Keeping up with the Markles

[Dolph]

If a genuine mistake i dont think it takes away from what else they have said especially when it is from personal conversations the have had.

I'm not going to discredit everything they have said due to what simply could have been a misunderstanding.

Neither am I, but an objective judgment has to prioritise demonstrable facts over hearsay.

Essentially, they are trying to present a narrative that ignores that their son was never going to be titled prince, and tries to present it as some form of vindictiveness. Rejecting this outright is the only logical course of action because it's demonstrably false. Even if the claimed conversations took place, which is the hearsay, they aren't the reason for the decision, and the attempt to present it as such is fundamentally dishonest.

 

[Dolph]

That's my point really, it seems like its a timing thing which seems a rather strange way of doing it.



So the Queen could have granted it?

She could have breached several hundred years of convention and tradition to create a new precedent, yes.

But that's a very different narrative to the one being presented here.

 

[Craterloads]

Neither am I, but an objective judgment has to prioritise demonstrable facts over hearsay.

Essentially, they are trying to present a narrative that ignores that their son was never going to be titled prince, and tries to present it as some form of vindictiveness. Rejecting this outright is the only logical course of action because it's demonstrably false. Even if the claimed conversations took place, which is the hearsay, they aren't the reason for the decision, and the attempt to present it as such is fundamentally dishonest.

I believe them on that point, i don't think it is something they would make up.

 

[Naff8000]

Neither am I, but an objective judgment has to prioritise demonstrable facts over hearsay.

Essentially, they are trying to present a narrative that ignores that their son was never going to be titled prince, and tries to present it as some form of vindictiveness. Rejecting this outright is the only logical course of action because it's demonstrably false. Even if the claimed conversations took place, which is the hearsay, they aren't the reason for the decision, and the attempt to present it as such is fundamentally dishonest.

My god why are you ironing that out so thin. You could have said that in 10 words.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

So we've progressed from a child sex trafficking scandal to a racism scandal via some casual bullying of staff.

They're certainly cultivating that tourist attraction status that cements their "value for money" position in a modern British society.

 

[Sankari]

Breaking news now.

Congrats. Can we have a day off again please?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42137179

This has worked out so well for both of them

 

[LOAM]

She could have breached several hundred years of convention and tradition to create a new precedent, yes.

But that's a very different narrative to the one being presented here.

I mean don't get me wrong I don't particularly care either way but given that had Charles been King they would have more than likely become Prince/Princess then she probably should have done so. Its not as if the Queen hasn't recently breached several hundred years of convention anyway. It wouldn't have made much difference to anything anyway.

 

[Dolph]

My god why are you ironing that out so thin. You could have said that in 10 words.

Because wordcraft has a beauty to it.

 

[Bassmansam]

Is there a way to see the interview now?

 

[Theophany]

My god why are you ironing that out so thin. You could have said that in 10 words.

LETTERS HURT BRIAN!!

 

[omnomnom]

Well, given the level of basic factual inaccuracy driving some of the claims of victimhood, let's not jump to conclusions that her account is definitive just yet.

Why? This thread is full of people absolutely slating them with zero facts.

 

[adam cool dude]

That's my point really, it seems like its a timing thing which seems a rather strange way of doing it.



So the Queen could have granted it?

How is it a timing thing? None of Andrew's, Anne's or Edward's grandchildren are Princes/Princess. It is simply laws of the land. What Charles ends up doing when he becomes king is entirely up to him but at the moment "dem are the rulez". It is more the fact she has been shown to blatantly lie about the reason for not becoming a prince is the issue. This in turn discredits everything she is saying as the old adage says. There is no smoke without fire.

 

[Uther]

I am already totally officially bored with the press coverage of this story.

It's like covid isn't a thing all of a sudden.

 

[Dolph]

Why? This thread is full of people absolutely slating them with zero facts.

But, if you notice, I am not.

 

[The Running Man]

Its a good job Harry has never been racialist@

 

[Dolph]

How is it a timing thing? None of Andrew's, Anne's or Edward's grandchildren are Princes/Princess. It is simply laws of the land. What Charles ends up doing when he becomes king is entirely up to him but at the moment "dem are the rulez". It is more the fact she has been shown to blatantly lie about the reason for not becoming a prince is the issue. This in turn discredits everything she is saying as the old adage says. There is no smoke without fire.

Exactly this. It isn't a grey area, it's just flat out wrong. If they 100% believe their account as being factually accurate, then they are delusional, if they know know their account is inaccurate, they are being willfully dishonest.

Either way, basic factual errors are a definitive way to damage credibility.

 

[fez]

Is there somewhere that shows all the racist headlines and stories that the papers were running because it feels very much like another "its racism because I am not completely white and I didn't like what they said or did to me". I haven't noticed the media being racist towards anyone in particular over the past few years. They have their darlings and the people they love to hate but thats not along racial lines from what I can tell.

The royals sell papers. She was a newcomer to the royal family, American and not from the aristocracy. If she was ghostly white they would still have dug into her background and tried to dig up every little story on her. Nothing to do with her skin. Papers are ****** organisations that prey on peoples nosiness when it comes to celebrities. I don't think what the papers do is nice most of the time but when you court publicity and use it to your financial gain, you lose all rights to complain when it goes the other way IMO.

They are complaining that they haven't had any privacy and yet court the media whenever it suits them.

Exactly this. It isn't a grey area, it's just flat out wrong. If they 100% believe their account as being factually accurate, then they are delusional, if they know know their account is inaccurate, they are being willfully dishonest.

Either way, basic factual errors are a definitive way to damage credibility.

People who support Harry and Meghan won't care one jot about that. They have played the race card and for some people that makes anything they say complete canon and anyone who says otherwise is just part of the problem.

 

[deuse]

So the trailer trash girl got it all wrong and cried a river for the cash.

 

[LOAM]

How is it a timing thing? None of Andrew's, Anne's or Edward's grandchildren are Princes/Princess. It is simply laws of the land. What Charles ends up doing when he becomes king is entirely up to him but at the moment "dem are the rulez". It is more the fact she has been shown to blatantly lie about the reason for not becoming a prince is the issue. This in turn discredits everything she is saying as the old adage says. There is no smoke without fire.

Both of Andrews children are princesses.

 

[james.miller]

Well if MM is to be believed then questions were raised about their baby being 'too dark' within the royal family. Who needs racist tabloids when you have family like that lol.