Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Stateofyou

valoren wrote: »

Again with the cognitive dissonance. Someone makes a critical post which highlights a pattern of conduct in ghosting, dumping people in which Meghan is a common denominator. This causes dissonance but to ease it you choose to believe that the poster is under the influence of a biased media and incapable of actually forming a perfectly valid opinion or deduction all on their own.

So multiple phone calls (which went unanswered) and a heartfelt letter pleading with her dad to stop talking about them to the press is ghosting? Who was dumped. And maybe you say dumped, they might say valid resignation, different values and/or needed boundaries-depending on what you're even referring to. You can't be taken seriously.

banie01

Stateofyou wrote: »

When you decide to have a rational discussion, let me know. :pac:

Feel free to specifically address any of my irrationality, and I will

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't need to know. Basic fact is that Meaghan wanted something and the Queen refused. Not because Meaghan would own it, or wreck it, but simply she felt Meaghan wasn't worth it. You can dress it up whatever way you want, but that is what is boils down to.

Doesn't start the new family in the best of spirits does it? It doesn't matter about the cots, that wouldn't register with the queen who has no value of money.

This is just ridiculous!
They maybe called the crown jewels but the queen doesn't have a dressing room full of tiaras to loan out to people.
That's not the way it works. There are probably any amount of civil servants involved when one of these tiaras are worn.
Protocol dictates a lot of what happens at official functions.
There are, no doubt, some things that the totals cannot wear/do/say for fear of offending someone/another country or causing some diplomatic incident.
Obviously, they do not know all these things themselves, but are advised, all the time, by their royal sides and senior civil servants.

You know nothing of the tiara that she wanted to wear, nor of the reasons she could not. I'm sure there were plenty of other tiaras she could wear.

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

When you decide to have a rational discussion, let me know. :pac:

You were the one who cut dead the conversation with the beneath me comment

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

So multiple phone calls (which went unanswered) and a heartfelt letter pleading with her dad to stop talking about them to the press is ghosting? Who was dumped. And maybe you say dumped, they might say valid resignation, different values and/or needed boundaries-depending on what you're even referring to. You can't be taken seriously.

And your inability to think that they are nothing less than perfect can’t be taken seriously either.

There is a lot of transference going on? Perhaps, you may be facing a similar situation in your life and hence the irrationally defensive nature of the post?

I know somebody who absolutely venerated the ground that Diana walked on. She was obsessed. The background was that she too was going through a divorce at the same and felt she received similar treatment from her in-laws.

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

I actually work within the legal profession thank you, I'm good. You shouldn't presume.

You work in the legal profession and you state that something written is slander? Hilarious! You better go back to law-school, my friend

Leroy42

bubblypop wrote: »

You know nothing of the tiara that she wanted to wear, nor of the reasons she could not. I'm sure there were plenty of other tiaras she could wear.

I never said I did, but nor do you.

It is simply another example, based entirely I admit on leaked stories, that has been in the press. But instead of the angle that you rightly point out could very well have been the case, it was put out there that Meaghan had a strop about it.

I have no idea whether she did or not. But, the palace where aware of the press, as has been pointed out Kate got some of the same, yet they feel it not right to get involved.

But just as Meaghan should have known what she was getting herself into, Harry certainly should have been honest about it, the family should have known what was going to happen and how it was likely to impact a person from well outside that sphere. They should have taken steps to help her.

Maybe they did, again I have no idea, but the fact that Harry felt he had no option but to leave tells me that if they did they didn't go far enough.

And that is why I find it odd that the queen is getting off scot free on this. Nobody is asking how she allowed it to get to this point. Why she couldn't have done more, not only for the RF as an institution, but for her family.

Now, plenty of families have bust ups, these won't be the first couple that feel they need to step back from the family, and they won't be the last. But unlike most families, this family have unlimited resources to help them deal with situations such as this.

It seems very much that the queen learnt very little from the Diana saga and is now back to blaming 'that woman' rather than looking at herself.

And lets we all forget, this family as a basket case by most measures. But this is glossed over as apparently Meaghan has some issues!

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

Oh FFS. And so what? It's her business. Her unsupportive father and HALF sister who's she's met a couple times in her whole life and grew up completely separate from? Who cares what terms they would use. And for a situation that sounds purely made up and no one's business anyway.

It's not blind devotion. As I said, I take them at face value, not mean and made up speculation. Key word you said "beliefs." Mine I at least try to base off what is known from them directly. Not bs gossip and mean speculation.

In my books, HALF sister is just sister. You seem to use it as a cut-down, as if her relationship to her is somehow inferior on this fact alone

BettyS

Leroy42 wrote: »

I never said I did, but nor do you.

It is simply another example, based entirely I admit on leaked stories, that has been in the press. But instead of the angle that you rightly point out could very well have been the case, it was put out there that Meaghan had a strop about it.

I have no idea whether she did or not. But, the palace where aware of the press, as has been pointed out Kate got some of the same, yet they feel it not right to get involved.

But just as Meaghan should have known what she was getting herself into, Harry certainly should have been honest about it, the family should have known what was going to happen and how it was likely to impact a person from well outside that sphere. They should have taken steps to help her.

Maybe they did, again I have no idea, but the fact that Harry felt he had no option but to leave tells me that if they did they didn't go far enough.

And that is why I find it odd that the queen is getting off scot free on this. Nobody is asking how she allowed it to get to this point. Why she couldn't have done more, not only for the RF as an institution, but for her family.

Now, plenty of families have bust ups, these won't be the first couple that feel they need to step back from the family, and they won't be the last. But unlike most families, this family have unlimited resources to help them deal with situations such as this.

It seems very much that the queen learnt very little from the Diana saga and is now back to blaming 'that woman' rather than looking at herself.

And lets we all forget, this family as a basket case by most measures. But this is glossed over as apparently Meaghan has some issues!

Harry never wanted to tow the line with Royal family. Remember the Nazi uniform incident? In fairness to Meghan, it seems that she pushed Harry the way that he seemed to want to fall.

But as mentioned in previous posts, the concept of spare is utterly abhorrent and cruel. So I am not judging his wish to bow out

Leroy42

Yeah, I tend to agree. Rather than Meaghan being the instigator, IMO Harry went looking for someone that would help him to leave. Not consciously, I don't think he went looking for her in particular, but he wanted someone outside, someone who would see it from his POV.

So I don't believe Harry is this naive simple prince, getting hoodwinked by a terrible and evil foreigner looking to destroy the RF. Rather he found himself someone that would stand by him and help him to leave.

Whether it is actually is what he really wants, particularly given the extreme nature of the split, time will tell I suppose.

cnocbui

bubblypop wrote: »

This is just ridiculous!
They maybe called the crown jewels but the queen doesn't have a dressing room full of tiaras to loan out to people.
That's not the way it works. There are probably any amount of civil servants involved when one of these tiaras are worn.
Protocol dictates a lot of what happens at official functions.
There are, no doubt, some things that the totals cannot wear/do/say for fear of offending someone/another country or causing some diplomatic incident.
Obviously, they do not know all these things themselves, but are advised, all the time, by their royal sides and senior civil servants.

You know nothing of the tiara that she wanted to wear, nor of the reasons she could not. I'm sure there were plenty of other tiaras she could wear.

You have to hand it to the Queen, here she is recently bitch-slapping Meghan like a boss:

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

You have to hand it to the Queen, here she is recently bitch-slapping Meghan like a boss:

One thing about modern day society that irks me: why is everybody entitled to everything? Why was it Meghan’s right to wear these. The queen owns her necklace and tiara, therefore, her rules. It may seem petty, but marrying into a family does not mean a dibs on the jewels even before the woman is in the ground. Who knows the queen’s reasons?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't need to know. Basic fact is that Meaghan wanted something and the Queen refused. Not because Meaghan would own it, or wreck it, but simply she felt Meaghan wasn't worth it. You can dress it up whatever way you want, but that is what is boils down to.

Doesn't start the new family in the best of spirits does it? It doesn't matter about the cots, that wouldn't register with the queen who has no value of money.

I’m trying to imagine asking my mother-in-law (and this was a step above her mother-in-law) for a piece of her jewellery for my wedding day. First of all, I can’t imagine doing that. Secondly, if she said no, I’d trust that she had some good reason for doing so.

I received a gold ruby ring from my granny when she died. It’s my wedding ring now as I lost mine in the sea and there’s not many people I’d loan it to, to be honest, if any.

And, the opposite side of the “How ridiculous of the Queen to not just loan Meghan the tiara she wanted!” coin is “How ridiculous for a late 30s woman to be stropping about what tiara she gets!”. The last time I was interested in tiaras was as a preteen girl. Seriously.

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

You work in the legal profession and you state that something written is slander? Hilarious! You better go back to law-school, my friend

At least I went which is more than you can say, so you can just sit this one out. Friend. :rolleyes:

BettyS wrote: »

In my books, HALF sister is just sister. You seem to use it as a cut-down, as if her relationship to her is somehow inferior on this fact alone

Keep digging and maybe you'll get somewhere :rolleyes:

It's the proper term that represents their actual relationship to one another. Simple as that.

And this particular half sister didn't grow up with her, is close to 20 years older, and is a train wreck herself. She's estranged from her whole family including her own children, and her own mother who spoke to the press put her in her place and not in a nice way. She doesn't deny speaking about Meghan and Harry to the press and getting paid for it either.

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

One thing about modern day society that irks me: why is everybody entitled to everything? Why was it Meghan’s right to wear these. The queen owns her necklace and tiara, therefore, her rules. It may seem petty, but marrying into a family does not mean a dibs on the jewels even before the woman is in the ground. Who knows the queen’s reasons?

Surely it was offered as it appears to be a royal marriage tradition. You have a pattern of reading into things that just aren't there and then twisting it up to match your inner negativity. Why?

Stateofyou

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m trying to imagine asking my mother-in-law (and this was a step above her mother-in-law) for a piece of her jewellery for my wedding day. First of all, I can’t imagine doing that. Secondly, if she said no, I’d trust that she had some good reason for doing so.

I received a gold ruby ring from my granny when she died. It’s my wedding ring now as I lost mine in the sea and there’s not many people I’d loan it to, to be honest, if any.

And, the opposite side of the “How ridiculous of the Queen to not just loan Meghan the tiara she wanted!” coin is “How ridiculous for a late 30s woman to be stropping about what tiara she gets!”. The last time I was interested in tiaras was as a preteen girl. Seriously.

AND yet another side to that is how ridiculous it is to compare your one piece of jewellery to a vast ownership of the Crown Jewels and a tradition of royal brides wearing them.

What proof of this do you have that Meghan "stropped about what tiara she gets."

cnocbui

BettyS wrote: »

One thing about modern day society that irks me: why is everybody entitled to everything? Why was it Meghan’s right to wear these. The queen owns her necklace and tiara, therefore, her rules. It may seem petty, but marrying into a family does not mean a dibs on the jewels even before the woman is in the ground. Who knows the queen’s reasons?

It wasn't a right, absolutely not, but supposedly an offer was made for her to choose one to borrow, presumably with no caveats that certian items were not part of the offer. But alegedly when she made her choice, she was told she couldn't wear that one because it had dubious Russian connections and therefore it wasn't appropriate. If that is indeed what she was told, it would appear she was lied to, and here is the Queen appraising her of that lie and rubbing her nose in it.

Lovely family.

Stateofyou

She seems to have worn the very one she chose though.

"When it came to the tiara on the day, I was very fortunate to be able to chose this gorgeous art deco style bandeau tiara," Meghan said in the recording, according to Harper's Bazaar UK. "Harry and I had gone to Buckingham Palace to meet with her Majesty the Queen to select one of the options that were there which was an incredibly surreal day as you can imagine."

Harry sweetly revealed trying on a tiara was "every girl's dream," and he wholeheartedly agreed with Meghan's tiara of choice, the Queen Mary's bandeau tiara. "Funnily enough, it was the one that suited the best," Harry added. "The one that looked the best on you without question. I shouldn't have really been there—but an incredible loan by my grandmother."

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

At least I went which is more than you can say, so you can just sit this one out. Friend. :rolleyes:



Keep digging and maybe you'll get somewhere :rolleyes:

It's the proper term that represents their actual relationship to one another. Simple as that.

And this particular half sister didn't grow up with her, is close to 20 years older, and is a train wreck herself. She's estranged from her whole family including her own children, and her own mother who spoke to the press put her in her place and not in a nice way. She doesn't deny speaking about Meghan and Harry to the press and getting paid for it either.

Are you certain that I didn’t study law? Are you absolutely certain? So certain that you would have sufficient burden of proof to convict me in criminal court?

Not everybody wants to play the “I have a LLB card on boards.” If we need to upload our legal credentials to join the debate, it kind of undermines it, don’t you think?

Wow! I hope that I never meet you in court. Your arguments are based on jaded quips and passive aggressive quips. I hope that you bring a few more facts when we face each other in the court-room!

Term yes. However, you were using it pejoratively against her, as she tough she was inferior on the basis of the term. A lot of half-siblings would take offense at what you stated

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

Surely it was offered as it appears to be a royal marriage tradition. You have a pattern of reading into things that just aren't there and then twisting it up to match your inner negativity. Why?

Or perhaps I realise that life isn’t based on some Disney Tale with the goodies and the baddies. Maybe I am a pragmatist and learned the art of critical reasoning, which your law school seems to have omitted

BettyS

cnocbui wrote: »

It wasn't a right, absolutely not, but supposedly an offer was made for her to choose one to borrow, presumably with no caveats that certian items were not part of the offer. But alegedly when she made her choice, she was told she couldn't wear that one because it had dubious Russian connections and therefore it wasn't appropriate. If that is indeed what she was told, it would appear she was lied to, and here is the Queen appraising her of that lie and rubbing her nose in it.

Lovely family.

You presume no caveats?

So, what year was the picture with the queen and the Jewels?

Meghan is marrying her grandson! That gives her right to whatever Meghan wants?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stateofyou wrote: »

AND yet another side to that is how ridiculous it is to compare your one piece of jewellery to a vast ownership of the Crown Jewels and a tradition of royal brides wearing them.

What proof of this do you have that Meghan "stropped about what tiara she gets."

Sure, what proof do any of us for any aspect of that story? I don’t recall you questioning people proferring reasons for the Queen not to give her a particular tiara. We’re all spitballing here. I’m simply saying that either way, whatever the truth, there are elements of the ridiculous here. If Queenie just pettily didn’t want Meghan to have a particular tiara, that’s ridiculous because she will get it back and it would have been heavily guarded. If Meghan only wanted a particular one, that’s ridiculous because she was not a little girl, she was a woman in her late 30s. I bet there’s a bit of truth to both stories and if so, THAT’S RIDICULOUS. I would be embarrassed at that story if I was either one of them, to be honest.

Stateofyou

BettyS wrote: »

Or perhaps I realise that life isn’t based on some Disney Tale with the goodies and the baddies. Maybe I am a pragmatist and learned the art of critical reasoning, which your law school seems to have omitted

Or maybe you don't have to be so mean spirited and assume the worst about people you don't know. Because that's totally normal behaviour in real life, right?

You say "Disney tale" I say being kind and looking for what is actually known and not just thinking the worst of people and making things up in one's own head.

You would think they hang out with paedophiles or something, the level of nastiness they receive. Where's the pages long thread or any criticism about Prince Andrew's behaviour? What have H&M done that even come anywhere close to that, yet its them who deserve the attacks? Hmmm

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

Or maybe you don't have to be so mean spirited and assume the worst about people you don't know. Because that's totally normal behaviour in real life, right?

You say "Disney tale" I say being kind and looking for what is actually known and not just thinking the worst of people and making things up in one's own head.

You would think they hang out with paedophiles or something, the level of nastiness they receive. Where's the pages long thread or any criticism about Prince Andrew's behaviour? What have H&M done that even come anywhere close to that, yet its them who deserve the attacks? Hmmm

But you seem to think that everybody who says anything against them is some heinous villain.

People don’t like that they profess about charity and the environment from a private jet

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stateofyou wrote: »

She seems to have worn the very one she chose though.

"When it came to the tiara on the day, I was very fortunate to be able to chose this gorgeous art deco style bandeau tiara," Meghan said in the recording, according to Harper's Bazaar UK. "Harry and I had gone to Buckingham Palace to meet with her Majesty the Queen to select one of the options that were there which was an incredibly surreal day as you can imagine."

Harry sweetly revealed trying on a tiara was "every girl's dream," and he wholeheartedly agreed with Meghan's tiara of choice, the Queen Mary's bandeau tiara. "Funnily enough, it was the one that suited the best," Harry added. "The one that looked the best on you without question. I shouldn't have really been there—but an incredible loan by my grandmother."

VOM.

cnocbui

BettyS wrote: »

You presume no caveats?

So, what year was the picture with the queen and the Jewels?

Meghan is marrying her grandson! That gives her right to whatever Meghan wants?

I'm sure from your attitude you would happily believe Meghan would stamp her foot and say she wanted the one that she ahde been told she couldn't have, but I rather doubt that, so I stand by my musings. 2019:https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/style/1216181/queen-elizabeth-vladimir-tiara-pictures-latest-meghan-markle-wedding-day

Stateofyou

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Sure, what proof do any of us for any aspect of that story? I don’t recall you questioning people proferring reasons for the Queen not to give her a particular tiara. We’re all spitballing here. I’m simply saying that either way, whatever the truth, there are elements of the ridiculous here. If Queenie just pettily didn’t want Meghan to have a particular tiara, that’s ridiculous because she will get it back and it would have been heavily guarded. If Meghan only wanted a particular one, that’s ridiculous because she was not a little girl, she was a woman in her late 30s. I bet there’s a bit of truth to both stories and if so, THAT’S RIDICULOUS. I would be embarrassed at that story if I was either one of them, to be honest.

I posted the proof. I haven't reiterated anything or accused them of doing or saying anything that wasn't said directly by them and those involved.

You don't see me questioning anything because I'm not going to speculate on what didn't happen. H&M directly said how it was. Some people obviously want to find reasons to criticise anyway. Not my style.

"Queenie?" What age are you :-s

And what reason would there be to there being any truth to that ridiculous tabloid story. You certainly can't fall behind the reasoning of them being a bastion of truth who's whole profit model is based on printing attacks leading to real harm of others. A businesse which breaks the law and loses lawsuits often enough, including recently. You wouldn't be able to rely on Meghan's history of this behaviour either, as no-one she worked with or who knows her in real life has anything like that to say about her. In fact the patronages they recently worked with have praised them. Even her bullying half sister referred to her as lovely person. There's no precedent, no proof, no form but there is an agenda.

munstergirl

Harry & Meghan could have got on with their lives and lived happily ever after out of the royal family. They made a mistake with the way they did it and way they treated the queen was just selfish.

The pandemic got in the way of their plan.

Harry & Meghan seem to only care about themselves and $$$$$ they want to make billions, not millions. That's just pure greed. Their publicist has a hard job on their hands looking for sympathy for millionaires during pandemic.

They had enough money to start a new life anywhere in the world but they wanted a mansion worth 14 million.

I don't feel sorry for either of them and this interview could backfire on them. Especially with Prince Philip in hospital.

Stateofyou

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

VOM.

Take it up with the journalist who wrote the article about them. They're usually some degree of nasty written diarrhoea anyway.

BettyS

Stateofyou wrote: »

I posted the proof. I haven't reiterated anything or accused them of doing or saying anything that wasn't said directly by them and those involved.

You don't see me questioning anything because I'm not going to speculate on what didn't happen. H&M directly said how it was. Some people obviously want to find reasons to criticise anyway. Not my style.

"Queenie?" What age are you :-s

And what reason would there be to there being any truth to that ridiculous tabloid story. You certainly can't fall behind the reasoning of them being a bastion of truth who's whole profit model is based on printing attacks leading to real harm of others. Businesses which break the law and lose lawsuits often enough, including recently. You wouldn't be able to rely on Meghan's history of this behaviour, as no-one she worked with or who knows her in real life has anything like that to say about her. In fact the patronages they recently worked with have praised them. Even her bullying half sister referred to her as lovely person. There's no precedent, no proof, but there is an agenda.

You bemoan the bullying that Meghan faced but you make very nasty comments to other posters. It’s a two-way street