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

Leg End Reject

Purple Mountain wrote: »

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.

But she then went on to say that the big wedding was just for show and that they were already married, so that doesn't add up.

ceadaoin.

I mean, they didn't have to have the big, public wedding. Bit rude of them to dismiss the ceremony that was paid for by the British public as meaningless to them, especially after they insisted on having the same budget as William and Kate had for theirs. Just another inconsistency I guess.

retro:electro

Leg End Reject wrote: »

But she then went on to say that the big wedding was just for show and that they were already married, so that doesn't add up.

Yeah she said it’s something that “no one knows”, but they called the archbishop and said the spectacle is for the world and they wanted their “union between us” and she has their vows from that union framed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZSe0Jm2UBs

Purple Mountain

I still think it was lost in translation because no-one could be that dumb, lol.
I think she was speaking philosophically that in their head they were married that day in the garden with the personal vows.
It's probably some grand romantic notion of hers and I definitely think it was pulling a one upmanship to the monarchy to drop that clanger.
Like a child with a secret- na na na na na, I know something you don't know.

Tokyo

Mod: Alfred123 won't be posting in the thread again.

Quantum Erasure

anewme wrote: »

Your views of Meghan Markle are very extreme.

No shades of grey at all

Quantum Erasure

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I still think it was lost in translation because no-one could be that dumb, lol.

and harry didn't pull her up on it either, like the comments on the colour of their children, seems like another thing that was lost in translation. I had switched off at that point, but did Harry not correct her, say 'no honey, that's not the way it happened' or something along those lines.

dogbert27

anewme wrote: »

Your views of Meghan Markle are very extreme.

In your opinion you should add.

People here don't like what a person said in an international interview with the purpose of people being given information.

Was there a caveat to say that people were only to receive the information positively and not be allowed to form a differing opinion?

The information given as truth and fact does not actually stack up when it has been challenged.

It's not being challenged because of a persons sex or race. It's being challenged because it is known to be incorrect.

The person given the information in the interview has a personality that some people do not like or respond to. It's not the persons sex or race, it's their personality, or their public persona if you counter that nobody knows her personally.

walshb

anewme wrote: »

Your views of Meghan Markle are very extreme.

Sorry, on the color issue:

What has me agreeing with you and pointing out why got to do with this?

Are you deliberately baiting here? Deliberately stoking nothing.

anewme

dogbert27 wrote: »

The person given the information in the interview has a personality that some people do not like or respond to. It's not the persons sex or race, it's their personality, or their public persona if you counter that nobody knows her personally.

I should not add anything. The views from some posters speak for themselves.

Given that no one knows her personally, some of the views go way beyond 'not liking" someone.

anewme

walshb wrote: »

Sorry, on the color issue:

What has me agreeing with you and pointing out why got to do with this?

Are you deliberately baiting here? Deliberately stoking nothing.

I know I quoted the colour post, but I'm speaking more in general. I'm not sure what it could be about one person that they generate this level of negative reaction.

It cant be healthy to hate a stranger.

john123470

dogbert27 wrote: »

In your opinion you should add.

Was there a caveat to say that people were only to receive the information positively and not be allowed to form a differing opinion?

The information given as truth and fact does not actually stack up when it has been challenged.

It's not being challenged because of a persons sex or race. It's being challenged because it is known to be incorrect.

This seems to be the crux. Anyone who questions Meghan markle's account are casually dismissed as being racist.

She wants to be centre of attention and court sympathy but her accounts are at variance with the truth

Markle is able to point fingers and accuse 'unknowns' of racism but woe betide anyone who puts a foot wrong in this thread.

Her claims, as above poster says, do not stack up
Why defend the indefensible. Lies are lies

Mena Mitty

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

and harry didn't pull her up on it either, like the comments on the colour of their children, seems like another thing that was lost in translation. I had switched off at that point, but did Harry not correct her, say 'no honey, that's not the way it happened' or something along those lines.

Maybe it was a case of 'Don't interrupt, Don't contradict' when Megan was speaking.

Be right back

john123470 wrote: »

This seems to be the crux. Anyone who questions Meghan markle's account are casually dismissed as being racist.

She wants to be centre of attention and court sympathy but her accounts are at variance with the truth

Markle is able to point fingers and accuse 'unknowns' of racism but woe betide anyone who puts a foot wrong in this thread.

Her claims, as above poster says, do not stack up
Why defend the indefensible. Lies are lies

It seems to be because she is of mixed race, her truth is the truth and no-one can question her over it. I wonder will the whole unedited interview be shown at some stage?

Kivaro

So Markle's Chief of Staff just quit after less than a year; the latest of 13 key aids to quit the Sussexes. And from numerous media reports, it seems that Markle lied when she claimed that they had a backyard wedding 3 days prior to their official wedding.

When you have so much turnover of key aids in their employment, it is maybe time to look inward rather than outward for the reasons why this is happening.

Kivaro

Kivaro wrote: »

So Markle's Chief of Staff just quit after less than a year;.......

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/harry-and-meghans-chief-of-staff-catherine-stlaurent-steps-down-as-archewell-chief-of-staff/news-story/1ef2ad46d06f90f31f5e3f7d20227b3c

"Meghan’s long-serving agent has also left while the PR team has been sidelined, it has emerged................Meghan has also parted ways with Nick Collins, who had been her agent since she was an unknown actress"

superflyninja

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

and harry didn't pull her up on it either, like the comments on the colour of their children, seems like another thing that was lost in translation. I had switched off at that point, but did Harry not correct her, say 'no honey, that's not the way it happened' or something along those lines.

I know plenty of husbands that wont pull their wife up on things, especially on a big interview like that, they will want to show a united front. Wife can be spouting complete bullsh!t and the husbands nodding along with a glazed look.

Neyite

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I still think it was lost in translation because no-one could be that dumb, lol.
I think she was speaking philosophically that in their head they were married that day in the garden with the personal vows.
It's probably some grand romantic notion of hers and I definitely think it was pulling a one upmanship to the monarchy to drop that clanger.
Like a child with a secret- na na na na na, I know something you don't know.

Maybe but she's an experienced celebrity and media savvy - she knows how publications pore over every nuance and word you say and fact check it. She knows that pretty much everything she was going to say would be quoted forever more and possibly even misquoted if at all possible. She's sued papers for lesser inaccuracies.

It probably was like you say, something to wind up the Royal Family.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

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

It probably was like you say, something to wind up the Royal Family.

A fairly dim strategy though, I doubt the RF are wound up at all tbh about Megan's mistruths that can be quite easily proven to be 100% incorrect without the RF having to do a thing.

MoonUnit75

retro:electro wrote: »

Yeah she said it’s something that “no one knows”, but they called the archbishop and said the spectacle is for the world and they wanted their “union between us” and she has their vows from that union framed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZSe0Jm2UBs

I think she is obsessed with being perceived as this ideal, compassionate and selfless person so the fact that there's so many stories of her being a complete diva before the wedding is eating her up. That's why she invented this story about a fictitious simple, private ceremony. She wants to delete all ideas of her diva antics by pretending she wanted a simple, meaningful ceremony all along. Harry isn't even looking over at her, just adds 'just the three of us' at the end, which doesn't really confirm or deny what she is claiming about the wedding, just that there were definitely three people there. Spineless.

It's extremely narcissistic though, she's basically giving Charles a slap in the face after walking her down the aisle for what she is now calling her fake blow-out wedding. Not to mention that fire and brimstone preacher guy who came all the way over for something she now claims her heart wasn't into at all. Nasty stuff.

Be right back

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I think she is obsessed with being perceived as this ideal, compassionate and selfless person so the fact that there's so many stories of her being a complete diva before the wedding is eating her up. That's why she invented this story about a fictitious simple, private ceremony. She wants to delete all ideas of her diva antics by pretending she wanted a simple, meaningful ceremony all along. Harry isn't even looking over at her, just adds 'just the three of us' at the end, which doesn't really confirm or deny what she is claiming about the wedding, just that there were definitely three people there. Spineless.

It's extremely narcissistic though, she's basically giving Charles a slap in the face after walking her down the aisle for what she is now calling her fake blow-out wedding. Not to mention that fire and brimstone preacher guy who came all the way over for something she now claims her heart wasn't into at all. Nasty stuff.

The spectacle that cost millions. I can imagine that she hated every minute of it.. And he looks away while she is saying it.

MoonUnit75

Be right back wrote: »

The spectacle that cost millions. I can imagine that she hated every minute of it.. And he looks away while she is saying it.

That's the thing with the spin they are putting on things, they can't keep any kind of consistency. On the one hand she says she wasn't even interested in all the pomp and ceremony and on the other she is saying she was literally in tears about some stupid thing to do with flower girl dresses. She was apparently so badly upset that Kate had to bring her flowers to make amends. What an absolute head melter.

retro:electro

anewme wrote: »

I should not add anything. The views from some posters speak for themselves.

Given that no one knows her personally, some of the views go way beyond 'not liking" someone.

Do you know Piers Morgan personally? I don’t think you do. Yet you clearly do not like the man, to such a degree you dismiss anything that comes from the DM whether he wrote it or not. So don’t act like you’re above taking a dislike to someone because of what comes out of their mouth.

Purple Mountain

Augeo wrote: »

A fairly dim strategy though, I doubt the RF are wound up at all tbh about Megan's mistruths that can be quite easily proven to be 100% incorrect without the RF having to do a thing.

I disagree. I think her saying about her "secret wedding" and that the Archbishop never told anyone was clearly 2 fingers to the RF because asvtye head of the Church of England, QE2 would have a very special and unique with the Archbishop.

anewme

retro:electro wrote: »

Do you know Piers Morgan personally? I don’t think you do. Yet you clearly do not like the man, to such a degree you dismiss anything that comes from the DM whether he wrote it or not. So don’t act like you’re above taking a dislike to someone because of what comes out of their mouth.

You keep mentioning Piers Morgan - when is the last time I mentioned him? I don't like people with personal vendettas against others and call them liars and try to get a posse after them. His vendetta is obvious and he ran when someone dished it up to him. But I dont come here hourly or daily to bash him.

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source of information.

it was not me who got myself worked up to the level that I was told to take a break from this thread by the way.

The posts here speak for themselves as to the level of pile on.

retro:electro

anewme wrote: »

You keep mentioning Piers Morgan - when is the last time I mentioned him? I don't like people with personal vendettas against others and call them liars and try to get a posse after them. His vendetta is obvious and he ran when someone dished it up to him. But I dont come here hourly or daily to bash him.

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source of information.

it was not me who got myself worked up to the level that I was told to take a break from this thread by the way.

The posts here speak for themselves as to the level of pile on.

You seem to have taken that quite personally. So it’s fair for you to take a dislike to someone because of reasons xyz but not fair for others to take a dislike to someone because of reasons xyz. Meghan did an interview two weeks ago that was broadcast to the world and in it, there was a series of inaccuracies and inconsistencies that people are questioning. She is quite topical right now, which is why this thread is quite popular.
If you find it all too much to read you could always unfollow the thread.

Baggly

anewme wrote: »

You keep mentioning Piers Morgan - when is the last time I mentioned him? I don't like people with personal vendettas against others and call them liars and try to get a posse after them. His vendetta is obvious and he ran when someone dished it up to him. But I dont come here hourly or daily to bash him.

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source of information.

it was not me who got myself worked up to the level that I was told to take a break from this thread by the way.

The posts here speak for themselves as to the level of pile on.

Mod

Dont post in this thread again.

Baggly

retro:electro wrote: »

Do you know Piers Morgan personally? I don’t think you do. Yet you clearly do not like the man, to such a degree you dismiss anything that comes from the DM whether he wrote it or not. So don’t act like you’re above taking a dislike to someone because of what comes out of their mouth.

Mod

Dont post in this thread again.

Baggly

Baggly wrote: »

Mod

Dont post in this thread again.

Mod

Lifted after discussion with poster via PM.

end of the road

john123470 wrote: »

This seems to be the crux. Anyone who questions Meghan markle's account are casually dismissed as being racist.

She wants to be centre of attention and court sympathy but her accounts are at variance with the truth

Markle is able to point fingers and accuse 'unknowns' of racism but woe betide anyone who puts a foot wrong in this thread.

Her claims, as above poster says, do not stack up
Why defend the indefensible. Lies are lies

because there is no actual evidence they are lies and don't stack up.
all we have so far is 1 statement that has been proven to be simply incorrect.
no evidence that statement was made with the intention to deceive, which is what is required for it to be a lie.