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
1…141142144146147…732

Comments

  • Options
    #4292
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    irishblessing wrote: »
    And you'll read it yours. There are comparison pictures put up of them all the time. Like how they each held their baby bumps but only one of them was put in a negative light for it? Or how Kate was given avocado to eat for her medical condition and aww wasn't that lovely and Meghan was seen to contribute to nefarious systems around the production of avocados when it was revealed she eats them too?

    The palace and media are obviously quite comfortable with the disparaging image being put forward on to one of them, while defending the other.

    Seriously, take the back and forth, back and forth here, that's what you're asking the Palace to get involved in with the Press. They'd be denying nonsense all the time and that would just cheepen the brand. It's simply a non runner. Also when something is a thing of nothing and you deny it, you give it credence.


  • Options
    #4293
    valoren
    Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    The monkey picture?

    I remember that and I remember there was an big uproar over it and that Danny Baker was sacked by the BBC and his reputation was severely damaged by what was deemed a racist social media post. To pick that and the Straight out of Compton pieces as indicitive of a racist British press is selective bias or that clearly racist actions didn't have consequences.


  • Options
    #4294
    irishblessing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 962 ✭✭✭irishblessing


    retro:electro wrote: »
    The Palace did once come out with a simple statement which quashed any rumours of a rift between Kate and Meghan

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/12/meghan-markle-and-kate-middleton-feud-rumors-stamped-out-by-palace/amp

    Maybe they didn’t specifically deny the “who made who cry” story because, recollections may vary.

    So if they can issue that statement, why not do the same about the issue of Meghan making Kate cry?

    You know as well as I that the comment "recollections may vary" are to do with the allegations about race. As the head of the commonwealth in which more subjects are people of colour, they have to say something like that, don't they?

    The also said “Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much-loved family members.”

    So if Harry and Meghan were out there slandering the RF with untrue claims they would hardly say that.


  • Options
    #4295
    irishblessing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 962 ✭✭✭irishblessing


    valoren wrote: »
    The monkey picture?

    I remember that and I remember there was an big uproar over it and that Danny Baker was sacked by the BBC and his reputation was severely damaged by what was deemed a racist social media post. To pick that and the Straight out of Compton pieces as indicitive of a racist British press is selective bias or that clearly racist actions didn't have consequences.

    There are some here claiming "what racism?" happened towards Meghan. That's the underlying reason for this being brought up. The fact that there were (rightly so) consequences for the racism is besides the point being made here.

    And the racism that happened was clearly collectively bad enough for the palace to release a rare and unprecedented statement rebuke about it.


  • Options
    #4296
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    irishblessing wrote: »
    Google it. They also already been posted here and you've been on this thread long enough to know. You're being deliberately disingenuous about this.

    For one you just took part of my quote from the larger context the palace itself said the racism was happening in.

    Meghan and Harry's child was referred and pictured as a monkey.

    The shíte about her mother being "straight outta Compton."

    That's just off the top of my head. You can google the rest if you can't seem to remember what's already posted here or don't want to believe the official palace statement about it.

    Why should I google them? You made a statement..

    “There were overtly racist news headlines, comments, and increase of death threats to this couple once their relationship was announced. This cannot be discredited”

    It’s up to you to back it up. So far all you’ve provided is the Compton story which, while stupid, has been widely defended as a rags to riches story. The monkey thing wasn’t a headline, that was a tweet by Danny Baker who no longer works on broadcasting due to it.
    Where are the rest of the headlines?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4297
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    irishblessing wrote: »
    Oh we have a live one here folks! Suuuure.... :rolleyes: I read some things online too.

    The exact details of the royals' protection, which is paid for by the British public, is not widely known due to security reasons, says Robert Finch, Dominion Chairman of The Monarchist League of Canada, a monarchist advocacy organisation that promotes the Crown in Canada.
    So there is a lot of speculation about what the truth is, he says.
    "The degree of security depends on seniority and visibility of a royal - some are given protection only when performing official duties, not 24/7 - though some live within a protected cordon, such as Kensington Palace."
    Within Scotland Yard, there is a Royal Protection Unit made up of uniformed and plain clothes officers.
    Many people suspect that there is a specialist commando unit, possibly made up of SAS troops, that "shadows" the palaces occupied by the Queen "and possibly the homes of the two next heirs by generation [Prince Charles and the Duke of Cambridge] - as the threat level rises or falls", says Mr Finch.
    "But this is never discussed."
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56328790

    So if Harry would have been told what you claim, then why would he have been left surprised and scrambling to figure it out? That just doesn't make sense, obviously.

    You can believe what you want to believe, but I Have first hand knowledge of how these things work.
    If course Harry was aware he would lose his close protection. Whether he chose to ignore that is his own problem.


  • Options
    #4298
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    irishblessing wrote: »
    So if they can issue that statement, why not do the same about the issue of Meghan making Kate cry?

    You know as well as I that the comment "recollections may vary" are to do with the allegations about race. As the head of the commonwealth in which more subjects are people of colour, they have to say something like that, don't they?

    The also said “Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much-loved family members.”

    So if Harry and Meghan were out there slandering the RF with untrue claims they would hardly say that.

    Because maybe Kate has a different version of events, and maybe The Palace don’t want to get involved in petty tit for tat over children’s tights.
    Relatively sensible, I would assume.
    Kate must also have cried, Meghan told us as much herself when she opened her sentence with “Kate was upset about something”..
    And yes, it was gracious of them to call them much loved family members. I’m sure things are very complicated for them right now but you can’t turn your love for your grandson off like a switch. I’m sure they care for him and Archie a lot, and are concerned for them.


  • Options
    #4299
    irishblessing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 962 ✭✭✭irishblessing


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Why should I google them? You made a statement..

    “There were overtly racist news headlines, comments, and increase of death threats to this couple once their relationship was announced. This cannot be discredited”

    It’s up to you to back it up. So far all you’ve provided is the Compton story which, while stupid, has been widely defended as a rags to riches story. The monkey thing wasn’t a headline, that was a tweet by Danny Barker who no longer works on broadcasting due to it.
    Where are the rest of the headlines?

    No. YOU first made the claim / disbelief of "what racism." So you go and find it especially as it's already been raked over here on this thread more than once.

    It's already been posted here, I have since answered you as has the official palace statement so if you're still not satisfied by your own claim of disbelief you can go spend your own time on the Google.


  • Options
    #4300
    irishblessing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 962 ✭✭✭irishblessing


    bubblypop wrote: »
    You can believe what you want to believe, but I Have first hand knowledge of how these things work.
    If course Harry was aware he would lose his close protection. Whether he chose to ignore that is his own problem.

    Suuuuuuure :pac:

    Why would he choose to ignore that and put his own family and child at risk? You're obviously on a wind up.


  • Options
    #4301
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    irishblessing wrote: »
    No. YOU first made the claim / disbelief of "what racism." So you go and find it especially as it's already been raked over here on this thread more than once.

    It's already been posted here, I have since answered you as has the official palace statement so if you're still not satisfied by your own claim of disbelief you can go spend your own time on the Google.

    No. You stated there were “overtly racist headlines”, and have been asked plenty of times now to show examples of them, but all you keep doing is telling me to google them. I’ve googled them and can’t find any. So it’s up to you to provide them, otherwise we’ll all have to surmise from your lack of argument that they don’t exist.

    And I thought Meghan said the palace didn’t protect her from headlines? But you’ve just said there they released a statement?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4302
    irishblessing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 962 ✭✭✭irishblessing


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Because maybe Kate has a different version of events, and maybe The Palace don’t want to get involved in petty tit for tat over children’s rights.
    Relatively sensible, I would assume.
    Kate must also have cried, Meghan told us as much herself when she opened her sentence with “Kate was upset about something”..
    And yes, it was gracious of them to call them much loved family members. I’m sure things are very complicated for them right now but you can’t turn your love for your grandson off like a switch. I’m sure they care for him and Archie a lot, and are concerned for them.

    Her apology note and flowers seems to suggest the same version of events. :pac:

    Meghan said there was no instance in which Kate could have cried, that the story that came out months later was actually completely backwards.

    You don't know, I don't know, we weren't there. But Meghan and Harry were and they know. There's no reason to disbelieve that and obviously, if untrue the palace are quite capable of defending Kate as already shown here.

    If someone is telling bare faced lies to the world, you don't say they're much loved family members and leave it at that, you would express your huge disappointment in their version of events, and if it were a lie, there would obviously be huge love lost.

    If they're so concerned about Archie, why discuss concerns about his skin colour, discuss changing the King George convention, and leave him without security? Please. They're not a kind compassionate family, they're a cold institution with a long history of racist colonialism.


  • Options
    #4303
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    irishblessing wrote: »
    Suuuuuuure :pac:

    Why would he choose to ignore that and put his own family and child at risk? You're obviously on a wind up.

    How should i know why he did what he did? But he was the one who didn't organise his own security detail even though he was well aware that the state would not be providing it for him.
    Are you suggesting that he didn't understand anything about his close protection?


  • Options
    #4304
    irishblessing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 962 ✭✭✭irishblessing


    retro:electro wrote: »
    No. You stated there were “overtly racist headlines”, and have been asked plenty of times now to show examples of them, but all you keep doing is telling me to google them. I’ve googled them and can’t find any. So it’s up to you to provide them, otherwise we’ll all have to surmise from your lack of argument that they don’t exist.

    And I thought Meghan said the palace didn’t protect her from headlines? But you’ve just said there they released a statement?

    I did. And the palace statement that referred to them. Are the palace wrong too? Off you go to google if you want even more. I don't have to satisfy your obviously insatiable need for wasting other people's time. You didn't google anything and you know it. Because I have before, and it's all there. Obviously. This is hilarious! :pac::pac:


  • Options
    #4305
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    I did find this while Googling though, which seems to explain away the manipulated racist headlines that CBS had to edit to try and shoehorn a narrative, and that ITV subsequently redacted due to it being inaccurate and misleading.

    https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/cbs-report-accuses-uk-tabloids-of-blatant-racial-element-as-it-refuses-to-alter-meghan-headlines-montage/


  • Options
    #4306
    irishblessing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 962 ✭✭✭irishblessing


    bubblypop wrote: »
    How should i know why he did what he did? But he was the one who didn't organise his own security detail even though he was well aware that the state would not be providing it for him.
    Are you suggesting that he didn't understand anything about his close protection?

    So you're suggesting he knew, he's a liar when he said it wasn't expected and was sudden, he lied about trying to reason with the palace over security needs, and he deliberately put his family in danger?

    I'm suggesting your version is just not plausible.


  • Options
    #4307
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    irishblessing wrote: »
    I did. And the palace statement that referred to them. Are the palace wrong too? Off you go to google if you want even more. I don't have to satisfy your obviously insatiable need for wasting other people's time. You didn't google anything and you know it. Because I have before, and it's all there. Obviously. This is hilarious! :pac::pac:

    There is nothing. If there were you’d have provided it.


  • Options
    #4308
    irishblessing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 962 ✭✭✭irishblessing


    Knock yourself out buddy. You're welcome. Many, many articles under a simple google search.

    https://www.stylist.co.uk/people/meghan-markle-racist-bullying-tabloids-prince-harry-wardrobe-malfunction-duchess-difficult-examples/342213


  • Options
    #4309
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    irishblessing wrote: »
    So you're suggesting he knew, he's a liar when he said it wasn't expected and was sudden, he lied about trying to reason with the palace over security needs, and he deliberately put his family in danger?

    I'm suggesting your version is just not plausible.

    There is no other option. He would be well aware that his close protection would no longer be supplied by the state.
    And, again, it is not the palace that deal with the security detail of the royal family.
    It is the police.
    The palace and/or royal family have no say in the close protection, except for supplying information to the police about upcoming engagements etc.
    His family did not take away his security.


  • Options
    #4310
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,747 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    irishblessing wrote: »
    Knock yourself out buddy. You're welcome. Many, many articles under a simple google search.

    https://www.stylist.co.uk/people/meghan-markle-racist-bullying-tabloids-prince-harry-wardrobe-malfunction-duchess-difficult-examples/342213

    Where are the examples of endemic media racism there?


  • Options
    #4311
    irishblessing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 962 ✭✭✭irishblessing


    https://pressgazette.co.uk/survey-funds-media-coverage-of-meghan-markle-racist/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4312
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    irishblessing wrote: »
    Knock yourself out buddy. You're welcome. Many, many articles under a simple google search.

    https://www.stylist.co.uk/people/meghan-markle-racist-bullying-tabloids-prince-harry-wardrobe-malfunction-duchess-difficult-examples/342213

    Really? That’s it?

    None of that is racist. None of it! Unless you’re suggesting that any and all criticism of her is automatically racist because she is mixed race?

    That is extremely weak stuff you’ve just provided there.


  • Options
    #4313
    irishblessing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 962 ✭✭✭irishblessing


    bubblypop wrote: »
    There is no other option. He would be well aware that his close protection would no longer be supplied by the state.
    And, again, it is not the palace that deal with the security detail of the royal family.
    It is the police.
    The palace and/or royal family have no say in the close protection, except for supplying information to the police about upcoming engagements etc.
    His family did not take away his security.

    Obviously, he was aware of no such thing and has stated the opposite of your outsider and uninformed opinion.

    To suggest he would deliberately put himself and his family at risk is just not believable. No one does that.


  • Options
    #4314
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    irishblessing wrote: »
    https://pressgazette.co.uk/survey-funds-media-coverage-of-meghan-markle-racist/

    Again, no example of these racist headlines.


  • Options
    #4315
    irishblessing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 962 ✭✭✭irishblessing


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Really? That’s it?

    None of that is racist. None of it! Unless you’re suggesting that any and all criticism of her is automatically racist because she is mixed race?

    That is extremely weak stuff you’ve just provided there.

    Keep googling retro. There's pages of it reporting on it if you google. And as the palace/Harry said themselves, much of it was hidden but they were privy to. I read at the time that the palace had to hire additional staff to deal with the increase of abuse directed at her/them. Obviously it was there, and obviously much of it is not in the public domain. As they explicitly stated. You just going to conveniently ignore that though aren't you? As well as the overt racist examples already given to you. Do you have some sort of threshold you have to personally meet or what is the story here?


  • Options
    #4316
    irishblessing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 962 ✭✭✭irishblessing


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Again, no example of these racist headlines.

    Ha, now you're joking. They're absolutely in there, you can read, right?

    It's a fairly long article, obviously you didn't take the time to read it and you prefer to ignore the evidence to carry on in your bias. You've now made that more than obvious.


  • Options
    #4317
    Necro
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 51,472 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    irishblessing wrote: »
    This isn't uncivil?

    " a passive aggressive bitchy comment "

    You and I both know if you labelled my posts as that, and I reported it you would be pulled up. Nice try though.
    irishblessing wrote: »
    Suuuuuuure :pac:

    Why would he choose to ignore that and put his own family and child at risk? You're obviously on a wind up.
    irishblessing wrote: »
    Keep googling retro. There's pages of it reporting on it if you google. And as the palace/Harry said themselves, much of it was hidden but they were privy to. I read at the time that the palace had to hire additional staff to deal with the increase of abuse directed at her/them. Obviously it was there, and obviously much of it is not in the public domain. As they explicitly stated. You just going to conveniently ignore that though aren't you? As well as the overt racist examples already given to you. Do you have some sort of threshold you have to personally meet or what is the story here?
    irishblessing wrote: »
    Ha, now you're joking. They're absolutely in there, you can read, right?


    Mod: It's quite clear you are unable to post in a civil manner, do not post in this thread again


  • Options
    #4318
    Lashes28
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭Lashes28


    So Meghan has said she had no help in teaching her royal traditions and ways but then also cried because Kate told her that tights on flower girls were traditional and she wanted them to have none?


  • Options
    #4319
    irishblessing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 962 ✭✭✭irishblessing


    Necro wrote: »
    Mod: It's quite clear you are unable to post in a civil manner, do not post in this thread again

    Feck off you biased arsehole.

    Mod: Forum banned for a week for breach of your threadban


  • Options
    #4320
    Necro
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 51,472 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    Mod:

    Ok folks let's move on, don't quote the poster as they have no right of response anymore - I have deleted responses regarding same following my initial mod post


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4321
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    When you consider what Kate and Diana had to go through with regards to phone hackings and topless pictures being published, those headlines Meghan ensured are so trivial and petty they pale in comparison. How her bra strap being visible, her wearing trousers to an event, the fact she wears dark nail polish, eats avocados and whether or not she has a rift with her sister in law could be construed as racist, is reaching in its truest form.


Advertisement