Your Thoughts On Prince Harry & Meghan Upcoming Interview

hollydolly said:
It's already been aired in the USA, it's not being aired in the UK until this evening... but the interview is all over todays ' papers...
Click to expand...
I'm sure I can find it On Demand. I do want to see the interview. It's been a bit of a buzz on a Newstalk station out of San Francisco this morning. Hosts are saying "I don't really want to discuss it" and then they discuss it.
 

AnnieA said:
Charles had a duty as heir to the throne to produce an heir. Not very 20th century, not fair to Diana at all.
Click to expand...
StarSong said:
He could have had an heir with Camilla if the palace hadn't put the kibosh on that relationship before she married Parker-Bowles. Guessing The Firm AKA The Institution found Camilla unsuitable and wanting.
Click to expand...
And if they wanted a heir to the throne and chose Diana who did give them those children, then they got what they wanted. The royals got their heirs to the throne and a Princess and look how that turned out. It wasn’t fair to Diana. It wasn’t fair to the two heirs ( William & Harry ) nor was it fair to Charles but THAT was the ROYAL plan. See where I’m going with this?
 

WillieAnderson1937 said:
Sorry to offend you all, Just was never a fan of the queen.
Click to expand...
Thank you. It doesn’t mean she’s an old hag just cause you don’t like her. I personally find her a classy older lady who has plenty of charm and always will. A bit on the stuffy old fashioned side but she’s old and comes from royalty. It’s a different breed than most of us are accustomed to.
 
The Queen destroyed Margaret's life by not allowing her to marry Peter Townsend. She finally grudgingly agreed to a marriage with Tony Armstrong-Jones, which turned out miserable.

Camilla was not suitable for Charles, probably because a divorce would have been involved.

The only good thing that came out of that ridiculous taboo of divorce was forcing the Nazi, "Uncle David," (Duke of Windsor) off the throne.

Charles was not allowed to go to Eton, which was his heart's desire. He was forced to attend a strict, Spartan kind of school in Scotland, Gordonstoun, which his father had attended.

Finally, Harry was able to marry a divorced woman. I guess that's a kind of improvement. But in trying to do her "duty," Elizabeth made some very cruel decisions.
 
Sunny said:
The Queen destroyed Margaret's life by not allowing her to marry Peter Townsend. She finally grudgingly agreed to a marriage with Tony Armstrong-Jones, which turned out miserable.

Camilla was not suitable for Charles, probably because a divorce would have been involved.

The only good thing that came out of that ridiculous taboo of divorce was forcing the Nazi, "Uncle David," (Duke of Windsor) off the throne.

Charles was not allowed to go to Eton, which was his heart's desire. He was forced to attend a strict, Spartan kind of school in Scotland, Gordonstoun, which his father had attended.

Finally, Harry was able to marry a divorced woman. I guess that's a kind of improvement. But in trying to do her "duty," Elizabeth made some very cruel decisions.
Click to expand...
The Queen is Defender of the Faith. She was under enormous pressure from the Archbishop of Canterbury to uphold the tenets of the Church of England which forbade a marriage with a divorced person. Under those circumstances she could not permit Margaret to marry Townsend.
 
AnnieA said:
Some of Meghan's wealth pre Harry was from working, but some came from divorcing a millionaire. Details of her divorce have never made public, but Trevor Engelson's net worth was much higher than hers and they divorced in a community property state.
Click to expand...
Two years of marriage isn't sufficient to make someone a millionaire, unless one's ex made an absolute boatload of money, even in a community property state. Net worth is irrelevant in CA when it comes to very short marriages. Her ex-husband isn't rolling in dough in any case. By most accounts, MM earned well over 3 million dollars doing Suits and a few movies. In addition, she had other ventures including a fashion collection, instagram and social media influencer remunerations, and who knows what else.

Why is it so difficult to give credit where it's obviously due? She EARNED money before marrying Harry, quite a bit of it, in fact.
 
Last edited:
StarSong said:
Two years of marriage isn't sufficient to make someone a millionaire, unless one's ex made an absolute boatload of money, even in a community property state. Net worth is irrelevant in CA when it comes to very short marriages. Her ex-husband isn't rolling in dough in any case. By most accounts, MM earned well over 3 million dollars doing suits and a few movies. In addition, she had other ventures including a fashion collection, instagram and social media influencer remunerations, and who knows what else.

Why is it so difficult to give credit where it's obviously due? She EARNED money before marrying Harry, quite a bit of it, in fact.
Click to expand...
Qft.
 
StarSong said:
Two years of marriage isn't sufficient to make someone a millionaire, unless one's ex made an absolute boatload of money, even in a community property state. Net worth is irrelevant in CA when it comes to very short marriages. Her ex-husband isn't rolling in dough in any case. By most accounts, MM earned well over 3 million dollars doing Suits and a few movies. In addition, she had other ventures including a fashion collection, instagram and social media influencer remunerations, and who knows what else.

Why is it so difficult to give credit where it's obviously due? She EARNED money before marrying Harry, quite a bit of it, in fact.
Click to expand...

I do know she earned millions (though I didn't realize it was that much from Suits), but remember reading Engelson had a higher net worth at the time of their divorce. Now I'm headed down the rabbit hole of researching community property! 🙃 In California, do the six years Engelson and Markle were domestic partners before marrying count?
 
AnnieA said:
I think they're donating the Oprah interview fee to charity. Smooth move considering they've chosen philanthropy as a career path based on the sketchy American 'foundation' format. Money can't buy the 'brand' advertising they got from doing the interview.

.
Click to expand...
They were not paid for the interview!
 
Sunny said:
Just to address a minor point, Harry was not only "permitted" to appear at the very end of the interview. It was a 2-hour show, and he came on at the 1-hour mark. He took part in the entire second half of the program. I did wonder why it was only Meghan for the first half; I guess they had their reasons.
Click to expand...
How do you know he was "not permitted" do you have some inside information??
 
This may not be accurate but it’s how I recall the history with Charles & Camila.

They met in their early 20s and dated for awhile. He wasn’t ready to get married so she married Parker-Bowles.

Even if Camila had been available, it wasn’t permitted because she was a divorcee. This may still be true in some religions.

He was pressured to marry a very nice, aristocratic person & she met the bill. They just weren’t compatible. She had just turned 20 & he was a stodgy (my opinion) 32 year old man.

She wanted fun & he still loved Camila. They both had affairs, Charles did it first.
 
AnnieA said:
Some of Meghan's wealth pre Harry was from working, but some came from divorcing a millionaire. Details of her divorce have never made public, but Trevor Engelson's net worth was much higher than hers and they divorced in a community property state.
Click to expand...
Meghan took no money from Trevor Engelson...she worked for every cent before her marriage to Harry.
 
AnnieA said:
I do know she earned millions (though I didn't realize it was that much from Suits), but remember reading Engelson had a higher net worth at the time of their divorce. Now I'm headed down the rabbit hole of researching community property! 🙃 In California, do the six years Engelson and Markle were domestic partners before marrying count?
Click to expand...
Depends on what kind of domestic partners the were. Did they co-mingle their funds? Did they formalize their partnership in any way?

Given that this was obviously a straightforward divorce, meaning no ugly details have surfaced, she's the one who filed, and her career was going great guns, I'd guess she just wanted out and wasn't up for fighting over assets. If she had, you can bet your bottom dollar the rag papers would never let the story die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top