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

he does not even like football :shocked:

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

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

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

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

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

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

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

and yet he did exactly that with the fake interview

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

it would appear that he doth project too much

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

Marian Keyes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They didn't drag Kate's name through the mud at all though, in fact the worst that was said about Kate was that her and Meghan had a disagreement at an emotionally heightened time (the wedding) and Kate then made an effort to apologise. There are issues with Meghan being unfavourably compared to Kate, but that's the press and nothing to do with Kate herself.

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

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is CharleyBoy still talking to plants ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

He has daily conversations with juniper berries.

Allegedly allegedly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A P Lodge
Winchester, Hampshire

Source: DT 12.3.21

:clap1: