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

cnocbui

Deleted User wrote: »

I think there are definitely problems in the Royal family but whether or not they are garden variety family issues or more serious I don't know.
Well there is Andrew I suppose and I can't help but feel there is something a bit off with Peter Philips eldest. Obviously just my view from reading rubbish though

I suspect the staff have been selling inside gossip to the papers for years. Why would you give it for free? The Owner of the Daily Mail, Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, is worth $1.7 B - why make him richer, for free?

I think that is the core problem for the RF.

JimmyVik

beakerjoe wrote: »

See while I have no idea what to believe, I know this.

This was pre planned, pre screened, Oprah was hand picked.

How they can masquerade this as a "nothing is off limits, off the cuff" interview is beyond me.

Oprah has no credibility from this. Shes spoofing. Like who would ever believe this was not a PR interview.

Im not saying Piers Morgan should have done it, but someone not hand picked by Team Harry/Meghan.

For this reason the interview lacks credibility.

You are correct. The simple fact that they tried to hoodwink people by pretending that Oprah was surprised has thrown the whole interview into the realm of hoodwinking the viewer.
Only the thickest of viewers would not realize this. And that who they are after.

Stateofyou

anewme wrote: »

You are wasting your breath.

Everyone's gone from here and it's the same few people, left, basically saying what a knut Meghan Markle is.

It's an echo chamber of hate. You wouldn't allow your child to be online slagging someone off like you see here. An adult would lose their job if it was centred around a colleague. If they had to put their real name and profile picture behind the words posted here, they'd never be posted. There's criticism and opinion and then there's crossing the line to online bullying. That line has been crossed here many times and I think it's disgraceful.

Purple Mountain

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think there are definitely problems in the Royal family but whether or not they are garden variety family issues or more serious I don't know.
Well there is Andrew I suppose and I can't help but feel there is something a bit off with Peter Philips eldest. Obviously just my view from reading rubbish though

Something 'off' about a 10 year old?

retro:electro

cnocbui wrote: »

The Daily Mail and co wind them up like little clock work toys and they are still running - hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate...

Pretty rich coming from someone who used a bitchy gossip blog as a genuine source.

Stateofyou

retro:electro wrote: »

Pretty rich coming from someone who used a bitchy gossip blog as a genuine source.

And you're essentially participating here in a bitchy gossip blog; pot/kettle?

retro:electro

Stateofyou wrote: »

And you're essentially participating here in a bitchy gossip blog; pot/kettle?

I’m giving my opinion on the interview like many others and believe I have provided sources for a lot of what I have said. If you feel my posts are subpar feel free to report them instead of hanging around like a bad smell trying to police opinions

beakerjoe

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m giving my opinion on the interview like many others and believe I have provided sources for a lot of what I have said. If you feel my posts are subpar feel free to report them instead of hanging around like a bad smell trying to police opinions

While I dont agree one way or the other that Meghan is as bad as people believe, if you think shes a schemer and a liar, then its a fair opinion.

Leg End Reject

Anyone who gives a public interview knows they will be discussed, that's primarily why they do it.

As for the work analogy, only the most naive person would think that others don't talk about them in both a positive and negative way. That happens in our personal lives too.

Do people think M & H or Oprah are genuinely shocked that some viewers doubt them?

beakerjoe

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Anyone who gives a public interview knows they will be discussed, that's primarily why they do it.

As for the work analogy, only the most naive person would think that others don't talk about them in both a positive and negative way. That happens in our personal lives too.

Do people think M & H or Oprah are genuinely shocked that some viewers doubt them?

If I had a grievance in work with a colleague or manager, I wouldn't stand on a desk and give my 2 cents to everyone in the office.

And if I did, it would be reasonable to expected that my colleagues would discuss it at length.

You do an interview with a big US network that is viewed globally, you are gonna get global opinion and are open to public opinion, good or bad.

Esp when you claim its an unscripted, unplanned, nothing off the table interview....which it was anything but.

dogbert27

I've only just read the piece today that she said Kate being called "weighty Katy" by the media wasn't as bad as the perceived racism she received!

So much for being a feminist and tone deaf too considering Harry's mother had an issue with bulimia which makes it actually worse for Kate to be targeted about her weight!

Lillyfae

dogbert27 wrote: »

I've only just read the piece today that she said Kate being called "weighty Katy" by the media wasn't as bad as the perceived racism she received!

So much for being a feminist and tone deaf too considering Harry's mother had an issue with bulimia which makes it actually worse for Kate to be targeted about her weight!

It was wait-y Katie- as in she was waiting a long time for an engagement ring

dogbert27

Lillyfae wrote: »

It was wait-y Katie- as in she was waiting a long time for an engagement ring

Thanks for clarifying! I'll change my opinion of that piece so!

JoChervil

Stateofyou wrote: »

It's an echo chamber of hate. You wouldn't allow your child to be online slagging someone off like you see here. An adult would lose their job if it was centred around a colleague. If they had to put their real name and profile picture behind the words posted here, they'd never be posted. There's criticism and opinion and then there's crossing the line to online bullying. That line has been crossed here many times and I think it's disgraceful.

That line was crossed here many times by posters towards fellow posters, but you are somehow not sensitive about them.

That what was posted towards me two days ago was pure bulling.

anewme

dogbert27 wrote: »

I've only just read the piece today that she said Kate being called "weighty Katy" by the media wasn't as bad as the perceived racism she received!

So much for being a feminist and tone deaf too considering Harry's mother had an issue with bulimia which makes it actually worse for Kate to be targeted about her weight!

Talk about barking up the wrong tree. :pac: :pac: :pac:

From the Interview:

“Kate was called ‘Waity Katie,’ waiting to marry William,” she said. “While I imagine that was really hard—and I do, I can’t picture what that felt like—this is not the same.”

So anxious to crucify a person for anything, thats some leap. So much for sticking to facts.

anewme

JoChervil wrote: »

That line was crossed here many times by posters towards fellow posters, but you are somehow not sensitive about them.

That what was posted towards me two days ago was pure bulling.

What "bulling" was posted towards you?

beakerjoe

anewme wrote: »

What "bulling" was posted towards you?

If someone believes they were bullied they should report it to the mods.

retro:electro

It’s not what Meghan was referring to but Kate’s weight was scrutinised my the tabloids though, and she was often referred to as “weight-y Katie”. There was always subtle digs thrown in like “Kate slims down for her big day”, implying she had weight to lose.

anewme

cnocbui wrote: »

How do you know when something was Meghan's fault?

Check for a pulse; if you find one, it was her fault.

The weighty comments are testimony to this.

dogbert27

anewme wrote: »

Talk about barking up the wrong tree. :pac: :pac: :pac:

From the Interview:

“Kate was called ‘Waity Katie,’ waiting to marry William,” she said. “While I imagine that was really hard—and I do, I can’t picture what that felt like—this is not the same.”

So anxious to crucify a person for anything, thats some leap. So much for sticking to facts.

anewme wrote: »

The weighty comments are testimony to this.

I accepted I formed a wrong opinion 10 mins before you decided to quote me and laugh at me and make snide remarks.

Yet it's the others on here who are the bullying type :rolleyes:

PhoenixParker

dogbert27 wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying! I'll change my opinion of that piece so!

She was very dismissive of Kate's experience.

Waity Katy might have been "rude" but Kate's experience was not just rudeness. Kate was stalked and harassed by the paparazzi for years even before she was married. Her whole family was too. Kate had topless photos of her published internationally and they were the subject of a prosecution. Her sisters phone was hacked.

The narrative of "they were only rude to Kate" is false.

Meghan herself says she did no research, just talked to Harry, knew nothing about the royals, didn't and doesn't read the papers. One might wonder why she's asserting an opinion about how Kate was treated compared to her when by her own account, she doesn't know. . .

retro:electro

For me it was the implication that all Kate had to endure was a few “wait-y Kate-y” headlines. Kate was absolutely scrutinised and in the early days, every bit as disliked by the papers as Meghan claims she was. She had topless pictures of her published, it doesn’t really get more intrusive than that. She had her weight constantly commented on, she was either too fat or too thin for the media. Her family were scrutinised and her mother often called a social climber. Her sister was also a victim of a lot of negative press despite not ever opening her mouth to anyone, I don’t think I’ve ever even heard her speak but she was considered fair game through mere association. So for Meghan to dismiss Kate’s experiences and insist her treatment was worse because it was racist (despite ITV having to edit out the part that insinuates the headlines were racially charged because it was untrue) is quite self absorbed. She could have made the point that what all women have to go through in that family is wrong but no it’s all about ME.

JimmyVik

retro:electro wrote: »

For me it was the implication that all Kate had to endure was a few “wait-y Kate-y” headlines. Kate was absolutely scrutinised and in the early days, every bit as disliked by the papers as Meghan claims she was. She had topless pictures of her published, it doesn’t really get more intrusive than that. She had her weight constantly commented on, she was either too fat or too thin for the media. Her family were scrutinised and her mother often called a social climber. Her sister was also a victim of a lot of negative press despite not ever opening her mouth to anyone, I don’t think I’ve ever even heard her speak but she was considered fair game through mere association. So for Meghan to dismiss Kate’s experiences and insist her treatment was worse because it was racist (despite ITV having to edit out the part that insinuates the headlines were racially charged because it was untrue) is quite self absorbed.

Didnt the papers send spies into Kates workplace to trap her into saying something they could publish too.
Papers should just leave everyone alone, including Meghan.
But Meghan went to the media herself about the royal family, for money.

Neyite

The negative headlines for Kate only abated when she had her children. It was relentless, and I'm sure it was hurtful to her and her family at times. If ever Meghan fades into obscurity again no doubt they'll restart their critique of Kate.


But the best strategy is to not comment, unless it's a serious thing like the long-lens photo on honeymoon or other more serious allegations. If you have a policy of commenting on every little banality like flower girl dresses to set the record straight, you are going to become a cropper on the times you can't set the record straight with a comment. Your silence will be correctly assumed to be confirming the story.

anewme

dogbert27 wrote: »

I accepted I formed a wrong opinion 10 mins before you decided to quote me and laugh at me and make snide remarks.

Yet it's the others on here who are the bullying type :rolleyes:

Its not bullying you - its pointing out how anything can be twisted to use against her. And that facts are of little concern.

It clearly demonstrates that anything to do with Meghan is used against her and that people are too eager to jump to conclusions to paint her in a bad light and assume the worst of her without checking their facts.

She can't do anything right. Even wear a coat in October to a wedding when there was a storm due. (not saying you said that, but it's the same way of thinking)

dogbert27

anewme wrote: »

Its not bullying you - its pointing out how anything can be twisted to use against her. And that facts are of little concern.

It clearly demonstrates that anything to do with Meghan is used against her and that people are too eager to jump to conclusions to paint her in a bad light and assume the worst of her without checking their facts.

She can't do anything right. Even wear a coat in October to a wedding when there was a storm due. (not saying you said that, but it's the same way of thinking)

But if I feel bullied is it not my truth?

Are you saying you don't believe my truth? (similar to Pierce Morgan not believing Meghan's truth?)

If you were just making a point you would not have put laughing emoji's after your comment about my post.

In fact if you are as above all this as you claim to be you would have actually acknowledged my retraction 10 mins before your post instead of attacking my original post.

anewme

dogbert27 wrote: »

But if I feel bullied is it not my truth?

Are you saying you don't believe my truth? (similar to Pierce Morgan not believing Meghan's truth?)

If you were just making a point you would not have put laughing emoji's after your comment about my post.

In fact if you are as above all this as you claim to be you would have actually acknowledged my retraction 10 mins before your post instead of attacking my original post.

If you make allegations of bullying against someone, that is not your truth. That is what you are alleging. Same as in a court of law. The person has a right to come back at you and refute your allegations against them.

Meghan saying she is mentally unwell, is her own business, she's not making allegations against anyone else. Her mental health.

Not sure if you will see the difference.

The laughing emojis show how far people will go when they want to believe something.

dogbert27

anewme wrote: »

If you make allegations of bullying against someone, that is not your truth. That is what you are alleging. Same as in a court of law. The person has a right to come back at you and refute your allegations against them.

Meghan saying she is mentally unwell, is her own business, she's not making allegations against anyone else. Her mental health.

Not sure if you will see the difference.

The laughing emojis show how far people will go when they want to believe something.

I made a retraction 10 minutes before you came in and ridiculed my original post. So your laughing emojis were to make me feel small for my opinion. Thanks.

This whole thread is discussing a public figure who decided to tell the world her account of events that happened.

She made racist allegations against Buckingham Palace, not one person who could defend themselves but smeared the entire Royal family.

If her mental health is her own business and not to be discussed by others then she should not be doing a global interview telling the world about it.

walshb

anewme wrote: »

If you make allegations of bullying against someone, that is not your truth. That is what you are alleging. Same as in a court of law. The person has a right to come back at you and refute your allegations against them.

Meghan saying she is mentally unwell, is her own business, she's not making allegations against anyone else. Her mental health.

Not sure if you will see the difference.

The laughing emojis show how far people will go when they want to believe something.

She damn well did make allegations....you are being deliberately obtuse here.

Just because she did not outright say it, she is blaming her feeling suicidal on the firm, as she describes them.

Otherwise why bother saying something so serious? What she "said" was I wanted to kill myself because of them.....

Bypassing feeling upset, disappointed, anxious.....a good and decent person would not at all have made such a claim on such a global scale, true or not, all in order to diss her in laws.

No, straight to death and suicide...

She knew that this claim would be the one to get the headlines, and the claim to really level against the firm.

Devious througout the interview

Devious with the mental health card, race card, and the cry-gate nonsense, where she made sure to try pin the blame on Kate, and with her fake and insincere praising Kate for an apology that Kate allegedly made

Meghan's truth is a a crock of sh1t.

Leg End Reject

retro:electro wrote: »

For me it was the implication that all Kate had to endure was a few “wait-y Kate-y” headlines. Kate was absolutely scrutinised and in the early days, every bit as disliked by the papers as Meghan claims she was. She had topless pictures of her published, it doesn’t really get more intrusive than that. She had her weight constantly commented on, she was either too fat or too thin for the media. Her family were scrutinised and her mother often called a social climber. Her sister was also a victim of a lot of negative press despite not ever opening her mouth to anyone, I don’t think I’ve ever even heard her speak but she was considered fair game through mere association. So for Meghan to dismiss Kate’s experiences and insist her treatment was worse because it was racist (despite ITV having to edit out the part that insinuates the headlines were racially charged because it was untrue) is quite self absorbed. She could have made the point that what all women have to go through in that family is wrong but no it’s all about ME.

They even looked at her ancestors and she was mocked that some had been miners.

The horror of having a working class background which her parents have the nerve to leave behind! Except her mother of course, who was ridiculed for having worked as a flight attendant.