[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

They are made up as the article was nothing more than the assumptions of a journalist.

You seem to mistake those for factual evidence.

Not evidence, but reasoned conclusions based on the long statement the Sussexes made about leaving and wanting financial independence. Have you read it yet?
At least the journalist, and others who drew the same conclusions, are in a position to make 'assumptions', having made the effort to do some groundwork.
If I post something you think is guff, look it up and provide a link to back up your disbelief, post a refuting article or at least state reasons why you think so, otherwise its just meaningless baiting.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

Not evidence, but reasoned conclusions based on the long statement the Sussexes made about leaving and wanting financial independence. Have you read it yet?
At least the journalist, and others who drew the same conclusions, are in a position to make 'assumptions', having made the effort to do some groundwork.
If I post something you think is guff, look it up and provide a link to back up your disbelief, post a refuting article or at least state reasons why you think so, otherwise its just meaningless baiting.

It's baiting to point out your use of the word "fact" is wildly incorrect? Ok jet.

Listening to biased journalism is not "groundwork" and does not elevate what amounts to nothing more than malicious gossip to anything more than what it is.

I don't really need to backup my post that the gossip you perpetuate is not factual and comes from no actual source. It's down to you to prove your assumptions, that's kind of how it works.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

It's baiting to point out your use of the word "fact" is wildly incorrect? Ok jet.

Listening to biased journalism is not "groundwork" and does not elevate what amounts to nothing more than malicious gossip to anything more than what it is.

I don't really need to backup my post that the gossip you perpetuate is not factual and comes from no actual source. It's down to you to prove your assumptions, that's kind of how it works.

C'mon Marsh. Prove I don't have an invisible unicorn in my garage.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

It's down to you to prove your assumptions, that's kind of how it works.

But you don't have to prove yours?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

But you don't have to prove yours?

Prove my what? My comment that your opinions are baseless gossip and not factual points?

It speaks for itself.

[Cherry Christmas]

Obviously they are called Royal correspondents for a reason Tom Bradbury in particular seems to be very well informed

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Obviously they are called Royal correspondents for a reason Tom Bradbury in particular seems to be very well informed

Well, they call Piers Morgan a journalist so the world is full of crazy things.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Obviously they are called Royal correspondents for a reason Tom Bradbury in particular seems to be very well informed

Official royal correspondents

[Ammi]

...apparently according to the lawyers for The Mail On Sunday and Mail Online ...Meghan must have been fully aware that the letter would be published because her handwriting was so neat...I guess it’s a parent’s back in the day advice, like always wear clean underwear etc...’just in case your letters are published by the national media, make sure we can all read them, my love...neat, neat, neat at all times...’...


https://uk.yahoo.com/news/neat-handw...142751298.html

[jet]

Reasoned assumptions are all any journalist can make. But 'reasoned' is the key word here if they are coming to conclusions from what the source themselves have said, in this case, the Sussex'es themselves.

And do I have to repeat again that I only trust the opinions of the respected royal correspondents. They have proved to be right time and time again and 'in the know' over many years - many times when I didn't want them to be. I seek out what they are saying for that reason.

So sneer at me all you like for doing some reading because it isn't what you want to hear. Time will tell.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

So sneer at me all you like for doing some reading because it isn't what you want to hear. Time will tell.

Oh yes I'll sneer at what you choose as reading material but that has nothing to do with you misunderstanding fact, opinion and fiction.

Read what you like Jet, but don't pretend your fiction is fact.