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

[Crimson Dynamo]

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

no as i dont care how happy any randomn is

James Cordon
Michael Ball
the whole of McBusted
her from Emmerdale
Ben Fogle

[Cherie]

They don’t seem to care too much about other peoples privacy while they are airing the dirty laundry :laugh:

[jet]

They don’t seem to care too much about other peoples privacy while they are airing the dirty laundry :laugh:

Yep...or demonstrating that kindness, compassion and 'family unity' (excuse me while I do some eye rolling) they are always on about. :hee:

[user104658]

No **** Sherlock.So we're all finally getting onto the same page! We just need to let Jenny Bond know now, can you pop her a message.

[user104658]

They don’t seem to care too much about other peoples privacy while they are airing the dirty laundry [emoji23]Yep...or demonstrating that kindness, compassion and 'family unity' (excuse me while I do some eye rolling) they are always on about. :hee:Except that essentially all of their criticism in the interview was of the press and Royal management and literally none of it was of named family members. Much as certain Jenny Bonds would like to imagine otherwise (before it aired).

[jet]

So we're all finally getting onto the same page! We just need to let Jenny Bond know now, can you pop her a message.

You: It doesn't matter what you think of it. you don't get to decide

I'll contact Jennie pronto and let her know that her and I should cease having opinions immediately! :dog:

[joeysteele]

Except that essentially all of their criticism in the interview was of the press and Royal management and literally none of it was of named family members. Much as certain Jenny Bonds would like to imagine otherwise (before it aired).

I've found your posts really interesting.
Really strong points.

For myself I don't get this , they are airing the dirty laundry.

They are only talking about what affected THEM from others.
What impacted on them and their life in the Royal regime.

Surely people can talk about things that impacted negatively on them by others.
How else do you get closure.

Plus no one, no one at all has to or is forced to watch, listen to or read anything about them.
They choose to present it their way.
Rightly or wrongly.
That's their choice.
I'm mystified why anyone who doesn't like them even bothers to take notice of what they do or say, or what they may do or say either in the future.

[jet]

Except that essentially all of their criticism in the interview was of the press and Royal management and literally none of it was of named family members. Much as certain Jenny Bonds would like to imagine otherwise (before it aired).

Right.....:laugh:

[user104658]

You: It doesn't matter what you think of it. you don't get to decide



I'll contact Jennie pronto and let her know that her and I should cease having opinions immediately! :dog:

Hooray!

[Crimson Dynamo]

Except that essentially all of their criticism in the interview was of the press and Royal management and literally none of it was of named family members. Much as certain Jenny Bonds would like to imagine otherwise (before it aired).

i think calling every member of the royals a potential racist was pretty damaging

[user104658]

I've found your posts really interesting.

Really strong points.



For myself I don't get this , they are airing the dirty laundry.



They are only talking about what affected THEM from others.

What impacted on them and their life in the Royal regime.



Surely people can talk about things that impacted negatively on them by others.

How else do you get closure.



Plus no one, no one at all has to or is forced to watch, listen to or read anything about them.

They choose to present it their way.

Rightly or wrongly.

That's their choice.

I'm mystified why anyone who doesn't like them even bothers to take notice of what they do or say, or what they may do or say either in the future.If anything Joey I think they tried possibly too hard to "not name names" out of a desire to not get anyone specifically in trouble or their face all over the papers, but the effect has unfortunately been a lot of speculation. Often better to just set the record straight and go from there.

[user104658]

i think calling every member of the royals a potential racist was pretty damaging

They were only describing one of the reasons they felt uncomfortable there and - I'm afraid I'm going to have to be uncharacteristically blunt here - I honestly don't imagine that the monarchy-supporting section of the general public give a **** that a Royal family member made a flippant comment about race. Is it even vaguely new? When Phil was still young enough to get out and about it was a weekly occurrence; the papers could have had a regular dedicated "what casually racist things did Philip say this week" column. Maybe we collectively forgot and would now be shocked that a Royal asked Harry if his babies would be black, but I just can't see how. I'd have been more surprised if he had said that no one EVER asked.

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/13/10/article-9356741-40413094-446_964x544.jpg

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9356741/Harry-Meghan-inconvenient-truth.html

[joeysteele]

If anything Joey I think they tried possibly too hard to "not name names" out of a desire to not get anyone specifically in trouble or their face all over the papers, but the effect has unfortunately been a lot of speculation. Often better to just set the record straight and go from there.

I agree absolutely with that..

Mind you, they'd then be being pilloried for determinedly trying to wreck the life of the named Royal.

Yes, however, go the whole way and say who it was who made the comment.
Which is their criticism, 'the comment'.
They never said the person who made the comment was a RACIST, they just highlighted the at best, possibly racially inappropriate comment/question.

[Zizu]

I’ll never understand the bad feeling towards Harry .. after losing his wonderful mum so young .. he’s had no kind of ‘real’ life until he found MM and eventually having a proper , loving FAMILY of his own ..

He’s clearly a good hearted young man and doesn’t deserve all this hatred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Cherie]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/13/10/article-9356741-40413094-446_964x544.jpg

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9356741/Harry-Meghan-inconvenient-truth.html

Quite a few rebuttals and easily checked facts there

[joeysteele]

I don't think truth and the Daily Mail will ever go together.
The Mail does have an axe to grind re her, because she's just won a legal case against it.

[jet]

That lying Daily Mail, making up all those lies about the trips and holidays Meghan didn't take! :rolleyes:

The day Meghan joined the Royal Family was, she claimed, 'the last time, until we came here, that I saw my passport, my driver's licence, my keys. All that gets turned over'.Oprah responded to this revelation by depicting her as a sort of UK version of the incarcerated Dubai Princess Latifah:

'The way you're describing this . . . it's like you were trapped,' she said. ' . . .that would be an accurate interpretation, yes?'
Meghan responded: 'That's the truth.'

It was a very odd form of imprisonment then. For in the six months after her wedding, Meghan was able to use that passport to take at least four foreign holidays, in addition to official tours, visiting Italy, Canada, and Amsterdam, as well as embarking on a lengthy honeymoon.
In 2019, she visited Ibiza, France (staying chez Elton John), Italy (again) and New York twice: once for a lavish baby shower, and again to see her chum Serena Williams play in the U.S. Open.
Those were just the private jaunts. She also travelled on official business to South Africa, Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Ireland, Germany and Morocco.
..................
One example from the DM. Examples of the inconsistencies and lies are being talked about in other publications, TV and radio. It's not exclusive to the DM.

[arista]

I don't think truth and the Daily Mail will ever go together.
The Mail does have an axe to grind re her, because she's just won a legal case against it.


Yes she Won One Case.

Lets see any others.

[joeysteele]

Yes she Won One Case.

Lets see any others.

It's still a win.

Indeed let's see if there will be others.

Anyone who can take on and win against that gutter trash publication.
Gets a thumbs up from me.

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwTXflfWgAQrAv6?format=jpg&name=small

[Cherie]

That lying Daily Mail, making up all those lies about the trips and holidays Meghan didn't take! :rolleyes:

The day Meghan joined the Royal Family was, she claimed, 'the last time, until we came here, that I saw my passport, my driver's licence, my keys. All that gets turned over'.Oprah responded to this revelation by depicting her as a sort of UK version of the incarcerated Dubai Princess Latifah:

'The way you're describing this . . . it's like you were trapped,' she said. ' . . .that would be an accurate interpretation, yes?'
Meghan responded: 'That's the truth.'

It was a very odd form of imprisonment then. For in the six months after her wedding, Meghan was able to use that passport to take at least four foreign holidays, in addition to official tours, visiting Italy, Canada, and Amsterdam, as well as embarking on a lengthy honeymoon.
In 2019, she visited Ibiza, France (staying chez Elton John), Italy (again) and New York twice: once for a lavish baby shower, and again to see her chum Serena Williams play in the U.S. Open.
Those were just the private jaunts. She also travelled on official business to South Africa, Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Ireland, Germany and Morocco.
..................
One example from the DM. Examples of the inconsistencies and lies are being talked about in other publications, TV and radio. It's not exclusive to the DM.


What an imprisonment :joker:

[rusticgal]

Oh dear...its all backfiring. All their lies coming to the fore making them look bitter and twisted and massively attention seeking.
Harry may well have an uncomfortable visit here when he comes in July...the immaturity of them both, particularly Harry to not foresee the repercussions of what they did. What was this interview meant to achieve??....how was it ever going to build bridges making vile accusations about your family to the whole world?. Meghan couldnt give a damn...she dropped her family at the drop of a hat over a newspaper article...disgusted that he would go public unyet here she is doing far worse to Harrys family. The hypocrisy. She knew the damage it would cause and Harry stupidly went along with it. Meghan doesnt care if she never stepped foot in this country again...will their children ever see any of their grandparents?...this has all happened by the obsession of one person to get massive publicity admiration and adoration as a woman who is empowered to speak out....and does not care who she hurts in the process.

[user104658]

Nothing is "backfiring", no one's opinion is any different now to what it was before the interview, you only need to glance at this forum to know that. That was always going to be the case. Evidenced by those super special Royal Commentatorz giving their opinion on the content of the interview before they even saw it.

[jet]

Oh dear...its all backfiring. All their lies coming to the fore making them look bitter and twisted and massively attention seeking.
Harry may well have an uncomfortable visit here when he comes in July...the immaturity of them both, particularly Harry to not foresee the repercussions of what they did. What was this interview meant to achieve??....how was it ever going to build bridges making vile accusations about your family to the whole world?. Meghan couldnt give a damn...she dropped her family at the drop of a hat over a newspaper article...disgusted that he would go public unyet here she is doing far worse to Harrys family. The hypocrisy. She knew the damage it would cause and Harry stupidly went along with it. Meghan doesnt care if she never stepped foot in this country again...will their children ever see any of their grandparents?...this has all happened by the obsession of one person to get massive publicity admiration and adoration as a woman who is empowered to speak out....and does not care who she hurts in the process.

Very well said! :wavey:

[rusticgal]

Nothing is "backfiring", no one's opinion is any different now to what it was before the interview, you only need to glance at this forum to know that. That was always going to be the case. Evidenced by those super special Royal Commentatorz giving their opinion on the content of the interview before they even saw it.


Its backfiring because their 'stories' are being disproved...their inconsistances are being exposed...

[user104658]

Its backfiring because their 'stories' are being disproved...their inconsistances are being exposed...

They aren't though - it may however appear that way to someone whose confirmation-bias is already that way inclined (in other words, they didn't believe them anyway) and that makes the "gotcha" proof irrelevant preaching-to-the-choir.

[AnnieK]

Nothing is "backfiring", no one's opinion is any different now to what it was before the interview, you only need to glance at this forum to know that. That was always going to be the case. Evidenced by those super special Royal Commentatorz giving their opinion on the content of the interview before they even saw it.

I said this before the interview aired. I have spoken to no-one who has changed their views one iota.

[LukeB]

Wonder where's this same energy for Meghan making a 'vile accusation' is for Piers Morgan who made a vile and dangerous accusation or is it ok when it's towards Meghan :think:

[jet]

Nothing is "backfiring", no one's opinion is any different now to what it was before the interview, you only need to glance at this forum to know that. That was always going to be the case. Evidenced by those super special Royal Commentatorz giving their opinion on the content of the interview before they even saw it.

I bet many have changed their opinion but they'll never admit it, certainly not the social media 'kween Meghan' sheep. :think:
In the quarters that matter, I've seen and read people whose opinions have definitely changed.

[Tom4784]

People are really blinded by their overwhelming confirmation bias. Like, these royal commentators were totally revealed to be full of **** and talking out of their arse regarding an interview they hadn't seen, but because they have negative views on Meghan Markle, her haters just ignore the facts and treat them like bastions of truth because these 'commentators' are telling them what they want to hear.

I could never tolerate that, I don't know how her haters could. I'd rather embrace reality.

[user104658]

I bet many have changed their opinion but they'll never admit it, certainly not the social media 'kween Meghan' sheep. :think:

How convenient :idc:



In the quarters that matter

Who would that be then? Royal commentators? :joker:

[Nicky91]

I bet many have changed their opinion but they'll never admit it, certainly not the social media 'kween Meghan' sheep. :think:
In the quarters that matter, I've seen and read people whose opinions have definitely changed.

huh, Meghan has fans on social media

https://media.tenor.com/images/599454b60f15060ac168971b2b5ece5e/tenor.gif

[Tom4784]

'People really hate Meghan, but they'll never admit it because I said so.'

Good argument... The truth is not everyone is a slave to their confirmation bias. Some people can see the forest for the trees.

[jet]

Its backfiring because their 'stories' are being disproved...their inconsistances are being exposed...

Some don't need to explore these issues to make an informed decision because every word Meghan says is the truth Rusti... and none of her defenders have any of this confirmation bias at all! :hehe:

[Jordan.]

Daily Mail still desperately trying to poke holes in their interview when they should be issuing their front page apology? :conf:

[jet]

What about all those trips and holidays she had when she was 'trapped' eh? :smug:

[Tom4784]

There's a difference between hearing two sides of the story and choosing to believe one side, and googling negative articles about a hate figure to reaffirm that hatred while believing 'commentators' who have already shown themselves up by commenting on things they haven't seen just because they offer a hollow affirmation of that hate.

I don't think anyone that willingly believes lies because they like to be told what to hear can truly judge what the truth is.

[jet]

There's a difference between hearing two sides of the story and choosing to believe one side, and googling negative articles about a hate figure to reaffirm that hatred while believing 'commentators' who have already shown themselves up by commenting on things they haven't seen just because they offer a hollow affirmation of that hate.

I don't think anyone that willingly believes lies because they like to be told what to hear can truly judge what the truth is.

We've only heard one side of the story...and 3 of those 4 people weren't commentators, 2 were authors and one was a long retired press secretary to the Queen.

[Tom4784]

What about all those trips and holidays she had when she was 'trapped' eh? :smug:

A disingenuous response, and a strawman argument at that. You're choosing to take her feelings of being trapped as literal, that she's locked up in her room when that's not the case. It doesn't matter if she took no holidays or a thousand. She felt trapped by her position, it should be easy to understand for anyone.

I do hope that the people around you don't struggle with mental health issues, and see how you treat Meghan Markle with contempt for sharing her own issues. The lack of sympathy towards mental health can do more harm to those around you than you realise. Every time you doubt Meghan Markle when she speaks about her struggles, you're casting doubt on anyone who suffers from mental illness. You have no reason to doubt her, you don't know her, her mind, or her struggles but the people around you will see such hatred, and they likely won't be so forthcoming with their own issues if they see you treat someone so harshly for speaking their truth. Be mindful of others, Jet, when it comes to bashing someone for their mental health issues.

[Tom4784]

We've only heard one side of the story...and 3 of those 4 people weren't commentators, 2 were authors and one was a long retired press secretary to the Queen.

so four outsiders who don't truly know the workings of the family and have no knowledge to contextualise anything regarding their relationships, got it.

[rusticgal]

Wonder where's this same energy for Meghan making a 'vile accusation' is for Piers Morgan who made a vile and dangerous accusation or is it ok when it's towards Meghan :think:


Its equally bizarre that someone enjoying the right of her freedom of Speech complains when someone else does the same thing....

I dont like Piers Morgan...but he is entitled to his opinion like anyone else.

[jet]

A disingenuous response, and a strawman argument at that. You're choosing to take her feelings of being trapped as literal, that she's locked up in her room when that's not the case. It doesn't matter if she took no holidays or a thousand. She felt trapped by her position, it should be easy to understand for anyone.

I do hope that the people around you don't struggle with mental health issues, and see how you treat Meghan Markle with contempt for sharing her own issues. The lack of sympathy towards mental health can do more harm to those around you than you realise. Every time you doubt Meghan Markle when she speaks about her struggles, you're casting doubt on anyone who suffers from mental illness. You have no reason to doubt her, you don't know her, her mind, or her struggles but the people around you will see such hatred, and they likely won't be so forthcoming with their own issues if they see you treat someone so harshly for speaking their truth. Be mindful of others, Jet, when it comes to bashing someone for their mental health issues.

The conversation at the time was about Meghans passport and keys being taken away and not having the freedom to just go where she wanted to....
.................
The day Meghan joined the Royal Family was, she claimed, 'the last time, until we came here, that I saw my passport, my driver's licence, my keys. All that gets turned over'.Oprah responded to this revelation by depicting her as a sort of UK version of the incarcerated Dubai Princess Latifah:

'The way you're describing this . . . it's like you were trapped,' she said. ' . . .that would be an accurate interpretation, yes?'
Meghan responded: 'That's the truth.'

It was a very odd form of imprisonment then. For in the six months after her wedding, Meghan was able to use that passport to take at least four foreign holidays, in addition to official tours, visiting Italy, Canada, and Amsterdam, as well as embarking on a lengthy honeymoon.
In 2019, she visited Ibiza, France (staying chez Elton John), Italy (again) and New York twice: once for a lavish baby shower, and again to see her chum Serena Williams play in the U.S. Open.
Those were just the private jaunts. She also travelled on official business to South Africa, Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Ireland, Germany and Morocco.

[LukeB]

Its equally bizarre that someone enjoying the right of her freedom of Speech complains when someone else does the same thing....

I dont like Piers Morgan...but he is entitled to his opinion like anyone else.

But no one is saying freedom of speech towards Meghan :think: but it's freedom of speech when Piers is bullying her and making dangerous accusations about her that could have harmed her or her baby or both. qwhite interesting. Just wondering where's the same energy if you're that bothered about vile accusations

[jet]

....and Dezzy, you are making a lot of assumptions there....show me a post where I said I doubted her mental health issues - even if I did, I wouldn't say so. I HAVE doubted very much that she was refused help, said so, and still do.
So get your facts right before you start lecturing people on things they haven't said.

[Tom4784]

Its equally bizarre that someone enjoying the right of her freedom of Speech complains when someone else does the same thing....

I dont like Piers Morgan...but he is entitled to his opinion like anyone else.

I'll be repeating this forever it seems. Freedom of speech is not a shield against criticism. Anyone can have their opinion and state it, and everyone else is free to react to it. Reacting to someone else's opinion is not an attack on their freedom of speech, because freedom of speech, as I always say, is a two way street. You can have an opinion on something, and so can everyone else, and they can comment on your views, just like you can comment on theirs'.

Crying about freedom of speech is just an attempt to shut down that right for other people.

[rusticgal]

But no one is saying freedom of speech towards Meghan :think: but it's freedom of speech when Piers is bullying her and making dangerous accusations about her that could have harmed her or her baby. qwhite interesting. Just wondering where's the same energy if you're that bothered about vile accusations


....harmed her baby? :facepalm:

What Dangerous accusations?....calling her a liar :shrug:

[AnnieK]

Some don't need to explore these issues to make an informed decision because every word Meghan says is the truth Rusti... and none of her defenders have any of this confirmation bias at all! :hehe:

That's a very unfair sweeping statement to make their Jet in all honesty. A lot of people are not invested in the Royals and so will not investigate...but that's not because they believe every word, they simply don't care and let it consume them. They have watched the interview, maybe something she said resonated with them, maybe not but they don't really care enough to fact check every little thing she said. They took what they needed from it and didn't feel the need to either canonise or demonise her. Making out out that people are wrong for their positive opinion of her is the same as people saying you are wrong for your negative opinion. Its a personal opinion and really no-one elses opinion should matter that much to anyone else

[Tom4784]

The conversation at the time was about Meghans passport and keys being taken away and not having the freedom to just go where she wanted to....
.................
The day Meghan joined the Royal Family was, she claimed, 'the last time, until we came here, that I saw my passport, my driver's licence, my keys. All that gets turned over'.Oprah responded to this revelation by depicting her as a sort of UK version of the incarcerated Dubai Princess Latifah:

'The way you're describing this . . . it's like you were trapped,' she said. ' . . .that would be an accurate interpretation, yes?'
Meghan responded: 'That's the truth.'

It was a very odd form of imprisonment then. For in the six months after her wedding, Meghan was able to use that passport to take at least four foreign holidays, in addition to official tours, visiting Italy, Canada, and Amsterdam, as well as embarking on a lengthy honeymoon.
In 2019, she visited Ibiza, France (staying chez Elton John), Italy (again) and New York twice: once for a lavish baby shower, and again to see her chum Serena Williams play in the U.S. Open.
Those were just the private jaunts. She also travelled on official business to South Africa, Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Ireland, Germany and Morocco.

Again, disingenuous and a strawman argument. The meaning is clear, while she was performing royal duties, someone else had a say over her life. It doesn't matter if she took holidays or not when it was down to someone else whether she could go or not. That's what she obviously meant about being trapped, she didn't have the freedom to decide for herself unless she stepped back.

It's not really a hard concept to grasp.

[LukeB]

....harmed her baby? :facepalm:

What Dangerous accusations?....calling her a liar :shrug:

A lot of stress can harm the baby

I love the selective memory, yeah calling her a liar which includes her saying she felt suicidal.. that is so bloody dangerous and vile.

[Beso]

She couldnt even squeeze a tear out.

[rusticgal]

I'll be repeating this forever it seems. Freedom of speech is not a shield against criticism. Anyone can have their opinion and state it, and everyone else is free to react to it. Reacting to someone else's opinion is not an attack on their freedom of speech, because freedom of speech, as I always say, is a two way street. You can have an opinion on something, and so can everyone else, and they can comment on your views, just like you can comment on theirs'.

Crying about freedom of speech is just an attempt to shut down that right for other people.


So its ok to call Harry's family Racist and heartless...but Piers cant call her a liar?

[jet]

Again, disingenuous and a strawman argument. The meaning is clear, while she was performing royal duties, someone else had a say over her life. It doesn't matter if she took holidays or not when it was down to someone else whether she could go or not. That's what she obviously meant about being trapped, she didn't have the freedom to decide for herself unless she stepped back.

It's not really a hard concept to grasp.

Just like the majority of us when doing our jobs can't just go off on holiday when we want. That is really easy concept to grasp. Right?

[Tom4784]

So its ok to call Harry's family Racist and heartless...but Piers cant call her a liar?

A strawman argument.

Piers is entitled to believe that Meghan is lying, and the public are free to respond how they wish. the public responded poorly to his ignorance about mental health. People are free to criticise, no opinion, or criticism, is without consequence.

You and others have accused Meghan of all sorts based on questionable articles from questionable sources, have you not? You're free to those beliefs, and people are free to believe the royal family has issues of racism in it's ranks.

[user104658]

I live when people disingenuous say "Uhh she went on trips and wasn't literally locked in her room so how was she trapped?" and think that's some sort of zinger gotcha moment - but seemingly don't realise that it just makes the look as though they're too stupid to realised that someone stating the y felt metaphorically trapped doesn't mean they were literally imprisoned. I'm not saying those people ARE too stupid to know that, mind, just saying it baffles me when people like to "play dumb". It only undermines your other points... Because people think "Oh, this person has comprehension issues".

Yes Meghan went on trips both official and personal. She will have arranged those through Royal management, who will have arranged the transport, handles her documents, etc.

This seems so obvious that it's painful to even have to state it in good faith.

Having to ask permission and arrange trips through management will feel trapping and limiting to some people if they are used to having more freedom, even if the answer is "yes".

Is that difficult to understand? I'm pretty sure it isn't difficult at all which is why I'm convinced people are simply PRETENDING that they don't get it.

[rusticgal]

A lot of stress can harm the baby

I love the selective memory, yeah calling her a liar which includes her saying she felt suicidal.. that is so bloody dangerous and vile.


Well I have said this before....for someone who lost a baby last year WHY WHY WHY would you put yourself in this situation, because she cant be that niave that she didnt think there would be a backlash against her accusations.

[Tom4784]

Just like the majority of us when doing our jobs can't just go off on holiday when we want. That is really easy concept to grasp. Right?

Does your boss control your home life and seize your keys and passport? I think not. Another strawman argument. Not an easy concept to grasp for some, it seems.

[user104658]

She couldnt even squeeze a tear out.Both mine and my wife's family histories are messy Parmy but you won't often find either of us blubbing when we talk about it. Healthy adults have solid coping mechanisms.

Thats not to say that crying is unhealthy, crying is fine, but people work through their emotions and don't HAVE TO cry when talking about difficult things. It's not a requirement.

[Tom4784]

I live when people disingenuous say "Uhh she went on trips and wasn't literally locked in her room so how was she trapped?" and think that's some sort of zinger gotcha moment - but seemingly don't realise that it just makes the look as though they're too stupid to realised that someone stating the y felt metaphorically trapped doesn't mean they were literally imprisoned. I'm not saying those people ARE too stupid to know that, mind, just saying it baffles me when people like to "play dumb". It only undermines your other points... Because people think "Oh, this person has comprehension issues".

Yes Meghan went on trips both official and personal. She will have arranged those through Royal management, who will have arranged the transport, handles her documents, etc.

This seems so obvious that it's painful to even have to state it in good faith.

[I] Having to ask permission and arrange trips through management will feel trapping and limiting to some people if they are used to having more freedom, even if the answer is "yes".

Is that difficult to understand? I'm pretty sure it isn't difficult at all which is why I'm convinced people are simply PRETENDING that they don't get it.

Ignorance is bliss, that and people seem to think if they ignore the context, that it simply doesn't exist.

[LukeB]

A strawman argument.

Piers is entitled to believe that Meghan is lying, and the public are free to respond how they wish. the public responded poorly to his ignorance about mental health. People are free to criticise, no opinion, or criticism, is without consequence.

You and others have accused Meghan of all sorts based on questionable articles from questionable sources, have you not? You're free to those beliefs, and people are free to believe the royal family has issues of racism in it's ranks.

Did she even accuse the royal family of being racist because those words never came from her lips she just spoke about something that happened.

[user104658]

Just like the majority of us when doing our jobs can't just go off on holiday when we want. That is really easy concept to grasp. Right?Yes we can. We might face disciplinary action or get fired but if I really wanted to, I could pick up my passport and leave the country at any time. Its not the same. Which again you probably know.

*Dislaimer: obviously I am thinking pre-covid here... None of us can just pick up our passports and leave any more :worry:

[Tom4784]

Did she even accuse the royal family of being racist because those words never came from her lips she just spoke about something that happened.

People are just writing their own narratives at this point and convincing themselves it's true. Like how half the UK are acting like she disrespected the Queen when Meghan was more favourable to her than anyone else.

People who ignore things like that just want to believe their own fantasies that justify their hate.

[rusticgal]

Did she even accuse the royal family of being racist because those words never came from her lips she just spoke about something that happened.


:joker:

[jet]

I live when people disingenuous say "Uhh she went on trips and wasn't literally locked in her room so how was she trapped?" and think that's some sort of zinger gotcha moment - but seemingly don't realise that it just makes the look as though they're too stupid to realised that someone stating the y felt metaphorically trapped doesn't mean they were literally imprisoned. I'm not saying those people ARE too stupid to know that, mind, just saying it baffles me when people like to "play dumb". It only undermines your other points... Because people think "Oh, this person has comprehension issues".

Yes Meghan went on trips both official and personal. She will have arranged those through Royal management, who will have arranged the transport, handles her documents, etc.

This seems so obvious that it's painful to even have to state it in good faith.

[I] Having to ask permission and arrange trips through management will feel trapping and limiting to some people if they are used to having more freedom, even if the answer is "yes".

Is that difficult to understand? I'm pretty sure it isn't difficult at all which is why I'm convinced people are simply PRETENDING that they don't get it.

Could she take whatever holidays she wanted, when she wanted through management when she was filming a deal or no deal girl, or filming Suits? Ummm?
She could also arrange her own trips - the royals actually aren't spoon fed in their free time.

[Jordan.]

I live when people disingenuous say "Uhh she went on trips and wasn't literally locked in her room so how was she trapped?" and think that's some sort of zinger gotcha moment - but seemingly don't realise that it just makes the look as though they're too stupid to realised that someone stating the y felt metaphorically trapped doesn't mean they were literally imprisoned. I'm not saying those people ARE too stupid to know that, mind, just saying it baffles me when people like to "play dumb". It only undermines your other points... Because people think "Oh, this person has comprehension issues".

Yes Meghan went on trips both official and personal. She will have arranged those through Royal management, who will have arranged the transport, handles her documents, etc.

This seems so obvious that it's painful to even have to state it in good faith.

Having to ask permission and arrange trips through management will feel trapping and limiting to some people if they are used to having more freedom, even if the answer is "yes".

Is that difficult to understand? I'm pretty sure it isn't difficult at all which is why I'm convinced people are simply PRETENDING that they don't get it.

It's in the same vein as people taking them saying they want privacy as meaning they must want to live as hermits.

[LukeB]

People are just writing their own narratives at this point and convincing themselves it's true. Like how half the UK are acting like she disrespected the Queen when Meghan was more favourable to her than anyone else.

People who ignore things like that just want to believe their own fantasies that justify their hate.

That's what i'm getting from all this because i'm baffled by it all. It's all dramatic for me because does anyone think the whole royal is racist over one person making a ignorant comment? I don't. I don't even think this interview did much at all. Some still love the royals, some don't and some don't give a **** that hasn't changed. The Queen and Kate weren't dragged through the mud like people are making out Meghan spoke highly of The Queen and no one thinks Kate is awful.

[jet]

Yes we can. We might face disciplinary action or get fired but if I really wanted to, I could pick up my passport and leave the country at any time. Its not the same. Which again you probably know.

*Dislaimer: obviously I am thinking pre-covid here... None of us can just pick up our passports and leave any more :worry:

Which she did - to Canada and then the USA.
She faced disciplinary action by having to give up her patronages.

[Cherie]

The leader of the choir that sung Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's wedding says she has a hard time believing Prince Charles is racist.

The Kingdom Choir's founder and conductor Karen Gibson said the Prince of Wales personally invited the group to perform at the nuptials.

Speaking to TMZ in the wake of the storm over the couple's Oprah interview, the choir leader said Harry's father was very sincere in his invitation.

She added that he had gone out of his way to personally congratulate the black gospel group's performers on their success since wowing worldwide wedding audiences.

The royals are under a glaring spotlight after the couple after the couple's bombshell claims in their Oprah interview.


Daily Mirror

[jet]

Does your boss control your home life and seize your keys and passport? I think not. Another strawman argument. Not an easy concept to grasp for some, it seems.

Proof that they controlled her home life?
They didn't 'seize' her passport. :laugh: They keep all the royals passports for security reasons, which they obviously released for all those trips and holidays.

And I would like you to acknowledge this reply to the accusations you threw at me about mental health instead of ignoring it....

....and Dezzy, you are making a lot of assumptions there....show me a post where I said I doubted her mental health issues - even if I did, I wouldn't say so. I HAVE doubted very much that she was refused help, said so, and still do.
So get your facts right before you start lecturing people on things they haven't said.

[rusticgal]

A lot of stress can harm the baby

I love the selective memory, yeah calling her a liar which includes her saying she felt suicidal.. that is so bloody dangerous and vile.


Its also dangerous and vile if its untrue. Its extremely hard to believe that with Harry's struggle with Mental Health since his mother died...his connections with Mental Health organisations that HE couldnt get her the help she needed. Do you really believe that Harry told her to go and ask HR to get her help and just accepted they couldnt help her because it wouldnt reflect well on the family....you think Harry just sat back and let that happen.

[user104658]

The leader of the choir that sung Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's wedding says she has a hard time believing Prince Charles is racist.

Well this changes EVERYTHING.

[Tom4784]

That's what i'm getting from all this because i'm baffled by it all. It's all dramatic for me because does anyone think the whole royal is racist over one person making a ignorant comment? I don't. I don't even think this interview did much at all. Some still love the royals, some don't and some don't give a **** that hasn't changed. The Queen and Kate weren't dragged through the mud like people are making out Meghan spoke highly of The Queen and no one thinks Kate is awful.

The media and the people's imaginations are running away with them. It's quite sad really, how people can distinguish between reality and their own fiction.

[jet]

Its also dangerous and vile if its untrue. Its extremely hard to believe that with Harry's struggle with Mental Health since his mother died...his connections with Mental Health organisations that HE couldnt get her the help she needed. Do you really believe that Harry told her to go and ask HR to get her help and just accepted they couldnt help her because it wouldnt reflect well on the family....you think Harry just sat back and let that happen.

Harry said he was too ashamed to ask for help for Meghan.
He has told of getting therapy for himself however - he even told a room full of bankers in the USA, the speech he got paid a lot for.
Prince Charles has also said he has had therapy.

[user104658]

That's what i'm getting from all this because i'm baffled by it all. It's all dramatic for me because does anyone think the whole royal is racist over one person making a ignorant comment? I don't. I don't even think this interview did much at all. Some still love the royals, some don't and some don't give a **** that hasn't changed. The Queen and Kate weren't dragged through the mud like people are making out Meghan spoke highly of The Queen and no one thinks Kate is awful.Honestly despite the constant DM-style narrative that they have disrespected and slammed The Queen, I actually came away from watching it feeling more positively about The Queen herself than I ever have previously :joker:. Meghan was nothing but nice about The Queen as a person and grandmother, Harry obviously adores her as his gran no matter what his feelings on "the Royal stuff"... She is obviously very sad about the rift between Harry and Charles...

:shrug: I thought it was all very humanising and positive for The Queen. But then, I guess those who see it as negative are those who are more likely to deify/elevate "Royal People" and really don't want to think of The Queen as Harry's Gran because "She Is The Queen!!"

[Nicky91]

don't know if this reaction video has been shared here, but Russell got 1.7 million views as of now

OyREzWcCPDo

[Tom4784]

Proof that they controlled her home life?
They didn't 'seize' her passport. :laugh: They keep all the royals passports for security reasons, which they obviously released for all those trips and holidays.

And I would like you to acknowledge this reply to the accusations you threw at me about mental health instead of ignoring it....

....and Dezzy, you are making a lot of assumptions there....show me a post where I said I doubted her mental health issues - even if I did, I wouldn't say so. I HAVE doubted very much that she was refused help, said so, and still do.
So get your facts right before you start lecturing people on things they haven't said.

More strawman arguments.

If someone is holding your passport, they ultimately control it. Again, not a hard concept to grasp. Regardless of the reason, she didn't hold her own passport and would have to go ask for it, any other person would not have to do the same.

You've branded her a liar several times, you've disregarded her words and belittled them at every opportunity. You bring up Africa a lot when she spoke about her own difficulties. You obviously don't believe her struggles and seek to undermine them. I don't need to point out one post, all your posts are similar in that regard and no amount of strawmans will change that.

[user104658]

Its also dangerous and vile if its untrue. Its extremely hard to believe that with Harry's struggle with Mental Health since his mother died...his connections with Mental Health organisations that HE couldnt get her the help she needed. Do you really believe that Harry told her to go and ask HR to get her help and just accepted they couldnt help her because it wouldnt reflect well on the family....you think Harry just sat back and let that happen.He didn't sit back and let it happen, he took drastic action to remove his family from the situation by giving up everything he has ever known. Did you miss that part somehow?

It is fairly evident to me from their demeanor and the way they talk about things that they have had significant counselling since leaving The UK.

So they absolutely did take action. By leaving.

[user104658]

More strawman arguments.



If someone is holding your passport, they ultimately control it. Again, not a hard concept to grasp. Regardless of the reason, she didn't hold her own passport and would have to go ask for it, any other person would not have to do the same.



You've branded her a liar several times, you've disregarded her words and belittled them at every opportunity. You bring up Africa a lot when she spoke about her own difficulties. You obviously don't believe her struggles and seek to undermine them. I don't need to point out one post, all your posts are similar in that regard and no amount of strawmans will change that.

Honestly, as if the people saying these things - if their employer came up to them and said "we need to keep your passport and other official documents in the safe here at work for security reasons" - wouldn't tell them to **** right off.

Or maybe they wouldn't?? :shrug: I suppose that would explain a lot of the issues with this discussion because I simply can't comprehend that mindset.

[Tom4784]

He didn't sit back and let it happen, he took drastic action to remove his family from the situation by giving up everything he has ever known. Did you miss that part somehow?

It is fairly evident to me from their demeanor and the way they talk about things that they have had significant counselling since leaving The UK.

So they absolutely did take action. By leaving.

But they weren't meant to do that! How dare they leave our sphere of influence where we can't berate them and they have to stand there at take it for our own amusement!

The press and the public were happy to pile on her all the hatred they could muster, and now they hate her for peacing out and daring to find their own path on their own terms.

It's an abusive situation, really. The UK abused Meghan Markle and continue to do so.

[Cherie]

Well this changes EVERYTHING.

no need for the sarcasm, I was always under the impression it was Harry and Meghan invited the choir :skull:

[Zizu]

People are really blinded by their overwhelming confirmation bias. Like, these royal commentators were totally revealed to be full of **** and talking out of their arse regarding an interview they hadn't seen, but because they have negative views on Meghan Markle, her haters just ignore the facts and treat them like bastions of truth because these 'commentators' are telling them what they want to hear.

I could never tolerate that, I don't know how her haters could. I'd rather embrace reality.



Perfect


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tom4784]

Honestly, as if the people saying these things - if their employer came up to them and said "we need to keep your passport and other official documents in the safe here at work for security reasons" - wouldn't tell them to **** right off.

Or maybe they wouldn't?? :shrug: I suppose that would explain a lot of the issues with this discussion because I simply can't comprehend that mindset.

'One rule for thee, another for me.' Basically.

[rusticgal]

Harry said he was too ashamed to ask for help for Meghan.



Unbelievable....despite his support with Mental Health associations and telling people to speak out...he couldnt even do it for his wife?

[jet]

More strawman arguments.

If someone is holding your passport, they ultimately control it. Again, not a hard concept to grasp. Regardless of the reason, she didn't hold her own passport and would have to go ask for it, any other person would not have to do the same.

You've branded her a liar several times, you've disregarded her words and belittled them at every opportunity. You bring up Africa a lot when she spoke about her own difficulties. You obviously don't believe her struggles and seek to undermine them. I don't need to point out one post, all your posts are similar in that regard and no amount of strawmans will change that.

I have never said I disbelieved her about the struggles she spoke of in Africa. I have always said it was the wrong time and place to bring them up. You can strawman and strawman until the cows come home in every post but what you won't do is admit you were wrong.

[Glenn.]

I have never said I disbelieved her about the struggles she spoke of in Africa. I have always said it was the wrong time and place to bring them up. You can strawman and strawman until the cows come home in every post but what you won't do is admit you were wrong.

You undermine everything she says and does. I see how you didn’t respond to that bit of Dezzys post.

[jet]

Honestly, as if the people saying these things - if their employer came up to them and said "we need to keep your passport and other official documents in the safe here at work for security reasons" - wouldn't tell them to **** right off.

Or maybe they wouldn't?? :shrug: I suppose that would explain a lot of the issues with this discussion because I simply can't comprehend that mindset.

I think that would be because the royals need careful security protection and Jimmy who works in the chippy doesn't?

[jet]

He didn't sit back and let it happen, he took drastic action to remove his family from the situation by giving up everything he has ever known. Did you miss that part somehow?

It is fairly evident to me from their demeanor and the way they talk about things that they have had significant counselling since leaving The UK.

So they absolutely did take action. By leaving.

Not when she said she was suicidal though, he was too ashamed to do anything....and didn't you say he had wanted to get out of there for years?

[user104658]

I think that would be because the royals need careful security protection and Jimmy who works in the chippy doesn't?The reasons for it are irrelevant when discussion whether or not it has an impact on someone perception of their own freedom; I assume there are valid security reasons for it but that doesn't mean it doesn't feel trapping, and that someone who has realised that they feel trapped by it might want to leave.

But I know the stock response to this is, "Well she should have realised what she was getting into/Harry should have done a better job of explaining it to her" but that's "captain hindsight" stuff and it's not "immoral" to get into situations that you find yourself hating because of getting carried away in the excitement/lack of information. Nor is it immoral to then want to leave that situation.

[rusticgal]

He didn't sit back and let it happen, he took drastic action to remove his family from the situation by giving up everything he has ever known. Did you miss that part somehow?

It is fairly evident to me from their demeanor and the way they talk about things that they have had significant counselling since leaving The UK.

So they absolutely did take action. By leaving.


That was their 'solution' eventually.
Meghan said in the interview she told Harry about her suicidal thoughts because if she didnt say it ..she would do it. That same night she forced herself to go to the Theatre with Harry on a Royal appointment...she went because if she had stayed at home by herself she didnt trust what she might do...everytime the lights went down she cried.
If that was my wife I wouldnt wait 6 months to do something about it...if she was on the verge of 'doing something' AND she was heavily pregnant (bearing in mind her mental health was also threatening the life of my unborn child) I would be on the case IMMEDIATLY...instead of being embarrassed to say anything.

[user104658]

Not when she said she was suicidal though, he was too ashamed to do anything....and didn't you say he had wanted to get out of there for years?I'm not really going to gloss over that part; he did admit that he didn't do all he could immediately because of feeling ashamed but that's all part of the issue and the culture, isn't it. It seems he knows he could have done more and is owning that - otherwise he wouldn't have said it. You claim the interview was 100% cultivated and preened to be nothing but positive for them so why would that be in there is he wasn't admitting that he wishes he had done more earlier? He's essentially being apologetic about it in the interview and brings it up as part of explaining that there was a later point when he realised how bad things had gotten, and had to get them out of the situation. Why take his admission thst he coils and should have done more and use it as a criticism? It's information that he's offering freely and already criticising in himself. :shrug:

[rusticgal]

You undermine everything she says and does. I see how you didn’t respond to that bit of Dezzys post.


Pot Kettle Black...on both accounts.

[jet]

The reasons for it are irrelevant when discussion whether or not it has an impact on someone perception of their own freedom; I assume there are valid security reasons for it but that doesn't mean it doesn't feel trapping, and that someone who has realised that they feel trapped by it might want to leave.

But I know the stock response to this is, "Well she should have realised what she was getting into/Harry should have done a better job of explaining it to her" but that's "captain hindsight" stuff and it's not "immoral" to get into situations that you find yourself hating because of getting carried away in the excitement/lack of information. Nor is it immoral to then want to leave that situation.

No, not my response. I don't need to scrape the barrel for reasons to justify what I've said about this 'I was trapped' nonsense. I'll leave the barrel scraping to others.

[user104658]

If that was my wife I wouldnt wait 6 months to do something about it...if she was on the verge of 'doing something' AND she was heavily pregnant (bearing in mind her mental health was also threatening the life of my unborn child) I would be on the case IMMEDIATLY...instead of being embarrassed to say anything.

You can't say what you would do in that situation unless you have been in that situation, and even then you can only say what you would do because you are not that person nor have you had that person's life. You're building yourself an imaginary high-horse.

If I had to hazard a guess, if Harry could see history repeating itself and with Diana/Meghan comparisons, he may well have been in a state of anxiety/denial about it and putting energy into pretending it wasn't happening. I mean judge him for that if you want, but I personally wouldn't.

[user104658]

No, not my response. I don't need to scrape the barrel for reasons to justify what I've said about this 'I was trapped' nonsense. I'll leave the barrel scraping to others.You mean if you scrape the barrel any further you'll start a tunnel to Australia, jet.

[rusticgal]

I'm not really going to gloss over that part; he did admit that he didn't do all he could immediately because of feeling ashamed but that's all part of the issue and the culture, isn't it. It seems he knows he could have done more and is owning that - otherwise he wouldn't have said it. You claim the interview was 100% cultivated and preened to be nothing but positive for them so why would that be in there is he wasn't admitting that he wishes he had done more earlier? He's essentially being apologetic about it in the interview and brings it up as part of explaining that there was a later point when he realised how bad things had gotten, and had to get them out of the situation. Why take his admission thst he coils and should have done more and use it as a criticism? It's information that he's offering freely and already criticising in himself. :shrug:



Doesnt that all seem a bit bizarre behaviour from someone who has made speeches in support of Mental Health and said how important it is to reach out and not be ashamed....:shrug:

[AnnieK]

I can totally get the feeling of being trapped when you lose control of your life as you knew it. Over this last 12 months I have felt trapped. I'm in my own house, with my son, access to everything I need in regards to hone comforts. But I can't go to see my friends when I want, I can't nip out for a meal, I can't see family members, I can't go on holiday when I want. Now, I'm doing all that because the Government told me too, for health reasons. I know its the right thing to do.....but I have moaned about it constantly :laugh: I'm bored, I feel trapped even though I know its for the right reasons and will end but doesn't stop me feeling at times like a caged animal. I don't understand why its hard to believe that someone feels trapped when their life takes a massive change of direction.

[jet]

I'm not really going to gloss over that part; he did admit that he didn't do all he could immediately because of feeling ashamed but that's all part of the issue and the culture, isn't it. It seems he knows he could have done more and is owning that - otherwise he wouldn't have said it. You claim the interview was 100% cultivated and preened to be nothing but positive for them so why would that be in there is he wasn't admitting that he wishes he had done more earlier? He's essentially being apologetic about it in the interview and brings it up as part of explaining that there was a later point when he realised how bad things had gotten, and had to get them out of the situation. Why take his admission thst he coils and should have done more and use it as a criticism? It's information that he's offering freely and already criticising in himself. :shrug:

Meghan was 100% cultivated and preened, Harry didn't quite follow the script.
He's emotional and spontaneous, Meghan is very much not.

[Zizu]

You can't say what you would do in that situation unless you have been in that situation, and even then you can only say what you would do because you are not that person nor have you had that person's life. You're building yourself an imaginary high-horse.

If I had to hazard a guess, if Harry could see history repeating itself and with Diana/Meghan comparisons, he may well have been in a state of anxiety/denial about it and putting energy into pretending it wasn't happening. I mean judge him for that if you want, but I personally wouldn't.



Excellent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[AnnieK]

Doesnt that all seem a bit bizarre behaviour from someone who has made speeches in support of Mental Health and said how important it is to reach out and not be ashamed....:shrug:

It just shows how hard to do it is when you are ACTUALLY in the situation to me. We all know how things should be done, doesn't mean you would definitely do it when you're in that situation. For example, I have taken loads of first aid courses over the years and when I was a nanny had to do a fairly intensive paediatric one. However when my son was 2 he choked on a piece of bread, I'm talking properly choking in a restaurant. I knew I had to get that piece of food dislodged, I even knew the best way to do it....but I froze. Only momentarily and a lady at another table stepped up. I had all the knowledge but in the moment I didn't do what I should have done. That's just being human and flawed.

[Glenn.]

Pot Kettle Black...on both accounts.

Who have I undermined?

[rusticgal]

You can't say what you would do in that situation unless you have been in that situation, and even then you can only say what you would do because you are not that person nor have you had that person's life. You're building yourself an imaginary high-horse.

If I had to hazard a guess, if Harry could see history repeating itself and with Diana/Meghan comparisons, he may well have been in a state of anxiety/denial about it and putting energy into pretending it wasn't happening. I mean judge him for that if you want, but I personally wouldn't.


Yes I can say thats what I would do...because I would. If my wife and unborn childs life was at risk...I wouldnt hesitate.

[rusticgal]

Who have I undermined?


:joker:

[jet]

You mean if you scrape the barrel any further you'll start a tunnel to Australia, jet.

When defeated, post a silly jibe. You're only human TS. :cheer2: :laugh:

[Glenn.]

:joker:

So no one then.

Outstanding input to the discussion as always.

[jet]

Yes I can say thats what I would do...because I would. If my wife and unborn childs life was at risk...I wouldnt hesitate.

Very few would hesitate Rusti. I can't really see any circumstances that would justify not getting help, certainly not in a position where the family have the best professionals readily available. (The Times)
Meghan said she was so desperate she phoned a friend of Diana's (Diana brought into it again) - does she have no supportive and helpful friends of her own to talk to?

[joeysteele]

I can totally get the feeling of being trapped when you lose control of your life as you knew it. Over this last 12 months I have felt trapped. I'm in my own house, with my son, access to everything I need in regards to hone comforts. But I can't go to see my friends when I want, I can't nip out for a meal, I can't see family members, I can't go on holiday when I want. Now, I'm doing all that because the Government told me too, for health reasons. I know its the right thing to do.....but I have moaned about it constantly :laugh: I'm bored, I feel trapped even though I know its for the right reasons and will end but doesn't stop me feeling at times like a caged animal. I don't understand why its hard to believe that someone feels trapped when their life takes a massive change of direction.

You've said there quite a bit of how my Mum feels during this present time.

She is grateful to be with me and my Cousin and therefore safe, however being usually fiercely independent has found this very best depressing at times.

My Mum is solidly more sympathetic to Prince Harry and Meghan.
At the time we watched the interview, her words were, what we are having to do, sounds a bit like what Meghan particularly was feeling.
Adding no way could she have lived the Royal life with the duty that's expected..

I certainly can understand how trapped she felt.
She also may not have been sure Prince Harry would step aside with her.
So it's good she was honest and told him of her feelings.

She only said, that once in the Royal web, that was the last time she had her passport, not the last time she saw it.
Meaning anywhere she wanted or needed to go, other than royal duties, she'd need the 'permission', from the institutionalised set up the Royal full duty expectancy is.

It was odd Annie reading your post, I was a bit worried as I for a brief moment thought my Mum had joined the forum.
Apart from the being in your own house as my Mum is in mine, so many words mirrored word almost for word are what I've heard.

Yes however, you can easily feel trapped, even though you can freely walk round a building and grounds, as you say.
So I can understand what Meghan Markle may be indicating there too.

[jet]

If anything Joey I think they tried possibly too hard to "not name names" out of a desire to not get anyone specifically in trouble or their face all over the papers, but the effect has unfortunately been a lot of speculation. Often better to just set the record straight and go from there.

:laugh: I nearly choked on my bacon butty reading that, you can take pretending to be gullible too far TS! :fist: :laugh:

[Glenn.]

This is the problem when your hatred of them runs this deep. You see the absolute worst in EVERYTHING they say and do.

[user104658]

you can take pretending to be gullible too far TS! :fist: [emoji23]

I already said exactly this earlier jet :think: you can't just repeat things back at me with laughing faces and expect to be taken seriously, come on now. Besides, I thought "posting silly jibes" was an admission of defeat ;)

[jet]

I already said exactly this earlier jet :think: you can't just repeat things back at me with laughing faces and expect to be taken seriously, come on now. Besides, I thought "posting silly jibes" was an admission of defeat ;)

Didn't see where you said it. :shrug:
It wasn't a silly jibe, I wanted you to know how hilarious I found your comment and my admiration at your pretense. Take compliments gracefully TS!
*and i really did nearly choke on my bacon butty - :fist:

[Zizu]

Very few would hesitate Rusti. I can't really see any circumstances that would justify not getting help, certainly not in a position where the family have the best professionals readily available. (The Times)

Meghan said she was so desperate she phoned a friend of Diana's (Diana brought into it again) - does she have no supportive and helpful friends of her own to talk to?



How on earth would Meg’s friends have any experience with the Royal family ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[GoldHeart]

More strawman arguments.

If someone is holding your passport, they ultimately control it. Again, not a hard concept to grasp. Regardless of the reason, she didn't hold her own passport and would have to go ask for it, any other person would not have to do the same.

You've branded her a liar several times, you've disregarded her words and belittled them at every opportunity. You bring up Africa a lot when she spoke about her own difficulties. You obviously don't believe her struggles and seek to undermine them. I don't need to point out one post, all your posts are similar in that regard and no amount of strawmans will change that.

That was an eye opener when Meghan said all that, i could never imagine doing all that. Must of made her feel more trapped.

But really when we think about it , once they're apart of the royals they've basically given up their regular life pretty much . Which must be a daunting experience.

[Oliver_W]

https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5148&stc=1&d=1615659126
Why Meghan left Buckingham Palace
"I couldn't breathe!"



:joker:

[bots]

it's in pretty poor taste no matter which way you look at it, but thats politics for you

[GoldHeart]

https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5148&stc=1&d=1615659126
Why Meghan left Buckingham Palace
"I couldn't breathe!"



:joker:

That's tasteless AF
Not funny in the slightest

[Crimson Dynamo]

How dare they say our Queen has hairy legs

[Crimson Dynamo]

Meghan told Oprah 'The Firm' attempted to keep her under effective house arrest.

Things got to the stage, she alleged, when she said: 'I've left the house twice in four months.'

A striking claim. But does it hold water?

There is no official record of her social activities, but on the work front, the Court Circular records Meghan's attendance at official engagements on 73 days in the 17 months between her wedding and the couple's departure for Canada.

Of those days, at least 65 involved leaving her home. There are just two apparent gaps in this hectic schedule, both in 2019: from March 22 to July 6; and from July 14 to September 23.

The first period includes the run-up to Archie's birth, when she travelled to hospital on May 6, plus at least four private outings: to Windsor Castle on May 8, Trooping the Colour and a baseball game in London in June, and Wimbledon on July 4.

In the second period, Meghan managed to holiday abroad four times: in Italy, France, Ibiza and the U.S.

In short, there doesn't appear to be any 'four-month' period when she only left the house twice.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9356741/Harry-Meghan-inconvenient-truth.html

[Crimson Dynamo]

Ixz1bfadHhs

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5c/Nailed_It_-_Netflix_Show_Poster.jpg

[user104658]

Shapiro! LT I really am starting to think that you're a double-agent trying to help out Meghan and Harry :flutter:

[GoldHeart]

Shapiro! LT I really am starting to think that you're a double-agent trying to help out Meghan and Harry :flutter:

There there's Nigel Farage aswell :laugh3:

[Crimson Dynamo]

There there's Nigel Farage aswell :laugh3:

as if by magic

jMU4iwZPy1U

[GoldHeart]

as if by magic

jMU4iwZPy1U

Nice try
But I'd rather rub sand paper on my eyes than listen to him :hee:

[Glenn.]

It’s so embarrassing when people post opinion pieces by the likes of piers Morgan and Nigel garbage.

[Crimson Dynamo]

It’s so embarrassing when people post opinion pieces by the likes of piers Morgan and Nigel garbage.

as opposed to watching adverts from billionaires in Hollywood and thinking its real?

Id wager that is a little more embarrassing?

Just my opinion of course

[Tom4784]

It’s so embarrassing when people post opinion pieces by the likes of piers Morgan and Nigel garbage.

Confirmation bias warps people's perceptions, they confuse opinion for facts because they like what's being said.

[user104658]

as if by magic



jMU4iwZPy1UYou'll be wheeling Katie Hopkins out of retirement next.

[rusticgal]

Outstanding input to the discussion as always.


Thanks...

[Crimson Dynamo]

You'll be wheeling Katie Hopkins out of retirement next.

To try and compare the two is not really a thing

Now is it

[Zizu]

I wonder how many in here have watched the interview in it’s entirety ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[user104658]

To try and compare the two is not really a thing



Now is itAll cut from the same cloth :shrug:.

[joeysteele]

I wonder how many in here have watched the interview in it’s entirety ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Well some say they haven't but have a fair bit to say on it.

I watched it all through so I could have full facts of what they actually said.
It makes it so much easier to then just know what you've heard and watched, got the full context of it.
So that you can see when others misrepresent what they've actually said.

Which frankly is best ignored as if you're up against those not giving a fair hearing on things, then it's clear it's pointless to even attempt to reason.

For instance a Cousin of mine I know didn't watch it yet is dead set against them, just saying they lied all through.
Just sticking to that mantra of them lying.
I got to the point where it was pointless to even continue to discuss it with her.

I don't think however there was really ever likely a chance this interview would change anyone's mind.

Although I've come across people, not on here, who have taken on board their description of the Royal institution.
Especially from those who were more kindly looking towards Princess Diana.
Who say they much confirmed a lot of what she had said about the Royal institutional set up too.

[joeysteele]

Oh crikey, Farage, he'll do anything to get onto any media source.
He's obsessed.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Oh crikey, Farage, he'll do anything to get onto any media source.
He's obsessed.

He is being interviewed in a regular slot on talkradio by a colleague.

?

It's how radio works

[Cherie]

Well some say they haven't but have a fair bit to say on it.

I watched it all through so I could have full facts of what they actually said.
It makes it so much easier to then just know what you've heard and watched, got the full context of it.
So that you can see when others misrepresent what they've actually said.

Which frankly is best ignored as if you're up against those not giving a fair hearing on things, then it's clear it's pointless to even attempt to reason.

For instance a Cousin of mine I know didn't watch it yet is dead set against them, just saying they lied all through.
Just sticking to that mantra of them lying.
I got to the point where it was pointless to even continue to discuss it with her.

I don't think however there was really ever likely a chance this interview would change anyone's mind.

Although I've come across people, not on here, who have taken on board their description of the Royal institution.
Especially from those who were more kindly looking towards Princess Diana.
Who say they much confirmed a lot of what she had said about the Royal institutional set up too.

And? There have been plenty clips broadcast everywhere to talk about, unless you are calling members liars of course

[Cherie]

Thanks...

Your input is spot on as usual Rusti :love:

[Crimson Dynamo]

All cut from the same cloth :shrug:.

It's a colloquial saying but has no place in reality

[joeysteele]

And? There have been plenty clips broadcast everywhere to talk about, unless you are calling members liars of course

No one's calling anyone anything as you well know Cherie.
I've CALLED no one LIARS, which you equally know too.
So your inference is WRONG.

I'm very sorry to disappoint but I'm not risking heading into the bother I got into with you last time on here Cherie.

.

[joeysteele]

It’s so embarrassing when people post opinion pieces by the likes of piers Morgan and Nigel garbage.

I like the Nigel garbage tag there.

It's not 5 minutes since Morgan was a hypocrite.
As for Farage, I wouldn't take his view or word on just about anything.
Certainly not on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

[GoldHeart]

He is being interviewed in a regular slot on talkradio by a colleague.

?

It's how radio works

Farage is a desperate rat trying to stay relevant, he pops up everywhere .

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/CDCE/production/_117568625_mail-on-sunday-nc.png

[jet]

I wonder how many in here have watched the interview in it’s entirety ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I have. I recorded it and watched in smaller sessions as I couldn't have stomached the lot in one go.

[user104658]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/CDCE/production/_117568625_mail-on-sunday-nc.png.............. The Daily Mail using the brutal murder of a young woman to use another woman in trolling a 3rd woman is actually one of the most disgusting things I've seen in a tabloid, maybe ever. I can't even begin to quantify how ****ed up this is, and I really also have zero to say to anyone who wants to pretend they don't see it. Just putrid.

[jet]

The Kate headline and pic is on most of tomorrows papers front pages....:umm2:

[user104658]

The Kate headline and pic is on most of tomorrows papers front pages....:umm2:I'm not talking about the Kate story, I'm talking about the deliberate juxtaposition. The people who design front pages are not stupid, they know exactly what they're doing, and in this case they're using a horrific crime as part of doing it. Just a moral void at this point honestly.

[Tom4784]

.............. The Daily Mail using the brutal murder of a young woman to use another woman in trolling a 3rd woman is actually one of the most disgusting things I've seen in a tabloid, maybe ever. I can't even begin to quantify how ****ed up this is, and I really also have zero to say to anyone who wants to pretend they don't see it. Just putrid.

It's truly grotesque, using a murder that's shed light on the dangers women face in order to pit two women against each other. A vile rag that has no sense of morality, it's just a factory of hatred at this point.

[Ammi]

.............. The Daily Mail using the brutal murder of a young woman to use another woman in trolling a 3rd woman is actually one of the most disgusting things I've seen in a tabloid, maybe ever. I can't even begin to quantify how ****ed up this is, and I really also have zero to say to anyone who wants to pretend they don't see it. Just putrid.

It's truly grotesque, using a murder that's shed light on the dangers women face in order to pit two women against each other. A vile rag that has no sense of morality, it's just a factory of hatred at this point.

...that front page really is staggering in how it’s ‘taken an opportunity’ in something so horrific...I don’t know what else to say, it’s just horrendous ...

[bots]

It's all about presentation. Kate good, Meghan bad. I was never interested in the Megan and Harry story and it is beyond tedious now

[joeysteele]

...that front page really is staggering in how it’s ‘taken an opportunity’ in something so horrific...I don’t know what else to say, it’s just horrendous ...

Yet we get the Daily Mail articles and columnists presented as reasoned people and as likely facts.

That publication is an affront to all decency.
That front page REALLY sick too, as TS says to use a sick tragedy to promote it's divisive agenda.
Sick, beyond any respect or decency.

In the recycling bin is the only appropriate place for the Daily Mail.
Just a pity it ever gets published at all.

[Beso]

It's truly grotesque, using a murder that's shed light on the dangers women face in order to pit two women against each other. A vile rag that has no sense of morality, it's just a factory of hatred at this point.

How on earth has that front page pitted two women against each other.:shrug:

It shows kate laying flowers at the vigil as all the other front pages did and it also had an update on this weeks other big story that they were featuring inside the paper.

Papers need to sell, the reader needs to know what's inside from the outside.

The paper cant be blamed for the 2 headlines these two ladies deliver them, no matter anyone's hatred of that paper.

Heck, it's not even a negative photo of meghan nor a negative story. If anything it shows her strength and determination as a woman.

The depths some people will go to rubbish the daily mail is sickening.

[Zizu]

How on earth has that front page pitted two women against each other.:shrug:

It shows kate laying flowers at the vigil as all the other front pages did and it also had an update on this weeks other big story that they were featuring inside the paper.

Papers need to sell, the reader needs to know what's inside from the outside.

The paper cant be blamed for the 2 headlines these two ladies deliver them, no matter anyone's hatred of that paper.

Heck, it's not even a negative photo of meghan nor a negative story. If anything it shows her strength and determination as a woman.

The depths some people will go to rubbish the daily mail is sickening.



It’s not something that came to mind when I saw it BUT after some reflection I can kinda understand what they’re getting at ...

Kate is portrayed as the kind , caring sort even though in my opinion it was an ill advised venture - on a few levels

Meghan however is shown looking determined and defiant with the provocative headline .. “show me the evidence that I bullied staff“


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[joeysteele]

It’s not something that came to mind when I saw it BUT after some reflection I can kinda understand what they’re getting at ...

Kate is portrayed as the kind , caring sort even though in my opinion it was an ill advised venture - on a few levels

Meghan however is shown looking determined and defiant with the provocative headline .. “show me the evidence that I bullied staff“


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That's exactly it Zizu.

It would have been more appropriate to leave the front page only to the sick murder.

Rather than display the division elements of the Royals yet AGAIN.

It's easily seen as to their agenda if people want to even try to see it.

I've only seen it on here, I wouldn't waste a pence on any paper.
Certainly not the gutter trash the Mail is.

As I've said before, I wouldn't soil my pet Staffie's mess by picking it up the Mail.
Weekdays or Sunday's.

[Glenn.]

The depths some people will go to rubbish the daily mail is sickening.

As the paper that has played a HUGE part in the Meghan bashing this is possibly the most hilarious post I’ve seen.

[Beso]

You could say the sunday times front page is worse..but you all love to bash the mail for some reason...

Do you moan about the paper directly to its pr team, or ofcom?

Cause that's where you should be doing it, not on here for digs.

[Ammi]

...Their usage of Sarah’s vigil and Kate attending, aside ... Meghan and Kate, two loving mothers on Mother’s Day to be used in such a deliberate divisive way is despicable and shows no respect for any female or mother IMO...

[Beso]

As the paper that has played a HUGE part in the Meghan bashing this is possibly the most hilarious post I’ve seen.

I've seen some hilarious posts this week of people writing stuff ten times worse than anything the daily mail has printed.:smug:

[user104658]

You could say the sunday times front page is worse..but you all love to bash the mail for some reason...

Do you moan about the paper directly to its pr team, or ofcom?

Cause that's where you should be doing it, not on here for digs.I saw that front page because that's the one that was posted, I haven't seen others to comment.

I obviously have no issue with them putting Kate's attendance at the vigil on the front page, that's not the issue at all, the issue is that for even ONE day, when something so horrific and sad has happened - they couldn't just make that their front page spread. They had to put a big, bold "... And look how rubbish and petty Meghan and Harry are in comparison!!" right above it.

They are RELYING on plausible deniability, on being able to claim that it's totally unrelated/coincidental/just happens to be the two big stories but putting them side by side like that is a clear and deliberate "dig"... A misogynistic one... using the murder of a woman as bait. It's mind-boggling.

There's no point making an official complaint, it's designed to be "deniable", no one can outright prove their obvious intent. All we can do is point these things out in the hope that other people can see it too, or that people who can't will give it some thought.

[jet]

I'm not talking about the Kate story, I'm talking about the deliberate juxtaposition. The people who design front pages are not stupid, they know exactly what they're doing, and in this case they're using a horrific crime as part of doing it. Just a moral void at this point honestly.



On much the same theme:

UK Press accused...but here's proof CBS faked it's own news

A running theme in Sunday's interview was the host's assertion that Meghan was the victim of racism at the hands of the British press.
'There were undeniable racist overtones,' Oprah insisted. 'This stands apart from the kind of coverage we've seen of any other royal. There was constant criticism, blatant sexist and racist remarks by British tabloids.'
To illustrate Ms Winfrey's point, viewers were presented with montages of supposedly-bigoted headlines.
Yet more than a third of those headlines turn out to have been from foreign publications.

For example, in a flurry of eight headlines about Meghan 'making Kate cry', five were from U.S. and Australian supermarket magazines.
A second montage of eight lurid headlines — such as 'monster Meghan exposed' and 'Harry knocks up TV star' — all came from overseas titles.

Even when Oprah did show viewers British headlines, several had been cynically edited, and in one case seemingly entirely fabricated.
The programme, for example, used footage of a Guardian headline that supposedly referred neutrally to an incident when radio DJ Danny Baker posted a picture of a chimpanzee on Twitter after Archie was born.
It read: 'BBC's Danny Baker on comparing Royal Baby Archie to a chimp.' But that image appears to have been faked by Oprah's team, since no such headline has ever appeared in that paper.

A Telegraph headline that reads 'The real problem with Meghan Markle: she just doesn't speak our language' was cropped by Oprah's staff in order to make it appear jingoistic.
In fact, as the second line of the headline would have made clear (were it not deleted by Oprah's staff), the author was not mocking her race or ethnicity, but was instead making fun of her habit of using what he later called: 'hippie corporate management speak'.

Perhaps the most egregious smear revolved around a January 2018 Mail on Sunday story that lead to the resignation of (then) UKIP leader Henry Bolton. The headline used by the newspaper quoted abusive text messages Mr Bolton's girlfriend had recently written.
It read: 'Meghan's seed will taint our Royal Family': UKIP chief's glamour model lover, 25, is suspended from the party over racist texts about Prince Harry's wife to be.'
In a cynical attempt to portray the article as racist, the production team appear to have removed all but the first seven words, falsely suggesting that the paper had published an opinion article arguing that 'Meghan's seed will taint our Royal Family.'
..............................

[user104658]

It's not on the same theme at all and I'm not going to engage with you on this.

[Beso]

I saw that front page because that's the one that was posted, I haven't seen others to comment.

I obviously have no issue with them putting Kate's attendance at the vigil on the front page, that's not the issue at all, the issue is that for even ONE day, when something so horrific and sad has happened - they couldn't just make that their front page spread. They had to put a big, bold "... And look how rubbish and petty Meghan and Harry are in comparison!!" right above it.

They are RELYING on plausible deniability, on being able to claim that it's totally unrelated/coincidental/just happens to be the two big stories but putting them side by side like that is a clear and deliberate "dig"... A misogynistic one... using the murder of a woman as bait. It's mind-boggling.

There's no point making an official complaint, it's designed to be "deniable", no one can outright prove their obvious intent. All we can do is point these things out in the hope that other people can see it too, or that people who can't will give it some thought.

I don't know how to make your posts bold..

But the bit about making meghan and harry look rubbish and petty...how do you get those 2 words from that headline?

AlI I see is a brave and independent woman standing up to the palace..and everyone's using that positive as a negative to dig out a newspaper.

[jet]

It's not on the same theme at all and I'm not going to engage with you on this.

I meant to highlight the part of your post that said:
Just a moral void at this point

'Immoral' is the connection'.

[user104658]

I don't know how to make your posts bold..

But the bit about making meghan and harry look rubbish and petty...how do you get those 2 words from that headline?

AlI I see is a brave and independent woman standing up to the palace..and everyone's using that positive as a negative to dig out a newspaper.The purple part is there purely to remind people that "Harry has hurt his family" and "Meghan has been accused of bullying". They've put those things there, in deliberate contrast to Kate showing support for a murdered woman. It's the Mail, the idea that those headlines are supposed to be anything other than what I've just said is in the realms of fantasy.

I've said all I have to say about it and I'm not comfortable getting into an Internet back and forth over this, it's just messed up. As always, people will see what they want to see.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Interesting bit of an article in today's ST

Identity politics – who’d have thought it? – turns out to be largely performative.
It isn’t primarily about standing up for other people. It’s about broadcasting
your own compassion. Take, for example, the most recent instalment in our
culture war, namely the question of whether we should unhesitatingly accept
the Duchess of Sussex’s version of events because she is female and of mixed
race. Those piling in to do so are not especially concerned for her, or upset on
her behalf. What they’re really saying is: “Look at me! I’m a nice person!”

Such signalling, naturally, requires an audience. Take away the prize of social
media likes and its emptiness becomes painfully apparent. All of which prompts
the unsettling thought that the madness through which we have been passing
these past six or seven years, the so-called Great Awokening, is really a
product of technology.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/14/take-away-audience-leftists-soon-lose-interest-identity-politics/

[Beso]

People hardly need reminding, so I ain't buying that.

[Crimson Dynamo]

WSrhQ48gWY8

[user104658]

namely the question of whether we should unhesitatingly accept the Duchess of Sussex’s version of events because she is female and of mixed race.

https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/blah-blah-blah-gif-8.gif

We'll be able to weigh up the merits of the different version of events if, and when, we HAVE a different account of events but the Palace hasn't been forthcoming with one and doesn't seem likely to. There currently IS only one "version of events" from direct sources. The "other version" is a version that observers have made up in their heads. It hasn't come from the Royal Family.

[user104658]

WSrhQ48gWY8

*press play*

Oh look it's another angry big pink bald bloke, what a shock.

Oh look he's whining about Meghan's dad based on the completely nonsensical notion that offspring "owe their parents" adoration (and access to their children) "no matter what" - an argument I suspect borne out of the fear that one might find themself cut off from family because of their past behaviour. Here's a thought; how about, forge a strong relationship with your kids and you won't have to worry about that later... instead of being an arsehole parent and expecting "everything to be OK anyway because faaaamily".

No one is "owed" grandkids, or access to them, spare me the tears.

[Crimson Dynamo]

SIR – Mental ill-health is a disorder that needs professional help. Rational
sadness, as a response to circumstances, is not an illness, however. To
encourage young people to see themselves as mentally ill whenever they
may be unhappy is dangerous and can be harmful.

It would be so good to see the beautiful and undoubtedly influential Duchess
of Sussex perhaps extol and demonstrate the virtues of strength and
humour.

Marion Wilcocks
Beare Green, Surrey


SIR – Poor Duchess: the world at her feet and still she was so unhappy.

I am 81, in declining health, and my looks have long gone. I’ve been more or
less restricted to my home for a year.

A few weeks ago, I wrote in my diary: “Sometimes I feel a great black cloud
descend on me – utter despair.” I didn’t call my GP – she’s got enough to
cope with. I didn’t contact my son or daughter, as both have problems of
serious loss of income.

What I said to myself was: “You’re not in a war zone. You’ve money in the
bank, a husband, a fine roof over your head, warmth, telephone, internet,
plenty to eat, even Zoom and an iPhone. Get a grip, be determinedly jolly,
smile, laugh a bit – otherwise you’ll go under.”

I counted my many blessings. Could the Duchess not have done the same?


Val Stevens
Carnforth, Lancashire

----------------------

two interesting opinion letters to the DT on the thread subject

[user104658]

SIR – Mental ill-health is a disorder that needs professional help. Rational
sadness, as a response to circumstances, is not an illness, however. To
encourage young people to see themselves as mentally ill whenever they
may be unhappy is dangerous and can be harmful.

It would be so good to see the beautiful and undoubtedly influential Duchess
of Sussex perhaps extol and demonstrate the virtues of strength and
humour.

Marion Wilcocks
Beare Green, Surrey


SIR – Poor Duchess: the world at her feet and still she was so unhappy.

I am 81, in declining health, and my looks have long gone. I’ve been more or
less restricted to my home for a year.

A few weeks ago, I wrote in my diary: “Sometimes I feel a great black cloud
descend on me – utter despair.” I didn’t call my GP – she’s got enough to
cope with. I didn’t contact my son or daughter, as both have problems of
serious loss of income.

What I said to myself was: “You’re not in a war zone. You’ve money in the
bank, a husband, a fine roof over your head, warmth, telephone, internet,
plenty to eat, even Zoom and an iPhone. Get a grip, be determinedly jolly,
smile, laugh a bit – otherwise you’ll go under.”

I counted my many blessings. Could the Duchess not have done the same?


Val Stevens
Carnforth, Lancashire

----------------------

two interesting opinion letters to the DT on the thread subject

Advocating stoicism in the face of emotional distress and implying that a lack of said stoicism is a weakness is not new, nor is it interesting. It's what they used to call the great British "stiff upper lip" and it's partly responsible for generation upon generation of absent coping mechanisms and casual alcoholism. Yaaay.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Advocating stoicism in the face of emotional distress and implying that a lack of said stoicism is a weakness is not new, nor is it interesting. It's what they used to call the great British "stiff upper lip" and it's partly responsible for generation upon generation of absent coping mechanisms and casual alcoholism. Yaaay.

i really dont think that is correct

[user104658]

i really dont think that is correct

OK but I'd be interested to know if you can think of any old-school British advocates of stoicism who don't count "a glass of wine" as one of their primary stress coping mechanisms. Nicotine used to be another one of course, though that seems to be becoming less popular.

[rusticgal]

Farage is a desperate rat trying to stay relevant, he pops up everywhere .


Sounds like Harry and Meghan...

[GoldHeart]

*press play*

Oh look it's another angry big pink bald bloke, what a shock.

Oh look he's whining about Meghan's dad based on the completely nonsensical notion that offspring "owe their parents" adoration (and access to their children) "no matter what" - an argument I suspect borne out of the fear that one might find themself cut off from family because of their past behaviour. Here's a thought; how about, forge a strong relationship with your kids and you won't have to worry about that later... instead of being an arsehole parent and expecting "everything to be OK anyway because faaaamily".

No one is "owed" grandkids, or access to them, spare me the tears.

That "faaamily " reminds me of Peggy Mitchell :laugh:

[GoldHeart]

Sounds like Harry and Meghan...

Hardly
but you can believe what you want.

And the tabloids are once again pitting Meghan & Kate against eachother , I'd never waste a penny on those toilet paper newspapers.

[joeysteele]

Hardly
but you can believe what you want.

And the tabloids are once again pitting Meghan & Kate against eachother , I'd never waste a penny on those toilet paper newspapers.

Nor me GoldHeart.
The lot of them pure trash from the gutter.

[Crimson Dynamo]

So hearing Meghan Markle frame the questions about her son’s skin
colour – however innocently intended – as racist ‘concern’ rather than
harmless imagination made my skin crawl.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/13/22/40432208-0-image-a-104_1615675741700.jpg

CANDACE OWENS: Unlike so many of my fellow Americans, I don't
buy Meghan Markle's 'truths' about racist Britain

What colour do you think his skin will be – lighter or darker?’

I cannot tell you how many times I was asked that question while I was
pregnant with my son last year.

It came from not only my sisters, who are fully black and darker than I am,
but also from my husband and from me as we day-dreamed about what our
beautiful boy would look like. ‘What colour do think his eyes will be?’ we’d
enquire aloud. ‘Will his hair be darker or lighter?’

If it needs spelling out, no, I am not a racist black American, nor is the man
who happened to marry me a racist Englishman.

Instead, we are parents, as my sisters were future-aunts, beyond excited to
imagine who our bi-racial, multicultural child would look like.

Meghan’s race, which is not to my eyes even immediately discernible, was
never at the centre of any piece criticising her.

That race would become a tool to deflect criticism of Harry and Meghan was,
in my view, inevitable. In fact, I predicted just as much in these pages
BEFORE the interview.

I also predicted that Meghan would explicitly present herself as a black
woman just finding her voice.

It’s certainly worked, obscuring an attempt by Oprah – the only winner in
this train wreck – to help her friends be better received across the Atlantic
than they were in the UK. And, of course, in America, race sells.

It’s just that I’m not buying it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9359399/CANDACE-OWENS-dont-buy-Meghan-Markles-truths-racist-Britain.html

[Tom4784]

*press play*

Oh look it's another angry big pink bald bloke, what a shock.

Oh look he's whining about Meghan's dad based on the completely nonsensical notion that offspring "owe their parents" adoration (and access to their children) "no matter what" - an argument I suspect borne out of the fear that one might find themself cut off from family because of their past behaviour. Here's a thought; how about, forge a strong relationship with your kids and you won't have to worry about that later... instead of being an arsehole parent and expecting "everything to be OK anyway because faaaamily".

No one is "owed" grandkids, or access to them, spare me the tears.

It's an abusive mindset, 'I can treat my kids as badly as I like and I'm still owed access to them and my grandkids because I brought them into this world and I own them.' Hideous.

People who defend Meghan Markle's dad after everything he's done are either defending him purely because doing so paints Meghan in a disingenuous bad light or because they see themselves in him which means, like you said, they fear being left out of the cold for their own sins.... Or both, honestly.

[rusticgal]

It's an abusive mindset, 'I can treat my kids as badly as I like and I'm still owed access to them and my grandkids because I brought them into this world and I own them.' Hideous.

People who defend Meghan Markle's dad after everything he's done are either defending him purely because doing so paints Meghan in a disingenuous bad light or because they see themselves in him which means, like you said, they fear being left out of the cold for their own sins.... Or both, honestly.


So whats the difference between what he did and what Meghan has just done?...

[GoldHeart]

So whats the difference between what he did and what Meghan has just done?...

Here we go again :rolleyes:

Where has Meghan been bad mouthing her family for clout ? Please tell me?.

The Oprah interview was critism of the institution ,and was getting their story out there. They never said anything bad about the Queen .

I've lost count the amount of media who ring both Thomas & Samantha have done , as they forever drag Meghan's name through the mud . What is the goal exactly? Apart from sympathy and CASH .

[Tom4784]

So whats the difference between what he did and what Meghan has just done?...

You mean, you need to be told the difference between a parent selling their kids out for money, painting them as the villains because they (the father) believe they are entitled to access despite doing their best to ruin their child's happiness for money? Let's not even get into the fact that his other daughter is writing a series of books about Meghan.

Versus doing an unpaid interview to highlight the mental health struggles of Meghan's situation, and going to lengths to point out the difference between the family and firm? Being complimentary about the queen and even still protecting the racist that said what they said about Archie? The Oprah interview was all about her struggles, she didn't even really slam anyone in it, it was all about her state of mind and the failures of the system to help her.

Do you really need me to point out the difference here? Really?

[rusticgal]

Here we go again :rolleyes:

Where has Meghan been bad mouthing her family for clout ? Please tell me?.

The Oprah interview was critism of the institution ,and was getting their story out there. They never said anything bad about the Queen .

I've lost count the amount of media who ring both Thomas & Samantha have done , as they forever drag Meghan's name through the mud . What is the goal exactly? Apart from sympathy and CASH .


Rubbish...she has accused the family of Racism and not supporting her. They later made a statement saying The Queen and Phillip were not involved...but not the rest of the family. They have made accusations that are hard to prove...
Getting their story out there...for what purpose?....what have they really achieved? If they were not rich they would be selling their story....it was unnecessary...it was for sympathy and exposure at the expense of his family...I would say they are as bad as each other wouldnt you :shrug:

[rusticgal]

You mean, you need to be told the difference between a parent selling their kids out for money, painting them as the villains because they (the father) believe they are entitled to access despite doing their best to ruin their child's happiness for money? Let's not even get into the fact that his other daughter is writing a series of books about Meghan.

Versus doing an unpaid interview to highlight the mental health struggles of Meghan's situation, and going to lengths to point out the difference between the family and firm? Being complimentary about the queen and even still protecting the racist that said what they said about Archie? The Oprah interview was all about her struggles, she didn't even really slam anyone in it, it was all about her state of mind and the failures of the system to help her.

Do you really need me to point out the difference here? Really?


OMG...take away the money and replace it with exposure...they are both as bad as each other.
Harry and Meghan dont need the money...they need to stay relevant and need exposure and they have sold his family down the swanny to get just that....there was absolutely no need to do that interview and say what they did. They are 'free' they are 'happy' so what was the point of dishing the dirt on Harry's family a year later?
Im afraid if you call out Meghans family for the 'tell all' to make money...Meghan is doing exactly the same thing for exposure which ultimately translates to 'making money'.

[GoldHeart]

Rubbish...she has accused the family of Racism and not supporting her. They later made a statement saying The Queen and Phillip were not involved...but not the rest of the family. They have made accusations that are hard to prove...
Getting their story out there...for what purpose?....what have they really achieved? If they were not rich they would be selling their story....it was unnecessary...it was for sympathy and exposure at the expense of his family...I would say they are as bad as each other wouldnt you :shrug:

Oh so now Meghan is somehow "as bad" ? as her parasite dad & sister .

If they named the culprit of the racist remark, then they'd STILL be accused of ruining the royal member's life. There isn't really a win win situation in this .

[rusticgal]

You mean, you need to be told the difference between a parent selling their kids out for money, painting them as the villains .

Do you really need me to point out the difference here? Really?



You mean, you need to be told the difference between a child selling their family out for exposure/money, painting them as villains....

:joker:

[rusticgal]

Oh so now Meghan is somehow "as bad" ? as her parasite dad & sister .

.



eh...yes she is. You can twist it as much as you want. Meghan disowned her father for going to the press....now she is selling her husbands family out for exposure.
But we will leave it there...because you just refuse to see what is blindingly obvious.

[Kazanne]

I've seen the newspapers posted on here ,I never once thought that any were pitting Kate and Megan against each other ,I am no fan of tabloids and media but I honestly did not come to the conclusion they were 'pitted' against each other, seems to me a lot is already in peoples heads and they are putting their spin on things, the same as when Harry first got with Megan ,I did not see any colour at all, it was only when some were saying she was not popular because of her skin colour that I even thought about it, again its just in some peoples heads and because someone says they don't like a person it may be because of their character NOT colour ,it's annoying now.

[GoldHeart]

I've seen the newspapers posted on here ,I never once thought that any were pitting Kate and Megan against each other ,I am no fan of tabloids and media but I honestly did not come to the conclusion they were 'pitted' against each other, seems to me a lot is already in peoples heads and they are putting their spin on things, the same as when Harry first got with Megan ,I did not see any colour at all, it was only when some were saying she was not popular because of her skin colour that I even thought about it, again its just in some peoples heads and because someone says they don't like a person it may be because of their character NOT colour ,it's annoying now.

Old articles have even been reposted on this forum over the past weeks , the clear contrast of Meghan & Kate is very much obvious. There's also a dash of sexism thrown in. But the narrative of the toxic media has always been 'meghan the villian' & 'kate the angel' . You have to be blind not to see that .

Meghan was even described in one as "straight out of Compton" , which shows utter ignorance when she WASN'T even born in Compton .

Then there's this racist cow, who said disgusting things like Meghan would "taint the royal blood"

nHDeZu5J1Qk

[joeysteele]

It was blatantly obvious they used the Kate at the vigil picture to present the ' nice one' image.

Then added at the very top, the ' bad one ' image of Meghan Markle and the now older bullying story.

It's incredible anyone cannot see the agenda there.
Or defend it.

However, it's very clear to me and it seems to the majority of others on here.
To even have the divisive comparison at all on the back of a murder of a young Woman by a police officer.
Well that's the real sick part of it all, for me.
It's also to me unbelievable anyone would defend it.
As I've said today to only fortunately 3 people off here.
Just about everyone else I've spoken to off here find it inappropriate at best.

[rusticgal]

I've seen the newspapers posted on here ,I never once thought that any were pitting Kate and Megan against each other ,I am no fan of tabloids and media but I honestly did not come to the conclusion they were 'pitted' against each other, seems to me a lot is already in peoples heads and they are putting their spin on things, the same as when Harry first got with Megan ,I did not see any colour at all, it was only when some were saying she was not popular because of her skin colour that I even thought about it, again its just in some peoples heads and because someone says they don't like a person it may be because of their character NOT colour ,it's annoying now.



I dont read the tabloids either. The tabloids have deliberately done it...but its no surprise. There is no love lost between the Tabloids and Meghan...and since Meghan made a point of trashing Kates reputation they will play them off each other.
Sadly if you dont like a 'person of colour' for many...its only for one reason. We are starting to see the real Meghan...and its not pretty imo.

:wavey:

[joeysteele]

Old articles have even been reposted on this forum over the past weeks , the clear contrast of Meghan & Kate is very much obvious. There's also a dash of sexism thrown in. But the narrative of the toxic media has always been 'meghan the villian' & 'kate the angel' . You have to be blind not to see that .

Meghan was even described in one as "straight out of Compton" , which shows utter ignorance when she WASN'T even born in Compton .

Then there's this racist cow, who said disgusting things like Meghan would "taint the royal blood"

nHDeZu5J1Qk

Absolutely right.

[Beso]

It was blatantly obvious they used the Kate at the vigil picture to present the ' nice one' image.

Then added at the very top, the ' bad one ' image of Meghan Markle and the now older bullying story.

It's incredible anyone cannot see the agenda there.
Or defend it.

However, it's very clear to me and it seems to the majority of others on here.
To even have the divisive comparison at all on the back of a murder of a young Woman by a police officer.
Well that's the real sick part of it all, for me.
It's also to me unbelievable anyone would defend it.
As I've said today to only fortunately 3 people off here.
Just about everyone else I've spoken to off here find it inappropriate at best.

Says a lot about the person when they dismiss Kate's obvious motives of sisterhood when she made her appearance.


To then use a rag they dont read to defend the honour of a two bit actress is beyond me.:shrug:

Also, the **** who murdered the poor woman was an off duty police officer...the that would just make him a male at the time.

Its sick to bring the angle of him being a copper, and that was evident in last night's ending to the vigil when it all became political.

As ****ing usual.

[arista]

Nasty France


1370985824100171776

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/13/14/40419490-9358299-image-a-91_1615644050360.jpg


Poxy French


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9358299/Fury-Charlie-Hebdo-magazine-cover-shows-Queen-kneeling-Meghan-Markles-neck.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

[Kazanne]

Old articles have even been reposted on this forum over the past weeks , the clear contrast of Meghan & Kate is very much obvious. There's also a dash of sexism thrown in. But the narrative of the toxic media has always been 'meghan the villian' & 'kate the angel' . You have to be blind not to see that .

Meghan was even described in one as "straight out of Compton" , which shows utter ignorance when she WASN'T even born in Compton .

Then there's this racist cow, who said disgusting things like Meghan would "taint the royal blood"

nHDeZu5J1Qk

I don't follow or buy tabloid fodder or take notice of much of the media, they are all in it to make money, I have never ever thought of one being a villain and one being an angel, we don't know them ,so those defending Megan to the hilt could be totally wrong WE DONT KNOW !! and vice versa, people are acting on here like she is their closest relative, she is nothing to us as the others aren't, To try and force feed people that Megan is a faultless soul is as daft as me telling you Andrew has an impeccable past, and people insulting others on here for having a different opinion is frankly pathetic.

[Tom4784]

I'm not angry, I'm amused.

Sure.

OMG...take away the money and replace it with exposure...they are both as bad as each other.
Harry and Meghan dont need the money...they need to stay relevant and need exposure and they have sold his family down the swanny to get just that....there was absolutely no need to do that interview and say what they did. They are 'free' they are 'happy' so what was the point of dishing the dirt on Harry's family a year later?
Im afraid if you call out Meghans family for the 'tell all' to make money...Meghan is doing exactly the same thing for exposure which ultimately translates to 'making money'.

Sure it's the same thing, if you disregard reality and the facts and engage in imagination and fantasy. You're just completely and utterly wrong, really.

Meghan's father and his other daughter profited from selling stories, from taking pot shots at Meghan, to ruin her happiness and then that manipulative piece of **** of a father then tried to paint himself as the victim by making out that she was in the wrong for exercising her own right of choosing who is involved in her life and who isn't. A parent is not entitled to their children or their grandchildren, they do not have ownership over their lives.

Now, compare that to Meghan and Harry's interview. They spoke mostly about their own experiences, they didn't really name anyone and, above all else, they were critical of the system more than family and the only time they were critical of a family member, they did them the kindness of not naming them. To compare the two and to call them the same is just false, Harry and Meghan didn't profit from the interview and to compare 'exposure' to actual money is just pain irrational, it is mental gymnastics.

Everyone is free to tell their side of their story including Meghan's scum family, the main thing that Meghan 'dished the dirt' on was her mental state and her own struggles and pretending that she sat there slating the royal family is just not true and pretending otherwise is not going to get you anywhere. She took strides to differentiate the family from the firm and ignoring those bits doesn't strengthen your 'argument' it just makes it easier for me to disassemble.

Your whole argument is based on a series of events that didn't happen, really, you make out that she sat there 'dishing out' like she was taking to Heat Magazine and that wasn't the case. There's a clear difference between fact and fiction and wilfully mixing up the two doesn't lead to a good argument. It just makes it really easy for me to point out where you're going wrong.

Meghan didn't slate the royal family, she didn't disrespect the queen, she didn't really throw anyone under a bus, so to make out that she did is just a straight up fallacy. To compare what her father and sister did, to what she did is just ignoring facts to present a fiction that has no bearing on reality.

[jet]

Reposting this:

UK Press accused...but here's proof CBS faked it's own news

A running theme in Sunday's interview was the host's assertion that Meghan was the victim of racism at the hands of the British press.
'There were undeniable racist overtones,' Oprah insisted. 'This stands apart from the kind of coverage we've seen of any other royal. There was constant criticism, blatant sexist and racist remarks by British tabloids.'
To illustrate Ms Winfrey's point, viewers were presented with montages of supposedly-bigoted headlines.
Yet more than a third of those headlines turn out to have been from foreign publications.

For example, in a flurry of eight headlines about Meghan 'making Kate cry', five were from U.S. and Australian supermarket magazines.
A second montage of eight lurid headlines — such as 'monster Meghan exposed' and 'Harry knocks up TV star' — all came from overseas titles.

Even when Oprah did show viewers British headlines, several had been cynically edited, and in one case seemingly entirely fabricated.

The programme, for example, used footage of a Guardian headline that supposedly referred neutrally to an incident when radio DJ Danny Baker posted a picture of a chimpanzee on Twitter after Archie was born.
It read: 'BBC's Danny Baker on comparing Royal Baby Archie to a chimp.' But that image appears to have been faked by Oprah's team, since no such headline has ever appeared in that paper.

A Telegraph headline that reads 'The real problem with Meghan Markle: she just doesn't speak our language' was cropped by Oprah's staff in order to make it appear jingoistic.
In fact, as the second line of the headline would have made clear (were it not deleted by Oprah's staff), the author was not mocking her race or ethnicity, but was instead making fun of her habit of using what he later called: 'hippie corporate management speak'.

Perhaps the most egregious smear revolved around a January 2018 Mail on Sunday story that lead to the resignation of (then) UKIP leader Henry Bolton. The headline used by the newspaper quoted abusive text messages Mr Bolton's girlfriend had recently written.
It read: 'Meghan's seed will taint our Royal Family': UKIP chief's glamour model lover, 25, is suspended from the party over racist texts about Prince Harry's wife to be.'
In a cynical attempt to portray the article as racist, the production team appear to have removed all but the first seven words, falsely suggesting that the paper had published an opinion article arguing that 'Meghan's seed will taint our Royal Family.'
..............................

Some are saying how disgusting the DM headlines are, and I can see why they could take it that way.
But those same people have completely ignored this, one just saying "It's not the same".
I'm not asking for comparisons, I'm asking what are your thoughts on THIS article.

[Tom4784]

Some are saying how disgusting the DM headlines are, and I can see why they could take it that way.
But those same people have completely ignored this, one just saying "It's not the same".
I'm not asking for comparisons, I'm asking what are your thoughts on THIS article.

Whataboutery.

It's irrelevant. We're talking about the UK media and it's toxicity. If we were saying that the US media is perfect and holding it up as something the UK should aspire to then you might have a point, but we are not, and so this is nothing more than whataboutery.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Whataboutery.

It's irrelevant. We're talking about the UK media and it's toxicity. If we were saying that the US media is perfect and holding it up as something the UK should aspire to then you might have a point, but we are not, and so this is nothing more than whataboutery.

harry and meghan complained about UK press media

in their "interview" (their truth) this was cited

the examples used were not UK press media but an amalgamation from around the world

----|Iin a flurry of eight headlines about Meghan 'making Kate cry', five were from U.S. and Australian supermarket magazines.
A second montage of eight lurid headlines — such as 'monster Meghan exposed' and 'Harry knocks up TV star' — all came from overseas titles--


If they cant even give examples in a set up "interview" then it seems they are full of BS and lying to use UK press as cover for their running away to hollywood to chase fame and easy money from their royal heritage

[Marsh.]

The constant misrepresentation of "Meghan trashing Kate" is rather amusing.

It wasn't Meghan who brought 'the flower girls story' into the public domain. She's more than entitled to comment on stories written about her that are false to paint her in a bad light. She went to great lengths to get across that Kate made a big effort to apologise for what is always a stressful time for family with weddings, and Meghan accepted. The entire point of the story was to illustrate how stories are misrepresented to trash Meghan's reputation. Not by the family, but the institution that failed to support her and the gutter trash media.

To turn that into some form of "Meghan TRASHED Kate" is not even an opinion, it's a complete lie.

[joeysteele]

The constant misrepresentation of "Meghan trashing Kate" is rather amusing.

It wasn't Meghan who brought 'the flower girls story' into the public domain. She's more than entitled to comment on stories written about her that are false to paint her in a bad light. She went to great lengths to get across that Kate made a big effort to apologise for what is always a stressful time for family with weddings, and Meghan accepted. The entire point of the story was to illustrate how stories are misrepresented to trash Meghan's reputation. Not by the family, but the institution that failed to support her and the gutter trash media.

To turn that into some form of "Meghan TRASHED Kate" is not even an opinion, it's a complete lie.

It is Marsh.

Because that's exactly what she did, said Kate had apologised.
Other than that she rarely referred to Kate and not negatively either.

[jet]

Sure.



Sure it's the same thing, if you disregard reality and the facts and engage in imagination and fantasy. You're just completely and utterly wrong, really.

Meghan's father and his other daughter profited from selling stories, from taking pot shots at Meghan, to ruin her happiness and then that manipulative piece of **** of a father then tried to paint himself as the victim by making out that she was in the wrong for exercising her own right of choosing who is involved in her life and who isn't. A parent is not entitled to their children or their grandchildren, they do not have ownership over their lives.

Now, compare that to Meghan and Harry's interview. They spoke mostly about their own experiences, they didn't really name anyone and, above all else, they were critical of the system more than family and the only time they were critical of a family member, they did them the kindness of not naming them. To compare the two and to call them the same is just false, Harry and Meghan didn't profit from the interview and to compare 'exposure' to actual money is just pain irrational, it is mental gymnastics.

Everyone is free to tell their side of their story including Meghan's scum family, the main thing that Meghan 'dished the dirt' on was her mental state and her own struggles and pretending that she sat there slating the royal family is just not true and pretending otherwise is not going to get you anywhere. She took strides to differentiate the family from the firm and ignoring those bits doesn't strengthen your 'argument' it just makes it easier for me to disassemble.

Your whole argument is based on a series of events that didn't happen, really, you make out that she sat there 'dishing out' like she was taking to Heat Magazine and that wasn't the case. There's a clear difference between fact and fiction and wilfully mixing up the two doesn't lead to a good argument. It just makes it really easy for me to point out where you're going wrong.

Meghan didn't slate the royal family, she didn't disrespect the queen, she didn't really throw anyone under a bus, so to make out that she did is just a straight up fallacy. To compare what her father and sister did, to what she did is just ignoring facts to present a fiction that has no bearing on reality.

IMO you are totally wrong on just about everything you say here.

[Crimson Dynamo]

ynhfXIHvOtU

[Marsh.]

ynhfXIHvOtU

Another disingenuous liar.

[jet]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9359197/ITV-forced-remove-headlines-doctored-smear-UK-press-Harry-Meghan-interview.html

ITV is forced to remove headlines which were doctored to smear the UK press as racist in the Oprah Winfrey interview with Harry and Meghan but US channel CBS refuses to act

ITV was last night forced to edit part of Oprah Winfrey's explosive interview with the Sussexes after it was revealed that it included misleading and distorted headlines which portrayed British press coverage of the couple as racist.

Headlines that were flashed on the screen during the controversial interview with the US chat show host were cynically manipulated to back up the couple's assertion that they were the victims of bigoted coverage.....etc.

[Marsh.]

The Daily Mail pretending not to be a misogynistic, racist rag full of lies.

Hilarious.

[jet]

Six months after the 2018 royal wedding, reports began to emerge that Meghan had made Kate cry following a fitting for the bridesmaids' dresses (Princess Charlotte was one of Meghan's six bridesmaids).
But Meghan claims that, in reality, 'the reverse happened', telling Oprah that she was the one who had been reduced to tears, not Kate. In her interview, she claimed Kate had subsequently said sorry for the incident, too.
'It was a really hard week of the wedding. And she was upset about something, but she owned it, and she apologised.

And she brought me flowers and a note, apologising. And she did what I would do if I knew that I hurt someone, right, to just take accountability for it.'
Intriguingly, The Times this week shed further light on the episode, reporting that the day after the incident, the Duchess of Cambridge had indeed taken a bunch flowers to Nottingham Cottage, Harry and Meghan's home at Kensington Palace at the time, as a peace offering.
According to the newspaper, Meghan then slammed the door in her future sister-in-law's face.

If that's true, one can safely assume that both she and Kate were hugely upset. It's therefore perfectly possible that both cried.
However, a third scenario is presented by perhaps the most compelling source of all: Meghan's pet journalist, Omid Scobie.
In his biography Finding Freedom, published with Meghan's apparent approval, he confidently declared that no one had cried, saying: '[B]There were no tears from anyone.'

.............................

Kate made Meghan cry, then Meghan made Kate cry by slamming the door in her face , neither of them cried. So Meghan's account of another incident can't be taken as gospel once again.

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9359197/ITV-forced-remove-headlines-doctored-smear-UK-press-Harry-Meghan-interview.html

ITV is forced to remove headlines which were doctored to smear the UK press as racist in the Oprah Winfrey interview with Harry and Meghan but US channel CBS refuses to act

ITV was last night forced to edit part of Oprah Winfrey's explosive interview with the Sussexes after it was revealed that it included misleading and distorted headlines which portrayed British press coverage of the couple as racist.

Headlines that were flashed on the screen during the controversial interview with the US chat show host were cynically manipulated to back up the couple's assertion that they were the victims of bigoted coverage.....etc.

I wonder what members think of this?

i am shocked myself

[Beso]

The Daily Mail pretending not to be a misogynistic, racist rag full of lies.

Hilarious.

You are merely continuing to peddle out an untruth cause your brain has been overtaken by social opinion and online memes.

[Beso]

I wonder what members think of this?

i am shocked myself

Me too. I honestly never saw that coming.:shrug:

I'm that shocked I cant say nowt.

[jet]

Me too. I honestly never saw that coming.:shrug:

I'm that shocked I cant say nowt.

You get right there in one sentence. I'm in awe. :cheer2:

[Marsh.]

You are merely continuing to peddle out an untruth cause your brain has been overtaken by social opinion and online memes.

There'a no point responding to me if you're venturing off into fantasy.

[Cherie]

ynhfXIHvOtU

All the positive headlines around the engagement and wedding :laugh:

[Glenn.]

Six months after the 2018 royal wedding, reports began to emerge that Meghan had made Kate cry following a fitting for the bridesmaids' dresses (Princess Charlotte was one of Meghan's six bridesmaids).
But Meghan claims that, in reality, 'the reverse happened', telling Oprah that she was the one who had been reduced to tears, not Kate. In her interview, she claimed Kate had subsequently said sorry for the incident, too.
'It was a really hard week of the wedding. And she was upset about something, but she owned it, and she apologised.

And she brought me flowers and a note, apologising. And she did what I would do if I knew that I hurt someone, right, to just take accountability for it.'
Intriguingly, The Times this week shed further light on the episode, reporting that the day after the incident, the Duchess of Cambridge had indeed taken a bunch flowers to Nottingham Cottage, Harry and Meghan's home at Kensington Palace at the time, as a peace offering.
According to the newspaper, Meghan then slammed the door in her future sister-in-law's face.

If that's true, one can safely assume that both she and Kate were hugely upset. It's therefore perfectly possible that both cried.
However, a third scenario is presented by perhaps the most compelling source of all: Meghan's pet journalist, Omid Scobie.
In his biography Finding Freedom, published with Meghan's apparent approval, he confidently declared that no one had cried, saying: '[B]There were no tears from anyone.'

.............................

Kate made Meghan cry, then Meghan made Kate cry by slamming the door in her face , neither of them cried. So Meghan's account of another incident can't be taken as gospel once again.

We’ll take ‘according to the newspaper’ as gospel though.

[Marsh.]

We’ll take ‘according to the newspaper’ as gospel though.

:joker:

[Beso]

There'a no point responding to me if you're venturing off into fantasy.

I just did and you responded....so dont tell me not to again like some authoritarian
:nono:

[jet]

With the bullying allegations of Meghan towards those poor woman on her staff, it's not a big leap to imagine her slamming the door in anyone's face.
But we'll see if sue - happy Meghan will take on the Times in this one. She has her 'voice' now after all. The Royals haven't her gagged and locked up in the dungeon anymore.

[Glenn.]

Wow we actually ARE taking ‘according to the newspaper’ as gospel.

I’d say we’ve reached the dregs of this discussion now.

[Josy]

This threads ran its course now as once again certain members are incapable of NOT turning every thread into a discussion about each other and how they debate rather than the actual topic.

I suggest you all read the stickied thread about sniping between members.