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

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

that article suggests the sun is the one which claimed that they didn't attend due to the child being to young.
i wouldn't put any faith in any claims made by the sun newspaper, tbh.

SHOCKED at this revelation.

Itssoeasy

end of the road wrote: »

plenty of people emigrate from the UK to the US taking the children and the children don't get to see granny or grandad very often.
is it okay for them to do that or are they wrong as well? or is it just harry and meghan should have only gone to france?
it's very unfortunate for the average granny and grandad as well you know, they are missing out on their granchildren.

That’s true but how many children in California under the age of three are seventh in line to the British throne and who’s grandfather is heir apparent ? I can’t imagine there’s many.

end of the road

Itssoeasy wrote: »

That’s true but how many children in California under the age of three are seventh in line to the British throne and who’s grandfather is heir apparent ? I can’t imagine there’s many.

just the children had by meghan and harry is all, but realistically the chance of harry ever being king is very low anyway.

jm08

retro:electro wrote: »

If true, this is prob one of the reasons why there will be no photos of little Archie with his cousins and grandparents. “Too young” to travel to Balmoral but old enough to travel on a private jet to holiday with Elton John :cool:

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/observer.com/2019/09/prince-harry-meghan-markle-declined-queen-elizabeth-balmoral-visit-invite-archie/amp/

Trapped! I tell you.

I'm sure little Archie will get plenty of photos with his granny in California! You do realise that is where Meghan is from and grew up?

Itssoeasy

end of the road wrote: »

just the children had by meghan and harry is all, but realistically the chance of harry ever being king is very low anyway.

Very low but not at all impossible as seen by his ancestor queen Victoria who was the only legitimate surviving child of the fourth son of king George III and had a cousin who lived till she died in childbirth at 21, and two other cousins before her who died young. I mean the odds were seriously against her, but besides the deaths of her cousins, it helped that her three uncles were the biggest pack of gob****es west of the alps.

Even the current queen wasn’t born to queen, it again relied on her uncle being an idiot.

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

I'm sure little Archie will get plenty of photos with his granny in California! You do realise that is where Meghan is from and grew up?

Yeah I’m sure there will be plenty of Archie and Doria to pad out the family album. “There’s me and granny Doria, and me and granny Doria again. Oh wow, another pic of me and granny Doria!”

:pac:

The point is there will be none of him with any of his cousins, through no fault of his own; and I find that quite sad. They look like normal happy go lucky kids who would embrace Archie and love him. Apart from Charlotte that is. The little rogue.

jm08

retro:electro wrote: »

Yeah I’m sure there will be plenty of Archie and Doria to pad out the family album. “There’s me and granny Doria, and me and granny Doria again. Oh wow, another pic of me and granny Doria!”

:pac:

The point is there will be none of him with any of his cousins, through no fault of his own; and I find that quite sad. They look like normal happy go lucky kids who would embrace Archie and love him. Apart from Charlotte that is. The little rogue.

Its pretty sad for William and Kate's kids too if that is the case. I imagine they will be chumpting at the bit to get to Disneyland in the not too distant future!


Covid restrictions are not going to last forever. Meg and her family will all be vacinated fairly quickly and as they still own a house in Windsor where some of Harry's cousins are living who have children, there will be plenty of opportunities to get family photos with the Windsor side of the family and of course the Spencers.

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

Its pretty sad for William and Kate's kids too if that is the case. I imagine they will be chumpting at the bit to get to Disneyland in the not too distant future!


Covid restrictions are not going to last forever. Meg and her family will all be vacinated fairly quickly and as they still own a house in Windsor where some of Harry's cousins are living who have children, there will be plenty of opportunities to get family photos with the Windsor side of the family and of course the Spencers.

Time will tell, I suppose. I can’t see Meghan setting foot in the UK again for a long, long time.

FileNotFound

jm08 wrote: »

Its pretty sad for William and Kate's kids too if that is the case. I imagine they will be chumpting at the bit to get to Disneyland in the not too distant future!


Covid restrictions are not going to last forever. Meg and her family will all be vacinated fairly quickly and as they still own a house in Windsor where some of Harry's cousins are living who have children, there will be plenty of opportunities to get family photos with the Windsor side of the family and of course the Spencers.

How is it sad for William and Kate kids?
They will have pics with both grandparent sets.

Just curious how the logic wheel spins for you...

jm08

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Respectfully,I think you do, you’ve just decided to ignore what was said in the interview and are going to the uk press(which lets face it can be unpleasant to say the least) because the interview isn’t aging well. I really don’t understand why they believed this interview would play well in the UK(where it matters) because it clearly hasn’t.

I've been avoiding the racist rags. The BBC is many things, but it is not racist. Nor is the Guardian and a few others I've taken quotes from such as Vanity Fair and Elle magazine.

How was alleging that a member of their own family made racist comments countering misinformation ? To my knowledge there hadn’t been any reports that anyone in the family had made any comments about race. It seems like corrected information that didn’t need to be corrected.

Who said it was. The point is that the RF tolerate racism from the racist press to save their own necks. They did not correct the misinformation that Meghan made Kate cry.



Harry was asked to sign a statement for the Palace stating that there was not a rift in their relationship. They could do it for Harry and William (even though it wasn't true as there was a rift, but they could not do the same thing for Meghan and Kate).

Neyite

jm08 wrote: »

Its pretty sad for William and Kate's kids too if that is the case. I imagine they will be chumpting at the bit to get to Disneyland in the not too distant future!


Covid restrictions are not going to last forever. Meg and her family will all be vacinated fairly quickly and as they still own a house in Windsor where some of Harry's cousins are living who have children, there will be plenty of opportunities to get family photos with the Windsor side of the family and of course the Spencers.

The Spencers had to have been unhappy with the way Diana was treated by Charles and the institution but I can't recall that they've ever been openly critical of the Royals? The media and portrayals of his sister in TV and Film certainly he's been highly critical but I can't see that they'd approve of Harry & Meghan's Oprah interview given they'd be a lot like the RF in that certain things get dealt with privately rather than in the media.

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

I've been avoiding the racist rags. The BBC is many things, but it is not racist. Nor is the Guardian and a few others I've taken quotes from such as Vanity Fair and Elle magazine.






Who said it was. The point is that the RF tolerate racism from the racist press to save their own necks. They did not correct the misinformation that Meghan made Kate cry.


Harry was asked to sign a statement for the Palace stating that there was not a rift in their relationship. They could do it for Harry and William (even though it wasn't true as there was a rift, but they could not do the same thing for Meghan and Kate).

Because perhaps it was not misinformation? You seem unwilling to be able to accept that. We know Kate was upset with Meghan because Meghan told us as much —

“A few days before the wedding, she was upset about something pertaining—yes, the issue was correct about flower girl dresses, and it made me cry and it really hurt my feelings, and I thought in the context of everything else that was going on in those days leading to the wedding that it didn’t make sense to not be just doing what everyone else was doing, which was try to be supportive, knowing what was going on with my dad and whatnot”

Meghan was pissed that she wasn’t getting her way and everyone wasn’t bending over backwards and bowing to her every dramatic whim purely because of the issue with her father. You’re hearing only one side of the story. Kate was also upset, Meghan told us as much.

superflyninja

jm08 wrote: »

I've been avoiding the racist rags.

I agree with Itsoeasy's comment above that you are avoiding the interview.

I dont know about the others, but I have asked you directly at least 3 times to address the interview and you refuse, yesterday being the most recent time.
You pick and choose what you want to argue about. You know what? Thats fine, I like to have actual conversations with people, you know, those things where two people talk about the same subject and offer their views?
You are dodging the interview because it shows Markle in a really poor light.
If you disagree with the Markle critics then why not try and put your POV forward? At least engage with the subject, not try and distract with random nonsense.

I'm not going to engage with you any further, there is zero point.

FileNotFound

superflyninja wrote: »

I agree with Itsoeasy's comment above that you are avoiding the interview.

I dont know about the others, but I have asked you directly at least 3 times to address the interview and you refuse, yesterday was the most recent time.
You pick and choose what you want to argue about. You know what? Thats fine, I like to have actual conversations with people, you know, those things where two people talk about the same subject and offer their views?
You are dodging the interview because it shows Markle in a really poor light.
If you disagree with the Markle critics then why not try and put your POV forward? At least engage with the subject, not try and distract with random nonsense.

I'm not going to engage with you any further, there is zero point.

Have to agree the poster comments responses are hyper selective and avoid any logical discussion at all.

Had considered it may be one epic trolling session, think its time we all accept logic isn't relevant to some at the very least.

jm08

FileNotFound wrote: »

So from this thread so far I have learned:

- Meg lied in the interview about why her child would not be a prince.

I think she might be right. The excuse is that they want to downsize the senior royals, but the way it is looking is that in a few years the size of the royal family will have decreased substantially bearing in mind that all of the senior royals are over 60. Are they all expected to carry out their duties until they end up in a box? Charles is in his 70s already. Who is going to do all this outreach to the Commonwealth which are generally conducted by the younger royals. According to some press, Kate is exhausted from the increase in workload and thats in the middle of a pandemic when they don't really have to do too much!

- H&M lied in the interview about being married before their wedding.

Originally, (at the start of this thread anyway), Meghan was meant to have wanted all the fuss and as much money spent on the wedding as Kate & William and Meghan was inviting all these celebs she didn't know etc. etc. The reason why she said that they didn't really want the fuss and that they would have preferred a quite wedding wasn't believed until it was shown to you that the vast majority of the costs were for security (all but about 2m) and that the security wasn't just for Opreh & George, but the Royal Family and all their friends who would have been a sitting target for a terrorist attack.

- H&M lied when they claim the royals removed there security (this is controlled by scotland yard).

There are two kinds of security given - one is Palace Security and the other is Met Police. Famously, Diana refused Palace Security and would only use Met Police security when doing her charity/public work.

- H&M other claims have not been backed up but equally cannot be refuted.

What other claims?

- Megs family is entirely to blame for breakdown in relations with her, she cannot be blamed.

Meghan gets on great with her black mother.

- Harrys family are being entirely blamed for breakdown in relations with the couple, H&M cannot be blamed.

I blame the racist British Press who caused the problems.

- H&M turning on the royals in a press interview, was really just their way of showing how mean the press in the UK was to them.

They did not really. They said they get on great with the Queen. They said Charles and William cut them off. It seems they get on well with other members of the RF (like Andrew's daughters and Zara Phillips).

- Meg had a good relationship with Philip despite him being the biggest racist in the family.

Philip is of an age.

- Meg knew nothing of the royals before joining, blogging about Kate as a princess does not count or something.

?

- Meg was belittled when she wasn't allowed to try on the crown jewels during her hair dressing rehearsal. It was so unfair.

What a twist to put on that. She wanted to do a trial run with the hairpiece that she would be wearing on the day. That is a reasonable request.

- The Royals are well known for racist comments Philip and Harry especially, but they refute being racist.

As they say, every day is a school day. People can learn.

- The Royals didn't refute each false claim the press made about Meg.

How do we know they are false. Because they have not probably means they are true.

- The Royals didn't make that much effort to support Meg in anyway really.

She was thrown under the bus to protect William for his philandering.

- The royals let Meg be bullied by a gang of children.

No they didn't. You made that up.

- Kate made Meg cry but it was all to cover up an unreported/unverified story of William cheating.

Yes it was a distraction/sacrifical lamb not to expose William and humiliate Kate who just had a baby. That is the reason it was not all over the papers.

Is any of this wrong?

Its mostly your opinion, so there is no right or wrong.

jm08

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Oh is that all? Yeah she just wanted to borrow a priceless, historical piece of jewelry without giving any notice. She wanted to access Buckingham palace when the queen , and also the lady in charge of the jewelry, were at Windsor and not able to grant her access. What's the big deal?

Now I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure you cant just walk into Buckingham palace and in to where the millions of pounds worth of jewels are stored with your hairdresser to quickly try something on. Do you really think that would be in any way feasible when taking into account the value of the items and the protocol around their use?

How many staff do they have that could have sorted out getting the her head piece for her to do a trial run. Were they going to have difficulty getting it for her wedding day?

jm08

FileNotFound wrote: »

I'd say save your fingers typing, the poster was blaming a 3 year old for bullying megan a few posts back - It has to be a wind up at this stage, that or epic fanboy/fangirl

Who said she was bullying Meghan. Most kids can be a handful at that age because if they don't get what they want, they generally scream their heads off. Most of them grow out of it when they develop reason. Please don't try and treat Charlotte as a grown up. She is a child.

jm08

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Oh no, an actual child sticking our her tongue! Whatever next?! Can you imagine what she gets up to behind closed doors? There may even be tantrums, shocking stuff!

Exactly! So now you agree that Charlotte could have been having a tantrum which is normal occurrence for 3 year old. It can still be exasperating for adults to deal with. So, was it Charlotte who made Kate cry?:D

jm08

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Apparently its worth 2 million pounds. And people seem to think Meghan and whoever else should be able to just waltz in to Buckingham palace willy nilly and take it? Talk about delusional.

I don't meghan was planning to do that. Why wasn't it brought down to Windsor I wonder since the wedding was down there?

PhoenixParker

jm08 wrote: »

How many staff do they have that could have sorted out getting the her head piece for her to do a trial run. Were they going to have difficulty getting it for her wedding day?

How many staff do you think they have?

Yes it's difficult to get for her wedding day. There are layers of careful organisation and coordination among multiple people who did that because it was for the wedding and organised in advance at the specific request of the Queen.

It's an extremely expensive , delicate piece of jewellery that's stored disassembled in a secure location. It's not a matter of ringing grannies doorbell and having a cup of tea while she pops upstairs to dig it out of her jewellery box.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

How many staff do they have that could have sorted out getting the her head piece for her to do a trial run. Were they going to have difficulty getting it for her wedding day?

It’s not that simple. The Queen has to give her consent for a piece of her jewellery to be used. Meg wanted to use a tiara of doubtful provenance. This was when Harry supposedly said that whatever Meghan wants, Meghan gets. Her majesty thought otherwise and decided that Meghan would take what she was given.

jm08

Purple Mountain wrote: »

It's more than the astronomical value too, it's about respect.
Like it or loathe it, you need an appointment to go to Buckingham Palace, if you meet the Queen, you're granted an "audience".
Some nobody hairdresser rocking up unannounced looking to paw heirlooms that are in the Royal family for maybe 200 years is just disrespectful.
If that story is true, they were absolutely right to deny Meghan and entourage access to the tiara.

Well, I would have expected that it could have been entrusted to some of the security staff in Buck Palace to bring it to her, or perhaps they could have arranged for Meghan to have the fitting in Buck Palace. They knew they were lending it to her for the day.

bunny_mac

Meghan Markle is a raging narcissist. Anyone who's been unfortunate enough to have had experience with a narc can see it as plain as day.

FileNotFound

jm08 wrote: »

Well, I would have expected that it could have been entrusted to some of the security staff in Buck Palace to bring it to her, or perhaps they could have arranged for Meghan to have the fitting in Buck Palace. They knew they were lending it to her for the day.

That is a silly expectation. A securely stored piece of property cannot and is never given to anyone not pre authorised to handle it.

Even in a typical company this holds true. This is the most basic thing - if anyone expects otherwise, they are actually delusional.

retro:electro

FileNotFound wrote: »

Have to agree the poster comments responses are hyper selective and avoid any logical discussion at all.

Had considered it may be one epic trolling session, think its time we all accept logic isn't relevant to some at the very least.

100%. Posts relentlessly stirring up a hornets nest, consistently avoiding what is being asked of them and selective in their replies. Disappears then for a few days when called out, only to reappear and rinse and repeat of the same arguments all over again. Transparent as anything.

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

Well, I would have expected that it could have been entrusted to some of the security staff in Buck Palace to bring it to her, or perhaps they could have arranged for Meghan to have the fitting in Buck Palace. They knew they were lending it to her for the day.

Or maybe she could have just used a plastic tiara for her hair trial like Kate did and not been such a demanding diva?

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

Or maybe she could have just used a plastic tiara for her hair trial like Kate did and not been such a demanding diva?

she could but quite likely it's always better to experience the actual real thing where possible, hence that is what she wanted to do.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

she could but quite likely it's always better to experience the actual real thing where possible, hence that is what she wanted to do.

We all know what she wanted. That’s the whole point. It wasn’t feasible at the time and her requests couldn’t be accommodated and herself and Harry threw a wobbler. Pathetic carry on.

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

We all know what she wanted. That’s the whole point. It wasn’t feasible at the time and her requests couldn’t be accommodated and herself and Harry threw a wobbler. Pathetic carry on.

well no we don't actually know whether it was that their request couldn't be accommodated or whether there was an unwillingness to accommodate it, either way it's no big deal.
they didn't throw a wabbler either, they were unhappy perhapse but that's fine, people are often unhappy for all sorts of reasons.

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

Exactly! So now you agree that Charlotte could have been having a tantrum which is normal occurrence for 3 year old. It can still be exasperating for adults to deal with. So, was it Charlotte who made Kate cry?:D

You’d expect it from a toddler. Not from a near 40 old woman whinging about tights and tiaras