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

walshb

Be right back wrote: »

With Oprah?

I reckon she’s their best bet.

Easily controlled, and full of fakeness!

Leg End Reject

Augeo wrote: »

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.

She was married before and he's attended enough weddings to know too.

They would have already planned for her mother and Charles to sign as witnesses too at that stage.

Are we supposed to believe they didn't know why either?

Ash.J.Williams

walshb wrote: »

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

Bit nasty referencing Diana though

retro:electro

retro:electro wrote: »

..............
According to Ms Priddy, when she was younger, Meghan even had one of Princess Diana’s books, Diana: Her True Story, on her bookshelf.[/i]

If that's correct the ole I knew nothing of the RF (she claims she never researched them etc etc) is a tad spoofy also IMO. She hardly just read that book and never wondered about anything else, IMO.

Not suggesting she's lying or confused or anything of course, just reckon that bit of the interview is a tad spoofy..... along with the wedding before the wedding thing.

retro:electro

Augeo wrote: »

If that's correct the ole I knew nothing of the RF (she claims she never researched them etc etc) is a tad spoofy also IMO. She hardly just read that book and never wondered about anything else, IMO.

Not suggesting she's lying or confused or anything of course, just reckon that bit of the interview is a tad spoofy..... along with the wedding before the wedding thing.

Even if it’s a load of crap, her claims of not knowing much about the RF are already bull because she wrote about William and Kate’s “fanfare” wedding in her old blog The Tig, and was pictured outside Buckingham Palace as a teenager!

Immortal Starlight

I’ve said it once before here and I’ll say it again. When Meghan was being interviewed I think she tried to make her story as much like Diana’s as she could. From the suicidal claims to the photographers and newspapers hounding her to the palace ignoring her. She’s a complete fake.

Nqp15hhu

retro:electro wrote: »

Even if it’s a load of crap, her claims of not knowing much about the RF are already bull because she wrote about William and Kate’s “fanfare” wedding in her old blog The Tig, and was pictured outside Buckingham Palace as a teenager!

Unbelievable that Oprah would allow her to broadcast such a lie knowing that was out there!

extra gravy

walshb wrote: »

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

When you find yourself agreeing with someone like Clarkson, it really is time to take a good look at yourself.

walshb

extra gravy wrote: »

When you find yourself agreeing with someone like Clarkson, it really is time to take a good look at yourself.

This is quite a silly stance to take. Head in the sand as well.

I am no fan of him or Morgan, but sometimes, even people we generally dismiss can get some things right.

Here: both spot on..

extra gravy

walshb wrote: »

This is quite a silly stance to take. Head in the sand as well.

I am no fan of him or Morgan, but sometimes, even people we generally dismiss can get some things right.

Here: both spot on..

"Trust me on this one. Markle’s toast, and within five years, I suspect she’ll be posing for photographs, on her own outside the Taj Mahal or sitting on the back of a playboy yacht in the Med,’ he wrote in his column for The Sun."

"silly little cable TV actress.’

He's a misogynistic p***k and that's not my opinion, it's the opinion of several of his female co-workers. What he said isn't much different to the kind of crap you've been spouting here for the last couple of weeks.

walshb

extra gravy wrote: »

"Trust me on this one. Markle’s toast, and within five years, I suspect she’ll be posing for photographs, on her own outside the Taj Mahal or sitting on the back of a playboy yacht in the Med,’ he wrote in his column for The Sun."

"silly little cable TV actress.’

He's a misogynistic p***k and that's not my opinion, it's the opinion of several of his female co-workers. What he said isn't much different to the kind of crap you've been spouting here for the last couple of weeks.

You’re too preoccupied with weirdly defending a complete stranger’s name to be any way objective. And been taking umbrage with anyone who criticised her behaviour. Been like this the whole thread.

And Clarkson for me, is mostly a d1ck!

extra gravy

walshb wrote: »

You’re too preoccupied with weirdly defending a complete stranger’s name to be any way objective. Been like this the whole thread.

And Clarkson for me, is mostly a d1ck!

Coming from a guy who's spent two weeks now weirdly hating on said complete stranger. But you're the objective one. Funny.

walshb

extra gravy wrote: »

Coming from a guy who's spent two weeks now weirdly hating on said complete stranger. But you're the objective one. Funny.

There you go again...

“Hating.”

Fixated on this....it’s odd!!

Personally, none of us know this woman!!!

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

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.

it doesn't really though no.
being incorrect on something is simply being incorrect on something.

dogbert27 wrote: »

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?

99% of people don't think they are actually global influencers, nor would they automatically take advice from them or any other so-called celeb.

Augeo wrote: »

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.

unless you can prove intent to deceive, then it's not a blatent lie but just an incorrect interpretation of what the practice session actually was for.

extra gravy

walshb wrote: »

Personally, none of us know this woman!!!

Exactly, which makes your repeated over the top comments about her even weirder. No point discussing it any further. I'll leave you with this quote from earlier that sums up this thread perfectly:

"Associate Professor Lauren Rosewarne, a University of Melbourne sociologist, adds: “She’s a woman, she’s an outsider to the royal institution, she’s a person of colour, she’s smart, and she’s American. So she hits a number of factors that stir judgment and in this case that’s manifesting in a disproportionate amount of hatred.”

walshb

extra gravy wrote: »

Exactly, which makes your repeated over the top comments about her even weirder. No point discussing it any further. I'll leave you with this quote from earlier that sums up this thread perfectly:

"Associate Professor Lauren Rosewarne, a University of Melbourne sociologist, adds: “She’s a woman, she’s an outsider to the royal institution, she’s a person of colour, she’s smart, and she’s American. So she hits a number of factors that stir judgment and in this case that’s manifesting in a disproportionate amount of hatred.”

Yes, and for a professor to come out with such utter crap, really does show us what a fooked up world we are living in

We all hate Meghan, because only hate for her could explain any of us thinking her behaviour in that interview was bang out of order....ok!!!

Mules

Why does she call herself a woman of colour anyway? She's as white as I am

retro:electro

extra gravy wrote: »

"Associate Professor Lauren Rosewarne, a University of Melbourne sociologist, adds: “She’s a woman, she’s an outsider to the royal institution, she’s a person of colour, she’s smart, and she’s American. So she hits a number of factors that stir judgment and in this case that’s manifesting in a disproportionate amount of hatred.”

Or maybe it is that many people can see for themselves that she comes across rather phoney, hypocritical, paranoid and unlikeable. And that those characteristics have *shock horror* sweet FA to do with her skin colour, her level of intellect or her country of origin. I will judge her in the same manner as I would a white person, her colour is irrelevant to me. This person’s opinion is just an opinion, it doesn’t make it true just because she has Professor of Sociology in front of her name.

Necro

walshb wrote: »

You’re too preoccupied with weirdly defending a complete stranger’s name to be any way objective. And been taking umbrage with anyone who criticised her behaviour. Been like this the whole thread.

And Clarkson for me, is mostly a d1ck!

extra gravy wrote: »

Coming from a guy who's spent two weeks now weirdly hating on said complete stranger. But you're the objective one. Funny.

Mod:

Folks we can have a discussion without making it personal. If you are unable to do that, put each other on ignore and don't engage. Cheers.

walshb

Apologies, Necro.

retro:electro

Those comments from that professor really are ridiculous. Either she’s saying that smart, black American women cannot possibly be objectively unlikable, be hypocrites, lie and be capable of manipulating people. Either that or they can be all of those things, but we should give them a free pass and thus preferential treatment simply because they are those things. Utter idiocy. Meghan is as capable of possessing negative personality traits as any other human on the planet and assuming she is only judged harshly because of those things is just inflammatory bull. It seems like the only one who is stirring judgment in this case is, ironically, the professor herself.

Multipass

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.

Their worst nightmare is to get what they said they wanted, a life out of the press. They seem to be craving attention. According to this article today, they have a chief of staff, a global press secretary, and a head of content.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/harry-and-meghan-appoint-new-archewell-executive-director-1100124.html

Just wanted to live a normal life huh?

cnocbui

Mules wrote: »

Why does she call herself a woman of colour anyway? She's as white as I am

I doubt it.

One of these is Meghan:



Not hard to tell which.

anewme

The whole shes as white as I am argument is poor form. And getting tiresome at this stage.

Sardonicat

WTF is a 'Social Impact Firm'?

Leg End Reject

Sardonicat wrote: »

WTF is a 'Social Impact Firm'?

There's an awful lot ot waffle in that article.

walshb

anewme wrote: »

The whole shes as white as I am argument is poor form. And getting tiresome at this stage.

Agreed.

She’s biracial..not white and not black.

MoonUnit75

retro:electro wrote: »

Those comments from that professor really are ridiculous. Either she’s saying that smart, black American women cannot possibly be objectively unlikable, be hypocrites, lie and be capable of manipulating people. Either that or they can be all of those things, but we should give them a free pass and thus preferential treatment simply because they are those things. Utter idiocy. Meghan is as capable of possessing negative personality traits as any other human on the planet and assuming she is only judged harshly because of those things is just inflammatory bull. It seems like the only one who is stirring judgment in this case is, ironically, the professor herself.

You would expect lots of 'racist' and disparaging articles about Michelle Obama over the years. I don't remember any? Maybe it's because she's a charming, outward-looking, sincere person passionate about getting through to people rather than getting through them.

Purple Mountain

For devil's advocate, I'm going throw this out there..
We have only seen the edited version of the interview.
In relation to the "wedding", what if..
We heard M say they got married 2 days before the wedding in the garden. But what if, off camera, she immediately said something like "I know it wasn't the official, legal wedding but to us it was the real wedding because we shared the vows we wrote for each other and just wanted to do that one thing in private."
I think she's a a right so and so but I really don't think she's that dumb to think it was an official, binding wedding.
I think it was either lost in translation where she was trying to say that day felt more "authentic" to them with the personal vows or like I said the production team edited it to maximise the sensationalism of it.

anewme

walshb wrote: »

Agreed.

She’s biracial..not white and not black.

Your views of Meghan Markle are very extreme.