nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

bitofabind

Predictable? Or will live to regret it?

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1214979436396855296

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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?

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

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

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."

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

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."

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

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.

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.

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?

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:

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.

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

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

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: »

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

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: »

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

[Deleted User]

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.

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

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.

Stateofyou

banie01 wrote: »

Thanks for discussion.
It's always great when someone is able to lay out their view and interact with others to defend it, change minds or even their own positions.

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

banie01

Stateofyou wrote: »

No hyperbole, eh? The rest of that is beneath a response. :rolleyes:

Thanks for discussion.
It's always great when someone is able to lay out their view and interact with others to defend it, change minds or even their own positions.

Stateofyou

banie01 wrote: »

There is no hyperbole on my part.
I laid out a rather brief and initial view, you run with it as my having an agenda or motive.

TBH other than a little bit of fascination regarding the position of a POC forming an opinion of "racist" Britain based upon her limited and incredibly privileged experience while living there.

There is a gulf of difference between the African asylum seekers experience of the UK.
And that of a spouse of a royal.

You seem to take everyone's objection to your own use of hyperbole as a personal attack and an invalidation of any opinion contrary opinion.
Why?

No hyperbole, eh? The rest of that is beneath a response. :rolleyes:

valoren

cnocbui wrote: »

Quote where I have made any comment related to ghosting.

You quoted the post by Yurts! which is about ghosting and said it was the press who is informing them. The takeaway is that you're implying that the ghosting is not factual because of a biased press.

Be right back

cnocbui wrote: »

Serious, you be?

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffnt&q=football+racism+uk&ia=web

How is racist chanting at a soccer match similar to the examples you gave?

silverharp

doesnt seem like her lol

https://twitter.com/Suffragentleman/status/1367087719688642563

cnocbui

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.

Quote where I have made any comment related to ghosting.

banie01

Stateofyou wrote: »

:pac: Ah the ol resorting to hyperbole to try and make a point when you don't have one.

By that same logic others with the opposite view are also defensive and aggressive in their attacks.

There is no hyperbole on my part.
I laid out a rather brief and initial view, you run with it as my having an agenda or motive.

TBH other than a little bit of fascination regarding the position of a POC forming an opinion of "racist" Britain based upon her limited and incredibly privileged experience while living there.

There is a gulf of difference between the African asylum seekers experience of the UK.
And that of a spouse of a royal.

You seem to take everyone's objection to your own use of hyperbole as a personal attack and an invalidation of any opinion contrary opinion.
Why?

valoren

cnocbui wrote: »

Your opinions have been formed and made clear to you by the press.

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.