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

kowloon

banie01 wrote: »

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.

That term gets right up my back, and Oprah uses it all the time.

Neyite

bubblypop wrote: »

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

Not really - the queen was living in Malta at the time because her husband was in the Navy. Her father was alive. It was only when her father died she returned home with her children, with her husband quitting naval service to support her in her new role as Queen.



William quit his military role to take up more royal duties in 2017 - that time-line roughly corresponds with the plan for Philip to take a step back and for the Queen to reduce her workload. W&K got married in 2011 so he was a good few years before he went full time Royal. And the main reason he quit the piloting job was because it was based in East Anglia and his royal stuff is mostly London based.

Leg End Reject

jm08 wrote: »

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

The queen was straight into being a queen when her father died. I think William was a search and rescue helicopter pilot but still doing royal engagements.

If you're funded by taxpayers you have to be seen to be upholding your part of the bargain.

MoonUnit75

Ms2011 wrote: »

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

We just have different parameters on what constitutes a lie, you seem to be suggesting if something isn't legal then statements about it shouldn't be taken as literally true.

It's ingenious, I'll give you that: 'Yes, your honour, I did tell the paramedics who cut me out of my car that I had 7 pints on the way home from work, but that would be in contravention of the Road Traffic Act, so I bear no responsibility when they took such an obviously outrageous statement literally".

jm08

Neyite wrote: »

No I didn't know that but it doesn't change my opinion. She might have the qualifications for it, but she doesn't have the thick hide a politician needs to do the actual job. She does have the obfuscation of truth down to a tee though.

With that kind of attitude you think is ok, no wonder there are so few people, particularly women in politics. That isn't right that anyone needs to put up with racist, sexist abuse that gets dished out from all and sundry. If you actually read that article about when she was in college, as a 20 year old she was speaking up about racist discrimination. Thats a brave thing to do for someone who has such light skin tones. She could have shafted her mother to hide her heritage and life would have been a hell of a lot easier for her. But she didn't.

Leg End Reject

Ms2011 wrote: »

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

You can construe anything to be true if you have a mind to doesn't mean it's true though by that logic.

Ms2011

Leg End Reject wrote: »

You can construe anything to be true if you have a mind to doesn't mean it's true though by that logic.

Isn't that why we are having a debate?

jm08

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The queen was straight into being a queen when her father died. I think William was a search and rescue helicopter pilot but still doing royal engagements.

If you're funded by taxpayers you have to be seen to be upholding your part of the bargain.

The Queen lived in Malta (I think) for a couple of years before her coronation when she was a Princess.

Harry is still only a Prince, like what the Queen was back then.

William lived in Wales for a couple of years where they didn't have any royal chores. They then moved to Norfolk where he had a part time job with Search & Rescue while engaged in public duties.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

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

Of course, she could. Everyone can tell whatever they like. Only then one is accountable for it.

Leg End Reject

Ms2011 wrote: »

Isn't that why we are having a debate?

Yes, I never claimed otherwise, just pointing out logic.

jm08

bubblypop wrote: »

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

They lived private lives with no royal duties.

Ms2011

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

We just have different parameters on what constitutes a lie, you seem to be suggesting if something isn't legal then statements about it shouldn't be taken as literally true.

It's ingenious, I'll give you that: 'Yes, your honour, I did tell the paramedics who cut me out of my car that I had 7 pints on the way home from work, but that would be in contravention of the Road Traffic Act, so I bear no responsibility when they took such an obviously outrageous statement literally".

You're saying she straight out lied about the vow exchange being a marriage, yes? Then surely she wouldn't have followed that 'lie' up with, 'it was just the 3 of us' which would prove her claim was a lie.
Not very smart for someone who is supposed to be a lying mastermind.

JoChervil

They are people, who proved not once that they want to have cake and eat it. So they pretend how humble they are and the same time collaborate with the stronger people to advance their career. They want all likability coming from how down to earth and compassionate they are. But can’t even apply this compassion to their own families.

They don’t walk their talk, so I am simply refusing to give them this cake. They ate it, so that’s it. I am not buying their pretences.

jm08

JoChervil wrote: »

They are people, who proved not once that they want to have cake and eat it. So they pretend how humble they are and the same time collaborate with the stronger people to advance their career. They want all likability coming from how down to earth and compassionate they are. But can’t even apply this compassion to their own families.

They don’t walk their talk, so I am simply refusing to give them this cake. They ate it, so that’s it. I am not buying their pretences.

Who are these stronger people who are advancing their careers?
Are you trying to claim now that the Firm needs compassion? Not so long ago, they were very short on it for Meghan & Harry. Seriously, they had Harry march behind his mother's coffin as a 12 year old in front of millions of people. Compassion my arse? As for Meghan - she is very close with her mother. Her father's side are just a crowd of leechers and she was dead right to cut them out, along with Piers Morgan. She is a good judge of character from what I can see.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

The Queen lived in Malta (I think) for a couple of years before her coronation when she was a Princess.

Harry is still only a Prince, like what the Queen was back then.

William lived in Wales for a couple of years where they didn't have any royal chores. They then moved to Norfolk where he had a part time job with Search & Rescue while engaged in public duties.

he was working full time in wales as a search and rescue pilot when he married. They also went on their first tour of Canada and USA soon after their wedding?

The queen lived on Malta because thats where her husband was stationed.
They didn't have 'years off' after they married:rolleyes:

Leg End Reject

bubblypop wrote: »

he was working full time in wales as a search and rescue pilot when he married. They also went on their first tour of Canada and USA soon after their wedding?

The queen lived on Malta because thats where her husband was stationed.
They didn't have 'years off' after they married:rolleyes:

It's hilarious to think of them sitting around for years scratching their arses as a wedding present from taxpayers.

Leg End Reject

jm08 wrote: »

They lived private lives with no royal duties.

It's already been pointed out to you that they didn't.

Neyite

jm08 wrote: »

With that kind of attitude you think is ok, no wonder there are so few people, particularly women in politics. That isn't right that anyone needs to put up with racist, sexist abuse that gets dished out from all and sundry. If you actually read that article about when she was in college, as a 20 year old she was speaking up about racist discrimination. Thats a brave thing to do for someone who has such light skin tones. She could have shafted her mother to hide her heritage and life would have been a hell of a lot easier for her. But she didn't.

It's nothing to do with women in politics. Nor was it ever anything to do with skin colour.

My point was that for politics you have to be a bit bull headed, and be able to shrug off the manipulative stuff that gets said about you - everyone from seasoned journalists to amateur bloggers will be taking everything you utter /do and commenting on it.

If she wants to get into politics there's no stopping her. If she becomes a democrat candidate (she would hardly run as republican I imagine) do you think that she would have to tow the party line, often whether or not she agrees with it? She'd get nowhere as an independent candidate in the US - none of them ever do.

But she was barely 4 years in the Royal family before giving it up because she became part of an entity that basically told her "you can't say that, you can't do that, just shut up and keep shaking hands and being charming to the public" So no, I can't see her in politics mainly because I see her brief stint as a working royal to be a decent indicator of how little a life of public service appeals to her.

She might get involved in political issues - certain causes maybe, that sort of stuff seems to appeal to both of them, but a full time politician with all the scrutiny and critique that goes with the role, I can't see it happening.

Neyite

Ms2011 wrote: »

Isn't that why we are having a debate?

I'm just here because it's refreshing to be talking about anything other than covid

JoChervil

jm08 wrote: »

Who are these stronger people who are advancing their careers?
Are you trying to claim now that the Firm needs compassion? Not so long ago, they were very short on it for Meghan & Harry. Seriously, they had Harry march behind his mother's coffin as a 12 year old in front of millions of people. Compassion my arse? As for Meghan - she is very close with her mother. Her father's side are just a crowd of leechers and she was dead right to cut them out, along with Piers Morgan. She is a good judge of character from what I can see.

Oprah? just the first example, while they were to promote young journalists...

The Royal Family, not Firm. So you would prefer, if he didn't take part in funeral? Together with British people, who loved her?

Well, why she didn't cut her father before he paid for her student loans and for the first wedding? I don't think he changed that much.

irishblessing

superflyninja wrote: »

Because she is accusing the RF of racism. She is suggesting the RF withheld titles and security based on race. Thats why people are looking at this. They are claims that hold a huge amount of weight. Especially in the current climate.
Can you not see the link between what she said about her "private ceremony" and the other claims?
At all?
For the most part, we are not speculating about what she thinks, we are commenting on what she said and did.
Why are you so determined to make out she is such an angel in this? You are ignoring so many pieces of info. You accuse us of twisting things to suit a negative view, when that is in fact what you are doing, but in the opposite way.

Im not interested in H&M or the RF. However, I think she is highly manipulative and lying through her teeth. I am very interested in how this plays out.

Her experience of racism has nothing to do with her sharing that she and Harry had taken some private vows in a private ceremony with the Archbishop.

There is no link, because neither of her words are false. Certainly not the ceremony/vows. And I believe her and Harry about the racism. You don't go public like that if it were a blatant lie. If it were, the palace would have come out swinging instead of saying "recollections may vary" aka something happened and "we're handling it privately in the family."

I don't think she's an angel. I think she's a normal human being. Why are some here making her out to be the devil? That's the bigger question here.

irishblessing

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.

So Harry and Meghan just decided to lie to the world and be absolute weirdo's about something that never happened? The rubbish on this thread... in order to paint them as villains you all have to stretch yourselves so far to reach for something out of thin air and conjure it up is so ridiculous. Again, the Archbishop would have corrected it if it was a bare faced lie but he didn't.

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

She said they got married and then specifically said 'no one knows that'. Obviously the viewers were meant to believe that this was not only a wedding but it was kept secret between the three of them until now. If it was a 'blessing' or rehearsal there would be absolutely no need to keep it between themselves.

She's either lying or trying to manipulate the viewers and get as many 'Meghan's shock revelations...' headlines as possible out of this PR stunt and brand launch.

It wasn't a "blessing" or a "rehearsal." Those are your words, you just made that up. She said they spoke their own vows, that's all it was - just a private ceremony that was special to them. My god, some of ye would argue the colour of the sun if she said it was orange!

irishblessing

Neyite wrote: »

I should try that the next time I'm stopped with an out of date tax disc "sorry Guard, Nobody actually knows this but we actually renewed it three days before it was overdue. I called up the Department of Transport and said, this thing, this spectacle is only if I get stopped by a Garda, but I have my real tax disc issued by Eamonn Ryan who came to our backyard to do it for us on my wall at home. Ok it's done in crayon, but it's our real disc.."

Wow... hilarious! The only way this little anecdote makes any sense in any real context is if you didn't actually pay the tax and they never actually got legally married.

irishblessing

JoChervil wrote: »

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

Or... a combination/mixture of elements.

Regardless, marriage to them, to anyone, is the ceremony. I've said it before and I'll say it again: no one wants to think of getting married as the signing and registering of a legal document. For LITERALLY EVERYONE, the marriage is the commitment and vows you make to the person you love. The fact they signed a piece of paper after another public ceremony 3 days later was obviously not the main factor for them.

I think some people here are jealous of them. Jealous of the true love they have found, jealous of their money, and jealous of their good heartedness (and maybe good looks too, lol). This thread is basically one gigantic display of begrudgery and lack of compassion at it's finest.

ceadaoin.

irishblessing wrote: »

Or... a combination/mixture of elements.

Regardless, marriage to them, to anyone, is the ceremony. I've said it before and I'll say it again: no one wants to think of getting married as the signing and registering of a legal document. For LITERALLY EVERYONE, the marriage is the commitment and vows you make to the person you love. The fact they signed a piece of paper after another public ceremony 3 days later was obviously not the main factor for them.

I think some people here are jealous of them. Jealous of the true love they have found, jealous of their money, and jealous of their good heartedness (and maybe good looks too, lol). This thread is basically one gigantic display of begrudgery and lack of compassion at it's finest.

Yeah we're all a bunch of jealous bitches lol. Is any criticism of any public figure due to jealousy or is it just when it comes to Harry and megan? I find it even weirder to be going on about true love and jealousy etc. Is this high school?

Leg End Reject

irishblessing wrote: »

So Harry and Meghan just decided to lie to the world and be absolute weirdo's about something that never happened? The rubbish on this thread... in order to paint them as villains you all have to stretch yourselves so far to reach for something out of thin air and conjure it up is so ridiculous. Again, the Archbishop would have corrected it if it was a bare faced lie but he didn't.

They did lie and the Archbishop clarified they hadn't gotten married and that the official ceremony would have been illegal of they had.

valoren

Jealousy now?

Another dive towards cognitive dissonance i.e. those who aren't taken in by their victim playing narrative and are critical of their spiteful hypocrisy must just be madly jealous begrudgers. The last one was that those critical of them in a similar capacity were gullible types whose opinions were provided to them by the Daily Mail. Whatever it takes to not acknowledge any flaws or failings I suppose. It's an equally fascinating mindset.

irishblessing

Leg End Reject wrote: »

They did lie and the Archbishop clarified they hadn't gotten married and that the official ceremony would have been illegal of they had.

Oh really, got them to have a go on your lie detector machine did ya?

The archbishop's statement absolutely and in no way reveals some kind of lie. They never said they legally got married. Round and round in circles we go...

irishblessing

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah we're all a bunch of jealous bitches lol. Is any criticism of any public figure due to jealousy or is it just when it comes to Harry and megan? I find it even weirder to be going on about true love and jealousy etc. Is this high school?

It's the manner and level of begrudgery here that goes way past mere criticism and I think you know that.

Complete lies and meanness dreamed up and posted here by adults in a manner that can only be described as petty immaturity. Crazy stuff.

Referring to people having found a real love is only for high schooler's now is it? Case in point. Jealous begrudgery.