Meghan and Harry 4: Working for Netflix

[kachuu]

37 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

I just hate narcissistic manipulative attention hungry liars as I have had enough of that in my life to know it when see it and I loathe the behavior of the Sussex couple. The obsession with  my “Racism” and trying to read my mind by Internet is both hilarious and telling. But continue by all means!  
 

The Royal family going about their business as per usual and ignoring this travesty is the perfect choice. I believe H&M would love nothing more than for this mudslinging to continue so they have more Ammo, more words to twist, more vague and confusing insinuations to make so they can continue their Whine and cheese personal tragic operetta. Similar to how if you give a tantrum throwing 6 year old attention .

Do you have any empathy for someone who contemplated suicide?

[tabitha2]

I can’t believe anything she said now as she clearly lied about so many things in that interview. Married twice? Kept under house arrest? If you want to blindly believe her that’s your prerogative. 
 

Harry is or was the patron of numerous mental health organizations and had had therapy himself... and he could not have gotten her help?   Come on now! 

[viii]

1 hour ago, Babsi said:

This kid is NOT going to be a target due to his skin colour, come on....honestly! He might be a target for who his parents are but thats it.

Also: I have a bit of a hard time believing that she really got no support for her mental health problems, I personally think she might have FELT she wouldn't be heard and thus did not dare to reach out. With all the work Will, Kate and Harry have done for mental health, I feel she could have at least gotten support from them.

1. You are very naïve if you believe that a baby might not be a target to his skin colour. Check your privilege because it is showing. 

2. Her explanation of how they said it wouldn't look good for the institution is ON POINT. You clearly don't follow the BRF because this is very much something they'd do and say. They are all about perceptions and appearances. You put on a stiff upper lip and you don't admit to things that are wrong. Meghan said she reached out and was denied help. Trying to twist her words to suit your narrative doesn't make sense.  

As for the troll that I'm not going to bother name, bitch needs a timeout in the prayer corner. So over the casual racism. 

[tabitha2]

As this Bitch and “troll” has not made violated any listed FJ guidelines that one be most unjust. Because you have a problem with my opinions me you want me silenced. That’s more telling of you than me. 

[formergothardite]

Again,  you called someone who spoke out about the pain of mental health issues a nut. And instead of acknowledging that name calling like that really isn't ok, you decided to double down on the hateful rhetoric by just calling her a liar who wants attention. This sort of attitude towards people who have mental health problems is sadly not uncommon. It is a shame to see it here at FJ.

Please educate yourself on this issue,  stop perpetuating the "that depressed person just want attention and is lying " narrative and stop trying to justify calling someone who admitted suicidal thoughts a nut. 

[sndral]

2 hours ago, LittleOwl said:

@WiseGirl According to my twitter feed this morning, he got held to account by the GMB weatherman!  

If only he was gone forever... sigh

Wait, what - as in the person who tells you whether it’s going to rain today? I love that, Piers has been on a personal mission to destroy Meghan using innuendo and vitriol, he’s such a POS.

1 hour ago, Babsi said:

...

I've got the distinct feel, and I read it online a couple of times, that they "hinted" or at least did not deny, at the fact that Archie was not given a title or security because of him being deemed "worth less" or "biracial". When in fact, he was never entiteled to it until Charles becomes king. Same for security, they are not entiteled to it after quitting work for the monarchy. Period. Is it right or wrong? Idk, but it is the way it is.

...

 

Here’s my problem with that - who gets or doesn’t get a Royal title is entirely up to the monarch. Under George V’s 1917 letters patent Prince Charles himself would not have been an HRH & Prince when born because he was a grandchild of a monarch in a female line, but his grandfather George VI decreed that Elizabeth’s children would all be born HRH Prince/Princess. Likewise, only William’s oldest son would have been born an HRH Prince under the 1917 letters patent (as the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales) but in 2012 QEII decreed that all of William’s children would be HRH Prince/Princess - if the concern was that a first born girl would become Queen (because of the removal of male primogeniture) but not be born HRH/Princess because she wasn’t a boy, QEII could have decreed that William’s oldest child irrespective of if it was a boy/girl would be HRH Prince/Princess, but she went further and decreed that all of William’s children would be Prince/Princess. Archie in that sense was in exactly the same position under the 1917 rules as Charlotte & Louis, born as only a Lord/Lady, becoming Prince/Princess when Charles ascended the thrown.

[tabitha2]

I call it as I see it. She baldly lies so tell me exactly why should I blindly believe her now?  Again, she had access to mental health professionals. Why she did not take advantage of that is unknown 

If Harry and Meghan wanted their kid to be a Prince right away to be on the same level as the Cambridge children that’s incredibly entitled and unrealistic .Like it are not Royal hierarchy is not about equality and won’t change just because you demand it. He will never be on the same level as Charlotte and Louis Much less George  though He will be Prince soon enough anyway . 

Edited March 9, 2021 by tabitha2

[viii]

12 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Because you have a problem with my opinions me you want me silenced. 

Were you silent or were you silenced?

[LittleOwl]

30 minutes ago, sndral said:

Wait, what - as in the person who tells you whether it’s going to rain today? I love that, Piers has been on a personal mission to destroy Meghan using innuendo and vitriol, he’s such a POS.

Exactly that! 

 

He has also been in a twitter spat with the newsreader from BBC breakfast.  Piersyboy thinks he is hilarious by quoting the viewing figures.  So today BBC Dan took and posted a selfie with their weatherlady and said that after the photo he stormed off set because she forecast cold weather... Piers was TRIGGERED. 

Here's the video:

 

 

And here is my favourite comedian adding a perfect audio clip at the end which makes it just *chef's kiss*  

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by LittleOwl
Video clips added

[tabitha2]

This too shall pass. I think Most Americans know very little about how the British monarchy works and so take these two at face value with no questions or  critical thinking skills  and even think they are capable of hurting the Royals long term when They are really a bug  bite as in Irritating for a while but Soon gone. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

I do wonder exactly what kind of help the Firm refused to provide Meghan. She implied that they blocked her from receiving help for psychological problems. Did she want to go to a residential treatment center? I can’t imagine that anyone would have told her not to go to a therapist, given the pro-therapy position that Harry, William, and Kate had already announced.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, sndral said:

(as the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales

This stuff will never not be funny to me.  I'm the youngest daughter of a youngest daughter of an Irish Catholic family with no money or power.  What do I win?

(I'm mocking their silly rules, not you @sndral - I appreciate you posting factual information on this.)

[tabitha2]

There are theories about that Meghan wanted to go to certain spa or place overseas and was told no because the logistics were difficult and she got upset and refused what they offered. Who knows though. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

26 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

This too shall pass. I think Most Americans know very little about how the British monarchy works and so take these two at face value with no questions or  critical thinking skills  and even think they are capable of hurting the Royals long term when They are really a bug  bite as in Irritating for a while but Soon gone. 

Your defense of a sexist, racist, classist institution and delight in the fact that it will continue despite people telling the truth about the damage it does is as baffling to me now as it was the first time I read it.

I'll ask again and again probably get no answer....how is an institution that seeks to control adult children, hold them to a laundry list of rules that don't matter at all in the grand scheme of things, put their relationships and partners under severe scrutiny within the family any different than what the Duggars or Steve Maxwell does?  Do you also defend their right to exert such control over their own adult children?  And their limiting the opportunities for their kids from childhood because they need to fit in their their predestined boxes?  

How can you defend the BRF and not also defend fundy control and legalistic rules?

11 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

I can’t imagine that anyone would have told her not to go to a therapist, given the pro-therapy position that Harry, William, and Kate had already announced.

I can certainly imagine them not wanting her to open up to a therapist over her struggles with them.  A lot of people are pro therapy in theory, but get nervous if their spouse or kids want to go because of what they might say about them.

I'm not saying that's the case as we have no idea, but it's certainly plausible.

[anjulibai]

She said she wanted in patient treatment, which they wouldn't be able to hide.

I can totally see them telling her no to that. 

[tabitha2]

I actually prefer the dynamics of the Other Royal families to the British. But saying Charles and the Queen work hard and have done some real good in the world is pretty clear and i am hardly the only one who feels that way. It’s not “fangirling” just fact based opinion. 
 

I Hate the way the Sussex couple are behaving, I hate purposefully  Emotionally manipulative and dishonest actions and words esp. designed to get attention and  I would hope all decent people would.  Them Being Royal or her being Bi racial has nothing to do with it one iota. 

Now. The Royals will survive because an upset Prince and his wife in California have no power to bring them down. The British people are ultimate deciders and they obviously want to keep them.

 

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

5 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

I actually prefer the dynamics of the Other Royal families to the British. But saying Charles and the Queen work hard and have done some real good in the world is pretty clear and i am hardly the only one who feels that way. It’s not “fangirling” just fact based opinion. 
 

I Hate the way the Sussex couple are behaving, I hate purposefully  Emotionally manipulative and dishonest actions and words esp. designed to get attention and  I would hope all decent people would.  Them Being Royal or her being Bi racial has nothing to do with it one iota. 

Now. The Royals will survive because an upset Prince and his wife in California have no power to bring them down. The British people are ultimate deciders and they obviously want to keep them.

 

 

Do you think fundies exerting the same type of control over the lives of their adult family members is defensible?  They believe they are doing good in the world.

You keep side stepping the question.  Is it okay for JRod and Steve Maxwell to demand control over the actions and public statements of their adult children or not?  And if one were to speak out about the problems they had with their families would they be manipulative and trying to get attention?

Is it the same for you?

Edited March 9, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy

[viii]

12 minutes ago, anjulibai said:

She said she wanted in patient treatment, which they wouldn't be able to hide.

I can totally see them telling her no to that. 

Absolutely they would tell her no. It's all about perception and appearances. It definitely makes me side-eye William and Kate a bit more, although I doubt they're the ones that had the power to tell Meghan no. It most likely came from the Queen and Charles. 

6 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Now. The Royals will survive because an upset Prince and his wife in California have no power to bring them down. The British people are ultimate deciders and they obviously want to keep them.

If the royal family survived the absolute hell that Prince Charles created, they can withstand this minor blip in the road. The British/Commonwealth people are the ultimate deciders, but even though it's 2021, there are still too many racists like you who would vote to keep them. Sad! 

[formergothardite]

46 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

This too shall pass. I think Most Americans know very little about how the British monarchy works and so take these two at face value with no questions or  critical thinking skills  and even think they are capable of hurting the Royals long term when They are really a bug  bite as in Irritating for a while but Soon gone. 

Yet again, you didn’t get called out for refusing to take things at face value, it is because you used language that is on the racist side and is also part of the damaging narrative that shames people with a mental illness. Instead of acknowledging that there are ways to have this discussion that don’t involve snarkily calling a biracial woman with suicidal thoughts a “nut Meg” and a liar who wants attention, you keep wanting to act like a mean bully. 
 

I don’t think anyone should take them or the royal family at face value. Both parties seem to have a dysfunctional relationship with each other and a tendency to paint the other side in a bad light. But in the end the royal system has long been plagued with racism and wielding control over members to ensure they follow all the archaic rules. So it is surprising they didn’t take well to an opinionated non-white woman? No. Why act like it is. They like people who sit still and look pretty and never rock the boat. Just like fundies. 

[sndral]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

This too shall pass. I think Most Americans know very little about how the British monarchy works and so take these two at face value with no questions or  critical thinking skills  and even think they are capable of hurting the Royals long term when They are really a bug  bite as in Irritating for a while but Soon gone. 

Oh, I think any American with an interest in the British monarchy is fully aware of how the monarchy ‘works’ & indeed is aware of historical examples of just how ruthless the House of Windsor can be when it perceives a threat to it’s continued existence. Indeed we have verified examples of each of the tactics which M&H say have been used on them:

Removal of security/abandonment of protection. George V rescinded the UK’s offer of asylum resulting in the massacre of his cousin Czar Nicholas II, his wife, and their 5 children because George V had concerns that bad publicity would endanger the monarchy. Diana’s rejection of Royal security because of her fear that Royal security would be used to hamper/spy on her.

Denial/Removal of status/title. The refusal to grant HRH to the last divorced American to dare marry a British prince (and denying HRH to any children she might have by that prince) because George VI was afraid that his more charismatic brother would threaten his position. The removal of HRH from Diana, partly because she was more charismatic than her ex husband.

Removal of financial support. The threat to deprive Princess Margaret of financial support if she dared marry Peter Townsend - a divorced man.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by sndral

[tabitha2]

It’s not what I believe or not. I state facts as they are and I see them from being a Royal watcher since I was kid. 
 

Senor Royals are born or marry in to a life of privilege and with that comes both the obvious perks and limitations, responsibilities and Draw backs. No one can just do what they want when they want . In the Royal hierarchy everyone has a place and answers to the Queen who answers to the government who answers to the people and Many a Royal has left to be free to be themselves and be free of those limitations and that’s their own choice. They have not OTOH expected to be half in half, half out, have dad pay for them to live the life of much richer socialites, say they want to be independent and get mad when they actually have to be and take out their spite and anger on Elderly sick people who can’t fight back  on Oprah. 

Fundies are private people who are absolutely more free if they choose to be. If one of the Max boys told Steve to fuck off most people would never know or care except maybe here.        It would not be world news and they would not be going on talk shows telling how terrible they had it and vaguely accusing the family of all sorts of horrible things we have no prove of with a blatantly clear agenda .. and if they did I would say the exact same thing as I do about the Sussexes. 
 

You know what? You are right! She is not a nut at all. My bad. She is dumb like a fox though. A very smart manipulator with an agenda and that includes using trigger words to illicit empathy and emotional responses is far for scary and disturbing. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by tabitha2

[MamaJunebug]

Out from lurking to thank you all for piling on to Piers Morgan. I have SEVERELY DESPISED that blob since he squashed the progress of a wonderful, flamboyant performer on a talent show. 
i can even recall the performer’s name and am too antsy to DuckDuckGo it but he was incredibly talented a singer and had acts that put so much into plots, sets, choreography. 
He was poised to continue to the finals and apropos of NOTHING, Morgan just shut him down. 
Any way that Morgan can be vilified, disdained, criticized is a good way with MJB. 

The performer’s name will come back to me and I’ll try to visit back here and post it. He briefly worked in Vegas after Morgan’s STUPID rejection but AFAIK has slid into anonymity. And if so that’s a gawddamned dirty shame. 

To the exact topic of discussion here: I identify with some of the human struggles but as the granddaughter of refugees from Europe (on both sides of my family)  I’ve been certified free of any real over-concern for the BRF since Year One.

I do enjoy Kate’s wardrobe and QEII’s hats.  And it’s another gawddamned dirty shame that Diana died so young. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by MamaJunebug

[tabitha2]

Kate is beautiful inside and out and the Queen is the epitome of dignity. All Kate should worrying about right now is bring up good responsible non spoiled kids and her Husbands emotional Health. The Queen has her own health and that of her husband to worry about and should have been left to have her last years drama free surrounded by Loving family like all 94 year old people.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Kate is beautiful inside and out and the Queen is the epitome of dignity.

I'm getting a little concerned about you.  You do know you don't know them, right?  

It's important to me that you know that.*

(*Quoting Ben Wyatt from the oh so appropriate London episode of Parks and Rec)

Edited March 9, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy

[formergothardite]

I think this is fitting for this thread and why it so important to push back at people calling Meghan name like "nut" and saying she is just a liar who wants attention.  There is real damage in pushing that narrative. And one doesn't have to behave that way. There are ways to discuss them in critical way that doesn't involve acting this way. Acknowledging that such behavior is inappropriate is important.