Is it okay to put family first? (Response to royal family stuff)

[NotUrsula]

Why is George Clooney always everywhere in these stories?

Because he's a perennial +1 in int'l philanthropic circles since his marriage. Clooney is used to speaking to the press and is known for taking almost everything in stride; if he's angry he just walks away and doesn't normally bother to try to get even. Therefore the press seeks him out, but the real reason that he is invited to so many events in these circles is that his wife is a marquee guest. Amal Clooney is extremely influential as an advisor to major human rights charities. She is the one these particular sort of donors want to get close to; Clooney is just a little added cachet.

As for Prince Philip. he is really an odd duck, because he has no country of his own, as it were. His immediate family were all dispossessed &/or died around WW2, and he ended up stateless until his mother's brother Louis Mountbatten informally adopted him. Like many people who grew up with status but lost it through the folly of their parents, Philip had a bit of a chip on his shoulder about ending up with no money of his own, and especially about being completely dependent on the Queen's financial largesse. As he frequently did, Mountbatten played matchmaker in Philip's marriage to Princess Elizabeth. Mountbatten, whilst appearing to be genuinely fond of his various aristocratic wards and family connections, was at the same time absolutely fine with using them to further his own behind-the-scenes power. He was also notoriously old-school when it came to the rearing of young men; he was the one who sent Philip to Gordonstoun, where the Queen's sons, in turn, were sent by Philip. In those days it was famous for embracing the Victorian ideal of "Spartan" education for boys -- by which they meant in the tradition of Ancient Sparta., which brings us to the other issue about Gordonstoun that is important as it relates to both Mountbatten and the Andrew Scandal: it is currently under investigation for allegations that, historically the school turned a blind eye, or worse, in some ways encouraged, sexual abuse, both of students by staff, and of younger students by older students. (Mountbatten was a highly-decorated Naval commander, but he wasn't the most moral of men.)

 

[seshat0120]

never mind

 

[TipsyTraveler]

I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that Meghan’s apparent lack of concern for her father’s untimely heart attack is because she doesn’t believe it actually happened. That might be because of inconsistencies in his story, information she has that we don’t, or perhaps he has a long history of theatrics and manufacturing drama to mar what are supposed to be special moments in her life.

So, what really happened?

Thomas Markle claims to have had two heart attacks in the days before her wedding. The first took place in Mexico where he was kept in hospital for a day and a half. Upon discharge, he drove to LA to take flowers to Meghan’s mother. Again feeling ill, he returned to Mexico where he was told he was having a second heart attack. A friend then took him to a US hospital where he underwent surgery. He spoke to TMZ while recovering, telling them the surgery went fine, he thought the surgeons placed three stents but wasn’t sure, and he would remain hospitalized for a few more days.

Two days later he was spotted driving around town.

The hospital has stated no one by that name has ever been a patient at their facility.

Thomas Markle has produced discharge instructions and a hefty medical bill dated a couple months later as his proof. They are heavily cropped and, IMO, aren’t that convincing as “conclusive proof.” The documents are supposedly from the hospital where his surgery took place (the one that denied he was a patient). There’s no hospital name or logo, the line items are rather vague in their description with nothing explicitly indicating a surgery took place, and the discharge instructions are for Heart Failure and mention nothing of heart attacks, stent placement, or post operative care.

I only know one thing for certain — Anyone who loads up on McDonald’s, KFC, and convenience store junk food two days after emergency cardiac surgery has clearly not learned any lessons.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-excuse-pull-Meghans-wedding-source-says.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-conclusively-not-one-TWO-heart-attacks.html
https://www.tmz.com/2018/05/16/thomas-markle-meghan-surgery-heart-attack-stent/

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that Meghan’s apparent lack of concern for her father’s untimely heart attack is because she doesn’t believe it actually happened. That might be because of inconsistencies in his story, information she has that we don’t, or perhaps he has a long history of theatrics and manufacturing drama to mar what are supposed to be special moments in her life.

So, what really happened?

Thomas Markle claims to have had two heart attacks in the days before her wedding. The first took place in Mexico where he was kept in hospital for a day and a half. Upon discharge, he drove to LA to take flowers to Meghan’s mother. Again feeling ill, he returned to Mexico where he was told he was having a second heart attack. A friend then took him to a US hospital where he underwent surgery. He spoke to TMZ while recovering, telling them the surgery went fine, he thought the surgeons placed three stents but wasn’t sure, and he would remain hospitalized for a few more days.

Two days later he was spotted driving around town.

The hospital has stated no one by that name has ever been a patient at their facility.

Thomas Markle has produced discharge instructions and a hefty medical bill dated a couple months later as his proof. They are heavily cropped and, IMO, aren’t that convincing as “conclusive proof.” The documents are supposedly from the hospital where his surgery took place (the one that denied he was a patient). There’s no hospital name or logo, the line items are rather vague in their description with nothing explicitly indicating a surgery took place, and the discharge instructions are for Heart Failure and mention nothing of heart attacks, stent placement, or post operative care.

I only know one thing for certain — Anyone who loads up on McDonald’s, KFC, and convenience store junk food two days after emergency cardiac surgery has clearly not learned any lessons.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-excuse-pull-Meghans-wedding-source-says.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-conclusively-not-one-TWO-heart-attacks.html
https://www.tmz.com/2018/05/16/thomas-markle-meghan-surgery-heart-attack-stent/

I will say this. If he made the whole thing up because he didn't want to, or couldn't deal with going to the wedding, then I pity him. If that were the case he's obviously got coping issues, but who could really blame him with the type of extraordinary international and historic event it was to be? It doesn't seem like he has a lot of skills or support. Lack of coping would be the same reason he eats fast food despite his illness. It's not uncommon in cardiac patients. Someone who lives alone and doesn't cook usually doesn't all of a sudden take up shopping at Whole Foods and cooking gourmet, low fat, salt free meals. No, they often go back to what they know and are comfortable with as their way of coping, even if it's to their detriment, unless they have someone astute there with them to help them on a daily basis.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I only know one thing for certain — Anyone who loads up on McDonald’s, KFC, and convenience store junk food two days after emergency cardiac surgery has clearly not learned any lessons.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-excuse-pull-Meghans-wedding-source-says.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-conclusively-not-one-TWO-heart-attacks.html
https://www.tmz.com/2018/05/16/thomas-markle-meghan-surgery-heart-attack-stent/

A lifestyle change doesn't happen overnight for everyone especially if they are dealing with multiple issues whether they are physical and/or emotional.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-conclusively-not-one-TWO-heart-attacks.html
BTW the information in this article you posted makes sense to me.

H&M's wedding was on May 19, 2018. It says in the article he was discharged on May 17, and they named the hospital. The hospital denying he was there doesn't mean much as they really can't say anything. (They were probably even warned.) The blur out under his name was likely his Medical Record Number and/or date of birth. The date of the bill (July 9) would be around the time he'd get it after the insurance company figured out what they'd cover and what they wouldn't, etc. (He said he was responsible for $20K of the $129K bill.) The services and the amount would be about right for what he had done (costs can vary). Heart failure can be the result of ischemia so it would've made sense that they'd fix his coronary arteries in the setting of a heart attack and to improve his cardiac function - and give him teaching material about it. Maybe he had other paperwork but didn't show it, maybe he lost it or it blew down the street, maybe it wasn't given to him, who knows. But I'm not really seeing anything funny here.

For whatever reason whoever took and/or posted the paperwork pics did so to cover up some personal information, likely for privacy. He is being required as we speak to submit all of his medical records to court for Meghan's lawsuit and he may be called to testify. I would imagine if he can't produce real records, we'll be hearing about it soon enough. If he only had scraps or bits of his discharge paperwork or bills for this article, published in December, 2018, then he's had plenty of time to get fresh new ones. Stay tuned, I guess.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

A lifestyle change doesn't happen overnight for everyone especially if they are dealing with multiple issues whether they are physical and/or emotional.

And sometimes it doesn't happen at all.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-conclusively-not-one-TWO-heart-attacks.html
BTW the information in this article you posted makes sense to me.

H&M's wedding was on May 19, 2018. It says in the article he was discharged on May 17, and they named the hospital. The hospital denying he was there doesn't mean much as they really can't say anything. (They were probably even warned.) The blur out under his name was likely his Medical Record Number and/or date of birth. The date of the bill (July 9) would be around the time he'd get it after the insurance company figured out what they'd cover and what they wouldn't, etc. (He said he was responsible for $20K of the $129K bill.) The services and the amount would be about right for what he had done (costs can vary). Heart failure can be the result of ischemia so it would've made sense that they'd fix his coronary arteries in the setting of a heart attack and to improve his cardiac function - and give him teaching material about it. Maybe he had other paperwork but didn't show it, maybe he lost it or it blew down the street, maybe it wasn't given to him, who knows. But I'm not really seeing anything funny here.

For whatever reason whoever took and/or posted the paperwork pics did so to cover up some personal information, likely for privacy. He is being required as we speak to submit all of his medical records to court for Meghan's lawsuit and he may be called to testify. I would imagine if he can't produce real records, we'll be hearing about it soon enough. If he only had scraps or bits of his discharge paperwork or bills for this article, published in December, 2018, then he's had plenty of time to get fresh new ones. Stay tuned, I guess.

I’m not going to go back and try to find it now but one of the articles I read made a point to say that US hospitals are allowed to confirm or deny if someone is/was a patient and this seems to back that:

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-profe...visitors-about-a-patients-location/index.html
But let’s say they aren’t allowed to give out that info. Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to answer “we can’t give out that information” instead of saying “no, we’ve never had a patient by that name?”

I don’t know whether his heart attack story is true or not. I just know there seems to be enough doubt around this, and every other thing involving this man, that I don’t consider him a reliable source.

 

[Wakey]

Hopefully they will put family first and melt away as normal people without that awful press intrusion.
But with the reports of designer house deals, $20m Oprah interviews, Netflix deals, tapping up Iger for Disney work, the fancy website, the intellectual property ‘Sussex Royal’ protections etc etc, don’t count on the first scenario.
The UK already has a far from free press, which makes the US look like the Wild West. We have no constitutional protection on the Freedom of Speech and very harsh libel laws. We also have quite strict privacy laws. There are things going on with people in the public eye which the British public never get to hear about- due to ridiculous ‘super injunctions’. This is a court order banning all the press printing anything covered by it, or even the existence of the injunction itself. So imagine if a celeb is involved in some shenanigans despite cashing in publicly on his/ her family image. They run off and get a super injunction and no one knows anything about it.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I’m not going to go back and try to find it now but one of the articles I read made a point to say that US hospitals are allowed to confirm or deny if someone is/was a patient and this seems to back that:

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-profe...visitors-about-a-patients-location/index.html
But let’s say they aren’t allowed to give out that info. Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to answer “we can’t give out that information” instead of saying “no, we’ve never had a patient by that name?”

I don’t know whether his heart attack story is true or not. I just know there seems to be enough doubt around this, and every other thing involving this man, that I don’t consider him a reliable source.

A hospital patient can request to be "non published". They will not be listed in the directory and callers will be told they do not have a patient by that name. At least, that is how it should work.

 

[luvsJack]

I’m not going to go back and try to find it now but one of the articles I read made a point to say that US hospitals are allowed to confirm or deny if someone is/was a patient and this seems to back that:

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-profe...visitors-about-a-patients-location/index.html
But let’s say they aren’t allowed to give out that info. Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to answer “we can’t give out that information” instead of saying “no, we’ve never had a patient by that name?”

I don’t know whether his heart attack story is true or not. I just know there seems to be enough doubt around this, and every other thing involving this man, that I don’t consider him a reliable source.

Is that an exact quote? If not, they may have said something along the lines of not being able to confirm they had a patient by that name. I don’t know a lot about HIPPA but do know FERPA and that is what we have to say.

 

[Searc]

Raise your hand if you've heard of Duchy Originals , who started it and what it is? Without googling.

 

[Mainsail Minnie]

It doesn't really seem to be about "putting family first" to me. They could do that easily in Britain, as Kate and William do. It seems to be about Meghan not wanting to live the real (sometimes boring) life of a royal, and both of them being uber-touchy about how they're portrayed in the media, which has often portrayed them well, btw. The insane level of paparazzi intrusion that plagued his mother no longer exists in Britain, so that isn't the issue. They just aren't happy that the media is sometimes critical of their choices.

When Harry made his speech saying "there was no other choice", as if he were a battered spouse fleeing an abusive marriage, I just had to shake my head. He's had a supportive family, the adulation of millions, great wealth, great goodwill, and all he has to do in return is fulfill some basic duties. He's choosing not to, because his wife isn't into it. They're turning their backs on Britain and going to live duty-free on another continent, supported lavishly by his father's millions (and probably public funds for security), while they simultaneously try to make extra millions from their new brand as modern royals.

No sympathy from me. I work for a living. They're choosing not to.

 

[BadPinkTink]

Raise your hand if you've heard of Duchy Originals , who started it and what it is? Without googling.

Its a company set up by Prince Charles to sell items from the Dutchy of Cornwall, things like shortbread biscuits etc. Ive seen them onsale in Gatwick Airport

 

[Searc]

Its a company set up by Prince Charles to sell items from the Dutchy of Cornwall, things like shortbread biscuits etc. Ive seen them onsale in Gatwick Airport

I would expect you to know what it is. I doubt many Americans who are trashing Harry and Meghan for doing projects for charity and profiting off their name know what it is.

 

[Wakey]

Raise your hand if you've heard of Duchy Originals , who started it and what it is? Without googling.

a lot of people in the UK know what it is, although it’s not a huge brand here, not bad though. But the products come from the estate.
Remember Charles’ Duchy income is derived only from the Royal Charter, where the lands (and then things like income from the courts) were taken from the Earls (1333 from memory). And where did these Earls get them from? Probably the King originally and/or taking them with their or their ancestors’ private armies.
Essentially all of this income was taken from the people of Great Britain, by people who were the biggest and most ruthless at the time- backed up by the support of ‘God’. They’d now be called fundamentalist warlords. But this is not private money, a republican such as myself would suggest it all be returned from where it was taken- the people.

 

[Searc]

a lot of people in the UK know what it is, although it’s not a huge brand here, not bad though. But the products come from the estate.
Remember Charles’ Duchy income is derived only from the Royal Charter, where the lands (and then things like income from the courts) were taken from the Earls (1333 from memory). And where did these Earls get them from? Probably the King originally and/or taking them with their or their ancestors’ private armies.
Essentially all of this income was taken from the people of Great Britain, by people who were the biggest and most ruthless at the time- backed up by the support of ‘God’. They’d now be called fundamentalist warlords. But this is not private money, a republican such as myself would suggest it all be returned from where it was taken- the people.

My point was Prince Charles profits off his position and name for charity, but it seems to be a problem for some when Prince Harry and Meghan do the same.

 

[Searc]

It doesn't really seem to be about "putting family first" to me. They could do that easily in Britain, as Kate and William do. It seems to be about Meghan not wanting to live the real (sometimes boring) life of a royal, and both of them being uber-touchy about how they're portrayed in the media, which has often portrayed them well, btw. The insane level of paparazzi intrusion that plagued his mother no longer exists in Britain, so that isn't the issue. They just aren't happy that the media is sometimes critical of their choices.

When Harry made his speech saying "there was no other choice", as if he were a battered spouse fleeing an abusive marriage, I just had to shake my head. He's had a supportive family, the adulation of millions, great wealth, great goodwill, and all he has to do in return is fulfill some basic duties. He's choosing not to, because his wife isn't into it. They're turning their backs on Britain and going to live duty-free on another continent, supported lavishly by his father's millions (and probably public funds for security), while they simultaneously try to make extra millions from their new brand as modern royals.

No sympathy from me. I work for a living. They're choosing not to.

IF THEY ARE WORKING MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY, THE CAN'T WORK FOR A LIVING. It is literally the law. This break means they will be working to earn money, for themselves and charity. Why are people not understanding that?

 

[BadPinkTink]

My point was Prince Charles profits off his position and name for charity, but it seems to be a problem for some when Prince Harry and Meghan do the same.

Thats because Duchy Originals is in keeping with the Royal Family Brand. Its organic food, safe, non controversial, does not bring the Royal Family into disrepute. Its a very British arrangement.

Harry and Meghan on the other hand, the deals and endorsements they will likely be involved with will be the flashy, celeb, ostentatious, and Not How We Do Things Here.

 

[gwynne]

IF THEY ARE WORKING MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY, THE CAN'T WORK FOR A LIVING. It is literally the law. This break means they will be working to earn money, for themselves and charity. Why are people not understanding that?

It will be nice for them if they are able to lead quiet, partially self supporting lives. I truly wish them well on this endeavor.
Reasonably, they will need yearly checks from Dad for many, many years.
If it turns out their cottage industries yield big cash, and they are off allowance, I will be the first to say I was wrong.
Either way, I hope they avoid the headlines. They have less protection from the tabloids in their new situation.