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

FileNotFound

walshb wrote: »

Absolute deflection

So, now it was the media who were the baddies, and the issue was that RF didn't stop the media writing things....

Unreal...

So, to get "their side" out on this, they then go on a global chat show and slate the RF...

I am completely lost with all the bull excuses being given here...

It does make a great narrative, media in free speech country said stuff. Blame RF for not stopping what they couldn't.

Piss and moan on media about it and do media interview. Then say "Media leave me alone".

Either they are playing a game or they are literally stupid as can be.


Sure didn't she invite American media to her home to see her giving ice creams out to staff for a nice image boost? And then do a live recording for the world or reading to the kid and so on and so on.


some craic. And some fools who fall for it.

jm08

Neyite wrote: »

Looking at the Queen's uncle abdicating is a good indication of why the Queen made the decision to insist that H&M couldn't be part time royals.

Her uncle abdicating to marry Wallis sounds like star crossed lovers but it was a bit more than that. While her being a divorcee and of commoner status was a barrier to them marrying (it's been overcome before after all), it wasn't the sole reason David abdicated. More of a problem was David and Wallis's close friendships with high-ranking Nazis in the early 30s and their open political support of the Nazi party. A less serious but equally problematic issue was that David and Wallis didn't want the responsibility and duty of royal life, they openly stated often that it was boring and tedious to meet the public and do ribbon cutting. Their preference was a jet-set lifestyle. They wanted to be on yachts off the south of France or couture/ jewel shopping in Paris. They didn't want to be on a baltic balcony in London waving at the great unwashed. They didn't want to be told that it was unwise politically to hang out with certain wealthy friends.

The queen's mother despised them for a few extra reasons -the first one was mainly that she was a terrible snob anyway about Wallis not being blue blooded, but others were that David landed her husband with the role of king, and in doing so, altered her life and the lives of her daughters permanently, thrusting them into the public eye and a lifetime of service. And lastly, her husband was a bit of a soft touch when it came to funding David and Wallis and their lavish lifestyles and haemorrhaged money to them from both the public funds and private wealth.

Over the years, they did try to give David royal posts overseas in different parts of the commonwealth- mainly to justify funding them and for him to earn his keep, but those usually were either met with very mediocre efforts from David or he did such a piss poor job of representing the royals he was just an embarrassing millstone for them and for the British government. But Wallis and David continued to fly around the world, hanging out with celebrities, spending with abandon. When you consider the backdrop of the time- Wartime and post-war Britain where the the then-Princess Elizabeth became a mechanic for the war effort, the King and Queen refused to abandon London during all the bombing and staying in solidarity with the public when the government wanted them somewhere safe even when Buckingham Palace got bombed. Princess Elizabeth used ration coupons for her wedding dress. Philip who she was courting at the time served with distinction in the Navy. The public lapped it up - they felt like they were all in it together and regard for the royals was never higher.

Meanwhile Wallis was swanning out of Cartier or Dior laden with bags and David and her were being photographed with dodgy Europeans on the back of their royal status. It's not a good look. After the war and after the King died, the Queen couldn't really cut them off because it was now an established arrangement by the king and David and so they had a LOT of money -millions - from the family over four decades. If it was up to the Queen mother she would have gleefully cut them off entirely but the problem was that if the royals didn't give them the money, David and Wallis would only find it from their dodgy friends. It would have been better had the King cut them both off from the start for future optics.

So you can imagine when Harry and Meghan had the unique light-bulb moment of keeping their pet projects, patronages and honorary military ranks, jettisoning the rest, living abroad and planning to supplement their royal income with associations with whichever wealthy friends and projects they chose, using their Royal status as leverage, the Queen probably immediately thought of David and Wallis and did a big "Oh HELL NO" at the idea of another David and Wallis situation - and there's enough parallels in both couples plans to justify the concern that history could repeat itself somewhat.

John Banville wrote an article in the Irish Times which had claims that Elizabeth & Margaret were shipped to Ireland for the duration of the war and were somewhere in Tipperary (could be Clonmel).

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/john-banville-did-the-young-royals-find-a-wartime-refuge-in-tipperary-1.4145706


Might explain the Queen's visit to Cashel on her state visit to Ireland.

Be right back

retro:electro wrote: »

William has posted a tribute to Philip

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNkRn-xliiv/?igshid=1e1q01da9r39f

That's a lovely tribute, heartfelt and personal unlike the other one.

jm08

walshb wrote: »

Oh, and what was the other side for why they left?

Did the RF release a story for why they left?

You said the two of them had to get their side of the story out..

How many times have they to explain the reason they left was because of the hounding of Meghan by the press. 150 derogatory/negative articles in 24 hours would affect anyone's mental health.
Harry has made it clear that he was terrified the same thing would happen to Meghan as happened to his mother and they had to get out.

jm08

FileNotFound wrote: »

It does make a great narrative, media in free speech country said stuff. Blame RF for not stopping what they couldn't.

They could have corrected the lies. They could have stopped leaking stories about her which were not true (such as her making Kate cry). They could have taken care of the Markle family and protected them from the press, but they didn't. Her mother lost her job because of it.

Piss and moan on media about it and do media interview. Then say "Media leave me alone".



Either they are playing a game or they are literally stupid as can be.

They just need to refute the lies and stop leaking stuff to the press.

Sure didn't she invite American media to her home to see her giving ice creams out to staff for a nice image boost? And then do a live recording for the world or reading to the kid and so on and so on.

some craic. And some fools who fall for it.

You have an issue with reading a book to a child ? What else should she not do and why?

Leg End Reject

jm08 wrote: »

John Banville wrote an article in the Irish Times which had claims that Elizabeth & Margaret were shipped to Ireland for the duration of the war and were somewhere in Tipperary (could be Clonmel).

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/john-banville-did-the-young-royals-find-a-wartime-refuge-in-tipperary-1.4145706


Might explain the Queen's visit to Cashel on her state visit to Ireland.

That verbose article is the epitome of style over substance. An unnamed and now deceased man said ...

FileNotFound

jm08 wrote: »

How many times have they to explain the reason they left was because of the hounding of Meghan by the press. 150 derogatory/negative articles in 24 hours would affect anyone's mental health.
Harry has made it clear that he was terrified the same thing would happen to Meghan as happened to his mother and they had to get out.

Thats fine but then why try and character assassinate half the remaining RF?

The Kate part was the best IMO, I don't wanna say nothing bad but that B1tch made me cry haha.


You can't pick bits from an interview and ignore the rest now.


To me it stank of jealousy having rotten poor Meg to the core - Kate was going to be Queen and she has all her little princes and princesses, while poor Meg just had a bog standard kid.. How dare they love Kate more than Meg... LOL

jm08

Be right back wrote: »

That's a lovely tribute, heartfelt and personal unlike the other one.

Slow. It took them 3 days to realise that the other one was a bit impersonal and even worse than the Sussex one!

valoren

jm08 wrote: »

How many times have they to explain the reason they left was because of the hounding of Meghan by the press. 150 derogatory/negative articles in 24 hours would affect anyone's mental health.
Harry has made it clear that he was terrified the same thing would happen to Meghan as happened to his mother and they had to get out.

The question is would there be 50 derogatory articles if they hadn't done a high profile interview which was provocative, which was watched by millions and not very flattering to the Royal family? If you keep poking a dog, don't complain when it turns around and tries to bite you. If they didn’t do any interview then I would assume there wouldn’t be 50 articles in a 24 hour period as the analogous dog has no reason to bite.

FileNotFound

jm08 wrote: »

Slow. It took them 3 days to realise that the other one was a bit impersonal and even worse than the Sussex one!

That's the way, when the defense or H&M looks thin, attack the others.


You're like trump incarnate. Top class discussion.

jm08

FileNotFound wrote: »

Thats fine but then why try and character assassinate half the remaining RF?

The Kate part was the best IMO, I don't wanna say nothing bad but that B1tch made me cry haha.

You are spinning now. Meghan wanted to correct the record as to who made who cry. She said in the interview that Kate had sent flowers and a note next day with an apology and that Kate is a good person who had other stuff going on (presumably William having it off with the next door neighbour while she was pregnant).


By the way, the 'alternative facts' from the British media and some of you here is that Kate called over and Meghan banged the door in her face!

You can't pick bits from an interview and ignore the rest now.

Why not?

To me it stank of jealousy having rotten poor Meg to the core - Kate was going to be Queen and she has all her little princes and princesses, while poor Meg just had a bog standard kid.. How dare they love Kate more than Meg... LOL

Dear god! That says an awful lot about you? Bog standard kid! I've heard it all now!

jm08

valoren wrote: »

The question is would there be 50 derogatory articles if they hadn't done a high profile interview which was provocative, which was watched by millions and not very flattering to the Royal family? If you keep poking a dog, don't complain when it turns around and tries to bite you. If they didn’t do any interview then I would assume there wouldn’t be 50 articles in a 24 hour period as the analogous dog has no reason to bite.

This was prior to the interview (if you read the tweet).

Be right back

jm08 wrote: »

Slow. It took them 3 days to realise that the other one was a bit impersonal and even worse than the Sussex one!

Maybe they wanted to take their time and think about what to write?

jm08

Leg End Reject wrote: »

That verbose article is the epitome of style over substance. An unnamed and now deceased man said ...

'Verbose with style over substance' - A Booker Prize winner among many other literary awards!

FileNotFound

jm08 wrote: »

You are spinning now. Meghan wanted to correct the record as to who made who cry. She said in the interview that Kate had sent flowers and a note next day with an apology and that Kate is a good person who had other stuff going on (presumably William having it off with the next door neighbour while she was pregnant).


By the way, the 'alternative facts' from the British media and some of you here is that Kate called over and Meghan banged the door in her face!



Why not?





Dear god! That says an awful lot about you? Bog standad kid! I've heard it all now!

I'm not spinning anything, she just wanted the world to know the bad Kate made her cry. She literally said it... How else would you take a direct statement. I have never made any suggestion or purported any stories about what happened - just pointing out Meg did a nice bit of character assassination. In the press to boot.


Why not pick random bits? Well if that is your view I guess it says a lot about you and your character....


Nothing wrong with a bog standard kid, mine aren't going to be princes - they'll be kids haha. Not sure what your issue is with this statement, but we all know Meg was more concerned about Archies title than anything else. Maybe we should judge her on being so shallow?

ceadaoin.

jm08 wrote: »

John Banville wrote an article in the Irish Times which had claims that Elizabeth & Margaret were shipped to Ireland for the duration of the war and were somewhere in Tipperary (could be Clonmel).

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/john-banville-did-the-young-royals-find-a-wartime-refuge-in-tipperary-1.4145706


Might explain the Queen's visit to Cashel on her state visit to Ireland.

but it's documented where the queen was during the war. With photographic evidence.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/queen-elizabeth-ii-during-world-war-ii

Neyite

jm08 wrote: »

John Banville wrote an article in the Irish Times which had claims that Elizabeth & Margaret were shipped to Ireland for the duration of the war and were somewhere in Tipperary (could be Clonmel).

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/john-banville-did-the-young-royals-find-a-wartime-refuge-in-tipperary-1.4145706


Might explain the Queen's visit to Cashel on her state visit to Ireland.

That's very interesting - I never knew this before!

From what I've read, they did go to Windsor initially, but all of the royal properties were potentially a target for the enemy.When she was 16 she became actively involved in the war effort so it most likely happened after her Windsor address to other children in October 1940, and she was back in Windsor again by 1943.

Certainly her father wanted both girls far away from danger -they were the only direct heirs so finding a very safe place for them was necessary. However if it was revealed that they were given sanctuary in Ireland, then it would have made Ireland a target then? - We couldn't continue to claim neutrality if we hosted the heirs to the UK throne. It had to be done in strict secrecy.

FWIW, I'd believe it. I'm not very knowledgeable about WW2 but as I understand it, the UK were struggling to defend against the Germans until the Americans joined in 1941. While Ireland was officially neutral, I think there was a lot of covert assistance given to the UK where they could.

dark crystal

FileNotFound wrote: »

I'm not spinning anything, she just wanted the world to know the bad Kate made her cry. She literally said it... How else would you take a direct statement. I have never made any suggestion or purported any stories about what happened - just pointing out Meg did a nice bit of character assassination. In the press to boot.

Who leaked the 'Meghan made Kate cry' story to the press in the first place do you think? Have a think about it.

If you think Meghan telling her side of the story was character assassination, you must have a strong opinion on the gutter press's daily character assassination of her over the last four years. Or is it only character assassination of Kate you're concerned about in particular?

Neyite

ceadaoin. wrote: »

but it's documented where the queen was during the war. With photographic evidence.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/queen-elizabeth-ii-during-world-war-ii

There's a gap though - in October 1940 she gave the broadcast from Windsor and it was 1943 she was photographed again in Windsor. On the face of it, the dates could fit.

MoonUnit75

dark crystal wrote: »

Who leaked the 'Meghan made Kate cry' story to the press in the first place do you think? Have a think about it.

Dress maker or their staff at the fitting?

Be right back

jm08 wrote: »

Slow. It took them 3 days to realise that the other one was a bit impersonal and even worse than the Sussex one!

Slower. Part 2. Pity they didn't post this one first.

Leg End Reject

jm08 wrote: »

'Verbose with style over substance' - A Booker Prize winner among many other literary awards!

Do you need any help understanding my post? It was about the article, so I'm unsure what the "Booker Prize and many other literary awards" refers to.

The reference to the queen and Margaret in Ireland was a small section at the end of an article about nothing.

FileNotFound

dark crystal wrote: »

Who leaked the 'Meghan made Kate cry' story to the press in the first place do you think? Have a think about it.

If you think Meghan telling her side of the story was character assassination, you must have a strong opinion on the gutter press's daily character assassination of her over the last four years. Or is it only character assassination of Kate you're concerned about in particular?

I'll give a straight answer - I don't know or care.


I have little opinion on any of them, just calling it for what i see.

RF hide a potential Paedo, they are no doubt a bunch or racists (Philip is well recorded all the way down to Harry - can't imagine the rest are any better). And right now selling off right for fossil fuel mining. They're not a great bunch.


The interview was a well rehearsed bit of theater - seemed not only was every word planned and run by legal - it was especially designed to portray a tale to their new american audience.


I mean we know she lied about the pre wedding and the reason for archie not being a prince (her whole why wouldn't they make him a prince statement - well them be the rules ya idiot (meg being the idiot)).. So given there is nothing to back up anything else I guess we we can only judge on what we know.


What proof do you have that the actress was not acting.


We all know the press were bad to them - very bad. But instead of attacking the press they used more press to attack his family??? Very confusing.

valoren

jm08 wrote: »

This was prior to the interview (if you read the tweet).

5th March. 3 days before the pre-recorded and anticipated interview was aired. It was even edited after Philip was hospitalized. The knives were out and thus the media were already taking an interest in what was given the tantalising blurb of being a “tell all”. It wasn't a secret that they would be doing an Oprah interview. Scandal was expected and they subsequently delivered. Any critics would obviously be out in force showing their bias in advance against the couple and the interview was simply fuelling the same click bait gutter press they explicitly moved to the US to try and avoid. For a couple who wanted to escape the spotlight they did the very thing which would intensify it.

dark crystal

Be right back wrote: »

That's a lovely tribute, heartfelt and personal unlike the other one.

Check out Harry's latest tribute:

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a36073883/prince-harry-meghan-markle-statement-prince-philip-death/

That heartfelt and personal enough for you?

jm08

FileNotFound wrote: »

I'm not spinning anything, she just wanted the world to know the bad Kate made her cry. She literally said it... How else would you take a direct statement. I have never made any suggestion or purported any stories about what happened - just pointing out Meg did a nice bit of character assassination. In the press to boot.

I have nothing but sympathy for Kate and her situation. Who'd want to put up with the **** she has to put up with.

Why not pick random bits? Well if that is your view I guess it says a lot about you and your character....

Would you mind explaining what you mean. It was a very long interview - I'm happy to go through the whole interview, but not in the one post and it might take some time. Best I can do at the moment is to pick out the important ones first such as the thrust of the interview was that the British press were giving Meghan and Harry such a hard time, that Harry and Meghan felt they had to get out of the UK for some respite since the RF were doing nothing to protect them like other members of the the family. Harry's big worry was that Meghan would end up like his mother, hounded by the press.

Nothing wrong with a bog standard kid, mine aren't going to be princes - they'll be kids haha. Not sure what your issue is with this statement, but we all know Meg was more concerned about Archies title than anything else. Maybe we should judge her on being so shallow?

Thats not what you said. You said that Meghan wasn't happy because she had a bog standard kid. All I know is that Meghan was concerned about the lack of protection he would get, despite being the son of a senior royal and the grandson and nephew of future kings.


My surprise at your statement is that you don't believe all people are equal. Who do you look down on?

MoonUnit75

dark crystal wrote: »

Check out Harry's latest tribute:

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a36073883/prince-harry-meghan-markle-statement-prince-philip-death/

That heartfelt and personal enough for you?

Yes, that's a very nice tribute. It really shows how vastly different Harry's communication style is to 'Meghan and Harry Inc.'.

FileNotFound

dark crystal wrote: »

Check out Harry's latest tribute:

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a36073883/prince-harry-meghan-markle-statement-prince-philip-death/

That heartfelt and personal enough for you?

Kinda sad when you have to try twice to get a heartfelt tribute right.. That goes for the others aswell - Think W&K had a second go at it.


Pretty poor humans - the lot of them

jm08

valoren wrote: »

5th March. 3 days before the pre-recorded and anticipated interview was aired. It was even edited after Philip was hospitalized. The knives were out and thus the media were already taking an interest in what was given the tantalising blurb of being a “tell all”. It wasn't a secret that they would be doing an Oprah interview. Scandal was expected and they delivered. Any critics would obviously be out in force showing their bias in advance against the couple and the interview was simply fuelling the same click bait gutter press they explicitly moved to the US to try and avoid. For a couple who wanted to escape the spotlight they did the very thing which would intensify it.

I think you are confusing 'escaping the limelight' with wanting to 'escape the constant bullying and racism' from the British press.'


The real scandal of William's affair with a neighbour as being the real reason Kate was crying was not aired.

FileNotFound

jm08 wrote: »

Thats not what you said. You said that Meghan wasn't happy because she had a bog standard kid. All I know is that Meghan was concerned about the lack of protection he would get, despite being the son of a senior royal and the grandson and nephew of future kings.


My surprise at your statement is that you don't believe all people are equal. Who do you look down on?

I'll only bother replying to this bit...

Well to start with I am quite tall so literally look down on most of the population to be fair. And reading back I am clear on what i said. If you misunderstood me let me clarify for you.

All kids are equal in my eyes (and people) but apparently not in megs, poor archie not being a prince seems such a major issue for her its quite funny actually. Maybe she thinks less of her child as the RF haven't validated it or something?


I guess since you insinuate your own version of what i mean from my statements I can do the same for Meg. Seems fair.


You really must love H&M, i find them a bit sad after the interview.


EDIT: Since its all conjecture I guess anything could be true.