Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21
Options
Comments
-
Im sure someone with more knowledge on this will properly explain it. But as I understand it, Harry's kids were never going to be princes/princesses, they wouldn't be in the proper line of succession.
Who told the world her son wasn’t given a title due to being black. So why was he not given a title?
Who was inaccurate about the reason he won’t get security. I don't know what the inaccuracy is? Please inform.
The security too, is only provided to a certain rank of royal and also during official engagements. Also by H&M moving to another country, its not possible to provide the same level of security. Additionally, him renouncing his titles and being a full time royal, also gives up any claim to security.
From my limited understanding (or interest) these things were already set in place and public knowledge long before Markle came on the scene.
So her making out that she isn't getting these perks because of her race is just utter nonsense.0 -
retro:electro wrote: »Also, her own bloody friends leaked the letter. 5 friends, to be exact. I wonder are they celebrities? I didn’t know she had even 5 friends at the wedding. The whole thing seems like it was written with the sole intent to be leaked. The delicate calligraphy and writing style and expression that wouldn’t look out of place in a classic novel.
I thought Meghan had no friends!
It was Knauf who leaked the letter. Part of the defence in the legal action was that as a co-author of the letter, he had copyright so it was ok for it to be published with his permission.0 -
Its not minor to hire a friend who isn't trained or experienced to do a job as a PA and when found not up to the job, he claimed that she was bullied. Is it not true that that the people who he claimed were bullied didn't authorise that he act on them and now want to withdraw those accusations of bullying?
And the person you’re so hell bent on defending.
This is the person who told the world she got married three days before her wedding, which they then had to come out and say never happened. Does it really matter? For instance if you get married in France, you can have two ceremonies (church and state). Who actually cares when they got married? All most people were interested in was the pagentry of the occasion.
Who told the world her son wasn’t given a title due to being black. So why was he not given a title?
Who was inaccurate about the reason he won’t get security. I don't know what the inaccuracy is? Please inform.
Who said the palace throw summer parties for tabloids. Who cares if this happens?
Who said she was left unsupported despite being given The Queen’s own secretary to help her adjust. Who was that?
Who said she had lost her voice despite giving more speeches in her short tenure than almost all of them together. She was talking about the firm, not herself.
She also guest edited vogue where she freely put forward her own political agenda, something that is a seriously rare occurrence for a neutral representative to do. And what agenda is that? Why can't she have an agenda?
Who said she wasn’t allowed out despite taking numerous trips abroad. Without the permission of the palace who held her passport and carkeys.
Who told the world someone in the family is racist but deliberately obfuscated the details so they cannot be checked. Why can't they be checked. Maybe the person who asked the question about how dark the baby is might explain what they meant or are you claiming that this never happened.
Who said she had no access to mental help despite her husband being a patron to many charities and having her own personal team of doctors.
The reason her mental health was bad was the racism displayed in the British tabloids which the royal family refused to counter and stand up for her.
Who sued ANL for invading her privacy yet has no problem invading the privacy of others by leaking private phone calls. Harry?
Who has had many people from her past come out about her and say they were either dropped or ghosted when she made a name for herself, and I’m not talking about family. Piers Morgan & the Markle clan. Then there are plenty who have come out in her defence. In fairness to Markle, she had to be careful with who she could trust.
So don’t talk to me about spin doctors.. Why not?
This is the person you are taking the word of. I'm not taking the word of anyone? Most of what you are getting annoyed about is small stuff. Hiring friends who are incapable of doing the job they were hired to do and then claiming they were bullied is a lot more serious. Leaking a private letter to the press is just appalling. Knauf job was to look after Thomas Markle and he failed badly. He left Markle's relatives to deal with the press when they should have been protected. Thomas Markle trusted Knauf who actually should have brought him over to England and housed him in one of the many houses that the Firm own, talking to the press unaccompanied.
And in spite of these glaring inconsistencies, some may say outright lies - you think Jason is the one who should fall under suspicion. Inconsistencies, or maybe looking at things from a different perspective. But what Knauf did as a trusted employee of Markles was unforgivable. As well as that, why didn't the Firm do something about the bullying allegations made by Knauf (not the people who were bullied)? The Firm can't be on both sides of this.
Wow. Just wow.
1. She didn’t get married in France. She got married in the UK, where it is illegal to get married without two witnesses and you also can’t get married in “the back yard”.
2. He was not given the title of prince because of hundred year old convention. He is not in direct line of succession and is not entitled to be prince until Charles takes throne. He was given title of The Duke of Dumbarton which they rejected.
3. As they are no longer working royals, they are not entitled to security as ergo, neither is Archie. Anne is the Queen’s daughter and only has security when she’s working. Zara, Beatrice and Eugenie don’t have private security either. They were no longer entitled to security when they stopped working.
4. Meghan and Harry do, evidently.
5. She said she was left unsupported and had to google how to curtsy. She didn’t know protocol. She was given Samantha Cohen as Royal trainer.
6. So she didn’t lose her voice then
7. Royals are meant to be politically neutral. The Queen has to stay quiet on things like Brexit so for Meghan to be given that freedom was breaking new ground and all kinds of remarkable for someone who claims to have been so oppressed and stifled by protocol
8. She didn’t need a passport, she had diplomatic immunity. She never said they took her car keys. She said her licence. She had her car keys.
9. How can they explain what they meant when they may not even know they said anything offensive. Is Megan is hurt by something she should confront that person, not do it through Oprah on global tv
10. The racist tabloid headlines that ITV had to edit out of repeats of the interview because they were deceiving and inaccurate?
11. Lol. Either way, it’s a breach of privacy that they claim should be respected
12. I never even mentioned Piers when I presented a list of people who have been ghosted by Meghan. There were at least three former friends, one even wrote an article about how Meghan dropped her as a friend and then when she saw her at an event she acted like she didn’t see her
- it was Meghan’s friends who first leaked the letter
- it was Meghan’s job to look after own father above and beyond any employee
- what Meghan did as a trusted family member was unforgivable.
I don’t know why the allegations are only being dealt with now. Maybe.. maybe they were trying to protect her? Something she claims never happened.
Your post is just a complete litany of excuses for someone who has a very questionable character, to say the least.0 -
end of the road wrote: »ultimately yes, jason is unreliable so cannot be taken as gospal.
megan on the other hand, is more or less reliable.
Oh dear. I think she has proven herself to be just the opposite.0 -
Be right back wrote: »Oh dear. I think she has proven herself to be just the opposite.
I could tell you if shes reliable.... how could you?
For example she said the interview with Oprah was not prepared, it was totally prepared.... thats unreliable.
I cant discount what Meghan says is true, but I cant call it fact. Hard to say if shes reliable.0 -
Advertisement
-
extra gravy wrote: »I don't like bullying. Some of the posts on this thread have been borderline unhinged.
"bUt It's OkAy bEcAusE they'LL NeVer ReAd iT"
So you're here to defend 2 celebrities then and type like you're having a stroke.
Go you!0 -
extra gravy wrote: »I don't like bullying. Some of the posts on this thread have been borderline unhinged.
"bUt It's OkAy bEcAusE they'LL NeVer ReAd iT"
If someone is a hypocrite or is coming out with outright falsehoods like claiming they got married 3 days before they actually got married, then calling out the BS and extrapolating what it says about their reliability to accurately recall events is not bullying. If someone is throwing racism allegations but being vague enough to not have to substantiate it or back it up, it's not bullying to point out how cowardly and malicious that is, especially in this woke cancel culture age.0 -
retro:electro wrote: »Wow. Just wow.
1. She didn’t get married in France. She got married in the UK, where it is illegal to get married without two witnesses and you also can’t get married in “the back yard”. I think you can get married anywhere in the US. Considering the circus of the rest of the pageant, I can well understand Meghan feeling that the private ceremony meant more to her.
2. He was not given the title of prince because of hundred year old convention. He is not in direct line of succession and is not entitled to be prince until Charles takes throne. He was given title of The Duke of Dumbarton which they rejected. So, will he be made a prince when Charles takes the throne? The Queen is the longest serving monach, so maybe they had not to deal with this issue in the past.
3. As they are no longer working royals, they are not entitled to security as ergo, neither is Archie. Anne is the Queen’s daughter and only has security when she’s working. Zara, Beatrice and Eugenie don’t have private security either. They were no longer entitled to security when they stopped working. They were working royals at this time (i.e., wasn't Archie on tour in South Africa/Australia?
4. Meghan and Harry do, evidently.
5. She said she was left unsupported and had to google how to curtsy. She didn’t know protocol. She was given Samantha Cohen as Royal trainer. So Samantha Cohen forgot to tell her that she was meant to cursty to her husband's grandmother even in private?
6. So she didn’t lose her voice then. When what you can say is dictated to by The Firm, yes she did lose her voice. She had to shut down her blog and social media accounts.
7. Royals are meant to be politically neutral. The Queen has to stay quiet on things like Brexit so for Meghan to be given that freedom was breaking new ground and all kinds of remarkable for someone who claims to have been so oppressed and stifled by protocol. She or her son are obviously not Royal enough. Thats her husband's grandmother's job to be apolitical, not Markles.
8. She didn’t need a passport, she had diplomatic immunity. Only the Queen does not need a passport. All other royals do (according to google!).
She never said they took her car keys. She said her licence. She had her car keys. According to CBS:She gave up her keys, passport, and driver's license and got them back when she returned to the US.
https://www.insider.com/meghan-says-had-to-give-up-keys-passport-driving-license-to-join-royals-2021-3
9. How can they explain what they meant when they may not even know they said anything offensive. Is Megan is hurt by something she should confront that person, not do it through Oprah on global tv. It was said to Harry, not Meghan. Up to him to say who it is.
10. The racist tabloid headlines that ITV had to edit out of repeats of the interview because they were deceiving and inaccurate? Which ones were those?
11. Lol. Either way, it’s a breach of privacy that they claim should be respected. Who is ANL and what was the breach of privacy?
12. I never even mentioned Piers when I presented a list of people who have been ghosted by Meghan. There were at least three former friends, one even wrote an article about how Meghan dropped her as a friend and then when she saw her at an event she acted like she didn’t see her. Can you name them.
- it was Meghan’s friends who first leaked the letter. Which friends?
- it was Meghan’s job to look after own father above and beyond any employee. Knauf was assigned to look after him. Maybe Knauf's was distracted with having to deal with Prince Williams alleged affair while Kate was pregnant with the near neighbour?
- what Meghan did as a trusted family member was unforgivable. Well, I think its unforgivable that The Firm through her under the bus to protect Prince William.
I don’t know why the allegations are only being dealt with now. Maybe.. maybe they were trying to protect her? Something she claims never happened. They can't win on this one. Well the claim was that the former Robbie William's children's nanny left because of bullying, when in fact she was fired for incompetence.
Your post is just a complete litany of excuses for someone who has a very questionable character, to say the least. You don't like to be challenged on what you claim. I see nothing but superficial reasons to damn her character for not putting up with all that ****e from the British establishment. I think its unforgivable that The Firm made absolutely no effort to shied her from the racist British tabloids which was relentless.0 -
jm08, you need to rewatch the interview and amend your information.
It might be your truth, but it's not what Meghan presented as hers.
Although, as we all know, some recollections may vary.0 -
retro:electro wrote: »Wow. Just wow.
1. She didn’t get married in France. She got married in the UK, where it is illegal to get married without two witnesses and you also can’t get married in “the back yard”. I think you can get married anywhere in the US. Considering the circus of the rest of the pageant, I can well understand Meghan feeling that the private ceremony meant more to her.
2. He was not given the title of prince because of hundred year old convention. He is not in direct line of succession and is not entitled to be prince until Charles takes throne. He was given title of The Duke of Dumbarton which they rejected. So, will he be made a prince when Charles takes the throne? The Queen is the longest serving monach, so maybe they had not to deal with this issue in the past.
3. As they are no longer working royals, they are not entitled to security as ergo, neither is Archie. Anne is the Queen’s daughter and only has security when she’s working. Zara, Beatrice and Eugenie don’t have private security either. They were no longer entitled to security when they stopped working. They were working royals at this time (i.e., wasn't Archie on tour in South Africa/Australia?
4. Meghan and Harry do, evidently.
5. She said she was left unsupported and had to google how to curtsy. She didn’t know protocol. She was given Samantha Cohen as Royal trainer. So Samantha Cohen forgot to tell her that she was meant to cursty to her husband's grandmother even in private?
6. So she didn’t lose her voice then. When what you can say is dictated to by The Firm, yes she did lose her voice. She had to shut down her blog and social media accounts.
7. Royals are meant to be politically neutral. The Queen has to stay quiet on things like Brexit so for Meghan to be given that freedom was breaking new ground and all kinds of remarkable for someone who claims to have been so oppressed and stifled by protocol. She or her son are obviously not Royal enough. Thats her husband's grandmother's job to be apolitical, not Markles.
8. She didn’t need a passport, she had diplomatic immunity. Only the Queen does not need a passport. All other royals do (according to google!).
She never said they took her car keys. She said her licence. She had her car keys. According to CBS:
[/SIZE][/B]
https://www.insider.com/meghan-says-had-to-give-up-keys-passport-driving-license-to-join-royals-2021-3
9. How can they explain what they meant when they may not even know they said anything offensive. Is Megan is hurt by something she should confront that person, not do it through Oprah on global tv. It was said to Harry, not Meghan. Up to him to say who it is.
10. The racist tabloid headlines that ITV had to edit out of repeats of the interview because they were deceiving and inaccurate? Which ones were those?
11. Lol. Either way, it’s a breach of privacy that they claim should be respected. Who is ANL and what was the breach of privacy?
12. I never even mentioned Piers when I presented a list of people who have been ghosted by Meghan. There were at least three former friends, one even wrote an article about how Meghan dropped her as a friend and then when she saw her at an event she acted like she didn’t see her. Can you name them.
- it was Meghan’s friends who first leaked the letter. Which friends?
- it was Meghan’s job to look after own father above and beyond any employee. Knauf was assigned to look after him. Maybe Knauf's was distracted with having to deal with Prince Williams alleged affair while Kate was pregnant with the near neighbour?
- what Meghan did as a trusted family member was unforgivable. Well, I think its unforgivable that The Firm through her under the bus to protect Prince William.
I don’t know why the allegations are only being dealt with now. Maybe.. maybe they were trying to protect her? Something she claims never happened. They can't win on this one. Well the claim was that the former Robbie William's children's nanny left because of bullying, when in fact she was fired for incompetence.
Your post is just a complete litany of excuses for someone who has a very questionable character, to say the least. You don't like to be challenged on what you claim. I see nothing but superficial reasons to damn her character for not putting up with all that ****e from the British establishment. I think its unforgivable that The Firm made absolutely no effort to shied her from the racist British tabloids which was relentless.
There is literally no point in wasting my day replying to your questions when your intentions in asking aren’t honest. You’re defending a shrewd manipulator and obstructor of the truth. Most of the things you’re asking are very basic and can be addressed by a simple google. You don’t want to know the answers. You have no interest in the actual reality of things, only things that help to frame Meghan in a light that displays her as perpetual victim of everyone else’s doing.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »If someone is a hypocrite or is coming out with outright falsehoods like claiming they got married 3 days before they actually got married, then calling out the BS and extrapolating what it says about their reliability to accurately recall events is not bullying. If someone is throwing racism allegations but being vague enough to not have to substantiate it or back it up, it's not bullying to point out how cowardly and malicious that is, especially in this woke cancel culture age.
I just don't know what the big deal is about this. To her the small, intimate ceremony was the real wedding and the legal job was the spectacle for the public. I don't get why people are having a go at her for this. If anything it speaks of her relationship with Harry and that the whole Royal celebrity thing is a negative in their relationship.Meghan said that while the main event was a "spectacle" for everyone to behold, the couple wanted their "union" to remain between the two of them, and so they called upon the Archbishop of Canterbury to join them in their garden and perform a more intimate service.
The Duchess went on to reveal that they now have said vows framed on display at the home that they share with their one-year-old son Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, in Montecito, California.0 -
retro:electro wrote: »
There is literally no point in wasting my day replying to your questions when your intentions in asking aren’t honest. You’re defending a shrewd manipulator and obstructor of the truth. Most of the things you’re asking are very basic and can be addressed by a simple google. You don’t want to know the answers. You have no interest in the actual reality of things, only things that help to frame Meghan in a light that displays her as perpetual victim of everyone else’s doing.
All you do is state opinions, with no facts to even reason why you have those opinions. You refuse to acknowledge information in the public domain about Knauf questionable character and motives. You refuse to acknowledge that the British tabloids were relentless in their hounding of her. And of course, once you are challenged on these points, you tell me to google for your arguments as to why you think such and such. Why don't you provide some links / quotes to back up your opinion of her (unless that is that you know her personally).
It has been claimed that she has no friends, that her friends are casual acquaintainces. Then its claimed that ''friends' leaked the letter. Which is it?0 -
Leg End Reject wrote: »jm08, you need to rewatch the interview and amend your information.
It might be your truth, but it's not what Meghan presented as hers.
Although, as we all know, some recollections may vary.
Which information needs to be amended?0 -
Which information needs to be amended?
Check your facts, I'm not going through a wall of text for you.0 -
I just don't know what the big deal is about this. To her the small, intimate ceremony was the real wedding and the legal job was the spectacle for the public. I don't get why people are having a go at her for this. If anything it speaks of her relationship with Harry and that the whole Royal celebrity thing is a negative in their relationship.
Probably because she just right out lied, simple as that.
She knew what she was getting into when she married into the royal family and if she didn't like it, which she clearly didnt, then they were both able to.leave royal life, which they did.
However, the way she has left and stuck the boot into a family that she says herself, were very welcoming to her is what has shown her real character.0 -
All you do is state opinions, with no facts to even reason why you have those opinions. You refuse to acknowledge information in the public domain about Knauf questionable character and motives. You refuse to acknowledge that the British tabloids were relentless in their hounding of her. And of course, once you are challenged on these points, you tell me to google for your arguments as to why you think such and such. Why don't you provide some links / quotes to back up your opinion of her (unless that is that you know her personally).
It has been claimed that she has no friends, that her friends are casual acquaintainces. Then its claimed that ''friends' leaked the letter. Which is it?
Isn’t that why we’re all here? Shooting the breeze and giving our opinions on the interview Harry and Megan have where they played the poor mouth and made themselves out to be victims. Why are you so offended by this? I’ve produced many links throughout my posts here, if you missed them you can always go back and check. The tabloids reported on her in a manner no worse or less than any other Royal gone before her. I’ve consistently said she could have made the argument that what every royal has to go through with regards to tabloid rags is extremely tough. But she just instead dismissed the experiences of Kate and made it all about her because her treatment was racist, despite nobody being able to provide any proof of anything racist that hadn’t been manipulated by CBS, and then subsequently redacted by ITV. She also said there are no tabloids in America, yet just yesterday I saw a headline from The National Enquirer with the title “psycho Meghan”. There were also a lot of American tabloid headlines used in the Oprah interview despite Meghan saying there’s no US tabloids :pac:
She got a few ridiculous headlines alright, but some were warranted and her ridiculous behaviour at times did her reputation and public perception no favours. I don’t know anything about Jason Knauff only that he made the bullying allegations that are now being investigated. So we’ll see what comes of that. You seem to have it in for him for some bizarre reason because he hired someone who was lacking experience, okay — crime of the century I think not. And leaked a letter that her five mysterious friends also leaked. And your guess is as good as mine about the mysterious identity of these so called friends. She didn’t want them named in the suit so we don’t know who they are, maybe they’re celebrities? That’s all she seems to personally surround herself with. Some “friends” they are anyway, leaking a letter to the media who Meghan then goes on to sue for breach of privacy.
Tut tut!0 -
I'm impressed by the breadth of knowledge some people have on the matter.0
-
Probably because she just right out lied, simple as that.
She knew what she was getting into when she married into the royal family and if she didn't like it, which she clearly didnt, then they were both able to.leave royal life, which they did.
However, the way she has left and stuck the boot into a family that she says herself, were very welcoming to her is what has shown her real character.
What did she lie about? I doubt if she knew that she had to cursty to her husband's grandmother even when in private. Thats just weird.
They might have been initially welcoming, but they threw her under the bus when it came to looking out for her with the racist press. Maybe The Firm cottoned on that having a black woman as a senior royal isn't going down well in what has become a fairly racist country (or maybe it was always racist and we believed the British propaganda).0 -
Probably because she just right out lied, simple as that.
She knew what she was getting into when she married into the royal family and if she didn't like it, which she clearly didnt, then they were both able to.leave royal life, which they did.
However, the way she has left and stuck the boot into a family that she says herself, were very welcoming to her is what has shown her real character.
Shes out to make herself the next Kim K, and yes she has the potential to achieve that and be potentially bigger.
But her actions are a means to the end of making her brand bigger. Dont be fooled by the "ah poor Meghan" narrative.
Its a marketing campaign and the Netflix deal is proof of it.0 -
Leg End Reject wrote: »So you're here to defend 2 celebrities then and type like you're having a stroke.
Go you!
That went over your head but never mind.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Im in the retro:electro camp on this one its getting tiresome replying to you and you cherry-picking the points you argue.What did she lie about? I doubt if she knew that she had to cursty to her husband's grandmother even when in private. Thats just weird.
They might have been initially welcoming, but they threw her under the bus when it came to looking out for her with the racist press. Maybe The Firm cottoned on that having a black woman as a senior royal isn't going down well in what has become a fairly racist country (or maybe it was always racist and we believed the British propaganda).
Where did she lie????
Cutting down to two things. Ignoring all else.
Firstly about her private wedding 3 days before. Yes, we all know it wasn't official, it was a private ceremony for H&M. I've no problem with that. But she categorically stated in the interview that it was a marriage ceremony. That's when she got married. This has been proven false.
Keep that in mind for this next bit.
She claimed prince/princess titles for her kids and security for the family was being withheld. She made it sound that someone CHOSE to withhold those things, most likely with a racist motive.
We know that is untrue. Its public knowledge. And was so before she married.
The first point proves that she is an unreliable narrator.
The facts surrounding the second point show that at very best she is massively stupid. Yet she has shown that she is quite intelligent in her interview, so that leads a great many people to think that she is not stupid, she is lying, that she knew these things but wanted them anyway, she didnt get them and is throwing her toys out of the pram as a result.
Can you answer us on those points?0 -
What did she lie about? I doubt if she knew that she had to cursty to her husband's grandmother even when in private. Thats just weird.
They might have been initially welcoming, but they threw her under the bus when it came to looking out for her with the racist press. Maybe The Firm cottoned on that having a black woman as a senior royal isn't going down well in what has become a fairly racist country (or maybe it was always racist and we believed the British propaganda).
I believe she was given training and guidance for her new role as most people receive training in a new job. Surely, curtseying in private would have come up.0 -
Be right back wrote: »I believe she was given training and guidance for her new role as most people receive training in a new job. Surely, curtseying in private would have come up.
She claimed it came up the first time she met the Queen. Harry said it her on the drive there and then apparently Fergie came rushing out to make sure she knew how to curtsy.
Meghan even said she mastered it very quickly.0 -
Maybe The Firm cottoned on that having a black woman as a senior royal isn't going down well in what has become a fairly racist country (or maybe it was always racist and we believed the British propaganda).
This is the most ridiculous statement Ive read.
England , as does every country has racists. But the majority surely arent racist.
What would lead the Royals to believe that A Meghan isnt going down well because of her race, and B that theyd by following this narrative would play out well.
Its absurd. A very weak post.0 -
This is the most ridiculous statement Ive read.
England , as does every country has racists. But the majority surely arent racist.
What would lead the Royals to believe that A Meghan isnt going down well because of her race, and B that theyd by following this narrative would play out well.
Its absurd. A very weak post.
Look at royal families in other countries. People they are not allowed date are screened out early. It is actually very common, if this was the case she wouldn’t have been allowed even a first date.0 -
Did anyone even know she wasn't white? I didn't know that until she was alleging racism in the media.
She is the most white black woman I've ever seen. If she is mixed race, that means she is half white. To allege racism is a bit ridiculous from the get go. She is hardly Wesley snipes or Serena Williams.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 25439
I just don't know what the big deal is about this. To her the small, intimate ceremony was the real wedding and the legal job was the spectacle for the public.
The big deal is that she became a Duchess upon legally marrying into the royal family. When she legally became the wife of a prince, on the date the archbishop completed their wedding ceremony. Not before.
Consider this. If the backyard wedding was real or even if the Archbishop did allow them to say vows that they thought was their real wedding, that invalidates the legal ceremony that took place three days later. Which is rather problematic at the best of times, but I imagine it's doubly so when you are marrying into a Royal family. So Meghan needed to get her story straight on that. Because if she really believed that was her real wedding, then she's not legally married and therefore not legally the Duchess of Sussex...Oops.
Or maybe she knew all along because she's not thick and what was intended to be a cute sound-bite in a fluffy interview kind of blew up in her face causing her to backtrack a few days later and admit that it was exactly what everyone knows it was - a wedding rehearsal. Double Oops.
And all that does is undermine any credibility she may have when she made more serious allegations towards the Royal family.0 -
extra gravy wrote: »I don't like bullying. Some of the posts on this thread have been borderline unhinged.
"bUt It's OkAy bEcAusE they'LL NeVer ReAd iT"
Threadbanned0 -
Advertisement
-
Ask yourself this. Would this interview have even happened if they had gotten what they initially asked for? It is pretty clear that there was a pre-meditated plan in place but the plan was thwarted by a 94 year old Monarch and the Covid pandemic. Harry was groomed to leave his role as a working Royal. He was trapped but didn’t know it. There was multi millions of dollars waiting to be made from cashing in on their Royal status. Meghan was mixed race and American, Harry was Diana’s son and the son of the future King. This was their unique selling point. The “brand” would be priceless.
However, the problem was that exploiting that status was, and always has been, prohibited. I think Meghan saw an opportunity to achieve a level of social media influence akin to that of one of the Kardashians. The likes of Kylie Jenner can make over a million dollars from an Instagram post by hocking a product or service. How would advertisers or companies pay for actual Royalty to pitch their wares? Handsomely. Their own line of Sussex Royal products would also have that Royal seal of approval. They’d be on easy street and worth well over $100 million. Blockbuster status.
It helped that Harry saw an opportunity to be self-sufficient, to earn his own keep after years of living off the Duchy of Cornwall. The prospect of becoming his own man, of earning his own money, was understandably appealing. In time, he would be afforded a living by his brother once Charles became the Monarch. No man would like the prospect of that. It was an opportunity to leave and they eagerly took it in January 2020. Let’s assume that the Queen fully facilitated this move, that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were free to network and negotiate lucrative deals while retaining their titles, patronages etc. At the same time, they would actually be given their allowance for security and that they could pick and choose functions which they wanted to attend (e.g. they could leave the opening of homeless shelters and the pressing of flesh in Milton Keynes to other minor Royals while they, the power couple, would attend those glamorous black tie events).
Do you think that Harry and Meghan would be doing a sit down interview with Oprah and throwing the Royal family under the bus by smearing them as racists, as callous indifferent people who made them cry or attack the institution who refused to help Meghan who was suicidal if they got all that they wanted? None of that would have ever been spoken about because the interview was a spiteful PR exercise done expressly to damage those who prevented Harry and Meghan from cashing in on their status, on those who stopped them from having their cake and eating it too. It was an act of showing them the middle finger. Would we know about institutional racism or their failure to address mental health issues? Of course we wouldn’t.
So what to do? Conjure up a narrative of being victims in order to appeal to a woke Hollywood set. They were the prisoners of a racist institution. Their family, even the Queen is trapped in it. They are the young family who got cut off financially, who wouldn’t get protected, who were silenced from defending themselves for far too long. Enough was enough and they had to find their freedom. They thus have absolutely no credibility at all because IF they were on easy street none of the bombshell content in the interview would ever be spoken of.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement