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

Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Options
1…6263656768…70

Comments

  • Options
    #1922
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    BettyS wrote: »
    I think that the British public felt that Kate earned her stripes. They saw Meghan make a few faux-pas before earning her stripes, such as the Wimbledon incident, the celebrity-studded wedding and the high staff turnover. These actions were too radical and too rapid a departure from the status quo for certain Royalists.

    It must be challenging to enter into the Monarchy as a woman in her 30s. I couldn’t do it! All the protocols and pretentiousness would drive me insane. The concept of ranking based on birthright rather than meritocracy seems ludicrous

    And all the pressure to produce heirs and spares! :eek: There’d have been more pressure on Kate than Meghan there though. I wouldn’t be surprised if Kate’s fertility was tested before William proposed.


  • Options
    #1923
    Purple Mountain
    Registered Users Posts: 13,028 ✭✭✭✭Purple Mountain


    Where can us Irish folk watch the Oprah interview next week?

    To thine own self be true



  • Options
    #1924
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Purple Mountain wrote: »
    Where can us Irish folk watch the Oprah interview next week?

    I’d say keep an eye out for Youtube uploads. They might be removed quickly though.


  • Options
    #1925
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Nqp15hhu wrote: »
    It was her choice to sign up to that, along with all the taxpayers funds that she received.

    Saying "you knew what you were getting into" is very mean also, not true. No one can foresee the extent of all the troubles that lie ahead in any situation. And even if they could or reasonably guess, it doesn't mean they don't deserve kindness, empathy or support.

    What funds were those? (And that haven't been paid back? - Frogmore Reno's). Also going by your logic, the British still choose to have a monarchy. There's obviously not enough support for abolishing it.


  • Options
    #1926
    Mr.Wemmick
    Registered Users Posts: 1,057 ✭✭✭Mr.Wemmick


    I find it really interesting this morning/yesterday how the control-mad media continue to criticize and rubbish them at every turn - the public follow in true insular fashion and join-in with the criticism. Funny how H&M are held to account, but the media never is.

    The UK nationalistic mess, the whipped-up hatred with racism and brexit etc. have all been caused in part by the media. And the media deflect attention away from the RF and how the queen and Charles have interfered with UK laws over the years making sure their property and wealth are exempt from the rules. This was barely mentioned in the media and will never be scrutnised, nor the gas lighting the media do at every turn.

    Harry & Megan's breakaway is capable of doing some real damage to the RF. I think it's great they buggered off - hope they do erode the power and control the RF have.. after all, I am sure Harry knows where they bodies are buried.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1927
    rob316
    Registered Users Posts: 17,972 ✭✭✭✭rob316


    Piers and his mob are absolutely obsessed by them. I've watch him interview serial killers and he had less disdain for them than these 2.

    I've no interest in the RF, but good for them and I hope they find the peace they want eventually.


  • Options
    #1928
    Purple Mountain
    Registered Users Posts: 13,028 ✭✭✭✭Purple Mountain


    Great they "got away" if that's what they want but it's so hypocritical saying they want privacy and now opening a huge can of worms with this celebrity style interview.
    Did you see Meghan's forlorn face in the clip released? And Oprah's dramatic question about "being silenced"?
    For people who wanted out of the media circus, they're drawing it all on themselves again.
    Wonder why that is? Hmmm.. Looking for more television deals maybe?
    Meghan is flogging a vegan coffee now that Oprah promoted last month.
    They're nothing more than Instahuns now and need the free advertising.

    To thine own self be true



  • Options
    #1929
    Be right back
    Registered Users Posts: 6,056 ✭✭✭Be right back


    Purple Mountain wrote: »
    Great they "got away" if that's what they want but it's so hypocritical saying they want privacy and now opening a huge can of worms with this celebrity style interview.
    Did you see Meghan's forlorn face in the clip released? And Oprah's dramatic question about "being silenced"?
    For people who wanted out of the media circus, they're drawing it all on themselves again.
    Wonder why that is? Hmmm.. Looking for more television deals maybe?
    Meghan is flogging a vegan coffee now thsy Oprah promoted last month.
    They're nothing more than Instahuns now and need the free advertising.

    I think there are calls to delay it being shown as Prince Philip is still in hospital.


  • Options
    #1930
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,488 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Purple Mountain wrote: »
    Great they "got away" if that's what they want but it's so hypocritical saying they want privacy and now opening a huge can of worms with this celebrity style interview.
    Did you see Meghan's forlorn face in the clip released? And Oprah's dramatic question about "being silenced"?
    For people who wanted out of the media circus, they're drawing it all on themselves again.
    Wonder why that is? Hmmm.. Looking for more television deals maybe?
    Meghan is flogging a vegan coffee now thsy Oprah promoted last month.
    They're nothing more than Instahuns now and need the free advertising.

    You think they deserve to be lied about and attacked by the press because they want to sell something?


  • Options
    #1931
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    I truly don't understand why they can't just go away and stay out of the spotlight entirely. In America they absolutely could live a quiet life and raise their kids in peace.

    Doing stuff like the Oprah/James Cordon interviews are just kicking the wasps nest and bringing negative attention to themselves.

    They need to pick a path & stick to it, they can't have it both ways.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1932
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,488 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    I truly don't understand why they can't just go away and stay out of the spotlight entirely. In America they absolutely could live a quiet life and raise their kids in peace.

    Doing stuff like the Oprah/James Cordon interviews are just kicking the wasps nest and bringing negative attention to themselves.

    They need to pick a path & stick to it, they can't have it both ways.

    Why not? There are plenty of people that are very successful, that are involved in the media, that don't get ripped apart.

    The media simply picks which people it thinks are worth projecting as great, and which are deemed to be terrible.

    Meaghan is currently close to public enemy No 1. She is being treated worse that Andrew for goodness sake.

    Sure they could simply move into the background, but it seems they want to make a living, and helo with some charities.


  • Options
    #1933
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    I truly don't understand why they can't just go away and stay out of the spotlight entirely. In America they absolutely could live a quiet life and raise their kids in peace.

    Doing stuff like the Oprah/James Cordon interviews are just kicking the wasps nest and bringing negative attention to themselves.

    They need to pick a path & stick to it, they can't have it both ways.

    I agree. I think that they likely have plenty of money. Enough to live in obscurity if they so wish. I think what irks a lot of people about them is that they don’t seem to really want privacy all that much. That’s okay, just be honest about it. I think people would respect them more if they said “Look, we have opportunities presented to us that are interesting, we want to take advantage of them and we know that publicity goes with these opportunities”.


  • Options
    #1934
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,615 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Actually, I read (I can’t remember where exactly) that Andrew and the firm believed that the interview had gone really well and they were happy for it to be aired. IMO, that’s revealing of their contempt for the general public that they thought that that horseshit interview would be well-received.

    That story of Andrew being really happy with the interview came from the interviewer Emily Maitlis herself. She said after the interview was over Andrew brought her on a tour of Buckingham Palace for about half an hour during which time he said 'I thought that interview went great, thanks very much' etc. I think he even might have sent a thank you card to her office as well.

    Emily Maitlis herself didnt realise the gravity of what Andrew had said during the interview at the time. She said it was only when they got back to the BBC and watched it with the editors they realised what a true car crash it was. Between the Pizza Express in Woking explanation and the one where he said he wasnt able to sweat because of some injury sufferend in the Falklands War they then realised how explosive it was. All the while Andrew was back in Buckingham Palace patting himself on the back for a job well done.
    Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

    The UK nationalistic mess, the whipped-up hatred with racism and brexit etc. have all been caused in part by the media. And the media deflect attention away from the RF and how the queen and Charles have interfered with UK laws over the years making sure their property and wealth are exempt from the rules. This was barely mentioned in the media and will never be scrutnised, nor the gas lighting the media do at every turn.

    Im presuming you are talking about the current scandal of the Queens Consent where its been revealed she can (and has) interfered in laws that might effect her public estate and wealth. It came out that in 1973 she got a specific exemption from a corporate transparency law that would have revealed her wealth and investments. Every UK corporation is subject to this law but the Queen got herself an exemption in a back room deal where there was no paper trail on how this happened.

    Its also come out that Charles interfered with a law that allows tenants on leaseholds to buy the freehold to their house.This was a national law right across the UK. But Charles has an annual rental income of £22m a year from property within his Duchy of Cornwall (which is a 125,000 acre estate spread across 21 counties) so he got an exemption from the law specifically to benefit his own wealth. It means thousands of Charles' tenants in Cornwall and Dartmoor own their house but its is virtually worthless because Charles owns the land it sits upon and he wont sell it to them. The report also said that between 1970 and 2020 Charles has vetted 275 draft laws before they got approved by Parliament.

    This should be a major scandal in the UK but the compliant media like the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail have been almost silent on it. The British are told that the Royal Family are a constitutional monarchy and that they are just figureheads of State. But now it turns out they have been interfering in draft legislation before it gets introduced in Parliament for decades to protect their own private interests.

    Good article on it here for those who want to know more
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes


  • Options
    #1935
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    I agree. I think that they likely have plenty of money. Enough to live in obscurity if they so wish. I think what irks a lot of people about them is that they don’t seem to really want privacy all that much. That’s okay, just be honest about it. I think people would respect them more if they said “Look, we have opportunities presented to us that are interesting, we want to take advantage of them and we know that publicity goes with these opportunities”.

    They have literally said pretty much that in their speeches, comments, and previous Sussex Royal website.

    I don't understand why people are so confused about this. They want to be able to choose what they share (which is everyone's right). Privacy doesn't mean never speaking up or out or on things that matter to them. Or setting their own record straight. It means they don't want long lens and helicopters over their home getting pictures of the interior of their home or while their son is playing. Or publishing a private letter. Or being attacked and vilified for even mundane things that Kate did but Meghan apparently couldn't (like holding her own pregnant belly). Or eat an avocado without being accused of contributing to some sinister plot.

    I think they've been completely honest and transparent about what they want to do with their lives and what they won't tolerate.


  • Options
    #1936
    Purple Mountain
    Registered Users Posts: 13,028 ✭✭✭✭Purple Mountain


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So you think they deserve to be lied about and attacked by the press because they want to sell something?

    If they want to rebut something that is untrue in the press, they could just issue a statement or a legal threat.
    This interview is a full on launch back into the limelight on their terms.

    To thine own self be true



  • Options
    #1937
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    That story of Andrew being really happy with the interview came from the interviewer Emily Maitlis herself. She said after the interview was over Andrew brought her on a tour of Buckingham Palace for about half an hour during which time he said 'I thought that interview went great, thanks very much' etc. I think he even might have sent a thank you card to her office as well.

    Emily Maitlis herself didnt realise the gravity of what Andrew had said during the interview at the time. She said it was only when they got back to the BBC and watched it with the editors they realised what a true car crash it was. Between the Pizza Express in Woking explanation and the one where he said he wasnt able to sweat because of some injury sufferend in the Falklands War they then realised how explosive it was. All the while Andrew was back in Buckingham Palace patting himself on the back for a job well done.

    YES. Thank you. I knew it was a reliable source or I wouldn’t have posted it. I just could not remember who exactly said it.


  • Options
    #1938
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I found it strange that despite having so many friends, she couldn’t find one to walk her down the aisle.


  • Options
    #1939
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Markle does appear to have alienated a lot of people in her life. She has her prince now, but looking at her, I doubt she's happy. That's the thing with trader-uppers and social climbers, once you've reached the top of the tree, you still have to confront and deal with yourself at the end of the day.

    I predict divorce and Harry meekly shuffling back to the UK after an expensive and messy break-up.


  • Options
    #1940
    Be right back
    Registered Users Posts: 6,056 ✭✭✭Be right back


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I found it strange that despite having so many friends, she couldn’t find one to walk her down the aisle.

    Her mother would probably have liked to do that, seeing as her dad wasn't at the wedding.


  • Options
    #1941
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,488 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Purple Mountain wrote: »
    If they want to rebut something that is untrue in the press, they could just issue a statement or a legal threat.
    This interview is a full on launch back into the limelight on their terms.

    They have, repeatedly. Meaghan only recently won a court case.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1942
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    They have literally said pretty much that in their speeches, comments, and previous Sussex Royal website.

    I don't understand why people are so confused about this. They want to be able to choose what they share (which is everyone's right). Privacy doesn't mean never speaking up or out or on things that matter to them. Or setting their own record straight. It means they don't want long lens and helicopters over their home getting pictures of the interior of their home or while their son is playing. Or publishing a private letter. Or being attacked and vilified for even mundane things that Kate did but Meghan apparently couldn't (like holding her own pregnant belly). Or eat an avocado without being accused of contributing to some sinister plot.

    I think they've been completely honest and transparent about what they want to do with their lives and what they won't tolerate.

    As has been pointed out to you a few times, Kate was vilified plenty during her relationship with William and even for a while after they were married. It only really stopped once she gave birth to her first child. That the media later pitted Kate and Meghan against each other doesn’t erase all the criticism Kate and her family received. The ‘Waity Katey’ nickname. Her mother being scrutinised for addressing the Queen the wrong way. Her mother being criticised for chewing gum. Accusations that Kate and her family chose Marlborough and St. Andrew’s University to bagsie herself a royal or an aristocrat. The media scrutinising Kate’s extended family members in the lead up to the wedding, gleefully reporting that - shock horror! - family members with tattoo would be attending. The accusation that she basically did no work in her job as a fashion buyer.

    That’s not even all the criticism she received, just what I can remember. It’s not true that Kate did not come under as much scrutiny as Meghan. You have selective memory about this. Now maybe Harry and Meghan decided that they didn’t want Meghan subjected to the same scrutiny Kate was but tell me, have they succeeded in that goal? If not, why not?


  • Options
    #1943
    Be right back
    Registered Users Posts: 6,056 ✭✭✭Be right back


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    As has been pointed out to you a few times, Kate was vilified plenty during her relationship with William and even for a while after they were married. It only really stopped once she gave birth to her first child. That the media later pitted Kate and Meghan against each other doesn’t erase all the criticism Kate and her family received. The ‘Waity Katey’ nickname. Her mother being scrutinised for addressing the Queen the wrong way. Her mother being criticised for chewing gum. Accusations that Kate and her family chose Marlborough and St. Andrew’s University to bagsie herself a royal or an aristocrat. The media scrutinising Kate’s extended family members in the lead up to the wedding, gleefully reporting that - shock horror! - family members with tattoo would be attending. The accusation that she basically did no work in her job as a fashion buyer.

    That’s not even all the criticism she received, just what I can remember. It’s not true that Kate did not come under as much scrutiny as Meghan. You have selective memory about this. Now maybe Harry and Meghan decided that they didn’t want Meghan subjected to the same scrutiny Kate was but tell me, have they succeeded in that goal? If not, why not?

    Came across this image of Kate on her 25th birthday.


  • Options
    #1944
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,488 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    As has been pointed out to you a few times, Kate was vilified plenty during her relationship with William and even for a while after they were married. It only really stopped once she gave birth to her first child. That the media later pitted Kate and Meghan against each other doesn’t erase all the criticism Kate and her family received. The ‘Waity Katey’ nickname. Her mother being scrutinised for addressing the Queen the wrong way. Her mother being criticised for chewing gum. Accusations that Kate and her family chose Marlborough and St. Andrew’s University to bagsie herself a royal or an aristocrat. The media scrutinising Kate’s extended family members in the lead up to the wedding, gleefully reporting that - shock horror! - family members with tattoo would be attending. The accusation that she basically did no work in her job as a fashion buyer.

    That’s not even all the criticism she received, just what I can remember. It’s not true that Kate did not come under as much scrutiny as Meghan. You have selective memory about this. Now maybe Harry and Meghan decided that they didn’t want Meghan subjected to the same scrutiny Kate was but tell me, have they succeeded in that goal? If not, why not?

    That is all very true, although I would think that the vitriol leveled at Meaghan is greater. But that could simply be due to the timing rather than the actual reality.

    Regardless, what has happened is that, for whatever reason, Harry and Meaghan have decided that the price they were being asked to pay was not worth it. Kate either accepted it, dealt with it better or simply carried on.

    But Harry felt he couldn't. And he clearly made that well known to the rest of the RF. Instead of looking to help him through it, and to protect Meaghan, they seemed to have taken the view that stiff upper lip and sure didn't Kate get through it and its just life as a Royal.

    Harry seems to have decided that it isn't for him. But instead of dealing with it, seems the queen has taken the view that the RF is far more important as an institution than his grandsons health and has now, very publicly, cast him aside.


  • Options
    #1945
    bitofabind
    Registered Users Posts: 939 ✭✭✭bitofabind


    You can speak up and speak out on things that matter to you without going on Oprah. Send out a press statement. Do your charity work and post your blogs and get on with things. Speaking out on one of the biggest chat shows in the world is like hosting a circus instead of a town hall meeting. They'll be on the front pages for weeks, have been since the interview was announced and then some. If your goal is to stop press intrusion is this a rational decision to make?


  • Options
    #1946
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    As has been pointed out to you a few times, Kate was vilified plenty during her relationship with William and even for a while after they were married. It only really stopped once she gave birth to her first child. That the media later pitted Kate and Meghan against each other doesn’t erase all the criticism Kate and her family received. The ‘Waity Katey’ nickname. Her mother being scrutinised for addressing the Queen the wrong way. Her mother being criticised for chewing gum. Accusations that Kate and her family chose Marlborough and St. Andrew’s University to bagsie herself a royal or an aristocrat. The media scrutinising Kate’s extended family members in the lead up to the wedding, gleefully reporting that - shock horror! - family members with tattoo would be attending. The accusation that she basically did no work in her job as a fashion buyer.

    That’s not even all the criticism she received, just what I can remember. It’s not true that Kate did not come under as much scrutiny as Meghan. You have selective memory about this. Now maybe Harry and Meghan decided that they didn’t want Meghan subjected to the same scrutiny Kate was but tell me, have they succeeded in that goal? If not, why not?

    And as has been pointed out to you (all) a few times, I think what Meghan has been subjected to is worse than what you described. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. No need to try and force yours, they can coexist. :pac:

    At the end of the day neither women deserve it and the laws surrounding paparazzi and what they're allowed to publish should change. What need does the public have to see intrusive photos of their home or driving their cars, read personal letters, etc.

    I think they're making headway into changing things, yes. That's one of their stated goals and what they're working towards. Because on the other side of the press intrusion and printing lies to whip up anger at them, it's really not helpful for the type of society we all want to live in. We don't allow children to bully each other online or in person, and so we have campaigns, school policy, and parenting classes to try and shut that down. Regular adults aren't allowed to stalk, harass and slander each other - you can't even do it on boards without it getting removed (the post and the poster). Why do the gutter press and their followers get to do this to them? It causes real mental health harm. Which is why bullying isn't allowed in the first place.


  • Options
    #1947
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    bitofabind wrote: »
    You can speak up and speak out on things that matter to you without going on Oprah. Send out a press statement. Do your charity work and post your blogs and get on with things. Speaking out on one of the biggest chat shows in the world is like hosting a circus instead of a town hall meeting. They'll be on the front pages for weeks, have been since the interview was announced and then some. If your goal is to stop press intrusion is this a rational decision to make?

    I don't think any of us should be wading into telling other people what to do and how to tell their own story.
    Anything they say, wherever they say it and to whomever they say it to will be world news regurgitated everywhere. In fairness.


  • Options
    #1948
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    bitofabind wrote: »
    You can speak up and speak out on things that matter to you without going on Oprah. Send out a press statement. Do your charity work and post your blogs and get on with things. Speaking out on one of the biggest chat shows in the world is like hosting a circus instead of a town hall meeting. They'll be on the front pages for weeks, have been since the interview was announced and then some. If your goal is to stop press intrusion is this a rational decision to make?

    It is a strange one. If your goal is doing good works, knuckle down and get qualified in aid work or something and go at it. It's actually tough work, and you'll be confronting the worst of humanity's contradictions and suffering.

    The role they are trying to carve out seems to be rather woolly and slightly deluded. Pseudo-royal humanitarians operating out of LA, except outside a royal institution and with no particular humanitarian goals beyond Megan's boilerplate 'female empowerment' wheeze.

    They should just cut the nonsense and start a YouTube channel. One wonders when the penny will drop with Harry that he has made a huge mistake. They could live a pretty damn comfortable civilian if they could stoop to doing relatively normal work away from the public eye. At the risk of being one of those people who just has a go at Markle for the sake of it, she appears to want-in to the Royal circus, but wants-out at the same time.


  • Options
    #1949
    wyrn
    Registered Users Posts: 6,977 ✭✭✭wyrn


    I honestly think that Harry would have loved nothing more than to have kept serving in the army, but sadly the press broke the blackout agreement and reported he was serving overseas and he had no choice but to leave so he wasn't putting his colleagues at risk.


  • Options
    #1950
    Be right back
    Registered Users Posts: 6,056 ✭✭✭Be right back


    Interesting story in the Times.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1951
    BettyS
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    Be right back wrote: »
    Interesting story in the Times.

    I don’t know what to make of the story of her bullying her aides...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement