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

Doggos

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Because she is drawing attention and publicity to herself by claiming if she would be the centre of attention of she attended the funeral.

Philip's remains are in a coffin in a Chapel in Windsor Castle, his funeral is in 5 days, his family are grieving and preparing for a televised funeral, and yet Meghan is getting herself into the news. That's as far from respect as you can get.

Honestly, how would you feel if a close relative died and an inlaw tried to make the death and funeral all about them?

Wow this is a strange thread!

The only released information I know of is that her physician said they recommend she not fly is it not? Have I missed something? Where did Meghan Markle draw any attention to herself with intentional disrespect by claiming she would be centre of attention and is 'getting herself into the news?'

retro:electro

ThErE aRe No tAbLoIdS iN aMeRiCa

Leg End Reject

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-stayed-as-doesnt-23900436.amp

end of the road

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Because she is drawing attention and publicity to herself by claiming if she would be the centre of attention if she attended the funeral.

Philip's remains are in a coffin in a Chapel in Windsor Castle, his funeral is in 5 days, his family are grieving and preparing for a televised funeral, and yet Meghan is getting herself into the news. That's as far from respect as you can get.

Honestly, how would you feel if a close relative died and an inlaw tried to make the death and funeral all about them?

and if she didn't give answers as to why she isn't attending she would be drawing attention to herself and apparently not showing respect either and all else.
ultimately proving my point again and again.
meghan hasn't made the funeral about her, so your question to me falls down on that point as well as the above.

Doggos

Leg End Reject wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-stayed-as-doesnt-23900436.amp

Haha wait wait wait... ya'll really over here debating what fake news tabloids say as if they were facts? :pac:

Leg End Reject

end of the road wrote: »

and if she didn't give answers as to why she isn't attending she would be drawing attention to herself and apparently not showing respect either and all else.
ultimately proving my point again and again.
meghan hasn't made the funeral about her, so your question to me falls down on that point as well as the above.

The "not travelling on medical advice" would have sufficed.

end of the road

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The "not travelling on medical advice" would have sufficed.

really?
are you sure about that?

would that have been the case all along, or simply from now on given that the attempts to use this new reason against her have backfired and been shown up for the usual?

Leg End Reject

end of the road wrote: »

really?
are you sure about that?

would that have been the case all along, or simply from now on given that the attempts to use this new reason against her have backfired and been shown up for the usual?

No one believed it, but she could have kept quiet rather than garnering more publicity.

You know, like a narcissist?

retro:electro

Lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVUnD0hOGyY

Leg End Reject

retro:electro wrote: »

Lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVUnD0hOGyY

Oh dear.

Thoughts and prayers.

anewme

bubblypop wrote: »

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

That's quite a strange conclusion to come to.

This thread reminds me of Britney Spears " Piece of Me" song.

Whatever Meghan does is wrong. Every little thing is twisted here.

It does not read well.

end of the road

Leg End Reject wrote: »

No one believed it, but she could have kept quiet rather than garnering more publicity.

You know, like a narcissist?

if she kept quiet she would have got publicity also, so she was never going to win either way.
as i said she's doing possibly the worst job at being a narcissist i have ever saw given there is nothing to show she is even one inf the first place.

BettyS

anewme wrote: »

That's quite a strange conclusion to come to.

This thread reminds me of Britney Spears " Piece of Me" song.

Whatever Meghan does is wrong. Every little thing is twisted here.

It does not read well.

Harry and Meghan trashed the royal family on international television. They called the monarchy racist. Meghan then said that she wants to forgive the royal family and Philip and her had a special bond. She said that she didn’t want to make herself the centre of his death. Can you not see the contradictory nature of this. Can you not see that Harry and Meghan are entirely myopic to the hurt of others. They can only perceive the slights against them. They cannot fathom that their actions may have hurt other people

anewme

anewme wrote: »

That's quite a strange conclusion to come to.

This thread reminds me of Britney Spears " Piece of Me" song.

Whatever Meghan does is wrong. Every little thing is twisted here.

It does not read well.

No, given the evidence of some of the posters history of posting anti British sentiments on this site, it's an evidence based analysis of those posters.
Not all, obvs, I don't know them all, but the posts seem to be anti royal family for sure!

Megan doesn't need to say or do anything. If she wanted to leave royal life, which she did, she just had to leave. She didn't need to talk to the (terrible awful) press about her personal business. She needs to stop worrying what people think and get on with her life. Who cares what they write in the papers for God's sake!
Childish in the extreme.

BettyS

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56723560

I am going to preface this with, I don’t believe this is only a Harry and Meghan issue. This article is about how the top 1% produce double the combined amount of the poorest 50% of the population of carbon emissions. It is a really worrying statistic. And it shows why people are sceptical when this 1% preach to us, the 99%, about how we should try to reduce our emissions. They lack credibility. I think that this is what people object to

Multipass

Doggos wrote: »

Is the definition of the monarchy not racist, lol. I mean c'mon... what do you think they built their wealth and power and land grabs on? That perpetuates to this day (don't they still occupy 6 of your counties?!) I believe the comments about concerns regarding their future children's skin colour definitely happened. No way would anyone go in front of the world and claim that-especially Harry-if it didn't.

How does this paragraph read when you consider that they originally wanted to keep and trademark their titles, and continue to receive funding and perform the odd ‘duty’ here and there. They would have been happy to keep their share of profits from the ‘racist’ institution, which makes them racists too, haha.
I wonder if the infamous comments weren’t a joke about whether the baby would be pasty white and ginger like Dad. Terribly hurtful no doubt to poor racially aware Harry (shh don’t mention the Pakis)

BettyS

Multipass wrote: »

How does this paragraph read when you consider that they originally wanted to keep and trademark their titles, and continue to receive funding and perform the odd ‘duty’ here and there. They would have been happy to keep their share of profits from the ‘racist’ institution, which makes them racists too, haha.
I wonder if the infamous comments weren’t a joke about whether the baby would be pasty white and ginger like Dad. Terribly hurtful no doubt to poor racially aware Harry (shh don’t mention the Pakis)

Also, Meghan and Harry sing praises about Philip after all his questionable gaffes over the years. What makes his comments okay and the comment that the other member of the family made as racist?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-40262198.html?type=amp

Fandymo

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Very different circumstances on multiple levels.

First London to New York for a brief trip is way less taxing then LA to London for 5-10 days. The time difference is smaller and there's no need to adjust for a 2 day trip. It's way less jarring heading west then East. Flight time is much shorter.

Then there's a kid who either needs to be brought or needs to be left behind. Bring him and you've a grumpy two year old who has no idea which way is up or down. Leave him and that's traumatic in other ways. On your first kid you can sleep before and after any event, on kid two you can't.

No way I'd have gone in her circumstances, even if there was no bad blood. It's a grandfather at a good age, and not unexpected.

You'd swear she'd be sweaty betty rocking up to the airport flustered, making her way through security juggling bags and kid and then cramped into economy rather than ghosted into first class with a nanny looking after the kid.

Doggos

bubblypop wrote: »

No, given the evidence of some of the posters history of posting anti British sentiments on this site, it's an evidence based analysis of those posters.
Not all, obvs, I don't know them all, but the posts seem to be anti royal family for sure!

Megan doesn't need to say or do anything. If she wanted to leave royal life, which she did, she just had to leave. She didn't need to talk to the (terrible awful) press about her personal business. She needs to stop worrying what people think and get on with her life. Who cares what they write in the papers for God's sake!
Childish in the extreme.

I don't know if that's true about the anti British sentiments on this site, but I can say my esteem of them certainly tanked starting with how they were silent when the UK media was going buck wild on Meghan.

Like with most things in the world, it's difficult to look at the royal family in B&W terms. On the one hand it's an outdated concept in today's world, they have a terrible racist history, and seem to be stuck in unhealthy cycles as regards to their members and mental health. On the other hand I can see they're an important part of their people's tradition and history, they bring in a lot of revenue for the UK, they do a lot of charity work, and have an important government function.

But what seems clear is that they need to move forward with the times and treat all their members with respect and dignity - and ensure they're treated as such.

Why do they cow tow to their media over there anyway (yearly parties for the ones who slate their members and invade their privacy, chased one of them to their death in a tunnel... what?!)

Surely it doesn't matter if they stop catering for them and start speaking up on their own behalf with their own PR team. They have their own function anyway as I just said, right? History, tradition, UK revenue, charity and work on behalf of the government.

They should give that gutter press over there the hard boot. They seem to think they need them.

walshb

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Oh dear.

Thoughts and prayers.

An out and attention seeker this woman..

I wouldn’t hang her for it, and nor does that, alone make her not a nice person.

But, her attention seeking and love of the limelight is devious, contrived and nasty...

And she absolutely proved this with her interview..

And either she is very ignorant on this clip, or being deliberately obtuse.

Doggos

BettyS wrote: »

Before you go on a long tirade and make false statements about my post, please actually take the time to read my post. Cheers

Tirade? You're at it this morning. Good morning to you sunshine :pac:

bubblypop wrote: »

Who treated them badly? And what did they do to them exactly?
I watched the interview, Megan said she was always welcomed into the family and everyone was lovely to her?

As for saying things that didn't happen? Half the interview was then saying things that didn't happen, such as, security was pulled unexpectedly by the family, they got married privately 3 days before the wedding, their son was not titled a Prince because of his.skin colour.........

You say you watched the interview so why are you asking me what their complaints are? It was a pretty detailed 2 hours of laying all that out... And I think you're misquoting Meghan there. Did she not specifically say The Queen was always very welcoming and kind to her? She didn't say everyone, but maybe I missed that somewhere.

Multipass wrote: »

How does this paragraph read when you consider that they originally wanted to keep and trademark their titles, and continue to receive funding and perform the odd ‘duty’ here and there. They would have been happy to keep their share of profits from the ‘racist’ institution, which makes them racists too, haha.
I wonder if the infamous comments weren’t a joke about whether the baby would be pasty white and ginger like Dad. Terribly hurtful no doubt to poor racially aware Harry (shh don’t mention the Pakis)

Well, I suppose see my previous comments about things not being black and white. It's a nuanced issue the way I see it. We live in a complicated world, royalty included :pac:

I obviously can't speak for them, but I'm sure they hoped for a better and less racist future than the one the RF perpetuated, but it seems not. I don't think the whole thing needs to be thrown out in light of what happened. They could choose to take a hard look at themselves, own it, and do the hard work it takes to change. That's possible! It's his family too, so you certainly hope they get a grip and repair the harm that was done.

They did say there were questions and concerns about how dark his skin colour might be and what that mean. Isn't that the way they relayed it? So you don't have to wonder too much, just the "who..."

BettyS wrote: »

Also, Meghan and Harry sing praises about Philip after all his questionable gaffes over the years. What makes his comments okay and the comment that the other member of the family made as racist?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-40262198.html%3ftype=amp

Again, this situation and the people in it are nuanced, complicated. They didn't "sing" his praises, Harry made a normal statement about his grandad who himself was a nuanced, complicated character. Not sure what the problem is here. I'm guessing they're not okay with some of his comments in the past, but as far as we know he didn't direct any at them.

I hope this posts right with all the quotes

Doggos

walshb wrote: »

An out and attention seeker this woman..

I wouldn’t hang her for it, and nor does that, alone make her not a nice person.

But, her attention seeking and love of the limelight is devious, contrived and nasty...

And she absolutely proved this with her interview..

And either she is very ignorant on this clip, or being deliberately obtuse.

Meow!!! It's not even 9am yet and you got both guns out :pac:

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

Tirade? You're at it this morning. Good morning to you sunshine :pac:



You say you watched the interview so why are you asking me what their complaints are? It was a pretty detailed 2 hours of laying all that out... And I think you're misquoting Meghan there. Did she not specifically say The Queen was always very welcoming and kind to her? She didn't say everyone, but maybe I missed that somewhere.



Well, I suppose see my previous comments about things not being black and white. It's a nuanced issue the way I see it. We live in a complicated world, royalty included :pac:

I obviously can't speak for them, but I'm sure they hoped for a better and less racist future than the one the RF perpetuated, but it seems not. I don't think the whole thing needs to be thrown out in light of what happened. They could choose to take a hard look at themselves, own it, and do the hard work it takes to change. That's possible! It's his family too, so you certainly hope they get a grip and repair the harm that was done.

They did say there were questions and concerns about how dark his skin colour might be and what that mean. Isn't that the way they relayed it? So you don't have to wonder too much, just the "who..."



Again, this situation and the people in it are nuanced, complicated. They didn't "sing" his praises, Harry made a normal statement about his grandad who himself was a nuanced, complicated character. Not sure what the problem is here. I'm guessing they're not okay with some of his comments in the past, but as far as we know he didn't direct any at them.

I hope this posts right with all the quotes

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1422268/Meghan-Markle-prince-philip-special-bond-prince-harry-duke-of-edinburgh-funeral/amp

Yeah, you’re right. They definitely didn’t praise him! I mean adored him and special bond with him are all diplomatic speak

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/mashable.com/2017/05/04/prince-philip-gaffes-list.amp

A list of his “gaffes” for your perusal. But, sure they are not directed at them, so they are perfectly acceptable!

BettyS

Omid Scobie is the new spokesperson for the royal family

Multipass

It makes me laugh the way people speak about this couple as if they’re a pair of 19 year olds starting out their innocent lives against their mean families, like some kind of Romeo and Juliet.
They are in their late thirties acting like babies. They’ve hit out publically, in a the most cynical headline grabbing way, because they didn’t get to keep the wealth they had planned to keep. It’s been twisted by the American media into some kind of moral stance, it’s hilarious.

Doggos

BettyS wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1422268/Meghan-Markle-prince-philip-special-bond-prince-harry-duke-of-edinburgh-funeral/amp

Yeah, you’re right. They definitely didn’t praise him! I mean adored him and special bond with him are all diplomatic speak

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/mashable.com/2017/05/04/prince-philip-gaffes-list.amp

A list of his “gaffes” for your perusal. But, sure they are not directed at them, so they are perfectly acceptable!

I thought ya'll had a problem with them speaking up about-aka- "trashing" the RF though, so which is it? Leave his questionable gaffes in the long ago past when they were spoken and focus on their grief and his relationship with his grandad, or speak out against the issues they have with what he said then?

So do you also throw that at William and his diplomatic statement- if Harry should have spoken up, so too should William have then. Or Charles. And it's probably more in their remit, seeing as they're to be head of the show one day.

It's so obvious they just can't win with some people.

Be right back

BettyS wrote: »

Omid Scobie is the new spokesperson for the royal family

He seems to be speaking on William's behalf this morning.

I read as well that apparently she wanted to go but Harry didn't want her to go. First her doctor, then her mum and now Harry.

Doggos

Multipass wrote: »

It makes me laugh the way people speak about this couple as if they’re a pair of 19 year olds starting out their innocent lives against their mean families, like some kind of Romeo and Juliet.
They are in their late thirties acting like babies. They’ve hit out publically, in a the most cynical headline grabbing way, because they didn’t get to keep the wealth they had planned to keep. It’s been twisted by the American media into some kind of moral stance, it’s hilarious.

And some of us are laughing at the vitriol and cattiness and quoting of the gutter tabloids against them! To be fair :pac:

But they didn't speak up 'because they didn't get to keep the wealth they had planned to keep.'

And they're far wealthier now on their own so guess who's having the last laugh while living their own lives!!

PS: Some would definitely say speaking up about racism is the right moral stance. Don't get it twisted

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

I thought ya'll had a problem with them speaking up about-aka- "trashing" the RF though, so which is it? Leave his questionable gaffes in the long ago past when they were spoken and focus on their grief and his relationship with his grandad, or speak out against the issues they have with what he said then?

So do you also throw that at William and his diplomatic statement- if Harry should have spoken up, so too should William have then. Or Charles. And it's probably more in their remit, seeing as they're to be head of the show one day.

It's so obvious they just can't win with some people.

You’re right, 2013 is decades ago.

If you read my posts, I am not arbitrating on the posts. I am trying to point out that Harry and Meghan have publicly condemned somebody as a racist for a comment that is on par with some of Philip’s former gaffes. Is it not hypocritical to accept one set of standards for one person and another for other people?

Multipass

Doggos wrote: »

And some of us are laughing at the vitriol and cattiness and quoting of the gutter tabloids against them! To be fair :pac:

But they didn't speak up 'because they didn't get to keep the wealth they had planned to keep.'

And they're far wealthier now on their own so guess who's having the last laugh while living their own lives!!

PS: Some would definitely say speaking up about racism is the right moral stance. Don't get it twisted

They are certainly not wealthier now - having a multi million mortgage just means you need to pimp yourself out to pay for it.