Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Stateofyou

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Her lawyers say. Ah OK, that's all the proof we need. There's been no photos actually published that I have seen and the paps were probably foreign, likely even American. They won't have to go so far now that they are in Canada.

The thing is, they don't even have to be published (yet) for the effects of the stalking and harassment and violation of privacy to affect your life.

I read that the Canadian government is strictly vetting photographers coming in to their country now who may be paparazzi trying to take photos of them, but they don't have work permits so that won't be allowed.

MoonUnit75

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is it important where the paps are from? You seem to have some inside knowledge of their nationality. how did you obtain that knowledge?

The UK code of practice means there is no market for paparazzi photos of the Royals in the UK, particularly the children. If you read any article on paparazzi photos of the Royals in the last two decades, they were almost exclusively taken and published by press outside the UK and usually of the royals on holiday or on tour outside the UK.

SusieBlue

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The original article said she served them to her guests.

In her recent cookbook she describes her "very favourite avocado dip that I now make at home".

So she's a big fan of avocados, which all good wokesters would no doubt call 'problematic'.

I'm not asking about "wokesters", I'm asking do you think its reasonable, justified and acceptable to link someone to an increase in the murder rate, droughts, and human rights abuses, because they like avocados?

cnocbui

Here is a good example of the difference between how William and Kate are treated by the media vs Harry and Meghan.

Their homes.

Prince William and Kate get to live in a Palace. The cost of refurbishment to the taxpayer was £4.5 M. Harry and Meghan got to live in a cottage, with a refurbishment cost of £2.5 M

Yet ANOTHER bill for Frogmore Cottage: Taxpayers are paying £750,000 for security at Harry and Meghan's new home - on top of the £3million cost of refurbishing it

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7180949/Taxpayers-paying-750-000-security-Harry-Meghans-new-home-3m-refurbishment.html

PIERS MORGAN: Why should taxpayers pay millions so super-rich Prince Harry and Meghan ‘Kardashian’ Markle can have a mansion makeover just because they don’t get on with Wills and Kate?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7178971/PIERS-MORGAN-taxpayers-pay-millions-Harry-Meghan-mansion-makeover.html

Harry and Meghan to install a taxpayer-funded £50,000 green boiler at Frogmore Cottage...

They could've moved next door!' Fury as it emerges Harry and Meghan spent £2.4million of YOUR cash on Frogmore Cottage 'to escape rift with Kate and William' - and final bill could hit £3m

You effin couldn't make this stuff up. The difference in media treatment couldn't be greater.

One lot cost the UK taxpayer 50% less to accommodate and yet get an infinite percentage more flack and criticism.

MoonUnit75

SusieBlue wrote: »

I'm not asking about "wokesters", I'm asking do you think its reasonable, justified and acceptable to link someone to an increase in the murder rate, droughts, and human rights abuses, because they like avocados?

You're being overly dramatic. They said the avocados are the problem.

SusieBlue

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

You're being overly dramatic. They said the avocados are the problem.

I think the tabloids are the ones being over dramatic here, not me, but I'll take your refusal to answer as admission that you also think its unreasonable.

You're just too stubborn to admit it.

MoonUnit75

SusieBlue wrote: »

I think the tabloids are the ones being over dramatic here, not me, but I'll take your refusal to answer as admission that you also think its unreasonable.

You're just too stubborn to admit it.

It's true that avocados cause horrendous social and economic problems. It's true that Meghan serves them to guests and promotes them in her cookbook. It's true that she presents herself as being outspoken on social and environmental issues. So no, I don't think it's unreasonable to point out the dissonance here.

It's not that different to all the recent press stories about how people who take a line of cocaine on the weekend don't like to think how they are contributing to the massive social problems it is causing.

cnocbui

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The original article said she served them to her guests.

In her recent cookbook she describes her "very favourite avocado dip that I now make at home".

So she's a big fan of avocados, which all good wokesters would no doubt call 'problematic'.

Just as a matter of interest, what is the problem with avocados? They are grown extensively in New Zealand and Australia, and I'm not aware of any problems.

MoonUnit75

cnocbui wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, what is the problem with avocados? They are grown extensively in New Zealand and Australia, and I'm not aware of any problems.

"The short answer is that avocado farming is causing deforestation, destroying ecosystems, funding drug cartels, and contributing to climate change. In Michoacán, Mexico, the biggest avocado producing region in the world, farmers are illegally razing pine forests in order to plant lucrative avocado trees. The native pine trees make up an irreplaceable habitat to indigenous species, including the iconic monarch butterfly.

Astonishingly, it takes up to 1,000 liters of water to grow just 1 kg of avocados–roughly 3 avocados. (By contrast, 1 kg of broccoli only uses around 45 liters of water.) As the water-hogging avocado orchards replace the pines, they divert natural streams and water sources from local animal species. Even more trees are cut down to make crates to transport the avocados, further exacerbating water shortage and destroying carbon sinks.

In Michoacán, avocado exports bring in $109 million a year and have become a lucrative business for Mexico’s drug cartels such as Los Caballeros Templarios (The Knights Templar). When the farmers refuse to pay the gangs, their orchards and processing plants are burned down–or worse. The situation is such that the avocado, long called “green gold” by the locals, is now referred to as “blood guacamole.” Meanwhile, the chemicals and toxins from avocado orchards cause respiratory and stomach problems in local residents."

https://ethicalunicorn.com/2018/09/23/how-sustainable-ethical-is-eating-avocado/

MoonUnit75

Stateofyou wrote: »

Simple google search, but sure, here you go

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/16/harry-meghans-safety-security-seriously-undermined-helicopter/

https://www.her.ie/celeb/meghan-harry-forced-home-paparazzi-take-photos-windows-464366

OK, you got me, a helicopter flew over their temporary accommodation once. Were any of the photos purchased or published by the UK press? Splash Media are a global company, I believe their HQ is in the states.

quokula

cnocbui wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, what is the problem with avocados? They are grown extensively in New Zealand and Australia, and I'm not aware of any problems.

Avocado production has quite a high water usage footprint, which is problematic when a lot of them are grown in areas that are sometimes prone to drought.

Beyond that, there are issues with land use for intensive large scale single crop farming, and with shipping across the world, but this is common to most foods. Avocados have become a particular target for these issues because certain types of reactionary rags push the narrative that all millennials love avocados and all millennials are therefore hypocrites for daring to care about the environment (or in this case swap "millennial" with "Meghan")

Edit: worth commenting about the above post I hadn't seen that mentions drug cartels in Mexico profiting from them - this is true, but is also true for other crops that grow in similar regions, like coffee. And, much like coffee, avocados that are grown elsewhere with no such connections to organised crime are widely available.

seamus

It seems pretty clear here that no doubt our Moon friend here is also a fan of complaining about "SJWs", "PC gone mad", "lefties" etc etc. This is one of the other reasons that Piers Morgan and Daily Mail readers hate her. She has the audacity to be outspokenly feminist, which as we know causes all the gammon to go into complete meltdown.

Like Greta Thunberg, a woman daring to speak her mind without male approval causes these individuals to become irrationally angry. And even though they can't really tell you why they get so worked up, they know that the woman is to blame and she is therefore to be derided and attacked at every opportunity. "She brought this on herself", and so forth.

It's so transparent at this stage.

PhiloCypher

Gotta love how the very thing the Brit Royalists loved about HARRY, bucking Royal protocol, doing his own thing, and generally being the 'cool' Royal, is the thing they hate him for now, and apparently completely out of character.

MoonUnit75

seamus wrote: »

It seems pretty clear here that no doubt our Moon friend here is also a fan of complaining about "SJWs", "PC gone mad", "lefties" etc etc. This is one of the other reasons that Piers Morgan and Daily Mail readers hate her. She has the audacity to be outspokenly feminist, which as we know causes all the gammon to go into complete meltdown.

Like Greta Thunberg, a woman daring to speak her mind without male approval causes these individuals to become irrationally angry. And even though they can't really tell you why they get so worked up, they know that the woman is to blame and she is therefore to be derided and attacked at every opportunity. "She brought this on herself", and so forth.

It's so transparent at this stage.

OK. Guilt by imaginary association with Piers and ‘gammon’ packaged in a lovely, glaring dose of hypocrisy. Thank you for this contribution.

cnocbui

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

"The short answer is that avocado farming is causing deforestation, destroying ecosystems, funding drug cartels, and contributing to climate change. In Michoacán, Mexico, the biggest avocado producing region in the world, farmers are illegally razing pine forests in order to plant lucrative avocado trees. The native pine trees make up an irreplaceable habitat to indigenous species, including the iconic monarch butterfly.

Astonishingly, it takes up to 1,000 liters of water to grow just 1 kg of avocados–roughly 3 avocados. (By contrast, 1 kg of broccoli only uses around 45 liters of water.) As the water-hogging avocado orchards replace the pines, they divert natural streams and water sources from local animal species. Even more trees are cut down to make crates to transport the avocados, further exacerbating water shortage and destroying carbon sinks.

In Michoacán, avocado exports bring in $109 million a year and have become a lucrative business for Mexico’s drug cartels such as Los Caballeros Templarios (The Knights Templar). When the farmers refuse to pay the gangs, their orchards and processing plants are burned down–or worse. The situation is such that the avocado, long called “green gold” by the locals, is now referred to as “blood guacamole.” Meanwhile, the chemicals and toxins from avocado orchards cause respiratory and stomach problems in local residents."

https://ethicalunicorn.com/2018/09/23/how-sustainable-ethical-is-eating-avocado/

Yeah, I have already had a look. Absolutely typical nonsense beat up. All forms of food supply in third world countries that is done to supply consumers in first world countries causes major ecological problems. This is a truism that has been in effect since well into the last century. Deforestation of the Amazon by ranchers in Brazil to supply McDonalds - that's been going on for decades. Indonesia is clearing vast areas of jungle to cultivate palm oil, leading to dreadful loss of habitat for wildlife and air pollution that covers the whole of SE Asia. The Oceans are being raped of nearly every ounce of 'free' protein every country can possibly manage. The Albatross is facing extinction due to long-line fishing. I really could go on for hours.

Did you know Australia grows rice? As usual, they are very efficient at it, but, yeah, they grow rice, and have emptied the continents largest river system, the Murray-Darling, in order to pursue this idiotic enterprise.

There is no eco friendly agriculture on the planet. Either get over it or leave the planet.

Anyone who wants to wag a finger at Meghan for some avocados has to have no concept of conscience or hypocrisy, an IQ of 20 or 75% of their former brain matter rotted by tertiary syphilis, or more likely, all of the above.

I ate half an avocado last night, I'll probably eat the other half shortly. Anyone who disapproves, can go....

Stateofyou

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

"The short answer is that avocado farming is causing deforestation, destroying ecosystems, funding drug cartels, and contributing to climate change. In Michoacán, Mexico, the biggest avocado producing region in the world, farmers are illegally razing pine forests in order to plant lucrative avocado trees. The native pine trees make up an irreplaceable habitat to indigenous species, including the iconic monarch butterfly.

Astonishingly, it takes up to 1,000 liters of water to grow just 1 kg of avocados–roughly 3 avocados. (By contrast, 1 kg of broccoli only uses around 45 liters of water.) As the water-hogging avocado orchards replace the pines, they divert natural streams and water sources from local animal species. Even more trees are cut down to make crates to transport the avocados, further exacerbating water shortage and destroying carbon sinks.

In Michoacán, avocado exports bring in $109 million a year and have become a lucrative business for Mexico’s drug cartels such as Los Caballeros Templarios (The Knights Templar). When the farmers refuse to pay the gangs, their orchards and processing plants are burned down–or worse. The situation is such that the avocado, long called “green gold” by the locals, is now referred to as “blood guacamole.” Meanwhile, the chemicals and toxins from avocado orchards cause respiratory and stomach problems in local residents."

https://ethicalunicorn.com/2018/09/23/how-sustainable-ethical-is-eating-avocado/

Just wondering, would you avoid eating anything with Palm Oil in it?

MoonUnit75

cnocbui wrote: »

Yeah, I have already had a look. Absolutely typical nonsense beat up. All forms of food supply in third world countries that is done to supply consumers in first world countries causes major ecological problems. This is a truism that has been in effect since well into the last century. Deforestation of the Amazon by ranchers in Brazil to supply McDonalds - that's been going on for decades. Indonesia is clearing vast areas of jungle to cultivate palm oil, leading to dreadful loss of habitat for wildlife and air pollution that covers the whole of SE Asia. The Oceans are being raped of nearly every ounce of 'free' protein every country can possibly manage. The Albatross is facing extinction due to long-line fishing. I really could go on for hours.

Did you know Australia grows rice? As usual, they are very efficient at it, but, yeah, they grow rice, and have emptied the continents largest river system, the Murray-Darling, in order to pursue this idiotic enterprise.

There is no eco friendly agriculture on the planet. Either get over it or leave the planet.

Anyone who wants to wag a finger at Meghan for some avocados has to have no concept of conscience or hypocrisy, an IQ of 20 or 75% of their former brain matter rotted by tertiary syphilis, or more likely, all of the above.

I ate half an avocado last night, I'll probably eat the other half shortly. Anyone who disapproves, can go....

It depends on whether you are comparing staples that are ubiquitous and in practically every shopping basket in one form or another and a trendy fruit that is a self-contained luxury item.

It’s extremely easy to avoid eating and promoting avocados altogether. You need to do a lot more homework and have a lot more commitment to avoid palm oil as the example above.

I always ask myself ‘what would Meghan do?’ before I make a purchase though. Anyone for avocado on toast?

Stateofyou

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It depends on whether you are comparing staples that are ubiquitous and in practically every shopping basket in one form or another and a trendy fruit that is a self-contained luxury item.

It’s extremely easy to avoid eating and promoting avocados altogether. You need to do a lot more homework and have a lot more commitment to avoid palm oil as the example above.

I always ask myself ‘what would Meghan do?’ before I make a purchase though. Anyone for avocado on toast?

Ah okay, and so you also research the manufacturers and working conditions of the factory, geographical region and impact to the environment before you purchase any of your clothes, shoes, personal products?

Stateofyou

And you know, if you care about something you don't have to care about everything. We'd all go insane. Most of us do the best we can. Vilifying her is pointless and petty. She undoubtedly does more for spreading awareness on various things and therefore has greater impact on those areas, than you do on literally anything.

MoonUnit75

Stateofyou wrote: »

Ah okay, and so you also research the manufacturers and working conditions of the factory, geographical region and impact to the environment before you purchase any of your clothes, shoes, personal products?

I don't consider myself an influencer on social justice and environmental issues. I don't care how you conduct your life or present yourself, I don't know why you should be concerned about me. We're discussing what Meghan says vs what she does.

SusieBlue

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I don't consider myself an influencer on social justice and environmental issues. I don't care how you conduct your life or present yourself, I don't know why you should be concerned about me. We're discussing what Meghan says vs what she does.

So Meghan is the devil incarnate for having the cheek to enjoy an avocado. Right, got it.

Stateofyou

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I don't consider myself an influencer on social justice and environmental issues. I don't care how you conduct your life or present yourself, I don't know why you should be concerned about me. We're discussing what Meghan says vs what she does.[/QUOTE

So your motto is, why bother doing anything at all what difference does it make? Actually research shows that if we all made small changes it would have a big impact. Super approach and attitude!

If you're going to hold someone to impossible standards, you better be damn sure you're upholding them yourself. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.

MoonUnit75

SusieBlue wrote: »

So Meghan is the devil incarnate for having the cheek to enjoy an avocado. Right, got it.

Got what? An active imagination? Why always assume the most vicious possible interpretation of a fairly insignificant observation? I said it's dissonant, not that she was the devil incarnate. You are inventing caricatures to argue against. Not as badly as Seamus back there though, who seems to be able to read minds and smoke out witches.

cnocbui

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It depends on whether you are comparing staples that are ubiquitous and in practically every shopping basket in one form or another and a trendy fruit that is a self-contained luxury item.

It’s extremely easy to avoid eating and promoting avocados altogether. You need to do a lot more homework and have a lot more commitment to avoid palm oil as the example above.

I always ask myself ‘what would Meghan do?’ before I make a purchase though. Anyone for avocado on toast?

You don't get it. There is no morally acceptable dimension to humans existing on this planet beyond about 3 million of us. Mentally out-gassing stupid platitudes like 'staples' and 'avoid' makes a blind ostrich look as sage as Jacob Bronowski.

I don't need to do any homework, whatsoever. I have been eating avocados decades, and I'm not going to stop now. The only planet-ethical and eco-friendly form of consumption is probably cannibalism. Not interested, I'd rather eat the occasional avocado.

What Meghan chooses to eat just doesn't matter; that this even has to be mentioned is proof-positive of the degree to which she's been hounded and persecuted.

weldoninhio

cnocbui wrote: »

That is true, and as a very amateur photographer, I agree with the principle, but when the line is crossed so that the photography becomes active, targeted harassment, it is no longer just about the right of the public to take photos in public.

I have read threads in the photography section where boardsie photographers have had acrimonious run-ins with the Guards for taking photos in public.

So while you don't have a right to privacy in public, you might well have a right to not be actively harassed.

Public photography has already taken a major hit due to photos being taken by terrorists to reconnoiter targets, particularly in the UK, and Police there will and can take action, but that's another topic.

I did run across this, with regards to the UK:

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html

It's definitely not black and white and there are certainly grey areas.

My quote is from Canada.

end of the road

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

"The short answer is that avocado farming is causing deforestation, destroying ecosystems, funding drug cartels, and contributing to climate change. In Michoacán, Mexico, the biggest avocado producing region in the world, farmers are illegally razing pine forests in order to plant lucrative avocado trees. The native pine trees make up an irreplaceable habitat to indigenous species, including the iconic monarch butterfly.

Astonishingly, it takes up to 1,000 liters of water to grow just 1 kg of avocados–roughly 3 avocados. (By contrast, 1 kg of broccoli only uses around 45 liters of water.) As the water-hogging avocado orchards replace the pines, they divert natural streams and water sources from local animal species. Even more trees are cut down to make crates to transport the avocados, further exacerbating water shortage and destroying carbon sinks.

In Michoacán, avocado exports bring in $109 million a year and have become a lucrative business for Mexico’s drug cartels such as Los Caballeros Templarios (The Knights Templar). When the farmers refuse to pay the gangs, their orchards and processing plants are burned down–or worse. The situation is such that the avocado, long called “green gold” by the locals, is now referred to as “blood guacamole.” Meanwhile, the chemicals and toxins from avocado orchards cause respiratory and stomach problems in local residents."

https://ethicalunicorn.com/2018/09/23/how-sustainable-ethical-is-eating-avocado/

so what are you doing about this issue? rather then using it, i suspect, to score points against meghan?
how is meghan responsible for the issues caused in mexico? we don't even know if she buys mexican avocados, she may very well buy ones grown in australia or newzeeland.

KiKi III

end of the road wrote: »

so what are you doing about this issue? rather then using it, i suspect, to score points against meghan?
how is meghan responsible for the issues caused in mexico? we don't even know if she buys mexican avocados, she may very well buy ones grown in australia or newzeeland.

The main point of the avocado story is that a similar story about Kate using avocado to get through her morning sickness was treated adoringly by the Mail

Anyone watch Channel 4 news this evening? Extraordinary question put to Prince Charles by their reporter as he walked by: something to the affect of “ was Meghan driven out of the uk by the royal family “ - may not have the wording perfect but it was quite a question to ask. Needless to say he just walked past and said nothing.

I see people here are still harping on just about newspaper reports- the relationship between Meghan and “the firm” is where I believe the real story is.

MoonUnit75

KiKi III wrote: »

The main point of the avocado story is that a similar story about Kate using avocado to get through her morning sickness was treated adoringly by the Mail

Kate was gifted avocados, Meghan promotes them. The fools at Buzzfeed see no difference.

end of the road

KiKi III wrote: »

The main point of the avocado story is that a similar story about Kate using avocado to get through her morning sickness was treated adoringly by the Mail

yup got that.

the mail is gutter rubbish anyway so it's not surprising how they behave.
the sun similarly.

MoonUnit75

end of the road wrote: »

so what are you doing about this issue? rather then using it, i suspect, to score points against meghan?
how is meghan responsible for the issues caused in mexico? we don't even know if she buys mexican avocados, she may very well buy ones grown in australia or newzeeland.

Don’t really care about avocados. Just pointing out the stupidity of pretending Kate was praised in the papers for the same thing Meghan was criticised for. Kate was given them, Meghan promotes them.

MoonUnit75

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone watch Channel 4 news this evening? Extraordinary question put to Prince Charles by their reporter as he walked by: something to the affect of “ was Meghan driven out of the uk by the royal family “ - may not have the wording perfect but it was quite a question to ask. Needless to say he just walked past and said nothing.

I see people here are still harping on just about newspaper reports- the relationship between Meghan and “the firm” is where I believe the real story is.

Yes, it’s not likely they would isolate themselves from the family because the right-leaning press criticise Meghan. There’s a bigger story here about how the two brothers have seen their relationship break down since recent changes have come into being, and why H & M are leaving the rest of the family behind.

MoonUnit75

Anyway. My avocado and panda meat sandwich is starting to give me indigestion. How about 10 pages discussing why Kate using lily of the valley in her own bouquet is the exact same thing* as Meghan putting it on a child’s head, when children are more at risk from its toxin than adults?

* In Buzzfeedland

MoonUnit75

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Yes, it’s not likely they would isolate themselves from the family because the right-leaning press criticise Meghan. There’s a bigger story here about how the two brothers have seen their relationship break down since recent changes have come into being, and why H & M are leaving the rest of the family behind.

Agreed. And Harry’s parting speech before he went to Canada was telling. Did he harp on about how the media were rotters to him and Megs and that this is the reason they’re leaving?
Not at all- not a bit of it -instead, there was a thinly veiled “well it’s not my fault we’re leaving, it’s the Queens and Papa’s and Williams fault”- of course he didn’t say that precisely but it was implied- “I wanted to stay and serve but that wasn’t possible” or whatever.

They’ll employ someone full time to sue the press over fake news stories- it won’t bother them and such stories will always be there- they know that.

No, there’s a much juicer story of in-house fighting - I wonder if someday he’ll spill the beans- he’d get a mega deal for his biography book in about 30 years time- that’s probably how long we’ll have to wait.

Feisar

cnocbui wrote: »

Yeah, I have already had a look. Absolutely typical nonsense beat up. All forms of food supply in third world countries that is done to supply consumers in first world countries causes major ecological problems. This is a truism that has been in effect since well into the last century. Deforestation of the Amazon by ranchers in Brazil to supply McDonalds - that's been going on for decades. Indonesia is clearing vast areas of jungle to cultivate palm oil, leading to dreadful loss of habitat for wildlife and air pollution that covers the whole of SE Asia. The Oceans are being raped of nearly every ounce of 'free' protein every country can possibly manage. The Albatross is facing extinction due to long-line fishing. I really could go on for hours.

Did you know Australia grows rice? As usual, they are very efficient at it, but, yeah, they grow rice, and have emptied the continents largest river system, the Murray-Darling, in order to pursue this idiotic enterprise.

There is no eco friendly agriculture on the planet. Either get over it or leave the planet.

Anyone who wants to wag a finger at Meghan for some avocados has to have no concept of conscience or hypocrisy, an IQ of 20 or 75% of their former brain matter rotted by tertiary syphilis, or more likely, all of the above.

I ate half an avocado last night, I'll probably eat the other half shortly. Anyone who disapproves, can go....

Anything to be said for another Mass

dePeatrick

Why do you even give these people oxygen? They mean nothing other than paparazzi pretzels for the gutter press to chew on.

SusieBlue

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Kate was gifted avocados, Meghan promotes them. The fools at Buzzfeed see no difference.

Promotes them? That’s reaching a bit isn’t it? Possibly a bit over dramatic on your part?
She served them to her friends at dinner party one time and an avocado dip featured in one recipe in her book. She’s hardly their brand ambassador.
Saying that this counts as ‘promotion’ is absolutely preposterous and is total hyperbole.

You’re tying yourself up in knots trying to justify it. There’s no justifying it. And that wasn’t the only headline, and you know it.

Care to explain why it’s ok for the Queen to put her hands in her pockets, but not Meghan?
Or why it was ok for Kate to put Jo Malone scented candles in her wedding venue, but not Meghan?
Any thoughts or feelings on those?

MoonUnit75

Eh, the Queen, she’s like, the Queen?

Maybe Meghan should have lit candles too, instead of getting her people to spray stuff all over a cathedral.

I’m actually beginning to like Mr. Markle . I don’t have Channel 5 but it will be interesting what he says. While I’m actually not for washing family dirty linen in public no matter how famous or rich the people are, as it’s quite sad really, Meaghan, Harry and the wider royal family and their advisors, all royally feiced up minding the Da.

They then tried to do a PR job through “friends” giving exclusive stories to the press, putting Megs in a good light and painting her father in a bad light- hence the dad selling out to put the record straight.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/meghan-markles-dad-accuses-quitting-21327899


I'm going to defend myself and I'm going to be paid for it. I don't care. At this point, they owe me. The Royals owe me. Harry owes me, Meghan owes me. What I've been through I should be rewarded for.

retro:electro

Also, and I’m on neither side of the argument here— but saying Kate also used the same flowers is kind of moot when Charlotte wasn’t even born when Kate got married. Apparently Charlotte is allergic and sneezed her whole way through the ceremony. Still a stupid headline though and a story born out of nothing only a desire to be spiteful.

Stateofyou

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Eh, the Queen, she’s like, the Queen?

Maybe Meghan should have lit candles too, instead of getting her people to spray stuff all over a cathedral.

That was an obviously fake story tracing to the Daily Mail in order to make up a row between Kate and Meghan and the Queen to sell their smut.

Honestly, don't you feel embarrassed to even be talking about made up stories from "sources" in the Daily Mail? I think it's bizarre behavior. They profit from gullible people like yourself.

cnocbui

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Don’t really care about avocados. Just pointing out the stupidity of pretending Kate was praised in the papers for the same thing Meghan was criticised for. Kate was given them, Meghan promotes them.

Let me guess, you never inhaled... :rolleyes:

cnocbui

Feisar wrote: »

Anything to be said for another Mass

Sorry, that went over my head (atheist). Is that some reference to a religious ritual based on cannibalism?

wyrn

retro:electro wrote: »

Also, and I’m on neither side of the argument here— but saying Kate also used the same flowers is kind of moot when Charlotte wasn’t even born when Kate got married. Apparently Charlotte is allergic and sneezed her whole way through the ceremony. Still a stupid headline though and a story born out of nothing only a desire to be spiteful.

Surely if she was allergic her parents wouldn't have allowed her to be a flower girl or requested fake flowers or something.

wyrn

I think this thread sums up the pattern of press on Meghan - over analysing nonsense to microscopic degrees.


We have 1 poster who obsesses over an open or closed coat on a pregnant woman and what it means. Now we have another who is obsessing over gifting and promoting avocados. I'd understand the hate if she kicked a puppy or hung out with murderers but this level of scrutiny is ridiculous.

retro:electro

wyrn wrote: »

Surely if she was allergic her parents wouldn't have allowed her to be a flower girl or requested fake flowers or something.

Ah yeah sure it’s pure daft. Scuther press

wyrn

retro:electro wrote: »

Ah yeah sure it’s pure daft. Scuther press

Ah sure isn't Charles a mad one for homeopathy, surely he could have given Charlotte a bottle of water to help her.

Carry

Just scrolled through this thread out of curiosity and was wondering if anyone of you has a life? :pac:

You can't avoid reading about the Harry and Meghan story when you read any newspaper, but this bickering about avocados, open/closed coats or what the heck you are discussing is rather ridiculous.

I didn't (and genereally don't) have any opinion about the British royals, apart from them being surplus to requirements in the big scheme of things.

But if this little thread on good old Irish boards is any indication of what they experienced daily and publicly in Britain I'd say good for them to get out of dodge.

Why do you care, I wonder.

wyrn

Carry wrote: »

Just scrolled through this thread out of curiosity and was wondering if anyone of you has a life? :pac:

You can't avoid reading about the Harry and Meghan story when you read any newspaper, but this bickering about avocados, open/closed coats or what the heck you are discussing is rather ridiculous.

I didn't (and genereally don't) have any opinion about the British royals, apart from them being surplus to requirements in the big scheme of things.

But if this little thread on good old Irish boards is any indication of what they experienced daily and publicly in Britain I'd say good for them to get out of dodge.

Why do you care, I wonder.

Why do you care, I wonder to bother posting here. Do you know what Boards is?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Carry wrote: »

Just scrolled through this thread out of curiosity and was wondering if anyone of you has a life? :pac:

You can't avoid reading about the Harry and Meghan story when you read any newspaper, but this bickering about avocados, open/closed coats or what the heck you are discussing is rather ridiculous.

I didn't (and genereally don't) have any opinion about the British royals, apart from them being surplus to requirements in the big scheme of things.

But if this little thread on good old Irish boards is any indication of what they experienced daily and publicly in Britain I'd say good for them to get out of dodge.

Why do you care, I wonder.

Yet another thread overseer. What would we do without ye, lads?