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

JoChervil

dark crystal wrote: »

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/

I've never said he is a saint, but what about him wanting to be heard? Only Meghan has a right to do so?

dark crystal wrote: »

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

I don't hate her. I simply dislike her.

JoChervil

dark crystal wrote: »

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?

Poor victim asking for more by doing a such interview...

end of the road

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.

so now she did compare her experiences to kate, and you are now claiming that her doing so fits a narative you want it to fit, as in some supposed victim complex that there is no tangible evidence of it's existence.
as i said, she wouldn't win this one no matter what she did, and i can bet that if she had framed her experiences in the particular way you wanted her to do so, the narative would change again.

BettyS

end of the road wrote: »

so now she did compare her experiences to kate, and you are now claiming that her doing so fits a narative you want it to fit, as in some supposed victim complex that there is no tangible evidence of it's existence.
as i said, she wouldn't win this one no matter what she did, and i can bet that if she had framed her experiences in the particular way you wanted her to do so, the narative would change again.

Can you agree that they made some false claims during their interview?

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

so now she did compare her experiences to kate, and you are now claiming that her doing so fits a narative you want it to fit, as in some supposed victim complex that there is no tangible evidence of it's existence.
as i said, she wouldn't win this one no matter what she did, and i can bet that if she had framed her experiences in the particular way you wanted her to do so, the narative would change again.

Huh? I’m not just stating this now. I’ve said this whole time that the comparison she made between her treatment and Kate’s was lacking on her behalf and it showed her up for having a lack of introspection because she was so dismissive. I find your posts quite a handful to read tbh. I can’t never fully make up what point you’re trying to make.

dark crystal

JoChervil wrote: »

I've never said he is a saint, but what about him wanting to be heard? Only Meghan has a right to do so?

He's been heard plenty of times, on the TV, in the tabloids etc. He told Piers Morgan that he would continue to talk to the media every month until Meghan relents and talks to him. He reckons blackmail is the key to getting his daughter to forgive him. What a champ!

Just because someone is related to you, doesn't mean you have an obligation to like them or speak to them. He betrayed his daughter and she cut him out. Kudos to her. Your family are the people you should be expected to trust the most in your life. He gained a few dollars and lost a daughter - his loss.

I don't hate her. I simply dislike her.

I never said you hated her.

BettyS

dark crystal wrote: »

He's been heard plenty of times, on the TV, in the tabloids etc. He told Piers Morgan that he would continue to talk to the media every month until Meghan relents and talks to him. He reckons blackmail is the key to getting his daughter to forgive him. What a champ!

Just because someone is related to you, doesn't mean you have an obligation to like them or speak to them. He betrayed his daughter and she cut him out. Kudos to her. Your family are the people you should be expected to trust the most in your life. He gained a few dollars and lost a daughter - his loss.



I never said you hated her.

Do you really believe that Meghan and her father’s situation was as binary as you state? Take it from personal experience, completely cutting off family is not a decision to be taken likely. It can be life-destroying. It is the kind of thing that people take to the grave. Distancing and cutting off are two very different strategies

end of the road

BettyS wrote: »

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

yes it would, but it's not up to me to condemn it on behalf of harry and megan is it.
that's their job to do it.
ultimately i don't care either way how the stories came to light, that's for megan and harry to deal with.
if someone is leaking them against their word, that is wrong, if they are putting them out there then perhapse they should not do that.
but either way, it's on them to work it out.

BettyS wrote: »

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?

i haven't dismissed anything they have said, but rather simply not taken it as fact given their behaviour, which to me makes them unreliable, which i think is reasonable.

BettyS wrote: »

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?

do i need to have been? after all i simply asked a question of whether this happened or not, not stated it absolutely did or didn't happen.

BettyS

end of the road wrote: »

yes it would, but it's not up to me to condemn it on behalf of harry and megan is it.
that's their job to do it.
ultimately i don't care either way how the stories came to light, that's for megan and harry to deal with.
if someone is leaking them against their word, that is wrong, if they are putting them out there then perhapse they should not do that.
but either way, it's on them to work it out.



i haven't dismissed anything they have said, but rather simply not taken it as fact given their behaviour, which to me makes them unreliable, which i think is reasonable.



do i need to have been? after all i simply asked a question of whether this happened or not, not stated it absolutely did or didn't happen.

But you cast speculation on whether somebody had a genuine medical condition and cast judgement on those who speculate whether Meghan herself had a mental illness?

For the record, I do not think that we should speculate on anybody’s health. Nor should we doubt them, unless there is irrefutable contrary evidence to state otherwise

retro:electro

dark crystal wrote: »

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?

I think she had some unfair things written about her yes but a lot of stupid things too. I also think she didn’t make things easy for herself either and she showed a lot of hypocrisy which was rightly reported on; like preaching about climate change and then taking a private jet to her baby shower in NY. She walked right into that one. Also the Wimbledon fiasco made her look utterly ridiculous where paying members were removed from their seats because she was in attendance, as well as having security usher away that man who was just innocently taking a selfie. All of those incidents were the tabloid’s wet dream. Again, something she could have owned in the interview by saying “yes, sometimes I didn’t make things easy on myself, for sure, but I also didn’t deserve a lot of it”.
A little introspection goes a long way.

If she didn’t foresee how the optics of that would look on those occasions then she’s naive in the extreme and lacks a serious amount of self awareness. It was things like that, was well as running through staff like smarties that made the public question her and take a dislike to her. They also pissed off a lot of people and media alike by being so evasive about Archie’s birth and saying they’ll announce when he’s born in their own time. When you are living a very privileged life on public coin there is a very clear social contract between the monarchy and the public and there are few standards that ought to be maintained in order to show respect for having a life funded by taxpayers. Their constant rewriting the rules and distancing from protocol, however understandable that may be, did not help how they were perceived. Not one bit.

BettyS

retro:electro wrote: »

I think she had some unfair things written about her yes but a lot of stupid things too. I also think she didn’t make things easy for herself either and she showed a lot of hypocrisy which was rightly reported on; like preaching about climate change and then taking a private jet to her baby shower in NY. She walked right into that one. Also the Wimbledon fiasco made her look utterly ridiculous where paying members were removed from their seats because she was in attendance, as well as having security usher away that man who was just innocently taking a selfie. All of those incidents were the tabloid’s wet dream. Again, something she could have owned in the interview by saying “yes, sometimes I didn’t make things easy on myself, for sure, but I also didn’t deserve a lot of it”.
A little introspection goes a long way.

If she didn’t foresee how the optics of that would look on those occasions then she’s naive in the extreme and lacks a serious amount of self awareness. It was things like that, was well as running through staff like smarties that made the public question her and take a dislike to her. They also pissed off a lot of people and media alike by being so evasive about Archie’s birth and saying they’ll announce when he’s born in their own time. When you are living a very privileged life on public coin there is a very clear social contract between the monarchy and the public and there are few standards that ought to be maintained in order to show respect for having a life funded by taxpayers. Their constant rewriting the rules and distancing from protocol, however understandable that may be, did not help how they were perceived. Not one bit.

We never found out who Archie’s godparents are

retro:electro

I think most people would probably understand if all they addressed in the interview was the unfair press attention. That would have been understandable and although they got it no worse than others, if they wanted to clarify some things then okay, fair dues. But they didn’t just do that, and actually I thought the first half of the interview was okay, apart from Meghan being quite self involved and lacking awareness, I didn’t find anything she said to be too harmful. But the press wasn’t intrusion wasn’t their only target, one might say it wasn’t even their sole target — Harry’s family was and that’s what most people have issue with. Okay, so you felt mistreated by the press, have your say and move along. But what they did was 100 times worse and 100 times more inflammatory. They fired a scattergun of shots at an institution who they only five minutes beforehand said cannot defend themselves and are voiceless. Allegations against Harry’s family of being horrible racist people who don’t care when people are suicidal, and said with such confidence and without any proof.

Publicly slinging mud towards people who cannot speak out, while saying you feel betrayed by your father for publicly slinging mud at you, is what people find so hypocritical, confusing and shocking. I think if my husband had suffered such a devastating loss at such a young age, I would do all within my power to nurture the meaningful relationships he had left. But now he has none. No family and no friends; quite similar to her. Funny that.

ceadaoin.

BettyS wrote: »

We never found out who Archie’s godparents are

Probably someone they are no longer in contact with anyway. Thats a long list of former friends and family members at this stage

end of the road

JoChervil wrote: »

I've never said he is a saint, but what about him wanting to be heard? Only Meghan has a right to do so?



I don't hate her. I simply dislike her.

a right to be heard about what? wanting a relationship with his daughter? well, she gave him that opportunity plenty of times and he threw her under the bus.
he got so much hearing, more then realistically he deserved.
what a wonderful father, tbh.

JoChervil wrote: »

Poor victim asking for more by doing a such interview...

her doing an interview doesn't make her less of a victim of the british tabloids, she is either a victim of those or she isn't, and it is well established that she is .

BettyS wrote: »

Can you agree that they made some false claims during their interview?

they made 1 false statement, about what was probably a practice session for the wedding serimony.
them doing so came across as more misinterpreting that practice session as something legally binding when it wasn't, rather then a deliberate claim that they knew was false and made it with the intent to decieve.
does that prove all of the other claims they made true or false, no it doesn't.

dark crystal

BettyS wrote: »

Do you really believe that Meghan and her father’s situation was as binary as you state? Take it from personal experience, completely cutting off family is not a decision to be taken likely. It can be life-destroying. It is the kind of thing that people take to the grave. Distancing and cutting off are two very different strategies

Yeah, he sold his daughter out and continues to do so. Case closed. It's that binary.

For many people, cutting toxic family members out of their life can be very freeing, perhaps not in your case, but there's been plenty of posts on this very site that detail how ridding oneself of a toxic family member has felt like a weight being lifted.
It doesn't make you a bad, unfeeling person, it just means that you value your own worth more than being familially chained to someone who makes you feel miserable or unsafe or unloved or whatever.

I think using her estrangement from family members who sold her out to the press as a stick to beat her with is extremely unfair.

Purple Mountain

I don't think this had been mentioned here but it was been on my mind a bit and don't know what to make of it...

Remember during the interview, they both said that they went to Thomas Markle with an offer to try intercede with the press if he just told them the truth.
They allegedly said to him that they'd only have leverage with the press once so if they used this then they wouldn't be able to potentially use leverage for something regarding their children in the future.
I thought it was an absolutely bizarre and petulant thing to say.
It felt to me that they were using that emotional blackmail, knowing it was absolute tosh and totally unfounded, and knowing that Thomas wouldn't admit what he'd done, to have that sensational claim against him.
Maybe someone else can explain this better than I have but hopefully you get my gist.

BettyS

dark crystal wrote: »

Yeah, he sold his daughter out and continues to do so. Case closed. It's that binary.

For many people, cutting toxic family members out of their life can be very freeing, perhaps not in your case, but there's been plenty of posts on this very site that detail how ridding oneself of a toxic family member has felt like a weight being lifted.
It doesn't make you a bad, unfeeling person, it just means that you value your own worth more than being familially chained to someone who makes you feel miserable or unsafe or unloved or whatever.

I think using her estrangement from family members who sold her out to the press as a stick to beat her with is extremely unfair.

Far from using it as a stick to beat her, I am more concerned that her supporters are using it as a stick to beat him. He was called a CNUT on this thread.

I was treated absolutely appallingly by a family member. Toxic doesn’t begin to describe it. It went far beyond what Meghan and Harry experienced. Our other family members all advised me to cut them complete off. Hand on heart, I made peace because I couldn’t live with the constant fear of how I would feel if this estranged family member passed without us speaking for over a decade. That is not to say that person is my bestie. Nor do I talk to them on a very regular basis. But I have to say, a weight has been lifted from my shoulders. I am a happier person for it. But every relationship is individual and complex. Keeping a distance has been a happy compromise for me in the end

JoChervil

dark crystal wrote: »

He's been heard plenty of times, on the TV, in the tabloids etc. He told Piers Morgan that he would continue to talk to the media every month until Meghan relents and talks to him. He reckons blackmail is the key to getting his daughter to forgive him. What a champ!

Just because someone is related to you, doesn't mean you have an obligation to like them or speak to them. He betrayed his daughter and she cut him out. Kudos to her. Your family are the people you should be expected to trust the most in your life. He gained a few dollars and lost a daughter - his loss.

So Harry's family should expect to trust him as well. It seems H&M haven't learned from experience. They gained few deals and lost family. Their loss.

dark crystal wrote: »

I never said you hated her.

So I didn't get what you had said.

dark crystal

BettyS wrote: »

We never found out who Archie’s godparents are

Not that it's anyone else's business, but a quick google search will give you the names if you're that interested.

retro:electro

According to reports, the press actually knew all along who the godparents were but respected H&M’s wishes to keep it private, and so it was only revealed after they left their senior roles as Royals and moved to Canada. I think Archie was 8 months at that stage.

dark crystal

retro:electro wrote: »

I think she had some unfair things written about her yes but a lot of stupid things too. I also think she didn’t make things easy for herself either and she showed a lot of hypocrisy which was rightly reported on; like preaching about climate change and then taking a private jet to her baby shower in NY. She walked right into that one. Also the Wimbledon fiasco made her look utterly ridiculous where paying members were removed from their seats because she was in attendance, as well as having security usher away that man who was just innocently taking a selfie. All of those incidents were the tabloid’s wet dream. Again, something she could have owned in the interview by saying “yes, sometimes I didn’t make things easy on myself, for sure, but I also didn’t deserve a lot of it”.
A little introspection goes a long way.

If she didn’t foresee how the optics of that would look on those occasions then she’s naive in the extreme and lacks a serious amount of self awareness. It was things like that, was well as running through staff like smarties that made the public question her and take a dislike to her. They also pissed off a lot of people and media alike by being so evasive about Archie’s birth and saying they’ll announce when he’s born in their own time. When you are living a very privileged life on public coin there is a very clear social contract between the monarchy and the public and there are few standards that ought to be maintained in order to show respect for having a life funded by taxpayers. Their constant rewriting the rules and distancing from protocol, however understandable that may be, did not help how they were perceived. Not one bit.

Perhaps she wasn't completely au fait with all the ins and outs of Royal protocols - I wouldn't have a clue myself. I'm sure it was a learning curve for her. None of those incidents should be enough to turn on her as viciously as they did.

I genuinely don't see an issue with them announcing Archie's birth in their own time. What's wrong with that? Their kid, their choice.

In terms of standards being maintained, I would argue the press has failed miserably in this regard for many years now. They have no scruples whatsoever, nor do they face enough consequences - the odd apology forced upon them, that's it. Levenson was largely ignored and forgotten about.

I just find it really difficult to get on board with the idea that Meghan seemingly brought vitriolic poison on herself, by not letting some randomer take her picture at Wimbledon or by announcing her baby's birth on her own terms, but the scummy press gets a pass because she was public property or some such rubbish.

JoChervil

end of the road wrote: »

a right to be heard about what? wanting a relationship with his daughter? well, she gave him that opportunity plenty of times and he threw her under the bus.
he got so much hearing, more then realistically he deserved.
what a wonderful father, tbh.

We really don't know what happened. What we do know is:
- she didn't introduce her fiancee to her father, what a wonderful daughter!
- he landed in the hospital (what could have been stress related)
- he didn't walk her to the altar (what each father would love to do and what could have been the result of the above, and the above - the result of her earlier treatment of him)
- she cut him off entirely
- she bad mouthed him in this interview

I don't see any of her losses in it but I see his great losses. And I judge the situation after the results.

end of the road wrote: »

her doing an interview doesn't make her less of a victim of the british tabloids, she is either a victim of those or she isn't, and it is well established that she is .

The victim you are, if you take it all on board. Most famous people just ignore it.

So what about the press she has now in UK? Is it her own doing? And is she a victim now or not?

extra gravy

BettyS wrote: »

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

Haha sure. Anything I've said in here is mild compared to the exaggerated indignation and bitterness that's been spouted by the majority for the last few weeks.

JoChervil

dark crystal wrote: »

I genuinely don't see an issue with them announcing Archie's birth in their own time. What's wrong with that? Their kid, their choice.

When you do it in time to please US public over UK public, so don't be surprised, if people and press in UK don't like you.

end of the road

BettyS wrote: »

Far from using it as a stick to beat her, I am more concerned that her supporters are using it as a stick to beat him. He was called a CNUT on this thread.

I was treated absolutely appallingly by a family member. Toxic doesn’t begin to describe it. It went far beyond what Meghan and Harry experienced. Our other family members all advised me to cut them complete off. Hand on heart, I made peace because I couldn’t live with the constant fear of how I would feel if this estranged family member passed without us speaking for over a decade. That is not to say that person is my bestie. Nor do I talk to them on a very regular basis. But I have to say, a weight has been lifted from my shoulders. I am a happier person for it. But every relationship is individual and complex. Keeping a distance has been a happy compromise for me in the end

that's your situation and you dealt with in the way you felt was best.
the same as megan dealt with her family situation the way she felt was best, she cut her father out.
i'm afraid to me, a parent selling stories to the media about their children, and constantly talking to the media in an attempt to blackmail them would constitute a nasty piece of work, i make no appology for that view.

retro:electro wrote: »

Huh? I’m not just stating this now. I’ve said this whole time that the comparison she made between her treatment and Kate’s was lacking on her behalf and it showed her up for having a lack of introspection because she was so dismissive.

whatever way she would have framed her experiences, the narrative would change to something else as a stick to beat her with.

retro:electro

dark crystal wrote: »

Perhaps she wasn't completely au fait with all the ins and outs of Royal protocols - I wouldn't have a clue myself. I'm sure it was a learning curve for her. None of those incidents should be enough to turn on her as viciously as they did.

I genuinely don't see an issue with them announcing Archie's birth in their own time. What's wrong with that? Their kid, their choice.

In terms of standards being maintained, I would argue the press has failed miserably in this regard for many years now. They have no scruples whatsoever, nor do they face enough consequences the odd apology forced upon them - that's it. Levenson was largely ignored and forgotten about.

I just find it really difficult to get on board with the idea that Meghan seemingly brought vitriolic poison on herself, by not letting some randomer take her picture at Wimbledon or by announcing her baby's birth on her own terms, but the scummy press gets a pass because she was public property or some such rubbish.

Well to you and I, announcing the birth of your baby on your own terms is the height of sense. But for that reason and many like it I would never ever get marry into an institution that places such requirements on new mothers. I completely understand not wanting to do that, I really do. There’s enough going on when you’ve just given birth and the last thing that should be expected is for you to parade yourself on the steps of St Mary’s all puffy and swollen and likely still bleeding, full of emotions, smiling for the press who you hate more than anything. But a statement to say he had been born surely should have been no skin off their nose?

In and of itself it’s not the worst thing in the world, but in a long list of acting entitled and not respecting the tradition of the family you’ve married into, its rude and ignorant. At the end of the day, the people need very little to be kept on side, but the statement about announcing the birth in their own time came at a particularly tense time between Harry and Megan v the press, it was a small win that could have won over favour but instead they snubbed protocol so more negative press ensued. It’s petty stuff when you drill down but these are the things that keep the tabloids in print. And I don’t for one second believe she wasn’t au fait with standards — she had a selection of aids tasked to help her with tradition and protocol, one a long standing member of The Queen’s who was due to leave but agreed to stay on and help Meghan adjust. So where you believe she simply didn’t know, others believe she simply didn’t want to know.

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

I think she had some unfair things written about her yes but a lot of stupid things too. I also think she didn’t make things easy for herself either and she showed a lot of hypocrisy which was rightly reported on; like preaching about climate change and then taking a private jet to her baby shower in NY. She walked right into that one. Also the Wimbledon fiasco made her look utterly ridiculous where paying members were removed from their seats because she was in attendance, as well as having security usher away that man who was just innocently taking a selfie. All of those incidents were the tabloid’s wet dream. Again, something she could have owned in the interview by saying “yes, sometimes I didn’t make things easy on myself, for sure, but I also didn’t deserve a lot of it”.
A little introspection goes a long way.

If she didn’t foresee how the optics of that would look on those occasions then she’s naive in the extreme and lacks a serious amount of self awareness. It was things like that, was well as running through staff like smarties that made the public question her and take a dislike to her. They also pissed off a lot of people and media alike by being so evasive about Archie’s birth and saying they’ll announce when he’s born in their own time. When you are living a very privileged life on public coin there is a very clear social contract between the monarchy and the public and there are few standards that ought to be maintained in order to show respect for having a life funded by taxpayers. Their constant rewriting the rules and distancing from protocol, however understandable that may be, did not help how they were perceived. Not one bit.

she didn't do herself any favours by engaging in things that there is no evidence she is responsible for, or engaging in things that were the biggest non-issue going? come on now, this is ridiculous.
she walked right into nothing by going to america in the only real efficient and quick way to do it, a jet, while recognising that yes climate change is a problem. the days of people boarding big liners at south hampton and others and steaming for days off to america as the main form of transport died decades ago for god sake so what else should she have done? she was a senior member of the royal family at the time, if she had just took a normal jet to america she would have needed to bring her security on board that as well, in turn taking seats from paying passengers, for which no doubt people would be whinging about.
ultimately it was more efficient for to take a private jet, which i believe was offered to her, then take up a commercial flight.
you can talk about climate change but recognise that changing things takes time.

as for wimbledon, there is no evidence people were removed from their seats because she was there, it has been denied that this was the case and so far nobody has been able to provide anything tangible to prove otherwise, all we know is people apparently moved and that could have been for any reason including of their own accord.

as for her running through staff, well we know some staff either left or were sacked for whatever reason, maybe it was down to her, maybe it wasn't, maybe it was a mix of all sorts. but again so far nobody has been able to provide tangible evidence to link her to this, just claims which elements of the public lap up, ultimately because the media said it is true.

as for them announcing the birth of their child in their own good time, that is their right, if that pissed off some of the public and media, so be it.
the social contract between the monarchy and the public ixists in the mind of the supporters of the institution only, in reality it is something individual members of the monarchy can ultimately break/ignore and are entitled to do so where they have reasonable belief that sticking to it will cause issues to them or their children, and the fact they live a privilaged life on the public coin that the public have decided should be the case doesn't ultimately change this.
they owe the public nothing, it is the public that want them, and want to pay for them, presumably because having them around brings in more then they take out.
they are not robots there for the public's entertainment and the sooner people realise this the better.

her owning this nonsense would have given it credence, so she was right to ignore it given it's a mix of speculation, nonsense and looking to have a go at her for the sake of it.

end of the road

JoChervil wrote: »

We really don't know what happened. What we do know is:
- she didn't introduce her fiancee to her father, what a wonderful daughter!
- he landed in the hospital (what could have been stress related)
- he didn't walk her to the altar (what each father would love to do and what could have been the result of the above, and the above - the result of her earlier treatment of him)
- she cut him off entirely
- she bad mouthed him in this interview

and why did she cut him out? because he stated he would keep talking to the media until she talked to him, as in immotional blackmail.
that's not how to regain a relationship with your child, i'm sorry but it just isn't.

JoChervil wrote: »

I don't see any of her losses in it but I see his great losses. And I judge the situation after the results.

losses that by the sounds of it he brought on himself.
he could have had a relationship with his daughter, and chose the media and piers morgan over her.

JoChervil wrote: »

The victim you are, if you take it all on board. Most famous people just ignore it.

So what about the press she has now in UK? Is it her own doing? And is she a victim now or not?

well maybe they need to stop ignoring it and take it on, because at this stage certain elements of the british press are out of control.
she is a victim of the british tabloids as the criticism waved at her by said tabloids to stur up fo-outrage is disproportionate and unjustified, especially when it's on the basis of non-issues and beyond first world problems.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

as for wimbledon, there is no evidence people were removed from their seats because she was there, it has been denied that this was the case and so far nobody has been able to provide anything tangible to prove otherwise, all we know is people apparently moved and that could have been for any reason including of their own accord.
.

Denied by who? Oh come off it! Don’t be so ridiculous. Her security moved people who had already been sitting in their seats to make way for Meghan who turned up wearing jeans to an event with a strict dress code, another FU, I’ll do what I want. Very strange how Oprah didn’t ask her about this and those headlines weren’t shown. It was a turning point for many people.

JustAThought

I think you’ll find that if you look at the ‘contract’ between the taxpaying public and the royalty you will very much find there are financial payments from the public taxes to support and financially pay for them. Security, salaries, - cold hard cash.

The Frogmore fiasco was part of this - all those millions spent on upgrading a house they them chose to abandon, let lone the cost of their security, wedding, Harrys annual HRH income etc.

No wonder people have a pain in the a**** listening to them whinge about their misery and abandoning their duties and still wanting all the perks that go with it - houses, opening and attending prestige events, heading up preferred charities like the commonwealth brief and opera brief and F1 rallies and armed forces events.

I remember years ago when Harry was larking around in Afghniatan doing store supplies and ‘operations’ that his colleagues took the unprecedented step of complaining that his unnecessary and protected presence brought huge risk to them as a unit and made them unprecedented targets. they wern’t prepared to die as a by-product of a rocket launch 2k away so some terrorist could claim dibs on killing royalty who was really doing no real function there. I remember thinking how much they must have resented and despised him to come out with that to the media - a highly tracable and career ending move.

As for Harry who had to give up his half assed army ‘titles’ and was boo-hoo’ing over it - he does realise its more than an extension of Eton playing fields but with guns - that the men out ‘fighting’ swear lifelong oath to serve Queen and country and give up their lives and survive horrific mutilations and life changing injuries for their pledge to serve their queen and country.
The same one Harry wants nothing to do with but still wants the glory and pomp from and to brek decades old rules and established protocol to get princley titles for his son and their security bill paid. Not out of his millions thou - taxpayers pockets .

I wonder how all those mutilated soldiers feel watching him toss away all his duties and responsibilities and loyalty to the crown.