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

Leg End Reject

Ms2011 wrote: »

Depends on what side of the fence you're sitting on. I never thought for a minute it was a wedding in the official sense of the word, merely an exchange of vows they didn't feel they wanted to share with the world. I think they kept it to themselves for the same reason they didn't exchange the earlier vows in public, it was not just something between themselves.

It was just a symbolic exchange of vows "just between themselves" why blab it to the world and cheapen it?

Ms2011

Leg End Reject wrote: »

It was just a symbolic exchange of vows "just between themselves" why blab it to the world and cheapen it?

She was asked where she saw their life going forward, she used the 'wedding' story I guess to try to illustrate the type of simple life they enjoy.

Leg End Reject

Ms2011 wrote: »

She was asked where she saw their life going forward, she used the 'wedding' story I guess to try to illustrate the type of simple life they enjoy.

A simple life?

"Look at little old us, multimillion dollar contracts and our children aren't entitled to HRH status!"

retro:electro

Is there any irony at all in the fact that Harry was sitting petting a chicken while he failed to correct Meghan on her delusions over the wedding

They’re taking time out from their busy schedules when their baby arrives. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9426189/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-proper-time-daughter-arrives.html

Leg End Reject

retro:electro wrote: »

Is there any irony at all in the fact that Harry was sitting petting a chicken while he failed to correct Meghan on her delusions over the wedding

Rescue chickens apparently, kept cooped up in a small run at that.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

We got married with just 3 people there leaves no doubt that it wasn't legal, no need for anyone to publicly declare anything, anyone who has ever had anything to do with a wedding knows you need to have 2 witnesses to make a marriage legal unless of course you're trying to find a hiding meaning where there isn't one.

She used quite sophisticated words during this interview, so don't tell me, she didn't know what the world "marriage" means.

Ms2011

Leg End Reject wrote: »

A simple life?

"Look at little old us, multimillion dollar contracts and our children aren't entitled to HRH status!"

You asked why she 'blabbed', and that's the context in which the wedding came out.
You can live a simple life with millions in the bank and a well paying job if that's your choice.

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

She used quite sophisticated words during this interview, so don't tell me, she didn't know what the world "marriage" means.

Doesn't mean she has to use it literally though

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

She was asked where she saw their life going forward, she used the 'wedding' story I guess to try to illustrate the type of simple life they enjoy.

Yeah, and to start this they bought 16 bathrooms mansion. They should have bought a simple cottage.

Leg End Reject

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They’re taking time out from their busy schedules when their baby arrives. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9426189/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-proper-time-daughter-arrives.html

Another dig because he had to go on an engagement 3 days after Archie was born.

I wonder are they aware of the paternity entitlements men in real jobs have, and that it's a fairly recent right at that?

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

I think you give her too much credit tbh.

Nope, you are trying to defend undefendable

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

Doesn't mean she has to use it literally though

Well, so how do you discern lies from truth then?

Leg End Reject

Ms2011 wrote: »

You asked why she 'blabbed', and that's the context in which the wedding came out.
You can live a simple life with millions in the bank and a well paying job if that's your choice.

A televised interview with a global audience, high profile roles and announcing you're taking paternity leave are the antithesis of a simple life, no matter how they dress it up.

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

Yeah, and to start this they bought 16 bathrooms mansion. They should have bought a simple cottage.

Seems to be alot of bitterness towards how much money they have, its their money to spend on what they wanted.
The size of their house or bank balance doesn't have to reflect how they choose to live.

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

Nope, you are trying to defend undefendable

I don't see what's undefendable about someone calling a vow exchange a marriage.

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

Well, so how do you discern lies from truth then?

Maybe take the word in context with the whole statement.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

I don't see what's undefendable about someone calling a vow exchange a marriage.

Definition of marriage: "the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship"

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

Definition of marriage: "the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship"

With 2 witnesses or else it's not legal.

MoonUnit75

Ms2011 wrote: »

With 2 witnesses or else it's not legal.

That’s the excuse? What she said isn’t technically legal so it therefore can’t be construed as a bare faced lie? I thought being ‘post truth’ was meant to be ironic.

jm08

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Another dig because he had to go on an engagement 3 days after Archie was born.

I wonder are they aware of the paternity entitlements men in real jobs have, and that it's a fairly recent right at that?

The Queen and Prince William got a couple of years off when they first got married.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

Seems to be alot of bitterness towards how much money they have, its their money to spend on what they wanted.
The size of their house or bank balance doesn't have to reflect how they choose to live.

I am far from bitter, only I just can't believe that people believe in what they are saying. One can say everything. But is it true?

From their document:



In spring 2020 they said how they would handle media:
- Engage with grassroots media organisations and young, up-and-coming journalist

Yet one year later they chose the biggest TV station CBS with the most established interviewer on the planet.

So was it true what they declared they would do?

Now they say about wanting simple life out of public, but do opposite again.

You prefer to buy it, your choice...

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

With 2 witnesses or else it's not legal.

So you can't call it marriage

Ms2011

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

That’s the excuse? What she said isn’t technically legal so it therefore can’t be construed as a bare faced lie? I thought being ‘post truth’ was meant to be ironic.

You can construe anything as a lie if you have a mind to, doesn't mean it's true though.

jm08

Leg End Reject wrote: »

She claimed they were actually married by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a private ceremony 3 days before the wedding. The actual wedding was just a public spectacle.

The Archbishop is unlikely to facilitate a "spiritual exchange of personal vows" between the grandson of the head of the COE and his fiancee, regardless of whatever happens in America.

This is what you are reduced to now - what she said about their wedding vows now that all the various claims about her wanting the big wedding and as much spent on her wedding as on Kates (when in fact, all the money spent on the wedding is on security - and security not just for Meghan's celeb friends).


And then then for making Kate cry turned into the other way around (with flowers and a note of apology was said to be responded with the door being banged in Kate's face)! Really, Kate wrote a note and hand delivered it herself with Meghan answering the door! This is just laughable. Then the efforts to ridicule her possible political ambitions not knowing that in fact she was quite the activist from a young age (for instance, writing to Proctor & Gamble and getting them to change a sexist ad at the age of 12 and succeeding - there is a tv interview with her as a 12 year old).

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

So you can't call it marriage

She could call it a circus if she wanted to, that's up to her.

jm08

JoChervil wrote: »

I am far from bitter, only I just can't believe that people believe in what they are saying. One can say everything. But is it true?

From their document:



In spring 2020 they said how they would handle media:
- Engage with grassroots media organisations and young, up-and-coming journalist

Yet one year later they chose the biggest TV station CBS with the most established interviewer on the planet.

So was it true what they declared they would do?

Now they say about wanting simple life out of public, but do opposite again.

You prefer to buy it, your choice...

My understanding is they wanted a bit less intrusion and vilification from the rabid, racist British tabloids.

MoonUnit75

Ms2011 wrote: »

She could call it a circus if she wanted to, that's up to her.

We're all on the same page then, nothing she says can be taken as literally true or reliable.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

The Queen and Prince William got a couple of years off when they first got married.

what?
got a couple of years off from what exactly?

Ms2011

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

We're all on the same page then, nothing she says can be taken as literally true or reliable.

Nothing says losing an argument like trying to put words in someone's mouth!