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

Be right back

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?

I posted that tribute as well.

MoonUnit75

jm08 wrote: »

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.

What the? Meghan actually says in the Oprah infomercial that the row leaked to the press was about flower girl dresses. Meghan claimed it was her that cried, even though she wasn't 'all that into the big spectacle wedding' after all.

There's no escaping the tabloids no matter where they live, that's a ridiculous reason to estrange your new family from all of their relatives. Meghan seems to have isolated them both from her family and now his family. The most persuasive reason I can think of for the Oprah infomercial was to ensure there was no easy way back for Harry. Why did she give so much of the interview alone and give a completely contradictory account of the 'racism conversations'?

MoonUnit75

FileNotFound wrote: »

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

Knowing the RF, there's probably protocol on who puts out a tribute first, probably the Queen herself or someone on her behalf would be first, then the rest of the family.

H & M are not part of the institution anymore so presumably could have put out a tribute at any time, though maybe Harry did decide to let the official word go out first as a mark of respect. Can't think of any other reason except callousness for the 'happy retirement, here's a mid-range pen in a box' type message they put out first.

walshb

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.

So why slate the in laws?

It was an attack on the RF...

The RF wrote nothing about nothing..

walshb

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?

Who leaked it?

Catherine? William? Charles? The Queen?

Crygate is an absolute nonsense...the only person crying over it is the person feeding the nonsense..

jm08

walshb wrote: »

Who leaked it?

Catherine? William? Charles? The Queen?

Crygate is an absolute nonsense...the only person crying over it is the person feeding the nonsense..

Probably Jason Knauf, who is a pal of one of the Daily Mail royal reporters. He is also the one who leaked Meghan Markle's letter to her father which was claimed in defence of the Mail in Meghan's action that he held copyright because he had co-authored them! Knauf is also the person who was meant to look after Meghan's father which he failed to do and has recently been promoted to head up the Cambridges Trust, presuambly by hanging Meghan out to dry to save William from the ferocity of the press over his affair with the neighour which would probably have sunk the monarchy in all fairness (though it didn't quite sink Charles when he was cheating on Diana with Camila. Knauf is also the one who is accusing Meghan of bullying.


Get the picture yet?

jm08

walshb wrote: »

So why slate the in laws?

It was an attack on the RF...

The RF wrote nothing about nothing..

The inlaws were slated for not correcting the lies that were being told by the press or not even listening to them about the problems that they were having. They also suggested that Meghan should get a job acting to pay for the security that they and the future grandson of the King would need because he happens to be born into the RF. The security was the issue during the pregnancy when they were told he wouldn't get it if he wasn't a prince. At this stage they were full time working royals and would later go on a tour to SA.

jm08

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

What the? Meghan actually says in the Oprah infomercial that the row leaked to the press was about flower girl dresses. Meghan claimed it was her that cried, even though she wasn't 'all that into the big spectacle wedding' after all.

There's no escaping the tabloids no matter where they live, that's a ridiculous reason to estrange your new family from all of their relatives. Meghan seems to have isolated them both from her family and now his family. The most persuasive reason I can think of for the Oprah infomercial was to ensure there was no easy way back for Harry. Why did she give so much of the interview alone and give a completely contradictory account of the 'racism conversations'?

Here is a verbatim report of what she said.

https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a35823469/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-palace-email/


As you will see in that piece, when it came to William and Kate, Kensington Palace had no problem issuing statements of denial when it came to the Cambridges, but Meghan was told to put up and shut up.

superflyninja

jm08 wrote: »

Probably Jason Knauf, who is a pal of one of the Daily Mail royal reporters. He is also the one who leaked Meghan Markle's letter to her father which was claimed in defence of the Mail in Meghan's action that he held copyright because he had co-authored them! Knauf is also the person who was meant to look after Meghan's father which he failed to do and has recently been promoted to head up the Cambridges Trust, presuambly by hanging Meghan out to dry to save William from the ferocity of the press over his affair with the neighour which would probably have sunk the monarchy in all fairness (though it didn't quite sink Charles when he was cheating on Diana with Camila. Knauf is also the one who is accusing Meghan of bullying.


Get the picture yet?

Just say EVERYTHING you say is true. That doesn't negate what Markle has been doing. Are you convinced that everything she does is 100% above board and beyond repproach? If so, why? And if not can you name a few naughty things you think she might have done?

walshb

jm08 wrote: »

The inlaws were slated for not correcting the lies that were being told by the press or not even listening to them about the problems that they were having. They also suggested that Meghan should get a job acting to pay for the security that they and the future grandson of the King would need because he happens to be born into the RF. The security was the issue during the pregnancy when they were told he wouldn't get it if he wasn't a prince. At this stage they were full time working royals and would later go on a tour to SA.

I'm struggling to take you serious here

You actually believe the Queen and the other senior royals should be engaging in back and forth with trashy media writers?

And because they did not engage with these trashy media writers, then Markle and Harry were bang on to trash the RF?

You think this is the way it should have went down?

jm08

Leg End Reject wrote: »

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.

Its an interesting bit of info which just goes to show the amount of bull**** that the world has to listen to about brave britain etc. etc. in WWII. I heard a discussion on radio about it. Thought it was really interesting at the time and wondered where it was. I always got the impression that the Queen is very fond of Ireland which is unusual for a British monarch.

walshb

jm08 wrote: »

Probably Jason Knauf, who is a pal of one of the Daily Mail royal reporters. He is also the one who leaked Meghan Markle's letter to her father which was claimed in defence of the Mail in Meghan's action that he held copyright because he had co-authored them! Knauf is also the person who was meant to look after Meghan's father which he failed to do and has recently been promoted to head up the Cambridges Trust, presuambly by hanging Meghan out to dry to save William from the ferocity of the press over his affair with the neighour which would probably have sunk the monarchy in all fairness (though it didn't quite sink Charles when he was cheating on Diana with Camila. Knauf is also the one who is accusing Meghan of bullying.


Get the picture yet?

Get the picture yet?

Yes, I do

It wasn't Catherine. It wasn't William. It wasn't Charles. And it wasn't the Queen that leaked anything...

It was some dude called Jason Knauf.....

Okey doke....thanks for clearing this up

jm08

superflyninja wrote: »

Just say EVERYTHING you say is true. That doesn't negate what Markle has been doing. Are you convinced that everything she does is 100% above board and beyond approach? If so, why? And if not can you name a few naughty things she has done?

Negate what? What has she being doing that is not above board and beyond reproach?

jm08

walshb wrote: »

Get the picture yet?

Yes, I do

It wasn't Catherine. It wasn't William. It wasn't Charles. And it wasn't the Queen that leaked anything...

It was some dude called Jason Knauf.....

Okey doke....thanks for clearing this up

He is not just some dude - he was in charge of Communications for M&H. You don't think that any of the royal family actually leak the stuff themselves? I can see it now - the Queen ringing up the Mail to tell them that Meghan made Kate cry:D

jm08

walshb wrote: »

I'm struggling to take you serious here

You actually believe the Queen and the other senior royals should be engaging in back and forth with trashy media writers?

And because they did not engage with these trashy media writers, then Markle and Harry were bang on to trash the RF?

You think this is the way it should have went down?

They have staff that do that sort of stuff for them. For example, in that Elle article they refer to them trying to refute something for William.

end of the road

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

What the? Meghan actually says in the Oprah infomercial that the row leaked to the press was about flower girl dresses. Meghan claimed it was her that cried, even though she wasn't 'all that into the big spectacle wedding' after all.

There's no escaping the tabloids no matter where they live, that's a ridiculous reason to estrange your new family from all of their relatives. Meghan seems to have isolated them both from her family and now his family. The most persuasive reason I can think of for the Oprah infomercial was to ensure there was no easy way back for Harry. Why did she give so much of the interview alone and give a completely contradictory account of the 'racism conversations'?

emigrating is not estranging, people emigrate all the time for various reasons and take their children.
megan's family estranged themselves from her via their behaviour, well her father at least.
given harry isn't the first royal family member to give an interview then there will be plenty of way back for him ultimately as most people will move on and forget about this interview when the next big thing comes along and he is the son of the future king.
charles, the queen etc may certainly be annoyed at him for a time but they will move on.

walshb wrote: »

So why slate the in laws?

It was an attack on the RF...

The RF wrote nothing about nothing..

it wasn't an attack on the rf really.
it was an interview about why they stepped back and an expressing of concern in relation to the possible bad treatment megan received from the press mainly but potentially the institution also.

superflyninja wrote: »

Just say EVERYTHING you say is true. That doesn't negate what Markle has been doing. Are you convinced that everything she does is 100% above board and beyond repproach? If so, why? And if not can you name a few naughty things you think she might have done?

whatever she has done is small fry compared to what was done to her realistically.
whatever she has done, which so far looks to amount to nothing, doubly doesn't negate the vitrial she has received from the sewerage elements of the british press.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

I always got the impression that the Queen is very fond of Ireland which is unusual for a British monarch.

Really? Why would you think that's unusual? Just because you may have a problem with the English and the royal family, it's not the same for them!
The queen visited here, her grandfather king George visited, her great grandfather king Edward visited, her great great grandmother queen Victoria visited at least 4 times, I think!
That's not to mention many private visits from many members of the royal family over the years.

MoonUnit75

end of the road wrote: »

emigrating is not estranging, people emigrate all the time for various reasons and take their children.
megan's family estranged themselves from her via their behaviour, well her father at least.
given harry isn't the first royal family member to give an interview then there will be plenty of way back for him ultimately as most people will move on and forget about this interview when the next big thing comes along and he is the son of the future king.
charles, the queen etc may certainly be annoyed at him for a time but they will move on.

Moving to a different country on the other side of the world, issuing a statement saying the Queen has no right to stop them using the term Royal to describe their branded slacktivism, setting up an interview to bitch about your blood relatives/in-laws, saying they were too racist to make her son a prince (even though he wasn't entitled to be) is pretty up there when it comes to estrangement.

Meghan's dad staged some completely innocuous pap photos. Would any sane person cut their parent out of their life for that?

it wasn't an attack on the rf really.
it was an interview about why they stepped back and an expressing of concern in relation to the possible bad treatment megan received from the press mainly but potentially the institution also.

whatever she has done is small fry compared to what was done to her realistically.
whatever she has done, which so far looks to amount to nothing, doubly doesn't negate the vitrial she has received from the sewerage elements of the british press.

It was a vindictive bitch-fest. There's no other way to describe it. They had already used Omid Scobie as cover for their narcissistic autobiography which described what they felt about the press.

superflyninja

jm08 wrote: »

Negate what? What has she being doing that is not above board and beyond reproach?

I dont think you understood what I was asking. You really need me to list through the actions she has taken? And do you think all of those actions are proper? Nothing wrong with any of it? At all?

end of the road

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Moving to a different country on the other side of the world, issuing a statement saying the Queen has no right to stop them using the term Royal to describe their branded slacktivism, setting up an interview to bitch about your blood relatives/in-laws, saying they were too racist to make her son a prince (even though he wasn't entitled to be) is pretty up there when it comes to estrangement.

Meghan's dad staged some completely innocuous pap photos. Would any sane person cut their parent out of their life for that?



It was a vindictive bitch-fest. There's no other way to describe it. They had already used Omid Scobie as cover for their narcissistic autobiography which described what they felt about the press.

megan's father tried to imotionally blackmail megan into talking to him via constantly going to the media, she had tried to reach out but he threw her under the bus.
so yeah, rather serious stuff which might leave her with no choice but to cut him out and perfectly sane to cut out a toxic person.
also, very very far from simply staging a few pap photos, as you will know, because you know he didn't just simply stage a few pap photos.
it was an interview about why they left and how they felt they were treated and how they felt the rf as an institution could have treated them better, and how the british press behaved.
again emigrating is not estrangement.

valoren

Not everyone in the UK is pro-monarchy. So wouldn't a story about the heir being an adulterer seem like manna from heaven for biased media outlets seeking to damage the monarchy? It never gained any traction from what I've read. Or maybe the story was deliberately conjured up and spread, that the anti-monarchy gutter press actually looked into it but found nothing of substance and so didn't run with it. The sh*stirring "William affair" gambit then fails. Thus when someone wants to find freedom they still need to make the point of how one side was protected and Meghan and Harry weren't as part of the reasoning for why they needed to escape. So with that in mind, the best thing they can come up with is Crygate i.e. Kate making Meghan cry and neither she nor the Palace stepping up to correct the "truth" and throwing Meghan to the wolves and have her mental health suffer from enduring the poor press coverage. It might be speculation to suggest Meghan or one in her social circle is responsible for planting the affair story but when you see Meghan readily throwing her husbands family under the bus as racists then you must consider it a distinct possiblity.

Leg End Reject

jm08 wrote: »

Its an interesting bit of info which just goes to show the amount of bull**** that the world has to listen to about brave britain etc. etc. in WWII. I heard a discussion on radio about it. Thought it was really interesting at the time and wondered where it was. I always got the impression that the Queen is very fond of Ireland which is unusual for a British monarch.

I didn't express an opinion on whether I thought the article was true or false, just that it was full of waffle and hearsay.

It was criticism of the article, not of you. This might explain why you see things that aren't there.

Leg End Reject

If you look at all the philandering, tapped phone calls and scandals that have happened why would William having an affair topple the royal family?

FFS Andrew was interviewed on the news bold as brass!

FileNotFound

Leg End Reject wrote: »

If you look at all the philandering, tapped phone calls and scandals that have happened why would William having an affair topple the royal family?

FFS Andrew was interviewed on the news bold as brass!

It didn't topple it when his old lad did it, no reason for him to be any different.

There has been far worse with Andrew - lets face it even the Harry/Meg thing was just a bit of pissing and moaning from little princey and the missus. :D

RF is plodding along as it always does because the Brits like them.

MoonUnit75

end of the road wrote: »

megan's father tried to imotionally blackmail megan into talking to him via constantly going to the media, she had tried to reach out but he threw her under the bus.

Why did he have to go to the press to get her to engage with him in the first place? According to you, they weren't talking before he got involved in staging photos, any ideas why that might have been? Can't be because he was 'talking to the press'.

so yeah, rather serious stuff which might leave her with no choice but to cut him out and perfectly sane to cut out a toxic person.
also, very very far from simply staging a few pap photos, as you will know, because you know he didn't just simply stage a few pap photos.
it was an interview about why they left and how they felt they were treated and how they felt the rf as an institution could have treated them better, and how the british press behaved.
again emigrating is not estrangement.

What else did he do on Meghan? She said she ordered him not to talk to any press, that they would 'protect him' but he 'betrayed her' by staging some silly photos of him getting measured for a suit and reading about her online. Hardly the kind of stuff worth dumping the man who raised you for. It suggests to me that she is an uber control freak who is obsessed with her public image and with appearing the victim instead of the instigator of any bad behaviour.

The vindictive interview where she brands her in-laws as racists in the same slot as announcing the gender of their next baby just highlights this perfectly.

valoren

Leg End Reject wrote: »

If you look at all the philandering, tapped phone calls and scandals that have happened why would William having an affair topple the royal family?

FFS Andrew was interviewed on the news bold as brass!

Not topple but damage. Point is why wasn't it a thing? Because it didn't happen. Yet the source for it isn't known but it wouldn't be surprising if the Sussex Squad were behind it. Oh the drama!

jm08

bubblypop wrote: »

Really? Why would you think that's unusual? Just because you may have a problem with the English and the royal family, it's not the same for them!
The queen visited here, her grandfather king George visited, her great grandfather king Edward visited, her great great grandmother queen Victoria visited at least 4 times, I think!
That's not to mention many private visits from many members of the royal family over the years.

Actually, you are right. The Royal family seems to have always been quite fond of Ireland, except of course The Famine Queen, Queen Vic dubbed 'the Auld Bitch*' who was happy to see many die in the famine and wouldn't allow the Sultan of Turkey send aid that was over what she sent.



*dubbed by James Joyce

It appears to me, having followed this thread that the posters who are backing Harry and Megan are anti-British posters.

Pretty sure they couldn't care less about H & M, it just works out well for them to argue against the royal family.
I'm not a royalist, and I'm glad I can view things from a neutral point of view, without prejudice.

jm08

superflyninja wrote: »

I dont think you understood what I was asking. You really need me to list through the actions she has taken? And do you think all of those actions are proper? Nothing wrong with any of it? At all?

Yes I do. And I want chapter and verse on who claimed what she did with a link please to them saying it.

end of the road

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Why did he have to go to the press to get her to engage with him in the first place? According to you, they weren't talking before he got involved in staging photos, any ideas why that might have been? Can't be because he was 'talking to the press'.



What else did he do on Meghan? She said she ordered him not to talk to any press, that they would 'protect him' but he 'betrayed her' by staging some silly photos of him getting measured for a suit and reading about her online. Hardly the kind of stuff worth dumping the man who raised you for. It suggests to me that she is an uber control freak who is obsessed with her public image and with appearing the victim instead of the instigator of any bad behaviour.

The vindictive interview where she brands her in-laws as racists in the same slot as announcing the gender of their next baby just highlights this perfectly.

he chose to go to the press so as to immotionaly blackmail her into talking to him, i already explained this and it has been mentioned plenty throughout the thread.
using the media to immotionaly blackmail your child isn't the sign of a good parent in my and i suspect most people's world.
it suggests to you that she is an uber control freak who is obsessed with her public image and with appearing the victim instead of the instigator of any bad behaviour because that is what you want her to be and that is the narative you have created in relaton to her.
the non-vindictive interview where they both stated why they left and discussed how they felt they were treated among other things highlights that there are perhapse some questions for the institution themselves to answer.
it certainly doesn't highlight what you think it does.

bubblypop wrote: »

It appears to me, having followed this thread that the posters who are backing Harry and Megan are anti-British posters.

Pretty sure they couldn't care less about H & M, it just works out well for them to argue against the royal family.
I'm not a royalist, and I'm glad I can view things from a neutral point of view, without prejudice.

far from anti-british.
sure, i certainly have no time for certain british institutions with good reason but that does not make one anti-british.
i'm also glad I can view things from a neutral point of view, without prejudice and all else, as that is what i generally do.