Stateofyou wrote: » When you decide to have a rational discussion, let me know. :pac:
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.
Stateofyou wrote: » I actually work within the legal profession thank you, I'm good. You shouldn't presume.
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.
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.
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!
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.
cnocbui wrote: » You have to hand it to the Queen, here she is recently bitch-slapping Meghan like a boss:
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Stateofyou wrote: » AND yet another side to that is how ridiculous it is to compare your one piece of jewellery to a vast ownership of the Crown Jewels and a tradition of royal brides wearing them.What proof of this do you have that Meghan "stropped about what tiara she gets."
BettyS wrote: » Or perhaps I realise that life isn’t based on some Disney Tale with the goodies and the baddies. Maybe I am a pragmatist and learned the art of critical reasoning, which your law school seems to have omitted
Stateofyou wrote: » Or maybe you don't have to be so mean spirited and assume the worst about people you don't know. Because that's totally normal behaviour in real life, right? You say "Disney tale" I say being kind and looking for what is actually known and not just thinking the worst of people and making things up in one's own head. You would think they hang out with paedophiles or something, the level of nastiness they receive. Where's the pages long thread or any criticism about Prince Andrew's behaviour? What have H&M done that even come anywhere close to that, yet its them who deserve the attacks? Hmmm
Stateofyou wrote: » She seems to have worn the very one she chose though. "When it came to the tiara on the day, I was very fortunate to be able to chose this gorgeous art deco style bandeau tiara," Meghan said in the recording, according to Harper's Bazaar UK. "Harry and I had gone to Buckingham Palace to meet with her Majesty the Queen to select one of the options that were there which was an incredibly surreal day as you can imagine."Harry sweetly revealed trying on a tiara was "every girl's dream," and he wholeheartedly agreed with Meghan's tiara of choice, the Queen Mary's bandeau tiara. "Funnily enough, it was the one that suited the best," Harry added. "The one that looked the best on you without question. I shouldn't have really been there—but an incredible loan by my grandmother."
BettyS wrote: » You presume no caveats? So, what year was the picture with the queen and the Jewels? Meghan is marrying her grandson! That gives her right to whatever Meghan wants?
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Sure, what proof do any of us for any aspect of that story? I don’t recall you questioning people proferring reasons for the Queen not to give her a particular tiara. We’re all spitballing here. I’m simply saying that either way, whatever the truth, there are elements of the ridiculous here. If Queenie just pettily didn’t want Meghan to have a particular tiara, that’s ridiculous because she will get it back and it would have been heavily guarded. If Meghan only wanted a particular one, that’s ridiculous because she was not a little girl, she was a woman in her late 30s. I bet there’s a bit of truth to both stories and if so, THAT’S RIDICULOUS. I would be embarrassed at that story if I was either one of them, to be honest.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » VOM.
Stateofyou wrote: » I posted the proof. I haven't reiterated anything or accused them of doing or saying anything that wasn't said directly by them and those involved. You don't see me questioning anything because I'm not going to speculate on what didn't happen. H&M directly said how it was. Some people obviously want to find reasons to criticise anyway. Not my style. "Queenie?" What age are you :-s And what reason would there be to there being any truth to that ridiculous tabloid story. You certainly can't fall behind the reasoning of them being a bastion of truth who's whole profit model is based on printing attacks leading to real harm of others. Businesses which break the law and lose lawsuits often enough, including recently. You wouldn't be able to rely on Meghan's history of this behaviour, as no-one she worked with or who knows her in real life has anything like that to say about her. In fact the patronages they recently worked with have praised them. Even her bullying half sister referred to her as lovely person. There's no precedent, no proof, but there is an agenda.
BettyS wrote: » But you seem to think that everybody who says anything against them is some heinous villain. People don’t like that they profess about charity and the environment from a private jet
BettyS wrote: » You bemoan the bullying that Meghan faced but you make very nasty comments to other posters. It’s a two-way street
Hilarious! You better go back to law-school, my friend
Stateofyou wrote: » YOU don't like it. Speak for yourself. Harry has addressed their occasional use of private jet and the reasons why. Perhaps you might look into that, you know, what he actually has to say and what his goals are with Travelyst. Are you making bigger moves than Harry in relation to sustainable future travel? Isn't that the main thing? Why are you so focused on the occasional times a royal prince may need to fly privately instead of choosing to be supportive of someone actually doing something about a massive problem? It's ridiculous.
