Tick off the bingo card 'Authentic' and '3 of us' as in Diana's interview 3 of us in this marriage but they refer to their secret first marriage
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Not fair to go into the details... because it didn’t happen?
“I’ve forgiven her” yeah you haven’t forgotten though have you, dragging it up years later
"She did what I would do if I upset someone and take responsibility and send flowers etc"
You just upset half the world love... What you gonna do???
You just upset half the world love... What you gonna do???
Very true I forgot this about Diana. It’s actually extremely creepy the way Meghan has dedicated herself to emulating her. And not just since meeting Harry, this stretches back to a childhood idolisation of her.
For a baby due in the summer she seems a lot bigger !!
hmmm I wonder if the lawyers are watching again to see if anything has been edited out
Some more articles from The Times, if they haven't already been posted:
One o’clock in the morning and the sentries at Windsor Castle were having another quiet night, nothing to ruffle their Busbys. Five thousand miles to the west, kerrump, came eruptions which could send a tsunami across the Atlantic.
As a work of televised theatre, Oprah Winfrey’s interview was soft-focus: the setting bucolic, Queen Oprah in delicate mauve, shots of the royal couple’s pets and — privacy alert — of toddler Archie. There were meaningful, emotive nods as they said “yeah” to each other in the Californian manner.
But the content was unsubtle. This was Semtex in swaddling bands. Cyanide en gelee. The biggest act of strategic self-harm since the scuttling of the German fleet at Scapa Flow. It may have been presented as schmaltz but this two-hour gloopathon was politically ruinous.
“Life is about telling stories, right?” said la Markle, all high-resolution lip gloss. “Telling stories through a truthful lens.” Her eyes sparkled behind lashes as long as ravens’ wings.
Stories were duly delivered, a steaming dump of indiscretions: whinges about money and titles and bodyguards and the rotten tabloid press (which must be quite different from tabloid television). That Kate Cambridge? A B*I*T*C*H! “But I have forgiven her,” purred Meghan with her truthful lens.
Further atrocities: she had had to teach herself the words to God Save the Queen; no one had advised her how to keep her legs crossed; people had been beastly about her on the internet. We had our first blinked-back tear at 1.54am. Either that, or some unfortunate midge had made it past the ravens’ wings and had jabbed her in the eyeball.
Then came the intended killer blow: someone in royal circles had speculated about what skin tone the Sussexes’ baby was going to have. “That conversation I am never going to share,” said Prince Harry, after he and his wife had disgorged its existence to a worldwide audience.
Every so often we broke away for the CBS adverts, many aimed at hypochondriacs or handsome people who were smiling through bouts of raging diarrhoea. Useful context.
Harry had not appeared in the first half, when we were assured Meghan was not a gold-digger. “I never looked up my husband online,” she claimed, when Oprah asked if she had done her “research”. Harry now took his place alongside his duchess and we found he has started saying “like” and he has the beginnings of an American accent. He disclosed that his father stopped taking his telephone calls for a while. Maybe Charles simply didn’t recognise him with that valley girl uplift.
And yet Harry was less clunkingly dim than one possibly expected. He has certainly drunk deeply of the west-coast Kool-Aid. At one point he made it sound as if he himself had breastfed Archie.
The programme was entitled Meghan & Harry. Most of us used to put them the other way round. Her Grace wore a dark dress with white splodges. Blasted seagulls. She, in turn, proceeded to deposit industrial quantities of guano on a royal family that had, we heard, welcomed her warmly to their midst. Things only started to go wrong after the row about the bridesmaids’ dresses. Or was it after the couple’s official trip to the Pacific (translation: the rest of “the Firm” were envious of its success)? We heard both.
Further inconsistencies followed. One minute Meghan disclaimed grandeur, the next she was concerned about her “status”. One moment she was unfussed about honorifics, the next she was furious Archie was not going to be a prince. She was astonished when her police protection was withdrawn (bodyguards are a must-have accessory in Hollywood). The next she was writing to the Queen to say she didn’t care less about protection. Oprah let these self-contradictions go through to the wicketkeeper.
It ended with Meghan comparing herself — sorry about this — to the Little Mermaid and Harry saying “time heals all things, hopefully”. Someone possibly said the same to the Earl of Uxbridge at the Battle of Waterloo, even as much of one of his legs was disappearing over the brow of the hill attached to a cannon ball.
As a work of televised theatre, Oprah Winfrey’s interview was soft-focus: the setting bucolic, Queen Oprah in delicate mauve, shots of the royal couple’s pets and — privacy alert — of toddler Archie. There were meaningful, emotive nods as they said “yeah” to each other in the Californian manner.
But the content was unsubtle. This was Semtex in swaddling bands. Cyanide en gelee. The biggest act of strategic self-harm since the scuttling of the German fleet at Scapa Flow. It may have been presented as schmaltz but this two-hour gloopathon was politically ruinous.
“Life is about telling stories, right?” said la Markle, all high-resolution lip gloss. “Telling stories through a truthful lens.” Her eyes sparkled behind lashes as long as ravens’ wings.
Stories were duly delivered, a steaming dump of indiscretions: whinges about money and titles and bodyguards and the rotten tabloid press (which must be quite different from tabloid television). That Kate Cambridge? A B*I*T*C*H! “But I have forgiven her,” purred Meghan with her truthful lens.
Further atrocities: she had had to teach herself the words to God Save the Queen; no one had advised her how to keep her legs crossed; people had been beastly about her on the internet. We had our first blinked-back tear at 1.54am. Either that, or some unfortunate midge had made it past the ravens’ wings and had jabbed her in the eyeball.
Then came the intended killer blow: someone in royal circles had speculated about what skin tone the Sussexes’ baby was going to have. “That conversation I am never going to share,” said Prince Harry, after he and his wife had disgorged its existence to a worldwide audience.
Every so often we broke away for the CBS adverts, many aimed at hypochondriacs or handsome people who were smiling through bouts of raging diarrhoea. Useful context.
Harry had not appeared in the first half, when we were assured Meghan was not a gold-digger. “I never looked up my husband online,” she claimed, when Oprah asked if she had done her “research”. Harry now took his place alongside his duchess and we found he has started saying “like” and he has the beginnings of an American accent. He disclosed that his father stopped taking his telephone calls for a while. Maybe Charles simply didn’t recognise him with that valley girl uplift.
And yet Harry was less clunkingly dim than one possibly expected. He has certainly drunk deeply of the west-coast Kool-Aid. At one point he made it sound as if he himself had breastfed Archie.
The programme was entitled Meghan & Harry. Most of us used to put them the other way round. Her Grace wore a dark dress with white splodges. Blasted seagulls. She, in turn, proceeded to deposit industrial quantities of guano on a royal family that had, we heard, welcomed her warmly to their midst. Things only started to go wrong after the row about the bridesmaids’ dresses. Or was it after the couple’s official trip to the Pacific (translation: the rest of “the Firm” were envious of its success)? We heard both.
Further inconsistencies followed. One minute Meghan disclaimed grandeur, the next she was concerned about her “status”. One moment she was unfussed about honorifics, the next she was furious Archie was not going to be a prince. She was astonished when her police protection was withdrawn (bodyguards are a must-have accessory in Hollywood). The next she was writing to the Queen to say she didn’t care less about protection. Oprah let these self-contradictions go through to the wicketkeeper.
It ended with Meghan comparing herself — sorry about this — to the Little Mermaid and Harry saying “time heals all things, hopefully”. Someone possibly said the same to the Earl of Uxbridge at the Battle of Waterloo, even as much of one of his legs was disappearing over the brow of the hill attached to a cannon ball.
This is a tragedy — a settling of family scores that should never have been allowed to reach a single television screen, let alone the homes of half the world.
Public bloodletting on such a scale piles more damage on an already wounded royal family and the pain will be felt by millions.
And for what? So that Harry and Meghan could tell “their” truth, whatever the cost to his sovereign, his country and to any chance of reconciliation with the family he professes to love.
Presented as a touching tale of suffering bravely borne on a journey to liberty and inner peace, this was actually an assassination attempt on a beloved institution whose unforgivable crime was “a lack of support and a lack of understanding”.
The attempt may yet prove successful. So toxic are the allegations of racism, callousness, neglect and deceit that any attempt to refute or even contextualise them seems doomed.
Harry has no regrets, he says, and is proud of what he has done. And, the way he tells the story, so he should be: he has saved his wife and children (Archie is to have a sister, the one unambiguously good piece of news in the entire broadcast) from an “unsurvivable” life inside the gilded prison of royalty.
It’s a life rendered more intolerable by the media, an enemy Harry plainly loathes with a passion and understandably so. A damning dossier of offensive front pages appears regularly throughout the interview to drive the point home.
Meghan does have one regret: “Believing them when they said I would be protected.”
Ah. “Them.” The real villains of the piece, the men and women of the household who failed to safeguard “one of the greatest assets for the Commonwealth the family could have ever wished for”, as Harry describes his wife.
This gets rather personal for me since, for eight years, I was one of Them, private secretary to Harry’s mother. I failed to safeguard her too, ultimately, but it certainly wasn’t for lack of trying.
The much maligned “men in suits” — although, it’s worth noting, Team Sussex was an all-female operation — are as fallible as anyone but always struck me as humane and liberal-minded. Yet in Oprah’s interview they were culpable of driving Meghan to the verge of suicide, among a litany of disturbingly serious charges. These should, of course, be properly investigated, not least to provide much-needed hard evidence to balance the Sussexes’ tearful TV testimony.
Meghan admits to a surprising lack of curiosity about the monarchy she married into. Learning how to make it work for her would have been time well spent. Some deep research into her mother-in-law’s experience would have been useful too. Princess Diana — with justification — also felt that “the system” failed to take account of the emotional needs of the people it was designed to serve. But she set an example of steely resolve that any new royal wife could have spotted.
Speaking in her own controversial TV interview in 1995, she said: “You couldn’t indulge in feeling sorry for yourself: you had to either sink or swim. And you had to learn that very fast.”
Like Meghan, Diana also battled loneliness and mental turmoil, made worse by post-natal depression. There is a chilling similarity to Meghan’s account of looking in vain for appropriate help in an organisation that offered little solace for despairing new royal wives. Describing her own suicidal feelings, Diana said: “I was actually crying out because I wanted to get better in order to go forward and continue my duty.”
My duty. For all her frustration and unhappiness at finding herself trapped in a doomed marriage, Diana never lost her sense of duty to the Crown and the causes she supported. Meghan’s background as an independent and successful woman before her marriage was in stark contrast to the ingenue Diana’s, which may explain why she and Harry have a different perception of that most royal of obligations: duty before self.
Maybe it’s time for that iron law to be re-examined, if only so that future generations aren’t, to use Harry’s word, trapped in a system that would warp their humanity and stunt their emotional growth.
That might (just) be the silver lining in the vengeful cloud that the Sussexes last night laid over the House of Windsor. It’s a cloud that looks very distant from sunny California, where Meghan collects eggs from her flock of rescued chickens and Archie rides pillion on Harry’s bicycle (“Something I could never do when I was young,” the duke mystifyingly claims).
“It’s a happy ending,” says the duchess, “greater than every fairytale you’ve ever read.”
About half the TV audience will feel a warm glow of agreement. As for the other half, the Sussex sceptics, alternative viewing options are available — and recommended.
Patrick Jephson was equerry and private secretary to HRH the Princess of Wales, 1988-96
Public bloodletting on such a scale piles more damage on an already wounded royal family and the pain will be felt by millions.
And for what? So that Harry and Meghan could tell “their” truth, whatever the cost to his sovereign, his country and to any chance of reconciliation with the family he professes to love.
Presented as a touching tale of suffering bravely borne on a journey to liberty and inner peace, this was actually an assassination attempt on a beloved institution whose unforgivable crime was “a lack of support and a lack of understanding”.
The attempt may yet prove successful. So toxic are the allegations of racism, callousness, neglect and deceit that any attempt to refute or even contextualise them seems doomed.
Harry has no regrets, he says, and is proud of what he has done. And, the way he tells the story, so he should be: he has saved his wife and children (Archie is to have a sister, the one unambiguously good piece of news in the entire broadcast) from an “unsurvivable” life inside the gilded prison of royalty.
It’s a life rendered more intolerable by the media, an enemy Harry plainly loathes with a passion and understandably so. A damning dossier of offensive front pages appears regularly throughout the interview to drive the point home.
Meghan does have one regret: “Believing them when they said I would be protected.”
Ah. “Them.” The real villains of the piece, the men and women of the household who failed to safeguard “one of the greatest assets for the Commonwealth the family could have ever wished for”, as Harry describes his wife.
This gets rather personal for me since, for eight years, I was one of Them, private secretary to Harry’s mother. I failed to safeguard her too, ultimately, but it certainly wasn’t for lack of trying.
The much maligned “men in suits” — although, it’s worth noting, Team Sussex was an all-female operation — are as fallible as anyone but always struck me as humane and liberal-minded. Yet in Oprah’s interview they were culpable of driving Meghan to the verge of suicide, among a litany of disturbingly serious charges. These should, of course, be properly investigated, not least to provide much-needed hard evidence to balance the Sussexes’ tearful TV testimony.
Meghan admits to a surprising lack of curiosity about the monarchy she married into. Learning how to make it work for her would have been time well spent. Some deep research into her mother-in-law’s experience would have been useful too. Princess Diana — with justification — also felt that “the system” failed to take account of the emotional needs of the people it was designed to serve. But she set an example of steely resolve that any new royal wife could have spotted.
Speaking in her own controversial TV interview in 1995, she said: “You couldn’t indulge in feeling sorry for yourself: you had to either sink or swim. And you had to learn that very fast.”
Like Meghan, Diana also battled loneliness and mental turmoil, made worse by post-natal depression. There is a chilling similarity to Meghan’s account of looking in vain for appropriate help in an organisation that offered little solace for despairing new royal wives. Describing her own suicidal feelings, Diana said: “I was actually crying out because I wanted to get better in order to go forward and continue my duty.”
My duty. For all her frustration and unhappiness at finding herself trapped in a doomed marriage, Diana never lost her sense of duty to the Crown and the causes she supported. Meghan’s background as an independent and successful woman before her marriage was in stark contrast to the ingenue Diana’s, which may explain why she and Harry have a different perception of that most royal of obligations: duty before self.
Maybe it’s time for that iron law to be re-examined, if only so that future generations aren’t, to use Harry’s word, trapped in a system that would warp their humanity and stunt their emotional growth.
That might (just) be the silver lining in the vengeful cloud that the Sussexes last night laid over the House of Windsor. It’s a cloud that looks very distant from sunny California, where Meghan collects eggs from her flock of rescued chickens and Archie rides pillion on Harry’s bicycle (“Something I could never do when I was young,” the duke mystifyingly claims).
“It’s a happy ending,” says the duchess, “greater than every fairytale you’ve ever read.”
About half the TV audience will feel a warm glow of agreement. As for the other half, the Sussex sceptics, alternative viewing options are available — and recommended.
Patrick Jephson was equerry and private secretary to HRH the Princess of Wales, 1988-96
Defo supposed to stay away from farmyards - couldn’t go to the petting zoo
First attack of the interview is Kate, who she’s utterly jealous of. William must be punching the wall at the moment
duck me Meghan is fecking sanctimonious with zero self awareness.
And Oprah is a tit interviewer
And Oprah is a tit interviewer
did she really say that???!!!!! barf
If she's watching it, I hope she's pickled in gin and shouting obscenities at her telly
I can’t keep up
it’s only Monday but the wine is being opened!I'd hope the Obamas are way above this circus. Politics aside, much like the Queen, they just put their heads down and got on with the job.I hope the Obamas don't get involved, that would really hurt the Queen, she is good friends with them.
Great now twitter is going to be filled with the violent thugs who wish to bring down the monarchy againit had just calmed down!
Kate didn't preach the arse off us so she didn't get the backlash!!! duck me
My sister in law who has just found out she is pregnant first thing she done was give her chickens away due to infections you could pick up
There was nothing to forgive Smeg ye bleep. So gracious isn't she "I'vE fORgIvEn HeR". AAAAAGGGGHH RAGE
Bet we dont see any film of the dogs with H in the shotSays she who left her "beloved " dog in Canada behind at it didn't "like" Haribo.
- Status