It's quite amusing how proudly @Sky1981 normally expresses his disdain for Western mainstream media, yet, as shown in this thread, he seems to have such an affection for Murdoch's gutter press.
Harry & Meghan step back from Royals - seeking financial independence
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss three 1-1 draws.
The first got us knocked out of the FA Cup, the next puts us in a good position in our Round of 16 Europa League game, and the latest was an actual decent performance against Arsenal at Old Trafford.
All hopes for the season now rest on the Europa League - does Amorim have the squad to win it?
I’ve just seen a video of her now too. Bet harry loves it
Doing what?
Sex tape.
I do think it's quite funny that their attempt to sue the Mail has failed so spectacularly. They should have envisaged the Mail calling her Dad as a witness in court.
I never read tabloids. Let alone about meghan markle.
There's enough facts lying around to draw conclusions.
How much of the drama surrounding Duchess Meghan is fabricated by the press?
Anonymous
Answered Nov 18
Most of the drama surrounded Meghan is factual, which is honestly why the situation is so bad. The Royal Family WISHED all the things being said about Meghan were untrue.
For instance, Meghan telling her sick, old father that she would never see or speak to him again, just because he made ONE small mistake? Fact.
Meghans black family reporting that Meghan abandoned/cut all ties with them after her wedding? Fact.
Meghan insulting the Queen and Royal Family by blatantly giving them the middle finger by breaking nearly all of their family rules and guidelines? Fact.
Meghan causing a rift between Harry and William? Fact, Harry admitted it on two different interviews, though he diddnt say it was Meghans fault, their relationship was great before she showed up.
What about Meghan spending $1 million on designer clothes, while lecturing about “equality” and “poverty”? Fact.
Meghan stealing 40 fans seats so she diddnt have to sit by “normal people” at Wimbelton? Fact.
Meghan having 5–7 staff members quit in the span of a year? Fact.
Meghan giving an interview about “how hard her life is” after visiting dying AIDS patients? Fact.
But wait, it gets worse. Meghan posting topless photos online? Fact.
Meghan doing soft porn ads? Fact, you can look them up online.
Meghan publicly criticizing Kate and the Royal Family? Fact, you can Google the quotes.
What about Meghan treating her first husband badly and being obsessed with fame? According to her best friend of 30 years, those are facts too. And what about Meghan doing nothing to help her impoverished family members that struggle with mental health issues? Fact, once again.
What about Meghan only dating rich, famous, or well connected men? Fact, look up her dating history.
Last edited:
Sure, your conclusion that she has "snatched Harry away from family and duty" just happens to mirror the right wing press judgement. Either way quite damning.
If you think people dislike meghan because of daily mail then that's your issue.
I dont agree with daily mails bombastic shits and tripes, been in the caf long enough to know they're scum. But most of the things that made me think meghan isnt that innocent is facts, and i can deride my own conclusion.
Like not inviting her own dad, disowning her families, her brother being homeless, inviting Hollywood a lister who she barely knows, wearing those 1m designer cloths while preaching about poverty, having her own range rover brought to africa, several private jet trips while lecturing people about energy, the sussex royal rights, divorcing her husband out of the blue, topless photos? Hiring the same PR company as the one Weinstein hires to promote her image? Paid as expense (not sure if this one is facts, feel free to check).
Most of the above are just facts. One or two might be a coincidental things with her own side of the story, but when it walks talks and swims like a duck most probably it is a duck.
Ps. Harry's actually her third husband they say.
Topless photos! Burn her!
Harry is showing all the early signs of becoming a 'hen-pecked' husband, it's a great pity, because of all the royals he appeared nearest one to having the 'common touch'.
Now he's caught between his duty to his family and his promises to his wife and is likely to finish up being hung out to dry by both sides and like lots of men caught in this position he will be scratching his head and thinking "what the feck did I do wrong"?
Now he's caught between his duty to his family and his promises to his wife and is likely to finish up being hung out to dry by both sides and like lots of men caught in this position he will be scratching his head and thinking "what the feck did I do wrong"?
Last edited:
You really are a parody
Twenty minutes ago you claimed that you "never read tabloids. Let alone about Meghan Markle" and then you go on and list an incredible bunch of random "facts" that are as tabloid as they get. How did you know that much about her? Scientific journals I guess? I bet nature, political science review or annual review of psychology must be full of studies about Meghan Markle.
Claims that his conclusion is drawn from "facts that are out there" when in reality those facts are just the result of an endless smearing campaign by certain press outlets. Yikes.
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?
How has it failed? Has the court thrown it out?
A Week of Royal Headlines
Quora, mate. It's a treasure trove of fachts.You really are a parody
Twenty minutes ago you claimed that you "never read tabloids. Let alone about Meghan Markle" and then you go on and list an incredible bunch of random "facts" that are as tabloid as they get. How did you know that much about her? Scientific journals I guess? I bet nature, political science review or annual review of psychology must be full of studies about Meghan Markle.
Claims that his conclusion is drawn from "facts that are out there" when in reality those facts are just the result of an endless smearing campaign by certain press outlets. Yikes.
The case hasn't been thrown out, no. Perhaps I should have phrased my post differently. I said it has failed because the reasons for Meghan and Harry bringing legal action against the Mail are not just for grievances about the publishing of her private letters. They're clearly unhappy about how the Mail has portrayed Meghan in the last year and the legal action is a combative response to a whole host of stories, which have already been highlighted in this thread. It seems to have backfired spectacularly though because by having her Dad testify against their case in court, they will be inviting far more scrutiny onto Meghan and it will fuel the flames of the narrative the couple are trying to challenge. Regardless of what her father actually says in the courtroom, the fact he's siding with the Mail against his daughter is pretty awful PR.
She should have expected The Mail to act like the unscrupulous parasitic scum they are. I hope they lose and get bankrupted.
Not necessarily. I think the Mail and Mail reader are in a circular reinforcement pattern. They reinforce eat other's small minded, racist, Little Britain opinions. Although the Mail are more the dealer in the relationship and the reader the pathetic meth head.
SHE STOLE OUR HARRY
You mean he wants to protect his wife, the woman he loves and married, from the tsunami or racist scumbagger flowing from the red top sewers that might as well have murdered his Mum.
The difference in the way they report on Meghan and Kate is unbelievable (or not really as we know they are scum). Anyone who pays for a redtops or visits the Mail's website for opinions or entertainment should hang their head in shame.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal
https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media...oogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic
I have no idea what any of the Royals are like personally (like 99.99% of the people commenting including Royal watchers/experts) and I don't have any desire to find out. People taking sides based on what they imagine the players are like personally really need to get a life. And stop reading and believing bullshit.
Last edited:
Of course, in modern times Royals have married people from toff families, on the whole - often minor European royalty (Philip, Prince of Greece and Denmark), Charles (Diana, daughter of an Earl), Andrew (Sarah Ferguson, from old money), Anne (first husband Mark Phillips, old money, grandfather was aide-de-camp to George VI) etc etc. Even Catherine's parents have aristocratic links (and are very wealthy).
The fact that Harry married someone who wasn't from this tiny sub-section of society has been a gift for the tabloids. They can attack her from so many angles.
The fact that Harry married someone who wasn't from this tiny sub-section of society has been a gift for the tabloids. They can attack her from so many angles.
Exactly - I don’t understand how parts of the public get so emotional about people they have never met. Reading between the lines (as all of us are), I get the impression Harry finds the idea of a royal family in 2020 a bit absurd, tried to play along with it for the sake of his brother, father and grandmother but now wants out for good after the tabloids have been portraying his wife as Lady Macbeth for the last three years.
@Wibble calling others small minded whilst saying that anyone who buys publications that he disagrees with are shameful. No irony here folks.
I don't think I said small minded (Edit: I did - which is fair comment). Not that it isn't probably mostly true. Easily fooled and manipulated more like. Unless you are from the top end of town. But then they wouldn't be reading the Mail most likely. Small minded to think that redtops (all redtops, even those like the Mail and Express that pretend to be newspapers) are to journalism what SCAT porn is to the Nobel prize for literature?
I follow the evidence and the evidence is that garbage like the redtops (Mail included) and particularly the right wind Murdoch type media in general are immensely damaging to our society, preventing nuanced and reasoned debate and moving us away from operating for the good of the whole of society. So if that makes me small minded then guilty as charged.
Last edited:
So instead of reading tabloid garbage, you read these "facts", which are tabloid garbage rehashed by some dunce on Quora? That's even worse, you know.
Which of them above is untrue?
Her dad, seen her at the wedding?
Her ex husband she divorced just like that, was that imaginary as well?
Her refurbished cottage? Must have been the tabloid imagination
Her quotes? Must be rubbish
Your daily mail tabloid must be pretty powerful if they can create a royal Sussex brand and listed it on behalf of Meghan Markle
Her "Megxit", must have been imaginary, she probably have tea and laughy taffy with the queen
I stand corrected, poor meghan is an angel, how dare the tabloids.
You did.
There are some decent, nuanced pieces in the Mail from time to time, just like there are sometimes some balanced, interesting pieces in the Guardian. Both papers are polemical, pander to their audience and are often full of shit but they can be an entertaining reads nonetheless.
I think it would be far more damaging to society if you changed the overtly political UK print press into what the boring, consensus driven US print press is. If I buy the Mail I know I will be spoon fed reactionary right wing guff, and the same rings true for the left wing Guardian. If you feel that strongly about a particular paper then fine, pick up another but it's quite a naive thing to do. Most people seemingly want to read articles that they can agree with. I have no idea why this is the case but I believe that is the real problem with society. My advice to everyone is to spend more time reading publications you're likely to disagree with because another perspective will strengthen your resolve or change your mind and either one of those is better than neither. Then again you did call The Times (the most balanced UK print newspaper) a far-right publication so you are probably a lost cause.
Tell yourself whatever you need to, you're still very clearly buying into tabloid garbage.
Why do you care so much?
Just opinions on stuff, it is a forum after all. At the end of the day she's not my Highness, It's not my tax. Care? More like being a busybody like most of us here.
I did and I edited my post to say so. I think it is true for what it is worth.
There are? Anything I ever have had the misfortune to read is always truly terrible and as far as I remember wrong, irrelevant or morally reprehensible. The Guardian has some irrelevant fluff and of course I don't agree with everything they publish but it is actual journalism in the main with reasoned arguments (even when I disagree) and empathy for actual human beings. You can't compare the two.
I don't propose legislating. If nothing else how do you decide? I do however despise them and their ilk. And The Times isn't in any way balanced. Obviously not as garbage as The Mail but their underlying objective is to do what Murdoch wants and their far right agenda is obvious. The Guardian by comparison is incredibly middle of the road. Very slightly left of center in the main, often to the point of blandness.
I don't really know what a Meghan Markle is but I think I can break this down.
Many people have strained relationships with their family. Often the catalyst is money. We often say cruel and stupid things in the heat of the moment that we later regret. If she meant it, how do we know that it was "ONE small mistake"? and not the final straw of an increasingly strained relationship that the public are not privy too. NOT FACT!
As above: you can chose your friends but not your family. NOT FACT!
I don't know all the rules and guidelines but if she was checking them off a list then that seems a bit petty. But she married into the family and regardless of political/Royal expectation she is her own autonomous human being and should not have to kowtow to a foreign Royal power if she doesn't wish to. To my knowledge (correct if wrong) The marriage is not legally predicated on following the inlaws house rules. NOT FACT!
So this is a fact but then it has not been mentioned by those involved as a fact. NOT FACT!
Royals particularly but celebs in general spend fortunes on clothes, and are expected to by the press and the public or face shaming. It's probably mandatory for her Royal duties to have her clothes designed and at great expense. I imagine part of her royal duties that she undertook involves addressing poverty and inequality. Just because you spend frivolously does not mean that you can't have an important insight into issues surrounding poverty. She might be a hypocrite, she probably is a hypocrite. Celebrities and Royals are usually huge fecking hypocrites, being so probably qualifies her for the job. NOT FACT!
I can't believe she stole 40 seats at Wimbledon. What did the club have to say about that? I can believe that WImbledon offered them to her as part of her accomodation. For reasons of privacy and protection this might have been necessary. Either way I imagine any blame for depriving fans mostly lies with Wimbledon and the event organisers. You can't just do whatever you like at these places regardless of who you are. NOT FACT!
How does this compare to the average turnover of staff? I imagine working for someone so high profile is very demanding. Perhaps she is a demanding employer, maybe she streuggled to get qualified people in. I imagine she has hundreds of staff and this could be a very small percentage. NOT FACT!
You can be a celeb/Royal and still have a hard life, it often seems an enitrely miserable thing to me. Because you have visited some people less fortunate than yourself, that doesn't necessarily negate the problems you are experiencing. She seems to be kicked around by public and press like few others. We mostly all experience our own hardships more intensely that those of others, that's the human condition. Selfish and uncouth, bad timing maybe but she is entitled to her own expression of suffering like the rest of us. NOT FACT!
That's only worse in a misogynist, slut shaming way. David, Aphrodite, Bathsheba - she's in good company. Posting nudes online seems to be remarkably common, particularly with these Millenials. We all have a shameful naked body no matter how many layers we try to hide it with. NOT FACT!
AS above. Sex, nudity: she was an actress way before a Royal, it's fairly common. Don't be prudish and stop shaming women. NOT FACT!
I haven't seen the quotes (and can't find any from a cursory google) but I can't believe she made pointed personal criticisms in public, if she did then that's not very nice. Perhaps she had her reasons, or was criticising the pressure the institution has subjected her too. This seems fair. NOT FACT!
How do we know she treated her husband badly? his word I assume. A lot of us are bitter about past relationships and often tell porky pies because we are hurt or because we believe them as part of coping with cognitive dissonance. Very human. Most people are drawn to fame and we don't have the full story on her family, not even half. NOT FACT!
IS that every one she has ever dated?Or is this since she has become famous herself and started moving in those crowds. We'd love to see people of her fame and money on the arm of the local fishmonger but this is unrealistic NOT FECKING FACT!.
Poor meghan. Thanks for enlighten me how hard her life is, how cruel the media towards her, best she'd be on her way away from the media. It's all the brits fault, how dare they bullying a weak lady from abroad.
Anything you read must be wrong, meghan is an angel. Evil queen. Evil kate. Evil dailymail. Evil brits. Evil william. Evil royals making her life a living hell.
No problem. Glad to be of service.
Some of the recent posts in this thread are quite comical.
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.
You seem a little too invested in all this my friend. Chill out
Fixed
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.