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

retro:electro

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.

We’ve been rumbled lads

kowloon

Can we agree though, that people need to be not just truthful, but consistent, or everything you they say will be thrown into shade?

retro:electro

irishblessing wrote: »

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.

Twasnt anyone here who went whinging to Oprah over “no she made me cry” and flower girls tights and pretended they got married before they did but okay!

retro:electro

kowloon wrote: »

Can we agree though, that people need to be not just truthful, but consistent, or everything you say will be thrown into shade?

That’s the most reasonable conclusion to come to. For me it’s the fact that she either mistook the rehearsal as a wedding and genuinely didn’t realise.. in which case she’s capable of mistaking other things and this calls her “truth” into question. What other things has she confused? If it was a genuine cultural confusion then what else could she have gotten the wrong end of the stick about?
Or else she knew fully well what it was but decided to present it as something more elaborate, to try and sell an idea that they were never that tied to the monarchy, to twist the knife into an institution who she feels had power over them and didn’t realise people would fact check what she said. And in this case it portrays her as quite petty, manipulative and scheming, and begs the question; what else has she elaborated on and added bells and whistles to in order to present it as something more than it was?

Neither scenarios are favourable to her when you understand that this revelation came sandwiched between other questionable revelations. Either way, we can’t take her word. And either way, Harry seems afraid to pull her up or correct her. That too, is quite telling.

irishblessing

retro:electro wrote: »

Twasnt anyone here who went whinging to Oprah over “no she made me cry” and flower girls tights and pretended they got married before they did but okay!

Proving my point; "whinging" to Oprah. It's called an interview. And a lot of important conversations have happened on a wider scale which came from that, too and still on-going. "Pretending they got married before they did." Where's the pretending? They spoke about just the 3 of them saying their vows privately. It's you and others putting a deliberately mean twist on it just to try slander her. The carryon on this thread is actually depressing to read. That real people behind the keyboards have no qualms about going online to try to tear down other human beings.

Ms2011

retro:electro wrote: »

Twasnt anyone here who went whinging to Oprah over “no she made me cry” and flower girls tights and pretended they got married before they did but okay!

How is answering a direct question whinging exactly?

retro:electro

irishblessing wrote: »

Proving my point; "whinging" to Oprah. It's called an interview. And a lot of important conversations have happened on a wider scale which came from that, too and still on-going. "Pretending they got married before they did." Where's the pretending? They spoke about just the 3 of them saying their vows privately. It's you and others putting a deliberately mean twist on it just to try slander her. The carryon on this thread is actually depressing to read. That real people behind the keyboards have no qualms about going online to try to tear down other human beings.

She did not say that. She said they got married three days before and they wanted their union between them. Like if i message in my group chat to my friends and say hey guys guess what, i know I’m due to be married at the end of the year but I just got married today, we just wanted our union between us. Nobody knows this.

Do you think they’ll be under the impression we have already gotten married or do you think they will assume we just exchanged vows? When people use the words with the legal meaning attached, it shouldn’t be a stretch for the audience to assume the person using them knows what they’re talking about. If she doesn’t then she has no business running for president tbh. She doesn’t even seem to know what a marriage or a union is.

Seriously, if you are going to deny she even said the words “we got married three days before”, then there is no point continuing this chat.

Purple Mountain

Moving on from weddinggate I watched Lady Colin's interview.
The only thing scarier than Megan Markle's wrath is Lady C's cackle!

kowloon

The thing that draws my attention most is the colour of the baby thing. Not saying nobody said it, but it's a dick move to say someone said it, refuse to say who, but eliminate some from that. That's a real kick in the nads for anyone in the accused group who hasn't earned enough favour to be eliminated from suspicion. And after all that, the refusal to narrow it down to who actually said it sticks in people's minds as possibly being a case of not wanting to pin an accusation on an individual because the entire story is a fabrication.

All that said, I've no time for the royals and think the UK needs a massive overhaul, from the monarchy down to their unelected lords and lack of a modern constitution. Maybe a bit of old fashioned racism will be the thing that finally brings them down.

Ms2011

Looking online I see they are pitting Zara and Eugenie against each other now over who will do what with Christenings :rolleyes:

MoonUnit75

Ms2011 wrote: »

Looking online I see they are pitting Zara and Eugenie against each other now over who will do what with Christenings :rolleyes:

More importantly, what BS press release will Meghan and Alexa release on each day. We should make PR Bull Bingo a thread competition. When the palace celebrated Eugenie's birthday on social media, Meghan and Alexa reveal Alexa has got a job. Then we find out he actually started months earlier.

My early guess is Meghan has weird cravings for Brand X, so much so that she's even invested in the company.

walshb

Ms2011 wrote: »

How is answering a direct question whinging exactly?

Can you point to where Oprah asked “Did Kate make you cry?”

valoren

kowloon wrote: »

The thing that draws my attention most is the colour of the baby thing. Not saying nobody said it, but it's a dick move to say someone said it, refuse to say who, but eliminate some from that. That's a real kick in the nads for anyone in the accused group who hasn't earned enough favour to be eliminated from suspicion. And after all that, the refusal to narrow it down to who actually said it sticks in people's minds as possibly being a case of not wanting to pin an accusation on an individual because the entire story is a fabrication.

All that said, I've no time for the royals and think the UK needs a massive overhaul, from the monarchy down to their unelected lords and lack of a modern constitution. Maybe a bit of old fashioned racism will be the thing that finally brings them down.

Agreed. If they came out and said, say, Charles was concerned about how dark their childrens skin might be and decided they were absolutely finished with the whole sad and archaic institution then they would have been lauded and applauded for it. That would be a revelation, an actual proper one. The heir to the throne a racist. What they've done instead is weaponise the race card and damage the senior royals on purpose. Why they've done this is where we must speculate.

I thought it was fantastic that Meghan was marrying into the Royal family. I subscribed to the whole modernizing of it with the welcoming of an intelligent American of mixed race into the family. I didn't know who she was but you wished that she would do well. The platform afforded to her was fantastic and you wonder how in the hell did it all come to this. She’d married the sixth in line to the throne. They are minor Royals in the scheme of it. If, say, the Countess of Wessex was behaving in a similar manner then my feelings on this would be exactly the same. Their place in the hierarchy is pretty much the same but there is none of the drama from the likes of Edward of Sophie for example as they do their jobs with no fanfare.

My belief is that this is a sad story where one outspoken and opinionated personality was incapable of adapting to a clearly defined role of neutrality, a role where she knew full well what exactly was entailed and who subsequently managed to disrupt and split a family. I empathized with their decision to step down and seek an alternative in what will, under Charles, become a slimmed down monarchy. What I can’t abide is the hypocrisy of wanting to have privacy but then engaging in such a high profile interview borne out of spite and deigned to damage her husbands family leading to his, and their children’s, indefinite alienation from them. I find it fascinating and unnecessary.

walshb

valoren wrote: »

Agreed. If they came out and said, say, Charles was concerned about how dark their childrens skin might be and decided they were absolutely finished with the whole sad and archaic institution then they would have been lauded and applauded for it. That would be a revelation, an actual proper one. The heir to the throne a racist. What they've done instead is weaponise the race card and damage the senior royals on purpose. Why they've done this is where we must speculate.
.

Applauded for it?

For making an accusation against someone who can’t defend himself?

Would you not want some actual context to it, or even the RFs side to it before being ready to label the person a racist?

What if the comment was innocent, in the more wondering on the color as opposed to being concerned and worried on the color..

I cannot see how they can be in any way applauded here for dissing their family so publicly, when said family will not be responding to fight any claims..

ceadaoin.

irishblessing wrote: »

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

Yes I do think that talking about the "true love" of two complete strangers is juvenile, as is writing off any criticism of public figures as "jealous begrudgery", but each to their own I guess.

valoren

walshb wrote: »

Applauded for it?

For making an accusation against someone who can’t defend himself?

Would you not want some actual context to it, or even the RFs side to it before being ready to label the person a racist?

What if the comment was innocent, in the more wondering on the color as opposed to being concerned and worried on the color..

I cannot see how they can be in any way applauded here for dissing their family so publicly, when said family will not be responding to fight any claims..

I am assuming it would be an actual tell all with proper context and witnesses named if it was an actual racist remark with a serious reporter/journalist such a story would warrant. It would be them aiming for the (future) King and, crucially, not missing in such a hypothetical scenario. They would deserve credit for speaking out and their reasons for jumping ship would be justified. All speculation of course because the game of Guess Who the Racist is quite deliberate and in lieu of applause, scorn is the apt response.

JoChervil

irishblessing wrote: »

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...

It is a pleonasm. They got married or not. Marriagei s: "the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship"

JoChervil

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.

You know you've won an argument when the opponent resorts to personal attacks.

JoChervil

valoren wrote: »

I am assuming it would be an actual tell all with proper context and witnesses named if it was an actual racist remark with a serious reporter/journalist such a story would warrant. It would be them aiming for the (future) King and, crucially, not missing in such a hypothetical scenario. They would deserve credit for speaking out and their reasons for jumping ship would be justified. All speculation of course because the game of Guess Who the Racist is quite deliberate and in lieu of applause, scorn is the apt response.

And they would face legal action then.

Be right back

irishblessing wrote: »

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.

In my mind, no-one comes across as jealous or showing begrudgery. Just accurately describing Harry and Meghan as how they are.

irishblessing

Be right back wrote: »

In my mind, no-one comes across as jealous or showing begrudgery. Just accurately describing Harry and Meghan as how they are.

"Accurately..." *snickers*

irishblessing

JoChervil wrote: »

You know you've won an argument when the opponent resorts to personal attacks.

What personal attacks? Just accurately describing right? You know, like you all claim to do on Meghan and Harry.

irishblessing

JoChervil wrote: »

It is a pleonasm. They got married or not. Marriagei s: "the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship"

That is one definition you pulled from wikipedia. Welcome to the beautiful range of human experience and opinion. Millions knew exactly what she meant and think it's lovely. Then there's people who are determined to label her some kind of weirdo who intentionally lied to the camera knowing it would be broadcast around the globe. Hmm... which is the more likely scenario... she spoke about her and Harry's lovely vows they saw as their marriage as all of us did on our wedding day (vs the legality of signing a paper and registering it with a fee) or she's a liar who gets off on telling whoppers to the world. That's a hard one!! :rolleyes:

Be right back

irishblessing wrote: »

"Accurately..." *snickers*

How would you describe them as they came across in the interview?

irishblessing

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes I do think that talking about the "true love" of two complete strangers is juvenile, as is writing off any criticism of public figures as "jealous begrudgery", but each to their own I guess.

Ha the irony... a completely b!tchy thread in which people contribute to tearing two people down (they don't even know)which is akin to what you'd find in the halls and yards of secondary school, calling someone who referred to these two people finding real love, as juvenile. You just have to laugh.

JoChervil

irishblessing wrote: »

That is one definition you pulled from wikipedia. Welcome to the beautiful range of human experience and opinion. Millions knew exactly what she meant and think it's lovely. Then there's people who are determined to label her some kind of weirdo who intentionally lied to the camera knowing it would be broadcast around the globe. Hmm... which is the more likely scenario... she spoke about her and Harry's lovely vows they saw as their marriage as all of us did on our wedding day (vs the legality of signing a paper and registering it with a fee) or she's a liar who gets off on telling whoppers to the world. That's a hard one!! :rolleyes:

Legally married is pleonasm. You are married or not. It is always legal.

JoChervil

irishblessing wrote: »

Ha the irony... a completely b!tchy thread in which people contribute to tearing two people down (they don't even know)which is akin to what you'd find in the halls and yards of secondary school, calling someone who referred to these two people finding real love, as juvenile. You just have to laugh.

As far as I can see, it is you, who is attacking people in this thread, while we all here are discussing Harry and Meghan and their interview. And any such response like juvenile was caused by your earlier personal attack.

irishblessing

JoChervil wrote: »

Legally married is pleonasm. You are married or not. It is always legal.

"Legally married is pleonasm." Do you even know what you're trying to say here? Because I don't.

The ceremony and vows are always referred to by anyone as the marriage. The commitment you make to one another and the vows. But what is legal is the signing of the paper and then paying a fee to register it. They're no different to anyone else. Except millions watched them wed and things with family got insane and they wanted a special moment for themselves. Christ. Why do people have to be so horrible about it?

JoChervil

And BTW we are still waiting for your examples of racists attack in UK press

seenitall

valoren wrote: »

Agreed. If they came out and said, say, Charles was concerned about how dark their childrens skin might be and decided they were absolutely finished with the whole sad and archaic institution then they would have been lauded and applauded for it. That would be a revelation, an actual proper one. The heir to the throne a racist. What they've done instead is weaponise the race card and damage the senior royals on purpose. Why they've done this is where we must speculate.

I thought it was fantastic that Meghan was marrying into the Royal family. I subscribed to the whole modernizing of it with the welcoming of an intelligent American of mixed race into the family. I didn't know who she was but you wished that she would do well. The platform afforded to her was fantastic and you wonder how in the hell did it all come to this. She’d married the sixth in line to the throne. They are minor Royals in the scheme of it. If, say, the Countess of Wessex was behaving in a similar manner then my feelings on this would be exactly the same. Their place in the hierarchy is pretty much the same but there is none of the drama from the likes of Edward of Sophie for example as they do their jobs with no fanfare.

My belief is that this is a sad story where one outspoken and opinionated personality was incapable of adapting to a clearly defined role of neutrality, a role where she knew full well what exactly was entailed and who subsequently managed to disrupt and split a family. I empathized with their decision to step down and seek an alternative in what will, under Charles, become a slimmed down monarchy. What I can’t abide is the hypocrisy of wanting to have privacy but then engaging in such a high profile interview borne out of spite and deigned to damage her husbands family leading to his, and their children’s, indefinite alienation from them. I find it fascinating and unnecessary.

I’ve read some of your earlier posts (I dip in and out of this thread, it’s a bit too fast moving for me!). Surely you know by now that narcissists crave drama and victimhood more than anything.

As the Brangelina saga still trundles on and is in the news again, Meg and Angie seem to be cut from the same cloth. Set brother against brother, children against their father. Be a believable victim, sow discord with lies and obfuscations, play it earnestly enough and no one will notice what you’re up to (except for your target, of course). I grew up with one of these, unfortunately. Going by her recent actions, Meg is typical. I feel sorry for her and any other narcissist, because no amount of attention is ever enough, and there is no money that can cure a personality disorder. My one is nearing a sad and lonely ending to their life, there is no love in the family as they never cultivated it and don’t even know what love is; they don’t even know who they themselves are. All their life, only vengeance around any perceived ego slight would fire them up - nothing else matters as much as bitterness and ‘getting even’. It’s a hell of a life path, but sometimes even harder on all of their targets. This is all so easy to see once you can recognise the kind of pattern of behaviour you’re looking at. Usually from harsh experience.