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

Immortal Starlight

I thought it was hilarious that Meghan said her mother and herself didn’t know that Diana had done a tell all interview. Just how stupid does she think everyone is.

walshb

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

I thought it was hilarious that Meghan said her mother and herself didn’t know that Diana had done a tell all interview. Just how stupid does she think everyone is.

But you can’t prove she’s lying....so she gets a pass!!!!

Be right back

Once an actress, always an actress. She really seems to love attention and being the centre of it.

anewme

Doggos wrote: »

To be very clear to you, no one in the RF has spoken out about his comments over the years. And, you don't know what was expressed already privately.

And let's be real - if they did speak up about it, ya'll would have lit them on fire for it because 'omg he's in the hospital and the poor Queen having to face this slander against her husband, they're not racist comments they're just off colour and normal for his generation...."

Something like that. Right? Next!

This is exactly what I'm seeing on this thread.

Whatever Meghan does, she is criticised for. Not just criticised, that's to mild a word to use.

If she spoke out about the racist comments attributed to Prince Philip it would be, who does she think she is, royal protocol blah blah.

Her Father has behaved appallingly towards his own daughter and yet he gets loads of sympathy. Others even question her heritage, how can anyone be racist to her if she looks white?

I said it was strange that people supporting (and I mean that loosely) are labelled anti British, I'd see it more anti bullying.

FileNotFound

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

I thought it was hilarious that Meghan said her mother and herself didn’t know that Diana had done a tell all interview. Just how stupid does she think everyone is.

Did she not blog like mad about Will and Kate before ever meeting Harry??

Sure is such a liar, and a bad one at that.

Mrsmum

anewme wrote: »

This is exactly what I'm seeing on this thread.

Whatever Meghan does, she is criticised for. Not just criticised, that's to mild a word to use.

If she spoke out about the racist comments attributed to Prince Philip it would be, who does she think she is, royal protocol blah blah.

Her Father has behaved appallingly towards his own daughter and yet he gets loads of sympathy. Others even question her heritage, how can anyone be racist to her if she looks white?

I said it was strange that people supporting (and I mean that loosely) are labelled anti British, I'd see it more anti bullying.

As far as I'm concerned, she's her father's daughter all day long. This washing your laundry in public is a Markle trait. But it's hypocritical of her to lambast her father for what she is now doing herself. And reminder she is the one under a bullying investigation.

jm08

Leg End Reject wrote: »

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.

I took it as a criticism of John Banville being verbose - calling a Booker Prize Winner (among many international awards) verbose is bloody hilarious.

anewme

Mrsmum wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, she's her father's daughter all day long. This washing your laundry in public is a Markle trait. But it's hypocritical of her to lambast her father for what she is now doing herself. And reminder she is the one under a bullying investigation.

It's the sympathy towards the Dad here im talking about. If she felt it necessary to get away from his toxic behaviour, then so be it. He has already said that he will do interview after interview till she talks to him. Reads a bit like blackmail to me.

Also, wheeling him out on GMTV for him to say the Royal Family are not racists is quite frankly bizarre when he never even met any of them. The way the media used him as in (even your own Father is against you) shows the lengths the media will go to to try and make any type of mud stick.

The point is, there seems to be only one type of view tolerated in this thread. Anyone against it is ignorant, or anti British, or naive.

jm08

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'.

It was the responsibility of Jason Knauf (H&M's Communications person) to look after Meghan's family and protect them from the press which he failed spectacularly to do. Meghan's mother had to leave her job because the organisation she worked for couldn't handle the media intrusion.


What Knauf should have done was brought Meghan's parents to England and ensconced them in one of the many estates that the Crown owned where they would be shielded from 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.

I'd say the RF had more of a problem with the photos than Meghan did if he was getting paid for the suit fitting (which he was).

JoChervil

anewme wrote: »

This is exactly what I'm seeing on this thread.

Whatever Meghan does, she is criticised for. Not just criticised, that's to mild a word to use.

If she spoke out about the racist comments attributed to Prince Philip it would be, who does she think she is, royal protocol blah blah.

Her Father has behaved appallingly towards his own daughter and yet he gets loads of sympathy. Others even question her heritage, how can anyone be racist to her if she looks white?

I said it was strange that people supporting (and I mean that loosely) are labelled anti British, I'd see it more anti bullying.

No, people here don't have problems with their accusations. They have problems with how they did it.

They would be admired, if they had balls to name a culprit. When they didn’t and accused 3 innocent people of racism, so they are not then. And the person can’t even start legal action against them.

The same with backstabbing Kate. And announcing to the whole world her long buried story of Waity Katie.

And who has an open investigation about bulling? So who is anty bully here?

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

The point is, there seems to be only one type of view tolerated in this thread. Anyone against it is ignorant, or anti British, or naive.

And anyone who disagrees with the opposing opinion is apparently a bully.

Be right back

jm08 wrote: »

It was the responsibility of Jason Knauf (H&M's Communications person) to look after Meghan's family and protect them from the press which he failed spectacularly to do. Meghan's mother had to leave her job because the organisation she worked for couldn't handle the media intrusion.


What Knauf should have done was brought Meghan's parents to England and ensconced them in one of the many estates that the Crown owned where they would be shielded from the press.




I'd say the RF had more of a problem with the photos than Meghan did if he was getting paid for the suit fitting (which he was).

Why didn't Harry meet Meghan's dad at all?

Leg End Reject

jm08 wrote: »

It was the responsibility of Jason Knauf (H&M's Communications person) to look after Meghan's family and protect them from the press which he failed spectacularly to do. Meghan's mother had to leave her job because the organisation she worked for couldn't handle the media intrusion.


What Knauf should have done was brought Meghan's parents to England and ensconced them in one of the many estates that the Crown owned where they would be shielded from the press.

The royal family don't control the press, especially in America.

Do you seriously think they should have uprooted Meghan's parents and hid them away from view for the rest of their lives in the far corner of some castle? :pac:

Penn

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The royal family don't control the press, especially in America.

Do you seriously think they should have uprooted Meghan's parents and hid them away from view for the rest of their lives in the far corner of some castle? :pac:

Not to mention her parents are separated. A castle each?

Thomas Markle is an adult. He agreed to do staged photos, got caught, caused a huge stink over Harry & Meghan's wedding, and then rather than accept blame and do what needs to be done to repair his relationship with his daughter, proceeds to do interview after interview saying whatever Piers Morgan/Daily Mail want him to say, and constantly reducing the chances he'll ever have a relationship with Meghan again.

That's on him. No one else.

Leg End Reject

Penn wrote: »

Not to mention her parents are separated. A castle each?

Thomas Markle is an adult. He agreed to do staged photos, got caught, caused a huge stink over Harry & Meghan's wedding, and then rather than accept blame and do what needs to be done to repair his relationship with his daughter, proceeds to do interview after interview saying whatever Piers Morgan/Daily Mail want him to say, and constantly reducing the chances he'll ever have a relationship with Meghan again.

That's on him. No one else.

I've no time for his antics at all, and I've never defended him. I think most have criticised his carry on here.

retro:electro

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I've no time for his antics at all, and I've never defended him. I think most have criticised his carry on here.

Meghan and her father are two cheeks of the same arse. More alike then they’d probably care to admit.

FileNotFound

anewme wrote: »

This is exactly what I'm seeing on this thread.

Whatever Meghan does, she is criticised for. Not just criticised, that's to mild a word to use.

If she spoke out about the racist comments attributed to Prince Philip it would be, who does she think she is, royal protocol blah blah.

Her Father has behaved appallingly towards his own daughter and yet he gets loads of sympathy. Others even question her heritage, how can anyone be racist to her if she looks white?

I said it was strange that people supporting (and I mean that loosely) are labelled anti British, I'd see it more anti bullying.

If she spoke out against Philips documented racism, I imagine most here would be in full support. Where do you get any alternate view from?

Her father has been a right joke in the press, but a Tom tinted view might claim, he had to go public in the press to set the record straight and tell his truths (Ironic how the same lines can be used for opposing sides of an argument). But it's my opinion he's a right sack of ....


I did see one poster mention the anti british assumption, not sure there was any others? Is everyone with an opposing opinion to yours to be labelled by one posters opinion?


I find it quite funny at this stage. The division caused on this thread.

The Marklites can see no wrong in anything H&M do, ignore the seeming untruths in the interview and assume the rest is all accurate without anything but one sides word on it.

The Royalists hate Meg and feel sorry for silly Harry, when parts or maybe most of what was said could have been true, even if it is or is not to the extent claimed.


Royals have a history of racism, Meg has a history of division.


I just thought the Ian Wright in a wig interview was a lie as it was Ian wright pretending to be oprah.

valoren

The nasty part of this is that after the interview, many assumed that it was Philip who made the racial remark. Another gaffe for the list kind of thing, something he would say. That they came out to say that it wasn't the Duke or the Queen is the telling part. The suspicion was thus left there for people to speculate about.

I'm trying to think about actual motives for doing the interview and the bullying allegations seem at the forefront to all of this to my mind.

Let's suppose these bullying allegations are all true. Let's suppose that she harassed multiple staff to the point of them needing to leave and let's suppose that this was actually serious enough that internal machinations were at play to address it. The idea that she is a demanding boss has already been touted about this and those who defend them latch onto this supposed difference in work ethic between the US and the UK i.e. this is a no-nonsense hard worker versus a bunch of lackey "do nothing" civil servants whose feelings got hurt about having to do actual work. Think James Cameron getting frustrated making Aliens with his "time for tea/clocking off at 5pm" unionised British crew.

Let's suppose this warranted Harry to step up and ask that no investigations take place. Let's suppose they were protected in such a way and the "we will look into this" can was thus kicked down the road. Now let's say that the cash-in perks 'n all move abroad hasn't gone as planned. What would be the best move to deny, deflect and distort now that murmurings of bullying allegations can potentially be exposed? Exposure which could tarnish the brand. That with no protection as working royals then this could potentially be made public. Would it be better to keep schtum and do nothing or would it be beneficial to do an interview where the "institution" of the monarchy is defined as unhelpful, callous, racist etc. This would help deflect from a reputational fall out of being a hypocrite in terms of espousing compassion i.e. you preach be kind but you're a bully?

The benefit here is that instead of saying nothing and the bullying behaviour coming out in the wash, by engaging in controlling the narrative via the media (a friendly chat with Oprah) then when those allegations inevitably come out, when the story drops, then the construct and definition of the "institution" is already in situ and Meghan can simply say "Well, what else would you expect from them? This is a smear campaign, character assasination" etc. It would be exploited as validation for the toxic institution narrative conveyed via Oprah and thus any reputational fall out is deftly avoided. If I was a bully and public knowledge of my conduct had the potential to render me completely obsolete then the Oprah interview and an agenda to play the victim is something I would happily do. It would be an act of self-preservation.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

And anyone who disagrees with the opposing opinion is apparently a bully.

It's very difficult to see the constant attacks, put downs, petty childish name calling as anything other than personal attacks.

Shes a second rate actress.

She took Harry from his family.

She bullied Charlotte (a child)

She treated her father terribly.

Shes a liar.

Shes vile.

Megain and Hostage. :rolleyes:

Pages and pages of twisting situations to make someone look bad.

How many times does the same name calling have to go on.

When is enough, enough?

anewme

walshb wrote: »

Gullible, fooled, naive, ignorant, oblivious , obtuse, or any other description

There are some who won’t see or hear, for whatever reasons, that what is very clear to others...

Excusing it with maybes and what ifs and you can’t prove that he/she lied etc etc..

This is how I see it with anyone who gives these pair any credence for that Sh1t show contrived rubbish..

FileNotFound wrote: »

If she spoke out against Philips documented racism, I imagine most here would be in full support. Where do you get any alternate view from?

I did see one poster mention the anti british assumption, not sure there was any others? Is everyone with an opposing opinion to yours to be labelled by one posters opinion?

Posters disagreeing have been labelled all of the above.

Many have said here numerous times, it's not the disagreements that is an issue, its the the constant trashing and berating, childish name calling of one person that reads very poorly.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

From very early in their relationship, they played the media. They weren’t getting much coverage until Haz put out a statement requesting the media to give Meg space. They’re still playing the same game. We want privacy. But don’t ignore us!

What they say they want is for the press to stop flying helicopters over their house and taking photos of them in their back garden, or using long range camera lenses to take photos of them in their house, or hiding in the bushes to get photos of them (all these things have happened). Do you not think it is reasonable to ask to be able to go for a walk with the dog without 20 or thirty paps trailing behind you, selling the photos and making money out of it?

Ted_YNWA

anewme -

You were given a chance with the mods lifting your threadban,

It has now been reapplied.

Do not post here again. EVER

anewme

anewme wrote: »

It's the sympathy towards the Dad here im talking about. If she felt it necessary to get away from his toxic behaviour, then so be it. He has already said that he will do interview after interview till she talks to him. Reads a bit like blackmail to me.

Also, wheeling him out on GMTV for him to say the Royal Family are not racists is quite frankly bizarre when he never even met any of them. The way the media used him as in (even your own Father is against you) shows the lengths the media will go to to try and make any type of mud stick.

The point is, there seems to be only one type of view tolerated in this thread. Anyone against it is ignorant, or anti British, or naive.

I agree with you about her father, it's not her fault if her father is an asshole.
Not everybody lived in the waltons and we can't pick them.
That has no bearing in her behaviour with regard the royal family or her interview with Oprah.
Bullying? I would suggest that talking about people publically, knowing that they cannot reply, is bullying.

Sorry, just saw mod note

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

What they say they want is for the press to stop flying helicopters over their house and taking photos of them in their back garden, or using long range camera lenses to take photos of them in their house, or hiding in the bushes to get photos of them (all these things have happened). Do you not think it is reasonable to ask to be able to go for a walk with the dog without 20 or thirty paps trailing behind you, selling the photos and making money out of it?

Yep, that never happens in America #rolleyes #

jm08

Be right back wrote: »

Why didn't Harry meet Meghan's dad at all?

Because I suspect that her father was in Mexico and there would have been security issues of Harry going there (cost etc). Meghan's mother went to Canada to meet Harry at The Invictus Games where there would have been security for him. I don't know why her father didn't do the same, maybe the parents don't get on and it would have been difficult to have them both there at the same time.

jm08

bubblypop wrote: »

Yep, that never happens in America #rolleyes #

It doesn't seem to happen in Monchito where they are living in a more or less gated community. The reason they left Canada was because they didn't have any security (withdrawn at short notice) and the tabloids had published where they were living.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

It doesn't seem to happen in Monchito where they are living in a more or less gated community. The reason they left Canada was because they didn't have any security (withdrawn at short notice) and the tabloids had published where they were living.

They really should have put security in place, that was very reckless on their behalf!

jm08

bubblypop wrote: »

They really should have put security in place, that was very reckless on their behalf!

They had Palace security which was withdrawn at short notice.

seenitall

jm08 wrote: »

What they say they want is for the press to stop flying helicopters over their house and taking photos of them in their back garden, or using long range camera lenses to take photos of them in their house, or hiding in the bushes to get photos of them (all these things have happened). Do you not think it is reasonable to ask to be able to go for a walk with the dog without 20 or thirty paps trailing behind you, selling the photos and making money out of it?

As opposed to... making yourself a Hollywood-based brand on Oprah’s hotline, and expecting all the peace and quiet that go with that, you mean? :pac: Just ask any of the other inhabitants of Hollywood hills what they think of it? They all signed this deal; their celebrity makes them enourmous amount of money, and in exchange they have to live with the press jumping out the bushes, hiring helicopters to pap their private ceremonies, and all sorts. You mostly don’t hear them complain, these are people who know who butters their bread and are hoping for more of the same, even if they are most probably not crazy about the press intrusion, to put it mildly. Only the truly entitled and those who think they’re special in some way, could think they can cherry-pick what aspects of celebrity they’ll have and which ones they will moan about. Especially the ones who know the deal in Hollywood, to a T.

ceadaoin.

jm08 wrote: »

What they say they want is for the press to stop flying helicopters over their house and taking photos of them in their back garden, or using long range camera lenses to take photos of them in their house, or hiding in the bushes to get photos of them (all these things have happened). Do you not think it is reasonable to ask to be able to go for a walk with the dog without 20 or thirty paps trailing behind you, selling the photos and making money out of it?

Look, it's perfectly possible to live life as a celebrity, even in Hollywood without photographers catching your every movement. There are plenty of celebrities that you never see in the tabloids. Its easy, don't call up paparazzis and arrange to be photographed.