Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Carry

wyrn wrote: »

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

I rest my case.

SusieBlue

Carry wrote: »

I rest my case.

So edgy. I wish my interests were as superior and intellectual as yours must be.

wyrn

Carry wrote: »

I rest my case.

Boards is a discussion board to talk about all sorts - serious and frivolous. I actually don’t care about the royals at all. I’m interested in the inner workings of the press and how articles can be written out of the barest scrap to give a biased viewpoint to influence the public.

I find the whole psychological aspect fascinating which is why I’m taking part in this discussion and not in the threads on the soccer forum where I have no interest. You don’t see me barging in there, lording it over them that I find their subject inane.

retro:electro

What an absolute embarrassment Thomas Markle is. Quote from him in the papers today—

“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. My daughter told me that when I reach my senior years she'll take care of me. I'm in my senior years now – it's time to look after Daddy”

She is nothing but a cash cow to him. Absolute buffoon. While I do think he probably should have had the opportunity to meet Harry before the wedding and he should have been better protected, it’s quite telling of his character that this is how he decides to handle things in the aftermath. He deserves nothing more than to be cut loose.

KiKi III

All this pr1ck had to do if he wanted a relationship with his daughter and grandson was not talk to the press.

Feisar

cnocbui wrote: »

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

It's a quote from Fr. Ted.

Neyite

KiKi III wrote: »

All this pr1ck had to do if he wanted a relationship with his daughter and grandson was not talk to the press.

It's fairly simple, isn't it? His ex-wife has done an exemplary job at it so he doesn't really have the excuse that he struggled with being thrust into the limelight. All he ever had to say was "no comment" and before long the press would get the message.

He wanted to cash in on his daughters new status, regardless of how that might ruin her relationship, or affect her settling in to her in-laws family. His wording that he's 'owed' now is laughable.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

It's fairly simple, isn't it? His ex-wife has done an exemplary job at it so he doesn't really have the excuse that he struggled with being thrust into the limelight. All he ever had to say was "no comment" and before long the press would get the message.

He wanted to cash in on his daughters new status, regardless of how that might ruin her relationship, or affect her settling in to her in-laws family. His wording that he's 'owed' now is laughable.

At this stage I’m just here for the pure soap opera of it all- the more extraordinary their behaviour, the less and less like people these appear to me and more like characters in a very bad TV show.

MoonUnit75

wyrn wrote: »

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.

I really don't care if she has avocado baths and sprays her garden with composted avocados by low-flying airplane. She's not under a ridiculous level of scrutiny about this here, the goons at Buzzfeed are. They are the ones pretending the headlines are about the same circumstances. When this was pointed out, the goalposts started shifting.

KiKi III

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I really don't care if she has avocado baths and sprays her garden with composted avocados by low-flying airplane. She's not under a ridiculous level of scrutiny about this here, the goons at Buzzfeed are. They are the ones pretending the headlines are about the same circumstances. When this was pointed out, the goalposts started shifting.

They're not the exact same stories but they're around similar enough themes that the comparisons are valid.

SusieBlue

KiKi III wrote: »

They're not the exact same stories but they're around similar enough themes that the comparisons are valid.

No, apparently they’re different because Kate was gifted one, but Meghan promoted them (by serving them at a dinner party one time) and therefore she was promoting murder, droughts, and human rights abuses.
Or something.

valoren

Clearly her father is not well mentally. Charity begins at home so when Markle and Harry front mental health charities the hypocrisy will be palpable.

MoonUnit75

KiKi III wrote: »

They're not the exact same stories but they're around similar enough themes that the comparisons are valid.

One got them as a gift and the other serves them to guests and puts them in her cookbook, and because the word avocado appears in both the comparisons are valid. That’s what you are going with?

MoonUnit75

SusieBlue wrote: »

No, apparently they’re different because Kate was gifted one, but Meghan promoted them (by serving them at a dinner party one time) and therefore she was promoting murder, droughts, and human rights abuses.
Or something.

They are in her cookbook, lots of restuarants have stopped offering them and articles have appeared in the woke bible ‘The Guardian’ and lots of other media. We’ve been over this. Pointing out the lack of basic comprehension is apparently ‘obsessing’ about it so I’ll leave it there.

MoonUnit75

valoren wrote: »

Clearly her father is not well. Charity begins at home so when Markle and Harry front mental health charities the hypocrisy will be palpable.

Yeah he doesn’t seem well and apparently appealed to the royal family to do something about the attention well before he took money for photographs. They then issued a statement asking for him to be left alone.

Meghan and Harry now want to work with hand-picked media who will write more favourably about their new lives as ambassadors of their own brand. Sounds very like what Mr. Markle tried to do with the photos of him preparing for the wedding.

SusieBlue

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

They are in her cookbook, lots of restuarants have stopped offering them and articles have appeared in the woke bible ‘The Guardian’ and lots of other media. We’ve been over this. Pointing out the lack of basic comprehension is apparently ‘obsessing’ about it so I’ll leave it there.

You’re tying yourself up in knots trying to justify it.
You would want to be the most over sensitive special snowflake on earth to blame someone for drought, human rights abuses and murder for serving avocado at a party (one time) and featuring them in one recipe in a cookbook.

I don’t care what the ‘woke media’ think, I’m more interested in what YOU think, and the fact that you keep repeating these hyperbolic soundbites and offering them up as if they are the most obvious explanations for all this vitriol is mind blowing.

Those are not normal, reasonable conclusions to come to for anyone and if you personally think it’s acceptable to rip someone to shreds for something so innocent and trivial then you need to give your head a wobble.
I hope you hold yourself to the same impossibly high standards.

MoonUnit75

SusieBlue wrote: »

You’re tying yourself up in knots trying to justify it.
You would want to be the most over sensitive special snowflake on earth to blame someone for drought, human rights abuses and murder for serving avocado at a party (one time) and featuring them in one recipe in a cookbook.

I don’t care what the ‘woke media’ think, I’m more interested in what YOU think, and the fact that you keep repeating these hyperbolic soundbites and offering them up as if they are the most obvious explanations for all this vitriol is mind blowing.

Those are not normal, reasonable conclusions to come to for anyone and if you personally think it’s acceptable to rip someone to shreds for something so innocent and trivial then you need to give your head a wobble.
I hope you hold yourself to the same impossibly high standards.

I think you are reading stuff into the headline that simply isn’t there.

What it actually said is “How Meghan's favourite avocado snack - beloved of all millennials - is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder”

What you say it says is “Meaghan is causing human rights abuses, drought and murder by eating avocado.”

The actual headline does not claim she is aware of this link and is doing it anyway, the second one does. They are not blaming her at all, in fact if anything they are spreading any hint of blame to all millenials.

I really can’t make it any clearer without breaking it down into syllables. I suspect I would have to for the half-literates who are likely filing articles to Buzzfeed for free.

Spanish Eyes

Soap opera that didn't peak in time for Brexit Day Friday week though. Timing was off a bit there.

SusieBlue

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I think you are reading stuff into the headline that simply isn’t there.

What it actually said is “How Meghan's favourite avocado snack - beloved of all millennials - is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder”

What you say it says is “Meaghan is causing human rights abuses, drought and murder by eating avocado.”

The actual headline does not claim she is aware of this link and is doing it anyway, the second one does. They are not blaming her at all, in fact if anything they are spreading any hint of blame to all millenials.

I really can’t make it any clearer without breaking it down into syllables. I suspect I would have to for the half-literates who are likely filing articles to Buzzfeed for free.

The headlines conflate the issues, which I’m sure you can see for yourself. It’s suggestive to the average reader.

And as I said before, I don’t care about what the millennials and wokesters think.
I just find it interesting that you don’t come across as either of those things, you don’t seem like one of the perpetually offended types, yet you are suggesting that these are reasonable, justified conclusions for a newspaper to to come to and publish. That just doesn’t many any sense.
Something isn’t adding up, it’s almost like maybe.. You just don’t like her.

retro:electro

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I think you are reading stuff into the headline that simply isn’t there.

What it actually said is “How Meghan's favourite avocado snack - beloved of all millennials - is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder”

What you say it says is “Meaghan is causing human rights abuses, drought and murder by eating avocado.”

The actual headline does not claim she is aware of this link and is doing it anyway, the second one does. They are not blaming her at all, in fact if anything they are spreading any hint of blame to all millenials.

I really can’t make it any clearer without breaking it down into syllables. I suspect I would have to for the half-literates who are likely filing articles to Buzzfeed for free.

But why mention Meghan at all? Why not just say “why the fruit favoured by all millennials is fuelling human rights abuses bla bla bla”

They knew exactly what they were doing by conflating her with the purchase of avocados and murder/abuse/drugs and by doing so they whipped up the masses into hysterical outrage and fuelled the hatred. Pathetic stuff and the definition of grasping.

Stateofyou

valoren wrote: »

Clearly her father is not well. Charity begins at home so when Markle and Harry front mental health charities the hypocrisy will be palpable.

I think it's more than fair to say Meghan and Harry aren't doing well with their mental health either. Why you think her father's got mental health issues, maybe he's just an ass who doesn't know how to quit when he's behind?

retro:electro

valoren wrote: »

Clearly her father is not well. Charity begins at home so when Markle and Harry front mental health charities the hypocrisy will be palpable.

Why? He has proved himself to be nothing more than an absolutely toxic and vile individual. There has been more than enough efforts to get him to cop on and he has ignored every single one. He seems pretty sound of mind to me, he’s just a trashy idiot. The irony of him waffling about Meghan “cheapening” the monarchy as he sits slating her in his soiled vest being about as cheap and low as a father could be. Cretin.

MoonUnit75

retro:electro wrote: »

But why mention Meghan at all? Why just say “why the fruit favoured by all millennials is fuelling human rights abuses bla bla bla”

They knew exactly what they were doing by conflating her with the purchase of avocados and by doing so they whipped up the masses into hysterical outrage and fuelled the hatred. Pathetic stuff and the definition of grasping.

It followed a story online from an old showbusiness friend of Meghan, she served him avocado on toast in some palace or other and her (apparently very tasty) avocado toast went viral. Just google ‘meghan, the avocado toast whisperer’. There were countless gushing articles in Elle, Cosmopolitan, BravoTV, People.com, Foodnetwork etc. The Daily Mail were doing the woke crowd’s job for them by pointing out the avocado frenzy causes very serious social and enviornmental issues.

Edited to add that there’s no evidence of the article ‘wipping up the masses in hysterical outrage’. I really think this is crazy talk.

Quantum Erasure

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I really don't care if she has avocado baths ....

MoonUnit75

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I think the masses must have kicked her avocado bath in hysterical outrage, there’s no other explanation for that big crack in the side panel.

Stateofyou

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

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.

I think its fair to say you got whipped up into hysterical outrage about the avocado's, and I could have used a few more quotes of yours to highlight that point.

They didn't have to say anything at all about her eating avocado and conflating it with the issues associated with them. That's the point. Pretty sure most of us, including famous people, eat avocados and I don't see anyone else being held up for it in the tabloids. Ridiculous point #2: millennials aren't the only age group to eat them. Dumb point + dumb point x discussing it on boards = height of stupidity

MoonUnit75

Stateofyou wrote: »

I think its fair to say you got whipped up into hysterical outrage about the avocado's, and I could have used a few more quotes of yours to highlight that point.

They didn't have to say anything at all about her eating avocado and conflating it with the issues associated with them. That's the point. Pretty sure most of us, including famous people, eat avocados and I don't see anyone else being held up for it in the tabloids. Ridiculous point #2: millennials aren't the only age group to eat them. Dumb point + dumb point x discussing it on boards = height of stupidity

I was going to reply properly but your post is too goofy. See previous post #1224

KiKi III

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

One got them as a gift and the other serves them to guests and puts them in her cookbook, and because the word avocado appears in both the comparisons are valid. That’s what you are going with?

You’re choosing to hone in on one specific example, I was speaking about the entire article which compares articles about holding their baby bumps, hands in pockets etc that are perhaps more directly comparable.

On the avocado one, it’s still utterly ridiculous that a paper would even have that as a headline - an extremely loose connection there.

Quantum Erasure

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Ah lads, wallpaper in a bathroom?

And what, no toilet roll covers? :P

Stateofyou

Stateofyou wrote: »

I think its fair to say you got whipped up into hysterical outrage about the avocado's

I don't think that is fair in any sane world. You are grossly exaggerating someone's viewpoint, and it is disingenuous and deliberately trying to discredit their opinion.

Stateofyou

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think that is fair in any sane world. You are grossly exaggerating someone's viewpoint, and it is disingenuous and deliberately trying to discredit their opinion.

Oh no! I guess it does seem unfair to deliberately exaggerate someone else's actions in a disingenuous way... hmm... where else should that same courtesy apply... why are we talking about avocados again? LOL.

Sardonicat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah lads, wallpaper in a bathroom?

And what, no toilet roll covers? :P

Ah no, that's not wallpaper. That is a bathroom fully tiled in the ubiquitous 1970's bathroom tile. Most of us just had a few above the basin and bath but this bathroom is the height of 70's sophistication!

Sardonicat

Sardonicat wrote: »

Ah no, that's not wallpaper. That is a bathroom fully tiled in the ubiquitous 1970's bathroom tile. Most of us just had a few above the basin and bath but this bathroom is the height of 70's sophistication!

A bathroom I can only aspire to owning one day

Sardonicat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A bathroom I can only aspire to owning one day

You can really showcase your sophistication to your fondue evening guests by offsetting that beautiful avocado shade with candy pink, fluffy toilet seat cover, bath mat and pedestal surround. I believe it's the look Meg and Hars are rocking in their en suite (unheard of in the 70's - the poshos with wash basins in the bedrooms were obviously over concerned with personal hygiene and had notions )

cnocbui

My parents built a house in the early 70's and avocado was used. I managed to survive.

I think Meghan's got slightly more elevated decor aspirations.



I came across a most fantastic example of the media beat-up being aimd at them:

NO HEIRS AND GRACES The Queen pays for £500k Sandringham repairs ‘with her own cash’ after Meghan Markle and Harry’s £2.4m Frogmore upgrade paid for by taxpayers

The Queen got £76 M in 2017 from the taxpayer as her annual allowance. Saying she spends money out of her own pocket is deceitful.

Where's the headline bitching about the £4.5 M spent to refurbish Kensington Palace for Wills and Kate, by the suffering taxpayers, while the Queen pays for a packet of mints out of her own pocket?

Sardonicat

I'd prefer the avocado suite to that polished copper, TBH. It doesn't look very inviting or even comfortable. At least the avocado provokes nostalgic feels of Saturday night baths with my bottle of Matey bubble bath and rubber duckey and then getting dried and dressed in front of the fire afterwards, putting on nice clean jammies that had been warming by the fire.

silverharp

Apparently the new Meghan and Harry postage stamp isn't sticking to letters very well... People are spitting on the wrong side

cnocbui

Sardonicat wrote: »

I'd prefer the avocado suite to that polished copper, TBH. It doesn't look very inviting or even comfortable. At least the avocado provokes nostalgic feels of Saturday night baths with my bottle of Matey bubble bath and rubber duckey and then getting dried and dressed in front of the fire afterwards, putting on nice clean jammies that had been warming by the fire.

I think the copper looks better. Ironically it would probably contrast nicely with avocado, though a darker forest green would be preferable. I certainly wouldn't want to be polishing such a thing, the siverware is enough of a chore. It looks no less comfortable than any other bath of the same size and shape. It could be polished aluminium or solid gold, and the comfort would be the same.

MoonUnit75

cnocbui wrote: »

My parents built a house in the early 70's and avocado was used. I managed to survive.

I think Meghan's got slightly more elevated decor aspirations.



I came across a most fantastic example of the media beat-up being aimd at them:



The Queen got £76 M in 2017 from the taxpayer as her annual allowance. Saying she spends money out of her own pocket is deceitful.

Where's the headline bitching about the £4.5 M spent to refurbish Kensington Palace for Wills and Kate, by the suffering taxpayers, while the Queen pays for a packet of mints out of her own pocket?

The thing that the press were most annoyed about when the cost of renovating Frogmore Cottage was revealed was the fact that Harry and Meghan had already spent around £1.4 million renovating their previous home beside William and Kate. They then decided to move away and renovate Frogmore Cottage, many believing it was mainly because they didn't get along with their neighbours anymore. The official explanation was apparently that their 21-room residence wasn't suitable for their growing family.

There were also articles questioning the renovations William and Kate's renovations, that was in 2013 and 2014 so you may not remember the criticism as well as the recent questioning of H & M.

Now Harry and Meghan are moving again from their new luxury home. You can imagine this raises people's heckles.

To be fair, I think most people would take the trade-off of living in a series of luxury mansions with servants and nannies in return for some headlines criticising them for holding their baby bump and promoting avocados. Not everyone would be prepared to put up with it though I suppose.

ohnonotgmail

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The thing that the press were most annoyed about when the cost of renovating Frogmore Cottage was revealed was the fact that Harry and Meghan had already spent around £1.4 million renovating their home beside William and Kate. They then decided to move away and renovate Frogmore Cottage, many believing it was mainly because they didn't get along with their neighbours anymore. The official explanation was apparently that their 21-room residence wasn't suitable for their growing family.

There were also articles questioning the renovations William and Kate's renovations, that was in 2013 and 2014 so you may not remember the criticism as well as the recent questioning of H & M.

Now Harry and Meghan are moving again from their new luxury home. You can imagine this raises people's heckles.

To be fair, I think most people would take the trade-off of living in a series of luxury mansions with servants and nannies in return for some headlines criticising them for holding their baby bump and promoting avocados. Not everyone would be prepared to put up with it though I suppose.

they are repaying the cost of the refurbishment to frogmore so what is there to raise your hackles about?

blinding

cnocbui wrote: »

My parents built a house in the early 70's and avocado was used. I managed to survive.

I think Meghan's got slightly more elevated decor aspirations.

Could one get their leg over in that bath ?

MoonUnit75

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they are repaying the cost of the refurbishment to frogmore so what is there to raise your hackles about?

The headlines used to compare the 'unfair treatment' were written before they offered to pay back the cash. It's still a mystery how and when they will pay this back. Hopefully they will be willing and able to pay it back, it would be the right thing to do.

Suckit

https://streamable.com/hf8em

ohnonotgmail

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The headlines used to compare the 'unfair treatment' were written before they offered to pay back the cash. It's still a mystery how and when they will pay this back. Hopefully they will be willing and able to pay it back, it would be the right thing to do.

what do you mean able to pay it back? Harry inherited a substantial sum from his mother and great-grandmother.

MoonUnit75

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what do you mean able to pay it back? Harry inherited a substantial sum from his mother and great-grandmother.

As far as we know they have offered to pay it back but according to the press there's currently no mechanism that accommodates such an arrangement.

SusieBlue

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

As far as we know they have offered to pay it back but according to the press there's currently no mechanism that accommodates such an arrangement.

The press have a propensity to tell lies about them, so I'd take that with a pinch of sale.
If they have publicly stated they'll repay the funds, the gutter press will be watching closely to ensure that happens. They'd only be frothing at the mouth at the opportunity to post that the promise wasn't followed through, and I can't imagine Meghan or Harry giving them the satisfaction.

Stateofyou

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The thing that the press were most annoyed about when the cost of renovating Frogmore Cottage was revealed was the fact that Harry and Meghan had already spent around £1.4 million renovating their previous home beside William and Kate. They then decided to move away and renovate Frogmore Cottage, many believing it was mainly because they didn't get along with their neighbours anymore. The official explanation was apparently that their 21-room residence wasn't suitable for their growing family.

There were also articles questioning the renovations William and Kate's renovations, that was in 2013 and 2014 so you may not remember the criticism as well as the recent questioning of H & M.

Now Harry and Meghan are moving again from their new luxury home. You can imagine this raises people's heckles.

To be fair, I think most people would take the trade-off of living in a series of luxury mansions with servants and nannies in return for some headlines criticising them for holding their baby bump and promoting avocados. Not everyone would be prepared to put up with it though I suppose.

Where do you get they lived in a 21 room residence? Nottingham Cottage only had 2 bedrooms.

Direct from the source:
"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex chose to move to Windsor for various reasons. Their previous residence of Nottingham Cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace could not accommodate their growing family. The option of Apartment 1 in Kensington Palace was estimated to cost in excess of £4 million for mandated renovations including the removal of asbestos," reads a statement from the funding section of the Sussexes' new website.

"This residence would not have been available for them to occupy until the fourth quarter of 2020. As a result, Her Majesty The Queen offered The Duke and Duchess the use of Frogmore Cottage, which was already undergoing mandated renovations, and would be available to move in before the birth of their son."

ohnonotgmail

Stateofyou wrote: »

Where do you get they lived in a 21 room residence? Nottingham Cottage only had 2 bedrooms.

Direct from the source:
"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex chose to move to Windsor for various reasons. Their previous residence of Nottingham Cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace could not accommodate their growing family. The option of Apartment 1 in Kensington Palace was estimated to cost in excess of £4 million for mandated renovations including the removal of asbestos," reads a statement from the funding section of the Sussexes' new website.

"This residence would not have been available for them to occupy until the fourth quarter of 2020. As a result, Her Majesty The Queen offered The Duke and Duchess the use of Frogmore Cottage, which was already undergoing mandated renovations, and would be available to move in before the birth of their son."

When people are outraged facts are irrelevant.

KiKi III

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The headlines used to compare the 'unfair treatment' were written before they offered to pay back the cash. It's still a mystery how and when they will pay this back. Hopefully they will be willing and able to pay it back, it would be the right thing to do.

You write like you have a vested interest in how and when they pay it back. They’ve committed to doing it and we have no reason to disbelieve them.

cnocbui

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The headlines used to compare the 'unfair treatment' were written before they offered to pay back the cash. It's still a mystery how and when they will pay this back. Hopefully they will be willing and able to pay it back, it would be the right thing to do.

Marketing experts have predicted they could soon be worth $400 M. Repaying for frogmore would be chump change. Their current net worth, according to some estimates, is around £30 M. Meghan had earned a small fortune of around $5 M via her acting career, even before meeting Harry.

The bottom line is there appears to be enough money available so casting aspersions that they won't pay it back is unwarranted.