Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

cnocbui · 03-03-2021 3:05pm

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:

BettyS · 03-03-2021 3:08pm

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?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-03-2021 3:19pm

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.

Stateofyou · 03-03-2021 3:19pm

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.

Stateofyou · 03-03-2021 3:21pm

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 · 03-03-2021 3:24pm

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."

cnocbui · 03-03-2021 3:24pm

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 · 03-03-2021 3:27pm

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 · 03-03-2021 3:34pm

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

BettyS · 03-03-2021 3:36pm

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 · 03-03-2021 3:37pm

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?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-03-2021 3:42pm

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."

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.

Stateofyou · 03-03-2021 3:43pm

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

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

BettyS · 03-03-2021 3:46pm

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

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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-03-2021 3:47pm

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."

VOM.

cnocbui · 03-03-2021 3:47pm

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?

I'm sure from your attitude you would happily believe Meghan would stamp her foot and say she wanted the one that she ahde been told she couldn't have, but I rather doubt that, so I stand by my musings. 2019:https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/style/1216181/queen-elizabeth-vladimir-tiara-pictures-latest-meghan-markle-wedding-day

Stateofyou · 03-03-2021 3:49pm

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.

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. A businesse which breaks the law and loses lawsuits often enough, including recently. You wouldn't be able to rely on Meghan's history of this behaviour either, 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, no form but there is an agenda.

munstergirl · 03-03-2021 3:51pm

Harry & Meghan could have got on with their lives and lived happily ever after out of the royal family. They made a mistake with the way they did it and way they treated the queen was just selfish.

The pandemic got in the way of their plan.

Harry & Meghan seem to only care about themselves and $$$$$ they want to make billions, not millions. That's just pure greed. Their publicist has a hard job on their hands looking for sympathy for millionaires during pandemic.

They had enough money to start a new life anywhere in the world but they wanted a mansion worth 14 million.

I don't feel sorry for either of them and this interview could backfire on them. Especially with Prince Philip in hospital.

Stateofyou · 03-03-2021 3:52pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

VOM.

Take it up with the journalist who wrote the article about them. They're usually some degree of nasty written diarrhoea anyway.

BettyS · 03-03-2021 3:52pm

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.

You bemoan the bullying that Meghan faced but you make very nasty comments to other posters. It’s a two-way street

Stateofyou · 03-03-2021 3:57pm

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

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.

Stateofyou · 03-03-2021 3:59pm

BettyS wrote: »

You bemoan the bullying that Meghan faced but you make very nasty comments to other posters. It’s a two-way street

Oh really? Where's my "very nasty comments?"

You can either retract that ridiculous personal attack or I will report your comment.

Edit: from you:

Hilarious! You better go back to law-school, my friend

Rich.

BettyS · 03-03-2021 4:00pm

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.

I am highlighting some of the issues that people may have with these people. I don’t think that anybody should be condemned to trial by social media or the media. However, it is worth asking why people turned against them?

BettyS · 03-03-2021 4:01pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

Oh really? Where's my "very nasty comments?"

You can either retract that ridiculous personal attack or I will report your comment.

You asked the poster what age are you, implying they were immature?

You cannot win with your illogical arguments, so you threaten me with the moderator. The last vestiges of a failing debate

Stateofyou · 03-03-2021 4:03pm

BettyS wrote: »

I am highlighting some of the issues that people may have with these people. I don’t think that anybody should be condemned to trial by social media or the media. However, it is worth asking why people turned against them?

You have decided to highlight baseless media and gossip, that's all. You've fed into the multi-million pound bullying industry which only makes them rich and society worse off. Well done.

But you think they should be "condemned" to trial by boards users? What's the difference? It's form of social media is it not.

Be right back · 03-03-2021 4:04pm

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

Prince Andrew should have the book thrown at him. Rumours about his rudeness for years before the Epstein connection. I can't see it happening though.

Baggly · 03-03-2021 4:05pm

Mod

Stateofyou - you can either calm it down or stop posting.

Either way, please go have a read of the AH charter for yourself.

Stateofyou · 03-03-2021 4:06pm

BettyS wrote: »

You asked the poster what age are you, implying they were immature?

You cannot win with your illogical arguments, so you threaten me with the moderator. The last vestiges of a failing debate

Exactly.

And I might need to reiterate that. Because it's not about winning or whatever else you imagine (like you're being threatened), it's taking a stand against the baseless bullying I see against people I admire for the good they're doing. They could be another corrupt or shallow or shady famous person, but they're not.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-03-2021 4:07pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

Take it up with the journalist who wrote the article about them. They're usually some degree of nasty written diarrhoea anyway.

It’s a quote. Harry would have had to say those words for them to be placed in quotation marks. I’m not sure why I’d have to “take it up with the journalist”.

Or why I’d bother. I’m reacting to an article. I doubt the journalist would be interested in my thoughts.

Banana Republic 1 · 03-03-2021 4:09pm

Meanwhile in let them eat cake land....

Stateofyou · 03-03-2021 4:09pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s a quote. Harry would have had to say those words for them to be placed in quotation marks. I’m not sure why I’d have to “take it up with the journalist”.

The EXCERPT from the article is in quotes. It's obviously a description of what he said. I should think that it's obvious, and Harry didn't write the article himself describing his own statement. Wow.

BettyS · 03-03-2021 4:10pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

You have decided to highlight baseless media and gossip, that's all. You've fed into the multi-million pound bullying industry which only makes them rich and society worse off. Well done.

But you think they should be "condemned" to trial by boards users? What's the difference? It's form of social media is it not.

I apparently advocate a bullying industry, but you are the victim of a personal attack? Hmmm...

We are not condemning. We are discussing. But have our democracy declined to the point that we are no longer allowed to discuss, lest we be accused of bullying?

Stateofyou · 03-03-2021 4:15pm

BettyS wrote: »

I apparently advocate a bullying industry, but you are the victim of a personal attack? Hmmm...

We are not condemning. We are discussing. But have our democracy declined to the point that we are no longer allowed to discuss, lest we be accused of bullying?

Yes, that is my opinion. Where did I say I was a victim - I didn't. More hyperbole.

"We are not condemning?" Go have another read especially of valorem's posts, and explain how that's not condemning.

There's a difference between discussing facts (which are in short supply here), and insisting you know who another person is, what they think, and then attack their character.

Doesn't Harry also have an open case for the hacking of his phone?

cnocbui · 03-03-2021 4:23pm

BettyS wrote: »

I am highlighting some of the issues that people may have with these people. I don’t think that anybody should be condemned to trial by social media or the media. However, it is worth asking why people turned against them?

You seem happy enough with them being tried and convicted by the UK gutter press. And then to disingenuously state it's 'worth asking why people turned against them.' Exhibit A: the Daily Mail.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-03-2021 4:47pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

The EXCERPT from the article is in quotes. It's obviously a description of what he said. I should think that it's obvious, and Harry didn't write the article himself describing his own statement. Wow.

The bit I was reacting to (bolded below) is in quotation marks. That means that it was something he said. I bolded the whole sentence in the other post but it was the “every girl’s dream” bit that was the focus of my reaction. If he didn’t say those words, they wouldn’t have been placed in quotation marks.

Wow indeed.

Stateofyou wrote: »

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."

Stateofyou · 03-03-2021 4:53pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The bit I was reacting to (bolded below) is in quotation marks. That means that it was something he said. I bolded the whole sentence in the other post but it was the “every girl’s dream” bit that was the focus of my reaction. If he didn’t say those words, they wouldn’t have been placed in quotation marks.

Wow indeed.

You had bolded the words "sweetly revealed" but that has changed now. You must have edited.

03-03-2021 4:54pm

cnocbui wrote: »

You have to hand it to the Queen, here she is recently bitch-slapping Meghan like a boss:

any idea what she was attending or who told her what to wear?
you don't really think the Queen decides these things herself do ya??

cnocbui · 03-03-2021 5:04pm

bubblypop wrote: »

any idea what she was attending or who told her what to wear?
you don't really think the Queen decides these things herself do ya??

It was a diplomatic reception, amusingly enough, given the deliberate in-your-face lack of any diplomacy. She might as well have flipped the bird to a photo of her grandson and his wife.

If she wears what she is told to, well that would just underline my previous criticism of her. I think it's beyond coincidence she's wearing that particular item given the tabloid controversy. I suspect if she was abideing by the instructions of 'others', they would have been more diplomatic.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-03-2021 5:07pm

Stateofyou wrote: »

You had bolded the words "sweetly revealed" but that has changed now. You must have edited.

No, I didn’t edit it. If I had, there’d be a timestamp underneath my post saying that I had edited the post (unless the edit happened within something like two or three minutes). I posted my replies to you on that the subject of that post well outside that very short time limit so if I had edited the post, the timestamp would be there. You are accusing me of dishonesty here. Please take that back.

Baggly · 03-03-2021 5:11pm

Mod

Thread is closed for review.

Baggly · 04-03-2021 10:09am

Mod

I have asked my comods to review this thread and we agree that it does not fall under the remit of the AH charter. Given this is a long running thread that was initially hosted in AH for lighthearted discussion, but is far from it now, im going to keep it locked.

If you wish to start a new thread in CA, you may do so. I would advise you to read the local charter there before you do so.

Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Comments