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

dogbert27

Deleted User wrote: »

The secret wedding has been proven to be false. What else did they lie about? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9387275/Proof-Meghan-Harry-did-NOT-secret-early-wedding.html
“ However, the General Register Office has now revealed the couple's wedding certificate for the first time, proving they did get married on May 19, 2018 in a lavish ceremony at Windsor Castle after all.
The official who drew up the licence says Meghan is 'obviously confused' and 'clearly misinformed' over the wedding. ”

I'm sure that official's manager will be getting a complaint about the official for saying that a person who suffered from a mental illness is "obviously confused".

The complaint won't be directly in relation to MM but to all the other people with mental illnesses that she has to defend and give a voice to. :rolleyes:

extra gravy

cnocbui wrote: »

Looks like someone else thinks that a lot of the negativity towards Meghan is due to media programming:

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/behind-the-loathing-of-the-duchess-of-sussex-20210318-p57bxg.html

Should send her a link to this thread as further proof of her theory.

valoren

It's the logical fallacies/hypocrisies which stretch their credibility.

We don't read the tabloids but they're so toxic we had to leave the country.

The racism in the UK is so bad we had to move to the US.

We are concerned about security so we now live in a country where everyone has a gun.

I did a lot of press and media work for my TV show but I was unprepared for any media spotlight.

We wanted our son to be a prince but royalty is a gilded cage and makes people unhappy.

We could contact A-list celebrities to invite them to our wedding but between us we couldn't find the phone number for a therapist.

My letter to my dad was deeply private but Harry's calls going unanswered by his dad must be made known and the public must know that a private conversation between Charles, William and Harry was unproductive and they never called me.

I felt betrayed when my dad worked with the media so I will work with the media to throw my husbands family under the bus.

Meghan is not to blame for me leaving the royal family but I couldn't have done it without her.

I've been financially cut off, I need to make deals because I'm broke...apart from the millions that were left to me.

I love my grandmother very much, I am loyal to her but f*ck you Granny.

The Palace didn't protect me so they didn't formally investigate the litany of bullying allegations made against me.

We want privacy so we've provided enough gossip and bombshells to fuel tabloid fodder for years to come.

Neyite

Genuine lol at that Valoren :pac:

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The secret wedding has been proven to be false. What else did they lie about? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9387275/Proof-Meghan-Harry-did-NOT-secret-early-wedding.html
“ However, the General Register Office has now revealed the couple's wedding certificate for the first time, proving they did get married on May 19, 2018 in a lavish ceremony at Windsor Castle after all.
The official who drew up the licence says Meghan is 'obviously confused' and 'clearly misinformed' over the wedding. ”

dogbert27 wrote: »

I'm sure that official's manager will be getting a complaint about the official for saying that a person who suffered from a mental illness is "obviously confused".

The complaint won't be directly in relation to MM but to all the other people with mental illnesses that she has to defend and give a voice to. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure the ole mental illness thing that she's trotting out has any more credibility than her claims that they got married when they didn't tbh.
What's Harry's excuse for the lie?

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

The secret wedding has been proven to be false. What else did they lie about? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9387275/Proof-Meghan-Harry-did-NOT-secret-early-wedding.html
“ However, the General Register Office has now revealed the couple's wedding certificate for the first time, proving they did get married on May 19, 2018 in a lavish ceremony at Windsor Castle after all.
The official who drew up the licence says Meghan is 'obviously confused' and 'clearly misinformed' over the wedding. ”

well if it is true, and it is the daily mail so we will have to see, confusion is the most likely thing here, non-issue really.
lieing is generally accepted as an intent to deceive, because she made a statement that is likely incorrect, doesn't automatically mean she is lieing, given it would have to be proved that she knowingly made a statement with an intent to decieve.

retro:electro

It’s not just The Daily Mail reporting on it.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/meghan-markle-wedding-prince-harry-legal-b1820413.html%3famp

It’s everywhere.
And it’s the official who issued the marriage licence who said she is misinformed, not The Daily Mail.

I wonder what else she is misinformed about..

walshb

retro:electro wrote: »

I wonder what else she is misinformed about..

She’s not misinformed at all, and that is the problem!

superflyninja

walshb wrote: »

She’s not misinformed at all, and that is the problem!

I agree, she knows exactly what she is doing.

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

It’s not just The Daily Mail reporting on it.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/meghan-markle-wedding-prince-harry-legal-b1820413.html%3famp

It’s everywhere.
And it’s the official who issued the marriage licence who said she is misinformed, not The Daily Mail.

I wonder what else she is misinformed about..

there is a massive difference between being misinformed and actually lieing though.
being misinformed is simply having the wrong information in relation to something and stating that information, thus being incorrect.
lieing on the other hand is knowingly making a statement you know is false, with the knowing intent to decieve someone else or multiple people.
so far there is nothing to show that she lied, but rather she was just misinformed, which i think we could all agree she was right from the start.
the reality of what happened has been cleared up and the world can move on and i suspect most won't even give it a second thought within a week.

walshb wrote: »

She’s not misinformed at all, and that is the problem!

and yet not any bit of credible evidence to prove this.
just evidence to prove her statement was simply an incorrect statement.
look, i get it, you seem to desperately want her to be lieing and everything else you have claimed about her, but so far nothing is sticking.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

there is a massive difference between being misinformed and actually lieing though.
being misinformed is simply having the wrong information in relation to something and stating that information, thus being incorrect.
lieing on the other hand is knowingly making a statement you know is false, with the knowing intent to decieve someone else or multiple people.
so far there is nothing to show that she lied, but rather she was just misinformed, which i think we could all agree she was right from the start.
the reality of what happened has been cleared up and the world can move on and i suspect most won't even give it a second thought within a week.

The issue is though, if she was so woefully inaccurate about something as easily refutable as this, what else has she been inaccurate about? It’s not even about is she lying or is she not, but her ability to even be accurate is being called into question. What she has done here is give credence to the fact that she may not be able to present truthful information in an accurate light. She seems to be able to obfuscate things and misrepresent facts, whether that is deliberate or an unintentional flaw is the question. But what we do know is that the lines of reality and fantasy seem to be blurred for her, and she is capable of misrepresentation. This calls into question other claims she has made and gives people the opportunity to scrutinise other allegations. The fact that Harry sat there and didn’t pull her up on his inaccuracy is quite curious. Surely he knows it wasn’t a marriage like she claimed.

Be right back

end of the road wrote: »

there is a massive difference between being misinformed and actually lieing though.
being misinformed is simply having the wrong information in relation to something and stating that information, thus being incorrect.
lieing on the other hand is knowingly making a statement you know is false, with the knowing intent to decieve someone else or multiple people.
so far there is nothing to show that she lied, but rather she was just misinformed, which i think we could all agree she was right from the start.
the reality of what happened has been cleared up and the world can move on and i suspect most won't even give it a second thought within a week.



and yet not any bit of credible evidence to prove this.
just evidence to prove her statement was simply an incorrect statement.
look, i get it, you seem to desperately want her to be lieing and everything else you have claimed about her, but so far nothing is sticking.

Surely she would have known it wasn't a official marriage ceremony, having being married before.

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

The issue is though, if she was so woefully inaccurate about something as easily refutable as this, what else has she been inaccurate about? It’s not even about is she lying or is she not, but her ability to even be accurate is being called into question. What she has done here is give credence to the fact that she may not be able to present truthful information in an accurate light. She seems to be able to obfuscate things and misrepresent facts, whether that is deliberate or an unintentional flaw is the question. But what we do know is that the lines of reality and fantasy seem to be blurred for her, and she is capable of misrepresentation. This calls into question other claims she has made and gives people the opportunity to scrutinise other allegations. The fact that Harry sat there and didn’t pull her up on his inaccuracy is quite curious. Surely he knows it wasn’t a marriage like she claimed.

harry not pulling her up on statements could just as easily show they are true then not.
as for why he didn't pull her up on the statement in relation to the marriage, well it could just be as easily the case that he doesn't know how things work in relation to the relevant serimony as much as she doesn't.
being incorrect on one thing doesn't call anything else into question realistically, it just shows that a particular statement was incorrect.
the truth is that so far nothing that has been claimed against her is sticking.

Be right back wrote: »

Surely she would have known it wasn't a official marriage ceremony, having being married before.

not necessarily.
it depends on what if any differences exist in terms of marriage where she got married first within the US, and those that exist in the UK.
perhapse she thought there were major differences.

walshb

And more importantly none of the bull she and he have been throwing around have been sticking..

Because it’s vindictive and deceitful bull..

Of course, some idiots will buy it...

But most common sense people know that these two are on a waffle and spoof crusade!

end of the road

walshb wrote: »

And more importantly none of the bull she and he have been throwing around have been sticking..

Because it’s vindictive and deceitful bull..

Of course, some idiots will by it...

But most common sense people know that these two are on a waffle and spoof crusade!

most people couldn't care a less about these 2.
they don't know they are or aren't on a bs or non-bs anything, they care so little.


1 statement being incorrect doesn't equal to everything they say not sticking, their allegations are under investigation.
even if their allegations didn't happen as they state, it's nothing compared to how impossible it is for the stuff you have come out with to stick.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

being incorrect on one thing doesn't call anything else into question realistically.

Yes it does, and it’s already happening. If she can so confidently claim something that is so clearly inaccurate then it gives credence to the notion that she may not be truthful about other things she stated with such aplomb. If she wants to hold certain publications so certain standards when it comes to being accurate then we need to hold her to the same standards, and she has shown us here that she can confidently state things as facts when they are clearly not the truth. Whether that was deliberate on her behalf is unknown but we know she can easily confuse things and present “her truth” as THE truth.

dogbert27

end of the road wrote: »

harry not pulling her up on statements could just as easily show they are true then not.
as for why he didn't pull her up on the statement in relation to the marriage, well it could just be as easily the case that he doesn't know how things work in relation to the relevant serimony as much as she doesn't.
being incorrect on one thing doesn't call anything else into question realistically, it just shows that a particular statement was incorrect.
the truth is that so far nothing that has been claimed against her is sticking.



not necessarily.
it depends on what if any differences exist in terms of marriage where she got married first within the US, and those that exist in the UK.
perhapse she thought there were major differences.

It's actually draw dropping the length you go to to excuse them. You're essentially saying it's not their fault they were too stupid not to know that it wasn't an official marriage ceremony.

Seriously?!

The two of them are a pair of blue eyed, naive, sheltered individuals from the real world that they thought they were really married 3 days before their actual wedding ceremony? We're supposed to take that as a defence?

And then at the same time they are supposed to be global influencers telling people how to live their lives?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

.............



and yet not any bit of credible evidence to prove this.
just evidence to prove her statement was simply an incorrect statement.
look, i get it, you seem to desperately want her to be lieing and everything else you have claimed about her, but so far nothing is sticking.

Surely 99.9% of adults know to get married you need witnesses and you do a bit of signing etc etc.

She had a practise session ffs, it's a blatant lie that she got married in advance of the actual wedding.

superflyninja

It is my opinion that she wanted an intimate ceremony for her and Harry, away from the prying eyes of the world. I think on some level she knows full well that the rehearsal or whatever it was, was not a legally binding marriage but she in her mind is treating it as such. Again she is presenting ....(i HATE this phrase) her truth as THE truth. Thats not a crime, its sort of nice in a way.( but deluded)
Problem is, it casts even further doubt on everything else she is saying.
That is important when she appears to be blaming race on her family's lack of security and position.


That bloody phrase "my truth"....Its not truth, its opinion and feelings. To call it truth gives it too much credibility.

iamwhoiam

superflyninja wrote: »

It is my opinion that she wanted an intimate ceremony for her and Harry, away from the prying eyes of the world. I think on some level she knows full well that the rehearsal or whatever it was, was not a legally binding marriage but she in her mind is treating it as such. Again she is presenting ....(i HATE this phrase) her truth as THE truth. Thats not a crime, its sort of nice in a way.( but deluded)
Problem is, it casts even further doubt on everything else she is saying.
That is important when she appears to be blaming race on her family's lack of security and position.


That bloody phrase "my truth"....Its not truth, its opinion and feelings. To call it truth gives it too much credibility.

The problem is how much of her allegations are “ her truth “ and not the truth then

superflyninja

superflyninja wrote: »

..............Again she is presenting ....(i HATE this phrase) her truth as THE truth. Thats not a crime, its sort of nice in a way.( but deluded)..............

Indeed, I know a couple and in his wedding speech he declared they hit it off on New Year's eve one year even though they were at it for 18 months prior to that, as herself had been living with another chap for a portion of that they had to be rewrite history a tad.

Another couple I know, they knew each other for guts of a decade to see, were at a wedding or two of common friends, chatted frequently and most definitely knew each other. He had a wedding speech spiel how they met on a night out and it was love at first sight......

Key to both stories above is that only a handfull of folk know it's bullsh1t so they get away with it.......... Meg's nice deluded story is factual bullsh1t that has now been clarified to be just that for the World to see.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

most people couldn't care a less about these 2.
they don't know they are or aren't on a bs or non-bs anything, they care so little.


1 statement being incorrect doesn't equal to everything they say not sticking, their allegations are under investigation.
even if their allegations didn't happen as they state, it's nothing compared to how impossible it is for the stuff you have come out with to stick.

As the Queen said “Some recollections may vary”. Not saying that Meghan’s lying. Just that her recollection isn’t accurate.

Neyite

I've been at wedding rehearsals and they can't be mistaken for anything other than a practice run. It would be very similar to an acting rehearsal where there are frequent stops and starts, and things like the director celebrant telling you when and where to stand, when to sit or explaining how to say a line. So it's rather baffling that she was apparently unable to tell the difference.

Either she's spectacularly thick or she thinks everyone else is.

retro:electro

Neyite wrote: »

I've been at wedding rehearsals and they can't be mistaken for anything other than a practice run. It would be very similar to an acting rehearsal where there are frequent stops and starts, and things like the director celebrant telling you when and where to stand, when to sit or explaining how to say a line. So it's rather baffling that she was apparently unable to tell the difference.

Either she's spectacularly thick or she thinks everyone else is.

Same. And it’s very much centred around what you will be doing. It’s just a rehearsal and a run through of the procedure for the main event. Even the language used would be “and then Harry you will stand over here as Meghan does xyz” it’s all about what will take place in the main event.. I can’t understand how it could be mistaken for anything other than a rehearsal.

retro:electro

I never knew this. How funny.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1328921/meghan-markle-news-princess-diana-royal-family-prince-harry-spt/amp


According to the Duchess of Sussex's estranged best friend, Ninaki Priddy, Meghan wanted to become Princess Diana Diana 2.0.
Ms Priddy told the Mail Online in 2017: "I'm not shocked at all [by Meghan's engagement to Harry].
“It’s like she has been planning this all her life.
“She gets exactly what she wants, and Harry has fallen for her play.

She was always fascinated by the Royal Family.
"She wants to be Princess Diana 2.0.
"She will play her role ably. But my advice to him is to tread cautiously."
According to Ms Priddy, when she was younger, Meghan even had one of Princess Diana’s books, Diana: Her True Story, on her bookshelf.

Ash.J.Williams

jaysus if anne or beatrice etc married me i'd turn comany man fairly lively!!

YES MAAM!!

walshb

Had to say, I thought Clarkson was spot on with his take on Markle.

https://extra.ie/2021/03/21/entertainment/celebrity/jeremy-clarkson-piers-morgan-meghan-markle/amp

Nqp15hhu

I see they are planning to do a 2nd interview! What the freak for? We need to start ignoring these two. They are dangerous.

Nqp15hhu

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

I see they are planning to do a 2nd interview! What the freak for? We need to start ignoring these two. They are dangerous.

They need to correct all the inaccuracies in their original interview.

Be right back

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

I see they are planning to do a 2nd interview! What the freak for? We need to start ignoring these two. They are dangerous.

With Oprah?