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

superflyninja

valoren wrote: »

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.

Great post, I too know of a similar situation. This type of thing really beggars belief and I totally agree the interview set off similar alarm bells for us. Hope the kids are doing ok!

irishblessing

retro:electro wrote: »

There have been plenty of people who have come out over the years who say she is either not as she seems or that she has dropped them as friends once she made it big. Staff, family, and friends alike. Not just “Piers Morgan and a few people obsessed with trashing her on boards”. She’s even being investigated for bullying staff members. So yes, she must be exhausted by it all.
Time will tell.

Really. Fascinating. Who are these "plenty of people?"

And what do you make of the plenty of people who have spoken out about her and nothing but glowing remarks? Just going to put the blinders on and ignore them as it doesn't fit your agenda?

JoChervil

irishblessing wrote: »

It's not a deflection to call it what it is. - mean spirited armchair psychology. It's a ridiculous pursuit no matter who it's levelled at. Nobody has absolutely any business imputing a mental disorder on another person. It's desperate carryon to even try to defend that, it's a nonsense and everyone knows it.

And what would you call an obsession with frequenting an online thread all day every day in order to tear down another human being? Must be a diagnosis somewhere in there...

1/2. Getting married to an American means something different as they are able to get married up a tree if they wanted to. What's important are the vows and intentions. No-one is married until the license is lodged with the registrar so technically everyone's idea of "getting married" is skewed towards the ceremony, the vows, the intentions. See how that works? Slating her for no reason other than to impose bad intentions on her in order to pick her apart. Why can't some of you just let them be and wish them well...

Marriage is “the legally or formally recognised union of two people as partners in a personal relationship”. This social recognition is crucial. And even in US you can’t get married without witnesses. You can do it on the top of the tree but without witnesses it will still be invalid. And already married once Meghan perfectly knew the rules, only couldn’t help to show a middle finger to RF and the UK taxpayers. I can’t respect the person, who so doesn’t respect others especially those, who paid for her weeding.

Ms2011

When she said they 'got married' a few days before the official wedding I remember consciously thinking "oh they must have just exchanged some personal vows to each other that were too intimate to say publicly"
Never did I think they got officially married that day especially as she said there were only 3 people there, why in the world would anyone think she meant they got legally married.

JoChervil

irishblessing wrote: »

Really. Fascinating. Who are these "plenty of people?"

And what do you make of the plenty of people who have spoken out about her and nothing but glowing remarks? Just going to put the blinders on and ignore them as it doesn't fit your agenda?

You already go the answers:

iWojtek the Bear wrote: »

You don't think her friends/colleagues in the entertainment business might have a vested interest in being fake? I don't think any of the actors have had much success apart from Suits? I might be crazy but I suspect they see her sitting on the couch next to Oprah, signing deals with Netflix, and probably they are seeing networking opportunities and dollar signs when they view her. So they play it safe and be fake so as not to burn that bridge.

retro:electro wrote: »

retro:electro
There have been plenty of people who have come out over the years who say she is either not as she seems or that she has dropped them as friends once she made it big. Staff, family, and friends alike. Not just “Piers Morgan and a few people obsessed with trashing her on boards”. She’s even being investigated for bullying staff members. So yes, she must be exhausted by it all.
Time will tell.

Just going to put the blinders on and ignore them as it doesn't fit your agenda?

end of the road

valoren wrote: »

You often get the deflection that people are not qualified to diagnose people with personality disorders and thus their opinion consequently holds no weight. Take for example Trump. It's pretty much a given that the man is an overt narcissist. You don't need a qualification to see that he is. However, if say you have a high level understanding of how a car engine works do you need to be a qualified mechanic to be capable of determining that something is wrong with the engine, that it needs to be looked at? You won't be able to fix it but you can certainly tell that something is wrong. It's the same analogy here with Meghan. You have someone who was afforded a platform, who was welcomed but who has subsequently managed to split a family apart, who has cast racial aspersions on a family and has made no admission of their personal culpability or their own contribution to any of it. Red flags galore. My interest in this is purely in highlighting that Cluster B personality disorders are an important aspect of mental health which when unchecked can be very destructive but they're not an aspect of mental health which, from my experience in consuming media, is seldom spoken about.

Here's an example from the interview. Consider the below statements and ask yourself which one will garner a reaction from social media, will generate headlines and discussion in the print press and media, will invite questions for clarification, will invite attention.

1. “Nobody knows this but three days before the wedding we rang the Archbishop of Canterbury and we asked if he could perform a private rehearsal of our wedding vows. He was kind enough to do so and it was a beautiful memory for us both particularly before the full spectacle days later of the wedding day. We have those vows framed in our room.”

2. “You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that. But we called the archbishop and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world but we want our union between us.’ So, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our back yard with the archbishop of Canterbury.”

I would think that Meghan is smart enough to grasp that she wasn’t formally (or legally) married three days before the actual ceremony or that feeling married does not make you actually married. The first is a description of the standard practice of going through a wedding rehearsal. It would get lost in the “bombshell" scope of the interview with the only noteworthy aspect being that it involved the Archbishop. The second is a provocative description of actually getting “married” in secret while the ceremony three days later was for show and good for business. For someone who wants to seek privacy and who loathes press attention, she has a funny way of inviting that attention upon herself. You'd think it was all deliberate. It’s subtle narcissism like this which totally piques my interest.

there is a massive amount of evidence to show the personality of trump, hence it is perfectly reasonable to call him whatever.
on the other hand, there is more or less nothing against megan.
she wore jeans to wimbledon, she didn't stick to royal protocol gibberish, know her place and be a good little royal robot, and misinterpreted what was probably a practice session for the wedding as an actual legal marriage.
not forgetting all of the other nonsense thrown at her, which even when added together proves sweet FA.
if she is a narcicist, and believe me i would know if she was myself, she is doing an absolutely crap job of showing it, suttly or otherwise.
realistically as i said, this is just people wanting her to be whatever she is in their mind, and laching on to anything to try and uphold, in their minds, what they want to be true.

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't think her friends/colleagues in the entertainment business might have a vested interest in being fake? I don't think any of the actors have had much success apart from Suits? I might be crazy but I suspect they see her sitting on the couch next to Oprah, signing deals with Netflix, and probably they are seeing networking opportunities and dollar signs when they view her. So they play it safe and be fake so as not to burn that bridge.

some of them very well may be, but here is the thing.
those who have come out against her, some of them will equally have an incentive to be fake and have vested interests.

retro:electro

irishblessing wrote: »

Really. Fascinating. Who are these "plenty of people?"

And what do you make of the plenty of people who have spoken out about her and nothing but glowing remarks? Just going to put the blinders on and ignore them as it doesn't fit your agenda?

There have been lots of things posted throughout the thread. But off the top of my head, this former friend and business adviser of Meghan, they even went on holiday together. She wrote this article on how their friendship completely ceased once she met Harry. Grand, you might say. Sure the poor soul did she even have access to a phone to keep in touch. This girl relays how she saw Meghan at an event she attended with Harry and Meghan looked at her and completely ignored her. Baffling behaviour.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7876707/amp/Meghan-mission-bag-prince-RULE-world.html

Another who she ghosted when she started Suits


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/meghan-markles-school-friend-sad-22048595.amp

Friendships end for various reasons and no one would expect her to have maintained every friendship made since childhood, but ghosting people is remarkably rude and ignorant and says a lot about a person.

Then there is the glowing review her own brother gave her





And we all know her own father’s opinion on her.

Ditto for her sister.

And then there is the allegations of bullying by her former press secretary Jason Knauff..

“Knauf called out Meghan for allegedly being a boss from hell.
According to The Times of London, the royal press secretary emailed Prince William’s private secretary, Simon Case, in 2018, complaining that Meghan was “bullying” junior staff in the palace.
“I am very concerned that the Duchess was able to bully two PAs out of the household in the past year,” he wrote to Case, after first raising concerns with Samantha Carruthers, the head of HR, the Times said.
“The Duchess seems intent on always having someone in her sights,” he continued. “She is bullying Y (name removed) and seeking to undermine her confidence.”


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/pagesix.com/2021/03/05/who-is-jason-knauf-source-of-the-meghan-markle-bullying-claims/amp/

And the former college roommate who came out and said Meghan was obsessed with Diana. “Tread carefully”, was her warning to Harry.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1328921/meghan-markle-news-princess-diana-royal-family-prince-harry-spt/amp

But the bullying of the staff is what really interests me. Where everything else could be excused as jealous scorned friends and family trying to get vengeance and trying to ruin this innocent person’s moment in the spotlight, it seems like there’s actually something substantial behind these allegations. And as for those who have spoken about in her defence with “glowing remarks”, I’m more interested in how she treats people who she clearly sees as beneath her, and discards old friends once no longer useful. Not 5 star reviews from other celebrities like Oprah and Gayle King.

end of the road

JoChervil wrote: »

Marriage is “the legally or formally recognised union of two people as partners in a personal relationship”. This social recognition is crucial. And even in US you can’t get married without witnesses. You can do it on the top of the tree but without witnesses it will still be invalid. And already married once Meghan perfectly knew the rules, only couldn’t help to show a middle finger to RF and the UK taxpayers. I can’t respect the person, who so doesn’t respect others especially those, who paid for her weeding.

except she showed no middle finger to the rf, and she double definitely showed no middle finger to UK tax payers, for which she owes absolute sweet FA.
the public decided that senior members of the royal family should have certain things, or everything paid for by public funding, that is not the fault of the rf members.
it does not mean those human beings are tax payer property who must stand there like good little robots and know their place so people can wave their flags and watch some sort of freak show like nonsense.
you cannot treat people like that and be surprised when some of them will decide f this i'm done, they are not here for people's entertainment, they are not robots.

JoChervil wrote: »

You already go the answers:





Just going to put the blinders on and ignore them as it doesn't fit your agenda?

no, but i'm also aware that they have just as much of an interest in being fake among other vested interests, as it is claimed that those who are of the opposite view do.
what makes those who are against her more worthy of having their claims taken seriously v what seems to be a greater amount of people who actually like her?
i mean we know 1 individual who is very much against her who nothing he says should be taken with anything less then a pinch of salt, but for the rest?

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

There have been lots of things posted throughout the thread. But off the top of my head, this former friend and business adviser of Meghan, they even went on holiday together. She wrote this article on how their friendship completely ceased once she met Harry. Grand, you might say. Sure the poor soul did she even have access to a phone to keep in touch. This girl relays how she saw Meghan at an event she attended with Harry and Meghan looked at her and completely ignored her. Baffling behaviour.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7876707/amp/Meghan-mission-bag-prince-RULE-world.html

Another who she ghosted when she started Suits


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/meghan-markles-school-friend-sad-22048595.amp

Friendships end for various reasons and no one would expect her to have maintained every friendship made since childhood, but ghosting people is remarkably rude and ignorant and says a lot about a person.

Then there is the glowing review her own sister gave her





And we all know her own father’s opinion on her.

And then there is the allegations of bullying by her former press secretary Jason Knauff..

“Knauf called out Meghan for allegedly being a boss from hell.
According to The Times of London, the royal press secretary emailed Prince William’s private secretary, Simon Case, in 2018, complaining that Meghan was “bullying” junior staff in the palace.
“I am very concerned that the Duchess was able to bully two PAs out of the household in the past year,” he wrote to Case, after first raising concerns with Samantha Carruthers, the head of HR, the Times said.
“The Duchess seems intent on always having someone in her sights,” he continued. “She is bullying Y (name removed) and seeking to undermine her confidence.”


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/pagesix.com/2021/03/05/who-is-jason-knauf-source-of-the-meghan-markle-bullying-claims/amp/

And the former college roommate who came out and said Meghan was obsessed with Diana

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1328921/meghan-markle-news-princess-diana-royal-family-prince-harry-spt/amp

But the bullying of the staff is what really interests me. Where everything else could be excused as jealous scorned friends and family trying to get vengeance and trying to ruin this innocent person’s moment in the spotlight, it seems like there’s actually something substantial behind these allegations. And as for those who have spoken about in her defence with “glowing remarks”, I’m more interested in how she treats people who she clearly sees as beneath her, and discards old friends once no longer useful. Not 5 star reviews from other celebrities like Oprah and Gayle King.

something substantial behind allegations that seem to only have surfaced around the time of the interview? such as?

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

something substantial behind allegations that seem to only have surfaced around the time of the interview? such as?

The allegations were made in 2018. They resurfaced around the time of the verdict against ANL (which was around the same time as interview date) as its reported the staff members wanted to give evidence in the case against ANL but were apparently blocked from doing so. But yeah I guess it’s a little weird that it’s only being brought to light now and not 2018 when the allegations were made. It’s almost as though she herself was being protected... I thought she was “thrown to the wolves?”

irishblessing

JoChervil wrote: »

Marriage is “the legally or formally recognised union of two people as partners in a personal relationship”. This social recognition is crucial. And even in US you can’t get married without witnesses. You can do it on the top of the tree but without witnesses it will still be invalid. And already married once Meghan perfectly knew the rules, only couldn’t help to show a middle finger to RF and the UK taxpayers. I can’t respect the person, who so doesn’t respect others especially those, who paid for her weeding.

You really have to put a nasty twist on anything! They knew they were having another marriage ceremony (obviously) in a few days time and her mam and his dad were the official witnesses which would have already been arranged of course. It would have been special to them.

So as she said, they did a 'marriage' just for them and the legal version three days later. There's no middle finger to anyone, they're simply normally in love and carved out the experience in such a way to be meaningful to them. Christ!!

irishblessing

JoChervil wrote: »

You already go the answers:





Just going to put the blinders on and ignore them as it doesn't fit your agenda?

Ha. So you're going to deflect. You can't name one actual person who has made disparaging remarks about her, let alone "plenty of people." :pac:

Edit: I think we can all agree her scummy, frequently paid off by tabloids "family" members she never even knew growing up can be discounted. Obviously.

retro:electro

irishblessing wrote: »

Ha. So you're going to deflect. You can't name one actual person who has made disparaging remarks about her, let alone "plenty of people." :pac:

Edit: I think we can all agree her scummy, paid off "family" members she never even knew growing up can be discounted. Obviously.

And the rest?

irishblessing

retro:electro wrote: »

And the rest?

Which are who?

How about the rest of the glowing remarks about her? Anything to say about those?

JoChervil

end of the road wrote: »

except she showed no middle finger to the rf, and she double definitely showed no middle finger to UK tax payers, for which she owes absolute sweet FA.
the public decided that senior members of the royal family should have certain things, or everything paid for by public funding, that is not the fault of the rf members.
it does not mean those human beings are tax payer property who must stand there like good little robots and know their place so people can wave their flags and watch some sort of freak show like nonsense.
you cannot treat people like that and be surprised when some of them will decide f this i'm done, they are not here for people's entertainment, they are not robots.


no, but i'm also aware that they have just as much of an interest in being fake among other vested interests, as it is claimed that those who are of the opposite view do.
what makes those who are against her more worthy of having their claims taken seriously v what seems to be a greater amount of people who actually like her?
i mean we know 1 individual who is very much against her who nothing he says should be taken with anything less then a pinch of salt, but for the rest?

For those that understand, no explanation necessary, for those that don’t, no explanation will suffice.

retro:electro

irishblessing wrote: »

Which are who?

How about the rest of the glowing remarks about her? Anything to say about those?

I provided a quite a lengthy reply to your question. Its quite clear now that your intentions in asking weren’t honest and you didn’t expect me to have tangible answers.
It’s quite hilarious that you pre-emptively accused me of putting on the blinkers and discarding anything that doesn’t suit my agenda when that’s actually exactly what you yourself have done.
Hilarious :pac:

JoChervil

irishblessing wrote: »

You really have to put a nasty twist on anything! They knew they were having another marriage ceremony (obviously) in a few days time and her mam and his dad were the official witnesses which would have already been arranged of course. It would have been special to them.

So as she said, they did a 'marriage' just for them and the legal version three days later. There's no middle finger to anyone, they're simply normally in love and carved out the experience in such a way to be meaningful to them. Christ!!

So if it was their intimate wows, why she didn't call it that way?

She could have said: we had our intimate wows 3 days before and then we had our official wedding later. Why making this one-upmanship to offend others?

irishblessing

retro:electro wrote: »

I provided a quite a lengthy reply to your question. Its quite clear now that your intentions in asking weren’t honest and you didn’t expect me to have tangible answers.
It’s quite hilarious that you pre-emptively accused me of putting on the blinkers and discarding anything that doesn’t suit my agenda when that’s actually exactly what you yourself have done.
Hilarious :pac:

Hilarious, you can't even mention those "plenty of people," but you have no problem just throwing out rubbish like that and when called out to back it up, you got nothing. Typical :pac:

The one guy you mention, Knauf, there have been no details to come out of that, and Meghan and Harry issued a strong rebuttal to those allegations. We'll see how that shakes out, the truth will out.

However, we still haven't come anywhere close to "plenty of people" and you still won't admit there are many and far more glowing reports about her. But you hate that reality, don't you? :pac:

irishblessing

JoChervil wrote: »

So if it was their intimate wows, why she didn't call it that way?

She could have said: we had our intimate wows 3 days before and then we had our official wedding later. Why making this one-upmanship to offend others?

She did. She spoke about their personal vows up on her wall. She doesn't have to say it in a way that suits you or anyone else who clearly start out with an intention to misunderstand her and slate her for it.

retro:electro

irishblessing wrote: »

Hilarious, you can't even mention those "plenty of people," but you have no problem just throwing out rubbish like that and when called out to back it up, you got nothing. Typical :pac:

The one guy you mention, Knauf, there have been no details to come out of that, and Meghan and Harry issued a strong rebuttal to those allegations. We'll see how that shakes out, the truth will out.

However, we still haven't come anywhere close to "plenty of people" and you still won't admit there are many and far more glowing reports about her. But you hate that reality, don't you? :pac:

Your posts are all kinds of bizarre right now. You got all “oh yeah? Like who???” when I said that she had friends, family and staff come out of the woodwork to say she is anything but this saintly person she is trying to be perceived as, and that she has ghosted and discarded people and is under investigation for bullying staff.
I replied to you in as much detail as my phone will allow, giving links to back up my claims which include names. If you are refusing to read and accept what is quite clearly there in black and white then I’m afraid I can’t do much more for you beyond that.

You asked me a question while accusing me of being blinkered. I answered your question and you’re refusing to accept that. Quite ironic I must say but its that simple really.

And if you have evidence of plenty of glowing reports then nobody is stopping you from linking them here and having your say. Otherwise, I think we’re done here.

JoChervil

irishblessing wrote: »

It's not a deflection to call it what it is. - mean spirited armchair psychology. It's a ridiculous pursuit no matter who it's levelled at. Nobody has absolutely any business imputing a mental disorder on another person. It's desperate carryon to even try to defend that, it's a nonsense and everyone knows it.

And what would you call an obsession with frequenting an online thread all day every day in order to tear down another human being? Must be a diagnosis somewhere in there...

This is a discussion on boards about manipulative behaviour. This discussion won’t be read for sure by H&M.

Adults who lived long enough to come across such people like Meghan, can recognise certain patterns easily, so can see through her easily.

People shared here their personal experiences, yet you find it outrages to criticise Meghan, but you easily criticise real people here and want their mental health checked. I find this outrageous to be honest.

irishblessing

irishblessing wrote: »

She did. She spoke about their personal vows up on her wall. She doesn't have to say it in a way that suits you or anyone else who clearly start out with an intention to misunderstand her and slate her for it.

Meghan: "I was thinking about it — even at our wedding, you know, three days before our wedding, we got married . . . "

Oprah: Ah!

Meghan: No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us’.

You blame the listeners for intending to misunderstand her? I think any neutral person would have interpreted that to mean that, yes, she is saying they got married 3 days before the big public ceremony.

In an of itself it is neither here nor there. But it's a reflection of her ability to misinterpret reality and create a totally different narrative from the one most people would interpret. Also, why Harry didn't pull her up on it is also very telling. Sometimes little things can be very instructive.

Be right back

irishblessing wrote: »

You really have to put a nasty twist on anything! They knew they were having another marriage ceremony (obviously) in a few days time and her mam and his dad were the official witnesses which would have already been arranged of course. It would have been special to them.

So as she said, they did a 'marriage' just for them and the legal version three days later. There's no middle finger to anyone, they're simply normally in love and carved out the experience in such a way to be meaningful to them. Christ!!

There was a middle finger to the people who watched the wedding, lined the streets of Windsor and who paid for the wedding when she wrongly stated that they had already gotten married. If they had been married, why go through such a lavish, expensive wedding?

retro:electro

JoChervil wrote: »

This is a discussion on boards about manipulative behaviour. This discussion won’t be read for sure by H&M.

Adults who lived long enough to come across such people like Meghan, can recognise certain patterns easily, so can see through her easily.

People shared here their personal experiences, yet you find it outrages to criticise Meghan, but you easily criticise real people here and want their mental health checked. I find this outrageous to be honest.

“Nobody has any business imputing a disorder on somebody”

“Except for when my post does just that three lines from now”

Potatoeman

Shame Piers and Meghan didn’t get together. Both are great at making everything about themselves.

superflyninja

irishblessing wrote: »

It's not a deflection to call it what it is. - mean spirited armchair psychology. It's a ridiculous pursuit no matter who it's levelled at. Nobody has absolutely any business imputing a mental disorder on another person. It's desperate carryon to even try to defend that, it's a nonsense and everyone knows it.

If you think its unfair people are now judging H&M based on the interview, do you not think it unfair that she is effectively doing the same to the RF? Very publicly, giving her opinion on the situation, throwing out racist accusations amongst other things?
Don't forget, most, if not all of this discussion is brought on because Markle did the interview in the first place.
She threw her husband's family under the bus on an Oprah interview, televised across the world.

She has come out and willingly given the interview. So that makes it fair game for discussion. I dont need to be Dr Fraiser Craine to see how she has twisted the facts to suit her and the very clever, vague way she presented the information. She made it sound that she and her family were singled out, denied security and titles because she was mixed race. Which is quite untrue apparently and something she would have known prior to her marriage.

To me its a huge red flag that she did the mud slinging interview in the first place, it also is apparent from the interview that she got a great many things wrong, whether knowingly or not and we also got to see how she presented that information. Taking all that into account, she does not come out of it well and only gives weight to all those stories about her dropping friends, so many staff leaving etc.

Do we know for sure? No. But her actions speak louder than words.

retro:electro

Another good article here by Piers. Exposing the hypocrisy left, right and centre.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9414297/amp/PIERS-MORGAN-Im-not-racist-neither-Sharon-Osbourne.html

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

The allegations were made in 2018. They resurfaced around the time of the verdict against ANL (which was around the same time as interview date) as its reported the staff members wanted to give evidence in the case against ANL but were apparently blocked from doing so. But yeah I guess it’s a little weird that it’s only being brought to light now and not 2018 when the allegations were made. It’s almost as though she herself was being protected... I thought she was “thrown to the wolves?”

trying to protect her from bullying allegations would only go so far and would fail in the end, but that would have happened a long long time before this interview was even advertised never mind happen, because someone would have leaked it, there is likely no doubt about that.
so there is more likely another reason here.
anyway, nothing really substantial there from what i can see.

retro:electro wrote: »

And the rest?

well, her father was effectively trying to blackmail her, piers morgan was on a nonsense vendetta, and others could be either way.

end of the road

Be right back wrote: »

There was a middle finger to the people who watched the wedding, lined the streets of Windsor and who paid for the wedding when she wrongly stated that they had already gotten married. If they had been married, why go through such a lavish, expensive wedding?

there was no middle finger to anyone.
people choose to line the streets and the public want to fund the royal family.
the public expected the over the top expensive wedding, it was a spectical for them.

retro:electro wrote: »

Another good article here by Piers. Exposing the hypocrisy left, right and centre.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9414297/amp/PIERS-MORGAN-Im-not-racist-neither-Sharon-Osbourne.html

good article? more like a whinge fest by a hasbeen still upset because he didn't get an invite.
time for him to put on the big boy pants and get over it, the wedding was what? a few years ago at this stage.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

good article? more like a whinge fest by a hasbeen still upset because he didn't get an invite.
time for him to put on the big boy pants and get over it, the wedding was what? a few years ago at this stage.

I don’t remember forcing you to read it.

Oh sorry I forgot. It’s only Harry and Meghan who are allowed to have their say and defend themselves. Everyone else must sit in silence and accept allegations of racism without basis, and not challenge it for fear of being labelled an, erm, racist..
Silly me!

I think people forget that Piers is a journalist. He literally gets paid to write this stuff. I find him kind of annoying on the whole but on this issue he is bang on the money and has every right to defend himself against racism claims.