden Opera House immediately and start writing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Mar 21 - 10:20 AM The royal gilded cage Meghan found herself living in involved "The Firm" dictating her comings and goings - at one point she had friends in town and wanted to go to lunch but was told she'd been "out too much" already - apparently any public appearance might outshine some other royal members of the family? And she'd been stuck in the house for four months with two outings the entire time. Popular attractive young women have that effect. Her passport, her keys, her driver's license, personal items that one would normally hold onto were held by The Firm. Kate must really love Will to tolerate all of that after growing up outside of the fishbowl. As Meghan said, the "prince" part, whether her son becoming one or her husband continuing to be called a royal prince, had to do with their safety. She was unwilling to do public outings and put a baby "out there" for photo opportunities with no security to protect them. As for the ads during the program - it's odd they would show in another country. And the drug ads are just as annoying here as they are anywhere else. It used to be they couldn't do that, I forget what law now changed, but the advertisements on US TV are getting worse as they are filled with drug and personal care products with a real "ick" factor. It still is forbidden to advertise cigarettes, but just about everything else seems to be out there. That's what the mute button is for. |
