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 there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

13637383941

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    BettyS wrote: »
    Oh the irony!!!

    The immature hypocriticalness here is unreal.

    Leaving you to all to your imaginary bloodbath here of two people you don't even know, I've better things to do with my day. No wonder the owner of those gossip rags are millionaires many times over. :rolleyes: :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Since a gaggle of people here seem to be terribly involved in Megan and Harry you'll be glad to know half of today's The Times is dedicated to them. Just in case you want to switch to a bit more high brow reading. ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    valoren wrote: »
    And if you post critical counter points then you are obviously a Daily Mail reader.

    No. I am not a Daily Mail reader. Nor will I proceed to justify myself to such an absurd and poorly reasoned argument. Little personal quips are the retorts of somebody who cannot make a better point.

    I know several people with PhDs that read the Daily Mail. Does that make them idiots? No: it does not. Professionals, at the end of a long day may just want some light relief. It is not because somebody reads it for entertainment that they necessarily soak up all the information blindly. I don’t read it. But I am not going to be exert intellectual superiority over somebody on that basis. Each to their own. Not everybody has time to cross-reference the affiliations of the writers and editors and the story itself. Is there only one correct paper now?


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Hahahahhaahha, it's a true assessment of that poster's style, obvious to anyone with a degree preference for decency and facts.

    Your defense of that poster is what is actually aggressive here. How about you let them speak for themselves?

    And now you state that I have no decency or facts?

    Who are you proclaiming to when you speak in third person?

    I don’t like to standby and to watch you make false assertions about other posters on the basis that they don’t agree with you


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    The immature hypocriticalness here is unreal.

    Leaving you to all to your imaginary bloodbath here of two people you don't even know, I've better things to do with my day. No wonder the owner of those gossip rags are millionaires many times over. :rolleyes: :pac:

    It’s lockdown. People might not be lucky enough at the moment to have other things to talk about. This is light relief from COVID and politics in general


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,535 ✭✭✭valoren


    BettyS wrote: »
    No. I am not a Daily Mail reader. Nor will I proceed to justify myself to such an absurd and poorly reasoned argument. Little personal quips are the retorts of somebody who cannot make a better point.

    I know several people with PhDs that read the Daily Mail. Does that make them idiots? No: it does not. Professionals, at the end of a long day may just want some light relief. It is not because somebody reads it for entertainment that they necessarily soak up all the information blindly. I don’t read it. But I am not going to be exert intellectual superiority over somebody on that basis. Each to their own. Not everybody has time to cross-reference the affiliations of the writers and editors and the story itself. Is there only one correct paper now?


    I was agreeing not having a go. I was accused of being under the influence of the Daily Mail because I was critical of Meghan. (i.e. my brain get’s hacked into their social media feed). A few posts above.

    It’s probably easier for supporters to believe we’re incapable of thinking for ourselves or capable of making deductions which are critical of Meghan.


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    valoren wrote: »
    I was agreeing not having a go. I was accused of being under the influence of the Daily Mail because I was critical of Meghan. (i.e. my brain get’s hacked into their social media feed). A few posts above.

    It’s probably easier for supporters to believe we’re incapable of thinking for ourselves or capable of making deductions which are critical of Meghan.

    Sorry! I didn’t mean to be in defensive mode. I just read a pile of posts from State of you 🀦ðŸ»*♀️

    Completely agree with your post!!! We are moronic, semi-literate fools, whose only encounter of an epic was the pull out section of the DM


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,264 ✭✭✭Be right back


    valoren wrote: »
    I was agreeing not having a go. I was accused of being under the influence of the Daily Mail because I was critical of Meghan. (i.e. my brain get’s hacked into their social media feed). A few posts above.

    It’s probably easier for supporters to believe we’re incapable of thinking for ourselves or capable of making deductions which are critical of Meghan.

    We must be wrong as we are critical of Meghan. I think in the coming days, the Times will have more articles on Meghan. Perhaps those she is said to have bullied will have their say.

    Just wondering why her dad was good for her first wedding but not the royal wedding?


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    We must be wrong as we are critical of Meghan. I think in the coming days, the Times will have more articles on Meghan. Perhaps those she is said to have bullied will have their say.

    Just wondering why her dad was good for her first wedding but not the royal wedding?

    In a way, either directly or indirectly, it has been inferred that the British population is racist. I think that this is one of the most damaging accusations. It is not surprising that the British public have gone into defensive mode.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,132 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    BettyS wrote: »
    Her father and sister tell their tale.

    I am not saying that their accounts are correct. I am saying that why is the only true account what Meghan and Harry choose to tell us?

    Her sister is a four letter word of such ill-repute and character that she has been estranged from Meghan for decades and is such that she is even estranged from her own children, which takes some effort. She seems to have several axes to grind and has been seeking to profit from her situation since the get-go. She is at the very least, a most hostile witness. If you are genuinly asking why I or anyone else should dismiss anything salacious she says about Meghan, then I have to admit, it's beyond my limited faculties to explain it to you.

    Her father is no better, he's been back-stabbing her in a way no father should their daughter - saying that as a father with a daughter. The participant in endless glow-in-the-dark obvious cheque-book journalism. He's being paid by the DM, whose massive antipathy and bias towards Meghan is beyond obvious, so he's not just a tainted source, he's positivly a biohazzard.

    That leaves Meghan and Harry, who while biased, are more than a cut above the scum who own and edit the DM and Meghan's estranged family from hell.


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Her sister is a four letter word of such ill-repute and character that she has been been astranged from Meghan for decades and is such that she is even estranged from her own children, which takes some effort. SHe seems to have several axes to grind and has been seeking to profit from her situation since the get-go. She is at the very least, a most hostile witness. If you are genuinly asking why I or anyone else should dismiss anything salacious she says about Meghan, then I have to admit, it's beyond my limited faculties to explain it to you.

    Her father is no better, he's been back-stabbing her in a way no father should their daughter - saying that as a father with a daughter. The participant in endless glow-in-the-dark obvious cheque-book journalism. He's being paid by the DM, whose massive antipathy and bias towards Meghan is beyond obvious, so he's not just a tainted source, he's positivly a biohazzard.

    That leaves Meghan and Harry, who while biased, are more than a cut above the scum who own and edit the DM and Meghan's estranged family from hell.

    One question, as an objective observer. The love between a father and daughter trumps most things in life. He was there for the first wedding. He supported her through her early days of navigating fame. What unspoken events made this man turn against his daughter in recent years? Maybe he is being a douche, or maybe he is reacting to a slight? Who knows! But we cannot assume automatically that she is in the right. Family law is seldom so clear-cut


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,132 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    BettyS wrote: »
    In a way, either directly or indirectly, it has been inferred that the British population is racist. I think that this is one of the most damaging accusations. It is not surprising that the British public have gone into defensive mode.

    The British are inherently racist, a passing acquaintance with their history and colonial conduct would make that obvious. In my family tree is a British general, who had Indians tied over the muzzles of cannon, which were then fired. Their crime was to want the invaders to leave. In Australia, British soldiers used to bury aborigines in the ground vertically, with only their head above ground, and then would hold competitions to see who could completely separate the head from the torso with the fewest kicks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    cnocbui wrote: »
    The British are inherently racist, a passing acquaintance with their history and colonial conduct would make that obvious. In my family tree is a British general, who had Indians tied over the muzzles of cannon, which were then fired. Their crime was to want the invaders to leave. In Australia, British soldiers used to bury aborigines in the ground vertically, with only their head above ground, and then would hold competitions to see who could completely separate the head from the torso with the fewest kicks.

    But I am speaking about present day Britain. I do not live in Britain, so I cannot assess the veracity of the claim that current day Britain is racist. However, I do realise that most nations would go into defensive mode if accused of racism


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,264 ✭✭✭Be right back


    cnocbui wrote: »
    The British are inherently racist, a passing acquaintance with their history and colonial conduct would make that obvious. In my family tree is a British general, who had Indians tied over the muzzles of cannon, which were then fired. Their crime was to want the invaders to leave. In Australia, British soldiers used to bury aborigines in the ground vertically, with only their head above ground, and then would hold competitions to see who could completely separate the head from the torso with the fewest kicks.

    Dreadful stuff but it has very little to do with modern Britain.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Her sister is a four letter word of such ill-repute and character that she has been estranged from Meghan for decades and is such that she is even estranged from her own children, which takes some effort. She seems to have several axes to grind and has been seeking to profit from her situation since the get-go. She is at the very least, a most hostile witness. If you are genuinly asking why I or anyone else should dismiss anything salacious she says about Meghan, then I have to admit, it's beyond my limited faculties to explain it to you.

    Her father is no better, he's been back-stabbing her in a way no father should their daughter - saying that as a father with a daughter. The participant in endless glow-in-the-dark obvious cheque-book journalism. He's being paid by the DM, whose massive antipathy and bias towards Meghan is beyond obvious, so he's not just a tainted source, he's positivly a biohazzard.

    That leaves Meghan and Harry, who while biased, are more than a cut above the scum who own and edit the DM and Meghan's estranged family from hell.

    I'd have to disagree on her family. Meghan has a pattern of abandoning and ghosting anyone who means anything to her in her life. Her first husband, her Dad, her diplomat uncle who was sorting her career out early on when she wanted to be in the Foreign Service. Even a lot of her friends distanced themselves from her when she ditched her first husband out of nowhere.

    It's one of the measures of a person I find that is usually extremely accurate when I assess people. Do they have long standing friends? Or are they constantly moving from group to group and latest person in their life is the greatest and best person ever until they are devalued and abandoned?

    To me it's clear as day Meghan has some sort of personality disorder. It doesn't make her the devil, but the problems in her life are of her own creation and not necessarily of the British media's invention.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,132 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Yurt! wrote: »
    I'd have to disagree on her family. Meghan has a pattern of abandoning and ghosting anyone who means anything to her in her life. Her first husband, her Dad, her diplomat uncle who was sorting her career out early on when she wanted to be in the Foreign Service. Even a lot of her friends distanced themselves from her when she ditched her first husband out of nowhere.

    It's one of the measures of a person I find that is usually extremely accurate when I assess people. Do they have long standing friends? Or are they constantly moving from group to group and latest person in their life is the greatest and best person ever until they are devalued and abandoned?

    To me it's clear as day Meghan has some sort of personality disorder. It doesn't make her the devil, but the problems in her life are of her own creation and not necessarily of the British media's invention.

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,132 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Dreadful stuff but it has very little to do with modern Britain.

    How naive. Football, Prince Phillip, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Your opinions have been formed and made clear to you by the press.

    And did you ring up Meghan and Harry, and have a long chat with them about their account?

    Presumably your opinion was formed by the printed media also?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,132 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    We must be wrong as we are critical of Meghan. I think in the coming days, the Times will have more articles on Meghan. Perhaps those she is said to have bullied will have their say.

    Just wondering why her dad was good for her first wedding but not the royal wedding?

    He claimed he couldn't make the wedding due to being in hospital for heart surgery, or some such. How is that Meghan's fault?


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    cnocbui wrote: »
    How naive. Football, Prince Phillip, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

    Genuinely curious about the football one. What do you mean?


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    cnocbui wrote: »
    The British are inherently racist, a passing acquaintance with their history and colonial conduct would make that obvious. In my family tree is a British general, who had Indians tied over the muzzles of cannon, which were then fired. Their crime was to want the invaders to leave. In Australia, British soldiers used to bury aborigines in the ground vertically, with only their head above ground, and then would hold competitions to see who could completely separate the head from the torso with the fewest kicks.

    Xenophobic, but not more racist than anyone else. Maybe 300 years ago, but probably not even then


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    cnocbui wrote: »
    He claimed he couldn't make the wedding due to being in hospital for heart surgery, or some such. How is that Meghan's fault?

    It is not like they have the closest relationship, apart from that isolated incident


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,264 ✭✭✭Be right back


    cnocbui wrote: »
    How naive. Football, Prince Phillip, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

    What does today's football have to do with the examples you gave?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,132 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    BettyS wrote: »
    And did you ring up Meghan and Harry, and have a long chat with them about their account?

    Presumably your opinion was formed by the printed media also?

    What opinion? Pease quote it so I can be specific in reply.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,132 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    What does today's football have to do with the examples you gave?

    Serious, you be?

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Her sister is a four letter word of such ill-repute and character that she has been estranged from Meghan for decades and is such that she is even estranged from her own children, which takes some effort. She seems to have several axes to grind and has been seeking to profit from her situation since the get-go. She is at the very least, a most hostile witness. If you are genuinly asking why I or anyone else should dismiss anything salacious she says about Meghan, then I have to admit, it's beyond my limited faculties to explain it to you.

    Her father is no better, he's been back-stabbing her in a way no father should their daughter - saying that as a father with a daughter. The participant in endless glow-in-the-dark obvious cheque-book journalism. He's being paid by the DM, whose massive antipathy and bias towards Meghan is beyond obvious, so he's not just a tainted source, he's positivly a biohazzard.

    That leaves Meghan and Harry, who while biased, are more than a cut above the scum who own and edit the DM and Meghan's estranged family from hell.

    Cnocbui, this opinion.

    I grant you the facts (but not the suppositions) that you put forth may be correct. But what led to these facts? What led her father to the course of action he took?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,132 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    BettyS wrote: »
    Cnocbui, this opinion.

    I grant you the facts (but not the suppositions) that you put forth may be correct. But what led to these facts? What led her father to the course of action he took?

    I don't know and don't really want to know. Their business, not mine.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Your opinions have been formed and made clear to you by the press.

    Ok. And yours on her family would be similar.

    As the Dude Lebowski once said: "Well that's just like your opinion man"


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    cnocbui wrote: »
    I don't know and don't really want to know. Their business, not mine.

    You profess not to care, but called her estranged family scum. This does not suggest impartiality


  • Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Your opinions have been formed and made clear to you by the press.

    I think it clear that every bodies have.

    Seroius people posting KM, MM, Haz? Like they are the football mates?

    My opinion, if everyone else is out of step from the fallen royals, then maybe people have it backwards


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,132 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Yurt! wrote: »
    Ok. And yours on her family would be similar.

    As the Dude Lebowski once said: "Well that's just like your opinion man"

    As some other ficticious character in a movie said - whatever.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,535 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,077 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,132 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,264 ✭✭✭Be right back


    cnocbui wrote: »

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,535 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭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:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,077 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭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:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,077 ✭✭✭✭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 :)


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,836 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,836 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement