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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Neyite wrote: »

It's a meaningless word salad.

I find much of what Meghan says to be that way. She and Harry have released a number of short videos in the last year talking about this and that and, I don't know, I consider myself a smart enough person but I never really have a clue what she's talking about. She uses so much jargon and rambles on so much. I'm somebody who really values succinctness so I find it really off-putting. Just get to the point, Meghan! Don't use five words when you can use one.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Where did this letter to her father come from? Where was it printed? Is it new?

bunny_mac

end of the road wrote: »

but that is ultimately it, she isn't like the father, because she has tried to avoid hurting people when she spoke about her life as part of the rf, now realistically she wouldn't be able to completely avoid hurting someone, but it wasn't a specific intent to hurt anyone via her speaking out.

Seriously?! Were we watching the same interview? Either you're deliberately trolling or you've led a very sheltered life where you've never come into contact with any nasty people and therefore can't see them when they're staring you in the face! If the latter is the case, I'd cut off my internet connection if I were you, you're a prime target for getting seriously scammed.

(FYI, if you get an email from someone claiming to be a Nigerian prince, THEY'RE NOT REALLY A NIGERIAN PRINCE.)

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

She didnt have to do the interview in the first place, if she didn't want to hurt someone. It seems to have been done to hurt.

Or she could have asked for the broadcast to be delayed, since Philip was unwell.

Bu not naming the person, all she's done is smear more widely, by putting more people in the family under suspicion. If she really thinks that's racist, she's creating the impression that it's widespread in the royal family, instead of saying that whoever this was was an exception. I'm sure she's savvy enough to know what she's doing there.

in fairness we don't know she or harry didn't ask for the broadcast to be postponed.
the fact it went ahead wouldn't be enough to show they didn't ask for it, after all there can be plenty of reasons i'm sure why a broadcast may still have to go ahead even if it has been asked to be postponed.

superflyninja wrote: »

No no no. Let me stop you there. Are you seriously of the opinion that she did the interview with the intention of harming no one? How can you say that with a straight face?

She didnt name the "racist" person because she couldnt, it would be hearsay (the conversation was with harry, not her). She was very careful to avoid possible legal repercussions. Instead, she tars the all senior RF with the racist brush. Make no mistake, she was striking out against them. She has zero interest in being kind or diplomatic. The entire interview was a f*ck you to the RF whilst also an attempt at promoting her and her brand.

Also, do we know the comment was even racist? To me its not clear cut but she took it as racist. If she really didnt want to do any harm then she could have had a private conversation with the person and discussed it like an adult.
It could have been a totally innocent question taken badly out of context. We dont know and likely we never will.

This is one of those situations where if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, chances are its a duck.
Except in this case, the duck is a skilled, manipulative narcissist.

well no, it's not a narcissist, as everything has shown including no diagnosis, no fitting of the trates, and any attempts to show she is one not managing to do it.

even manipulative is questionable.

Deleted User wrote: »

I can see him returning home and like the Prodigal Son he will be accepted back eventually. Everyone knows he is not the brains behind all of this. He is a nice but dim poodle being whipped around the place on a leash.

he knows what he is doing and why he is doing it.
it's more a case that people want him to be a poodle being whipped around so as to fit the narrative of nasty meghan took him away from his family which wasn't the case.

JoChervil

end of the road wrote: »

she turned her back on her father because he tried to imotionally black mail her and kept selling stuff to the media.
and has it been proved he was actually sick? my understanding is that is that there were questions over it.
look, thomas markle actually doesn't deserve your sympathy, he brought this all on himself and he knows what he needs to do if he wants a relationship with his daughter.
behave like a proper parent.

OK, so can you give us examples of his outrageous behaviour BEFORE she cut him of entirely?

Which pictures warranted it? Him taking measurements or reading about UK? And even those pictures were never proved he was paid for.

AFTER he cut him off, he tried to reach her in a different way because NORMAL ways of communication like adults was cut BY HER.

JoChervil

ceadaoin. wrote: »

That letter is a person writing for an audience. It was always intended to be "leaked", just another sympathy gaining exercise. Who speaks like that in real life to people close to them (or anyone lol)? Its so cringe.

And it doesn't even sound like an american way of speaking. For me it is an upper class language and even a fake one, so I fully agree, it was written mainly for that purpose: to be leaked. For two purposes to show how refined person she is and how she tried to reach her father in vain.

It is absolutely not an emotional letter.

JoChervil

end of the road wrote: »

in fairness we don't know she or harry didn't ask for the broadcast to be postponed.
the fact it went ahead wouldn't be enough to show they didn't ask for it, after all there can be plenty of reasons i'm sure why a broadcast may still have to go ahead even if it has been asked to be postponed.

You really believe that if they wanted to postpone it, it wouldn't be in a news everywhere?

superflyninja

end of the road wrote: »

well no, it's not a narcissist, as everything has shown including no diagnosis, no fitting of the trates, and any attempts to show she is one not managing to do it.

even manipulative is questionable.

.

ok, ignore the manipulative narc bit. Lets go back to your original point that she was better than her father and not trying to hurt anyone in the interview. I just cannot fathom how you can draw that conclusion.
Either you are monumentally naive or trolling.

Or I could be wrong entirely

retro:electro

JoChervil wrote: »

You really believe that if they wanted to postpone it, it wouldn't be in a news everywhere?

Gayle King said they would have postponed it if Philip had died. How gracious of them and how low the bar has to be for them to display decency. The fact that he was dying didn’t seem to matter. A compassionate pair indeed.

end of the road

JoChervil wrote: »

OK, so can you give us examples of his outrageous behaviour BEFORE she cut him of entirely?

Which pictures warranted it? Him taking measurements or reading about UK? And even those pictures were never proved he was paid for.

AFTER he cut him off, he tried to reach her in a different way because NORMAL ways of communication like adults was cut BY HER.

he tried to reach her in a different way? ah that's alright then.
perhapse you kno, he could have written letters or something else instead of trying to use imotional black mail via the media?

JoChervil wrote: »

You really believe that if they wanted to postpone it, it wouldn't be in a news everywhere?

maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't.
either possibilities are as likely as the other.

Neyite

Ms. Newbie18 wrote: »

I did not know that! Interesting... They will be trading as Duke and Duchess for the rest of their days so...

Yes, possibly! Andrew's ex wife is still Duchess of York and they divorced yonks ago so would be a good example of that. Now if he remarried, Fergie might have her title changed or his new wife might have a title styled to differentiate her. So Fergie could become Lady Sarah, or the (hypothetical) new wife could be something like Princess Andrew, depending on what the monarch decided.

Wallis got the title of Duchess of Windsor but not the HRH title but that's because he abdicated before marrying her and she was never a working royal so the the delicate issue of whether or not to make her a HRH was thankfully avoided there, much to the Queen Mother's relief I'm sure.

Funnily enough, Diana's title was never actually Princess Diana. Her official title was HRH Diana, Princess of Wales as she became a princess by marriage. Only offspring born of a monarch or direct heir can be titled prince or princess before their first name. (So Princess Margaret, Princess Charlotte etc) But the media christened her Princess Diana and that was that really. Camilla is technically now the Princess of Wales but chooses not to use that title for obvious reasons. But there's no similar obstacle when Charles ascends the throne, Kate will likely become Catherine, Princess of Wales, though she is a princess of the Uk anyway already via marriage

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Where did this letter to her father come from? Where was it printed? Is it new?

I think it was the Daily Mail -who she subsequently sued for printing a private letter.

We've all composed a text or email to someone we know is likely to pass it on behind our back and this letter reads exactly like that.

valoren

I'm sure I read that the judges summary of the case about publishing contents of the private letter contained even MORE parts of the private letter than was originally published.

Ms. Newbie18

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Where did this letter to her father come from? Where was it printed? Is it new?

It was printed last year. The DM was one of the rags to run with it. Its forms part of her cases against them.

Ms. Newbie18

Neyite wrote: »

Yes, possibly! Andrew's ex wife is still Duchess of York and they divorced yonks ago so would be a good example of that. Now if he remarried, Fergie might have her title changed or his new wife might have a title styled to differentiate her. So Fergie could become Lady Sarah, or the (hypothetical) new wife could be something like Princess Andrew, depending on what the monarch decided. .

Well Fergi set the trend there then. She used her title on her books and brand deals..

Ms. Newbie18

Kate's book is now a best sellers and Meghans has had the price cut in the UK...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9553459/Kate-Middletons-Hold-photobook-bestseller-day-released.html

Love this quote from Angela Levin re Meghan’s book.

“Speaking to True Royalty TV's The Royal Beat, Angela Levin - author of Harry: Conversations with the Prince - said the subject matter of Meghan's tale is 'not interesting' to children.

'Children's books are directed at children. They like elephants, they like nasty tigers. They do not want a lecture about how different your relationship is with your father, whatever level of society you are at,' she claimed. ”

Itssoeasy

Deleted User wrote: »

Love this quote from Angela Levin re Meghan’s book.

“Speaking to True Royalty TV's The Royal Beat, Angela Levin - author of Harry: Conversations with the Prince - said the subject matter of Meghan's tale is 'not interesting' to children.

'Children's books are directed at children. They like elephants, they like nasty tigers. They do not want a lecture about how different your relationship is with your father, whatever level of society you are at,' she claimed. ”

Well I think that goes for many aspects of life not just a book from a member of the royal family. Outside of an actual lecture, most people don’t want to lectured to. It wears thin fairly quickly.

JoChervil

end of the road wrote: »

he tried to reach her in a different way? ah that's alright then.
perhapse you kno, he could have written letters or something else instead of trying to use imotional black mail via the media?

Still, please give me examples of his outrageous behaviour BEFORE she cut him off.

So they could have dealt with problems they had in RF also in private. They felt silenced, they did an interview. He was silenced by her, but he couldn't do it. Double standards?

Still, please give me examples, otherwise all his behaviour AFTER the cut off was provoked by her.

maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't.
either possibilities are as likely as the other.

We all know that it would. They can't allow any tiny aspect making them being seen great to go unnoticed.

pjohnson

Ms. Newbie18 wrote: »

Kate's book is now a best sellers and Meghans has had the price cut in the UK...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9553459/Kate-Middletons-Hold-photobook-bestseller-day-released.html

That'll be because Britain is racist obviously.

ceadaoin.

Neyite wrote: »

Yes, possibly! Andrew's ex wife is still Duchess of York and they divorced yonks ago so would be a good example of that. Now if he remarried, Fergie might have her title changed or his new wife might have a title styled to differentiate her. So Fergie could become Lady Sarah, or the (hypothetical) new wife could be something like Princess Andrew, depending on what the monarch decided.

Wallis got the title of Duchess of Windsor but not the HRH title but that's because he abdicated before marrying her and she was never a working royal so the the delicate issue of whether or not to make her a HRH was thankfully avoided there, much to the Queen Mother's relief I'm sure.

Funnily enough, Diana's title was never actually Princess Diana. Her official title was HRH Diana, Princess of Wales as she became a princess by marriage. Only offspring born of a monarch or direct heir can be titled prince or princess before their first name. (So Princess Margaret, Princess Charlotte etc) But the media christened her Princess Diana and that was that really. Camilla is technically now the Princess of Wales but chooses not to use that title for obvious reasons. But there's no similar obstacle when Charles ascends the throne, Kate will likely become Catherine, Princess of Wales, though she is a princess of the Uk anyway already via marriage


I think it was the Daily Mail -who she subsequently sued for printing a private letter.

We've all composed a text or email to someone we know is likely to pass it on behind our back and this letter reads exactly like that.

Weren't snippets of it leaked to People magazine by her friends, before it was given to the DM by Thomas markle? I think his defense is that he did that to get the full story out there, rather than the bits and pieces that were coming out, and hers was that she had no idea these unnamed "friends " would talk to the press about the private letter to her father that she also sent to them. In full. Sure, Jan.

For example, this story is from before the DM printed the letter

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-dad-thomas-markle-letter-after-wedding/

retro:electro

Ms. Newbie18 wrote: »

Kate's book is now a best sellers and Meghans has had the price cut in the UK...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9553459/Kate-Middletons-Hold-photobook-bestseller-day-released.html

She should stick to writing on bananas

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Love this quote from Angela Levin re Meghan’s book.

“Speaking to True Royalty TV's The Royal Beat, Angela Levin - author of Harry: Conversations with the Prince - said the subject matter of Meghan's tale is 'not interesting' to children.

'Children's books are directed at children. They like elephants, they like nasty tigers. They do not want a lecture about how different your relationship is with your father, whatever level of society you are at,' she claimed. ”

To be honest, I find the whole trend of celebrities writing children’s book annoying in general. There seems to be this idea that it’s “easy”. I’d imagine that it’s bloody hard to write a great children’s book and that to be able to do so, you’d have to be a great writer for any age group. I know the odd celeb has had success but I’d say most of them are awful. It must be frustrating for aspiring children’s book writers struggling to get published to witness celebs get handed book deals with relative ease.

retro:electro

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Weren't snippets of it leaked to People magazine by her friends, before it was given to the DM by Thomas markle? I think his defense is that he did that to get the full story out there, rather than the bits and pieces that were coming out, and hers was that she had no idea these unnamed "friends " would talk to the press about the private letter to her father that she also sent to them. In full. Sure, Jan.

For example, this story is from before the DM printed the letter

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-dad-thomas-markle-letter-after-wedding/

That’s exactly what happened. Her friends leaked snippets of it to People mag, and her father was annoyed at how it was portrayed in the media so decided to release it to clarify things. DM published the letter and as publishers any liability lies with them. But Thomas held onto it for months and apparently had no intention of releasing it until Meghan’s friends went blabbing about its contents. That’s why the whole “privacy” issue is so contested. The contents of the letter had been relayed to others several times over before Thomas ever released it in its entirety. It’s very strange how Meghan isn’t suing her five friends for breaching her privacy since they are the ones who mouthed off first. And how she has gone to such lengths to protect their identity ever being revealed..
How did they see the letter and why isn’t she pissed off that they went to the media and were the catalyst for this privacy shltstorm? Probably because she told them to do it

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Ms. Newbie18 wrote: »

Kate's book is now a best sellers and Meghans has had the price cut in the UK...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9553459/Kate-Middletons-Hold-photobook-bestseller-day-released.html

I wasn’t expecting to say this but I think Kate’s book is quite beautiful. Any photos that I’ve seen from it are (they were sent in by members of the public, weren’t they?). I think it will be a nice historic document to have when looking back on this time. It’s a simple idea, done well.

MoonUnit75

From what I recall, there was no media coverage or photos of Meghan’s dad until he was papped carrying a bag of beer cans from a shop. This must have been very ‘off-brand’ and ‘painful’ for Meghan because it all kicked off after that.

Be right back

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

From what I recall, there was no media coverage or photos of Meghan’s dad until he was papped carrying a bag of beer cans from a shop. This must have been very ‘off-brand’ and ‘painful’ for Meghan because it all kicked off after that.

Her hubby dressed up as a Nazi at a party in his younger days but the sight of her dad carrying beer cans, well that was the breaking point!! Delightful person altogether.

MoonUnit75

Be right back wrote: »

Her hubby dressed up as a Nazi at a party in his younger days but the sight of her dad carrying beer cans, well that was the breaking point!! Delightful person altogether.

Yeah, the poor man had to issue a statement saying the beer and snacks were for a security guard, not himself. I suppose that’s part of the baffling decision to stage photos of him ‘working out’ before the wedding because he was being portrayed as a beer swilling slob, down on his luck.

retro:electro

This is actually gas

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9555451/amp/Ready-Meg-time-story-JAN-MOIR-pens-affectionate-parody.html

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I hate Jan Moir ever since the Stephen Gately stuff though. She’s a piece of work. :mad:

retro:electro

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I hate Jan Moir ever since the Stephen Gately stuff though. She’s a piece of work. :mad:

Oh what happened there? I’m not familiar with her really