Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They're both dolts. And they have staunch defenders, ready to attack DCUMers in a way that isn't really supposed to happen. But does. Because Meghan and Harry are that special.

Still don’t explain why you get so triggered by what they say...it’s really easy to ignore them.

So why are you so triggered by what people say about the Harkles……..isn’t it equally easy to ignore that?

Yes, why do you take the time to defend H&M? You could have walked away from this discussion 301 pages ago.

+1. At least H&M are famous people. You’re spending your energy worrying about random anonymous posters.

Nope, no time spent worrying. I find the vociferous defense fascinating in light of the numerous times that H&M have been caught making statements that contradict earlier statements. Was hoping that a defender would taking the time to reflect and explain their support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With regards to Harry, it is not crazy town to point out the sheer audacity of this man to use a charity to enrich his already wealthy self.

Agree.

I find it very interesting how quickly this FACTUAL information about Harry gets quickly buried by name-calling posts every time it comes up.

Why aren't all these H&M fans coming to his defense with FACTUAL rebuttals?

Because there are none.

Exploiting wounded servicemembers is beyond despicable.

I didn’t see any facts that Harry was exploiting wounded service members. I saw evidence that he isn’t the first person to start a charity involving veterans and he seems to have limited familiarity with US organizations that do the same things as Invictus. Scandalous!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/why-prince-harry-called-in-lawyers-over-canceled-invictus-games-fundraiser/ar-BB18OJuE

Good gosh people are lazy.

And you don’t know how to read.

The concert venue couldn’t confirm that they would be open. That’s a pretty important part of why the event was canceled.

It can be both you know. It’s not an either or situation. Harry suing is the kicker - definitely a conflict of interest going on and Covid makes an excellent excuse.

[Anonymous]

Do the Sussexes do anything other than file lawsuits? 😄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With regards to Harry, it is not crazy town to point out the sheer audacity of this man to use a charity to enrich his already wealthy self.

Agree.

I find it very interesting how quickly this FACTUAL information about Harry gets quickly buried by name-calling posts every time it comes up.

Why aren't all these H&M fans coming to his defense with FACTUAL rebuttals?

Because there are none.

Exploiting wounded servicemembers is beyond despicable.

I didn’t see any facts that Harry was exploiting wounded service members. I saw evidence that he isn’t the first person to start a charity involving veterans and he seems to have limited familiarity with US organizations that do the same things as Invictus. Scandalous!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/why-prince-harry-called-in-lawyers-over-canceled-invictus-games-fundraiser/ar-BB18OJuE

Good gosh people are lazy.

This article does not provide any evidence that Harry was exploiting service members. It says a concert was canceled due to Covid and both Amazon and Netflix have interest in streaming fundraisers for the invictus games. how many live concerts did you go to last year?

How long did it take you to come up with that rote "absense of evidence" rebuttal? It doesn't even hold water in this case since there is actual evidence:

FACT: First Department of Defense Warrior Game was held in 2010. https://www.dodwarriorgames.com/

FACT: Harry visited in 2014 "Prince Harry joked Thursday that a Paralympic-style sporting championship for injured servicemen and women known as the Warrior Games was "such a good idea by the Americans that it had to be stolen." (Newsweek)

FACT: The DoD Warrior Games is scheduled in 2021 at the ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex at Walt Disney World Resort which DONATED their facility. This shows the importance of these games for the WOUNDED doesn't depend on fundraisers because they are sponsored by US government and supported by corporations, in accordance with U.S. government ethics laws.

FACT: When Harry couldn't do a fundraiser (money going to HIS charity) then he threatens with a lawsuit. (Newsweek 9/20)

FACT: In a March 2019 survey, a 72% majority of U.S. adults (and identical 72% shares of Republicans and Democrats) said that if they were making the federal budget, they would increase spending for veterans’ benefits and services

FACT: Because of these statistics, it has been proven that exploitation will occur and has been occurring, as was discussed in 2007 in Congress:
https://www.charitywatch.org/charity-donating-articles/our-veterans-deserve-better-congressional-testimony

FACT: The definition of exploitation:
use or utilization, especially for profit
selfish utilization:
the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

Anyone who defends Harry and his shady Invictus Games, including corporations, should be roundly criticized and boycotted.

[Anonymous]

Ugh who cares. This thread is a dumpster fire that should be locked. It’s gone from pleasant chatter to ugly attacks. And to be clear, I think Meghan and Harry are immature whiners who have somehow fooled people into buying into their perpetual victimhood. Meghan is a classic narcissist - she’s the victim and anyone who doesn’t agree with her is “toxic.” Her family is toxic, her husbands family is toxic, the press is toxic. It’s clear as daylight she’s the problem, not everyone else.

But that said, come on people, it’s not that big of a deal. Stop calling each other names and acting like little kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh who cares. This thread is a dumpster fire that should be locked. It’s gone from pleasant chatter to ugly attacks. And to be clear, I think Meghan and Harry are immature whiners who have somehow fooled people into buying into their perpetual victimhood. Meghan is a classic narcissist - she’s the victim and anyone who doesn’t agree with her is “toxic.” Her family is toxic, her husbands family is toxic, the press is toxic. It’s clear as daylight she’s the problem, not everyone else.

But that said, come on people, it’s not that big of a deal. Stop calling each other names and acting like little kids.

+1 yeah, this is the "entertainment" forum and this thread no longer entertains me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh who cares. This thread is a dumpster fire that should be locked. It’s gone from pleasant chatter to ugly attacks. And to be clear, I think Meghan and Harry are immature whiners who have somehow fooled people into buying into their perpetual victimhood. Meghan is a classic narcissist - she’s the victim and anyone who doesn’t agree with her is “toxic.” Her family is toxic, her husbands family is toxic, the press is toxic. It’s clear as daylight she’s the problem, not everyone else.

But that said, come on people, it’s not that big of a deal. Stop calling each other names and acting like little kids.

Who cares? About wounded veterans being exploited by a rich foreign prince? Why, no one on DCUM it's obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With regards to Harry, it is not crazy town to point out the sheer audacity of this man to use a charity to enrich his already wealthy self.

Agree.

I find it very interesting how quickly this FACTUAL information about Harry gets quickly buried by name-calling posts every time it comes up.

Why aren't all these H&M fans coming to his defense with FACTUAL rebuttals?

Because there are none.

Exploiting wounded servicemembers is beyond despicable.

I didn’t see any facts that Harry was exploiting wounded service members. I saw evidence that he isn’t the first person to start a charity involving veterans and he seems to have limited familiarity with US organizations that do the same things as Invictus. Scandalous!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/why-prince-harry-called-in-lawyers-over-canceled-invictus-games-fundraiser/ar-BB18OJuE

Good gosh people are lazy.

This article does not provide any evidence that Harry was exploiting service members. It says a concert was canceled due to Covid and both Amazon and Netflix have interest in streaming fundraisers for the invictus games. how many live concerts did you go to last year?

How long did it take you to come up with that rote "absense of evidence" rebuttal? It doesn't even hold water in this case since there is actual evidence:

FACT: First Department of Defense Warrior Game was held in 2010. https://www.dodwarriorgames.com/

FACT: Harry visited in 2014 "Prince Harry joked Thursday that a Paralympic-style sporting championship for injured servicemen and women known as the Warrior Games was "such a good idea by the Americans that it had to be stolen." (Newsweek)

FACT: The DoD Warrior Games is scheduled in 2021 at the ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex at Walt Disney World Resort which DONATED their facility. This shows the importance of these games for the WOUNDED doesn't depend on fundraisers because they are sponsored by US government and supported by corporations, in accordance with U.S. government ethics laws.

FACT: When Harry couldn't do a fundraiser (money going to HIS charity) then he threatens with a lawsuit. (Newsweek 9/20)

FACT: In a March 2019 survey, a 72% majority of U.S. adults (and identical 72% shares of Republicans and Democrats) said that if they were making the federal budget, they would increase spending for veterans’ benefits and services

FACT: Because of these statistics, it has been proven that exploitation will occur and has been occurring, as was discussed in 2007 in Congress:
https://www.charitywatch.org/charity-donating-articles/our-veterans-deserve-better-congressional-testimony

FACT: The definition of exploitation:
use or utilization, especially for profit
selfish utilization:
the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

Anyone who defends Harry and his shady Invictus Games, including corporations, should be roundly criticized and boycotted.

This makes sense. Harry has a history of using his military affiliation for self-promotion. Remember when he hired a photographer to take pictures of him laying a wreath at an LA veteran’s cemetery? You could laugh, cringe, or roll your eyes, but if that was my loved one’s grave being used that way, I would be downright angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh who cares. This thread is a dumpster fire that should be locked. It’s gone from pleasant chatter to ugly attacks. And to be clear, I think Meghan and Harry are immature whiners who have somehow fooled people into buying into their perpetual victimhood. Meghan is a classic narcissist - she’s the victim and anyone who doesn’t agree with her is “toxic.” Her family is toxic, her husbands family is toxic, the press is toxic. It’s clear as daylight she’s the problem, not everyone else.

But that said, come on people, it’s not that big of a deal. Stop calling each other names and acting like little kids.

+1 yeah, this is the "entertainment" forum and this thread no longer entertains me.

-1 Then read another thread or contribute something meaningful other than I am bored and you guys aren't entertaining me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:15 minute famous. Yawn … not like William & Kate royalty in history forever

I think she's going for the Prince Edwards/Wallis Simpson "we are scandalous" thing - no one has forgotten about them yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:15 minute famous. Yawn … not like William & Kate royalty in history forever

I don’t think this is the right take. You remember the subversive figures like, say, Anne Boleyn, not necessarily the hundreds of queen consorts of England.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15 minute famous. Yawn … not like William & Kate royalty in history forever

I think she's going for the Prince Edwards/Wallis Simpson "we are scandalous" thing - no one has forgotten about them yet.

True but no one thinks highly of them either. Sad sorry lot those 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15 minute famous. Yawn … not like William & Kate royalty in history forever

I think she's going for the Prince Edwards/Wallis Simpson "we are scandalous" thing - no one has forgotten about them yet.

True but no one thinks highly of them either. Sad sorry lot those 2.

I actually think a slim majority thinks highly of Meghan and Harry, or at least respect the decisions they made to protects themselves and their small family. Many young people in particular, I've found, find their actions to be quite brave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15 minute famous. Yawn … not like William & Kate royalty in history forever

I think she's going for the Prince Edwards/Wallis Simpson "we are scandalous" thing - no one has forgotten about them yet.

True but no one thinks highly of them either. Sad sorry lot those 2.

I actually think a slim majority thinks highly of Meghan and Harry, or at least respect the decisions they made to protects themselves and their small family. Many young people in particular, I've found, find their actions to be quite brave.

Them, brave? What a joke. Not many young veterans would agree with you on that one nor your idea of what "brave" is.

[Anonymous]

"The Archewell terms and conditions make it clear that anyone sharing a story signs over “an irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up, in perpetuity, worldwide, assignable licence to publish, broadcast, and use, in any media now known or hereafter developed” not merely to the Sussexes’ charitable foundation, but also to their limited liability company Archewell LLC, Archewell Productions (through which the couple hold their multi-million-dollar deal with Netflix) and Archewell Audio (through which they have a similar deal with podcast giant Spotify)."

So noble and brave to profit from other's stories because of shady terms and conditions on your foundation website.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1549/news

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hidden-message-prince-harry-meghan-24493053

Just despicable.