Prince Harry to Oprah' " my worry is history repeating itself."

[CuriousByNature]

Glad the Queen has responded with a kind and substantial message to a Harry and his family.

Really? That's great I haven't seen it - do you have a link?

[MscleLovr]

Glad the Queen has responded with a kind and substantial message to a Harry and his family.

 

The Palace statement was conciliatory. And 61 words long. It’s also pointed in quite a subtle way.

 

Really? That's great I haven't seen it - do you have a link?

 

Here you go…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9343383/Queen-breaks-silence-Harry-Meghan.html

[samhexum]

For British viewers, Oprah Winfrey’s bombshell special on the royal family was also an exposé of the American pharmaceutical industry.

 

Those in England who streamed Sunday’s interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were shocked to see advertisements for prescription drugs including Skyrizi, Kisqali and Jardiance. Advertising prescription drugs is banned in the United Kingdom — and most of the world, excluding the US and New Zealand.

 

Writer Ayesha A. Siddiqi compiled many of the most stunned reactions in a Twitter thread titled “british people reacting to american pharmaceutical ads during the harry/meghan interview.”

 

“If these medicine ads are what it’s like to not have an NHS I never want to experience that,” tweeted one horrified individual, referring to the UK’s National Health Service.

 

“Nah…how are the side effects of the medicine in American ads more lethal than the thing they’re treating???” wrote another.

 

“These medical adverts and the side effects though. American healthcare truly is a business,” noted a third.

 

Other critics called the ads “surreal” and “unhinged” and said they made them feel like they were “in some post-apocalyptic world.”

 

Many expressed feeling a renewed gratitude for their nation’s national health care system.

 

Siddiqi ended the thread with a note explaining the reaction to Americans who find such advertisements completely normal. “[in] the UK it’s illegal to advertise prescription drugs to the general public. Over there, people seeking healthcare are considered patients not customers,” Siddiqi wrote.

 

In a follow-up post after her thread went viral, Siddiqi called Brits’ “shock and disgust” at the commercials a “grim demonstration of how unique America’s healthcare system is.”

 

The interview, which 17.1 million viewers streamed on CBS on Sunday night, was “a rare moment of outsiders viewing American live tv,” Siddiqi went on, and ended up serving as a moment of reflection by non-Americans on “how unnecessarily painful and strange this country is.”

[+ nycman]

The Palace statement was conciliatory. And 61 words long. It’s also pointed in quite a subtle way.

You ramble on with Oprah in an interview for over 3 hours airing dirty family laundry.....and the Queen nails it with 61 words.

 

Long Live the Queen!

[+ WilliamM]

You ramble on with Oprah in an interview for over 3 hours airing dirty family laundry.....and the Queen nails it with 61 words.

 

Long Live the Queen!

 

I wonder what Queen Elizabeth thought about Oprah's somewhat invasive questions. She may have been much more condensed about Prince Philip who just had a heart procedure at age ninety nine.

[+ bigjoey]

Rich people problems?.

 

 

Megan and her complaint about being not being allowed out of the palace and literally being held a prisoner like “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?” made me wonder if she sent messages for help written on paper airplanes.

[Luv2play]

I'm a bit upset with the American media for sensationalizing the interview and making statements about there being a large rift in the Royal Family. That is too general a characterization. Oprah did a fine job with her interview, and Meghan and Harry presented themselves well. The Monarchy will not likely comment on any allegations - they won't rally into some sort of defensive counter attack as the media would like. I would expect, at most, a simple statement from the Queen expressing sorrow that Harry and Megan felt it was necessary to move away but that they will always remain an important part of the family. Some of the interview was quite enlightening, and I do not doubt that some members of the extended family would make crass and racist comments about Meghan and Archie - just look at the history of comments made by Prince Philip and Princess Michael of Kent. But it is inacurate for the media to suggest that race was a factor in Archie not receiving titles and separate security. The Monarchy has been streamlining things for several decades in response to public criticism over the number of titled members. I dont think the Queen is under any obligation to confer titles to any great-grandchild, other than those in the most direct line of succession - William's kids. I don't believe that Princess Eugenie's child has received a royal title, nor the grandchildren of Princess Anne, who in fact refused titles for her own kids. I am also unhappy that the media makes references to the 'Royal Family' in general with respect to accusations rather than 'a member/certain members of' - this leads the public to believe that all members are in cahoots with one another and share discriminatory feelings about Meghan. I think this is an irresponsible and unfair characterization, and it only serves to sensationalize the situation. It is also misrepresenting Meghan's words. But those who harbour racist attitudes in the family should not have the advantage of hiding under the Queen's petticoats, or behind the image of the Royal Family as a unit. Poor Queen E. She must throw her hands up in the air trying to manage the turmoil she gets confronted with so often. But it seems she and Harry and Meghan will weather this - and it was great to hear the mutual respect they all share. Hoping this interview might raise awareness of mental health and wellness issues at the very least. ?

 

I think you have summed up the situation very well. You must be quite familiar with how the Monarchy functio

I'm a bit upset with the American media for sensationalizing the interview and making statements about there being a large rift in the Royal Family. That is too general a characterization. Oprah did a fine job with her interview, and Meghan and Harry presented themselves well. The Monarchy will not likely comment on any allegations - they won't rally into some sort of defensive counter attack as the media would like. I would expect, at most, a simple statement from the Queen expressing sorrow that Harry and Megan felt it was necessary to move away but that they will always remain an important part of the family. Some of the interview was quite enlightening, and I do not doubt that some members of the extended family would make crass and racist comments about Meghan and Archie - just look at the history of comments made by Prince Philip and Princess Michael of Kent. But it is inacurate for the media to suggest that race was a factor in Archie not receiving titles and separate security. The Monarchy has been streamlining things for several decades in response to public criticism over the number of titled members. I dont think the Queen is under any obligation to confer titles to any great-grandchild, other than those in the most direct line of succession - William's kids. I don't believe that Princess Eugenie's child has received a royal title, nor the grandchildren of Princess Anne, who in fact refused titles for her own kids. I am also unhappy that the media makes references to the 'Royal Family' in general with respect to accusations rather than 'a member/certain members of' - this leads the public to believe that all members are in cahoots with one another and share discriminatory feelings about Meghan. I think this is an irresponsible and unfair characterization, and it only serves to sensationalize the situation. It is also misrepresenting Meghan's words. But those who harbour racist attitudes in the family should not have the advantage of hiding under the Queen's petticoats, or behind the image of the Royal Family as a unit. Poor Queen E. She must throw her hands up in the air trying to manage the turmoil she gets confronted with so often. But it seems she and Harry and Meghan will weather this - and it was great to hear the mutual respect they all share. Hoping this interview might raise awareness of mental health and wellness issues at the very least. ?

 

I think your comments are spot on. The monarchy in Britain has been streamlining the Royal apparatus, if you want to call it that, for over a decade. The Queen is now paying taxes, the numbers of Royals on the "list" who receive free housing and other perks, are much reduced, and titles are not being handed out to all grandchildren willy-nilly, as they were in the days of Queen Victoria.

 

Of course in those days, when there were royal families in most of Europe's countries, Queen Victoria was busy all her later life seeing that her progeny were suitably installed on thrones everywhere, whether allies or foes.

 

The fact that Archie didn't get a title at birth was not a slight, in my view, in the context of the British monarchy trying to remold itself in the 21st century. When you think of it, only a generation or two ago, there were rigid rules about who could marry into the "Firm", as Harry and Megan refer to it. Lady Diana Spencer , Harry's mother, was not an outsider, even if not a Royal. Her family were ancient and illustrious nobles. Even Winston Churchill, a commoner but descendant of the Duke of Marlborough, was a Spencer (his middle name) Winston S. Churchill.

 

Megan grew up in Los Angeles and would have faced discrimination in her youth. As her father stated the other day, California is not lacking in racism (he put it more directly). And he was a white man married to a Black woman. One would think she would have developed some coping mechanisms, even as we gay men have learned to cope, especially those of us who grew up before Stonewall.

 

If Megan suffers from depression or other mental illnesses, then she should and can get help, especially now that she finds herself in Los Angeles. She won't be the first actress to go that route.

[Guest]

Are you blaming Henry's mum for her own death?

de

Obviously, the most culpable person is her drunk driver. How culpable Diana is in her own death depends to what extent she egged him on, and whether she knew or not her driver had been drinking heavily. Certainly she would be alive today if she hadn't been willing to endanger "commoners''" lives for the sake of not having her photo taken with her illicit lover. I feel it's unlikely that she didn't at least encourage the driver to speed, and she probably had some sense that he was impaired. Innocent peoples' lives were placed at risk for the sake of avoiding a photo. What would you, or anyone else here, have done in her situation? I certainly wouldn't have given my driver the instructions she gave him. While her driver bears primary responsibility, because he could have just told her he refused to drive in such a reckless manner, I think there's little question but that she would still be alive today had she just taken her lumps and let her picture be taken.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Unicorn

[+ WilliamM]

Obviously, the most culpable person is her drunk driver.

It may be obvious to you, but the events that night were never completely understood.

[marylander1940]

It was posted before but better to show it in full display.

 

They're classy!

 

 

[CuriousByNature]

The Palace statement was conciliatory. And 61 words long. It’s also pointed in quite a subtle way.

 

 

 

Here you go…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9343383/Queen-breaks-silence-Harry-Meghan.html

Thank you I am happy she made a statement so quickly, and I think she nailed it.

[Guest]

It may be obvious to you, but the events that night were never completely understood.

Wow. That event was pretty heavily investigated. One cannot dispute the blood alcohol level and the speed of the collision. What do you feel was not understood enough?

[+ WilliamM]

Wow. That event was pretty heavily investigated. One cannot dispute the blood alcohol level and the speed of the collision. What do you feel was not understood enough?

There were many other factors involved

 

Certainly Prince Harry blames the British press, the worst in the world by far

[Guest]

Diamond and Silk weren't available?

[Luv2play]

de

Obviously, the most culpable person is her drunk driver. How culpable Diana is in her own death depends to what extent she egged him on, and whether she knew or not her driver had been drinking heavily. Certainly she would be alive today if she hadn't been willing to endanger "commoners''" lives for the sake of not having her photo taken with her illicit lover. I feel it's unlikely that she didn't at least encourage the driver to speed, and she probably had some sense that he was impaired. Innocent peoples' lives were placed at risk for the sake of avoiding a photo. What would you, or anyone else here, have done in her situation? I certainly wouldn't have given my driver the instructions she gave him. While her driver bears primary responsibility, because he could have just told her he refused to drive in such a reckless manner, I think there's little question but that she would still be alive today had she just taken her lumps and let her picture be taken.

 

My understanding of the events that night was that they were leaving the Ritz Hotel, which was owned by Jodi Fayed's father, to go to the house Jodi had just bought in Paris, that had once been the home of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in the Bois du Boulogne.

 

I believe the driver was not Princess Diana's but Jodi's driver or he might have been an employee of the Ritz. He had been waiting a considerable time while the couple were having dinner at the hotel. During this time he had been drinking to pass the time, I suppose. Not at all professional, I admit.

 

I don't think Diana was very familiar with him, as she would have been with her own driver. She did have the British body guard with her, though, the only one who survived (I assume he was hers but not sure of that). He should have paid more attention to the state of the driver, but I don't recall whether he was ever held blameworthy (he suffered immense head injuries and probably didn't remember much of the events just prior to the crash).

 

I personally think Diana was the victim of circumstances beyond her control.

[+ sniper]

She'd have lived if she wore a seatbelt.

[Guest]

Wow. That event was pretty heavily investigated. One cannot dispute the blood alcohol level and the speed of the collision. What do you feel was not understood enough?

There were many other factors involved

 

Certainly Prince Harry blames the British press, the worst in the world by far

So the cogent response is "many other factors"?? Thank you , professor. It's easy to understand why the prince wants to blame the British press, and not his mother (and driver) for his mother's own death, but why would any other rational adult (other than his brother)? This irrational displacement of his anger goes to the heart of his dysfunctional behavior and attitudes. I wish I could give him a swift kick in the pants. Time to face reality, your Royal Highness!

[Guest]

She'd have lived if she wore a seatbelt.

That, too!

[Guest]

... He had been waiting a considerable time while the couple were having dinner at the hotel. During this time he had been drinking to pass the time, I suppose....

Wow. With a BAL of 0.175%, this would have taken the average-sized man 9 drinks in rapid succession (within a one-hour period) to reach that level. We're not talking a few drinks. We're talking stone-drunk. If the drinking was over a "considerable time," there would have to have been even more drinks.

https://www.verywellmind.com/bac-and-drink-conversions-for-men-by-weight-22481

• "After seven to eight drinks, your BAC will have reached 0.15 (or the equivalent of half a pint of whiskey). Most people have difficulty walking in a straight line at this point.
  
• After 10 drinks, your BAC will have reach 0.2. By this stage, most people will blackout and have no little or memory of what happened. In younger people, this level can be fatal."
  

 

"

[Guest]

...

 

 

You just learned this, your Royal Highness? You need Oprah to explain it to you? Talk about a dysfunctional family...

[+ WilliamM]

I wonder what Queen Elizabeth thought about Oprah's somewhat invasive questions. She may have been much more condensed about Prince Philip who just had a heart procedure at age ninety nine.

de

Obviously, the most culpable person is her drunk driver. How culpable Diana is in her own death depends to what extent she egged him on, and whether she knew or not her driver had been drinking heavily. Certainly she would be alive today if she hadn't been willing to endanger "commoners''" lives for the sake of not having her photo taken with her illicit lover. I feel it's unlikely that she didn't at least encourage the driver to speed, and she probably had some sense that he was impaired. Innocent peoples' lives were placed at risk for the sake of avoiding a photo. What would you, or anyone else here, have done in her situation? I certainly wouldn't have given my driver the instructions she gave him. While her driver bears primary responsibility, because he could have just told her he refused to drive in such a reckless manner, I think there's little question but that she would still be alive today had she just taken her lumps and let her picture be taken.

"her illicit lover"

 

I guess we are suddenly back in the 19th century. @Unicorn, don't you have a bf yourself

[mike carey]

It's easy to understand why the prince wants to blame the British press, and not his mother (and driver) for his mother's own death, but why would any other rational adult (other than his brother)? This irrational displacement of his anger goes to the heart of his dysfunctional behavior and attitudes.

It's really quite simple. The proximate cause was the way that the car was being driven. It can be simultaneously true that something else can be the reason that the manner of driving seemed necessary. It's perfectly rational to attribute her death to that indirect cause, in this case the behaviour of the media. It's a bit like blaming the former president for the Covid deaths on his watch. He clearly didn't personally infect the people with the disease, but his inaction created the conditions in which they did. Of course, the media didn't force the driver to drive the way he did, he could have driven like a little old lady on the way to church on Sunday, but he didn't, he drove like someone seeking to escape from perceived danger. Just because you don't see the link or accept the the validity of their assessment doesn't make the princes' attribution of blame to the media irrational.

[marylander1940]

You just learned this, your Royal Highness? You need Oprah to explain it to you? Talk about a dysfunctional family...

 

she waited a day to see if it was worth replying... she's also hoping something will come up soon and we'll move on to another story.

 

She's been in office for almost 70 years, I think she knows something about her job and remaining stable is a huge part of it.

 

One more thing, Meghan's family might be even more dysfunctional.

[+ WilliamM]

I wonder what Queen Elizabeth thought about Oprah's somewhat invasive questions. She may have been much more condensed about Prince Philip who just had a heart procedure at age ninety nine.

So the cogent response is "many other factors"?? Thank you , professor. It's easy to understand why the prince wants to blame the British press, and not his mother (and driver) for his mother's own death, but why would any other rational adult (other than his brother)? This irrational displacement of his anger goes to the heart of his dysfunctional behavior and attitudes. I wish I could give him a swift kick in the pants. Time to face reality, your Royal Highness!

Aren't you a doctor? Or as @samhexum would say, do you play a doctor on television?

[+ harey]

It was posted before but better to show it in full display.

 

They're classy!

 

 

They’re inbred parasites but yeah that’s a tight communication. ?