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

BettyS

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No

She could do an Arnold on it?

Neyite

BettyS wrote: »

How do you reckon that she will be received?

She wouldn't last two minutes in politics without running to Oprah's sofa to cry that everyone is racist and mean because they are actually asking her to explain the details of her political manifesto.

beakerjoe

Be right back wrote: »

I say she'll have a go at running for it, definitely!

She may have media exposure but shes not well liked as much as she think shes is.

Cant see it being successful.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, it muddies things even more. It begs the question “What else did she lie about?”

as it stands she technically didn't lie about anything, rather she made 1 or potentially more incorrect statements.
she made an incorrect interpretation about what a practice session for her wedding actually was, or if not that a probable blessing, and seemed to misunderstand the situation over titles and security once no longer a senior member of the rf.

retro:electro

The girl who went running to Oprah over who made who cry over a pair of flower girls tights running for president.. yeah something tells me she wouldn’t be able to handle it.
I can see Camilla running again. Meghan won’t get a look in. Things like this really expose how deluded she is

ceadaoin.

Well if she gets elected as president after the country literally just saw what happens when you elect a celebrity with no political experience but a lot of wealth and privilege, then Americans are even more stupid than I thought. Who would she even run for anyway? Not Republicans obviously and democrats already have their candidates. Even if Biden somehow isn't up for reelection, they will have others who aren't Megan markle. Its nonsense designed to get in the news. If not, then she is absolutely delusional.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

as it stands she technically didn't lie about anything, rather she made 1 or potentially more incorrect statements.
she made an incorrect interpretation about what a practice session for her wedding actually was, or if not that a probable blessing, and seemed to misunderstand the situation over titles and security once no longer a senior member of the rf.

She lied.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

She lied.

she didn't.
she was simply incorrect.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

she didn't.
she was simply incorrect.

In other words, she lied.

Itssoeasy

BettyS wrote: »

She could do an Arnold on it?

What run for governor of the state of California ?

Itssoeasy

BettyS wrote: »

There is more talk brewing about Meghan running for president. That will surely never happen?

Has the trump presidency not shown that someone with zero experience isn’t a good idea. If there’s one thing that’s good from trump being president, it’s the bloom is off the rose on celebrities being better than politicians.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

In other words, she lied.

no.

Leg End Reject

I'd love to see her elected POTUS and be a fly on the wall of Buckingham Palace/White House for the reception during a state visit. :pac:

Leg End Reject

end of the road wrote: »

as it stands she technically didn't lie about anything, rather she made 1 or potentially more incorrect statements.
she made an incorrect interpretation about what a practice session for her wedding actually was, or if not that a probable blessing, and seemed to misunderstand the situation over titles and security once no longer a senior member of the rf.

They knew about the transition period, the Queen's letter was published so even we knew. They had stated, and it was also in that letter, that they wanted financial independence and not to use public funds.

Perhaps she's as confused about "financial independence" and "not using public funds" as she is about what "married" means?

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well if she gets elected as president after the country literally just saw what happens when you elect a celebrity with no political experience but a lot of wealth and privilege, then Americans are even more stupid than I thought. Who would she even run for anyway? Not Republicans obviously and democrats already have their candidates. Even if Biden somehow isn't up for reelection, they will have others who aren't Megan markle. Its nonsense designed to get in the news. If not, then she is absolutely delusional.

The democrats want someone they can control. Given her complete failure to integrate and become part of the RF institution i very much doubt the Dems would touch her. She would be similar to the AOC social media clique who are a thorn in the side of Pelosi et al.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

she didn't.
she was simply incorrect.

Can you accept that her ability to be incorrect about one thing could also mean she has the potential to be incorrect about other things?

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

Can you accept that her ability to be incorrect about one thing could also mean she has the potential to be incorrect about other things?

no as it's not the case.


being incorrect about 1 thing doesn't make someone incorrect or potentially incorrect about other things.
generally we all have the potential to be incorrect on the odd thing, even if we are correct the majority of the time, but being correct or incorrect on some things wouldn't have any specific baring on whether we are the same on something else.

Purple Mountain

retro:electro wrote: »

Can you accept that her ability to be incorrect about one thing could also mean she has the potential to be incorrect about other things?

I definitely accept that but I still say she thinks in her head that their slushy private vows were more a feeling of being married than signing the register.
Saying that, I feel like her saying that her, H, and the Archie sharing their secret was a petulant 2 fingers to the monarchy and an attempt to show them that H+M could arrange something in secret.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

no as it's not the case.


being incorrect about 1 thing doesn't make someone incorrect or potentially incorrect about other things.
generally we all have the potential to be incorrect on the odd thing, even if we are correct the majority of the time, but being correct or incorrect on some things wouldn't have any specific baring on whether we are the same on something else.

Okay so what you’re saying is she was wrong about this one thing but never wrong about anything else in her near 40 year life? If she was wrong about this she has the potential to be wrong about other things. To deny that is to deny basic common sense.

Purple Mountain

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I definitely accept that but I still say she thinks in her head that their slushy private vows were more a feeling of being married than signing the register.
Saying that, I feel like her saying that her, H, and the Archie sharing their secret was a petulant 2 fingers to the monarchy and an attempt to show them that H+M could arrange something in secret.

The Archie? Presume you mean of Canterbury rather than the one in nappies lol

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

no as it's not the case.


being incorrect about 1 thing doesn't make someone incorrect or potentially incorrect about other things.
generally we all have the potential to be incorrect on the odd thing, even if we are correct the majority of the time, but being correct or incorrect on some things wouldn't have any specific baring on whether we are the same on something else.

I think that her inaccuracy over something that is black and white and can be fact checked show that she is either dishonest or is an unreliable relayer of the truth.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

as it stands she technically didn't lie about anything, rather she made 1 or potentially more incorrect statements.
she made an incorrect interpretation about what a practice session for her wedding actually was, or if not that a probable blessing, and seemed to misunderstand the situation over titles and security once no longer a senior member of the rf.

She straight out lied

If she did make an incorrect interpretation or a merely incorrect statement, don't you think she would come out afterwards and clarify? Once she found out of course that she had merely made an incorrect interpretation #rolleyes #

JoChervil

end of the road wrote: »

as it stands she technically didn't lie about anything, rather she made 1 or potentially more incorrect statements.
she made an incorrect interpretation about what a practice session for her wedding actually was, or if not that a probable blessing, and seemed to misunderstand the situation over titles and security once no longer a senior member of the rf.

You really try to make her stupid or naive. While she is not. All this her talk about titles was to secure it for Archie in future. She even mentioned this protocol by King George V, so she knew exactly that he is entitled to it, once Charles will become a King. But years ago Charles wanted to limited the amount of titles to the main line. And he was considering it way before Harry met Meghan, so the race had nothing to do with it. I think what she tried to do, was to stop it. Because if this protocol was changed now, she would blame it for racism. So now RF has to think twice before they do it or if they do it. She is smart enough. Accusing her that she misinterpreted things is actually offending her intelligence.

And what about that she never googled Harry on line?

Purple Mountain

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Archie? Presume you mean of Canterbury rather than the one in nappies lol

I do, I'm trying to be down with the kids
I had forgotten the nipper was Archie for a minute!

JoChervil

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I definitely accept that but I still say she thinks in her head that their slushy private vows were more a feeling of being married than signing the register.
Saying that, I feel like her saying that her, H, and the Archie sharing their secret was a petulant 2 fingers to the monarchy and an attempt to show them that H+M could arrange something in secret.

Yes, I agree with the second part of your post. It was to say to RF and public: You never owned us, we did our things and even the biggest our spectacle was ours, not yours.

Ms2011

If she lied about the first 'wedding' she's a brutal liar, adding in that there were only 3 people there would make it immediately obvious that it wasn't a legal wedding.
Such a rookie mistake doesn't really fit with the image of a master manipulator project on her.

Purple Mountain

Does anyone know why her father has never met Harry even before the big falling out?
That doesn't make sense.

banie01

end of the road wrote: »

no as it's not the case.


being incorrect about 1 thing doesn't make someone incorrect or potentially incorrect about other things.
generally we all have the potential to be incorrect on the odd thing, even if we are correct the majority of the time, but being correct or incorrect on some things wouldn't have any specific baring on whether we are the same on something else.

Actually it paints her reliability in an exceptionally poor light.
Particularly when statements were presented as "their truth".
It paints the truth and facts as conditional and subjective rather than objective.
Further it demonstrates her subjective and conditional recollection as false.

A well known and oft cited legal maxim is falsus in uno, falsus in omnium.
Presenting an interview as their truth, and telling such a patently transparent untruth?
Well it doesn't the credibility of anything else she or Harry may claim any good.

Leg End Reject

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14411884/meghan-markle-prince-harry-wedding-certificate-three-days/

Scroll down to the bit in the blue box and a reference to Meghan's "truth".

valoren

BettyS wrote: »

There is more talk brewing about Meghan running for president. That will surely never happen?

Found the role of a working Royal too stifling and the press intrusion too invasive but being the President of the United States won't involve anything like that I suppose?

You have career politicians with ambitions on the Presidency but she is considering a tilt at the role? This belongs in the Kanye West bracket of narcissism.