Harry & Meghan 13: Doing the Dance of Deniability

[Jackie3]

7 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

This house has seen things

LOL, I noticed that, too!

But it is a gorgeous house, nonethless.

[Jackie3]

I was reading about how rude Sophie and Edward to the performers at the Royal Variety Show, and I thought, there really is a double standard. Their rudeness is being dismissed as an "awkward conversation." I can't imagine what would've happened if Meghan had been so rude to a performers at a "British tradition" like the Royal Variety Show. 

[Grandma D]

I've been watching Daniel Boland on you tube. He makes me laugh out loud with his sarcasm and ability to say it like it is with these two entitled humans. 

[Mama Mia]

Absolutely mind blowing to me that people are ignoring the absolutely violent, ugly, sexualized threats coming from “journalists” who are the public pets of nasty Camilla . Proving every one of Harry and Meghan’s points. Are they whiney and insanely over-privelaged? Yes, obviously. But there is amazing irony in the guy formerly known as Tampon King allowing his minions to cry about scandals and pain caused the institution - because his son is being publicly mad about being yelled at. Hardly seems like the scandal of all time- certainly not even the scandal of his own lifetime — which he and  that  woman he married should know - since they caused most of them. 

[louisa05]

43 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

Absolutely mind blowing to me that people are ignoring the absolutely violent, ugly, sexualized threats coming from “journalists” who are the public pets of nasty Camilla . Proving every one of Harry and Meghan’s points. Are they whiney and insanely over-privelaged? Yes, obviously. But there is amazing irony in the guy formerly known as Tampon King allowing his minions to cry about scandals and pain caused the institution - because his son is being publicly mad about being yelled at. Hardly seems like the scandal of all time- certainly not even the scandal of his own lifetime — which he and  that  woman he married should know - since they caused most of them. 

1–Clarkson is not a journalist. 
2—He is not the Queen’s pet in any way. She attended a large event that he was also invited to. That doesn’t mean she had anything to do with it. 
3–Many posters here have said it was offensive because it was. 
4–Charles has been married to Camilla longer than he was married to Diana. Diana is also dead. Time to let it go. 
5–Harry was Meghan’s side piece while she was living with Corey Vitiello. So people in glass houses and all….

[treehugger]

No one here has ignored it. It was a vile, contemptuous thing to say and the backlash has been intense by both the public and the media. 

[Jackie3]

12 hours ago, louisa05 said:

1–Clarkson is not a journalist. 
2—He is not the Queen’s pet in any way. She attended a large event that he was also invited to. That doesn’t mean she had anything to do with it. 
3–Many posters here have said it was offensive because it was. 
4–Charles has been married to Camilla longer than he was married to Diana. Diana is also dead. Time to let it go. 
5–Harry was Meghan’s side piece while she was living with Corey Vitiello. So people in glass houses and all….

1-Clarkson calls himself a journalist and broadcaster. He'd be surprised you are saying hie's not. 

http://www.jeremyclarkson.co.uk/

And Wikipedia calls him a journalist as well.

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

2-The Daily Mail continues to call it Camilla's party.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11547817/Dame-Judi-Dench-Piers-Morgan-Claudia-Winkleman-join-Camilla-star-studded-Mayfair-lunch.html

I'm sure the DM knows whose party it is. The Mail's top editor just took a job as Communication Director at the Palace.

3-It not a large restaurant so it couldn't have been a large party. Murano's owner describes the restaurant as "compact" and wishes it was larger.

https://www.bighospitality.co.uk/Article/2018/09/11/Angela-Hartnett-on-10-years-of-Murano-and-the-future-of-restaurants

4--It's well-documented that Jeremy and Camilla are friends, and have been for years.

Edited December 25, 2022 by Jackie3

[prayawaythefundie]

15 hours ago, louisa05 said:

5–Harry was Meghan’s side piece while she was living with Corey Vitiello. So people in glass houses and all….

Is this confirmed? Because I‘m really uncomfortable with cheating rumours being presented as fact if there isn‘t hard evidence. Genuine question as I don‘t know a lot about H&M‘s beginnings or her pre-royal life.

I agree that some of Diana‘s fans need to get over Charles & Camilla.

Edited December 25, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[viii]

There is zero proof that Meghan cheated. It’s a rumour that her haters have run off with because Tom Bower published that she was still living with Corey when she went on a date with Harry. Neither Meghan or Corey have said there was infidelity in their relationship, as far as I can remember. 

[tabitha2]

So Much like William and Rose Hanbury then? Just nasty minded haters and trash press copy. 

[viii]

19 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

So Much like William and Rose Hanbury then? Just nasty minded haters and trash press copy. 

Similar, yes. 

[louisa05]

10 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Is this confirmed? Because I‘m really uncomfortable with cheating rumours being presented as fact if there isn‘t hard evidence. Genuine question as I don‘t know a lot about H&M‘s beginnings or her pre-royal life.

I agree that some of Diana‘s fans need to get over Charles & Camilla.

The Tom Bowers book along with several other sources have confirmed that she was still living with Cory Vitiello when she met and began dating Harry. On his first few trips to Toronto (after the Africa trip which was apparently their third date), he stayed at Jessica Mulroney's home and she snuck out to see him. 

[viii]

Tom Bower should not be taken as fact, though. 

[prayawaythefundie]

Sometimes ex-couples still live in the same place for some time. If they were seperated already, it‘s not cheating.

[nausicaa]

25 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Sometimes ex-couples still live in the same place for some time. If they were seperated already, it‘s not cheating.

It can happen, but I'll be honest, I always give those stories some side eye and usually find the other partner has a very different version of events. 

But it's not one of my major issues with Meghan at any rate. 

On 12/24/2022 at 10:53 AM, louisa05 said:

1–Clarkson is not a journalist. 
2—He is not the Queen’s pet in any way. She attended a large event that he was also invited to. That doesn’t mean she had anything to do with it. 
3–Many posters here have said it was offensive because it was. 
4–Charles has been married to Camilla longer than he was married to Diana. Diana is also dead. Time to let it go. 
5–Harry was Meghan’s side piece while she was living with Corey Vitiello. So people in glass houses and all….

Thanks for this. I was very confused in so many ways by that post. But Diana's continued acolytes always kind of leave me that way. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

In the documentary, Meghan makes a big deal about how her trip to London was part of a “single girl summer.” She’s clearly trying to create the narrative that she was newly single when she started dating Harry. To be charitable, it can take a while to break up if you’re living together, and Cory may have known she was dating.

[Jackie3]

19 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Is this confirmed? Because I‘m really uncomfortable with cheating rumours being presented as fact if there isn‘t hard evidence. Genuine question as I don‘t know a lot about H&M‘s beginnings or her pre-royal life.

 

Creating nasty unfounded rumors is bullying.

It's shocking how much the mob bully this woman. There's no need to make more stuff up.

Also, I don't think Meghan is throwing stones at Camilla. I've never heard her mention Charles and Camilla's adultery.

[Jackie3]

6 hours ago, viii said:

Tom Bower should not be taken as fact, though. 

Tom Bower is another Jeremy Clarkson, a bully who hasn't gone quite as far as Clarkson. 

[louisa05]

3 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

In the documentary, Meghan makes a big deal about how her trip to London was part of a “single girl summer.” She’s clearly trying to create the narrative that she was newly single when she started dating Harry. To be charitable, it can take a while to break up if you’re living together, and Cory may have known she was dating.

They've told multiple stories of how they met now. And they also have claimed different timelines. So I'd take anything they say with a grain of salt. Or a whole shaker. 

 

8 hours ago, viii said:

Tom Bower should not be taken as fact, though. 

They never tried to refute him or sue him. And they are quick to sue over anything they can claim is false. 

[Jackie3]

On 12/21/2022 at 10:11 AM, prayawaythefundie said:

No, it‘s not and you better not call me racist or misogynist again for nothing or I will report you. Not everyone who isn‘t in love with Meghan is one of the two. 

You think Jeremy Clarkson, and only Jeremy Clarkson, is the problem? That he's a totally different animal than Piers Morgan, Tom Bower, or any of the hordes of bullies that are picking on this woman?

You can bully someone a little or a lot, but you are on the same continuum.

[Mama Mia]

8 hours ago, nausicaa said:

It can happen, but I'll be honest, I always give those stories some side eye and usually find the other partner has a very different version of events. 

But it's not one of my major issues with Meghan at any rate. 

Thanks for this. I was very confused in so many ways by that post. But Diana's continued acolytes always kind of leave me that way. 

I’m not a Diana acolyte ffs. I just find it —- ironic—- that Charles, who quite infamously was drug through the press for being a notorious cheater, after being a 30 something grown man pressured into marrying a certified pure virgin by his mother, is quite willing to let his daughter in law be violently threatened and hounded by that same press.  It’s very disturbing.  

[noseybutt]

The way the BRF deals with bad press (accepting it as part of the deal) reminds me of hazing within US Greek fraternity/sorority systems. In some cases the hazing is extremely entrenched and difficult to root out because the hazing itself counter-intuitively produces intense loyalty towards the Greek organizations. Plus there is an attitude of “I survived this so you can too.”

[viii]

10 hours ago, louisa05 said:

They never tried to refute him or sue him. And they are quick to sue over anything they can claim is false. 

Just because they never tried to sue him doesn’t mean that everything he wrote can be taken as gospel truth. They can’t sue everyone. While I’m sure there is a lot in his book that IS accurate, I think it’s impossible to claim he knows the full truth. I’m guessing a law suit with him might have uncovered a few things so it was easier to let the whole thing lie, even if there are some inaccuracies. 

[treehugger]

I think there may be some idea that the BRF is more powerful than they actually are.  They are the head of state, but have very little political or executive power. They are more of a ceremonial figurehead than a Vladimir Putin style dictatorship.  It is unlikely they have much, if any actual control over the press.  To blame King Charles for allowing what the press writes about his daughter-in-law is a bit of a stretch.  You all remember what the press wrote about Queen Camilla right?  

Meghan has been horribly treated by the press, but let's place blame where blame is due.  

 

Edited to add: I am not comparing how the press treated Camilla to how they treat Meghan.  What Jeremy Clarkson said was despicable.  My point is merely that if the BRF was able to control the press the way people think they do, Camilla would not have received such awful press, and Katherine wouldn't have had topless pictures published, etc.... 

Edited December 26, 2022 by treehugger

[viii]

If my memory serves me correctly, no British media would publish the topless Kate photos, knowing it would damage their relationship with the BRF. Instead, a French magazine published them and were promptly sued by the BRF, I believe. 

The BRF will always need the media more than the media needs them.