Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Harry is not just anyone. It becomes a political issue because he in line to the throne. He should have kept his trap shut.

What?

1) America doesn't have a throne, we have elections, did you know that?
2) England doesn't have a first amendment
3) England's monarch doesn't legislate

It is highly inappropriate given the United States history (hello 1776?) with him being a member of the monarchy to be commenting on our internal affairs, our laws and freedoms when the thing he is commenting on arose specifically because of his ancestors. He is a guest in the United States and should not be insulting us.

Well its as American as apple pie to disagree so I just disagree with that. It's been 225 years and we're a global superpower far more powerful than England. It's a silly thing to get upset about. Especially when coming from a person who will never be a monarch and who's country's monarchy is essentially symbolic only.

I see you value the 1st amendment about as much as Harry does. Until it's gone. And you have already said that you want the 2nd amendment gone too. 2nd Amendment is there as a bulwark in case 1st amendment fails.

LOL, when agree to disagree doesn't work you just resort to flamboyantly offensive ad hominems to try to get a rise out of me. You should maybe get some therapy to address why you are so desperate to make people angry on the internet. I continue to think you are not American, but have like, read a book like, 'how to offend americans for dummies' or something.

+1

That poster is clearly not American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:H and M act like spoiled brat teenagers. And such a contrast with his brother this week especially, as the BRF flawlessly hosted the G7 leaders. They really need to lay low because everything they are doing further cheapens their image.

Are you the same pp from above? Realized you couldn't get a rise out of me so say something new and mean to draw attention away from the above exchange?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Please. “Bonkers” is not complimentary. And I have no problem with Harry criticizing the first amendment. It makes him look ungrateful and ignorant, but that’s fine with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Harry is not just anyone. It becomes a political issue because he in line to the throne. He should have kept his trap shut.

What?

1) America doesn't have a throne, we have elections, did you know that?
2) England doesn't have a first amendment
3) England's monarch doesn't legislate

NP, but what (I think) the PP was saying is that there’s a long-standing and strong norm that members of the BRF (including non-working members, it goes for anyone personally associated with the BRF) do not comment on domestic or foreign politics. It’s seen as overstepping and possibly unduly influencing others, since they’re a hereditary monarchy and the UK is a democracy. They’re not supposed to comment on foreign politics either because their role abroad is basically that of diplomats. If you recall, MM got a flurry of bad press because, while in Ireland a few days before their abortion referendum, she said something in public like “I hope it passes.” You’re really not supposed to do that, no matter how sympathetic you are to the cause.

So a member of the BRF (even if he is no longer a senior royal, he’s still in line to the British throne - hasn’t removed himself yet) commenting/offering his opinion on U.S. constitutional principles is a violation of that norm. However, it’s not surprising because his entire point is that he’s too good for the BRF’s rules.

Do they actually do that though? In the past two weeks there have been stories about the Cambridges secret meeting with Gordon Brown regarding Scotland, the Queen lobbying to be exempt from financial disclosure and racial discrimination laws, and of course those weird anti Semitic letters Charles wrote in the 70s about Israel (I think I was probably late to the game on those).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the Queen is standing by the BBC’s story that she wasn’t consulted on the name “Lilibet,” despite H&M’s threats to sue the BBC. Could get interesting.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-markles-war-with-the-royals-hits-fever-pitch-over-lilibet

It continues to reinforce these 2 are a hot mess together. Did anyone see the interview with Meghan's dad? Very sad, that man put her through college and seemed like a good dad. Still whatever her gripes it doesn't amount to being cut off. Actually her dad made a lot of good points.

I'm not a Meghan hater but the recent 60 minutes interview with her father is really sad.

A good father doesn’t sell his daughter out to the press no matter the state of their relationship

She sold out her family and Harry's on Oprah. She actually made her father look pretty good at this point.

Both of them certainly seem willing to sell out their family in the media. No question about that.

But I think a large part of why she cut him off is because he’s poor, fat, and embarrassing. She knew the pics of the future king walking her down the aisle would look way better than her dad doing it.

He's not poor actually, won awards as a lighting director. And he has a nice home right on the ocean. She did herself in to begin with. I would have invited the entire family to the wedding and treated them well. Guaranteed Samantha etc. wouldn't have felt slighted nor given up the goods on the "real Meghan". She should have ignored her dad's photo op, quietly asked him not to do that, but let it go. Instead she compounded everything. If there was to be any embarrassment it was that long winded preacher that tried to use the spotlight, and her mom's nose ring which was tacky for that type of event with the royals no less. Not to mention she invited strangers but not her own family. She went to Samantha graduation and was on good terms before the slight, it wouldn't have hurt. Then send them the occasional update, and phone call. That's what decent people do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Markle

Okay, not “poor” necessarily then, but he didn’t represent the socioeconomic class values that she wanted to represent. (Also, winning professional awards doesn’t mean you have money. Neither does having a small home on the beach in Mexico.) But you make some good points. Agree that inviting A-list strangers but only a single family member is extremely questionable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Harry is not just anyone. It becomes a political issue because he in line to the throne. He should have kept his trap shut.

What?

1) America doesn't have a throne, we have elections, did you know that?
2) England doesn't have a first amendment
3) England's monarch doesn't legislate

It is highly inappropriate given the United States history (hello 1776?) with him being a member of the monarchy to be commenting on our internal affairs, our laws and freedoms when the thing he is commenting on arose specifically because of his ancestors. He is a guest in the United States and should not be insulting us.

+1. He is a guest here. Bottom line. He could exhibit some grace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Harry is not just anyone. It becomes a political issue because he in line to the throne. He should have kept his trap shut.

What?

1) America doesn't have a throne, we have elections, did you know that?
2) England doesn't have a first amendment
3) England's monarch doesn't legislate

NP, but what (I think) the PP was saying is that there’s a long-standing and strong norm that members of the BRF (including non-working members, it goes for anyone personally associated with the BRF) do not comment on domestic or foreign politics. It’s seen as overstepping and possibly unduly influencing others, since they’re a hereditary monarchy and the UK is a democracy. They’re not supposed to comment on foreign politics either because their role abroad is basically that of diplomats. If you recall, MM got a flurry of bad press because, while in Ireland a few days before their abortion referendum, she said something in public like “I hope it passes.” You’re really not supposed to do that, no matter how sympathetic you are to the cause.

So a member of the BRF (even if he is no longer a senior royal, he’s still in line to the British throne - hasn’t removed himself yet) commenting/offering his opinion on U.S. constitutional principles is a violation of that norm. However, it’s not surprising because his entire point is that he’s too good for the BRF’s rules.

Do they actually do that though? In the past two weeks there have been stories about the Cambridges secret meeting with Gordon Brown regarding Scotland, the Queen lobbying to be exempt from financial disclosure and racial discrimination laws, and of course those weird anti Semitic letters Charles wrote in the 70s about Israel (I think I was probably late to the game on those).

The Cambridge’s meeting wasn’t secret - it was published in the court circular. They also met with Sturgeon and other members of Scottish government. This means they met with people from both stay and go on independence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Harry is not just anyone. It becomes a political issue because he in line to the throne. He should have kept his trap shut.

What?

1) America doesn't have a throne, we have elections, did you know that?
2) England doesn't have a first amendment
3) England's monarch doesn't legislate

NP, but what (I think) the PP was saying is that there’s a long-standing and strong norm that members of the BRF (including non-working members, it goes for anyone personally associated with the BRF) do not comment on domestic or foreign politics. It’s seen as overstepping and possibly unduly influencing others, since they’re a hereditary monarchy and the UK is a democracy. They’re not supposed to comment on foreign politics either because their role abroad is basically that of diplomats. If you recall, MM got a flurry of bad press because, while in Ireland a few days before their abortion referendum, she said something in public like “I hope it passes.” You’re really not supposed to do that, no matter how sympathetic you are to the cause.

So a member of the BRF (even if he is no longer a senior royal, he’s still in line to the British throne - hasn’t removed himself yet) commenting/offering his opinion on U.S. constitutional principles is a violation of that norm. However, it’s not surprising because his entire point is that he’s too good for the BRF’s rules.

Do they actually do that though? In the past two weeks there have been stories about the Cambridges secret meeting with Gordon Brown regarding Scotland, the Queen lobbying to be exempt from financial disclosure and racial discrimination laws, and of course those weird anti Semitic letters Charles wrote in the 70s about Israel (I think I was probably late to the game on those).

I'm the PP you're responding to. None of the things you mention are public comments. The Cambridges' meeting with Gordon Brown might have been leaked, but as you said yourself, it was nonpublic and "secret." The Queen lobbying to be exempt from financial disclosure and racial discrimination laws was also done privately/via back channels, which is why we are only hearing about it now. And Charles' letters (haven't read the story, so I'll take your word on it) were presumably private correspondence to a friend, that was leaked to the press for someone's benefit, not a public letter to the editor of a publication. Note that I didn't say the BRF isn't entitled to their own private political opinions - of course they are. And, as with any powerful people/institution, apparently they do lobby behind the scenes for their preferred outcomes. But they do refrain from making public commentary on politics, or supporting political causes through patronages or other statements. Harry's comments about the First Amendment were public comments because they were made on a publicly-available podcast (as opposed to privately to a friend.) That's the difference.

I don't personally think his comments were particularly egregious, because he really has no power or education/context on the First Amendment, and if he remains here, he'll have to get used to it. I do agree it's in somewhat poor taste to be a guest in this country and criticize a founding principle of it, but I think a lot of what he has done in the past several years is in poor taste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:H and M act like spoiled brat teenagers. And such a contrast with his brother this week especially, as the BRF flawlessly hosted the G7 leaders. They really need to lay low because everything they are doing further cheapens their image.

Are you the same pp from above? Realized you couldn't get a rise out of me so say something new and mean to draw attention away from the above exchange?

Wtf?
NP for your information, your Highness King George III of this thread apparently...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Harry is not just anyone. It becomes a political issue because he in line to the throne. He should have kept his trap shut.

What?

1) America doesn't have a throne, we have elections, did you know that?
2) England doesn't have a first amendment
3) England's monarch doesn't legislate

NP, but what (I think) the PP was saying is that there’s a long-standing and strong norm that members of the BRF (including non-working members, it goes for anyone personally associated with the BRF) do not comment on domestic or foreign politics. It’s seen as overstepping and possibly unduly influencing others, since they’re a hereditary monarchy and the UK is a democracy. They’re not supposed to comment on foreign politics either because their role abroad is basically that of diplomats. If you recall, MM got a flurry of bad press because, while in Ireland a few days before their abortion referendum, she said something in public like “I hope it passes.” You’re really not supposed to do that, no matter how sympathetic you are to the cause.

So a member of the BRF (even if he is no longer a senior royal, he’s still in line to the British throne - hasn’t removed himself yet) commenting/offering his opinion on U.S. constitutional principles is a violation of that norm. However, it’s not surprising because his entire point is that he’s too good for the BRF’s rules.

Do they actually do that though? In the past two weeks there have been stories about the Cambridges secret meeting with Gordon Brown regarding Scotland, the Queen lobbying to be exempt from financial disclosure and racial discrimination laws, and of course those weird anti Semitic letters Charles wrote in the 70s about Israel (I think I was probably late to the game on those).

I'm the PP you're responding to. None of the things you mention are public comments. The Cambridges' meeting with Gordon Brown might have been leaked, but as you said yourself, it was nonpublic and "secret." The Queen lobbying to be exempt from financial disclosure and racial discrimination laws was also done privately/via back channels, which is why we are only hearing about it now. And Charles' letters (haven't read the story, so I'll take your word on it) were presumably private correspondence to a friend, that was leaked to the press for someone's benefit, not a public letter to the editor of a publication. Note that I didn't say the BRF isn't entitled to their own private political opinions - of course they are. And, as with any powerful people/institution, apparently they do lobby behind the scenes for their preferred outcomes. But they do refrain from making public commentary on politics, or supporting political causes through patronages or other statements. Harry's comments about the First Amendment were public comments because they were made on a publicly-available podcast (as opposed to privately to a friend.) That's the difference.

I don't personally think his comments were particularly egregious, because he really has no power or education/context on the First Amendment, and if he remains here, he'll have to get used to it. I do agree it's in somewhat poor taste to be a guest in this country and criticize a founding principle of it, but I think a lot of what he has done in the past several years is in poor taste.

PP editing my post to add (based on a PP's comment above that the Cambridges' Scotland meeting was public) - if that is true, that's completely in line with their apolitical policy. If the BRF is meeting with people on both sides of a political issue, they're not favoring one side or by definition making public comments on that political issue (unless they do specifically come out favoring one side).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the Queen is standing by the BBC’s story that she wasn’t consulted on the name “Lilibet,” despite H&M’s threats to sue the BBC. Could get interesting.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-markles-war-with-the-royals-hits-fever-pitch-over-lilibet

It continues to reinforce these 2 are a hot mess together. Did anyone see the interview with Meghan's dad? Very sad, that man put her through college and seemed like a good dad. Still whatever her gripes it doesn't amount to being cut off. Actually her dad made a lot of good points.

I'm not a Meghan hater but the recent 60 minutes interview with her father is really sad.

A good father doesn’t sell his daughter out to the press no matter the state of their relationship

She sold out her family and Harry's on Oprah. She actually made her father look pretty good at this point.

Both of them certainly seem willing to sell out their family in the media. No question about that.

But I think a large part of why she cut him off is because he’s poor, fat, and embarrassing. She knew the pics of the future king walking her down the aisle would look way better than her dad doing it.

He's not poor actually, won awards as a lighting director. And he has a nice home right on the ocean. She did herself in to begin with. I would have invited the entire family to the wedding and treated them well. Guaranteed Samantha etc. wouldn't have felt slighted nor given up the goods on the "real Meghan". She should have ignored her dad's photo op, quietly asked him not to do that, but let it go. Instead she compounded everything. If there was to be any embarrassment it was that long winded preacher that tried to use the spotlight, and her mom's nose ring which was tacky for that type of event with the royals no less. Not to mention she invited strangers but not her own family. She went to Samantha graduation and was on good terms before the slight, it wouldn't have hurt. Then send them the occasional update, and phone call. That's what decent people do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Markle

Okay, not “poor” necessarily then, but he didn’t represent the socioeconomic class values that she wanted to represent. (Also, winning professional awards doesn’t mean you have money. Neither does having a small home on the beach in Mexico.) But you make some good points. Agree that inviting A-list strangers but only a single family member is extremely questionable.

He travels between Mexico and LA where he has another home. Also, Meghan has nieces, cousins, aunts, and uncles on both sides. What about Doria's side? It would have made her look 100% better if she had her family there. She could afford to wine and dine them instead of snubbing them. They were blindsided and hurt understandably. While I don't agree with how much her sister has spoken out, it was pretty cold. Samantha says she's probably embarrassed because she's in a wheel chair. Don't many of us have embarrassing family members? My DH has quite a few, but still he treats them well. I wonder if she regrets her actions, it certainly caused a media storm which keeps continuing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the bizarro tax poster and the bizarro first amendment poster I feel like there are some non American trolls trying to instigate but they have literally no idea what they are talking about so are coming across as incredibly dumb

Yes. Very few American with knowledge of the first amendment would agree with Harry that it is “bonkers.”

Are you American? Bonkers is a weird word. It can be used positively or negatively. I read the excerpt and read it as him saying it’s kind of crazy but in the way you might point at a surfer riding a crazy wave and say they’re crazy. You’re not really saying it as a cutting criticism, more in a, wow that’s kind of dangerous/cool/insane/brave combination of connotation.

Regardless, believing in the first amendment means believing in people criticizing it.

Harry is not just anyone. It becomes a political issue because he in line to the throne. He should have kept his trap shut.

What?

1) America doesn't have a throne, we have elections, did you know that?
2) England doesn't have a first amendment
3) England's monarch doesn't legislate

It is highly inappropriate given the United States history (hello 1776?) with him being a member of the monarchy to be commenting on our internal affairs, our laws and freedoms when the thing he is commenting on arose specifically because of his ancestors. He is a guest in the United States and should not be insulting us.

Well its as American as apple pie to disagree so I just disagree with that. It's been 225 years and we're a global superpower far more powerful than England. It's a silly thing to get upset about. Especially when coming from a person who will never be a monarch and who's country's monarchy is essentially symbolic only.

I see you value the 1st amendment about as much as Harry does. Until it's gone. And you have already said that you want the 2nd amendment gone too. 2nd Amendment is there as a bulwark in case 1st amendment fails.

LOL, when agree to disagree doesn't work you just resort to flamboyantly offensive ad hominems to try to get a rise out of me. You should maybe get some therapy to address why you are so desperate to make people angry on the internet. I continue to think you are not American, but have like, read a book like, 'how to offend americans for dummies' or something.

+1

That poster is clearly not American.

Probably not even a human - chatbot alert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the Queen is standing by the BBC’s story that she wasn’t consulted on the name “Lilibet,” despite H&M’s threats to sue the BBC. Could get interesting.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-markles-war-with-the-royals-hits-fever-pitch-over-lilibet

It continues to reinforce these 2 are a hot mess together. Did anyone see the interview with Meghan's dad? Very sad, that man put her through college and seemed like a good dad. Still whatever her gripes it doesn't amount to being cut off. Actually her dad made a lot of good points.

I'm not a Meghan hater but the recent 60 minutes interview with her father is really sad.

A good father doesn’t sell his daughter out to the press no matter the state of their relationship

She sold out her family and Harry's on Oprah. She actually made her father look pretty good at this point.

Both of them certainly seem willing to sell out their family in the media. No question about that.

But I think a large part of why she cut him off is because he’s poor, fat, and embarrassing. She knew the pics of the future king walking her down the aisle would look way better than her dad doing it.

He's not poor actually, won awards as a lighting director. And he has a nice home right on the ocean. She did herself in to begin with. I would have invited the entire family to the wedding and treated them well. Guaranteed Samantha etc. wouldn't have felt slighted nor given up the goods on the "real Meghan". She should have ignored her dad's photo op, quietly asked him not to do that, but let it go. Instead she compounded everything. If there was to be any embarrassment it was that long winded preacher that tried to use the spotlight, and her mom's nose ring which was tacky for that type of event with the royals no less. Not to mention she invited strangers but not her own family. She went to Samantha graduation and was on good terms before the slight, it wouldn't have hurt. Then send them the occasional update, and phone call. That's what decent people do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Markle

Okay, not “poor” necessarily then, but he didn’t represent the socioeconomic class values that she wanted to represent. (Also, winning professional awards doesn’t mean you have money. Neither does having a small home on the beach in Mexico.) But you make some good points. Agree that inviting A-list strangers but only a single family member is extremely questionable.

He travels between Mexico and LA where he has another home. Also, Meghan has nieces, cousins, aunts, and uncles on both sides. What about Doria's side? It would have made her look 100% better if she had her family there. She could afford to wine and dine them instead of snubbing them. They were blindsided and hurt understandably. While I don't agree with how much her sister has spoken out, it was pretty cold. Samantha says she's probably embarrassed because she's in a wheel chair. Don't many of us have embarrassing family members? My DH has quite a few, but still he treats them well. I wonder if she regrets her actions, it certainly caused a media storm which keeps continuing.

She hasn't spoken to Samantha in like 20 years. Seriously that isn't a snub its called like, not pretending someone is close to you just to get media points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the Queen is standing by the BBC’s story that she wasn’t consulted on the name “Lilibet,” despite H&M’s threats to sue the BBC. Could get interesting.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-markles-war-with-the-royals-hits-fever-pitch-over-lilibet

It continues to reinforce these 2 are a hot mess together. Did anyone see the interview with Meghan's dad? Very sad, that man put her through college and seemed like a good dad. Still whatever her gripes it doesn't amount to being cut off. Actually her dad made a lot of good points.

I'm not a Meghan hater but the recent 60 minutes interview with her father is really sad.

A good father doesn’t sell his daughter out to the press no matter the state of their relationship

She sold out her family and Harry's on Oprah. She actually made her father look pretty good at this point.

Both of them certainly seem willing to sell out their family in the media. No question about that.

But I think a large part of why she cut him off is because he’s poor, fat, and embarrassing. She knew the pics of the future king walking her down the aisle would look way better than her dad doing it.

He's not poor actually, won awards as a lighting director. And he has a nice home right on the ocean. She did herself in to begin with. I would have invited the entire family to the wedding and treated them well. Guaranteed Samantha etc. wouldn't have felt slighted nor given up the goods on the "real Meghan". She should have ignored her dad's photo op, quietly asked him not to do that, but let it go. Instead she compounded everything. If there was to be any embarrassment it was that long winded preacher that tried to use the spotlight, and her mom's nose ring which was tacky for that type of event with the royals no less. Not to mention she invited strangers but not her own family. She went to Samantha graduation and was on good terms before the slight, it wouldn't have hurt. Then send them the occasional update, and phone call. That's what decent people do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Markle

Okay, not “poor” necessarily then, but he didn’t represent the socioeconomic class values that she wanted to represent. (Also, winning professional awards doesn’t mean you have money. Neither does having a small home on the beach in Mexico.) But you make some good points. Agree that inviting A-list strangers but only a single family member is extremely questionable.

He travels between Mexico and LA where he has another home. Also, Meghan has nieces, cousins, aunts, and uncles on both sides. What about Doria's side? It would have made her look 100% better if she had her family there. She could afford to wine and dine them instead of snubbing them. They were blindsided and hurt understandably. While I don't agree with how much her sister has spoken out, it was pretty cold. Samantha says she's probably embarrassed because she's in a wheel chair. Don't many of us have embarrassing family members? My DH has quite a few, but still he treats them well. I wonder if she regrets her actions, it certainly caused a media storm which keeps continuing.

She hasn't spoken to Samantha in like 20 years. Seriously that isn't a snub its called like, not pretending someone is close to you just to get media points.

It's not normal to not invite a sister to a wedding, unless it's a small, tiny wedding. Which this wasn't. Even a sister you're not close to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the Queen is standing by the BBC’s story that she wasn’t consulted on the name “Lilibet,” despite H&M’s threats to sue the BBC. Could get interesting.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-markles-war-with-the-royals-hits-fever-pitch-over-lilibet

It continues to reinforce these 2 are a hot mess together. Did anyone see the interview with Meghan's dad? Very sad, that man put her through college and seemed like a good dad. Still whatever her gripes it doesn't amount to being cut off. Actually her dad made a lot of good points.

I'm not a Meghan hater but the recent 60 minutes interview with her father is really sad.

A good father doesn’t sell his daughter out to the press no matter the state of their relationship

She sold out her family and Harry's on Oprah. She actually made her father look pretty good at this point.

Both of them certainly seem willing to sell out their family in the media. No question about that.

But I think a large part of why she cut him off is because he’s poor, fat, and embarrassing. She knew the pics of the future king walking her down the aisle would look way better than her dad doing it.

He's not poor actually, won awards as a lighting director. And he has a nice home right on the ocean. She did herself in to begin with. I would have invited the entire family to the wedding and treated them well. Guaranteed Samantha etc. wouldn't have felt slighted nor given up the goods on the "real Meghan". She should have ignored her dad's photo op, quietly asked him not to do that, but let it go. Instead she compounded everything. If there was to be any embarrassment it was that long winded preacher that tried to use the spotlight, and her mom's nose ring which was tacky for that type of event with the royals no less. Not to mention she invited strangers but not her own family. She went to Samantha graduation and was on good terms before the slight, it wouldn't have hurt. Then send them the occasional update, and phone call. That's what decent people do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Markle

Okay, not “poor” necessarily then, but he didn’t represent the socioeconomic class values that she wanted to represent. (Also, winning professional awards doesn’t mean you have money. Neither does having a small home on the beach in Mexico.) But you make some good points. Agree that inviting A-list strangers but only a single family member is extremely questionable.

He travels between Mexico and LA where he has another home. Also, Meghan has nieces, cousins, aunts, and uncles on both sides. What about Doria's side? It would have made her look 100% better if she had her family there. She could afford to wine and dine them instead of snubbing them. They were blindsided and hurt understandably. While I don't agree with how much her sister has spoken out, it was pretty cold. Samantha says she's probably embarrassed because she's in a wheel chair. Don't many of us have embarrassing family members? My DH has quite a few, but still he treats them well. I wonder if she regrets her actions, it certainly caused a media storm which keeps continuing.

She hasn't spoken to Samantha in like 20 years. Seriously that isn't a snub its called like, not pretending someone is close to you just to get media points.

She went to her sisters graduation in 2008 and spoke on the phone after that date. No I don't think they were close, but still family.
Samantha Markle accuses Meghan of lying in speech about university saying father paid for tuition | Daily Mail Online