[LukeB]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

What racist abuse? Please elaborate.

She has been compared to a monkey, i said it regarding social media because the times has changed so not only are the press hounding/writing fake stories she now has social media abuse as well.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Don't waste your shame on me, I'm not the middle aged man fixated on a Royal bride and tabloid magazines aimed at teenage girls.

The Daily Mail is for teenage girls, who knew?

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

What racist abuse? Please elaborate.

The royal family literally put a statement out condemning the racism she had been receiving, someone was arrested for threatening to kill Harry because he was a ‘race traitor’ for marrying a black woman, it’s easy to not realise it’s happening if you don’t want to see it happens

[LukeB]

Originally Posted by Liam-

The royal family literally put a statement out condemning the racism she had been receiving, someone was arrested for threatening to kill Harry because he was a ‘race traitor’ for marrying a black woman, it’s easy to not realise it’s happening if you don’t want to see it happens

this too

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

The royal family literally put a statement out condemning the racism she had been receiving, someone was arrested for threatening to kill Harry because he was a ‘race traitor’ for marrying a black woman, it’s easy to not realise it’s happening if you don’t want to see it happens

If they didn't see it, it didn't happen. Bizarre logic.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

If they didn't see it, it didn't happen. Bizarre logic.

Its the logic you've been applying all along about anything remotely negative about Meghan, but suddenly you know about this and have seen it.

FYI, the Royal family didn't put out a statement about this, Harry did, entirely off his own bat.

[jet]

Originally Posted by LukeB

She has been compared to a monkey, i said it regarding social media because the times has changed so not only are the press hounding/writing fake stories she now has social media abuse as well.

One person made a comment about a monkey, said it was taken out of context and apologised, whatever, it was a ridiculous and awful comment but one person doesn't speak for thousands more.

Meghan wasn't/isn't being hounded, Diana was hounded.
Which stories do you regard as fake? Links please?

As for social media - why does anyone read that stuff? Abuse of anyone and everyone is the norm, not the exception. Meghan doesn't have a special pass.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

The irony when no one can explain why they feel they have the right to express such hatred behind their keyboards.

You asked me before why I took such an interest in another thread going back months ago and I answered but you ignored and didn't respond. I'll answer more briefly here because you'll probably do the same again.
I don't hate Meghan, but I dislike her actions and what I have learned of her character.
I have a great interest in the Royal family and Royal history going all the way back to Alfred the Great. I have a whole bookcase full of Royal histories and biographies. I belong to a Royal Forum where we discuss all members past and present. Queen Elizabeth the 1st is my favourite. Diana interested me greatly. Meghan and Harry's path interest me - their future history for a future generation of Royal history buffs is going to be interesting.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by jet

Hi Mock, you have alway been a very fair and nice poster - I like reading your posts.

If don’t read rags but if they blatantly make up stuff about Meghan that isn’t true, surely she would sue? Herself and Harry seem to have no scruples in that regard.
I suppose what the rags do is exaggerate certain things and put a negative spin on it, thats what sells isn’t it, people read it so…..but there will be kernels of truth in there too.
It happens to all prominent public figures - the royal family are particularly good at just ignoring because then it dies a death and its someone else’s turn.

So I really haven’t read anything awful about Meghan beyond what she has actually said and done, just fair assessments by Royal Correspondents and insiders about certain things which have happened which are now known to be accurate. Royal correspondents can’t risk spreading lies or they would no longer get insider info and their job would be gone.

The general consensus between insiders is that Meghan and Harry making a fuss about criticism was deliberate, (not that anyone wants criticism but they used it to their advantage)) - they knew that portraying themselves as victims would give them sympathy and an ‘out’ because they had no intention of staying in the UK - they planned to get to LA early on in their marriage. It was discovered that they were putting things in place way back when and the way they broke the news of their leaving the royal family was sneaky and underhand..
So yes, the media can be cruel, but celebs also need them and use them when it suits....a dysfunctional relationship!

Thanks for the compliment Jet, you're always a member who has opinions I like to read as well.

And maybe some of the stuff about Meghan is true I honestly don't know, but for me considering what's going on with Prince Andrew at the moment you'd think that the Media would be more interested in his business than Meghan's, but that's just how I see it personally.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

Its the logic you've been applying all along about anything remotely negative about Meghan, but suddenly you know about this and have seen it.

FYI, the Royal family didn't put out a statement about this, Harry did, entirely off his own bat.

If you call not blindly believing gossip with no foundation and hating a woman I don't know based on it logic, yes.

Harry's statement on what? Going off on another tangent?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Thanks for the compliment Jet, you're always a member who has opinions I like to read as well.

And maybe some of the stuff about Meghan is true I honestly don't know, but for me considering what's going on with Prince Andrew at the moment you'd think that the Media would be more interested in his business than Meghan's, but that's just how I see it personally.

Too right Mock. People don't want to acknowledge a white male abuser, but if Meghan is there breathing they're seething with venom.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Cherie

what is all this about, what press reports? .. all I have seen is that she felt unsupported during her pregnancy? how is that the press hounding them

Yes Cherie, she is hardly mentioned now but the coming court case about her fathers letter in which she complains about press coverage will be of interest to them for sure:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...ries-vr7ptvf7n

Palace press team ‘couldn’t defend Meghan against true stories’

The Duchess of Sussex felt that she was unprotected by the royal “institution” because she could not do anything about the stream of stories about her deteriorating relationship with her staff, The Times has learnt.
Meghan’s lawyers have said in legal papers filed at the High Court that her mental health was damaged by negative coverage while she was pregnant.

A source has confirmed that this refers to the palace machinery, rather than members of the family: above all, in other words, her former media team. “No one thinks this is going to end well,” a source said. “For anyone.”

Other passages in the documents — a response from her lawyers to questions raised by The Mail on Sunday, which Meghan is suing for breach of privacy — spell out her unhappiness with the Kensington Palace communications team and their policy of not commenting on press reports.

Her anger grew over two strands of stories dominating the news agenda about her: her relations with staff, especially the number who had quit, and the criticism of her by her family, especially Samantha Grant, her half-sister.

One story that made the duchess particularly dissatisfied was the resignation of her PA, Melissa Toubati, who quit six months after the royal wedding in 2018. There were reports that she had been reduced to tears by Meghan’s demands.

However, the communications team found it hard to deny the reports because they were largely true. “The stories were a drop in the ocean compared to what was going on,” another source said. Meghan, 38, also wanted something done about the sniping from Ms Grant, who among other things called her sister “a shallow social climber”. Kensington Palace was never going to get involved over one woman voicing her opinions from Florida......

[Marsh.]

Yes Cherie, didn't you know a source said. A SOURCE!!! Can you believe it? A source!

Yes, Cherie, a source.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yes Cherie, didn't you know a source said. A SOURCE!!! Can you believe it? A source!

Yes, Cherie, a source.

The Judge at the first hearing has already thrown her allegations of bad press treatment out. I know you have trouble with comprehension Marsh, so here is an excerpt from an article I already posted on this very thread:

Mr Justice Warby has also 'struck out' her allegations that journalists had acted dishonestly and had caused the rift between her and her estranged father Thomas by ‘digging up dirt’ to portray Meghan in a 'negative light'.

[jet]

Meghan Markle's claim she was unprotected RUBBISHED by senior royals as 'ridiculous'

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...ted-royal-news

MEGHAN MARKLE's claim she felt "unprotected by the institution" has been fiercely denied by senior royal sources as "fiction".
By ALICE SCARSI

Royal sources lashed out at the new claims made by the legal team of Meghan in documents filed on June 30 as part of her court case against the Mail on Sunday. These legal documents, filed following a request of the defendant in the court case, made the astonishing claim Meghan was not allowed to defend herself while at the same time she was not protected from reports published in the press.

Sources branded these allegations "ridiculous" and "galling".
One told The Sunday Times: "It's a ridiculous claim. "It's so bloody disappointing.
"The institution was doing everything in its power to support her. "Everyone was trying to help her."
Another source told the Sunday paper: "It's fiction and galling."
And a third said: "It's completely inaccurate and total rubbish".

This insider went on saying aides "rebutted every unfounded story they possibly could within reason" and "stretched their relationship with the media to breaking point".
etc……….

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

Meghan Markle's claim she was unprotected RUBBISHED by senior royals as 'ridiculous'

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...ted-royal-news

"Megan's claim that senior royals are arseholes is NONSENSE, according to 90% of senior royals polled."

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by jet

Meghan Markle's claim she was unprotected RUBBISHED by senior royals as 'ridiculous'

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...ted-royal-news

Are these the type of ‘royal correspondent’ stories you’re referring to when you say you only read from royal correspondents?

[Ammi]

...I guess the clue is in the title...Royal corespondents will always lean in bias toward the blood royal family...rather than those who have married into the family...and so it has always been written....

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

If they didn't see it, it didn't happen. Bizarre logic.

If i didnt see it then I dont KNOW it happened...its your logic that is bizarre. Im asking the question because I'm interested to know. I do recall the 'monkey' picture which was disturbing but other than that Im unaware as apart from TIBB and Facebook I dont do any other social media.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"Megan's claim that senior royals are arseholes is NONSENSE, according to 90% of senior royals polled."

Look how they protect Prince Andrew though

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Look how they protect Prince Andrew though

"The claim that Prince Andrew went to the US and slept with young trafficking victims is NONSENSE, according to 100% of Prince Andrews polled."

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...I guess the clue is in the title...Royal corespondents will always lean in bias toward the blood royal family...rather than those who have married into the family...and so it has always been written....

Royal Correspondents have an innate bias because - at the extreme end of things - if the Royal Fam goes belly up they're out of a job. At the less extreme end, I'm pretty sure the Royals could pull strings to have them replaced if they push anything too hard in the "wrong" direction.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Royal Correspondents have an innate bias because - at the extreme end of things - if the Royal Fam goes belly up they're out of a job. At the less extreme end, I'm pretty sure the Royals could pull strings to have them replaced if they push anything too hard in the "wrong" direction.

...they’re also fairly annoyed that their huge cash cow, Meghan has decided she’s just not having it and gone off to a brighter world with her Harry and Archie...

[jet]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Are these the type of ‘royal correspondent’ stories you’re referring to when you say you only read from royal correspondents?

In a word, no.

[Glenn.]

Why are you posting sensationalised tabloid crap then?