Stay in Touch
Get sneak previews of special offers & upcoming events delivered to your inbox.
Sign in
03-02-2021 06:39 PM
@Bri369 wrote:
@Pearlee wrote:
@manny2 wrote:
@Pearlee wrote:
@Bri369 wrote:
@ellaphant wrote:
@Pearlee wrote:
@manny2 wrote:
@icezeus wrote:First of all, yes I will be watching.
Secondly, if Prince Phillip was to die at the wonderful advanced age of 99, then of course they should cancel the interview.
The hatred that some of you have for that woman, which has spilled over to Harry, is interesting.
You don't like her we get it. I have my own thought process which I will keep to myself on why some of you despise her so much.
My opinion.
@icezeus I don't get your post. This is a discussion board,so why keep your opinion to yourself. If we all did that why would we come here to discuss?
Second we don't have "hatred for that woman" some of us just don't like her. We see her for what she is an opportunist.
@manny2 Well said, but we both know why she didn't dare state her opinion.
Really, she's an opportunist? That;s your opinion. The snark and nastiness on these boards about this couple is unbelievable.
...and tiresome
@Bri369 But not so tiresome that you don't just skip over the Harry and Meghan threads. 🙄
@ellaphant It was Manny who called Meghan an opportunist. I just agreed with her. Read carefully.
I get a real kick out of some of the responses. I don't understand the response "tiresome"? Why are you on a discussion board if it so tiresome to read other posters opinions. It can't be that tiresome since you responded.
@manny2 Right! And as I posted above, she keeps reading the H&M threads even though she knows what they are from the title. So they can't be all that tiresome! Obviously. 😄
@Pearlee You have completely misunderstood, which is not surprising.
The threads are not in the least tiresome. It would be nice to actually have a conversation of the topic without your tiresome opinions.
@Bri369 🥱 Well unless my opinions are violating TOU, you'll just have to deal with them. And if they are i have no doubt you will report them.
03-02-2021 06:43 PM
@PamfromCT wrote:I personally think this interview is a very sad event. For what purpose? Much has already been said. Is it necessary to say any more? There has already been much hurt and disappointment.
My question is very trivial. If H and M want to officially leave the royal family and all duties, are they financially on their own as well? I don’t think so. Oh, they are “owed” this financial support? It’s either one way or another.
It would be the right thing for Harry would get on a plane and visit his grandfather. It would mean so much. I am. Or a fan of either H or M, strictly for their behavior. Period.
Actually, yes, they are on their own. It's the remainder of the family that continue to live off the taxpayers.
I'm not sure why you would think Harry should jet over to England when there has been only one visitor from the royal family--his son Charles--that made a 20 minute visit. None of his other children, or grandchildren, have visited nor has the Queen.
This is the fourth time Phillip has been hospitalized in the past eight years and the Queen has never once paid a visit. Covid-19 is being cited as the reason.
At least this time she has a good excuse, lol.
03-02-2021 06:49 PM
Gee, that’s a bit of news. I thought Queen Elizabeth was one of the wealthiest women in the world. And the British taxpayers support the royal family? That doesn’t seem right.
03-02-2021 06:51 PM
Actually, they continue to live off the Royal Family, isn't that what this interview is all about? If not for the Royal connection, there would be no Oprah, Spotify, or Netflix.
03-02-2021 06:58 PM
If Prince Philip's condition becomes grave, I'm sure that the Queen and other close family members, including Prince Harry, would visit him. I doubt that Meghan would travel, since she seems farther along in her pregnancy. If he were to pass, it's CBS's decision as to whether they would postpone it, but I'm sure they would take Oprah's and H & M's wishes under consideration.
03-02-2021 06:58 PM - edited 03-02-2021 07:15 PM
@PamfromCT wrote:Gee, that’s a bit of news. I thought Queen Elizabeth was one of the wealthiest women in the world. And the British taxpayers support the royal family? That doesn’t seem right.
I agree, so maybe the Queen should consider repaying the $82,000,000 paid by the Sovereign Grant in 2018-2019. But, I mean...probably don't hold your breath for it.
eta ~ I should have mentioned that 82.4 million is in British pounds and roughly converts $115 million US dollars. Just for reference.
03-02-2021 07:02 PM
@occasionalrain wrote:Actually, they continue to live off the Royal Family, isn't that what this interview is all about? If not for the Royal connection, there would be no Oprah, Spotify, or Netflix.
Absolutely @occasionalrain. Were it not for the royal connection, they'd be on no one's list... As for royal finances, they're complex but transparent. Anyone interested can pull up head of state financial and treasury reports. While the working royal family does indeed garner revenue from various public sources, and hence the focus on public duties and responsibilities that most, but clearly not all, senior royals accept as their jobs, most are also wealthy in their own right. They don't exactly operate on the public dole alone, as some would prefer to have everyone believe.
03-02-2021 07:03 PM
@occasionalrain wrote:Actually, they continue to live off the Royal Family, isn't that what this interview is all about? If not for the Royal connection, there would be no Oprah, Spotify, or Netflix.
I believe the comment was that Harry and Meghan are being paid by the royal family which, in fact, they are not.
I will agree that because of who they are many doors will be opened for them professionally speaking. It's no different than any other person who benefits from familial connections.
03-02-2021 07:13 PM
I always find it interesting and unfortunate that some, in their zeal to defend someone or someones they feel need defending, choose to deflect by denigrating others that weren't even part of the equation. It's as though they can only make a case by trying to highlight what they view as worse cases than the one immediately under discussion. For example, it's unclear to me how discussion of a 94 year old monarch, her history of visits to the hospital to view her ailing husband or her financial statements are relevant to whether or not CBS should air what some assume will be (but probably won't be) a tell-all interview featuring Markle and Harry.
03-02-2021 07:17 PM
@stevieb wrote:I always find it interesting and unfortunate that some, in their zeal to defend someone or someones they feel need defending, choose to deflect by denigrating others that weren't even part of the equation. It's as though they can only make a case by trying to highlight what they view as worse cases than the one immediately under discussion. For example, it's unclear to me how discussion of a 94 year old monarch, her history of visits to the hospital to view her ailing husband or her financial statements are relevant to whether or not CBS should air what some assume will be (but probably won't be) a tell-all interview featuring Markle and Harry.
@stevieb. "Tiresome" isn't it? 😉
Get sneak previews of special offers & upcoming events delivered to your inbox.
*You're signing up to receive QVC promotional email.
Find recent orders, do a return or exchange, create a Wish List & more.
Privacy StatementGeneral Terms of Use
QVC is not responsible for the availability, content, security, policies, or practices of the above referenced third-party linked sites nor liable for statements, claims, opinions, or representations contained therein. QVC's Privacy Statement does not apply to these third-party web sites.
© 1995-2024 QVC, Inc. All rights reserved. | QVC, Q and the Q logo are registered service marks of ER Marks, Inc. 888-345-5788