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

20 is an adult. As for "following the example of the rest of his family", it's quite a shame that, overall, he didn't. Blithely saying that him dressing up in a Nazi uniform at the age of 20 more than 50 years after the end of WWII is in any way comparable to a seven year old mimicking a Nazi salute six years before it is, frankly, ridiculous.

In any event, it could scarcely be said that he undertook much in the way of royal duties or service during any of his years even before Meghan appeared. Oh, and please don't bother to trot out his military service. Thousands of other servicemen and women did far more than the brief ten week and twenty week deployments. Over 450 of them died.

So I’d we disagree with Harry and Meaghan we’re all trolls now- ah right Ted🤪

It was a Sussex "source". Take from that what you will.

You do realise that everything you just said (the social media trolls, the gutter press) is applicable to any controversial public figure? It goes with the territory. Trolls, Bots, Arseholes etc. on Social media is a problem but it is a general societal one.

Digital paper never refused ink and anonymity allows for cowards to post some pretty out there material. I think most people are capable of discerning between facts and fiction though e.g. Anonymous posters saying Perry is a pedo but with no evidence. Most people would dismiss it but you're always going to have gullible people believing it. Same goes for conspiracy theories regarding H&M i.e. show me the beef or we can assume it is nonsense/BS.

You can't fix stupid. No one can. Not even a Monarch. So to be in the public eye and be controversial then it's something that needs to be both expected and managed.

You are disagreeing with them? What are you disagreeing with them about? Climate change? Israeli/Palestine conflict? Invasion of Ukraine? Are they arguing back?

😂 Since when would a Sussex ''source'' leak to the Express 😂 Thats where the story originated. A US publication quoted them. https://deadline.com/2023/12/harry-meghan-believe-royal-family-behind-vendetta-blocking-big-brand-deals-1235670200/

It takes a particularly evil troll to attack the parent whose child died in the Uvalde shooting and the nephew of one of the teachers just because they spoke up about Meghan's visit to Uvalde. I believe the manager of the centre who responded similarly was also attacked. Thats who you are saying have some sort of god given right to abuse people because they are in the public eye.

And most people are not capable of discerning fact from fiction. For example, Piers Morgan's claim about 17 lies in the Oprah interview. I've said one of them was about the private ceremony they had before their wedding. Piers claimed it wasn't ''legal'' so it was a lie. Most people are not up to seeing the detail of what is claimed. Did you believe that she brought a camera crew to Uvalde? I bet you did!

Do you not think there is something wrong when people (who Meghan or Harry) don't know are attacking their associates who do know them. That is just evil. Mud sticks!

The Monarch should have done what the King of Norway did and deny these people the oxygen to allow these people to just attack Meghan. Show some moral courage and decency. A good time would have been the depiction of Archie as a chimp, or Rachel Johnson saying that Meghan was tickening the royal blood in her news paper article. That is simply a shocking way to treat another human being, let alone your daughter-in=law.

Good for her, trying to keep a low profile. But, why was she there? What connection to Uvalde? Why no other visits to similar tragedies - before or since? Why no action such as lobbying for gun control? It's good to ask questions. Gets us back to fundamentals, eh?

This person (his aunt, a teacher, died in the Uvalde shooting) says that Meghan has been continually in touch with the family and sending gifts as well.

https://twitter.com/fuhknjo/status/1738504196733743543

Paige thinks she has every right to abuse this man because (in her own words).

Isn't that argument one we hear here - Meghan is a narcisist and Harry is a hen pecked clown? This person feels entitled to express herself as a citizen (someone should tell her she is a subject!).

This kind of behaviour can't be doing the reputation of the Brits any good. First of all she can't get her facts right, doesn't realise that it was announced the very next day after the interview that it wasn't QEII or Philip.

It wasn't "announced". It was Gayle King doing damage control for them once the general consensus was, considering he had a long history of gaffes, that it was Philip who was the concerned one i.e. the guy dying in hospital. That lack of forethought backfired on them. Optics were awful and King was their proxy. That couldn't stand since having suspicion hang over the other two couples was clearly the intent of not naming any names.

Fair play to you for coming around to not thinking it was a publicity stunt when the facts were presented to you.

Iirc King said she had been told this by Oprah who presumably was told by Harry and Meghan that it wasn't the Queen or Phillip.

I came to the view that Meghan went to Uvalde as a self promotion exercise and photo opportunity. Catherine went to the vigil as a gesture of support.

You have to look at things in the round. Meghan thinks of herself first and foremost. Her behaviour to her old and unwell father speaks volumes about her. I wonder what narrative will be spun when the father passes away. Have a proper read of the Spectator article. I guess H&M would have sued them if it misrepresented her actions

Catherine makes long term commitments to the causes she wants to champion. Meghan’s MO is flitting in for a couple of hours, then a seven vehicle cavalcade to whisk her away to the next “event”. Meghan thinks style (or word salad) is more important than substance

Anyway happy Christmas to all, and don’t forget 7.45pm on ITV1 and ITVX to enjoy Royal Carols: Together at Christmas 🎄

https://archive.is/2023.12.23-183726/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-and-meghan-pr-chief-ashley-hansen-resigns-npq5v5w93...

I don't think so 😕

Well, you are basing your opinion on stuff that is factually incorrect. The first sentence is a lie in the Spectator article (Boris used be editor, so you know they don't have much of a grip on the truth) and the opinion piece is written by a Conservative, who doesn't have much time for all this ''woke'' stuff. The article is based on a lie that she arrived with a camera crew for starters. He goes onto to explain that this is all for the Netflix docuseries, when in fact there was nothing about any of their charity work in the docuseries. There has been incessant deranger cries that they have hidden mikes etc., and that the royal family are terrified to say anything to them because they will record them and publish them. These derangers think that its ok, not illegal to record someone without their permission and publish it. They haven't grasped that the gutter press in the UK is paying out millions to people that they have done this to including Prince William whose phone was hacked.

I'd say Meghan thinks first about her family's safety. Thats why they spend $3m a year on security. You don't spend that kind of money on security if its not necessary. What has she and her family done to deserve that. Its not like she ordered the bombing of Dresden or the invasion of Iraq!

I don't know where you got the idea that she doesn't make long term commitment to her causes and Kate does! What does Kate do for women victims of crime/abuse? Nothing. She flitted into that which was ok (if she wore a mask) because of what happened and who it happened to, but she didn't. She should have been prosecuted like some of the other women as the vigil was banned because of Covid.

Now Meghan visited Uvalde, brought food to the volunteers and blood donators, worked in the kitchen and left without saying anything when she heard that Beta O'Rourke was arriving with his entourage in case she would be recognised. Her security make her excuses. She phones and sends gifts regularly to the sister/family of one of the teachers (whose son came on to defend her on X), and she has donated to the building of a children's playground ($200,000 I think). And significantly, she didn't turn up at the opening of the playground which you would have expected her to do as a self-publicist. How do you explain that one because it is the exact opposite to what you claim she is like.

Donating $200,000 is word salad? Really?

QED