Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meghan’s lawyer, sent on national tv to discredit the bullying, all but confirmed it. Major PR fumble.

Yeah that was a stupid move, sometimes it's better to say nothing at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meghan’s lawyer, sent on national tv to discredit the bullying, all but confirmed it. Major PR fumble.

Yeah that was a stupid move, sometimes it's better to say nothing at all.

What did he say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meghan’s lawyer, sent on national tv to discredit the bullying, all but confirmed it. Major PR fumble.

Yeah that was a stupid move, sometimes it's better to say nothing at all.

What did he say?

It’s a “she,” and she gave a very carefully worded response that had obviously been lawyered within an inch of its life. Basically, they are conceding that she was a b*tch, but claiming that it doesn’t meet their definition of “bullying.”



‘No, absolutely not. I think the first thing to be really clear about what bullying is.

‘What bullying actually means is improperly using power repeatedly and deliberately to hurt someone, physically or emotionally.

‘The Duchess of Sussex absolutely denies ever doing that.’



She also set up a wonderful straw man (who claimed “everyone had to leave”?).

"This narrative that no-one could work for the Duchess of Sussex, that she was too difficult or demanding a boss, and that everyone had to leave, is just not true,” says Jenny Afiain a teaser for part two of Princes and the Press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meghan’s lawyer, sent on national tv to discredit the bullying, all but confirmed it. Major PR fumble.

Yeah that was a stupid move, sometimes it's better to say nothing at all.

What did he say?

It’s a “she,” and she gave a very carefully worded response that had obviously been lawyered within an inch of its life. Basically, they are conceding that she was a b*tch, but claiming that it doesn’t meet their definition of “bullying.”



‘No, absolutely not. I think the first thing to be really clear about what bullying is.

‘What bullying actually means is improperly using power repeatedly and deliberately to hurt someone, physically or emotionally.

‘The Duchess of Sussex absolutely denies ever doing that.’



She also set up a wonderful straw man (who claimed “everyone had to leave”?).

"This narrative that no-one could work for the Duchess of Sussex, that she was too difficult or demanding a boss, and that everyone had to leave, is just not true,” says Jenny Afiain a teaser for part two of Princes and the Press.

I'm not seeing the conclusion you're drawing from this quote. This seems fairly strongly worded and unambiguous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meghan’s lawyer, sent on national tv to discredit the bullying, all but confirmed it. Major PR fumble.

Yeah that was a stupid move, sometimes it's better to say nothing at all.

What did he say?

It’s a “she,” and she gave a very carefully worded response that had obviously been lawyered within an inch of its life. Basically, they are conceding that she was a b*tch, but claiming that it doesn’t meet their definition of “bullying.”

‘No, absolutely not. I think the first thing to be really clear about what bullying is.

‘What bullying actually means is improperly using power repeatedly and deliberately to hurt someone, physically or emotionally.

‘The Duchess of Sussex absolutely denies ever doing that.’


She also set up a wonderful straw man (who claimed “everyone had to leave”?).

"This narrative that no-one could work for the Duchess of Sussex, that she was too difficult or demanding a boss, and that everyone had to leave, is just not true,” says Jenny Afiain a teaser for part two of Princes and the Press.

I 100% agree with the first part of what PP said. J thought the exact same thing. I’m not sure I’m following the straw man theory (genuinely not sure) but I can believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meghan’s lawyer, sent on national tv to discredit the bullying, all but confirmed it. Major PR fumble.

Yeah that was a stupid move, sometimes it's better to say nothing at all.

What did he say?

It’s a “she,” and she gave a very carefully worded response that had obviously been lawyered within an inch of its life. Basically, they are conceding that she was a b*tch, but claiming that it doesn’t meet their definition of “bullying.”

‘No, absolutely not. I think the first thing to be really clear about what bullying is.

‘What bullying actually means is improperly using power repeatedly and deliberately to hurt someone, physically or emotionally.

‘The Duchess of Sussex absolutely denies ever doing that.’


She also set up a wonderful straw man (who claimed “everyone had to leave”?).

"This narrative that no-one could work for the Duchess of Sussex, that she was too difficult or demanding a boss, and that everyone had to leave, is just not true,” says Jenny Afiain a teaser for part two of Princes and the Press.

I 100% agree with the first part of what PP said. J thought the exact same thing. I’m not sure I’m following the straw man theory (genuinely not sure) but I can believe.

Where did you see the programme?

[Anonymous]

She redefined the meaning of bullying and then ended her statements with “She would not want to negate anyone’s personal experiences”. Aka she did it and she knows there is proof.

I suppose it is an improvement from “It’s not her job to coddle staff”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meghan’s lawyer, sent on national tv to discredit the bullying, all but confirmed it. Major PR fumble.

Yeah that was a stupid move, sometimes it's better to say nothing at all.

What did he say?

It’s a “she,” and she gave a very carefully worded response that had obviously been lawyered within an inch of its life. Basically, they are conceding that she was a b*tch, but claiming that it doesn’t meet their definition of “bullying.”



‘No, absolutely not. I think the first thing to be really clear about what bullying is.

[/b]‘What bullying actually means is improperly using power repeatedly and deliberately to hurt someone, physically or emotionally.[b]

‘The Duchess of Sussex absolutely denies ever doing that.’

Not only is that not the definition of bullying, but she did something really nasty there. She says it has to be repeated, meaning the victims have to provide proof of many instances, and she said it has to be deliberate, again meaning victims have to prove intention. This is not just legalese, this is a way to discredit victims.

Other straw man in her statement. “There is no way to defend against bullying allegations”. Wrong, it’s up to the other side to prove they were bullied. There are multiple people lodging complaints and multiple eyewitnesses. Surely if Meghan did not bully someone, anyone, would have come forward to provide a different account.



She also set up a wonderful straw man (who claimed “everyone had to leave”?).

"This narrative that no-one could work for the Duchess of Sussex, that she was too difficult or demanding a boss, and that everyone had to leave, is just not true,” says Jenny Afiain a teaser for part two of Princes and the Press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meghan’s lawyer, sent on national tv to discredit the bullying, all but confirmed it. Major PR fumble.

Yeah that was a stupid move, sometimes it's better to say nothing at all.

What did he say?

It’s a “she,” and she gave a very carefully worded response that had obviously been lawyered within an inch of its life. Basically, they are conceding that she was a b*tch, but claiming that it doesn’t meet their definition of “bullying.”



‘No, absolutely not. I think the first thing to be really clear about what bullying is.

‘What bullying actually means is improperly using power repeatedly and deliberately to hurt someone, physically or emotionally.

‘The Duchess of Sussex absolutely denies ever doing that.’



She also set up a wonderful straw man (who claimed “everyone had to leave”?).

"This narrative that no-one could work for the Duchess of Sussex, that she was too difficult or demanding a boss, and that everyone had to leave, is just not true,” says Jenny Afiain a teaser for part two of Princes and the Press.

Not only is that not the definition of bullying, but she did something really nasty there. She says it has to be repeated, meaning the victims have to provide proof of many instances, and she said it has to be deliberate, again meaning victims have to prove intention. This is not just legalese, this is a way to discredit victims.

Other straw man in her statement. “There is no way to defend against bullying allegations”. Wrong, it’s up to the other side to prove they were bullied. There are multiple people lodging complaints and multiple eyewitnesses. Surely if Meghan did not bully someone, anyone, would have come forward to provide a different account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meghan’s lawyer, sent on national tv to discredit the bullying, all but confirmed it. Major PR fumble.

Yeah that was a stupid move, sometimes it's better to say nothing at all.

What did he say?

It’s a “she,” and she gave a very carefully worded response that had obviously been lawyered within an inch of its life. Basically, they are conceding that she was a b*tch, but claiming that it doesn’t meet their definition of “bullying.”



‘No, absolutely not. I think the first thing to be really clear about what bullying is.

‘What bullying actually means is improperly using power repeatedly and deliberately to hurt someone, physically or emotionally.

‘The Duchess of Sussex absolutely denies ever doing that.’



She also set up a wonderful straw man (who claimed “everyone had to leave”?).

"This narrative that no-one could work for the Duchess of Sussex, that she was too difficult or demanding a boss, and that everyone had to leave, is just not true,” says Jenny Afiain a teaser for part two of Princes and the Press.

Not only is that not the definition of bullying, but she did something really nasty there. She says it has to be repeated, meaning the victims have to provide proof of many instances, and she said it has to be deliberate, again meaning victims have to prove intention. This is not just legalese, this is a way to discredit victims.

Other straw man in her statement. “There is no way to defend against bullying allegations”. Wrong, it’s up to the other side to prove they were bullied. There are multiple people lodging complaints and multiple eyewitnesses. Surely if Meghan did not bully someone, anyone, would have come forward to provide a different account.

+ 1. The attorney is trying to thread a needle by purporting a distorted definition of bullying is the one we all agree to.

[Anonymous]

Can’t believe this successful lawyer went out on a limb like that, so publicly, especially for a client that has already been discredited in court. I wonder when this interview took place.

[Anonymous]

I’m going to reserve judgment until we see the actual recommendations. I think a work environment can be unpleasant without someone being a bully. It’s clear that the people who worked with her didn’t like her but we haven’t gotten a single specific allegation yet. The fact that no one else in the BRF seemingly did anything to stop her kind of undermines things.

[Anonymous]

Allegations. Stupid predictive text!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what people find odd is that Meghan’s dad is vilified for taking same fake snapshots, but Meghan does much worse on Oprah and seems to get the same criticism from her fan club.

- I get that that the fake snaps were tacky and embarrassing - but does that make him the most vile, abusive father ever? Wasn’t he fairly quiet up until Meghan had her minions attack him in people magazine??

On the other hand you have Meghan, who lied on Oprah by strongly insinuating that Archie didn’t get his prince title because of his color and then doubling down by leveling terrible accusations of racism at the entire family by not naming who she was accusing.

I think on balance, and not knowing what all went on behind closed doors, Meghan comes across as much more vicious and abusive than her dad.

When Meghan moved in with Harry she was caught walking up and down the street of the Daily Mail offices in London (for an hour) hopping to be papped. Was desperate to be on the papers. Then called Vanity Fair to do a cover talking about dating Harry. Has been calling the paparazzi since her Suit days and continues to do so regularly.

But she did not cut off her father because of the innocuous snaps, that was just an excuse, she had already cut him off. Never introduced him to Harry or RF and declared on international TV that his was the family she never had.

I always thought it was odd that Harry never met her father. The expectation is that you would meet the parents before not after the engagement. In fact, you haven't met the parents before the engagement, it would invite the question of "why not".

I think the text that was too awful to be read aloud in court explains all of this. It explains why Harry never met Meghan's father in person.

It explains that Meghan is really more awful than most people, including the haterz, took her for.

What text are you referring to? If it wasn’t read aloud, how do you know what it said?

DP. That’s what the judge said after being shown the text. “I certainly see why Mr. Markle would be so upset, I will not read this text aloud.”

The text was written by Harry btw.

If Harry wrote the text, then why is Meghan the one that is so awful?

Because Meghan told him *something* that prompted the awful text. And her dad is/was pathetic but isn't awful. So she must have told Harry some lies to make him think so badly of her father.

What is your basis that he isn’t awful though? Twice divorced with three shitty kids would suggest otherwise. Especially because two of his three kids have basically confirmed instances of family violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah yes, the typical "I'm more offended at the allegations of racism than the racism itself." Makes you really wonder...

Can you please articulate all of these horrific racist incidents and source them? Thanks!

DP. Sure!:


Prince Phillip: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2017/8/13/the-priceless-racism-of-the-duke-of-edinburgh

Prince William mansplaining why Africans are ruining the environment by having kids (despite himself having three kids)

No one asking Princess Michael of Kent to take off that super offensive broach and also the fact that she previously got in trouble for telling black diners in NYV to “go back to the colonies” (demonstrating that she is both racist and stupid)

Prince Harry’s own racist comments in the military

Prince Charles: anti semitism https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaretz.com/amp/world-news/europe/prince-charles-1986-letter-blamed-jews-for-unrest-in-middle-east-1.5464756

Very, very much a racist family. So not sure why you would bend yourself into pretzels disbelieving that a bunch of racists could…do/say something racist.

Elizabeth seems like the only good one out of the bunch.