Harry & Meghan step back from Royals - seeking financial independence

[P-Ro]

Fixed

facht

 

[Sky1981]

No one is saying that she deffo some innocent saint, we're saying that a load of the stuff about her, including a lot of the shit you quoted, is made-up tabloid garbage specifically put out to smear her, and you've swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

For the little I could be bothered to look up: The claim that she cut ties with her black family seems to be based on them saying they're not as close with her now as they were when she was a kid, and that they don't see her much these days. I've got aunts, uncles and cousins, who I was really close with when I was a kid, that I'm not really close with any more. It happens, but I'm not famous, so no one is going to claim I'm a gold-digging bitch who doesn't care about his family. Not to mention the claims that are completely unverifiable, and the generally negative spin on everything in order to paint Meghan in the worst light possible. I mean, look at the phrasing for feck's sake: "Meghan telling her sick, old father that she would never see or speak to him again, just because he made ONE small mistake", "Meghan insulting the Queen and Royal Family by blatantly giving them the middle finger by breaking nearly all of their family rules and guidelines?" Anyone with half a brain should be able to recognise that this was written by someone with a clear bias, who likely doesn't give a shit about the truth.

Did she spend a bunch of money on clothes? Probably. Is she unique among the privileged in this regard? Not at all. I can guarantee you that Kate spent as much, and I can also guarantee you that your source doesn't give a shit about that, because Kate is white and from Ingurland.
Did she sever ties with her dad? Seems like it, but she hasn't spoken about it, so we only have her dad to go by. Didn't you parents tell you that there are always to sides to every story? (My dad actually told me that there's always three sides, "one side, the other side, and the truth.")

And top-less pics and soft porn ads? Is this the fecking 50's? Also, a lot of soft porn ads use stock photos. Not saying that's what happened here, just something to keep in mind before you decide to start slut-shaming like some incel.

You seem extremely touchy about having it pointed out to you that you're regurgitating tabloid garbage. For someone who claims not to be all that bothered by this, you sure seem bothered by it.

As for the bolded: That's highly ironic coming from the guy who cited some random on fecking Quora as a source.

Your opinion is based on nothing but opinions. Maybes, could be, perhaps.

It's fine. Everyone has their own opinion. But calling mine wrong and yours right while it's pretty clear none of us actually knows meghan personally let alone the real truth its a holier than thou attitude.

1 or 2 or 3 might be a coicidence and misunderstanding, but when so many shits comes out it's really hard not to make conclusion.

If you wanna believe she's being hard done then that's your opinion.

We'll find out in the near future.

 

[dumbo]

It's not so much about who is wrong or right but about why you are so furiously casting such wild aspersions in the first place, while simultaneously furiously denying your tabloidy prurience.

 

[Wibble]

You indeed can't compare the two because you refuse to read one of them. You've demonstrated my main point in why public discourse is so dire by arguing how terrible paper A (right wing, therefore bad) is compared to paper B (left wing, therefore good) when you are proudly naive about the right wing rag. When I talk to you I get the impression that you have many moral red lines and if anyone falls foul then their opinion won't be taken seriously, on any topic. Perhaps I'm being unfair in my judgment of you but that is the impression I get.

I grew up in a house that read that garbage and it has only become far far worse. Sadly you occasionally get to read their bile on social media and they are a moral free zone.

The Times is slightly centre of right in its editorial pieces but it's columnists are made up of people on the left and the right - hence why I said it was balanced. If what you're saying is correct and Murdoch's papers are so far to the right then could you please explain why the Times backed Tony Blair in 3 general elections and campaign to remain in the EU? There is very little balance in the Guardian because every columnist is either left wing or left wing and ultra-liberal so I take most of the stuff I read in it with a pinch of salt like I do most Mail articles. I note you're not in the UK anymore so I'm curious as to how many Times articles you've read recently or in the last couple of years since there's been a pay wall for a while now. I really think you're talking out of your arse here chap.

Not every article or journalist is far right but when it matters they go full Murdoch. Not such pure propaganda all the time to the extent I wouldn't read it though. And my employer has an online subscription to The TImes and my previous employer for the previous 6 years had a subscription to almost all of the world's major newspapers, so I do read it from time to time. I often regret it of course.

Tony Blair was left wing? Who knew? About as central as you can get I'd say. And the Guardian isn't more that a millimeter to the left of Blair. In any case their reporting is in the main honest even if you don't agree with everything they publish (as I don't).

 

[Halftrack]

Your opinion is based on nothing but opinions. Maybes, could be, perhaps.

It's fine. Everyone has their own opinion. But calling mine wrong and yours right while it's pretty clear none of us actually knows meghan personally let alone the real truth its a holier than thou attitude.

1 or 2 or 3 might be a coicidence and misunderstanding, but when so many shits comes out it's really hard not to make conclusion.

If you wanna believe she's being hard done then that's your opinion.

We'll find out in the near future.

So the media spinning everything she does negatively, in stark contrast to how they reported it when Kate did something similar or identical, is completely fair then? Her falling out with her dad, whatever the reason, makes it okay for the media to run a smear campaign against her? Her growing apart from her family means she deserves to be relentlessly hounded by tabloids? If you think so, you're a psychopath. "This woman I've never met is a right bitch according to some clearly biased anonymous dude on the internet, so she deserves the abuse she's getting." Sounds completely reasonable, (self-censorship, unnecessary.)

 

[Sky1981]

It's not so much about who is wrong or right but about why you are so furiously casting such wild aspersions in the first place, while simultaneously furiously denying your tabloidy prurience.

Was just a mild comment. Until you lot accuse me of tabloid lovers, which i find very insulting.

Told you many times I'm indonesian. Such tabloids doesnt exists in here. But it's easier to paint otherwise

 

[Halftrack]

Was just a mild comment. Until you lot accuse me of tabloid lovers, which i find very insulting.

To be fair, I never called you a tabloid lover, I pointed out that the source you quoted was straight up regurgitating tabloid garbage. So intentional or not, you're reading tabloids, just you're doing it by proxy.

 

[Sky1981]

To be fair, I never called you a tabloid lover, I pointed out that the source you quoted was straight up regurgitating tabloid garbage. So intentional or not, you're reading tabloids, just you're doing it by proxy.

Just because the same stuff happens to be in the daily mail, doesn't mean everything there is false. The narratives might be a smear campaign, the title could be misleading, but the essence of the story is just that. It's not like I pick a line from the daily mail and claims it as the holy gospel. Besides it is true that Meghan choose to be financially independent, and the queen has made a formal statement about it. The why could be many things, but the whats are pretty fixed.

You can't simply read daily mails and believe them, on the same token you can't simply shrug everything just because daily mails pick on it.

 

[Carolina Red]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

@SteveJ

 

[Maticmaker]

So a hen-pecked husband should not have some balls and stand up to a Queen? Queen-pecked or hen-pecked...which do you want?

That's not what I'm saying, Harry is now in a big hole, a part of which you can't help feeling he dug for himself, and he is defying the first rule about hole digging and he continues to dig.
Yes, 'hen-pecked', wife or Grandmother, take your pick, the poor lad's sinking rapidly!

You mean he wants to protect his wife, the woman he loves and married,

Yes, he's 'made his own bed... etc.' for the rest of us its called growing up, and/or not listening to your big brother and then having to face that fact everyday, hard lesson indeed!

Like I said originally, its a great shame!

 

[Rams]

I’d hang the whole feckin royal family up on the nearest tree.
On a more serious note, couple of things that spring to mind:

• How it’s very convenient that the heat has been taken off Randy Andy
• How ironic it is that press make Harry & Meghan’s life hell, then the press ask themselves why they want out. Especially considering what happened to Harry’s mum.​

I’m not defending Harry & Meghan, I’d behead’em all. But the whole thing is pathetic. Get rid!

 

[Mr Pigeon]

@Sky1981 - Meghan is an evil bitch who deserves all the hate she gets and I have the FACTS to prove it.

Also Sky1981 - omg guys stop attacking my opinions with your own opinions

 

[Redplane]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

@SteveJ

Hahahaha. That about sums up how ridiculous a royal family kind of is these days.

 

[Jippy]

You indeed can't compare the two because you refuse to read one of them. You've demonstrated my main point in why public discourse is so dire by arguing how terrible paper A (right wing, therefore bad) is compared to paper B (left wing, therefore good) when you are proudly naive about the right wing rag. When I talk to you I get the impression that you have many moral red lines and if anyone falls foul then their opinion won't be taken seriously, on any topic. Perhaps I'm being unfair in my judgment of you but that is the impression I get.

The Times is slightly centre of right in its editorial pieces but it's columnists are made up of people on the left and the right - hence why I said it was balanced. If what you're saying is correct and Murdoch's papers are so far to the right then could you please explain why the Times backed Tony Blair in 3 general elections and campaign to remain in the EU? There is very little balance in the Guardian because every columnist is either left wing or left wing and ultra-liberal so I take most of the stuff I read in it with a pinch of salt like I do most Mail articles. I note you're not in the UK anymore so I'm curious as to how many Times articles you've read recently or in the last couple of years since there's been a pay wall for a while now. I really think you're talking out of your arse here chap.

The Times was beyond 'slightly centre right', which I think is what you're trying to say, and was quite strongly so during the election.

Its news coverage is rightwing, albeit not to the extremes of the Telegraph, then the Mail. Having the odd centrist or left-leaning (who you thinking here) columnist does not change this. Also, when you have the likes of Rod Liddle spewing bile, it actually underlines it.

I have a Times subscription for work and part of my job is being aware of what different papers are writing. Believe me, the Times is firmly on the right, just not screamingly so.

 

[P-Ro]

@Jippy I can't quote your post because I keep on getting error messages.

As for the left wing columnists: Philip Collins, Caitlin Moran, Janice Turner, Matthew Syed (twat) off the top of my head...there's others I'm sure.

I said it was the most ballanced newspaper (I also said it was centre right) and I'm sticking to it. It's coverage of events are far less opinion based than most papers and not too dissimilar from what Reuters churn out. The Independent is far more left wing despite it's name and The Guardian is to the left what the Mail is to the right.

 

[Sky1981]

@Sky1981 - Meghan is an evil bitch who deserves all the hate she gets and I have the FACTS to prove it.

Also Sky1981 - omg guys stop attacking my opinions with your own opinions

Nice. Oh well. Your princess.

I'm out of here. Good luck with megxit.

 

[Cascarino]

@Jippy I can't quote your post because I keep on getting error messages.

As for the left wing columnists: Philip Collins, Caitlin Moran, Janice Turner, Matthew Syed (twat) off the top of my head...there's others I'm sure.

I said it was the most ballanced newspaper (I also said it was centre right) and I'm sticking to it. It's coverage of events are far less opinion based than most papers and not too dissimilar from what Reuters churn out. The Independent is far more left wing despite it's name and The Guardian is to the left what the Mail is to the right.

You should stop reading the mail.

 

[Cascarino]

Nice. Oh well. Your princess.

I'm out of here. Good luck with megxit.

Why Is it that after posting incorrect arguments, and then being corrected, you throw your toys out?

 

[Sky1981]

Why Is it that after posting incorrect arguments, and then being corrected, you throw your toys out?

How is that throwing my toys out. If you see meghan differently then it's your opinion. What do you want me to do? Resort to petty insult?

 

[Tarrou]

Unpopular opinion on here, but I just don't see it like this at all, not sure many sane people do either.

Reading this article reminded me of your comment disagreeing that racism played a role. After seeing the aftermath play out a bit longer do you still feel that way?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/present...xxdYdlcCp7O0CPOs2jNuz-uq5elUtFIqvgLJXI0ln1TAk

Dr John Price conducted this study capture for the first 24 hours after the Sussexes' announcement to step back as senior royals.


The Tweets were "overwhelmingly negative" and there were about 400 Tweets which contained "some of the worst racist and misogynistic terms."



"Even for people like myself who deal with this stuff on a regular basis, it's still shocking to read. I know some of my computing colleagues who aren't used to dealing with this sort of stuff get really upset when they read the kind of stuff that we're capturing," said the doctor.

He admitted that even though he captures Tweets frequently online as part of his job, he was "still shocked."

 

[maniak]

This is so bizarre for people who live in republics.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

Reading this article reminded me of your comment disagreeing that racism played a role. After seeing the aftermath play out a bit longer do you still feel that way?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/present...xxdYdlcCp7O0CPOs2jNuz-uq5elUtFIqvgLJXI0ln1TAk

Why do you want to know that? So I can get grief for reaffirming it, or get patronising remarks for changing my stance.

I'll pass, as I will on any future Royal related threads on here, the Caf has made its mind up on this subject.

 

[Paxi]

Has anyone got the link to that sex tape of hers, that was talked about in this thread? Need it for research purposes.

 

[Wibble]

That's not what I'm saying, Harry is now in a big hole, a part of which you can't help feeling he dug for himself, and

What hole?

Hardly going to suffer in the way a normal person does if they take a life gamble and it doesn't work out.

 

[Halftrack]

Has anyone got the link to that sex tape of hers, that was talked about in this thread? Need it for research purposes.

Let's try not be creepy, disgusting weirdos.

 

[Paxi]

Let's try not be creepy, disgusting weirdos.

Well somebody mentioned it earlier in the thread, I've no idea whether she has one or not.

 

[Tarrou]

Why do you want to know that? So I can get grief for reaffirming it, or get patronising remarks for changing my stance.

I'll pass, as I will on any future Royal related threads on here, the Caf has made its mind up on this subject.

No surprise there. Says it all really.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

Princess to voiceover princess?

 

[adexkola]

Princess to voiceover princess?

Don't read the comments

 

[Infra-red]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

@SteveJ

Haha very good.

 

[Infra-red]

This is so bizarre for people who live in republics.

I envy you.

 

[Sweet Square]

Britain in 2020

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[horsechoker]

Britain in 2020

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Woman in green gets it

 

[unchanged_lineup]

BBC says they're giving up their titles. Hopes of a unification bout dashed.

 

[P-Ro]

BBC says they're giving up their titles. Hopes of a unification bout dashed.

They could have called it.... 'The Royal Rumble'

 

[Jacko21]

They’re gonna need a new website.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

They could have called it.... 'The Royal Rumble'

"Waitaminutewhut... Scotland, what are you doing here?... GOOD GAWD ALMIGHTY Scotland has just steel chaired Harry and Meghan and made off with the titles!!"

 

[Jacko21]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[FlawlessThaw]

That's a clean break, not just a step back from senior royal duties.

 

[Catt]

Have to pay back what was used to upgrade their home.