Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Leroy42

BettyS wrote: »

I don’t know what to make of the story of her bullying her aides...

Surely there can be no sympathy for the aides. They knew what they were getting into when they took the job.

Isn't that the approach?

BettyS

Leroy42 wrote: »

Surely there can be no sympathy for the aides. They knew what they were getting into when they took the job.

Isn't that the approach?

Workplace bullying is unacceptable, whatever the circumstances. Being forced out of one’s job is pretty dire stuff.

I went back on the original, media articles from Meghan, when she met Harry. They were favourable in the beginning

Mr.Wemmick

BettyS wrote: »

I don’t know what to make of the story of her bullying her aides...

RF staff come and go at all the time, but they sign confidentiality agreements so personal info does not get out in the public domain.
The fact that these are deliberate leaks is a sure sign of panic from the firm. They really are rattled.

BettyS

BettyS wrote: »

Workplace bullying is unacceptable, whatever the circumstances. Being forced out of one’s job is pretty dire stuff.

I went back on the original, media articles from Meghan, when she met Harry. They were favourable in the beginning

This was the top comment from one of the big stories in 2017, after they met.

It certainly does not vindicate the vile stories from Piers et al, that were subsequently written. But it is an interesting change

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4917834/amp/Prince-Harry-mental-health-conference-Toronto.html

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5111813/amp/Prince-Harry-proposes-Meghan-Markle.html

BettyS

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

RF staff come and go at all the time, but they sign confidentiality agreements so personal info does not get out in the public domain.
The fact that these are deliberate leaks is a sure sign of panic from the firm. They really are rattled.

They mentioned that the original complaint was lodged in 2018. Does this mean that there is a paper-trail that can corroborate said claims?

BettyS

BettyS wrote: »

They mentioned that the original complaint was lodged in 2018. Does this mean that there is a paper-trail that can corroborate said claims?

This has been in the media for some time. Definitely long before they decide to leave the RF.

Claims that she expected her staff to answer phone or texts immediately, no matter what time of day or night.

Remember how the Queen had to step in over the issue of which tiara Meghan could wear for her wedding. Haz is supposed to have said that whatever Meghan wants, she gets and the Queen replied that she’d take what she was given.

Be right back

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This has been in the media for some time. Definitely long before they decide to leave the RF.

Claims that she expected her staff to answer phone or texts immediately, no matter what time of day or night.

I read of another claim that she threw hot tea at someone while on a tour in Australia.

Leroy42

BettyS wrote: »

Workplace bullying is unacceptable, whatever the circumstances. Being forced out of one’s job is pretty dire stuff.

I went back on the original, media articles from Meghan, when she met Harry. They were favourable in the beginning

You are missing the point.

Apparently, Meaghan and Harry should simply accept that media intrusion and lying is just part of the job. Sure they are loaded, what have they got to be complaining about?

That very same approach is why work place bullying was allowed to exist for so long (in general I mean). Anyone bringing it up would be told they were lucky to have a job.

Effectively, Harry has been forced out of his job by bullying.

BettyS

Be right back wrote: »

I read of another claim that she threw hot tea at someone while on a tour in Australia.

It only takes one or two of these kinds of stories doing the rounds to undermine the public perception. Remember how quickly Beckham fell in the eyes of the public after the knighthood scandal. The British press is capricious and unforgiving

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

This has been in the media for some time. Definitely long before they decide to leave the RF.

So very suspicious that it is being brought back into the public domain at this exact point in time.

Deleted User wrote: »

Claims that she expected her staff to answer phone or texts immediately, no matter what time of day or night.

There are plenty of positions that operate like that. It isn't particularly nice but its something that people seem to accept. But it is hardly only Meaghan that does it. You can bet the the queen doesn't wait until 9am shift arrives before ordering a cup of tea!

Deleted User wrote: »

Remember how the Queen had to step in over the issue of which tiara Meghan could wear for her wedding. Haz is supposed to have said that whatever Meghan wants, she gets and the Queen replied that she’d take what she was given.

No idea if that is true, but if it is what does that say about the queen? This is a one of the richest families in the world, and yet they won't allow their new daughter in law use a particular tiara because? Jeez, its the woman wedding day, cost is no object, let her have what the hell she wants.

BettyS

Leroy42 wrote: »

You are missing the point.

Apparently, Meaghan and Harry should simply accept that media intrusion and lying is just part of the job. Sure they are loaded, what have they got to be complaining about?

That very same approach is why work place bullying was allowed to exist for so long (in general I mean). Anyone bringing it up would be told they were lucky to have a job.

Effectively, Harry has been forced out of his job by bullying.

Harry is a free agent to do what he wishes.

However, anybody in the public eye is subject to the same scrutiny. Look at any number of celebrities, such as the Beckhams, Katie Price, the Clooneys. The vile articles written about all of these people are terrible. Unfortunately, part of the fame is human curiosity. Media, being an enterprise, will cash in on this curiosity and write the stories that sell. Being a royal was always going to generate human interest and hence media interest. That is why the RF so carefully cultivates their image, to attenuate the public perception. Harry didn’t want to play that game. Unfortunately, there were consequences. He ended up with an unfettered public perception. He was fed up. He left. Fair enough. But then he went on Oprah and Corden. This will generate even more human interest. And truthfully, like a Pandora’s box, he won’t be able to control the perception of him that arises from this. So it seems hypocritical to the British public that he is putting himself in the firing line with the American press, when he condemned the British press for the same behaviour.

You cannot have fame and complete privacy

Mr.Wemmick

BettyS wrote: »

They mentioned that the original complaint was lodged in 2018. Does this mean that there is a paper-trail that can corroborate said claims?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/two-members-kate-middletons-staff-13725624

The smear campaign has been going on for a few years. Unsurprising the stories have surfaced again. Interesting in the article how KM upsetting staff is portrayed as reasonable compared to MM.

Funny that Megan's staff issues are being used again as a stick to beat her with. The timing of it speaks volumes.

Mr.Wemmick

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/two-members-kate-middletons-staff-13725624

The smear campaign has been going on for a few years. Unsurprising the stories have surfaced again. Interesting in the article how KM upsetting staff is portrayed as reasonable compared to MM.

Funny that Megan's staff issues are being used again as a stick to beat her with. The timing of it speaks volumes.

Strange reason to leave a job! “royal expert Ashley Pearson claimed Kate's head housekeeper and head gardener left their positions because they couldn't handle how much Kate wanted to do for herself. She said: "Kate had broken precedent in the sense that she does more for herself than anyone else in her position has ever done before.

"In fact, Kate and William's head housekeeper and head gardener both quit - they were a married couple."

Ashley went on to reveal that this move was very "controversial".

"It was very controversial because they had actually worked for the Queen previously and then came over to work for Prince William and Kate," she explained. "There was a lot of speculation at the time that Carole Middleton had been interfering in the housekeeper's duties, that Kate Middleton was doing a lot for herself and that didn't sit too well with staff."

BettyS

Leroy42 wrote: »

So very suspicious that it is being brought back into the public domain at this exact point in time.



There are plenty of positions that operate like that. It isn't particularly nice but its something that people seem to accept. But it is hardly only Meaghan that does it. You can bet the the queen doesn't wait until 9am shift arrives before ordering a cup of tea!



No idea if that is true, but if it is what does that say about the queen? This is a one of the richest families in the world, and yet they won't allow their new daughter in law use a particular tiara because? Jeez, its the woman wedding day, cost is no object, let her have what the hell she wants.

Of course it was going to come back into the public domain at this time. If she tells everybody how woeful the British public and monarchy are, they will feel the need to defend themselves.

Like it or not, there is a hierarchy to these systems. The queen will outrank them all. Yes, her tea may arrive at 09:00. But surely, having to wait for her tea until 09:00am is not the biggest injustice in the world? And by all reports, she called in the middle of the night, not 08:45am.

You admitted yourself that you do not know the reason about the tiara. Given that both tiaras were well out of either of our budgets, I do not think that it was a case of the queen giving Meghan the Mr Price version. There may be sentimental or logistical reasons that we are unaware of.

BettyS

BettyS wrote: »

Of course it was going to come back into the public domain at this time. If she tells everybody how woeful the British public and monarchy are, they will feel the need to defend themselves.

Like it or not, there is a hierarchy to these systems. The queen will outrank them all. Yes, her tea may arrive at 09:00. But surely, having to wait for her tea until 09:00am is not the biggest injustice in the world? And by all reports, she called in the middle of the night, not 08:45am.

You admitted yourself that you do not know the reason about the tiara. Given that both tiaras were well out of either of our budgets, I do not think that it was a case of the queen giving Meghan the Mr Price version. There may be sentimental or logistical reasons that we are unaware of.

I seem to remember that the provenance of the tiara Meghan wanted was suspect, as in whoever gifted it to the Royal Family mightn’t have been a good guy.

ohnonotgmail

BettyS wrote: »

Of course it was going to come back into the public domain at this time. If she tells everybody how woeful the British public and monarchy are, they will feel the need to defend themselves.

Like it or not, there is a hierarchy to these systems. The queen will outrank them all. Yes, her tea may arrive at 09:00. But surely, having to wait for her tea until 09:00am is not the biggest injustice in the world? And by all reports, she called in the middle of the night, not 08:45am.

You admitted yourself that you do not know the reason about the tiara. Given that both tiaras were well out of either of our budgets, I do not think that it was a case of the queen giving Meghan the Mr Price version. There may be sentimental or logistical reasons that we are unaware of.

I can't imagine why cost was an issue with the tiara. Meghan was borrowing it for the day.

Leroy42

BettyS wrote: »

You cannot have fame and complete privacy

You could rephase that in the context of a royal aide to be "You cannot be a Royal aide and not expect bullying or calls at all hours."

It is exactly the same thought process, that is the point I am making.

You seem to accept one but not the other.

Neither is acceptable.

Leroy42

BettyS wrote: »

Of course it was going to come back into the public domain at this time. If she tells everybody how woeful the British public and monarchy are, they will feel the need to defend themselves.

Which is exactly what Harry and Meaghan are doing. One is doing it with an open interview with Oprah, the other through selective story positioning in the media.

BettyS wrote: »

Like it or not, there is a hierarchy to these systems. The queen will outrank them all. Yes, her tea may arrive at 09:00. But surely, having to wait for her tea until 09:00am is not the biggest injustice in the world? And by all reports, she called in the middle of the night, not 08:45am.

So it perfectly acceptable that the queen is waited on hand and foot, and her aides should be happy to accept it, but Meaghan is below that and as such she needs to conform to working standards? I am not arguing that she did or didn't, treat her aides correctly, but to say she did would need pretty strong stretching of credibility to attempt to say they don't all do it.

BettyS wrote: »

You admitted yourself that you do not know the reason about the tiara. Given that both tiaras were well out of either of our budgets, I do not think that it was a case of the queen giving Meghan the Mr Price version. There may be sentimental or logistical reasons that we are unaware of.

I don't need to know. Basic fact is that Meaghan wanted something and the Queen refused. Not because Meaghan would own it, or wreck it, but simply she felt Meaghan wasn't worth it. You can dress it up whatever way you want, but that is what is boils down to.

Doesn't start the new family in the best of spirits does it? It doesn't matter about the cots, that wouldn't register with the queen who has no value of money.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I seem to remember that the provenance of the tiara Meghan wanted was suspect, as in whoever gifted it to the Royal Family mightn’t have been a good guy.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Which is exactly what Harry and Meaghan are doing. One is doing it with an open interview with Oprah, the other through selective story positioning in the media.



So it perfectly acceptable that the queen is waited on hand and foot, and her aides should be happy to accept it, but Meaghan is below that and as such she needs to conform to working standards? I am not arguing that she did or didn't, treat her aides correctly, but to say she did would need pretty strong stretching of credibility to attempt to say they don't all do it.



I don't need to know. Basic fact is that Meaghan wanted something and the Queen refused. Not because Meaghan would own it, or wreck it, but simply she felt Meaghan wasn't worth it. You can dress it up whatever way you want, but that is what is boils down to.

Doesn't start the new family in the best of spirits does it? It doesn't matter about the cots, that wouldn't register with the queen who has no value of money.

As already explained, the provenance of the tiara was unknown and could have caused Meghan embarrassment should said provenance be questioned in the media.

Be right back

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As already explained, the provenance of the tiara was unknown and could have caused Meghan embarrassment should said provenance be questioned in the media.

I read somewhere that the tiara she wanted was either owned by a Russian and gifted to the Royal family or had been promised to Eugenie for her wedding day.

Stateofyou

At the end of the day, none of us know what the story is here. Did this even happen at all? I like to stick to facts - when it comes straight out of their own mouths and not anonymous "royal sources" when we all know the rags make nonsense up just to sell stories and work an agenda. And from what I remember reading, Meghan said the experience of choosing her tiara was so special and she loved the one she chose straight away. The issue seems to have come from the hairdresser not being able to get access to it until almost the last minute. Which if true, is ridiculous as it has to be prepared. Not being a veil wearer myself yet having been married, even I know this, ha.

IF, and that's a big if, there was drama about it, does anyone really believe Meghan is a spoiled brat who threw a tantrum over the selection? As she's looking to put the right foot forward with her new family? A seemingly lovely and kind person who has been involved in charity and standing up for what's right her whole life, working hard for what she had? I don't believe it. I'm sure plenty want to. If there was some drama over it and offence caused, I would bet it's something Meghan would be upset about as clearly she thought it was a special honour and IF true it probably ruined it for her. IF true, why should any member of the staff cause such difficulty when the Queen gifted it?

I think this situation is detailed in that book from the British reporter.

BettyS

Leroy42 wrote: »

You could rephase that in the context of a royal aide to be "You cannot be a Royal aide and not expect bullying or calls at all hours."

It is exactly the same thought process, that is the point I am making.

You seem to accept one but not the other.

Neither is acceptable.

But on what basis is bullying to be expected as a Royal aide?

I do not agree with the character assassination in the press. However, one would far more expect a public figure to be scrutinised (even the politicians in the UK, such as Theresa May face this) versus staff of any organisation to be bullied.

I am not convinced that the treatment or Harry and Meghan was any different to the other Royals. Fair enough they left. But they want to be the sole people to dictate what the media portrays about them. In a democracy, it does not work like this.

valoren

Not surprised at the bullying accusations. I think Meghan is a narcissist. I think the best way to describe a narcissist is that they have the analogous attitude, character and delusions of someone who joined the Army as a Private yesterday, who today expects to be gratified with the respect and admiration reserved for a Five Star General and when that obviously isn’t forthcoming then the toys get thrown out of the pram and they are abruptly quitting tomorrow. The concept of “earning their stripes” is completely alien to narcissists. They are disordered in that way. You bend over backwards in order to placate them but it amounts to nothing. The same narcissistic principle applies to Meghan i.e. she joined the Royal Family, at a minimum she expected the same level of respect and status as Kate (who had already earned her stripes, who is the future Queen consort) and when it wasn’t immediately forthcoming threw the toys out of the pram and upped sticks back to the US while (inaccurately) playing the victim to deflect accountability. That she was reportedly bullying staff and was generally acting like a diva is not surprising. It explains the strenuous efforts to control their narrative, another narcissistic trait i.e. they are playing the victim of bullying but in reality they are the bully.

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

At the end of the day, none of us know what the story is here. Did this even happen at all? I like to stick to facts - when it comes straight out of their own mouths and not anonymous "royal sources" when we all know the rags make nonsense up just to sell stories and work an agenda. And from what I remember reading, Meghan said the experience of choosing her tiara was so special and she loved the one she chose straight away. The issue seems to have come from the hairdresser not being able to get access to it until almost the last minute. Which if true, is ridiculous as it has to be prepared. Not being a veil wearer myself yet having been married, even I know this, ha.

IF, and that's a big if, there was drama about it, does anyone really believe Meghan is a spoiled brat who threw a tantrum over the selection? As she's looking to put the right foot forward with her new family? A seemingly lovely and kind person who has been involved in charity and standing up for what's right her whole life, working hard for what she had? I don't believe it. I'm sure plenty want to. If there was some drama over it and offence caused, I would bet it's something Meghan would be upset about as clearly she thought it was a special honour and IF true it probably ruined it for her. IF true, why should any member of the staff cause such difficulty when the Queen gifted it?

I think this situation is detailed in that book from the British reporter.

You take at face value that she is lovely. And good for her and regarding the charity work. Sadly though, the two of them have been estranged from both their families and she has been estranged from her two, previous husbands. Nobody does know the circumstances. But I don’t think that we can fully vilify the British public for questioning how lovely they actually are. And advocating for the environment and driving a Land Rover in an urban region might seem hypocritical in the eyes of certain people

Be right back

Stateofyou wrote: »

At the end of the day, none of us know what the story is here. Did this even happen at all? I like to stick to facts - when it comes straight out of their own mouths and not anonymous "royal sources" when we all know the rags make nonsense up just to sell stories and work an agenda. And from what I remember reading, Meghan said the experience of choosing her tiara was so special and she loved the one she chose straight away. The issue seems to have come from the hairdresser not being able to get access to it until almost the last minute. Which if true, is ridiculous as it has to be prepared. Not being a veil wearer myself yet having been married, even I know this, ha.

IF, and that's a big if, there was drama about it, does anyone really believe Meghan is a spoiled brat who threw a tantrum over the selection? As she's looking to put the right foot forward with her new family? A seemingly lovely and kind person who has been involved in charity and standing up for what's right her whole life, working hard for what she had? I don't believe it. I'm sure plenty want to. If there was some drama over it and offence caused, I would bet it's something Meghan would be upset about as clearly she thought it was a special honour and IF true it probably ruined it for her. IF true, why should any member of the staff cause such difficulty when the Queen gifted it?

I think this situation is detailed in that book from the British reporter.

I would'nt have described the Times as a rag. Maybe the royals have seen the Oprah interview and are not happy with what's said and decided enough is enough?!

BettyS

Be right back wrote: »

I would'nt have described the Times as a rag. Maybe the royals have seen the Oprah interview and are not happy with what's said and decided enough is enough?!

Sadly, we live in the era where anybody can dismiss any journal as a rag if the Op-Ed’s and reporting is not ‘correct’

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

You take at face value that she is lovely. And good for her and regarding the charity work. Sadly though, the two of them have been estranged from both their families and she has been estranged from her two husbands. Nobody does know the circumstances. But I don’t think that we can fully vilify the British public for questioning how lovely they actually are. And advocating for the environment and driving a Land Rover in an urban region might seem hypocritical in the eyes of certain people

And how many have decided she's horrible and a narcissist for no good reason? See post above yours. Absolutely no proof of it whatsoever. "Estranged?" It's called a separation. And she was only married once before. They have to drive something, Jaysus.

Stateofyou

Be right back wrote: »

I would'nt have described the Times as a rag. Maybe the royals have seen the Oprah interview and are not happy with what's said and decided enough is enough?!

Lol, but- who said anything about The Times? I didn't.

banie01

Have very little interest in this story and tbh, anything that undermines the UK's monarchy is a plus IMO.

That said, am I the only one who finds Megan trying to pontificate on race relations in Britain as being an example of extracting the urine?

Her knowledge and lived experience of the UK as anything other than the absolute pinnacle of society is at odds with her claims of discrimination?
Surely?

Stateofyou

valoren wrote: »

Not surprised at the bullying accusations. I think Meghan is a narcissist. I think the best way to describe a narcissist is that they have the analogous attitude, character and delusions of someone who joined the Army as a Private yesterday, who today expects to be gratified with the respect and admiration reserved for a Five Star General and when that obviously isn’t forthcoming then the toys get thrown out of the pram and they are abruptly quitting tomorrow. The concept of “earning their stripes” is completely alien to narcissists. They are disordered in that way. You bend over backwards in order to placate them but it amounts to nothing. The same narcissistic principle applies to Meghan i.e. she joined the Royal Family, at a minimum she expected the same level of respect and status as Kate (who had already earned her stripes, who is the future Queen consort) and when it wasn’t immediately forthcoming threw the toys out of the pram and upped sticks back to the US while (inaccurately) playing the victim to deflect accountability. That she was reportedly bullying staff and was generally acting like a diva is not surprising. It explains the strenuous efforts to control their narrative, another narcissistic trait i.e. they are playing the victim of bullying but in reality they are the bully.

That entire slanderous rant isn't based on anything factual. It's actually bizarre any modestly intelligent adult would take it upon themselves to write something like that.
Just goes to show there certainly is a market for the rags.

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

And how many have decided she's horrible and a narcissist for no good reason? See post above yours. Absolutely no proof of it whatsoever. "Estranged?" It's called a separation. And she was only married once before. They have to drive something, Jaysus.

It has not been fully confirmed. However, it has been published by several different sources that she was married twice. One marriage was previously annulled and one marriage ended in divorce.

I think that her father and sister would use the terms estranged.

Ironically, I actually think that the situation is complicated and can not make an opinion on them. However, it is your blind devotion to them that goads me and invites me to challenge you on your beliefs

Stateofyou

banie01 wrote: »

Have very little interest in this story and tbh, anything that undermines the UK's monarchy is a plus IMO.

That said, am I the only one who finds Megan trying to pontificate on race relations in Britain as being an example of extracting the urine?

Her knowledge and lived experience of the UK as anything other than the absolute pinnacle of society is at odds with her claims of discrimination?
Surely?

It's just her opinion and her experience, which she's entitled to. She hasn't even spoken about it, so why are you already labelling her talking about it to pontificating, which means to speak about something in a pompous sort of way. She hasn't even said anything yet. :-s

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

That entire slanderous rant isn't based on anything factual. It's actually bizarre any modestly intelligent adult would take it upon themselves to write something like that.
Just goes to show there certainly is a market for the rags.

You should look up the difference between slander and libel, before using legal jargon incorrectly

cnocbui

Stateofyou wrote: »

That entire slanderous rant isn't based on anything factual. It's actually bizarre any modestly intelligent adult would take it upon themselves to write something like that.
Just goes to show there certainly is a market for the rags.

Probably has a little plug on the back of the neck and jacks in with an optical fibre for a direct to brain DM feed. No critical thinking required, just give me all the gos you got, baby.

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

Probably has a little plug on the back of the neck and jacks in with an optical fibre for a direct to brain DM feed. No critical thinking required, just give me all the gos you got, baby.

But extolling all her virtues while ignoring the contradictory firsthand accounts of others like certain posters on her is critical thinking. There are three sides to every story

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

It has not been fully confirmed. However, it has been published by several different sources that she was married twice. One marriage was previously annulled and one marriage ended in divorce.

I think that her father and sister would use the terms estranged.

Ironically, I actually think that the situation is complicated and can not make an opinion on them. However, it is your blind devotion to them that goads me and invites me to challenge you on your beliefs

Oh FFS. And so what? It's her business. Her unsupportive father and HALF sister who's she's met a couple times in her whole life and grew up completely separate from? Who cares what terms they would use. And for a situation that sounds purely made up and no one's business anyway.

It's not blind devotion. As I said, I take them at face value, not mean and made up speculation. Key word you said "beliefs." Mine I at least try to base off what is known from them directly. Not bs gossip and mean speculation.

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

You should look up the difference between slander and libel, before using legal jargon incorrectly

I actually work within the legal profession thank you, I'm good. You shouldn't presume.

cnocbui

BettyS wrote: »

But extolling all her virtues while ignoring the contradictory firsthand accounts of others like certain posters on her is critical thinking. There are three sides to every story

What first hand accounts - all those anonymous ones alleged by the DM?

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

Oh FFS. And so what? It's her business. Her unsupportive father and HALF sister who's she's met a couple times in her whole life and grew up completely separate from? Who cares what terms they would use. And for a situation that sounds purely made up and no one's business anyway.

It's not blind devotion. As I said, I take them at face value, not mean and made up speculation. Key word you said "beliefs." Mine I at least try to base off what is known from them directly. Not bs gossip and mean speculation.

Her unsupportive father paid for her in college. Why do you automatically discount his account? And how do you know how much she knows her sister? And what about Harry no longer on speaking terms with his family?

There are negative accounts from people that know her. But are all of these gossip and mean speculation?

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

What first hand accounts - all those anonymous ones alleged by the DM?

Her father and sister tell their tale.

I am not saying that their accounts are correct. I am saying that why is the only true account what Meghan and Harry choose to tell us?

valoren

Stateofyou wrote: »

That entire slanderous rant isn't based on anything factual. It's actually bizarre any modestly intelligent adult would take it upon themselves to write something like that.
Just goes to show there certainly is a market for the rags.

She is ticking all the boxes. Just because someone has not been professionally diagnosed with a disorder does not mean they do not have that disorder particularly when they display the traits of that disorder. Think of another high profile person like Trump, another one who ticks all the boxes, is not formally diagnosed but is accepted as a narcissist.

You missed my point. She joined the royal family and being an intelligent person she obviously knew what it was going to entail i.e. it isn’t all tea parties and tiaras. It was the same as Middleton joining. She went through the gutter press phase, did her job, rose above it and earned her stripes. Markle, a narcissist, expects instant gratification without putting in the legwork to actually earn the same level of respect. Any entirely expected criticism in the press was exploited to play the victim. Before you accuse me of slander then perhaps align the below traits to her conduct and personality. It might be a discomfiting exercise for those who prefer to focus on the positives. You have to take the good with the bad.

·         Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g. exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).

·         Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

·         Believes that they are "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

·         Requires excessive admiration.

·         Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with their expectations).

·         Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve their own ends).

·         Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

·         Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of them.

·         Shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes

banie01

Stateofyou wrote: »

It's just her opinion and her experience, which she's entitled to. She hasn't even spoken about it, so why are you already labelling her talking about it to pontificating, which means to speak about something in a pompous sort of way. She hasn't even said anything yet. :-s

Which I have outlined.
You are incredibly defensive and quite aggressive in your rush to defend what Megan's stance may be.
Why?
You attribute far more weight to Megan's probable position, than you do those who have knowledge and experience of Megan's behaviours.
Why is that?

What affords Megan's opinion and experience any more weight than those of opposing views?

valoren

cnocbui wrote: »

Probably has a little plug on the back of the neck and jacks in with an optical fibre for a direct to brain DM feed. No critical thinking required, just give me all the gos you got, baby.

I don't read the Daily Mail. Isn't that cognitive dissonance? That people critical of Meghan and Harry must be brain dead gullible types dependent on the Daily Mail to inform their thinking because that's more palatable than someone pointing out that if it talks like a narcissist, acts like a narcissist, displays ghe signs of a narcissist then.....

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

Her unsupportive father paid for her in college. Why do you automatically discount his account? And how do you know how much she knows her sister? And what about Harry no longer on speaking terms with his family?

There are negative accounts from people that know her. But are all of these gossip and mean speculation?

Unsupportive as per recent events, obviously. But since you mention it, Meghan herself said she paid her own way. Seeing as her father is the one who has proven himself to be fake and mistruthful, I would tend to believe her account.

As regards to her sister, there is a massive age gap, they didn't grow up together and lived/worked in separate states and countries their whole lives.

How do you know Harry isn't on speaking terms with his family? He just said he zooms them with Archie. So yeah, baseless gossip there from yourself.

Stateofyou

banie01 wrote: »

Which I have outlined.
You are incredibly defensive and quite aggressive in your rush to defend what Megan's stance may be.
Why?
You attribute far more weight to Megan's probable position, than you do those who have knowledge and experience of Megan's behaviours.
Why is that?

What affords Megan's opinion and experience any more weight than those of opposing views?

:pac: Ah the ol resorting to hyperbole to try and make a point when you don't have one.

By that same logic others with the opposite view are also defensive and aggressive in their attacks.

Stateofyou

valoren wrote: »

She is ticking all the boxes. Just because someone has not been professionally diagnosed with a disorder does not mean they do not have that disorder particularly when they display the traits of that disorder. Think of another high profile person like Trump, another one who ticks all the boxes, is not formally diagnosed but is accepted as a narcissist.

You missed my point. She joined the royal family and being an intelligent person she obviously knew what it was going to entail i.e. it isn’t all tea parties and tiaras. It was the same as Middleton joining. She went through the gutter press phase, did her job, rose above it and earned her stripes. Markle, a narcissist, expects instant gratification without putting in the legwork to actually earn the same level of respect. Any entirely expected criticism in the press was exploited to play the victim. Before you accuse me of slander then perhaps align the below traits to her conduct and personality. It might be a discomfiting exercise for those who prefer to focus on the positives. You have to take the good with the bad.

·         Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g. exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).

·         Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

·         Believes that they are "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

·         Requires excessive admiration.

·         Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with their expectations).

·         Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve their own ends).

·         Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

·         Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of them.

·         Shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes

Case in point.

Aggressively defensive, right banie? Or does that just apply to those who you don't agree with.

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

:pac: Ah the ol resorting to hyperbole to try and make a point when you don't have one.

You accused a poster of writing slander (a legal oxymoron, but I will let that slide) on the basis of a post. Accusing somebody of slander is fairly aggressive and extreme, as far as posting goes

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

Case in point.

Aggressively defensive, right banie? Or does that just apply to those who you don't agree with.

Oh the irony!!!

valoren

BettyS wrote: »

You accused a poster of writing slander (a legal oxymoron, but I will let that slide) on the basis of a post. Accusing somebody of slander is fairly aggressive and extreme, as far as posting goes

And if you post critical counter points then you are obviously a Daily Mail reader. It's like the Harry and Meghan equivalent of "you are fake news".

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

You accused a poster of writing slander (a legal oxymoron, but I will let that slide) on the basis of a post. Accusing somebody of slander is fairly aggressive and extreme, as far as posting goes

Hahahahhaahha, it's a true assessment of that poster's style, obvious to anyone with a degree preference for decency and facts.

Your defense of that poster is what is actually aggressive here. How about you let them speak for themselves?