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

[wsc]

From the moment Diana began seeing Charles, she was chased by the paps.

And from the moment she got up from between Bill's knees, Monica Lewinsky's fate was sealed. If you give head to the President in in The Oral Office -and it gets out- someone's going to want to take your picture.

 

And if you start dating -and later marry- The Most Eligible Bachelor in the World, Prince of Wales, and heir to the throne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and Head of the Commonwealth - someone's going to want to take your picture, too. Lots of someones, as it turns out, and as was always obvious. And it doesn't end just because the marriage does. In fact, it get worse. Why? Because you cheated on, admitted to it, and divorced The Most Eligible Bachelor in the World, Prince of Wales, and heir to the throne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and Head of the Commonwealth. What did you expect? What could you reasonably expect?

 

Actions have consequences and choices do, too. There are few things more annoying to me than people who become famous -or possibly infamous - and then complain about being treated as if they were someone famous. There's naive, and then there's clueless, and then there's something approaching classless.

 

What happened to Diana was sad and tragic. And the effect on her sons was also sad and tragic, and some of that lingers on to the present day. The same was true of Monica, her mistake, and the effects it had on her life. But Monica eventually took responsibility, got help, and came out whole; scarred but whole.

 

Diana's story, and those affected by it, might benefit from seeing it with a greater dose of realism and less of romanticism.

[+ WilliamM]

And from the moment she got up from between Bill's knees, Monica Lewinsky's fate was sealed. If you give head to the President in in The Oral Office -and it gets out- someone's going to want to take your picture.

 

And if you start dating -and later marry- The Most Eligible Bachelor in the World, Prince of Wales, and heir to the throne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and Head of the Commonwealth - someone's going to want to take your picture, too. Lots of someones, as it turns out, and as was always obvious. And it doesn't end just because the marriage does. In fact, it get worse. Why? Because you cheated on, admitted to it, and divorced The Most Eligible Bachelor in the World, Prince of Wales, and heir to the throne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and Head of the Commonwealth. What did you expect? What could you reasonably expect?

 

Actions have consequences and choices do, too. There are few things more annoying to me than people who become famous -or possibly infamous - and then complain about being treated as if they were someone famous. There's naive, and then there's clueless, and then there's something approaching classless.

 

What happened to Diana was sad and tragic. And the effect on her sons was also sad and tragic, and some of that lingers on to the present day. The same was true of Monica, her mistake, and the effects it had on her life. But Monica eventually took responsibility, got help, and came out whole; scarred but whole.

 

Diana's story, and those affected by it, might benefit from seeing it with a greater dose of realism and less of romanticism.

What Diana didn't expect was Camilla.

 

And that was the Palace's fault and Charles' fault as well

[+ tassojunior]

And from the moment she got up from between Bill's knees, Monica Lewinsky's fate was sealed. If you give head to the President in in The Oral Office -and it gets out- someone's going to want to take your picture.

 

And if you start dating -and later marry- The Most Eligible Bachelor in the World, Prince of Wales, and heir to the throne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and Head of the Commonwealth - someone's going to want to take your picture, too. Lots of someones, as it turns out, and as was always obvious. And it doesn't end just because the marriage does. In fact, it get worse. Why? Because you cheated on, admitted to it, and divorced The Most Eligible Bachelor in the World, Prince of Wales, and heir to the throne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and Head of the Commonwealth. What did you expect? What could you reasonably expect?

 

Actions have consequences and choices do, too. There are few things more annoying to me than people who become famous -or possibly infamous - and then complain about being treated as if they were someone famous. There's naive, and then there's clueless, and then there's something approaching classless.

 

What happened to Diana was sad and tragic. And the effect on her sons was also sad and tragic, and some of that lingers on to the present day. The same was true of Monica, her mistake, and the effects it had on her life. But Monica eventually took responsibility, got help, and came out whole; scarred but whole.

 

Diana's story, and those affected by it, might benefit from seeing it with a greater dose of realism and less of romanticism.

 

Harry is not an unfaithful husband or covers it well. Diana was little more than a royal breeding sow. Charles was in love with and practically living with Camilla most of his life.

[Guest]

You seem to have little sympathy for Harry. Why?

I have lots of sympathy for the young tot who lost his mother so violently. As an adult, it would be healthier for him to stop viewing the press as dangerous murderers. And he needs to accept the fact that, as a Royal, the press will be scrutinizing his behavior closely. This denial of reality is very costly to him: emotionally and financially. As for Meghan, she should have been fully aware that she was going into a life as a full public figure.

[+ WilliamM]

I have lots of sympathy for the young tot who lost his mother so violently. As an adult, it would be healthier for him to stop viewing the press as dangerous murderers. And he needs to accept the fact that, as a Royal, the press will be scrutinizing his behavior closely. This denial of reality is very costly to him: emotionally and financially. As for Meghan, she should have been fully aware that she was going into a life as a full public figure.

Calling Harry a young tot when his mom died is insulting

Edited March 10, 2021 by WilliamM

[+ WilliamM]

I have lots of sympathy for the young tot who lost his mother so violently. As an adult, it would be healthier for him to stop viewing the press as dangerous murderers. And he needs to accept the fact that, as a Royal, the press will be scrutinizing his behavior closely. This denial of reality is very costly to him: emotionally and financially. As for Meghan, she should have been fully aware that she was going into a life as a full public figure.

I mentioned The book Thomas Woodrow Wilson because you have never met or talked to Prince Harry. I made a point of saying Sigmund Frieud's book was not well received. Still you carried on.

[Luv2play]

The Duke may have felt financially precarious but when it came to buying Wallis Simpson jewelry, he was no cheapskate:

 

 

 

 

 

 

One shouldn't confuse the cost of jewelry with its value, particularly if it belonged to a personage of world wide fame. I had a friend who was with a private bank in Geneva in 1987, when the first auction of the Duchess of Windsor's jewelry was being held. He went there to bid on behalf of the bank's clients, the Banque Privee de Geneve, owned by a Rothschild.

 

He was a young and relatively inexperienced banker and came away astounded by the bids that were being made, as they invariably went over by substantial amounts of the pre-bid estimates. The same happened when Jackie Onassis's possessions were put up for auction a decade or so later. In the latter case, a lot of the stuff was "junk" but considered "magic" as Jackie had owned it.

 

Also Edward VIII got a lot of jewelry for Wallis while he was Prince of Wales and for the short time he was king. Some of it was from the Royal family. There are stories that when Edward was still Prince of Wales and started dating Mrs. Simpson, her husband being conveniently absent in New York City where he had a business, she showed up with stunning diamond jewelry and other gems. She certainly made an impression at receptions and dinner parties, whose guests knew she had no private fortune of her own. During this period he had access to the Royal vaults, which was not the case after 1936. One of the top priced items was a diamond and ruby necklace he gave her while he was king for her 40th birthday, which went for $2.4 million, which today would be over $5 million.

 

Admittedly, the baubles Edward bought after the marriage at Cartier did not come cheap but many cost only in the range of 10's of thousands of dollars, which 40 years later commanded prices at auction in the hundreds and even millions of dollars for the best of individual pieces. During the 1940's and 50's, $10,000 would buy a nice house in America in most cities.

 

If you follow these things, as I sometimes do, the Royal family often sells casts offs from their family at auction, such as a decade or so ago when a lot of Princess Margaret's things went up for sale. The prices fetched were fabulous as Meg had the requisite glamour. More recently, stuff from Queen Mary was auctioned off, as a friend of mine bought a large piece of furniture from her estate. She paid 4 or 5 times the actual value of the antique and it came with an impressive parchment certificate from Sotheby's proving its provenance.

 

You are right though that Edward was no cheapskate when it came to buying gifts for his wife "the woman I love", for whom he gave up the throne.

[CuriousByNature]

One shouldn't confuse the cost of jewelry with its value, particularly if it belonged to a personage of world wide fame. I had a friend who was with a private bank in Geneva in 1987, when the first auction of the Duchess of Windsor's jewelry was being held. He went there to bid on behalf of the bank's clients, the Banque Privee de Geneve, owned by a Rothschild.

 

He was a young and relatively inexperienced banker and came away astounded by the bids that were being made, as they invariably went over by substantial amounts of the pre-bid estimates. The same happened when Jackie Onassis's possessions were put up for auction a decade or so later. In the latter case, a lot of the stuff was "junk" but considered "magic" as Jackie had owned it.

 

Also Edward VIII got a lot of jewelry for Wallis while he was Prince of Wales and for the short time he was king. Some of it was from the Royal family. There are stories that when Edward was still Prince of Wales and started dating Mrs. Simpson, her husband being conveniently absent in New York City where he had a business, she showed up with stunning diamond jewelry and other gems. She certainly made an impression at receptions and dinner parties, whose guests knew she had no private fortune of her own. During this period he had access to the Royal vaults, which was not the case after 1936. One of the top priced items was a diamond and ruby necklace he gave her while he was king for her 40th birthday, which went for $2.4 million, which today would be over $5 million.

 

Admittedly, the baubles Edward bought after the marriage at Cartier did not come cheap but many cost only in the range of 10's of thousands of dollars, which 40 years later commanded prices at auction in the hundreds and even millions of dollars for the best of individual pieces. During the 1940's and 50's, $10,000 would buy a nice house in America in most cities.

 

If you follow these things, as I sometimes do, the Royal family often sells casts offs from their family at auction, such as a decade or so ago when a lot of Princess Margaret's things went up for sale. The prices fetched were fabulous as Meg had the requisite glamour. More recently, stuff from Queen Mary was auctioned off, as a friend of mine bought a large piece of furniture from her estate. She paid 4 or 5 times the actual value of the antique and it came with an impressive parchment certificate from Sotheby's proving its provenance.

 

You are right though that Edward was no cheapskate when it came to buying gifts for his wife "the woman I love", for whom he gave up the throne.

Which auction house sold Queen Mary's items, if you happen to know? I follow Sotheby's, Christies and a couple of others, but don't recall seeing anything of hers...

[Guest]

Calling Harry a young tot when his mom died is insulting

Well, he was a 12-year old kid. Impressionable. It must have been very difficult.

[Guest]

I mentioned The book Thomas Woodrow Wilson because you have never met or talked to Prince Harry. I made a point of saying Sigmund Frieud's book was not well received....

 

Ah, yes, of course. I will keep this information regarding Sigmund Freud's book in my mind in the extremely unlikely event I should find myself potentially moved to write a biography on Prince Harry (???? WTF ????).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangential_speech

[+ WilliamM]

Ah, yes, of course. I will keep this information regarding Sigmund Freud's book in my mind in the extremely unlikely event I should find myself potentially moved to write a biography on Prince Harry (???? WTF ????).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangential_speech

 

I am older than you. "Thomas Woodrow Wilson" caused a backlash when it was published. The co-author was assumed to have published a book that Sigmund Frieud never wanted others to see.

 

Hardly tangential just because you have not heard of "Thomas Woodrow Wilson" until now.

[RandyVue]

She'd also have lived if this woman who'd already been photographed tens of thousands of times, posed for just a few more, then rode off quietly into the night.

 

You can't chase a stationary object. They were chasing her because she was running.

 

To keep from having her picture taken?!? Again?!? Why?

 

1) Maybe she had a place to be

2) Maybe she didn’t want to take photos for tabloids that were going to use them to print lies about her anyway

3) Paparazzi are not known for being nice and often say terrible things to get a reaction shot (the money shot) so maybe she wanted to avoid them

4) She was a human being and did not need a reason for her boundaries to be honored just like any other human being

Insinuating that she should’ve just taken the pictures to avoid being dangerously chased down by zealous photographers ....aren’t you embarrassed saying that? Or are you just completely void of empathy?

[mike carey]

The Thursday evening satire segment from the ABC TV news.

[+ Pensant]

At least Meghan Markel has a last name.

 

Evidently, Harry needs to choose one. The Crown made it seem as if Churchill's "Windsor" was it but I read that at Andrew's birth Liz gave in to Philip's demands and changed the last name to Mountbatten-Windsor. Harry used "Wales" in the military (Prince of Wales), but that was a one-off unless he now uses "Sussex" (Duke of Sussex). He could take her last name except she evidently disowned her dying father and all her siblings so she wants a change.

 

Harry will never get a Real ID driver's license in America so it's a good thing he has all those chauffeurs.

Perhaps Hewitt?

[+ bigjoey]

Meghan may have stretched the details of her “imprisonment” (my word) by The Firm.

https://pagesix.com/2021/03/11/meghan-markle-trips-passport-removed/

[MscleLovr]

I saw that too @bigjoey. My only quibble is your use of “may have stretched”…but maybe you’re being kind to Delusional Narcissistic Meghan.

 

When DNM complained to Oprah about this, I did wonder just how much joy and delight she got from

- waiting at check-in,

- being inline to clear Security (even if it was the First Class line)

- showing her passport at Border Control before

- waiting for her luggage to appear on the carousel

 

Silly Me then realised she had just swept from the aircraft to the limo, while her staff dealt with these commonplace formalities.

 

I also recall the staggering cost to UK taxpayers of her ‘baby shower’ in NYC (when UK Police Protection Squad officers had to accompany her, along with armed protection from the State Department).

[+ bigjoey]

I saw that too @bigjoey. My only quibble is your use of “may have stretched”…but maybe you’re being kind to Delusional Narcissistic Meghan.

 

When DNM complained to Oprah about this, I did wonder just how much joy and delight she got from

- waiting at check-in,

- being inline to clear Security (even if it was the First Class line)

- showing her passport at Border Control before

- waiting for her luggage to appear on the carousel

 

Silly Me then realised she had just swept from the aircraft to the limo, while her staff dealt with these commonplace formalities.

 

I also recall the staggering cost to UK taxpayers of her ‘baby shower’ in NYC (when UK Police Protection Squad officers had to accompany her, along with armed protection from the State Department).

You got me?. I was trying to be kind.?

[Guest]

1) Maybe she had a place to be

2) Maybe she didn’t want to take photos for tabloids that were going to use them to print lies about her anyway

3) Paparazzi are not known for being nice and often say terrible things to get a reaction shot (the money shot) so maybe she wanted to avoid them

4) She was a human being and did not need a reason for her boundaries to be honored just like any other human being

 

Insinuating that she should’ve just taken the pictures to avoid being dangerously chased down by zealous photographers ....aren’t you embarrassed saying that? Or are you just completely void of empathy?

I'm sorry, but we live in an ostensibly civilized society, and need to live by certain rules, called "laws," to ensure the safety and functioning of this society. No one asked her to take any photos, nor even pose for them, if that is what you meant to say. Taking photos of someone in public is perfectly legal. If I were having an illicit affair, I wouldn't flaunt it in public, especially if I were someone who totally should have expected the press would be watching closely. Not wanting to have one's photo taken does not give anyone, Royal or not, the "right" to endanger innocent lives by driving in an extremely impaired drunken state at break-neck speeds. Not wearing an seatbelt just adds icing to the cake of bad judgment.

Her death was tragic, but almost entirely due to a series of bad decisions made by her driver and herself. Many people, do, indeed, die due to their own bad decisions. Unlike Harry, she wasn't born a royal. She chose this life, chose to go out in public with another man, chose to instruct her driver to try to avoid the press, and chose to ignore seat belt laws notwithstanding the dangerous driving going on. Of course, greatest blame does go to the driver chose to get completely soused before driving his employer. It's a miracle that no innocent bystanders' lives were lost.

[RandyVue]

I'm sorry, but we live in an ostensibly civilized society, and need to live by certain rules, called "laws," to ensure the safety and functioning of this society. No one asked her to take any photos, nor even pose for them, if that is what you meant to say. Taking photos of someone in public is perfectly legal. If I were having an illicit affair, I wouldn't flaunt it in public, especially if I were someone who totally should have expected the press would be watching closely. Not wanting to have one's photo taken does not give anyone, Royal or not, the "right" to endanger innocent lives by driving in an extremely impaired drunken state at break-neck speeds. Not wearing an seatbelt just adds icing to the cake of bad judgment.

Her death was tragic, but almost entirely due to a series of bad decisions made by her driver and herself. Many people, do, indeed, die due to their own bad decisions. Unlike Harry, she wasn't born a royal. She chose this life, chose to go out in public with another man, chose to instruct her driver to try to avoid the press, and chose to ignore seat belt laws notwithstanding the dangerous driving going on. Of course, greatest blame does go to the driver chose to get completely soused before driving his employer. It's a miracle that no innocent bystanders' lives were lost.

Lots of things are legal, it doesn’t make them the right thing to do. Public figures should be able to have boundaries too. That’s all I have to say about it.

[Guest]

Lots of things are legal, it doesn’t make them the right thing to do. Public figures should be able to have boundaries too. That’s all I have to say about it.

OK. So what's more "wrong"? Taking the photo in public of someone who doesn't want her photo taken? Or driving at over 3.5 times the legal alcohol limit and speeds over twice the legal speed limit? Are you honestly going to look me in the eye and tell me it's the former???

[+ WilliamM]

Breaking news

 

Donald Trump, junior strongly disagrees with Prince Harry's bi racial wife

[+ WilliamM]

OK. So what's more "wrong"? Taking the photo in public of someone who doesn't want her photo taken? Or driving at over 3.5 times the legal alcohol limit and speeds over twice the legal speed limit? Are you honestly going to look me in the eye and tell me it's the former???

Are you blaming Diana for something the driver did that was clearly wrong.

Ridiculous

Edited March 11, 2021 by WilliamM

[CuriousByNature]

"She chose this life, chose to go out in public with another man..."

 

Just to clarify, Diana and Charles were divorced in August 1996 - a year before her death. I'm not sure when her relationship with Dodi began, but at the time of her death she was no longer matrimonially connected to Charles.

[+ nycman]

My worst fear is.....these boring people aren’t going to go away.

[MscleLovr]

Well said @nycman.

 

Strange how this intensely private, media-hating couple turn up so often on TV and in the media.

 

It’s undoubtedly a good thing that they generally have a private (or pet) photographer with them to make an accurate record of their good deeds.