Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…5859616364…732

Comments

  • Options
    #1802
    JoChervil
    Registered Users Posts: 2,022 ✭✭✭JoChervil


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Sure that’s what she’s saying, but she also said he wasn’t given a title due to being mixed race. Which is inflammatory rubbish.
    Recollections may vary..

    I already explained the George + siblings thing. It was amended in 2013 before anyone even knew Meghan existed. It has nothing to do with her.

    I am sure it will become now often used expression. I love it :D


  • Options
    #1803
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Well he is quite naive then because straight away when they announced they were leaving, the Queen had Harry, Charles and William in for talks and I’m sure they would have addressed to him the security issue. I think they had several talks actually and it took days to work around an agreement.

    Okay... it's clear that some really don't pay attention to what is being said quite openly. Harry said that he was informed after they left, and while they were in Canada he asked if there was a change in the risk. I believe he said that "some weeks later," he got an answer acknowledging that there was no change in risk but they were pulling it anyway. He described it as sudden. Obviously, it was not made clear and he expected better from his family.


  • Options
    #1804
    BettyS
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    And stateofyou, what about Meghan booking up all those seats in the public area in Wimbledon and admonishing fans for taking selfies?

    Or what about the 200k baby shower.

    Rightly or wrongly, these kinds of actions put her on the wrong foot with the U.K. public. Any celeb doing this would face a similar backlash!


  • Options
    #1805
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,701 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Harry said that Netflix and Spotify deals were not part of the plan. He said they signed those deals in order to have/afford protection. So what does that tell you.

    Tells me nothing..

    He has protection. Whether he/she pay for it or not..

    It has nothing to do with the RF

    They decided to exit the family..


  • Options
    #1806
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    I don't actually think they should. It's something that happened for a time while they were there, that's why it was brought up. I think Harry's family should have looked after him and their grandson, personally if they had to.

    Why would be not pay for his own security?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1807
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,047 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Why would you think the British or Canadian police should supply security for Harry and his family?

    Because Meghan is a strong, independent black woman who wants her inlaws to fund her independence.

    Harry seems to a witless fool who has forgotten that his mother and aunt both lost their security with their HRH status, even though they both stayed in the UK.
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #1808
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    BettyS wrote: »
    And stateofyou, what about Meghan booking up all those seats in the public area in Wimbledon and admonishing fans for taking selfies?

    Or what about the 200k baby shower.

    Rightly or wrongly, these kinds of actions put her on the wrong foot with the U.K. public. Any celeb doing this would face a similar backlash!

    Wimbledon? I don't know anything about it, why are you asking me?

    The baby shower-her friends arranged it. She went. Big deal.


  • Options
    #1809
    BettyS
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    And what about the earrings that she wore by the Saudi royal family?

    For somebody who is so conscious of the power of gestures and actions, it is a tad hypocritical


  • Options
    #1810
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    walshb wrote: »
    Tells me nothing..

    He has protection. Whether he/she pay for it or not..

    It has nothing to do with the RF

    They decided to exit the family..

    The whole point of our discussion on this boils down to the fact his protection was pulled. He no longer had protection. He was quite clear about this.


  • Options
    #1811
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Okay... it's clear that some really don't pay attention to what is being said quite openly. Harry said that he was informed after they left, and while they were in Canada he asked if there was a change in the risk. I believe he said that "some weeks later," he got an answer acknowledging that there was no change in risk but they were pulling it anyway. He described it as sudden. Obviously, it was not made clear and he expected better from his family.

    I think you need to step away from “what Harry says” and actually do your own research on what the terms of “Megsit” actually were. It was well known to them that they would be funding their own security. “Harry said” “Meghan said”.. yeah they also said they got married three days before their wedding and that was an outright lie so a pinch of salt is needed with everything else, tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1812
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Okay... it's clear that some really don't pay attention to what is being said quite openly. Harry said that he was informed after they left, and while they were in Canada he asked if there was a change in the risk. I believe he said that "some weeks later," he got an answer acknowledging that there was no change in risk but they were pulling it anyway. He described it as sudden. Obviously, it was not made clear and he expected better from his family.

    The Royal family have no say in the security details.
    The British Police pulled the security detail.


  • Options
    #1813
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Why would be not pay for his own security?

    They are now? Now that they've had time to stabilise their family.
    The real question is, why would his family refuse their own grandson, grandchild, great grandchild protection.

    Does anyone here honestly think that leaving them vulnerable was okay?


  • Options
    #1814
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    bubblypop wrote: »
    The Royal family have no say in the security details.
    The British Police pulled the security detail.

    His grandmother is the Queen-she clearly makes the rules when it suits her. She did so for Prince Williams children, and that HRH title entitled them to security.

    They also have their own money. Off the backs of hundreds of years of colonialism and privilege I might add.


  • Options
    #1815
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,701 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    The whole point of our discussion on this boils down to the fact his protection was pulled. He no longer had protection. He was quite clear about this.

    I know.

    He was crying because he felt the RF let him down here...

    The RF did not pull his security.


  • Options
    #1816
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    They are now? Now that they've had time to stabilise their family.
    The real question is, why would his family refuse their own grandson, grandchild, great grandchild protection.

    Does anyone here honestly think that leaving them vulnerable was okay?

    Do you not read the posts here at all?
    The Royal family did not pull his security. They have no say in the security detail.
    They didnt refuse him anything because they don't supply security, the police do.


  • Options
    #1817
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    You’d swear they were thrown out :D THEY DECIDED TO LEAVE!


  • Options
    #1818
    JoChervil
    Registered Users Posts: 2,022 ✭✭✭JoChervil


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Meghan and Harry said the discussion was around changing this convention though. So the question is... why?

    But do you know for sure, who started that discussion? What if Meghan started it wanting to have a little prince for the son? Would your angle changed then?


  • Options
    #1819
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    retro:electro wrote: »
    I think you need to step away from “what Harry says” and actually do your own research on what the terms of “Megsit” actually were. It was well known to them that they would be funding their own security. “Harry said” “Meghan said”.. yeah they also said they got married three days before their wedding and that was an outright lie so a pinch of salt is needed with everything else, tbh.

    Sorry, but I think people need to step away from what they think they know from the gutter tabloids. There is no better source than from the direct experience of (former) senior members of the royal family themselves.


  • Options
    #1820
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    They are now? Now that they've had time to stabilise their family.
    The real question is, why would his family refuse their own grandson, grandchild, great grandchild protection.

    Does anyone here honestly think that leaving them vulnerable was okay?

    You’re just asking the same questions over and over despite being given the answers several times.
    Are you okay?


  • Options
    #1821
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,701 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    retro:electro wrote: »
    You’d swear they were thrown out :D THEY DECIDED TO LEAVE!

    I mentioned this very point

    It’s the most telling of all.

    They fooked off in a huff..

    Not content with just effing off, they then start throwing grenades at a whole institution and people on a chat show..

    I am gobsmacked that many don’t see this as lowlife behaviour like I do


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1822
    BettyS
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Wimbledon? I don't know anything about it, why are you asking me?

    The baby shower-her friends arranged it. She went. Big deal.

    But you are so convinced of your opinion and yet don’t know anything about Wimbledon?

    And the earrings?


  • Options
    #1823
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    walshb wrote: »
    I know.

    He was crying because he felt the RF let him down here...

    The RF did not pull his security.

    Harry said the institution pulled the security and his dad stopped taking his calls. They were vulnerable, the Daily Mail published their location for the world to see, and the border was closing in a few days due to Coronavirus restrictions. It all sounds very stressful and painful if you ask me.


  • Options
    #1824
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,047 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    His grandmother is the Queen-she clearly makes the rules when it suits her. She did so for Prince Williams children, and that HRH title entitled them to security.

    They also have their own money. Off the backs of hundreds of years of colonialism and privilege I might add.

    So, Harry and Meghan sail off into the sunset, keep all their privileges and payments, occasionally lower themselves to come back for the odd engagement (undoubtedly a glamorous one), graciously wave and smile and then feck off again.

    Do you think that maybe others would look and think "To hell with this shıt" and do the same?

    Leave the queen rattling around all the engagements on her own and insist the RF were value for money and relevant?
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #1825
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    BettyS wrote: »
    But you are so convinced of your opinion and yet don’t know anything about Wimbledon?

    And the earrings?

    Can you possibly stay on current topic? What has Wimbledon and "earrings" have to do with anything? Perhaps you can state your concern about them, maybe post a link to illustrate your point if you like and then we can all discuss if that's what you're looking for.


  • Options
    #1826
    BettyS
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Can you possibly stay on current topic? What has Wimbledon and "earrings" have to do with anything? Perhaps you can state your concern about them, maybe post a link to illustrate your point if you like and then we can all discuss if that's what you're looking for.

    God, I hope that you are not as aggressive in real life!


  • Options
    #1827
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    retro:electro wrote: »
    You’re just asking the same questions over and over despite being given the answers several times.
    Are you okay?

    You're here making the same points-are you quite okay yourself, or is it just that you've run out of valid points so you're resorting to passive aggressive insults?


  • Options
    #1828
    BettyS
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Can you possibly stay on current topic? What has Wimbledon and "earrings" have to do with anything? Perhaps you can state your concern about them, maybe post a link to illustrate your point if you like and then we can all discuss if that's what you're looking for.

    All you talk about is poor Meghan and Harry. Yet, you poorly informed on any story that depicts them in a bad light. I am simply pointing out that your perspective is wholly biased, good chum!


  • Options
    #1829
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    BettyS wrote: »
    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Can you possibly stay on current topic? What has Wimbledon and "earrings" have to do with anything? Perhaps you can state your concern about them, maybe post a link to illustrate your point if you like and then we can all discuss if that's what you're looking for.[/QUOTEg]

    God, I hope that you are not as aggressive in real life!

    Then stop aggressively confronting me with your questions! Post your own questions and issues about them without tagging me and demanding answers. Bizarre....


  • Options
    #1830
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    BettyS wrote: »
    All you talk about is poor Meghan and Harry. Yet, you poorly informed on any story that depicts them in a bad light. I am simply pointing out that your perspective is wholly biased, good chum!

    And you're biased in the opposite, good job. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1831
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    You're here making the same points-are you quite okay yourself, or is it just that you've run out of valid points so you're resorting to passive aggressive insults?

    If I’m making the same points it’s because you’re asking the same questions and the answers aren’t quite penetrating


Advertisement