Keeping up with the Markles

[thenewoc]

We have no idea in what context it was asked at the time; all we have to go on is the context in which it was revealed to us - which was during an interview where the mother was talking about events that led her to feeling suicidal and which eventually culminated in her leaving the country.

So yea, if she felt it was relevant to the interview then it's safe to assume she felt it was not an innocuous enquiry.

I think that maybe somewhat conflated since she also spoke about negative press and feeling as though she was trapped which could have been advise to stay indoors to calm press interest in her.

 

[Steedie]

Can't help it, m'lud. Born white, therefore racist. I'm just part of the racist system.

Not one piece of furniture in my home is black. That alone speaks volumes.

 

[Hotwired]

We have no idea in what context it was asked at the time; all we have to go on is the context in which it was revealed to us - which was during an interview where the mother was talking about events that led her to feeling suicidal and which eventually culminated in her leaving the country.

So yea, if she felt it was relevant to the interview then it's safe to assume she felt it was not an innocuous enquiry.

Imagine the context Harry felt it was ok to relay this information to his wife (apparently without him challenging it) and what he thinks of it being subsequently broadcast on a chat show and headline material.

Bad context but didn't stand up about it? Awkward.
Neutral context? Life crippling embarrassment at this result.

 

[Lysander]

We have no idea in what context it was asked at the time; all we have to go on is the context in which it was revealed to us - which was during an interview where the mother was talking about events that led her to feeling suicidal and which eventually culminated in her leaving the country.

So yea, if she felt it was relevant to the interview then it's safe to assume she felt it was not an innocuous enquiry.

The issue is that so many of her comments, so much of the interview, is open to interpretation. There is very little there that is concrete. She gives just enough of a comment to make a situation, or people, look very bad, but not enough to back it up.

I am even dubious about her being suicidal. She said, "I didn't want to be alive anymore", which, to me, just means she didn't want to be in her current situation. It's passive. Active would be "I wanted to kill myself". The former is just a wish out of the current issue(s), the latter is an active, determined response. Did she or Oprah use the words "suicide" at all or "suicidal thoughts"?

Again, interpretation. She gives nothing concrete but enough to cause plenty of media outrage.

 

[RxR]

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

 

[Lysander]

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

But who actually scorned her in the Royal Family? This is what this whole debate is about. She has received plenty of scorn in the media, yes, but not from the Royals.

It's quite telling that no-one can pinpoint one occasion.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

The issue is that so many of her comments, so much of the interview, is open to interpretation. There is very little there that is concrete. She gives just enough of a comment to make a situation, or people, look very bad, but not enough to back it up.

She knew exactly what the implications where when mentioning that information, there's nothing ambiguous about it. She viewed the inquiry as racist in it's intent and she wanted to expose that during the interview.

I am even dubious about her being suicidal. She said, "I didn't want to be alive anymore", which, to me, just means she didn't want to be in her current situation.

The only comfort I can take from that comment is that you don't work for the Samaritans. I mean seriously, have a listen to yourself.

 

[Lysander]

She viewed the inquiry as racist in it's intent and she wanted to expose that during the interview.

Yes, her view. Doesn't mean she's right.

The only comfort I can take from that comment is that you don't work for the Samaritans. I mean seriously, have a listen to yourself.

Oh, I've been there. Through various bouts of therapy, prescribed medication, it was pretty awful. That's one of the reasons I'm dubious. Again, you haven't come back with an answer to say, "yes, they said 'suicidal'", just threw the comment back at me. Again, interpretation. If we had something solid this debate would have been over long ago. That's how she plays people

 

[thenewoc]

I just don't think they thought out the consequences of their decision to step back from public life, especially since they've exchanged one form of it for another. They're now giving up their time to do interviews as it's likely the only way they're going to earn enough to support the costs around them but they could have done this in the UK. If they'd made some time to court the more responsible journalists then they'd have shaped things more to their needs and created a platform for their causes etc. The rest of the time they could have lived a lot of their time on various luxury islands as Princess Margaret did.

 

[Dolph]

The only comfort I can take from that comment is that you don't work for the Samaritans. I mean seriously, have a listen to yourself.

I'm guessing you've never heard of threats of suicide as a means of control either.

https://breakthesilencedv.org/suicide-as-emotional-abuse-threats-suicide-control/

Linking threats of suicide to demands for change in others (if you leave me I, or if you keep talking to X for example) is a red flag of unhealthy behaviour.

Note, for the avoidance of doubt, that this doesn't mean that suicidal thoughts or threats shouldn't be taken seriously, just that it cannot be taken as as a dispute end point that instantly makes the other party at fault. The default answer given to someone who says 'my partner says they are going to kill themself' should never be 'you should do what they want then'.

 

[thenewoc]

But who actually scorned her in the Royal Family? This is what this whole debate is about. She has received plenty of scorn in the media, yes, but not from the Royals.

It's quite telling that no-one can pinpoint one occasion.

I think she regards not being afforded security protection in return for doing nout as being scorned. Well, chooses to self appoint her entitlement to the establishment and Queen when it's not her place to make the rules.

 

[413x]

Can we just bin off the royal family.
I also see this as a non story.
The BBC website had 5 stories at top all related to this.

Surely we've moved past the concept of a monarchy.

I cannae be bothered to argue anything about this non-story, but everyone should read the Irish Times take just for the opening if nothing else:

Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has a house daubed in clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown.

Beyond this, it’s the stuff of children’s stories. Having a queen as head of state is like having a pirate or a mermaid or Ewok as head of state. What’s the logic? Bees have queens, but the queen bee lays all of the eggs in the hive. The queen of the Britons has laid just four British eggs, and one of those is the sweatless creep Prince Andrew, so it’s hardly deserving of applause.

The contemporary royals have no real power. They serve entirely to enshrine classism in the British nonconstitution. They live in high luxury and low autonomy, cosplaying as their ancestors, and are the subject of constant psychosocial projection from people mourning the loss of empire. They’re basically a Rorschach test that the tabloids hold up in order to gauge what level of hysterical [batpoopery] their readers are capable of at any moment in time.​

 

[Ahleckz]

the number of low key racists really beginning to show on this forum lol

They don’t even pretend to hide it anymore.

I’ve noticed some of the historically better posters have now completely turned into blithering idiots when it comes to race and gender issues.

 

[ZG002]

This all just looks like a guy who lost his mother at a young age being manipulated by a woman and separating himself from family and friends.

Just on a very large and public scale.

The racism and mental health cards have been played and there is no going back now, he is stuck with what comes next and best hope the bed he has made doesn't get bored and leave him.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Oh, I've been there. Through various bouts of therapy, prescribed medication, it was pretty awful.

Have you just made that up to win an argument on the internet?

 

[Lysander]

Can we just bin off the royal family.
I also see this as a non story.
The BBC website had 5 stories at top all related to this.

Surely we've moved past the concept of a monarchy.

I agree that they don't really appear to do much. That said, the Queen is head of state and has to give assent to laws which is a pretty powerful role. They are also undoubtedly good for tourism and form an important cultural and historical emblem of the UK. When many foreigners think of the UK, they surely think of the Queen and the royals, Buckingham Palace and all that stuff. It's kind of baked into the country's identity. That said, I'm not a Royalist, I'm kind of indifferent to them.

This all just looks like a guy who lost his mother at a young age being manipulated by a woman and separating himself from family and friends.

Just on a very large and public scale.

The racism and mental health cards have been played and there is no going back now, he is stuck with what comes next and best hope the bed he has made doesn't get bored and leave him.

The is the most accurate and succinct reading of the situation there can be. I think that, ultimately, she will leave him, and that will be a terrible tragedy for him and his mental health. I am sure his family will understand and welcome him back though.

Have you just made that up to win an argument on the internet?

No.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Then they didn’t know why they joined up - obviously for some of the wrong reasons.

All service personnel ( Including Harry ) swear an oath to the Monarchy.

Randy Andy will answer for allegations against him in time I’m sure , in the media’s eyes there’s a bigger villain at the moment . Sorry 2.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Britis...ty-to-the-monarch-in-their-oath-of-allegiance

I think I swore an oath in the Scouts, well I was only in them 6 months but pretty sure we did. And the Army Cadets. Thing is that oath is for while you serve. And really you are just swearing to serve your nation, she is the head of State for that nation. This almost cult like devotion just doesn't sit well with me at all. I've heard an ex service member literally threaten violence when someone criticised the royal family.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

No.

Why should i believe you're being genuine?

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Asking the question isn't racist. It's only being projected as such by those of colour pushing an agenda.

Harry had the conversation. He clearly knew how the comment way made and didn't like it. You just don't want it to mean that so will dress it up as an agenda.

 

[thenewoc]

Harry had the conversation. He clearly knew how the comment way made and didn't like it. You just don't want it to mean that so will dress it up as an agenda.

He didn't give any account to my knowledge of responding to his interpretation of what was said. If it was so clear cut and unequivocally racist why didn't he report it at the time.