Any thoughts on the above or shall I get my coat?
Daughters were engrossed. I lasted 5 minutes and had to leave.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 10 Mar 21 at 12:22
|
I am watching The Crown just now. Haven’t seen the interview but the snippets I’m hearing kind of back up how The Crown portrays The Firm.
Might catch the interview later on though no doubt every aspect of it will be plastered over the news for the next few days anyway.
Boris certainly didn’t want to get involved today!
|
>> Boris certainly didn’t want to get involved today!
As anyone knows I hold no brief for BoJo but what else could he say?
|
I did wonder from the snippets if Harry would let Megan say untruths. I don't think he would.
I can't abide racism, or any form of bigotry. I hope it's a misunderstanding and words said in error or curiosity.
I make mistakes. I asked a Hasidic Jew what his Christian name was. Doh! Doh! Doh!
He looked at me quizzically and after about 5 seconds (which seemed like 5 minutes) it dawned.
Obviously I wasn't being racist or against his religion, just guilty of being an idiot. Luckily he saw the funny side.
I wonder if it was the same - something like, Megan's mum is African-American, Megan has a mixed heritage. Someone might have suggested that Archie may be be African - American. To me it's not the colour of one's skin. For want of a better phrase, it's what's in their soul that counts.
Someone mentioned that it is protocol for Harry and Megan's offspring to be promoted to Prince and Princess when Charles ascends to the throne, not before.
Last edited by: zippy on Tue 9 Mar 21 at 00:13
|
|
I congratulate Harry on finding a wife as stable, reasonable, sensible and capable as his Mother.
|
Brilliant
And I’ve no idea what an acidic Jew is. I’ll google it now.
|
>> Brilliant
>> And I’ve no idea what an acidic Jew is. I’ll google it now.
Its something to do with pollution I think, you see it in the mornings on the lawn.
|
|
I educated myself a little reading up on that. Whilst so doing I learnt the meanings of both immanence and corporeality so not a waste of time.
|
>> I congratulate Harry on finding a wife as stable, reasonable, sensible and capable as his
>> Mother.
I can say nothing further than this, in fact this shall be unashamedly stolen and promulgated as my own elsewhere.
(i'm sure Mark stole it anyway)
|
>> I am watching The Crown just now. Haven’t seen the interview but the snippets I’m
>> hearing kind of back up how The Crown portrays The Firm.
>>
>> Might catch the interview later on though no doubt every aspect of it will be
>> plastered over the news for the next few days anyway.
>>
>> Boris certainly didn’t want to get involved today!
What happens in the royal family has nothing to do with Bojo, and he is obligated by protocol and tradition to say nowt. The fact he followed that is surprising.
|
|
Monarchies are so 17th Century. There's a spectrum of disposals for them ranging from Guillotines to Bicycles and despite my views I err towards the latter.
|
>>
>> What happens in the royal family has nothing to do with Bojo, and he is
>> obligated by protocol and tradition to say nowt. The fact he followed that is surprising.
>>
......His advisers were fairly forthright in their opinions on that obligation, whereas Harry and Meghan's, against the same obligation, patently were not........
|
|
If wondering what colour a baby's skin will be is considered racist, is wondering what sex it will be sexist?
|
>> If wondering what colour a baby's skin will be is considered racist, is wondering what
>> sex it will be sexist?
>>
If, by finding out you wish to cause disadvantage to the child then yes otherwise no.
Same as enquiries as to colour. If the baby is dark skinned, I want to get it a different coloured gown imho is ok. What is not ok is to say if it’s dark skinned I won’t get it a gown at all.
|
Imagine if the conversation took place in Ghana or Kenya. White husband and African pregant wife. Future local grandparent muses "I wonder if my future grandchild will be closer in colour to me or my son-in-law's parents?"
Is that racist? If not why is the comment about Archie racist (unless it was said with an intention to cause hurt, which would be unlikely).
|
Gosh this is a tricky one. it could be racist or not depending on intent.
Like
damn this is going to be embarrassing for the family.
or
this will be liberating and help the cause of people of colour in todays society.
|
"this will be liberating and help the cause of people of colour in todays society."
Reading a little about this, the RF failed to appreciate that a mid 30s independent woman would not take kindly at being told to curtsey to another woman (Kate) who is the same age but has never earned a penny of her own in her life.
They could and should have understood that Harry and Meghan had such potential, particularly in introducing a person of colour into the family, that changes to protocol were necessary.
I do not understand those people who were against the marriage simply on the grounds of colour.
But the Sussexes have milked this, especially in the last year with all the sadness everyone has suffered; they have suffered barely.
There is fault in both sides but airing it in public is just pointless; it will not change anything for the better.
|
>> There is fault in both sides but airing it in public is just pointless; it
>> will not change anything for the better.
Indeed, everyone comes out of this for the worse, but the fact MM did if for cash? well what can you say.
But let us be in no doubt, if ever there was any, the higher echelons of the RF are of, and live in, the dark ages.
|
|
I didnt think that they got paid for the interview?
|
"I didnt think that they got paid for the interview?"
Priceless free publicity though.
|
>> "I didnt think that they got paid for the interview?"
>>
>> Priceless free publicity though.
>>
Well I suppose so, not likely to do an interview in private though.
|
>> >> "I didnt think that they got paid for the interview?"
>> >>
>> >> Priceless free publicity though.
>> >>
>> Well I suppose so, not likely to do an interview in private though.
You have the option of not doing a prime time interview, and using Opra show as the vehicle, or weeks of pre show hype, or rehearsal, or reshoots,
|
>> You have the option of not doing a prime time interview, and using Opra show
>> as the vehicle, or weeks of pre show hype, or rehearsal, or reshoots,
>>
and time to chose a dress without seagull hits on it :-)
|
|
I understand Monica Lewinskiy lent her it. :O
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 9 Mar 21 at 18:28
|
>> "I didnt think that they got paid for the interview?"
>>
>> Priceless free publicity though.
>>
www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/08/winfrey-harry-meghan-ratings/
Was tea on a bus free?
|
>> >> "I didnt think that they got paid for the interview?"
>> >>
>> >> Priceless free publicity though.
>> >>
>> www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/08/winfrey-harry-meghan-ratings/
Perhaps I missed it as I didn't read the whole thing but that seemed to be about Oprah, not the two people she was interviewing.
>> Was tea on a bus free?
>>
Lost me there. No idea what you mean.
|
>> Was tea on a bus free?
>>
Lost me there. No idea what you mean.
short version
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzmArcAjkwU
long version
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oxlCKMlpZw
Prince Harry and Meghan's 'secret wedding' an exchange of vows and not legal ceremony
Duchess of Sussex said Windsor wedding was merely a 'spectacle for the world'
By Gabriella Swerling,SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS EDITOR ;
Victoria Ward, ACTING ROYAL CORRESPONDENT and
Camilla Tominey, ASSOCIATE EDITOR
8 March 2021
'Three days before our wedding we got married. The vows we have framed,' the Duchess said
The Duke and Duchess’s “secret wedding” was an exchange of vows and not a legal ceremony as they claimed.
Prince Harry and Meghan suggested that they were married in their back garden by the Archbishop of Canterbury three days before their fairytale wedding.
In her interview with talk show host Oprah Winfrey, the Duchess said the wedding at St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle on May 19, 2018 was a "spectacle for the world".
However, the couple claimed that they decided to have their own private moment and married in their garden days before.
"Three days before our wedding we got married. The vows we have framed," the Duchess said.
"We called the Archbishop, and we just said, 'Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us."
The ceremony was "just the two of us in our back yard with the Archbishop of Canterbury," the Duchess said, adding: "Just the three of us."
The Duchess’s claim raised questions about the legality of their actual wedding at St George’s Chapel, portrayed to the wider world as the official ceremony.
Following the airing of the controversial interview on American network, CBS, on Sunday night, sources within both the Church of England and those working for the Sussexes moved to clarify that the vows presided over by the Most Rev Justin Welby in the garden did not constitute a legal marriage.
Instead, the “marriage” was merely a personal and private exchange of vows between the couple.
Sources told The Telegraph that they had simply wanted to recognise the moment with their own intimate ceremony, away from the eyes of the world.
It took place in the small garden of Nottingham Cottage, the snug, two-bedroomed property in the grounds of Kensington Palace where the Sussexes were living at the time.
“It was a small thing but something they were keen to do between themselves,” one source said.
“They exchanged their vows before the Archbishop in a personal, private ceremony but their official marriage was very much on the day of the royal wedding.”
On the day of the wedding, the couple said their vows before a congregation of 600, as well as millions watching on television around the world.
The Archbishop led the declarations, asking anyone present who knew a reason why they may not lawfully marry, to declare it now.
Following a reading from the Song of Solomon and an enthusiastic address by the Most Reverend Michael Curry, The Kingdom Choir sang Stand by Me before the couple exchanged their vows.
The then-Ms Markle did not promise to "obey" her husband, while the Prince broke with royal tradition by choosing to wear a wedding ring.
The Archbishop then proclaimed that they were man and wife, before the couple signed the register.
The Archbishop does not comment on neither personal nor pastoral matters, and has always kept the confidence of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
In accordance with Church of England rules, a marriage must be solemnized by a member of the clergy in a church, or in a place specified in a special licence, such as a cathedral, chapel, or hospital, and be in the presence of two witnesses.
Another source cast doubt on the claims that the couple had a secret wedding just days before they exchanged vows on live television to audiences around the world, saying that the Archbishop “probably just prayed with them”.
The Duchess made the comments regarding her marriage as the couple gave Ms Winfrey a tour of their residence in the United States.
They took her to their chicken coop which had a sign saying “Archie's Chick Inn”.
The Duchess said it allowed them to "live authentically" and "get back down to basics".
"She's always wanted chickens," said the Duke. The Duchess added: "I just love rescuing."
|
He went on a show on cbs, so what? What's that got to do with anything?
The wall of text, again what's your point?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 9 Mar 21 at 16:42
|
>> There is fault in both sides but airing it in public is just pointless; it will not change anything for the better
So you have faith in the RF system that they would deal with this behind closed doors? Remember Harry has memories of what happened with his mother and 20 years later sees the exact same treatment of the woman he loves from the same RF and the same press.
I believe he will have tried everything he could behind the scenes and deciding to leave was because he was at end of his tether with that process.
|
>> I believe he will have tried everything he could behind the scenes and deciding to
>> leave was because he was at end of his tether with that process.
I dont believe he did, in fact he has done exactly the opposite at the first opportunity (not the interview but all the stuff leading up to it).
> So you have faith in the RF system that they would deal with this behind closed doors?
Wow amazing ability to completely ignore the comment about the RF living in the dark ages.
Anyway, Megan has shown a complete ability to lie out of context - the "title taken away" and "protection refused" things, who's to say the dark skin thing was accurate.
|
>Wow amazing ability to completely ignore the comment about the RF living in the dark ages
I was replying to Netsur.
|
>> >Wow amazing ability to completely ignore the comment about the RF living in the dark
>> ages
>> I was replying to Netsur.
Then I apologise and wholeheartedly shift the blame onto the crappy forum software.
|
>> >Wow amazing ability to completely ignore the comment about the RF living in the dark
>> ages
>> I was replying to Netsur.
>>
>>
And how do you get from my comment "...Reading a little about this, the RF failed to appreciate that a mid 30s independent woman would not take kindly at being told to curtsey to another woman (Kate) who is the same age but has never earned a penny of her own in her life..."
To the idea I think the Royal Family are perfect? Of course some of the them live in the Dark Ages. Philip is almost 100 and grew up in (and foisted on his children) a very weird set up. But you would hope that Kate's parents woud have given some balance and said something sensible to their daughter. (God I really hope that the Middletons don't have to bow and curtsey to their daugher, son-in-law and grandchildren - that would be appalling and would persuade me to guillotine the whole RF).
|
>> If wondering what colour a baby's skin will be is considered racist, is wondering what
>> sex it will be sexist?
I think context is everything in things like this and how you ask.
|
>> If wondering what colour a baby's skin will be is considered racist, is wondering what
>> sex it will be sexist?
I guess it depends on the question and how it's asked. A genuine curiosity about the skin colour of a child with mixed race heritage, and exploration of the genetics, is one thing.
Extensions of the sort of comments the Duke of Edinburgh (or for that matter our PM) has been known for are another kettle of fish. Mention of a tar brush wouldn't be too good an effect either.
|
Bear with me on this.
Good Morning Britain this morning had some very interesting thoughts by Alex Beresford, the mixed race weatherman. The resulting tabloid headlines are all about the strop that Piers Morgan threw but it’s worth seeking out to hear what Alex had to say. I didn’t agree with everything he said but it was food for thought.
|
|
It seems the unhappy couple are known in LA social circles as Ginge and Whinge. A tendentious question from Oprah during the interview was on the lines of "Did you have thoughts of suicide?" Cue, big whinge.
|
|
With Meghan's approach to reality I wonder how far back through her family tree one would have to go before finding commonality with Trump.
|
Harry is a weak character. Whilst his mother used the media against Charles, Harry does not like the media (I have some sympathy for this view). This may be a risky strategy - the media can easily destroy Harry.
Meghan has a history of damaged family relationships. As a successful actress she is also used to being the centre of attention. She may have found it difficult to subordinate her ego to the "royal" brand.
As an actress she will have rehearsed the words and bodylanguage for the interview for maximum effect. In this she has much in common with the well known Diana interview performance.
We have also heard only one side of the story - she may be lying, at the very least massaging the truth to communicate her message. The racism issue may have substance - or is she simply over sensitive - eg: ask a pregnant lady whether she want a boy or girl, she says a boy, sexist rage ensues, women are the equal of men, why don't you want a girl ...blah blah...
The royals are now little more than a brand - they have very little constitutional power. The Queen for more than 60 years has done a fantastic job in promoting the UK and communicating decent values.
Buck House will be keen to ensure the brand remains strong - the feelings of what are now minor royals will be a long way behind in second place.
|
>> The Queen for more than 60 years has done a fantastic job in promoting the UK and communicating decent values.
Indeed true.
Unlike her sister and older sons.
And her mother appears to have been a spiteful, selfish, snobbish, and vindictive piece of work.
|
|
well thats a good outcome, Well done Mghan
|
>> well thats a good outcome, Well done Mghan
He is, for the most part, a complete plonker. However he's been quite outstanding at holding Ministers to account over the various buts of the Covid farrago.
I don't think Meghan/Harry or several of his ex-colleagues will be the only ones delighted to see him go down in flames.
|
Morgan is a clever man, he knows his audience and tells them what they want to hear.
An obnoxious A hole too, and this time he pushed his luck too far.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 9 Mar 21 at 20:48
|
Morgan is a nasty little dick of the very first order and the world of media will be far better without him, if he stays gone.
However, this is wrong. He said he didn't believe Markle. Not that mental illness/health was not important, but that he thought she'd made it up.
All of a sudden the self righteous and the virtue signallers are on their communal and self-gratifying band wagon baying for his blood supposedly because he was disrespecting the value of mental health.
That's witch hunting, gang bullying and thought control.
And it's wrong.
.**********
Though I understand he fell on his sword and knowing that t*** probably has an ulterior motive for doing so, but witch hunting is still wrong.
|
>>
>>
>> Though I understand he fell on his sword and knowing that t*** probably has an
>> ulterior motive for doing so, but witch hunting is still wrong.
>>
I suspect that he left "By mutual consent", or as us ordinary workers put it, he got the tin tack.
|
>> He said he didn't believe Markle. Not that mental illness/health was
>> not important, but that he thought she'd made it up.
I don't think you can compartmentalise those two propositions; don't believe/making it up is too common a reaction to mental health.
|
I don't believe her. I think she is manipulating the media.
I do think mental health is very important and those suffering need support.
Where's the conflict in that? I don't care if it is common amongst liars, I am not a liar and that's what I think.
|
>> I don't believe her. I think she is manipulating the media.
>>
>> I do think mental health is very important and those suffering need support.
>>
>> Where's the conflict in that? I don't care if it is common amongst liars, I
>> am not a liar and that's what I think.
Then we have differing views. I'm prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.
There's a massive difference though. You are expressing that view to a circle of (mostly) older blokes in a virtual pub. Morgan was saying it long, loud and repeatedly as an anchor presenter of mainstream breakfast TV. In effect he perpetuates, to an audience of millions, the view that people who say they have Mental Health problems are liars or are milking it for sympathy or other gain.
That is beyond irresponsible.
|
>>Then we have differing views. I'm prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.
We may well do. But we're both entitled to them and hounding someone for theirs is wrong.
>>the view that people who say they have Mental Health problems are liars
No, he did not. He said that this particular one was. And he should be allowed to say that irrespective of whether or not he is correct though I tend to think he was.
But the point is that there is no conflict between believing that mental health is important and thinking that someone is lying about theirs. You cannot surely believe in blind acceptance in that anybody who says they have an issue must be believed? That's taking virtue signalling to a insane level
|
In effect he perpetuates, to an audience of
>> millions, the view that people who say they have Mental Health problems are liars or
>> are milking it for sympathy or other gain.
It makes makes him a massive pair of buttocks unless he's her doctor and even then he should keep his trap shut.
A person who lies about his or her mental health problems is at least half way to having a mental health problem in my book.
Ignoring this showbiz event is fine, calling her a liar for reasons of entertainment is not.
We are hearing one side of a family misfortune. A rather unusual family that we pay to keep, which makes it of some legitimatepublic interest, but I think they still have a right to some respect for their feelings and privacy which they do not lose all claim to simply because they have themselves chosen to make public statements.
I think they have made a mistake, and the scorn they are getting was predictable, but that doesn't make it right.
He might actually find himself sued for slander/libel which would give our new word epicaricacy another outing.
|
|
He’s made a lot of noise, that’s true. But not outstanding, even measured against the low bar of U.K. politicians. I don’t think it’s made the slightest difference, because his audience isn’t in the slightest bit influential. You just need to look at the polls to see that. He knows exactly who he’s appealing to though, and most of the attention on the COVID front is because the opposition have been remarkably silent, which makes perfect sense strategically for them but which leaves a void for the likes of Morgan to fill.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 10 Mar 21 at 02:58
|
|
......or will it have ginger hair?
|
|
I'm smelling rodent. BBC news said something about a couple of new chat programmes. I wonder if it was all staged...........................................
|
I'm surprised it's taken this long for him to resign/get kicked out.
As for outing liars who attention seek in the media, I suppose he'd know a fair bit about that. He's a good point of reference by glancing in a mirror.
|
|
He struck a right note over the Pandemic with many - consequently probably he thinks he's "it"
|
>> He struck a right note over the Pandemic with many - consequently probably he thinks
>> he's "it"
Fairly easy I think for a certain personality type to court popularity with the sort of things he says. I wouldn't trust him to wash my car.
|
>> I wouldn't trust him
Neither would I, an absolutely awful man and it is worrying that he is able to court so much popularity with seeming ease.
|
>> I wouldn't trust him
>Neither would I, an absolutely awful man and it is worrying that he is able to court so much >popularity with seeming ease.
I wont worry you further then by telling you Katie Hopkins has a fairly sizeable following......
|
I have no time for Piers Morgan, but could easily be persuaded that so far as Meghan is concerned, he was right.
I find it inconceivable that:
- she was unable to speak privately to doctors, other than Palace medical team
- that they would have broken the fundamental doctor/patient confidentiality rules
- she had no friends in whom she could confide
- Harry knew no-one who could help
- her personal advisors knew no-one who could help and advised her so poorly
Putting aside these reservations:
- Oprah must have deliberately encouraged these revelations to improve TV ratings
- Meghan was so angry that she wanted to cause maximum embarrassment to the Royals
- Harry was too weak to stop her
|
>> I find it inconceivable that:
>>
>> - she was unable to speak privately to doctors, other than Palace medical team
>> - that they would have broken the fundamental doctor/patient confidentiality rules
>> - she had no friends in whom she could confide
>> - Harry knew no-one who could help
>> - her personal advisors knew no-one who could help and advised her so poorly
You are somewhat ignoring the nature of mental illness. People with friends and access to doctors commit suicide every day. Of course, if you start by presuming that she is consciously lying then your analysis makes sense, but that would be circular reasoning.
Good point though re Harry. If she told him then he should have got whatever help she needed.
I have fallen down the rabbit hole of pointless speculation despite previously deciding to ignore the whole thing.
|
Re Morgan, is there not a couple of new TV channels about to be launched from Murdoch’s mob?
I would imagine that would be a marriage made in heaven for them both.
|
Plagiarised from elsewhere:
The Uxbridge English Dictionary* definition of 'countryside' - the killing of Piers Morgan.
For the uninitiated UED is a round in the Radio 4 show I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue
|
>> Plagiarised from elsewhere:
>>
>> The Uxbridge English Dictionary* definition of 'countryside' - the killing of Piers Morgan.
>>
Now that's funny.
|
"Any thoughts on the above"
Some 5 years ago, my cameraman son was professionally involved with a woman who many concluded was suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Meghan, I believe, is displaying many of the same symptoms.
|
>> Some 5 years ago, my cameraman son was professionally involved with a woman who many
>> Meghan, I believe, is displaying many of the same symptoms.
Evidence?
|
"Evidence?"
Personal observation.
|
>>Evidence?
I thought it was against the law to say she hadn't got mental health problems. Is it also proscribed by law (tabloid front pages) which one we have to believe she has?
Read the definition....
"Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others"
Seems spot on to me.
If she doesn't want to be judged by the world then I suggest she considers not going on tabloid TV to begin the conversation.
|
>> >>Evidence?
She is perfectly sane, not a trace of mental health issues. A clever woman well in control of her mental thought processes and actions.
Lets examine the situation. An actress who's only fame was one franchise, seeking better renumeration but rebuffed so she left, thinking her fame could open the door to better roles.
Finding out this was not the case she used her skills to become a bit of a socialite while she had some status and bagged herself a prince.
Coming to the UK thinking a royal role could reboot her status she discovered she was in fact in a subservient role, clearly this did not suite her goal, so she departed taking her prince with her, to later set up a high profile and lucrative role as a woman at the hands of the most famous people in the world.
The next logical step in this career path is of course the high profile divorce. I can see the script now - two children, denied their royal status (and proper financial support) by a vindictive and racist royal family (Harry better watch out, hes clearly pencilled into the abusive husband role - probably because of PTSD in the army)
|
>>The next logical step in this career path is of course the high profile divorce
Dame Edna Everage said some time ago: "She'll make an ideal first wife".
|
I'd agree. It is most certainly all about her in her world.
Reference the "got married in the back garden" - nice for her Mother and/or friends to find out after the event - all about her.
|
I wonder how long before someone raises the question of Harry's parentage. That would drop the whole Meghan/Harry bandwagon right in the cack.
It's got to be coming.
|
>> I wonder how long before someone raises the question of Harry's parentage. That would drop
>> the whole Meghan/Harry bandwagon right in the cack.
There was a cartoon on Facebook this morning.....
|
|
Didn't see it, nor can I find it. What was the gist?
|
>> Didn't see it, nor can I find it. What was the gist?
Pictures of Harry and his brother.
William' s speech bubble 'Dad's fuming over your TV interview'
Harry's speech bubble 'Mine's not happy either'.
Gist - those may nor be exact words.
|
|
I got a photo of Her Maj and Chazzer enjoying a good laugh together caption is "Can you imagine the ginger t***s face when we leak the DNA result",
|
I’m got a photo of the Queen, Daniel Craig in tuxedo walking behind her. Liz giving him an address, saying “enter by side gate whilst Harry is out playing carpool karaoke with that chubby chap”.
Snigger.
|
I don't get the last one, a popular culture reference no doubt, but no matter. I can accept that she felt slighted, diminished, isolated, even suicidal - that's easier to believe than somebody saying that they had had suicidal thoughts when they haven't, although I think it unlikely that she came anywhere near acting on them. And if she really does have a personality disorder, then that would be a mental health problem would it not?
A lot of entertainment people are inclined to attention-seeking or reckless behaviour. I see no reason to join the pile on.
I really hope that it doesn't get worse for them. Fame and fortune are not always easy to live with, not that I have tried it.
|
Couple of funnies going around.
Queen talking too Nicola Sturgeon saying ' For once when I said I wanted to speak to the ginger t*** ,I didn' t mean you.'
Diane Abbot talking to Meghan.'So Mrs Markle, how is the German economy ?
I believe it was Stephen Fry who came up with the Countryside definition....made me laugh out loud.
|
>> Couple of funnies going around.
I've seen several.
Her Mag with 007, saying "just the wife 007, I'll deal with the little ginger ***** to me"
Harry saying to Oprah, "we left the UK because my uncle kept offering to babysit"
A picture of Tiger Woods, and a caption announcing this is Meghan's new chauffer.
And also a few spoof videos.
One with Jeremy Kyle, and all the royal family.
another one playing the pink panther music in the background and showing several different royals asking who is the mystery royal racist, ending with Harry wearing the swastika on his left arm.
Meghan being interviewed by Oprah, and someone in the background (possibly the Queen) firing a poisoned dart into Meghan's neck as she's about to comment on which royal is the racist one.
And there is one that would be far simpler to show rather than explain, but I can't find the video anywhere. It must exist because it's been doing the rounds on Facebook. It ends with Camilla neighing like a horse.
|
>>easier to believe than somebody saying that they had had suicidal thoughts when they haven't
Then lucky you, you have been fortunate. I've more than once found it in a person seeking attention. A person who is otherwise unremarkable but wishes to be the centre of attention and is not prepared to put the effort into actually becoming a person of genuine interest or value.
|
>> Then lucky you, you have been fortunate.
True. And notoriously people make suicide attempts to get attention, or so it's said.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 10 Mar 21 at 20:12
|
>> >> Then lucky you, you have been fortunate.
>>
>> True. And notoriously people make suicide attempts to get attention, or so it's said.
Truth be told there's a whole range covering those who want or intend to commit suicide, those who threaten it and do it through missjudgement and those who fake the whole thing.
I've had all three either in people I have known personally, professionally or from my years back in Southampton as a Samaritan.
All need help of one kind or another, except the manipulative little s***s that lie and manipulate in seeking attention. And surely you're not naive enough to believe that they don't exist?
|
During their chat with Oprah, Meghan said: "You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that."
She added: “The vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have cleared up their comments about a 'secret wedding' after their marriage certificate confirms they officially wed at the royal wedding.
Following the confusion over their claims, the couple have released a statement.
A spokesperson said: "The couple exchanged personal vows a few days before their official/legal wedding on May 19."
The pair had obviously had an intimate ceremony in their back garden, but the legal marriage came days later.
Stephen Borton – former chief clerk at the Faculty Office – : “I’m sorry, but Meghan is obviously confused and clearly misinformed.
Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. :- The Queen
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9396457/Better-CEO-Alexi-Robichaux-tells-crafted-Chief-Impact-Officer-role-Prince-Harry.html
|
Bearing in mind that M.M. is 50% Black and 50% White, I wonder why she identifies and promotes herself as Black and not White?
|
Because there's no street cred amongst the woke identifying as white. It'd probably be condemned as racist as well.
|
Why do people insist on describing themselves as "black" or "BAME" or whatever term currently in vogue.
It simply highlights their "difference" when the goal should be to encourage decent behaviour towards others irrespective of colour, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity.
|
>>Bearing in mind that M.M. is 50% Black and 50% White, I wonder why she identifies and promotes herself as Black and not White?
Pretty sure she refers to herself as mixed-race.
|
|
MIMI used to describe herself as white , in her CV, when looking for acting jobs, that is before she became "well known" as a wife of a famous ginger
|
|
It's all me first with this lady.
|
ITV have been cleared by Ofcom, by rejecting a record 58,000 complaints about Piers Morgan's criticism of the Duchess of Sussex.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58354662
Morgan said he was "delighted" with the ruling, which he described as "a resounding victory for free speech and a resounding defeat for Princess Pinocchios".
|
I don't like any of the parties involved, but I disliked the faux outrage more.
Morgan didn't say that mental health was not important, he said he didn't believe what Meghan said. As it happens, neither do I.
|
|
I'd be grateful if I never heard of either PP or PM ever again.
|
|
Sadly I fear that you are going to be out of luck.
|
|
Lifes a bitch, (and so is PP & PM)
|
Ignoring the M&H Soap Opera, I think Piers Morgan is an unpleasant a***hole who cares for little other than his own well-being.
But we need a***holes, we really do. And the fact that I think he's an a***hole is not sufficient to deny him a voice. The world needs to be a colourful place, not one where we're all stamped down to a mutually inoffensive shade of grey.
Somehow saying I'm offended" has become like an irrefutable and all powerful magic wand. It's gone too far. If one person wants to stand up and say "I think....", then why shouldn't someone else stand up and say "I don't believe you" or "you're wrong"?
Being offensive is unpleasant. But it should not be illegal and it should not be hounded by baying mobs of Social Network users.
If a lot of people didn't want to watch Piers Morgan then he wouldn't keep getting jobs.
Hell'd freeze over before I'd watch Morgan on Good Morning Britain, but if there's ever a petition to get him his job back I'll sign in in a moment.
|
I was surprised to read today in The Times that PM is still on the ITV payroll. I thought he had resigned but I guess not. Smelling of roses then.
Also Good Morning Britain had Celia Walden, PM's wife, on today. Purely coincidentally of course as she has a novel out. She was smart and entertaining and is worthy of more airtime.
|
Recommendations for a Phrenologist please - I've just given the Chilean a thumbs up.
:o}
|
|
I reckon Mark and Piers should form some sort of double act ;)
|
"Mark and Piers should form some sort of double act"
Add Zero to that and you've got a Top Gear series I'd never miss.
|
Mregan, Harry and Ophra - Bobby
