Harry: If you knew what I knew.... I will always protect my family.

[LilyLark 10,112]

My gossip guesses are the following:

1) It's long been rumored that Harry has thought about dropping out of the royal family. One of the royal reporters, who gets a lot of scoops, has talked about it. Plus, there was that play a few years ago which allegedly was based off royal gossip and that was a big part of it (Harry's desire to drop out). I think the stress (the racist Daily Mail abuse, family quarrels, etc.) built up to the point where he was like "we're out."  And I could absolutely see that being a huge part of the rift within his family—remember, the Queen never forgave her Nazi sympathizing uncle because he abdicated and most of the royal family froze him out because he abdicated (when they should have frozen him out for being a Nazi sympathizer).

TLDR: I don't think Meghan was the catalyst—this very well may have been a long time coming.

2) Princess Margaret (who was problematic, tbf) allegedly once said something like "the role of the spare is to be the shield." Some of the gossip bloggers/Nicole Cliffe/etc. theorized that the BRF threw Meghan and Harry under the bus (leaked/created stories for the tabloids) because they wanted to distract the tabloids from reporting more on Prince Andrew. Harry & Meghan are more important than Andrew, BUT they may have been seen as an "acceptable" sacrifice to keep tabs distracted and from digging more into Andrew's past. For example, one of the things that could bring down the BRF is if it found out they paid someone off for Andrew's sake. Harry found out and was like "that's enough of being the scapegoat/shield, it may take down the royal family but my wife and kid aren't going to be a distraction for the press to leave the pedophile alone."  This theory would kind of fit in with Harry going "if you knew what I knew" and the talk about protecting his family.

[Glamourpuss 29,062]

3 minutes ago, LilyLark said:

My gossip guesses are the following:

1) It's long been rumored that Harry has thought about dropping out of the royal family. One of the royal reporters, who gets a lot of scoops, has talked about it. Plus, there was that play a few years ago which allegedly was based off royal gossip and that was a big part of it (Harry's desire to drop out). I think the stress (the racist Daily Mail abuse, family quarrels, etc.) built up to the point where he was like "we're out."  And I could absolutely see that being a huge part of the rift within his family—remember, the Queen never forgave her Nazi sympathizing uncle because he abdicated and most of the royal family froze him out because he abdicated (when they should have frozen him out for being a Nazi sympathizer).

TLDR: I don't think Meghan was the catalyst—this very well may have been a long time coming.

2) Princess Margaret (who was problematic, tbf) allegedly once said something like "the role of the spare is to be the shield." Some of the gossip bloggers/Nicole Cliffe/etc. theorized that the BRF threw Meghan and Harry under the bus (leaked/created stories for the tabloids) because they wanted to distract the tabloids from reporting more on Prince Andrew. Harry & Meghan are more important than Andrew, BUT they may have been seen as an "acceptable" sacrifice to keep tabs distracted and from digging more into Andrew's past. For example, one of the things that could bring down the BRF is if it found out they paid someone off for Andrew's sake. Harry found out and was like "that's enough of being the scapegoat/shield, it may take down the royal family but my wife and kid aren't going to be a distraction for the press to leave the pedophile alone."  This theory would kind of fit in with Harry going "if you knew what I knew" and the talk about protecting his family.

That's a good point about the scapegoat/shield. In every family where there are people of authority/narcissistic personalities there is a family member who is forced to play that role. It's definitely Harry. 

[LilyLark 10,112]

4 minutes ago, Glamourpuss said:

That's a good point about the scapegoat/shield. In every family where there are people of authority/narcissistic personalities there is a family member who is forced to play that role. It's definitely Harry. 

What makes me kind of buy that theory is that Nicole, and some others, pointed out that the press—which has always been fairly harsh towards Meghan and Harry—became even more invasive and awful right around the time Epstein & Andrew resurfaced in the news again and the rumors about William cheating with Rose Hanbury. The timing in the uptick of tabloid stories is absolutely suspicious as h*ll imo. And after everything between Charles and Diana, it became known that the courtiers for the BRF are not above making stuff up or leaking things to the tabloids in an attempt to distract from certain issues.

[Magui 2,629]

I only have a concern, i feel lile if he doesn't want to be a part of the royal family and stuff that is his right. I think i would do the same, since i don't give a damn about all that royalty stuff. But the thing is he and his wife and kid were part of it and media and people around the world will always want know things so my concern is their security, how that is going to work, cause i think Harry and is family needs royalty security steel. So how is that going to work? They will hired security like celebrities? 

[JazzGa 14,621]

1 hour ago, kyanewest said:

There was a rift only after Meghan came into the family. Harry & William have always been very close, with his grandma as well. 

Not to mention that Meghan doesn't talk to her family either, it's the step 1 of a narcissist relationship, isolate them from their family and friends (Harry stopped speaking to his friends as well it's been reported)

 

Stop. Stop!! I cannot stand this special brand of subtle racism and misogyny against Meghan. She "doesn't talk to her family"? Lies. She is very close with her mother. Her father is a narcissist and an abuser and you accuse HER of being the abuser just for being strong enough to remove a toxic parent from contact with her?

  "Her friend" says she's obsessed with this or that? Every time Meghan's "old friend" talks to the tabloids, it is a fake source. What kind of "friend" would throw Meghan under the bus like that? So we're smart enough to not believe fake insiders when it comes to Gaga, but when it comes to a woman you already don't like, we're just believing all the tabs now? Smdh. 

[lego 44,165]

One thing I noticed, their biggest critics are repeating almost word for word what they’re reading from Piers Morgan’s and Katie Hopkins’ twitter feed. Some of the most despised so called journalists. 

example: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sick obsession: 

 

 

 

[lego 44,165]

These people need help👇

 

 

 

“evil wench stole prince harry”

 

 

I’ve read almost the same, right here

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, the Devil of Pop said:

I cannot stand this special brand of subtle racism and misogyny against Meghan.

Im criticizing her actions not her skin color not her gender lol

I think it's racist to always assume people are racist whenever they criticize a person of color. 

[lego 44,165]

1 hour ago, the Devil of Pop said:

I cannot stand this special brand of subtle racism and misogyny against Meghan.

 

It’s so typical to blame the woman. Everything started with her, *she* took him away, *she* manipulated him, *she* destroyed his relationship with royal family, *she’s* bringing down the monarchy etc.

Just look at Piers Morgan’s and Katie Hopkins’ feed, it’s all the same.

 

I’ve had similar experience in my own life, when my hubby’s (now ex) friend turned out to be a huge ****. My hubby cut him off because he was gossiping and inventing **** about me, talking behind his back (because of jealousy, not spending as much time with him as before when they were both single) and to the outsiders, it would look like it was all my fault, like I came between friends. I didn’t. It was my husband’s decision. 

 

Some women exhibit this type of behavior as well, when they hate another woman for no rational reason and their excuse is “I’m a woman and a feminist I cannot possibly be a misogynist as well”. Yes you can and it shows. 

 

[StrawberryBlond 14,900]

4 hours ago, lego said:

The only truly credible part of what you're saying is that DM (I think?) one about her being straight outta Compton. Very poorly advised and shameful, agreed. Remember that this was back when they were just dating and nobody knew who she was so there was likely less of a filter there. You'll notice they stopped saying all that stuff once he got serious with her and it all became glowing, however. But you've literally included something from dailystormer which is "an alt-right, Neo-Nazi, white supremacist and Holocaust denier site" that advocates for the genocide of Jews. Of course such a publication will be racist, so that one's irrelevant. And as for that little exchange, which I can't even read, is that even from a newspaper? My point is, unless you're seeing blatant racism on mainstream tabloids, you're just reaching for a sign of hatred here. All the press I've seen of her from the average publication is reporting on what is literally in front of them (what she's wearing/saying/doing) and/or highly favourable. There was a massive campaign when they got engaged to treat her as the second coming, the press wanted us to love her. It was only when the public didn't match up to the press's narrative that they started to reflect how we felt and were more critical towards her.

3 hours ago, Glamourpuss said:

He has said in recent years that his mother's death really affected him. There was a lack of empathy in his family and it made him feel depressed. He didn't want to be involved in the public spectacle that was his mother's funeral, but he was made to. I think he would have preferred to mourn privately. 

It's really sad. He was too young and I get the sense that he is an empathic person. Now it seems like he doesn't want his wife and children to suffer the same fate. Now that he has got love and happiness and he really knows what it is, he wants to choose that.

The royal family is really outdated with their traditions and their beliefs. This is a man who as a boy who would have been sent off to boarding school and told to keep it to himself if he started to express any of his inner feelings. They don't deal with any of that stuff in that family. 

I don't blame him for wanting to seperate himself from them and pave his own way with the support of his wife. 

I get all that but despite it all, he was always close to his family. He liked being a part of them and seemed to enjoy the freedom of being royal but not in immediate succession to the throne, so he could cut loose more than William could. There's a reason why William never dated umpteen girls or wore a Nazi outfit to a Halloween party or got caught playing naked billiards in Vegas with a mystery girl in the background. He was under far more restriction than Harry because he's second in line and has to be kept on the straight and narrow. With every new heir that William's produced, Harry's been pushed further and further away from the throne and has never had any issue with that. He never stood a chance of ruling one day so abdicating would make no difference. He'd be as well staying in, seeing as he's lived his entire life in privilege and would struggle to survive in the big bad world with no real life skills or how to deal with the common people. Point is, he seemed fine with this cushy existence until Meghan came along, a civilian woman who's lived a life of LA celebrity and lived her life just as she pleases with no restriction up until now. It doesn't take much to see who could've pushed him to make this decision. I knew when they got married that she would start missing that LA sunshine and celebrity culture. You don't leave all that for cold, rainy Britain and a completely different culture and not miss it. I knew she'd be itching to get back ASAP, I just didn't think she'd try to do it this soon.

3 hours ago, Glamourpuss said:

I used to think the same thing but when you look at their body language, eye contact and beaming smiles. You can tell they are genuinely in love.

He is. She, on the other hand, screams fake. She's too smiley, too simpering, too try-hard. Remember, she's an actress. You'll notice the look she gives Harry is the same one she gives to just about anyone, including the men in her acting roles that she pretended she was in love with. You'll notice if you look at any interviews with her pre-Harry that she was a very different person. Check out the clips of her on the Craig Ferguson show. Flirty, bubbly, vivacious, laughing knowingly at every innuendo (even a really obscure dirty one). So different from the softly spoken delicate flower she was in that engagement interview. It's like two different people. Once you've watched the two personalities back to back, it's clear which one's real and which one's an act. It's like the former stripper who pretends to be a good girl when she meets her boyfriend's parents for the first time so they can accept her. I think playing a conservative role as a royal was too much for a former LA party girl with a fondness for mini-dresses and sexy modelling shoots. Let's make it quite clear - Harry is not the kinda guy a girl like this normally goes for. He's so different to her, why would she even be attracted to him? Harry does nothing for me, looks or personality. What does an LA party girl see in him other than his money and connections?

3 hours ago, lego said:

Tell us more, oh insider.

It’s funny you think you know more than Harry about this family’s secrets. And you also seem to lack empathy.

I know stuff from insiders. I can't tell you who they are, obviously. But I can tell you that celebrity gossip magazines never used to have the inside track on what was going on in the royal household, it was too tight-knit, too heavily guarded. But since Meghan came on the scene, there's been tip off after tip off, which is why we found news about Harry and Meghan's plans in the forms of rumours for weeks before it actually happens. She's the one leaking the details and telling her friends to tell their side of things to the press to make her look good and hired her own PR firm because she wants 3 stories about her in the press everyday. That's what's actually going on, taken from someone who deals with these tip offs.

3 hours ago, LilyLark said:

The white side of her family is clearly racist and abusive AF. Cutting them out is not a big deal imo. I don't think Meghan or Harry are perfect (they've made mistakes) but the backlash has been so over the top (and the racist elements of a lot of the backlash is obviously horrible and not deserved). The Daily Mail has been insanely racist and abusive towards her and have created so many fake scandals when there was nothing wrong.

Where were they showing signs of racism? Her family are just telling it like it is when she was around. I always say believe the family and those closest to someone because they'll know who they really her. Her family have known her all her life - they'll have seen the good, the bad and the ugly, the side the cameras haven't seen. Narcissists always have a long line of people trailing in their wake warning a new spouse about them but they usually get dismissed as jealous, bitter and crazy. Because the narcissist has made their victim believe that they're the only one who understands them and the rest of the world is mean. And the victim has fallen hook, line and sinker and won't hear a word against their beloved, even when there's evidence to the contrary. The DM have reported nothing but truths about her. It's only because it's negative that you think it's abusive. What fake scandals have they created?

2 hours ago, LilyLark said:

Princess Margaret (who was problematic, tbf) allegedly once said something like "the role of the spare is to be the shield." Some of the gossip bloggers/Nicole Cliffe/etc. theorized that the BRF threw Meghan and Harry under the bus (leaked/created stories for the tabloids) because they wanted to distract the tabloids from reporting more on Prince Andrew. Harry & Meghan are more important than Andrew, BUT they may have been seen as an "acceptable" sacrifice to keep tabs distracted and from digging more into Andrew's past. For example, one of the things that could bring down the BRF is if it found out they paid someone off for Andrew's sake. Harry found out and was like "that's enough of being the scapegoat/shield, it may take down the royal family but my wife and kid aren't going to be a distraction for the press to leave the pedophile alone."  This theory would kind of fit in with Harry going "if you knew what I knew" and the talk about protecting his family.

It was Meghan (who also dispatched her friends) who was selling stories to the press. We never heard a bad word against William and Kate throughout their entire courtship but then Meghan comes along and we get stories about William supposedly cheating and Kate having a feud with some aristocrat. Those stories disappeared so fast however because it was obvious that they were BS. It's no coincidence that this stuff only came out when Meghan came on the scene. Whenever any royal did something, there was always a Meghan article to follow, overshadowing what they did. You don't think the news of their abandonment came about on Kate's birthday by coincidence, do you? If the royals really wanted to use them as a scapegoat, why would they keep them in the press to overshadow the positive occasions as well? There's a common thread here - there was never any trouble within Harry, William and Kate until Meghan came along. It's almost like she's the cause of the rift.

2 hours ago, LilyLark said:

What makes me kind of buy that theory is that Nicole, and some others, pointed out that the press—which has always been fairly harsh towards Meghan and Harry—became even more invasive and awful right around the time Epstein & Andrew resurfaced in the news again and the rumors about William cheating with Rose Hanbury. The timing in the uptick of tabloid stories is absolutely suspicious as h*ll imo. And after everything between Charles and Diana, it became known that the courtiers for the BRF are not above making stuff up or leaking things to the tabloids in an attempt to distract from certain issues.

Wrong - stories about them grew thin on the ground when the Andrew scandal broke. For once, the press weren't talking about them. They were on their break, after all, so there was nothing to report on. It's only now, when the scandal has died down a bit and they've returned from their break that the press started talking about them again. If anything, I thought they were laying low because of the scandal and thought it best not to do anything to draw attention to them for a while.

2 hours ago, mauvais said:

Meghan and Harry both seem to value kind actions and words of affirmation. We saw it in that interview where she was so thankful someone asked her how she felt.

Meghan acts like no one ever asked her how she felt. Obviously Harry did that, as did her mother and all her close friends. She doesn't say "no one" asked her how she was. She says "not many." Which means several must have asked but that wasn't enough for her. Exactly how many people does one need to ask them if they're alright before they feel assured? Most of us are fine with just one. That was a calculated moment to make the public feel sorry for her (doe eyes, biting lip and all) and it was so clearly fake when she said it.

2 hours ago, the Devil of Pop said:

Stop. Stop!! I cannot stand this special brand of subtle racism and misogyny against Meghan. She "doesn't talk to her family"? Lies. She is very close with her mother. Her father is a narcissist and an abuser and you accuse HER of being the abuser just for being strong enough to remove a toxic parent from contact with her?

  "Her friend" says she's obsessed with this or that? Every time Meghan's "old friend" talks to the tabloids, it is a fake source. What kind of "friend" would throw Meghan under the bus like that? So we're smart enough to not believe fake insiders when it comes to Gaga, but when it comes to a woman you already don't like, we're just believing all the tabs now? Smdh. 

"Special brand" of racism and misogyny? What exactly is that? What part of anyone's criticism has been race or gender related? Being close to her mother - one single, solitary family member, does not mean she is close to her family. By the way, she wasn't close to her mother until she became famous. Her dad raised her, paid for her tuition (which she lied and she said she paid for herself in a speech), she didn't bring up her mother once in interview before she was famous but mentioned her dad often. She dumped him when he was no longer of use to her. Her mother fits her agenda more, so naturally, she brought her back into her life and acts like they were always this close.

Meghan's friends have been trying to make her look good in the press every time she gets criticised and she's been using them to put out tip offs about the royals. I'm not believing the tabloids, I'm believing the information that exists about her that tabloids exposed. I don't know how anyone could read all the dirt on her and possibly still support her.

1 hour ago, lego said:

One thing I noticed, their biggest critics are repeating almost word for word what they’re reading from Piers Morgan’s and Katie Hopkins’ twitter feed. Some of the most despised so called journalists.

We have our own minds, thank you. I've never needed anyone else to validate my thoughts about her. I saw 3 major red flags and I had made up my mind. #1 - she did a solo interview for Vanity Fair in the early days of dating him and Harry's previous girlfriends (not to mention, future royal wives) had never done that, suggesting that she was maybe into the fame game a bit much. #2 - in the engagement interview, she said she didn't really know who he was when she met him even though Prince Harry was widely considered the world's most eligible batchelor at the time and he was widely covered in America because of Diana. #3 - the day after the engagement, all her previous acting roles came out, almost all of them playing hot party girl roles (including THAT 90210 scene) and being a briefcase girl on Deal or No Deal and that cringey sexy burger-eating shoot for Men's Health. It was clear this was not a girl cut out for royal life and she was addicted to fame. Ever since then, everything that's come out about her has validated my initial impression. I didn't even know about Pier's ghosting story back then. But that did add to the pile.

3 minutes ago, lego said:

It’s so typical to blame the woman. Everything started with her, *she* took him away, *she* manipulated him, *she* destroyed his relationship with royal family, *she’s* bringing down the monarchy etc.

Just look at Piers Morgan’s and Katie Hopkins’ feed, it’s all the same.

 

I’ve had similar experience in my own life, when my hubby’s (now ex) friend turned out to be a huge ****. My hubby cut him off because he was gossiping and inventing **** about me, talking behind his back (because of jealousy, not spending as much time with him as before when they were both single) and to the outsiders, it would look like it was all my fault, like I came between friends. I didn’t. It was my husband’s decision. 

 

Some women exhibit this type of behavior as well, when they hate another woman for no rational reason and their excuse is “I’m a woman and a feminist I cannot possibly be a misogynist as well”. Yes you can and it shows.

It's nothing to do with her being a woman. It's all to do with the behaviour which I would have criticised no matter who it was.

Your situation's completely different. He was the one doing wrong and showing himself up, you don't mention anything from your side, so it sounds like you were chill and he was the one freaking out, so people were probably glad to be rid of him. Harry, on the other hand, is defending a woman who is shady herself. If I was famous and I'd just got married to an American who the press exposed as flirting up a storm on Twitter towards every British C-list celebrity (they all turned her down, by the way) before moving on to me, I'd feel totally played and demand to know the meaning of this. I wondered if that was the moment where Harry was going to realise he'd made a huge mistake but alas, he's too blinded by her. To quote one commentator "she was hunting for minnows and ended up catching a whale." If Harry loses his title, she'll be outta there and won't look back.

[lego 44,165]

another example of the sickness 

 

[lego 44,165]

examples of racism within “family” and BP not commenting on it: 

 

 

 

Blackamoor art, mostly made in the 18th century, often depicts dark-skinned Africans in subservient roles in sculptures, figurines and jewellery. Some have suggested that it fetishises racial conquest.

"Apparently wearing slavery inspired brooches is the ultimate royal holiday tradition," wrote one Twitter user. "Can't believe she wore this for the Queen’s lunch."

Another said: "As a Republican I find the behaviour of Princess Michael of Kent to be obnoxious, outrageous and offensive."

Another added: "It's hard to believe that wearing a blackamoor brooch by Princess Michael was not a deliberate insult to Meghan Markle at the Queen's lunch."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/princess-michael-kent-racist-brooch-queen-christmas-lunch-royal-family-meghan-markel-buckingham-a8125031.html

 

 

 

A royal ex has made further allegations of racism against Princess Michael of Kent

"[She] invited trouble out of what felt like a desire to shock: her pair of black sheep in Gloucestershire were named Venus and Serena."

..

Taseer also commented on her tone-deaf reaction to another racist controversy which took place back in 2004, when Princess Michael reportedly told a group of black customers to "go back to the colonies" because she believed they were talking too loudly in a restaurant.

...

Buckingham Palace has not responded to the allegations and a spokesperson for the Princess Michael of Kent told The Daily Mail: "There won't be any comment on the story."

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-news/a30477417/duchess-of-sussex-meghan-markle-voiceover-deal-disney/?_gl=1*1yr2a9x*_ga*YW1wLVJBNC1nVlNPbkVZNklnb09NQ1RNSmcyeXptcEQ2Q0pkdlNXTnBqRXIzQUhHeEV6M1Bxci04Zk1tdnR6bV9CNlI.

 

From the very first headline about her being “(almost) straight outta Compton” and having “exotic” DNA, the racist treatment of Meghan has been impossible to ignore. Princess Michael of Kent wore an overtly racist broochin the duchess’s company. A BBC host compared the couple’s newborn baby to a chimpanzee. Then there was the sublimely ludicrous suggestion that Meghan’s avocado consumption is responsible for mass murder, while her charity cookbook was portrayed as somehow helping terrorists.

Those who claim frequent attacks against the duchess have nothing to do with her race have a hard time explaining these attempts to link her with particularly racialized forms of crime — terrorism and gang activity — as well as the fact that she has been most venomously attacked for acts that attracted praise when other royals did them. Her decision to guest-edit British Vogue, for example, was roundly condemned by large parts of the British media, in stark contrast to Prince Charles’s two-time guest editorship of Country Life magazine, Prince Harry’s of a BBC programand Kate Middleton’s at Huffington Post, all of which were quietly praised at the time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/opinion/meghan-markle-prince-harry.html

 

 

[xoxo Craig 55,649]

10 hours ago, kyanewest said:

That's a conspiracy theory. Just like people thinking Kennedys killed Marilyn there are no  proof at all.

Its a very credible conspiracy theory lmao, that crash was not by accident. It was premeditated, planned, and executed so that she was the only one who would suffer fatally. 

[PunkTheFunk 124,521]

10 hours ago, LilyLark said:

Harry & Meghan are more important than Andrew, BUT they may have been seen as an "acceptable" sacrifice to keep tabs distracted and from digging more into Andrew's past.

Oh as if the media can't multitask  They can dig into Andrew's past AND keep tabs on Harry and Meghan 

[HausOfMark 4,279]

Interesting.