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

Leg End Reject

They stated they wanted financial independence so the Apple and Netflix deals would have been signed regardless.

They were hardly planning on working in Walmart.

Qiaonasen

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

Well if you hate the U.K. so much don’t watch our shows.

I never said I hated the UK.

Princess Calla

Princess Calla wrote: »

Yeah the security is the one that got me too...I got the impression he felt he was thrown to the wolves.*

Now plenty of people have said it was the police that pulled it...so Scotland Yard....now Cressida Dick is in charge of that since 2017, appointed by The Queen...so does that not make the Queen her ultimate boss...so would pulling security not ultimately have to be rubber stamped by the Queen?

Sweet Jaysis!
Posters are now.suggesting that the queen dictates how the police do their duty.
That is not how it works. The queen also appoints a lot more people to their jobs, do you believe she can dictate how people do their jobs.

It doesn't matter what the Royal family think it want, the police do their job, close protection of the Royal family is given to the police, the experts, to do the job.
Police do risk assessments and produce protection details based on their information and intelligence.
It is not the queens decision.
If Harry needs security, then he needs to pay for it himself and if he doesn't know that at nearly 40 then he is extremely naive, to say the least.

partyguinness

Ultimately Harry is displaying a huge misplaced sense of entitlement.

He wants to sever ties and do whatever the hell he wants when he wants wherever he wants but to this end he fully expects that he will have the security to protect him and a nice cushy bubblle to cover his ass.

I think they call it "having your cake and eating it"

Princess Calla

Princess Calla wrote: »

Yeah the security is the one that got me too...I got the impression he felt he was thrown to the wolves.*

Considering his mother was killed by paparazzi chasing her I don't think his fears are unfounded. ..................

Speeding driver after a few drinks was a huge contributor too iirc. Also unfortunately it was reported Princess Diana wasn't wearing a seatbelt.......

https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/tv-movies/a29874597/princess-diana-death/

"Though the posted speed limit was 30 mph, the driver, Henri Paul, reportedly approached the entrance of a road tunnel at Paris's Pont de l'Alma driving at approximately 70 mph. According to reports, Paul lost control of the car and collided into a pillar in the middle of the highway."

"Shepherd believes Diana's death could have been prevented by one small change: A seatbelt. "Had she been restrained, she would probably have appeared in public two days later with a black eye, perhaps a bit breathless from the fractured ribs and with a broken arm in a sling," Shepherd wrote.

The only survivor of the crash was Diana’s British bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones. He had been wearing a seatbelt."

"What caused Henri Paul, the acting head of security at the Ritz Hotel and a licensed driver, to so drastically lose control of the car? According to a statement from French authorities given the Monday after the crash, Paul's blood exceeded the legal blood-alcohol limit. He had reportedly been drinking and driving recklessly."

Of course there was the paparazzi element also
"According to eyewitnesses, there was another element involved in the crash. Their black Mercedes was being pursued by paparazzi in cars and on motorcycles, hoping to snatch a photo of the Princess and Fayed."


But back to Harry and being thrown to the wolves, Diana wasn't kidnapped because she's no RF security.

I find it a tad maggoty for Harry to be alluding to his Mum's death as reason why he should have RF security tbh, he's not short of a bob himself.

walshb

partyguinness wrote: »

Ultimately Harry is displaying a huge misplaced sense of entitlement.

He wants to sever ties and do whatever the hell he wants when he wants wherever he wants but to this end he fully expects that he will have the security to protect him and a nice cushy bubblle to cover his ass.

I think they call it "having your cake and eating it"

And wants to be able to diss his family and allow his wife to diss them with deliberately vague and engineered racist claims.....because wiuthout any context or firm details, these claims are exactly that.....engineered.

The chap wants everyone's fooking cake!!!!!

beakerjoe

dogbert27 wrote: »

It would be worse for the RF if she was suicidal and went through with it.

If she required counselling she would have received it and privately.

Harry has been championing mental health for years so the plausibility that she had no support for her mental health when her husband has been at the forefront of the topic for years and has access to many professionals is thin.

Oh I agree it be worse if she went through with it, goes without saying.

I also agree she should have received it privately, but I believe the Firm would be reluctant to allow someone access to her for fear of a leaked story.

walshb

Did anyone see William yesterday?

Am I the only one to sense a real icy tone when he said that he would be speaking to his brother

Desperate that he and Kate on an engagement, and accompanying a black lady in a playground, for a reporter to lob in "are the royal family racist?"

I don't blame the reporter...he is just jumping on the racist angle that Harry gave him

Desperate!

beakerjoe

walshb wrote: »

Did anyone see William yesterday?

Am I the only one to sense a real icy tone when he said that he would be speaking to his brother

Desperate that he and Kate on an engagement, and accompanying a black lady in a playground, for a reporter to lob in "are the royal family racist?"

I don't blame the reporter...he is just jumping on the racist angle that Harry gave him

Desperate!

Both sides here have PR firms that want to show them in the bets possible light, then you have the scummy media on the otherside trying to paint them in any sort of controversial light to generate more storys.

Its desperate.

I dont trust either side in this and the reality of this story will be probably never be told, and even if it is.... it may never be believed,

Sunny Disposition

I thought Harry complaining that he wouldn't have security was ludicrous.
He is an extremely wealthy man, with huge potential for making even more money. Yet he feels that even after he stops working for the UK monarchy the UK taxpayer should still keep funding his security, rather than him paying for it himself. That is an insane degree of entitlement. Obviously it was a very soft focus interview, but that was something that really should have been questioned.

extra gravy

walshb wrote: »

You need to get away from all this hate and vitriol you’re seeing.

It’s not there..

Your obsession to want to associate hate and vitriol with those who do not at all agree with Harry and Meghan’s behaviour here is plain silly. It’s not at all true, and just odd and unhelpful.

Oh it's there alright in several of your posts, you just seem to lack the self awareness to see it. Spending your days constantly criticising a woman you don't know is more of indication of obsession tbh. Will leave it that, no point discussing any further.

walshb

extra gravy wrote: »

Oh it's there alright in several of your posts, you just seem to lack the self awareness to see it. Spending your days constantly criticising a woman you don't know is more of indication of obsession tbh. Will leave it that, no point discussing any further.

Agreed. Let's move on....your constant fix on this hate and vitriol angle is dragging the thread down...

anewme

Do the Royal Family pay for Andrew's Security?

extra gravy

extra gravy wrote: »

................Spending your days constantly criticising a woman you don't know is more of indication of obsession tbh. Will leave it that, no point discussing any further.

You spend your days criticising folk that you allege to criticise a woman you don't know :pac:

extra gravy wrote: »

............Will leave it that, no point discussing any further.

See ya

partyguinness

anewme wrote: »

Do the Royal Family pay for Andrew's Security?

I would have thought so. He is still within the fold and playing ball.

beakerjoe

extra gravy wrote: »

Oh it's there alright in several of your posts, you just seem to lack the self awareness to see it. Spending your days constantly criticising a woman you don't know is more of indication of obsession tbh. Will leave it that, no point discussing any further.

Meghan is a public figure, shes open for criticism and opinion, just as any public figure is.

Holding a negative opinion isnt abusive.

She gave an interview and shes fair game. Just because she is a woman, doesn't mean you cant criticise her.

Im probably more in the siding with Harry and Meghan camp, but I believe the posters opinions are fair and far from abusive.

beakerjoe

partyguinness wrote: »

I would have thought so. He is still within the fold and playing ball.

Id say Andrew has plenty of dirt on other Royal members, hence why they havent thrown him under the bus and disowned him.

Protect him to protect the monarchy as a whole.

extra gravy

Augeo wrote: »

You spend your days criticising folk that you allege to criticise a woman you don't know :pac:



See ya

"Allege" :pac: It's there for all to see in the posts, I don't have to allege anything. Big difference between criticising posts and calling people you don't know "vile" "cretins"etc.

Don't worry, I'll be sticking around. Someone has to provide an alternative opinion in this echo chamber.

JimmyVik

Maybe its just me, but I find it very hard to believe anything unless there is some proof.
People can say anything they like about someone else. Yet nowadays other people believe whats said just because they favour a person.

Meghan made Kate cry. - Proof or it didnt happen.
Kate made Meghan cry - Proof please, or it didnt happen.
Some unnamed person said "how dark will the childs skin be? - Proof, or it didnt happen.

I dont believe a word from any of them, until I see some proof. Otherwise its normal family bickering and should just be taken as such.
And going on TV to bicker about your family is Jeremy Kyle level stuff.

Roger_007

I watched some of the famous interview. I assume that all matters to be covered were gone through beforehand. All questions and answers would have been rehearsed. I think that Oprah’s feigned surprise when the matter of Archie’s skin was raised was particularly amusing, as if she didn’t know it was coming.
It was presented as if it was an impromptu, almost casual, conversion between the three parties involved. It was nothing of the sort. It was all carefully planned, scripted and acted.
It was just a bit of well-rehearsed soap opera. The only thing that I got out of it is that Meghan is a bloody good actress whereas Harry doesn’t have much stage presence.

extra gravy

extra gravy wrote: »

"Allege" :pac: It's there for all to see in the posts, I don't have to allege anything. Big difference between criticising posts and calling people you don't know "vile" "cretins"etc.

Don't worry, I'll be sticking around. Someone has to provide an alternative opinion in this echo chamber.

Oh no I spelt a word incorrectly .......... you left a space out between cretins and etc btw :rolleyes:

anewme

beakerjoe wrote: »

Meghan is a public figure, shes open for criticism and opinion, just as any public figure is.

Holding a negative opinion isnt abusive.

She gave an interview and shes fair game. Just because she is a woman, doesn't mean you cant criticise her.

Im probably more in the siding with Harry and Meghan camp, but I believe the posters opinions are fair and far from abusive.

I think the comments are a bit too much.

One thing having an opinion and not agreeing with Harry or Meghan, but there's going overboard in the use of language describing her.

Nothing to do with being a woman

I see what the poster is talking about.

JimmyVik

JimmyVik wrote: »

............
And going on TV to bicker about your family is Jeremy Kyle level stuff.

Indeed, all she was missing was the Burberry hat etc

beakerjoe

JimmyVik wrote: »

Maybe its just me, but I find it very hard to believe anything unless there is some proof.
People can say anything they like about someone else. Yet nowadays other people believe whats said just because they favour a person.

Meghan made Kate cry. - Proof or it didnt happen.
Kate made Meghan cry - Proof please, or it didnt happen.
Some unnamed person said "how dark will the childs skin be? - Proof, or it didnt happen.

I dont believe a word from any of them, until I see some proof. Otherwise its normal family bickering and should just be taken as such.

I am of similar thinking in terms of finding either side hard to believe.

Is she suicidal ? I dont know and probably will never know. Just because someone says they are suicidal doesn't mean they genuinely are. We will never truly know for sure.

It could be genuine and my heart goes out to he rif so, its very believable. But its also possible she is claiming this untruthfully to gain support and sympathy.

I dont agree with the "prove it or it didnt happen" angle though. Just because there is a lack of proof doesn't mean it didnt happen.

anewme

anewme wrote: »

..............

Nothing to do with being a woman

..............

Harry is being criticised also, throughout the topic.
But the wannabe feminists don't see that
Megan took centre stage, she said more, Harry wasn't there for half of it iirc.

beakerjoe

Roger_007 wrote: »

I watched some of the famous interview. I assume that all matters to be covered were gone through beforehand. All questions and answers would have been rehearsed. I think that Oprah’s feigned surprise when the matter of Archie’s skin was raised was particularly amusing, as if she didn’t know it was coming.
It was presented as if it was an impromptu, almost casual, conversion between the three parties involved. It was nothing of the sort. It was all carefully planned, scripted and acted.
It was just a bit of well-rehearsed soap opera. The only thing that I got out of it is that Meghan is a bloody good actress whereas Harry doesn’t have much stage presence.

Yeah it was all preplanned, nothing unexpected. All prepped and prepared. They showed what they wanted you to see.

It doesnt mean they are lying though, but its hard to 100 percent believe everything they said as truth.

extra gravy

beakerjoe wrote: »

Holding a negative opinion isnt abusive.

Never said it was, there's a difference between having a negative opinion and abusing people due to that opinion. Plenty of examples of the latter on this thread.

anewme

partyguinness wrote: »

I would have thought so. He is still within the fold and playing ball.

Playing ball is one way of putting it, I suppose, he played with too many balls by the looks of things. :pac:

I suppose that is the bigger elephant in the room then.

The Royal Family have not acted honourably in respect of him and his conduct. He refused to go for questioning, didn't he?

Multipass

Princess Calla wrote: »

Yeah the security is the one that got me too...I got the impression he felt he was thrown to the wolves.*

Considering his mother was killed by paparazzi chasing her I don't think his fears are unfounded.
.

Can’t let that go - yes the paparazzi were troublesome, but she was killed by her driver choosing to drive at a reckless and illegal speed whilst drunk. Not wearing a seat belt wouldn’t have helped either.

anewme

Augeo wrote: »

Harry is being criticised also, throughout the topic.
But the wannabe feminists don't see that
Megan took centre stage, she said more, Harry wasn't there for half of it iirc.

He is not subject to the same level of disparaging comments though, its he and I'm particularly referring to the poster referred to.

I pointed out earlier that he had referred to William, Kate and Harry, but Meghan was referred to as Markle.

Another poster said that her surname was used as a matter of reverence to her. Well if the language used by that poster is to denote reverence, I'd be hiding out when he decided to be irreverant!

This thread has nothing to do with "wannabe feminists", shows where your angle is?