[Cherie]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

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 Then again I probably couldn't name many journalists apart from the news readers

Oh 100% that 50 quid must have been needed for the leccy bill

[jet]

[QUOTE=AnnieK;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?

Originally Posted by jet

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

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.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Jenny Bond would never

Indeed she wouldn't!

[AnnieK]

[QUOTE=jet;11011701]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

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.

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

[Mitchell]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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

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

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Mitchell

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

i doubt they bought that from 2 wee boys tbh, a national would do it themselves as its nowt more than a piece to camera

[jet]

[QUOTE=AnnieK;11011709]

Originally Posted by jet

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

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.....

[AnnieK]

[QUOTE=jet;11011715]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

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.....

I don't do undermining Jet, not my style. 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 ).

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

[jet]

[QUOTE=AnnieK;11011717]

Originally Posted by jet

I don't do undermining Jet, not my style. 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 ).

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

I agree, they are off my 'respected' list.

[Toy Soldier]

Royal media circle-jerkers in "made their mind up before they even saw it" SHOCKER. You won't believe what happened next.

[jet]

It's odd that none of the 4 asked how the UK 'news broadcasters' knew what was in the interview - love of animals, what was said about William etc, - when nobody had seen it yet. Very confusing.

[rusticgal]

All very odd..

[bitontheslide]

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

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

dont ruin it

lol at the comments on youtube " I cant wait till this gets on the news" "harry was right after all" " NO WONDER THEY MOVED TO CANADA, I MEAN HOLLYWOOD"

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

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

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

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

That’s what Speculation is

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

Well that makes more sense....