The whole narrative has more holes than a colander.
According to Harry, someone he'll never name said something, before he and Meghan married about the colour of skin any potential children may have, in a conversation - singular.
Meghan says it was multiple conversations whilst she was pregnant with Archie.
Meghan said she was denied access to mental health treatment by a senior member of the Royal Family. She said dhe couldn't get an Uber to get help. But Harry could have taken her, a home visit could have been arranged. They visited some sort of aromatherapy etc shop for 2 hours, she saw doctors for her pregnancy, she travelled to the US, they went on a tour the other side of the world, but they couldn't get medical help for mental health issues?
Meghan said Archie wasn't made a Prince because of his skin colour. That's what H & M would call a falsehood. If Harry had married a member of the Ayrian race, their children would not have been princes or princesses. That's just how it works. However, if and when Charles becomes King, H & M's children will become Prince & Princess. What confuses me, is that Meghan made a big deal of saying how upsetting it was when the incident when ahe was alleged to have made Kate apparcry was actually in reverse. Kate made her cry.
However, it was repeatedly reported that H & M didn't want Archie to be a prince. If this is not in fact the case, which is what is being alleged, why did they not make a big fuss about the error in reporting this? It makes no sense.
Meghan said her passport, keys etc were taken from her. I'd suggest the passport was because as a member of the Royal Family, she is not going to need to hang around waiting for passport control. Her passport forms part of the administrative side to her travelling. She doesn't need to worry about that. She just turns up at the airport via chauffeur driven luxury car, and turn up she did, numerous times. She travelled abroad repeatedly. It doesn't sound as though her passport was kept from her, does it?
I don't know what keys were taken from her. I don't think they really need a front door key as again, they did not travel anywhere unattended. If she had a car, she would have been able to drive, just as other RF members do.
They did not get married prior to the big wedding in St George's chapel. If it was, as described, simply H & M and the Archbishop of Canterbury, it was not a legal wedding. Had it been a legal wedding, their subsequent wedding, the one that cost taxpayers MILLIONS would have been illegal.
There were quite possibly some valid complaints raised by H & M. By mixing those in with multiple contradictions and blatant lies, the whole integrity of the interview is severely damaged. Likewise, wearing a ridiculous £5k black evening dress/nightie for an interview filmed on a sunny day in a relaxed garden setting was ludicrous. She was off to a ball/funeral and Harry was stopping off at the pub for a few rounds after work on a Friday night. Her heavy eye make up mirroring Diana's interview and her hair styled in a similar way to photographs of Wallis Simpson, who also wore a similar dress, is embarrassingly transparent. Meghan performed, whilst Harry reinforced the almost universally held belief that he is as thick as thin, blabs his mouth off to anyone who'll listen and blames every man and his dog for literally everything.
Oh and the curtsying. That's completely ridiculous. Harry didn't mention she'd need to curtsy to the Queen? Meghan didn't know anything about that? As my Mum said, she must think we were born yesterday. Also, Meghan said Fergie taught her to curtsey, but Fergie's been a persona non grata for decades. The whole story is less believable than Father Christmas!
There's doubtless more, but I need to go to bed!
