Originally Posted by AnnieK (Post 11011686)

To be honest if they had integrity, they wouldn't and shouldn't have answered any questions without seeing it first.

I had only heard of them as Jet has quoted them before. I wouldn't have known any of them otherwise :laugh: Then again I probably couldn't name many journalists apart from the news readers :worry:

Originally Posted by jet (Post 10785628)

Reactions of respected people who have known the royals for many years.

Ingrid Seward, editor in chief of Majesty Magazine:
“It appears to be a gratuitous and ungracious swipe at the Queen.”

Angela Levin, Harry’s official Biographer:
I fear she has put a sliver of ice in Harry’s heart.

Tom Bower, Charles’s Biographer:
Their comments smack of spiteful fury. I fear it will get worse.

Dickie Arbiter, former spokesman for the Queen:
Harry knows the rules. Meghan knows the rules. It’s been made very clear to them.

Penny Junor, Royal Biographer and friend of Prince Charles:
“They didn’t get what they wanted. They are clearly not happy and there is a hint of suppressed rage.

Angela Levin, Harry’s Biographer:
Harry and Meghan are almost stumbling in their rush to join a world of rich, self - centred celebrities.

Penny Junor, Royal Biographer and friend of Prince Charles:
I’m worried about Prince Harry….I fear something is seriously amiss and he’s on a trajectory of self destruction.

Mmmm :suspect:

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 11011699)

Jenny Bond would never

Originally Posted by AnnieK (Post 11011644)

Those people quoted are all Royal correspondents that Jet has quoted in the past as being very well informed. Now they are "experts" who just want to be on tv?



Grabbing an old post - I thought better of you Annie. No, they are clearly not royal correspondents if you read the descriptions beside their names....and they
have known the royals for years. And only 2 of the above appear in that utube video, the others do not.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 11011676)

to be fair to them

they are talking to 2 unknown wee youtube laddies who they think are mug punter enough to pay them


would they have done this for the BBC/Times/ITV?

no

Does that mean they are not knobs

no

Originally Posted by Mitchell (Post 11011711)

They were told it was being produced for a national broadcaster, so as far as they knew, it was for TV.

Originally Posted by jet (Post 11011701)

I was only grabbing on an old post as I only have heard of them from your posts. You said they were respected and therefore I assumed they were correspondents so I apologise for that. Not sure why you would think less of me for trusting your thoughts on these people in the past :shrug:

Originally Posted by AnnieK (Post 11011709)

Thanks for the apology. As only 2 of the people in my past post were involved, the rest were not and none of them were royal correspondents, I thought bringing my post to that thread was done to undermine me, especially as you commented 'Hmmm' at the end. But you've explained you thought they were royal correspondents so.....

Originally Posted by jet (Post 11011715)

I don't do undermining Jet, not my style. :laugh: My confusion was that LT called them charlatans but you had said that those two featured were respected so I was confused (I'm often confused :laugh:).

They have not cast themselves in a favourable light by doing this, whoever they are.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 11011770)

they weren't caught lying. They were invited to comment before they had seen the video using their judgement on what they speculated it would contain. Big difference

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 11011770)

they weren't caught lying. They were invited to comment before they had seen the video using their judgement on what they speculated it would contain. Big difference

Originally Posted by Glenn. (Post 11011799)

And come to conclusions they had no basis of...

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 11011770)

they weren't caught lying. They were invited to comment before they had seen the video using their judgement on what they speculated it would contain. Big difference