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

Itssoeasy

I’m wondering if the tv show the crown that while a very well made show visually has given American viewers in particular a belief they “know” the inner workings of the royal family ? That coupled with what seems like an already idolised image of royalty was the perfect storm for how the interview seems to have been view in America. I may be wrong but it’s just that I saw a video on YouTube from CNN and it was titled “critics respond to inconsistencies in royal interview” which I found odd to see the word critic used to describe people who didn’t believe every word of the interview.

Potatoeman

dogbert27 wrote: »

Is that you Harry? :pac:

She is objectively very attractive even if you don’t like her personality or her looks are not for you.

Potatoeman

Neyite wrote: »

As I see it, the rumours about the Cambridges marriage will likely never be proven. Up there with the affairs Philip supposedly had, most notably a lengthy one supposedly with the Queen's first cousin. And indeed, Andrew's parentage rumours.

But since the Cambridges aren't sitting pontificating to the rest of us about how to have a great marriage and how loved up they are, as far as I'm concerned, it's their own business. For all we know there could be an understanding there- certainly in toff circles a generation or two ago they married for the alliance or for money, popped out a few heirs and after that they were free to do as they liked. Discreetly.

This is what Diana didn’t get or just wanted to embarrass Charles intentionally. Very short sighted given her son would eventually be King.

Harry may not be his father’s son but he’s definitely his mothers son. He seems to have married a woman similar to his mother, he better hope she doesn’t turn on him. It could make for a very messy public divorce.

Neyite

Potatoeman wrote: »

This is what Diana didn’t get or just wanted to embarrass Charles intentionally. Very short sighted given her son would eventually be King.

Harry may not be his father’s son but he’s definitely his mothers son. He seems to have married a woman similar to his mother, he better hope she doesn’t turn on him. It could make for a very messy public divorce.

Did you see the recent documentary on how that interview was procured by Bashir? I'm not saying that Diana was any angel but the documentary lays out clearly that she was presented with faked documentation with the intention of making her think that she had spies in her household and security detail that were reporting back to Charles and she was in genuine fear - her own mental health issues exacerbated by the planted idea of plots against her. I genuinely feel that she felt the only way to guarantee her safety was to do the interview and blow it all wide open.



But I do agree - If Harry and Meghan do split up, I think it could make Charles and Diana's split look very amicable indeed.

tipptom

Potatoeman wrote: »

This is what Diana didn’t get or just wanted to embarrass Charles intentionally. Very short sighted given her son would eventually be King.

Harry may not be his father’s son but he’s definitely his mothers son. He seems to have married a woman similar to his mother, he better hope she doesn’t turn on him. It could make for a very messy public divorce.

She has a lot of pimping his royal ass around board rooms meeting gullible rich Americans for dollars before that happens.

Potatoeman

Neyite wrote: »

Did you see the recent documentary on how that interview was procured by Bashir? I'm not saying that Diana was any angel but the documentary lays out clearly that she was presented with faked documentation with the intention of making her think that she had spies in her household and security detail that were reporting back to Charles and she was in genuine fear - her own mental health issues exacerbated by the planted idea of plots against her. I genuinely feel that she felt the only way to guarantee her safety was to do the interview and blow it all wide open.



But I do agree - If Harry and Meghan do split up, I think it could make Charles and Diana's split look very amicable indeed.

No, I didn’t catch that but if I remember correctly the beech photos were already released before that. Her family were nobility so she could have turned there plus her sons were in boarding school. The headmaster had to tell them about it. I don’t think Charles was blameless but she made her own mess and he was never caught messing around.

She had one job and that was to pop out an heir without the parentage being questioned then she could have divorced him. That’s why the question of Harry’s parentage is always brought up. That’s her legacy.

BettyS

Anybody read Piers’ rebuttal? As I have said ad nauseum, I cannot stand the guy. But he makes some interesting points

walshb

BettyS wrote: »

Anybody read Piers’ rebuttal? As I have said ad nauseum, I cannot stand the guy. But he makes some interesting points

Spot on, he is..

BettyS

walshb wrote: »

Spot on, he is..

I think people are worried about the consequences of shifting goal-posts and a world where perception trumps facts

extra gravy

BettyS wrote: »

I think people are worried about the consequences of shifting goal-posts and a world where perception trumps facts

Indeed, this entire thread is full of comments based on perception rather than facts.

retro:electro

So he was told by ITV bosses he needed to clarify his opinion the next morning but didn’t need to apologise. Then Meghan personally complained, and after that he was told he needs to apologise or he will lose his job.

I don’t agree with how Piers has handled a lot of things and he was pathetic to storm off like that, I wished he hadn’t done that. But it’s a strange world we live in where a tv host who is paid to poke and prod and debate current topics on air, gets forced out of his job for saying he doesn’t believe a version of events that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

The quote from the QC included in the article I thought summed it up well:

’As it happens, I agree wholeheartedly with everything Piers said on this particular topic but that is not the point.
'The views Piers expressed were legitimate and reasonable by reference to what was and what was not in the Winfrey interview. 
'The idea that one is forbidden from holding and expressing those views simply because to do so involves doubting, however sincerely, allegations of racism or claims of mental illness is simply contemptible.

The inevitable consequence of such a prohibition is that so long as one complains of racism or mental illness one's word must be accepted without question… If people like Piers are driven out of public debate, there will be no debate. 
'There will be no probing, no questioning, no proper analysis – only the self-appointed thought police who have commandeered the airways and the cowed, literally silent majority.

Piers Morgan and Sharon Osbourne both lost their jobs as a result of their response to the interview. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9409927/PIERS-MORGAN-REAL-truth-Writing-time-dramatic-exit-GMB.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9410621/Sharon-Osbourne-sue-CBS-forced-quit-chat-defending-Piers-Morgan.html

Shelga

Had to pull out of another bidding war that went way over asking this week, for a shoebox apartment in Dublin. Still stuck living at home, in my 30s, like lots of others.

Got me thinking again about poor oppressed Harry and Meghan and their 16 bathrooms and chicken coop :rolleyes:

Was there even any mention during the interview of the fairly disgusting and OTT amount of luxury they live in? Some acknowledgement that the media intrusion, while difficult, comes with an enormous amount of perks? I don't think so.

Poor 36 year old Harry being financially cut off like that. Imagine if he had to live with only 12 or so bathrooms, god forbid.

When the new baby is born, they'll have 4 whole bathrooms per family member :pac:

Leg End Reject

Shelga wrote: »

Had to pull out of another bidding war that went way over asking this week, for a shoebox apartment in Dublin. Still stuck living at home, in my 30s, like lots of others.

Got me thinking again about poor oppressed Harry and Meghan and their 16 bathrooms and chicken coop :rolleyes:

Was there even any mention during the interview of the fairly disgusting and OTT amount of luxury they live in? Some acknowledgement that the media intrusion, while difficult, comes with an enormous amount of perks? I don't think so.

Poor 36 year old Harry being financially cut off like that. Imagine if he had to live with only 12 or so bathrooms, god forbid.

When the new baby is born, they'll have 4 whole bathrooms per family member :pac:

The lack of self-awareness both of them displayed is staggering, but then it was purely to market themselves to an American audience ... and secure more lucrative "roles".

Shelga

Shelga wrote: »

Had to pull out of another bidding war that went way over asking this week, for a shoebox apartment in Dublin. Still stuck living at home, in my 30s, like lots of others.

Got me thinking again about poor oppressed Harry and Meghan and their 16 bathrooms and chicken coop :rolleyes:

Was there even any mention during the interview of the fairly disgusting and OTT amount of luxury they live in? Some acknowledgement that the media intrusion, while difficult, comes with an enormous amount of perks? I don't think so.

Poor 36 year old Harry being financially cut off like that. Imagine if he had to live with only 12 or so bathrooms, god forbid.

When the new baby is born, they'll have 4 whole bathrooms per family member :pac:

I wanna tell you something, try it sometime when you have a couple of cars and three houses and three homes and a few housekeepers.

Leg End Reject

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wanna tell you something, try it sometime when you have a couple of cars and three houses and three homes and a few housekeepers.

AND have to pay for your own security!

Shelga

Deleted User wrote: »

I wanna tell you something, try it sometime when you have a couple of cars and three houses and three homes and a few housekeepers.

Never gets old! :pac:

JustAThought

retro:electro wrote: »

So he was told by ITV bosses he needed to clarify his opinion the next morning but didn’t need to apologise. Then Meghan personally complained, and after that he was told he needs to apologise or he will lose his job.

I don’t agree with how Piers has handled a lot of things and he was pathetic to storm off like that, I wished he hadn’t done that. But it’s a strange world we live in where a tv host who is paid to poke and prod and debate current topics on air, gets forced out of his job for saying he doesn’t believe a version of events that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

The quote from the QC included in the article I thought summed it up well:

’As it happens, I agree wholeheartedly with everything Piers said on this particular topic but that is not the point.
'The views Piers expressed were legitimate and reasonable by reference to what was and what was not in the Winfrey interview. 
'The idea that one is forbidden from holding and expressing those views simply because to do so involves doubting, however sincerely, allegations of racism or claims of mental illness is simply contemptible.

The inevitable consequence of such a prohibition is that so long as one complains of racism or mental illness one's word must be accepted without question… If people like Piers are driven out of public debate, there will be no debate. 
'There will be no probing, no questioning, no proper analysis – only the self-appointed thought police who have commandeered the airways and the cowed, literally silent majority.

I agree with the top half of your statement and think Piers was in the right, but how could he legitamately hold his host job after storming out like that? Even if he was wound up and provoked off camera he is paid to be professional.

But I don’t agree with the second statement. Crying mental health illness is the new cry rape. Its the golden bullet that no-one is allowed to challenge or question and the one that is supposed to give you limitless rights and free platform to say anything against anyone that you want. At the lowest level we see it facilitated in our courts every day - scumbags with 20 convictions getting off because they whinge that they were bullied or a bad upbringing or were off their heads on drugs or upset because they had their period or they didn’t get the job they wanted. Its percolated through as the ultimate monopoly ‘go to the bank’ card now and is used everywhere - small wonder Piers wasn’t taken in and called her out on her shameless muckslinging.

You tell me a hard nosed Hollywood acresss who married ‘her’ agent and grew up in the studios, who was already an advanced level PR savvy woman who notified her husband about her last marriage ending by sending his wedding rings back in the post and engaging PR companies to get her introductions to Harrys friends is so innocent and alone - and hasn’t the ability to pick up a phone to one of the thousands of councellers known to her and on her wavelength in the US? Give me a break. This is the same woman who slung out her father, half sister and brother for disagreeing with her and talking to the press - the same press she is so anxious to avoid and courts so mechanically.

extra gravy

Shelga wrote: »

Had to pull out of another bidding war that went way over asking this week, for a shoebox apartment in Dublin. Still stuck living at home, in my 30s, like lots of others.

Got me thinking again about poor oppressed Harry and Meghan and their 16 bathrooms and chicken coop :rolleyes:

This got me thinking about all the people, myself included, who had to pay rent and save at the same time in order to afford their own home. Not everyone is lucky enough to be able to still live at home so they can save. It's ironic that you're having a go at people more privileged than you when you're in a privileged position yourself.

Leg End Reject

extra gravy wrote: »

This got me thinking about all the people, myself included, who had to pay rent and save at the same time in order to afford their own home. Not everyone is lucky enough to be able to still live at home so they can save. It's ironic that you're having a go at people more privileged than you when you're in a privileged position yourself.

Wow, we know you're pro-Meghan but that is a low blow.

extra gravy

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Wow, we know you're pro-Meghan but that is a low blow.

Nope, nothing to do with Meghan. It's just reality.

Leg End Reject

extra gravy wrote: »

Nope, nothing to do with Meghan. It's just reality.

Do you genuinely think having to live at home as an adult due to an under-supplied and over-priced property market is a privilege?

When did you rent while saving to buy? Was your rent at today's values for Dublin?

extra gravy

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Do you genuinely think having to live at home as an adult due to an under-supplied and over-priced property market is a privilege?

Didn't say that, I said it was privileged compared to people who have to rent and save at the same time. Have no interest in listening to people whinging about other people being more privileged than them. Not going to drag the thread off topic by discussing it any further.

BettyS

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Wow, we know you're pro-Meghan but that is a low blow.

And they decry the likes of Piers et al for being overly harsh and making vindictive statements. Oh the irony!

Shelga

extra gravy wrote: »

Didn't say that, I said it was privileged compared to people who have to rent and save at the same time. Have no interest in listening to people whinging about other people being more privileged than them. Not going to drag the thread off topic by discussing it any further.

You're the one dragging it off topic in the first place, but nice try.

On a scale of privilege, renters are about a 2, I'm about a 4, and Meghan and Harry are about seven million.

Shelga

extra gravy wrote: »

Didn't say that, I said it was privileged compared to people who have to rent and save at the same time. Have no interest in listening to people whinging about other people being more privileged than them. Not going to drag the thread off topic by discussing it any further.

Oh and it goes without saying that both you and I are automatically considerably more privileged than the 80% of the world's population who do not live in first-world countries like ourselves, but I'll spell it out anyway, seeing as you don't seem to understand the concept of "it's all relative".

Going out for a run, there is just too much of an echo here in the absolute palace that is my house . :pac:

Maybe when I get back we will be talking about Meghan and Harry again!

BettyS

What do people make of the producer hired by Meghan and Harry holding the rights to a film about how Diana and Dodi were murdered?

end of the road

BettyS wrote: »

And they decry the likes of Piers et al for being overly harsh and making vindictive statements. Oh the irony!

because he was making vindictive statements with no basis or evidence for doing so, or to back them up.


so rightly he gets called out for his whinging.

BettyS

end of the road wrote: »

because he was making vindictive statements with no basis or evidence for doing so, or to back them up.


so rightly he gets called out for his whinging.

And making jibes about how somebody has no right to hold an opinion or to feel like they are struggling because they are “privileged” is perfectly acceptable!

valoren

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Piers Morgan and Sharon Osbourne both lost their jobs as a result of their response to the interview. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9409927/PIERS-MORGAN-REAL-truth-Writing-time-dramatic-exit-GMB.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9410621/Sharon-Osbourne-sue-CBS-forced-quit-chat-defending-Piers-Morgan.html

Such is the power of using sensitive topics as a shield from criticism. They can be invoked because there are likely consequences for anyone calling them out on playing victim.

My sister in law, a toxic narcissist, wasn't getting her way during a weekend visit to me in London in 2009 and had a meltdown which involved screaming abuse at me and involved threats of violent retribution from her family. Her dad was going to break my legs. Her brothers were going to beat me up. She even rang her mother in tears saying that she was afraid of me and feared for her safety.

She wanted to go clubbing, it was late on a Sunday and I refused because I had work the next day, had no idea where to go and so she started acting like a diva, refused to use stairs to use a toilet because she had high heels on and started making an embarrassing spectacle and very public scene outside about needing to "take a piss". If you've ever dealt with someone like this you can appreciate such attention seeking behaviour. What had I said? In trying to mitigate her meltdown I suggested she use a kebab shop toilet we happened to pass by. She refused and now had a problem with me suggesting she use somewhere so dirty and disgusting. I simply said that if she needed to go that badly then she'd have used the stairs in the first instance. Basically, beggars can't be choosers and stop disgracing us. It was throwing petrol on a fire and that lead to her screaming abuse and threatening me as mentioned. My brother was dating her for six years at the time but I thought this was above and beyond and it was sufficient to warrant him dumping her but she'd groomed him and it was normalised for him. He likely got such abuse himself. He stayed with her but I was done and had the self-awareness and self-respect to cut contact with her. I was close to my brother and this episode became the elephant in the room between us both. Contact ceased for seven months until my brother contacted me and said he'd learned new details which explained "what happened in London". He teased me out and asked would I meet them. Like a fool, I was expecting an apology i.e. sorry , let bygones be bygones, won't happen again etc. The problem is that an actual apology is a promise to not be abusive in future. Narcissists don't do apologies, they lie to cover themselves. This is where the use of sensitive topics to play the victim played itself out. She had confided with my brother that when they were on holiday two years earlier in Turkey she went into a bathroom in a pub and some local who'd been trying it on with her all evening followed her in and she had to lock herself in a cubicle until he gave up. This all happened with my brother unaware of it. She was explicit about how she felt she was going to get raped or even murdered. Her gambit was that the episode in London had triggered a post traumatic panic attack and she had acted out as she'd been triggered. Curious, I started asking questions as her story had more holes in it than Swiss cheese. It became obvious that this was unwelcome and I was confronted about not actually believing her. In the interest of not wanting to fall out with my brother I accepted it and stopped probing. Ultimately, she engineered a falling out between us anyway as we were presumably too close for her liking. (Taking away the support network). She did similar with my older brother whom she claimed had called her a whore and also with our parents who she claimed always belittled her and had no time for her. She tried to poison him against each and every one of us, even former friends of his. A particular favorite was her continually getting bullied wherever she worked. A convenient cover for explaining how she could never settle in a job and a source for her constant drama. My immediate family thankfully still retain tentative contact. She bullied my wife at their mutual job, twisted the events to loudly play the victim, tried to throw her under the bus personally and professionally while my gullible brother believed and supported another act of victim playing and, ultimately, she got what she wanted with a falling out. Knowing what she was doing, I called her out and confronted her about it leading to a rift. It was so constant that my wife had suicide ideation because of the toll it took on her. The email about Meghan always needing someone to target and focus on struck a chord with us. My wife was presumably another victim. We haven't spoken for 6 years and it's absolute bliss not having to put up with that nonsense anymore. I think the BRF are feeling the same. My brother made his bed and that satisfies me. He is married with two kids and, amongst the litany of other victim playing stories drummed up to excuse her toxic behaviour, to groom him to protect her, to normalise her disorder, he likely still believes that his wife was almost raped right under his nose 14 years ago. It is very much a relationship based on coercive control. If he ever cottoned on to her pattern of abuse then he'll be in a world of trouble if he ever tries to extricate himself.

I think that's why this whole thing resonates. I have never met them but from what I can see the behaviour and the "tactics" are dead give aways. There is no need for high profile interviews if all you truly want to do is seek privacy. Unless you need to engage in some denial, deflection and distortion against people who did whatever they could for you initially but who gradually grasped who and what they were truly dealing with. I think the whole race card being played and the no one helped me when I was suicidal narrative reeks of the same type of deflective behaviour. The reported bullying to me suggests there's no smoke without fire there as well. If you didn't know any better then you'd think my sister in law was innocence personified. The optics are a front as beneath the surface lies a family wrecking malignant narcissist. The proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. Plus ca change with Harry and Meghan.