Harry and Meghan's fight against UK press

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/140FF/production/_113657128_dailymail.jpg


It just goes On.

[Kizzy]

,Megxit'.... ffs, harry don't bother coming back. The place is an absolute shell of a country run by people who write or believe in the **** printed in the mail.

[joeysteele]

,Megxit'.... ffs, harry don't bother coming back. The place is an absolute shell of a country run by people who write or believe in the **** printed in the mail.

You've put that perfectly Kizzy.

How I long for the day when this gutter trash press finds only a minority buy papers anymore.
Frankly I'm mystified why anyone buys a paper to read it seriously anymore.

It's a long time now since any could be really termed NEWSpapers.
That publication in the opening post.
I wouldn't use to pick dog mess up with.

Good advice you've given Harry there.
Not that he'll need it.

He served in Afghanistan and was determined to do so, not take an easy way out.
Even then the press nearly put him and his comrades in danger.

He'll do all he can and wants to, to protect his wife and child.
If this is what we're being fed by the media when they aren't here.
Just imagine the lies, misrepresenting of them there'd be if they were still resident in the UK.

Absolutely pathetic.

[Oliver_W]

The gutter press deserves to die tbh.

[Beso]

Good. I dont want them back.

[Nicky91]

why should they even want to come back to UK, aka land of vile gossip media


British Media give Harry/Meghan a break challenge, stop with the stalking, basically same way how Diana got to her end

[user104658]

"Oh no plz help they won't let us go back to work alongside my uncle who is evading questioning from the FBI regarding child sex offences, what are we gonna dooo"

[Cherie]

Bored witless by this now

[Glenn.]

,Megxit'.... ffs, harry don't bother coming back. The place is an absolute shell of a country run by people who write or believe in the **** printed in the mail.

/thread

[Crimson Dynamo]

Britain is a shell of a country?

What does that even mean ?

[user104658]

Britain is a shell of a country?

What does that even mean ?

"Michelle Fowler is a fictional character from the BBC soap opera EastEnders, played by Susan Tully from the first episode in 1985 until the character's departure in 1995. On 24 December 2016 Michelle returned after 21 years, with Jenna Russell taking over the role."

It's called Wikipedia, duh.

[bots]

well of course there is a way back for them, what a stupid headline

[jet]

Rebecca English, the author of that piece, is a respected official royal correspondent.
She is reporting on what was said in the book.
The headline comes from the book itself, not from Rebecca English.
The book had Meghan and Harry's co - operation and is written by a person friendly with Meghan.

[user104658]

well of course there is a way back for them, what a stupid headline

Not right now, the US is a red zone quarantine :nono:. Would be TYPICAL of that selfish Markle prole to bring Covid to the UK, probably on purpose as some sort of ploy to infect our precious Queen. She already put some Covids in Charles' hip flask and he was so unwell & terrifed of Megan he had to come to Scotland to hide in a castle! I heard that they're building a moat around Balmoral as we speak. They're going to fill it with Daily Mail paparazzi to keep dirty Covid Megan and brainwashed Harry away from the proper Royals.

[user104658]

Rebecca English, the author of that piece, is a respected official royal correspondent.

By you maybe :shrug:. You can't just go around telling other people who is and isn't respected.

[joeysteele]

Not right now, the US is a red zone quarantine :nono:. Would be TYPICAL of that selfish Markle prole to bring Covid to the UK, probably on purpose as some sort of ploy to infect our precious Queen. She already put some Covids in Charles' hip flask and he was so unwell & terrifed of Megan he had to come to Scotland to hide in a castle! I heard that they're building a moat around Balmoral as we speak. They're going to fill it with Daily Mail paparazzi to keep dirty Covid Megan and brainwashed Harry away from the proper Royals.

What an interesting read.:joker:

If you put Daily Mail at the top.
There's a good number who will have possibly ended up quoting your words as gospel.

You brought a smile to my face with it TS.

[jet]

By you maybe :shrug:. You can't just go around telling other people who is and isn't respected.

Is there really any need to be so picky and unpleasant, TS?

[user104658]

Is there really any need to be so picky and unpleasant, TS?

Sometimes.

[arista]

Bored witless by this now


It would better
if Meghan did a Deal with a Legit magazine
and gave Exclusive photos
and an interview.

I say Meghan as she is in charge

[jet]

Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan ‘rejected offers to help protect Thomas Markle’
Roya Nikkhah, Royal Correspondent
Sunday July 26 2020, 12.00pm, The Sunday Times


The Duke and Duchess of Sussex blame the media for their broken relationship with Meghan’s father and his absence from their wedding, according to a new book.
Thomas Markle, 76, a retired lighting director who lives in Mexico, failed to attend their wedding after suffering from heart problems after it emerged that he had collaborated with paparazzi. A new biography of the Sussexes describes the saga in May 2018 as a “public drama” that made Meghan “feel embarrassed”.
In Finding Freedom, serialised in The Sunday Times today, a source close to the couple said of Meghan’s father: “He would have been at the wedding if the media had left him alone.” Meghan also told a friend: “He’s vulnerable. He’s been baited. A lot of the tabloid journalists have been coaxing him and paying him. I don’t know if he really even had a chance.”

However, in the latest twist surrounding the account of events presented in the book, palace aides told The Sunday Times that Harry and Meghan had refused to “engage” with Markle during their courtship and had rejected offers to help protect him.
It is understood the couple “repeatedly” ignored advice to meet Thomas Markle, before and after their engagement was announced in November 2017. They also rejected suggestions from aides about how to help Markle, who courtiers feared would be overwhelmed by media scrutiny without support from the couple and the royal family.

At the time of the Sussexes’ wedding, a senior royal source told this newspaper: “We repeatedly sat down with Harry and Meghan before the engagement announcement to say this needed to be handled sensitively, but that it had to be handled. We desperately asked them to engage with Thomas, but they wouldn’t. Aides also offered to go personally and see him to try and find a way to protect him. There is genuine disbelief and bemusement in the household at the couple’s approach to him and that Harry has still not met his father-in-law.”

Another aide said: “Thomas is troubled, but Harry and Meghan would not engage in the issue of going out to see him and for Harry to meet him. It was raised before their engagement and again constantly in the months afterwards, leading up to the wedding. Everyone knew it would be a huge issue that would explode if they didn’t address it and deal with it.”
It is thought that Meghan has not seen her father since she began dating Harry in the summer of 2016. The couple spoke to Markle on the phone and texted him during their romance, but the duchess ended all contact with him after their wedding. Harry has still never met Markle.

[rusticgal]

Oh dear its all going tits up for them...my heart bleeds.

[Livia]

People have predicted this since the off. They were all called racist on account of Meghan being half black. Because you can't dislike a person who has some black heritage even if you don't know the person from Adam except for seeing them on TV, have never met them and are never likely to.

[Liam-]

It would better
if Meghan did a Deal with a Legit magazine
and gave Exclusive photos
and an interview.

I say Meghan as she is in charge

How is Meghan ‘in charge’?

[rusticgal]

,Megxit'.... ffs, harry don't bother coming back.


I couldnt agree more....

[thesheriff443]

These stories will run and run.

The good the bad and the ugly.

It’ will have the exact opposite of what we have been told by Meghan and Harry that they want a private life.

[user104658]

People have predicted this since the off. They were all called racist on account of Meghan being half black. Because you can't dislike a person who has some black heritage even if you don't know the person from Adam except for seeing them on TV, have never met them and are never likely to.

I don't think most Megan haters are racist. I think they're snobs-by-proxy who don't think an American actress who doesn't come from wealth is "good enough for arr Prince" - and like to rage about it whilst spilling warm Carling and last night's kebab all over their morning Daily Mail. It's quite funny.

[Liam-]

To the day I die, I’ll never understand the outrage over a 30 odd year old man, moving out of his grandmothers house to support and protect his wife and child, it’s truly baffling.

[user104658]

To the day I die, I’ll never understand the outrage of a 30 odd year old man, moving out of his grandmothers house to support and protect his wife and child, it’s truly baffling.

The Royals aren't people, or even an active monarchy, they're the playthings of the bog average Brit and that damn yank bitch came and stole one of our toys. It's more or less that simple. He's ours, she took him without permission, and we're all oh-so-angry.

[jet]

I don't think most Megan haters are racist. I think they're snobs-by-proxy who don't think an American actress who doesn't come from wealth is "good enough for arr Prince" - and like to rage about it whilst spilling warm Carling and last night's kebab all over their morning Daily Mail. It's quite funny.

What a snobbish post...and the one above too.

[Livia]

I don't think most Megan haters are racist. I think they're snobs-by-proxy who don't think an American actress who doesn't come from wealth is "good enough for arr Prince" - and like to rage about it whilst spilling warm Carling and last night's kebab all over their morning Daily Mail. It's quite funny.

That's a massive generalisation, even by your standards, TS. I had no thoughts either way about her at the start, I was just happy to see Harry look so happy and in love. But it didn't take long to see what was going to happen. And what I and a lot of other people thought, has happened. And I don't drink Carling nor do I eat kebabs or read the Mail.

[Livia]

What a snobbish post.

Pigeon hole people who disagree with you. It's the new way, jet.

[Livia]

The Royals aren't people, or even an active monarchy, they're the playthings of the bog average Brit and that damn yank bitch came and stole one of our toys. It's more or less that simple. He's ours, she took him without permission, and we're all oh-so-angry.

Maybe you need to sit down in a quiet room, TS. This has obviously affected you a lot more than any of us thought.

[The Slim Reaper]

It would better
if Meghan did a Deal with a Legit magazine
and gave Exclusive photos
and an interview.

I say Meghan as she is in charge

I agree, people would be really mature about it if they gave an exclusive "our story" to a magazine. :smug:

[Liam-]

The Royals aren't people, or even an active monarchy, they're the playthings of the bog average Brit and that damn yank bitch came and stole one of our toys. It's more or less that simple. He's ours, she took him without permission, and we're all oh-so-angry.

True, the audacity people have to believe we own these people because they happen to be born to a certain family, couldn’t be me

[user104658]

What a snobbish post...and the one above too.

I'm feeling snobbish, picky and unpleasant today. Is it a problem? It seems to sometimes be a problem and other times acceptable, I'm struggling with "the line" today :worry:.

WAIT I think I see it now.

We can be snobbish, picky and unpleasant about Megan Markle and also Harry until he divorces her (then we shall feel sorry for him and bring him back into the fold). Everyone else (especially Royal Shills, Daily Mail readers, and the painfully thick "public") is off limits.

Sorry I didn't get the email. Seen and understood now.

It was probably sent to the spam folder by that ****ing Markle woman :fist:

[jet]

That's a massive generalisation, even by your standards, TS. I had no thoughts either way about her at the start, I was just happy to see Harry look so happy and in love. But it didn't take long to see what was going to happen. And what I and a lot of other people thought, has happened. And I don't drink Carling nor do I eat kebabs or read the Mail.

Same Livia, I was delighted for them at the start. I thought Harry had at last found happiness. Now I'm worried for him - I shouldn't be, because he's a grown man who has made his bed, but I am. :worry:

[user104658]

Same Livia, I was delighted for them at the start.

Yes I remember all of your enthusiastic and hopeful posts about it.

[Liam-]

And I think there is a large portion of hatred directed at Meghan because of her race, obviously not all of it, some of it is because she’s American, because she’s not from a privileged background and because she’s a woman who has an independent voice and can think for herself, women can only be accepted into the royal circle if they’re robotic and do as they’re told, when they’re told to do it, they’re not allowed personalities or a free thinking mind

[rusticgal]

Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan ‘rejected offers to help protect Thomas Markle’
Roya Nikkhah, Royal Correspondent
Sunday July 26 2020, 12.00pm, The Sunday Times


The Duke and Duchess of Sussex blame the media for their broken relationship with Meghan’s father and his absence from their wedding, according to a new book.
Thomas Markle, 76, a retired lighting director who lives in Mexico, failed to attend their wedding after suffering from heart problems after it emerged that he had collaborated with paparazzi. A new biography of the Sussexes describes the saga in May 2018 as a “public drama” that made Meghan “feel embarrassed”.
In Finding Freedom, serialised in The Sunday Times today, a source close to the couple said of Meghan’s father: “He would have been at the wedding if the media had left him alone.” Meghan also told a friend: “He’s vulnerable. He’s been baited. A lot of the tabloid journalists have been coaxing him and paying him. I don’t know if he really even had a chance.”

However, in the latest twist surrounding the account of events presented in the book, palace aides told The Sunday Times that Harry and Meghan had refused to “engage” with Markle during their courtship and had rejected offers to help protect him.
It is understood the couple “repeatedly” ignored advice to meet Thomas Markle, before and after their engagement was announced in November 2017. They also rejected suggestions from aides about how to help Markle, who courtiers feared would be overwhelmed by media scrutiny without support from the couple and the royal family.

At the time of the Sussexes’ wedding, a senior royal source told this newspaper: “We repeatedly sat down with Harry and Meghan before the engagement announcement to say this needed to be handled sensitively, but that it had to be handled. We desperately asked them to engage with Thomas, but they wouldn’t. Aides also offered to go personally and see him to try and find a way to protect him. There is genuine disbelief and bemusement in the household at the couple’s approach to him and that Harry has still not met his father-in-law.”

Another aide said: “Thomas is troubled, but Harry and Meghan would not engage in the issue of going out to see him and for Harry to meet him. It was raised before their engagement and again constantly in the months afterwards, leading up to the wedding. Everyone knew it would be a huge issue that would explode if they didn’t address it and deal with it.”
It is thought that Meghan has not seen her father since she began dating Harry in the summer of 2016. The couple spoke to Markle on the phone and texted him during their romance, but the duchess ended all contact with him after their wedding. Harry has still never met Markle.


The mere fact that Harry hasnt yet met Mr Markle speaks volumes...If her father was so vulnerable, why wasnt she there for him.

[Livia]

Same Livia, I was delighted for them at the start. I thought Harry had at last found happiness. Now I'm worried for him - I shouldn't be, because he's a grown man who has made his bed, but I am. :worry:

No jet. TS has decided we're both wrong, Carling drinking, Mail reading scumbags who think we own the royal family. So I guess we'll have to put up with more of his "comedy sketch" posts telling us how wrong we are. I'm yet to come across a subject he doesn't know all about.

[jet]

Yes I remember all of your enthusiastic and hopeful posts about it.

I was on a long break from the fourm at the time. Sorry I didn't anticipate the future and rush back to post my delight for your benefit.

[Scarlett.]

Not content with chasing his mother to death, now they wanna chase his wife to death. I guess it would let them do "In memory of Meghan" special editions every other year like they do with Diana.

British tabloids make me ****ing sick.

[user104658]

I was on a long break from the fourm at the time. Sorry I didn't anticipate the future and rush back to post my delight for your benefit.

I'm feeling honest today so I'm just going to say, I can see and appreciate what you're saying, but I don't believe you. I don't believe for one second that you ever liked Megan Markle as a partner for Prince Harry. I could pretend that I do but I feel like there's not really much point putting more bull**** out into the world.

No jet. TS has decided we're both wrong, Carling drinking, Mail reading scumbags who think we own the royal family. So I guess we'll have to put up with more of his "comedy sketch" posts telling us how wrong we are. I'm yet to come across a subject he doesn't know all about.

Again in the spirit of honesty - I honestly see no flaws in this. I think people with a bee in their bonnet about Markle (or anything Royalty-related) is dumb and tabloid-lead and also yes I am arrogantly self assured so... can't really deny any of that. I appreciate that it might be annoying.

[Livia]

Not content with chasing his mother to death, now they wanna chase his wife to death. I guess it would let them do "In memory of Meghan" special editions every other year like they do with Diana.

British tabloids make me ****ing sick.

And yet, both Diana and Meghan have courted press attention continually. Funny that.

[jet]

The mere fact that Harry hasnt yet met Mr Markle speaks volumes...If her father was so vulnerable, why wasnt she there for him.

IMO because she had told the emotional and sensitive Harry a pack of lies about having no real family to get his sympathy and have him feeling 'protective' - a 'snare' tactic.
Remember he told the radio host that the Royals 'were the family she never had'.
It wouldn't do to meet her father before the ring was on her finger and find out she had been spoilt rotten, doted on and given every privilege by her family....

[Livia]

Again in the spirit of honesty - I honestly see no flaws in this. I think people with a bee in their bonnet about Markle (or anything Royalty-related) is dumb and tabloid-lead and also yes I am arrogantly self assured so... can't really deny any of that. I appreciate that it might be annoying.

Well, I was annoyed. Until this post freed me up to see you as an Irn Bru swilling, Broons reading haggis muncher with too much time on his hands.

[Ammi]

...I guess they will in the end, end up separating with how much intense scrutiny they get, how relentless it is...and then it’ll be the perfect happy ending because we knew it wouldn’t last anyway... we did predict, clever us...

[rusticgal]

Not content with chasing his mother to death, now they wanna chase his wife to death. I guess it would let them do "In memory of Meghan" special editions every other year like they do with Diana.

British tabloids make me ****ing sick.


Meghan loves publicity...but only if its on her terms.

[Liam-]

...I guess they will in the end, end up separating with how much intense scrutiny they get, how relentless it is...and then it’ll be the perfect happy ending because we knew it wouldn’t last anyway... we did predict, clever us...

Yep, people won’t be happy until they’ve terrorised them so much that it puts unrepairable pressure on them, then if they do separate, the ghouls can say they knew it all along, it’s what she always wanted, blahblahblahbritainfirstblahblahblah

[user104658]

Well, I was annoyed. Until this post freed me up to see you as an Irn Bru swilling, Broons reading haggis muncher with too much time on his hands.

I don't understand how this is supposed to be offensive. Irn Bru, The Broons and Haggis are legitimately all great :think:. I'm also not going to argue that I have far too much time on my hands, even though I'm actually on the clock right now :umm2: buuut I will argue that anyone who is regularly posting on TiBB can only possibly be described as having too much time on their hands.

[Scarlett.]

And yet, both Diana and Meghan have courted press attention continually. Funny that.

Cool, courting press attention means that literally driving people to their death is fine. Nice.

[jet]

I'm feeling honest today so I'm just going to say, I can see and appreciate what you're saying, but I don't believe you. I don't believe for one second that you ever liked Megan Markle as a partner for Prince Harry. I could pretend that I do but I feel like there's not really much point putting more bull**** out into the world.


I absolutely did, I thought he was punching above his weight in fact. It matters not a jot to me whether you believe me or not. :shrug:

[Ammi]

Yep, people won’t be happy until they’ve terrorised them so much that it puts on repairable pressure on them, then if they do separate, the ghouls can say they knew it all along, it’s what she always wanted, blahblahblahbritainfirstblahblahblah

...we’ll always have Archie...(...as in, we’ll always have Paris...)...to obsess and possess over...he came from a broken ‘ome, don’t you know...and so it goes on, and so it goes on...etc...and on...

[thesheriff443]

...I guess they will in the end, end up separating with how much intense scrutiny they get, how relentless it is...and then it’ll be the perfect happy ending because we knew it wouldn’t last anyway... we did predict, clever us...

You have never said anything along those lines.

The general public couldn’t give a toss about those two when we are still in the grip of govid 19.

It’s in the news so people are talking about it, otherwise people would be talking about some other rubbish.

[Livia]

I don't understand how this is supposed to be offensive. Irn Bru, The Broons and Haggis are legitimately all great :think:. I'm also not going to argue that I have far too much time on my hands, even though I'm actually on the clock right now :umm2: buuut I will argue that anyone who is regularly posting on TiBB can only possibly be described as having too much time on their hands.

Yes TS. You are a massive stereotype.

I'm on maternity leave and then I'm going back to uni. I have lots of time on my hands.

[Livia]

You have never said anything along those lines.

The general public couldn’t give a toss about those two when we are still in the grip of govid 19.

It’s in the news so people are talking about it, otherwise people would be talking about some other rubbish.

The only reason they're still on the news is because despite "turning their back" they're indulging in high profile litigation.

[jet]

Maybe you need to sit down in a quiet room, TS. This has obviously affected you a lot more than any of us thought.

To me, the fact that people are so defensive means that underneath they know that Meghan is trouble and a disappointment but won't admit it.

[Livia]

Cool, courting press attention means that literally driving people to their death is fine. Nice.

If that's what you took from my post you're going to struggle in Serious Debates.

[thesheriff443]

The only reason they're still on the news is because despite "turning their back" they're indulging in high profile litigation.

Of course it is, and I bet Meghan is loving it.

[Liam-]

To me, the fact that people are so defensive means that underneath they know that Meghan is trouble and a disappointment but won't admit it.

No, it says we can see through the bull excuses people use to justify their hatred of a woman who hasn’t actually done anything wrong apart from not bend at the knee and conform to an outdated organisation

[Livia]

To me, the fact that people are so defensive means that underneath they know that Meghan is trouble and a disappointment but won't admit it.


That's the thing about serious debates. The ones who shout the loudest are the ones who never, ever, consider they may be wrong.

[The Slim Reaper]

Turning your back and undertaking litigation are 2 separate issues though. Not really sure how they've been tangled up together. Seems a bit weird.

[The Slim Reaper]

That's the thing about serious debates. The ones who shout the loudest are the ones who never, ever, consider they may be wrong.

blinking gif

[Livia]

blinking gif

I've had my mind changed several time in serious debates. I know I don't have all the answers. I guess that's the difference.

[Ammi]

...if Meghan is in trouble then why wouldn’t everyone be disappointed...this is about a marriage with a child involved, don’t we all will that to succeed and to not be in trouble...this isn’t about us or SD or any silliness like that...I don’t understand any pleasure in something like a marriage failing...crikey...

[The Slim Reaper]

I've had my mind changed several time in serious debates. I know I don't have all the answers. I guess that's the difference.

The difference between what?

[arista]

Meghan loves publicity...but only if its on her terms.


Which is why it would be wise
to give a Magazine Exclusive Photos
and interview under her terms.

[Livia]

The difference between what?

One of the differences between you and I.

Do you have something to say about Harry and Meghan? Or are you going to follow me around today for a bit of a bicker? Because I'm not in the mood and will just ignore you.

[jet]

...if Meghan is in trouble then why wouldn’t everyone be disappointed...this is about a marriage with a child involved, don’t we all will that to succeed and to not be in trouble...this isn’t about us or SD or any silliness like that...I don’t understand any pleasure in something like a marriage failing...crikey...

Yes, thats why we would have much preferred her NOT to be trouble and a disappointment...and now there is Archie too.

[Liam-]

...if Meghan is in trouble then why wouldn’t everyone be disappointed...this is about a marriage with a child involved, don’t we all will that to succeed and to not be in trouble...this isn’t about us or SD or any silliness like that...I don’t understand any pleasure in something like a marriage failing...crikey...

Because the people who hate Meghan don’t actually care about Harry or Archie’s happiness or wellbeing, all they care about is appearing to be right about horrible evil witch Meghan

[Ammi]

...we won’t predict that she’s (..or either of them...) in trouble or a disappointment then because that wouldn’t be conducive to hoping they have a wonderful life together with their boy, Archie...

[rusticgal]

Cool, courting press attention means that literally driving people to their death is fine. Nice.

Nobody said that...

Diana was chased by the media...literally and that was how she ultimately died.
This isnt the case with Meghan.

[The Slim Reaper]

One of the differences between you and I.

Do you have something to say about Harry and Meghan? Or are you going to follow me around today for a bit of a bicker? Because I'm not in the mood and will just ignore you.

I asked you a question; nothing more nothing less.

[Livia]

Yes, thats why we would have much preferred her NOT to be trouble and a disappointment...and now there is Archie too.

Exactly.

And really, now they've stepped away from the royal family, we'd not hear so much about them if they weren't engaging in high profile court cases and publishing a "tell all" book about how awful it's all been.

I care as much about them as they care about me and my family.

[bots]

You would think from the people defending Harry and Meghan that they were angels or something, and nothing could be further from the truth

[arista]

1287705258785939456

[Livia]

I asked you a question; nothing more nothing less.

And I answered it.

Bye now....

[joeysteele]

Because the people who hate Meghan don’t actually care about Harry or Archie’s happiness or wellbeing, all they care about is appearing to be right about horrible evil witch Meghan

What you're saying there, is very sadly true,( in my view ) ,from following this on here.

I totally go with Ammi, this is a marriage with a child involved.
A marriage too, where I think the couple genuinely adore each other.

It's quite concerning really.

[Ammi]

...they didn’t publish a book so far as I know, neither did they collaborate in any way...

[user104658]

and now there is Archie too.

Yeah he smells like trouble, too, and no doubt will be being raised by such a selfish pair. First Royal junkie in 20 years time? No doubt.

[Liam-]

They didn’t publish a ‘tell all’ book, someone has written a book about them, their fault though, lock em up

[Liam-]

You would think from the people defending Harry and Meghan that they were angels or something, and nothing could be further from the truth

Nobody is saying they’re angels, but nobody has ever actually been able to pinpoint anything they’ve done that’s so wrong that they deserve all of the abuse and constant animosity towards them

[Livia]

They didn’t publish a ‘tell all’ book, someone has written a book about them, their fault though, lock em up

And they collaborated fully.

[The Slim Reaper]

You would think from the people defending Harry and Meghan that they were angels or something, and nothing could be further from the truth

You really take this lesson from the M&H threads?

[Liam-]

And they collaborated fully.

Nope, the authors spoke to friends who spoke to Meghan who allowed Harry to have a say once in a while

[Cherie]

I don't think most Megan haters are racist. I think they're snobs-by-proxy who don't think an American actress who doesn't come from wealth is "good enough for arr Prince" - and like to rage about it whilst spilling warm Carling and last night's kebab all over their morning Daily Mail. It's quite funny.

bloody hell that's some generalisation :laugh: thought was all hated stereotypes and it was against all we stood for, guess some stereotypes are more accepted than others eh :pipe:

[Ammi]

You would think from the people defending Harry and Meghan that they were angels or something, and nothing could be further from the truth

...or that they were demons by those condemning them..?...


...I don’t defend anything but I just don’t do hearsay and gossip and she says this and he says that etc for anyone...I form an opinion and comment on what I see only...wif me own two eyes, guvnor....

[user104658]

You would think from the people defending Harry and Meghan that they were angels or something, and nothing could be further from the truth

Do people even defend Megan and Harry? I personally know that I couldn't give a **** about them. I mean I legitimately don't care what happens to them or what they do, at all, in the slightest.

I'm more about the attacking people who are obsessive about them game. 'cos it's sad and weird.

[rusticgal]

Because the people who hate Meghan don’t actually care about Harry or Archie’s happiness or wellbeing, all they care about is appearing to be right about horrible evil witch Meghan


Where has that been said???

[Marsh.]

You would think from the people defending Harry and Meghan that they were angels or something, and nothing could be further from the truth

Pointing out how ludicrous it is to believe gossip and use it as a tool to fuel a ridiculously OTT dislike of people you don't know and have no effect on your life means they must be angels? No.

[rusticgal]

Do people even defend Megan and Harry? I personally know that I couldn't give a **** about them. I mean I legitimately don't care what happens to them or what they do, at all, in the slightest.

I'm more about the attacking people who are obsessive about them game. 'cos it's sad and weird.


I find it weird when people want to talk about "what was the last thing you ate.." We all have different things we like to talk about...each to their own.

[Marsh.]

One of the differences between you and I.

Do you have something to say about Harry and Meghan? Or are you going to follow me around today for a bit of a bicker? Because I'm not in the mood and will just ignore you.

And I answered it.

Bye now....

That bloody faulty ignore feature playing up again causing Livia to have to address and tell people she's ignoring them after replying and talking to them. Bloody tibb.

[Cherie]

I find it weird when people want to talk about "what was the last thing you ate.." We all have different things we like to talk about...each to their own.

I just had a teacake :amazed:

[Marsh.]

I just had a teacake :amazed:

According to my drone, so did Meghan! :amazed:

[Livia]

Pointing out how ludicrous it is to believe gossip and use it as a tool to fuel a ridiculously OTT dislike of people you don't know and have no effect on your life means they must be angels? No.

The definition of irony.

[user104658]

I find it weird when people want to talk about "what was the last thing you ate.." We all have different things we like to talk about...each to their own.

I don't know that "meals" and "someone elses lives" is really comparible on the creepiness scale to be honest.

I mean I like a bit of gossip as much as the next person - we are on a reality telly forum after all - but when it's so determinedly focussed on one person over a prolonged period of time? Starts to get a bit much, doesn't it. Slimes its way from "a bit of gossipy titillation" into a more worrying preoccupation.

[Marsh.]

The definition of irony.

There is none.

[Cherie]

I don't know that "meals" and "someone elses lives" is really comparible on the creepiness scale to be honest.

I mean I like a bit of gossip as much as the next person - we are on a reality telly forum after all - but when it's so determinedly focussed on one person over a prolonged period of time? Starts to get a bit much, doesn't it. Slimes its way from "a bit of gossipy titillation" into a more worrying preoccupation.

well tbf it's not like people dragged it up, they have been making the news headlines in the last week

[Josy]

Can we stick to the thread topic in here please.

Other members are not up for discussion.

If you dont like the thread subject or dont have anything on topic to add then dont post, allow others to have their opinion without ridiculing it, try posting why you disagree with the opinion instead.

[Cherie]

1287705258785939456

In the book, Harry and Meghan, always so angry at media intrusion into their family’s life, have stuck the knife into his family in spectacular fashion.

Harry whacks his brother Prince William for being a snob and his father Prince Charles for being thoughtless, while Meghan whacks her sister-in-law Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, for being cold and insensitive towards her.

They repeatedly accuse the whole Royal family, presumably including the Queen, of ignoring their desperate plight, despite, as they laughably claim, them single-handedly leading the royals to supposedly unprecedented heights of global popularity.

The fact this garbage is being spewed after the Queen, Charles, William and Kate have spent months comforting the British people in remarkably empathetic and impressive fashion during the crisis, is even more grating.

The deeply intrusive revelations go on, page after page.

Of course, the comical irony of the approved publication of all this ‘setting the record straight’ private information is that most of it confirms myriad newspaper stories that we were previously assured were ‘media lies’.



:joker:

[Beso]

And I think there is a large portion of hatred directed at Meghan because of her race, obviously not all of it, some of it is because she’s American, because she’s not from a privileged background and because she’s a woman who has an independent voice and can think for herself, women can only be accepted into the royal circle if they’re robotic and do as they’re told, when they’re told to do it, they’re not allowed personalities or a free thinking mind

Shes not from a priviliged background...are you sure liam? Daddy done her a.lot of favours regarding schooling and jobs so i would say she is far more privileged than most.

[Cherie]

I have only scanned the thread as its full of the usual stuff, but are people really trying to make out that following the Royals is creepy... all the people on twitter following this one and that one must be stopped if that is the case :hee:

[Marsh.]

I have only scanned the thread as its full of the usual stuff, but are people really trying to make out that following the Royals is creepy... all the people on twitter following this one and that one must be stopped if that is the case :hee:

I don't think so.
I think he meant believing every story to be true in the daily mail and allowing it to rile you up to hate someone you don't know is creepy.

That's the general you. :hee:

But, yes, twitter is much of the same.

[The Slim Reaper]

Shes not from a priviliged background...are you sure liam? Daddy done her a.lot of favours regarding schooling and jobs so i would say she is far more privileged than most.

The fact her father did the bare minimum required of a father isn't really a big deal.

[Beso]

No, it says we can see through the bull excuses people use to justify their hatred of a woman who hasn’t actually done anything wrong apart from not bend at the knee and conform to an outdated organisation

How do you know that?

You just plucked something from the fresh air without any knowledge about whether it was her choice or his choice to leave the royal fold.

[user104658]

I have only scanned the thread as its full of the usual stuff, but are people really trying to make out that following the Royals is creepy... all the people on twitter following this one and that one must be stopped if that is the case :hee:

Twitter straight to the bin, yes. Delete. Or time travel back to when it was launched and delete before the nightmare began.

[Glenn.]

No, it says we can see through the bull excuses people use to justify their hatred of a woman who hasn’t actually done anything wrong apart from not bend at the knee and conform to an outdated organisation

I don't think so.
I think he meant believing every story to be true in the daily mail and allowing it to rile you up to hate someone you don't know is creepy.

That's the general you. :hee:

But, yes, twitter is much of the same.

:clap1:

[Crimson Dynamo]

She fell out with her father, her best pal, her first husband, lots of royal household employees the royal family and the press


Is there anyone she gets on with left??

[Swan]

I still can't grasp why they don't move somewhere 'out of the way' i mean it's not like they can't go and live anywhere in the world. Celebs who truly want the 'quiet life' can have it if they try hard enough.

Anyway, what do i know?! I only went and forgot to put my cans of Carling in the fringe after the morning Daily Mail run!! Oh well, need to wash this Kebab down with something, warm lager it is!

[Marsh.]

I still can't grasp why they don't move somewhere 'out of the way' i mean it's not like they can't go and live anywhere in the world. Celebs who truly want the 'quiet life' can have it if they try hard enough.

Anyway, what do i know?! I only went and forgot to put my cans of Carling in the fringe after the morning Daily Mail run!! Oh well, need to wash this Kebab down with something, warm lager it is!

None of us can grasp the reason anyone we don't know does anything, because we don't know them.

[Nicky91]

She fell out with her father, her best pal, her first husband, lots of royal household employees the royal family and the press


Is there anyone she gets on with left??

oh well, as if Thomas Markle is a innocent angel himself, a father who loves attention from media more than family

even had a nice ''excuse'' to not show up at his daughter's wedding

[user104658]

None of us can grasp the reason anyone we don't know does anything, because we don't know them.

Most of us can't even grasp the reasons we do things ourselves half of the time.

[Marsh.]

Most of us can't even grasp the reasons we do things ourselves half of the time.

:joker:

[Swan]

None of us can grasp the reason anyone we don't know does anything, because we don't know them.

Well they say they want out of the limelight, so they go and move to the limelight capital of the world. That much we do know about them.

[Scarlett.]

I find it weird when people want to talk about "what was the last thing you ate.." We all have different things we like to talk about...each to their own.

Difference is

Asking someone what they ate is getting information willingly, and can start discussions about cooking and food.

Being obsessive about people who are famous' personal lives, and wanting all the goss' about them, despite them wanting to keep the majority of their personal lives private is... ugh.

[user104658]

Well they say they want out of the limelight, so they go and move to the limelight capital of the world. That much we do know about them.

I have said before that I think moving to LA to get away from the media is an odd choice, but it doesn't really justify the behavior itself. They tried out the world he knew and it didn't work for them, it makes some sort of sense - at least - that they'd try out HER world next rather than going in a completely new direction. They may well discover that this doesn't work either and do just that. The point really though is that while taking a "gossipy interest" is one thing... getting angry about it and actively disliking a celebrity who hasn't actually done ANYTHING worthy if such criticism is just childish and weird. Even if they are attention seekers... so what? Is it inherently immoral? Why do people care so much?

[Ammi]

...’that I would step my family back from a life I’ve known, to take a step forward into what I hope can be a more peaceful life..’...

...I don’t think that it was stepping back from the limelight as such that moulded their decision to step back from royal duties...I think there were many other aspects to it all and a very hard decision to make by everything that Harry has said...and that would be too simplistic...and other than the invasion of privacy with the drone, they seem fine being photographed etc ...

By07cf4TvhE

[Marsh.]

...’that I would step my family back from a life I’ve known, to take a step forward into what I hope can be a more peaceful life..’...

...I don’t think that it was stepping back from the limelight as such that moulded their decision to step back from royal duties...I think there were many other aspects to it all and a very hard decision to make by everything that Harry has said...and that would be too simplistic...and other than the invasion of privacy with the drone, they seem fine being photographed etc ...

By07cf4TvhE

Yeah I saw it as taking a step away from a particularly toxic situation. He's a Prince and she's an actress, neither could really make their fame disappear. But this way it is at least at their control as a family and not someone else's.

[Ammi]

Yeah I saw it as taking a step away from a particularly toxic situation. He's a Prince and she's an actress, neither could really make their fame disappear. But this way it is at least at their control as a family and not someone else's.

...’ I hope you realise that is what it has come to...’...sounds like an extremely difficult decision to have made, which was obviously made with much sadness as well...and yeah...’...but the media is a powerful force..’...would suggest toxicity being felt, which we’ve seen ourselves through headlines..but I think that their future still always involved very much being in the public light at times...

[rusticgal]

She fell out with her father, her best pal, her first husband, lots of royal household employees the royal family and the press


Is there anyone she gets on with left??


Her Lawyer :shrug:

[Niamh.]

Her Lawyer :shrug:

Clearly her loving husband too as he was prepared to leave royalty for her............how romantic :flutter:

[rusticgal]

oh well, as if Thomas Markle is a innocent angel himself, a father who loves attention from media more than family

even had a nice ''excuse'' to not show up at his daughter's wedding

One member of her family got an invite to the wedding....I think its quite obvious where the problem lies...

Its forming a bit of a pattern. Shes right and EVERYONE else is wrong :laugh:

[Marsh.]

One member of her family got an invite to the wedding....I think its quite obvious where the problem lies...

Its forming a bit of a pattern. Shes right and EVERYONE else is wrong :laugh:

The operative word being "her" family.

How everyone else passes judgement on who is in the wrong when we're not part of said family is baffling.

[Liam-]

Maybe her mother is the only tolerable member of her family? If they’re all like her father i wouldn’t blame her

[bots]

it takes a certain type of personality to take your own father to court and wash your dirty linen in public

[Liam-]

One that’s fed up of their father invading their privacy and continuously selling stories to the gutter rags probably

[Marsh.]

it takes a certain type of personality to take your own father to court and wash your dirty linen in public

It takes a certain type of father to sell stories to the gutter press about his daughter?

[rusticgal]

Difference is

Asking someone what they ate is getting information willingly, and can start discussions about cooking and food.

Being obsessive about people who are famous' personal lives, and wanting all the goss' about them, despite them wanting to keep the majority of their personal lives private is... ugh.


Well you missed the point...

Nothing wrong with people being interested in Royalty...no different to following a Band or fascination for an Actor/Actress. Its not obsession thats just you trying to put people down for having an interest in something and enjoying a debate about the subject material.
If they want a private life...they are going a very funny way about it and thats all part of the debate.

[Marsh.]

There's a difference between having an interest in a celebrity and believing everything you read and believing you know them and what they're about when you don't.

I'd compare it to the BB debates. It's fine discussing housemates and what they do on the show as we watch their actions within the walls of that house. But when all the judging them on how they are with their kids and everything came into it, that is different as we don't know them as people within the real world outside of what the press portrays.

[Glenn.]

Being convinced that you know what a person is thinking and how they act when you don’t know them isn’t the same as following a band :skull:

[Beso]

One that’s fed up of their father invading their privacy and continuously selling stories to the gutter rags probably

The book says she believes her father has been corrupted by the press..surely the way forward should have been a comforting shoulder and not the disowning of him that they both did.

[rusticgal]

There's a difference between having an interest in a celebrity and believing everything you read and believing you know them and what they're about when you don't.



There is no difference at all...

[rusticgal]

Maybe her mother is the only tolerable member of her family? If they’re all like her father i wouldn’t blame her


Do you know Thomas Markle personally....or are you judging him by what you have read in the tabloids?
I detect a bit of hypocrisy here..:laugh:

[Liam-]

Do you know Thomas Markle personally....or are you judging him by what you have read in the tabloids?
I detect a bit of hypocrisy here..:laugh:

No, I’m judging him for his actions and things he’s actually admitted to, when will you?

[Liam-]

That rhetorical btw, no need for an answer, we all know

[rusticgal]

No, I’m judging him for his actions and things he’s actually admitted to, when will you?


....do tell. What actions and what has he admitted to for you make such a judgement?

[Liam-]

....do tell. What actions and what has he admitted to for you make such a judgement?

He admitted to working with the media to reveal details about the wedding, he stages pap shots of him shopping for the wedding, he’s admitted to it, so I’m judging him on those actions, he’s constantly in the press slagging his daughter off, I think he’s a disgrace to be doing that, he’s cashing in on his daughters abuse by the very people he’s getting paid by for the ‘scoops’, she has every right to be mad at him

[Ammi]

...Thomas Markle has admitted that he staged the paparazzi photo shoot and that he lied to Prince Harry...

[Ammi]

...(...sorry that was quite a short/abrupt post because someone phoned while I was posting and I accidentally hit send while I was answering the phone...ooops...)...

[Ammi]

...what Liam said though really...he’s just faster at typing than I am...

[rusticgal]

He admitted to working with the media to reveal details about the wedding, he stages pap shots of him shopping for the wedding, he’s admitted to it, so I’m judging him on those actions, he’s constantly in the press slagging his daughter off, I think he’s a disgrace to be doing that, he’s cashing in on his daughters abuse by the very people he’s getting paid by for the ‘scoops’, she has every right to be mad at him


Well I guess that makes him an opportunist...tacky but does that really make him a BAD man? He came clean and owned it...
I dont see him constantly slagging her off in the press either...what rags do you get your info from? I hope they arent smeared with kebab...

[Glenn.]

Well I guess that makes him an opportunist...tacky but does that really make him a BAD man? He came clean and owned it...
I dont see him constantly slagging her off in the press either...what rags do you get your info from? I hope they arent smeared with kebab...

It makes him a LOT worse than you and the rest of the Meghan haters make her out to be

[rusticgal]

It makes him a LOT worse than you and the rest of the Meghan haters make her out to be


:joker:

[Liam-]

Well I guess that makes him an opportunist...tacky but does that really make him a BAD man? He came clean and owned it...
I dont see him constantly slagging her off in the press either...what rags do you get your info from? I hope they arent smeared with kebab...

He’s done interviews on tv, he’s done interviews in the rags, each one with negativity aimed at his daughter, he’s kicking her while she’s already down to make a quick buck he’s gross, I’m not surprised she’s distanced herself from him or her sister who’s exactly the same, if not worse, what sort of family does that? They’re shameless

[Glenn.]

He’s done interviews on tv, he’s done interviews in the rags, each one with negativity aimed at his daughter, he’s kicking her while she’s already down to make a quick buck he’s gross, I’m not surprised she’s distanced herself from him or her sister who’s exactly the same, if not worse, what sort of family does that? They’re shameless

You can’t say this though. These are actual facts.

[Cherie]

He’s done interviews on tv, he’s done interviews in the rags, each one with negativity aimed at his daughter, he’s kicking her while she’s already down to make a quick buck he’s gross, I’m not surprised she’s distanced herself from him or her sister who’s exactly the same, if not worse, what sort of family does that? They’re shameless

you mean like people who tell their family they are moving abroard and withdrawing from their duties on Insta :laugh:

Nice way to treat your aging Dad and grandparents who have done nothing but support you all your life :umm2: there are some more facts

[Liam-]

you mean like people who tell their family they are moving abroard and withdrawing from their duties on Insta :laugh:

Nice way to treat your aging Dad and grandparents who have done nothing but support you all your life :umm2: there are some more facts

Is that a fact though, or is that what’s one of these angry nationalists told you in the Daily Mail?

[Cherie]

Is that a fact though, or is that what’s one of these angry nationalists told you in the Daily Mail?

of course it is a fact, it was massive news just a few months ago

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a30496404/meghan-markle-prince-harry-quitting-royal-family-timeline/

[Glenn.]

of course it is a fact, it was massive news just a few months ago

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a30496404/meghan-markle-prince-harry-quitting-royal-family-timeline/

Cosmopolitan...

[Liam-]

All I see there is an Instagram post announcing it to the world, nowhere does it say they did that without consulting Lizzie or his father first

[jet]

He admitted to working with the media to reveal details about the wedding, he stages pap shots of him shopping for the wedding, he’s admitted to it, so I’m judging him on those actions, he’s constantly in the press slagging his daughter off, I think he’s a disgrace to be doing that, he’s cashing in on his daughters abuse by the very people he’s getting paid by for the ‘scoops’, she has every right to be mad at him

I posted this earlier and no one commented on it at all. Why is that?
What do you (and others) think of Meghan and Harrys actions here?

Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan ‘rejected offers to help protect Thomas Markle’
Roya Nikkhah, Royal Correspondent
Sunday July 26 2020, 12.00pm, The Sunday Times


The Duke and Duchess of Sussex blame the media for their broken relationship with Meghan’s father and his absence from their wedding, according to a new book.
Thomas Markle, 76, a retired lighting director who lives in Mexico, failed to attend their wedding after suffering from heart problems after it emerged that he had collaborated with paparazzi. A new biography of the Sussexes describes the saga in May 2018 as a “public drama” that made Meghan “feel embarrassed”.
In Finding Freedom, serialised in The Sunday Times today, a source close to the couple said of Meghan’s father: “He would have been at the wedding if the media had left him alone.”

Meghan also told a friend: “He’s vulnerable. He’s been baited. A lot of the tabloid journalists have been coaxing him and paying him. I don’t know if he really even had a chance.”

However, in the latest twist surrounding the account of events presented in the book, palace aides told The Sunday Times that Harry and Meghan had refused to “engage” with Markle during their courtship and had rejected offers to help protect him.
It is understood the couple “repeatedly” ignored advice to meet Thomas Markle, before and after their engagement was announced in November 2017. They also rejected suggestions from aides about how to help Markle, who courtiers feared would be overwhelmed by media scrutiny without support from the couple and the royal family.

At the time of the Sussexes’ wedding, a senior royal source told this newspaper: “We repeatedly sat down with Harry and Meghan before the engagement announcement to say this needed to be handled sensitively, but that it had to be handled. We desperately asked them to engage with Thomas, but they wouldn’t. Aides also offered to go personally and see him to try and find a way to protect him. There is genuine disbelief and bemusement in the household at the couple’s approach to him and that Harry has still not met his father-in-law.”

[Glenn.]

Why should they engage with a man who repeatedly and intentionally sold opportunities to the press?

[Liam-]

Because it’s all hearsay, that’s why I don’t debate your ‘facts’ but I’ll humour you, why should Meghan want to include her father in things when he’s admitted to selling stories about her and the couple, he’s not obligated to be involved, he doesn’t have the right to be involved if he’s not wanted, just because she’s a celebrity who was marrying into royalty, does that mean she can’t have personal family problems? She’s a human being, families are complicated, she shouldn’t be forced to have something to do with someone she doesn’t want just cause the Royals or the royalists won’t like it, that’s not how life works, she gave up enough, she shouldn’t have to give up her freedom of choice as well.

[Glenn.]

All I see there is an Instagram post announcing it to the world, nowhere does it say they did that without consulting Lizzie or his father first

The Sun was mentioned 5 times as a source too.

[Liam-]

The Sun was mentioned 5 times as a source too.

The sooner that rag goes out of business the better

[Marsh.]

Yeah, I don't care how much "research" someone claims to have done or how many channel 5 documentaries they've sat through. It doesn't give you any insight into anyone's actual life.

If you enjoy them for what they are that's fine but to genuinely believe it gives you the truth of anyone you don't know then you're very naive indeed.

[jet]

Why should they engage with a man who repeatedly and intentionally sold opportunities to the press?

Read it again.

Meghan also told a friend: “He’s vulnerable. He’s been baited. A lot of the tabloid journalists have been coaxing him and paying him. I don’t know if he really even had a chance.”


If they had visited him and allowed the palace to help him, it wouldn't have happened in the first place. Their neglect of an elderly man was disgusting.

[Glenn.]

Read it again.



If they had visited him and allowed the palace to help him, it wouldn't have happened in the first place. Their neglect of an elderly man was disgusting.

Maybe YOU should read it again.

[jet]

So just more snide remarks and no actual opinion on the contents of the article. Very telling.

[Marsh.]

The article is a bunch of "A person told me this...." what exactly do you want to be discussed?

If you want it to be discussed as "100% verified facts" then I'm afraid that's not possible because it's not.

"Article matches own opinion" is not a fact.

[Ammi]

...it isn’t telling anything to disregard a media article that is based on hearsay/gossip...there is nothing to discuss because that would be allowing the media to lead the discussion with whatever their slant of that given day is giving...

[AnnieK]

Its very difficult to rely on second hand anecdotes. A friend may say something that is what they perceive to be the right thing to say in order to protect and justify their friends actions.

Family dynamics are complex and unless privy first hand to relationships heresay is just that.

I don't think Thomas has been painted in a good light by the media but I do think he is a father hurting at the break down in relationship with his daughter and he has done some dubious and pretty rubbish things but its impossible to say the exact nature or time that their relationship fell apart because none of us were there to view it.

You will get Meghans friends etc saying Thomas was at fault and vice versa. Its a case of "he said, she said" and truths will be twisted to fit the narrative they want people to believe.

[jet]

The article is a bunch of "A person told me this...." what exactly do you want to be discussed?

If you want it to be discussed as "100% verified facts" then I'm afraid that's not possible because it's not.

"Article matches own opinion" is not a fact.

Its well known that Meghan didn't introduce Harry to her father, that they didn't help him deal with the press in any way.
Just because 'article doesn't match your opinion' doesn't make it untrue.

If you have evidence that refutes it, however, that would be different.

[Glenn.]

So just more snide remarks and no actual opinion on the contents of the article. Very telling.

I can’t give an opinion on something that didn’t happen

[Marsh.]

Its well known that Meghan didn't introduce Harry to her father, that they didn't help him deal with the press in any way.
Just because 'article doesn't match your opinion' doesn't make it untrue.

If you have evidence that refutes it, however, that would be different.

I haven't claimed gossip is true. I don't need to provide evidence.

If you want people to believe press "sources" the onus is on you to prove they are true.

[Ammi]

...evidence to refute gossip media isn’t needed if it’s rejected as ‘fact’ at the offset...why would it be...

[jet]

So who do you all think is lying in the article?

The royal corresponent?
The palace aids?
The Sunday Times?

Do you all believe that Meghan DID introduce Harry to her father?
Do you believe they DID do everything they could to help him but he chose to get paparazzi pics taken anyway?
Or do you just never form an opinion on anything you read, which is an aspect of human nature I find hard to believe.

[Ammi]

...personally I don’t listen to hearsay/gossip about what is essentially ‘family laundry’ and personal information as it’s not something the media have any insight into, they have their own slants...which have often been hostile to Meghan in particular...

[Liam-]

We all know that Harry hasn’t met her Father, nobody truly knows why though, but our best guess is to judge the situation from what we actually know has happened, which is that her father is a snake who sold stories about her and continues to trash her in interviews, I wouldn’t want anything to do with him either

[jet]

....and FYI, I don't believe everything I read as fact... I do delve deeper as an avid reader. I don't discard everything as lies or truth automatically and tell other people how to post. That's just arrogance.
When it is confirmed over time by several different reliable sources, and comes together as very probable, then I believe it more that I disbelieve it. Later I may discard what I believe or disbelieve.

[Marsh.]

So who do you all think is lying in the article?

The royal corresponent?
The palace aids?
The Sunday Times?

Do you all believe that Meghan DID introduce Harry to her father?
Do you believe they DID do everything they could to help him but he chose to get paparazzi pics taken anyway?
Or do you just never form an opinion on anything you read, which is an aspect of human nature I find hard to believe.

I can form an opinion on anything. An opinion on someone's words and actions.

What I don't do is "research" tabloids and believe everything I'm told as 100% fact and become literally invested in a celebrity's life who has no impact on my own. I find that pretty concerning.

[Ammi]

...so far as the media is concerned there have rarely been sources that are ‘reliable’ though, with this type of gossip, it’s generally making a buck motivated...

[Marsh.]

....and FYI, I don't believe everything I read as fact... I do delve deeper as an avid reader. I don't discard everything as lies or truth automatically and tell other people how to post. That's just arrogance.
When it is confirmed over time by several different reliable sources, and comes together as very probable, then I believe it more that I disbelieve it. Later I may discard what I believe or disbelieve.

Nobody's said everything is a lie.
Nobody's told you how to post.

People have said "gossip" is simply that because there is no proof any of it is true. But you accept it as true because it fits the narrative of the person you think or want her to be based on something that you initially took a dislike to with her.

A piece of gossip having unverified "sources" is not a fact.

"I spoke to Boris Johnson and he told me Father Christmas is real" is not proof of anything factual. It's really as simple as that.

[jet]

I can form an opinion on anything. An opinion on someone's words and actions.

What I don't do is "research" tabloids and believe everything I'm told as 100% fact and become literally invested in a celebrity's life who has no impact on my own. I find that pretty concerning.

I don't so these things either, and I'm sick and tired of you insisting I do over and over again. I'm asking you politely to stop misrepresenting me.
Every time you do in future, I'm going to report the post, as I consider it serious baiting, I have many posts of yours to prove it. I'm sure the mods will thank you.
ENOUGH!

[Beso]

Why should they engage with a man who repeatedly and intentionally sold opportunities to the press?

Cause it's her dad:shrug:

[Beso]

Everyone forgets Meghan's twitter posts when her and harry were first going out, dropping hints left right and centre...kiss me sweets for photos and pathetic trashy stuff like that.

[Glenn.]

Cause it's her dad:shrug:

A dad that has intentionally sold stories to the press...

[Beso]

A dad that has intentionally sold stories to the press...

Unintentionally according to her.. the sources in the book say so.

[Glenn.]

Unintentionally according to her.. the sources in the book say so.

‘Sources’ :joker:

[Beso]

‘Sources’ :joker:

Did you dismiss all the diana books and thier sources so easily?

[Glenn.]

Haven’t read any Diana books. Don’t need to read a book to know how intrusive the press were with her.

[Beso]

Haven’t read any Diana books. Don’t need to read a book to know how intrusive the press were with her.

It hardly needed an inside source to tell anyone that about diana.

[Glenn.]

It hardly needed an inside source to tell anyone that about diana.

Then why did you mention her?

[Cherie]

All I see there is an Instagram post announcing it to the world, nowhere does it say they did that without consulting Lizzie or his father first

strange that Harry's meeting with the Queen where they lost their titles, was held after they posted and not before then :shrug: The Queen statement afterwards said they would divide their time between Canada and the UK so more lies from them

[Liam-]

strange that Harry's meeting with the Queen where they lost their titles, was held after they posted and not before then :shrug: The Queen statement afterwards said they would divide their time between Canada and the UK so more lies from them

They discussed those things after the announcement yes, that doesn’t mean they found out on Instagram.
Plans change, who knew?

[Cherie]

They discussed those things after the announcement yes, that doesn’t mean they found out on Instagram.
Plans change, who knew?

Lol ...their brand was going to be Sussex Royal, if they had any in-depth discussions prior they would have been aware Liz wouldn’t let them use Royal as part of their brand...they went public to force her hand and it backfired on them

[Liam-]

Lol ...their brand was going to be Sussex Royal, if they had any in-depth discussions prior they would have been aware Liz wouldn’t let them use Royal as part of their brand...they went public to force her hand and it backfired on them

Allegedly, per anonymous source, according to.. etc

[jet]

Lol ...their brand was going to be Sussex Royal, if they had any in-depth discussions prior they would have been aware Liz wouldn’t let them use Royal as part of their brand...they went public to force her hand and it backfired on them

That is exactly what happened. Even their admirers accept that.

[Glenn.]

Allegedly, per anonymous source, according to.. etc

Tea

[Cherie]

Allegedly, per anonymous source, according to.. etc

Maybe do a little research, as it’s beginning to look like you just want to argue for the sake of it

https://www.insider.com/meghan-markle-prince-harry-sussex-royal-brand-charity-name-change-2020-2

[Liam-]

Maybe do a little research, as it’s beginning to look like you just want to argue for the sake of it

https://www.insider.com/meghan-markle-prince-harry-sussex-royal-brand-charity-name-change-2020-2

That’s a nice informative article, nowhere does it back up your claim that the royal family found out about their plans via Instagram, how does me pointing out that your ‘facts’ aren’t actually facts, mean I’m looking for an argument?

[Marsh.]

Cause it's her dad:shrug:

Blood/DNA doesn't give him the right to do what he wants and get away with it. That's not what family is about.

[Marsh.]

I don't so these things either, and I'm sick and tired of you insisting I do over and over again. I'm asking you politely to stop misrepresenting me.
Every time you do in future, I'm going to report the post, as I consider it serious baiting, I have many posts of yours to prove it. I'm sure the mods will thank you.
ENOUGH!

You find it baiting when I point out you read tabloids? Every link you provide, of which there are many, are tabloids.

If you don't want to be seen as a tabloid reading Royalist then I'll politely recommend that maybe you choose a link other than Daily Mail?

[Beso]

Tea

Pot.

[rusticgal]

Pot.


:joker:

[jet]

You find it baiting when I point out you read tabloids? Every link you provide, of which there are many, are tabloids.

If you don't want to be seen as a tabloid reading Royalist then I'll politely recommend that maybe you choose a link other than Daily Mail?

You said:

I can form an opinion on anything. An opinion on someone's words and actions.

What I don't do is "research" tabloids and believe everything I'm told as 100% fact and become literally invested in a celebrity's life who has no impact on my own. I find that pretty concerning.

For the LAST time -

As I’ve explained over and over, I read articles by long time respected royal correspondents and biographers. I like to hear their opinions and perspectives. These are printed in the broadsheets of which I read physical copies bought by my brother.
These articles are then often replicated, verbatim, by the DM etc. That is how the press works.
Sometimes the articles are directly printed in the likes of the DM.
I can’t print these articles online from the broadsheets to post here as they require a subscription which I don’t need, but I can print them from the DM etc.
Sometimes I post an article because I just find it interesting and think others might also.
What you do is use the word ‘tabloid’ over and over and over to taunt me in a derogatory way.

The rest of what you say, like in the example above, over and over and over to taunt me is utter BS, and not even worth commenting on.

I’ve explained for the last time, and if you continue to harass me with more of the same I’ll take it as far as I can to make you quit. If you or then the mods ignore that, then I'll quit, because either way I've had just about enough of your hounding.

[jet]

..... and in addition, there are perfectly good documentarys with perfectly legit official royal correspondents, commentators and biographers giving their honest opinions and perspectives - and they know more than you would like to think...
If you don't read their articles or watch then you can't form a judgement on them.

[Cherie]

That’s a nice informative article, nowhere does it back up your claim that the royal family found out about their plans via Instagram, how does me pointing out that your ‘facts’ aren’t actually facts, mean I’m looking for an argument?

It’s in the first link I posted re the timeline, reported by the BBC...hardly an anonymous source

[Glenn.]

..... and in addition, there are perfectly good documentarys with perfectly legit official royal correspondents, commentators and biographers giving their honest opinions and perspectives - and they know more than you would like to think...
If you don't read their articles or watch then you can't form a judgement on them.

Sure

[Marsh.]

You said:



For the LAST time -

As I’ve explained over and over, I read articles by long time respected royal correspondents and biographers.

Yet continually link to tabloid articles when trying to make a point.

I don't care what you SAY you do, when every time a thread on the Royals appears you SHOW the opposite. I can only comment on what you bring into the thread, which is tabloid gossip.

The rest of your post I'm not addressing because it's utter tosh designed to make yourself a victim and accuse others of bullying. It's childish.


What you do is use the word ‘tabloid’ over and over and over to taunt me in a derogatory way.

No, I use the word tabloid to label a tabloid when you bring one into the thread as "evidence" of facts, which are nothing but the opinions of a journalist trying to sell papers or "clicks".

If you don't get that then I can't help you.

[Marsh.]

..... and in addition, there are perfectly good documentarys with perfectly legit official royal correspondents, commentators and biographers giving their honest opinions and perspectives - and they know more than you would like to think...
If you don't read their articles or watch then you can't form a judgement on them.

Until it's a documentary that doesn't conform to your narrative and becomes something else?

Ok.

[jet]

Sure

Another throwaway, baiting remark. Are the mods going to do anything about stopping these kind of responses which are only designed to cause discord?

[Glenn.]

I’m sure they’re as tired as we all are of these threads.

[rusticgal]

I’m sure they’re as tired as we all are of these threads.


....but you can’t keep away...you offer nothing in the way of discussion and others sound like a parrot just looking for an argument...with nothing to offer except repeat repeat repeat...:sleep::sleep::sleep:

Carry on Jet...ignore the baiters and keep posting :love:

[Glenn.]

....but you can’t keep away...you offer nothing in the way of discussion and others sound like a parrot just looking for an argument...with nothing to offer except repeat repeat repeat...:sleep::sleep::sleep:

Carry on Jet...ignore the baiters and keep posting :love:

Still waiting for rational reasons for the unnecessary mud slinging.

[Liam-]

Nobody is telling him/her to stop posting, it’s not our fault if they don’t like their ‘sources’ and reasonings questioned and debated, it doesn’t make people ‘baiters’ to disagree with them ffs, this false narrative that you lot get picked on is foul

[Glenn.]

Nobody is telling him/her to stop posting, it’s not our fault if they don’t like their ‘sources’ and reasonings questioned and debated, it doesn’t make people ‘baiters’ to disagree with them ffs, this false narrative that you lot get picked on is fowl

Literally this.

[rusticgal]

..... and in addition, there are perfectly good documentarys with perfectly legit official royal correspondents, commentators and biographers giving their honest opinions and perspectives - and they know more than you would like to think...
If you don't read their articles or watch then you can't form a judgement on them.


That’s a big ask...:laugh:

[Glenn.]

That’s a big ask...:laugh:

Is this not baiting?

[jet]

....but you can’t keep away...you offer nothing in the way of discussion and others sound like a parrot just looking for an argument...with nothing to offer except repeat repeat repeat...:sleep::sleep::sleep:

Carry on Jet...ignore the baiters and keep posting :love:


:love:
If certain people responded with reasoned arguments or articles of their own instead of attacking the way other people post or just coming in to sneer and cause discord it would be a different story.

[Glenn.]

:love:
If certain people responded with reasoned arguments or articles of their own instead of attacking the way other people post or just coming in to sneer and cause discord it would be a different story.

If you’re gonna post tabloid stories then it’s on you to convince us that it’s true and not sensationalised rubbish which you haven’t done yet. Your reaction to Meghan is very telling because it’s exactly the same as all of the Daily Mail commenters. Full of assumptions with no real basis.

[rusticgal]

Nobody is telling him/her to stop posting, it’s not our fault if they don’t like their ‘sources’ and reasonings questioned and debated, it doesn’t make people ‘baiters’ to disagree with them ffs, this false narrative that you lot get picked on is fowl


Liam...Jet gets baited all the time on this subject for only quoting the Dailymail. It’s a put down because he has followed the Royal family for years and has an avid interest in them. To be constantly ridiculed because of it...and to be called obsessive is not fair...

There is a difference with disagreeing with someone and then getting personal and intimidating for the sake of trying to win an argument. It’s not an argument to be won...it’s a debate.
Can’t we all just debate...show some respect and agree to disagree if necessary without provoking someone to the point that they want to leave...I call it bullying.
Every time a thread comes up on Meghan it gets shut down because of personal attacks by the same people...and it’s unacceptable.

[rusticgal]

Is this not baiting?


No...it’s an opinion.

[Liam-]

Liam...Jet gets baited all the time on this subject for only quoting the Dailymail. It’s a put down because he has followed the Royal family for years and has an avid interest in them. To be constantly ridiculed because of it...and to be called obsessive is not fair...

There is a difference with disagreeing with someone and then getting personal and intimidating for the sake of trying to win an argument. It’s not an argument to be won...it’s a debate.
Can’t we all just debate...show some respect and agree to disagree if necessary without provoking someone to the point that they want to leave...I call it bullying.
Every time a thread comes up on Meghan it gets shut down because of personal attacks by the same people...and it’s unacceptable.


No, he gets questioned on his sources, if he’s not able to back them up and gets in a huff whenever someone disagrees that gossip and opinion aren’t facts, then a debate section probably isn’t the best place for him, nobody is being bullied at all and as far as I’m concerned the personal jibes go both ways, he’s not innocent and neither are you and many other people, stop trying to push a narrative that you’re not being allowed an opinion, it’s completely disingenuous and does nothing but gets people backs up which is probably the aim, stop passing the buck for the arguments, you and your pals are just as much to blame as anyone else

[user104658]

..... and in addition, there are perfectly good documentarys with perfectly legit official royal correspondents, commentators and biographers giving their honest opinions and perspectives - and they know more than you would like to think...
If you don't read their articles or watch then you can't form a judgement on them.

At some point, Jet, you may have to accept that some (most, I would guess?) people simply don't put quite as much stock on "royal correspondents" as you do. They're press in a posh frock.

[rusticgal]

No, he gets questioned on his sources, if he’s not able to back them up and gets in a huff whenever someone disagrees that gossip and opinion aren’t facts, then a debate section probably isn’t the best place for him, nobody is being bullied at all and as far as I’m concerned the personal jibes go both ways, he’s not innocent and neither are you and many other people, stop trying to push a narrative that you’re not being allowed an opinion, it’s completely disingenuous and does nothing but gets people backs up which is probably the aim, stop passing the buck for the arguments, you and your pals are just as much to blame as anyone else


When certain people come on here the thread goes downhill fast....it happens every time....
Some of us handle it better than others...that’s all I’m saying :wavey:

[Marsh.]

Yet continually link to tabloid articles when trying to make a point.

I don't care what you SAY you do, when every time a thread on the Royals appears you SHOW the opposite. I can only comment on what you bring into the thread, which is tabloid gossip.

The rest of your post I'm not addressing because it's utter tosh designed to make yourself a victim and accuse others of bullying. It's childish.



No, I use the word tabloid to label a tabloid when you bring one into the thread as "evidence" of facts, which are nothing but the opinions of a journalist trying to sell papers or "clicks".

If you don't get that then I can't help you.

....but you can’t keep away...you offer nothing in the way of discussion and others sound like a parrot just looking for an argument...with nothing to offer except repeat repeat repeat...:sleep::sleep::sleep:

Carry on Jet...ignore the baiters and keep posting :love:

I know which of these posts are baiting, and it's not mine sweetheart.

[Liam-]

When certain people come on here the thread goes downhill fast....it happens every time....
Some of us handle it better than others...that’s all I’m saying :wavey:

Because you don’t like it when they come and disagree with you so kick up a fuss and make personal digs, that happens every time yeah.

[Glenn.]

Yeah the ones that bleat on about being bullied sure handle it better than others...

[Marsh.]

:love:
If certain people responded with reasoned arguments or articles of their own instead of attacking the way other people post or just coming in to sneer and cause discord it would be a different story.

I don't need to post articles to prove that none of us know Harry and Meghan so therefore pretending we do because we read gossip is ridiculous.

It's kind of common sense.

[Swan]

I know which of these posts are baiting, and it's not mine sweetheart.

So rude!

Because you don’t like it when they come and disagree with you so kick up a fuss and make personal digs, that happens every time yeah.

You win 'most ironic post of the day' award!

[Marsh.]

Liam...Jet gets baited all the time on this subject for only quoting the Dailymail. It’s a put down because he has followed the Royal family for years and has an avid interest in them. To be constantly ridiculed because of it...and to be called obsessive is not fair...

There is a difference with disagreeing with someone and then getting personal and intimidating for the sake of trying to win an argument. It’s not an argument to be won...it’s a debate.
Can’t we all just debate...show some respect and agree to disagree if necessary without provoking someone to the point that they want to leave...I call it bullying.
Every time a thread comes up on Meghan it gets shut down because of personal attacks by the same people...and it’s unacceptable.

How is commenting on his DM links getting personal? It's commenting on what he is posting in the thread.

The links get mocked because he rubbishes everyone else's input because apparently he has the "avid interest" and doesn't listen to gossip, he gets the facts. Yet when asked to provide them he responds with "do your own research" or posting DM links or quoting a channel 5 documentary.

These aren't "specialist" research materials, they're tabloid newspapers whose goal is to write/publish the most OTT story to get the sale/click. They quote unnamed sources. Waving them about as though they're the beacon of truth and HE knows who Meghan is (even better than Harry himself apparently) is a joke.

Whereas you haven't commented on the thread topic for about 3 pages, so watch your own posting styles before commenting on that of others.

[Liam-]

You win 'most ironic post of the day' award!

K

[Marsh.]

So rude!



You win 'most ironic post of the day' award!

The topic of the thread is Harry and Meghan, not other posters. :thumbs:

[Swan]

The topic of the thread is Harry and Meghan, not other posters. :thumbs:

Yeah look at yourself then Marsh, why did you have to call rusticgirl "sweetheart" if not to be condescending, rude and smug?

[jet]

How is commenting on his DM links getting personal? It's commenting on what he is posting in the thread.

The links get mocked because he rubbishes everyone else's input because apparently he has the "avid interest" and doesn't listen to gossip, he gets the facts. Yet when asked to provide them he responds with "do your own research" or posting DM links or quoting a channel 5 documentary.

These aren't "specialist" research materials, they're tabloid newspapers whose goal is to write/publish the most OTT story to get the sale/click. They quote unnamed sources. Waving them about as though they're the beacon of truth and HE knows who Meghan is (even better than Harry himself apparently) is a joke.

Whereas you haven't commented on the thread topic for about 3 pages, so watch your own posting styles before commenting on that of others.

Really? I rubbish everyone else's input? How ironic! :laugh:
You rubbish my every input, because you don't like it. I am perfectly entitled to post as many links as I please and have my own opinions but I'm harrassed every time I do.
If you think I believe I 'am the beacon of truth' about Meghan that is your problem, not mine. You sure get riled up big time for someone who pretends they have no real interest in Meghan.

[Marsh.]

Really? I rubbish everyone else's input? How ironic! :laugh:
You rubbish my every input, because you don't like it. I am perfectly entitled to post as many links as I please and have my own opinions but I'm harrassed every time I do.
If you think I believe I 'am the beacon of truth' about Meghan that is your problem, not mine. You sure get riled up big time for someone who pretends they have no real interest in Meghan.

Erm, nope. I rubbish your posts in which you express how you know Meghan's mind more than her husband and having nothing more than newspapers to back up this knowledge and accept nothing else because to you they are the facts. Especially as you were so vehement that you didn't read those kinds of newspapers.

When people don't lap up those offerings as the one and only truth you opt to victimise yourself.

A daft strategy that does not work here.

I have also never told you not to post or what to post. It's you that has the problem with others commenting on what you post which begs the question of why post on a public platform.

[jet]

At some point, Jet, you may have to accept that some (most, I would guess?) people simply don't put quite as much stock on "royal correspondents" as you do. They're press in a posh frock.

I don't expect them to. No problem at all. But if I like to hear what they have to say and make up my own mind on what I hear, I don't see why that gives anyone the right to harrass and mock....
I would never even have utterd the words 'royal correspondent' ever if my links and posts weren't ruthlessly questioned as if posting on a forum was a matter of life and death.

[thesheriff443]

At some point, Jet, you may have to accept that some (most, I would guess?) people simply don't put quite as much stock on "royal correspondents" as you do. They're press in a posh frock.

At some point members are going to have to accept that they not going to bully jet off the forum because they can’t accept jets opinion.

And yet they think their own opinion is worth the time it took to write, news flash, it ain’t!.

[jet]

Erm, nope. I rubbish your posts in which you express how you know Meghan's mind more than her husband and having nothing more than newspapers to back up this knowledge and accept nothing else because to you they are the facts.

When people don't lap up those offerings as the one and only truth you opt to victimise yourself.

A daft strategy that does not work here.

I have also never told you not to post or what to post. It's you that has the problem with others commenting on what you post which begs the question of why post on a public platform.

Could you show me those posts please?

There is a massive difference between commenting and non - stop harrassment.

[Marsh.]

Could you show me those posts please?

There is a massive difference between commenting and non - stop harrassment.

You find people commenting on the posts you make on a forum harassment?

Please stop with the ridiculousness and the crazy insinuation that you haven't been mocking and derisive in your own replies.

[Glenn.]

I can’t at this turning into a ‘everyone’s bullying jet’ when he spends most of the day slinging mud at two people he doesn’t know and anyone that calls him out on it :skull:

[jet]

At some point members are going to have to accept that they not going to bully jet off the forum because they can’t except jets opinion.

And yet they think their own opinion is worth the time it took to write, news flash, it ain’t!.

Dead right, sheriff. It seems the mods aren't going to bother, so all I can do now is find out how to put people on ignore for the first time ever. I never wanted to do that cos I like a good argument and debate, but I draw the line at smart ass harrassment.
Then I can happily post my DM articles (I have given the reason on this thread why I post them) and my opinions, and they can find someone esle to harrass, cos thats what they are here for, after all.

[jet]

You find people commenting on the posts you make on a forum harassment?

Please stop with the ridiculousness and the crazy insinuation that you haven't been mocking and derisive in your own replies.

I guess you expect to treat people like you do and they shouldn't bite back eventually.

[Marsh.]

I guess you expect to treat people like you do and they shouldn't bite back eventually.

So now you're reversing it again to be me the one who has a problem with people replying to me?

This is a poor attempt at gaslighting Jet.

[Marsh.]

At some point members are going to have to accept that they not going to bully jet off the forum because they can’t accept jets opinion.

And yet they think their own opinion is worth the time it took to write, news flash, it ain’t!.

People can't disagree with Jet because it means they want him off the forum?

But I'll tell them their opinion is rubbish..... because?

[jet]

Can someone help me out on how to put people on ignore? I would appreciate it. Thanks!