This Meghan and Harry Thing

[Bjornebye]

Are they supposed to lookalike or something? 

[Anubis]

He’s likening their effect on an heir to the throne by using two photographs in which they have a similar hairstyle and dresses. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Are they supposed to lookalike or something? 

Very similar dressage. Juist watching a fascinating body language video and part of it is the attire worn. It could be coincidental but there's a lot of 'coincidences'. Also the clothing worn by Harry (I'll see if I can find some information when I see it) but his clothing was definitely intentional to seperate from his former Royal status.

[Bjornebye]

11 minutes ago, Shooter in the Motor said:

Very similar dressage. Juist watching a fascinating body language video and part of it is the attire worn. It could be coincidental but there's a lot of 'coincidences'. Also the clothing worn by Harry (I'll see if I can find some information when I see it) but his clothing was definitely intentional to seperate from his former Royal status.

I thought a bird had shit on her 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

I thought a bird had shit on her 

Looks like there were a few.

[Chris]

On 13/03/2021 at 11:13, Jack the Sipper said:

I see Hebdo's getting it in the neck (pun intended) from the lunatic fringes of both the left and right on Twitter. On one side because of the supposed mocking of Meghan and George Floyd and the trivialising of the BLM movement, on the other because it shows the Queen as a homicidal maniac with hairy legs. Lots of mental gymnastics going on as both sides try to claim the righteously outraged position.

 

The outrage over trivial issues in the name of social media kudos is one of the worst blights on modern society. So fucking over it. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

The name of Jason Knauf is being mentioned regarding the bullying complaints against Markle. 

 

It's being alleged that he made the complaints on behalf of other members of staff without their knowledge. It's also being alleged that he is the same person who leaked the letter from Markle's father to the Daily Mail and that he works closely alongside William and Kate at the Palace. 

 

Plus, it's been reported today that the palace have instructed an independent law firm to investigate the bullying accusations. Seems a bit full on/unusual for a run of the mill bullying claim against a fringe total who has already disassociated from the family? 

[Section_31]

It's a Meghan/Kate thing, reinforcing what I've always believed - women hate each other.

 

"Are you going to let him talk to me like that?"

 

"He's my brother!"

 

"I'm supposed to be you WIFE and the mother of your CHILDREN!!!"

 

The ghost of Henry VIII is sat in the background shaking his head mumbling "get it sorted lad".

[Stickman]

In case of bad publicity break glass and use emergency black friend ....

 

 

 

[sir roger]

Well , he's never worn a Nazi uniform I suppose , so he's one up on his brother there.

[Anubis]

19 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Well , he's never worn a Nazi uniform I suppose , so he's one up on his brother there.

Not outside the bedroom, anyway.

[SasaS]

Harry's got a job!

 

He starts as Chief Impact Officer of BetterUp, described as "coaching and mental health firm".

 

"I intend to help create impact in people’s lives, he replied to WSJ. “Proactive coaching provides endless possibilities for personal development, increased awareness, and an all-round better life.”

 

You've got to give him that, he knows how to make an impact in people's lives, with that interview.

 

[Bjornebye]

4 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

You've got to give him that, he knows how to make an impact in people's lives, with that interview.

 

Elaborate. 

[SasaS]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Elaborate. 

You don't think that interview has made an impact?

[Grinch]

He certainly takes after his mother in that regard. 

[Bjornebye]

Just now, SasaS said:

You don't think that interview has made an impact?

They had their right of reply. The only people it actual'y impacted are the right wing flag shagging racist farage types who don't like either the truth or the fact that a non white caucasian thinks they have the right to stand up for themselves. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bjornebye said:

They had their right of reply. The only people it actual'y impacted are the right wing flag shagging racist farage types who don't like either the truth or the fact that a non white caucasian thinks they have the right to stand up for themselves. 

'truth' is a bit strong, I'd agree with 'their version of events'. 

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Shooter in the Motor said:

'truth' is a bit strong, I'd agree with 'their version of events'. 

Do you think they lied? 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Do you think they lied? 

Personally I think there's a lot of truth in there (Harry has been badly let down by his father, brother and grandmother which his mother prophesied by ensuring he had access to finances after her passing). I believe a lot of what he has said is very much truthful. Meghan and her son have also definitely been given an unnecessarily hard time. After all, the Queen changed the rules for Kate's children so they both received Royal titles whereas she didn't for Megan's children. 

 

However also I think there is some misdirection too, for example she claims she didn't look up any information online regarding Harry. I find it hard to believe she did NO research at all - would you even let someone in your house not knowing ANYTHING about them? Meghan also claims she definitely didn't make Kate cry. How would she know for sure? Is it possible she cried away from Meghan? These aren't necessarily lies, possible exaggerations and misdirections and perhaps leaving out important details (such as who specifically said what). 

 

For what it's worth, their version of events doesn't imply truth or falsehood, it's just the way they have presented the events and memories from their perspective. 

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Shooter in the Motor said:

Personally I think there's a lot of truth in there (Harry has been badly let down by his father, brother and grandmother which his mother prophesied by ensuring he had access to finances after her passing). I believe a lot of what he has said is very much truthful. Meghan and her son have also definitely been given an unnecessarily hard time. After all, the Queen changed the rules for Kate's children so they both received Royal titles whereas she didn't for Megan's children. 

 

However also I think there is some misdirection too, for example she claims she didn't look up any information online regarding Harry. I find it hard to believe she did NO research at all - would you even let someone in your house not knowing ANYTHING about them? Meghan also claims she definitely didn't make Kate cry. How would she know for sure? Is it possible she cried away from Meghan? These aren't necessarily lies, possible exaggerations and misdirections and perhaps leaving out important details (such as who specifically said what). 

 

For what it's worth, their version of events doesn't imply truth or falsehood, it's just the way they have presented the events and memories from their perspective. 

Yep they should have just sat back and let Piers Morgan and the Daily Mail slander them with lies and not have responded with their own experiences. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Yep they should have just sat back and let Piers Morgan and the Daily Mail slander them with lies and not have responded with their own experiences. 

Piers Morgan acted the cunt - he had his feelings hurt by being used to get introduced to his list of contacts. If he'd allowed people to make their own minds up rather than spouting poison, he would still be on GMB but he wasn't really achieving anything by being obnoxious to other obnoxious people. The Daily Mail got caught out lying themselves. Feeling the need to respond to those sections of the media should have been beneath them The tabloids always have and always will cause problems for those in the public eye. That's just part of the deal, whether it's right or wrong. Meghan chose it, Harry was born into it.

 

If they manage to bring positive change within the shit show that is the Royal Family, through the corridors of power and into society as a whole then I'd think back to where I was when I watched the interview as then it would have been definitely worthwhile.

[SasaS]

21 minutes ago, Shooter in the Motor said:

However also I think there is some misdirection too, for example she claims she didn't look up any information online regarding Harry.

Regarding what about Harry?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, SasaS said:

Regarding what about Harry?

She was asked simply if in the early stages of being with Harry, had she looked him up online at all. She said she hadn't looked him up at all, as everything she needed to know about him was coming from him. 

[Bjornebye]

Might sound radical but maybe they just fell in love and she didn't need to google him because, you know he's Prince Harry the most recognisable ginger on the planet.  

[SasaS]

1 minute ago, Shooter in the Motor said:

She was asked simply if in the early stages of being with Harry, had she looked him up online at all. She said she hadn't looked him up at all, as everything she needed to know about him was coming from him. 

But she knew who he was, what it meant and so on. It's not like she never heard of the Royal Family. She does not need to "look him up" specifically, there was enough info on him.