Prince Harry & Meghan - Official Discussion Thread

[user104658]

Lol...I read that earlier. That puts Oprah on the spot....money or ‘friendship’..:laugh:
I think Meghan might be worth more money to her in the future...so my betting is she will stick with the money AND ‘friendship’...:hee:


The delusion here (from the man himself and anyone who thinks it’s worth anything to Oprah) is unreal :joker:. Big network “event interviews” aren’t done with the random family members of celebrities who want to chime in with their take on things. Does someone need to break it to Mr Markle that most people simply are not interested in what he has to say? Maybe the worryingly obsessed Royalists/misogynists desperate for any stick to beat Harry and Meghan with, but it’s hardly mainstream appeal.

He should stick to his arena. The Daily Mail, maybe Breitbart or something. Maybe Piers will interview him on GB News :joker:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Which paper is that from Arista please?

Sunday Daily Mail

I shall be going out to get mine in a moment

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/28/09/article-9409927-41024194-137_964x552.jpg

[I don't mind outside guests trying to make a name
for themselves by whacking me like this,
but I wasn't going to sit there and take it
from one of my own team,
especially someone who I've gone out of my way
to help whenever he's asked me for
advice about his career.
Realising I might say something I'd regret,
I decided to leave the studio to cool down.
As I walked off, Alex doubled down:
'This is pathetic. Absolutely diabolical behaviour.
'I'm sorry but Piers spouts off on a regular
basis and we all have to sit here and listen.
From 6.30 to 7am yesterday,
it was incredibly hard to watch.
'He has the ability to come in here and talk
from a position that he doesn't fully understand…'
I didn't hear any more of his diatribe,
as I was out the door and heading for my dressing room.
I knew it wasn't a good look,
the great snowflake-basher running away
from confrontation.
And on reflection, I shouldn't have done it.
But in the heat of the moment,
in my rather strained state of mind,
this seemed the less worse option.
A horrified Susanna quickly followed me
out and after an animated
exchange persuaded me to come back out.
So, I did, and Alex and I then had a
lengthy conversation about race.
'I don't feel you're a racist', he told me,
which was like saying: 'I don't think you beat your wife.'
But he insisted that even if Meghan's claim about
Archie being barred from Princehood because
of his skin colour is untrue,
it's still her 'lived experience' so should be respected.
But that's ridiculous; you can't have
a 'lived experience' of racism when the
fact you're basing it on is false.
Or rather, you can, but it's not a real one and
nobody should be compelled to believe it.]


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9409927/PIERS-MORGAN-REAL-truth-Writing-time-dramatic-exit-GMB.html


Carolyn McCall,
was asked by journalists if I would lose my job,
she replied: 'We are dealing with that as we speak.'
Uh-oh. That was not a denial.
She also declared about Meghan: 'I completely believe what she says.'
Other ITV executives suggested to me that I
should now issue an apology to calm things down.
But I don't believe Meghan, so why would I apologise?
As I mused over this conundrum, GMB's ratings for yesterday came
in and were the highest in our history, breaking a new record
we set only last week.
The show's on fire, in every sense.
But the flames are now raging uncontrollably towards me.
To compound my growing twitchiness, I got a text from my old foe
Jeremy Clarkson that read: 'I am completely on your side.']

[thesheriff443]

The delusion here (from the man himself and anyone who thinks it’s worth anything to Oprah) is unreal :joker:. Big network “event interviews” aren’t done with the random family members of celebrities who want to chime in with their take on things. Does someone need to break it to Mr Markle that most people simply are not interested in what he has to say? Maybe the worryingly obsessed Royalists/misogynists desperate for any stick to beat Harry and Meghan with, but it’s hardly mainstream appeal.

He should stick to his arena. The Daily Mail, maybe Breitbart or something. Maybe Piers will interview him on GB News :joker:

Your right she wouldn’t be interested in mr markle, but his daughter and son in law who threw him and the royal family under the bus was worth millions to her and the channel.

They are not interested in both sides of the story only the side that can bring in the money.

[rusticgal]

Your right she wouldn’t be interested in mr markle, but his daughter and son in law who threw him and the royal family under the bus was worth millions to her and the channel.

They are not interested in both sides of the story only the side that can bring in the money.


In hindsight...I dont think anyone will be interested in what he has to say. Quite frankly he would be better off just ignoring it. Meghan is doing a good job destroying her own credibility....its becoming all too apparent how good she is at twisting the truth.

[rusticgal]

They are not interested in both sides of the story only the side that can bring in the money.


I doubt she would turn William down...

Thank god William has class and wouldnt do anyting so desperate and so tacky. :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

oop another "friend" now out in the cold

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9410055/TALK-TOWN-Meghan-Markle-left-furious-pal-hated-emojis.html

:whistle:

[Marsh.]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExhaY-RU8AAqXGK?format=jpg&name=small

Silence? :laugh2:

[Marsh.]

Lol...I read that earlier. That puts Oprah on the spot....money or ‘friendship’..:laugh:
I think Meghan might be worth more money to her in the future...so my betting is she will stick with the money AND ‘friendship’...:hee:

Yes, billionaire Oprah Winfrey needs to choose between money and friendship. :joker::joker:

[GoldHeart]

Yes, billionaire Oprah Winfrey needs to choose between money and friendship. :joker::joker:

I've literally heard it all now :facepalm::laugh3:

[Marsh.]

They are not interested in both sides of the story.

Neither are you so don’t be hypocritical.

oop another "friend" now out in the cold

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9410055/TALK-TOWN-Meghan-Markle-left-furious-pal-hated-emojis.html

:whistle:

Today’s update in “Meghan Markle is SUCH a terrible person we need to clutch at the pettiest of things to insult her..... her emoji use”

God, have her hanged!

[rusticgal]

I've literally heard it all now :facepalm::laugh3:


The humour surpassed you both then...:pat::pat:

[GoldHeart]

Well Thomas and Samantha keep making money from bashing Meghan.

But let's put all the focus on Oprah's irrelevant bank balance instead .

[swiftmaggie]

Absolutely right!

[rusticgal]

Well Thomas and Samantha keep making money from bashing Meghan.

But let's put all the focus on Oprah's irrelevant bank balance instead .



Looks like 'people bashing' runs in the family :hee:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Pointless and vapid job titles like 'Technoking' and 'Innovation Ninja' are a
symptom of an economy with far too much easy money

https://cdn.extra.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/13120901/Prince-Harry-Meghan-House-Santa-Barbara-Feature.jpg

So what is a Chief Impact Officer exactly? And how does the impact they
have on the organisation differ from, you know, just clocking in on Monday
morning and getting on with the job like everyone else, who presumably
doesn't make quite so much of a difference?

Clearly it is great that Prince Harry has secured a new job, and won't just be
relying on his family to support him, or his wife's acting income. Even so, his
strange title at the heath and lifestyle start-up BetterUp illustrates something
else apart from the obvious fact that the Windsor name can still be traded
for a lucrative gig in Silicon Valley - the proliferation of Woke non-jobs.

In truth CIO, as I guess Chief Impact Officers should be known, is hardly the
worst of it. There are - and seriously I am not making this up - Dream
Alchemists, Happiness Engineers and Brand Warriorrs out there picking up a
pay cheque every month.

It is easy to blame that on fluffy Woke capitalism, and that is part of the
problem. And yet is a sign of something more serious as well. It is
symptomatic of a bubble that is out of control - and eventually will have to
come crashing back down to earth.

First, it is symptomatic of the spread of Woke Capitalism. Lots of
Millennial/Zoomer dominated companies are creating vapid, pointless
management roles that are, in reality, just corporate virtue signalling.

Prince Harry's new employer BetterUp is typical of the species. It has just
raised another $100m in fresh money, and it is valued at more than $1bn
, even though no one has much idea what it actually does, or whether there
is any long-term demand for its products.

By now the endless Woke jobs are simply cluttering up the economy. They
are a symptom of an economy with far too much easy money around. In
truth, the proliferation of ridiculous job titles is the surest indicator we have
that the economy is way too frothy, and overheated.

It will take a crash and a recession to finally clear all that out - and one that
is serious enough that even the Chief Impact Officer might notice its effects.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/03/27/prince-harry-surfing-wake-wokery-towards-economic-abyss/

[thesheriff443]

Neither are you so don’t be hypocritical.



Today’s update in “Meghan Markle is SUCH a terrible person we need to clutch at the pettiest of things to insult her..... her emoji use”

God, have her hanged!

I’m Not interested in your version of the truth so you are spot on for once.

[Crimson Dynamo]

"I cannot help but think we are in danger of setting race relations back 30 years if
people are seriously suggesting that any criticism of Meghan is racially motivated. It’s
the hypocrisy that gets me. When Priti Patel was accused of bullying, the very same
people who willingly hung the Home Secretary out to dry are now the ones defending
Meghan against such claims, saying they have been levelled at her simply because she
is ‘a strong woman of colour’."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/03/27/harry-meghan-truth-royal-reporter/

[Marsh.]

I’m Not interested in your version of the truth so you are spot on for once.

Didn’t ask.

[jet]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/prince-Harrys-new-job-is-hardly-about-public-service

Prince Harry’s new job is hardly ‘public service’


Going by BetterUp’s website, it seems to peddle therapeutic burble to firms with more money than sense. A perfect fit for Harry, then, who in his campaigning on mental health, or in his dabbling in politics, has perfected the art of wispy, irksome platitudes……

…….Since leaving the monarchy, this fusion of virtue-signalling and profiteering has essentially been Harry and Meghan’s whole schtick. Their multimillion-dollar deal with Spotify is, in their words, about bringing forward ‘different perspectives and voices’ to ‘find our common ground’. Just as their deal with Netflix is apparently all about ‘shining a light on people and causes around the world’ and ‘creating content that informs but also gives hope’, rather than raking it in.
Whether or not they actually believe this, the couple are constantly trying to present their lucrative deals as an extension of their professed love for public service. And so Harry nabbing a cushy job advising a firm that flogs life coaching is recast as an opportunity to ‘change millions of people’s lives for the better’.
In all this we are reminded that Harry and Meghan, in leaving the monarchy, weren’t so much kicking against the old establishment as itching to join the new one – a trendy aristocracy that manages to extract both moral purpose and vast wealth from peddling politically correct twaddle. Well, it's nice work if you can get it.
................................

The Duke and Duchess of Twaddle. :hehe:

[The Slim Reaper]

Far right mag doesn't like this pair for some reason.

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/prince-Harrys-new-job-is-hardly-about-public-service

Prince Harry’s new job is hardly ‘public service’


Going by BetterUp’s website, it seems to peddle therapeutic burble to firms with more money than sense. A perfect fit for Harry, then, who in his campaigning on mental health, or in his dabbling in politics, has perfected the art of wispy, irksome platitudes……

…….Since leaving the monarchy, this fusion of virtue-signalling and profiteering has essentially been Harry and Meghan’s whole schtick. Their multimillion-dollar deal with Spotify is, in their words, about bringing forward ‘different perspectives and voices’ to ‘find our common ground’. Just as their deal with Netflix is apparently all about ‘shining a light on people and causes around the world’ and ‘creating content that informs but also gives hope’, rather than raking it in.
Whether or not they actually believe this, the couple are constantly trying to present their lucrative deals as an extension of their professed love for public service. And so Harry nabbing a cushy job advising a firm that flogs life coaching is recast as an opportunity to ‘change millions of people’s lives for the better’.
In all this we are reminded that Harry and Meghan, in leaving the monarchy, weren’t so much kicking against the old establishment as itching to join the new one – a trendy aristocracy that manages to extract both moral purpose and vast wealth from peddling politically correct twaddle. Well, it's nice work if you can get it.
................................

The Duke and Duchess of Twaddle. :hehe:

Excellent article

nailed it succinctly

[rusticgal]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/prince-Harrys-new-job-is-hardly-about-public-service

Prince Harry’s new job is hardly ‘public service’


Going by BetterUp’s website, it seems to peddle therapeutic burble to firms with more money than sense. A perfect fit for Harry, then, who in his campaigning on mental health, or in his dabbling in politics, has perfected the art of wispy, irksome platitudes……

…….Since leaving the monarchy, this fusion of virtue-signalling and profiteering has essentially been Harry and Meghan’s whole schtick. Their multimillion-dollar deal with Spotify is, in their words, about bringing forward ‘different perspectives and voices’ to ‘find our common ground’. Just as their deal with Netflix is apparently all about ‘shining a light on people and causes around the world’ and ‘creating content that informs but also gives hope’, rather than raking it in.
Whether or not they actually believe this, the couple are constantly trying to present their lucrative deals as an extension of their professed love for public service. And so Harry nabbing a cushy job advising a firm that flogs life coaching is recast as an opportunity to ‘change millions of people’s lives for the better’.
In all this we are reminded that Harry and Meghan, in leaving the monarchy, weren’t so much kicking against the old establishment as itching to join the new one – a trendy aristocracy that manages to extract both moral purpose and vast wealth from peddling politically correct twaddle. Well, it's nice work if you can get it.
................................

The Duke and Duchess of Twaddle. :hehe:



Articles like this are coming out on a daily basis....:laugh:

[jet]

"I cannot help but think we are in danger of setting race relations back 30 years if
people are seriously suggesting that any criticism of Meghan is racially motivated. It’s
the hypocrisy that gets me. When Priti Patel was accused of bullying, the very same
people who willingly hung the Home Secretary out to dry are now the ones defending
Meghan against such claims, saying they have been levelled at her simply because she
is ‘a strong woman of colour’."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/03/27/harry-meghan-truth-royal-reporter/

It's used as a self righteous handy stick to beat people with who dare to dislike Meghan and her actions. They can't seem to grasp the concept of Character not Colour.

[jet]

Far right mag doesn't like this pair for some reason.

It's all about politics for some. Going down the 'putting people in boxes route' :bored:
Strangely enough the Guardian have had some pretty negative articles about Meghan FYI. They've been posted on here.

[The Slim Reaper]

It's used as a self righteous handy stick to beat people with who dare to dislike Meghan and her actions. They can't seem to grasp the concept of Character not Colour.

No one suggests all the irrational hate is about Meghan's family lineage, I think we're just suggesting that there would be an interesting Venn diagram between racist knuckledragging mouth breathers, and those that pretend this obsession is part of some higher calling about character.

[Cherie]

Anti Monarchist John Humphrey's takes swipe at Meghan

Humphrys, who was frustrated by one specific guest, fumed: “You did manage to squeeze your old friend Oprah onto the invitation list.

“I say 'old friend' but I believe you'd met her only once before the wedding.”

Humphrys sarcastically remarked “how fortunate” Meghan was “to make friends so easily.”

In a YouGov article last year, he suggested the actress may have been “misinformed” about “joining the Royal Family”.

He wrote: “It was supposed that in marrying him and joining the Royal Family, Meghan Markle fancied a bit of hand-shaking too.

“Why else would she join since that’s what they ‘do’?

“It would now appear that she thought she could become a duchess and an HRH (Her Royal Highness) without having to put on the white gloves.”

https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1414803/john-humphrys-news-markle-markle-royal-wedding-prince-harry-oprah-celebrity-mastermind-spt

[Marsh.]

No one suggests all the irrational hate is about Meghan's family lineage, I think we're just suggesting that there would be an interesting Venn diagram between racist knuckledragging mouth breathers, and those that pretend this obsession is part of some higher calling about character.

This.
When the vast majority of the anti-Meghan ire is about her personal relationship to her own dad, how she touches her own stomach and what things she spends her own money on then it becomes fairly obvious.

[Marsh.]

Anti Monarchist John Humphrey's takes swipe at Meghan

Humphrys, who was frustrated by one specific guest, fumed: “You did manage to squeeze your old friend Oprah onto the invitation list.

“I say 'old friend' but I believe you'd met her only once before the wedding.”

Humphrys sarcastically remarked “how fortunate” Meghan was “to make friends so easily.”

In a YouGov article last year, he suggested the actress may have been “misinformed” about “joining the Royal Family”.

He wrote: “It was supposed that in marrying him and joining the Royal Family, Meghan Markle fancied a bit of hand-shaking too.

“Why else would she join since that’s what they ‘do’?

“It would now appear that she thought she could become a duchess and an HRH (Her Royal Highness) without having to put on the white gloves.”

https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1414803/john-humphrys-news-markle-markle-royal-wedding-prince-harry-oprah-celebrity-mastermind-spt

Meghan Markle Crime No. 1024: She has friends.

[Niamh.]

Meghan Markle Crime No. 1024: She has friends.What a **** :oh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

The case against keeps mounting...

:whistle:

[Marsh.]

Meghan Markle Crime No. 1025: Bride invites friend to her own wedding.

[Ammi]

...John Humphreys, Piers Morgan, Jeremy Clarkson...I’m sure there are more, I can’t recall those males who all seem to have such dry definite and strong opinions of how a young female should conduct her life ...(...and also pitting other females in comparisons of the ‘approved ones’...and how she should behave in terms of her friendships, her marriage, her pregnancies, her father, her sister, her husband’s family etc, her income...and on and on and on ...and so many older males as well...I’m finding it difficult to ignore how uncomfortably misogynist it’s all feeling...and very ‘patriarchy’...

[Cherie]

...John Humphreys, Piers Morgan, Jeremy Clarkson...I’m sure there are more, I can’t recall those males who all seem to have such dry definite and strong opinions of how a young female should conduct her life ...(...and also pitting other females in comparisons of the ‘approved ones’...and how she should behave in terms of her friendships, her marriage, her pregnancies, her father, her sister, her husband’s family etc, her income...and on and on and on ...and so many older males as well...I’m finding it difficult to ignore how uncomfortably misogynist it’s all feeling...and very ‘patriarchy’...

He had plenty to say about Harry as well, if you read the article

[Crimson Dynamo]

Only if you ignore all the female opinion already posted....

[Ammi]

...having female opinions posted has no bearing at all...

[Crimson Dynamo]

And she is 40

[SherzyK]

Only if you ignore all the female opinion already posted....

This literally has nothing to do with anything. Give your head a wobble

[Marsh.]

And she is 40

Meghan Markle Crime No. 1026: Being 39 years old.

[joeysteele]

...John Humphreys, Piers Morgan, Jeremy Clarkson...I’m sure there are more, I can’t recall those males who all seem to have such dry definite and strong opinions of how a young female should conduct her life ...(...and also pitting other females in comparisons of the ‘approved ones’...and how she should behave in terms of her friendships, her marriage, her pregnancies, her father, her sister, her husband’s family etc, her income...and on and on and on ...and so many older males as well...I’m finding it difficult to ignore how uncomfortably misogynist it’s all feeling...and very ‘patriarchy’...

I actually can agree with what you're saying, I hadn't thought of it in that way but the names of those individuals piling in against Meghan Markle there, I mean honestly Clarkson too, truly awful man in my view,.
Certainly does come across very uncomfortably.

[Marsh.]

The fact Clarkson and Morgan themselves have long been morally repulsive makes it all the more laughable.

Getting themselves off on picking at every little thing this woman does, when no matter what she has done, the worst she's been accused of is still nothing compared to some of the actions these two cretins are guilty of.

[DouglasS]

Clarkson is a national treasure

[GoldHeart]

And she is 40

And ?

[Crimson Dynamo]

And ?

Not a young woman as stated

The premise incorrect

Thus, the point made

[joeysteele]

The fact Clarkson and Morgan themselves have long been morally repulsive makes it all the more laughable.

Getting themselves off on picking at every little thing this woman does, when no matter what she has done, the worst she's been accused of is still nothing compared to some of the actions these two cretins are guilty of.

I intensely dislike Clarkson.
I refuse to read anything he says in the main, and never watch anything he's doing on TV.

Even stopped watching Who Wants to be a Millionaire since he took it on.
I just have no interest in his bigotry and sick prejudices whatsoever.

[jet]

Virtue signallers just can’t help putting labels on people whose opinions they don’t approve or they don’t even attempt to understand. You can’t just dislike someone like Meghan because their actions have led you to really believe they are manipulative, selfish, disloyal, self - absorbed, disruptive, divisive etc. Oh no.
Because that might mean the person who is disliked is at fault and not the disliker, and they could never admit that. So if you don’t like Meghan Markle, you are a this or a that or many this’s and thats.

The self righteous love their labels,very useful little tools they are! It saves them from actually disputing what is said by the ‘haters’ (another label) with actual opinions and facts about why they like her actions and character and actually give reasons why they believe we are wrong about her.
Nope, it’s just “Why should we judge her, but we sure as hell will judge you”!

[jet]

Not a young woman as stated

The premise incorrect

Thus, the point made

Yep, grown ass woman hitting 40 in a few months and she is perceived as a young vulnerable girl by many who have bought into her 'victim' narrative.

[Marsh.]

Not a young woman as stated

The premise incorrect

Thus, the point made

Well, when you have nothing to add, take issue with someone using the word young to describe a 39 year old woman. :thumbs:

[GoldHeart]

Not a young woman as stated

The premise incorrect

Thus, the point made

She's not an OAP granny

[Crimson Dynamo]

She's not an OAP granny

Correct she isn't a young woman

As stated

:thumbs:

[jet]

Only if you ignore all the female opinion already posted....

It's only men in the age group of Morgan and Clarkson whose opinions about her are especially terrible though....men of that age shouldn't have negative opinions on 40 yr old women. How very dare they. :fist:

[user104658]

I've already asked that. :nono:
Seriously though, the labels that have been put on those who dislike her over the last year plus have been relentless and very derogatory and are used instead of proper debate giving actual reasons why so many take the time to defend her.


............the reasons that so many take the time to defend Meghan and Harry have little to do with Meghan and Harry but, if you were capable of understanding that, and capable of understanding what the actual reasons are, then there wouldn’t be an issue in the first place. It’s a bit of a catch 22 really.

I mean do you actually understand that? Do you understand that I (and I assume many here) have no personal feelings one way or the other about Meghan Markle? That that’s really, REALLY not the point (and yet in another sense, the entire point).

[thesheriff443]

............the reasons that so many take the time to defend Meghan and Harry have little to do with Meghan and Harry but, if you were capable of understanding that, and capable of understanding what the actual reasons are, then there wouldn’t be an issue in the first place. It’s a bit of a catch 22 really.

I mean do you actually understand that? Do you understand that I (and I assume many here) have no personal feelings one way or the other about Meghan Markle? That that’s really, REALLY not the point (and yet in another sense, the entire point).

Do you actually understand or believe what you are saying?
These threads are actually about Harry’s and Meghans actions and choices!

The threads are not about racism mental health privacy wealth or any other subject in it’s entirety.

The fact that working class people choose to defend a billionaire and that they should have the money instead of charity is the biggest concern in my eyes.

People have been using the race card in order to try and shut people down but it’s simple not about race.

Lately I’m sharing more of my private life on here and for me it will never be and never has been about race

I’ve had a short but good physical relationship with a black South African woman who grew up in a hut I’ve got no hate in my heart towards people of colour.

[Ammi]

...there is very little ‘debate’....I mean, the whole thing about Meghan and Harry is either we like them or we dislike them with very little in between...for me, a ‘natural default’ if you like, is to like someone unless their actions/behaviour would change those feelings about them...Meghan and Harry have quite openly declared their feelings about the U.K. media and their willingness to slant any story any which way so it’s pretty obvious that, that same media are feeling slighted and going to be even less favourable toward them ...they’re determined to keep their ‘cash cows’ in plain site ...so many ‘reporters’, I use that descriptive loosely for some, making healthy incomes from Meghan and Harry but are not held up to any standards for doing that...but the couple who have made a huge life decision of living their life their way, making their income their way, taking control of theirs and their family future etc etc...are almost daily scrutinised within an inch of their lives...not feeling negativity toward someone and not disliking them because that’s the place that the media try to lead to...doesn’t mean that there are thoughts of ‘perfection’ either...many, many people don’t live those extremes of one or the other...

[user104658]

Do you actually understand or believe what you are saying?
These threads are actually about Harry’s and Meghans actions and choices!

The threads are not about racism mental health privacy wealth or any other subject in it’s entirety.

The fact that working class people choose to defend a billionaire and that they should have the money instead of charity is the biggest concern in my eyes.

People have been using the race card in order to try and shut people down but it’s simple not about race.

Lately I’m sharing more of my private life on here and for me it will never be and never has been about race

I’ve had a short but good physical relationship with a black South African woman who grew up in a hut I’ve got no hate in my heart towards people of colour.


I don’t think it’s about race, I think it’s mostly about loyalism/nationalism, blue-blood elitism, alongside a sprinkling of misogyny in the toxic tabloid press. Plus the big red faced cuck himself Piers Morgan perched right in the centre. There will be a race element for some but it’s not the main factor and it’s not what I see on here.

When I say it’s not about Harry and Meghan, I mean it’s not about them specifically as people. There seems to be a misunderstanding that the people fighting against the sneering monarchism are “Meghan fans” and “love Harry and Meghan so much” when it’s clearly got nothing to do with that. They could be anyone. The thing people have a problem with is the overall attitudes, not that they’re directed at someone specific.

[jet]

I don’t think it’s about race, I think it’s mostly about loyalism/nationalism, blue-blood elitism, alongside a sprinkling of misogyny in the toxic tabloid press. Plus the big red faced cuck himself Piers Morgan perched right in the centre. There will be a race element for some but it’s not the main factor and it’s not what I see on here.

When I say it’s not about Harry and Meghan, I mean it’s not about them specifically as people. There seems to be a misunderstanding that the people fighting against the sneering monarchism are “Meghan fans” and “love Harry and Meghan so much” when it’s clearly got nothing to do with that. They could be anyone. The thing people have a problem with is the overall attitudes, not that they’re directed at someone specific.

Well those labels are new and original, I’ll give you that. The reasons people come up with as to why Meghan in particular isn’t liked are getting more and more outlandish.
Could you explain how what you have come up with has anything whatsoever to do with the ACTIONS of Meghan and Harry, and yes, Meghan in particular, past and present?
It’s how she behaves, the way she treats people, and all in all what an irritating, publicity and sympathy seeking person she is with a spectacular record of divisiveness in regard to her friends and her and Harry’s respective families and turning strangers against each other. She’s quite a fascinating study.
It could be anyone. High profile public figure Harry could have married Flossie Farkle and if she behaved like Meghan, we would be saying exactly the same about Flossie Farkle.

And really, I’m even more interested in people and how they react to it all on this forum than in Meghan or Harry themselves, believe it or not. I’m fascinated by peoples reactions to the whole ongoing saga. It’s a very illuminating phenomenon in that way.

[jet]

"There seems to be a misunderstanding that the people fighting against the sneering monarchism are “Meghan fans” and “love Harry and Meghan so much” when it’s clearly got nothing to do with that."

Furthermore TS, it clearly is for some.

[user104658]

It’s how she behaves, the way she treats people, and all in all what an irritating, publicity and sympathy seeking person she is with a spectacular record of divisiveness in regard to her friends and her and Harry’s respective families and turning strangers against each other. She’s quite a fascinating study.

I understand that you think that but unconscious bias is called unconscious bias for a reason; you're predisposed to judging Meghan Markle harshly, and active royals more favourably, and that is WHY you believe her behaviours to be "terrible" to quite frankly a sometimes completely unrealistic extent. It ranges from her "just not being cut out for it" to some sort of evil, cackling harpie whose entire life is devoted to destroying her husband's family (in other words, a caricature - not a realistic description of an actual person - not realistic human psychology). The hyperbole is at times absolutely staggering, and the down-playing of any fault on the side of "the family" extremely illuminating.

"There seems to be a misunderstanding that the people fighting against the sneering monarchism are “Meghan fans” and “love Harry and Meghan so much” when it’s clearly got nothing to do with that."

Furthermore TS, it clearly is for some.

It isn't, they are winding you up, the "Yas Queen Meghan" stuff? It's a piss take. It's deliberate counter-hyperbole in 99% of cases. That seems pretty obvious to me - it's a counter-reaction to increasingly extreme (again unrealistic) ideas about Meghan. Is she perfect? No I imagine not. Is she "a great person"? I have no idea and frankly don't care. But she's being painted as Rita Repulsa in these threads to an extent that's both frustrating and hilarious.

[jet]

I understand that you think that but unconscious bias is called unconscious bias for a reason; you're predisposed to judging Meghan Markle harshly, and active royals more favourably, and that is WHY you believe her behaviours to be "terrible" to quite frankly a sometimes completely unrealistic extent. It ranges from her "just not being cut out for it" to some sort of evil, cackling harpie whose entire life is devoted to destroying her husband's family (in other words, a caricature - not a realistic description of an actual person - not realistic human psychology). The hyperbole is at times absolutely staggering, and the down-playing of any fault on the side of "the family" extremely illuminating. .

In that case then you and others are predisposed to judging Meghan favourably and the Royals harshly by default, because the downplaying of any wrongdoing on Meghan’s part is frankly astonishing.
Is it as simple as that?
We’ve seen what Meghan is like because she is out there preaching in a hypocritical way on podcasts or being disloyal and lying in tell - all interviews, we ‘ve seen her in action. Whereas we don’t really know what the senior Royals are like because when they are out there they are on their best behaviour and they don’t talk about personal stuff - what Meghan tells us can’t be regarded as the truth as she is proven in the past, and present, to lie to suit her narrative.

I believe in Monarchy, yes. Do I adore and revere the present Royals, no. I admire and respect the Queen for good reason, I think William and Kate do a great job and are very likeable and their kids are adorable, apart from that the present monarchy are possibly the most uninteresting in terms of fascination compared to a long line of fascinating history and characters. On the Royal forum I am on, we discuss past monarchies far more than the present one.

"evil, cackling harpie whose entire life is devoted to destroying her husband's family (in other words, a caricature - not a realistic description of an actual person".

I always detest OTT statements like this, because by exaggeration they are aimed at rubbishing a person’s opinion. No, her whole life wasn’t devoted to destroying the Royals, but in the interview she was hell bent on discrediting them. If Meghan is judged harshly, it’s because of, once again the ACTIONS we have seen and the WORDS she has spoken, and the RESULTS of those actions and words, both from her own mouth and by proxy by her friend in his bio of her.

And I don’t believe you or others have no feelings about her one way or the other. People don’t spend time defending people they don’t like or have no interest in, so you must like her in some way. Why do you?

[jet]

[QUOTE=Toy Soldier;11025633


It isn't, they are winding you up, the "Yas Queen Meghan" stuff? It's a piss take. It's deliberate counter-hyperbole in 99% of cases. .[/QUOTE]

Once again, it is far more than that for some. I'd say in 90% of cases it isn't just 'piss take'. I don't take piss take like the example you gave under my notice, does anyone? :shrug:

[user104658]

I always detest OTT statements like this, because by exaggeration they are aimed at rubbishing a person’s opinion. No, her whole life wasn’t devoted to destroying the Royals, but in the interview she was hell bent on discrediting them. If Meghan is judged harshly, it’s because of, once again the ACTIONS we have seen and the WORDS she has spoken, and the RESULTS of those actions and words, both from her own mouth and by proxy by her friend in his bio of her.

The thing is though, she demonstrably did not go out of her way in the interview to discredit or badmouth the family. It flat out didn't happen... and I can't understand how anyone who actually watched it can argue that it did. The closest she came to a negative comment about ANY named Royal was Kate and what she said about Kate wasn't even negative. This interview where they sat and badmouthed the family is imaginary.

And I don’t believe you or others have no feelings about her one way or the other. People don’t spend time defending people they don’t like or have no interest in, so you must like her in some way. Why do you?

That's where you're again wrong but if you don't understand that as a general concept it's unlikely I can explain it in a way that you can understand. I like debates to be balanced and I try to address imbalance where I see it. The vitriol for Meghan Markle is imbalanced and rooted in bias and that is why I go to bat for the alternative view. I actually had this very conversation with my wife recently and used this very debate as the prime example; I often get frustrated when I can see some inconsistencies and criticisms that I would normally agree with, for example the Oprah interview (and the faults of that style of interview in general - NOT specific to H&M) but I hold back on agreeing with those points because it offers a bolstering or ammunition to an argument that is already woefully skewed in absurd ways. They are all just PEOPLE. Harry and Meghan, the other Royals, Piers Morgan... just a bunch of humans like anyone else having their very human squabbles, disagreements and rifts. There are no heroes, there are no villains, but there should be some aspect of fairness and balance and it's just blatantly absent.

[jet]

The thing is though, she demonstrably did not go out of her way in the interview to discredit or badmouth the family. It flat out didn't happen... and I can't understand how anyone who actually watched it can argue that it did. The closest she came to a negative comment about ANY named Royal was Kate and what she said about Kate wasn't even negative. This interview where they sat and badmouthed the family is imaginary.

If you REALLY believe that and it isn't just a piss take then there is no point in carrying on talking to each other because it would be a waste of time. Our opinions and observations are extreme polar opposites and unlikely to move closer in any way.

[Tom4784]

I mean, she literally praised the queen and made a clear distinction between 'the firm' and the family. It's just a fact that she didn't discredit the family in that interview.

People are struggling to differentiate between what they want to be true (they want her to have trashed the royal family to give them a reason to complain) and what is actually true (she went out of her way to present the queen in the best light possible and made it clear that she had issues with the system, not the family). Disregarding the facts doesn't invalidate them.

It's not really an 'observation' if you're disregarding what happened in favour of an imaginary scenario that's more to your liking.

[user104658]

If you REALLY believe that and it isn't just a piss take then there is no point in carrying on talking to each other because it would be a waste of time. Our opinions and observations are extreme polar opposites and unlikely to move closer in any way.

You could change my mind with a quote or a clip that shows them badmouthing the family, but I've yet to see one. If you can't and there's nothing to directly quote, then it's just your interpretations reading between the lines, and that's purely subjective and WIDE open to bias.

[user104658]

I mean, she literally praised the queen and made a clear distinction between 'the firm' and the family. It's just a fact that she didn't discredit the family in that interview.

People are struggling to differentiate between what they want to be true (they want her to have trashed the royal family to give them a reason to complain) and what is actually true (she went out of her way to present the queen in the best light possible and made it clear that she had issues with the system, not the family). Disregarding the facts doesn't invalidate them.

It's not really an 'observation' if you're disregarding what happened in favour of an imaginary scenario that's more to your liking.

The irony in my coming away from that Oprah interview liking The Queen MORE than I did beforehand :umm2:. I actually think Meghan did a great job of humanising her and making her seem kind/relatable/like a doting grandmother.

So really for me, what it did was;

- IMPROVE my image of The Queen and Phil
- Keep my image of Charles et al UNALTERED
- Keep my thoughts on William and Kate largely unaltered BUT actually with a little more sympathy for them due to what Harry had to say about Royal life.


... if it's an attempt at badmouthing it's the worst I've ever seen.

[jet]

You could change my mind with a quote or a clip that shows them badmouthing the family, but I've yet to see one. If you can't and there's nothing to directly quote, then it's just your interpretations reading between the lines, and that's purely subjective and WIDE open to bias.

Watch it again and really pay attention without the rose tinted glasses on.

[Tom4784]

Watch it again and really pay attention without the rose tinted glasses on.

The irony of accusing people of wearing rose tinted glasses when you can't see things for what they are and are demanding that TS disregard the facts to see things from your own blinkered perspective.

It's just a fact that she didn't trash the family, you're just confusing your imagination for reality, and that's quite worrying, tbh.

[user104658]

Watch it again and really pay attention without the rose tinted glasses on.

In other words, don't listen to what was actually being said, go in with the idea that it was badmouthing and then try to "second guess" what was being said to come up with what was "secretly, really" being said. No that's OK thanks.

They certainly badmouthed how the Royal Institution works and outlined how it is stifling for all involved. They show little, if any, overt ill-will towards the family. You may BELIEVE that this is disingenuous and their thoughts are actually different to what they're saying but this is purely supposition and guesswork ... you have no evidence of it whatsoever. That's what makes it farcical as a debate point that's supposed to be taken seriously.

"They have bad intentions!"
"Show me proof of this."
"Uhh if you watch the interview keeping in mind that they have bad intentions, you will see that they clearly have bad intentions!"

Circular nonsense.

[jet]

The irony of accusing people of wearing rose tinted glasses when you can't see things for what they are and are demanding that TS disregard the facts to see things from your own blinkered perspective.

It's just a fact that she didn't trash the family, you're just confusing your imagination for reality, and that's quite worrying, tbh.

Did you hear her saying Archie wouldn't be given a title because of his colour? The Americans were outraged! As the Queen is the one who gives the titles that means the Queen must be racist! Only what she said was a outright lie and a very serious one to discredit the Royals. Just ONE example.

[Tom4784]

Did you hear her saying Archie wasn't given a title because of his colour? The Americans were outraged! As the Queen is the one who gives the titles that means the Queen must be racist! Only what she said was a outright lie and a very serious one to discredit the Royals. Just ONE example.

Again, supposition on your part.

The reality is that she made a clear distinction between the family and the firm, and she was only really critical of the firm. People who make such a leap of logic to assume the queen is a racist is as deluded as those that watched that interview and believe Meghan attacked the royal family despite the quotes saying the opposite.

[user104658]

As the Queen is the one who gives the titles that means the Queen must be racist!

They also made it abundantly clear that in their experience and opinion, The Royals are not in full control like this and are all essentially part of a system that they are duty-bound to play along with. You might believe that to be true or not, the important part is that they expressed it, and thus THEIR criticism is of the system and not The Queen herself.

[jet]

Again, supposition on your part.

The reality is that she made a clear distinction between the family and the firm, and she was only really critical of the firm. People who make such a leap of logic to assume the queen is a racist is as deluded as those that watched that interview and believe Meghan attacked the royal family despite the quotes saying the opposite.

Not supposition. She said it, clear as day and made no such distinction when doing so.
The firm don't bestow titles, the Queen does. Your excuses are embarrassing.

[user104658]

Not supposition. She said it, clear as day and made no such distinction when doing so.
The firm don't bestow titles, the Queen does. Your excuses are embarrassing.

I mean you have literally no way of being certain that The Queen has full control over things like that. You can personally believe that she does, but there are conflicting accounts so :shrug:.

[Tom4784]

Not supposition. She said it, clear as day and made no such distinction when doing so.
The firm don't bestow titles, the Queen does. Your excuses are embarrassing.

I've got no excuses, just the facts. She clearly criticised the system rather than the royal family.

If you want to talk about embarassing things, look no further than your own zealotry.

Also you are fuelled by supposition, perhaps you should become acquainted with what words mean before you try to shut them down.

[jet]

They also made it abundantly clear that in their experience and opinion, The Royals are not in full control like this and are all essentially part of a system that they are duty-bound to play along with. You might believe that to be true or not, the important part is that they expressed it, and thus THEIR criticism is of the system and not The Queen herself.

BS. :laugh:
See, this is why there is no point. Titles are the Queens domain, no one else's. Why say anything about the title if not to discredit the royals and make people feel scandalized on her behalf? Why?

Did you hear her saying that one of the family showed concern about what colour Archies skin was likely to be, and Oprah gasping WHAT!
If that is true, why would she reveal that to millions if not to discredit the royals? For what purpose? “oh I’ll just tell you this as a little amusing aside to entertain”. I think not. :hee:
I suppose she was just telling 'her truth' and didn't think for a minute that she might be damaging the royals in any way? She hasn't one iota of bitterness towards them that they didn't pander to all her demands to change things to suit her, no siree! You're not that gullible surely - or maybe you have some reading up to do on her time in the job.
Now I'm really finished with this particular subject. The excuses are just silly. I rest my case.

[Tom4784]

Again, a whole lot of supposition when the facts of the interview contradict your view.

[The Slim Reaper]

BS. :laugh:
See, this is why there is no point. Titles are the Queens domain, no one else's. Why say anything about the title if not to discredit the royals and make people feel scandalized on her behalf? Why?

Did you hear her saying that one of the family showed concern about what colour Archies skin was likely to be, and Oprah gasping WHAT!
If that is true, why would she reveal that to millions if not to discredit the royals? For what purpose? “oh I’ll just tell you this as a little amusing aside to entertain”. I think not. :hee:
I suppose she was just telling 'her truth' and didn't think for a minute that she might be damaging the royals in any way? She hasn't one iota of bitterness towards them that they didn't pander to all her demands to change things to suit her, no siree! You're not that gullible surely - or maybe you have some reading up to do on her time in the job.
Now I'm really finished with this particular subject. I rest my case.

Is it that unlikely, for example, that Prince Phillip and his catalogue of racism through the years, might have asked/showed concern for how dark Archie would be? If that is likely (hard to argue it isn't), is it also a stretch to understand why sharing the name, for example wouldn't do them any favours.

[The Slim Reaper]

if they'd given the name, you would be moaning they'd made it up to discredit person x.

[user104658]

They also made it abundantly clear that in their experience and opinion, The Royals are not in full control like this and are all essentially part of a system that they are duty-bound to play along with. You might believe that to be true or not, the important part is that they expressed it, and thus THEIR criticism is of the system and not The Queen herself.

BS. :laugh:.

:shrug:

[user104658]

Is it that unlikely, for example, that Prince Phillip and his catalogue of racism through the years, might have asked/showed concern for how dark Archie would be? If that is likely (hard to argue it isn't), is it also a stretch to understand why sharing the name, for example wouldn't do them any favours.

I mean "British aristocracy member thinks nothing of casual throwaway racism" is barely even a headline... we KNOW this for a fact about the British upper class :think:. I don't even think it will have come from a place of "concern" or even being intentionally offensive, they'll just have casually said it thinking nothing of it, thinking it wasn't an issue because frankly there's abundant evidence that Harry himself would have found it funny in the past. So it'll have been a "poke-in-the-ribs" "Oh I wonder what shade your children will be Herreh har har har har :hehe:" in a family that, as you say with Philip, it's CLEAR that off the cuff comments about race have been commonplace for.

[bots]

the shocking thing is that it wasn't big Phil that made the comment, Harry gave him and lizzie a get out of jail card after the interview. Although I want it to be Charlie or Andrew, I think its more likely it was one of the lesser royals like the woman that wore the brooch "without thinking"

[user104658]

the shocking thing is that it wasn't big Phil that made the comment, Harry gave him and lizzie a get out of jail card after the interview. Although I want it to be Charlie or Andrew, I think its more likely it was one of the lesser royals like the woman that wore the brooch "without thinking"

My money is on Camilla honestly but it's a total guess :joker:. If it was Andrew I think they'd just have said so, I mean it's barely going to register on the radar there :umm2:.

[Crimson Dynamo]

the shocking thing is that it wasn't big Phil that made the comment, Harry gave him and lizzie a get out of jail card after the interview. Although I want it to be Charlie or Andrew, I think its more likely it was one of the lesser royals like the woman that wore the brooch "without thinking"

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/hbz-meghan-markle-comp-1513890241.jpg

Who dear?
Me dear?
No dear
How very dare you!

[GoldHeart]

Watch it again and really pay attention without the rose tinted glasses on.

That's rich accusing people of wearing rose tinted glasses, when your judgment is clouded only to see bad in Meghan & Harry but especially Meghan.

[rusticgal]

...and of course no one knows the context of the words said. It was said before Meghan was even pregnant apparently. So to question the colour of the skin of their future children out of simple curiosity is not racist...
AND of course according to Meghan this was bought up in 'several conversations' when she was pregnant....and according to Harry it was mentioned ONCE before she was pregnant. :shrug:
Considering they cant even get their story straight....its easy to imagine that it was taken completely out of context.

[rusticgal]

That's rich accusing people of wearing rose tinted glasses, when your judgment is clouded only to see bad in Meghan & Harry but especially Meghan.


Jet has often given fair judgement and positive judgement on both of them up until they married. He like most of us really liked them both.
Sadly those that defend her are never big enough to call her out for all the lies she told in that interview....unbelievable.

[user104658]

Jet has often given fair judgement and positive judgement on both of them up until they married. He like most of us really liked them both.

Yes there were many who liked her until she had something negative to say about life as a British Royal... then turned on her like milk left out in the sun. Funny, that.

Sadly those that defend her are never big enough to call her out for all the lies she told in that interview....unbelievable.

Again if someone could show me a clip, or even offer me a direct quote, for some of these "outright lies" that would be one thing but no one has managed it yet. Just a vague "Oh but if you ignore the actual words and see what they're REALLY saying..." which is not evidence of anything at all, except the existence of confirmation bias.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Yes there were many who liked her until she had something negative to say about life as a British Royal... then turned on her like milk left out in the sun. Funny, that.



Again if someone could show me a clip, or even offer me a direct quote, for some of these "outright lies" that would be one thing but no one has managed it yet. Just a vague "Oh but if you ignore the actual words and see what they're REALLY saying..." which is not evidence of anything at all, except the existence of confirmation bias.

look back the thread there are lots and lots of examples

the sun ran 10 and there is a link to that article for a kick off

[jet]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9410599/Queen-deluged-hundreds-letters-support-wake-Meghan-Harrys-Oprah-interview.html

The Queen has been deluged with hundreds of letters of support and encouragement in the wake of the Meghan and Harry interview, The Mail on Sunday has learned.
Every day, sacks full of post are delivered to Windsor Castle where the Queen has been in lockdown with the Duke of Edinburgh since his release from hospital.
The cards, gifts and letters are said to be a source of great comfort to the Monarch after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex accused the Royal Family of racism. …..

:)

[GoldHeart]

The Queen was never accused of racism, stop peddling that misinformation.

[jet]

Jet has often given fair judgement and positive judgement on both of them up until they married. He like most of us really liked them both.
Sadly those that defend her are never big enough to call her out for all the lies she told in that interview....unbelievable.

:love:
Unbelievable indeed. A lot of denial and twisting and piss taking even when the words out of her own mouth are quoted.
No point in engaging with that kind of time wasting nonsense, so for me I'll be more discerning with who I converse with from now on.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The Queen was never accused of racism, stop peddling that misinformation.

incorrect

The Queen was accused for quite some time until Winfrey later added it wasnt her

but when the show aired she was equally under the accusation until the clarification (i think the next day)

[user104658]

look back the thread there are lots and lots of examples

the sun ran 10 and there is a link to that article for a kick off

No no actual quotes or clips of the lies specifically, not examples of profiction things, or interpretations of what they said, or taking things too literally, or them having a slightly different account of things.

[user104658]

:love:
Unbelievable indeed. A lot of denial and twisting and piss taking.....
No point in engaging with that kind of time wasting nonsense, so for me I'll be more discerning with who I converse with from now on.

"I choose to exist in a happy echo chamber". Don't worry jet you won't be the first. Maybe you can get a job on GB News?

[rusticgal]

Yes there were many who liked her until she had something negative to say about life as a British Royal... then turned on her like milk left out in the sun. Funny, that.



Again if someone could show me a clip, or even offer me a direct quote, for some of these "outright lies" that would be one thing but no one has managed it yet. Just a vague "Oh but if you ignore the actual words and see what they're REALLY saying..." which is not evidence of anything at all, except the existence of confirmation bias.


1. She said they were 'married' 3 days before the wedding...but they were
forced to correct themselves.
2. She said Archie was entitled to a title...
3. She said Archie didnt get a title due to the colour of his skin.
4. She said she couldnt get help for her Mental issues....if you believe that
you will believe anything considering Harry's connections.
5. She said several conversations were had with Harry over the colour of
Archies skin. Harry said it was ONE conversation.
6. She said she was pregnant when those conversations were had...Harry
said it was before...

I have no doubt missed a couple...but like LT said they have all been mentioned on here...maybe you overlooked them :laugh:

[rusticgal]

Yes there were many who liked her until she had something negative to say about life as a British Royal... then turned on her like milk left out in the sun. Funny, that.


Thats a bit silly...because many were starting to dislike her before they up and left. With many the interview may well have been the last straw. Its not about turning on 'The Royal Family'...with many its more about making accusations against your own family on NT.

[rusticgal]

The Queen was never accused of racism, stop peddling that misinformation.


I think you are the one peddling misinformation. Who specified the Queen?...a member of her family has been accused. We all know they exonerated the Queen and Prince Phillip the day after the Interview.

[rusticgal]

incorrect

The Queen was accused for quite some time until Winfrey later added it wasnt her

but when the show aired she was equally under the accusation until the clarification (i think the next day)

Yes it was the next day..

[GoldHeart]

incorrect

The Queen was accused for quite some time until Winfrey later added it wasnt her

but when the show aired she was equally under the accusation until the clarification (i think the next day)

FALSE

Both Meghan and Harry spoke highly of the Queen

[Crimson Dynamo]

FALSE

Both Meghan and Harry spoke highly of the Queen

and?

[Cherie]

The Queen was never accused of racism, stop peddling that misinformation.

She was by omission

[GoldHeart]

I think you are the one peddling misinformation. Who specified the Queen?...a member of her family has been accused. We all know they exonerated the Queen and Prince Phillip the day after the Interview.

Look through the thread then if you don't believe me

[jet]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1414647/meghan-markle-prince-harry-oprah-winfrey-interview-backlash-nothing-like-this-spt

Meghan and Harry taken aback by interview backlash: ‘Expected nothing like this’
MEGHAN MARKLE and Prince Harry were allegedly surprised by the international backlash after their groundbreaking interview with Oprah Winfrey hit the small screen, a source claimed.
By KATE NICHOLSON

Meghan and Harry’s first interview since leaving the Royal Family left the whole world talking this month. More than two weeks after it was broadcast, commentators are still examining the couple’s serious allegations against the Palace regarding its approach to race and mental health. The Sussexes’ more light-hearted claims have been in the spotlight, too, with Meghan’s declaration that she and Harry had actually married three days before their lavish, televised ceremony stunning fans.

Their bombshell interview with Oprah was accused of severely damaging the Royal Family’s international reputation, while others have questioned the accuracy of their allegations.
The Susexes' popularity has plummeted in the UK.
Forty-eight percent of Britons expressed a negative view of the Duke — a 15-point drop — while 58 percent of respondents now have a negative opinion of Meghan, which is a 13-point decrease in support.

[rusticgal]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1414647/meghan-markle-prince-harry-oprah-winfrey-interview-backlash-nothing-like-this-spt

Meghan and Harry taken aback by interview backlash: ‘Expected nothing like this’
MEGHAN MARKLE and Prince Harry were allegedly surprised by the international backlash after their groundbreaking interview with Oprah Winfrey hit the small screen, a source claimed.
By KATE NICHOLSON

Meghan and Harry’s first interview since leaving the Royal Family left the whole world talking this month. More than two weeks after it was broadcast, commentators are still examining the couple’s serious allegations against the Palace regarding its approach to race and mental health. The Sussexes’ more light-hearted claims have been in the spotlight, too, with Meghan’s declaration that she and Harry had actually married three days before their lavish, televised ceremony stunning fans.

Their bombshell interview with Oprah was accused of severely damaging the Royal Family’s international reputation, while others have questioned the accuracy of their allegations.
The Susexes' popularity has plummeted in the UK.
Forty-eight percent of Britons expressed a negative view of the Duke — a 15-point drop — while 58 percent of respondents now have a negative opinion of Meghan, which is a 13-point decrease in support.

Perhaps if they had sorted their issues out in private instead of making a spectacle of it and playing the victim card...they could have avoided making fools of themselves. No sympathy.

[Elliot]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1414647/meghan-markle-prince-harry-oprah-winfrey-interview-backlash-nothing-like-this-spt

Meghan and Harry taken aback by interview backlash: ‘Expected nothing like this’
MEGHAN MARKLE and Prince Harry were allegedly surprised by the international backlash after their groundbreaking interview with Oprah Winfrey hit the small screen, a source claimed.
By KATE NICHOLSON

Meghan and Harry’s first interview since leaving the Royal Family left the whole world talking this month. More than two weeks after it was broadcast, commentators are still examining the couple’s serious allegations against the Palace regarding its approach to race and mental health. The Sussexes’ more light-hearted claims have been in the spotlight, too, with Meghan’s declaration that she and Harry had actually married three days before their lavish, televised ceremony stunning fans.

Their bombshell interview with Oprah was accused of severely damaging the Royal Family’s international reputation, while others have questioned the accuracy of their allegations.
The Susexes' popularity has plummeted in the UK.
Forty-eight percent of Britons expressed a negative view of the Duke — a 15-point drop — while 58 percent of respondents now have a negative opinion of Meghan, which is a 13-point decrease in support.

Standing up against racism and spreading awareness of the importance of mental health is more important than the reputation of an inbred racist family

[jet]

Standing up against racism and spreading awareness of the importance of mental health is more important than the reputation of an inbred racist family

A racist and uncaring family is exactly what Meghan wanted the masses to believe, that's what I've been saying all along, only most of us didn't fall for her version. :hee:

[Crimson Dynamo]

A racist and uncaring family is exactly what Meghan wanted the masses to believe, that's what I've been saying all along, only most of us didn't fall for her version. :hee:

no one did here but sadly they did it seems in the USA :(

but then they think Oprah is a real interviewer..

:huh:

[GoldHeart]

A racist and uncaring family is exactly what Meghan wanted the masses to believe, that's what I've been saying all along, only most of us didn't fall for her version. :hee:

Did you actually watch and listen to the Oprah interview ? , Or did you just tut and roll your eyes all the way through.

[Jordan.]

Did you actually watch and listen to the Oprah interview ? , Or did you just tut and roll your eyes all the way through.

I believe he said he had to watch it in short bursts, bless. That might be why his take away from it is so convoluted.

[GoldHeart]

I believe he said he had to watch it in short bursts, bless. That might be why his take away from it is so convoluted.

Go figure

[Marsh.]

People really are having trouble seeing beyond their own prejudices.
Not shocked but the lengths people will go to because they don't want to acknowledge they overreacted about woman who, in the grand scheme of things, has done nothing wrong.

[rusticgal]

Did you actually watch and listen to the Oprah interview ? , Or did you just tut and roll your eyes all the way through.


I take it you didn’t watch it at all...:shrug:

[Parmy]

Did you actually watch and listen to the Oprah interview ? , Or did you just tut and roll your eyes all the way through.

She didnt exactly make it clear who mentioned the colour of the babies skin...neither did harry. They could have though, but decided not to.

[rusticgal]

I believe he said he had to watch it in short bursts, bless. That might be why his take away from it is so convoluted.


Did you watch it?

[Parmy]

People really are having trouble seeing beyond their own prejudices.
Not shocked but the lengths people will go to because they don't want to acknowledge they overreacted about woman who, in the grand scheme of things, has done nothing wrong.

Shes annoying on the telly, always has been.

[Marsh.]

Shes annoying on the telly, always has been.

So is Lorraine, she doesn't get all this abuse.

[Crimson Dynamo]

As we expected the sham interview has shone the mirror back on her and all her faults

and of course there were many

[Parmy]

So is Lorraine, she doesn't get all this abuse.

I bet she does on twitter via pm...

[rusticgal]

She’s done nothing wrong...:laugh2:

[Marsh.]

I bet she does on twitter via pm...

"I bet"

[Marsh.]

She’s done nothing wrong...:laugh2:

Sorry, should clarify, nothing wrong outside of the inventions of a select few.

[GoldHeart]

I take it you didn’t watch it at all...:shrug:

No I closed my eyes all the way through

[Parmy]

So is

:shrug:

[Jordan.]

Did you watch it?

Of course I did :flutter: I certainly wouldn't still be talking about it 3 weeks later if I claimed I didn't

[Marsh.]

No I closed my eyes all the way through

:joker:

[rusticgal]

No I closed my eyes all the way through


Unyet you still defend someone who lies to dramatise events at the detriment of others...

Says it all...

[Liam-]

She’s done nothing wrong...:laugh2:

What exactly has she done wrong? The question has never really been given a straight answer

[Marsh.]

What exactly has she done wrong? The question has never really been given a straight answer

Cue sentence beginning with "I believe..." "I bet...." or "I imagine...."

[GoldHeart]

What exactly has she done wrong? The question has never really been given a straight answer

For being Meghan Markle , that's the crime .

[joeysteele]

For being Meghan Markle , that's the crime .

That's the one GoldHeart, in my view too.

[rusticgal]

What exactly has she done wrong? The question has never really been given a straight answer


You obviously haven’t bothered to read the thread...you will find your answer there if you are really bothered.

[GoldHeart]

You obviously haven’t bothered to read the thread...you will find your answer there if you are really bothered.

Oh the irony of that statement

[rusticgal]

Oh the irony of that statement


It’s funny that when points are put to you regarding all the ‘untruths’ you fail to reply because you can’t defend the undefinable :laugh:....
All you can come out with is “it’s because it’s Meghan Markle”....which is pretty pathetic debate don’t you think.

[Liam-]

You obviously haven’t bothered to read the thread...you will find your answer there if you are really bothered.

That’s the problem though, I’ve read this and all the other threads - much to the detriment of my already shakey mental health - and I’m still yet to see a single reasonable, sensible example of any actual wrong doing, it’s all just been a bunch of biased, nonsensical, imaginary guff, it’s actually starting to become a little bit sad

[Tom4784]

Honestly, people are literally lying to themselves to falsely justify their hatred of a woman who has no impact on their lives. This country and it's people are in a pathetic state.

[Marsh.]

Honestly, people are literally lying to themselves to falsely justify their hatred of a woman who has no impact on their lives. This country and it's people are in a pathetic state.

:clap1:

[user104658]

1. She said they were 'married' 3 days before the wedding...but they were forced to correct themselves.

Many people would consider the ceremony to be getting married and the legaldocuments to be a formality - referring to a privately held ceremony as a marriage is not unusual, and they had toclarify the misconception, not correct the statement.

2. She said Archie was entitled to a title...

Did she? She said as far as she understood he was supposed to get one automatically and that it was "usual" - this might have been a misunderstanding of how it all works, either way she never said "entitled to"... if you're going to call someone out for lying, probably a good idea to be accurate?

3. She said Archie didnt get a title due to the colour of his skin.

This was never said and quite CLEARLY would not have been said, as Archie does not even have dark skin :idc:

4. She said she couldnt get help for her Mental issues....if you believe that

"You not believing her" does not make this a lie :shrug:. Odd one to include as "proof" of lying when the "proof" is in fact just your own layperson's opinion.


5. She said several conversations were had with Harry over the colour of Archies skin. Harry said it was ONE conversation.

There does seem to be some miscommunication about the specifics on this one - but that happens. Me and my wife disagree about the specifics of conversations we had 3 days ago, and anyone who claims it's otherwise for them IS clearly lying. Maybe she did exaggerate - or maybe she mis-remembered what he told her. Either way AGAIN not "proof of lying".


6. She said she was pregnant when those conversations were had...Harry said it was before...

As above.


I have indeed seen all of this "proof" that isn't proof of anything. Some of it is flat out incorrect. I was hoping for something new so please feel free to have another try.

[Marsh.]

Many people would consider the ceremony to be getting married and the legaldocuments to be a formality - referring to a privately held ceremony as a marriage is not unusual, and they had toclarify the misconception, not correct the statement.



Did she? She said as far as she understood he was supposed to get one automatically and that it was "usual" - this might have been a misunderstanding of how it all works, either way she never said "entitled to"... if you're going to call someone out for lying, probably a good idea to be accurate?



This was never said and quite CLEARLY would not have been said, as Archie does not even have dark skin :idc:



"You not believing her" does not make this a lie :shrug:. Odd one to include as "proof" of lying when the "proof" is in fact just your own layperson's opinion.




There does seem to be some miscommunication about the specifics on this one - but that happens. Me and my wife disagree about the specifics of conversations we had 3 days ago, and anyone who claims it's otherwise for them IS clearly lying. Maybe she did exaggerate - or maybe she mis-remembered what he told her. Either way AGAIN not "proof of lying".




As above.


I have indeed seen all of this "proof" that isn't proof of anything. Some of it is flat out incorrect. I was hoping for something new so please feel free to have another try.

Wasn't it that Harry had the conversation about how dark his potential future child's skin would be with a family member, but that this conversation was only relayed to Meghan after she had become pregnant? :shrug:

Not that it matters, the fact such a conversation took place is the point, not the specifics of when.

[joeysteele]

Many people would consider the ceremony to be getting married and the legaldocuments to be a formality - referring to a privately held ceremony as a marriage is not unusual, and they had toclarify the misconception, not correct the statement.



Did she? She said as far as she understood he was supposed to get one automatically and that it was "usual" - this might have been a misunderstanding of how it all works, either way she never said "entitled to"... if you're going to call someone out for lying, probably a good idea to be accurate?



This was never said and quite CLEARLY would not have been said, as Archie does not even have dark skin :idc:



"You not believing her" does not make this a lie :shrug:. Odd one to include as "proof" of lying when the "proof" is in fact just your own layperson's opinion.




There does seem to be some miscommunication about the specifics on this one - but that happens. Me and my wife disagree about the specifics of conversations we had 3 days ago, and anyone who claims it's otherwise for them IS clearly lying. Maybe she did exaggerate - or maybe she mis-remembered what he told her. Either way AGAIN not "proof of lying".




As above.


I have indeed seen all of this "proof" that isn't proof of anything. Some of it is flat out incorrect. I was hoping for something new so please feel free to have another try.


You should have been a lawyer TS

Exactly right.
Plus it was Prince Harry the comment was made to not herself.
I would guess, both of them discussed the comment between them many times.

I mean, people have said something to me , which has annoyed me.
If I've then shared that with another, I've lost count of the times, I've then said or the person I shared it with has said, ''I'm stunned they said that''..
Thereby us discussing it again.

In any event the basis of the point is someone said this directly to Prince Harry, then he told his wife.
There's no LIE, certainly nothing to take and the try to discredit and character assassinate someone on.

It's odd the anger is against Meghan Markle on this.
Not on the person who asked the question of an unborn baby's skin colour.

No matter if it was said in a racist intention or just idle curiosity..
It's nevertheless an INAPPROPRIATE comment in the very least.

So little wonder, considering Meghan Markle's ancestry, that Prince Harry felt some concern to warn her of what had been said.

Plus, no one on here was present when it was asked of Prince Harry.
So I'd say he is the only one best judged to know how it was said and why Prince Harry himself found it offensive too.

[rusticgal]

Many people would consider the ceremony to be getting married and the legaldocuments to be a formality - referring to a privately held ceremony as a marriage is not unusual, and they had toclarify the misconception, not correct the statement.



Did she? She said as far as she understood he was supposed to get one automatically and that it was "usual" - this might have been a misunderstanding of how it all works, either way she never said "entitled to"... if you're going to call someone out for lying, probably a good idea to be accurate?



This was never said and quite CLEARLY would not have been said, as Archie does not even have dark skin :idc:



"You not believing her" does not make this a lie :shrug:. Odd one to include as "proof" of lying when the "proof" is in fact just your own layperson's opinion.




There does seem to be some miscommunication about the specifics on this one - but that happens. Me and my wife disagree about the specifics of conversations we had 3 days ago, and anyone who claims it's otherwise for them IS clearly lying. Maybe she did exaggerate - or maybe she mis-remembered what he told her. Either way AGAIN not "proof of lying".




As above.


I have indeed seen all of this "proof" that isn't proof of anything. Some of it is flat out incorrect. I was hoping for something new so please feel free to have another try.


Well you can interpret it your way as much as you like...but you are wrong.and we will leave it there.
Lets just clarify one thing you agree with but give a flimsy excuse...The serious accusation of Racism. Meghan wasnt involved in the conversation that took place...it was Harry. Harry specifically said it was one conversation...but Meghan deliberately portrayed it as 'several' to exaggerate the issue. To say you and your wife have inaccuracies in accounts...well dont we all. If you were going on National Television to label the Royal Family Racist you would be sure to get your facts right wouldnt you?. This interview would have been rehearsed and questions pre-planned.
Unfortunately for her everything she says now will be taken with a pinch of salt and she has lost credibility with many.

[user104658]

Well you can interpret it your way as much as you like...but you are wrong. and we will leave it there.

:joker: Will we really, well thank you for letting me know I guess.


Lets just clarify one thing you agree with but give a flimsy excuse... :oh: You said we would leave it there! And then YOU DIDN'T! Like immediately!

https://media.giphy.com/media/jrvfKvr2mmcFO/giphy.gif

The serious accusation of Racism. Meghan wasnt involved in the conversation that took place...it was Harry. Harry specifically said it was one conversation...but Meghan deliberately portrayed it as 'several' to exaggerate the issue.

Yes but Meghan makes it clear from the outset that the information she is giving is second hand, that she wasn't there. Harry immediately clarifies what actually happened as soon as he's asked about it. Again if this was some masterful ruse to tarnish the family, it wasn't a very good one?

To say you and your wife have inaccuracies in accounts...well dont we all. If you were going on National Television to label the Royal Family Racist you would be sure to get your facts right wouldnt you?. This interview would have been rehearsed and questions pre-planned.

I agree that they should have made sure they fully understood everything before they went on and yes, I would make sure I had all the facts straight in my head before doing something like this... but this is true whether what they were saying is true or false. In fact, if it was a bundle of lies you'd be even MORE certain and rehearsed for consistency. The fact that there are internal discrepancies within the interview itself suggests that it was NOT rehearsed and thus some misunderstandings and miscommunications were still present - FAR more likely if she was simply relaying her memory of the incident "on the spot". If they had rehearsed a lie, they would have said the same thing.

You have a few realistic options really -

1) Meghan is lying to exaggerate, Harry is telling the truth (the minor incident still occurred)

2) Meghan is telling the truth, Harry is now downplaying it to protect his family (the worse incident still occurred)

3) There's been a miscommunication between Harry and Meghan (most likely, Harry's version is the accurate one, as he is the first hand source)

4) They are both lying - but telling a different version of that lie. EXTREMELY UNLIKELY. If they had plotted to lie, and rehearsed a lie, the stories would match.

For what it's worth, I think any of options 1 - 3 are possible. Which means some degree of racist comment was made, thus the overall statement is not a lie. Option 4 is just extremely unrealistic.

Unfortunately for her everything she says now will be taken with a pinch of salt By you and some others, this is not a universal fact.

and she has lost credibility with many.

Some. It's mainly excited chirping from those who already didn't believe them.

https://i.imgur.com/L689b4H.png

[Marsh.]

but you are wrong

:joker:

The serious accusation of Racism. Meghan wasnt involved in the conversation that took place...it was Harry. Harry specifically said it was one conversation...but Meghan deliberately portrayed it as 'several' to exaggerate the issue.

Those straws will snap you cling any tighter.

[bots]

It's mainly excited chirping from those who already didn't believe them.


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d2/cf/ba/d2cfbae97e1a56c173f82e221d0b6d80.jpg

[user104658]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d2/cf/ba/d2cfbae97e1a56c173f82e221d0b6d80.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ttvXsbn.jpg

[Crimson Dynamo]

Princess Diana's biographer Andrew Morton says royals have a 'history' of
seeking help for mental health issues dating back to Princess Margaret and is
'baffled' by Meghan Markle's claim that she couldn't get support


Andrew Morton says the Queen sought professional help during Annus horribilis
Princess Margaret reportedly underwent psychological counselling in the 1970s
Diana's biographer called Meghan's admission 'very sad' and he was 'baffled'
Duchess of Sussex says she was refused help with her mental health from palace


Appearing on Lorraine today, he admitted that he was 'baffled' by Prince
Harry and Meghan Markle's explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey in which
the Duchess of Sussex claimed concerns about her mental health were
ignored.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/30/10/41117072-9417643-image-m-30_1617096324223.jpg

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9417643/Andrew-Morton-baffled-Meghan-Markles-mental-health-accusations.html

It's almost like she did not get help because there was nowt to seek help for?

:think:

[user104658]

Princess Diana's biographer Andrew Morton says royals have a 'history' of
seeking help for mental health issues dating back to Princess Margaret and is
'baffled' by Meghan Markle's claim that she couldn't get support


Andrew Morton says the Queen sought professional help during Annus horribilis
Princess Margaret reportedly underwent psychological counselling in the 1970s
Diana's biographer called Meghan's admission 'very sad' and he was 'baffled'
Duchess of Sussex says she was refused help with her mental health from palace


Appearing on Lorraine today, he admitted that he was 'baffled' by Prince
Harry and Meghan Markle's explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey in which
the Duchess of Sussex claimed concerns about her mental health were
ignored.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/30/10/41117072-9417643-image-m-30_1617096324223.jpg

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9417643/Andrew-Morton-baffled-Meghan-Markles-mental-health-accusations.html

It's almost like she did not get help because there was nowt to seek help for?

:think:

Is he "baffled" or is he another one that didn't really listen to the interview? It didn't sound like they offered nothing - it sounded like she said she wasn't allowed to go and seek the help she felt she needed. I wouldn't think they said "no lol go away", I would think they said "no you can't do that [for various reasons] you have to talk with the people we will select and bring in for you". For valid security/confidentiality reasons? Very possibly but that doesn't change what she's saying; she was not allowed to seek the help that SHE thought she needed, she was limited to the help that would be PROVIDED by the institution, whether she felt that was the right help for her or not. It's certainly not one-size-fits-all. As a guess or example, she may have felt she needed time as a private inpatient somewhere and they've said "Umm no we can't have that".

[Marsh.]

https://i.imgur.com/ttvXsbn.jpg

:joker:

[Marsh.]

Is he "baffled" or is he another one that didn't really listen to the interview? It didn't sound like they offered nothing - it sounded like she said she wasn't allowed to go and seek the help she felt she needed. I wouldn't think they said "no lol go away", I would think they said "no you can't do that [for various reasons] you have to talk with the people we will select and bring in for you". For valid security/confidentiality reasons? Very possibly but that doesn't change what she's saying; she was not allowed to seek the help that SHE thought she needed, she was limited to the help that would be PROVIDED by the institution, whether she felt that was the right help for her or not. It's certainly not one-size-fits-all. As a guess or example, she may have felt she needed time as a private inpatient somewhere and they've said "Umm no we can't have that".

Not to mention a "Diana biographer" would surely know the Royals "history" of mental health support is extremely poor?

[bots]

the future queen of england and they didn't seem to give a toss about her various well documented disorders. Mental health awareness doesn't just come from seeking professional help, the foundation is in how close family rally round in support, and there wasn't a lot of evidence of that for Diana or Meghan

[jet]

There is a simple explanation for every so - called lie Meghan told, she’s just a straightforward, innocent, naive young girl, who has no past history of lying whatsoever.
She was just having an impromptu cosy chat with Oprah and when she said the royal family were racist and neglected her mental health she clean forgot that millions of people were watching. Easily done. She would never do anything to hurt Harry’s family publicly, never, even if he would. She’s just too sweet natured.
When she spoke about her passport and keys being taken away and not being allowed out of the Palace she was just exaggerating to satisfy Oprah’s need for a bit of drama. She’s a people pleaser. And when she said they were married privately 3 days before their wedding, she just got carried away with how romantic that would sound.
Her honesty about knowing little about the Royals was so refreshing too; she hadn’t read a Diana book in her life, and didn’t even google Harry, who she also knew little about, before her first date with him. She said so with her own mouth, so it must be true.
She’s the Queen of Truth, actually, and everybody loves her because she’s just so NICE!

[user104658]

So bitter :worry:

[Crimson Dynamo]

So bitter :worry:

im amazed Harry married her tbh

[jet]

So bitter :worry:

No she isn't. Meghan's kind and gentle with nothing but love in her heart. :nono:

[Marsh.]

There is a simple explanation for every so - called lie Meghan told, she’s just a straightforward, innocent, naive young girl, who has no past history of lying whatsoever.
She was just having an impromptu cosy chat with Oprah and when she said the royal family were racist and neglected her mental health she clean forgot that millions of people were watching. Easily done. She would never do anything to hurt Harry’s family publicly, never, even if he would. She’s just too sweet natured.
When she spoke about her passport and keys being taken away and not being allowed out of the Palace she was just exaggerating to satisfy Oprah’s need for a bit of drama. She’s a people pleaser. And when she said they were married privately 3 days before their wedding, she just got carried away with how romantic that would sound.
Her honesty about knowing little about the Royals was so refreshing too; she hadn’t read a Diana book in her life, and didn’t even google Harry, who she also knew little about, before her first date with him. She said so with her own mouth, so it must be true.
She’s the Queen of Truth, actually, and everybody loves her because she’s just so NICE!

And you've just summed up why you were never going to read or watch any interview with an open mind. Not hating Meghan =/= adoration.

But then, you didn't watch the interview anyway despite claiming to be an expert on her "lies".

[thesheriff443]

Honestly, people are literally lying to themselves to falsely justify their hatred of a woman who has no impact on their lives. This country and it's people are in a pathetic state.

We live in a great country even better that pair gobs have left.

[user104658]

im amazed Harry married her tbh



No she isn't. Meghan's kind and gentle with nothing but love in her heart. :nono:



Soul mates?

[Marsh.]

stop baiting

Right back at you.

[rusticgal]

There is a simple explanation for every so - called lie Meghan told, she’s just a straightforward, innocent, naive young girl, who has no past history of lying whatsoever.
She was just having an impromptu cosy chat with Oprah and when she said the royal family were racist and neglected her mental health she clean forgot that millions of people were watching. Easily done. She would never do anything to hurt Harry’s family publicly, never, even if he would. She’s just too sweet natured.
When she spoke about her passport and keys being taken away and not being allowed out of the Palace she was just exaggerating to satisfy Oprah’s need for a bit of drama. She’s a people pleaser. And when she said they were married privately 3 days before their wedding, she just got carried away with how romantic that would sound.
Her honesty about knowing little about the Royals was so refreshing too; she hadn’t read a Diana book in her life, and didn’t even google Harry, who she also knew little about, before her first date with him. She said so with her own mouth, so it must be true.
She’s the Queen of Truth, actually, and everybody loves her because she’s just so NICE!


I never looked at it like that before :laugh:....all she needed to do was compare herself to a disney character....oops wait a minute :think:

[GoldHeart]

I never looked at it like that before :laugh:....all she needed to do was compare herself to a disney character....oops wait a minute :think:

Little mermaid is a good movie :hee:

[Crimson Dynamo]

kxT9XfY_4AQ

Royal biographer Angela Levin has criticised Prince Harry and Meghan Markle for “still complaining” one year after they officially stepped down as senior royals.

[Marsh.]

Maybe Angela Levin should get a job.

[Tom4784]

We live in a great country even better that pair gobs have left.

Keep telling yourself we live in a great country, I'd rather keep my eyes open.

[Kazanne]

We live in a great country even better that pair gobs have left.

I agree and if people don't like it they can follow their hero's.

[GoldHeart]

This country has several issues & problems, it's not a bed of roses .

[Kazanne]

This country has several issues & problems, it's not a bed of roses .

Yes it does, as do all countries,but we live in a good place compared to most,and it IS a bed of roses compared to some.

[jet]

Yes it does, as do all countries,but we live in a good place compared to most,and it IS a bed of roses compared to some.

Yes there are people who risk their lives to come to the UK, would those that think it is so awful do a swap with them and go live in their country?
They'd be crying to get home to the UK in no time.

[rusticgal]

Yes it does, as do all countries,but we live in a good place compared to most,and it IS a bed of roses compared to some.


Exactly...that’s why so many people want to come here.

[jet]

PRINCE WILLIAM REJECTED PRINCE HARRY’S ‘TRAPPED BY ROYALTY’ CLAIM

Prince William doesn’t feel trapped in the Royal Family – despite his Prince Harry telling Oprah Winfrey his sibling is “stuck in the system”, it’s been reported.
During the bombshell chat with Oprah, Prince Harry said William and Charles are “trapped” by their royal responsibilities.
Harry said: “My father and my brother – they are trapped. They don’t get to leave and I have huge compassion for that.”
But one of William’s pals told The Sunday Times that comment was “way off the mark”.
“He has a path set for him and he’s completely accepting of his role. He is very much his grandmother’s grandson in that respect of duty and service,” they added.

And:
Prince William Is the World's Sexiest Bald Man, According to a New Study

For the study, researchers for cosmetic surgery specialists Longevita analyzed millions of blog posts, reports, and web pages found via Google search and found that the Duke of Cambridge was described as "sexy" 17.6 million times.

https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a35959328/prince-william-worlds-sexiest-bald-man-study/

:cool:

[rusticgal]

PRINCE WILLIAM REJECTED PRINCE HARRY’S ‘TRAPPED BY ROYALTY’ CLAIM

Prince William doesn’t feel trapped in the Royal Family – despite his Prince Harry telling Oprah Winfrey his sibling is “stuck in the system”, it’s been reported.
During the bombshell chat with Oprah, Prince Harry said William and Charles are “trapped” by their royal responsibilities.
Harry said: “My father and my brother – they are trapped. They don’t get to leave and I have huge compassion for that.”
But one of William’s pals told The Sunday Times that comment was “way off the mark”.
“He has a path set for him and he’s completely accepting of his role. He is very much his grandmother’s grandson in that respect of duty and service,” they added.

And:
Prince William Is the World's Sexiest Bald Man, According to a New Study

For the study, researchers for cosmetic surgery specialists Longevita analyzed millions of blog posts, reports, and web pages found via Google search and found that the Duke of Cambridge was described as "sexy" 17.6 million times.

https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a35959328/prince-william-worlds-sexiest-bald-man-study/

:cool:


William will make a great King one day...with a good woman at his side. :cheer2:

[user104658]

But one of William’s pals told The Sunday Times that comment was “way off the mark”.
“He has a path set for him and he’s completely accepting of his role. He is very much his grandmother’s grandson in that respect of duty and service,” they added.



But one of William’s random pals told The Sunday Times that comment was “way off the mark”.
“Except oh wait here’s a description of someone who sounds very much trapped by a sense of unavoidable duty just like Harry said” they added

[Jordan.]

William will make a great King one day...with a good woman at his side. :cheer2:

Will it be Kate or Rose Hanbury?

[jet]

Meghan wanted it to be her and flirted with William but he was having none of it. Embarrassing. :smug:

[Tom4784]

I agree and if people don't like it they can follow their hero's.

What a toxic attitude to have.

It's so sad when people's patriotism blinds them to the reality of this country and all it's problems. Pointing out and acknowledging issues is not a bad thing. Acknowledging the bad is how you fix things. Then again, patriotic people have no interest in fixing things, they just want to live in their fantasy land.

Being all like '**** freedom of speech! If you don't like something about this country, LEAVE!' is such an immature point.

[Tom4784]

Meghan wanted it to be her and flirted with William but he was having none of it. Embarrassing. :smug:

It's sad how people confuse fan fiction for reality.

[thesheriff443]

Keep telling yourself we live in a great country, I'd rather keep my eyes open.

My eyes are clearly open keep telling yourself you know best

[thesheriff443]

What a toxic attitude to have.

It's so sad when people's patriotism blinds them to the reality of this country and all it's problems. Pointing out and acknowledging issues is not a bad thing. Acknowledging the bad is how you fix things. Then again, patriotic people have no interest in fixing things, they just want to live in their fantasy land.

Being all like '**** freedom of speech! If you don't like something about this country, LEAVE!' is such an immature point.

People are sick of the cry babies like Meghan and Harry so yes if they don’t like it the can leave and boot lick that pair for the rest of their sad lives

[joeysteele]

What a toxic attitude to have.

It's so sad when people's patriotism blinds them to the reality of this country and all it's problems. Pointing out and acknowledging issues is not a bad thing. Acknowledging the bad is how you fix things. Then again, patriotic people have no interest in fixing things, they just want to live in their fantasy land.

Being all like '**** freedom of speech! If you don't like something about this country, LEAVE!' is such an immature point.

It is Indeed.
Because whatever is wrong can never be changed unless challenged.

A toxic attitude indeed, I agree with that.

The people they are telling to leave as well, are their fellow Countrymen/ women.
However because some are content to let wrong prosper because in the main it doesn't affect them.
Then everyone else who sees the wrongs, should just quiet down and accept it.
Across all wrongs of the UK and society.

My main hope on the Prince Harry and Meghan issue, although it won't be while this Monarch is on the throne as she's done not a single thing to modernise and make warmer the Royal set up.
My hope is, those nameless and faceless Royal enforcers of Royal duty rules and procedures are cleared out.

It still sounds, as from Diana and now Meghan, plus also though, as far back as Princess Margaret too.
Also Prince Edward FORCED in the name of duty, to complete his military service, when he was even struggling bigtime.
It sounds like nothing has changed at all.
With real living and free will stifled..

I say again, that's a failure of this Monarch.
70+ years on the throne, to have all as it was on strict duty rules, is ridiculous now in 2021.

Both the Monarchy set up and indeed Parliamentary set up needs changing to have both more representative of the modern age and diversity of people and cultures in the UK now.

So one thing I applaud, as in fact reading back it seems Princess Diana tried to do this too.
Is that Prince Harry and Meghan his wife, are highlighting the ridiculous and BAD elements of Royal life and unnecessarily strict duty.

The saying that goes something like this,is as true now as when it was first said.

'For evil/ bad to thrive the good just need to do nothing'.

Which is what some content with their lot and not giving a jot about anyone else.
Are happy to do nothing about, despite others suffering in any form.
To just shut up, accept it or get out this Country.
That's their attitude and all that does is add to the problems a Nation has, it does nothing at all to even start to addressing the wrongs..
At the top and and at the bottom too.

[thesheriff443]

The queen is receiving thousand of cards and gifts from people showing their support for the queen after that pair of gobs attacked the very people that gave them exactly what they wanted

[joeysteele]

Cards and gifts, she'll likely never read in my view and gifts she'll not want or need.
When we have poverty and homeless in the UK.

That speaks volumes about the people sending her them.

I'd hazard a guess a lot of warm wishes and support are equally from around the World being sent to Prince Harry and his wife Meghan too.

[thesheriff443]

Cards and gifts, she'll likely never read in my view and gifts she'll not want or need.
When we have poverty and homeless in the UK.

That speaks volumes about the people sending her them.

I'd hazard a guess a lot of warm wishes and support are equally from around the World being sent to Prince Harry and his wife Meghan too.

It’s not been reported that Meghan and Harry are getting gifts only the earrings she had worn a gift from the head of a country that has disgusting views on women’s rights

It has been reported that they can’t understand how their popularity has fallen after the Oprah interview

[Crimson Dynamo]

Cards and gifts, she'll likely never read in my view and gifts she'll not want or need.
When we have poverty and homeless in the UK.

That speaks volumes about the people sending her them.

I'd hazard a guess a lot of warm wishes and support are equally from around the World being sent to Prince Harry and his wife Meghan too.

can the people who send cards not also volunteer and donate to homeless charities?

i dont think it speaks any volumes to anything other than people are kind:conf:

[joeysteele]

It’s not been reported that Meghan and Harry are getting gifts only the earrings she had worn a gift from the head of a country that has disgusting views on women’s rights

It has been reported that they can’t understand how their popularity has fallen after the Oprah interview

I did say from around the World not just the UK.

All I've ever heard on news bulletins, not tabloid tripe.

Is in the UK the older generation have turned against them, however the younger generation are more supportive.

However on the main news, I've only heard the view Americans and other Nations are more supportive to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

The fact there is a loss of support in the UK, Just in my opinion, feeds into the narrative of no one dare speak against the Queen or raise any issue that may come across negative to the UK either.

Just for any who see the wrong to shut up or clear off out of the UK.
That intolerance is very damaging very sadly for any Nation.
I have to say, so can't comment, I've never heard anything from Prince Harry or his wife Meghan as to their concerns of a loss of popularity.
Which I think can only possibly be as to the UK anyway however.

[thesheriff443]

I did say from around the World not just the UK.

All I've ever heard on news bulletins, not tabloid tripe.

Is in the UK the older generation have turned against them, however the younger generation are more supportive.

However on the main news, I've only heard the view Americans and other Nations are more supportive to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

The fact there is a loss of support in the UK, Just in my opinion, feeds into the narrative of no one dare speak against the Queen or raise any issue that may come across negative to the UK either.

Just for any who see the wrong to shut up or clear off out of the UK.
That intolerance is very damaging very sadly for any Nation.
I have to say, so can't comment, I've never heard anything from Prince Harry or his wife Meghan as to their concerns of a loss of popularity.
Which I think can only possibly be as to the UK anyway however.

The Americans will only see what was show a showbizz interview with out any challenge from the host to her friends on any of the accusations made or their version of events

[joeysteele]

Well, the Americans and rest of the World have views and judgements too.

It's not an exclusive right of ONLY the UK.

[jet]

Also Prince Edward FORCED in the name of duty, to complete his military service, when he was even struggling bigtime.
It sounds like nothing has changed at all.
With real living and free will stifled..



Where on earth did you get that from? Prince Edward left the Marines after 4 months of his 9 year enlistment.
Your posts are full of inaccuracies and exaggerations about the RF and their stifling, awful ways. I don't usually bother, but I thought this misconception was too ott not to be corrected.

[joeysteele]

Where on earth did you get that from? Prince Edward left the Marines after 4 months of his 9 year enlistment.
Your posts are full of inaccuracies and exaggerations about the RF and their stifling, awful ways. I don't usually bother, but I thought this misconception was too ott not to be corrected.

Oh I need no lecture from you on misinformation.

Prince Edward hated the service he was forced to carry on with.
The press had wimp and all sorts levelled at him
Apparently too Prince Philip was furious at his whining in the services.

Frankly, I think it's yourself who possibly has a more distorted view of the Royals.

Because no one on here has any real insight into the workings of the Royals.
My Mother states, Prince Edward's distress at being forced to do his service was clear in his face.

Equally I don't usually bother to give you the time of the day either.
So will continue on that path even if you do fire back with more tripe about ME personally.
Unbelievable.

[jet]

Well, the Americans and rest of the World have views and judgements too.

It's not an exclusive right of ONLY the UK.

They can hardly make a fair judgment when they are only spoon fed what Meghan and Harry told them in the interview without anything they said being challenged.

[jet]

Oh I need no lecture from you on misinformation.


Unbelievable.

Well it seems you do because people may believe what you say about Prince Edward's service for example and then repeat it and so on....and its not true. :shrug:

[joeysteele]

Well it seems you do because people may believe what you say about Prince Edward's service for example and then repeat it and so on....and its not true. :shrug:

Look, whatever spin was put on his departure from the Marines by the Palace.
Didn't match with the build up before it.

I'd advise you to think before accusing others falsely of lying.
I listen to 2 sides not just one.
Hence my view on events up to his departure from my own Mother particularly and then more discounting the Palace spin.
Just for them to save face.
As usual.

[jet]

Look, whatever spin was put on his departure from the Marines by the Palace.
Didn't match with the build up before it.

I'd advise you to think before accusing others falsely of lying.
I listen to 2 sides not just one.
Hence my view on events up to his departure from my own Mother particularly and then more discounting the Palace spin.
Just for them to save face.
As usual.

There are no 2 sides as to what you stated: "FORCED in the name of duty, to complete his military service, when he was even struggling bigtime".
It is wrong.
I like to do some research on what I am told before stating it as fact.

[Marsh.]

The queen is receiving thousand of cards and gifts from people showing their support for the queen after that pair of gobs attacked the very people that gave them exactly what they wanted

The millionaire is getting gifts from people. :joker:

Not very charitable.

[Marsh.]

Cards and gifts, she'll likely never read in my view and gifts she'll not want or need.
When we have poverty and homeless in the UK.

That speaks volumes about the people sending her them.

I'd hazard a guess a lot of warm wishes and support are equally from around the World being sent to Prince Harry and his wife Meghan too.

:clap1:

[arista]

[Meghan 'likely' to run for US presidency but
would 'struggle' with criticism, biographer claims]


Yes Meghan vs Trump 2024
Bring that On.


1377198755171155968

[arista]

So Meghan Lied on that CBS Interview
She claimed they got married 3 days
before the Official Wedding,

The clip shown on Ch5HD Live AM
In todays papers the Archbishop of Canterbury
said he did not Marry them,
it would have been illegal.

[jet]

The relentless press probing she will get if she ran for the presidency is okay then?...ummm, didn't she say a main reason why they left the UK was because of the negative press? That will be nothing compared to what awaits you dear.
Just shows again what a lot of spin and lies this woman comes off with.

[rusticgal]

When we have poverty and homeless in the UK.



There is poverty and homelessness in every country....I dont hear you condemn Meghan and Harry as they sit in their mansion with millions in the bank moaning about being financially cut off...whilst thousands have lost homes and businesses because of the pandemic...

[joeysteele]

There is poverty and homelessness in every country....I dont hear you condemn Meghan and Harry as they sit in their mansion with millions in the bank moaning about being financially cut off...whilst thousands have lost homes and businesses because of the pandemic...

How do you KNOW I don't moan at that.
You don't KNOW me.

I've loads of moans at Royalty and celebrities who could do loads more.
I do so constantly.

Does that mean I should condone these sending card and gifts to highly privileged individuals.
No it does not.
Plus I won't.

A family dispute made public, to then actually in those circumstances to send cards and gifts plus the postage costs, to multi millionaires..
Nah, not something I'd do or support.

I'd be condemning cards and gifts going to Prince Harry and his wife Meghan too..
I see no reason for it whatsoever, speaking for myself personally.

[user104658]

I dont hear you condemn Meghan and Harry as they sit in their mansion with millions in the bank moaning about being financially cut off...whilst thousands have lost homes and businesses because of the pandemic...

And those people who have lost homes and businesses shouldn't be moaning because there are people living in huts in South Africa who never had a house or a business.

...and we know what they're in for next... :worry:

"Some people have it worse so no one should complain" has never been a good argument, and it isn't one here.

[thesheriff443]

Well, the Americans and rest of the World have views and judgements too.

It's not an exclusive right of ONLY the UK.

They can only judge what the two gobs told their mate

[GoldHeart]

Oh I need no lecture from you on misinformation.

Prince Edward hated the service he was forced to carry on with.
The press had wimp and all sorts levelled at him
Apparently too Prince Philip was furious at his whining in the services.

Frankly, I think it's yourself who possibly has a more distorted view of the Royals.

Because no one on here has any real insight into the workings of the Royals.
My Mother states, Prince Edward's distress at being forced to do his service was clear in his face.

Equally I don't usually bother to give you the time of the day either.
So will continue on that path even if you do fire back with more tripe about ME personally.
Unbelievable.

What you said about Prince Edward sounds familiar, it might just be because I've heard it before on these threads.

But anyway it just once again proves that mental health is seen as some kind of 'weakness' in the eyes of the royal institution & of course the press will always be spiteful .

Once more very cold unfeeling attitude which again correlates to what Meghan & Harry have been saying.

[joeysteele]

What you said about Prince Edward sounds familiar, it might just be because I've heard it before on these threads.

But anyway it just once again proves that mental health is seen as some kind of 'weakness' in the eyes of the royal institution & of course the press will always be spiteful .

Once more very cold unfeeling attitude which again correlates to what Meghan & Harry have been saying.

It was before I was born so I've relied on my Mum's accounting of this, as she liked Prince Edward of them all.

Apparently his costs at Uni were covered in part by the forces on condition of his future service to them.

He hated being in it and came out to a fair barracking.
According to my Mum, it was Prince Philip who was reported to have probably berated him so much that he was really upset.

I'll take my Mum's word on it for sure.

[Tom4784]

People are sick of the cry babies like Meghan and Harry so yes if they don’t like it the can leave and boot lick that pair for the rest of their sad lives

We get it, you don't like free speech.

[rusticgal]

Oh I need no lecture from you on misinformation.



Because no one on here has any real insight into the workings of the Royals.
My Mother states, Prince Edward's distress at being forced to do his service was clear in his face.




If your mother says it...it must be true then. :hee:

[joeysteele]

If your mother says it...it must be true then. :hee:

Well much like myself.
She didn't just take tabloid reporting.
She was there for the more official news bulletins.

I've just a moment ago checked up a bit on it and she's just about spot on from what I could find..

If you can only come back with sarcasm I think I'd prefer you didn't, with respect.
I'll believe my own Mother thank you.
Regardless of your sarcasm.

[GoldHeart]

If your mother says it...it must be true then. :hee:

Because tabloids are more accurate aren't they ?!?:umm2:

[arista]

So Meghan Lied on that CBS Interview
She claimed they got married 3 days
before the Official Wedding,

The clip shown on Ch5HD Live AM
In todays papers the Archbishop of Canterbury
said he did not Marry them,
it would have been illegal.



https://pbs.twimg.com/ad_img/1377225694036566018/v-AidYHy?format=png&name=small

[user104658]

They can only judge what the two gobs told their mate

https://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/gob-cry.gif

[joeysteele]

https://pbs.twimg.com/ad_img/1377225694036566018/v-AidYHy?format=png&name=small

Of course the Windsor castle marriage is the legal one where they signed the documents.

That doesn't mean their own private commitment to each other wasn't done verbally before.
They'll have gone through possibly rehearsal of their vows to one another.

In fact the Archbishop states, he WAS with the couple in a PRIVATE and PASTORAL setting beforehand.
That means OFFICIAL religious and church matters, requiring a Minister of the church to be there.

I don't think that's hard to understand, they'd gone through a dress rehearsal before the day.
There they committed their vows to each other.

Then the official confirmation of the necessary legal ceremony following on.
That's how I can see it to be in my opinion.

I see nothing to make a meal of myself as to that.

[rusticgal]

Of course the Windsor castle marriage is the legal one where they signed the documents.

That doesn't mean their own private commitment to each other wasn't done verbally before.
They'll have gone through possibly rehearsal of their vows to one another.

In fact the Archbishop states, he WAS with the couple in a PRIVATE and PASTORAL setting beforehand.
That means OFFICIAL religious and church matters, requiring a Minister of the church to be there.

I don't think that's hard to understand, they'd gone through a dress rehearsal before the day.
There they committed their vows to each other.

Then the official confirmation of the necessary legal ceremony following on.
I see nothing'to make a meal of myself as to that.


The point being that Meghan said "We were married 3 days before...no one knows that"....she lied.. simples. Then they had to correct it. One of several misinterpretations..:laugh:

[GoldHeart]

I don't know why it's so hard to grasp a legal ceremony aswell as a private vows setting .

[joeysteele]

I don't know why it's so hard to grasp a legal ceremony aswell as a private vows setting .

Waste of time trying to explain it GoldHeart.
It's pretty easy to grasp for me to see no doubt.

I guess it's a case of not wanting to even try to understand that for some.

[Ammi]

...it’s all down to individual States in the USA, I believe ...but for most, once all of the documents are presented etc then the actual ceremony itself can take place anywhere...in a private home or wherever...that’ s not the case here so I think she’s obviously confused that it wasn’t the actual ceremony, but a blessing, type thing...We can probably blame Harry, I think...for not explaining the U.K. laws so clearly...but wedding planning haze and stress....ughhhh, so much in their heads I would say...

[The Slim Reaper]

Maybe as a modern, young couple, they had a humanist ceremony that completely did away with any church participation?

[thesheriff443]

Waste of time trying to explain it GoldHeart.
It's pretty easy to grasp for me to see no doubt.

I guess it's a case of not wanting to even try to understand that for some.

There is a difference to exchanging vows and getting married one might be more personal but it’s not legal

So in the eyes of the law they were not legally married so telling someone you are married when. You are not is telling a lie

Of which they have told many

[Cherie]

Maybe as a modern, young couple, they had a humanist ceremony that completely did away with any church participation?

Why say it was just them and the Archbishop then?

[user104658]

A spokesperson for the couple said they had "privately exchanged personal vows a few days before their official/legal wedding on May 19."

Meghan said “The vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

There is literally NOTHING difficult to understand about this, and Meghan only mentioned the vows nothing about the legal certificate.

It's quite plainly obvious that what happened was a personal, private exchange of vows away from the press and cameras before the main televised "event" 3 days later, after which the papers were actually signed. There's nothing unusual about them as a couple considering their "real" wedding to be the private one they wanted, rather than the official technicalities of the "showy" day. Love how people feel entitled to say "Umm NAH your real wedding was the one we watched and you get no say in that".

Just more of this ownership delusion, yet again.

[Alf]

Meghan reminds me of Jay from the Inbetweeners.

[GoldHeart]

Meghan reminds me of Jay from the Inbetweeners.

I don't remember hearing Meghan call people "bus wnkrs" & "clunge"
But whatever

[jet]

It was before I was born so I've relied on my Mum's accounting of this, as she liked Prince Edward of them all.

Apparently his costs at Uni were covered in part by the forces on condition of his future service to them.

He hated being in it and came out to a fair barracking.
According to my Mum, it was Prince Philip who was reported to have probably berated him so much that he was really upset.

I'll take my Mum's word on it for sure.

Nobody said that Prince Philip didn't berate him, did they? You are just clouding the issue as if someone questioned that, when they did not.
The only thing corrected was your statement that "Also Prince Edward FORCED in the name of duty, to complete his military service" which was completely untrue. If it was your mother told you that, she was wrong on that one.

[jet]

"We exchanged vows 3 days before we got married" would be the truth.
"We got married 3 days before, nobody knows that" would be a lie.
Meghan lied.

[jet]

I don't remember hearing Meghan call people "bus wnkrs" & "clunge"
But whatever

She does have a potty mouth with the cussin' though, she said so herself on her TIG blog - and biting her nails.

[Josy]

"We exchanged vows 3 days before we got married" would be the truth.

"We got married 3 days before, nobody knows that" would be a lie.

Meghan lied.It's the same thing...

Lots of couples do it.

[bots]

i still cant fathom why the interview was a big deal. It hasn't hurt the monarchy and who really cares what they had to say? I still haven't watched it, and I don't intend to.

When Diana died there was a very real prospect that the monarchy would never recover, this is just nothing like that

[joeysteele]

Nobody said that Prince Philip didn't berate him, did they? You are just clouding the issue as if someone questioned that, when they did not.
The only thing corrected was your statement that "Also Prince Edward FORCED in the name of duty, to complete his military service" which was completely untrue. If it was your mother told you that, she was wrong on that one.

If you look it up properly you will find the Marines paid part of his Uni time,ON CONDITION he DID service with them.
I say you are wrong, IN MY VIEW.
Just as you'll do your utmost to discredit me, WRONGLY.

You can twist and squirm all you like but debating with you is a total waste of time in my view.
I'll add with respect, but then you just to possibly argue, you'll throw back to me that's an insult.
As you even think the word unbelievable is an insult.

I totally, and with respect, refuse to waste any of my time even trying to reason with you.
So if you respond again.
I will just ignore you.

So I terminate my end of this conversation with you now.
No matter what you try to come back and bait with again.
With my apologies to Josy for feeling the need to make this post on this her new thread.

However I will defend myself against anyone questioning my integrity.

[jet]

It's the same thing...

Lots of couples do it.

Yes they do. But they say "we exchanged vows", not "we got married". If they got married, they wouldn't need to get married again 3 days later....

[jet]

If you look it up properly you will find the Marines paid part of his Uni time,ON CONDITION he DID service with them.
I say you are wrong, IN MY VIEW.


Did I say they didn't? What has that got to do with you saying:
Also Prince Edward FORCED in the name of duty, to complete his military service" when he actually completed 4 months instead of 9 years. That is the only thing I disputed. That was wrong, and if you keep coming back to accuse me of being wrong about things I didn't even mention, I'll keep saying so. Up to you.

[GoldHeart]

Yes they do. But they say "we exchanged vows", not "we got married". If they got married, they wouldn't need to get married again 3 days later....

Plenty of couples have 2 weddings. One a more intimate setting and another more public big event.
Why is that so hard to grasp

[Josy]

Yes they do. But they say "we exchanged vows", not "we got married". If they got married, they wouldn't need to get married again 3 days later....So wouldn't you agree that it's maybe, just possible that it was a mix up of words rather than being a downright, blatant on purpose lie? :think:

[thesheriff443]

So wouldn't you agree that it's maybe, just possible that it was a mix up of words rather than being a downright, blatant on purpose lie? :think:

I’d say no! She has been married and divorced before so She definitely knows what’s correct and what’s not correct

[arista]

The point being that Meghan said "We were married 3 days before...no one knows that"....she lied.. simples. Then they had to correct it. One of several misinterpretations..:laugh:


Yes, she gets away with it.


Why is she not saying Sorry on the News?

[AnnieK]

My friend "got married" in a commitment ceremony in India....it was not recognised as a legal marriage here so they had to get married again here to legalise it. If you ask her, she got married in India, they celebrate their wedding anniversary on that day....she doesn't say...well we had a commitment ceremony in india but as it was not a legal marriage we also had a registry office do when we got back to make it legal here on our return. It's just semantics really.....of everything that could be construed as a lie, this one pushes it a bit in all honesty

[rusticgal]

"We exchanged vows 3 days before we got married" would be the truth.
"We got married 3 days before, nobody knows that" would be a lie.
Meghan lied.


Exactly...its really not difficult.

[thesheriff443]

Exactly...its really not difficult.

Some people will say a porn star is a virgin if it suits their argument.

She blatantly lied for the big intake of breath moment on Oprah but she has been called out on it like so many other things she said in that chat

[jet]

So wouldn't you agree that it's maybe, just possible that it was a mix up of words rather than being a downright, blatant on purpose lie? :think:

I would if she hadn't said "not a lot of people know that" and went on to say they wanted their wedding to be 'for them' not the public....and as Oprah didn't question it further just as she hardly questioned anything that Meghan claimed, then we are free to interpret it depending on whether we trust Meghan's honestly and motives - and I don't....

[rusticgal]

Some people will say a porn star is a virgin if it suits their argument.

She blatantly lied for the big intake of breath moment on Oprah but she has been called out on it like so many other things she said in that chat


She was quite smug about it too....almost like she had got one over on everybody. Im just pleased shes getting pulled up on everything.

[jet]

She was quite smug about it too....almost like she had got one over on everybody. Im just pleased shes getting pulled up on everything.

Same! I noticed the smugness too at the time!

[thesheriff443]

She was quite smug about it too....almost like she had got one over on everybody. Im just pleased shes getting pulled up on everything.

If it was not the royal family she spoke about and them wanting to keep it in house rather than a, he said she said Jeremy Kyle show I have no doubt she would be in court for tell lies

[AnnieK]

Some people will say a porn star is a virgin if it suits their argument.

She blatantly lied for the big intake of breath moment on Oprah but she has been called out on it like so many other things she said in that chat

And others would say a saint is a sinner. :shrug:

[thesheriff443]

And others would say a saint is a sinner. :shrug:

I think you know more about that than me

[GoldHeart]

My friend "got married" in a commitment ceremony in India....it was not recognised as a legal marriage here so they had to get married again here to legalise it. If you ask her, she got married in India, they celebrate their wedding anniversary on that day....she doesn't say...well we had a commitment ceremony in india but as it was not a legal marriage we also had a registry office do when we got back to make it legal here on our return. It's just semantics really.....of everything that could be construed as a lie, this one pushes it a bit in all honesty

It more than pushes it , it's another ridiculous petty thing to belittle Meghan for.

Exactly
And some couples even have another wedding for their families to see them get married,If for whatever reason they missed the first one .

[GoldHeart]

Same! I noticed the smugness too at the time!

'Smugness ' ? When talking about a happy nuptial celebration with her Husband :conf:
Okayyyyy.

[AnnieK]

I think you know more about that than me

What does that mean?

[thesheriff443]

This ain’t your mates from the pub who got married it’s a couple who went on a
Show hosted by their mate that was showed around the world in which they would have their chance to tell there side of the story

On their version has been proved to be full of lies

[jet]

My friend "got married" in a commitment ceremony in India....it was not recognised as a legal marriage here so they had to get married again here to legalise it. If you ask her, she got married in India, they celebrate their wedding anniversary on that day....she doesn't say...well we had a commitment ceremony in india but as it was not a legal marriage we also had a registry office do when we got back to make it legal here on our return. It's just semantics really.....of everything that could be construed as a lie, this one pushes it a bit in all honesty

I kind of agree, I think it was said to be a bit controversial as she does like the attention of controversy around her. There were other lies she told which were far more serious.

[thesheriff443]

What does that mean?

It means despite it being clearly showed Meghan lied you still trying to come up with excuses like it was something other people do

She been married before and divorced she knew exactly what they did in that garden but exchanging vows don’t get the same reaction as getting married

[The Slim Reaper]

What does that mean?

It means that he can tell you what every single one of H&M's words means and use ridiculous idioms and analogies to do so, but as soon as you throw this incomprehensible nonsense back at him, he wants no part of it.

[thesheriff443]

It means that he can tell you what every single one of H&M's words means and use ridiculous idioms and analogies to do so, but as soon as you throw this incomprehensible nonsense back at him, he wants no part of it.

You still here! I thought you were leaving again

[The Slim Reaper]

You still here! I thought you were leaving again

Why?

Nice avoidance of the content of my post.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Why?

Nice avoidance of the content of my post.

because that is exactly what you said in a post :shrug:

[rusticgal]

'Smugness ' ? When talking about a happy nuptial celebration with her Husband :conf:
Okayyyyy.


There is Smug and there is Happy....two different things. :whistle: