Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Now, the Daily Mail is a right wing tabloid. To label it mildly conservative is not being straight about it.

OK so maybe conservative (dropping the 'mildly') is more accurate. But it's not extreme in any way.

I would rank the right wing as follows:

- Stormfront = Far right white supremacist website:
- The Sun = Right wing tabloid
- Daily Express = Right wing tabloid
- Daily Mail = Right of centre tabloid

The Guardian would be more left wing than the Daily Mail is right wing.

partyguinness

Deleted User wrote: »

OK so maybe conservative (dropping the 'mildly') is more accurate. But it's not extreme in any way.

I would rank the right wing as follows:

- Stormfront = Far right white supremacist website:
- The Sun = Right wing tabloid
- Daily Express = Right wing tabloid
- Daily Mail = Right of centre tabloid

The Guardian would be more left wing than the Daily Mail is right wing.

Yes the DM is right wing but we don't want to give it too much credit. It just seeks to provoke the most noise as opposed to the Telegraph which is definitely conservative in that it pushes an agenda.

I wouldn't say the DM goes quite that far but it definitely what I regard as "opportunistic" i.e. it will run with any angle that will give it the most views and clicks but its audience is defo geared toward the low brow low information voter- the Brexit voting "pale male and stale right wing Little England brigade".

NSAman

Jesus ... now we are back to the same old crap of far right v’s far left.

The topic at hand is H&M...

JoChervil

Some posters here have claimed that Meghan wanted to set things straight. Noble right?

During her interview she ridiculed the fact, that newspapers coverage of the pre-wedding row appeared few months after this row happened. She was allowed to speak her mind since January 2020, when she left RF, yet she waited 14 months for it. How ridiculous is it?

Therefore I think her motives were different. The fiscal year in UK ends with the end of March. Last year they got a lump sum from Charles’ estate as well as from Sovereign Grant, so they kept silent. And they probably hoped for the same money this year, but after Charles stopped taking their calls, they understood they won’t get it, so they wanted to force it, hence this interview. In March.

Their motives can’t be money driven, it wouldn’t be noble!

They leaked that calls with Charles and William were not productive. Probably because they were not given any money.

Leg End Reject

The irony of some posters mocking those of us who criticise Meghan on the basis of us not knowing her.


Yet, they defend and believe her despite not knowing her either, ignoring all inconsistencies too.

suicide_circus

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The irony of some posters mocking those of us who criticise Meghan on the basis of us not knowing her.

Or telling people they get their opinions from the British tabloids while lapping up a staged promotional video with oprah ****ing winfrey

partyguinness

partyguinness wrote: »

the low brow low information voter- the Brexit voting "pale male and stale right wing Little England brigade".

They would see themselves as people who value their sovereignty and want their laws to be made by their own politicians in their own parliament. Which is nothing like as derogatory as how you describe them.

NSAman

NSAman wrote: »

Jesus ... now we are back to the same old crap of far right v’s far left.

The topic at hand is H&M...

I'm more of a Zara man myself. H&M is too right wing for me

partyguinness

Deleted User wrote: »

They would see themselves as people who value their sovereignty and want their laws to be made by their own politicians in their own parliament. Which is nothing like as derogatory as how you describe them.

You give them too much credit. If only they put that much thought into it. I didn't bother with the following:-

- petty nationalism
- fossilised and outdated view of the world stuck somewhere between 1945 and 1955
- barely disguised bigots
- intellectually lazy and will believe any old tripe as long as it is written down
- disdain and distrust for anything "foreign"

etc etc

There was this phrase I heard quite a bit gowing up:- "Do not believe everything you read in the newspaper". It's the opposite with a quite a few DM readers I know- believe everything.

I am speaking from deep within Brexit land in middle England so unfortunately I have to put up with it everyday.

Ms2011

My reason for defending them are that, leaving the interview aside for a moment as there can be perceived rights and wrongs in that, I just don't see why she got the hate she did prior to leaving England.
I also can't find any precedent set before she joined the royal family of her being a diva or bully or any of the things she's been accused of being.
I also believed that too much credit is being given to her for orchestrating this whole **** show, I mean if she did she should be up there on an evil genius level but I just don't think she's that smart.

Ash.J.Williams

walshb wrote: »

She damn well did make allegations....you are being deliberately obtuse here.

Just because she did not outright say it, she is blaming her feeling suicidal on the firm, as she describes them.

Otherwise why bother saying something so serious? What she "said" was I wanted to kill myself because of them.....

Bypassing feeling upset, disappointed, anxious.....a good and decent person would not at all have made such a claim on such a global scale, true or not, all in order to diss her in laws.

No, straight to death and suicide...

She knew that this claim would be the one to get the headlines, and the claim to really level against the firm.

Devious througout the interview

Devious with the mental health card, race card, and the cry-gate nonsense, where she made sure to try pin the blame on Kate, and with her fake and insincere praising Kate for an apology that Kate allegedly made

Meghan's truth is a a crock of sh1t.

That’s a great point, a friend killed himself recently and there was a fairly serious unrelated incident with an acquaintance a while beforehand and his family made a point of reaching out to say these things happen and not to feel any guilt because of it. It’s something you can’t take back.

anewme

Ms2011 wrote: »

My reason for defending them are that, leaving the interview aside for a moment as there can be perceived rights and wrongs in that, I just don't see why she got the hate she did prior to leaving England.
I also can't find any precedent set before she joined the royal family of her being a diva or bully or any of the things she's been accused of being.
I also believed that too much credit is being given to her for orchestrating this whole **** show, I mean if she did she should be up there on an evil genius level but I just don't think she's that smart.

My reason for defending them is similar. I believe they are not perfect, nor are Royal Family.. There was a campaign against Meghan by the British Media, driven by one persons personal vendetta at being slighted.

Whatever else, that much is obvious, so it is weird to see people here do not see this, or choose not to see it.

Also, the language used here and downright aggression to describe them and in particular her, leaves a lot to be desired. . Pages upon pages of trashing them, again and again, vile cretins, second rate actress, Megs and hostage, blah, blah.And actually writing paragraphs to to say, oh it was probably this and launching into a full scale conversation of what happened making up their own words. Picking a woman apart for wearing a Coat. Not civil.

Ms2011

anewme wrote: »

Also, the language used here and downright aggression to describe them and in particular her, leaves a lot to be desired. . Pages upon pages of trashing them, again and again, vile cretins, second rate actress, Megs and hostage, blah, blah.And actually writing paragraphs to to say, oh it was probably this and launching into a full scale conversation of what happened making up their own words. Picking a woman apart for wearing a Coat. Not civil.

That's when I take a step back, the name calling and sarcasm just dilutes a person's argument for me.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

My reason for defending them are that, leaving the interview aside for a moment as there can be perceived rights and wrongs in that, I just don't see why she got the hate she did prior to leaving England.
I also can't find any precedent set before she joined the royal family of her being a diva or bully or any of the things she's been accused of being.
I also believed that too much credit is being given to her for orchestrating this whole **** show, I mean if she did she should be up there on an evil genius level but I just don't think she's that smart.

Maybe people dislike her simply because of her own actions? Forcing 40 people out of their places only to wear jeans because the royal dress code didn't allow her to be in their box. How petty it is. She was a working royal, how many of us must follow a working dress code? If it is not a diva behaviour, so I don't know, what is...

Sir_Name

anewme wrote: »

My reason for defending them is similar. I believe they are not perfect, nor are Royal Family.. There was a campaign against Meghan by the British Media, driven by one persons personal vendetta at being slighted.

Whatever else, that much is obvious, so it is weird to see people here do not see this, or choose not to see it.

Also, the language used here and downright aggression to describe them and in particular her, leaves a lot to be desired. . Pages upon pages of trashing them, again and again, vile cretins, second rate actress, Megs and hostage, blah, blah.And actually writing paragraphs to to say, oh it was probably this and launching into a full scale conversation of what happened making up their own words. Picking a woman apart for wearing a Coat. Not civil.

There’s valid points to both sides of the fence here in my opinion.
The coat thing, neither here nor there however if i were famous, attending a wedding and knew the world was watching and wanted to be discreet I would have chosen differently, that’s her perogative but I can see how people would deem that to be looking for attention. You defend her over this stupid row whatever it was over a tiara/tights etc by stating it is her day but the optics appear to be that doesn’t apply when it’s someone else’s...

I’m interested to hear your thoughts on all the latest latest snippets coming from CBS/Gayle King. Frankly I am a bit disappointed, whatever about them setting the record straight, they themselves mentioned they wanted to have their say and move on, it doesn’t seem that they are actually doing that. I don’t believe for one second that they’re blindsided she said it.
Actions speak louder than words.

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

Maybe people dislike her simply because of her own actions? Forcing 40 people out of their places only to wear jeans because the royal dress code didn't allow her to be in their box. How petty it is. She was a working royal, how many of us must follow a working dress code? If it is not a diva behaviour, so I don't know, what is...

Was she working at Wimbledon?

chooseusername

Ms2011 wrote: »

Was she working at Wimbledon?

Out in public , they're always "working".

anewme

Sir_Name wrote: »

There’s valid points to both sides of the fence here in my opinion.
The coat thing, neither here nor there however if i were famous, attending a wedding and knew the world was watching and wanted to be discreet I would have chosen differently, that’s her perogative but I can see how people would deem that to be looking for attention. You defend her over this stupid row whatever it was over a tiara/tights etc by stating it is her day but the optics appear to be that doesn’t apply when it’s someone else’s...

I’m interested to hear your thoughts on all the latest latest snippets coming from CBS/Gayle King. Frankly I am a bit disappointed, whatever about them setting the record straight, they themselves mentioned they wanted to have their say and move on, it doesn’t seem that they are actually doing that. I don’t believe for one second that they’re blindsided she said it.
Actions speak louder than words.

I’m not that interested in them to be honest and don’t know that much about it other than really high level stuff.

I’ve always felt the press were out to get her though and noticed a pattern in the reporting. Another poster on another thread said it was all kicking off on GMB so I went down and sure enough Piers M got his come uppance . The post is still there I believe.

I could not believe he had the gall to call her a liar to her face about the mental health. Same as here. Step too far.

Seeing the core of people here launching post after post and the level to which she was taken apart would have to be questioned too and I do believe that’s most people’s bone of contention. The wedding stuff is nonsense to me, she didnt want the rights in the kids, big deal, hardly worth getting upset over. I said they could have put the footsies in the shoes or whatever.

I don’t really do celeb stuff, understand totally why people are saying it’s a Distraction, but I do find it bizarre the way this thread went.

Absolutely no need for the language used about her whatsoever.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

Was she working at Wimbledon?

How forcing people out of their places can gain her sympathy?

If she was not working, why they were forced to leave then? Why there are at least four security guys and one PA, who are employees of RF, if she was not "working"?

Ms2011

chooseusername wrote: »

Out in public , they're always "working".

The correct answer is no she wasn't working, she was socialising with a friend.

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

How forcing people out of their places can gain her sympathy?

If she was not working, why they were forced to leave then? Why there are at least four security guys and one PA, who are employees of RF, if she was not "working"?

SHE hardly forced the people out.

She would have security with her because if someone wanted to harm her they're not gonna care if she's working or not.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

My reason for defending them are that, leaving the interview aside for a moment as there can be perceived rights and wrongs in that, I just don't see why she got the hate she did prior to leaving England.

The next reason: the circus with Archie's birth.

If one wants friendships, one shares certain moments with them. There is two way street. It was her decision to stay alienated. And it has nothing to do with the colour of her skin.

They were hiding she went to a labor, they were hiding the day of his birth, they didn't want to show him at once. They didn't want to reveal his God's parents. etc.

If you show a middle finger to people, who are funding your lifestyle, don't expect them to be happy with it.

It was her, who didn't want to cooperate with the press, so how she can be surprised by their coverage.

You reap, what you sow.

Princess Calla

JoChervil wrote: »

How forcing people out of their places can gain her sympathy?

If she was not working, why they were forced to leave then? Why there are at least four security guys and one PA, who are employees of RF, if she was not "working"?

Did she force people out though?

I've read two articles on this and both said she asked a media correspondent not to take a photo of her.

Then the saga was kept alive by no other than piers morgan interviewing tatum o neil about it.

The press were majorly criticizing her for not announcing the godparents of archie who was due to be christened two days later.

Then she made the biggest error of all in not watching the Andy Murray match on after her friend Serena Williams.

She was accused of not living up to her Royal duties.

Neither reports mention her forcing people to leave their seats ,which if happened they definitely would.

The articles then went on to give a glowing description of what Kate was wearing and how Kate knows her place.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

SHE hardly forced the people out.

She would have security with her because if someone wanted to harm her they're not gonna care if she's working or not.

So what would you choose:
- wearing smart trousers and be in a royal box
- or wear jeans and force people out because of the security reasons

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

So what would you choose:
- wearing smart trousers and be in a royal box
- or wear jeans and force people out because of the security reasons

If I was there in a private capacity with my friends I'd want to sit with them and wear what I was comfortable in.

Princess Calla

JoChervil wrote: »

The next reason: the circus with Archie's birth.


They were hiding she went to a labor, they were hiding the day of his birth, they didn't want to show him at once. They didn't want to reveal his God's parents. etc.

If you show a middle finger to people, who are funding your lifestyle, don't expect them to be happy with it.

.

I don't blame her refusing to be paraded out like a prize cow 24 hrs after labour.

Full make up, hair done, standing there with a smile plastered onto your face while everything is sore and leaking and you're extremely emotional. When you should really be bonding with your baby and enjoying becoming a mum.

Feck that for a lark...I know Kate did it but she's in it for the long game, she'll be Queen one day (unless Will divorces her).

I don't think the British public have a "right" to see any woman 24hrs postpartum.

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

The next reason: the circus with Archie's birth.

If one wants friendships, one shares certain moments with them. There is two way street. It was her decision to stay alienated. And it has nothing to do with the colour of her skin.

They were hiding she went to a labor, they were hiding the day of his birth, they didn't want to show him at once. They didn't want to reveal his God's parents. etc.

If you show a middle finger to people, who are funding your lifestyle, don't expect them to be happy with it.

It was her, who didn't want to cooperate with the press, so how she can be surprised by their coverage.

You reap, what you sow.

How do you know any of that?
Everyone thought she didn't want to give Archie a title too but we later find out it wasn't her that withheld the title.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

If I was there in a private capacity with my friends I'd want to sit with them and wear what I was comfortable in.

Even if it costed 40 people their places?

JoChervil

Princess Calla wrote: »

I don't blame her refusing to be paraded out like a prize cow 24 hrs after labour.

Full make up, hair done, standing there with a smile plastered onto your face while everything is sore and leaking and you're extremely emotional. When you should really be bonding with your baby and enjoying becoming a mum.

Feck that for a lark...I know Kate did it but she's in it for the long game, she'll be Queen one day (unless Will divorces her).

I don't think the British public have a "right" to see any woman 24hrs postpartum.

But I think it would be nice to share such fact with them, like when Archie was born etc.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

How do you know any of that?
Everyone thought she didn't want to give Archie a title too but we later find out it wasn't her that withheld the title.

They had a choice between the two titles available to them (Earl of Dumbarton - one of Harry's subsidiary titles - or Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor) and they chose that without title.

The title of prince was not available to him yet at that stage.