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

BettyS

TobyHolmes wrote: »

i didnt see the interview - but heard Oprah barely asked him about it and he brushed it off,


the whole interview was a PR stunt, basically just to have a pity party - look how mean everyone was to us (and yeah they were at occasion) but come on Meghan and Harry get out of your bubble - the whole world struggling right now and you expect us to feel sorry for you while you tell us how courageous you are from the gardens of a multi-million dollar mansion. OK

My brother in his 30s was diagnosed with a life-changing diagnosis today, that will have a big impact on his quality of life. Forgive me if I am not overly sympathetic to these two people. They have good health, wealth, respect and a world of opportunities. They need to wake up and smell the coffee. The public will only cajole them for so long

TobyHolmes

retro:electro wrote: »

It could also be argued that Thomas himself was manipulated by the press and if Meghan was naive to the whole fanfare then her father was going to be even more so. He should have been given more guidance by them. He hadn’t even met Harry before the wedding and they had been dating for a while at that point. I find that shocking that she never introduced him. He deserved more guidance from the start

yup I agree with you.
i do feel sorry for the poor man
at his age and to be just cut off by his daughter for his inability to understand how to navigate a situation very few people find themselves in
from what i read he was very supportive of her growing up financially and otherwise.

cnocbui

BettyS wrote: »

What is your point?

Wearing a swastika in any context, any at all, is a truly deplorable and attention-grabbing stunt. It can not and should not ever be normalised or brushed aside as something trivial. Given Harry’s family connections, he should be aware and sensitive to all those poor souls who lost their lives to the Nazi-regimen. To wear at is to spit in the graves of all the poor souls who needlessly lost their lives to a murderous, Nazi-regimen

My point is that it is generally acceptable to wear Swastikas for commercial gain, entertainment, historical reenactment... and that some very well thought of people have done so, like Sir Alec Guiness and Sir Anthony Hopkins.

And if Sarah Silverman - a jew - can find a context she thinks makes it acceptable to wear one, I'd like to see you confront her with that specious high horse think of the children spiel.

Stating it's never acceptable when it clearly is and has been, is foolish.

Sandor Clegane

The poor mouth bit was a bit galling alright, no matter what happens to him Harry will never be without wealth or privilege, too high profile.

TobyHolmes

cnocbui wrote: »

My point is that it is generally acceptable to wear Swastikas for commercial gain, entertainment, historical reenactment... and that some very well thought of people have done so, like Sir Alec Guiness and Sir Anthony Hopkins.

And if Sarah Silverman - a jew - can find a context she thinks makes it acceptable to wear one, I'd like to see you confront her with that specious high horse think of the children spiel.

Stating it's never acceptable when it clearly is and has been, is foolish.

its not acceptable anywhere - what are you on about

Faugheen

pjohnson wrote: »

So for public attention. The very thing they made a big fuss about when leaving the royal family.

What else were they going to do, stay and let the tabloids piss on them?

Or leave, make their own life, and sh*t on the same tabloids that tried their utmost to ruin them.

I'd be doing the second one every day of the week. I would hazard a guess that public opinion is very much on their side. Even lite-royalists will be happy that the Queen's reputation remained intact and Harry and Meghan both went out of their way to ensure that.

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

My point is that it is generally acceptable to wear Swastikas for commercial gain, entertainment, historical reenactment... and that some very well thought of people have done so, like Sir Alec Guiness and Sir Anthony Hopkins.

And if Sarah Silverman - a jew - can find a context she thinks makes it acceptable to wear one, I'd like to see you confront her with that specious high horse think of the children spiel.

Stating it's never acceptable when it clearly is and has been, is foolish.

Have you ever spoken to the direct family members of somebody who died in a concentration camp? Have you watched them cry as they tell their story?

I do not think that it is acceptable to promote the symbol of a truly evil regimen. The Jewish people that I know agree with this. Sarah Silverman wore it. I don’t know her rationale. But it is not because she wore it that it was the correct thing to do.

You try to use reductionist arguments to make a fallible argument. Your argument basically consists of a Jew wore a swastika so it is okay. If a person of a particular race uses a very pejorative and sickening term to refer to fellow people of that race, it does not mean that suddenly the whole world can start bandying about the term

And a fancy dress party with a lot of privileged and stupid people is a great context to wear a Swastika?

cnocbui

TobyHolmes wrote: »

its not acceptable anywhere - what are you on about

I just gave you examples where it is and was; what are you on about?

Dempo1

gmisk wrote: »

Has he stopped staging photos for money and selling personal letters from his daughter?
Classy guy.
He would sell out anyone for a dollar.

I'm not forgetting his lust for money and I agree with you but the irony being his little princess is clearly a chip off the old block and quite adept generating income from her celebrity status, albeit doing it in quite a disturbingly eloquent way

TobyHolmes

cnocbui wrote: »

I just gave you examples where it is and was; what are you on about?

my point is its not acceptable
and its astonishing for someone to say it is

lets just leave it at that
have no interest in engaging with someone who is dog whistling
bye

BettyS

Faugheen wrote: »

What else were they going to do, stay and let the tabloids piss on them?

Or leave, make their own life, and sh*t on the same tabloids that tried their utmost to ruin them.

I'd be doing the second one every day of the week. I would hazard a guess that public opinion is very much on their side. Even lite-royalists will be happy that the Queen's reputation remained intact and Harry and Meghan both went out of their way to ensure that.

The concept of Pandora’s box will always apply! The American public might not be as warm in the future towards these two individuals. You cannot control the perception, unless you are a totalitarian regimen. They may have had victory with Oprah. But it is a long road ahead!

retro:electro

Faugheen wrote: »

What else were they going to do, stay and let the tabloids piss on them?

Or leave, make their own life, and sh*t on the same tabloids that tried their utmost to ruin them.

I'd be doing the second one every day of the week. I would hazard a guess that public opinion is very much on their side. Even lite-royalists will be happy that the Queen's reputation remained intact and Harry and Meghan both went out of their way to ensure that.

They didn’t shlt all over the tabloids though they shat all over Harry’s family. It’s one thing to come out and clarify all of the crap that had been reported and defend yourself, I can understand that. But they both sat there and engaged in the same click bait tactics that they claim to have been victims of. Like we all knew the RF have a rep for being cold and uncaring but now they’re cold and uncaring, who make people cry, don’t return phone calls, cut people off financially, don’t care if you’re suicidal and oh a few are possibly racist too. But us, we are perfect little mermaid chicken saviours who were so universally misunderstood.
They went beyond defending themselves. Decent people don’t destroy other people in order to defend themselves.

BettyS

retro:electro wrote: »

They didn’t shlt all over the tabloids though they shat all over Harry’s family. It’s one thing to come out and clarify all of the crap that had been reported and defend yourself, I can understand that. But they both sat there and engaged in the same click bait tactics that they claim to have been victims of. Like we all knew the RF have a rep for being cold and uncaring but now they’re cold and uncaring, who make people cry, don’t return phone calls, cut people off financially, don’t care if you’re suicidal and oh a few are possibly racist too. But us, we are perfect little mermaid chicken saviours who were so universally misunderstood.
They went beyond defending themselves. Decent people don’t destroy other people when defending themselves.

There are only losers when family feuds occur. I have yet to meet a person happily sauntering into a family law court. Losing one’s family is a high price to pay for any individual.

Faugheen

retro:electro wrote: »

They didn’t shlt all over the tabloids though they shat all over Harry’s family. It’s one thing to come out and clarify all of the crap that had been reported and defend yourself, I can understand that. But they both sat there and engaged in the same click bait tactics that they claim to have been victims of. Like we all knew the RF have a rep for being cold and uncaring but now they’re cold and uncaring, who make people cry, don’t return phone calls, cut people off financially, don’t care if you’re suicidal and oh a few are possibly racist too. But us, we are perfect little mermaid chicken saviours who were so universally misunderstood.
They went beyond defending themselves. Decent people don’t destroy other people in order to defend themselves.

And it has led to vitriolic responses from royalists who refuse to believe their backwards and outdated institution might just be all of those things.

The fact people are taking the side of that institution baffles me, honestly. If even a shred of what they said is true it wouldn't be tolerated in any other family. F*ck them.

They only had really nice things to say about the Queen and Prince Philip. Charles and William are part of the institution. Harry was his mother's boy and he knew the score. As soon as George was born, he was only looking for a way out.

pjohnson

Faugheen wrote: »

What else were they going to do, stay and let the tabloids piss on them?

Or leave, make their own life, and sh*t on the same tabloids that tried their utmost to ruin them.

I'd be doing the second one every day of the week. I would hazard a guess that public opinion is very much on their side. Even lite-royalists will be happy that the Queen's reputation remained intact and Harry and Meghan both went out of their way to ensure that.

And do you expect the tabloids not to respond in turn? Yet Meghan will turn on the waterworks if the tabloids say boo. She starts up the rubbish with a publicity stunt then gets offended when its not 100% positive feedback.

Meghan seems to want to keep this going and keep herself in the limelight.

BettyS

Faugheen wrote: »

And it has led to vitriolic responses from royalists who refuse to believe their backwards and outdated institution might just be all of those things.

The fact people are taking the side of that institution baffles me, honestly. If even a shred of what they said is true it wouldn't be tolerated in any other family. F*ck them.

They only had really nice things to say about the Queen and Prince Philip. Charles and William are part of the institution. Harry was his mother's boy and he knew the score. As soon as George was born, he was only looking for a way out.

Charles came out today and said that it was simply untrue that he cut them off financially? He was deeply hurt by the allegations

It is all well making claims. But now the evidence is key

pjohnson

BettyS wrote: »

Charles came out today and said that it was simply untrue that he cut them off financially? He was deeply hurt by the allegations

It is all well making claims. But now the evidence is key

Now now. Meghan doesnt allow questions. Asking questions is bullying.

NSAman

With the way the two of them are behaving, he can kiss any inheritance good bye from Granny or Grandad.

When the divorce finally comes, as I suspect it will.... he will be lucky to be living in a Double-Wide!

walshb

Faugheen wrote: »

What else were they going to do, stay and let the tabloids piss on them?

Or leave, make their own life, and sh*t on the same tabloids that tried their utmost to ruin them.

I'd be doing the second one every day of the week. I would hazard a guess that public opinion is very much on their side. Even lite-royalists will be happy that the Queen's reputation remained intact and Harry and Meghan both went out of their way to ensure that.

I’d say any public opinion on their side is mostly due to people being anti Royal and anti British

How any half educated person with any common sense could warm to that shameful fake and utterly crass display of tackiness last night would be nothing short of baffling..

BettyS

walshb wrote: »

I’d say any public opinion on their side is mostly due to people being anti Royal and anti British

How any half educated person with any common sense could warm to that shameful fake and utterly crass display of tackiness last night would be nothing short of baffling..

.

I despise the concept of any monarchy and all this absurd pomp. However, in a civilised society, if somebody accuses another person in a public forum, then those claims should be scrutinised.

Faugheen

walshb wrote: »

I’d say any public opinion on their side is mostly due to people being anti Royal and anti British

How any half educated person with any common sense could warm to that shameful fake and utterly crass display of tackiness last night would be nothing short of baffling..

Her saying she was suicidal is 'fake' now is it?

walshb

BettyS wrote: »

.

I despise the concept of any monarchy and all this absurd pomp. However, in a civilised society, if somebody accuses another person in a public forum, then those claims should be scrutinised.

I’m pro and neither anything here...

And that is how it should be judged...

I also don’t understand anyone “despising” a monarchy. Not taking to it or thinking it’s not good is one thing. I don’t get this despising.

Million and millions people all over the world don’t despise their monarchies...

The British monarchy is a lot more for history and show now...

walshb

Faugheen wrote: »

Her saying she was suicidal is 'fake' now is it?

Absolutely!!

That was actually the most insincere and fake of it all

But seems people fell from it

She got maximum exposure for that one..

faceman

BettyS wrote: »

.

I despise the concept of any monarchy and all this absurd pomp. However, in a civilised society, if somebody accuses another person in a public forum, then those claims should be scrutinised.

Other than the UK, what other monarchies are you familiar with in great detail?

BettyS

walshb wrote: »

I’m pro and neither anything here...

And that is how it should be judged...

I also don’t understand anyone “despising” a monarchy. Not taking to it or thinking it’s not good is one thing. I don’t get this despising.

Million and millions people all bet the world don’t despise their monarchies...

The British monarchy is a lot more for history and show now...

I despise the concept of birthright and archaic rules. There is zero merit to the concept. And zero accountability. These fundamentally violate the basic tenets of our democracy. Hence, I despise the concept of monarchy (I prefaced my original post with the concept of)

faceman

walshb wrote: »

Absolutely!!

That was actually the most insincere and fake of it all

But seems people fell from it

She got maximum exposure for that one..

I know someone who is dead 15 years because they were suicidal and they were told to snap out of it and stop putting it on. Those were words used by people who knew her. Whats your excuse?

Windmill100000

Windmill100000 wrote: »

Exactly this. Most counsellors will not see a client's partner/family member, at least not accredited counsellors adhering to best practise guidelines. I'd have thought that was fairly obvious.

I don't know if it would be obvious but it's definitely a thing.

As for Meghan being denied help? I'd say she feels she was denied it. At first I was of the opinion that it was just a feeling and not the reality, but I imagine it would be difficult for someone in her position to go about getting any kind of professional service. I mean can a senior royal just ring up say a physio and make an appointment?

faceman

faceman wrote: »

I know someone who is dead 15 years because they were suicidal and they were told to snap out of it and stop putting it on. Those were words used by people who knew her. Whats your excuse?

That absolutely does happen sadly but it doesn't mean Meghan was telling the truth. Personally I believe she was feeling very low but can easily see how in the context of the whole affair others wouldn't believe this.

Northernlily

valoren wrote: »

Isn't there a possibility that a manipulative person might invoke suicide ideation as a means of deflecting expected criticism? i.e. people would be more reluctant to press ahead and criticise them because they risk being insensitive to someone's (conjured up) suffering.

Of course its a possibility. No one knows what goes on inside another's head. You can't proclaim such things as fact as Piers Morgan did yesterday.

Sir Oxman

exaisle wrote: »

Morgan is that most distasteful kind of journalist, a controversialist.
No doubt the announcement some minutes ago that he is leaving ITV's morning programme will be welcomed by many. Including me.
Good riddance.

I think ITV's ratings department may disagree.
The other presenters do not appeal at all to a large-ish audience but hey, maybe after the umpteenth redeisgn/reshuffle etc, GMB will be lucky! Politicians will be delira and excira if all they've got to face is Susannah, Ben or Alex. LOL

And no, I'm not a fan