ITV Emerge as Frontrunner to Air Meghan and Harry's Oprah Interview

[Kazanne]

How do you know this exactly ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

None of us KNOW anything exactly,its just our opinions and we all have one.

[Crimson Dynamo]

It was a relaxed interview with Oprah to tell her story, it was NOT an interrogation debate .

As I said already the interview would of been farr too long if they went on about her dad & sister etc, and Meghan would get more critism if the interview broadcast over a few days rather than just 1 day.

But don't worry there's plenty of long winded interviews out there, that go on forever that you'll probably enjoy better than Harry & Meghan's 2 hour one.

do you have say a couple of examples of tv interviews like this that were significantly longer than 2 HOURS?:shocked:

[jet]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14301514/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-13-holidays-passport/?rec_article=true

DOESN'T ADD UP Meghan Markle and Prince Harry enjoyed 13 holidays despite saying her passport was taken away
Matt Wilkinson

MEGHAN had at least 13 foreign holidays after being welcomed into the royal fold — despite telling Oprah Winfrey her passport was taken away.
But insiders said she must have shown her passport to border officials at 12 countries she visited as a tourist during that time.
The Sun today reveals she flew off on 13 holidays after starting dating Harry, including trips to New York, Ibiza, Botswana, Italy and Amsterdam.

The duchess told Oprah: “You couldn’t just go. You couldn’t. I mean, you have to understand, as well, when I joined that family, that was the last time, until we came here, that I saw my passport, my driver’s licence, my keys. All that gets turned over. I didn’t see any of that any more.....”

The couple also took part in three official royal tours, taking in Morocco, South Africa and Australia, New Zealand, Tonga and Fiji.
Buckingham Palace did not want to comment yesterday.
............................
Yet another Meghan fabrication/gross exaggeration. :suspect:

[Vanessa]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14301514/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-13-holidays-passport/?rec_article=true

DOESN'T ADD UP Meghan Markle and Prince Harry enjoyed 13 holidays despite saying her passport was taken away
Matt Wilkinson

MEGHAN had at least 13 foreign holidays after being welcomed into the royal fold — despite telling Oprah Winfrey her passport was taken away.
But insiders said she must have shown her passport to border officials at 12 countries she visited as a tourist during that time.
The Sun today reveals she flew off on 13 holidays after starting dating Harry, including trips to New York, Ibiza, Botswana, Italy and Amsterdam.

The duchess told Oprah: “You couldn’t just go. You couldn’t. I mean, you have to understand, as well, when I joined that family, that was the last time, until we came here, that I saw my passport, my driver’s licence, my keys. All that gets turned over. I didn’t see any of that any more.....”

The couple also took part in three official royal tours, taking in Morocco, South Africa and Australia, New Zealand, Tonga and Fiji.
Buckingham Palace did not want to comment yesterday.
............................
Yet another Meghan fabrication/gross exaggeration. :suspect:

Yes. This is another thing that doesn't add up.
If she didn't have her passport she wouldn't have been able.tl take those many holidays.

[Cherie]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14301514/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-13-holidays-passport/?rec_article=true

DOESN'T ADD UP Meghan Markle and Prince Harry enjoyed 13 holidays despite saying her passport was taken away
Matt Wilkinson

MEGHAN had at least 13 foreign holidays after being welcomed into the royal fold — despite telling Oprah Winfrey her passport was taken away.
But insiders said she must have shown her passport to border officials at 12 countries she visited as a tourist during that time.
The Sun today reveals she flew off on 13 holidays after starting dating Harry, including trips to New York, Ibiza, Botswana, Italy and Amsterdam.

The duchess told Oprah: “You couldn’t just go. You couldn’t. I mean, you have to understand, as well, when I joined that family, that was the last time, until we came here, that I saw my passport, my driver’s licence, my keys. All that gets turned over. I didn’t see any of that any more.....”

The couple also took part in three official royal tours, taking in Morocco, South Africa and Australia, New Zealand, Tonga and Fiji.
Buckingham Palace did not want to comment yesterday.
............................
Yet another Meghan fabrication/gross exaggeration. :suspect:



didn't she shoot off to New York for her baby shower, and then after Harry made his impassioned plea to the plebs to stop flying, she went off to support Serena at the New York Open :laugh:

she and Harry also went on Easy Jet somewhere, mind you that was only the once never to be repeated flight with the cattle

[Vanessa]

didn't she shoot off to New York for her baby shower, and then after Harry made his impassioned plea to the plebs to stop flying, she went off to support Serena at the New York Open :laugh:

Yes. This proves that she could get hold of her passport when she needed to travel.

[jet]

I would like to see her challenged on her accusations...we all knew the Oprah interview was going to be utterly biased...she didn’t challenge her on any of her answers just allowed her to say what Meghan wanted to say. It was pathetic.

Her replies were long on accusations but short on detail as she wasn't challenged, so all we had was Meghan telling the world that everyone had done her wrong and she and Harry were perfect....and some believe every word she said. :huh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Short but succinct letter to The Telegraph today:

The Royal family is suffering the ignominy of being tried in
the court of public opinion for an unspecified crime committed by an unnamed person.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Many people online desperate to find out where Markle buys her waterproof mascara?

:whistle:

[user104658]

I don't know if people are blinkered by their own dislike of her or just being dumb? Obviously she went abroad and HAD a passport - she clearly meant that the "Royal Team" kept things like that and you had to plan/organise travel through them, which should be completely obvious really, they weren't queueing at Heathrow for commercial flights, they didn't have to show Paul the Passport Guy their ID on the way through. Why are people pretending that they think active senior royals go through commercial border control :facepalm:.

Oh wait, I guess if you can convince yourself that they can pop to the local GP about their mental health any time they want, you'd also believe that they keep their own passports in the sock drawer.

Who knew that cognitive dissonance could be fueled entirely by a simple determination to dislike someone?

[Cherie]

I don't know if people are blinkered by their own dislike of her or just being dumb? Obviously she went abroad and HAD a passport - she clearly meant that the "Royal Team" kept things like that and you had to plan/organise travel through them, which should be completely obvious really, they weren't queueing at Heathrow for commercial flights, they didn't have to show Paul the Passport Guy their ID on the way through. Why are people pretending that they think active senior royals go through commercial border control :facepalm:.

Oh wait, I guess if you can convince yourself that they can pop to the local GP about their mental health any time they want, you'd also believe that they keep their own passports in the sock drawer.

Who knew that cognitive dissonance could be fueled entirely by a simple determination to dislike someone?


She made it sound like she was being held prisoner :nono: while it was just for security reasons

[Beso]

I don't know if people are blinkered by their own dislike of her or just being dumb? Obviously she went abroad and HAD a passport - she clearly meant that the "Royal Team" kept things like that and you had to plan/organise travel through them, which should be completely obvious really, they weren't queueing at Heathrow for commercial flights, they didn't have to show Paul the Passport Guy their ID on the way through. Why are people pretending that they think active senior royals go through commercial border control :facepalm:.

Oh wait, I guess if you can convince yourself that they can pop to the local GP about their mental health any time they want, you'd also believe that they keep their own passports in the sock drawer.

Who knew that cognitive dissonance could be fueled entirely by a simple determination to dislike someone?



I know right, it's as dumb as imagining her going to human resources.

[jet]

She made it sound like she was being held prisoner :nono: while it was just for security reasons

That point went straight over TS's head. :hehe:

[AnnieK]

In all honesty any one of us if you think about it honestly would be shaken by the lack of control you would experience if you were in that life. To go from living independently for however many years to having someone else control near enough every aspect of your life would feel to most like you were a prisoner. Kate was a little more readied for it for a number of reasons, she was younger, had been dating William for longer and was British so a little more aware of Royalty. I couldn't relinquish control of my life easily and I doubt most others could too. It would be a massive shock and probably would feel like we were being held prisoner. Look how the Covid restrictions have impacted on a lot of people's mental health.

[Ammi]

Meghan did contact ITV with a complaint tbf it was on sky news earlier.

And she was quite right too imo.

However that was 1 complaint, Ofcom received over 40k from the public.

...just going back to this for a moment...yeah her team did state a complaint, it’s reported...but it’s also reported that members of the GMB staff themselves also registered complaints...

[user104658]

She made it sound like she was being held prisoner :nono: while it was just for security reasonsIt can be both. I understand them holding onto documents for security reasons, but it also means that any travel or desire to leave is a "negotiation" and not something you can just do. Is that maybe an inevitable part of being such a high-profile figure because of security concerns? Sure. But in practical terms, it's still a clear and obvious restriction of freedoms. It's still a layer of people who can say "no, that would have to be a bigger conversation" if you decide you want to leave in the middle of the night. Something that most people can do.

Exact same as with the "lol you're telling me they can't just seek their own mental health support" - it seems blatantly obvious that senior managed royals can't just go out on their own and visit whichever doctor they feel like visiting? Security concerns, confidentiality concerns, etc etc. OF COURSE they have their own vetted doctors for the family. It's just all so disingenuous. "If you're feeling depressed you can pop to the GP lol wot is she on about". Why are people pretending they were Hazz and Meg from 3-doors-down whilst they were working royals??

And golly gosh people WHERE is the nuance? I see people on this thread claiming its unrealistic to believe that Meghan and Harry are pure/blameless/perfect which of course it is, they are human beings and such a thing does not exist.

But then the same people are trying to depict them as cackling g cartoon villains out to destroy the poor, meek, innocent little Royals :worry:. The wee Queen :worry:. Poor Charles who has been nowt but a good dad must be sooo sad :worry: :worry:.

Are Harry and Meghan embellishing details? Maybe. Are recollections legitimately slightly different? Probably - perfect recall of events is very rare/doesn't really exist. Are they sometimes a LITTLE lost in various types of privilege? Probably.

But anyone with the blinkers OFF should be able to see what a nest of vipers the Royal Institution is, and how controlling it is of the major figures involved in that life. This has been obvious FOR DECADES, at this point almost a CENTURY, the Royal Family has been plagued with unhappy individuals and mental health crises. There has been example after example. Why are people pretending that this situation is new or unprecedented? Why are we pretending it's a Harry-problem when the issues were clear as day before Harry was even born? Why are we pretending it's a Meghan Markle issue when there are countless VIDEO examples of Harry having major issues with the family, and press, long before he knew she existed?

It's just an absolute circus. The number of generation-spanning royal issues that are somehow being attributed to Meghan is staggering. And the justification/reasoning is "Oh Umm ee Umm Well do you think they are perfect?"

:idc: a boring charade.

[user104658]

That point went straight over TS's head. :hehe:

Oh rly did it jet? Oh gee. Oh silly old me I guess.

We don't make personal comments about other members :nono:.

[jet]

The Royals don't GO to doctors, the doctors come to them. Even in the middle of the night. Was it always the middle of the night in Ken Palace?
See the Diana story.

[Niamh.]

It can be both. I understand them holding onto documents for security reasons, but it also means that any travel or desire to leave is a "negotiation" and not something you can just do. Is that maybe an inevitable part of being such a high-profile figure because of security concerns? Sure. But in practical terms, it's still a clear and obvious restriction of freedoms. It's still a layer of people who can say "no, that would have to be a bigger conversation" if you decide you want to leave in the middle of the night. Something that most people can do.

Exact same as with the "lol you're telling me they can't just seek their own mental health support" - it seems blatantly obvious that senior managed royals can't just go out on their own and visit whichever doctor they feel like visiting? Security concerns, confidentiality concerns, etc etc. OF COURSE they have their own vetted doctors for the family. It's just all so disingenuous. "If you're feeling depressed you can pop to the GP lol wot is she on about". Why are people pretending they were Hazz and Meg from 3-doors-down whilst they were working royals??

And golly gosh people WHERE is the nuance? I see people on this thread claiming its unrealistic to believe that Meghan and Harry are pure/blameless/perfect which of course it is, they are human beings and such a thing does not exist.

But then the same people are trying to depict them as cackling g cartoon villains out to destroy the poor, meek, innocent little Royals :worry:. The wee Queen :worry:. Poor Charles who has been nowt but a good dad must be sooo sad :worry: :worry:.

Are Harry and Meghan embellishing details? Maybe. Are recollections legitimately slightly different? Probably - perfect recall of events is very rare/doesn't really exist. Are they sometimes a LITTLE lost in various types of privilege? Probably.

But anyone with the blinkers OFF should be able to see what a nest of vipers the Royal Institution is, and how controlling it is of the major figures involved in that life. This has been obvious FOR DECADES, at this point almost a CENTURY, the Royal Family has been plagued with unhappy individuals and mental health crises. There has been example after example. Why are people pretending that this situation is new or unprecedented? Why are we pretending it's a Harry-problem when the issues were clear as day before Harry was even born? Why are we pretending it's a Meghan Markle issue when there are countless VIDEO examples of Harry having major issues with the family, and press, long before he knew she existed?

It's just an absolute circus. The number of generation-spanning royal issues that are somehow being attributed to Meghan is staggering. And the justification/reasoning is "Oh Umm ee Umm Well do you think they are perfect?"

:idc: a boring charade.

I mean this is probably the most sensible analysis of the whole thing that I've read so far. This whole idea especially that Meghan is some evil master manipulator who had all this planned out since she was a teenager (according to some people) is just so unrealistic

[Ammi]

...just adding slightly to what TS has said...it’s often said that ‘Meghan was planning her escape all along’, type thing...and the whole thing is obviously a very complex story with many layers...but it’s become more and more clear in my own thoughts that if any ‘escape’ has ever been planned of that Royal life as a senior royal etc...it’s initially by Harry and for probably a very long time, long before Meghan came into his life...His unhappiness really does appear very profound to the very core of him...

[Ammi]

I mean this is probably the most sensible analysis of the whole thing that I've read so far. This whole idea especially that Meghan is some evil master manipulator who had all this planned out since she was a teenager (according to some people) is just so unrealistic

....I think that Meghan was more the ‘saviour,’ than the manipulator’ in that she’s supported him in this very difficult decision because she’s known his unhappiness and really does truly know Harry...I’m sure that his family all do love him dearly but ‘family duty’ is such a powerful thing as well...

[Ammi]

...anyway, I’ve missed your thought filled posts, TS...:love:..

[user104658]

The Royals don't GO to doctors, the doctors come to them. Even in the middle of the night. Was it always the middle of the night in Ken Palace?
See the Diana story.Then why have people been repeatedly saying that Meghan could have sought out support on her own if Royal Management refused to get someone in to see her? You're literally confirming that you KNOW the management team had to sign off on her access to a doctor, and thus her claim that they refused on the grounds that it would look bad for the family is perfectly legitimate or at least possible? It's previously been poo-poo'd away as unrealistic because "Oh you're telling me they couldn't seek that help without going through the institution lol?"

Some real inconsistencies here jet, don't be doing any Oprah interviews, the Internet will tear them to bits :worry:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Do people on tibb believe that the average person who watched that interview were aware it wasn't a proper interview - that it was a set up?

I get the feeling that for many in America and maybe the 16-24 demographic think that Oprah is a proper interviewer and not a chat show host/pal doing a favour?

That is a huge concern

[Niamh.]

....I think that Meghan was more the ‘saviour,’ than the manipulator’ in that she’s supported him in this very difficult decision because she’s known his unhappiness and really does truly know Harry...I’m sure that his family all do love him dearly but ‘family duty’ is such a powerful thing as well...

Of course they do, it must be **** not to be able to just be happy and support your family in whatever makes them happy, I know it's not my country so none of my business what you do or who you have as your head of state but it just seems so out of date and draconian the whole Royal stuff. I really couldn't think of anything worse than to have been born into that fish bowl life

[Niamh.]

Do people on tibb believe that the average person who watched that interview were aware it wasn't a proper interview - that it was a set up?

I get the feeling that for many in America and maybe the 16-24 demographic think that Oprah is a proper interviewer and not a chat show host/pal doing a favour?

That is a huge concern

Is it? :laugh2:

[Ammi]

Of course they do, it must be **** not to be able to just be happy and support your family in whatever makes them happy, I know it's not my country so none of my business what you do or who you have as your head of state but it just seems so out of date and draconian the whole Royal stuff. I really couldn't think of anything worse than to have been born into that fish bowl life

....when you think that some ‘Royal traditions’ were made so many years ago and are still applied in the modern world and in the modern workplace because it is a workplace institution as well...and yet policies (traditions..)...are updated so frequently in most other areas...the concept of ‘royal tradition’ as a static thing and that being a good thing just doesn’t feel right to me..

[joeysteele]

In all honesty any one of us if you think about it honestly would be shaken by the lack of control you would experience if you were in that life. To go from living independently for however many years to having someone else control near enough every aspect of your life would feel to most like you were a prisoner. Kate was a little more readied for it for a number of reasons, she was younger, had been dating William for longer and was British so a little more aware of Royalty. I couldn't relinquish control of my life easily and I doubt most others could too. It would be a massive shock and probably would feel like we were being held prisoner. Look how the Covid restrictions have impacted on a lot of people's mental health.

How refreshing to read this.

In my view it is like being institutionalised with the Royal set up as it is.
Too much has gone wrong and failed.

Much of which with the secrecy within it likely brushed under the carpet too, the public must never get to know if.

Still at the end of the day, no one can help who they fall in love with.
Charles couldn't have Camilla, he had to find someone to have an accepted heir at least with.
Enter Diana to be used by him and the Royals.
While he still had only real affection for Camilla

So Prince Harry and Meghan fell in love.
If we had every word and act we've done gone through with a fine tooth comb as is being done with Meghan Markle.

I very much, if I'm being honest, that discrepancies and contradictory statements would never be found including my own statements too.
I say again, no one is always right or always wrong.

I agree, marrying into the Royal family, is like surrendering your freedom and indeed life.
Meghan Markle may have been under the illusion, that Prince Harry so far down the line of being Monarch.
Things could be more relaxed.
Maybe he should and could have prepared her better for the nightmare of the Royal set up.

The thing is they fell in love with each other and that was what they wanted, to be together.

To have likely even the time and periods you can be together within the Royal set up, is possibly another issue.
They tried it, it was affecting their mental health, as it possibly wouldn't have re Harry, while he was single.
Once he saw the stress caused to his wife.
What was he to do?

Just tell her to put up with it he'd do nothing to ease that stress either.
What kind of husband is that .
One like Charles to Diana.

I have to use the word I was told was insulting I'm afraid.
Unbelievable.

[user104658]

I mean this is probably the most sensible analysis of the whole thing that I've read so far. This whole idea especially that Meghan is some evil master manipulator who had all this planned out since she was a teenager (according to some people) is just so unrealisticMy overall impression is that Harry has been deeply frustrated with the situation since he was in his teens, and she's simply been the d I eat person - because she doesn't come from that world - to say to him "you know, you could just... stop taking part." and its been a light bulb moment for him.

Basically I think he's always hated it but was surrounded by people telling him that because he's a direct bloodline royal, it's "just the way things are" and something he had to come to terms with.

Really it's likely why he was so attracted to Meghan, being so different to the people in usual "Royal circles".

If you think back to pre-Meghan he was clearly always happiest and most comfortable in his active Army days... i.e. surrounded by people who treated him like an Army peer and not a Prince.

[Ammi]

My overall impression is that Harry has been deeply frustrated with the situation since he was in his teens, and she's simply been the d I eat person - because she doesn't come from that world - to say to him "you know, you could just... stop taking part." and its been a light bulb moment for him.

Basically I think he's always hated it but was surrounded by people telling him that because he's a direct bloodline royal, it's "just the way things are" and something he had to come to terms with.

Really it's likely why he was so attracted to Meghan, being so different to the people in usual "Royal circles".

If you think back to pre-Meghan he was clearly always happiest and most comfortable in his active Army days... i.e. surrounded by people who treated him like an Army peer and not a Prince.


...and away from his family...:laugh:...

[user104658]

Do people on tibb believe that the average person who watched that interview were aware it wasn't a proper interview - that it was a set up?

I get the feeling that for many in America and maybe the 16-24 demographic think that Oprah is a proper interviewer and not a chat show host/pal doing a favour?

That is a huge concernAre the majority of people aware that the media is bull****? No, but at least this bull**** came from the other direction and counterbalanced some of the other torrent of bull**** from the Daily Mail and Cucky Morgan's flapping jaw.

Would I prefer a balanced account of things all round? Well yes but that's not the world is it.

[jet]

Then why have people been repeatedly saying that Meghan could have sought out support on her own if Royal Management refused to get someone in to see her? You're literally confirming that you KNOW the management team had to sign off on her access to a doctor, and thus her claim that they refused on the grounds that it would look bad for the family is perfectly legitimate or at least possible? It's previously been poo-poo'd away as unrealistic because "Oh you're telling me they couldn't seek that help without going through the institution lol?"

Some real inconsistencies here jet, don't be doing any Oprah interviews, the Internet will tear them to bits :worry:

Just correcting you on the point you made about the Royals GOING to doctors TS.
Harry and William set up Mental Health charities ans work closely with mental health organisations. Harry has had therapy himself - he couldn't get in touch with anyone independently in the emergency of his wife being suicidal?
Do you REALLY believe that TS? (If the Palace refused help, which is frankly a ridiculous claim.)

[Niamh.]

....when you think that some ‘Royal traditions’ were made so many years ago and are still applied in the modern world and in the modern workplace because it is a workplace institution as well...and yet policies (traditions..)...are updated so frequently in most other areas...the concept of ‘royal tradition’ as a static thing and that being a good thing just doesn’t feel right to me..

Yeah, didn't they only change that sexist thing about passing over girls in favour of boys in the succession line recently? Was it when Kate was pregnant with George?

[Niamh.]

My overall impression is that Harry has been deeply frustrated with the situation since he was in his teens, and she's simply been the d I eat person - because she doesn't come from that world - to say to him "you know, you could just... stop taking part." and its been a light bulb moment for him.

Basically I think he's always hated it but was surrounded by people telling him that because he's a direct bloodline royal, it's "just the way things are" and something he had to come to terms with.

Really it's likely why he was so attracted to Meghan, being so different to the people in usual "Royal circles".

If you think back to pre-Meghan he was clearly always happiest and most comfortable in his active Army days... i.e. surrounded by people who treated him like an Army peer and not a Prince.

You would have to wonder had his mother not died when he was a kid what would have happened with him? I think he may have followed her away from the Institute. So sad she seemed to be finally happy with her life when she was killed

[bots]

To me it's obvious that Harry and Meghan feed off each others thoughts, which is a normal event. At that point recollections of events are re-enforced as factual, whether they are or not. Their problem is that when you start throwing accusations around, you need to make sure they are always accurate or credibility drops to zero, whether the events actually happened or not. For various reasons Meghan's accounts of events have become questionable due to proven previous inaccuracies, so many don't believe a word she says. As Harry is closely associated with Meghan his credibility has also dropped to zero by default. They have been very naive when it comes to public perception, and I don't think they will easily recover from that position.

That being said, the rest of the royal family, including the queen, are a nasty, nasty bunch. For example, I couldn't imagine any scenario where my father would have cut me off, certainly not because of wanting to forge my own career rather than being in the family firm, which is basically what Charlie has done .... nasty bastard

[joeysteele]

Of course they do, it must be **** not to be able to just be happy and support your family in whatever makes them happy, I know it's not my country so none of my business what you do or who you have as your head of state but it just seems so out of date and draconian the whole Royal stuff. I really couldn't think of anything worse than to have been born into that fish bowl life

It is your business, the Irish have suffered under our Royals in history.
I get that from my Mum endlessly.

I support a Monarchy over a likely President however, as I dwell more on this and look back over others who've found the Royal set up too authorative and restrictive, under the heading of duty.
I can see the likely end of our Monarch without massive updating and reform.

Your last line sums so much up.
It certainly seems to be one the worst things to be born into that fish bowl, equally joining it too.

Then becoming into a scenario where you're expected out of duty, to exist but not live.

Also to TS, honestly, from me great posts all through from you on this.
I want to commend you on them.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Is it? :laugh2:

yes it really is:

“Prince Harry’s son was not going to receive security”, laments the Duchess
at one point. “Whaaat?”, replies Oprah, with slapstick incredulity. Frost-
Nixon, this was not.

Certain claims were instantly uncredible; such as the suggestion Archie was
denied the title “Prince” because he was mixed-race, or that the Archbishop
of Canterbury performed an official wedding ceremony in their garden, days
before the global spectacle of their Windsor nuptials. Many of the headlines
used to illustrate the couple’s ‘mistreatment’ by the UK media were at best,
taken out of context – at worst, outrageously misappropriated. All told, the
Sussexes’ ‘truth’ bears more than a passing resemblance to Trump’s
‘alternative facts’.

Very little of this seems to matter, however, in a world where ‘lived
experience’ can, and often does, supersede objective reality. Questioning
individuals may expect to be accused of racism, downplaying mental health,
or both. “Believe her, no matter what”, seems to be the demand – even when it doesn’t make sense.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/11/living-meghans-truth-now/

[Crimson Dynamo]

Are the majority of people aware that the media is bull****? No, but at least this bull**** came from the other direction and counterbalanced some of the other torrent of bull**** from the Daily Mail and Cucky Morgan's flapping jaw.

Would I prefer a balanced account of things all round? Well yes but that's not the world is it.

At least Andrew sat with Maitlis - it did not end well but then it was a far more honest revealing spectacle (even if his honesty wasnt the best :skull:)

[Liam-]

My overall impression is that Harry has been deeply frustrated with the situation since he was in his teens, and she's simply been the d I eat person - because she doesn't come from that world - to say to him "you know, you could just... stop taking part." and its been a light bulb moment for him.

Basically I think he's always hated it but was surrounded by people telling him that because he's a direct bloodline royal, it's "just the way things are" and something he had to come to terms with.

Really it's likely why he was so attracted to Meghan, being so different to the people in usual "Royal circles".

If you think back to pre-Meghan he was clearly always happiest and most comfortable in his active Army days... i.e. surrounded by people who treated him like an Army peer and not a Prince.

And we have a winner

[user104658]

At least Andrew sat with Maitlis - it did not end well but then it was a far more honest revealing spectacle (even if his honesty wasnt the best :skull:)Andrew was defending himself against allegations that he's been complicit in child sex trafficking. Harry and Meghan were discussing minor family dramas, mental health, their decision to move away, the Royal institution etc.

Trying to compare the two or say that "oh well he submitted himself to a harsh interviewer why didn't they?" is an unreasonable comparison. When Harry and Meghan are accused of rubbing shoulders with criminals and paedophiles then yes I'll concede that a harder interview would be more appropriate than an informal discussion style "audience".

People pretending that this is unusual is entirely disingenuous too - have a look at the Letterman stuff on Netflix (with RDJ, Kanye, etc) and you will find it is EXACTLY the same format as this Oprah one.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Andrew was defending himself against allegations that he's been complicit in child sex trafficking. Harry and Meghan were discussing minor family dramas, mental health, their decision to move away, the Royal institution etc.

Trying to compare the two or say that "oh well he submitted himself to a harsh interviewer why didn't they?" is an unreasonable comparison. When Harry and Meghan are accused of rubbing shoulders with criminals and paedophiles then yes I'll concede that a harder interview would be more appropriate than an informal discussion style "audience".

People pretending that this is unusual is entirely disingenuous too - have a look at the Letterman stuff on Netflix (with RDJ, Kanye, etc) and you will find it is EXACTLY the same format as this Oprah one.

"Harry and Meghan were discussing minor family dramas"

The accusation of racism and that a suicidal woman could not get help as a bit more than minor family dramas


Letterman isnt a journalist he is anothe rtalk show host who is a front for promotions and adverts

[user104658]

"Harry and Meghan were discussing minor family dramas"

The accusation of racism and that a suicidal woman could not get help as a bit more than minor family dramas


Letterman isnt a journalist he is anothe rtalk show host who is a front for promotions and advertsIf you're trying to say that racism and suicidal ideations aren't issues faced by a large number of families at various points I'd have to say that, sadly, you're wrong. "Minor" might have been a bit flippant but they are not unusual family issues.

Billionaire underage sex trafficking rings are a little more niche.

There was no need for this to be a hard hitting interview - Harry and Meghan haven't been accused of anything. Not by anyone other than the gutter press, Piers Morgan and overly-irked observers.

[Beso]

There must be a pow wow at the palace today as I've just seen william being escorted up the mall

[jet]

To me it's obvious that Harry and Meghan feed off each others thoughts, which is a normal event. At that point recollections of events are re-enforced as factual, whether they are or not. Their problem is that when you start throwing accusations around, you need to make sure they are always accurate or credibility drops to zero, whether the events actually happened or not. For various reasons Meghan's accounts of events have become questionable due to proven previous inaccuracies, so many don't believe a word she says. As Harry is closely associated with Meghan his credibility has also dropped to zero by default. They have been very naive when it comes to public perception, and I don't think they will easily recover from that position.

That being said, the rest of the royal family, including the queen, are a nasty, nasty bunch. For example, I couldn't imagine any scenario where my father would have cut me off, certainly not because of wanting to forge my own career rather than being in the family firm, which is basically what Charlie has done .... nasty bastard

Totally agree with your first paragraph BOTS.
But the Charles cutting off Harry claim is another thing yet again under question:

https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/10/prince-charles-let-down-by-prince-harrys-claim-funding-was-cut-off-14217471/

Prince Charles ‘let down’ by Harry complaining about money tap being turned off
Joe Roberts Wednesday 10 Mar 2021 7:57 am

Prince Charles did NOT ‘cut off’ Prince Harry’s funding when he left ‘The Firm’ with Meghan Markle last year, reports have claimed. During the tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, the Duke of Sussex said he made deals with Netflix and Spotify as he ‘had to afford security’ for his wife and son. ‘My family literally cut me off financially,’ he told Oprah.
This was rejected by an ally of Charles, who said he feels ‘let down’ by the claim, insisting he supported the duke and duchess ‘more than he would care to say'.

[jet]

...and really, what independently wealthy man in his 30's would expect to be supported by their father when they leave home? They live in a mansion surrounded by top notch celebs - maybe he could have expected to make a few sacrifices to go along with his decision and buy a slightly less showy home and Meghan could do without spending $4,000 a dress.

[Cherie]

...and really, what independently wealthy man in his 30's would expect to be supported by their father when they leave home? They live in a mansion surrounded by top notch celebs - maybe he could have expected to make a few sacrifices to go along with his decision and buy a slightly less showy home and Meghan could do without spending $4,000 a dress.

She didn't endure 18 months shaking hands with the plebs to end up living like a pauper :oh:

[rusticgal]

It was a relaxed interview with Oprah to tell her story, it was NOT an interrogation debate .

As I said already the interview would of been farr too long if they went on about her dad & sister etc, and Meghan would get more critism if the interview broadcast over a few days rather than just 1 day.

But don't worry there's plenty of long winded interviews out there, that go on forever that you'll probably enjoy better than Harry & Meghan's 2 hour one.


A relaxed interview...a chat between two/three people in the garden. You get told something outrageous and all you say is WWHHHAAAAT....who said it?..we are not saying...convo over..:laugh:

[AnnieK]

Totally agree with your first paragraph BOTS.
But the Charles cutting off Harry claim is another thing yet again under question:

https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/10/prince-charles-let-down-by-prince-harrys-claim-funding-was-cut-off-14217471/

Prince Charles ‘let down’ by Harry complaining about money tap being turned off
Joe Roberts Wednesday 10 Mar 2021 7:57 am

Prince Charles did NOT ‘cut off’ Prince Harry’s funding when he left ‘The Firm’ with Meghan Markle last year, reports have claimed. During the tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, the Duke of Sussex said he made deals with Netflix and Spotify as he ‘had to afford security’ for his wife and son. ‘My family literally cut me off financially,’ he told Oprah.
This was rejected by an ally of Charles, who said he feels ‘let down’ by the claim, insisting he supported the duke and duchess ‘more than he would care to say'.

An ally of Charles said that.
A friend if Meghan said there is email proof of them refusing her help.

Its all more he said, she said rubbish.

[arista]

1369980378161766403



at Last
Talking about, Racism.

[jet]

A relaxed interview...a chat between two/three people in the garden. You get told something outrageous and all you say is WWHHHAAAAT....who said it?..we are not saying...convo over..:laugh:

That spectacle can't be called an 'interview'. It was a "here is my story about all the horrible things that happened to me by horrid people and if everyone doesn't take every word I say as gospel its proof of how I am victimized, I told you so!" SEE!!!! "

[arista]

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

[Ammi]

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

...those poor people living in those homes...

[jet]

1369980378161766403



at Last
Talking about, Racism.

William and Kate carrying on and out doing useful work, as always. :love:

[jet]

She didn't endure 18 months shaking hands with the plebs to end up living like a pauper :oh:

:laugh:

[Glenn.]

William and Kate carrying on and out doing useful work, as always. :love:

‘Useful work’

[Cherie]

William and Kate carrying on and out doing useful work, as always. :love:

That 'I will do' sounded ominous :hehe:

[AnnieK]

That 'I will do' sounded ominous :hehe:

It did :laugh:

That sounds like my brother when my folks used to tell him to sort whatever argument out with me that we'd had that day. It usually ended up with a full scale fight :laugh:

[Kazanne]

She didn't endure 18 months shaking hands with the plebs to end up living like a pauper :oh:

:joker::joker::joker:

[Ammi]

...’...can you tell me, is the Royal family a racist family, sir....?...’...


....what response was expected, what a dumb question....’oh yes, we’re pretty awful at family gatherings especially...’...

[Kazanne]

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

Oh I see 'Idiots are us' are out ,why deface and make places look ugly like this, it wont make any difference, I am sure Prince Andrew will be dealt with when the time is right are they not waiting to interview that Maxwell woman first :shrug: but I just find this sort of thing really childish but I guess giggle fodder for the immature.

[Kazanne]

...’...can you tell me, is the Royal family a racist family, sir....?...’...


....what response was expected, what a dumb question....’oh yes, we’re pretty awful at family gatherings especially...’...

The press never learn.

[joeysteele]

I found it interesting, in the climate of picking on or picking up and reading more into what they say as some are.


The question put to him, was, is the royal family racist.

Of course no one rational, nor indeed Prince Harry and Meghan even, have said in any way the Royal family is racist.

The issue is some member of the Royal family has been alleged to have made a racist comment re the unborn baby's skin colour.

Had I been Prince William, I'd have answered since he chose to, not to say the Royal family ( re ALL of them), were not racist.
I'd have answered, NO ONE in the family is racist, if that's the case.
Now maybe I'm nitpicking there too.
It's still an interesting reply from him.

Especially since the Queen has indicated the serious racial and mental health issues will be dealt with privately.

My point, no one has said anyone in the family is or that the whole family is racist.
Only that a racist question or comment has been made inadvertently or possibly otherwise.

[Cherie]

...’...can you tell me, is the Royal family a racist family, sir....?...’...


....what response was expected, what a dumb question....’oh yes, we’re pretty awful at family gatherings especially...’...

yeah Will would pull down the mask to show the lower part of his face in blackface :laugh:

[Zizu]

...and really, what independently wealthy man in his 30's would expect to be supported by their father when they leave home? They live in a mansion surrounded by top notch celebs - maybe he could have expected to make a few sacrifices to go along with his decision and buy a slightly less showy home and Meghan could do without spending $4,000 a dress.



I can’t imagine that Meghan spends any money on dresses or anything else for that matter... a young woman with her profile will be gifted everything


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[bots]

at this stage, it's simply the media trying to sell a few more stories. Surely people can see it

[Zizu]

1369980378161766403



at Last
Talking about, Racism.



I’m amazed that young male reporter was allowed to ask the question to Will in that way ...

Just seems wrong to me .
I’d like to see him held to task

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Glenn.]

at this stage, it's simply the media trying to sell a few more stories. Surely people can see it

They know people lap it up as gospel!

[arista]

I’m amazed that young male reporter was allowed to ask the question to Will in that way ...

Just seems wrong to me .
I’d like to see him held to task






It has to be LBC
trying to stay ahead
of the now Bigger & Better Times Radio DAB and online NO ADS

4PM John Pienaar(ex Radio5) (No Ads) Times Radio Live
far better than
4PM Eddie (Ex radio 4) on LBC

[Crimson Dynamo]

...those poor people living in those homes...

Isnt that Frogmore Cottage?

[user104658]

...’...can you tell me, is the Royal family a racist family, sir....?...’...





....what response was expected, what a dumb question....’oh yes, we’re pretty awful at family gatherings especially...’...

I mean that question of any family is dumb, it only takes one. I'd hazard a guess that the MAJORITY of families has an uncle that likes to make edgy "jokes" at dinner or a granny with heavily outdated views and will say inappropriate things - so asking "is your family a racist family?" and getting a "no of course not" doesn't answer the question "... But might someone in your family say racist **** sometimes?".

[Niamh.]

I mean that question of any family is dumb, it only takes one. I'd hazard a guess that the MAJORITY of families has an uncle that likes to make edgy "jokes" at dinner or a granny with heavily outdated views and will say inappropriate things - so asking "is your family a racist family?" and getting a "no of course not" doesn't answer the question "... But might someone in your family say racist **** sometimes?".

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4PN5Q_z3YsM/hqdefault.jpg

[rusticgal]

That 'I will do' sounded ominous :hehe:


It did...sounded like a Big Brother about to sort out his little one..:laugh:

[rusticgal]

...’...can you tell me, is the Royal family a racist family, sir....?...’...


....what response was expected, what a dumb question....’oh yes, we’re pretty awful at family gatherings especially...’...


:joker:

[rusticgal]

Isnt that Frogmore Cottage?


No..Its Frogmore Prison :laugh:

[user104658]

It did...sounded like a Big Brother about to sort out his little one..:laugh:

I've said all along they're in more contact than either makes out, and to hazard a guess, William is PRIVATELY more sympathetic to Harry than he can be publicly, but is currently fuming with him because of the stuff he's airing in public. The general family line coming from The Queen and Charles seems to be that this stuff should be dealt with privately - for obvious reasons - and William clearly feels the same. But that's my reading of his anger - he's not annoyed about WHAT Harry is saying, he's annoyed that he's doing it in full view of the public. I've always had the impression that their relationship as brothers out of the public gaze is quite different to the "official one".

I've said before, I reckon they're on WhatsApp daily like "Listen here you little ginger sh**!"

[Crimson Dynamo]

I've said all along they're in more contact than either makes out, and to hazard a guess, William is PRIVATELY more sympathetic to Harry than he can be publicly, but is currently fuming with him because of the stuff he's airing in public. The general family line coming from The Queen and Charles seems to be that this stuff should be dealt with privately - for obvious reasons - and William clearly feels the same. But that's my reading of his anger - he's not annoyed about WHAT Harry is saying, he's annoyed that he's doing it in full view of the public. I've always had the impression that their relationship as brothers out of the public gaze is quite different to the "official one".

I've said before, I reckon they're on WhatsApp daily like "Listen here you little ginger sh**!"

https://cdn.thisisbigbrother.com/customavatars/avatar80805_90.gif

:joker:

[user104658]

Reading their faces and bodylanguage through the whole thing it's fairly clear where the issues are tbh in terms of their private relationships.

Things are fine with Granny and Grandad and they feel quite warmly about them still.

Things are tense currently with William and Kate who don't agree with what they're doing - but generally OK.

Things between Harry and Charles are trash. In the gutter, major, serious, probably irreconcilable problems.

[Zizu]

Reading their faces and bodylanguage through the whole thing it's fairly clear where the issues are tbh in terms of their private relationships.


Things between Harry and Charles are trash. In the gutter, major, serious, probably irreconcilable problems.



I have an idea of two why that should be ..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[smudgie]

...’...can you tell me, is the Royal family a racist family, sir....?...’...


....what response was expected, what a dumb question....’oh yes, we’re pretty awful at family gatherings especially...’...

My exact thoughts as I watched it on the news.:laugh:

[bots]

William could have added a range of racist expletives after his response so we should think ourselves lucky :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

The LBC journo knew what the reply was

The aim wasw not to get a scoop

The aim was so they can run the story "Prince william denies that the Royal family are RACIST"

that is headline news for all LBC bulletins today every 30 mins

BBC and SKY have it as their splash headline online

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56360671

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/125E1/production/_117533257_hi066171375.jpg

Small boy: "Prince William I can see a black man over there, is that ok?

Prince WIlliam: "Dont look him in the eye small boy, whatever you do, we dont want that sort in this photo-op"




https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/D7C1/production/_117533255_hi066170944.jpg

Kate: "Drink this potion and you will Marry a white Prince"

Small Girl: "cant i marry a black one?"

Kate: "Hush your mouth girl or its the Tower of LOndon for you

Small girl|: "sob..I want mummy"

[Cherie]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/125E1/production/_117533257_hi066171375.jpg

Small boy: "Prince William I can see a black man over there, is that ok?

Prince WIlliam: "Dont look him in the eye small boy, whatever you do, we dont want that sort in this photo-op"




https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/D7C1/production/_117533255_hi066170944.jpg

Kate: "Drink this potion and you will Marry a white Prince"

Small Girl: "cant i marry a black one?"

Kate: "Hush your mouth girl or its the Tower of LOndon for you

Small girl|: "sob..I want mummy"


:joker:

[jet]

I've said all along they're in more contact than either makes out, and to hazard a guess, William is PRIVATELY more sympathetic to Harry than he can be publicly, but is currently fuming with him because of the stuff he's airing in public. The general family line coming from The Queen and Charles seems to be that this stuff should be dealt with privately - for obvious reasons - and William clearly feels the same. But that's my reading of his anger - he's not annoyed about WHAT Harry is saying, he's annoyed that he's doing it in full view of the public. I've always had the impression that their relationship as brothers out of the public gaze is quite different to the "official one".

I've said before, I reckon they're on WhatsApp daily like "Listen here you little ginger sh**!"

Not you criticizing others for making a lot of assumptions.....then making a lot of assumptions. :suspect:

[jet]

Reading their faces and bodylanguage through the whole thing it's fairly clear where the issues are tbh in terms of their private relationships.

Things are fine with Granny and Grandad and they feel quite warmly about them still.

Things are tense currently with William and Kate who don't agree with what they're doing - but generally OK.

Things between Harry and Charles are trash. In the gutter, major, serious, probably irreconcilable problems.

Your having us on TS, right? :laugh:

[Oliver_W]

I've said all along they're in more contact than either makes out, and to hazard a guess, William is PRIVATELY more sympathetic to Harry than he can be publicly, but is currently fuming with him because of the stuff he's airing in public. The general family line coming from The Queen and Charles seems to be that this stuff should be dealt with privately - for obvious reasons - and William clearly feels the same. But that's my reading of his anger - he's not annoyed about WHAT Harry is saying, he's annoyed that he's doing it in full view of the public. I've always had the impression that their relationship as brothers out of the public gaze is quite different to the "official one".

I've said before, I reckon they're on WhatsApp daily like "Listen here you little ginger sh**!"
Ha, probably about right.

People probably wouldn't be nearly as hard on them if they were in Africa doing good works (as Harry apparently always wanted) instead of dancing around in the spotlight in Hollywood...

[Crimson Dynamo]

Your having us on TS, right? :laugh:

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/01/16/18/23476030-7894739-Body_language_expert_Judi_James_seen_on_ITV_s_This _Morning_in_Ju-a-2_1579200823656.jpg

TS stuns in red

[jet]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/01/16/18/23476030-7894739-Body_language_expert_Judi_James_seen_on_ITV_s_This _Morning_in_Ju-a-2_1579200823656.jpg

TS stuns in red

:joker:

[Beso]

I have an idea of two why that should be ..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

One must be his fathers disgusted at his nazi uniform photos..what's the other one.?

[Beso]

Reading their faces and bodylanguage through the whole thing it's fairly clear where the issues are tbh in terms of their private relationships.

Things are fine with Granny and Grandad and they feel quite warmly about them still.

Things are tense currently with William and Kate who don't agree with what they're doing - but generally OK.

Things between Harry and Charles are trash. In the gutter, major, serious, probably irreconcilable problems.



Oh I've been looking for a body language experts take on it..thank you Torso Study.

[GoldHeart]

Oh here we go bringing up Harry's Nazi costume again :notimpressed: , the man has grown and matured and educated himself.

The worrying thing is whilst all thee distractions are going on ,we're ignoring current racism and unacceptable attitudes towards mental health .

[Beso]

Oh here we go bringing up Harry's Nazi costume again :notimpressed: , the man has grown and matured and educated himself.

The worrying thing is whilst all thee distractions are going on ,we're ignoring current racism and unacceptable attitudes towards mental health .

What's the point in facing current racism if everyone will be accepted for it in a few years?

[GoldHeart]

What's the point in facing current racism if everyone will be accepted for it in a few years?

That's not what I said but OK

[hijaxers]

Twiter poll :- Do you you believe what Meghan said in her interview with Oprah current result is 91% NO

[Cherie]

Twiter poll :- Do you you believe what Meghan said in her interview with Oprah current result is 91% NO

Gosh that’s high!

[Crimson Dynamo]

The backlash continues....

[hijaxers]

The backlash continues....

Yeah lets have the real truth ~ not her truth ~ which sadly is bare faced lies.

[LukeB]

Twiter poll :- Do you you believe what Meghan said in her interview with Oprah current result is 91% NO

Interesting you haven't posted how many people voted :think:

twitter polls aren't really reliable, there's so many of them on twitter with different results.

[joeysteele]

Twitter polls are even more inaccurate than other daft polls.

I wouldn't have believed that Twitter poll even if it had things the other way round.
. I've no faith in polls whatsoever, whether they're favourable to my own view or not so.

Sorry but it's utter tripe in my view.

[LukeB]

Twitter polls are even more inaccurate than other daft polls.

I wouldn't have believed that Twitter poll even if it had things the other way round.
. I've no faith in polls whatsoever, whether they're favourable to my own view or not so.

Sorry but it's utter tripe in my view.

The whole Meghan and Harry is so divided, more divided than brexit so 91% wouldn't actually be accurate. Some don't believe her, some do and some don't give a crap so yeah polls are utter tripe.

[GoldHeart]

...’...can you tell me, is the Royal family a racist family, sir....?...’...


....what response was expected, what a dumb question....’oh yes, we’re pretty awful at family gatherings especially...’...

Yeah he's not exactly going to say "yes you've got us"
:rolleyes:

[joeysteele]

The whole Meghan and Harry is so divided, more divided than brexit so 91% wouldn't actually be accurate. Some don't believe her, some do and some don't give a crap so yeah polls are utter tripe.

Most other polling also indicates.
Younger people, under 35 are strongly supportive of her.

As you head upwards the polls narrow.

Once to the over 50s, then the results become much larger of being against her.

Maybe this poll only asked the over 50s or 60s.

Then again those of that age I know as neighbours or family, do believe her more than don't.

I put no faith in any polls now, haven't for years.
I'm surprised anyone does.

[Zizu]

Twiter poll :- Do you you believe what Meghan said in her interview with Oprah current result is 91% NO



Twitter .... ha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Zizu]

Twitter polls are even more inaccurate than other daft polls.

I wouldn't have believed that Twitter poll even if it had things the other way round.
. I've no faith in polls whatsoever, whether they're favourable to my own view or not so.

Sorry but it's utter tripe in my view.



It’s basically an age split according the Sky polls ..

Over 50s back the ‘family’ ... the rest Harry and Meg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[joeysteele]

It’s basically an age split according the Sky polls ..

Over 50s back the ‘family’ ... the rest Harry and Meg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yes, that's the more uniform results of the ones they've presented as more serious ones..
As much as any polls can be serious that is.

[GoldHeart]

Interesting you haven't posted how many people voted :think:

twitter polls aren't really reliable, there's so many of them on twitter with different results.

Exactly I don't trust that as far as I can throw it , we always know opinions on Meghan & Harry are divided though.

[user104658]

Twiter poll :- Do you you believe what Meghan said in her interview with Oprah current result is 91% NO:joker: where is the link for goodness sake?

Because I just saw a Facebook poll that had 100% in favour of Meghan and Harry and it had nearly 25 million votes so that tells a different story.

[rusticgal]

The backlash continues....



Maybe because those that feel the Royal family are not going to react to their accusations publicly...they are pretty much doing it for them.
As the days go by their accusations are being exposed as lies.

I’ve heard there is more to come from the ‘interview’....anyone else heard that?

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwO4atQUYAI3SVY?format=jpg&name=small

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwO4atQUYAgIxoQ?format=jpg&name=small

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwO4atQUYAY8xTR?format=jpg&name=small

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwO4bsgVEAAOOIN?format=jpg&name=small

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwO4buLVcAMrzjd?format=jpg&name=small

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwO4atXUcAAQy8p?format=jpg&name=small

[arista]

1370170349485187072

[user104658]

"Blasts back"

We all saw the actual video.

Just confirming what Harry and Meghan are saying; the press are full of ****, inventing a narrative that sells.

A journalist bleating "is ur family racist?" as William walks past and him replying "No" is being framed as him giving some sort of official response where he "blasts back" at what Harry has said.

It's a flat out lie. It was posted here; we've seen it with our own eyes. British press is a pointless circus.

[arista]

"British press is a pointless circus. "


Yes I thought they would go for this topic,
it was a cheeky SkyNewsHD young reporter
that got the scoop from Prince William.
Not LBC.

[Zizu]

"Blasts back"

We all saw the actual video.

Just confirming what Harry and Meghan are saying; the press are full of ****, inventing a narrative that sells.

A journalist bleating "is ur family racist?" as William walks past and him replying "No" is being framed as him giving some sort of official response where he "blasts back" at what Harry has said.

It's a flat out lie. It was posted here; we've seen it with our own eyes. British press is a pointless circus.



The more I think about it .. I wish William had stopped in his tracks then approached and confronted the reporter .

He should have turned the tables on what sounded like a young upstart trying to make a name for himself .

If William had turned and embarrassed him in front of all those cameras-?for asking the question in that disrespectful manner I bet the story would be about that cocky young reporter instead ... William would be more respected as well maybe ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[joeysteele]

As I said before and yes TS the press are full of inventive nonsense.
Whatever your other word was I agree with it too.

I was surprised Prince William didn't do as his Father did and just ignored the question.

All that has been said is that some member of the Royal family has said an inappropriate racial comment as to an unborn baby's skin colour.
That's all.

A comment felt offensive to those it was directed at.

No one, not a single person nor Prince Harry or Meghan have stated, that the Royal Family collectively or that any member of the Royal family is racist.

Nowhere has that been said other than by this reporter.

The only thing is a comment, of a racial nature which may or may not have been said inadvertently.
However what it is, is grossly inappropriate and should never have been made or asked.

[arista]

https://storify.com/services/proxy/2/iNB2KOYBp7rTfilbLrNTGA/https/media.fyre.co/px6sphG9SoWmF3jyDDGt_Express%201203.png

[Ammi]

...The Palace Empire Strikes Back../...episode XXVII...?...
https://hips.hearstapps.com/digitalspyuk.cdnds.net/17/46/1510764920-prince.jpg

[Crimson Dynamo]

"Blasts back"

We all saw the actual video.

Just confirming what Harry and Meghan are saying; the press are full of ****, inventing a narrative that sells.

A journalist bleating "is ur family racist?" as William walks past and him replying "No" is being framed as him giving some sort of official response where he "blasts back" at what Harry has said.

It's a flat out lie. It was posted here; we've seen it with our own eyes. British press is a pointless circus.

well that wee journo guy got the story onto just about every newspaper around the globe (NYT, WP, Irish Times, Oz papers, Times of India etc)

SO that is why he asked - that will go straight on his CV

[Vicky.]

The continual need to make out there is some all out war going on with the family is bizarre.

Like, this 'william has not spoken to harry since oprah!!!!' as if thats news. If they are anything like me and my siblings, they will talk weekly maybe, sometimes longer. It wouldn't be unusual at all to go a few days.

'Charles hits back and states firmly while looking menacing, 'I do not think my family is racist' in shock twist, as naturally, any other family would be more than willing to publically admit to racism and be slaughtered.' (thats not me saying it was wrong to be mentioned mind. I don't think it was wrong. Though, I will be honest and say the whole 'it was said by someone but not the queen!' stuff does come across a little..attention seeking.)

'THe queen shows her power by STRIPPING grandson OF HIS TITLES. However will he SURVIVE?!'

Its just..such tosh. Like, I don't think they will be miles away from a 'normal family' really. Maybe unusual in that obviously they are one thats quite close as they still meet up regularly which is more than many families. A family member getting married, then leaving the family business is nothing, surely. I mean, the statements from both sides seem to back that up. Unless you try and read into them something thats maybe not there. On face value..no issues. And who hasn't dealt with a family member/friend making public something others would rather stay hidden too. Again, it happens. Its not this huge armageddon once in a lifetime rare thing surely?!

Not even sure what I am getting at now really. But I still don't believe there is any real rift. I think some members might be miffed at the racism thing, but it will blow over..as family arguments do. Maybe, it will be one of the times a family argument makes a bit of difference overall too. Maybe not. The press are ****ing vultures though. Thats the story for me, that they are still going on like rabid animals..and that it seems to be allowed, hell even expected these days, for the rags to misrepresent, twist, and even outright lie!

As TS said really

Just confirming what Harry and Meghan are saying; the press are full of ****, inventing a narrative that sells.

I get they exist to sell copies/get clicks. But some ****ing truth wouldn't be amiss. Even throughout the covid crisis, they have been more about fearmongering half the time, as it sells more, than...well behaving responsibly in any way and giving unbiased news.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The continual need to make out there is some all out war going on with the family is bizarre.

Like, this 'william has not spoken to harry since oprah!!!!' as if thats news. If they are anything like me and my siblings, they will talk weekly maybe, sometimes longer. It wouldn't be unusual at all to go a few days.

'Charles hits back and states firmly while looking menacing, 'I do not think my family is racist' in shock twist, as naturally, any other family would be more than willing to publically admit to racism and be slaughtered.' (thats not me saying it was wrong to be mentioned mind. I don't think it was wrong. Though, I will be honest and say the whole 'it was said by someone but not the queen!' stuff does come across a little..attention seeking.)

'THe queen shows her power by STRIPPING grandson OF HIS TITLES. However will he SURVIVE?!'

Its just..such tosh. Like, I don't think they will be miles away from a 'normal family' really. Maybe unusual in that obviously they are one thats quite close as they still meet up regularly which is more than many families. A family member getting married, then leaving the family business is nothing, surely. I mean, the statements from both sides seem to back that up. Unless you try and read into them something thats maybe not there. On face value..no issues. And who hasn't dealt with a family member/friend making public something others would rather stay hidden too. Again, it happens. Its not this huge armageddon once in a lifetime rare thing surely?!

Not even sure what I am getting at now really. But I still don't believe there is any real rift. I think some members might be miffed at the racism thing, but it will blow over..as family arguments do. Maybe, it will be one of the times a family argument makes a bit of difference overall too. Maybe not. The press are ****ing vultures though. Thats the story for me, that they are still going on like rabid animals..and that it seems to be allowed, hell even expected these days, for the rags to misrepresent, twist, and even outright lie!

As TS said really



I get they exist to sell copies/get clicks. But some ****ing truth wouldn't be amiss. Even throughout the covid crisis, they have been more about fearmongering half the time, as it sells more, than...well behaving responsibly in any way and giving unbiased news.

they publish what sells be it print, online, tv, radio..

blame the consumers

ie all of Tibb for example

we are all media consumers (tibb would also come under media)

[user104658]

they publish what sells be it print, online, tv, radio..



blame the consumers



ie all of Tibb for example



we are all media consumers (tibb would also come under media)LT confirming that Harry is right again :clap1:. I'm glad you've seen the light.

[Crimson Dynamo]

LT confirming that Harry is right again :clap1:. I'm glad you've seen the light.

i dont think i have ever heard him being right about owt tbh

he does not even like football :shocked:

[user104658]

i dont think i have ever heard him being right about owt tbh



he does not even like football :shocked:He hates the press and thinks they're vultures who will chase or construct a story based on what sells and generates revenue for them, with no concern for who or what that story is about, nor its accuracy.

You stated TWICE above that you think he's 100% right!

I love seeing personal growth on Tibb :hee:. It's so rare...

[Zizu]

well that wee journo guy got the story onto just about every newspaper around the globe (NYT, WP, Irish Times, Oz papers, Times of India etc)



SO that is why he asked - that will go straight on his CV



Could the reporter not be said to have slandered the royal family with that very specific, direct question / suggestion ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[user104658]

Could the reporter not be said to have slandered the royal family with that very specific, direct question / suggestion ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ProYou can't slander with a question when the person it's directed at has immediate opportunity to respond and confirm/deny. It could be different if for example you left it as an open-ended question at the end of an article - "So we're left wondering, is the Royal Family racist...?" if it could be argued to be a rhetorical or leading but even then probably not, because the question is based on something someone else has said, and factually repeating that isn't slander.

E.g. "Based on what Harry said was asked about the baby, that family member was being racist" - not defamation on the part of the person saying "it's racist", even if it's not true, the defamation case would be against Harry not the person responding to his claim.

In short; if William has a legal case for slander, it's against Harry not against anyone asking questions about what Harry said.

Interesting to note also that it is specifically against Harry, not Meghan or both of them, as they both say Meghan was not there when the comment was made, thus she is only repeating what she's been told by Harry.

[Crimson Dynamo]

He hates the press and thinks they're vultures who will chase or construct a story based on what sells and generates revenue for them, with no concern for who or what that story is about, nor its accuracy.

You stated TWICE above that you think he's 100% right!

I love seeing personal growth on Tibb :hee:. It's so rare...

and yet he did exactly that with the fake interview

"chase or construct a story based on what sells and generates revenue for them"

it would appear that he doth project too much

“The things we dislike most in others are the characteristics we like least in ourselves.”

Marian Keyes

[user104658]

As an afterthought, I've just realised that no one has ever implied that William was present when the comment was made, so it's actually all moot: he doesn't know either way and can only share an opinion. He doesn't know what was said if he wasn't there.

[user104658]

and yet he did exactly that with the fake interview



"chase or construct a story based on what sells and generates revenue for them"



it would appear that he doth project too much



“The things we dislike most in others are the characteristics we like least in ourselves.”



Marian KeyesPlaying them at their own game to reframe the narrative. Maybe also Megan's influence? He felt powerless to their whims (just look how frustrated he is in the clips from when he was younger) but now he's older and wiser with a more worldly wise partner to bounce ideas off, and he's learned that you don't have to be a passive participant to these vultures, give them a sniff of what they want and you can sculpt the story to your advantage.

When will the rest of the Royals learn such skills? Stuck in the mid 20th century the poor buggers. I guess that's what happens when you have a 94 year old monarch. Time to either pull the plug, or skip over Charles and allow William and Kate to modernise the institution. He'll welcome Harry back with open arms after dragging The Firm kicking and screaming into the 2020's. A fairytale ending.

[rusticgal]

As an afterthought, I've just realised that no one has ever implied that William was present when the comment was made, so it's actually all moot: he doesn't know either way and can only share an opinion. He doesn't know what was said if he wasn't there.


Well we dont know the context of the comment....whether William was there or not he knows his family well enough to know if they are not Racist.

[AnnieK]

Well we dont know the context of the comment....whether William was there or not he knows his family well enough to know if they are not Racist.

In that scenario though Harry WAS there and knows his family well enough to know if was said with racist connotations :shrug:

Just for clarity, I am aware that comments can be taken in different context by different people in the same conversation so am not saying I believe it 100% as its all about perception.

[rusticgal]

Playing them at their own game to reframe the narrative. Maybe also Megan's influence? He felt powerless to their whims (just look how frustrated he is in the clips from when he was younger) but now he's older and wiser with a more worldly wise partner to bounce ideas off, and he's learned that you don't have to be a passive participant to these vultures, give them a sniff of what they want and you can sculpt the story to your advantage.

When will the rest of the Royals learn such skills? Stuck in the mid 20th century the poor buggers. I guess that's what happens when you have a 94 year old monarch. Time to either pull the plug, or skip over Charles and allow William and Kate to modernise the institution. He'll welcome Harry back with open arms after dragging The Firm kicking and screaming into the 2020's. A fairytale ending.


I dont think he will welcome Harry back with open arms....lets not forget they were not on good terms when Harry set off to Canada...and this interview will have made things much worse, especially dragging his wife's name through the mud..

[user104658]

Well we dont know the context of the comment....whether William was there or not he knows his family well enough to know if they are not Racist.

In that scenario though Harry WAS there and knows his family well enough to know if was said with racist connotations :shrug:.

Yes, he may know them well enough to say with some confidence that they are not generally racist people, but if he wasn't present for the conversation he can't say for a fact that a racist comment was not made. People who are not generally deliberately racist can accidentally come out with racist comments and should try to be aware of subconscious racial bias. We know FOR A FACT that Philip has said racist things in the past - usually as an attempt at humour - and whilst Harry says it was not Philip on this occasion, there's certainly every chance that Philip's race-based-joking travelled down the generations... ESPECIALLY as we've recently seen that Harry himself made similar comments as banter/humour in his army days. I'd say it's not unlikely that "edgy jokes with racial overtones" have been quite common within the family. There's simply PLENTY of evidence of that.

I'd even be kind and say that whoever made the comment probably did so when it was just close family around and thought Harry would see the "dark humour" in it, not realising that most people don't see the funny side when it comes to joking about their spouse and potential children.

[user104658]

I dont think he will welcome Harry back with open arms....lets not forget they were not on good terms when Harry set off to Canada...and this interview will have made things much worse, especially dragging his wife's name through the mud..They didn't drag Kate's name through the mud at all though, in fact the worst that was said about Kate was that her and Meghan had a disagreement at an emotionally heightened time (the wedding) and Kate then made an effort to apologise. There are issues with Meghan being unfavourably compared to Kate, but that's the press and nothing to do with Kate herself.

How you can frame that as a "dragging through the mud" I have no idea. Again hearing what you want to hear, I guess? I would say they were quite careful to be generally kind about William and Kate, AND The Queen.

Again I'd say it's fairly evident that Harry's issues are with Charles and the "Royal management team" but he's taken this stance of not being too specific which is causing confusion.

[joeysteele]

Playing them at their own game to reframe the narrative. Maybe also Megan's influence? He felt powerless to their whims (just look how frustrated he is in the clips from when he was younger) but now he's older and wiser with a more worldly wise partner to bounce ideas off, and he's learned that you don't have to be a passive participant to these vultures, give them a sniff of what they want and you can sculpt the story to your advantage.

When will the rest of the Royals learn such skills? Stuck in the mid 20th century the poor buggers. I guess that's what happens when you have a 94 year old monarch. Time to either pull the plug, or skip over Charles and allow William and Kate to modernise the institution. He'll welcome Harry back with open arms after dragging The Firm kicking and screaming into the 2020's. A fairytale ending.

I agree.

Your second paragraph I wholly would support.
I'd like to think that could all happen.

Equally that's my criticism of the present Queen, after 69 years of her reign.
Nothing really has altered to drag the Monarchy as being more representative of the modern age.

Stuck in rigid tradition, of stifling and straitjacket type rules, termed duty.

I wonder what will happen next year if the Queen is still the Monarch.
It will be an incredible Landmark of a full 70 years reign.
They cannot demand Prince Harry and Meghan attend any function or events.
However it will be interesting to see what happens.
Or even if they are asked to.
It is under a year off yet I guess.

It's doubtful however there'll ever be another Monarch in place for a period of 70 years.

[user104658]

I agree.



Your second paragraph I wholly would support.

I'd like to think that could all happen.



Equally that's my criticism of the present Queen, after 69 years of her reign.

Nothing really has altered to drag the Monarchy as being more representative of the modern age.



Stuck in rigid tradition, of stifling and straitjacket type rules, termed duty.



I wonder what will happen next year if the Queen is still the Monarch.

It will be an incredible Landmark of a full 70 years reign.

They cannot demand Prince Harry and Meghan attend any function or events.

However it will be interesting to see what happens.

Or even if they are asked to.

It is under a year off yet I guess.



It's doubtful however there'll ever be another Monarch in place for a period of 70 years.Taking a step back and looking at it historically, it's really quite interesting from that view I think. The Monarchy obviously has shifted and adapted over the centuries but usually there's a new monarch every few decades at most, sometimes after only a few years, whereas because Liz 2 became Queen so young AND has lived so long it's been in more or less the same place since the second World War. No "fresh start" to trigger any evolution. They obviously made that deliberate effort to adapt to the modern world on the 70's/80's but begrudgingly and with pushback from within. It NEEDS a new younger Monarch for the 21st century to rebrand and survive, but there's no way Charles is going to volunteer for that, he wants his shot at the top job and to an extent, I get that (because I think if he had known as a young man that he'd never be king, he'd have pied the entire thing too).

I do think there's a good chance William will be "King by 50" anyway. Not to be too blunt but... Well... Charles does not look as healthy as The Queen did at 72, put it that way.

[Zizu]

Taking a step back and looking at it historically, it's really quite interesting from that view I think. The Monarchy obviously has shifted and adapted over the centuries but usually there's a new monarch every few decades at most, sometimes after only a few years, whereas because Liz 2 became Queen so young AND has lived so long it's been in more or less the same place since the second World War. No "fresh start" to trigger any evolution. They obviously made that deliberate effort to adapt to the modern world on the 70's/80's but begrudgingly and with pushback from within. It NEEDS a new younger Monarch for the 21st century to rebrand and survive, but there's no way Charles is going to volunteer for that, he wants his shot at the top job and to an extent, I get that (because I think if he had known as a young man that he'd never be king, he'd have pied the entire thing too).

I do think there's a good chance William will be "King by 50" anyway. Not to be too blunt but... Well... Charles does not look as healthy as The Queen did at 72, put it that way.



Is CharleyBoy still talking to plants ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[user104658]

Is CharleyBoy still talking to plants ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ProHe has daily conversations with juniper berries.

Allegedly allegedly.

[jet]

"Blasts back"

We all saw the actual video.

Just confirming what Harry and Meghan are saying; the press are full of ****, inventing a narrative that sells.

A journalist bleating "is ur family racist?" as William walks past and him replying "No" is being framed as him giving some sort of official response where he "blasts back" at what Harry has said.

It's a flat out lie. It was posted here; we've seen it with our own eyes. British press is a pointless circus.

Shocker! Tabloid prints over exaggerated and dramatic headlines for effect to sell papers!
Old hat.

Do many read articles by respected royal reporters and correspondents inside the tabloids and broadsheets? (the tabloid articles are often taken from the broadsheet articles and the authors quoted.
I particularly admire Camilla Tominey (daily telegraph and ‘call on’ for news channels and Penny Junor (usually broadsheet) and for the Mail, Richard Kay, who was a close friend of Diana’s for many years even though he was a reporter.
They are all monarchists of course, which is why I like them, but they are also fair and don’t write in the ‘sensationalistic type way. They give insight into whatever the latest story is - whether it’s likely or not, and what they have been informed about it.

For example, Penny, Richard, and others like Jenny Bond reported extensively on Diana from when she got engaged to when she died. People were saying “How could they possibly know that, what rubbish’! that in the fullness of time an unbelievable amount turned out to be the absolute truth. I know, because I read it all then just as I read about H&M now.

[user104658]

Shocker! Tabloid prints over exaggerated and dramatic headlines for effect to sell papers!
.

First LT now you Jet, its so good to see so many Tibb skeptics finally developing some understanding for how Harry and Meghan feel about the press :love:.

[Kazanne]

I feel the same about the press,but it doesn't seem to be them getting the backlash the Royal Family are imo the tabloid fodder press are scum.

[bots]

the press don't care who they point a finger at, it's the story/any story thats important. None of the revelations are any big deal to the public, it shouldnt even warrant a news item let alone a 2+ hour tv interview :laugh:

It's the biggest non event in the last 5 years in my humble opinion

[jet]

First LT now you Jet, its so good to see so many Tibb skeptics finally developing some understanding for how Harry and Meghan feel about the press :love:.

I was always a skeptic when it came to stupid sensational headlines. But as usual you post a childish baity response and ignore the rest of my post which explains my stance.

[user104658]

I was always a skeptic when it came to stupid sensational headlines. But as usual you post a childish baity response and ignore the rest of my post which explains my stance.If you're a skeptic about the sensationalist press then why do you

1) seemingly not understand why Harry and Meghan wanted to get away from it (even if you think that's impossible) and

2) seemingly believe every sensationalist headline you read about Meghan Markle.

[jet]

If you're a skeptic about the sensationalist press then why do you

1) seemingly not understand why Harry and Meghan wanted to get away from it (even if you think that's impossible) and

2) seemingly believe every sensationalist headline you read about Meghan Markle.

1. I have never said I don't understand why H&M wanted to get away from it, all I have ever said was they stated they wanted more privacy (note, not complete privacy) which isn't true.

2. I don't believe sensational headlines, I read articles from respected people to get nearer to the truth (read my post about this, you seem to have just read the first few lines.)

[Crimson Dynamo]

SIR – If the Duke of Sussex, in his position of wealth and privilege, was
incapable of getting support for himself and his wife, what kind of ambassador
can he be for the cause of mental health?

A P Lodge
Winchester, Hampshire

Source: DT 12.3.21

[jet]

SIR – If the Duke of Sussex, in his position of wealth and privilege, was
incapable of getting support for himself and his wife, what kind of ambassador
can he be for the cause of mental health?

A P Lodge
Winchester, Hampshire

Source: DT 12.3.21

:clap1:

[user104658]

I feel the same about the press,but it doesn't seem to be them getting the backlash the Royal Family are imo the tabloid fodder press are scum.I actually agree but would counter that Harry and Meghan also get 50% near enough of that backlash when almost all of it should be on the press. I do feel bad for William as well, I think they're all trapped in what is essentially an abusive relationship with the media, and William doesn't have the options that Harry has (and Charles didn't either, in his younger days when he might have wanted those options) and I also think Harry and William always had a good relationship as brothers and William, when imagining his time as King, probably always imagined Harry being alongside him as support. That's been damaged now possibly irreparably, but the idea that that's Megan's fault is just so obviously false. To believe that you have to completely ignore BUCKET loads of evidence that Harry has been unhappy with the whole thing since several years before he met Meghan. I just don't see him as "controlled" or "manipulated" at all, he's always been crystal clear in his feelings, and if anything the unfavourable press coverage Meghan has endured may well partly be down to Harry not being willing to play into the game the way William has been (or had had to be).

At the very least there's a lot more going on than the public is allowed to know, even from Harry and Megan's interview. They ALL talk about these "nameless figures in the institution" who seem to have some unknown level of influence but none of them will talk about it much. Its weird. Fascinating, but weird.

[user104658]

SIR – If the Duke of Sussex, in his position of wealth and privilege, was

incapable of getting support for himself and his wife, what kind of ambassador

can he be for the cause of mental health?



A P Lodge

Winchester, Hampshire



Source: DT 12.3.21:joker: this person thinks a figurehead ambassador for mental health can necessarily get access to adequate mental health services for people who are struggling? ACTUAL MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS struggle to get adequate mental health services to many people who are struggling. The naivety is staggering.

[user104658]

1. I have never said I don't understand why H&M wanted to get away from it, all I have ever said was they stated they wanted more privacy (note, not complete privacy) which isn't true.



2. I don't believe sensational headlines, I read articles from respected people to get nearer to the truth (read my post about this, you seem to have just read the first few lines.)

They do have more privacy. Privacy isn't about being a recluse/not being in the public eye, it's about having agency and control over the line between what's public and what's private. I'd say its fairly evident that they have a LOT more privacy in LA than they did in England, no matter how many interviews they choose to take part in.

As for part 2 we'll just have to agree to disagree - I don't think "respected royal commentators" can be in any way expected to be free from bias. To be totally honest I don't think I've seen ANY substantial writing on this subject that doesn't stray significantly to one side or the other. Royal Commentators of any description have an interest in Royalty (or they would not have the job), as well as a vested professional requirement of the continuation of the monarchy. Expecting impartiality is ... A stretch.

[Cherie]

SIR – If the Duke of Sussex, in his position of wealth and privilege, was
incapable of getting support for himself and his wife, what kind of ambassador
can he be for the cause of mental health?

A P Lodge
Winchester, Hampshire

Source: DT 12.3.21

I was going to post this elsewhere but this is a better place for it

mental health is thrown around like the race card now, it is becoming meaningless, as an American actress she will have had plenty interaction with people who were seeing 'a shrink', to say she had no idea where to turn is ludicrous, given she was able to hop on a plane for a baby shower, why couldn't she have done that to access mental health facilities in the States if her Mental Health Champion husband Harry couldn't help her with a local one

[jet]

Harry said he was ashamed to ask for help for Meghan in the interview.
He himself has told us that he has had mental health therapy though, as has Prince Charles.

[jet]

They do have more privacy. Privacy isn't about being a recluse/not being in the public eye, it's about having agency and control over the line between what's public and what's private. I'd say its fairly evident that they have a LOT more privacy in LA than they did in England, no matter how many interviews they choose to take part in.

As for part 2 we'll just have to agree to disagree - I don't think "respected royal commentators" can be in any way expected to be free from bias. To be totally honest I don't think I've seen ANY substantial writing on this subject that doesn't stray significantly to one side or the other. Royal Commentators of any description have an interest in Royalty (or they would not have the job), as well as a vested professional requirement of the continuation of the monarchy. Expecting impartiality is ... A stretch.

Nobody expects complete impartiality on either side of the fence in any emotive subject. Fair and non - sensational is as good as it gets.

[Oliver_W]

SIR – If the Duke of Sussex, in his position of wealth and privilege, was
incapable of getting support for himself and his wife, what kind of ambassador
can he be for the cause of mental health?

A P Lodge
Winchester, Hampshire

Source: DT 12.3.21

A non-famous person has enough difficulty getting adequate mental health support, and that's without their issues being compounded by the tabloids printing story after story ...

The answer to the latter part of this is "don't live in Hollywood and constantly seek attention", but the fact it's even hard for people like Harry and Meghan Windsor to get decent support shows how many improvements need to be made.

[user104658]

Nobody expects complete impartiality on either side of the fence in any emotive subject. Fair and non - sensational is as good as it gets.Expects? No. I have very low expectations. I personally would love to see some true impartiality in journalism though... And I'm just not really interested in op-eds from X, Y, Z. If I want to hear random people's largely irrelevant opinions I can come on Tibb, I don't need to pick up a newspaper.

Dreaming the impossible dream, I guess.

[user104658]

The answer to the latter part of this is "don't live in Hollywood and constantly seek attention", but the fact it's even hard for people like Harry and Meghan Windsor to get decent support shows how many improvements need to be made.

Part of the unfortunate equation here though is, what else can they do at this point? It's true that they need security, Harry & family have a target on them for various groups whether they're "actively" part of the Royal Family or not, and that can be expensive. And it's not like they can just get normal jobs of any description. Literally the only means they have to make money at all is in leveraging their celebrity... They can't move to a 3 bed semi and get 9-5 office jobs. I'm not suggesting they want to, I'm just saying they couldn't even if they did... And they can't just vanish and never be heard from again.

Realistically they're engaging in their best option: trying to raise their individual profile as much as they can and living somewhere where it's more possible to engage with the press "like normal celebrities" rather than Royals.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Part of the unfortunate equation here though is, what else can they do at this point? It's true that they need security, Harry & family have a target on them for various groups whether they're "actively" part of the Royal Family or not, and that can be expensive. And it's not like they can just get normal jobs of any description. Literally the only means they have to make money at all is in leveraging their celebrity... They can't move to a 3 bed semi and get 9-5 office jobs. I'm not suggesting they want to, I'm just saying they couldn't even if they did... And they can't just vanish and never be heard from again.

Realistically they're engaging in their best option: trying to raise their individual profile as much as they can and living somewhere where it's more possible to engage with the press "like normal celebrities" rather than Royals.

They could quite easily sell scented candles from home. Build a wee office, rent some storage and open a shop on eBay. Meghan could be front of shop doing the lisitngs and photographs plus deals with customer enquiries and Harry would be fullfillment, wrapping the orders doing labels and then stock taking. They would be at home so no baby care and they could have soup and a roll for lunch together and watch old Suits eps.

but no

[jet]

Expects? No. I have very low expectations. I personally would love to see some true impartiality in journalism though... And I'm just not really interested in op-eds from X, Y, Z. If I want to hear random people's largely irrelevant opinions I can come on Tibb, I don't need to pick up a newspaper.

Dreaming the impossible dream, I guess.

'random people'

It shows why you know so little about Meghan and Harry's past actions and why so many people don't trust or like Meghan in particular. You brush off respected peoples knowledge and experience and Palace connections yet believe everything that H&M say in their quest for sympathy and revenge. Two people who were never challenged in their assertions and are putting themselves in the best light possible to get publicity and up their public profile....and the excuses for them that you come up with, well....

The lovely Camilla Tominey:

Camilla Tominey is Associate Editor for Politics and Royals at The Telegraph in London and is the resident royal expert for ITV’s This Morning and for the American television network NBC News. She was formerly Political Editor, Royal Editor and columnist for the Sunday Express. She also frequently appears on BBC One's Question Time and Radio 4’s Any Questions? in her capacity as a member of the Westminster Lobby.

Camilla first started reporting on the British Royal Family in 2005, when she covered Prince Charles's marriage to Camilla Parker-Bowles at the Windsor Guildhall, watched by millions around the world. Since then she has reported on all the major Royal stories, including Prince William's engagement to Kate Middleton, their subsequent marriage and the births of Prince George and Princess Charlotte. Her world exclusive scoops include breaking the news of Prince Harry’s relationship with Meghan Markle, which was nominated for Scoop of the Year at the 2016 British Press Awards. She also broke the world exclusive news of Prince Andrew being held at gunpoint at Buckingham Palace, a story that was reported around the globe in 2013.

Camilla co-anchored the Royal Wedding for NBC's Today Show alongside the historian Andrew Roberts, contributing to programming across the network that was watched by 55 milllion viewers.

An authority on Royalty, Camilla has spent the past decade shadowing the Royals at home and on tour. A seasoned interviewer, Camilla has been granted exclusive access to interview many members of the Royal Family including Prince Philip, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, Zara Phillips and Sophie Wessex.

An experienced on-screen commentator, Camilla has given her expert analysis on both royals and politics to TV and radio stations around the world and is a regular on the BBC, ITV, Channel 5 and Sky News in Britain.

Internationally, she has worked with CBC, CTV and Global in Canada, Nine Network Australia, Germany's ZDF and ARD, RTL in France and countless more broadcasters. She first started working with NBC News in 2010 and since then has contributed to cutting-edge news programming on all aspects of the Royal Family - as well as covering the Westminster terror attack for the network in 2017.

Camilla lives in Hertfordshire with her husband and three children.

[jet]

Harry and Meghan leave the UK where they were NEVER photographed in their private time out and about, to go to the paparazzi capital where they haven't been snapped yet because they are in lockdown.

[jet]

They could quite easily sell scented candles from home. Build a wee office, rent some storage and open a shop on eBay. Meghan could be front of shop doing the lisitngs and photographs plus deals with customer enquiries and Harry would be fullfillment, wrapping the orders doing labels and then stock taking. They would be at home so no baby care and they could have soup and a roll for lunch together and watch old Suits eps.

but no

:joker:

[Cherie]

They could quite easily sell scented candles from home. Build a wee office, rent some storage and open a shop on eBay. Meghan could be front of shop doing the lisitngs and photographs plus deals with customer enquiries and Harry would be fullfillment, wrapping the orders doing labels and then stock taking. They would be at home so no baby care and they could have soup and a roll for lunch together and watch old Suits eps.

but no

:joker:

[jet]

Playing them at their own game to reframe the narrative. Maybe also Megan's influence? He felt powerless to their whims (just look how frustrated he is in the clips from when he was younger) but now he's older and wiser with a more worldly wise partner to bounce ideas off, and he's learned that you don't have to be a passive participant to these vultures, give them a sniff of what they want and you can sculpt the story to your advantage.

When will the rest of the Royals learn such skills? Stuck in the mid 20th century the poor buggers. I guess that's what happens when you have a 94 year old monarch. Time to either pull the plug, or skip over Charles and allow William and Kate to modernise the institution. He'll welcome Harry back with open arms after dragging The Firm kicking and screaming into the 2020's. A fairytale ending.

The Harry and Meghan skills of going on open topped buses and doing 2 hour interviews airing their dirty family laundry (in their view) to give the tabloids lots of stuff to speculate over for weeks? Such a skillful way to avoid those horrid tabloids.

The 94 yr old monarch releases a dignified, to the point statement which also sent her love to them and doesn't engage in such trashy spectacles and she is a poor bugger.

Really?

[user104658]

An authority on Royalty, Camilla has spent the past decade shadowing the Royals at home and on tour. A seasoned interviewer, Camilla has been granted exclusive access to interview many members of the Royal Family including Prince Philip, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, Zara Phillips and Sophie Wessex.

You've bolded this as though it represents anything other than a conflict of interests. She has close links to the family spanning many years, has been trusted with intimate access, and (undoubtedly) relies upon her reputation for discretion as a cornerstone of a long and impressive career.

Someone in this position simply cannot be expected to be unbiased. They would never have that sort of access without an understanding - either unspoken or explicit - that they will "be kind" in their reporting of the family.

I'm all but certain that you must actually understand this.

[jet]

You've bolded this as though it represents anything other than a conflict of interests. She has close links to the family spanning many years, has been trusted with intimate access, and (undoubtedly) relies upon her reputation for discretion as a cornerstone of a long and impressive career.

Someone in this position simply cannot be expected to be unbiased. They would never have that sort of access without an understanding - either unspoken or explicit - that they will "be kind" in their reporting of the family.

I'm all but certain that you must actually understand this.

Unless you have read her articles on the Royals over many years you can't comment on her 'kindness' or otherwise. I have, and she isn't as respected and sought after for her views as she is by being a sycophant to them. You'd be surprised.

The Royals give access to many reporters with different degrees of loyalty to them. They have to as they can't be seen to be totally shielding themselves from scrutiny and accountability.

[user104658]

Unless you have read her articles on the Royals over many years you can't comment on her 'kindness' or otherwise. I have, and she isn't as respected and sought after for her views as she is by being a sycophant to them. You'd be surprised.

I didn't say a sycophant - I said an unspoken understanding of discretion. Knowing where the optimal line is. That line isn't in being gushing and adoring, it's the line where people will find it realistic and compelling journalism but without going so deep into the dirt that you get cut off from the source. You answered your own point, really.

they can't be seen to be totally shielding themselves from scrutiny and accountability.

They have to be seen to be open to a realistic level of scrutiny and accountability without risking leaks of things that would be significantly damaging. Therefore having "trusted" journalists who they engage with over many years, who they know will paint a picture that is both realistically critical but also who know what to hold back.

[jet]

I didn't say a sycophant - I said an unspoken understanding of discretion. Knowing where the optimal line is. That line isn't in being gushing and adoring, it's the line where people will find it realistic and compelling journalism but without going so deep into the dirt that you get cut off from the source. You answered your own point, really.



They have to be seen to be open to a realistic level of scrutiny and accountability without risking leaks of things that would be significantly damaging. Therefore having "trusted" journalists who they engage with over many years, who they know will paint a picture that is both realistically critical but also who know what to hold back.

Bingo....and the same goes for all businesses and institutions....the royals aren't unique.
Which means there will be truth in their stories and not a pack of lies as some here continually suggest every Royal reporter and commentator spout....:smug:

and sometimes they DO go a lot deeper and the Royals still have to give them access. Camilla herself has on occasion as sometimes I thought 'WOW', that's very telling'!

[Tom4784]

Just the regular reminder that people are losing their **** over Meghan when there's a peado prince being protected but it's okay, because he's out of sight and that means he's out of mind.

[joeysteele]

Sorry, I nearly choked on my coffee, when I read the line the lovely Camilla Tominey.

I can't bear that woman.
She's so patronising and uncompromising.

Whatever she's on, I don't generally watch.
Or read anything so cannot comment on that.

If I don't like someone I just have no interest in what they say or do..
However lovely is the last word I'd use to describe Camilla Tominey.

[jet]

Camilla is a tremendously successful and well liked woman. :love:

[joeysteele]

Camilla is a tremendously successful and well liked woman. :love:

Not by me for sure.

[Tom4784]

She seems like someone who appeals to people's confirmation bias. As TS said, someone of her position could never truly be unbiased.

[Ammi]

...I’m stunned by Camilla Tominey...apparently she wrote an article for the Daily Telegraph at the end of last year with the headline...’Andrew Accuser was ‘on the game for a year’....this was an underage girl that she was referring to with the headline ....who she was writing an article about a child being sex trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein...?...and this was Camilla Tominey’s ‘slant’ of the story...this was how an American journalist described her ‘journalism style’...

Shockingly irresponsible reporting in the Telegraph by @CamillaTominey
Shameful victim-blaming of @VRSVirginia who deserves so much better.


1335868070787747841

[Zizu]

Camilla is a tremendously successful and well liked woman. :love:



I wouldn’t trust anyone called Camilla ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jet]

I wouldn’t trust anyone called Camilla ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Those Camilla's! :fist: :laugh:

[Josy]

Camilla is a tremendously successful and well liked woman. :love:Shes a pedo sympathiser

[jet]

Shes a pedo sympathiser

Nonsense.
Proof?

[Josy]

Nonsense.
Proof?Look a few posts up the page to Ammi's post for a start.

[jet]

From an admin of an online forum open to anyone to view, that is some claim to make.

[jet]

Look a few posts up the page to Ammi's post for a start.

Seen it. Where is the proof?

[jet]

Epstens victim is a former pro who lied about her age and changes stories, court papers allege. -

Camilla Tominey
What you’ve done there, Adam, is confused the person reporting the claims with the people making the claims. This is a straight news report of claims - including a right of reply to all sides. Irresponsible tweeting. Thanks

Adam Davidson
@adamdavidson
Shockingly irresponsible reporting in the Telegraph by @CamillaTominey Shameful victim-blaming of @VRSVirginia who deserves so much better.

She is reporting on what the court papers have said.

[Josy]

From an admin of an online forum open to anyone to view, that is some claim to make.It's an opinion :shrug:Seen it. Where is the proof?So victim shaming and blaming is ok then?

[Ammi]

...she is though a very questionable ‘reliable’ source in terms of the Royal family...she claimed to have an ‘exclusive’ story, which was slanted to victim blame an underage girl who was being sex trafficked...


1334990692339363848

...to be agreed that ‘exclusive’, in the vein/slant the article was written, which is fairly horrific...is quite questionable...

[Ammi]

...someone being trafficked for sex...’a prostitute’...?...

[jet]

It's an opinion :shrug:So victim shaming and blaming is ok then?

An opinion from an admin.
Again, she was reporting on what the court papers alleged at that time.
She wasn't personally shaming or blaming the girl.

[Ammi]

...it was her headline above her article and doesn’t suggest that she’s any less ‘sensationalist’ , less slanting or non bias than any other media source...to remain a ‘royal reporter’ or whatever, the reporting would surely have to meet with palace approval...

.’Andrew Accuser was ‘on the game for a year’....

[Josy]

An opinion from an admin.

Again, she was reporting on what the court papers alleged at that time.

She wasn't personally shaming or blaming the girl.Are admin not allowed an opinion?

She thought she was clever wording her article in a way that pushed multiple cases of doubt onto the victim.

[jet]

The spite is showing.
What a fantastic career she has had, and still has. I've found her to be very reliable and her reports have been found to be very accurate on the Royals over the years.
.....................

Camilla Tominey is Associate Editor for Politics and Royals at The Telegraph in London and is the resident royal expert for ITV’s This Morning and for the American television network NBC News. She was formerly Political Editor, Royal Editor and columnist for the Sunday Express. She also frequently appears on BBC One's Question Time and Radio 4’s Any Questions? in her capacity as a member of the Westminster Lobby.

Camilla first started reporting on the British Royal Family in 2005, when she covered Prince Charles's marriage to Camilla Parker-Bowles at the Windsor Guildhall, watched by millions around the world. Since then she has reported on all the major Royal stories, including Prince William's engagement to Kate Middleton, their subsequent marriage and the births of Prince George and Princess Charlotte. Her world exclusive scoops include breaking the news of Prince Harry’s relationship with Meghan Markle, which was nominated for Scoop of the Year at the 2016 British Press Awards. She also broke the world exclusive news of Prince Andrew being held at gunpoint at Buckingham Palace, a story that was reported around the globe in 2013.

Camilla co-anchored the Royal Wedding for NBC's Today Show alongside the historian Andrew Roberts, contributing to programming across the network that was watched by 55 milllion viewers.

An authority on Royalty, Camilla has spent the past decade shadowing the Royals at home and on tour. A seasoned interviewer, Camilla has been granted exclusive access to interview many members of the Royal Family including Prince Philip, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, Zara Phillips and Sophie Wessex.

An experienced on-screen commentator, Camilla has given her expert analysis on both royals and politics to TV and radio stations around the world and is a regular on the BBC, ITV, Channel 5 and Sky News in Britain.

Internationally, she has worked with CBC, CTV and Global in Canada, Nine Network Australia, Germany's ZDF and ARD, RTL in France and countless more broadcasters. She first started working with NBC News in 2010 and since then has contributed to cutting-edge news programming on all aspects of the Royal Family - as well as covering the Westminster terror attack for the network in 2017.

Camilla lives in Hertfordshire with her husband and three children.

.............................
Have you any other 'proof' of her being a pedo sympathiser or is that it?

[Josy]

The proof I've seen is enough for me to form and stand by my opinion, just like you :shrug:

[jet]

The proof I've seen is enough for me to form and stand by my opinion, just like you :shrug:

I'd want more proof than that that someone was an actual pedo sympathiser, in the interests of fairness and justice, but each to their own.

[Josy]

I'd want more proof than that that someone was an actual pedo sympathiser, in the interests of fairness and justice, but each to their own.Have a search on online then

[jet]

Are admin not allowed an opinion?

She thought she was clever wording her article in a way that pushed multiple cases of doubt onto the victim.

Attention grabbing headline from a reporter....never been done before, never, ever....:omgno:

[jet]

Have a search on online then

For what? What are you implying? That there is proof that she is?

[Kate!]

An opinion from an admin.
Again, she was reporting on what the court papers alleged at that time.
She wasn't personally shaming or blaming the girl.

Admins are humans too and entitled to state a viewpoint.

[jet]

Admins are humans too and entitled to state a viewpoint.

I wasn't aware that they could state slanderous accusations as responsible admin who should be setting an example.
Now I know they apparently can so...:shrug:

[Crimson Dynamo]

SYTb12tPuPk

[jet]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/youll-never-guess-my-opinion-about-piers-morgan-65200g7ff

You’ll never guess my opinion about Piers Morgan

If you’re expecting me to pick a side in Morgan v Meghan then you can pay my bills when I have to go back to bar work
Giles Coren
Friday March 12 2021, 5.00pm, The Times

This is not going to be a defence of my friend, Piers Morgan. Firstly, because he is not my friend. And, secondly, because I am not going to defend him.

And do you know why I am not going to defend him? Because I don’t dare. I am afraid of what would happen to me if I did. Which is not to say that if I did dare, I would. Because maybe I don’t agree with him. Maybe I think that everything Meghan said to Oprah Winfrey should be believed, no matter what, because she is a black woman and I am a white man, and I have not lived her experience, so am in no position to make a judgment.

Or maybe I don’t. Maybe I think Meghan played the race card, the woman card and the mental health card — whacked them down on the table, slap, slap, slap, like someone winning a game of whist — out of a cynical desire to destroy the royal family and get a better Netflix deal next time, and that Piers was bang right to call her out.

But you will never know. Because I will never tell you. Because I don’t dare. Do you think I want to lose everything, like him, and have to go back to night shifts and bar work? No, sir.

:joker:

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/youll-never-guess-my-opinion-about-piers-morgan-65200g7ff

You’ll never guess my opinion about Piers Morgan

If you’re expecting me to pick a side in Morgan v Meghan then you can pay my bills when I have to go back to bar work
Giles Coren
Friday March 12 2021, 5.00pm, The Times

This is not going to be a defence of my friend, Piers Morgan. Firstly, because he is not my friend. And, secondly, because I am not going to defend him.

And do you know why I am not going to defend him? Because I don’t dare. I am afraid of what would happen to me if I did. Which is not to say that if I did dare, I would. Because maybe I don’t agree with him. Maybe I think that everything Meghan said to Oprah Winfrey should be believed, no matter what, because she is a black woman and I am a white man, and I have not lived her experience, so am in no position to make a judgment.

Or maybe I don’t. Maybe I think Meghan played the race card, the woman card and the mental health card — whacked them down on the table, slap, slap, slap, like someone winning a game of whist — out of a cynical desire to destroy the royal family and get a better Netflix deal next time, and that Piers was bang right to call her out.

But you will never know. Because I will never tell you. Because I don’t dare. Do you think I want to lose everything, like him, and have to go back to night shifts and bar work? No, sir.

:joker:

BOOM

:joker:

[Beso]

Andrews a paedo.. Harry's favourite uncle.

Harry loves young girls like his uncle, and like his uncle, has married a spent old hag to hide the fact..


Simple...I formed my own opinion and didnt need anything else to form that opinion.

[joeysteele]

Except Prince Harry doesn't appear to like young girls at all
He has married and appears to be extremely Happy with the wife he's chosen who is actually near 3 years OLDER than him.

[GoldHeart]

Andrews a paedo.. Harry's favourite uncle.

Harry loves young girls like his uncle, and like his uncle, has married a spent old hag to hide the fact..


Simple...I formed my own opinion and didnt need anything else to form that opinion.

for goodness sake Parm

[joeysteele]

for goodness sake Parm

It gets more ridiculous by the minute.

I even read somewhere, there's so many threads on Meghan Markle I'm not sure where and no looking back over them.
Plus there's some I'll never post on anyway.

However, being held up somewhere by someone as a paragon of virtue was Sarah Vine, I presume that is the arrogant hard-line wife of Michael Gove for crying out loud.
Who when once I was in her presence, was very glad when we were all able to get away from her bile.

While as to Meghan Markle it just sinks to lower and lower depths in my view.
The determination to character assasinate that lady who no one really knows.
Plus likely never will.

Dislike someone yes, make it a daily exercise to bring her down at every turn.
Unbelievable.

[jet]

It gets more ridiculous by the minute.

I even read somewhere, there's so many threads on Meghan Markle I'm not sure where and no looking back over them.
Plus there's some I'll never post on anyway.

However, being held up somewhere by someone as a paragon of virtue was Sarah Vine, I presume that is the arrogant hard-line wife of Michael Gove for crying out loud.
Who when once I was in her presence, was very glad when we were all able to get away from her bile.

While as to Meghan Markle it just sinks to lower and lower depths in my view.
The determination to character assasinate that lady who no one really knows.
Plus likely never will.

Dislike someone yes, make it a daily exercise to bring her down at every turn.
Unbelievable.

She doesn't know what we say about her on Tibb so we can't bring her down.
She isn't here to see people endlessly defending her and believing all she says either. It's 50/50 I'd say.

[joeysteele]

She doesn't know what we say about her on Tibb so we can't bring her down.
She isn't here to see people endlessly defending her and believing all she says either. It's 50/50 I'd say.

Would you show me anywhere where I said she could see all said about her on here.

It's really big of anyone to justify tearing someone apart just because they can hide behind anonymity and knowing the person can't see it.
Really commendable.
I think not.

[jet]

Would you show me anywhere where I said she could see all said about her on here.

It's really big of people to justify tearing someone apart just because they can hide behind anonymity and knowing the person can't see it.
Really commendable.
I think not.

I don't need or want your commendation. :shrug:

[jet]

Except Prince Harry doesn't appear to like young girls at all

.

He knows his favourite Uncle allegedly does though.

[joeysteele]

I don't need or want your commendation. :shrug:

I'm talking about my own thoughts.
I wasn't giving you anything at all jet.

[jet]

I'm talking about my own thoughts.
I wasn't giving you anything at all jet.

:thumbs:

[joeysteele]

He knows his favourite Uncle allegedly does though.

So know you're insinuating Prince Harry is a paedophile only because of your applying guilt association to him, of one of his family.

I think you may find a lot of the Royals like/d Andrew.
Are they all guilty by association in your eyes too then.
Andrew was a favourite too of the late Queen Mother.
What would that make her then.

[Crimson Dynamo]

While as to Meghan Markle it just sinks to lower and lower depths in my view.
The determination to character assasinate that lady who no one really knows.
Plus likely never will.

Dislike someone yes, make it a daily exercise to bring her down at every turn.
Unbelievable.

are you talking about twitter or on Tibb?

because Tibb members views are their own and they are entitled to them

[jet]

So know you're insinuating Prince Harry is a paedophile only because of your applying guilt association to him, of one of his family.

I think you may find a lot of the Royals like/d Andrew.
Are they all guilty by association in your eyes too then.
Andrew was a favourite too of the late Queen Mother.
What would that make her then.

I insinuated no such thing, nor think no such thing. How dare you make up lies like that. I said he knows his uncle allegedly likes young girls.

[GoldHeart]

He knows his favourite Uncle allegedly does though.

By that logic you could accuse the whole royal family then of knowing Andrew's perversions ,but no as usual it's Harry to blame .

[joeysteele]

I insinuated no such thing, nor think no such thing. How dare you make up lies like that. I said he knows his uncle allegedly likes young girls.

I should have said possibly your insinuating that.

I shouldn't have spoken to you, you're beyond reason.
My apologies for not adding possibly.
You're the one associating Prince Harry with Andrew not myself.

Oh and be careful if you're going to start calling other members liars.

[jet]

I should have said possibly your insinuating that.

I shouldn't have spoken to you, you're beyond reason.
My apologies for not adding possibly.
You're the one associating Prince Harry with Andrew not myself.

No, I was not even 'possibly' insinuating that. I was saying he knows Andrew allegedly has a penchant for young girls and he is his favourite uncle. End of.

[Josy]

Andrews a paedo.. Harry's favourite uncle.

Harry loves young girls like his uncle, and like his uncle, has married a spent old hag to hide the fact..


Simple...I formed my own opinion and didnt need anything else to form that opinion.Careful now having an opinion there. You may get done for slander :joker:

[Niamh.]

Careful now having an opinion there. You may get done for slander :joker:[emoji28]

[GoldHeart]

No, I was not even 'possibly' insinuating that. I was saying he knows Andrew allegedly has a penchant for young girls and he is his favourite uncle. End of.

Many members of the royal family probably liked and loved Andrew ,so what point are you trying to make?.

Why is Harry being singled out YET AGAIN , might aswell say the Queen and Philip knew what was going on .

[jet]

Many members of the royal family probably liked and loved Andrew ,so what point are you trying to make?.

Why is Harry being singled out YET AGAIN , might aswell say the Queen and Philip knew what was going on .

I don't know who else Andrew is a favourite of.
I have heard he is the Queens fav son and Harry's fav uncle. I was replying to Parmy in a thread that features Harry as a subject, not other members of the royal family.

[jet]

Careful now having an opinion there. You may get done for slander :joker:

Haha :hmph:

[Tom4784]

So we've reached the point in the olympic finals for mental gymnastics in the style of 'finding things to blame Meghan Markle for' and the latest offering is that because Andrew is a peadophile, that makes Harry a peado too for reasons, and that Meghan Markle is just a cover, just because bringing up Andrew makes the hatred for Meghan look foolish.

All because a royal 'expert' let her arse hang out several times and slated a child victim of sexual abuse and trafficking to defend Prince Andrew, and because this expert also has a negative opinion on Meghan, this means she must be defended at all costs.

It's all so grim.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Public GBP opinion is at new low for Duke and Duchess of Netflix

Public opinion of Harry and Meghan is the worst it’s ever been after Oprah interview


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/03/12/public-opinion-harry-meghan-worst-ever-oprah-interview/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_Aw0VDp76tjMZ



Well that went well,...........

[Beso]

for goodness sake Parm

Ain't I allowed to form my own opinion?

I bet you wrote to jimmy saville!

Am I right?

[Beso]

for goodness sake Parm

It gets more ridiculous by the minute.

I even read somewhere, there's so many threads on Meghan Markle I'm not sure where and no looking back over them.
Plus there's some I'll never post on anyway.

However, being held up somewhere by someone as a paragon of virtue was Sarah Vine, I presume that is the arrogant hard-line wife of Michael Gove for crying out loud.
Who when once I was in her presence, was very glad when we were all able to get away from her bile.

While as to Meghan Markle it just sinks to lower and lower depths in my view.
The determination to character assasinate that lady who no one really knows.
Plus likely never will.

Dislike someone yes, make it a daily exercise to bring her down at every turn.
Unbelievable.


So you just hung around and said nowt as she spewed her bile..how cowardly are you.

[Beso]

Careful now having an opinion there. You may get done for slander :joker:

Lets hope the person charging me is being paid for the privilege and not just some power hungry has been.eh..:idc:

[Beso]

A big tell tale sign...


Meghan being interviewed first..alone, and not as this loving couple.



Sad ginger sacks having to come in later all grovelling like to hoover up her fakeness...

Fake fake fake..

[GoldHeart]

No, I was not even 'possibly' insinuating that. I was saying he knows Andrew allegedly has a penchant for young girls and he is his favourite uncle. End of.

Ain't I allowed to form my own opinion?

bet you wrote to jimmy saville!

Am I right?


Saville was before my time actually, but go off .

[Beso]

So the conversation about the titles and colour of skin and security etc...came before she was pregnant.

Hence her calling the subject, it. Rather than archie.

[joeysteele]

So you just hung around and said nowt as she spewed her bile..how cowardly are you.

I was a guest of someone else attending, we weren't there to speak, just to listen.
We were NOT the only people there.

ALSO there's nothing cowardly about me thank you very much.
How insulting to say that.

[Glenn.]

Blame lockdown, boredom and nobody else to argue with TS.
Myself I find it quite funny how people are getting their knickers in a twist about nothing.:laugh:

That’s TiBB for you!

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/4CA0/production/_117561691_mail-nc.png

[Glenn.]

6 whole pages? Have they nothing better to print? :joker:

[joeysteele]

6 whole pages? Have they nothing better to print? :joker:

It's a pity that publication is allowed to be in print never mind cover anything.

[Zizu]

6 whole pages? Have they nothing better to print? :joker:



I wonder if newspaper reporters ever go on to being screen play writers ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Ammi]

I wonder if newspaper reporters ever go on to being screen play writers ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

...’go on to be..’..?...:laugh:..

[jet]

Jennie Bond's thoughts so similar to many of ours on here:

Finding peace is simple, Harry: step out of the spotlight.
The Sussexes’ interview with Oprah Winfrey today will only keep the couple in the public eye. Their pleas for privacy are a joke

Jennie Bond
Sunday March 07 2021, 12.01am, The Sunday Times


As the Duke of Edinburgh lies in his hospital bed, Prince Harry might have done well to heed the advice his grandfather has regularly handed out to his family: “Don’t talk about yourself, talk about everything else. Nobody’s interested in you.” Oprah Winfrey would beg to differ. And she is undoubtedly right.
We are all curtain-twitchers at heart, and her much-anticipated interview with Harry and Meghan, which will air in America today and here tomorrow, promises us the chance to peek over the palace walls and hear about the skulduggery within.

But aside from that, what is the point of the two-hour special? We know the couple were unhappy in their royal life, that they found the press coverage “toxic” and that they fled to America to protect their mental health.
It is five years since Harry authorised a palace statement complaining about the press targeting Meghan, and pinpointing the racist and sexist overtones of comment pieces and social media posts. It is almost 18 months since they blew the goodwill created by a successful tour of southern Africa with another explosive statement and an interview with ITV’s Tom Bradby.
The couple complaining about their lot in life, and the fact that no one had asked whether Meghan was “OK”, as the duchess praised Bradby for doing, sat badly with the suffering and abject poverty they had witnessed in preceding days.

I must admit I expected the main thrust of the Sussexes’ complaints to be against the media. But it seems now that Meghan, at least, is prepared to go further and attack “the Firm” as well. Oprah has done her job.
And yet I am still bewildered by the couple’s motive. People have asked me what my first question would be if I had somehow landed the interview. It would be: “Why the hell are you doing this? Go away, be private, live your lives in peace. That’s what you have begged for ... now just do it!”
It’s hard to take their pleas for privacy seriously when they have chosen to move to California: Celeb Central and the favourite hunting ground of the paparazzi. Even so, they could keep a low profile if they were careful, but they insist on popping up every other day on TV, radio and podcasts.

They want to control their own narrative and will work only with handpicked journalists. Fair enough. But then we hear they have signed multimillion-dollar deals with Netflix and Spotify — both of which will demand their pound of flesh and publicity.
With Prince Philip ill, the timing could hardly be worse. But, having signed the deal, Harry and Meghan have ceded control — which is the one thing they have fought so hard to capture.

And so the battle lines will be redrawn. There will be an interesting few months ahead as the Queen and duke turn, respectively, 95 and 100. And in July, Harry is due to join William in unveiling a statue of their mother to mark what would have been her 60th birthday. Will he be there? Will he be welcome? The curtains will be twitching again.
Oprah’s interview will be a sensation and will command a huge global audience. But it may not gain this troubled couple public sympathy. What is certain is that it will once again shine an unforgiving spotlight on every aspect of their lives. It is a strange way to go about securing the privacy, compassion and kindness they say they crave.

[Crimson Dynamo]

good article.

I read that 13 of the 30 so headlines they flashed up to highlight "the toxic UK media" were from USA and Australian newspapers

:whistle:

[user104658]

I've already explained why wanting privacy doesn't mean they want to be completely out of public life, and why saying "we want privacy" clearly does not mean "we want to become hermits" and that privacy, in this context, actually means having some agency and control over which aspects of life to share and which to keep private.

Maybe Jenny would benefit from coming to Tibb and reading some of my posts...? I don't like to think of her sitting there so confused and frustrated :worry:. Pop her an e-mail invitation, Jet?

[Zizu]

Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth II are not seeing eye to eye in terms of the Prince Harry and Meghan Markle interview with Oprah Winfrey that has sent tremours down Buckingham Palace.

As per Us Weekly, the mother-son have approaches that are poles apart in regards to how they should be tackling the royal crisis at hand.

An insider revealed to the portal: “Charles and the Queen had very different plans for how to respond. Charles wanted to rebuke every claim made by Meghan and Harry and the Queen wanted to take a more modest approach.”

The grapevine further shared that the 72-year-old Prince of Wales “especially wanted to make a statement against the allegation that someone in the royal family was worried about how dark Archie’s skin would be” but he was “overruled by other members of the family.”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[user104658]

"No one was WORRIED about the skin colour, that's outrageous! Yes I asked what colour any baby might be and produced the Family Guy Peter Griffin Colour Chart Meme, but I wasn't Worried, that is a total lie, it was top bants and 5 years ago Harry would have pissed his pants laughing! Damn that Markle woman!!" protested Charls

[jet]

I've already explained why wanting privacy doesn't mean they want to be completely out of public life, and why saying "we want privacy" clearly does not mean "we want to become hermits" and that privacy, in this context, actually means having some agency and control over which aspects of life to share and which to keep private.

Maybe Jenny would benefit from coming to Tibb and reading some of my posts...? I don't like to think of her sitting there so confused and frustrated :worry:. Pop her an e-mail invitation, Jet?

Nobody has said they should live like hermits. Nobody. Ever.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I've already explained why wanting privacy doesn't mean they want to be completely out of public life, and why saying "we want privacy" clearly does not mean "we want to become hermits" and that privacy, in this context, actually means having some agency and control over which aspects of life to share and which to keep private.

Maybe Jenny would benefit from coming to Tibb and reading some of my posts...? I don't like to think of her sitting there so confused and frustrated :worry:. Pop her an e-mail invitation, Jet?

yes TS but its the wanton failure to accept the reality of fame

they cant have selective privacy and then pick and choose when they want to use the media for financial gain. In Hollywood, there are very professional numerous freelance expert photographers who make their corn by snapping the likes of these 2 and its very,very worthwhile to do so. A good shot of either outwith an arranged photoshoot is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars currently.

At the moment they have zero goodwill with the written press in this country so they will have no compunction to use what is offered to them unlike say Simon Cowell who, if an unflattering pic or story was about to be run would probaly get a call from the editor prior to see what they can deal.

[user104658]

Nobody has said they should live like hermits. Nobody. Ever.Jenny Bond did Jet that's why I said you should invite her on here for a chat :shrug:

"Finding peace is simple, Harry: step out of the spotlight.

The Sussexes’ interview with Oprah Winfrey today will only keep the couple in the public eye. Their pleas for privacy are a joke"

Its never too late to learn something new.

[user104658]

yes TS but its the wanton failure to accept the reality of fame



they cant have selective privacy and then pick and choose when they want to use the media for financial gain. In Hollywood, there are very professional numerous freelance expert photographers who make their corn by snapping the likes of these 2 and its very,very worthwhile to do so. A good shot of either outwith an arranged photoshoot is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars currently.



At the moment they have zero goodwill with the written press in this country so they will have no compunction to use what is offered to them unlike say Simon Cowell who, if an unflattering pic or story was about to be run would probaly get a call from the editor prior to see what they can deal.They seem outwardly to be happier, and express vocally being happier, with their celebrity existence in the US and their new level of self-determination in dealing with the press than when they were senior royals living in the UK being managed by "the institution" ... Which is entirely down to them...

You can't just say "Umm no let me explain why you are NOT happier" when they blatantly are :joker:. You might not want them to be, but at some point you, jet and Jenny have to accept what they're expressing as their reality rather than insisting it's another way because that's how you imagine it should work.

[Crimson Dynamo]

They seem outwardly to be happier, and express vocally being happier, with their celebrity existence in the US and their new level of self-determination in dealing with the press than when they were senior royals living in the UK being managed by "the institution" ... Which is entirely down to them...

You can't just say "Umm no let me explain why you are NOT happier" when they blatantly are :joker:. You might not want them to be, but at some point you, jet and Jenny have to accept what they're expressing as their reality rather than insisting it's another way because that's how you imagine it should work.

i could care less how happy they are tbh

i still think they should consider my candle business plan

:hmph:

[jet]

Jenny Bond did Jet that's why I said you should invite her on here for a chat :shrug:

"Finding peace is simple, Harry: step out of the spotlight.

The Sussexes’ interview with Oprah Winfrey today will only keep the couple in the public eye. Their pleas for privacy are a joke"

Its never too late to learn something new.

If you don't know the difference between 'spotlight' and going about your life/work in a much less showy, PREACHY podcasts, big TELL ALL interview way, I can see where your confusion comes from. The Obama's would never. The Royals would never. They got CLASS! :hee:

[user104658]

i could care less how happy they are tbh


And doesn't that just sum up the issue LT!

[user104658]

If you don't know the difference between 'spotlight' and going about your life/work in a much less showy, PREACHY podcasts, big TELL ALL interview way, I can see where your confusion comes from. The Obama's would never. The Royals would never. They got CLASS! :hee:Figuring out what THEY are happy with has nothing to do with me, or you, or Jenny Bond... I wouldn't want any sort of spotlight but if they've changed things and are now happy with it, then they've made the right decision for themselves, and it's bizarre that you and Jenny are insisting "no u haven't it's just the same!". It doesn't matter what you think of it :think:. As with LT it's fine if you and Jenny don't care whether or not they're happy, but you don't get to decide what they should and shouldn't be happy with.

[jet]

Figuring out what THEY are happy with has nothing to do with me, or you, or Jenny Bond... I wouldn't want any sort of spotlight but if they've changed things and are now happy with it, then they've made the right decision for themselves, and it's bizarre that you and Jenny are insisting "no u haven't it's just the same!". It doesn't matter what you think of it :think:. As with LT it's fine if you and Jenny don't care whether or not they're happy, but you don't get to decide what they should and shouldn't be happy with.

No **** Sherlock.