[jet]

Originally Posted by Liam-

He admitted to working with the media to reveal details about the wedding, he stages pap shots of him shopping for the wedding, he’s admitted to it, so I’m judging him on those actions, he’s constantly in the press slagging his daughter off, I think he’s a disgrace to be doing that, he’s cashing in on his daughters abuse by the very people he’s getting paid by for the ‘scoops’, she has every right to be mad at him

I posted this earlier and no one commented on it at all. Why is that?
What do you (and others) think of Meghan and Harrys actions here?

Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan ‘rejected offers to help protect Thomas Markle’
Roya Nikkhah, Royal Correspondent
Sunday July 26 2020, 12.00pm, The Sunday Times


The Duke and Duchess of Sussex blame the media for their broken relationship with Meghan’s father and his absence from their wedding, according to a new book.
Thomas Markle, 76, a retired lighting director who lives in Mexico, failed to attend their wedding after suffering from heart problems after it emerged that he had collaborated with paparazzi. A new biography of the Sussexes describes the saga in May 2018 as a “public drama” that made Meghan “feel embarrassed”.
In Finding Freedom, serialised in The Sunday Times today, a source close to the couple said of Meghan’s father: “He would have been at the wedding if the media had left him alone.”

Meghan also told a friend: “He’s vulnerable. He’s been baited. A lot of the tabloid journalists have been coaxing him and paying him. I don’t know if he really even had a chance.”

However, in the latest twist surrounding the account of events presented in the book, palace aides told The Sunday Times that Harry and Meghan had refused to “engage” with Markle during their courtship and had rejected offers to help protect him.
It is understood the couple “repeatedly” ignored advice to meet Thomas Markle, before and after their engagement was announced in November 2017. They also rejected suggestions from aides about how to help Markle, who courtiers feared would be overwhelmed by media scrutiny without support from the couple and the royal family.

At the time of the Sussexes’ wedding, a senior royal source told this newspaper: “We repeatedly sat down with Harry and Meghan before the engagement announcement to say this needed to be handled sensitively, but that it had to be handled. We desperately asked them to engage with Thomas, but they wouldn’t. Aides also offered to go personally and see him to try and find a way to protect him. There is genuine disbelief and bemusement in the household at the couple’s approach to him and that Harry has still not met his father-in-law.”

[Glenn.]

Why should they engage with a man who repeatedly and intentionally sold opportunities to the press?

[Liam-]

Because it’s all hearsay, that’s why I don’t debate your ‘facts’ but I’ll humour you, why should Meghan want to include her father in things when he’s admitted to selling stories about her and the couple, he’s not obligated to be involved, he doesn’t have the right to be involved if he’s not wanted, just because she’s a celebrity who was marrying into royalty, does that mean she can’t have personal family problems? She’s a human being, families are complicated, she shouldn’t be forced to have something to do with someone she doesn’t want just cause the Royals or the royalists won’t like it, that’s not how life works, she gave up enough, she shouldn’t have to give up her freedom of choice as well.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

All I see there is an Instagram post announcing it to the world, nowhere does it say they did that without consulting Lizzie or his father first

The Sun was mentioned 5 times as a source too.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

The Sun was mentioned 5 times as a source too.

The sooner that rag goes out of business the better

[Marsh.]

Yeah, I don't care how much "research" someone claims to have done or how many channel 5 documentaries they've sat through. It doesn't give you any insight into anyone's actual life.

If you enjoy them for what they are that's fine but to genuinely believe it gives you the truth of anyone you don't know then you're very naive indeed.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Why should they engage with a man who repeatedly and intentionally sold opportunities to the press?

Read it again.

Meghan also told a friend: “He’s vulnerable. He’s been baited. A lot of the tabloid journalists have been coaxing him and paying him. I don’t know if he really even had a chance.”

If they had visited him and allowed the palace to help him, it wouldn't have happened in the first place. Their neglect of an elderly man was disgusting.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by jet

Read it again.



If they had visited him and allowed the palace to help him, it wouldn't have happened in the first place. Their neglect of an elderly man was disgusting.

Maybe YOU should read it again.

[jet]

So just more snide remarks and no actual opinion on the contents of the article. Very telling.

[Marsh.]

The article is a bunch of "A person told me this...." what exactly do you want to be discussed?

If you want it to be discussed as "100% verified facts" then I'm afraid that's not possible because it's not.

"Article matches own opinion" is not a fact.

[Ammi]

...it isn’t telling anything to disregard a media article that is based on hearsay/gossip...there is nothing to discuss because that would be allowing the media to lead the discussion with whatever their slant of that given day is giving...

[AnnieK]

Its very difficult to rely on second hand anecdotes. A friend may say something that is what they perceive to be the right thing to say in order to protect and justify their friends actions.

Family dynamics are complex and unless privy first hand to relationships heresay is just that.

I don't think Thomas has been painted in a good light by the media but I do think he is a father hurting at the break down in relationship with his daughter and he has done some dubious and pretty rubbish things but its impossible to say the exact nature or time that their relationship fell apart because none of us were there to view it.

You will get Meghans friends etc saying Thomas was at fault and vice versa. Its a case of "he said, she said" and truths will be twisted to fit the narrative they want people to believe.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

The article is a bunch of "A person told me this...." what exactly do you want to be discussed?

If you want it to be discussed as "100% verified facts" then I'm afraid that's not possible because it's not.

"Article matches own opinion" is not a fact.

Its well known that Meghan didn't introduce Harry to her father, that they didn't help him deal with the press in any way.
Just because 'article doesn't match your opinion' doesn't make it untrue.

If you have evidence that refutes it, however, that would be different.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by jet

So just more snide remarks and no actual opinion on the contents of the article. Very telling.

I can’t give an opinion on something that didn’t happen

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

Its well known that Meghan didn't introduce Harry to her father, that they didn't help him deal with the press in any way.
Just because 'article doesn't match your opinion' doesn't make it untrue.

If you have evidence that refutes it, however, that would be different.

I haven't claimed gossip is true. I don't need to provide evidence.

If you want people to believe press "sources" the onus is on you to prove they are true.

[Ammi]

...evidence to refute gossip media isn’t needed if it’s rejected as ‘fact’ at the offset...why would it be...

[jet]

So who do you all think is lying in the article?

The royal corresponent?
The palace aids?
The Sunday Times?

Do you all believe that Meghan DID introduce Harry to her father?
Do you believe they DID do everything they could to help him but he chose to get paparazzi pics taken anyway?
Or do you just never form an opinion on anything you read, which is an aspect of human nature I find hard to believe.

[Ammi]

...personally I don’t listen to hearsay/gossip about what is essentially ‘family laundry’ and personal information as it’s not something the media have any insight into, they have their own slants...which have often been hostile to Meghan in particular...

[Liam-]

We all know that Harry hasn’t met her Father, nobody truly knows why though, but our best guess is to judge the situation from what we actually know has happened, which is that her father is a snake who sold stories about her and continues to trash her in interviews, I wouldn’t want anything to do with him either

[jet]

....and FYI, I don't believe everything I read as fact... I do delve deeper as an avid reader. I don't discard everything as lies or truth automatically and tell other people how to post. That's just arrogance.
When it is confirmed over time by several different reliable sources, and comes together as very probable, then I believe it more that I disbelieve it. Later I may discard what I believe or disbelieve.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

So who do you all think is lying in the article?

The royal corresponent?
The palace aids?
The Sunday Times?

Do you all believe that Meghan DID introduce Harry to her father?
Do you believe they DID do everything they could to help him but he chose to get paparazzi pics taken anyway?
Or do you just never form an opinion on anything you read, which is an aspect of human nature I find hard to believe.

I can form an opinion on anything. An opinion on someone's words and actions.

What I don't do is "research" tabloids and believe everything I'm told as 100% fact and become literally invested in a celebrity's life who has no impact on my own. I find that pretty concerning.

[Ammi]

...so far as the media is concerned there have rarely been sources that are ‘reliable’ though, with this type of gossip, it’s generally making a buck motivated...

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

....and FYI, I don't believe everything I read as fact... I do delve deeper as an avid reader. I don't discard everything as lies or truth automatically and tell other people how to post. That's just arrogance.
When it is confirmed over time by several different reliable sources, and comes together as very probable, then I believe it more that I disbelieve it. Later I may discard what I believe or disbelieve.

Nobody's said everything is a lie.
Nobody's told you how to post.

People have said "gossip" is simply that because there is no proof any of it is true. But you accept it as true because it fits the narrative of the person you think or want her to be based on something that you initially took a dislike to with her.

A piece of gossip having unverified "sources" is not a fact.

"I spoke to Boris Johnson and he told me Father Christmas is real" is not proof of anything factual. It's really as simple as that.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I can form an opinion on anything. An opinion on someone's words and actions.

What I don't do is "research" tabloids and believe everything I'm told as 100% fact and become literally invested in a celebrity's life who has no impact on my own. I find that pretty concerning.

I don't so these things either, and I'm sick and tired of you insisting I do over and over again. I'm asking you politely to stop misrepresenting me.
Every time you do in future, I'm going to report the post, as I consider it serious baiting, I have many posts of yours to prove it. I'm sure the mods will thank you.
ENOUGH!

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Why should they engage with a man who repeatedly and intentionally sold opportunities to the press?

Cause it's her dad