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…173174176178179…732

Comments

  • Options
    #5252
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,915 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    I'm sure the met police weren't happy that the officers sent to Canada were treated as PAs and sent off on errands, to get coffees, sandwiches etc. I wonder if that had something to do with their decision to withdraw it?

    So if Harry and Meghan had/have an issue with the withdrawal of protection, a first class letter to Scotland Yard is where they should address their issues and not any of the royal residences.

    It’s another gripe of theirs with the royal family that either isn’t directed at the correct place, or isn’t something the current crowd put in place. It’s poor enough that people in Ireland who don’t have a monarchy(let’s never have one) seem to know the inns and outs of the British royal family better than members of that family.


  • Options
    #5253
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    superflyninja wrote: »
    What I find strange is so many people staunchly defending Markle, even though much of what she siad in the interview was problematic.

    I dont know the RF side of things, I barely got to hear Harry's side even, all I really got to hear was Markle's side.
    Many of the things she said were either incorrect or misrepresenting the truth, coupled with her very carefully chosen, vague language I think is perfectly valid grounds for criticism.
    If she was bullied then that is terrible. But this reaction from her was the wrong way to combat bullying.

    I actually don't care about Markle or the RF. But I dont like the kind of behaviour (IMO) she exhibited in the interview.

    I dont see a great many pro Markle people willing to discuss the interview specifically.

    1) Was she right to do such an interview in the first place? Throwing her husband's family under the bus to the world?
    2) What she said about her private marriage ceremony was totally untrue. What sort of light does that throw on the rest of what she said? Yes its easily explained as a private ceremony that held no legal weight but she specifically didnt say that. Its like she has that soft landing built into a lot of what she said.
    3) All her talk about security and withheld titles for her children. She insinuated it was racially motivated when in fact the rules were in place for a long time. The result would have been the same no matter who Harry married. Are we to believe she didnt google this or have Harry and/or the RF staff explain it all to her?
    4) The racial comment/comments. Was it even racist? What context was it said under? Or is it against the law now for a white person to say anything at all about skin tone under any circumstances?
    5) Vaguely and publicly pointing a racism accusation at a small group of people. That tars all of them with the racist brush.
    6) She wants to get away from the media spotlight? By doing an interview broadcast worldwide with Oprah Winfrey? By signing Neflix/Spotify deals?


    I think you have missed the whole thrust of the interview which was really about the racist British press (I'd say tabloids except I'd include the Telegraph in there) and the lack of support they got from The Firm in dealing with this. The whole point of the question mark about the colour of the child from a RF was a fear of the British press (IMO).



    Where does she say she wants to get away from the media spotlight?



    As for doing the interview - that was a fight back at the British Press, not at the RF who are very angry with her because she took them to court and won.


  • Options
    #5254
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Alarm activations does not mean a trespasser every time though does it?


    I've no idea, but they seem to have a fairly decent security system and with only one access road.


  • Options
    #5255
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,915 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    jm08 wrote: »
    I think you have missed the whole thrust of the interview which was really about the racist British press (I'd say tabloids except I'd include the Telegraph in there) and the lack of support they got from The Firm in dealing with this. The whole point of the question mark about the colour of the child from a RF was a fear of the British press (IMO).



    Where does she say she wants to get away from the media spotlight?



    As for doing the interview - that was a fight back at the British Press, not at the RF who are very angry with her because she took them to court and won.

    1.So they made a vague comment about the royal family and an alleged racist comment because of the British press ? Strange strategy and one that doesn’t hold up.

    2. Well why move to America if not to get away from the media in Britain ?


  • Options
    #5256
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    What has them saying Archie was denied a title due to being mixed race got to do with the British press?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5257
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    JoChervil wrote: »
    Again: according to Harry. And I believe they believe it, because what Meghan wants, Meghan gets, so they were expecting that they would get it anyway.


    All Meghan wanted was to borrow the wedding tiara so that they could do a practice hair trial for the wedding. Seemingly, this was putting out the person who minds the tiara's and Harry stepped in and said ''What Meghan wants, meghan gets.''

    I posted links earlier in the thread about protests of Canadian citizens in January as well as information in press to the public in the middle of February, that Canadian protection will be withdrawn with the end of March. They resigned from their duties at the beginning of January, so it was hardly the surprise.
    That was much publicised as well. Trump was bellowing about it as well.



    At the end of fiscal year in March 2020 they got money from Charles estate, which maybe they used for security. I don't know.


    According to Harry, they got nothing from Charles and they were basically couch surfing and relying on friends to look after them.

    And I think they did this interview because they expected the same money and didn't get it.


    Oprah at the start of the interview made it clear that they were not getting paid for it.


  • Options
    #5258
    FileNotFound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭FileNotFound


    Leg End Reject wrote: »
    It was pointed out that she wouldn't be invited, very few expected her to be there after that interview.

    Never mind the interview.

    Covid exists and at the time of death 30 people was the max allowed to attend a funeral in the UK. I assume that she wouldn't have made the cut at the best of times, given actual family members.

    I just think this particular topic is a storm in a boards teacup rather than something that proves or shows anything either way


  • Options
    #5259
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,035 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    jm08 wrote: »
    .''According to Harry, they got nothing from Charles and they were basically couch surfing and relying on friends to look after them.
    Ah here now!
    -They stated they wanted financial independence
    -They both have more than enough to cover accommodation costs, especially if they were more modest in their choice of home.

    Why should Charles subsidise them from his own private funds? Walk and lose the perks and privileges, same as any role or job.
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #5260
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    JoChervil wrote: »
    We will never know what caused what. But the fact is she didn't introduced him to Harry and it could have made that build up of things initiated by her.


    Harry had spoken to him several times on the phone according to Thomas Markle. She was expecting him to walk her down the isle, so she wasn't shunning him. And her mother was able to show up at the wedding having previously gone to Canada to meet Harry.


    Thomas Markle should never have set up photo shoots with him trying on a suit. There were none of Meghan's mother carrying on like that.


  • Options
    #5261
    valoren
    Registered Users Posts: 5,477 ✭✭✭valoren


    jm08 wrote: »
    Oprah at the start of the interview made it clear that they were not getting paid for it.

    It's Hollywood and Hollywood accounting presumably applies. They didn't get paid a fee and Oprah can genuinely say they weren't getting paid for sitting down to chat. It would swerve any accusations from the Palace of them cashing in. However, to give an example, Tom Hanks wasn't paid a fee for working on Forrest Gump. He didn't take a salary and worked for months without pay. He can honestly say he wasn't paid anything. He might not divulge that in lieu of a salary his "company" agreed to receive a gross profit percentage of the box office which ultimately had the coffers filled to the tune of $40 million though. Risk/reward type stuff. The author Winston Groom, in comparison, agreed to take 3% of Net profits but he got nothing because the movie, which made nearly $700 million, lost money. Hollywood is notorious for such shenanigans.

    I would assume a similar arrangement was agreed to get a quid pro quo cut of the gross "box office" for the interview i.e. we didn't get paid (but our "company" did).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5262
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Leg End Reject wrote: »
    I'd like to point out that it was a pro-Meghan poster who made the suggestion Charlotte bullied Meghan, and that the 7 or 8 children they think Meghan was left to mind were probably unruly.

    Poor Meghan, if it's not the press or a racist inlaw it's those pesky kids.


    Charlotte is a handful by all accounts - there is a photo of her sticking out her tongue on the way to the wedding at the photographers (which was described as fitting going to her Uncle Harry's wedding because he used to do that as well). There is also a video of her doing the same to her Grandfather Charles!


    Now she was 3, but in the week of your wedding preparations it could be a bit trying to have to deal with her antics and 7 or 8 other kids under the age of 8.


  • Options
    #5263
    Be right back
    Registered Users Posts: 6,177 ✭✭✭Be right back


    jm08 wrote: »
    Charlotte is a handful by all accounts - there is a photo of her sticking out her tongue on the way to the wedding at the photographers (which was described as fitting going to her Uncle Harry's wedding because he used to do that as well). There is also a video of her doing the same to her Grandfather Charles!


    Now she was 3, but in the week of your wedding preparations it could be a bit trying to have to deal with her antics and 7 or 8 other kids under the age of 8.

    Charlotte's a kid. Meghan's an adult.


  • Options
    #5264
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,035 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    jm08 wrote: »
    Charlotte is a handful by all accounts - there is a photo of her sticking out her tongue on the way to the wedding at the photographers (which was described as fitting going to her Uncle Harry's wedding because he used to do that as well). There is also a video of her doing the same to her Grandfather Charles!


    Now she was 3, but in the week of your wedding preparations it could be a bit trying to have to deal with her antics and 7 or 8 other kids under the age of 8.

    So an extroverted child who occasionally sticks out her tongue is now a bully? You were the one who came to that conclusion in the first place.

    Do you think Meghan was on her own? No mothers or nannies? How did crygate happen if Kate wasn't there and Meghan was left trying to "control" some children?
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #5265
    FileNotFound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭FileNotFound


    jm08 wrote: »
    Charlotte is a handful by all accounts - there is a photo of her sticking out her tongue on the way to the wedding at the photographers (which was described as fitting going to her Uncle Harry's wedding because he used to do that as well). There is also a video of her doing the same to her Grandfather Charles!


    Now she was 3, but in the week of your wedding preparations it could be a bit trying to have to deal with her antics and 7 or 8 other kids under the age of 8.



    Hold on you are actually blaming a 3 year old for bullying a grown woman??

    Wow just wow.. Given the defense of Meghan in most comments i'm inclined to start believing she is a bit of a media hungry looney who takes after her father.

    But thankfully i won't judge her on boards.ie comments - that would be like believing the daily mail


  • Options
    #5266
    Immortal Starlight
    Registered Users Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭Immortal Starlight


    In all fairness who actually believes Meghan was expected to look after 7 or 8 children. I’ve never heard anything so ridiculous.


  • Options
    #5267
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,915 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    jm08 wrote: »
    Charlotte is a handful by all accounts - there is a photo of her sticking out her tongue on the way to the wedding at the photographers (which was described as fitting going to her Uncle Harry's wedding because he used to do that as well). There is also a video of her doing the same to her Grandfather Charles!


    Now she was 3, but in the week of your wedding preparations it could be a bit trying to have to deal with her antics and 7 or 8 other kids under the age of 8.

    Exactly she was three. Can anyone of use say we were angels at the age of three ? Meghan was literally the adult in the room so maybe don’t blame the kids.


  • Options
    #5268
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    1.So they made a vague comment about the royal family and an alleged racist comment because of the British press ? Strange strategy and one that doesn’t hold up.

    2. Well why move to America if not to get away from the media in Britain ?


    I really don't know what you are trying to say here, so I will explain again to you.


    1. The reason why they left the UK was because of the treatment from the press that Meghan was getting.
    2. They were not getting any support from The Firm (such as correcting lies in the press which would be done for the Cambridges).
    3. They did the interview to explain why and how they left the UK and counter some of the misinformation out there.


  • Options
    #5269
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    jm08 wrote: »
    Charlotte is a handful by all accounts - there is a photo of her sticking out her tongue on the way to the wedding at the photographers (which was described as fitting going to her Uncle Harry's wedding because he used to do that as well). There is also a video of her doing the same to her Grandfather Charles!


    Now she was 3, but in the week of your wedding preparations it could be a bit trying to have to deal with her antics and 7 or 8 other kids under the age of 8.

    Again with the cheap shots towards a 3 year old child. Anything to to avoid having to confront the likely possibility that maybe Meghan can be a bit difficult at times. No no. We must preserve her saintly image at all times, even if that means perpetuating a completely made up narrative that she was bullied by a toddler. I think when arguments gets to this level it’s time to maybe have a word.


  • Options
    #5270
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,035 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    I suppose George will be the racist next.
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #5271
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,915 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    jm08 wrote: »
    I really don't know what you are trying to say here, so I will explain again to you.


    1. The reason why they left the UK was because of the treatment from the press that Meghan was getting.
    2. They were not getting any support from The Firm (such as correcting lies in the press which would be done for the Cambridges).
    3. They did the interview to explain why and how they left the UK and counter some of the misinformation out there.

    Respectfully,I think you do, you’ve just decided to ignore what was said in the interview and are going to the uk press(which lets face it can be unpleasant to say the least) because the interview isn’t aging well. I really don’t understand why they believed this interview would play well in the UK(where it matters) because it clearly hasn’t.

    How was alleging that a member of their own family made racist comments countering misinformation ? To my knowledge there hadn’t been any reports that anyone in the family had made any comments about race. It seems like corrected information that didn’t need to be corrected.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5272
    FileNotFound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭FileNotFound


    So from this thread so far I have learned:

    - Meg lied in the interview about why her child would not be a prince.
    - H&M lied in the interview about being married before their wedding.
    - H&M lied when they claim the royals removed there security (this is controlled by scotland yard)
    - H&M other claims have not been backed up but equally cannot be refuted.
    - Megs family is entirely to blame for breakdown in relations with her, she cannot be blamed.
    - Harrys family are being entirely blamed for breakdown in relations with the couple, H&M cannot be blamed.
    - H&M turning on the royals in a press interview, was really just their way of showing how mean the press in the UK was to them.
    - Meg had a good relationship with Philip despite him being the biggest racist in the family.
    - Meg knew nothing of the royals before joining, blogging about Kate as a princess does not count or something.
    - Meg was belittled when she wasn't allowed to try on the crown jewels during her hair dressing rehearsal. It was so unfair.


    - The Royals are well known for racist comments Philip and Harry especially, but they refute being racist.
    - The Royals didn't refute each false claim the press made about Meg.
    - The Royals didn't make that much effort to support Meg in anyway really.
    - The royals let Meg be bullied by a gang of children.
    - Kate made Meg cry but it was all to cover up an unreported/unverified story of William cheating.
    - All the tributes were a bit sh1t and needed a round 2.


    Is any of this wrong?

    Edited to add new info....


  • Options
    #5273
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,649 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    jm08 wrote: »
    Charlotte is a handful by all accounts - there is a photo of her sticking out her tongue on the way to the wedding at the photographers (which was described as fitting going to her Uncle Harry's wedding because he used to do that as well). There is also a video of her doing the same to her Grandfather Charles!


    Now she was 3, but in the week of your wedding preparations it could be a bit trying to have to deal with her antics and 7 or 8 other kids

    Please. Stop this. It’s just utterly ridiculous to even consider what you’re suggesting here. Why are you suggesting it?

    I get it that you are more pro Meghan here, and that is fine, but in trying to be pro Meghan, why are you introducing something that is absolutely preposterous?

    Meghan was never left to look after, or deal with 7-8 kids..

    A few days ago you suggested it was 6-7 kids... now 7-8?!


  • Options
    #5274
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,272 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    jm08 wrote: »
    All Meghan wanted was to borrow the wedding tiara so that they could do a practice hair trial for the wedding. Seemingly, this was putting out the person who minds the tiara's and Harry stepped in and said ''What Meghan wants, meghan gets.''

    Oh is that all? Yeah she just wanted to borrow a priceless, historical piece of jewelry without giving any notice. She wanted to access Buckingham palace when the queen , and also the lady in charge of the jewelry, were at Windsor and not able to grant her access. What's the big deal?


    Now I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure you cant just walk into Buckingham palace and in to where the millions of pounds worth of jewels are stored with your hairdresser to quickly try something on. Do you really think that would be in any way feasible when taking into account the value of the items and the protocol around their use?


  • Options
    #5275
    FileNotFound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭FileNotFound


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Oh is that all? Yeah she just wanted to borrow a priceless, historical piece of jewelry without giving any notice. She wanted to access Buckingham palace when the queen , and also the lady in charge of the jewelry, were at Windsor and not able to grant her access. Now Im no expert but I'm pretty sure you cant just walk into Buckingham palace and in to where the millions of pounds worth of jewels are stored with your hairdresser to quickly try something on. Do you really think that would be in any way feasible?

    I'd say save your fingers typing, the poster was blaming a 3 year old for bullying megan a few posts back - It has to be a wind up at this stage, that or epic fanboy/fangirl


  • Options
    #5276
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,272 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    jm08 wrote: »
    Charlotte is a handful by all accounts - there is a photo of her sticking out her tongue on the way to the wedding at the photographers (which was described as fitting going to her Uncle Harry's wedding because he used to do that as well). There is also a video of her doing the same to her Grandfather Charles!


    Now she was 3, but in the week of your wedding preparations it could be a bit trying to have to deal with her antics and 7 or 8 other kids under the age of 8.

    Oh no, an actual child sticking our her tongue! Whatever next?! Can you imagine what she gets up to behind closed doors? There may even be tantrums, shocking stuff!


  • Options
    #5277
    Purple Mountain
    Registered Users Posts: 13,176 ✭✭✭✭Purple Mountain


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Oh no, an actual child sticking our her tongue! Whatever next?! Can you imagine what she gets up to behind closed doors? There may even be tantrums, shocking stuff!

    Send her to the tower.

    To thine own self be true



  • Options
    #5278
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Oh is that all? Yeah she just wanted to borrow a priceless, historical piece of jewelry without giving any notice. She wanted to access Buckingham palace when the queen , and also the lady in charge of the jewelry, were at Windsor and not able to grant her access. What's the big deal?


    Now I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure you cant just walk into Buckingham palace and in to where the millions of pounds worth of jewels are stored with your hairdresser to quickly try something on. Do you really think that would be in any way feasible when taking into account the value of the items and the protocol around their use?


    Exactly. A tiara like that represents a fortune in diamonds. Looking after it would be a big responsibility and it needs its own security. You wouldn't want to release it into an uncontrolled situation where anyone could get at it. Kate tried on a plastic tiara for her hair trial


  • Options
    #5279
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,649 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Oh is that all? Yeah she just wanted to borrow a priceless, historical piece of jewelry without giving any notice. She wanted to access Buckingham palace when the queen , and also the lady in charge of the jewelry, were at Windsor and not able to grant her access. What's the big deal?


    Now I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure you cant just walk into Buckingham palace and in to where the millions of pounds worth of jewels are stored with your hairdresser to quickly try something on. Do you really think that would be in any way feasible when taking into account the value of the items and the protocol around their use?

    All this just cements the point. The woman was completely unsuited for royalty and all that it entails..


  • Options
    #5280
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,035 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    Purple Mountain wrote: »
    Send her to the tower.

    Off with her head!
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5281
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,272 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Exactly. A tiara like that represents a fortune in diamonds. Looking after it would be a big responsibility and it needs its own security. You wouldn't want to release it into an uncontrolled situation where anyone could get at it. Kate tried on a plastic tiara for her hair trial

    Apparently its worth 2 million pounds. And people seem to think Meghan and whoever else should be able to just waltz in to Buckingham palace willy nilly and take it? Talk about delusional.


Advertisement