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

end of the road

Leg End Reject wrote: »

What exactly is against the amateur/internet psychology?

the lack of actual, reliable evidence to back it up.
the fact it's based on when we get down to the nitty gritty, nothing really.

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Are you a qualified psychologist and able to refute it with evidence?

are you?
it's not me who is claiming that someone i don't know, never met, and never will meet, is a narcissist based on things like, well i met one once.
personally if reliable evidence came to light to show she was one, it wouldn't effect my life either way, but i think it's reasonable to step in sometimes and say that a particular claim has nothing going for it and defend the person at the centre of that claim while the claim has nothing going for it.

Leg End Reject

end of the road wrote: »

the lack of actual, reliable evidence to back it up.
the fact it's based on when we get down to the nitty gritty, nothing really.



are you?
it's not me who is claiming that someone i don't know, never met, and never will meet, is a narcissist based on things like, well i met one once.
personally if reliable evidence came to light to show she was one, it wouldn't effect my life either way, but i think it's reasonable to step in sometimes and say that a particular claim has nothing going for it and defend the person at the centre of that claim while the claim has nothing going for it.

You're claiming she isn't a narcissist.

How are you so sure your opinion is correct?

MoonUnit75

end of the road wrote: »

the lack of actual, reliable evidence to back it up.
the fact it's based on when we get down to the nitty gritty, nothing really.



are you?
it's not me who is claiming that someone i don't know, never met, and never will meet, is a narcissist based on things like, well i met one once.
personally if reliable evidence came to light to show she was one, it wouldn't effect my life either way, but i think it's reasonable to step in sometimes and say that a particular claim has nothing going for it and defend the person at the centre of that claim while the claim has nothing going for it.

Using the funeral of a relative as an opportunity to release a self-praising press release and promote a commercial brand sounds exactly like something your common or garden variety narcissist would do:

"The arrangement, we know, included Eryngium, or sea holly, to represent Philip’s ties to the Royal Marines, Acanthus mollis, the national flower of Greece in a nod to his heritage, Campanula, to represent “gratitude and everlasting love”, and roses to signify the royal consort’s June birthday.

All incredibly touching and thoughtful.

And all information that somehow – miraculously – has found its way out there in the public domain.

According to The Telegraph, “a source close to the Sussexes confirmed that (their wreath) had been designed and handmade by Willow Crossley, a Cotswolds florist known for her natural, rustic arrangements.

What is bewildering here is why and how, on a day which should have been resolutely, solely focused on celebrating the Duke, that still something Sussex-related has managed to end up in the headlines.

These symbolic and meaningful blooms by Ms Crossley – who was in charge of the flowers for the Sussexes’ wedding reception and son Archie’s 2019 christening – included deeply personal touches.

But why did anyone feel the need to share this information with the world?"

...no particulars about the other eight wreaths that were placed in the chapel have been released.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/meghan-markles-bewildering-fail-for-prince-philips-funeral/news-story/b80ac365db64d7a5311ad06833f94049

superflyninja

end of the road wrote: »

her behaviour doesn't display any of those, given what we do know about her.
nobody is perfect but to claim she displays any of those characteristics is a stretch, in fairness as it is small scale stuff has to be twisted into being something huge so as to fit the claim, so that should be obvious.

Markle doesnt display: A sense of entitlement ??????????
Are you kidding me? She spent half the interview banging on about the security she deserved.

Small scale stuff???? Point blank accusing the RF of racism is small scale?

Your scale is clearly a LOT different to my scale.

end of the road

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Using the funeral of a relative as an opportunity to release a self-praising press release and promote a commercial brand sounds exactly like something your common or garden variety narcissist would do:

"The arrangement, we know, included Eryngium, or sea holly, to represent Philip’s ties to the Royal Marines, Acanthus mollis, the national flower of Greece in a nod to his heritage, Campanula, to represent “gratitude and everlasting love”, and roses to signify the royal consort’s June birthday.

All incredibly touching and thoughtful.

And all information that somehow – miraculously – has found its way out there in the public domain.

According to The Telegraph, “a source close to the Sussexes confirmed that (their wreath) had been designed and handmade by Willow Crossley, a Cotswolds florist known for her natural, rustic arrangements.

What is bewildering here is why and how, on a day which should have been resolutely, solely focused on celebrating the Duke, that still something Sussex-related has managed to end up in the headlines.

These symbolic and meaningful blooms by Ms Crossley – who was in charge of the flowers for the Sussexes’ wedding reception and son Archie’s 2019 christening – included deeply personal touches.

But why did anyone feel the need to share this information with the world?"

...no particulars about the other eight wreaths that were placed in the chapel have been released.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/meghan-markles-bewildering-fail-for-prince-philips-funeral/news-story/b80ac365db64d7a5311ad06833f94049

oh yeah, sending a reath to the funeral of someone who has passed away is massive narcissistic behaviour alright.
LOL.


the media publish all sorts of things, including the particulars of 1 thing but not of a similar thing.

end of the road

superflyninja wrote: »

Markle doesnt display: A sense of entitlement ??????????
Are you kidding me? She spent half the interview banging on about the security she deserved.

Small scale stuff???? Point blank accusing the RF of racism is small scale?

Your scale is clearly a LOT different to my scale.

it was a small segment of the interview in fairness, hardly the end of the world and definitely not spending half the interview banging on about it in fairness.

the security was for the child, the reason she believed they should have continued to have it was because archie is ultimately the grandson of the future king, which to be honest is a perfectly legitimate concern.

however it's also legitimate to argue that because they have stepped back the risk is likely a lot less, and it's certainly reasonable to argue that an english police force can't provide security for someone in another country and the UK tax payer can't pay for it now they aren't on UK soil which i certainly would agree they shouldn't.
but her concerns are understandable and i certainly wouldn't criticise her for raising them.

MoonUnit75

end of the road wrote: »

oh yeah, sending a reath to the funeral of someone who has passed away is massive narcissistic behaviour alright.
LOL.


the media publish all sorts of things, including the particulars of 1 thing but not of a similar thing.

All the wreath was missing was #ad #spon #itsallthethoughtiputintothisthatmakesmethespecialone on the card.

Issuing a press release with a detailed inventory of how thoughtful you are is not normal behaviour.

end of the road

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

All the wreath was missing was #ad #spon #itsallthethoughtiputintothisthatmakesmethespecialone on the card.

Issuing a press release with a detailed inventory of how thoughtful you are is not normal behaviour.

it's normal where the chances are high that the press would have published the details anyway, assuming she actually sent a press release herself rather then the press simply getting the details and publishing.
she would have been wrong had she not sent a wreath and she would have been wrong if there was no article in the press on it for people to discuss.

ceadaoin.

end of the road wrote: »

it's normal where the chances are high that the press would have published the details anyway, assuming she actually sent a press release herself rather then the press simply getting the details and publishing.
she would have been wrong had she not sent a wreath and she would have been wrong if there was no article in the press on it for people to discuss.

Its not normal at all. Strange how we never got the details of who sent the 8 other wreaths there and their exact composition. Its almost as if it's possible to do something without turning it into a pr, attention grabbing exercise.

end of the road

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Its not normal at all. Strange how we never got the details of who sent the 8 other wreaths there and their exact composition. Its almost as if it's possible to do something without turning it into a pr, attention grabbing exercise.

likely no story involved in the others sending wreaths hence no publication.
meghan on the other hand there would be a story in her sending it and in her not sending it, whether she sent a direct press release or not.
whatever she did would highly likely be used to generate an article, lets be honest, and chances are it would be highly critical, or if not, she would receive criticism elsewhere on the back of it.

ceadaoin.

end of the road wrote: »

likely no story involved in the others sending wreaths hence no publication.
meghan on the other hand there would be a story in her sending it and in her not sending it, whether she sent a direct press release or not.
whatever she did would highly likely be used to generate an article, lets be honest, and chances are it would be highly critical, or if not, she would receive criticism elsewhere on the back of it.

She sent a wreath, the family would know she did and thats all that matters. But if she did the normal thing and arranged it without announcing it to the world, then how could anyone know what a thoughtful, saintly person she is?

If she couldn't bear the thought that people might think she didn't send anything, a quick "Meghan sent a wreath to be placed near the coffin" would have sufficed. Instead it was full of unnecessary information designed to highlight just how amazing she is. It clearly came from her team and was a despicable attempt to use the funeral to boost her own image. I imagine the RF just roll their eyes and let her get on with it at this stage.

Leg End Reject

I always take out an ad in the local papers whenever I send a mass card. It's important that everyone knows, and indeed appreciates, just how thoughtful and empathetic I am.

I include local radio if I buy a wreath.

Lashes28

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I always take out an ad in the local papers whenever I send a mass card. It's important that everyone knows, and indeed appreciates, just how thoughtful and empathetic I am.

I include local radio if I buy a wreath.

Especially when you want to live the quiet life away from the media attention.

Leg End Reject

Lashes28 wrote: »

Especially when you want to live the quiet life away from the media attention.

Oh, of course. But then, everybody already knows how magnificent I am.

You are all truly blessed to have such a great presence in your midst. I really feel that my posts make up for the bland normality of the rest of you.

You're all very, very welcome.

Itssoeasy

end of the road wrote: »

likely no story involved in the others sending wreaths hence no publication.
meghan on the other hand there would be a story in her sending it and in her not sending it, whether she sent a direct press release or not.
whatever she did would highly likely be used to generate an article, lets be honest, and chances are it would be highly critical, or if not, she would receive criticism elsewhere on the back of it.

She could have sent it and said nothing and that would be grand. Why we needed to get a breakdown of what it composed of and how the person who made it was connected to them I’ve no idea. It’d be like donating to charity like lots of families do when someone dies and then plastering the fact you did it and how much you donated all over Facebook. I don’t know maybe it’s an American thing but it’s certainly not a good look from my Irish point of view.

dogbert27

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Oh, of course. But then, everybody already knows how magnificent I am.

You are all truly blessed to have such a great presence in your midst. I really feel that my posts make up for the bland normality of the rest of you.

You're all very, very welcome.

Answer the important question though..

How many bathrooms do you have?! :pac:

notsoyoungwan

Ckendrick wrote: »

The choker and earrings are a matching set borrowed from the Queen. The Queen had the set made up many years ago from a set of pearls presented to her as a gift from the Japanese government.
I saw a picture yesterday of Diana wearing the same set taken over 35 years ago.
What people don’t realise is that the Queen knows that she doesn’t actually own these beautiful things.
They are belonging to the British people. It’s great to see them being worn especially with such panache by the Duchess who is becoming more regal every time she appears She is the epitome of sheer class and an example to all young girls.

They belong to the British people but those people will never get a chance to hold them, much less wear them, yet it’s great that they can look on in awe as others wear them, others who have the ability to do so because of an accident of birth or because of who they married? Wow, those lucky British people!

I think young girls should look up to women who have achieved something through their hard work, perseverance, skill, dedication etc rather than a Jane Austen style of marrying well.

Leg End Reject

dogbert27 wrote: »

Answer the important question though..

How many bathrooms do you have?! :pac:

Just a paltry 16 I'm afraid.

Leg End Reject

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

They belong to the British people but those people will never get a chance to hold them, much less wear them, yet it’s great that they can look on in awe as others wear them, others who have the ability to do so because of an accident of birth or because of who they married? Wow, those lucky British people!

I think young girls should look up to women who have achieved something through their hard work, perseverance, skill, dedication etc rather than a Jane Austen style of marrying well.

A monarchy has to be different and privileged though, otherwise it would quickly become irrelevant.

It's deliberately full of pomp and ceremony and that is a kind of self promotion, there's a history behind the jewels, royal residences and protocols that give a sense of continuity. The British public seem to lap it up and want to keep it, although it seems strange, almost absurd, to us.

notsoyoungwan

Leg End Reject wrote: »

A monarchy has to be different and privileged though, otherwise it would quickly become irrelevant.

It's deliberately full of pomp and ceremony and that is a kind of self promotion, there's a history behind the jewels, royal residences and protocols that give a sense of continuity. The British public seem to lap it up and want to keep it, although it seems strange, almost absurd, to us.

I know it’s full of relentless self-promotion and PR, but I find it strange that more people don’t see through all that to what it is- a system that rewards not based on merit but on birth, full of unearned privilege, and entirely undeserving recipients of it. It supports mediocrity over meritocracy and democracy. But still so many people are sycophants and fawn over them, over people who feel entitled to such a lifestyle, who feel superior to and expect deference from the general population - that level of gullibility is bizarre.

And before anyone asks why I’m on this thread of that’s my view, I see them as a real life car crash soap opera, which is quite entertaining to watch.

I think it's terrible to watch the royal family as if they are a real life car crash.
They are people, just people. I would imagine most families have their ups and downs. I would not like to think they my life could become some kind of amusement for others, just because of my birth.

I'm not sure so many fawn over them either.
I'm not a royalist and if they were gone tomorrow, it wouldn't matter one jot to me, but I am fascinated by the history, the pomp and pageantry, the protocols etc.
I feel sorry for them as people, yes they have been born or married into enormous privilege, but at what cost?
I don't read gossip pages about them, or trashy tabloid headlines.
They are just people, doing their best, I guess. (Most of them ! )

walshb

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

I know it’s full of relentless self-promotion and PR, but I find it strange that more people don’t see through all that to what it is- a system that rewards not based on merit but on birth, full of unearned privilege, and entirely undeserving recipients of it. It supports mediocrity over meritocracy and democracy. But still so many people are sycophants and fawn over them, over people who feel entitled to such a lifestyle, who feel superior to and expect deference from the general population - that level of gullibility is bizarre.

And before anyone asks why I’m on this thread of that’s my view, I see them as a real life car crash soap opera, which is quite entertaining to watch.

What I find bizarre is that some folks can’t recognise what an amazing role mode the Queen is. Hard work doesn’t come close to her unwavering and indefatigable service to her country and her people. 24/7/365...70 years of it..

You don’t have to be a RF fan, or even like them and the institution at all, but to not see the utter work ethic and dedication that some of them show, is being deliberately blind in my view. Born into it is irrelevant. She, a person, actually had to put in the work, and without having any real say. It was expected of her. Very tough life in the sense of any real normal freedoms. Owned by your people.

I find the history and story and all that goes with it a fascinating insight into human history. Centuries of it. It’s just people being people. Love it, loathe it, neither......it is truly a wondrous type story and history.

Related to Markle: she wanted all the limelight and fame from the RF, but without any of the work and character required to be a member. An absolute charlatan.

And truly exposed as one by her reaction!!

Leg End Reject

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

I know it’s full of relentless self-promotion and PR, but I find it strange that more people don’t see through all that to what it is- a system that rewards not based on merit but on birth, full of unearned privilege, and entirely undeserving recipients of it. It supports mediocrity over meritocracy and democracy. But still so many people are sycophants and fawn over them, over people who feel entitled to such a lifestyle, who feel superior to and expect deference from the general population - that level of gullibility is bizarre.

And before anyone asks why I’m on this thread of that’s my view, I see them as a real life car crash soap opera, which is quite entertaining to watch.

The birth right and "royal line" is what separates them though, anyone marrying in will never be a monarch. It's archaic, but seems to be respected in countries with a monarchy.

I'm not sure how the institution will fare in the future when the queen dies, there's a lot of goodwill based on her parents actions during WW2, and the fact that she's been on the throne for so long. In living memory it's been the queen, her father or her uncle.

Charles may not be so popular, but his plan to strip it all back should keep it relevant for some time anyway. I'm sure other countries will move towards being a republic and remove the monarch as head of state, so more dramatic soap opera episodes ahead I think.

notsoyoungwan

bubblypop wrote: »

I think it's terrible to watch the royal family as if they are a real life car crash.
They are people, just people. I would imagine most families have their ups and downs. I would not like to think they my life could become some kind of amusement for others, just because of my birth.

I'm not sure so many fawn over them either.
I'm not a royalist and if they were gone tomorrow, it wouldn't matter one jot to me, but I am fascinated by the history, the pomp and pageantry, the protocols etc.
I feel sorry for them as people, yes they have been born or married into enormous privilege, but at what cost?
I don't read gossip pages about them, or trashy tabloid headlines.
They are just people, doing their best, I guess. (Most of them ! )

If you agree that they’re ‘just people’ why do you think they deserve the insane privilege that they have, the public funds, the adulation, the cap doffing etc? People literally bow and curtsy to them, making themselves subservient to another human being- why? People call them their Royal Highnesses, Sir, Ma’am etc, all as if they are superior beings, when they’re absolutely not. People hang off their every word as if it’s something special, when in reality they’re reciting a speech researched and written by a servant who will never get the credit for it. And yet hundreds of thousands of people (maybe millions) do absolutely fawn over them. People leave their homes and families on Christmas morning to line up at the church and wait and watch them walk by (not hundreds of thousands of people, but a sizeable crowd) - on Christmas morning?! Have they nothing better to do? And all because they were born into or married into a particular family. Not because they achieved anything on merit, or through hard work, skill, dedication etc, but because of who gave birth to them.

dogbert27

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Just a paltry 16 I'm afraid.

Peasent

notsoyoungwan

walshb wrote: »

What I find bizarre is that some folks can’t recognise what an amazing role mode the Queen is. Hard work doesn’t come close to her unwavering and indefatigable service to her country and her people. 24/7/365...70 years of it..

You don’t have to be a RF fan, or even like them and the institution at all, but to not see the utter work ethic and dedication that some of them show, is being deliberately blind in my view. Born into it is irrelevant. She, a person, actually had to put in the work, and without having any real say. It was expected of her. Very tough life in the sense of any real normal freedoms. Owned by your people.

I find the history and story and all that goes with it a fascinating insight into human history. Centuries of it. It’s just people being people. Love it, loathe it, neither......it is truly a wondrous type story and history.

Related to Markle: she wanted all the limelight and fame from the RF, but without any of the work and character required to be a member. An absolute charlatan.

And truly exposed as one by her reaction!!

Hard work?! Oh please! Absolutely there are some personal sacrifices that come with the role but it is actually quite offensive to describe what she does and has done as hard work. Tell that to the soldiers who went to war in her name, risking life and limb. Tell it to family carers who actually are on duty 24/7/365. Tell that to people working 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, to feed and clothe their kids. Tell that to doctors who have worked shifts of more than 72 hours, with no guarantee of sleep or rest time (I did this as an intern- started work on Friday mornings at 9 and was working til Monday at 5... one in every 6 weekends)

Those people (and I’d wager most people) wouldn’t consider the Royal engagements to be hard work- being presented with your neatly laundered and ironed clothes to put on, breakfast served, a car pulling up at your door, a speech prepared for you, driven right to your destination, every obstacle in your way swept aside as if by magic, people being deferential and courteous, nobody confrontational or challenging, praise and thanks wherever you go, someone anticipating your every need, your car waiting for you to bring you back to your palatial home etc etc etc, that’s not particularly taxing IMO. She has toured the world at no cost to herself, had tourist attractions opened up for her/closed to the general public, seen what she wanted to see, she has met many fascinating, interesting and accomplished people.

Yes, I know her role involves talking to and meeting lots of people, from the general public to heads of state, but again that’s not hugely taxing nor can it be described as hard work. Yes, I know she has regular meetings with the PM, and reviews the documents in her famous briefcase, but not without a lot of preparatory work by faceless civil servants. You will no doubt counter this by saying that most people aren’t doing any work in their 80s and 90s, and that’s true, but she’s not exactly putting in vast hours or physical toil, whereas some of her subjects (ugh!) can’t even afford to heat their homes adequately and many more are homeless. But hey, the queen did a meet and greet, isn’t she so tremendously dedicated to service! Let’s all bow and scrape!

Would I like her role? No, absolutely not. Do I think it’s a necessary one? No, absolutely not. Do I think she warrants the fawning sycophantic adoration she gets? No, absolutely not. But hey, that’s just my opinion, each to their own! If you want to bow to someone because of the family she was born into, off you go, though I thought nepotism was generally frowned upon.

notsoyoungwan

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

If you agree that they’re ‘just people’ why do you think they deserve the insane privilege that they have, the public funds, the adulation, the cap doffing etc? People literally bow and curtsy to them, making themselves subservient to another human being- why? People call them their Royal Highnesses, Sir, Ma’am etc, all as if they are superior beings, when they’re absolutely not. People hang off their every word as if it’s something special, when in reality they’re reciting a speech researched and written by a servant who will never get the credit for it. And yet hundreds of thousands of people (maybe millions) do absolutely fawn over them. People leave their homes and families on Christmas morning to line up at the church and wait and watch them walk by (not hundreds of thousands of people, but a sizeable crowd) - on Christmas morning?! Have they nothing better to do? And all because they were born into or married into a particular family. Not because they achieved anything on merit, or through hard work, skill, dedication etc, but because of who gave birth to them.

None of this is the fault of those people in the royal family.
While I don't 'fawn ' over them, neither do I put them down because they were (un)fortunate enough to be born into that family.
Why do they exist? Why do any royal family exist anywhere? There is obviously enough support in their own countries for their existence.

So yeah, they're people, which is why I judge them as I judge any people. Just people.

bunny_mac

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

If you want to bow to someone because of the family she was born into, off you go, though I thought nepotism was generally frowned upon.

The thing is, a lot of humans seem to feel the need to have someone they perceive as 'better' than them to worship. It's odd, imho, but I see it more and more as I get older.

I'd consider myself agnostic but I dabbled in Buddhism a while back because I like a lot of what they stand for, and I was particularly drawn to the fact that they don't 'worship' the Buddha. It's not about him as a person, it's more a set of guidelines that he espoused for living a good life. But, humans being humans, I found instead that the members of this order treated the guy who'd founded that particular order (who was still alive at the time) as a god and it made me really uncomfortable so I stopped going.

Similarly I went on a secular retreat once, and was struck by the way most of the people there treated the woman running the retreat like she was some sort of deity they had to bow down before.

I think it's just human nature to look for some sort of 'god' to make you think your own life has meaning. That's where religion comes from, I reckon, and for the non-religious Brit (and even some religious ones I'm sure), the royal family probably works nicely as a substitute!

Jesus some of you need to step outside and get some fresh air.

The mods should move this thread to the conspiracies theory board, because the accusations getting tossed around are just getting wilder and wilder.

Do you really think Megan Markle personally called the press to tell them, in great detail, about the wreath that was sent from BOTH her and Harry?

Did she ****. Any member of either the Sussex staff or even the florist staff could have done that. But no, it must have been Megan, all the way from California.

Beautiful wreath by the way. Nicest one there.

Ckendrick

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

They belong to the British people but those people will never get a chance to hold them, much less wear them, yet it’s great that they can look on in awe as others wear them, others who have the ability to do so because of an accident of birth or because of who they married? Wow, those lucky British people!

I think young girls should look up to women who have achieved something through their hard work, perseverance, skill, dedication etc rather than a Jane Austen style of marrying well.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the Duchess of Cambridge doesn’t work hard at her job. That she hasn’t displayed perseverance skill or dedication. Can you give me examples of how you’ve come to this odd conclusion?