George and Amal Clooney DON'T know Prince Harry and Meghan, claims wedding guest

by Admin Mon 26 Oct 2020, 17:29

Taking this with a pinch of salt . . .

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[size=34]'How do you know Harry and Meghan? We don't!' George and Amal Clooney made a VERY intriguing revelation to Princess Diana's former flatmate at the Sussexes' wedding, Rachel Johnson claims[/size]

George and Amal Clooney attended the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's wedding

Reportedly told Diana's friend Carolyn Bartholomew they didn't know the couple

Carolyn is Harry's godmother and was Diana's flatmate when she met Charles

By STEPHANIE LINNING FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 16:54, 26 October 2020

George and Amal Clooney confessed they didn't know the Duke and Duchess of Sussex moments before the royal wedding, it is claimed.
Hollywood actor George, 59, and human rights barrister Amal, 42, were among the 600 guests who witnessed Prince Harry, 36, and Meghan Markle, 39, exchange vows at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, in May 2018.

In a sign of their apparent closeness to the couple, the Clooneys were given a 'prime pew' next to Lady Carolyn Warren, who is married to John Warren, the Queen's bloodstock adviser, and opposite Princess Margaret's son Viscount Linley.
However the Clooneys reportedly told other guests they didn't know the happy couple well at all, according to Rachel Johnson.
[img(634.011364px,925.011364px)][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

+4

Hollywood actor George, 59, and human rights barrister Amal, 42, were among the 600 guests invited to witness Prince Harry and Meghan Markle exchange vows at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, in May 2018. The couple were given a 'prime pew' opposite the family
[img(634.011364px,423.01136399999996px)][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

+4

The Clooneys reportedly told other guests they didn't know the happy couple well at all, according to Rachel Johnson. Pictured, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle at their wedding
'There’s a story doing the rounds that while Carolyn Bartholomew, Diana’s former flatmate, was waiting for the wedding service to start, she turned to the couple alongside her and asked how they knew Harry or Meghan,' Johnson writes in online publication AirMail. '"We don’t," the Clooneys answered brightly.'

Carolyn, who attended the wedding with husband William, is Harry’s godmother and was one of three young women who shared Diana’s Earl’s Court flat and was privy to the secret when she first met Charles.
She was given one of the best seats in the house, opposite Prince William and Prince Charles.
Johnson added there were plenty of other celebrity invitees, including Oprah Winfrey, James Corden, and David and Victoria Beckham who 'could not possibly be old and dear friends of the bridal couple'.
Oprah Winfrey, Serena Williams and her husband Alexis Ohanian were seated near the Clooneys while the Beckhams, James Corden and his wife were further away.
[img(634.011364px,958.011364px)][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

+4

The Clooneys reportedly made the comment to Prince Harry's godmother Carolyn Bartholomew, who attended the wedding with husband William (pictured in 2004)
George and Amal caused a stir when they arrived at the royal wedding and were among the exclusive 200-strong guest list invited to party the night away at Frogmore House. George is said to have danced with both Meghan and Kate Middleton, 39.
There are conflicting reports about how well the Clooneys knew the couple.
Finding Freedom, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's biography, claims the Clooneys hosted the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on at least two occasions at their British home in Sonning, in Oxfordshire.
The book adds that Harry and Meghan brought their dogs with them, and that George and Amal loved to take friends out by the lake.
[img(634.011364px,959.011364px)][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

+4

Carolyn was one of three young women who shared Diana’s Earl’s Court flat and was privy to the secret when she first met Charles. Pictured, Diana and Carolyn at a friend's 1991 wedding
'There, they had a secluded decked area and inside was a lounge decorated with traditional club wood paneling, heavy drapes, dark velvets, plush chairs, and a bar.'
The biography also claims the Clooneys invited the royals to join them at Lake Como just weeks after the royal wedding, flying out on George's private jet.
During the three-day visit, a source said, 'Meghan and Amal spent a lot of time relaxing by the pool and playing with the twins while George and Harry checked out George's motorbike collection. Harry took one of them out with one of his protection officers. George recently had an accident, so he wasn't back on his bike yet.''
'The duke and duchess weren't the only guests that weekend. Eugenie and her fiance, Jack Brooksbank, were already at the villa when Harry and Meghan arrived, their visits overlapping briefly.'
Amal also hired a private jet to fly Meghan home from her New York baby shower in February 2019.

by Admin Mon 26 Oct 2020, 17:46

Must admit, I'm kind of perplexed by this. On the one hand, there's the Mail's nasty campaign (completely not at all racist, you understand?) to utterly trash Meghan's reputation - in this case insinuating that she's just invited celebs she doesn't know because she wanted a celeb wedding. Although, would they quote someone if it weren't true?

But on the other hand, there's the fact George's links with Harry were a bit tangential and i think we were all surprised to see them at the wedding.

But on the other, other hand, there's the fact that George just seems to know absolutely everyone there is, so why not Harry and Meghan?

by Admin Mon 26 Oct 2020, 18:05

Although, there was this 'blind item revealed' back in April. Make of it what you will:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

March 29, 2020

This A+/A list mostly movie actor has a much closer connection to this former B+ list actress than was previously known. As was his custom back in the day, he would often test out barely there celebrities. The actress was one of those, but he didn't enjoy his time with her and instead, started hooking up with the former wrestler turned host.

George Clooney/Meghan Markle/Stacy Keibler

by party animal - not! Mon 26 Oct 2020, 19:44

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by annemarie Mon 26 Oct 2020, 20:11

[size=34]'How do you know Harry and Meghan?' 'We don't!' The very intriguing revelation George and Amal Clooney made to Princess Diana's former flatmate at the Sussexes' wedding, according to Rachel Johnson[/size]

George and Amal Clooney attended the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's wedding
Reportedly told Diana's friend Carolyn Bartholomew they didn't know the couple
Carolyn is Harry's godmother and was Diana's flatmate when she met Charles

By STEPHANIE LINNING FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 12:54 EDT, 26 October 2020 | UPDATED: 13:41 EDT, 26 October 2020

George and Amal Clooney confessed they didn't know the Duke and Duchess of Sussex moments before the royal wedding, it is claimed.
Hollywood actor George, 59, and human rights barrister Amal, 42, were among the 600 guests who witnessed Prince Harry, 36, and Meghan Markle, 39, exchange vows at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, in May 2018.
In a sign of their apparent closeness to the couple, the Clooneys were given a 'prime pew' next to Lady Carolyn Warren, who is married to John Warren, the Queen's bloodstock adviser, and opposite Princess Margaret's son Viscount Linley.
However the Clooneys reportedly told other guests they didn't know the happy couple well at all, according to Rachel Johnson.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

+4

Hollywood actor George, 59, and human rights barrister Amal, 42, were among the 600 guests invited to witness Prince Harry and Meghan Markle exchange vows at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, in May 2018. The couple were given a 'prime pew' opposite the family
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

+4

The Clooneys reportedly told other guests they didn't know the happy couple well at all, according to Rachel Johnson. Pictured, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle at their wedding
'There’s a story doing the rounds that while Carolyn Bartholomew, Diana’s former flatmate, was waiting for the wedding service to start, she turned to the couple alongside her and asked how they knew Harry or Meghan,' Johnson writes in online publication AirMail. '"We don’t," the Clooneys answered brightly.'

Carolyn, who attended the wedding with husband William, is Harry’s godmother and was one of three young women who shared Diana’s Earl’s Court flat and was privy to the secret when she first met Charles.

She was given one of the best seats in the house, opposite Prince William and Prince Charles.
Johnson added there were plenty of other celebrity invitees, including Oprah Winfrey, James Corden, and David and Victoria Beckham who 'could not possibly be old and dear friends of the bridal couple'.
Oprah Winfrey, Serena Williams and her husband Alexis Ohanian were seated near the Clooneys while the Beckhams, James Corden and his wife were further away.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

+4

The Clooneys reportedly made the comment to Prince Harry's godmother Carolyn Bartholomew, who attended the wedding with husband William (pictured in 2004)
George and Amal caused a stir when they arrived at the royal wedding and were among the exclusive 200-strong guest list invited to party the night away at Frogmore House. George is said to have danced with both Meghan and Kate Middleton, 39.
There are conflicting reports about how well the Clooneys knew the couple.
Finding Freedom, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's biography, claims the Clooneys hosted the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on at least two occasions at their British home in Sonning, in Oxfordshire.
The book adds that Harry and Meghan brought their dogs with them, and that George and Amal loved to take friends out by the lake.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

+4

Carolyn was one of three young women who shared Diana’s Earl’s Court flat and was privy to the secret when she first met Charles. Pictured, Diana and Carolyn at a friend's 1991 wedding
'There, they had a secluded decked area and inside was a lounge decorated with traditional club wood paneling, heavy drapes, dark velvets, plush chairs, and a bar.'
The biography also claims the Clooneys invited the royals to join them at Lake Como just weeks after the royal wedding, flying out on George's private jet.
During the three-day visit, a source said, 'Meghan and Amal spent a lot of time relaxing by the pool and playing with the twins while George and Harry checked out George's motorbike collection. Harry took one of them out with one of his protection officers. George recently had an accident, so he wasn't back on his bike yet.''
'The duke and duchess weren't the only guests that weekend. Eugenie and her fiance, Jack Brooksbank, were already at the villa when Harry and Meghan arrived, their visits overlapping briefly.'
Amal also hired a private jet to fly Meghan home from her New York baby shower in February 2019.

by annemarie Mon 26 Oct 2020, 20:18

Intriguing, no they said they don't know them well, not that they didn't know them. I must have missed the rule
that everyone you invite to your wedding has to be an old close friend.

How does this Carolyn know who exactly Harry knows? This is ridiculous two years later this is being talked about.
This article came about because of Harry's article in GQ magazine. Anything they do is countered with some nasty
article by the fail.

by party animal - not! Mon 26 Oct 2020, 20:32

Carolyn is Harry's godmother and a firm friend of Diana, and her husband is advisor to the

Queen on the breeding of horses for racing. She used to share a flat with Diana at the time she

got engaged to Prince Charles

by annemarie Mon 26 Oct 2020, 21:07

I was talking about the reporter Rachel got the names mixed up sorry about that.

by party animal - not! Mon 26 Oct 2020, 21:25

Ah, okay, Annemarie.

Well, Rachel Johnson is Prime Minister Boris Johnson's sister, who is a journalist, television

presenter and author and is well acquainted with Carolyn.....

by What Would He Say Tue 27 Oct 2020, 00:56

Oh George!!!

Cat and bag baby ...

by What Would He Say Tue 27 Oct 2020, 00:58

Obvs ... very memorable... well, you can’t remember them all. Maybe she didn’t even ring a bell ... so he told the truth ...

by annemarie Tue 27 Oct 2020, 01:18

He probably never met her in the first place.

by LizzyNY Tue 27 Oct 2020, 02:48

I would've thought Meghan was too young for George to be interested in her that way. He never came off as a cradle snatcher. Leo DiCaprio maybe, but we're talking George here.

I think they must have known each other to some degree or they wouldn't have been invited to the wedding and after-party, and G&A wouldn't have invited them to the house in Sonning or to Como - and Amal wouldn't have been invited to the shower. (Especially the shower. You don't invite strangers to that.) Maybe when they said they didn't know them they were just trying to be discreet.

by starlove Tue 27 Oct 2020, 09:16

Am sure 100% that neither Oprah or G clooney by link "amal" known M & Prince Harry before the wedding, no matter what was written in press there were not friends or met on any level may be the rumors of g and m are true or not i do not know but it could been.
Ah and the invition for the shower they already met and stayed in their house for vacation too at that point they known each other to some level

by Admin Tue 27 Oct 2020, 09:49

I've just merged the two duplicate threads on the subject.

by Admin Tue 27 Oct 2020, 09:52

annemarie wrote:Intriguing, no they said they don't know them well, not that they didn't know them. I must have missed the rule
that everyone you invite to your wedding has to be an old close friend.

How does this Carolyn know who exactly Harry knows? This is ridiculous two years later this is being talked about.
This article came about because of Harry's article in GQ magazine. Anything they do is countered with some nasty
article by the fail.

I get that you don't have invite only old, very close friends to your wedding, but it's a little odd to invite complete strangers, isn't it?

The journalist was directly quoting Carolyn, who spoke to George and Amal who told her they didn't know Harry or Meghan. Then later in the article, its amended to they didn't know Harry or Meghan well. Not sure which is the right story.

by party animal - not! Tue 27 Oct 2020, 10:09

Right.

I think the connection is Jack Brooksbank, who represents Casamigos in Britain, and wife

Princess Eugenie, Harry's cousin. They would already have known them, and interesting that

they were already at the Como house when H and M turned up. George and Amal already knew

their work schedule meant they couldn't go to their wedding.

Other big connnections: hairdressers and Soho House.

As for the later baby party, Serena Williams paid for that, and Amal was already in NYC

working, with plane!

plane.....

by party animal - not! Tue 27 Oct 2020, 10:20

You're right, Katie, it is odd, but St George's Chapel is HUGE and Meghan's family for her side

of the aisle were few and far between for whatever reason. Also interesting that people like

James Corden and Stephen Fry who have done a lot of charity work with Harry was put in the

main body of the church.....

by Admin Tue 27 Oct 2020, 10:23

Thanks, PAN. I knew there was a social connection between them.

So they were in adjacent social circles, but it's not clear now if they'd actually met before the wedding, although I can't remember when it was that H&M were supposed to have visited the Clooneys' house in Sonning.

party animal - not! wrote:
You're right, Katie, it is odd, but St George's Chapel is HUGE and Meghan's family for her side of the aisle were few and far between for whatever reason.

That's the point that the Fail are making. At the time, it was said that there wouldn't be enough places for all of her family to come. That's why there's this uproar that they supposedly invited guests they didn't (or hardly) know.

I know the Fail is shit-stirring, but if it's true that the Clooneys really did say at the wedding that they didn't know H&M (and I think it's unlikely that they'd have just invented that quote), then a hornets nest has been overturned. This story is in every newspaper, both UK and internationally.

I wonder if we'll get a response from George on this? He's inadvertently hurt the Sussexes with a comment he probably doesn't even remember making, but would have assumed was inconsequential small talk at a wedding that would be kept private.

by Admin Tue 27 Oct 2020, 10:33

Ms Johnson [prime minister, Boris Johnson's sister - Katiedot] wrote about the Clooney’s surprising confession on the website AirMail, as well as claiming how the stars at the Sussexes wedding could not have been close friends.

She said: “In 2018, there was a splashy royal wedding full of celebrities that could not possibly be old and dear friends of the bridal couple.

“Oprah, Posh and Becks, James Corden, et al., went to Harry and Meghan’s nuptials, and there’s a story doing the rounds that while Carolyn Bartholomew, Diana’s former flatmate, was waiting for the wedding service to start, she turned to the couple alongside her and asked how they knew Harry or Meghan.

“’We don’t,’ the Clooney’s answered brightly.”

by Lilia Tue 27 Oct 2020, 12:09

I’ve read somewhere (probably the amalalamuddinstyle someone who says know her well) that it’s baria who got the invitation and then told George &amal to attend the wedding instead of her.

by annemarie Tue 27 Oct 2020, 12:16

I'm guessing the amendment was made because the first one was lie.

Now why bring this up now, after two and a half years.

My take they can't say Harry and Meghan are taking money from the tax payers , they haven't since they
stepped down in March.

They can't talk about the cost of the run down shack that was given to them as a home.
Harry paid that back just to shut down the haters and press. There is nothing to hold over their heads Harry
made sure of that.

Meghan wasn't wanted and treated like shit so Harry took his wife and Child out of there.
for people that are irrelevant the press can't leave them alone.

I guess everyone needs to make money and attacking Meghan is the way they do it.

by Admin Tue 27 Oct 2020, 12:30

Lilia wrote:I’ve read somewhere (probably the amalalamuddinstyle someone who says know her well) that it’s baria who got the invitation and then told George &amal to attend the wedding instead of her.

Gosh, that sent me on a search! I think this comment is what you may be remembering? There's no way in a royal wedding that an invitation can be 'passed on' unless the royal couple were happy to do so.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Soos
MAY 20, 2018 AT 6:18 PM
The connection is via Baria , their recent (last year) charity connection which we will be hearing more of soon – and Amal and Meghan connection marrying into high profile men. I want to be very clear here GEORGE CLOONEY was not invited to this wedding he was AMAL’s plus one! Get it Amoula!

Stay tuned for more amal and Meghan connection ladies .

Here's what the Fail had to say at the time:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So why WERE the Beckhams and Clooneys (not to mention Chloe Madeley and James Corden) invited to the royal wedding? From A-listers to plus-ones, how the guests knew Harry and Meghan
By NEAL SEARS FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 23:03, 20 May 2018

Celebrity spotters were not disappointed. At times the wedding resembled a Hollywood party. Here we examine the possible links that led to the stars' presence:

George Clooney
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

+61
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Clooney, 57, may have endeared himself to Harry through his charity work, which focuses on human rights in the developing world. Like the prince, the Hollywood star is one half of a transatlantic couple, being married to... Amal Clooney. The 40-year-old British human rights lawyer combines high glamour and designer dresses with work on serious international legal issues. It was Amal who introduced Meghan to her hairdresser Miguel Perez, who carried out styling for many of the Duchess' public appearances before the wedding

by party animal - not! Tue 27 Oct 2020, 12:38

A 'shack', Annemarie!!? It is a Georgian Grade 11 listed building from1801 with land, which previous to the changes, was worth £10

million.

by LizzyNY Tue 27 Oct 2020, 15:18

Other than the curiosity factor for royal watchers and fans of one or the other of the people involved, why does any of this matter? Does it actually affect anything? (Not being disrespectful - I'm just curious.)

by Admin Tue 27 Oct 2020, 15:38

I guess in real terms, it doesn't matter Lizzy, but in the world of celebrity, this is HUGE! It's blown up across the english-speaking media world.

The reason is, certain publications deeply, deeply dislike Meghan (and claim that it's a perfectly reasonable dislike and not at all because they're racist or don't like being sued). This story shows up Meghan as being such a big a star-fuck (if that term still exists) that she even refused to have her own family at the wedding in order to make room for celebs. Basically, they're painting her as shallow and celeb-obsessed.

by annemarie Tue 27 Oct 2020, 15:52

The article wants to paint her like that. None of us know when or how they all met. It's just another way to attack
Meghan . Racism is at the root of this hatred , also the fact that she was willing to work hard and is intelligent. I'm not
one who believes blood is thicker than water, I know myself that I have friends who are better to me than family. If
she didn't want them there especially that half sister then I'm sure she had her reasons.
The other thing is the press are angry they didn't think that Harry and Meghan would leave. Now they aren't making
the money they were with the lies they were telling on Meghan.

by LizzyNY Tue 27 Oct 2020, 16:28

I get the media's motivation. What I'm wondering is what, if any, real-life consequences there could be from all of this hoopla (other than being click-bait for the outlets that publish it).

by annemarie Tue 27 Oct 2020, 16:58

Meghan receives death threats . These articles feed the trolls and haters of Meghan.
I have seen on twitter where a troll wanted to send Meghan and Archie a letter with Anthrax in it.
They even threaten a baby. These people are sick and yes some get paid to harass Harry and Meghan.

by party animal - not! Tue 27 Oct 2020, 17:05

Here's an article than may explain a few things - and Meghan did NOT sue this lady....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Admin Tue 27 Oct 2020, 17:24

LizzyNY wrote:I get the media's motivation. What I'm wondering is what, if any, real-life consequences there could be from all of this hoopla (other than being click-bait for the outlets that publish it).

Real-world consequences? Difficult to say how this'll play out at the moment. It adds a boost to all the people who don't like her and claim she's a fake personality and fameho. This then justifies peoples' dislike of her and opens the door to the tabloid media to run bad stories about her ["See, she's not a nice person; she invites celebs she doesn't even know instead of her own family to her wedding. Now read further dirt we've got about her"].

I can't tell you what the ultimate consequences will be, but I don't think it's a good idea for the press to encourage the public to hate a member of the royal family.

by Admin Tue 27 Oct 2020, 17:45

party animal - not! wrote:Here's an article than may explain a few things - and Meghan did NOT sue this lady....
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Interesting article, PAN. To me, this says that a celebrity journalists doesn't understand her own profession. Do we believe that the writer can't figure out that an actress in little-known TV series needs publicity, but a member of the royal family doesn't? Do we? I don't.

One of the reasons I didn't take to Meghan in the beginning is because I felt that as an actress, she simply had absolutely no clue about the difference in fame for celebrities and royalty. Much the same way that Donal Trump doesn't understand the difference between the type of publicity needed as the host of a reality TV show and as a president.

[I'm now mounting my hobby horse here, so feel free to skip to the next comments]. Royalty doesn't need publicity. If the Queen were never to appear in public again, never were to make a statement or be seen at all, she'd still be our queen. She'd still be our head of state. She'd still be the spiritual leader of the Anglican religion in this country (tabloid journalists always forget she's the head of the church, as the pope is for Catholics). That's not to say the royals are fine with bad publicity, because they need the people of this country to still want them and pay for them. We flirted with being a republic, decided we didn't like it and went back to being a monarchy - I think the only country in the world to do so. We don't have to like our royals, but we do seem to need them, somehow.

I'm pretty sure Meghan didn't get that - and quite possibly still doesn't.

I'd also guess that Meghan thought she'd get mostly good publicity, because, why not? She's a good person. A likeable person. Hasn't done anything majorly wrong in life. What's not to like? I think it must have come as an incredible shock to see how vituperative the press were, when some decided to take against her (for very good reasons that they couldn't quite explain, but most definitely had nothing to do with being racist, oh no). As an actress, the worst that could really have happened would be getting a bad review from a journalists, but with her friendly personality, there'd be a good chance she could smooth that out with them. But as a princess she had no chance because there weren't any really good reasons for not liking her, and you can't respond with logic to someone who's being illogical.

by party animal - not! Tue 27 Oct 2020, 18:19

Mm, I think she wasn't a fan of the protocol that is involved with such a longstanding iconic

family. And hearing as I did that she had fired several long term loyal staff in as many months

possibly did not endear her to many since she was so new to it all - and probably no longer felt

that she was a free spirit.

A lot of people I know - some involved in charity work in Africa - were completely shocked to

see her talking in Botswana to the ITV news crew ( the interviewer Tom Bradby is connected to

the Royal Family) about how she did not just want to survive but 'thrive' as she was standing

next to many women and orphaned children who only got one meal a day - and felt lucky to

just survive and be welcomed the charity! She would maybe have done better if she'd picked

up a little one there. Or if Harry had guided her....

(She and Harry had just arrived by private plane).

by Admin Tue 27 Oct 2020, 18:38

Interestingly, I've just finished reading a book about princess Diana by Lady Colin Campbell (boy, can she ever name drop!!). She (Diana) also got rid of a sizeable chunk of her staff in the first few months and continued to go through staff at a quick clip.

I can only imagine that from Meghan's viewpoint, the palace's approach to public relations (as well as just about everything else) was probably somewhere in the age of dinosaurs compared to Hollywood. Little did she realise that she didn't need the Hollywood approach, though.

by party animal - not! Tue 27 Oct 2020, 18:57

Yes, there are definitely different angles to Diana methinks - I just think that it was such a

shame that her chauffeur was drunk, and that she was not wearing a seat belt......... One of the

things that seems to stand out with any visit or charity the Royal Family is involved in is that

they know that it's their job to concentrate on the other people who have come to see them,

and that is what they are paid to do. The training for that I think is not a doddle!

by Admin Tue 27 Oct 2020, 19:58

True.

Back on topic (kind of), I'm still trying to find royal Clooney connections and came across this old thread from Dec 2015 when George and Amal were at Buckingham palace for the Prince's Trust party: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by annemarie Tue 27 Oct 2020, 20:21

Meghan studied acting and international relations. She graduated with dual degrees. This oh she didn't understand protocol is nonsense. She never said or did anything against protocol.
Meghan did go in and work hard in her role. As for what she said in the interview she was talking about how she felt she said recently she was very tired. I think she would have been fine had the nonsense not gotten ridiculous.
There is no excuse for the way she was treated it is out and out racism. She touched her bump why is she touching her bump. Come on why shouldn't she Kate did the same thing and no one said a word. Meghan loves avocadoes this is causing people to be killed. This is all from the British press.
Then this guy is allowed to call Archie a chimpanzee and when he is just days old no one says anything.
Meghan is intelligent has an opinion and I don't think the palace liked that.
The author lacey even said that Harry and Meghan were treated badly because they were rock stars , people liked them
and wanted to see them that isn't allowed you can't outshine the future king and Queen.
Thankfully , Harry got Meghan and Archie out of there. Now if the British press would stop feeding the hate everything would be good.

by LizzyNY Tue 27 Oct 2020, 21:01

I find this whole thing confusing. I totally understand the motivation of the media. I even have somewhat of an understanding of the attitude of the other royals and the people around them. I do wonder how much and how quickly they expected Meghan to adapt to her role as a royal.

All other considerations aside, I think there would be a major adjustment period for anyone, Brit or American, to the rules and restrictions of royal life - and growing up in the US creates a whole different mindset re:government. Also, being an actor demands a different attitude toward publicity. Maybe nobody explained to her just how different.

The interview PAN posted shows only that an up-and-coming actor met with a tabloid reporter she'd probably never heard of, for a paper she'd never heard of, because her "people" told her to. Part of the job. Get your face out there as much as you can. To think that her feelings about the media 7 years later somehow show that she was "acting" that night is really a stretch - especially considering how media coverage of her has changed.

I guess what I was really wondering about is, since there is little likelihood of Harry ever coming to the throne, why does it matter so much how he and Meghan choose to live? (Other than the rift there is in the family, of course, which is sad.) Other than the recent scandal we rarely hear about Prince Andrew, and we never hear about Edward - at least not over here. So why are these two getting so much (negative) attention? She isn't Wallis Simpson and he isn't (and probably never will be) King.

by party animal - not! Tue 27 Oct 2020, 22:56

Lizzy, Harry has been iconic in the British public's mind ever since the death of his mother and

that long, long very public walk behind his mother's coffin. He has fought for his country in

Afghanistan, lead and created the Invictus Games for injured military personnel worldwide and

done wonderful things in the heart of

Africa with small children where he has often been known to take various girlfriends. And in

many many ways he worked for and helped his grandmother....

And now he's given all or most of this up.........

I'm sure that he's missed

by LizzyNY Wed 28 Oct 2020, 02:05

PAN - I know he did a lot of charity work, as do all the royals, but I don't see why being married means he has to give it all up. There may be some things he did that were royal-related that he can't do any more but couldn't he replace them with other charity work? Would the family object to him doing charity work in the UK?

by annemarie Wed 28 Oct 2020, 03:54

The way I understand it he still has his charities and supports them from Los Angeles. As a matter of fact to show you
the ridiculousness of the press and others, his lawyers recently sent a letter to the fail which says the story was false and defamatory.
They found some General and he claimed Harry had turned his back on the royal marines. Which is a total lie he still supports them. That marine title was given to him by the Queen and they removed it along with all his ceremonial titles when he stepped back .What is even crazier is this general retired 34 years ago.
They had another one who says he wrote to Harry telling him he should come back and help hero veterans who need him. Interestingly enough he went to the press and told them about the letter. O.K you care so much you run to the press.
By the way he has, the Invictus Games, Endeavor awards and Head fit a mental health service for the military. It is amazing how some will simply ignore the truth to out and out lie.

by Admin Wed 28 Oct 2020, 10:45

LizzyNY wrote:I guess what I was really wondering about is, since there is little likelihood of Harry ever coming to the throne, why does it matter so much how he and Meghan choose to live?

Because it sells newspapers. Simple as that. It comes down to cold, hard cash. The media are having a hard time of it - readership is falling, and so too are ad sales. They need to whip up the readers to get them to keep buying the rags (or more commonly nowadays) log in online.

With a member of the royal family, you can go one of two ways: fawning adoration or violent indignation. Unfortunately, indignation sells better, so here we have it. Kate, in her time, was also subject to some really incredibly nasty stories. Luckily for Kate, her major failing was only to be the wrong class (and oh my, how she's been excoriated for that!) but Meghan is not only the wrong class, but the wrong nationality, wrong age (how dare she be older than Harry), wrong profession, wrong marital status (divorced! clearly not a virgin anymore!!), wrong religion and - let's not beat around the bush here - most definitely the wrong colour. Or partly the wrong colour. Basically, there are too many bad things that can be used to attack her with, and attack the media do - but only because they're letting the nasty people in our population give vent to their nasty thoughts. If being nice to Meghan sold more newspapers, they'd do that instead.

I come at this from the point of view of managing a George Clooney fan site for some years. I know a lot of people are frustrated by my hippy approach of not being nasty about the girlfriend du jour (and now Amal). Although they can't see it themselves, posters CHOSE to dislike the girlfriend and then looked for reasons to rationalise that dislike afterwards. And I'm very clear that it was that way round and not the other. Then when I'd ask for people to be reasonable, I'd get plaintive messages about how the nastiness is just a bit of harmless fun and not nasty at all. How can tearing down a person you've never met and who's done nothing to you based on imaginary faults possibly be fun, I wondered?

And so it is with Meghan. For all the reasons given above, but most of all because of her race, people in this country have found it fun to believe the worst things written about her because they've wanted to have reasons to dislike her. When you don't like someone, it's possible - I've seen it so often on this site - to put the worst interpretation on a person's behaviour. Was she smiling at the charity event? Then clearly she's tone-deaf and gloating in the misery of the people she's supposed to be there to support. Was she not smiling at the charity event? Clearly she's a miserable cow who can't even be bothered to make the effort to look happy for the the poor people she was there to support. Was she sometimes smiling and sometimes not at the charity event? Clearly she's a fake, putting on an act for when she thought the cameras were watching. And so on.

She literally can't win. Kate decided to suck it up and ride it out. Meghan decided she wasn't going to put up with that shit.

And yes, I'm sure there's some personal animus against her in the media. Many journalists have massive egos (they deny it of course, because they can't see it themselves) and here comes this woman who - for all the reasons mentioned above, but most especially her race - should be their social inferior and yet is set 'above' them in the social hierarchy and doesn't have the grace to kiss the journalists' backsides enough*!!!

I can also believe there was an element of home sickness with Meghan too. I've lived abroad 20 years and it's not easy moving to another country, no matter how fabulous the country is. I can't imagine how much worse it must be if the people (or the press, at least) turn against you. And you've just given birth and are feeling every inch of those thousands of miles between you and your home. I can see how staying in the UK must have been unbearable at times. Now it's Harry who's the stranger in a strange land. At the least he'll understand how Meghan felt and hopefully that'll make them a stronger partnership. I really hope that at one point they do come back to the UK, even if only on a part-time basis.

---------------------------------------
* to be clear: there's no amount of arse kissing she could have done to make these journalists feel happy about her new station in life.

by LizzyNY Wed 28 Oct 2020, 13:49

Katie - It surprises me sometimes that our two countries are so different. You Brits seem to have a much more personal relationship with the royal family than we would ever have with anyone in our government. I think the closest we've ever come might be how we felt about Kennedy or Roosevelt or Lincoln - though that may be my bias talking.

We're not as class conscious as other, older countries. Here money takes the place of class by birth (ex: drumpf - absolutely NO class)- the more money, the more power. But we're also, I think, more open about it. We're also quite open about the racism that runs throughout our society. We all know it's there and there are always people calling it out and trying to solve the problems it creates. I don't know if other countries have the problem as severely as we do, or are so vested in solving it.

Royal lovers that we are, Harry will be welcome here. Meghan, by virtue of her celebrity and now royal connections, will be treated fairly well in most of the media here - especially when the media can make money taking her side against the media in the UK. They can sell a lot of ink complaining about ow badly she was treated in the British press because of her race or social status.

I just wonder how badly Harry's relationships with his family have been strained by his marriage. It always seemed that after Diana died the family pulled together for the boys' sake. I don't understand why that bond seems so badly damaged by Harry marrying someone "unsuitable". (Talking about the family, not the general public or the media.) What could she possibly have done that alienated them so?

by annemarie Wed 28 Oct 2020, 14:37

I think the problem is she is American has worked hard and wanted to do the same there. Both she and Harry are smart
and high achievers. Not to mention she had her opinions and that wasn't appreciated she should do as she is told and not
question. Even when lies are told she should just accept the shit and be honored she is royal.

If any thing strained their relationship it was jealousy
Harry apparently, once said to William I can do what I want and you can't. It is reported that after the Queen , Harry is the most favored royal. Your the future king yet people love the spare more than you . That must grate on William as he is supposed to be the most important brother.
The jealousy in this family isn't new Charles was jealous of the attention Diana got so the apple didn't fall far from the tree.
Harry had the Invictus games and the endeavor fund, that are helping servicemen and women.
Now Meghan came in and in the little time she was there helped two of her charities raise money and they are still raising money.

As the author Lacey said Harry and Meghan were rock stars and that couldn't be allowed.
It became even more important when Andrew's mess hit the fan.
If anything appeared in the press about Andrew not that much has , there would be some lie about Meghan that got out there. Meghan was used to draw attention from Andrew.

by Admin Wed 28 Oct 2020, 16:25

LizzyNY wrote:I just wonder how badly Harry's relationships with his family have been strained by his marriage. It always seemed that after Diana died the family pulled together for the boys' sake. I don't understand why that bond seems so badly damaged by Harry marrying someone "unsuitable". (Talking about the family, not the general public or the media.) What could she possibly have done that alienated them so?

Hard to say. And I'm not entirely sure that the family has been alienated. What's amazing to me is that the queen has been on this earth for 91 years and yet no one (outside the immediate family) could tell you what she really thinks about almost anything (apart from perhaps breeding race horses). That's really something! Harry and Meghan on the other hand don't seem to be short of opinions . . . Not saying that's a good or a bad thing, but my point is, it's really hard to know what the queen really thinks of them. And I'd guess that to her, the need for H&M to have opinions and share them is utterly inexplicable to her.

I'd guess there's dismay on both sides. True that Harry's the one who's been able to have all the fun and that must be annoying for staid, boring old William. The royals are raised with a sense of duty and prepared to give up an awful lot as part of being royal (less so nowadays - neither Margaret, the queen's sister, nor Anne, her daughter were allowed to marry the men they loved, whereas William and Harry were). William's always had to be the dutiful one. That said, I do wonder how Harry really felt about it all. Imagine from birth being told that "you're not good enough, you're only the spare child". What sort of impact would that have on your psychology?

I'd guess that Harry's taken the dictum that he'll have to go and find something else meaningful to do in life and run with it a little too far for royal liking. I don't see any reason why they can't come back in the future. They'd have to knuckle down to following royal protocol and duty (but does Meghan really see her life as a series of opening events and attending charity dinners? Does Harry?) but I'd say there'd be a place for them. Harry would also have to learn to live with the fact his older brother will be king and one day he'll have to bow to his brother every day.

by Admin Wed 28 Oct 2020, 16:35

LizzyNY wrote:Katie - It surprises me sometimes that our two countries are so different. You Brits seem to have a much more personal relationship with the royal family than we would ever have with anyone in our government.

Yes, I'd say that's true. I feel that they're much more an essential part of the country's soul, if there could be said to be such a thing (alongside a liking for tea, orderly queuing and complaining about the rain). When the queen dies, I'll be bereft and I don't think I'll be the only one.

The royals aren't part of our government and in reality have absolutely no power at all. I know the queen technically has powers, but were she to actually use them, the government would immediately vote to abolish the royals and become a republic.

by annemarie Wed 28 Oct 2020, 17:06

Harry has said for years even before he met Meghan he would love to get out of the royal life.

I don't see them going back, Harry stated his self his son was not going to grow up like he did.

I think Harry is where he has wanted to be for a long time. He stated himself in the Africa interview
if you knew what I know you would be doing the same thing.

The hate wasn't just from the press it was inside the palace. I don't see Harry forgiving the people
who made his wife's life hell while she was there. Or the one's who are now trying to make him look bad.
No need to back they have moved on.

I read this somewhere
I can love you wish the best for you, and move on with my life.

by Admin Wed 28 Oct 2020, 17:11

annemarie wrote: The hate wasn't just from the press it was inside the palace.

True. I think there's an awful lot of awful people in the palace. But I don't think the hatred came from his immediate family (William, Charles, the queen etc). Or, I certainly don't like to think so.

As with the press, I think there's a lot of people in the palace whose feathers were ruffled by someone they'd prefer to consider their social inferior becoming a princess.

by annemarie Wed 28 Oct 2020, 17:50

Maybe not hate but there is this element of competition that is just ridiculous. Last year when Meghan and Harry flew to visit Elton john there was this big story how Harry and Meghan were bad for flying on a private plane. Even after Elton said he paid for the carbon emissions for the flight.
Now what do you know a few days later a picture shows up in the fail with William kate and the kids carrying their luggage and supposedly getting on an economy flight. It was also just an accident that a pap got the picture. Of course they were called out on trying to make themselves look better than Harry and Meghan. it was said that the flight was planned weeks in advance so had nothing to do with the Harry and Meghan story.

The airline however, said that the flight was arranged a couple of days earlier and the kicker is they flew two empty planes to pick them up and fly them to I believe it was Scotland.

How insecure do you have to be to do something like this. I'll say this if your a good person and hard worker that will
speak for it self. People will notice and appreciate it no games needed.

by Admin Wed 28 Oct 2020, 18:09

True, sibling rivalry is a thing, and not just in royal families.

I guess we should be happy that it's contained to the media. A couple of centuries ago, and we'd probably be warming up our horses, polishing our armour and sharpening our swords, ready to go to war over which one we wanted to rule us. "War of the Windsors" has a nice ring to it, right?

by Sponsored content