Duchess Meghan didn’t mean that Prince Harry ‘lost his dad’ in the Sussexit

It’s always fascinating to watch what happens immediately after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex do something big. It usually takes a couple of hours for the British media to catch up and figure out their strategy for how they will attack, smear, demean and insult them. The Mail couldn’t quite figure out their talking points on Duchess Meghan’s The Cut cover profile for hours. It was interesting to see what they did (eventually) latch onto. One of the issues was the section where Meghan is asked about her toxic father and I believe The Cut sort of misrepresented what Meghan said: “Harry said to me, ‘I lost my dad in this process.’ It doesn’t have to be the same for them as it was for me, but that’s his decision.” It probably should have been “Harry said to me that I lost my dad in this process” rather than a sub-quote, making it clear that Meghan was speaking about losing her father, not Harry saying that he lost his father.

Well,the Sussex PR people actually did some minor damage control on that. A source “clarified” to Page Six that “Meghan actually meant to say she did not want Harry to lose his relationship with his dad — and not that it was already ‘lost.’” Omid Scobie also got contacted by Camp Sussex, and he posted this:

Yeah. As I said, the royal commentators latched onto that odd quote after a few hours, to the point where palace sources were even huffing and puffing about it to Page Six:

Prince Harry “lost” his father, Prince Charles, following his exit from the royal family, Meghan Markle said in a bombshell new interview.

A source tells Page Six exclusively that Markle actually meant to say that she did not want Harry, 37, to lose his dad.

One highly placed royal insider adds, “I’m not aware that Harry has broken up with his father. Charles gave Harry and Meghan millions when they left the UK. Right now, the family are all at Balmoral, and I’m sure they are aghast at this interview.”

[From Page Six]

AGHAST! Were they, gasp, blind-sided? Did The Cut slap the Queen in the face? Did Meghan’s palm trees set off a grenade in the heart of the monarchy? Please tell me more! Anyway, I believe Charles gave the Sussexes some money before they left, but that’s because he knew the palace was cutting off their security. And then Charles cut off contact with them. Things were bad between Montecito and Clarence House for a while, but… there has been some minor thawing. Charles and the Sussexes met privately during the Jubbly. Charles apparently met Lilibet and got to see Archie too. The relationship between Charles and Harry is not dead, it’s just irrevocably damaged. I doubt Charles was aghast.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red, cover courtesy of The Cut.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

90 Responses to “Duchess Meghan didn’t mean that Prince Harry ‘lost his dad’ in the Sussexit”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. OzJennifer says:

    Well, I admit that I misinterpreted this the first time around. It’s good to have clarification.

    • DouchesOfCambridge says:

      Me too. I thought it was quite blunt but it was misinterpretation

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      Yes, I did too😊 which given everything we know about what Charles did and didn’t do, it totally made sense. However, I’m glad for the clarification.

    • Eurydice says:

      It wasn’t a misinterpretation, it was a misquote. Punctuation is there for a reason – change the punctuation, you change the meaning.

    • The Old Chick says:

      Me too, but that’s bad writing. The context should have been given. For such an important quote it’s pretty lazy

      • DouchesofCambridge says:

        The more I think of it, it’s so bas that I think the writer did it on purpose to cause some kind of shock. Very a$$holy of him.

      • JayNay says:

        @DuchesofCambridge the writer is a Black woman.
        Also, mistakes happen. I admit I was confused about the wording too at first, and maybe it should’ve been caught during editing. But ascribing malicious intent is a bit much.

    • MF says:

      Same. FWIW, the ambiguity is the writer’s fault, not Meghan’s. Davis should’ve rephrased or summarized this quote so it was clearer.

      • Yup, Me says:

        Or should have asked Meghan to clarify what she meant.

      • DK says:

        I’m guessing Davis made an honest mistake – she probably misinterpreted it herself as she heard Meghan say it and may well have understood Meghan to mean Harry speaking about his own father. (Especially since, if Meghan were quoting Harry, technically she should have phrased it as, “Harry said to me, ‘*You* lost your father…'” since she was quoting Harry speaking to her – but an easy oversight to make when speaking for hours to a journalist!).

        It’s easy to see how, to Meghan speaking it, her original meaning (Meghan lost her dad) probably seemed obvious to her (Meghan), and to Davis listening to it, the meaning she implied in the piece (Harry lost his dad) probably seemed obvious to her (Davis), so that, as an interviewer, it wouldn’t even occur to Davis she might have misunderstood/should have asked Meghan to clarify to whom the pronoun “I” referred, etc.

        It just seems like an honest miscommunication all around, and not necessarily “laziness” or poor summary on Davis’ part.

    • kirk says:

      I take the clarification as proof that Meghan did not see the article prior to publication because she would have corrected the author’s misunderstanding / misrepresentation that:
      “toxic tabloid culture has torn two families apart.”
      The Cut author clearly said TWO families.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ So, I get the mistaken interpretation. There was a way to make it clearer by the writer since this is an important point in the article. The way it’s written, the quote can be interpreted in different ways. We discussed this passage in the original thread, as there was voiced confusion about how it should be interpreted. When I first read it, I thought it meant Harry said that M lost her father. But I wasn’t sure, so I immediately re-read it and interpreted it the other way around. Good that M has clarified what she meant. Meanings do get lost quite often in these types of profiles. The writer even questions at the end whether she completely understood Meghan overall. Apparently, in some aspects, the writer didn’t! LOL.

        However @kirk, with all the levels of nuances and interpretations, coupled with what actually has happened, I don’t think it’s wrong for the writer to say, “two families have been torn apart by toxic culture.” Harry is definitely estranged from Will, and other particular members of the royal family have chosen sides and have been icy toward Harry. So yes, two families have been torn apart. Again, Harry clarified in the Oprah interview that he was working things through with his father, but that there was “space” between him and his brother.

      • aftershocks says:

        In addition, those of us who have followed these events closely, know full well there are specific reasons why the break happened between Will & Harry well before Sussexit. Indeed, it’s largely W&K’s jealousy, malicious leaks and petty behavior that directly led to Sussexit! We also know that the specific reasons for the brothers’ rift have been covered over and willfully lied about by the BM.

        Salty Isle rota aided and abetted by palace sources want the world to think that the Oprah interview caused the rift between the brothers, when we know that M&H spoke to Oprah because of the ongoing betrayals by palace sources, and in order to set the record straight by telling as many truths as they could about why Sussexit happened. Harry clearly asked in that interview for the royal firm to “call off the dogs.” Remember? And what was the response? The rota, the firm, and especially KP sanctioned by Will, immediately doubled down on their lies, denials, and f*ckery against the Sussexes.

        The ultimate betrayal was when Will gave Jason Knauf the go ahead to purposely collude with the DF to try and harm Meghan’s suit against the DF. All of this is clear in the minds of us who have closely followed these events.

      • kirk says:

        @aftershocks – understand what you’re saying. But think it would be more accurate to say ‘toxic tabloid culture’ tore Meghan’s Family apart; AND the ‘tabloids’ were effectively utilized by members of Harry’s Family and The Firm to create a rift that cannot be healed within the ‘toxic culture.’

  2. LovelyRose says:

    Meghan is so gracious. The BRF are lucky she’s such a good egg because A LOT of people would be dragging them given what the BRF and British media did, and is doing, to her.

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      I agree LovelyRose! I like to think that I’m a good person who’s gracious but I don’t think that I could restrain myself from burning it all to the ground after all that they put her through.

    • Ronaldinhio says:

      She is gracious.
      I found The Cut article to at times read like a hit piece, am I alone in that?

      • FC says:

        @ronaldinhio I think the writer’s expositional takes are sharp at times, but I don’t think it’s an all out hit piece. American media (at least the good journalists) aren’t sycophantic about the royals, and that’s a good thing.

      • MsIam says:

        I didn’t read the article because it’s behind a pay wall. But I listened to someone read it on YouTube and it didn’t come across like a hit piece to me. I think the writer was trying to interject some humor in the piece so it wouldn’t be dry and also not come across like a fan blog. Overall, I enjoyed it. And Meghan likes to poke fun at herself so I believe she will be fine with it too.

      • aftershocks says:

        Yeah, the article is simply a profile on Meghan to promote Archetypes. The way it’s written by the writer should be taken with a grain of salt. There’s no bad intent anywhere. And there’s no reason for everything in it to be over-analyzed (which Salty Isle rota always do when it comes to Meghan).

        I just think the writer does not have the benefit of some of the deeper understandings we have, because of our close, astute knowledge of royal events in recent years.

    • Purley Pot says:

      I don’t think Meghan will ever go full out on the BRF. She loves Harry too much and he still loves his family. If the family ever comes out and denounces him completely, all bets are off.

      • Jais says:

        Maybe never go full out, but it will still be death by a thousand paper cuts. Every breath she breathes causes apocalyptic fits.

  3. Polo says:

    They are analyzing Meghan’s words like she’s the future prime minister. Sheesh!!
    I understood what she meant the first time around and in the context of the article though I doubt Harrys relationship with his father is what it was before. I guess we’ll find out more once his book comes out.

  4. Arizona says:

    to be honest, I’m not sure whether I think the writer screwed up the way that it was written, OR that’s what she actually meant and is backtracking.

    also, why would they clarify through Scobie and not The Cut? that’s kind of strange.

    • equality says:

      Since H and PC have actually seen each other and talked, why would that be what she meant? Maybe the same clarification was sent to the Cut and they didn’t run with it for some reason.

    • Becks1 says:

      Probably bc Scobie reached out and asked. I don’t think the Sussexes went to him to clarify, I think he called their spokesperson and got a response.

    • MsIam says:

      If you read the whole sentence, you can tell it’s a context/editing error. The part where Meghan is quoted as saying that it doesn’t have to happen the same way but that is up to them. Or something like that. And it may be revised since this is a digital issue. Hopefully they can fix it before it goes to print.

      • HennyO says:

        It’s indeed clear from the second part of the sentence that Meghan ment that her relationship with HER father is broken, and that she hopes that Harry should not have to make the same decisions as she did, regarding his father. I think that, if the word ‘that’ was put before Meghan’s quote, the meaning of the quote would have been clearer. It’s indeed bad editing how her quote was introduced in the article.

        Side note: since it’s such a loaded subject (break with family), I wonder if Meghan was given/ asked for a prepublished version of the article. If so, she or someone in her team, like her pr person/publicist, would have seen/read it.

      • SomeChick says:

        it’s pretty unusual for subjects of articles to get to see the piece before it runs. my guess is that Meghan made her own voice recording of the interview but I doubt she got to see it before it ran.

      • aftershocks says:

        When will the print edition of this issue of The Cut (New Yorker) be available?

    • Surly Gale says:

      Eats, Shoots and Leaves versus Eats Shoots and Leaves
      Brilliant Book
      Words matter. Punctuation matters too
      I understood original intent.

      • Petra ( Brazen Archetyped Phenomenal Woman) says:

        Another Eats, Shoots and leave fan here. This book helped this non-English speaker a ton. I’m still learning, and I understood the “original intent” of the sentence in the cut article.

      • Jennifer says:

        “Let’s eat, Grandma!” vs. “Let’s eat Grandma!” ‘Nuff said.

        But seriously, I got exactly what that meant. “Lost” as in “I thought my daddy was a good person and now I’ve found out he’s an asshole that I don’t want to be around.”

  5. Naomi says:

    I really loved this article! It was totally even-handed. Neither fawning nor overly critical. Definitely things Meghan said & did I find cringe, but in a way that fleshes her out as a (really cheesy) person. No hate! Just, like, that’s who she is: someone who is smart and thoughtful, as well as hyper-aware of herself and a bit precious/twee about everything. This is the kind of profile I’ve been wanting for so long, that gives us a real person who has strengths and flaws. A human!

    • Ginger says:

      I agree Naomi. She was too good, too nice to survive in that family. I’m glad she seems at peace now.

    • HARPERING says:

      +1 very well put! It’s not a criticism of Meghan to include certain observations of her actions and her (own!) words. It shapes an impression of her as a real person and not some martyr. I am a fan of Meghan but it *strengthens* her image for her to be seen as flawed, because it’s more relatable. Journalists are not hagiographers!

      As a related aside, some CB commenters need to chill on criticizing Allison P. Davis. She is one of the most respected celebrity interviewers in the game. Her articles are some of the most entertaining, and she doesn’t fawn over her subjects, she can be critical and very funny. And that comes through in the article on Meghan.

      • Naomi says:

        Yes! Lainey pointed out that Davis is a highly esteemed writer/journalist. And honestly kudos to Meghan for selecting Davis for her first big profile. Meghan could’ve gone with a writer who would basically be a publicist/hagiographer, but she purposely chose someone who is going to give an honest assessment of her. Good on Meghan, opting for a REAL celebrity profile. That’s a risk to take, and it takes courage!

      • Ginger says:

        Agreed! We are used to the fawning coverage of the Cambridge’s ( where they are seen as the second coming of Jesus Christ) so this article could be seen as critical. It’s not. It’s not fawning or critical, it’s balanced and neutral (the way articles are supposed to be) The way Davis wrote on how she was supposed to greet Harry is proof that she isn’t a royalist and doesn’t care to be. I liked it and it made me like Meghan more.

      • ella says:

        Sorry but sometimes a great writer gets it wrong.

        I think Davis thought this was just another A-list profile. H&M are not on the A-list They are their own list-name another glamourous, sexy, Royal, global, woke, hunted, philanthropic celebrity. So when Davis showed up unprepared, she got overwhelmed (her lack of research shows with too many factual errors in the article).

        Davis slept on her access and gave us landscape snapshots instead of painting a full portrait.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ I completely agree with @Naomi, @Ginger, and @Harpering. This is a good profile on Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, as who she is in this moment in time. The writer doesn’t understand royal events as closely as we do, but she’s a decent writer and the piece was well done overall.

        There’s no need to get prickly with over-analyzing it. For me, there are some nice gems and a lovely snapshot into Montecito Haven! Plus, the photoshoot is fab! Meghan is TOO a model, as well as a model Mom. Harry correctly emphasized his wife’s duality. LOL!

  6. MsIam says:

    Yeah, that definitely was an editing error and it should have been caught. Context matters, lol. I wonder if they were rushing to get this digital version out? It talks about Meghan’s podcast being number one which literally happened, what Thursday-Friday?

    • Ginger says:

      This is why celebrities don’t like to give interviews because they twist words and the context. They need to do better. And it definitely seems like they rushed it.

    • Harper says:

      Even if you just do a quick read-through under time pressure, it’s confusing. Maybe the editor tried to clarify it but couldn’t get it touch with the writer in a timely enough fashion to meet the deadline.

      Anyway, a big BOO HOO if Charles gets his feelings hurt by being misrepresented in the press by something Meghan supposedly says. They weaponized the press against Meghan and also sat silent and smirked while it destroyed her spirit so they deserve all the aghast they feel for miscalculating Meghan.

      • C-Shell says:

        Right??!! Thin skinned snowflakes. Why are their feelings important but Meghan’s just supposed to sit there and take it? Oh, yeah, we know why. It infuriates me that they dehumanize her constantly.

  7. equality says:

    That is what annoys me about the idiots on twitter who say that H&M ditched their fathers. PC stopped taking H’s calls and Tom stopped answering when H&M were desperately trying to contact him around the time of the wedding. I’m not sure I believe that he gave them millions when they left.

    • Sunday says:

      If he had given them millions the British media would’ve never stopped squawking about it. I think he’s more likely referring to allowing Harry access to his own trust funds or funds Diana left him that might have been controlled or managed by the firm.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      I don’t believe he gave them millions when they left either. Harry said in the Oprah interview that he had the money Diana left him. That he was financially cut off in the first quarter (first quarter of the UK fiscal year) that began April 1, 2020. That coincides with March 31, 2020 being the end date of them being considered working royals and security pulled. If they were “given” anything, it would be a portion of the amount that would have occured anyhow during the 4th quarter of UK fiscal year that ended March 31, 2020.

      These are people that use money as control. They weren’t handing anything out to be helpful.

  8. girl_ninja says:

    Clarification by the Sussex’s is good. The BRM are pathetic racist ghouls.

    Can’t wait to listen to Meghan and Mariah’s conversation on her podcast.

    Carry on.

  9. SJ (they/them) says:

    it’s funny, I read it as Harry having lost his father and honestly didn’t bat an eye? Like, yeah, you may still be speaking to the man but he’s not behaving like a father, so, you know? like it was more about Harry’s eyes being opened to what his own father was willing to let his beloved wife (and eventually, children) go through with no pushback.

    I believe whatever Meghan & Harry say they meant, that’s cool, but also I didn’t find the ‘mis’-interpretation shocking or problematic in any way. Then again I’m estranged from my own father but also see him frequently because it’s the only way to have a relationship with my mom, so, the idea of having lost-but-not-lost isn’t weird to me. Shrug!

    • lanne says:

      I read it more figuratively–that Harry has lost his dad as a support system and as a person he can count on. It’s no lie that Charles is not a person Harry can trust, whatever their relationship otherwise. A trustworthy parent doesn’t endanger his own child and grandchild by telling stalker-derangers exactly where to find them.

      • Lady D says:

        Charles is never going to become familiar with the phrase trustworthy parent or king for that matter. Just not in his wheelhouse. By the time William becomes king, no one will be calling him trustworthy either.

    • Arizona says:

      yeah, I read it as “it doesn’t have to be the same for them, but that’s Harry’s decision” as in “Harry made the decision that it’s the same for him.

      I’m also estranged from my father but see him occasionally, mostly due to my sister. so I get being polite and friendly at family stuff but not having an actual relationship as well. I also didn’t bat an eye lol.

      • 2tall4u says:

        Ditto. I haven’t spoken to my younger sister in 30 years for a reason. When I went thru chemo & transplant she tried to contact me thru our cousin. I did a Mariah “I don’t know her”…and I don’t.

        So I didn’t bat an eye at her original statement. H did loose his father when, on the day he was born, Prince Fatfingers played polo and had Seabiscuit giving him bjs in the stalls.

        Ain’t nobody got time for that!

      • aftershocks says:

        @Arizona: “yeah, I read it as ‘it doesn’t have to be the same for them, but that’s Harry’s decision’ as in ‘Harry made the decision that it’s the same for him.'”

        No, I think it simply means the process of healing between Harry and Prince Charles is still ongoing and possibly hopeful. Just as Harry himself articulated in the Oprah interview.

  10. Maxine Branch says:

    As you mentioned, it was sentence structure. Scobie quickly clarified this point. Otherwise, I thought both the interviewer and Meghan both did a good job. Meghan was quite clear in what she wanted to say and I do believe she put that firm on notice that she will share her experiences however she chooses. If the gutter press had been fair and just in their coverage of her from the beginning, there would not be this faux outrage. Coming from another country trying to immerse herself in their culture she was subjected to disdain, racism, misogyny from day one. To me they treated her the way they felt about Harry but could not go there. One of their many mistakes was not respecting her as a fully grown woman who came there with a wealth of experiences after having lived a purpose driven life. Happy she is using her voice and happy she is now treating those gutter rats with disdain.

    • C-Shell says:

      I loved the not infrequent statements the writer included where Meghan just said outright that she is not constrained about what she can say and that she’s only reticent because she chooses to be, until she chooses otherwise. That’s sure to have the world tuning in to Archetypes weekly! 😁

  11. C-Shell says:

    I read that sentence a few times because it’s awkwardly written. The insertion of quote marks was a writer/editor choice and actually renders the sentence internally inconsistent. Taking the quotes OUT makes it make sense. Anyway, I loved the article.

  12. Noki says:

    I love the gall they have to call Scobie Meghans mouthpiece when KP and CH ar on speed dial.

  13. Becks1 says:

    I read that line a few times yesterday and I kept going back and forth on how I interpreted it, and could see both meanings to it. So I’m glad that the clarification is out there.

  14. Miranda says:

    I thought it was a little odd that Charles had so recently seen his Sussex grandkids, then was suddenly cut out of his son’s life, but knowing this family it was easy to believe that he had said or done something unforgivably offensive during that meeting. Glad to hear that many of us misunderstood that quote. For all the (completely understandable) tension between Harry and his dad, I think it would be incredibly painful for him to completely lose his surviving parent that way. He’s shown much compassion towards Charles and doesn’t appear to believe that his father was a willfully poor parent. If that’s the case, I hope the relationship continues to thaw, at least insofar as that would be conducive to the emotional wellbeing of Harry, Meghan, and the kids.

  15. Amy Bee says:

    It doesn’t matter to me how it was interpreted. The bottom line is Charles was a willing participant in the smear campaign and enabled a situation where Harry and Meghan felt they had to leave.

  16. Denise says:

    I think the profile was not that well written and that the author didn’t handle this complex subject really well. It was obvious that she has very superficial knowledge of Meghan and what was happening around her which will only give more fodder to RR’s

    • equality says:

      Maybe the author not knowing much about Meghan is why she was chosen, so she would come across as an objective observer.

  17. Over says:

    I too misunderstood, however it’s perfectly understandable that people would think Harry lost his shit father too. Not because Meghan words weren’t written correctly but because Charles really is the kind of shit father you really wish Harry would cut out of his life. I mean after all the abuse and attack that Harry and his wife and children face on a daily basis from the British media and the firm and Charles saids nothing. Archie compared to a monkey, Charles saids nothing.Edmound Holmes wants to throw Harry and Meghan off the balcony, Charles saids nothing.lili attacked for her name, Charles saids nothing. Harry is a much better person than I because I would cut that son of a bitch out my life forever.

  18. Escape says:

    Go Megan. The folks in GB messed up royally.

  19. C says:

    Yeah, this was a poorly written sentence. You don’t use quotations within a quote if Harry isn’t speaking about himself. Meghan’s words in this are great but I had issues with the writing of the framing article at times.

  20. S808 says:

    I mean whether they were talking about M’s dad or H’s I didn’t pause at that part cause both fathers have been terrible and them both losing their dads is believable to me.

  21. EasternViolet says:

    Based on the following a) Megan has a top notch PR team b) the writer is well-respected American culture writer, I have to think this was left as confusing for a reason. As someone who agonizes over the correct placement of commas and quotation marks, I assume the same standard for the parties involved in this article’s approval and publication. Especially when it’s about either Harry or Megan’s father.

    “Harry said to me, ‘I lost my dad in this process.’ It doesn’t have to be the same for them as it was for me, but that’s his decision.”

    The second sent of sub-quotes confuse who is saying what. Literally it means, harry told me that he lost his dad in the process. In her interpretation, it is like she switches POV between thoughts… “harry said to me” is more a digression, but she returns to the first person in the second statement.

    As I continued to parse meaning, I began to ask….

    Who is THEM? The Royal family or her father? (or BOTH?). Since it is outside of the subquotes, it is back to Megan… so it sounds like she is referring to the RF as she has already lost her father. But I do think she is referring to Charles in the final phrase when she says that its “his decision”.

    What is probably missing is the body language during the conversation. This sounds like it is directly transcribed, but if we were watching Megan say it, we might see her point to herself as she says “I lost MY dad in this process..”

    I can only conclude that it was intended to be ambiguous, as a shade, I am here for it. Maybe Megan is baiting the RR and distracting them away from talking about something else in the article… or something else that they have in the works.

    The writer probably has it on tape so she has the reciepts, so its in Megan’s court to clarify her own meaning. (Which is fine, it played out exactly in this way and did not throw the writer under the bus and make drama, which the RR would have absolutely feasted on).

    • equality says:

      I would have my doubts that this was recorded or at least not all since they allowed her to spend some time around the children.

      • EasternViolet says:

        Oh wow… If I were Megan I would insist on it being recorded given she has such a history of being taken out of context with the press. Whether recorded or not, the quote was def transcribed directly from speech.

      • SomeChick says:

        it’s always a smart move to make your own recording when being interviewed. for someone like Meghan, whose every word and move is endlessly dissected, I’m pretty sure there would have been two recordings – hers and the interviewer’s.

  22. AnneL says:

    I do think the way it was written was confusing, and perhaps grammatically incorrect. I would take it to mean that Harry lost HIS father, as well. The writer should have caught it and made sure the meaning was clear. That said, it’s not a big deal. When you’re recounting conversations with direct quotes, meanings can get fuzzy. It happens. And yes, Harry did kind of lose his father, at least for a while. Charles was never much of a father to start.

  23. Anita says:

    What I am getting from this clarification (and I am glad that we got it) is that RF hastened to ensure that Prince Charles and Prince Harry still have a relationship.
    Almost as if such a statement from Harry would hurt RF more than the other way around.

  24. Siobhan says:

    If Harry was always only referring to Meghan losing her dad, shouldn’t the quote have been “Harry said to me, “you lost your dad in this process.””

    Hard to see how that is a misinterpretation unless it was an actual misquote. I think the way it’s written the only interpretation in the first part of the quote is that he’s speaking about his own dad. In terms of the second part of the quote when Meghan is referencing “but that’s his decision,” now that is open to interpretation what male she is talking about there (her father, Charles, or Harry).

    • Becks1 says:

      I think meghan was rephrasing what he said, to make it clear it was reflecting on her, and that’s how it got confusing. Like Harry said to her “you lost your dad in this process” and she turned it into the first person.

      • Siobhan says:

        If that’s the case than the interviewer clearly didn’t understand what Meghan was trying to say, or else quotes would not have been added around Harry’s statement. The way that’s it’s written, there really isn’t room for multiple interpretations so it’s not surprising that most people assumes that Harry was referring to his own father – that’s the way the quote was written.

  25. aquarius64 says:

    This is not just about Harry’s relationship with Charles, although it’s horrible. It’s about Meghan reaffirming in US media and the world that her relationship with Bad Dad is done. Toxic Tom was suppose to be the BM mole for all things Sussex; hence the push for reconciliation. With the sperm donor officially cut off there goes the access. For four years the BM wasted money paying Bad Dad to emotionally blackmail Meghan into contacting him and they got nothing. With Meghan speaking on her own there is no need first the Markle rats, or not as much.

  26. Lionel says:

    That whole passage was so awkward (why would she need Harry to state the obvious?) that I thought it must have a hidden meaning. Like maybe Meghan knows that Harry went scorched earth on Charles in his memoir, and she wants the world to know that it was his decision alone to do that.

    (Because otherwise she’d be blamed for it, of course. He wrote it but she manipulated him/he’s under her influence/she’s brainwashed him or whatever nonsense.)

  27. Puppetgirl says:

    I always interpreted Meghan’s quote as she lost her father because of the toxic tabloid UK culture, and was seeing history repeating itself with Harry’s relationship with his father Charles, hence all of the PR from the Palace coming out saying Charles loves both his sons and would be devastated if his relationship with Harry was lost

    Honestly I don’t blame Harry after the Queen croaks if he stays away from the UK, and avoids Charles coronation and later funeral

  28. Janice Hill says:

    That’s poor writing and editing on the part of the writer and the magazine. When I read it, I thought the Duchess was referring to Harry’s father, and I wondered why she didn’t mention her own father and the lost relationship.

  29. Diana B says:

    I only read the headline but, you guys, the eyeroll I did has left me dizzy.

  30. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    Meghan isn’t going to be a queen you miserable old shits, she’s going to be THE Queen.

  31. QuiteContrary says:

    Speaking of writing, kudos to Kaiser for this line: “Did Meghan’s palm trees set off a grenade in the heart of the monarchy?” Literal LOL.

    • aftershocks says:

      ^^ LOL, yes! That part of the article was quite deep, literally and figuratively. In effect, Meghan blew up the BM’s ‘Harry is a hostage’ and ‘Harry is unhappy’ narratives with one stroke of truth-telling that absolutely and definitively reverberates!

      The Sussexes only had to walk the grounds of the Riven Rock estate in Montecito to know that’s where they belonged! And it was Harry who literally made the figurative connection between his & Meg’s love story and the two trees joined at the root. 💞 That is soooo beautiful, resonant, and romantic!

      @Kaiser is right. It’s a truth, a legacy (via Archie’s understanding), a message, and a grenade, all rolled-up in one fantastic imagery. 😍

  32. Aurelia says:

    But didn’t Meg abd Harry just tell people to only listen to what they say. Not what any publications say when speaking for them.

  33. CheChe says:

    I’m going to stick with my original interpretation of the quote because the current optics support an estrangement. All too often the explanation is just backpedaling from the truth.