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

Be right back

Be right back wrote: »

She has written a children's book about family bonds.

“Photos from inside the book shows a boy being lifted into the air by a red-haired man in military uniform as a woman weeps from the window.

The words accompanying the picture say: 'Looking out at My Love and our beautiful boy. And here in the window I'll have tears of joy'.

Another image features a father with his baby boy sleeping on a lounger outside.

The words say: 'From here you will rest, see the growth of our boy'.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9541857/Meghan-Markle-writes-childrens-book-called-Bench.html

An absolutely charming tome. Exquisitely written and illustrated.

Is there no beginning to her talents?

bunny_mac

Deleted User wrote: »

“Photos from inside the book shows a boy being lifted into the air by a red-haired man in military uniform as a woman weeps from the window.

The words accompanying the picture say: 'Looking out at My Love and our beautiful boy. And here in the window I'll have tears of joy'.

Another image features a father with his baby boy sleeping on a lounger outside.

The words say: 'From here you will rest, see the growth of our boy'.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9541857/Meghan-Markle-writes-childrens-book-called-Bench.html

An absolutely charming tome. Exquisitely written and illustrated.

Is there no beginning to her talents?

I am cringing so hard right now. She really is delusional. And she seems awfully fond of that title from the family she hates so much.

JustAThought

bunny_mac wrote: »

I am cringing so hard right now. She really is delusional. And she seems awfully fond of that title from the family she hates so much.

Whose the afro dude with the baby in the third image - the real father? Certainly not her father. Or is she so mixed up with lying she can’t tell fact from fiction from woke nonsense and lies anymore.

Another interesting article. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9541195/DAN-WOOTTON-Meghan-got-CNN-Network-tries-conceal-critical-Sussexes-report.html

CNN have deleted an interview that was critical of Meg.

“ Former BBC presenter Max Foster – who joined CNN in 2005 – first broadcast his investigation live from Hampshire in the UK at 10.47am, which was 6.47am New York time.

The on screen graphic read: 'Royal Reckoning: Inconsistencies in Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's bombshell interview.'

Foster started softly by stating: 'Whether or not you're Team Sussex, it's hard to argue against the profound issues raised by the Oprah Winfrey interview, especially around suicide prevention and confronting racism, wherever it may live.'

But he then went on: 'Critics of the couple are pointing to inconsistencies in the tell-all.'

He outlined the case against the interview with seven key criticisms:

ONE: The choice of platform - CBS and Oprah Winfrey

Foster said this went against Harry and Meghan's previous pledge to work with 'grassroots media organisations'

TWO: Meghan's claim she had 'never looked up her husband online'

Foster pointed to a revelation by Meghan's former best friend who said she was always 'fascinated by the Royal Family' and wanted to be 'Princess Diana 2.0'.

THREE: Meghan's lie about getting married three days before the formal ceremony

Foster pointed to the wedding certificate that debunks this claim and shows 'the legally binding wedding was in the church, not the backyard'.
FOUR: The Palace hosted 'holiday parties at the Palace'

Foster referenced tabloid reporters 'who say they have no memory of such parties'.

FIVE: Meghan was 'silenced' by the Royal Family

Foster reported: 'Palace insiders will point to many occasions that show that Meghan was allowed a voice, they say, particularly on feminist issues.'

He uncovered a clip of Meghan speaking publicly alongside Prince Harry about the #MeToo movement.

Foster also quoted for the first time a junior member of Meghan's staff, who has now left the Palace, saying: 'They bent over backwards as far as I could see. I think there was complete hospitality and kindness and grace.'

Foster then quoted a current royal source saying: 'Everyone wanted to make a success. The Queen's senior team were directed to avail themselves to ensure she had all the support needed.'

SIX: Meghan's claim that she wasn't given training about how to become royal

Foster reported: 'CNN has been told the Queen dispatched her closest aides to Kensington Palace - lady in waiting Lady Susan Hussey and dresser Angela Kelly - to offer advice, guidance and tutelage to the Duchess. Royal aides say this was an unprecedented gesture of support for a new member of the family and that every department of the Queen's household was open to Meghan.'

SEVEN: Meghan's claim the Royal Family didn't want Archie to have a title.

Foster reported protocol issued by King George V 'limits princely titles to children and grandchildren of the serving monarch as well as the first born child of the Prince of Wales, none of which applies to Archie, though he will automatically become a prince when Charles becomes king.'

After watching Foster outline the seven points, star presenter Camerota expressed her doubts on air.

She explained: 'You know I love Harry and Meghan. But I don't know. She doesn't feel supported. They say they supported her. OK, that's a family. That's called life. That's a difference in perception.'

But those words have also now seemingly been erased from history by CNN.

CNN would not comment on why the video had been completely hidden from view.”

Holiday21

Meghan is a seriously savvy businesswoman.
Knows her brand.
Knows her audience.
Reminds me of Posh Spice.

Purple Mountain

Holiday21 wrote: »

Meghan is a seriously savvy businesswoman.
Knows her brand.
Knows her audience.
Reminds me of Posh Spice.

That article says there's a "bidding war" for her book!

Itssoeasy

Deleted User wrote: »

Another interesting article. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9541195/DAN-WOOTTON-Meghan-got-CNN-Network-tries-conceal-critical-Sussexes-report.html

CNN have deleted an interview that was critical of Meg.

“ Former BBC presenter Max Foster – who joined CNN in 2005 – first broadcast his investigation live from Hampshire in the UK at 10.47am, which was 6.47am New York time.

The on screen graphic read: 'Royal Reckoning: Inconsistencies in Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's bombshell interview.'

Foster started softly by stating: 'Whether or not you're Team Sussex, it's hard to argue against the profound issues raised by the Oprah Winfrey interview, especially around suicide prevention and confronting racism, wherever it may live.'

But he then went on: 'Critics of the couple are pointing to inconsistencies in the tell-all.'

He outlined the case against the interview with seven key criticisms:

ONE: The choice of platform - CBS and Oprah Winfrey

Foster said this went against Harry and Meghan's previous pledge to work with 'grassroots media organisations'

TWO: Meghan's claim she had 'never looked up her husband online'

Foster pointed to a revelation by Meghan's former best friend who said she was always 'fascinated by the Royal Family' and wanted to be 'Princess Diana 2.0'.

THREE: Meghan's lie about getting married three days before the formal ceremony

Foster pointed to the wedding certificate that debunks this claim and shows 'the legally binding wedding was in the church, not the backyard'.
FOUR: The Palace hosted 'holiday parties at the Palace'

Foster referenced tabloid reporters 'who say they have no memory of such parties'.

FIVE: Meghan was 'silenced' by the Royal Family

Foster reported: 'Palace insiders will point to many occasions that show that Meghan was allowed a voice, they say, particularly on feminist issues.'

He uncovered a clip of Meghan speaking publicly alongside Prince Harry about the #MeToo movement.

Foster also quoted for the first time a junior member of Meghan's staff, who has now left the Palace, saying: 'They bent over backwards as far as I could see. I think there was complete hospitality and kindness and grace.'

Foster then quoted a current royal source saying: 'Everyone wanted to make a success. The Queen's senior team were directed to avail themselves to ensure she had all the support needed.'

SIX: Meghan's claim that she wasn't given training about how to become royal

Foster reported: 'CNN has been told the Queen dispatched her closest aides to Kensington Palace - lady in waiting Lady Susan Hussey and dresser Angela Kelly - to offer advice, guidance and tutelage to the Duchess. Royal aides say this was an unprecedented gesture of support for a new member of the family and that every department of the Queen's household was open to Meghan.'

SEVEN: Meghan's claim the Royal Family didn't want Archie to have a title.

Foster reported protocol issued by King George V 'limits princely titles to children and grandchildren of the serving monarch as well as the first born child of the Prince of Wales, none of which applies to Archie, though he will automatically become a prince when Charles becomes king.'

After watching Foster outline the seven points, star presenter Camerota expressed her doubts on air.

She explained: 'You know I love Harry and Meghan. But I don't know. She doesn't feel supported. They say they supported her. OK, that's a family. That's called life. That's a difference in perception.'

But those words have also now seemingly been erased from history by CNN.

CNN would not comment on why the video had been completely hidden from view.”

It’s gone because it brings up some uncomfortable truths behind harry and Megan's claims in that interview. Sad to see Alyson Camerota use the “feelings” line considering she rightly pulled newt Gingrich up on that when he used it a few years ago. Be interesting to see what max foster has to say about it.

Lisha

She is listed on the book cover as Meghan the Duchess of Sussex. After all she said the royals did to her she uses the title. I’d have more respect for her if she went by Meghan Markle or even Meghan Sussex. Using duchess just show where her priorities are. Only thing she really cross about is that she can’t use title princess..

retro:electro

What the hell would she know about family bonds. Unless it’s about destroying family bonds. On that I’d say she is quite the expert

Neyite

bunny_mac wrote: »

I am cringing so hard right now. She really is delusional. And she seems awfully fond of that title from the family she hates so much.

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex - why, that brings to mind Diana, Princess of Wales. What a coincidence. She's the people's Duchess. *bats lashes*

The cookbook she produced put her name to has her name as HRH Duchess of Sussex but I suppose something had to replace the HRH part when Meany Queenie took it off her.

Lisha

Lisha wrote: »

She is listed on the book cover as Meghan the Duchess of Sussex. After all she said the royals did to her she uses the title. I’d have more respect for her if she went by Meghan Markle or even Meghan Sussex. Using duchess just show where her priorities are. Only thing she really cross about is that she can’t use title princess..

Or Meghan Mountbatten Windsor, same as Archie.

Lisha

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Or Meghan Mountbatten Windsor, same as Archie.

Thanks I was trying to remember what surname Harry used but I couldn’t thank you. Poor currently title-less little Archie.

bunny_mac

Lisha wrote: »

Thanks I was trying to remember what surname Harry used but I couldn’t thank you. Poor currently title-less little Archie.

Poor halfway-decent-parent-less Archie, more like. I feel so sorry for the poor wee fella. And Diana, when she arrives.

valoren

It's a branding exercise nothing more but it's interesting as pointed out that she styles it as Duchess. I guess when you need to stand out from the crowded field of children's literature it helps having a Royal title to do so and, quid pro quo wise, it gives the publisher an edge to steal a march on the competition as well i.e. they wouldn't be interested if she wanted her handle to not use the formal title.

Be right back

Had a quick google. Fergie goes by Sarah Ferguson, with the duchess of York in smaller letters underneath on the cover of her books. Meghan would have to be different!!

Edit, Just saw Catherine has a book coming out this week as well! Great minds!

ceadaoin.

Be right back wrote: »

Had a quick google. Fergie goes by Sarah Ferguson, with the duchess of York in smaller letters underneath on the cover of her books. Meghan would have to be different!!

Edit, Just saw Catherine has a book coming out this week as well! Great minds!

And just happened to be pipped at the post by Meghan releasing a book out of the blue? Another purely coincidental timing I'm sure.

Be right back

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And just happened to be pipped at the post by Meghan releasing a book out of the blue? Another purely coincidental timing I'm sure.

I know, what are the chances?!

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

What the hell would she know about family bonds. Unless it’s about destroying family bonds. On that I’d say she is quite the expert

she's a mother, has a husband, child and a child on the way.
so yeah she would know about family.
she also didn't destroy any family bonds, it was some members of her own family who had themselves cut out by their behaviour, and her own husband was equal in criticising elements of the institution he was once a senior member of.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And just happened to be pipped at the post by Meghan releasing a book out of the blue? Another purely coincidental timing I'm sure.

maybe, maybe not, no big deal either way.

ILoveYourVibes

Apparently her half nephew Tyler Dooley Markle is a weed farmer who sells a strain of weed he is calling ..markle's sparkle!

You couldn't make this up.

He apparently took a knife into a london night club...but police let him off with a warning??

https://news.sky.com/story/meghans-nephew-tyler-dooley-warned-by-police-over-nightclub-knife-11380995

Get this the guy blames TRUMP for this rather than himself.

https://www.irishcentral.com/meghan-markle-tyler-dooley-knife.amp

Meghan Markle's nephew, Tyler Dooley, a 25-year-old pot farmer from Oregon, was stopped from entering a London dance club after admitting he had a concealed knife. He blamed President Trump.

Meghan Markle's nephew Tyler Dooley ran into trouble in London this weekend when he arrived at a late night dance club with a concealed knife, hours after the wedding ceremony.

When questioned about why he had the weapon, he said it was because of Donald Trump's remarks that London is not safe.

end of the road

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Apparently her half nephew Tyler Dooley Markle is a weed farmer who sells a strain of weed he is calling ..markle's sparkle!

You couldn't make this up.

He apparently took a knife into a london night club...but police let him off with a warning??

https://news.sky.com/story/meghans-nephew-tyler-dooley-warned-by-police-over-nightclub-knife-11380995

Get this the guy blames TRUMP for this rather than himself.

https://www.irishcentral.com/meghan-markle-tyler-dooley-knife.amp

he's clearly a gob you know what, and the police are gob you know whats for letting him off when anyone else would have been arrested.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

she's a mother, has a husband, child and a child on the way.
so yeah she would know about family.
she also didn't destroy any family bonds, it was some members of her own family who had themselves cut out by their behaviour, and her own husband was equal in criticising elements of the institution he was once a senior member of.

She has no business writing about family relationships when she has such a dysfunctional relationship with her family and has destroyed every bond Harry ever had with his. Writing about a father’s bond with his son is about all she will ever get to write about because the next book won’t be about a father’s bond with his daughter will it. Or a grandfather’s bond with his grandson..
And why still use the titles from the very institution you deemed racist? Why would you want those ties?

The more I hear from her the more I think she has to be trolling. She is such a delusional person.

Itssoeasy

end of the road wrote: »

she's a mother, has a husband, child and a child on the way.
so yeah she would know about family.
she also didn't destroy any family bonds, it was some members of her own family who had themselves cut out by their behaviour, and her own husband was equal in criticising elements of the institution he was once a senior member of.



maybe, maybe not, no big deal either way.

Elements ? He’s shat all over the thing one side of his family are part of. He had that beauty about claiming the commonwealth was racist until it was probably pointed out to him that his grandmother the queen is noted for making the commonwealth anything but for those in it and he then used a version of the “out of context” excuse which many famous people use to clean up when they said utterly stupid things, which isn’t limited to royalty.

He’s still technically a senior member of it even if thousands of miles away because he’s the grandson of the current monarch, and the son and brother of two future kings* so his role will have to revert back once his grandmother dies because of who he is.

I in some ways feel sorry for Harry as he seemed a sound lad who didn’t have the pressure of being head of the firm but then he’s brought some of it on himself and it’s going to be very hard to repair the fact that he accused his entire family bar his grandparents of potentially being racist so I’m not surprised his uncles aunts, cousins gave him a frosty reception at the funeral.

ILoveYourVibes

Poor halfway-decent-parent-less Archie, more like. I feel so sorry for the poor wee fella. And Diana, when she arrives.

Are you kidding ??? Rich kids ...with a life of absolute financial and job certainty when they are born. I don't feel sorry for them.

Itssoeasy

end of the road wrote: »

he's clearly a gob you know what, and the police are gob you know whats for letting him off when anyone else would have been arrested.

Some of her family are a disaster but I don’t see why that means she has to damage her husbands relationship with his, which until recently was very close from what we know.

ILoveYourVibes

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Elements ? He’s shat all over the thing one side of his family are part of. He had that beauty about claiming the commonwealth was racist until it was probably pointed out to him that his grandmother the queen is noted for making the commonwealth anything but for those in it.

The common wealth is rated as one of the most corrupt institutions in the world you know its not much to be proud of.

As for racism ..harry wore a swastika to a fancy dress party and called an another asian soldier ..a slur ...in a jokey way. He is as much of a product of the family as anyone.

They are still using the Sussex brand thing ...they could get actual jobs. Instead they are using charity to build a brand.
Is the royal family racist ..yes their racism is well documented.

And Prince Andrew is in YET more trouble for now defending Ghislaine Maxwell and started a dodgy unlimited company with a friend.

But both sides are no angels in this.

Itssoeasy

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

The common wealth is rated as one of the most corrupt institutions in the world you know its not much to be proud of.

As for racism ..harry wore a swastika to a fancy dress party and called an another asian soldier ..a slur ...in a jokey way. He is as much of a product of the family as anyone.

They are still using the Sussex brand thing ...they could get actual jobs. Instead they are using charity to build a brand.
Is the royal family racist ..yes their racism is well documented.

But both sides are no angels in this.

Corrupt doesn’t equate to racism.

Yeah he did but apparently that’s all okay now for some bizarre reason because he’s with Meghan. Or that’s my understanding anyway.

The current generation are well documented racists ?

retro:electro

Interesting

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8265055/amp/Meghan-Markle-called-princess-diva-behavior-set.html

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

She has no business writing about family relationships when she has such a dysfunctional relationship with her family and has destroyed every bond Harry ever had with his. Writing about a father’s bond with his son is about all she will ever get to write about because the next book won’t be about a father’s bond with his daughter will it. Or a grandfather’s bond with his grandson..
And why still use the titles from the very institution you deemed racist? Why would you want those ties? She is a delusional person.

she has every business writing about whatever she likes, the fact she has a bad relationship with some members of her family, mainly due to their behaviour, does not make her less qualified to speak on the issue of family given she has a family herself.
in fact it can make her qualified on certain aspects compared to those of us fortunate to have a good relationship with our family.
she destroyed no bond harry ever had with his family, in fact if every bond has been destroyed between harry and his family which everything shows isn't the case, harry will have done that himself by opening up as he did.
she will be able to write about all sorts of bonds as her children and their children will experience bonds, and no doubt her and harry's children will bond with harry's relations even if they aren't over and back to the UK every day, no different to other families who migrate to a different country.
she's not delusional at all really, just a savvy business woman as another poster said, and the titles i presume are being kept because ultimately her children are part of the royal whether she wants it or not, just not working members.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

she has every business writing about whatever she likes, the fact she has a bad relationship with some members of her family, mainly due to their behaviour, does not make her less qualified to speak on the issue of family given she has a family herself.
in fact it can make her qualified on certain aspects compared to those of us fortunate to have a good relationship with our family.
she destroyed no bond harry ever had with his family, in fact if every bond has been destroyed between harry and his family which everything shows isn't the case, harry will have done that himself by opening up as he did.
she will be able to write about all sorts of bonds as her children and their children will experience bonds, and no doubt her and harry's children will bond with harry's relations even if they aren't over and back to the UK every day, no different to other families who migrate to a different country.
she's not delusional at all really, just a savvy business woman as another poster said, and the titles i presume are being kept because ultimately her children are part of the royal whether she wants it or not, just not working members.

She is completely and utterly delusional and she isn’t the only one. And this book has just made her even more of a laughing stock than she previously was.

She wants to create an image of being compassionate and a nurturer but she is a divider and destroyer. Harry is an absolute bellend too but he would likely still have a relationship with his family had he not met her. So yes I believe she has destroyed the bonds he had with his remaining family members, because she is dysfunctional, jealous and a damaged person. So she can write books inspired by the bond Harry and Archie all she likes, it’s the only bond she will ever get to write about because she has destroyed everything else. And she is good at making up stories, I’ll give her that. A career in fiction might not be a bad idea after all.

end of the road

retro:electro wrote: »

She has no business writing about family relationships when she has such a dysfunctional relationship with her family and has destroyed every bond Harry ever had with his. Writing about a father’s bond with his son is about all she will ever get to write about because the next book won’t be about a father’s bond with his daughter will it. Or a grandfather’s bond with his grandson..
And why still use the titles from the very institution you deemed racist? Why would you want those ties?

The more I hear from her the more I think she has to be trolling. She is such a delusional person.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Elements ? He’s shat all over the thing one side of his family are part of. He had that beauty about claiming the commonwealth was racist until it was probably pointed out to him that his grandmother the queen is noted for making the commonwealth anything but for those in it and he then used a version of the “out of context” excuse which many famous people use to clean up when they said utterly stupid things, which isn’t limited to royalty.

He’s still technically a senior member of it even if thousands of miles away because he’s the grandson of the current monarch, and the son and brother of two future kings* so his role will have to revert back once his grandmother dies because of who he is.

I in some ways feel sorry for Harry as he seemed a sound lad who didn’t have the pressure of being head of the firm but then he’s brought some of it on himself and it’s going to be very hard to repair the fact that he accused his entire family bar his grandparents of potentially being racist so I’m not surprised his uncles aunts, cousins gave him a frosty reception at the funeral.

reception didn't look that frosty to me.
i'm sure they were pissed off a bit but whatever was being claimed in the papers i wouldn't take any heed of it.

retro:electro wrote: »

She has no business writing about family relationships when she has such a dysfunctional relationship with her family and has destroyed every bond Harry ever had with his. Writing about a father’s bond with his son is about all she will ever get to write about because the next book won’t be about a father’s bond with his daughter will it. Or a grandfather’s bond with his grandson..
And why still use the titles from the very institution you deemed racist? Why would you want those ties?

The more I hear from her the more I think she has to be trolling. She is such a delusional person.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Some of her family are a disaster but I don’t see why that means she has to damage her husbands relationship with his, which until recently was very close from what we know.

she didn't damage it.
he did if there is any actual damage.
he could have easily just denied everything but instead opened up, which would suggest there was something to open up about.
i honestly don't blame him, keeping quiet wouldn't have been good for him.