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

Be right back

dark crystal wrote: »

In fairness, if she sues she gets bashed and if she clarifies false stories with Oprah she's called a liar or childish, so she really can't win!

There were so many negative stories, I honestly doubt there would have been enough time to cover them all. Oprah was the one who asked her about the Kate story, so she was only responding to the question asked. She wasn't asked specifically about the tiara rumour.

I think the interview was about 3 hours in total so there was a lot edited out of it.

retro:electro

dark crystal wrote: »

In fairness, if she sues she gets bashed and if she clarifies false stories with Oprah she's called a liar or childish, so she really can't win!

There were so many negative stories, I honestly doubt there would have been enough time to cover them all. Oprah was the one who asked her about the Kate story, so she was only responding to the question asked. She wasn't asked specifically about the tiara rumour.

I’ve never had any issue with her suing to be honest. However I do now think it’s hypocritical that she sued for breach of privacy but then relays a private phone call to Gail King who then spills the beans on American tv. If she wants her privacy respected she should have the sense to respect others too. But I believe if someone prints malicious lies about you then you have every right to sue. It’s the right thing to do.
Oprah presented some headlines to her and she had opportunity to clarify on plenty of things, not just the Kate issue. I do find it strange how tiara gate, the Wimbledon fiasco or the private jet to the baby shower never made the cut. Those particular things were turning points for a lot of people. If they were inaccurate then not bringing them up in a discussion about how the tabloids treated you is kind of a missed opportunity to speak your truth.
If they’re true, on the other hand..

Ms2011

walshb wrote: »

No, it didn’t. But my reply went over yours!!!

Like a frickin' aeroplane

walshb

dark crystal wrote: »

In fairness, if she sues she gets bashed and if she clarifies false stories with Oprah she's called a liar or childish, so she really can't win!

There were so many negative stories, I honestly doubt there would have been enough time to cover them all. Oprah was the one who asked her about the Kate story, so she was only responding to the question asked. She wasn't asked specifically about the tiara rumour.

Do you think the Oprah interview was free flowing?

The questions...do you think they were known to Meghan beforehand?

superflyninja

irishblessing wrote: »

You know Harry was there too, right? You know he has said this was his decision he made for his family and he is speaking up also. The misogyny here is ridiculous. Bet this comment triggered at least 5 of you. :pac:

Thats pathetic honestly.
You don't (or can't) counter or argue with what I said and so you trot out the misogyny card.
Harry was there at the tail end of the interview and didn't really add anything to the conversation. It was Meghan who did the bulk of the talking, hence I spoke about her. You know, the person that threw out the racism accusations? Nice try, attempting to deflect the argument. Go back to my post and actually try and argue against my points. My actual points, not imaginary misogyny.

Leg End Reject

Isn't it amazing that every criticism of a woman is somehow misogyny, even though many of the critics here are actually women?

I've criticised Harry and Andrew, am I now somehow a misandrist?

jm08

retro:electro wrote: »

There is a happy medium between having a small private affair and demanding a £32 million pound wedding with a listers you’ve never even met in attendance. The food alone cost half a million and the marquee to house all the a listers was another half a million. A marquee for one night, costing more than most people’s houses.
They could have still have had the small affair they wanted after the televised event. That way everyone gets what they want. Nobody forced them to go through with the spectacle and their attitude towards it it’s pathetic. It was only a spectacle because they insisted it be one. The public don’t see much after the church so what they did after that was totally up to them.

Thats all part of the British monarchy. Thats what they do. Put on a big show of carriages etc. British people just love the ceremony. Good god, Michael D. & Sabrina were driven around Windsor in the horse and carriage. Look at Rememerance Day and the ceremony opening Parliament. Its a big opportunity for the UK to catch the eye of the world. There is absolutely no way that they would have gotten away with anything less. Brian O'Driscoll was invited to William & Kate's wedding, presumably because he had captained the Lions (he didn't go - was playing a match, but Amy did on her own)!

BettyS

irishblessing wrote: »

You know Harry was there too, right? You know he has said this was his decision he made for his family and he is speaking up also. The misogyny here is ridiculous. Bet this comment triggered at least 5 of you. :pac:

You kill any meaningful debate by decrying somebody countering your points as misogynist. Making false allegations (ie that poster is misogynist) is tantamount to online bullying. Whatever they say now will be overshadowed by the label that you decide that they deserve.

You are seeing of these posters what you want to see. I am a proud female. I disagree fundamentally with your misogyny claims.

And your little jibe about people who come on “to tear” her apart for many hours having disorders. We are a group of individuals who enjoy debating something topical and of human interest. Some of us identify on a personal level with similar situations. Some of us are lonely and looking for a little entertainment. Some of us need to destress after a hard working day. There is a sense of camaderie on this thread. I look forward to hearing what walshb, Retro:electric, maryanne84, berightback, legendreject and others have to say about the topic. This is as close to a bar stool as I can get. Don’t tell me that I have a disorder for that! If you want a forum that treats Harry and Meghan with kid gloves, then there are plenty of fan-clubs online

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

Thats all part of the British monarchy. Thats what they do. Put on a big show of carriages etc. British people just love the ceremony. Good god, Michael D. & Sabrina were driven around Windsor in the horse and carriage. Look at Rememerance Day and the ceremony opening Parliament. Its a big opportunity for the UK to catch the eye of the world. There is absolutely no way that they would have gotten away with anything less. Brian O'Driscoll was invited to William & Kate's wedding, presumably because he had captained the Lions (he didn't go - was playing a match, but Amy did on her own)!

I’m not disputing any of that and I completely understand the pageantry, the bells and whistles and how important these traditions are for British culture and their national pride. My whole point is that they created the spectacle by inviting a who’s who of Hollywood elite and insisting their budget matched William and Kate’s. They went all out and then some, and then sounded kind of ungrateful towards the whole thing with Oprah, despite it costing the taxpayer millions.
I think Meghan said it to try and quash some of the articles that made her out to be a massive diva in the lead up to her wedding, and instead tried to insist a small and intimate wedding is all she really needed. I don’t think she realised how much it would backfire though.

Leg End Reject

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m not disputing any of that and I completely understand the pageantry, the bells and whistles and how important these traditions are for British culture and their national pride. My whole point is that they created the spectacle by inviting a who’s who of Hollywood elite and insisting their budget matched William and Kate’s. They went all out and then some, and then sounded kind of ungrateful towards the whole thing with Oprah, despite it costing the taxpayer millions.
I think Meghan said it to try and quash some of the articles that made her out to be a massive diva in the lead up to her wedding, and instead tried to insist a small and intimate wedding is all she really needed. I don’t think she realised how much it would backfire though.

And let's not forget the ott American preacher guy. Did anyone genuinely listen to him and not have to stop their eyes rolling down their throat?

She mostly walked herself down the aisle, smiled and posed on the steps on the way in etc. She's an actress and enjoys the limelight, not exactly a shrinking violet caught unawares when she received negative press.

Then, after walking away from it all and realising the money was cut off (although apparently Charles still helped) she threw the lot of them under the bus and her husband clutched her hand while his family was publicly insulted. Apparently one of them is a racist, but of course she doesn't want to name them because "It could hurt them personally", so better to leave most of them under suspicion.

retro:electro

I think Beatrice’s wedding will set a new standards for the future weddings of those who are lower down in the chain of succession. Granted it was in the middle of a pandemic so she could only have 20 guests, but it received a huge amount of praise and attention, and her pictures were beautiful.
I think Zara also had a (relatively) modest wedding, I don’t think it was televised, she wore an off the rack wedding dress and taxpayer funded the security only. (Zara’s wedding security cost the same as Meghan’s marquee :pac: )
I think the next big wedding that will command the same global interest will be when George gets married.

jm08

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m not disputing any of that and I completely understand the pageantry, the bells and whistles and how important these traditions are for British culture and their national pride. My whole point is that they created the spectacle by inviting a who’s who of Hollywood elite and insisting their budget matched William and Kate’s. They went all out and then some, and then sounded kind of ungrateful towards the whole thing with Oprah, despite it costing the taxpayer millions.
I think Meghan said it to try and quash some of the articles that made her out to be a massive diva in the lead up to her wedding, and instead tried to insist a small and intimate wedding is all she really needed. I don’t think she realised how much it would backfire though.

The vast majority of people at that wedding were from Harry's side. Even George Clooney was a friend of Harrys. Market Watch claims that the wedding was a boost of $1.43 billion to the UK economy by the way!


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/royal-weddings-14-billion-economic-impact-heres-the-boost-by-sector-2018-05-14


The UK spends a fortune on sending the royals all over the place. Their job is to do a PR job for the UK.


She had little or no say in that wedding because it was a replica of all the other royal weddings.

jm08

retro:electro wrote: »

I think Beatrice’s wedding will set a new standards for the future weddings of those who are lower down in the chain of succession. Granted it was in the middle of a pandemic so she could only have 20 guests, but it received a huge amount of praise and attention, and her pictures were beautiful.
I think Zara also had a (relatively) modest wedding, I don’t think it was televised, she wore an off the rack wedding dress and taxpayer funded the security only. (Zara’s wedding security cost the same as Meghan’s marquee :pac: )
I think the next big wedding that will command the same global interest will be when George gets married.

None of them are working royals. Back then, Harry was.

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

The vast majority of people at that wedding were from Harry's side. Even George Clooney was a friend of Harrys. Market Watch claims that the wedding was a boost of $1.43 billion to the UK economy by the way!


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/royal-weddings-14-billion-economic-impact-heres-the-boost-by-sector-2018-05-14


The UK spends a fortune on sending the royals all over the place. Their job is to do a PR job for the UK.


She had little or no say in that wedding because it was a replica of all the other royal weddings.

I find it mad that the sole family invite on her behalf was her mother. We all know the story with her father and the issues with her sister, but I find it completely odd that she had no cousin, no aunt, no distant relative at all at all to stand with her mother at her wedding. I had a mooch through their guest list earlier and most of the guests on her side are celebrities. Harry invited a lot of celebrities too of course, as he’s apparently mates with a lot of them. But he also had a lot of school friends, and people he had formed personal connections with over the years. Meghan had Oprah. I find it odd. Sorry.

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

None of them are working royals. Back then, Harry was.

I’m aware of that, I never claimed otherwise. I was making a separate point.

extra gravy

BettyS wrote: »

There is a sense of camaderie on this thread

Christ. A "camaraderie" based on bashing two celebrities daily, life goals right there. This thread has definitely reached peak nonsense.

Leg End Reject

extra gravy wrote: »

Christ. A "camaraderie" based on bashing two celebrities daily, life goals right there. This thread has definitely reached peak nonsense.

What's keeping you here? Defending two celebrities?

Does that make you superior?

dark crystal

BettyS wrote: »

You kill any meaningful debate by decrying somebody countering your points as misogynist. Making false allegations (ie that poster is misogynist) is tantamount to online bullying. Whatever they say now will be overshadowed by the label that you decide that they deserve.

You are seeing of these posters what you want to see. I am a proud female. I disagree fundamentally with your misogyny claims.

And your little jibe about people who come on “to tear” her apart for many hours having disorders. We are a group of individuals who enjoy debating something topical and of human interest. Some of us identify on a personal level with similar situations. Some of us are lonely and looking for a little entertainment. Some of us need to destress after a hard working day. There is a sense of camaderie on this thread. I look forward to hearing what walshb, Retro:electric, maryanne84, berightback, legendreject and others have to say about the topic. This is as close to a bar stool as I can get. Don’t tell me that I have a disorder for that! If you want a forum that treats Harry and Meghan with kid gloves, then there are plenty of fan-clubs online

I find it quite interesting how you are indignantly pulling out the bullying card when one single poster suggests a whiff of misogyny off certain posts, yet seemed to suggest earlier in the thread that Meghan should have turned the other cheek when the press were bullying her on a daily basis, as she should have been prepared for the onslaught.

Posters will not always agree on a topic on any given thread, that's par for the course. It may be a 'bar stool' discussion for you, but Meghan actually had to live it. Perhaps some empathy would not go amiss, given how offended you appear to be by the mere suggestion of being labelled something you insist you are not.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to claim misogyny, but certain posts most certainly have a whiff of sexism off them. Phrases like social climber, gold digger etc. are used almost exclusively to demean women. This notion that Harry is some fragile cuckold in thrall of this scheming wench is also a common trope trotted out to make a woman seem overbearing for daring to speak out of place. Not saying you said any of these things necessarily, it's just the undercurrent of some of the comments I find a bit...murky.

By all means, debate away, however, it does no good to get highly insulted when someone has another view of something, especially if one of the main themes of the thread is piling on another woman for, in many cases, really insignificant things.

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m not disputing any of that and I completely understand the pageantry, the bells and whistles and how important these traditions are for British culture and their national pride. My whole point is that they created the spectacle by inviting a who’s who of Hollywood elite and insisting their budget matched William and Kate’s. They went all out and then some, and then sounded kind of ungrateful towards the whole thing with Oprah, despite it costing the taxpayer millions.
I think Meghan said it to try and quash some of the articles that made her out to be a massive diva in the lead up to her wedding, and instead tried to insist a small and intimate wedding is all she really needed. I don’t think she realised how much it would backfire though.

they created a spectical that they were expected to create, the spectical was expected and if the public didn't get what they wanted, then just look at what happened over archie to see how that turns out.
realistically there is only so much say they would have had over the preperations and how much was spent, more likely is that they were told the budget they were getting, with the tabloids claiming they asked, presumably on the basis of a source said or some other nonsense that they usually use.
her saying she wanted a smaller wedding only "backfired" as far as the individuals looking for any old thing to criticise her over first world non-issues are concerned, in reality, if she said she was happy with the pomp and serimony she would have the opposite criticisms, so she couldn't and wouldn't win no matter what.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

they created a spectical that they were expected to create, the spectical was expected and if the public didn't get what they wanted, then just look at what happened over archie to see how that turns out.
realistically there is only so much say they would have had over the preperations and how much was spent, more likely is that they were told the budget they were getting, with the tabloids claiming they asked, presumably on the basis of a source said or some other nonsense that they usually use.
her saying she wanted a smaller wedding only "backfired" as far as the individuals looking for any old thing to criticise her over first world non-issues are concerned, in reality, if she said she was happy with the pomp and serimony she would have the opposite criticisms, so she couldn't and wouldn't win no matter what.

Sorry I don’t understand a word of what you just wrote

jm08

retro:electro wrote: »

I find it mad that the sole family invite on her behalf was her mother. We all know the story with her father and the issues with her sister, but I find it completely odd that she had no cousin, no aunt, no distant relative at all at all to stand with her mother at her wedding. I had a mooch through their guest list earlier and most of the guests on her side are celebrities. Harry invited a lot of celebrities too of course, as he’s apparently mates with a lot of them. But he also had a lot of school friends, and people he had formed personal connections with over the years. Meghan had Oprah. I find it odd. Sorry.

Maybe her mother doesn't have any other family. Even if she did have family, its a bit daunting for them. Doria seems to be the perfect lady and very close to Meghan. Meghan also had Serena Williams, Amal Clooney and of course all her work colleagues from Suits. See the link below as its explains the connectoin of those who were there.



Just to point out that it was a State event - 2,640 members of the public from all over Britain were invited to the wedding. Thats why it cost so much and defininately The Firm putting on a show.



https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a18754442/prince-harry-meghan-markle-royal-wedding-guest-list/

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

Maybe her mother doesn't have any other family. Even if she did have family, its a bit daunting for them. Doria seems to be the perfect lady and very close to Meghan. Meghan also had Serena Williams, Amal Clooney and of course all her work colleagues from Suits. See the link below as its explains the connectoin of those who were there.



Just to point out that it was a State event - 2,640 members of the public from all over Britain were invited to the wedding. Thats why it cost so much and defininately The Firm putting on a show.



https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a18754442/prince-harry-meghan-markle-royal-wedding-guest-list/

Doria has brothers and sisters who have children. Thomas too. Meghan has lots of aunts, uncles and cousins who she snubbed for the likes of Oprah Winfrey. I’ve been to many weddings where there were family members either absent or not invited for various reasons. These things happen, not every family is like The Waltons and I would never judge. But to not invite a single member of your family to your massive wedding apart from your mother is strange and raises a lot of questions. Surely every single one of them can’t be awful? And if they are, why would Meghan be any different? 600 people attended that ceremony, and only one was a family member of Meghan. I find that odd.
Maybe they don’t fit her aesthetic anymore.

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

Doria has brothers and sisters who have children. Thomas too. Meghan has lots of aunts, uncles and cousins who she snubbed for the likes of Oprah Winfrey. I’ve been to many weddings where there were family members either absent or not invited for various reasons. These things happen, not every family is like The Waltons and I would never judge. But to not invite a single member of your family to your massive wedding apart from your mother is strange and raises a lot of questions. Surely every single one of them can’t be awful? And if they are, why would Meghan be any different? 600 people attended that ceremony, and only one was a family member of Meghan. I find that odd.
Maybe they don’t fit her aesthetic anymore.

maybe they didn't want to attend, maybe they couldn't attend, maybe the budget for the wedding had been used up.

maybe she just isn't close with her extended family, many people aren't close to their extended family, it doesn't mean they don't like them but they happen to be way more close with friends then extended family.
strange/odd, who knows, who cares, it was her wedding at the end of the day and her call who got an invite from her side.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

maybe they didn't want to attend, maybe they couldn't attend, maybe the budget for the wedding had been used up.

maybe she just isn't close with her extended family, many people aren't close to their extended family, it doesn't mean they don't like them but they happen to be way more close with friends then extended family.
strange/odd, who knows, who cares, it was her wedding at the end of the day and her call who got an invite from her side.

How much of the £32 million budget do you think her family would have eaten into? Ah jaysus

Leg End Reject

retro:electro wrote: »

How much of the £32 million budget do you think her family would have eaten into? Ah jaysus

The baggies?

retro:electro

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The baggies?

Imagine saying “sorry Aunt Betty, I can’t invite you. Our budget won’t allow it”. And then Aunt Betty turns on the tv to see Oprah fcuking Winfrey up front and centre :pac:

jm08

retro:electro wrote: »

How much of the £32 million budget do you think her family would have eaten into? Ah jaysus

You have no idea of their financial circumstances. And it would be quite daunting for anyone, but especially black Americans in that almost exclusively white gathering of that wedding.



The biggest cost of the day would have been the security and of course the 2,600 members of the public, charities etc. who won a ringside seat to attend the wedding in a lottery system.

jm08

retro:electro wrote: »

Imagine saying “sorry Aunt Betty, I can’t invite you. Our budget won’t allow it”. And then Aunt Betty turns on the tv to see Oprah fcuking Winfrey up front and centre :pac:

Who are all these relatives. All I can see is that Doria has two older siblings from her father's previous marriage which would probably put them in their 70s, and one younger brother from another marriage. The half siblings from the Markle family are toxic.


Maybe Harry put them off by saying that the Royal family would now be the family that Meghan never had!

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

You have no idea of their financial circumstances. And it would be quite daunting for anyone, but especially black Americans in that almost exclusively white gathering of that wedding.



The biggest cost of the day would have been the security and of course the 2,600 members of the public, charities etc.
who won a ringside seat to attend the wedding in a lottery system.

How much did it cost to invite them? Genuinely curious

jm08

retro:electro wrote: »

How much of the £32 million budget do you think her family would have eaten into? Ah jaysus

According to this, 94% of the budget was on security. The actual wedding (flowers, dress, food etc) was about £2m.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/18/the-royal-wedding-may-cost-43-million-and-94-percent-of-that-is-for-security.html