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…6061636566…732

Comments

  • Options
    #1862
    BensMixed
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭BensMixed


    Purple Mountain wrote: »
    Plus, you gotta remember..imagine what the backlash would be from the UK taxpayers if they thought they were funding security for the Sussexes to live in Canada/USA while 'stepping back' from royal duties.

    The problem is that Harry was born into a situation where he will always need security for his entire life. That wasn't his choice and if anyone is to blame then it's the British state for having a monarchy in the first place and the responsibility lies there.


  • Options
    #1863
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,701 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    BettyS wrote: »
    The French media are reporting that it was one of the royal courtisans that made the remark. They are saying that it was never a member of the royal family itself that made the remark

    https://madame.lefigaro.fr/celebrites/stephane-bern-decrypte-linterview-explosive-de-meghan-markle-et-du-prince-harry-100321-195658

    Did Oprah ask them if it was a member of the RF?

    Did Harry and Meghan say it was?

    If this was not a family member who made this skin color comment, then their bringing it up is even worse than initially thought..


  • Options
    #1864
    JoChervil
    Registered Users Posts: 2,022 ✭✭✭JoChervil


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    It's funny that I'm being accused of asking the same questions, yet others are and they've already been answered.

    But it's no big deal to me to repeat what I've already said.

    The Queen makes the rules. She could have also issued letters patent for Archie. They already knew of the increased risk and death threats as they already had 1. released a statement on behalf of the RF and Harry, and 2. Harry said they acknowledged the risk hadn't changed before pulling the security "suddenly."

    Secondly, I already pointed out the royal family are independently wealthy, and could have looked after their own family until Harry and Meghan could have arranged it themselves. But instead, it was pulled suddenly from them at the time the Daily Mail announced their Canadian location to the world and the borders were about to close.

    Harry said he asked if the risk had changed (in relation to security) and "a few weeks later they finally got back" and said no, but they were pulling anyway. I don't think that can be justified in my opinion. And so to your last point, no, it obviously wasn't discussed with him before they left.

    But it is his life and his decision, so it was him who had to discuss it before leaving.


  • Options
    #1865
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 20,053 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    JoChervil wrote: »
    How could he walked her if he was not invited?

    He was invited, he chose not show and faked a story about a heart attack, a stent and a stay in a hospital to get out of it.


  • Options
    #1866
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    bubblypop wrote: »
    The queen does not make the rules in relation to the security detail.
    Can you accept that the family did not take away his security?

    There is no reason for him not to be aware of his own security, and he is independently wealthy, so no reason why he and MM shouldn't pay for for their own.

    Ah, but she does! Indirectly maybe but of course she can and could have if she wanted to change the rules like she did for Williams kids.

    Any opinion or guess as to why Queen Elisabeth issued a letters patent overruling the King George convention for them in the first place, if they were to be princes/princess under Charles anyway?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1867
    The DayDream
    Registered Users Posts: 513 ✭✭✭The DayDream


    walshb wrote: »
    Did Oprah ask them if it was a member of the RF?

    Did Harry and Meghan say it was?

    If this was not a family member who made this skin color comment, then their bringing it up is even worse than initially thought..

    Sounds like all of your 'initial thought' is based on not even having watched any of it 🀔


  • Options
    #1868
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,701 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    The DayDream wrote: »
    Sounds like all of your 'initial thought' is based on not even having watched any of it ��

    I did watch it. Need to go back over it.

    Anyway, they’re simple questions. So, no big deal!!


  • Options
    #1869
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    JoChervil wrote: »
    But it is his life and his decision, so it was him who had to discuss it before leaving.


    Well of course I don't know the nature of the discussions beyond what they've said publicly, but what is clear is he expected security to continue as a royal prince who inherited the risk. That's the point he made, and I'm only repeating that. Could we not also say, if they weren't prepared to officially provide it, could they not have said so? At that time, they were still hoping to serve Queen Elisabeth and their patronages/titles. And why not provide it publicly to ensure their safety until they set it up for themselves? If it were my child and grandchild, no way would I do that to them. It makes no sense to me, and it seems vengeful.


  • Options
    #1870
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Ah, but she does! Indirectly maybe but of course she can and could have if she wanted to change the rules like she did for Williams kids.

    Any opinion or guess as to why Queen Elisabeth issued a letters patent overruling the King George convention for them in the first place, if they were to be princes/princess under Charles anyway?

    They were not even born when she did it!


  • Options
    #1871
    JoChervil
    Registered Users Posts: 2,022 ✭✭✭JoChervil


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking here.

    Her father couldn't walk her to the altar because he was not invited. So whose disgrace it was? His for not doing it or her for not inviting him?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1872
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,701 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Ok,

    Meghan said Harry said it was a member of the family that passed the skin color remark...


  • Options
    #1873
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,047 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    bubblypop wrote: »
    They were not even born when she did it!

    But the queen should have known! She's the queen so of course she could have foreseen this!
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #1874
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 20,053 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    JoChervil wrote: »
    Her father couldn't walk her to the altar because he was not invited. So whose disgrace it was? His for not doing it or her for not inviting him?

    He was invited.


  • Options
    #1875
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    JoChervil wrote: »
    Her father couldn't walk her to the altar because he was not invited. So whose disgrace it was? His for not doing it or her for not inviting him?

    I think the other poster cnocbui answered it quite well already...


  • Options
    #1876
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    bubblypop wrote: »
    They were not even born when she did it!

    But Meghan was pregnant with Archie when they discussed removing that convention entirely before he was born. That's the point here....


  • Options
    #1877
    JoChervil
    Registered Users Posts: 2,022 ✭✭✭JoChervil


    cnocbui wrote: »
    He was invited, he chose not show and faked a story about a heart attack, a stent and a stay in a hospital to get out of it.

    If it's true, so I am sorry. But from press coverage at the time it was not sure what caused what.


  • Options
    #1878
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The cutting off of the statement before it stated H&M wanted no public funds. The inconsistency about when the supposed racist comment happened. The inconsistency about when they actually got married and how many people attended. The dragging up of Kate supposedly making Meghan cry, even though she'd apologised and they buried the hatchet. The lack of specific details about the racism allegation. The vague suggestion that racism had caused the baby not to be given a title. The vague suggestion that security had been withheld from the baby because of the colour of his skin. The scarely believable story that Meghan was suicidal but could not get help even though her husband regularly talks about his mental health issues.

    Everything about the interview was calculated precisely to cause as much damage as possible but yet vague enough to allow plausible deniability. Almost a work of art how it was staged. No accountability on H&M's part to back up any claims. And carefully cloaked in the victim language of racism and mental health. Zero self-awareness. Zero humility. Zero joy. Zero awareness of how priviliged they were and still are. Only victimhood. Meghan gave the performance of her life on this.


  • Options
    #1879
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 20,053 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    walshb wrote: »
    Ok,

    Meghan said Harry said it was a member of the family that passed the skin color remark...

    I don't think she says who raised the topic with Harry.


  • Options
    #1880
    BettyS
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    walshb wrote: »
    Ok,

    Meghan said Harry said it was a member of the family that passed the skin color remark...

    What was the verbatim quote? I really want to know because I don’t know

    What is the basis for which people are saying it was a member of Harry’s direct family?


  • Options
    #1881
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,939 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    But Meghan was pregnant with Archie when they discussed removing that convention entirely before he was born. That's the point here....

    But they didn’t do it though did they ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1882
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Well of course I don't know the nature of the discussions beyond what they've said publicly, but what is clear is he expected security to continue as a royal prince who inherited the risk. That's the point he made, and I'm only repeating that. Could we not also say, if they weren't prepared to officially provide it, could they not have said so? At that time, they were still hoping to serve Queen Elisabeth and their patronages/titles. And why not provide it publicly to ensure their safety until they set it up for themselves? If it were my child and grandchild, no way would I do that to them. It makes no sense to me, and it seems vengeful.
    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Well of course I don't know the nature of the discussions beyond what they've said publicly, but what is clear is he expected security to continue as a royal prince who inherited the risk. That's the point he made, and I'm only repeating that. Could we not also say, if they weren't prepared to officially provide it, could they not have said so? At that time, they were still hoping to serve Queen Elisabeth and their patronages/titles. And why not provide it publicly to ensure their safety until they set it up for themselves? If it were my child and grandchild, no way would I do that to them. It makes no sense to me, and it seems vengeful.

    I think bubblypop has told you at least four times now that it was not The Palace who pulled security but Scotland Yard themselves. If you can’t read what is clearly written in black and white then I’m not sure anyone else can help you.


  • Options
    #1883
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    But Meghan was pregnant with Archie when they discussed removing that convention entirely before he was born. That's the point here....

    So Meghan said there was talk when she was pregnant that all great grandchildren would be Prince or Princesses?
    Is that correct?


  • Options
    #1884
    JoChervil
    Registered Users Posts: 2,022 ✭✭✭JoChervil


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Well of course I don't know the nature of the discussions beyond what they've said publicly, but what is clear is he expected security to continue as a royal prince who inherited the risk. That's the point he made, and I'm only repeating that. Could we not also say, if they weren't prepared to officially provide it, could they not have said so? At that time, they were still hoping to serve Queen Elisabeth and their patronages/titles. And why not provide it publicly to ensure their safety until they set it up for themselves? If it were my child and grandchild, no way would I do that to them. It makes no sense to me, and it seems vengeful.

    But ditching the family doesn't seem vengeful to you?


  • Options
    #1885
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    But they didn’t do it though did they ?

    But the point is it was discussed which caused the hurt in the first place, isn't it?


  • Options
    #1886
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,701 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    cnocbui wrote: »
    I don't think she says who raised the topic with Harry.

    I need to rewatch to get exactly what was said..

    I read that she said Harry told her it was a family member..


  • Options
    #1887
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,701 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    BettyS wrote: »
    What was the verbatim quote? I really want to know because I don’t know

    I need to rewatch

    I read that Harry told Meghan it was a family member..


  • Options
    #1888
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Ah, but she does! Indirectly maybe but of course she can and could have if she wanted to change the rules like she did for Williams kids.

    Any opinion or guess as to why Queen Elisabeth issued a letters patent overruling the King George convention for them in the first place, if they were to be princes/princess under Charles anyway?

    Didn't Harry and Meghan want the baby to be simply Archie i.e. no title when he was born? They probably would have made out that it was forced upon them against their wishes if he had been made a prince. No matter what, they seem determined to be the victims in some way shape or form.


  • Options
    #1889
    JoChervil
    Registered Users Posts: 2,022 ✭✭✭JoChervil


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    But Meghan was pregnant with Archie when they discussed removing that convention entirely before he was born. That's the point here....

    Again: who discussed it? Megan wanting it or family on their own?


  • Options
    #1890
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    JoChervil wrote: »
    But ditching the family doesn't seem vengeful to you?

    No. It's not "ditching." And how is it vengeful? Harry quite clearly was suffering with his mental health for years. He said so. Then Meghan was. And he was worried about the effect on Archie. He did what anyone would do in those circumstances. On what planet would anyone abandon their wife, child and values to do what their grandmother, father and brother expects within a clearly toxic family called "The Firm?"

    Everyone is entitled to live their best, authentic, most healthy life.

    How many of ye are Irish? Are you, JoChervil? You're prepared to judge him harshly for leaving an historically damaging colonial family institution to lead a different life? If so, that's me cooked for the night. I'm out guys, will leave ye to it for the evening.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1891
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,939 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    But the point is it was discussed which caused the hurt in the first place, isn't it?

    What was actually discussed ? That it would be changed so that it wasn’t a guarantee that grandchildren of the reigning monarch would have the title Prince and princess ? Sure not all the current queens grandchildren have have those titles so it’s not a slight against just Harry’s son. If it’s was targeting at just his kids then okay fair enough you could make an argument but it’s not because not even all of the people who can get it now have it.


Advertisement