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

Leg End Reject

Ms2011 wrote: »

No I'm not, they said as much.

Do you blindly believe everything people say?

Would you like to buy some magic beans?

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

Are you angling for a knighthood, ridding around on that big white horse, protecting the glorious royal family from the terrible commoner?

Talk about acting the white knight.

And now you are mocking the poster for holding a particular view?

It is wrong to be nasty, unless it is you being nasty?

BettyS

retro:electro wrote: »

Well you see she didn’t want to get into what the fight was actually over because it would have shown her in an extremely bad light.

You cannot give half a story and then omit the rest. It makes it impossible to actually reason out the context

extra gravy

walshb wrote: »

But guess what, Kate won’t be doing these trashy dissing interviews..

Yeah because she's told what she can and can't do by the organisation.

Princess Calla

BettyS wrote: »

You are giving an interpretation. But when it comes to it, it could be easily interpreted as the Archbishop committing a crime. I would be very careful and direct with my language, if I thought that it could be misinterpreted as an allegation against somebody. Why put the Archbishop’s reputation at stake?

She said it was just the 3 of them. You need two witnesses for it to be binding.

If he did commit a crime, which I don't think he did, well then he only has himself to blame.

retro:electro

Ms2011 wrote: »

It wasn't Kate's wedding, suck it is buttercup and leave off the sock/tights. How in God's name does anyone even know how comfortable or otherwise the child's shoe's were?
First it's completely believable that Meghan made Kate cry but as soon as seems like maybe it was the other way around all of a sudden the narrative changes to 'oh well they probably upset each other. Is it not not possible that Kate behaved badly and Meghan deserved the apology?

It’s very possible. But it’s more likely that they both upset each other because when you hear what the issue was over, Kate had every right to be upset. And in all the years that she has been with William I’ve never read one account where anyone has had anything but good words to say about Kate. Counteract that with Meghan who seems to ghost friends regularly, cut people off, and is currently under investigation for bullying and it’s not hard to see that maybe she’s not the meek little innocent bystander that she likes to portray herself as.

Ms2011

BettyS wrote: »

And perhaps it was one of the dress-makers that leaked it. You are making assumptions for which you deride others for

I didn't assume who leaked it I was offering a suggestion of how it could have been rectified without an official statement.

Purple Mountain

In relation to the flower girl's tights, it was reported Meghan wanted bare legs but royal protocol dictates tights must be worn.
If that was what the incident was about, Kate might have been only advising Meghan that tights were mandatory and words got heated between them.
I think the palace should have intervened with the media at the time and asked them to put out a statement that a palace source confirmed that the incident never happened.

BettyS

extra gravy wrote: »

Yeah because she's told what she can and can't do by the organisation.

Ultimately, it is Kate’s choice to be part of the royal family. I don’t think that anybody is holding a gun to her head and keeping her hostage

extra gravy

retro:electro wrote: »

Well you see she didn’t want to get into what the fight was actually over because it would have shown her in an extremely bad light.

Were you there yeah? Do tell us all the juicy details about this fight so?

BettyS

Princess Calla wrote: »

She said it was just the 3 of them. You need two witnesses for it to be binding.

If he did commit a crime, which I don't think he did, well then he only has himself to blame.

But why make the claim in the first place if it could misinterpreted as a crime?

BettyS

Ms2011 wrote: »

I didn't assume who leaked it I was offering a suggestion of how it could have been rectified without an official statement.

But where does that leaking end. Leaking things is like a Pandora’s box. They probably hoped that the trivial event would just vanish from people’s memories. Their policy seems to be if you ignore it for long enough, it goes away

valoren

Considering she took the time to make a formal complaint against Morgan then perhaps they might take the mutual time to issue a statement about who exactly was "concerned" that their baby would be too dark?

Harry was decent enough to give us a clue i.e. he told Oprah that it wasn't his paternal grandparents. I suppose with people speculating about who the racist is (Charles? Camilla? Kate? William?) then their mental health is irrelevant from living under a cloud of suspected racism. So much for building a future of working for compassion when you've got to damage the Royal "brand".

When you have manipulated the audience with a deliberate game of "Guess who the racist is" and refuse to get specific then both their credibility becomes very questionable and, to any rational viewer, it invites scrutiny on them particularly when there is no expected clarifications from the family then they essentially are safe to have free reign to give their "truth". If they actually landed a legitimate bombshell by saying the name then their credibility shoots right up because charging a senior member of the Royal family with owning up to a racial remark would be deservedly laudable.

Leg End Reject

BettyS wrote: »

But why make the claim in the first place if it could misinterpreted as a crime?

It gave the impression that the public wedding was too showy for them, they would have preferred a more intimate wedding.

BettyS

Leg End Reject wrote: »

It gave the impression that the public wedding was too showy for them, they would have preferred a more intimate wedding.

But they threw the Archbishop under the bus to achieve this illusion.

JoChervil

goat2 wrote: »

But, She knows now, that any chance he gets, he will let their business, private, public, be aired, he has lost her trust, cannot have him around, It is his fault, We all would do anything for our children, and he is not, it is a pity, as she really needs family, her mom has been followed and asked prying questions about her life, and she respects her kid enough, to keep her mouth shut and be there for her

Maybe it is the only way of communication with her left for him...

Ms2011

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Do you blindly believe everything people say?

Would you like to buy some magic beans?

No, nor do I twist things to suit my own perspective.

Leg End Reject

BettyS wrote: »

But they threw the Archbishop under the bus to achieve this illusion.

They threw a lot of people under the bus in fairness.

BettyS

All of us will eventually get bored and move onto to some equally inconsequential topic on boards. But the hurt for the families is going to last for many years to come

They rightfully or wrongfully said their piece. But now a lot of people will suffer the consequences of this.

People focus on them saying their piece. But it had huge and hurtful ramifications for their loved ones

retro:electro

valoren wrote: »

Considering she took the time to make a formal complaint against Morgan then perhaps they might take the mutual time to issue a statement about who exactly was "concerned" that their baby would be too dark?

Harry was decent enough to give us a clue i.e. he told Oprah that it wasn't his paternal grandparents. I suppose with people speculating about who the racist is (Charles? Camilla? Kate? William?) then their mental health is irrelevant from living under a cloud of suspected racism. So much for building a future of working for compassion when you've got to damage the Royal "brand". 👌

When you have manipulated the audience with a deliberate game of "Guess who the racist is" and refuse to get specific then both their credibility becomes very questionable and, tonany rational viewer, it invites scrutiny on them particularly as when there is no expected clarifications from the family then they essentially have free reign to give their side.

Good point. Meghan knows more than anyone the suffocating constraints that can silence you when you feel you need to defend yourself against falsehoods/accusations/misunderstandings and can’t, but had no problem stating someone in the family is racist but I won’t be saying who, and so in turn they all fall under suspicion with no means to defend themselves. You’d think she would have more empathy when she says she suffered so much herself due to this very thing.

Leg End Reject

Ms2011 wrote: »

No, nor do I twist things to suit my own perspective.

But you are by saying you believe them because they said it at the start.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

Meghan didn't bring up the Kate thing though, Oprah asked her directly if she made Kate cry as was reported in the newspaper, Meghan then had to explain what happened in order to show that not only did she in fact NOT make Kate cry but it had been her that was made cry and then 'someone' in the inner circle took that incident and consciously twisted it to make Meghan look like the bad guy.
To me Meghan looked uncomfortable explaining the ins and outs of that altercation as Kate had apologised and the two had put the incident behind them and went to great lengths to highlight that Kate had apologised and sent flowers etc. and as far as she was concerned it had been put to bed.

I always apologise for my part of the dispute, if I am in the wrong, of if my reaction upsets someone too much. I could even send flowers but it doesn't make me guilty of the whole incident...

end of the road

walshb wrote: »

Harry is actually worse than Meghan, or Markle...or Meghan Markle it makes you happy. It’s his actual family that he’s slating, and allowing to be slated to the world.

I never called her a liar.

I do not believe she was suicidal in any real sense, and I gave my reasons for this view..

you did, however your reasons don't stack up i'm afraid.

anewme

valoren wrote: »

Considering she took the time to make a formal complaint against Morgan.

She was 100% right to take him on - creepy obsession he had with destroying her.

As regards the allegations about Archie, did the Queen not say they wanted to look internally as family into those concerns?

walshb

extra gravy wrote: »

Yeah because she's told what she can and can't do by the organisation.

Exactly. Life in the Royal Family.

Meghan not suited!

BettyS

anewme wrote: »

She was 100% right to take him on - creepy obsession he had with destroying her.

As regards the allegations about Archie, did the Queen not say they wanted to look internally as family into those concerns?

The queen said that they will carry out a private, internal investigation on the matter

Ms2011

retro:electro wrote: »

It’s very possible. But it’s more likely that they both upset each other because when you hear what the issue was over, Kate had every right to be upset. And in all the years that she has been with William I’ve never read one account where anyone has had anything but good words to say about Kate. Counteract that with Meghan who seems to ghost friends regularly, cut people off, and is currently under investigation for bullying and it’s not hard to see that maybe she’s not the meek little innocent bystander that she likes to portray herself as.

Why had Kate every reason to be upset? It wasn't her day, she had her day, it was Meghan's day and if she didn't want her flowergirls wearing socks/tights then that's how it should have been.
Its been outlined over and over again how when Kate does something its seen as marvellous but when Meghan does the same or similar it will be painted in a bad light.
And don't even get me started on the bullying allegations, those magically surfacing were the most transparent attempts at deflecting the predictable fallout that was coming from the Oprah interview that it was almost embarrassing.

BettyS

anewme wrote: »

She was 100% right to take him on - creepy obsession he had with destroying her.

As regards the allegations about Archie, did the Queen not say they wanted to look internally as family into those concerns?

walshb wrote: »

Exactly. Life in the Royal Family.

Meghan not suited!

Chelsey Davy seemed to realise what a life in the royal family entailed and did not marry Harry for this reason. I am sure that Meghan must have had some awareness of the duty that goes with the royal family

anewme

BettyS wrote: »

The queen said that they will carry out a private, internal investigation on the matter

And they could have asked Meghan and Harry to respect that and not comment further while that is ongoing.

She is still free of course to take on Piers Morgan. Bring it on.

I often hear people in the public view, actors, politicians etc say they never read tabloid stories about themselves, or trashy websites.

I think Meaghan Markle needs to take some of that advise.