Haz and Megs’ problem goes nuclear.
- Thread starter Archibald Knox
- Start date
Matesrates
Well-known member
Another one gone in this debacle, Ian Murray, Executive Director of the Society of Editors has resigned after the body was criticised for issuing a statement refuting Harry’s claims that the British press are racist.
It seems you can’t object to anything this pair say, even though they have produced no evidence to support their claims.
It seems you can’t object to anything this pair say, even though they have produced no evidence to support their claims.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
I think you can object to what they say, it’s just that you can’t push a headline that blindly attempts to whitewash some fairly blatant issues.
Matesrates
Well-known member
Except the blatant issues have not been verified. They may be true, but until they are investigated, everyone has the right to express an opinion without fear of reprisal.
S
Scaramanga
Guest
S
Scaramanga
Guest
Shandypants
Well-known member
Harry has more balls than the rest of the RF put together.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Yes, but that’s not the point mates. The article that the chap has resigned over wasn’t just a defence of the press, it displayed an arrogance and was also totally dismissive concerning issue of race and bigotry.
Also you are wrong t suggest that “everyone has a right to express an opinion without fear of reprisal”.... Simply put, everyone doesn’t have that right...
Firstly that right may be restricted significantly if you are in a particular role and have certain associate responsibilities.
Secondly, some opinions cross a line of acceptability and should not be tolerated.
In this case his ‘opinion’ was expressed in an inappropriate way and given his position and responsibility that was unacceptable.
Same with Piers Morgan... Fine to behave like that if you are on some Right Wing US trashy TV channel... not fine if you are presenting ITV’s prime breakfast TV show.
Some of Meg's claims are beginning to show a lack of consistency. First, we had the difference of opinion between her and her husband over when the 'racist' remark was made. She said it was when she was married and pregnant with Archie. Harry says it was way before they were married. A little fib there from one of them.
Now, it transpires that there is some doubt over the newspaper articles shown during the interview where Ms Winfrey discussed the British media’s attitude to Meghan that drove her to depression and said “When Meghan joined the Royal Family in 2018 she became the target of unrelenting, pervasive attacks”. The article from the Daily Telegraph’s Michael Deacon, was titled ‘The real problem with Meghan Markle: she just doesn’t speak our language’. But wait a minute, the article was published on December 19, 2020, nearly a year after the Sussexes announced their royal exit plans the previous January.
So that's two lies to be going on with. Let's face it, if some of the interview and claims made are not truthful, why should we believe any of it and why should Piers Morgan and others not be allowed to cast doubt on some of Meg's allegations?
Now, it transpires that there is some doubt over the newspaper articles shown during the interview where Ms Winfrey discussed the British media’s attitude to Meghan that drove her to depression and said “When Meghan joined the Royal Family in 2018 she became the target of unrelenting, pervasive attacks”. The article from the Daily Telegraph’s Michael Deacon, was titled ‘The real problem with Meghan Markle: she just doesn’t speak our language’. But wait a minute, the article was published on December 19, 2020, nearly a year after the Sussexes announced their royal exit plans the previous January.
So that's two lies to be going on with. Let's face it, if some of the interview and claims made are not truthful, why should we believe any of it and why should Piers Morgan and others not be allowed to cast doubt on some of Meg's allegations?
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
The article they referenced in the Winfrey Interview was published in the Daily Mail on 2 November 2016...
And have you considered the possibility that the discrepancy regarding the baby's skin tone was likely due to the possibility that Harry maybe chose not to tell her about it at the time it happened, but instead mentioned it when she was pregnant.
They showed a few articles said to be published when Megs joined the Royal Family in 2018 and claiming they made her "a target of unrelenting, pervasive attacks”. As I said, the Telegraph article was published on December 19, 2020, a year after the announcement of Megxit
BFC_BFC_BFC:
And have you considered the possibility that the discrepancy regarding the baby's skin tone was likely due to the possibility that Harry maybe chose not to tell her about it at the time it happened, but instead mentioned it when she was pregnant.
Well, they could always tell the truth if they choose, or at least get their story straight. Makes me think that one of the family was having a bit of banter with Harry long before the wedding.
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
I watched the interview mate, they specifically referenced the “Straight outta Compton” headline referenced by the DM, which was from the minute they started dating, never mind later on. As per, the media are spinning bullshit I’m afraid....theme the facts, the interview and newspaper headlines are all in the public domain...
Why would they need to “get their story straight” or conspire? It’s just two different perspectives on the same story... Harry’s version being worse If you ask me.... Crikey I don’t know about you but my recollection of past events and that of my Mrs regularly differs.
I’m sorry, but im calling bullshit on this thread and the associated media spin. Essentially people trying to justify their bias and bigotry with straw clutching.
BTW I’ve no axe to grind as I didn’t agree with them doing the interview, but I am man enough to call out the truth when I see it.
Oh you watched the interview. Why didn't you say so?
Pity you completely missed the points I made about the Telegraph article then.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Are you trying to suggest there was no unrele ting negative media in 2018?
I'm suggesting that the tv company or Megs are using an article published a year after the decision to quit the UK as evidence of an "unrelenting, pervasive attack” which led to their decision to leave the UK.
Or as the the author of the article says:
“My column was published on December 19 last year, more than 11 months after Meghan announced she was stepping down as a senior royal. So unless Meghan has access to a time machine, I tend to suspect that my influence on her decision was, at most, negligible."
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
So let’s get this clear...
The media, who frequently use stock images, photoshopped images, inaccurate and out of context images and would do the same thing intentionally themselves in order to twist a story to their bias are calling Meghan out as a liar, because one news article used by the TV company to highlight the plethora of negative headlines in 2018 was actually from 2020 instead??
And you are swallowing that bollocks as a fair and unbiased / legitimate reason to justify an accusation of her lying, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary???
The media, who frequently use stock images, photoshopped images, inaccurate and out of context images and would do the same thing intentionally themselves in order to twist a story to their bias are calling Meghan out as a liar, because one news article used by the TV company to highlight the plethora of negative headlines in 2018 was actually from 2020 instead??
And you are swallowing that bollocks as a fair and unbiased / legitimate reason to justify an accusation of her lying, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary???
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
Several posters are saying this interview doesn't matter. I actually think, particularly in this post Brexit era, when we are looking for new partners and trade, it does matter. If the UK is seen as a racist state, countries are far less likely to want to do business with us, including, incredibly, the US. This is why I suspect, whereas my instinct would be to leave well alone, UK plc (not The Firm) needs a very robust defence of our country. Are there racists? of course, is our country fundamental racist? certainly not. We are too much of a melting pot of cultures and origins.
Tangerinenick
Well-known member
What I am saying is this :
They lied about financial support , lied about titles that the child could have had including the future title Archie would have received on Charles taking the crown. Of course they knew this but conveniently didn't mention it to Oprah and her team. Now they look like mugs but made plenty wonga out of it so who gives a toss.
Meghan a narcissist ?
You bet.
Harry claims racism - are you having a fecking laugh!
Who would be his supporting witness - the guy in the KKK outfit or the black and white minstrel?
Maybe the rag head chap from his Marine days?
Total hearsay - credibility factor zero - Bullshit rating 9/10.
Heard they are skint as well - you can send them some dosh c/o Mug Mansion, California.
Bloodtangerine
Well-known member
Great Album btw
Bloodtangerine
Well-known member
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
So let's stick to facts, rather than character assasinations and placing labels on people that we barely know....
1. They didn't lie about the titles that the child could have had at all. Meghan (she not they) talked about the Palace having raised the issue of changing convention (and she referenced the George V convention) that would have seen Archie become a Prince when Charles becomes King.
So they did "Mention it" as you incorrectly suggest they didn't, though of course that is yet another inconvenient truth that doesn't suit the biased reporting of the interview.
2. Harry didn't "Claim Racism" - He stated that the conversation he had with a family member concerning issues relating to the colour of any future childs skin was "uncomfortable"... Also, the fact that he might have participated (either knowingly or ignorantly) in inappropriate fancy dress in the past, does not mean that he cannot educate himself and understand racism in any case.
Your final paragraph, just about sums your entire post up.... Claiming hearsay on line one and then stating you "heard they were skint" on the next.... Biased shyte at it's finest, I'm afraid.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Dogshit
TwelveAngryMen
Well-known member
If we stick to facts Meghan and Harry didn't get married three days before the taxpayer funded event either despite her claims during the interview
The ' racist ' towards Archie just doesn't stack up
1/ He isn't entitled to be a Prince until after the Queen dies - that's a protocol that's been in place for over one hundred years
2/ He wasn't entitled to royal protection after his parents resigned from royal duties and emigrated to the other side of the world
3/ Even when protocol allows just because you are a grandchild of the monarch it does not automatically mean you must use the title - Andrew insisted his did ( and less said about him the better ) whilst Anne's and Edward's don't so even if there was a suggestion that the 100+ year old protocol might change that's simply to bring it in line with reality
The real issue here it seems to me is that Meghan didn't like her children playing second fiddle to Kate's
Tangerinenick
Well-known member
Okay facts:
1. Harry knew this convention, did he put everyone straight? No. It is also well known that Prince Charles has been discussing changing convention to limit the number of HRH titles well before Meghan came onto the scene.
2. He has had to apologise publicly on a few occasions for racism (Not once) - let me know when he educates himself ... like I said zero credibility regarding this so called uncomfortable chat (hearsay) Meghan tossed that comment out there, fed by Oprah - that is implied character assassination of the Royal family not me BFCx3.
3. Let me tell you what Harry said exactly whilst whinging about losing the financial support of Prince Charles and his tax payer funded security - 'but I've got what my mum left me and without that we wouldn't have been able to do this...' (all £10million of it, poor guy). Of course he shouldn't be entitled to support or security for a job he isn't doing, and he and Meghan want no part of ? You'd also think that at 36, with a wife and child at that point, he'd be a bit more self-sufficient rather than moaning about being cut off from tax-payers funding.
The biggest character assassins here are Meghan and Harry.(Label)They did that interview and implied that the Royal Family are racist,(label), let's be honest, most people would've conveniently forgotten about Harry's dodgy past.(Label)
Bloodtangerine
Well-known member
Racist!
Bloodtangerine
Well-known member
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
Strictly speaking Harry’s funding was not from the tax payer but from Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall income. However given that all comes from estates handed to Charles on a plate when he reached majority because of his birth then one might regard those as state assets.
Johnno
Well-known member
Sorry to repeat myself, but people banging on about Meghan complaining about Archie not being called a Prince is getting annoying.
She accepted the protocol didn’t grant him the title, that wasn’t her complaint. She was upset that the Queen had the power to over-rule the protocol if she wished, but wouldn’t, whereas she had done it for other Royal babies that fell under the same ruling.
There’s a subtle difference that some seem to want to ignore or brush under the carpet so they can keep bashing Meghan.
She accepted the protocol didn’t grant him the title, that wasn’t her complaint. She was upset that the Queen had the power to over-rule the protocol if she wished, but wouldn’t, whereas she had done it for other Royal babies that fell under the same ruling.
There’s a subtle difference that some seem to want to ignore or brush under the carpet so they can keep bashing Meghan.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
1. Correct, Harry did know the convention, but there was nothinmg for him to correct was there? They family was discussing breaking convention and Archie would have been the first one to be subject to that. Given the fact that at the same time the Queen had made special dispensation to break convention (in the other direction) for Williams other two kids, it's understandable that the pair might be hurt...
2. Firstly, I'm not aware of him having apologised for racism (I'm not saying he hasn't) but can you back that statement up with evidence? However that doesn't change the fact that he is married to a mixed heritage woman and has a mixed heritage child and to that extent he is perfectly entitled to speak out against racism, regardless of past history.
3. I heard what he said... Whether or not he should have paid security is a moot point IMHO... There are two sides to that argument and they are entitled to express their own opinion. As they pointed out the 'security risk', which comes as a virtue of his birth and regardless of whether or not he performs a 'role' exists regardless.... I personally wouldn't have the public purse fund any of the scroungers, but that's not really the point I was discussing TBH..
I'm not sure they assassinated anyones character, but they did or at least Meghan did imply that she felt there were some issues concerning race or racism.... There has been some tit for tat stucc going on with the Palace and they feel they have been hung out to dry... I don;t think any of us have enough information to make some of the judgements being made by some, like yourself... And I was challenging the misrepresentation of facts by the papers.
My take on the Marriage thing was that the couple were saying that in their eyes, the private exchanging of their vows was the wedding that was for them and the 'official' version was for the public. I can relate to that sentiment.... I have friends who engaged in a Pagan Wedding ceremony, before their 'official' marriage and to them the Pagan Celebration was their real wedding etc..
1. See above... Nobody suggested anything different, the discussion related to them changing that protocol, so that Archie will not be a Prince when the Queen Dies.
You may possibly be right concerning her kids playing second fiddle to Kate's, but in fairness that's a pretty big assumption to make and all feels a bit Piers Morgan....It's not something I'm going to get into in any case....
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Tangerinenick
Well-known member
Haven't heard that in years!
TwelveAngryMen
Well-known member
As I recall Meghan compares Archie to William's children during the interview so it's not as big an assumption as you suggest
When I heard that it resonated with me that it seemed to be a big issue
And on the Archie thing I can see that her perception is that they were changing the rules for him but the reality two out of the three families of ' grandchildren ' don't take the title even though in theory it is their birth right so I can well imagine that thought had been given to changing the rules to bring them up to date
It doesn't mean that's influenced by his part-black heritage whatever she might think
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Like I said, I'm not going to get involved in the tittle tattle type stuff, that wasn't where I was coming at this from... I was trying to address the misrepresentation of facts and attempting to stick with facts rather than speculating.
The issue with Archie had nothing to do with her 'perception' it had to do with a discussion that had taken place about changing the rules. So on the one hand a discussion was taking place about changing established convention, with Archie being the first to be affected and on the other hand the Queen was making a special dispensation to change the convention to grant titles (not normally granted until Charles is King) to William & Kates other children.
Whether or not that issue has to do with his Black heritage is a matter for them I suppose, but given that they appear to have been raising concerns regarding the potential 'shade' of any future childs skin, just as the couple had started seriously dating (and that the same person responsible, may well have been the one considering the change of convention), it's not hard to see why she might speculate that it was a factor.
Whether they are right to make that insinuation without backing it up with more information is up for debate IMO and to be honest, I think this sort of public sniping from both the Palace and these two is all a bit crass... However, I do think that they (she in particular) has probably been treated unfairly by our media and I also believe that they haven't had the support (in terms of addressing misinformation in the press) that they felt they should have had from the Palace.... Clearly it's something that has upset them, they have wanted to give their own side of the story and this is how they have chosen to go about it...
As usual, our press can't really deal with that and like a dog with a bone, they are going to pursue them do whatever it takes to ruin them.
He resigned because members of his own Society put out statements that they dagreed with what he had said. Perhaps he should have sounded them out first
Lala
Well-known member
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
You have this wrong. HMQ made no change to protocol in respect of Wills’ children. All his children get the Prince/Princess title because their father is in the direct line of succession. However, it’s a minor aspect of the whole saga.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Here You Go
"Under this protocol, Prince George's siblings - Charlotte and Louis - would not have received the title either.
But in December 2012, the Queen also issued a letter patent which said that all of Prince William's children would be entitled to be princes or princesses and get the HRH title."
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
Peter Philips and Zara Tindall had no right to the Princely titles because they are grandchildren of the monarch down the female line. HMQ offered to give them alternative titles (Earl, Countess etc) but Anne decided against and they have none. Edward also decided against, although his children could have had the princely titles.
The rules have recently changed on succession to the Crown in that there is no male primogeniture now, but I am not sure the George V protocol has changed. ButI have to say it defines the existence of the RF - arcane and bizarre rituals.
As I have said before, the main purpose of a monarch who has no constitutional power is to deny absolute power to anybody else. The monarch’s purpose is to deny the rise of a dictator in the UK. That came about a long time ago, when Oliver Cromwell died and in the years that followed up to 1689 when formalised.
Last edited:
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
Ok, you are right. It’s the BBC so must be correct on a matter like this.
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
'Existing Convention... ?
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
Disregard what I said. The BBC article is clear. But it’s arisen because HMQ has lived for so long, it hasn’t been an issue before (pun intended).
Last edited:
EagleDay
Well-known member
"So that's two lies to be going on with. Let's face it, if some of the interview and claims made are not truthful, why should we believe any of it and why should Piers Morgan and others not be allowed to cast doubt on some of Meg's allegations?"
I thought that's what one of the aspects of real journalism was about if lies are suspected?
TwelveAngryMen
Well-known member
I confess I didn't know that about the female line - I knew she'd rejected titles for her children and assumed it was the Prince / Princess ones
So it's only Edward who has rejected the titles for his children
The point remains the same though - Archie would have been ' upgraded ' to a prince on QE2's passing unless the convention was changed and I can understand why it was with children who are so far removed from accession
Nothing to do with race - Meghan has added 2+2+2 and reached some unfathomable conclusion about her own husband's family that she has then shouted from the rooftops and seeking to stifle those who challenge her narrative with threats of legal action
Personally I don't give two hoots for the family themselves however the damage to the country's reputation abroad can not be ignored
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
On a point of order, it was actually Mark Phillips who declined the offer of a hereditary earldom from HMQ on his marriage to Anne, so that is the main reason that their kids have no titles at all. Though I am sure that Anne had some input.
Contrast that with Anthony Armstrong-Jones, who was made Earl of Snowdon on his marriage to Princess Margaret. His son was made Viscount Linley when born (Christian name, David) and has inherited as the 2nd Earl of Snowdon.
Last edited:
Anyway, now that the fallout has cleared, public assessments of the very private couple are beginning to surface. The latest YouGov poll shows
45% have a positive opinion of Prince Harry.
48% have a negative opinion of Harry
This marks a drop of 15 points since YouGov's last poll
When it comes to Meghan's popularity, 31% have a positive opinion of her.
58% have a negative view of her after the Oprah interview.
Her net favorability score is 13% down
Whatever they were hoping to achieve, their popularity with the British public has bombed as the result of that interview. For the first time, the majority have a negative opinion of both.
45% have a positive opinion of Prince Harry.
48% have a negative opinion of Harry
This marks a drop of 15 points since YouGov's last poll
When it comes to Meghan's popularity, 31% have a positive opinion of her.
58% have a negative view of her after the Oprah interview.
Her net favorability score is 13% down
Whatever they were hoping to achieve, their popularity with the British public has bombed as the result of that interview. For the first time, the majority have a negative opinion of both.
TangerineBayern
Well-known member
To add to that and whilst the Queen may be trying to smooth things over with Ginge and Whinge, l assume the vast majority of Royalists will take a long time to forgive them, if at all.
tangerinenotorange
Well-known member
No wonder the public is turning against them. I make it at least six statements made in the interview that have been proved inaccurate or untrue. The latest was Harry telling Ms Winfrey: "I guess the highlight for me is sticking Archie on the back of a bicycle in his little baby seat and taking him on bike rides which is something I was never able to do when I was young."
What do you know? today's papers are full of pics of Harry on the back of his dad's bike. Sorry you two, but people in this country just don't believe you.
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
Their problem now is that they are on an Oprah treadmill that they do not control and cannot stop. Apparently there are almost 4 hours of interview of which only 95 minutes have been shown as the main event.
The Oprah machine is going to drip out the rest over a long period of time for her ratings. So Haz and Megs cannot step away from the TV Eye even if they want to.
The Oprah machine is going to drip out the rest over a long period of time for her ratings. So Haz and Megs cannot step away from the TV Eye even if they want to.
Last edited:
Hertsseasider
Well-known member
Her popularity is aimed at the US market not the UK.
Threepeaksphil
Well-known member
Right from the start of the interview Megan said " I didn't do any research on Harry or the Royal family " that's so difficult to believe and it went downhill from there. One comment by the Body Language team was not believing her as he I would google say his Plumber before he calls. It's all unraveling now and hopefully Harry is saying to her, I told you it was a bad idea.