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

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

But they don't ditch a dirt on their families on their way.

And yes he abandoned them emotionally. He will be there only physically. I doubt anyone will want a close heartfelt conversation with him now.

I dunno, I think you might be surprised, I think there might be a few who have felt as he has but not had the bottle to do what he did.
They might not back him publicly but I'd bet they won't turn their back on him either.

Ms2011

Be right back wrote: »

But she wasn't well known before she joined the royal family so how could you know that?

There was a discussion about it up thread.

Leg End Reject

Ms2011 wrote: »

I dunno, I think you might be surprised, I think there might be a few who have felt as he has but not had the bottle to do what he did.
They might not back him publicly but I'd bet they won't turn their back on him either.

And what exactly makes you think this? Who might Harry's fellow discontents be?

trixi001

The British Queen & Philip have

4 children

8 grandchildren

and 10 great grand children

So let say all and spouses attend, so its easy to fill the 30 places

1 - Queen
8 - Children & spouses (if you include Fergie)
14 - 8 - Grandchidren & spouses (6 of whom are married)

That's 23 people (well 22 excluding Megan), before even including great grandchildren of which there are 10..9 excluding Archie..

So Philips direct descendants and their spouses come to 33 people..31 excluding Meghan & Archie..

I would say many of the children will be left off the list..to allow for others to attend -perhaps Philips own nieces and Nephews...or the Queens Niece & Nephew..

Ms2011

Leg End Reject wrote: »

No, it wasn't two separate occasions as you know well, both from watching the interview and from contributing here.

Why do you think Oprah didn't query the 2 differing accounts? One account suggests it was an apparently random comment before they were married, the other suggests it was a regularly expressed concern while she was pregnant. Did Oprah mishear or decide to gloss over the discrepancy?

Oprah said 'there was a conversation' and Meghan replied 'several conversations'.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

I dunno, I think you might be surprised, I think there might be a few who have felt as he has but not had the bottle to do what he did.
They might not back him publicly but I'd bet they won't turn their back on him either.

Yes, and it will all depend on RF, not on him. If they are bigger people, they will forgive him his accusations. So it is all up to them.

He did all he could to burn bridges.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

Oprah said 'there was a conversation' and Meghan replied 'several conversations'.

Yet Meghan said, she didn't hear it first hand, only that Harry told her. And Harry later told Oprah, that it was one conversation before they were married. So no confusion here.

Leg End Reject

Ms2011 wrote: »

Oprah said 'there was a conversation' and Meghan replied 'several conversations'.

Yes, that was her account that I mentioned in the post you quoted. She said these conversations were when she was pregnant.

Then when Harry arrived and was asked about it he said that a member of the family asked what colour skin any future children might have, and that it was before they were married.

No matter how obtuse you play it they contradicted each other and Oprah didn't challenge it.

Ms2011

Leg End Reject wrote: »

And what exactly makes you think this? Who might Harry's fellow discontents be?

Because Harry was well loved in his family and close to alot of his cousins like Beatrice and Eugenie.

Plus he and Archie still have Diana's side of the family in England.

Leg End Reject

trixi001 wrote: »

The British Queen & Philip have

4 children

8 grandchildren

and 10 great grand children

So let say all and spouses attend, so its easy to fill the 30 places

1 - Queen
8 - Children & spouses (if you include Fergie)
14 - 8 - Grandchidren & spouses (6 of whom are married)

That's 23 people (well 22 excluding Megan), before even including great grandchildren of which there are 10..9 excluding Archie..

So Philips direct descendants and their spouses come to 33 people..31 excluding Meghan & Archie..

I would say many of the children will be left off the list..to allow for others to attend -perhaps Philips own nieces and Nephews...or the Queens Niece & Nephew..

I think Anne is single? Divorced so no spouse.

Be right back

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I think Anne is single?

Anne is married.

Leg End Reject

Ms2011 wrote: »

Because Harry was well loved in his family and close to alot of his cousins like Beatrice and Eugenie.

Plus he and Archie still have Diana's side of the family in England.

And that means they all feel the same as he does but lack the courage to leave? Beatrice and Eugenie do not receive public funding and worked after graduating from university.

Leg End Reject

Be right back wrote: »

Anne is married.

Is she not divorced though?

Be right back

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Is she not divorced though?

She remarried to a man called Tim Lawrence.

Leg End Reject

Be right back wrote: »

She remarried to a man called Tim Lawrence.

I didn't know about that!

Ms2011

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Yes, that was her account that I mentioned in the post you quoted. She said these conversations were when she was pregnant.

Then when Harry arrived and was asked about it he said that a member of the family asked what colour skin any future children might have, and that it was before they were married.

No matter how obtuse you play it they contradicted each other and Oprah didn't challenge it.

It's got nothing to do with me being obtuse, if there were several conversations how is it not possible one could have happened earlier on and one when she was pregnant?
Harry told of one specific conversation earlier on, did he say that was the one and only conversation? That would contracts Meghan's account of there being several conversations.

Be right back

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I didn't know about that!

You learn something new everyday!

Leg End Reject

Ms2011 wrote: »

It's got nothing to do with me being obtuse, if there were several conversations how is it not possible one could have happened earlier on and one when she was pregnant?
Harry told of one specific conversation earlier on, did he say that was the one and only conversation? That would contracts Meghan's account of there being several conversations.

Harry said there was one comment before they were married.

Meghan said Harry told her there was several conversations while she was pregnant.

Meghan wasn't there and gave a different version than Harry's. So, one of them is lying or exaggerating, and it's likely Harry's version is correct because he was actually there.

However, unless we know exactly what was said and the context it was said it we can't tell if it was racist.

Ms2011

Leg End Reject wrote: »

And that means they all feel the same as he does but lack the courage to leave? Beatrice and Eugenie do not receive public funding and worked after graduating from university.

Yes thats what I said, they ALL want to leave:rolleyes:

Leg End Reject

Ms2011 wrote: »

I dunno, I think you might be surprised, I think there might be a few who have felt as he has but not had the bottle to do what he did.
They might not back him publicly but I'd bet they won't turn their back on him either.

You said there might be a few and named a few when asked.

Ms2011

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Harry said there was one comment before they were married.

Meghan said Harry told her there was several conversations while she was pregnant.

Meghan wasn't there and gave a different version than Harry's. So, one of them is lying or exaggerating, and it's likely Harry's version is correct because he was actually there.

However, unless we know exactly what was said and the context it was said it we can't tell if it was racist.

Just because Harry only gave the details of one conversation doesn't mean more didn't happen, he didn't clarify and say actually there was only one conversation that happened when were first met.

Ms2011

Leg End Reject wrote: »

You said there might be a few and named a few when asked.

I named 2 of his cousins he was close to I never said they wanted to leave the royal family.

end of the road

Leg End Reject wrote: »

You're arguing she isn't like it's a fact.

Some of their claims have been proven false - the private wedding, they discussed deals a year before leaving, not because they suddenly had to pay for security. They also gave 2 contradictory versions of the racism allegation, so yes, they both lied.

Her behaviour is textbook narcissist.

her mythical behaviour, as in the behaviour that is massively twisted into being something multiples more then the irrelevancy and nothingness it actually is in reality, shows nothing of the sort.
they didn't lie so far, only 1 misunderstanding was corrected with all the rest twisted into being things people want them to be so as to back up a narrative they have created themselves, all based on what amounts to the daily mail and sun says.

end of the road

walshb wrote: »

And then not being happy enough to get out and move on, the two of them then do a disgraceful slating interview lobbing in racism for good measure..

You’re constantly coming up with excuses to defend their disgraceful behaviour. It was disgraceful how they behaved here..

And even when blatant contradictions are pointed out you are bringing up nonsensical reasons/excuses.

a disgraceful slating interview, or an interview which exposes some truths about the royal institution which make fans of that institution uncomfortable/angry/whatever because the picture perfect ideal they have of that institution is thrown up in the air?
whatever about british people being angry over their institution coming under a bit of an attack, it seems a small minority of irish people are more angry then the british public could ever be, which is quite concerning if i'm honest given it's a foreign institution as far as this country is concerned.
even looking at UK discussion forums the anger is non-existant really, simple disagreement over them doing the interview but nothing more.

walshb

end of the road wrote: »

a disgraceful slating interview, or an interview which exposes some truths about the royal institution.

A disgraceful interview.

end of the road

walshb wrote: »

A disgraceful interview.

no, just an interview.

walshb

end of the road wrote: »

no, just an interview.

Give us a list of the truths from the interview you mentioned.

Actual truths, not their truths..

end of the road

walshb wrote: »

Give us a list of the truths from the interview you mentioned.

Actual truths, not their truths..

has already been done.
in fact you have been part of the doing of it via being unable to show what you claim about her to be true with reliable evidence.

walshb

end of the road wrote: »

has already been done.
in fact you have been part of the doing of it via being unable to show what you claim about her to be true with reliable evidence.

You’ve lost me

You said the interview threw up some home truths about the RF. Or suggested it could have. Post 4885

Can you list these truths it gave us?

end of the road

walshb wrote: »

You’ve lost me

You said the interview threw up some home truths about the RF. Or suggested it could have. Post 4885

Can you list these truths it gave us?

i know what i said, what you said and then what i said.
my previous post is very simple, the truths have been listed, the people claiming they aren't truths have helped, unintentionally, to show that those truths may in fact be so, via their inability to show otherwise with reliable proof.