Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Remember all the crappy people waging on Archie's looks? Light skinned, dark skinned, they were hiding his face, yeh, shut up!

Protect their hearts, Harry. Statement was impeccable.

Honestly, I think Harry is just upset that he isn't adored by the public anymore. MM has ruined his image and this is his version of a tantrum.

Yeah totally. Has nothing to do with his mother's life being ruined and eventually ended by the paparazzi and having some anxiety about that happening to his wife. I'm sure his mother's death and the circumstances surrounding it had no impact on his young mind and personality.

Princess Diana was killed by her drunk driver. I read that had she stayed with her protection than she would be alive. MM is no where near the popularity of Princess Diana. The Sussexes are getting bad advice and I think this lawsuit is not going to help. Nobody likes being lectured about the environment and then watch you follow different rules. They have been having good press with the African tour and now that's all gone. I feel sorry for Thomas Markle. Sure, he made a mistake having the letter published but, probably to him it was the only way to communicate to Meghan.

Diana was hounded by the press FOR YEARS. And regardless of the status of her driver she was killed in a high speed chase trying to evade the paparazzi. If you think Harry thinks rationally about that you are nuts. Don't argue with me about that. My point isn't about Diana's guilt or lack thereof. It is about the perception of her son who was 12 when his mother died while being chased by photographers and after being maligned by the British press despite the fact that her own husband had cheated on HER.

If you think that had no formative effect on him and impacts GREATLY how her perceives his wife being treated by the press (and likely how he perceives William's supposed indiscretions with Rose Hanbury) then you are denying human nature.

I never indicated Harry's perceptions of his mother at all. However, Princess Diana also used the press to her advantage as well. Sure Harry sees that she was hounded and perhaps she was but, Meghan is no Diana.

That is your perception. Harry's perception is pretty critical here. And Harry's perception of what happened to his mother probably heavily influences how Meghan sees what happened to his mother. These are real people with real emotional histories and lives that impact the decisions they make. Not these cartoon villains you make them out to be.

Where did you get the idea that I said they were villains? I am merely stating that this lawsuit will do them no good regardless of what happened to his mother. I never denied that what happened did influence him, however, Meghan is no Diana. Full stop. Just because Prince Harry says it does not make it so.

I can't honestly meaningfully tell the mildly annoyed with the Sussex' posters and the clearly abhorrently racist posters apart. Just because it's all anonymous.

Just because you are against someone does not make them racist. You can not like someone based on their character.

+1. That pp had to invent allegations that someone called them villains because the truth that some people just don't like Harry and Meghan for legitimate reasons doesn't fit with their narrative.

If Harry is so worried about the media's impact on M's safety, then they can stop courting them. If they start supporting themselves and stop with the royal engagements (and M's brand new celebrity "friendships" and events) like some of his relatives have done, then they'll fade away and enjoy private lives. But it's clear that they don't want private lives. They want to be front and center and in the media and also completely control the messaging, which isn't reasonable. There's a solution to Harry and Meghan's "problem" but they just don't like it.

I'm the PP. The way numerous people have talked about her in this thread constitutes synonymous with villain. People have called her a tart, a social climber, selfish, narcissistic, only in it for the fame and equated her to Wallis Simpson of all people (known nazi!). The language used to talk about her is REVOLTING.

I can't always tell if the person I'm responding to is someone who has indulged in that or someone who is just turned off by this particular lawsuit. I fully acknowledge that some people might just not like them and that is totally fine and fair. But the level of noxious and hateful language used by posters in this thread points to something a whole lot more than passive dislike. PP is correct in that particular exchange none of the language rose to that level, so I acknowledged that I might have grouped them with the terrible people incorrectly. And I apologize if I did. But I won't apologize for calling out the abhorrent people who ARE posting.

The solution you are proposing would make everyone call them lazy and living off the British taxpayers (same as they say about Kate!). Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Nope, not damned at all if they stop living off the taxpayers' dime per above. I believe the whole monarchy should stop living off the taxpayers' dime, too.

Are you paying taxes there?

Quit trying to deflect from the fact that this is a valid solution for Harry and Meghan to fix the "problem" that they claim to be so concerned about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Remember all the crappy people waging on Archie's looks? Light skinned, dark skinned, they were hiding his face, yeh, shut up!

Protect their hearts, Harry. Statement was impeccable.

Honestly, I think Harry is just upset that he isn't adored by the public anymore. MM has ruined his image and this is his version of a tantrum.

Yeah totally. Has nothing to do with his mother's life being ruined and eventually ended by the paparazzi and having some anxiety about that happening to his wife. I'm sure his mother's death and the circumstances surrounding it had no impact on his young mind and personality.

Princess Diana was killed by her drunk driver. I read that had she stayed with her protection than she would be alive. MM is no where near the popularity of Princess Diana. The Sussexes are getting bad advice and I think this lawsuit is not going to help. Nobody likes being lectured about the environment and then watch you follow different rules. They have been having good press with the African tour and now that's all gone. I feel sorry for Thomas Markle. Sure, he made a mistake having the letter published but, probably to him it was the only way to communicate to Meghan.

Diana was hounded by the press FOR YEARS. And regardless of the status of her driver she was killed in a high speed chase trying to evade the paparazzi. If you think Harry thinks rationally about that you are nuts. Don't argue with me about that. My point isn't about Diana's guilt or lack thereof. It is about the perception of her son who was 12 when his mother died while being chased by photographers and after being maligned by the British press despite the fact that her own husband had cheated on HER.

If you think that had no formative effect on him and impacts GREATLY how her perceives his wife being treated by the press (and likely how he perceives William's supposed indiscretions with Rose Hanbury) then you are denying human nature.

I never indicated Harry's perceptions of his mother at all. However, Princess Diana also used the press to her advantage as well. Sure Harry sees that she was hounded and perhaps she was but, Meghan is no Diana.

That is your perception. Harry's perception is pretty critical here. And Harry's perception of what happened to his mother probably heavily influences how Meghan sees what happened to his mother. These are real people with real emotional histories and lives that impact the decisions they make. Not these cartoon villains you make them out to be.

Where did you get the idea that I said they were villains? I am merely stating that this lawsuit will do them no good regardless of what happened to his mother. I never denied that what happened did influence him, however, Meghan is no Diana. Full stop. Just because Prince Harry says it does not make it so.

I can't honestly meaningfully tell the mildly annoyed with the Sussex' posters and the clearly abhorrently racist posters apart. Just because it's all anonymous.

Just because you are against someone does not make them racist. You can not like someone based on their character.

+1. That pp had to invent allegations that someone called them villains because the truth that some people just don't like Harry and Meghan for legitimate reasons doesn't fit with their narrative.

If Harry is so worried about the media's impact on M's safety, then they can stop courting them. If they start supporting themselves and stop with the royal engagements (and M's brand new celebrity "friendships" and events) like some of his relatives have done, then they'll fade away and enjoy private lives. But it's clear that they don't want private lives. They want to be front and center and in the media and also completely control the messaging, which isn't reasonable. There's a solution to Harry and Meghan's "problem" but they just don't like it.

I'm the PP. The way numerous people have talked about her in this thread constitutes synonymous with villain. People have called her a tart, a social climber, selfish, narcissistic, only in it for the fame and equated her to Wallis Simpson of all people (known nazi!). The language used to talk about her is REVOLTING.

I can't always tell if the person I'm responding to is someone who has indulged in that or someone who is just turned off by this particular lawsuit. I fully acknowledge that some people might just not like them and that is totally fine and fair. But the level of noxious and hateful language used by posters in this thread points to something a whole lot more than passive dislike. PP is correct in that particular exchange none of the language rose to that level, so I acknowledged that I might have grouped them with the terrible people incorrectly. And I apologize if I did. But I won't apologize for calling out the abhorrent people who ARE posting.

The solution you are proposing would make everyone call them lazy and living off the British taxpayers (same as they say about Kate!). Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Nope, not damned at all if they stop living off the taxpayers' dime per above. I believe the whole monarchy should stop living off the taxpayers' dime, too.

Are you paying taxes there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of the Guardian, they're perplexed and not supportive of this move. And they think the timing is strange.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/02/prince-harrys-pent-up-rage-questioned-by-royal-commentators

Well, the Guardian also published this, so not clear cut.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2019/oct/02/prince-harry-letter-shows-you-dont-have-to-be-royal-to-be-bullied-by-the-red-tops

========================================

Thank you. The Mail on Sunday is an absolutely vile rag and has no morals or ethics. It will go to any lengths to feed the insatiable appetite for lurid content.

Its laughable the amount of flak MM and PH get for pretty much non issues. Prince Andrew with all the pedophile links - nah nothing because doncha know - hes white, posh and one of us.

It is the Mail that is on trial here not MM and PH. They have declared war on the gutter press and good for them and good for all of us.

The Daily Mail has had dozens of articles on Prince Andrew. It has been the top headline multiple days.

And he's had the good sense to hide out at Balmoral and keep a low profile. Lay low until it blows over.

Meghan and Harry need to take a lesson from his play book. They should have quietly done their Africa trip, and people would have started to forget her atrocious behaviour.

A - The DMs articles on Andrew are cop outs. No interviews of his prostitutes, no staking out his homes. No investigative journalism.

B - Andrew is doing the opposite of laying low. He’s in Australia right now representing the Queen. But the public have made it clear they don’t care for him.

When the Duke of York yesterday attended Murdoch University in Perth he was greeted by a single fan — a schoolteacher and devoted royal hunter, Renae Grljusich-Poolman, according to The Australian.

Media was kept roped off from the courtyard when the Duke arrived, and others in the courtyard reportedly failed to notice the British Prince’s arrival.

The solo royal fan, Ms Grljusich-Poolman, said the sorry turn out to see the Duke of York was “disappointing”.

But she added the speculation surrounding the Prince, and his links to billionaire sex offender Epstein, had probably “marred his credibility”.



https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/prince-andrews-royal-aussie-tour-visited-by-a-single-diehard-fan/news-story/bf8d76934cd9b5ce9506499c85f0e413

+1

He’s not laying low people are refusing to meet with him. Same thing happened in Ireland a bunch of organizations cancelled the events they were having with him. He was only at Balmoral for a few days. He left pretty quickly to go to Spain with Fergie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of the Guardian, they're perplexed and not supportive of this move. And they think the timing is strange.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/02/prince-harrys-pent-up-rage-questioned-by-royal-commentators

Well, the Guardian also published this, so not clear cut.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2019/oct/02/prince-harry-letter-shows-you-dont-have-to-be-royal-to-be-bullied-by-the-red-tops

========================================

Thank you. The Mail on Sunday is an absolutely vile rag and has no morals or ethics. It will go to any lengths to feed the insatiable appetite for lurid content.

Its laughable the amount of flak MM and PH get for pretty much non issues. Prince Andrew with all the pedophile links - nah nothing because doncha know - hes white, posh and one of us.

It is the Mail that is on trial here not MM and PH. They have declared war on the gutter press and good for them and good for all of us.

The Daily Mail has had dozens of articles on Prince Andrew. It has been the top headline multiple days.

And he's had the good sense to hide out at Balmoral and keep a low profile. Lay low until it blows over.

Meghan and Harry need to take a lesson from his play book. They should have quietly done their Africa trip, and people would have started to forget her atrocious behaviour.

A - The DMs articles on Andrew are cop outs. No interviews of his prostitutes, no staking out his homes. No investigative journalism.

B - Andrew is doing the opposite of laying low. He’s in Australia right now representing the Queen. But the public have made it clear they don’t care for him.

When the Duke of York yesterday attended Murdoch University in Perth he was greeted by a single fan — a schoolteacher and devoted royal hunter, Renae Grljusich-Poolman, according to The Australian.

Media was kept roped off from the courtyard when the Duke arrived, and others in the courtyard reportedly failed to notice the British Prince’s arrival.

The solo royal fan, Ms Grljusich-Poolman, said the sorry turn out to see the Duke of York was “disappointing”.

But she added the speculation surrounding the Prince, and his links to billionaire sex offender Epstein, had probably “marred his credibility”.



https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/prince-andrews-royal-aussie-tour-visited-by-a-single-diehard-fan/news-story/bf8d76934cd9b5ce9506499c85f0e413

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of the Guardian, they're perplexed and not supportive of this move. And they think the timing is strange.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/02/prince-harrys-pent-up-rage-questioned-by-royal-commentators

Well, the Guardian also published this, so not clear cut.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2019/oct/02/prince-harry-letter-shows-you-dont-have-to-be-royal-to-be-bullied-by-the-red-tops

========================================

Thank you. The Mail on Sunday is an absolutely vile rag and has no morals or ethics. It will go to any lengths to feed the insatiable appetite for lurid content.

Its laughable the amount of flak MM and PH get for pretty much non issues. Prince Andrew with all the pedophile links - nah nothing because doncha know - hes white, posh and one of us.

It is the Mail that is on trial here not MM and PH. They have declared war on the gutter press and good for them and good for all of us.

The Daily Mail has had dozens of articles on Prince Andrew. It has been the top headline multiple days.

And he's had the good sense to hide out at Balmoral and keep a low profile. Lay low until it blows over.

Meghan and Harry need to take a lesson from his play book. They should have quietly done their Africa trip, and people would have started to forget her atrocious behaviour.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's lovely to see the increased interest among Americans in the British Monarchy.

Umm, not really. Mostly the ones who follow Meghan, love her or hate her, are the same ones who started all the other royals threads.

There have always been those who are Americans interested in the British Monarchy. It would be lovely to see increased interest among Brits in the British Monarchy. I'm not sure Meghan has done much to move the needle there, one way or the other, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's lovely to see the increased interest among Americans in the British Monarchy.

It is, isn't it? All down to one person. So maybe the British could realize just how important that person is and protect her rather than persecute her.

Anonymous wrote:It's lovely to see the increased interest among Americans in the British Monarchy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of the Guardian, they're perplexed and not supportive of this move. And they think the timing is strange.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/02/prince-harrys-pent-up-rage-questioned-by-royal-commentators

Well, the Guardian also published this, so not clear cut.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2019/oct/02/prince-harry-letter-shows-you-dont-have-to-be-royal-to-be-bullied-by-the-red-tops

========================================

Thank you. The Mail on Sunday is an absolutely vile rag and has no morals or ethics. It will go to any lengths to feed the insatiable appetite for lurid content.

Its laughable the amount of flak MM and PH get for pretty much non issues. Prince Andrew with all the pedophile links - nah nothing because doncha know - hes white, posh and one of us.

It is the Mail that is on trial here not MM and PH. They have declared war on the gutter press and good for them and good for all of us.

The Daily Mail has had dozens of articles on Prince Andrew. It has been the top headline multiple days.

And he's had the good sense to hide out at Balmoral and keep a low profile. Lay low until it blows over.

Meghan and Harry need to take a lesson from his play book. They should have quietly done their Africa trip, and people would have started to forget her atrocious behaviour.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's lovely to see the increased interest among Americans in the British Monarchy.

It is, isn't it? All down to one person. So maybe the British could realize just how important that person is and protect her rather than persecute her.

Actually I think it’s having the opposite effect. All of the attention is just further highlighting the irrelevance, needlessness, excessiveness and greed of an outdated institution (the RF). Wouldn’t be surprised if this was the beginning of the end for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's lovely to see the increased interest among Americans in the British Monarchy.

It is, isn't it? All down to one person. So maybe the British could realize just how important that person is and protect her rather than persecute her.

Anonymous wrote:It's lovely to see the increased interest among Americans in the British Monarchy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of the Guardian, they're perplexed and not supportive of this move. And they think the timing is strange.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/02/prince-harrys-pent-up-rage-questioned-by-royal-commentators

Well, the Guardian also published this, so not clear cut.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2019/oct/02/prince-harry-letter-shows-you-dont-have-to-be-royal-to-be-bullied-by-the-red-tops

========================================

Thank you. The Mail on Sunday is an absolutely vile rag and has no morals or ethics. It will go to any lengths to feed the insatiable appetite for lurid content.

Its laughable the amount of flak MM and PH get for pretty much non issues. Prince Andrew with all the pedophile links - nah nothing because doncha know - hes white, posh and one of us.

It is the Mail that is on trial here not MM and PH. They have declared war on the gutter press and good for them and good for all of us.

The Daily Mail has had dozens of articles on Prince Andrew. It has been the top headline multiple days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of the Guardian, they're perplexed and not supportive of this move. And they think the timing is strange.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/02/prince-harrys-pent-up-rage-questioned-by-royal-commentators

Well, the Guardian also published this, so not clear cut.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2019/oct/02/prince-harry-letter-shows-you-dont-have-to-be-royal-to-be-bullied-by-the-red-tops

========================================

Thank you. The Mail on Sunday is an absolutely vile rag and has no morals or ethics. It will go to any lengths to feed the insatiable appetite for lurid content.

Its laughable the amount of flak MM and PH get for pretty much non issues. Prince Andrew with all the pedophile links - nah nothing because doncha know - hes white, posh and one of us.

It is the Mail that is on trial here not MM and PH. They have declared war on the gutter press and good for them and good for all of us.