Meghan Markle = Princess Diana

[Amy Jade]

The press are treating her the same horrible way they treated our beautiful Princess Diana.

:(

[Liam-]

Spiteful racists like Dan Wooton are trying their best to break her :(

[arista]

Spiteful racists like Dan Wooton are trying their best to break her :(


NZ Dan
is no Racist.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb21SZZXgAApmuJ?format=jpg&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EY9ACA5WsAIgDec?format=jpg&name=small

[arista]

The press are treating her the same horrible way they treated our beautiful Princess Diana.

:(


She is Safe as you can be ,during
Covid-19 California.

[Brother Leon]

A graceful and strong woman. The press will never break her.

[The Slim Reaper]

Hope she gets a better driver...

[arista]

Hope she gets a better driver...


Yes a sober driver

[rusticgal]

Im sure Megan is well used to press attention....you are talking about an ex American TV star.
Princess Diana was a completely different situation. Megan is living in the US the press are no where near as interested now. She isnt getting chased down the street...absolutely no comparison.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Diana was having affairs with high profile people and was killed by a drunk driver not "the press"

Who ever they Are

[Crimson Dynamo]

Markle couldn't lace her boots

[Moniqua]

Princess Diana = Meghan Markle = Margaery Tyrell

</3

[Liam-]

Yes a sober driver

There was never any proof that the driver was drunk

[bots]

There was never any proof that the driver was drunk

his blood alcohol level was a bit of an indicator

[Glenn.]

She’s a resilient queen. Let the racist haters carry on

[arista]

There was never any proof that the driver was drunk

Sure but it effected his Driving

[Toy Soldier]

She would have been but I think her and Harry got far enough away from the family in time.

The difference I imagine is that Harry seems to actually love Megan.

[Liam-]

She would have been but I think her and Harry got far enough away from the family in time.

The difference I imagine is that Harry seems to actually love Megan.

True, thankfully she has a loyal and loving husband prepared to protect his family, the press and establishment will still hound and bully her though

[Tom4784]

She would have been but I think her and Harry got far enough away from the family in time.

The difference I imagine is that Harry seems to actually love Megan.

Pretty much, history would have repeated itself if they didn't leave their royal duties behind, I think.

[Ammi]

She would have been but I think her and Harry got far enough away from the family in time.

The difference I imagine is that Harry seems to actually love Megan.

...yeah it was his love for her that motivated his stepping down so that history would not be allowed to repeat and similarities to Diana...I think that he made all of the right choices...

[thesheriff443]

Harry was a spare prick at a wedding, Meghan is a second rate actress so good riddance.

[Glenn.]

:joker: :joker: :joker:

[rusticgal]

Harry was a spare prick at a wedding, Meghan is a second rate actress so good riddance.


It was HER wedding not Harry's...silly :laugh:

[Livia]

She's a bloody actress. And my God, she's giving the performance of her life.

[Liam-]

She was outstanding on that elephant documentary wasn’t she? :flutter:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Harry is an embarrassment to the UK

Terrible

[Amy Jade]

She was outstanding on that elephant documentary wasn’t she? :flutter:

Our Meghan loves animals too, we have no choice but to stan

[Swan]

Why do we fawn over these kind of people? It's actually quite sick. There are hundreds of do-gooders in every community, people who would give you their last fiver to prevent you going hungry. Or like the woman who walks around knocking on doors asking people if they need food. The group of people who walk around picking up litter off the street. The people who work 12 hour shifts and still can't afford a holiday. Real warriors, real decent honest people.

Megan Markle is not special, she is spoiled and couldn't possible understand the everyday struggle of us regular people. Why do we worship these people when the people worth an actual damn go unnoticed?!

[Liam-]

Our Meghan loves animals too, we have no choice but to stan

An international, animal loving, charitable queen :love:

[rusticgal]

Why do we fawn over these kind of people? It's actually quite sick. There are hundreds of do-gooders in every community, people who would give you their last fiver to prevent you going hungry. Or like the woman who walks around knocking on doors asking people if they need food. The group of people who walk around picking up litter off the street. The people who work 12 hour shifts and still can't afford a holiday. Real warriors, real decent honest people.

Megan Markle is not special, she is spoiled and couldn't possible understand the everyday struggle of us regular people. Why do we worship these people when the people worth an actual damn go unnoticed?!


:clap1:

[Marsh.]

Makes me laugh when the sexists crawl out of the woodwork to cry "She's an actress!!!" :joker:

Yes? And the Royal Family cut ribbons for a living.

[Liam-]

The Royal Family live off the backs of the taxpayer and Charles collects money from dead people without a will, but sure, the woman who worked for everything she has is the bad guy, yep

[Amy Jade]

Why do we fawn over these kind of people? It's actually quite sick. There are hundreds of do-gooders in every community, people who would give you their last fiver to prevent you going hungry. Or like the woman who walks around knocking on doors asking people if they need food. The group of people who walk around picking up litter off the street. The people who work 12 hour shifts and still can't afford a holiday. Real warriors, real decent honest people.

Megan Markle is not special, she is spoiled and couldn't possible understand the everyday struggle of us regular people. Why do we worship these people when the people worth an actual damn go unnoticed?!
:umm2:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Why do we fawn over these kind of people? It's actually quite sick. There are hundreds of do-gooders in every community, people who would give you their last fiver to prevent you going hungry. Or like the woman who walks around knocking on doors asking people if they need food. The group of people who walk around picking up litter off the street. The people who work 12 hour shifts and still can't afford a holiday. Real warriors, real decent honest people.

Megan Markle is not special, she is spoiled and couldn't possible understand the everyday struggle of us regular people. Why do we worship these people when the people worth an actual damn go unnoticed?!

:clap1:

[Moniqua]

trash people on here being trash? color me shocked :o

[DouglasS]

Makes me laugh when the sexists crawl out of the woodwork to cry "She's an actress!!!" :joker:

Yes? And the Royal Family cut ribbons for a living.

Sexists? How on earth is that sexist to believe she’s portraying an image/character :laugh:

“Oh no I don’t like their opinions they’re entitled to, let me throw an “ist” to justify their opinion as it’s different to mine wah”

[rusticgal]

Sexists? How on earth is that sexist to believe she’s portraying an image/character :laugh:

“Oh no I don’t like their opinions they’re entitled to, let me throw an “ist” to justify their opinion as it’s different to mine wah”


Every time....it’s like a discussion can’t be had. Just start labelling people at every opportunity :sleep:

[The Judge.]

I .. I am the judge..

[GoldHeart]

The press are treating her the same horrible way they treated our beautiful Princess Diana.

:(

I was so sick and tired of the abuse and grief Meghan was getting . Shall we address the elephant in the room :bored: .

Yeah Diana's treatment was terrible and you couldn't get anymore English Rose than her ,so it just shows what a poisonous chalice it is .

[Glenn.]

She’s the queen we deserve :love:

[The Judge.]

I hmm am hmm the judge...

[Marsh.]

Sexists? How on earth is that sexist to believe she’s portraying an image/character :laugh:

“Oh no I don’t like their opinions they’re entitled to, let me throw an “ist” to justify their opinion as it’s different to mine wah”

Funny how you think my comment had anything to do with you. Nobody said you weren't entitled to your opinions sweetie, no use moaning when people have something to say about an opinion you made public. That's how it works.

Do I believe it to be sexist to reduce a woman down to an object of ridicule for her former profession? Yes I do. Is it sexist to judge her completely on her image and bank balance? Yes. Why? Because men in her position don't get the same treatment.

Your poor attempt at sarcasm doesn't change that fact.

[Marsh.]

Every time....it’s like a discussion can’t be had. Just start labelling people at every opportunity :sleep:

So labelling is only allowed when it's at other people? Ok.

Discussions can be had, and I will point out the facts when people bring out the old "She used to be an actress" diatribe as a lazy insult for someone they don't know.

[Ammi]

...I have no idea why the media and some public spend so much negative energy on Meghan when there is so many truly evil/awful people in the world...

[Glenn.]

They don’t know you, they don’t want to know you.

You love defending someone you don’t know.

Facts, she was actress in a tv show, not some Hollywood a lister.

And if not for her marrying into the royal family that’s all she would be known for.
As for him, if he never married her he would be known as the the thick ginger one who dressed as a German soldier to go to a fancy dress party.

I’d say it’s more pondering why people who don’t know them, seem to talk so unnecessarily negative about them than defence. We don’t know them at all. Everyone’s assumptions and unwarranted hatred towards them or more to the point, Meghan, is disgusting.

[Glenn.]

...I have no idea why the media and some public spend so much negative energy on Meghan when there is so many truly evil/awful people in the world...

I don’t know white it is either Ammi

[Cherie]

I hmm am hmm the judge...

This is what TiBB has been waiting for

[Beso]

I'm more like princess diana than her.

[Swan]

Progressive symbolism of the royal wedding: the homeless shuffled out of view so that Meghan in a £40,000 dress could have her special day.

[thesheriff443]

I’d say it’s more pondering why people who don’t know them, seem to talk so unnecessarily negative about them than defence. We don’t know them at all. Everyone’s assumptions and unwarranted hatred towards them or more to the point, Meghan, is disgusting.

You and others on here constantly see a negative opinion of them and label the members as haters.

You don’t have to hate someone to have a negative opinion of someone.

My negative opinion of her is not based on the colour of her skin.

[Ammi]

I don’t know white it is either Ammi

...yeah there have most definitely been some racist undertones from the media ...but I also think that what Marsh said has a bearing as well, that parts of society holds females up to different standards and criticisms than is given to males...is she a strong, independent woman..?..nope, she’s a spoiled brat...sadly I rarely see a similar equivalence levelled at males...

[Crimson Dynamo]

She is rotten in suits

There is no way Mike would be after a para and not one who hasn't got a waist


:umm2:

[Mystic Mock]

Harry was a spare prick at a wedding, Meghan is a second rate actress so good riddance.

At least they're not covering up for a potential paedophile from facing justice.

[thesheriff443]

...yeah there have most definitely been some racist undertones from the media ...but I also think that what Marsh said has a bearing as well, that parts of society holds females up to different standards and criticisms than is given to males...is she a strong, independent woman..?..nope, she’s a spoiled brat...sadly I rarely see a similar equivalence levelled at males...

Kate is a strong independent woman, Meghan thought she could stroll in an run the place but the queen is one of the strongest and most admired royal in history put her rightly in her place.

As Prince Charles recently said there can be only one queen.

[The Slim Reaper]

Sheriff on the blower to Liz, getting the gossip first hand as they plan their 1 week summer holiday to butlins in skegness.

[Liam-]

The abuse a woman gets for marrying a man she loves is bizarre, what’s even more bizarre is the abuse her husband gets for defending and prioritising his family, alternate universe kind of stuff

[The Slim Reaper]

The abuse a woman gets for marrying a man she loves is bizarre, what’s even more bizarre is the abuse her husband gets for defending and prioritising his family, alternate universe kind of stuff

The same men that will act like tough guys when you mention their families, suddenly think it's ok to make stuff up and gossip about another man and his family. Weirdos.

[rusticgal]

You and others on here constantly see a negative opinion of them and label the members as haters.

You don’t have to hate someone to have a negative opinion of someone.

My negative opinion of her is not based on the colour of her skin.


Spot on again. Sadly some people on this forum see a negative opinion as sexist, racist or hate. Its just their ignorance.

[The Slim Reaper]

Good old sheriff standing up for the common sense, definitely not racist caucus :laugh:

[Mystic Mock]

Why do we fawn over these kind of people? It's actually quite sick. There are hundreds of do-gooders in every community, people who would give you their last fiver to prevent you going hungry. Or like the woman who walks around knocking on doors asking people if they need food. The group of people who walk around picking up litter off the street. The people who work 12 hour shifts and still can't afford a holiday. Real warriors, real decent honest people.

Megan Markle is not special, she is spoiled and couldn't possible understand the everyday struggle of us regular people. Why do we worship these people when the people worth an actual damn go unnoticed?!

Isn't Meghan from a poor background tbf? I'm not 100% sure on that but I thought I've heard about it from somewhere.

Besides none of us know if Meghan is a spoilt brat or not, the only thing that I do know is that the UK Media made her a target for the public to hate which isn't on imo as I don't like bullying in normal environments, let alone from the Media.

[rusticgal]

Isn't Meghan from a poor background tbf? I'm not 100% sure on that but I thought I've heard about it from somewhere.

Besides none of us know if Meghan is a spoilt brat or not, the only thing that I do know is that the UK Media made her a target for the public to hate which isn't on imo as I don't like bullying in normal environments, let alone from the Media.


I think she was in her early years. Its reported her father, like many, worked all hours to get her a good education. I think the spoiled brat behaviour was reported by her demands leading up to the wedding regarding tiaras and reportedly by the way she spoke to staff and Harry saying "what Megan wants Megan gets", Also going against protocol on certain things. She started to come across as a bit of a Diva.
I think in the early days she was liked by many including the press...I dont suppose it was easy to come from America as a known actress and start having to fall in line with Royal protocol and not be able to have things your own way. Which is why they should have given it more time before they rushed into marriage.
Its just a bit telling how her only friends seem to be from the rich and famous category and she has no family relationships apart from with her mother....and I trust Kate and Williams judgement and they dont seem to have a relationship either.
Thats my take on it anyway..

[Liam-]

I think she was in her early years. Its reported her father, like many, worked all hours to get her a good education. I think the spoiled brat behaviour was reported by her demands leading up to the wedding regarding tiaras and reportedly by the way she spoke to staff and Harry saying "what Megan wants Megan gets", Also going against protocol on certain things. She started to come across as a bit of a Diva.
I think in the early days she was liked by many including the press...I dont suppose it was easy to come from America as a known actress and start having to fall in line with Royal protocol and not be able to have things your own way. Which is why they should have given it more time before they rushed into marriage.
Its just a bit telling how her only friends seem to be from the rich and famous category and she has no family relationships apart from with her mother....and I trust Kate and Williams judgement and they dont seem to have a relationship either.
Thats my take on it anyway..

She didn’t come across as anything, we didn’t see any of it, that’s what the racist press made people believe was happening

[Livia]

Princess Diana wasn't a quitter. She did what she saw as her duty right up to the end.

[Oliver_W]

It's like Princess Diana was split into two - Princess Kate has the "beloved people's princess" thing going on, while Markle has the "being hounded by the press" half of it.

[Livia]

It's like Princess Diana was split into two - Princess Kate has the "beloved people's princess" thing going on, while Markle has the "being hounded by the press" half of it.

She's keeping her own name in the paper with her law suit.

Harry only pops back to tell us we're all racist. Harry... who was sent on a diversity course from Sandhurst.

[Oliver_W]

She's keeping her own name in the paper with her law suit.

Harry only pops back to tell us we're all racist. Harry... who was sent on a diversity course from Sandhurst.

I don't care enough about her to know what the lawsuit is about, but if the papers have either spread mistruths or leaked personal things she didn't want out there, she has every right to sue :shrug:

[bots]

i don't consider either of them in the least bit interesting or news worthy now. They have left the royal family, they have left the UK .... i just don't care what either of them is saying or doing

[rusticgal]

Princess Diana wasn't a quitter. She did what she saw as her duty right up to the end.


Absolutely right Livia....

[rusticgal]

It's like Princess Diana was split into two - Princess Kate has the "beloved people's princess" thing going on, while Markle has the "being hounded by the press" half of it.



She gets written about in a negative way because of leaks to the press on her behaviour from inside the palace....and her not wanting to conform to Royal tradition. Diana was hounded, even Kate was hounded . I have never seen Meghan have to fight her way past press completely alone in the street like Diana and Kate....

[Crimson Dynamo]

I find them a horrible couple who represent all that is wrong with this vile woke leftist fakers

[Liam-]

Good on Diana for not giving up, that doesn’t mean other people have to tolerate the abuse, if people were actually criticising her for the things she actually did and not for gossip from the rags, fair enough, but people bought into an image of her that was portrayed by a biased press, she never did anything wrong, people hate her because of made up things people read in the press and obviously, a lot of people hated her for the colour of her skin.

Just because one person put up with it, doesn’t mean everyone has to, good on her for knowing her worth and walking away from something that was making her and her family miserable and good on Haz for sticking by her and putting her and his son first, a gorgeous couple :love:

[Oliver_W]

They fled the country so the least the press can do is leave them be.

[Liam-]

They fled the country so the least the press can do is leave them be.

They literally got what they wanted, she’s gone, yet they still harass and abuse her, it’s sad, I hope she takes them to the cleaners

[Ammi]

Good on Diana for not giving up, that doesn’t mean other people have to tolerate the abuse, if people were actually criticising her for the things she actually did and not for gossip from the rags, fair enough, but people bought into an image of her that was portrayed by a biased press, she never did anything wrong, people hate her because of made up things people read in the press and obviously, a lot of people hated her for the colour of her skin.

Just because one person put up with it, doesn’t mean everyone has to, good on her for knowing her worth and walking away from something that was making her and her family miserable and good on Haz for sticking by her and putting her and his son first, a gorgeous couple :love:

...Because Diana lived so long in a ‘marriage of 3 people’ and was so unhappy, I think that she would be so, so happy for him that he chose his love and relationship over Royal duties...:love:..

[Crimson Dynamo]

They literally got what they wanted, she’s gone, yet they still harass and abuse her, it’s sad, I hope she takes them to the cleaners

It's not likely:joker:

[Liam-]

...Because Diana lived so long in a ‘marriage of 3 people’ and was so unhappy, I think that she would be so, so happy for him that he chose his love and relationship over Royal duties...:love:..

He’s a real man and husband, he definitely didn’t learn that from his father!

[Toy Soldier]

Princess Diana wasn't a quitter. She did what she saw as her duty right up to the end.

Dodi*.

Damn autocorrect :fist:

[Tom4784]

Megan Markle could 'do her duty' until it killed her and people will find reasons to hate her because of her race.

[Swan]

Megan Markle could 'do her duty' until it killed her and people will find reasons to hate her because of her race.

True, however it's not about race for everyone. I'm a proud anti-royalist and have absolutely no time for any of them, their race, hair colour, gender means nothing to me.

[Toy Soldier]

True, however it's not about race for everyone. I'm a proud anti-royalist and have absolutely no time for any of them, their race, hair colour, gender means nothing to me.

I'm 100% anti-royalist too but I can still see that Megan Markle has been taking a ridiculous level of flak and abuse from certain people compared to the rest of 'em, and there has to be a reason for that. For some it's her race. For some it's that they don't think she's "royal material" because she's "just some yank actress". For some it's a varying combination of the two (black from money would have been ok, white american actress would have been OK, but the combination of the two is too much).

For some others it's simply that she talks too much and they want their royal women quiet and compliant.


Either way... there's a huge number of people that have their knickers in a twist about Megan getting on with her day whilst not giving a stuff that the Queen is using her privilege to defend her probable-sex-predator son. Really dystopian stuff tbh.


But yeah... I feel like Megan Markle is being unfairly singled out, AND at the same time I think the whole thing is a sad mess that should have ended over half a century ago.

[Josy]

State of this thread... honestly you are all as bad as each other.

I've cleaned up, stick to the thread topic and stop with the personal comments. Thanks.

[Marsh.]

I'm 100% anti-royalist too but I can still see that Megan Markle has been taking a ridiculous level of flak and abuse from certain people compared to the rest of 'em, and there has to be a reason for that. For some it's her race. For some it's that they don't think she's "royal material" because she's "just some yank actress". For some it's a varying combination of the two (black from money would have been ok, white american actress would have been OK, but the combination of the two is too much).

For some others it's simply that she talks too much and they want their royal women quiet and compliant.


Either way... there's a huge number of people that have their knickers in a twist about Megan getting on with her day whilst not giving a stuff that the Queen is using her privilege to defend her probable-sex-predator son. Really dystopian stuff tbh.


But yeah... I feel like Megan Markle is being unfairly singled out, AND at the same time I think the whole thing is a sad mess that should have ended over half a century ago.

Pretty much every I dotted and every t crossed.

However, the argument that she's not liked because she's not Kate because "Kate is independent" is one I hadn't heard before though and has really made me laugh tonight. Probably the best justification I've heard.

[rusticgal]

Meghan is a very independent woman. Diana grew into a very independent woman. Kate has grown in her role and been respectful in her duties. She has been discreet and respectful to her husband and the Royal family in her role as future Queen and she is loved for that.
Perhaps the difference with Meghan is that she wanted to be different...she came into the Royal family as a mature woman but wanting to stand out as an independent woman and because of that she rebelled imo and didn’t want to be told what to do and how to behave. I believe Harry to be quite immature...He should have given Meghan time to adapt...and see that her life would change dramatically as the wife of a prince but in time she could come into her own. She was advised by her own friends to think hard about her decision...but she didn’t listen. Now she’s blaming everyone else...
They have made their decision but it’s one I think Harry will live to regret.

[Marsh.]

She didn't listen.... Harry didn't give her time....

Unless you know them it's useless gossip. Still not justification for her treatment.

[Mokka]

independent woman and because of that she rebelled imo and didn’t want to be told what to do and how to behave.

Why should a grown mature woman be told what to do or how to behave? The very notion is laughable.

You talk about these two women like we are back in the 1800s. The way you are referring to Kate makes her sound like a battered housewife who dare not step out of turn.

Royalty or not... have we not come out of this type of regressive era yet??

[Mokka]

State of this thread... honestly you are all as bad as each other.

I've cleaned up, stick to the thread topic and stop with the personal comments. Thanks.

Josy coming in to scrub the palace floors

https://media3.giphy.com/media/mbOj47JFRQeek/200.gif

[jet]

Meghan the ‘strong independent woman’ - not really…..do your research folks….

Her father worked hard to send her to the top schools and university in LA.
Her Uncle got her her first job placement.
Her fathers influence as an award winning lighting director got her parts in game shows and hallmark movies.
Her film producer first husband Trevors influence got her the part in Suits. Suits was the pinnacle of her success in acting and not even widely known.

Then she went after Harry…(covered in previous posts!) Now Prince Charles is subsidising her and Harry and she is living in a mansion lent to them by some billionaire which her Mummy Doria has now moved into as well.

So strong and independent she couldn’t stand the inevitable flak that Diana and even Fergie got a hundred times over and all that boring royal work and ran off home to Mummy and LA to live rent free in a mansion in addition to taking Daddy in law’s hand outs.


Strong, independent woman - no. Unless being a whinging diva who uses the latest woke excuse to bail out when she had no intention of staying in the UK to begin with is seen as strong and independent nowadays….

[jet]

The press are treating her the same horrible way they treated our beautiful Princess Diana.

:(

Nonsense, the majority of the press in the main adored Diana, and any criticism was justified as was the praise she deservedly often received, it was mainly the paparazzi who hounded her.
When have you ever seen a pap shot of Meghan being surrounded and harrassed? Never. She was protected.
In the Uk it is illegal to take pics of royal children now too.
So Harry says he took his wife and child away from the UK to protect them...and goes to LA where the press and paps have a free for all. Makes no sense at all. When they emerge from isolation its going to be interesting....they will be kept busy with all that suing they seem so fond of, its lucrative stuff..:smug:

[Marsh.]

Meghan the ‘strong independent woman’ - not really…..do your research folks….

Her father worked hard to send her to the top schools and university in LA.
Her Uncle got her her first job placement.
Her fathers influence as an award winning lighting director got her parts in game shows and hallmark movies.
Her film producer first husband Trevors influence got her the part in Suits. Suits was the pinnacle of her success in acting and not even widely known.

Then she went after Harry…(covered in previous posts!) Now Prince Charles is subsidising her and Harry and she is living in a mansion lent to them by some billionaire which her Mummy Doria has now moved into as well.

So strong and independent she couldn’t stand the inevitable flak that Diana and even Fergie got a hundred times over and all that boring royal work and ran off home to Mummy and LA to live rent free in a mansion in addition to taking Daddy in law’s hand outs.


Strong, independent woman - no. Unless being a whinging diva who uses the latest woke excuse to bail out when she had no intention of staying in the UK to begin with is seen as strong and independent nowadays….

Nonsense, the majority of the press in the main adored Diana, and any criticism was justified as was the praise she deservedly often received, it was mainly the paparazzi who hounded her.
When have you ever seen a pap shot of Meghan being surrounded and harrassed? Never. She was protected.
In the Uk it is illegal to take pics of royal children now too.
So Harry says he took his wife and child away from the UK to protect them...and goes to LA where the press and paps have a free for all. Makes no sense at all. When they emerge from isolation its going to be interesting....they will be kept busy with all that suing they seem so fond of, its lucrative stuff..:smug:

Back with more nonsense.

[Marsh.]

Then she went after Harry…(covered in previous posts!) Now Prince Charles is subsidising her and Harry and she is living in a mansion lent to them by some billionaire which her Mummy Doria has now moved into as well.

So strong and independent she couldn’t stand the inevitable flak that Diana and even Fergie got a hundred times over and all that boring royal work and ran off home to Mummy and LA to live rent free in a mansion in addition to taking Daddy in law’s hand outs. .

So strong and independent to you is taking tax payer handouts for ribbon cutting and freely accepting abuse from the press?

Erm.... ok.

[jet]

So strong and independent to you is taking tax payer handouts for ribbon cutting and freely accepting abuse from the press?

Erm.... ok.

There is a lot more to being a senior member of the Royal Family than ribbon cutting, as Meghan found out and quickly bailed. It's hard boring work.
All high profile people get abuse from the press occassionally, especially when they seem to thrive on attention, as Meghan does. She left the UK for a quiet life, right?, but she keeps popping up by jumping on the latest bandwagon like clockwork or suing people.
Strong people just ignore the press clamour, like the Queen and Kate, who is said to have a spine of steel. I can well believe it, with 19 patronages, sporting organizations, and her and Wills own foundation to take care of, plus 3 young children. Thats what I call strong and independent,earning your keep, and all that.... not sponging off billionaires and celebs like Oprah you didn't even know previously for accomodation and work who wouldn't give you the time of day if you were just that whats - her - name actress in that legal drama thingy that her ex got her into.

Once again, it will be the influence of others who will get her something to do.
Watch this space. :hee:

[jet]

Back with more nonsense.

Still in denial then? Or is love really blind? :joker:

[Ammi]

...sadly, discussions about Meghan always end up the same so I think it’s run it’s course for me, I will never understand the levels of ‘anti-Meghan’ feelings which the media have stoked and encouraged ...Racial undertones have most definately played a part and she’s American and she’s an actress and she was older and she was a divorcee and she wasn’t Kate and she wasn’t Diana ...and the list goes on...it’s fascinating how individuality is praised and applauded until individuality is right there and then it’s condemned...I think for me actually,
Ann Widdecombe’s thoughts on BB were a good representative of the dislike or mistrust toward Meghan before she was given a chance...’..I think she’s trouble, background, attitude etc...’...and when pushed, there was no reasoning for that ‘just a feeling’, she had prejudged her with suspicion and not given her a level chance....in my experience through life, when initial thoughts are so negative or suspicious or dubious or whatever...?..then every action and word is viewed from that slant...and that I think is how it’s been for Meghan...it would have been too humanly exhausting to have spent her time trying to please the UK media and the U.K. public because she couldn’t ‘do better’ when she wasn’t doing anything wrong in the first place...she just didn’t fit their ‘Royal Mould’ and never would and I’m glad that Harry’s first care has been to support and protect her...:love:...

....she’s not Kate, she shouldn’t be compared to Kate...they’re two different people and although they’re married to brothers, their roles have always been different...’female V female’ seems to be something that some tabloids and public do as well...I like both, they’re both fairly terrific ladies and comparing them in the negative way that it’s often been done has been very damaging, I feel...anyways, I’m glad that Harry and Meghan have made decisions for their family’s wellbeing, for their happiness now and going forward....

[Glenn.]

Meghan the ‘strong independent woman’ - not really…..do your research folks….

Her father worked hard to send her to the top schools and university in LA.
Her Uncle got her her first job placement.
Her fathers influence as an award winning lighting director got her parts in game shows and hallmark movies.
Her film producer first husband Trevors influence got her the part in Suits. Suits was the pinnacle of her success in acting and not even widely known.

Then she went after Harry…(covered in previous posts!) Now Prince Charles is subsidising her and Harry and she is living in a mansion lent to them by some billionaire which her Mummy Doria has now moved into as well.

So strong and independent she couldn’t stand the inevitable flak that Diana and even Fergie got a hundred times over and all that boring royal work and ran off home to Mummy and LA to live rent free in a mansion in addition to taking Daddy in law’s hand outs.


Strong, independent woman - no. Unless being a whinging diva who uses the latest woke excuse to bail out when she had no intention of staying in the UK to begin with is seen as strong and independent nowadays….

I love that she bothers you SO much. An impactful Queen :love:

[thesheriff443]

I love that she bothers you SO much. An impactful Queen :love:
Reality check glenn, it’s a forum, people give opinions on people.

You don’t have to be bothered by someone to have an opinion on them.
But this is what you do, try and make it about the forum member.

[jet]

Reality check glenn, it’s a forum, people give opinions on people.

You don’t have to be bothered by someone to have an opinion on them.
But this is what you do, try and make it about the forum member.

Exactly right sheriff. :thumbs:

[jet]

Every excuse will be found as to why Meghan isn’t that well liked, except the most obvious one - her own behaviour/actions and the way she has treated and used others past and present - which is by far the main reason why many haven’t taken to her post wedding when they found out more about her, from what I can ascertain. I had high hopes for her myself.
But apparently in some eyes Meghan's actions are never wrong (or they never admit or allude to it) and anyone who doesn’t see how innocent she is in all this must have had pre - conceived ideas; is ageist, is racist, etc etc, all the usual excuses. People are allowed to dislike the actions of others and have valid reasons not to take to them as people. It's high handed and presumptuous to sweepingly second - guess what their reasons are and apply them broadly or brand people as ‘haters’. It’s tiresome.

[Tom4784]

The UK press is considered among the worst in the world, plenty of the celebs and people who have fallen victim to it have said so. Chances are that both Harry and Megan get more respect from the US press than they do from the UK press so it's strange to slate them for moving and expect them to tolerate vicious bullying and harassment at it's hands.

People hashtag be kind but they don't seem to want to take it on board.

[rusticgal]

Why should a grown mature woman be told what to do or how to behave? The very notion is laughable.

You talk about these two women like we are back in the 1800s. The way you are referring to Kate makes her sound like a battered housewife who dare not step out of turn.

Royalty or not... have we not come out of this type of regressive era yet??


Because becoming part of the Royal Family you take on a role or job if you like aswell as being a wife, husband, mother, father so your response is niave. Any job or firm you take or join has rules, dress code, expected behaviour and that includes the Royal Family because perhaps you can appreciate they are not just any family. The priviliges you get...a home, chefs, dressers, cleaners...it goes on and on. They want for nothing and it all gets paid by the tax payer.
Sadly there are a generation of people who think they can just dive in and do things the way they want to with NO RESPECT for anybody but themselves.

[rusticgal]

Meghan the ‘strong independent woman’ - not really…..do your research folks….

Her father worked hard to send her to the top schools and university in LA.
Her Uncle got her her first job placement.
Her fathers influence as an award winning lighting director got her parts in game shows and hallmark movies.
Her film producer first husband Trevors influence got her the part in Suits. Suits was the pinnacle of her success in acting and not even widely known.

Then she went after Harry…(covered in previous posts!) Now Prince Charles is subsidising her and Harry and she is living in a mansion lent to them by some billionaire which her Mummy Doria has now moved into as well.

So strong and independent she couldn’t stand the inevitable flak that Diana and even Fergie got a hundred times over and all that boring royal work and ran off home to Mummy and LA to live rent free in a mansion in addition to taking Daddy in law’s hand outs.


Strong, independent woman - no. Unless being a whinging diva who uses the latest woke excuse to bail out when she had no intention of staying in the UK to begin with is seen as strong and independent nowadays….


Well you make some very good points there Jet..

[rusticgal]

Back with more nonsense.


Well at least its content is far more interesting than those that just give a one line dig at everyone constantly and an inability to debate.

[Moniqua]

all this one sided hatred of a woman so above you in terms of class, regality and decorum will do no favours to you in the long run @ the crusties and dusties of this thread

it’s no secret that hateful white people age like milk...but do you i guess? :joker:

[Marsh.]

Well at least its content is far more interesting than those that just give a one line dig at everyone constantly and an inability to debate.

You mean like you? Hypocrisy doesn't suit you.

[Marsh.]

There is a lot more to being a senior member of the Royal Family than ribbon cutting, as Meghan found out and quickly bailed. It's hard boring work.
All high profile people get abuse from the press occassionally, especially when they seem to thrive on attention, as Meghan does. She left the UK for a quiet life, right?, but she keeps popping up by jumping on the latest bandwagon like clockwork or suing people.
Strong people just ignore the press clamour, like the Queen and Kate, who is said to have a spine of steel. I can well believe it, with 19 patronages, sporting organizations, and her and Wills own foundation to take care of, plus 3 young children. Thats what I call strong and independent,earning your keep, and all that.... not sponging off billionaires and celebs like Oprah you didn't even know previously for accomodation and work who wouldn't give you the time of day if you were just that whats - her - name actress in that legal drama thingy that her ex got her into.

Once again, it will be the influence of others who will get her something to do.
Watch this space. :hee:

I didn't ask you to repeat your nonsense. :pat:

[Marsh.]

Still in denial then? Or is love really blind? :joker:

Love?
I think you'll find there's only one of us feeling passionate emotions about 2 people we don't know, strong enough to continue to fuel hateful essays about them.

And it's.... you.

[Liam-]

Meghan hasn’t done anything wrong that we can actually judge, all the information people get of her come from anonymous sources used by rags desperate to sell papers and get clicks, nothing sells more than making up lies about a confident, outspoken woman, especially a minority one.

[jet]

Love?
I think you'll find there's only one of us feeling passionate emotions about 2 people we don't know, strong enough to continue to fuel hateful essays about them.

And it's.... you.

LOL.

Oh give over with the high drama, you trouble maker you. :nono:

[jet]

Because becoming part of the Royal Family you take on a role or job if you like aswell as being a wife, husband, mother, father so your response is niave. Any job or firm you take or join has rules, dress code, expected behaviour and that includes the Royal Family because perhaps you can appreciate they are not just any family. The priviliges you get...a home, chefs, dressers, cleaners...it goes on and on. They want for nothing and it all gets paid by the tax payer.
Sadly there are a generation of people who think they can just dive in and do things the way they want to with NO RESPECT for anybody but themselves.

:clap1:

[Tom4784]

Relying on low rent gossip rags to fuel a hatred of someone you don't know and will never know is bizarre.

[Marsh.]

LOL.

Oh give over with the high drama, you trouble maker you. :nono:

Then stop with the passionate essays for people you claim to not care about.

Otherwise... people will think you care. :eek:

[Marsh.]

Relying on low rent gossip rags to fuel a hatred of someone you don't know and will never know is bizarre.

It's really sad when it's not ridiculously hilarious.

[jet]

https://www.msn.com/en-sg/entertainment/celebrity/new-blow-for-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-as-trademark-application-for-their-archewell-foundation-is-rejected-for-being-unsigned-and-too-vague/ar-BB15FpoM?li=BBr8Cnr

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's application to trademark their new charitable organisation Archewell has been rejected, it has been reported.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who stepped down as working royals earlier this year, had their application turned down because they did not sign the document and they did not pay all the required fees, documents seen by The Sun have revealed.

The paperwork, which was submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on March 3, was also said to be 'too vague'.

What a shambles. Without the Palace to guide them they are making a right hash of things. :facepalm:

[Marsh.]

The Daily Mail? Really?

[jet]

Then stop with the passionate essays for people you claim to not care about.

Otherwise... people will think you care. :eek:

OMG no! D:
I must obey Marsh and stop immediately! :laugh:

[jet]

The Daily Mail? Really?

The Daily Mail what? You don't believe the excerpt about Archewell then?

[jet]

Relying on low rent gossip rags to fuel a hatred of someone you don't know and will never know is bizarre.

The usual, paint by numbers, unimaginative response to opinions and ideas that don't match your own.

[Marsh.]

The Daily Mail what? You don't believe the excerpt about Archewell then?

Do I find tabloids who report gossip based on "sources" truthful? No.

Do I find anything in the article reason enough to slate Harry and Meghan? No.

Trademark applications are very involved. It being returned because they've missed things out is not unusual. Tabloids taking innocuous information and turning it into a series of insulting articles is also not unusual.

But... people latch onto anything to justify irrational hatred. I remember the shocking.... DOG WALKING article.

[Marsh.]

Nice to see you've decided to start quoting sources though, you refused to do that a while back.

Disappointed they are, in fact, tabloids though.

[Tom4784]

The usual, paint by numbers, unimaginative response to opinions and ideas that don't match your own.

Why write an essay when you can surmise a topic in a sentence?

The hatred towards her has always been ridiculous, to obsess over hating her is plain bizarre, to scour for articles to justify that hatred is bizarre. It's just all bizarre.

[jet]

Do I find tabloids who report gossip based on "sources" truthful? No.

Do I find anything in the article reason enough to slate Harry and Meghan? No.

Trademark applications are very involved. It being returned because they've missed things out is not unusual. Tabloids taking innocuous information and turning it into a series of insulting articles is also not unusual.

But... people latch onto anything to justify irrational hatred. I remember the shocking.... DOG WALKING article.

The reporting of the Archewell foundation app being rejected wasn't gossip, it was factual. Where in the article were they 'slated'?

IMO missing signing the document in particular is pure incompetence. Is no -one advising this pair? :huh:

[Marsh.]

The reporting of the Archewell foundation app being rejected wasn't gossip, it was factual. Where in the article were they 'slated'?

IMO missing signing the document in particular is pure incompetence. Is no -one advising this pair? :huh:

You... were using it to slate them. You... brought it into a discussion thread about Meghan's treatment by the press.

Unless you believed it to be relevant to that you wouldn't have shared it.

[jet]

You... were using it to slate them. You... brought it into a discussion thread about Meghan's treatment by the press.

Unless you believed it to be relevant to that you wouldn't have shared it.

It shows that the Press often just report facts....and how they didn't point out how incompetent the pair of them were to miss out even the signing of a document supposed to be extemely important to them. They could have made much of that one if they wanted.

[Marsh.]

It shows that the Press often just report facts....and how they didn't point out how incompetent the pair of them were to miss out even the signing of a document supposed to be extemely important to them. They could have made much of that one if they wanted.

:joker: Like you are now?

Grrr Meghan didn't sign something! GRRR!!!

[rusticgal]

it’s no secret that hateful white people age like milk...but do you i guess? :joker:

...says someone who calls out everyone as a racist :laugh:

[rusticgal]

Relying on low rent gossip rags to fuel a hatred of someone you don't know and will never know is bizarre.

I watch Royal documentries and you cant get closer to the truth than Royal Correspondants and associates of other members of the Royals. You cant have any more legitimate source than that. Harry and Williams fall out was so called hearsay until he admitted it on NT...these rumours dont come from no where.

[LukeB]

Relying on low rent gossip rags to fuel a hatred of someone you don't know and will never know is bizarre.

:clap1:

[jet]

Why write an essay when you can surmise a topic in a sentence?

The hatred towards her has always been ridiculous, to obsess over hating her is plain bizarre, to scour for articles to justify that hatred is bizarre. It's just all bizarre.

I repeat as I said before:
The usual, paint by numbers, unimaginative response to opinions and ideas that don't match your own.

[rusticgal]

Why write an essay when you can surmise a topic in a sentence?

The hatred towards her has always been ridiculous, to obsess over hating her is plain bizarre, to scour for articles to justify that hatred is bizarre. It's just all bizarre.

Its not hatred...its dislike. Its healthy to get your facts right when discussing something on a forum and if that involves reading articles whats the problem. Its strange how those that adore her accuse those that dont of not having facts and when they do you call out people for being obsessive...pathetic.

[LukeB]

No it’s hatred and toxic.

All because people believe gossip... anyone can write a false story about celebrities but her haters sure believe it because it’s Meghan.

[jet]

I watch Royal documentries and you cant get closer to the truth than Royal Correspondants and associates of other members of the Royals. You cant have any more legitimate source than that. Harry and Williams fall out was so called hearsay until he admitted it on NT...these rumours dont come from no where.

Same here. They are the people to heed because over many years what they have said has turned out to be true far more often that not, and if not, there was always an element of truth to their reports.
Many just read gossip rags and don't bother seeking out reliable sources for their less sensationalistic and more measured and knowlegeable info.
But Marsh will be after you as he has always insisted that Royal Correspondents and associates are all liars and schemers and Meghan haters....

[Mokka]

Because becoming part of the Royal Family you take on a role or job if you like aswell as being a wife, husband, mother, father so your response is niave. Any job or firm you take or join has rules, dress code, expected behaviour and that includes the Royal Family because perhaps you can appreciate they are not just any family. The priviliges you get...a home, chefs, dressers, cleaners...it goes on and on. They want for nothing and it all gets paid by the tax payer.
Sadly there are a generation of people who think they can just dive in and do things the way they want to with NO RESPECT for anybody but themselves.

What you are describing is an outdated institution, not a job. A job allows you to bring your own expertise, knowledge, creativity, and individuality to it in order to complete a service or task that adds value to society. Any job you work is a two way contract and they can hire you and fire you... alternatively you can accept the job or quit.

You are describing ownership. Getting married doesn't mean your partner, their family, or the general public own you. Society has changed and evolved beyond this and the monarchy must to.

[Oliver_W]

A job allows you to bring your own expertise, knowledge, creativity, and individuality to it in order to complete a service or task that adds value to society. Any job you work is a two way contract and they can hire you and fire you... alternatively you can accept the job or quit.


Then someone who works at Next should be able to wear a Carphone Warehouse uniform and recommend iPhones to people who want to buy clothes :shrug:

Being a Royal is probably like being surrounded by everything they ever wanted, while being clamped in golden manacles.

[Glenn.]

Ugh ha impact though :love:

[Crimson Dynamo]

No it’s hatred and toxic.

All because people believe gossip... anyone can write a false story about celebrities but her haters sure believe it because it’s Meghan.

That is a lot of knowledge about lots of people you don't know

Do you see that as different from gossip?

[Swan]

all this one sided hatred of a woman so above you in terms of class, regality and decorum will do no favours to you in the long run @ the crusties and dusties of this thread

it’s no secret that hateful white people age like milk...but do you i guess? :joker:

Do you honestly think everybody who isn't in favour/isn't a fan of Meghan is a racist? What about the many black people who are anti-royal and have no time for Meghan whatsoever? Are they racist too?

[Marsh.]

Same here. They are the people to heed because over many years what they have said has turned out to be true far more often that not, and if not, there was always an element of truth to their reports.
Many just read gossip rags and don't bother seeking out reliable sources for their less sensationalistic and more measured and knowlegeable info.
But Marsh will be after you as he has always insisted that Royal Correspondents and associates are all liars and schemers and Meghan haters....

Erm... Marsh doesn't.

Marsh asks you to provide sources and you either refuse to do so on the basis that you don't have time or continue to post links to the "gossip rags" you also claim to not read.

Funny that.

Your opinion is not influenced by tabloid spin and yet every article you ever post about them comes from the Daily Mail.

[jet]

Erm... Marsh doesn't.

Marsh asks you to provide sources and you either refuse to do so on the basis that you don't have time or continue to post links to the "gossip rags" you also claim to not read.

Funny that.

Your opinion is not influenced by tabloid spin and yet every article you ever post about them comes from the Daily Mail.

Royal correspondents get their articles published in the Daily Mail, the Times etc, how else would they be read but in the press? Unless you expect them to send you a personal copy. :smug: I don't read gossip, I read their write ups alone. Are you getting it yet?

Don't lie Marsh, I used to provide plenty of sources, the articles remained unread or ignored so what was the point. I even posted all the names of the Royal Correspondents I respected so people could source what they were saying regarding Meghan and Harry, but all I got was ‘you believe THOSE people, ROYAL CORRESPONDENTS! haha’ from you. No feedback from their articles and no reference to any of them at all. It's all there in past threads, that history isn't erased yet....
I also recommended Royal documentaries but got no response. I posted links to several TV interviews with Royal correspondents and all I got was derision and again no feedback. Just the usual inane one liners aimed to poke and sneer.

Do you know how papers work Marsh? Royal correspondents write their articles which are then published in Daily’s like the Mail or the Times for example. They are usually fair enough and turn out to be accurate - criticism is given and praise is given, depending on the actions of the royal they are referring too.

The out and out gossip rags then pick up the articles and pick out bits to sensationalize often out of context for the gullible to delight in or wring their hands over whichever the case may be....you need to stop reading them, I don't. I once again patiently recommend seeking out Royal correspondents articles. You're welcome.

[rusticgal]

Royal correspondents get their articles published in the Daily Mail, the Times etc, how else would they be read but in the press? Unless you expect them to send you a personal copy. :smug: I don't read gossip, I read their write ups alone. Are you getting it yet?

Don't lie Marsh, I used to provide plenty of sources, the articles remained unread or ignored so what was the point. I even posted all the names of the Royal Correspondents I respected so people could source what they were saying regarding Meghan and Harry, but all I got was ‘you believe THOSE people, ROYAL CORRESPONDENTS! haha’ from you. No feedback from their articles and no reference to any of them at all. It's all there in past threads, that history isn't erased yet....
I also recommended Royal documentaries but got no response. I posted links to several TV interviews with Royal correspondents and all I got was derision and again no feedback. Just the usual inane one liners aimed to poke and sneer.

Do you know how papers work Marsh? Royal correspondents write their articles which are then published in Daily’s like the Mail or the Times for example. They are usually fair enough and turn out to be accurate - criticism is given and praise is given, depending on the actions of the royal they are referring too.

The out and out gossip rags then pick up the articles and pick out bits to sensationalize often out of context for the gullible to delight in or wring their hands over whichever the case may be....you need to stop reading them, I don't. I once again patiently recommend seeking out Royal correspondents articles. You're welcome.



Also Royal correspondents would not get away with going on documentaries spewing rubbish. Sadly some people won’t believe anything if it doesn’t suit their agenda...laughable. :laugh:

[Marsh.]

That's a LOT OF words trying to explain away your obsession with tabloid rags Jet.

If you don't want people to think that's where you get your information, maybe don't post Daily Mail links every chance you get.

[Glenn.]

The same Daily Mail that has run literally HUNDREDS of negative stories about our Meghan? That Daily Mail?

[Marsh.]

Also Royal correspondents would not get away with going on documentaries spewing rubbish. Sadly some people won’t believe anything if it doesn’t suit their agenda...laughable. :laugh:

Yes the people finding it bizarre the silly level of vitriol aimed at a woman they don't know are the ones with an agenda. :pat:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Also Royal correspondents would not get away with going on documentaries spewing rubbish. Sadly some people won’t believe anything if it doesn’t suit their agenda...laughable. :laugh:

:clap1:

[rusticgal]

Yes the people finding it bizarre the silly level of vitriol aimed at a woman they don't know are the ones with an agenda. :pat:


It maybe negativity...but it’s not vitriol. Recognise the difference.

[Ammi]

...I honestly struggle to fathom why anyone would ever spend time even in thought about someone they dislike so much and had no respect for...someone they really can’t find much positive in their character or any aspect of them...let alone the energy and time spent actively expressing such disapproval...if it were someone who in some way impacted on lives, who had some responsibility for country decision making in our own lives...but she doesn’t, she doesn’t impact in any way so spending such energy when such disdain is felt is beyond my understanding completely...


...I think sadly she has been bullied by the media and in turn, by some public as well with the constant negative comments on masse...and whatever it’s felt her character is...?...whether accurate or not or what measure of accuracy...what she’s had aimed against her is far, far worse...they’ve essentially fled for some peace and still they aren’t getting any...

[jet]

That's a LOT OF words trying to explain away your obsession with tabloid rags Jet.

If you don't want people to think that's where you get your information, maybe don't post Daily Mail links every chance you get.

It might seem like a lot of words to someone who struggles beyond sarky one or two liners....and I see you have avoided responding to the actual content......and I thought you insisted I didn't post sources? :smug:

[rusticgal]

...I honestly struggle to fathom why anyone would ever spend time even in thought about someone they dislike so much and had no respect for...someone they really can’t find much positive in their character or any aspect of them...let alone the energy and time spent actively expressing such disapproval...if it were someone who in some way impacted on lives, who had some responsibility for country decision making in our own lives...but she doesn’t, she doesn’t impact in any way so spending such energy when such disdain is felt is beyond my understanding completely...


...I think sadly she has been bullied by the media and in turn, by some public as well with the constant negative comments on masse...and whatever it’s felt her character is...?...whether accurate or not or what measure of accuracy...what she’s had aimed against her is far, far worse...they’ve essentially fled for some peace and still they aren’t getting any...


Well if people want to come on here and discuss and defend/support then, and no disrespect,as a forum member I don’t understand what your problem is.

[Tom4784]

Its not hatred...its dislike. Its healthy to get your facts right when discussing something on a forum and if that involves reading articles whats the problem. Its strange how those that adore her accuse those that dont of not having facts and when they do you call out people for being obsessive...pathetic.

Dislike would be not liking someone but not letting it rule your life. When you hate someone so much that you chase stories from any old source to confirm your bias and write essays on why someone is the devil incarnate, that is when dislike grows into an obsessive hatred. It's unhealthy.

I don't adore her, I don't know her. I just know bull**** when I see it and the level of hate she gets for merely existing is bull****.

[jet]

Also Royal correspondents would not get away with going on documentaries spewing rubbish. Sadly some people won’t believe anything if it doesn’t suit their agenda...laughable. :laugh:

That's exactly the problem, they won't even do the research to find out if things that are said are true or not. They just spout 'haters!' 'agenda!' 'I don't understand' 'racists! etc. It would be different if they said 'Well look, this is what I found, and it refutes what you claimed', then a debate could be had.
But no, nothing at all....

[Marsh.]

It maybe negativity...but it’s not vitriol. Recognise the difference.

Nope. Ripping apart her and her family for no reason across the front pages is significantly more than "negative" press.

Recognise the obvious.

[Marsh.]

It might seem like a lot of words to someone who struggles beyond sarky one or two liners....and I see you have avoided responding to the actual content......and I thought you insisted I didn't post sources? :smug:

The actual content being you denying posting links to tabloids whilst posting links to the Daily Mail? Too right I avoided it. I'm not interested in you repeating yourself and calling it "proof".

Writing a page full of words saying nothing is not worth much darling.

[Marsh.]

That's exactly the problem, they won't even do the research to find out if things that are said are true or not. They just spout 'haters!' 'agenda!' 'I don't understand' 'racists! etc. It would be different if they said 'Well look, this is what I found, and it refutes what you claimed', then a debate could be had.
But no, nothing at all....

Imagine reading the Daily Mail and calling it "research" into a celebrity you don't like. :joker:

[joeysteele]

...I honestly struggle to fathom why anyone would ever spend time even in thought about someone they dislike so much and had no respect for...someone they really can’t find much positive in their character or any aspect of them...let alone the energy and time spent actively expressing such disapproval...if it were someone who in some way impacted on lives, who had some responsibility for country decision making in our own lives...but she doesn’t, she doesn’t impact in any way so spending such energy when such disdain is felt is beyond my understanding completely...


...I think sadly she has been bullied by the media and in turn, by some public as well with the constant negative comments on masse...and whatever it’s felt her character is...?...whether accurate or not or what measure of accuracy...what she’s had aimed against her is far, far worse...they’ve essentially fled for some peace and still they aren’t getting any...

I agree.

Particularly with your second paragraph.

[Tom4784]

The idea of doing 'research' (IE, reading rags) to try to justify hatred is just odd. It's all rather strange and pointless.

[Swan]

We all judge celebrities, rightly or wrongly and some more harsher than others. We can only judge on what we read, every source is questionable yes, but that doesn't mean there isn't any truth to the stories.

I don't personally dislike Meghan (again im anti-royal so by default i'll always be sceptical), but some of hers and Harry's behaviour has every right to be questioned. The "it's because she's black" argument is probably true for some, but not as many as people like to make out. It would hard for anyone to deny that she's a beautiful looking woman.

[Marsh.]

We all judge celebrities, rightly or wrongly and some more harsher than others. We can only judge on what we read, every source is questionable yes, but that doesn't mean there isn't any truth to the stories.

I don't personally dislike Meghan (again im anti-royal so by default i'll always be sceptical), but some of hers and Harry's behaviour has every right to be questioned. The "it's because she's black" argument is probably true for some, but not as many as people like to make out. It would hard for anyone to deny that she's a beautiful looking woman.

I don't think anyone would insist everyone who doesn't like her or doesn't agree with her decisions is racist.

But the irrational avalanche of abuse she has received is not compatible to anything she has done or said.

If there's anything the Brits and the British press love more than anything is to build someone up just to knock them down and vilify them like a Freak Show. And it's been done with a lot of racism, classism, xenophobia and sexism on the whole.

The tabloids are just trash. She's a gold digging, social climber for entering the Royals and she's a.... gold digging, social climber for leaving. :laugh:

[Swan]

I don't think anyone would insist everyone who doesn't like her or doesn't agree with her decisions is racist.

But the irrational avalanche of abuse she has received is not compatible to anything she has done or said.

If there's anything the Brits and the British press love more than anything is to build someone up just to know them down and vilify them. And it's been done with a lot of racism, classism, xenophobia and sexism on the whole.

Some would.

Like many celebs have, doesn't make it right, but it's the nature of the beast. We have every right to judge. Actual hatred (which does happen) is silly though.

The last paragraph, i agree with. And also done with a mob like mentality, spearheaded by the media.

[Marsh.]

Some would.

Like many celebs have, doesn't make it right, but it's the nature of the beast. We have every right to judge. Actual hatred (which does happen) is silly though.

The last paragraph, i agree with. And also done with a mob like mentality, spearheaded by the media.

We can judge, but I think deluding yourself (the general you, not you) into believing that you are 100% correct and the information you glean from a tabloid newspaper is quality journalism would be foolish.

[jet]

Imagine reading the Daily Mail and calling it "research" into a celebrity you don't like. :joker:

Do you ever comprehend a longer post? You are coming across rather dense tbf. I'll make it short for you this time.
I read the Royal Correspondents articles in the Mail or Times when they appear.
Online. That is all.
Its up to you and your level of intelligence now....

[Swan]

We can judge, but I think deluding yourself (the general you, not you) into believing that you are 100% correct and the information you glean from a tabloid newspaper is quality journalism would be foolish.

Well yeah as i said, all sources are questionable, but im sure some contain a certain level of truth.

Fwiw i don't read tabloid newspapers.

[Marsh.]

Do you ever comprehend a longer post? You are coming across rather dense tbf. I'll make it short for you this time.
I read the Royal Correspondents articles in the Mail or Times when they appear.
Online. That is all.
Its up to you and your level of intelligence now....

Up to me to what? Find sources for your silly claims? It's really not, sweetheart.

As I said before, repeating yourself ad nauseam does not make a valid argument.

You rely on tabloids, we've established that, and that is the end of the matter.

[jet]

Up to me to what? Find sources for your silly claims? It's really not, sweetheart.

As I said before, repeating yourself ad nauseam does not make a valid argument.

You rely on tabloids, we've established that, and that is the end of the matter.


No, I like to listen to Royal Correspondents. I'll repeat that as often as needed to help you take it in.
What age are you Marsh? A genuine question? If you don't mind saying.

[Marsh.]

What age are you Marsh? A genuine question? If you don't mind saying.

If you can bother to explain what relevance that has to the topic, happily.

I've a feeling you won't though.

[jet]

If you can bother to explain what relevance that has to the topic, happily.

I've a feeling you won't though.

No problem. Its relevant to how you take in information from others and process it. You seem immature? Nothing wrong with that btw, we were all immature once.

[Marsh.]

No problem. Its relevant to how you take in information from others and process it. You seem immature? Nothing wrong with that btw, we were all immature once.

Being obsessed with a woman you've never met and are making out it's everyone else's "agenda" and "issue". That's what's immature and it is a problem. Only for you though.

[Cherie]

what is all this about, what press reports? .. all I have seen is that she felt unsupported during her pregnancy? how is that the press hounding them :suspect:

[rusticgal]

what is all this about, what press reports? .. all I have seen is that she felt unsupported during her pregnancy? how is that the press hounding them :suspect:



Lol...that’s just the point. She isn’t being hounded. Sadly negative reports here and there are being seen as being hounded.
Now Diana was hounded by the press because she was loved and everyone wanted to read about her...that’s the real tragedy.

[Glenn.]

Lol...that’s just the point. She isn’t being hounded. Sadly negative reports here and there are being seen as being hounded.
Now Diana was hounded by the press because she was loved and everyone wanted to read about her...that’s the real tragedy.

The Daily Mail has hundreds of negative stories on Meghan. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

[Marsh.]

The Daily Mail has hundreds of negative stories on Meghan. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/0becb4503083cdf19f3e55b1ca72e412/tenor.gif?itemid=7838486

[jet]

The Daily Mail has hundreds of negative stories on Meghan. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

How do you know? You must be obsessed reading all those hundreds. I only ever seek out articles by Royal correspondents online. I used to read a variety of papers but not any more.

Links to some of these negative stories please? I might be able to refute or verify some of them by referring to the Royal correspondents usually knowledgeable assessments.
Thanks.

[rusticgal]

The Daily Mail has hundreds of negative stories on Meghan. Let’s not pretend otherwise.


The definition of hounding someone is to chase someone or refuse to leave them alone especially because you want to get something from them. Diana was hounded for those very reasons. Meghan receives some bad press and negative stories this does not equate to hounding. They are not chasing her quite literally like they did Diana...they don’t want anything from her like they did Diana. She and Harry quit the Royal family for a quiet life...if you keep putting yourself out there for publicity then expect it..good or bad.
In response to the OP...they don’t compare in the terms of ‘hounding’.

[Marsh.]

I only ever seek out articles by Royal correspondents online..

The last article you brought into this thread proves this to be a lie.

[jet]

The last article you brought into this thread proves this to be a lie.

It was a factual piece with no criticism of Meghan and Harry...to point out newspapers don't always pick on the poor little victim even though they could have in that article.
Seeking out decent articles and coming across them occasionally online in links and either ignoring or considering them post worthy are 2 different things.
You don't want to reveal your age then? That's okay, I'll hazard a guess, 16,17?

[Marsh.]

It was a factual piece with no criticism of Meghan and Harry...to point out newspapers don't always pick on the poor little victim even though they could have in that article.
Seeking out decent articles and coming across them occasionally online in links and either ignoring or considering them post worthy are 2 different things.

Saying you "only seek out articles by Royal correspondents online" was a lie no matter how you're trying to rephrase it now.


You don't want to reveal your age then? That's okay, I'll hazard a guess, 16,17?

What's your age? I'd hazard a guess significantly older than Meghan Markle.

[jet]

Saying you "only seek out articles by Royal correspondents online" was a lie no matter how you're trying to rephrase it now.



What's your age? I'd hazard a guess significantly older than Meghan Markle.

:facepalm: Not another 'E' grade in your comprehension paper....

My age? Older but not significantly so...someone said they read thats she's really at least 40 but I don't believe that's true.

[Glenn.]

How do you know? You must be obsessed reading all those hundreds. I only ever seek out articles by Royal correspondents online. I used to read a variety of papers but not any more.

Links to some of these negative stories please? I might be able to refute or verify some of them by referring to the Royal correspondents usually knowledgeable assessments.
Thanks.

There’s this thing called a search function. I typed in her name and 194 pages of articles were the result.


The definition of hounding someone is to chase someone or refuse to leave them alone especially because you want to get something from them. Diana was hounded for those very reasons. Meghan receives some bad press and negative stories this does not equate to hounding. They are not chasing her quite literally like they did Diana...they don’t want anything from her like they did Diana. She and Harry quit the Royal family for a quiet life...if you keep putting yourself out there for publicity then expect it..good or bad.
In response to the OP...they don’t compare in the terms of ‘hounding’.

It’s not ‘some’ bad press though is it. It’s a LOT of tabloid crap that idiots lap up like thirsty dogs.

[Beso]

Only an idiot would type in someone's name so they could count how many bad articles come up about that person.

[Glenn.]

Isn’t 5:03 a bit early to be on the sauce?

[Marsh.]

:facepalm: Not another 'E' grade in your comprehension paper....

My age? Older but not significantly so...someone said they read thats she's really at least 40 but I don't believe that's true.

Well at least I taught you one word... comprehension.

Your use is wildly inaccurate, however. Maybe direct your "research" towards something a little more substantial than celebrity gossip and your vocabulary will grow.

[Marsh.]

Only an idiot would type in someone's name so they could count how many bad articles come up about that person.

The wonderful thing about a search function is that it brings up the total for you. :hee:

[jet]

There’s this thing called a search function. I typed in her name and 194 pages of articles were the result.


So how do you know hundreds of them were negative? You can't know that unless you read them all - my word.... - D:

[Glenn.]

So how do you know hundreds of them were negative? You can't know that unless you read them all - my word.... - D:

It’s the Daily Mail...


EDIT: page 1 of 194 features 14 sensationalised negative stories

[jet]

It’s the Daily Mail...


EDIT: page 1 of 194 features 14 sensationalised negative stories

Went to have a look - I typed in Daily Mail Meghan Markle and I didn’t see anything that sensational in the headlines of the articles???? Not anything like as bad as I thought you were all talking about in referring to the gossip rags, the DM in particular that some seem obsessed with.

Just the usual stuff, some positive, some negative, pretty tame, that probably all the papers were carrying I presume….can you provide examples of these sensationalised headlines?

[thesheriff443]

It’s funny how the same members turn themselves inside out attacking every negative post while claiming those member’s are obsessed, when in fact it’s those member themselves that can’t accept an opinion on someone they don’t know.

And they go through the same act of so called calling someone out and then congratulating one another like they achieved something.

And when they get really into it they start throwing the word hate around.

[Marsh.]

"Went to have a look" = Opened the Daily Mail app you get notifications from. :joker:

[Marsh.]

It’s funny how the same members turn themselves inside out attacking every negative post while claiming those member’s are obsessed, when in fact it’s those member themselves that can’t accept an opinion on someone they don’t know.

And they go through the same act of so called calling someone out and then congratulating one another like they achieved something.

And when they get really into it they start throwing the word hate around.

People can have their opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. That's how it works.

What's funnier is you only ever coming in these threads to comment on what other members are doing.

Practice what you preach.

[Glenn.]

It’s funny how the same members turn themselves inside out attacking every negative post while claiming those member’s are obsessed, when in fact it’s those member themselves that can’t accept an opinion on someone they don’t know.

And they go through the same act of so called calling someone out and then congratulating one another like they achieved something.

And when they get really into it they start throwing the word hate around.

Isn’t this exactly what you’ve just done though? In future perhaps it’s best to stay on topic instead of obsessing over other members

[jet]

It’s funny how the same members turn themselves inside out attacking every negative post while claiming those member’s are obsessed, when in fact it’s those member themselves that can’t accept an opinion on someone they don’t know.

And they go through the same act of so called calling someone out and then congratulating one another like they achieved something.

And when they get really into it they start throwing the word hate around.

Very true. Instead of stating their own considered opinion on the subject matter, they attack the poster. It shows really that they don't have a counter argument to attempt to refute what is said, so they just lash out with a lot of nonsense to cover up.

[Marsh.]

Very true. Instead of stating their own considered opinion on the subject matter, they attack the poster. It shows really that they don't have a counter argument to attempt to refute what is said, so they just lash out with a lot of nonsense to cover up.

Pointing out tabloids are sensational tosh beneath anyone of any level of intelligence is nonsense?

Stating the press and public backlash against Meghan Markle... grossly outweighs anything she has actually said or done is not a counter argument?

Half of your posts to me in this thread about my age aren't personal?

Stick to click baiting articles.

[Mystic Mock]

It’s funny how the same members turn themselves inside out attacking every negative post while claiming those member’s are obsessed, when in fact it’s those member themselves that can’t accept an opinion on someone they don’t know.

And they go through the same act of so called calling someone out and then congratulating one another like they achieved something.

And when they get really into it they start throwing the word hate around.

Speaking for myself I don't really care about Meghan as a person one way or the other as I don't personally know her or know that much about her away from the very basics.

For me I don't like seeing the Media witchunt people unnecessarily in any field, I've felt the same in the past about people like Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn, and even from more Showbiz stuff like what happened to Caroline Flack, and the "bullying" accusations that the Media helped TXF use against Misha B.

For me even if I don't like the person very much (like Corbyn for example) I'll still defend the person if the Media is attacking them beyond what they've said or done, and that will include Meghan in this particular case as her biggest crime is that she's an ego maniac apparently, by the Royal Family standards that's quite tame.

[jet]

Pointing out tabloids are sensational tosh beneath anyone of any level of intelligence is nonsense?

Stating the press and public backlash against Meghan Markle... grossly outweighs anything she has actually said or done is not a counter argument?

Half of your posts to me in this thread about my age aren't personal?

Stick to click baiting articles.

Baity one liners aren't a sufficient counter argument, no. Maybe on some obnoxious online comments forum but not on Serious Debates.

I asked you your age politely and asked if you didn't mind...

[Marsh.]

Baity one liners aren't a sufficient counter argument, no. Maybe on some obnoxious online comments forum but not on Serious Debates.

I asked you your age politely and asked if you didn't mind...

I could ask your BMI and IQ politely, doesn't make it relevant to the thread.

Much.

[Marsh.]

Speaking for myself I don't really care about Meghan as a person one way or the other as I don't personally know her or know that much about her away from the very basics.

For me I don't like seeing the Media witchunt people unnecessarily in any field, I've felt the same in the past about people like Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn, and even from more Showbiz stuff like what happened to Caroline Flack, and the "bullying" accusations that the Media helped TXF use against Misha B.

For me even if I don't like the person very much (like Corbyn for example) I'll still defend the person if the Media is attacking them beyond what they've said or done, and that will include Meghan in this particular case as her biggest crime is that she's an ego maniac apparently, by the Royal Family standards that's quite tame.

Spot on Mock.

[joeysteele]

Speaking for myself I don't really care about Meghan as a person one way or the other as I don't personally know her or know that much about her away from the very basics.

For me I don't like seeing the Media witchunt people unnecessarily in any field, I've felt the same in the past about people like Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn, and even from more Showbiz stuff like what happened to Caroline Flack, and the "bullying" accusations that the Media helped TXF use against Misha B.

For me even if I don't like the person very much (like Corbyn for example) I'll still defend the person if the Media is attacking them beyond what they've said or done, and that will include Meghan in this particular case as her biggest crime is that she's an ego maniac apparently, by the Royal Family standards that's quite tame.

Every word I agree with there Mock.
Excellent post that covers so much of the issue.

Particular in relation to the media.

[jet]

"Went to have a look" = Opened the Daily Mail app you get notifications from. :joker:

Ermm, no - but there is actually some pretty interesting stuff in that search. Nothing really as hateful and vile at all as you and others insist there is- I'm surprised. Which rags DO you read, where do you see this stuff? Links?

[LukeB]

Speaking for myself I don't really care about Meghan as a person one way or the other as I don't personally know her or know that much about her away from the very basics.

For me I don't like seeing the Media witchunt people unnecessarily in any field, I've felt the same in the past about people like Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn, and even from more Showbiz stuff like what happened to Caroline Flack, and the "bullying" accusations that the Media helped TXF use against Misha B.

For me even if I don't like the person very much (like Corbyn for example) I'll still defend the person if the Media is attacking them beyond what they've said or done, and that will include Meghan in this particular case as her biggest crime is that she's an ego maniac apparently, by the Royal Family standards that's quite tame.

Great post Mock!

[jet]

I could ask your BMI and IQ politely, doesn't make it relevant to the thread.

Much.

Baity one liners aren't relevant either. Its Serious DEBATES.
I asked your age because of your baity one liners which often derail threads. I have often ignored you in the past but it didn't stop you needling away at me in a childish fashion. :shrug:

[Marsh.]

Baity one liners aren't relevant either. Its Serious DEBATES.
I asked your age because of your baity one liners which often derail threads. I have often ignored you in the past but it didn't stop you needling away at me in a childish fashion. :shrug:

Keep trying to build that moral high ground that just crumbles beneath you with every post you make.

Your hypocrisy is crystal clear.

[jet]

Keep trying to build that moral high ground that just crumbles beneath you with every post you make.

Your hypocrisy is crystal clear.

Okey doke. :wavey:

[Marsh.]

Ermm, no - but there is actually some pretty interesting stuff in that search. Nothing really as hateful and vile at all as you and others insist there is- I'm surprised. Which rags DO you read, where do you see this stuff? Links?

What stuff?

The only time I've mentioned tabloids is when YOU post them to back up your ludicrous statements.

[Marsh.]

Go back to "ignoring every post" I make if your skin is so thin you can't bear anyone questioning or responding to your posts.

[Beso]

Isn’t 5:03 a bit early to be on the sauce?

Some of us work sundays.

[jet]

Speaking for myself I don't really care about Meghan as a person one way or the other as I don't personally know her or know that much about her away from the very basics.

For me I don't like seeing the Media witchunt people unnecessarily in any field, I've felt the same in the past about people like Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn, and even from more Showbiz stuff like what happened to Caroline Flack, and the "bullying" accusations that the Media helped TXF use against Misha B.

For me even if I don't like the person very much (like Corbyn for example) I'll still defend the person if the Media is attacking them beyond what they've said or done, and that will include Meghan in this particular case as her biggest crime is that she's an ego maniac apparently, by the Royal Family standards that's quite tame.

Hi Mock, you have alway been a very fair and nice poster - I like reading your posts.

If don’t read rags but if they blatantly make up stuff about Meghan that isn’t true, surely she would sue? Herself and Harry seem to have no scruples in that regard.
I suppose what the rags do is exaggerate certain things and put a negative spin on it, thats what sells isn’t it, people read it so…..but there will be kernels of truth in there too.
It happens to all prominent public figures - the royal family are particularly good at just ignoring because then it dies a death and its someone else’s turn.

So I really haven’t read anything awful about Meghan beyond what she has actually said and done, just fair assessments by Royal Correspondents and insiders about certain things which have happened which are now known to be accurate. Royal correspondents can’t risk spreading lies or they would no longer get insider info and their job would be gone.

The general consensus between insiders is that Meghan and Harry making a fuss about criticism was deliberate, (not that anyone wants criticism but they used it to their advantage)) - they knew that portraying themselves as victims would give them sympathy and an ‘out’ because they had no intention of staying in the UK - they planned to get to LA early on in their marriage. It was discovered that they were putting things in place way back when and the way they broke the news of their leaving the royal family was sneaky and underhand..
So yes, the media can be cruel, but celebs also need them and use them when it suits....a dysfunctional relationship! :hee:

[Marsh.]

"Surely she would sue..."

Erm... she has. Your research isn't very extensive.

[Tom4784]

The rags probably don't cover the suits filed against them, tbh.

[jet]

"Surely she would sue..."

Erm... she has. Your research isn't very extensive.

Isn't that just about her Dad's letter?

Proves that I don't read rags for research, haven't read anything from the RC's about any other lawsuits.

[Beso]

Who owns the letter, the sender or the receiver?

[jet]

The rags probably don't cover the suits filed against them, tbh.

They must, Marsh knew about them...

[Tom4784]

They must, Marsh knew about them...

'I know what you are but what am I?' is something that belongs on a playground, Jet, especially when it doesn't fit the context.

[Marsh.]

'I know what you are but what am I?' is something that belongs on a playground, Jet, especially when it doesn't fit the context.

This tbh. :joker:

[Toy Soldier]

I hear a distant rumble and wonder if a storm is coming; but casting my eyes to the horizon, I can see that the skies are clear and blue. Yet the rumble intensifies. My eyes widen. I can feel the vibrations... But they're not in the air, they're under my feet. I quickly drop prone, pressing my ear to the earth - it's dusty, and smells faintly of spilled petroleum. The rumbling continues, I can hear it more clearly now, what sounds like the mechanical, rhythmic drilling of ancient machinery. But what could be down there? What manner of long-forgotten relic? And why now? I spring back to my feet, as though the extra 6' between the sound and my head will offer some protection.

The earth cracks, and begins to split. Just a hair line at first, then widening to a few centimetres. I hold my breath, unsure of what to expect. The cold metal of drills? The untold horror of a claw? No... I see them now. Fingers. Human fingers, emerging from the dust. The rift opens further. A hand. An arm. It seems strange and yet, somehow, so familiar. The second arm appears, and both elbows press into the earth. Rippling biceps flex, a layer of sweat glistening in the sun... A primordial roar deafens me as the earth finally cracks open wide, and he appears. How did we forget? Where had he gone? But the most pressing question - WHY had Jet returned? Had I somehow missed it? Had someone, during my nightly rest, talked about Corbyn?

And then I heard it. The faintest of whisper in my ear. A small, tired voice.

"Not Corbyn, Sir..." came Marsh's whisper. "Someone made a thread about Megan Markle."

[Marsh.]

:laugh2:

[jet]

I hear a distant rumble and wonder if a storm is coming; but casting my eyes to the horizon, I can see that the skies are clear and blue. Yet the rumble intensifies. My eyes widen. I can feel the vibrations... But they're not in the air, they're under my feet. I quickly drop prone, pressing my ear to the earth - it's dusty, and smells faintly of spilled petroleum. The rumbling continues, I can hear it more clearly now, what sounds like the mechanical, rhythmic drilling of ancient machinery. But what could be down there? What manner of long-forgotten relic? And why now? I spring back to my feet, as though the extra 6' between the sound and my head will offer some protection.

The earth cracks, and begins to split. Just a hair line at first, then widening to a few centimetres. I hold my breath, unsure of what to expect. The cold metal of drills? The untold horror of a claw? No... I see them now. Fingers. Human fingers, emerging from the dust. The rift opens further. A hand. An arm. It seems strange and yet, somehow, so familiar. The second arm appears, and both elbows press into the earth. Rippling biceps flex, a layer of sweat glistening in the sun... A primordial roar deafens me as the earth finally cracks open wide, and he appears. How did we forget? Where had he gone? But the most pressing question - WHY had Jet returned? Had I somehow missed it? Had someone, during my nightly rest, talked about Corbyn?

And then I heard it. The faintest of whisper in my ear. A small, tired voice.

"Not Corbyn, Sir..." came Marsh's whisper. "Someone made a thread about Megan Markle."

:joker: I'm honoured TS :hehe:
Seriously, you should try your hand at writing a book, a thriller, I'm certain it would be a best seller!

[rusticgal]

Isn't that just about her Dad's letter?

Proves that I don't read rags for research, haven't read anything from the RC's about any other lawsuits.


Yes it is all about the letter. The letter her friend exposed and her father then gave it to the media in his defense....I believe.

[rusticgal]

:joker: I'm honoured TS :hehe:
Seriously, you should try your hand at writing a book, a thriller, I'm certain it would be a best seller!

See what impact you have Jet....:cheer2:

[Cherie]

I hear a distant rumble and wonder if a storm is coming; but casting my eyes to the horizon, I can see that the skies are clear and blue. Yet the rumble intensifies. My eyes widen. I can feel the vibrations... But they're not in the air, they're under my feet. I quickly drop prone, pressing my ear to the earth - it's dusty, and smells faintly of spilled petroleum. The rumbling continues, I can hear it more clearly now, what sounds like the mechanical, rhythmic drilling of ancient machinery. But what could be down there? What manner of long-forgotten relic? And why now? I spring back to my feet, as though the extra 6' between the sound and my head will offer some protection.

The earth cracks, and begins to split. Just a hair line at first, then widening to a few centimetres. I hold my breath, unsure of what to expect. The cold metal of drills? The untold horror of a claw? No... I see them now. Fingers. Human fingers, emerging from the dust. The rift opens further. A hand. An arm. It seems strange and yet, somehow, so familiar. The second arm appears, and both elbows press into the earth. Rippling biceps flex, a layer of sweat glistening in the sun... A primordial roar deafens me as the earth finally cracks open wide, and he appears. How did we forget? Where had he gone? But the most pressing question - WHY had Jet returned? Had I somehow missed it? Had someone, during my nightly rest, talked about Corbyn?

And then I heard it. The faintest of whisper in my ear. A small, tired voice.

"Not Corbyn, Sir..." came Marsh's whisper. "Someone made a thread about Megan Markle."

:joker:

[jet]

See what impact you have Jet....:cheer2:

It seems so :joker: :cheer2:

[Marsh.]

Yes it is all about the letter. The letter her friend exposed and her father then gave it to the media in his defense....I believe.

There's more than one lawsuit.

[rusticgal]

There's more than one lawsuit.


...enlighten us.

[Marsh.]

...enlighten us.

In Jet's words... do your research.

Not difficult to familiarise yourself with something before joining a discussion about it. :hee:

[rusticgal]

In Jet's words... do your research.

Not difficult to familiarise yourself with something before joining a discussion about it. :hee:


I have and it’s what I said....so enlighten me if I’m wrong and back up your statement...unless you are telling porkies..:laugh:

[jet]

I have and it’s what I said....so enlighten me if I’m wrong and back up your statement...unless you are telling porkies..:laugh:

The silence is deafening....:joker:

[jet]

Yes it is all about the letter. The letter her friend exposed and her father then gave it to the media in his defense....I believe.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8276929/Meghan-Markle-suffers-massive-setback-judge-tosses-multiple-claims-against-Mail-Sunday.html


Intersting stuff from the first hearing in May:

Meghan Markle suing publisher of Mail on Sunday for printing letter to her father
She claims article in 2019 breached her privacy, copyright and data protection
Associated Newspapers disputes claims and argued parts of case be thrown out
Mr Justice Warby today 'struck out' significant parts of her case ahead of trial
Duchess will give evidence in High Court - with her father Thomas against her


Meghan Markle's defeat at the High Court today has been branded a 'disaster' and a 'humiliation' by leading lawyers after she lost the first round of her legal battle with the Mail on Sunday.

Large parts of her case against Associated Newspapers were dismissed as 'irrelevant', 'inadequate' and 'impermissibly vague’ by a top judge this afternoon including her claims of a malicious media 'agenda' against her.

Mr Justice Warby has also 'struck out' her allegations that journalists had acted dishonestly and had caused the rift between her and her estranged father Thomas by ‘digging up dirt’ to portray Meghan in a 'negative light'.

The Duchess of Sussex, 38, is suing Associated Newspapers over an article which reproduced parts of a handwritten note she sent to Mr Markle, 75, in August 2018, three months after he was unable to walk her down the aisle following a heart attack.
Mark Stephens, a partner at Howard Kennedy, told MailOnline today's ruling was an ‘absolute victory’ for the Mail on Sunday after the judge threw out ‘significant ill-advised parts of her claim’.
He said: ‘For Meghan this judgment is a like a train ploughing into a petrol tanker on a level crossing. It is a complete disaster. She’s been humiliated today. Every complaint by Associated Newspapers has been completely and utterly vindicated by the judge'.
Mr Stephens claimed that senior lawyers in London had pored over Ms Markle's claim and concluded 'there was no chance of her winning', adding she was either 'poorly advised' or disregarded warnings because she wanted her day in court.....



etc....

Oh dear....:think:

[Marsh.]

I have and it’s what I said....so enlighten me if I’m wrong and back up your statement...unless you are telling porkies..:laugh:

Erm... I didn't say you were wrong.

I said.... there is more than one lawsuit. I.e. more than just the one you mentioned.

I mean if you can't understand basic language.

[Marsh.]

Yes it is all about the letter. The letter her friend exposed and her father then gave it to the media in his defense....I believe.

There's more than one lawsuit.

What part of this response is me saying she didn't file a lawsuit about the publishing of her father's letter?

My response was illustrating Meghan has and is pursuing lawsuits (note the plural) against publications for printing lies about her. Quite the opposite to Jet claiming she wasn't.

[Marsh.]

The silence is deafening....:joker:

I imagine it is when you find it this difficult to read words.

[rusticgal]

Erm... I didn't say you were wrong.

I said.... there is more than one lawsuit. I.e. more than just the one you mentioned.

I mean if you can't understand basic language.


I do understand....you say there is more than one lawsuit other than the one I mentioned....I’ve asked you to tell me what they are but you seem to have a problem with an answer...

I mean if YOU can’t understand basic language don’t try and put it back on me....I’m still waiting for an answer.

[Marsh.]

I do understand....you say there is more than one lawsuit other than the one I mentioned....I’ve asked you to tell me what they are but you seem to have a problem with an answer...

I mean if YOU can’t understand basic language don’t try and put it back on me....I’m still waiting for an answer.

Again, in the words of Jet, do your research if you're going to join a discussion.

I'm not your PA. Maybe Jet could oblige with their obligatory Daily Mail links?

[jet]

What part of this response is me saying she didn't file a lawsuit about the publishing of her father's letter?

My response was illustrating Meghan has and is pursuing lawsuits (note the plural) against publications for printing lies about her. Quite the opposite to Jet claiming she wasn't.

I didn't say she wasn't, I said I hadn't heard of any other lawsuit. Big difference. You just make things up as you go along and think no one notices. :laugh:

As I can't find anything about another lawsuit, its not too much to ask for a source as you claim you know there is one. I'd like to read about it, its not a trick question. You accused me of not giving sources which was an outright lie, so what is your problem?

[Marsh.]

I didn't say she wasn't, I said I hadn't heard of any other lawsuit. Big difference. You just make things up as you go along and think no one notices. :laugh:

As I can't find anything about another lawsuit, its not too much to ask for a source as you claim you know there is one. I'd like to read about it, its not a trick question. You accused me of not giving sources which was an outright lie, so what is your problem?

No. I accused you of either refusing to share so called non-tabloid sources OR providing sources which were just tabloids. So far you're proving me right.

Yet again, you've provided us with another Daily Mail link. Look beyond the tabloids and you will find actual news.

[DouglasS]

Again, in the words of Jet, do your research if you're going to join a discussion.

I'm not your PA. Maybe Jet could oblige with their obligatory Daily Mail links?

She made her point and you essentially challenged her by stating there is more than one lawsuit without any evidence. She gave you ample opportunities to actually support your claims and what the others are and you haven’t done so, you can’t just tell her to research your point without explaining the point. If anything it should be you posting the evidence of your apparent research / you doing research. It appears to be just you deflecting when challenged?

[Marsh.]

She made her point and you essentially challenged her

She challenged my point and accused me of saying something I did not.

Easy mistake to make though when you dive in just to play contrary Mary when you see my username in a thread.

You're forgiven. :hee:

[DouglasS]

She challenged my point and accused me of saying something I did not.

Easy mistake to make though when you dive in just to play contrary Mary when you see my username in a thread.

You're forgiven. :hee:

You’re still deflecting from the lawsuit challenge because you haven’t got the evidence/facts

Why on earth would I care about your username? I’ve got better things going on in my life than to be thinking about you Marsh:laugh:

[Marsh.]

She made her point and you essentially challenged her by stating there is more than one lawsuit without any evidence. She gave you ample opportunities to actually support your claims and what the others are and you haven’t done so, you can’t just tell her to research your point without explaining the point. If anything it should be you posting the evidence of your apparent research / you doing research. It appears to be just you deflecting when challenged?

You’re still deflecting from the lawsuit challenge because you haven’t got the evidence/facts

Why on earth would I care about your username? I’ve got better things going on in my life than to be thinking about you Marsh:laugh:

Sure thing Jack. :thumbs:

[jet]

No. I accused you of either refusing to share so called non-tabloid sources OR providing sources which were just tabloids. So far you're proving me right.

Yet again, you've provided us with another Daily Mail link. Look beyond the tabloids and you will find actual news.

Deflect, deflect deflect. You talk poppycock Marsh. You're losing the plot, take a break.

[Marsh.]

Deflect, deflect deflect. You talk poppycock Marsh. You're losing the plot, take a break.

I can see how that might appear to someone who finds it mentally taxing to read something other than the Daily Mail.

You're certainly mirroring tabloid spin with your own complete allergy to the truth suddenly being MY problem.

[rusticgal]

She challenged my point and accused me of saying something I did not



Err...no I didn’t. I didn’t accuse you of anything :nono:...You said there was more than one lawsuit other than the one I had mentioned and you can’t seem to back it up....
I’m accusing you now of making it up if you cannot back your statement up...it’s not difficult...:laugh:

[rusticgal]

She made her point and you essentially challenged her by stating there is more than one lawsuit without any evidence. She gave you ample opportunities to actually support your claims and what the others are and you haven’t done so, you can’t just tell her to research your point without explaining the point. If anything it should be you posting the evidence of your apparent research / you doing research. It appears to be just you deflecting when challenged?


Thank you DouglasS....:wavey:

[Glenn.]

The irony when no one can explain why they feel they have the right to express such hatred behind their keyboards.

[rusticgal]

I can see how that might appear to someone who finds it mentally taxing to read something other than the Daily Mail.

You're certainly mirroring tabloid spin with your own complete allergy to the truth suddenly being MY problem.



You’re getting personal now....it’s a natural reaction :pat:

[rusticgal]

The irony when no one can explain why they feel they have the right to express such hatred behind their keyboards.


There is no hatred...dislike but no hatred :laugh:

[Glenn.]

There’s definitely hatred. Irrational jealous hatred

[LukeB]

The press are treating her the same horrible way they treated our beautiful Princess Diana.

:(

:(

the only difference is with social media existing and the racist abuse she has received

[rusticgal]

:(

the only difference is the racist abuse Meghan has received


What racist abuse? Please elaborate.

[Marsh.]

You’re getting personal now....it’s a natural reaction :pat:

:joker: Keep those blinkers on.

[jet]

I can see how that might appear to someone who finds it mentally taxing to read something other than the Daily Mail.

You're certainly mirroring tabloid spin with your own complete allergy to the truth suddenly being MY problem.

You just get sillier with every post Marsh. :umm2:

[rusticgal]

You just get sillier with every post Marsh. :umm2:


It’s embarrassing..:laugh:

[Marsh.]

You just get sillier with every post Marsh. :umm2:

Shall I fake surprise that you find rational, logical facts silly and hard to comprehend?

[Marsh.]

The irony when no one can explain why they feel they have the right to express such hatred behind their keyboards.

:joker: Ikr.

[jet]

It’s embarrassing..:laugh:

It really is.:shame:

[Liam-]

It feels like I’ve been bashing my head against a wall reading the past few pages

[Marsh.]

It really is.:shame:

Don't waste your shame on me, I'm not the middle aged man fixated on a Royal bride and tabloid magazines aimed at teenage girls.