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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

1604605607609610717

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,754 ✭✭✭suvigirl




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    Charles and Kate officially named now by newspapers - so no longer a massive rumour mill known by pretty much everyone who either cared to know or didn’t, this just reflects incredibly badly on H&M - I think it was Harry who said he’d never name the person (one person funnily enough has become two over time- funny that) - well he may as well have- he certainly didn’t keep it a secret that’s for sure.

    Its clear this is still a H&M war against the RF - Royal sour grapes is how I’m seeing it - they can’t just get on with their own lives-they’re obsessed with trying to destroy the reputations of others - hideous individuals




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,754 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Has Harry or Meaghan made any statements about this book? Or the names?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,458 ✭✭✭valoren


    Meghan wrote to Charles after the Oprah interview to express concerns about unconscious bias in the royal family. Harry told Tom Bradby that they never said his family was racist but had unconscious bias and he was willing to help them with it since he says he unknowingly had that himself. Do you not find it odd that a man who says he had unconscious bias married a woman of mixed race? That a family with unconscious bias welcomed in a woman of mixed race? It's nonsensical. I would argue that if they actually collectively had unconscious bias then Meghan wouldn't have gotten anywhere near them.

    With that in mind then since she actually married in then I would be going along the line of thinking that something was said, it was completely taken in the wrong way, when they wanted to do things in a particular way and didn't get what they wanted it was subsequently and quite publicly weaponised as racist, end game for the monarchy failed to materialise but with a new monarch the remark was then cowardly watered down via gaslighting to now become unconscious bias.

    Now it's time for covert manipulation via a known and established flying monkey author for the Sussexes to try and prolong and retain interest but between a pandemic, wars and people getting by no one actually gives a shite anymore particularly since the allegation is supposedly about in laws wondering who the kids might be taking after looks wise. Shocking! It was also 5 years ago and surely tackling actual racism is more important .

    It's truly reverse midas touch with them as this had made Charles and Kate come across as the victims of a hit job (i.e. the book is supposedly about the end game for the monarchy but suspiciously swerves doing a deep dive into the whole Andrew affair which by the measure of the Sussex victims is far more damaging back here in the land of reality).



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,035 ✭✭✭Be right back




  • Registered Users Posts: 11,295 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Wrong. Charles wrote to Meghan after the Oprah interview and she responded. You need to start getting the basic facts right.

    I don't know how any of you find it a bit odd that the Royal family might have a bit of unconscious bias - after all, that is how they are considered a cut about everyone else (including white people). Their titles stem from the fact that they are better than everyone else including mixed race, black, and brown people. Thats why their subjects bow and curtesy to them. People think they are superior/better than everyone else based on their bloodline (an accident of birth). Nothing else.

    My opinion is that the Royal Family were very worried about the reaction of the fairly racist British media more than anything else and that would explain the 'concern'. They were right to be concerned (Baby Archie depicted as a chimp leaving the hospital by no less than an BBC employee would support that they were right about that one).

    I really don't get why you think Meghan and Harry are behind this book. Have you not noticed that they are well able to speak for themselves in their various interviews, docuseries and biographies? And they stand over what they say. Why would they need Scobie to do that in his book?

    Just explain your logic to me on why you think they are behind this book and they are the ones to blame for naming Charles & Kate and not Piers Morgan?



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,507 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    That a family with unconscious bias welcomed in a woman of mixed race?

    Clearly not. I mean it wouldn't be an excuse but someway understandable if Charles was unconsciously racist given the household(s) he grew up in. But there is literally no explanation or excuse for Kate even allowing for her white privilege.

    Her motivation appears far more sinister.



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,507 ✭✭✭✭Boggles




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    Maybe she did and she didn’t tell you - it’s not like people shouted about such things after WW2



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    I don’t see anyone here stating “the RF don’t have unconscious bias”- we all have an element of unconscious bias -we just don’t know it - that’s why it’s called “unconscious” 🤪

    Its nothing to be ashamed about either - it’s about adapting our attitudes and behaviours over time as we become more consciously aware of our biases - nothing more sinister than that



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,507 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Nope. The vast majority of people didn't give Nazi salutes, unbelievable I actually have to explain that someone.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭Karppi


    Let's not forget that of the Royal Family, the only one who shows/speaks/exhibits what most people would call racist remarks and actions is..... Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex.



    I bet he was a nightmare for the Army. He managed to insult a fair proportion of the global population, in one way or another. Something he could put on his CV



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    You mean to tell me little kids out playing back in the 1940s didn’t Nazi salute -or adults didn’t do it in jest ? Nah not buying that and you weren’t there so save your moral lecture for someone else thanks



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,507 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Nope. They didn't put on robes and burn crosses either.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    And this is the chap Boggles supports whilst lecturing others on racism 😀



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,507 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Supports?

    Interesting.

    You stated this earlier.

    hey I’m not going to get in the way of you reducing Meaghan's future earning power.

    You do realise I don't know either of them, right?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭Karppi


    It's fascinating that you and Meghan share an interest in semantics.

    I really don't get why you think Meghan and Harry are behind this book. Have you not noticed that they are well able to speak for themselves in their various interviews, docuseries and biographies? And they stand over what they say. Why would they need Scobie to do that in his book?


    Just explain your logic to me on why you think they are behind this book and they are the ones to blame for naming Charles & Kate and not Piers Morgan?

    H&M are well able to spout their "truth". What they use is innuendo, suggestion, implication etc to form something that can be interpreted in a number of ways, a kind of "plausible deniability" ready for future use. As in the current situation

    The only possible source for the names in the first place is that Meghan, or Harry either leak it directly or indirectly to Omid Scobie. Is the King likely to leak the letter? No. Omid then somehow, yet to be unravelled, gets this into the manuscript that the poor Dutch translator received. As she has said, she did her job and translated it word for word. She didn't put the names in, plucked from thin air - and she certainly didn't get it where Fitzgerald got the €7bn figure from "[CEO David Drumm] would say, ‘I picked it out of my arse’."

    So, Scobie named the two royals. Then Piers Morgan opened. the Pandora's Box of Omid's Dutch book and there it was, out in the UK.

    All tracks lead back to H&M. All you have to do is cut down the weeds



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,458 ✭✭✭valoren


    I said she wrote to Charles. I left out who began the writing so please use some inference. There are many monarchies, there are also many hereditary systems based on birth and rank so what makes the British one any different? Nobody is forced to bow and curtsy. There is a class system in the UK. Part of the royal deal is that, instead of being wealthy land owners, they get privilege and status but it is transactional in so far as they are expected to spend their lives in service to and as representives of the public, to big up British interests. How do you even know there were concerns? That only ever came out of the mouth of Meghan and has never been formally acknowledged so take from that what you want. Maybe she might have People magazine or something print 49% of any letter from Charles to validate that. Give it some kind of solid foundation. Anything more than 50% is invading his privacy. 😉

    You don't get why people think Harry and Meghan might be behind the book? Are you being deliberately disingenuous? Quick recap of Finding Freedom. H&M getting bad press. A sympathetic author is writing an unauthorised book. To cover up involvement they have an aide brief the author with extensive notes so they can covertly get their truth/version of events out into the public domain. You know all that. Scobie was on ITV yesterday and said when this came up in the trial he was hearing it for the first time like everybody else. Gaslighting. A pathetic attempt to explain away Sussex collaboration by proxy. So there is quite a precedent set there. Harry and Meghan fed information to Omid Scobie.

    So my logic is that history doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes. Instead of an aide it was mutual friends. We're talking about contents of a letter exchange between Charles and Meghan in which two people are outed as having talked about their child. Amazing how he knew who the two names were. He isn't even in the royal rota. He said he didn't interview Meghan but said they had mutual friends who were very helpful in providing details and background. Do I really have to spell it out for you? I will anyway. Meghan told the mutual friend(s) the two names, the mutual friend(s) (not Meghan) told Omid, Meghan had no contact with Omid and is using the old we-have-to-be-able-to-deny-involvement stroke her husband had insisted on for Finding Freedom.

    Omid, armed with a bombshell, wrote information from those sources (which originated from Meghan) into his book, the publisher reviewed it and took out the names after a mandatory legal review. The bombshell has been defused and without it the book will be just another tabloidesque waste of time for readers i.e. the only people who will read it would know most of the contents as it is. The Dutch translator, with an English version including the two names, includes the two names. Omid the gaslighter then says he never meant to name names (although he wrote them in!) says he wants to find out how that happened. Then the Italian translator, working from the English version and by stunning coincidence, also goes to print with the same two names. As all of this breaks in the news his set-to-flop book then hits the Amazon top 40. But yeah, it's Piers Morgan who is to blame. Lol.

    Post edited by valoren on


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,458 ✭✭✭valoren


    White privilege? Sinister motivation for what exactly?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 39,507 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    The RF thrive off popularity - they need it to justify the grift, they are hardly going to go out and graft to earn it are they?

    It's why they spend millions of the public money on hefty spin doctoring teams.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,458 ✭✭✭valoren


    They need to be popular or else it becomes a republic. A world famous British brand (a firm if you will) which has a transactional relationship with the public (who btw get charged about £1.75 each per year on the running costs of this firm) has a press office and press relations staff and this press office and it's staff are tasked with putting a *gulp* positive spin on behalf of this firm/brand and its members? Crazy carry on.



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,507 ✭✭✭✭Boggles




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    What ? OMG you mean you’re not besties with them? 😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    It’s a two way street though - the British public get the pomp and ceremony and tradition that most right now still cherish and that also drives a massive supporting economy of millions of royal tourists to the shores every year spending their dollars euros and yen - it’s not as simple as “King spends public millions to make him look well “- there’s many in UK who can’t stand the monarchy but most range from tolerate to love.

    Every leader in the world spends public money on making themselves look good- it’s not like the RF have a monopoly on that idea.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,326 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    Hitler was very popular at one stage before the antisemitism and genocide became public knowledge, the photo of the young queen doing a Nazi salute was taken before the true horror was known.

    It was, of course, very well known when Hasbeen dressed up as a Nazi. Alas, no excuse of unconscious bias for him.

    Post edited by Leg End Reject on


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,507 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    So the only reason to keep them pumped with 100s of millions is tourism.

    Does Charles greet all the tourists personally?

    Give a licence to Disney and give all the palaces and stately manors to the National Trust.

    Quids in.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,035 ✭✭✭Be right back


    ...



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,093 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    It's weird how Harry gets a pass for the Nazi thing, and his racist remarks, despite being an adult at the time and fully aware of the history. The queen was literally a child who was told to do it by her weird uncle and it was some 80+ years ago, before the horrors of the holocaust were even known, but it's brought up constantly whenever anyone questions h&Ms "truth".



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 39,507 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Harry apologised and acknowledged his bigotry.

    The Queen refused to apology for her institution being wholesale slave traders. It's not like she didn't have the time TBF.

    Who knows maybe the King might.

    Make it a double apology.



Advertisement