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

dark crystal

retro:electro wrote: »

A quick Google shows me that he did.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7710841/amp/PIERS-MORGAN-hell-call-Prince-Andrew-Royal-Highness.html


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7697803/amp/PIERS-MORGAN-didnt-believe-word-Prince-Andrew-said-Jeffrey-Epstein.html


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7939069/amp/PIERS-MORGAN-Andrew-stop-hiding-mothers-skirts.html


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7722247/amp/Prince-Andrew-interview-FBI-says-ex-butler-Paul-Burrell-Good-Morning-Britain.html

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7694523/amp/Piers-Morgan-brands-Prince-Andrew-insane-agreeing-disastrous-TV-interview.html

I feel grubby for even forming a semi defence of the man but in reality it seems like he was every bit as scathing towards Andrew as he has been for Meghan

Five columns? Wow, he really took him to task! Retro, I never said he hadn't written about Prince Andrew at all, I said it was a pity he spent much more energy on Meghan.

Still, underage sex, nowhere near as important as being a perceived social climber who really should know her place.

I'm astonished anyone could berate this couple and then go on to defend Piers Morgan, tbh.

Be right back

dark crystal wrote: »

This thread is about Meghan and Harry - the clue is in the title.

I never said she was the only one. Caroline Flack was another, for example. I bring up the toxic press because, ultimately, that's a large part of the reason they stood down and moved away from the UK.

It's the double standard of this couple being decimated because they had the gall to say how damaging the constant barrage of negative press was to their mental health in ONE interview, while people like Piers Morgan spew bile on a daily basis and are given a pass because 'free speech' or some such rubbish, that I find hard to swallow.

So nothing to do with Prince Andrew either!! I agree with you that he should have questioned about his actions but I doubt he will be.

retro:electro

dark crystal wrote: »

Five columns? Wow, he really took him to task! Retro, I never said he hadn't written about Prince Andrew at all, I said it was a pity he spent much more energy on Meghan.

Still, underage sex, nowhere near as important as being a perceived social climber who really should know her place.

I'm astonished anyone could berate this couple and then go on to defend Piers Morgan, tbh.

Well that’s all I found while doing a quick google on my phone. Im sure there are more out there, if didn’t go past the first page of search results.
Most of what was written about Megan was pure rubbish most people would just roll their eyes at. But a lot of it was warranted, I have to say. They are hypocrites. She was the victim of some unfair press yes of course but I’d wager no more or less than every other royal gone before her. That doesn’t make it okay, I’m aware of that. That’s why I believe she would have looked far better if she had said something like, “what every woman has had to go through in that family with regards to media coverage is unfair, and the lack of ability to be able to speak up for yourself makes things feel worse”. Instead, she insisted her treatment was worse than everyone else’s and dismissed Kate’s experiences despite her being hated by the tabloids for years.
It was her lack of insight that ultimately did it for me.

Be right back

retro:electro wrote: »

Well that’s all I found while doing a quick google on my phone. Im sure there are more out there, if didn’t go past the first page of search results.
Most of what was written about Megan was pure rubbish most people would just roll their eyes at. But a lot of it was warranted, I have to say. They are hypocrites. She was the victim of some unfair press yes of course but I’d wager no more or less than every other royal gone before her. That doesn’t make it okay, I’m aware of that. That’s why I believe she would have looked far better if she had said something like, “what every woman has had to go through in regards to media coverage is unfair, and the lack of ability to be able to speak up for yourself makes things feel worse”. Instead, she insisted her treatment was worse than everyone else’s and dismissed Kate’s experiences despite her being hated by the tabloids for years.
It was her lack of insight that ultimately did it for me.

Kate had negative press for about 10 years or so and was hounded by the paparazzi and never complained publicly.

dark crystal

BettyS wrote: »

But most people on this thread are railing against the fact that Harry decimated his own family, who to my knowledge, have never publicly decimated or even spoken ill of him

That's not how the Royal family works though, is it? They have spokespeople who selectively leak favourable stories to the press and work behind the scenes to try and mitigate bad stories. These press realeases from the Palace aren't actually written by the Queen herself, they're written by some civil servant in the PR department.

We've all seen the headlines in certain newspapers and how they pitted Kate against Meghan. They've been compared and published for all to see. I think Meghan's point was that the stories on her were becoming extremely negative, including the story that she made Kate cry over a bridesmaids dress, which she claims wasn't true.

Now, I'm sure Kate is perfect and would never say a cross word to anyone, because this is how she's been portrayed in the media. However, Meghan says it was the other way round, which must be a lie, because that's how she's been portrayed in the media. But let's say it was true and Kate got flustered and upset and then sent Meghan an apology note and some flowers as a token of conciliation. How did the original story come out and why was it never corrected? Who leaked that negative story would you say?

retro:electro

Be right back wrote: »

Kate had negative press for about 10 years or so and was hounded by the paparazzi and never complained publicly.

Her whole family were scrutinised and ridiculed. Her sister too was hounded for years, mocked for looking old and had awful things written about her despite not ever opening her mouth to anyone. I don’t even know what Pippa’s voice sounds like, she keeps that much to herself. Things only eased off for Kate in recent years but The Daily Mail still take the odd dig and constantly refer to her by her maiden name

end of the road

JustAThought wrote: »

Reminds of that absolute dangerous piece of work on Below Deck Med ( the chief steward one) - I picked her out as a dangerous manipulative weapon within the first 2 or 3 episodes of series one. Its taken til series 2 for everyone to see what a dangerous piece of vindictive controlling spite she is. Sounds like your SIL.

And Megan.

I guess ‘poor’ Harry has had in some ways a very surreal, kow-towed to, whimsical and fluffy personal social life - I can’t see him having being exposed to someone like this in his inner social circle before. He couldn’t have imagined someone as cunning and manipulative and hysterically manipulative as her. Or know how to deal with it ither than take her at her word. He has little life experience of these types to protect him - and it seems he was quick to freeze out anyone and everyone who raised gentle questions or spoke to him questioning her - old boarding school friends, his brother, inner circle lifelong ‘toff’ friends - a trick she maybe helped him with given her vicious and ruthless practice with her own husband and close and extended family. And inlaws now too.

are you really suggesting that cutting off her father for selling stories and everything to the press makes her manipulative? and her sister who is at the same shtick?
heres a thought, perhapse harry, dispite having in some ways a sheltered life, knows his own mind and megan is in fact not manipulative?

retro:electro wrote: »

A quick Google shows me that he did.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7710841/amp/PIERS-MORGAN-hell-call-Prince-Andrew-Royal-Highness.html


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7697803/amp/PIERS-MORGAN-didnt-believe-word-Prince-Andrew-said-Jeffrey-Epstein.html


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7939069/amp/PIERS-MORGAN-Andrew-stop-hiding-mothers-skirts.html


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7722247/amp/Prince-Andrew-interview-FBI-says-ex-butler-Paul-Burrell-Good-Morning-Britain.html

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7694523/amp/Piers-Morgan-brands-Prince-Andrew-insane-agreeing-disastrous-TV-interview.html

I feel grubby for even forming a semi defence of the man but in reality it seems like he was every bit as scathing towards Andrew as he has been for Meghan

that's 5 articles, so i would have to suggest that actually he isn't half as critical as andrew as he is megan.
then there is the berating her via twitter and tv.

JoChervil

dark crystal wrote: »

This thread is about Meghan and Harry - the clue is in the title.

I never said she was the only one. Caroline Flack was another, for example. I bring up the toxic press because, ultimately, that's a large part of the reason they stood down and moved away from the UK.

It's the double standard of this couple being decimated because they had the gall to say how damaging the constant barrage of negative press was to their mental health in ONE interview, while people like Piers Morgan spew bile on a daily basis and are given a pass because 'free speech' or some such rubbish, that I find hard to swallow.

Well, why they didn't fight back when in UK? Prince William was able to do so.

Meghan kept her agent, while marrying Harry. Why? Wasn't it her plan from the very beginning to use RF as a trampoline for her US career? So it was better to keep all this ammunition for a better times to use.

JoChervil

They played two strong cards: mental health and racism. And they are both based on hate. But there are stronger cards than those: family bonds and compassion, which are based on love. And they failed miserably in both of them.

Wrecking two families is not enough tangible results for some here.

I believe that love is stronger than hate.

They will get few deals, which would exploit their 5 minutes of fame. Better Up couldn’t get better PR stunt for global recognition. But in my opinion on their own they don’t have the potential of A-listers to carry on without exploiting BRF.

Buying a mansion in a “proper” neighbourhood is not enough.
They will have money but when dust settles down they won’t get people’s respect. Powerful people would avoid them like a plaque, not to be used by them.

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

Well that’s all I found while doing a quick google on my phone. Im sure there are more out there, if didn’t go past the first page of search results.
Most of what was written about Megan was pure rubbish most people would just roll their eyes at. But a lot of it was warranted, I have to say. They are hypocrites. She was the victim of some unfair press yes of course but I’d wager no more or less than every other royal gone before her. That doesn’t make it okay, I’m aware of that. That’s why I believe she would have looked far better if she had said something like, “what every woman has had to go through in that family with regards to media coverage is unfair, and the lack of ability to be able to speak up for yourself makes things feel worse”. Instead, she insisted her treatment was worse than everyone else’s and dismissed Kate’s experiences despite her being hated by the tabloids for years.
It was her lack of insight that ultimately did it for me.

and had she gone down that route and compared her experiences to kate's experiences, the narrative would change to "oh she's comparing her treatment to kate" how disgusting of her trying to compare herself to another individual.

dark crystal

retro:electro wrote: »

Well that’s all I found while doing a quick google on my phone. Im sure there are more out there, if didn’t go past the first page of search results.
Most of what was written about Megan was pure rubbish most people would just roll their eyes at. But a lot of it was warranted, I have to say. They are hypocrites. She was the victim of some unfair press yes of course but I’d wager no more or less than every other royal gone before her. That doesn’t make it okay, I’m aware of that. That’s why I believe she would have looked far better if she had said something like, “what every woman has had to go through in that family with regards to media coverage is unfair, and the lack of ability to be able to speak up for yourself makes things feel worse”. Instead, she insisted her treatment was worse than everyone else’s and dismissed Kate’s experiences despite her being hated by the tabloids for years.
It was her lack of insight that ultimately did it for me.

Was Kate hated by the tabloids for years? That's genuinely news to me.

I also don't believe she said she had it worse that everyone else, she was merely talking about her own personal experience, but we'll agree to disagree on that.

Ultimately, I have absolutely no problem with the couple giving one interview and having a right to reply. Free speech and all that, yes?

The Royal family are, in my opinion, an outdated institution and I don't care if Charles was a bad, cheating husband, or the Queen favours and protects Andrew, whatever. Like all families, they're not perfect, nor are Harry and Meghan, but this idea that Meghan and Harry should take all the **** flung at them (and make no mistake, the palace were responsible for flinging some of it, just not outwardly publicly) and keep schtum because it might upset the institution just seems backward or something. Free speech, just not if it's negative to the hierarchy.

I don't get on board with that at all.

end of the road

JoChervil wrote: »

They played two strong cards: mental health and racism. And they are both based on hate. But there are stronger cards than those: family bonds and compassion, which are based on love. And they failed miserably in both of them.

Wrecking two families is not enough tangible results for some here.

I believe that love is stronger than hate.

They will get few deals, which would exploit their 5 minutes of fame. Better Up couldn’t get better PR stunt for global recognition. But in my opinion on their own they don’t have the potential of A-listers to carry on without exploiting BRF.

Buying a mansion in a “proper” neighbourhood is not enough.
They will have money but when dust settles down they won’t get people’s respect. Powerful people would avoid them like a plaque, not to be used by them.

1 of those families wrecked themselves by acting the cnut.
megan's family that is .
as for the other, we don't ultimately know whether were fractious relationships for a while before harry actually left.

BettyS

dark crystal wrote: »

Was Kate hated by the tabloids for years? That's genuinely news to me.

I also don't believe she said she had it worse that everyone else, she was merely talking about her own personal experience, but we'll agree to disagree on that.

Ultimately, I have absolutely no problem with the couple giving one interview and having a right to reply. Free speech and all that, yes?

The Royal family are, in my opinion, an outdated institution and I don't care if Charles was a bad, cheating husband, or the Queen favours and protects Andrew, whatever. Like all families, they're not perfect, nor are Harry and Meghan, but this idea that Meghan and Harry should take all the **** flung at them (and make no mistake, the palace were responsible for flinging some of it, just not outwardly publicly) and keep schtum because it might upset the institution just seems backward or something. Free speech, just not if it's negative to the hierarchy.

I don't get on board with that at all.

There has been numerous examples on this thread of tabloid articles where Kate was called too common for William, Waity Katy, a social climber, purposeless, and remember her uncle who used Cannabis?

BettyS

end of the road wrote: »

1 of those families wrecked themselves by acting the cnut.
megan's family that is .
as for the other, we don't ultimately know whether were fractious relationships for a while before harry actually left.

But why was it okay for Meghan and Harry to feed stories about private family conversations via Gayle and Meghan’s dad was vilified for sharing a personal private letter to the media?

retro:electro

Editor of the Mail on Sunday seems to confirm Kate did cry and that there are witnesses

https://twitter.com/byEmilyAndrews/status/1375923622804590594?s=20

dark crystal

JoChervil wrote: »

They played two strong cards: mental health and racism. And they are both based on hate. But there are stronger cards than those: family bonds and compassion, which are based on love. And they failed miserably in both of them.

Wrecking two families is not enough tangible results for some here.

I believe that love is stronger than hate.

Nice sentiments. Here's Meghan's saintly father delivering a letter looking for an interview with Oprah, with The Sun in tow:

https://www.thesun.ie/news/6762679/meghan-markle-dad-thomas-letter-oprah-interview/

They will get few deals, which would exploit their 5 minutes of fame. Better Up couldn’t get better PR stunt for global recognition. But in my opinion on their own they don’t have the potential of A-listers to carry on without exploiting BRF.

Buying a mansion in a “proper” neighbourhood is not enough.
They will have money but when dust settles down they won’t get people’s respect. Powerful people would avoid them like a plaque, not to be used by them.

I'm sure this stark and schadenfreudian prediction is based on your mantra that love is stonger than hate, right?

When I saw her walking alone down the aisle, I sensed trouble ahead. What a pity she didn’t get one of her many friends to do the honours. Oprah missed an opportunity there!

BettyS

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When I saw her walking alone down the aisle, I sensed trouble ahead. What a pity she didn’t get one of her many friends to do the honours. Oprah missed an opportunity there!

Did Charles walk her down the aisle? Or did he not offer to?

BettyS

BettyS wrote: »

Did Charles walk her down the aisle? Or did he not offer to?

He walked her the last few yards. She walked most of the way on her own.

BettyS

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He walked her the last few yards. She walked most of the way on her own.

I love the narrative that the Royal family did not want Meghan as part of it, and Charles walked her down the aisle

retro:electro

dark crystal wrote: »

Was Kate hated by the tabloids for years? That's genuinely news to me.

I also don't believe she said she had it worse that everyone else, she was merely talking about her own personal experience, but we'll agree to disagree on that.

Ultimately, I have absolutely no problem with the couple giving one interview and having a right to reply. Free speech and all that, yes?

The Royal family are, in my opinion, an outdated institution and I don't care if Charles was a bad, cheating husband, or the Queen favours and protects Andrew, whatever. Like all families, they're not perfect, nor are Harry and Meghan, but this idea that Meghan and Harry should take all the **** flung at them (and make no mistake, the palace were responsible for flinging some of it, just not outwardly publicly) and keep schtum because it might upset the institution just seems backward or something. Free speech, just not if it's negative to the hierarchy.

I don't get on board with that at all.

She said what Kate went through was “rude” and that she “can’t imagine what it must feel like to be called waity Katie” but her treatment was different because it was racist. So she was quite dismissive of Kate’s experiences.
Kate was referred to as “waity Katie” by tabloids for years but this is actually the least of the bad treatment she got. “Waity Katie” was also emblazoned across a London bus and driven around to promote a newspaper, degrading and insulting her over the fact that William still hadn’t proposed. She was either too fat or too thin for the tabloids, her weight was consistently commented on, even being referred to as looking “porky” when she had the cheek to present as anything other than slender. Her mother was referred to as a social climber, took a lot of flack for being “working class” and it was heavily implied that this family was not good enough for William, despite them being what seems to be decent, hard working people. They dug up all sorts of dirt on rogue uncles and tried to shame the family for having a few distant odd ‘uns in the family tree. She had topless pictures of her taken and published, it doesn’t get more intrusive than that.

Kate’s sister Pippa has been hounded for years. I said earlier that I’d never heard her speak so I actually just looked her up on YouTube to see had she ever done an interview. It seems she has done only one, with US Morning tv where she speaks about the bullying she has endured by virtue of being Kate’s sister. So yeah. Kate has had a good ten years of being the tabloid’s favourite play thing. It only really relented for her when she had children.

dark crystal

BettyS wrote: »

There has been numerous examples on this thread of tabloid articles where Kate was called too common for William, Waity Katy, a social climber, purposeless, and remember her uncle who used Cannabis?

Awful stuff. How many column inches and Twitter comments did Piers Morgan take up with calling Kate childish names?

Funnily enough, there was a story in the Daily Mail (surprise!) praising a maskless Kate for turning up at a public vigil for Sarah Everhard last week or so. They also mentioned the fact she laid some flowers there for her picked from her own garden. What a scoop! How on earth could they possibly know such a detail??

dark crystal

BettyS wrote: »

I love the narrative that the Royal family did not want Meghan as part of it, and Charles walked her down the aisle

She said the family were very welcoming to her. Where did she express she wasn't wanted in the family?

Be right back

dark crystal wrote: »

Awful stuff. How many column inches and Twitter comments did Piers Morgan take up with calling Kate childish names?

Funnily enough, there was a story in the Daily Mail (surprise!) praising a maskless Kate for turning up at a public vigil for Sarah Everhard last week or so. They also mentioned the fact she laid some flowers there for her picked from her own garden. What a scoop! How on earth could they possibly know such a detail??

Did she need a mask being outside and maybe they made it up that the flowers were from her garden.

BettyS

dark crystal wrote: »

She said the family were very welcoming to her. Where did she express she wasn't wanted in the family?

Well, she said that they did not want her son as a Prince because of his skin-colour (if that was true, it would be a good reason to end the monarchy)

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

and had she gone down that route and compared her experiences to kate's experiences, the narrative would change to "oh she's comparing her treatment to kate" how disgusting of her trying to compare herself to another individual.

But she did compare her experiences to Kate’s? She also implied hers was worse. My point is she didn’t have to compare herself to anyone , and it would have looked a lot better if she said what every woman has to go through in the institution is unfair and degrading and things need to change with regard to reporting. But that wouldn’t have suited the victim complex.

end of the road

BettyS wrote: »

But why was it okay for Meghan and Harry to feed stories about private family conversations via Gayle and Meghan’s dad was vilified for sharing a personal private letter to the media?

maybe gayle leaked the stories herself?
megan's dad didn't just simply share a private letter to the press though did he, there was everything else.

not to mention wasn't there a claim of having surgery that transpired not to be true?

dark crystal

Be right back wrote: »

Did she need a mask being outside and maybe they made it up that the flowers were from her garden.

Well, most others there were wearing masks, it being a crowded place and all and she really should be setting a better example. However, the lack of mask, was I feel, to get a proper face shot for PR purposes. Despite their halos, Kate and William are not averse to a bit of good old fashioned publicity spin.

Nothing wrong with that, btw, just thought it was interesting given the hammering Meghan and Harry are getting.

It wasn't a lie about the flowers, that little fact was given directly to the press.

BettyS

end of the road wrote: »

maybe gayle leaked the stories herself?
megan's dad didn't just simply share a private letter to the press though did he, there was everything else.

not to mention wasn't there a claim of having surgery that transpired not to be true?

If Gayle was making false allegations about the personal conversations between Harry and his family, surely this warrants condemnation?

People have called her family CNUTs here. Family relations are challenging. You cannot just dismiss everything that they are saying. Who knows what really goes on with them?

Hospitals cannot comment on individual patients. They cannot state if somebody is an inpatient or not. Were you with him on the day of the alleged surgery?

dark crystal

retro:electro wrote: »

But she did compare her experiences to Kate’s? She also implied hers was worse. My point is she didn’t have to compare herself to anyone , and it would have looked a lot better if she said what every woman has to go through in the institution is unfair and degrading and things need to change with regard to reporting. But that wouldn’t have suited the victim complex.

Saying the phrase 'victim complex' implies someone considers themselves as a victim of the negative actions of others, and to behave as if this were the case in the face of contrary evidence of such circumstances.

Would you not agree she was the victim of hateful press campaign? This does not negate Kate's treatment, Pippa's treatment, Fergie's treatment or anyone else's, before anyone jumps on the fact she was not the only recipient ever, but it's quite clear she was a victim of the British tabloids, no?