[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

No I closed my eyes all the way through

Unyet you still defend someone who lies to dramatise events at the detriment of others...

Says it all...

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

She’s done nothing wrong...

What exactly has she done wrong? The question has never really been given a straight answer

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

What exactly has she done wrong? The question has never really been given a straight answer

Cue sentence beginning with "I believe..." "I bet...." or "I imagine...."

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Liam-

What exactly has she done wrong? The question has never really been given a straight answer

For being Meghan Markle , that's the crime .

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

For being Meghan Markle , that's the crime .

That's the one GoldHeart, in my view too.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Liam-

What exactly has she done wrong? The question has never really been given a straight answer

You obviously haven’t bothered to read the thread...you will find your answer there if you are really bothered.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

You obviously haven’t bothered to read the thread...you will find your answer there if you are really bothered.

Oh the irony of that statement

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Oh the irony of that statement

It’s funny that when points are put to you regarding all the ‘untruths’ you fail to reply because you can’t defend the undefinable ....
All you can come out with is “it’s because it’s Meghan Markle”....which is pretty pathetic debate don’t you think.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

You obviously haven’t bothered to read the thread...you will find your answer there if you are really bothered.

That’s the problem though, I’ve read this and all the other threads - much to the detriment of my already shakey mental health - and I’m still yet to see a single reasonable, sensible example of any actual wrong doing, it’s all just been a bunch of biased, nonsensical, imaginary guff, it’s actually starting to become a little bit sad

[Tom4784]

Honestly, people are literally lying to themselves to falsely justify their hatred of a woman who has no impact on their lives. This country and it's people are in a pathetic state.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Honestly, people are literally lying to themselves to falsely justify their hatred of a woman who has no impact on their lives. This country and it's people are in a pathetic state.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

1. She said they were 'married' 3 days before the wedding...but they were forced to correct themselves.

Many people would consider the ceremony to be getting married and the legaldocuments to be a formality - referring to a privately held ceremony as a marriage is not unusual, and they had toclarify the misconception, not correct the statement.

2. She said Archie was entitled to a title...

Did she? She said as far as she understood he was supposed to get one automatically and that it was "usual" - this might have been a misunderstanding of how it all works, either way she never said "entitled to"... if you're going to call someone out for lying, probably a good idea to be accurate?

3. She said Archie didnt get a title due to the colour of his skin.

This was never said and quite CLEARLY would not have been said, as Archie does not even have dark skin

4. She said she couldnt get help for her Mental issues....if you believe that

"You not believing her" does not make this a lie . Odd one to include as "proof" of lying when the "proof" is in fact just your own layperson's opinion.

5. She said several conversations were had with Harry over the colour of Archies skin. Harry said it was ONE conversation.

There does seem to be some miscommunication about the specifics on this one - but that happens. Me and my wife disagree about the specifics of conversations we had 3 days ago, and anyone who claims it's otherwise for them IS clearly lying. Maybe she did exaggerate - or maybe she mis-remembered what he told her. Either way AGAIN not "proof of lying".

6. She said she was pregnant when those conversations were had...Harry said it was before...

As above.


I have indeed seen all of this "proof" that isn't proof of anything. Some of it is flat out incorrect. I was hoping for something new so please feel free to have another try.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Many people would consider the ceremony to be getting married and the legaldocuments to be a formality - referring to a privately held ceremony as a marriage is not unusual, and they had toclarify the misconception, not correct the statement.



Did she? She said as far as she understood he was supposed to get one automatically and that it was "usual" - this might have been a misunderstanding of how it all works, either way she never said "entitled to"... if you're going to call someone out for lying, probably a good idea to be accurate?



This was never said and quite CLEARLY would not have been said, as Archie does not even have dark skin



"You not believing her" does not make this a lie . Odd one to include as "proof" of lying when the "proof" is in fact just your own layperson's opinion.




There does seem to be some miscommunication about the specifics on this one - but that happens. Me and my wife disagree about the specifics of conversations we had 3 days ago, and anyone who claims it's otherwise for them IS clearly lying. Maybe she did exaggerate - or maybe she mis-remembered what he told her. Either way AGAIN not "proof of lying".




As above.


I have indeed seen all of this "proof" that isn't proof of anything. Some of it is flat out incorrect. I was hoping for something new so please feel free to have another try.

Wasn't it that Harry had the conversation about how dark his potential future child's skin would be with a family member, but that this conversation was only relayed to Meghan after she had become pregnant?

Not that it matters, the fact such a conversation took place is the point, not the specifics of when.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Many people would consider the ceremony to be getting married and the legaldocuments to be a formality - referring to a privately held ceremony as a marriage is not unusual, and they had toclarify the misconception, not correct the statement.



Did she? She said as far as she understood he was supposed to get one automatically and that it was "usual" - this might have been a misunderstanding of how it all works, either way she never said "entitled to"... if you're going to call someone out for lying, probably a good idea to be accurate?



This was never said and quite CLEARLY would not have been said, as Archie does not even have dark skin



"You not believing her" does not make this a lie . Odd one to include as "proof" of lying when the "proof" is in fact just your own layperson's opinion.




There does seem to be some miscommunication about the specifics on this one - but that happens. Me and my wife disagree about the specifics of conversations we had 3 days ago, and anyone who claims it's otherwise for them IS clearly lying. Maybe she did exaggerate - or maybe she mis-remembered what he told her. Either way AGAIN not "proof of lying".




As above.


I have indeed seen all of this "proof" that isn't proof of anything. Some of it is flat out incorrect. I was hoping for something new so please feel free to have another try.

You should have been a lawyer TS

Exactly right.
Plus it was Prince Harry the comment was made to not herself.
I would guess, both of them discussed the comment between them many times.

I mean, people have said something to me , which has annoyed me.
If I've then shared that with another, I've lost count of the times, I've then said or the person I shared it with has said, ''I'm stunned they said that''..
Thereby us discussing it again.

In any event the basis of the point is someone said this directly to Prince Harry, then he told his wife.
There's no LIE, certainly nothing to take and the try to discredit and character assassinate someone on.

It's odd the anger is against Meghan Markle on this.
Not on the person who asked the question of an unborn baby's skin colour.

No matter if it was said in a racist intention or just idle curiosity..
It's nevertheless an INAPPROPRIATE comment in the very least.

So little wonder, considering Meghan Markle's ancestry, that Prince Harry felt some concern to warn her of what had been said.

Plus, no one on here was present when it was asked of Prince Harry.
So I'd say he is the only one best judged to know how it was said and why Prince Harry himself found it offensive too.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Many people would consider the ceremony to be getting married and the legaldocuments to be a formality - referring to a privately held ceremony as a marriage is not unusual, and they had toclarify the misconception, not correct the statement.



Did she? She said as far as she understood he was supposed to get one automatically and that it was "usual" - this might have been a misunderstanding of how it all works, either way she never said "entitled to"... if you're going to call someone out for lying, probably a good idea to be accurate?



This was never said and quite CLEARLY would not have been said, as Archie does not even have dark skin



"You not believing her" does not make this a lie . Odd one to include as "proof" of lying when the "proof" is in fact just your own layperson's opinion.




There does seem to be some miscommunication about the specifics on this one - but that happens. Me and my wife disagree about the specifics of conversations we had 3 days ago, and anyone who claims it's otherwise for them IS clearly lying. Maybe she did exaggerate - or maybe she mis-remembered what he told her. Either way AGAIN not "proof of lying".




As above.


I have indeed seen all of this "proof" that isn't proof of anything. Some of it is flat out incorrect. I was hoping for something new so please feel free to have another try.

Well you can interpret it your way as much as you like...but you are wrong.and we will leave it there.
Lets just clarify one thing you agree with but give a flimsy excuse...The serious accusation of Racism. Meghan wasnt involved in the conversation that took place...it was Harry. Harry specifically said it was one conversation...but Meghan deliberately portrayed it as 'several' to exaggerate the issue. To say you and your wife have inaccuracies in accounts...well dont we all. If you were going on National Television to label the Royal Family Racist you would be sure to get your facts right wouldnt you?. This interview would have been rehearsed and questions pre-planned.
Unfortunately for her everything she says now will be taken with a pinch of salt and she has lost credibility with many.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Well you can interpret it your way as much as you like...but you are wrong. and we will leave it there.

Will we really, well thank you for letting me know I guess.

Lets just clarify one thing you agree with but give a flimsy excuse...

You said we would leave it there! And then YOU DIDN'T! Like immediately!

The serious accusation of Racism. Meghan wasnt involved in the conversation that took place...it was Harry. Harry specifically said it was one conversation...but Meghan deliberately portrayed it as 'several' to exaggerate the issue.

Yes but Meghan makes it clear from the outset that the information she is giving is second hand, that she wasn't there. Harry immediately clarifies what actually happened as soon as he's asked about it. Again if this was some masterful ruse to tarnish the family, it wasn't a very good one?

To say you and your wife have inaccuracies in accounts...well dont we all. If you were going on National Television to label the Royal Family Racist you would be sure to get your facts right wouldnt you?. This interview would have been rehearsed and questions pre-planned.

I agree that they should have made sure they fully understood everything before they went on and yes, I would make sure I had all the facts straight in my head before doing something like this... but this is true whether what they were saying is true or false. In fact, if it was a bundle of lies you'd be even MORE certain and rehearsed for consistency. The fact that there are internal discrepancies within the interview itself suggests that it was NOT rehearsed and thus some misunderstandings and miscommunications were still present - FAR more likely if she was simply relaying her memory of the incident "on the spot". If they had rehearsed a lie, they would have said the same thing.

You have a few realistic options really -

1) Meghan is lying to exaggerate, Harry is telling the truth (the minor incident still occurred)

2) Meghan is telling the truth, Harry is now downplaying it to protect his family (the worse incident still occurred)

3) There's been a miscommunication between Harry and Meghan (most likely, Harry's version is the accurate one, as he is the first hand source)

4) They are both lying - but telling a different version of that lie. EXTREMELY UNLIKELY. If they had plotted to lie, and rehearsed a lie, the stories would match.

For what it's worth, I think any of options 1 - 3 are possible. Which means some degree of racist comment was made, thus the overall statement is not a lie. Option 4 is just extremely unrealistic.

Unfortunately for her everything she says now will be taken with a pinch of salt

By you and some others, this is not a universal fact.

and she has lost credibility with many.

Some. It's mainly excited chirping from those who already didn't believe them.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

but you are wrong

Originally Posted by rusticgal

The serious accusation of Racism. Meghan wasnt involved in the conversation that took place...it was Harry. Harry specifically said it was one conversation...but Meghan deliberately portrayed it as 'several' to exaggerate the issue.

Those straws will snap you cling any tighter.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's mainly excited chirping from those who already didn't believe them.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Spoiler:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Princess Diana's biographer Andrew Morton says royals have a 'history' of
seeking help for mental health issues dating back to Princess Margaret and is
'baffled' by Meghan Markle's claim that she couldn't get support

• Andrew Morton says the Queen sought professional help during Annus horribilis
• Princess Margaret reportedly underwent psychological counselling in the 1970s
• Diana's biographer called Meghan's admission 'very sad' and he was 'baffled'
• Duchess of Sussex says she was refused help with her mental health from palace

Appearing on Lorraine today, he admitted that he was 'baffled' by Prince
Harry and Meghan Markle's explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey in which
the Duchess of Sussex claimed concerns about her mental health were
ignored.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...cusations.html

It's almost like she did not get help because there was nowt to seek help for?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Princess Diana's biographer Andrew Morton says royals have a 'history' of
seeking help for mental health issues dating back to Princess Margaret and is
'baffled' by Meghan Markle's claim that she couldn't get support

• Andrew Morton says the Queen sought professional help during Annus horribilis
• Princess Margaret reportedly underwent psychological counselling in the 1970s
• Diana's biographer called Meghan's admission 'very sad' and he was 'baffled'
• Duchess of Sussex says she was refused help with her mental health from palace

Appearing on Lorraine today, he admitted that he was 'baffled' by Prince
Harry and Meghan Markle's explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey in which
the Duchess of Sussex claimed concerns about her mental health were
ignored.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...cusations.html

It's almost like she did not get help because there was nowt to seek help for?

Is he "baffled" or is he another one that didn't really listen to the interview? It didn't sound like they offered nothing - it sounded like she said she wasn't allowed to go and seek the help she felt she needed. I wouldn't think they said "no lol go away", I would think they said "no you can't do that [for various reasons] you have to talk with the people we will select and bring in for you". For valid security/confidentiality reasons? Very possibly but that doesn't change what she's saying; she was not allowed to seek the help that SHE thought she needed, she was limited to the help that would be PROVIDED by the institution, whether she felt that was the right help for her or not. It's certainly not one-size-fits-all. As a guess or example, she may have felt she needed time as a private inpatient somewhere and they've said "Umm no we can't have that".

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Is he "baffled" or is he another one that didn't really listen to the interview? It didn't sound like they offered nothing - it sounded like she said she wasn't allowed to go and seek the help she felt she needed. I wouldn't think they said "no lol go away", I would think they said "no you can't do that [for various reasons] you have to talk with the people we will select and bring in for you". For valid security/confidentiality reasons? Very possibly but that doesn't change what she's saying; she was not allowed to seek the help that SHE thought she needed, she was limited to the help that would be PROVIDED by the institution, whether she felt that was the right help for her or not. It's certainly not one-size-fits-all. As a guess or example, she may have felt she needed time as a private inpatient somewhere and they've said "Umm no we can't have that".

Not to mention a "Diana biographer" would surely know the Royals "history" of mental health support is extremely poor?

[bots]

the future queen of england and they didn't seem to give a toss about her various well documented disorders. Mental health awareness doesn't just come from seeking professional help, the foundation is in how close family rally round in support, and there wasn't a lot of evidence of that for Diana or Meghan

[jet]

There is a simple explanation for every so - called lie Meghan told, she’s just a straightforward, innocent, naive young girl, who has no past history of lying whatsoever.
She was just having an impromptu cosy chat with Oprah and when she said the royal family were racist and neglected her mental health she clean forgot that millions of people were watching. Easily done. She would never do anything to hurt Harry’s family publicly, never, even if he would. She’s just too sweet natured.
When she spoke about her passport and keys being taken away and not being allowed out of the Palace she was just exaggerating to satisfy Oprah’s need for a bit of drama. She’s a people pleaser. And when she said they were married privately 3 days before their wedding, she just got carried away with how romantic that would sound.
Her honesty about knowing little about the Royals was so refreshing too; she hadn’t read a Diana book in her life, and didn’t even google Harry, who she also knew little about, before her first date with him. She said so with her own mouth, so it must be true.
She’s the Queen of Truth, actually, and everybody loves her because she’s just so NICE!