to be pleased with the Ofcam ruling on Piers Morgan

[TeloMere]

Even though I can't stand the bloke?

@ajandjjmum No I'm not. It's not about different 'opinions', it's about fact. I'm trying to educate you. I come from a culture that refers to vow exchange ceremony as marriage. To deny this reality IS racist. Saying she 'lied' doesn't make you less racist or ignorant. It might shock you to learn that there are cultures and traditions outside the very racist UK.

[quote luckylavender]@FreddyKreugersWife - I'm not a racist and she lied. That's my reply.[/quote]
@luckylavender She clearly didn't lie so I guess that does make you a racist.

Well, we are coming up to 6 months of him not working for GMB, and if there is any truth to his around 1.5M pa salary, then ITV are haemorrhaging 500K for nothing, never mind the fact that they still have to pay others to take his slot.

Considering that the fact he is still getting paid, originally came from him, if true, he may leave out any details about legal wranglings which may possibly be happening behind the scenes.

Not everyone reads or believes the DM and I am betting he is thirsty for a legible platform like a regular morning news show. Don't think he calculated this well, so I suspect that ITV has an upper hand in this.

You can keep say she lied because of your cultural ignorance, or you can accept the FACT that certain cultures call the private exchange of vows MARRIAGE. That IS WHAT IT IS CALLED in certain cultures and certain countries

Quite possibly. Not in California where Markle originates or the UK where she was married. As a pp has said, constantly parroting an opinion doesn’t make it correct.

Sorry, the reports say around 1.1 to 1.5M. So around 500K.

@Blossomtoes

You can keep say she lied because of your cultural ignorance, or you can accept the FACT that certain cultures call the private exchange of vows MARRIAGE. That IS WHAT IT IS CALLED in certain cultures and certain countries

Quite possibly. Not in California where Markle originates or the UK where she was married. As a pp has said, constantly parroting an opinion doesn’t make it correct.

In California it is common to have a private vow ceremony before the official one. Also in the African American culture. So you are wrong. And her being married in the UK is irrelevant. The UK is a (or supposed to be) multicultural country. People of other ethnicities and cultures still use their own language or vernacular. Even Scottish people or Welsh people still use terms they are familiar with, that aren't widely used by British people.

And her being married in the UK is irrelevant

Not only is it relevant, it’s the absolute crux of the matter. In the UK a marriage takes place when the register is signed. End of.

Scottish and Welsh people are still capable of understanding legal terms used in other countries (I presume English and N Irish people are too) - esp when it comes to our marital status. MM is a very astute woman - she knew exactly what the legal ceremony was.

The whole 'Californian so didn't understand' was debunked earlier in this thread.

@Blossomtoes

And her being married in the UK is irrelevant

Not only is it relevant, it’s the absolute crux of the matter. In the UK a marriage takes place when the register is signed. End of.

And in her culture they still refer to a vow ceremony of marriage. UK is a MULTICULTURAL society. End of.

@FreddyKreugersWife - and you've clearly never heard of a wedding rehearsal. Standard.

@MaMelon

Scottish and Welsh people are still capable of understanding legal terms used in other countries (I presume English and N Irish people are too) - esp when it comes to our marital status. MM is a very astute woman - she knew exactly what the legal ceremony was.

The whole 'Californian so didn't understand' was debunked earlier in this thread.

You don't get it. I'm nor she, is denying that there is legal marriage. But there is also a vow exchange, and that, is referred to in many cultures as marriage.

BOTH are referred to as marriage. And no it was not debunked, in fact, on the contrary.

[quote luckylavender]@FreddyKreugersWife - and you've clearly never heard of a wedding rehearsal. Standard.[/quote]
@luckylavender Ummm, lol, a wedding rehearsal, a vow exchange, and an official marriage ceremony are THREE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Can you not understand that legal marriage is referred to as marriage, AND a private vow ceremony is also referred to as marriage?

BOTH are referred to as marriage in many cultures and countries. BOTH.

Back to the lovely Piers, and what Ofcom actually said in its 'finely balanced decision' rather than what the media says it said.

brokenbottleboy.substack.com/p/piers-and-loathing-at-ofcom-chummy

Also, this was Meghan’s second marriage. Her first took place not in California, but in Jamaica. An entirely different jurisdiction, and legal system. Meghan and her first husband would have had to have looked into ensuring that their wedding in Jamaica was legally binding in the US, so suggesting she doesn’t know the difference between getting married and saying personal vows to each other is ridiculous.

@MaMelon

Scottish and Welsh people are still capable of understanding legal terms used in other countries (I presume English and N Irish people are too) - esp when it comes to our marital status. MM is a very astute woman - she knew exactly what the legal ceremony was.

The whole 'Californian so didn't understand' was debunked earlier in this thread.

I missed this. she knew exactly what the legal ceremony was

Yes, of course she did! But she refers to BOTH - the legal and the private ceremony, as marriage. BOTH are marriage, in her (and my and many, many cultures and countries) as marriage. It's not either/or.

@FreddyKreugersWife - they are and that's something you and MM don't understand. The Archbishop does though. We all know she lied, you can froth all you want. The Queen would never have allowed this to happen. It's not protocol and it would have been a massive waste of public funds to then hold the actual wedding.

God, you’re bloody tedious @FreddyKreugersWife. It’s your opinion, none of us are going to agree with it so why keep pushing it?

[quote luckylavender]@FreddyKreugersWife - they are and that's something you and MM don't understand. The Archbishop does though. We all know she lied, you can froth all you want. The Queen would never have allowed this to happen. It's not protocol and it would have been a massive waste of public funds to then hold the actual wedding. [/quote]
The Archbishop confirmed they had private meetings, and basically backed up MM's story. You can pretend you aren't racist all you want. But your posts speak for themselves. You, are the one lying. Not Meghan. It was a private ceremony between MM/H, and the Archbishop. A private meeting. The Queen didn't pay anything, she had no need to know, nor to 'allow' it. You clearly simply don't understand that all they did was swap vows in front of the Archbishop only. It's either racist ignorance, or you simply cannot fathom a private meeting that required nothing and nobody else.

Exactly as @luckylavender says. If - by some massive stretch of the imagination - she didn't understand the difference between being married 3 days before the legal ceremony then her DH, who was sitting right next to her at the time she spouted this nonsense, could have immediately stepped in a cleared up any confusion.

Although as I said, someone upthread explained when she would absolutely have known in relation to the 'Californian/didn't know' claim.

@Blossomtoes

God, you’re bloody tedious *@FreddyKreugersWife*. It’s your opinion, none of us are going to agree with it so why keep pushing it?

Why am I, as a black woman from a culture where this happens, 'tedious' to explain something to racist UK posters? Darn right explaining cultural difference is tedious when racists are too stubborn to open their minds and be educated. There is no need to 'agree' or 'disagree'. You can't exactly 'agree' or 'disagree' with a CULTURAL FACT. It just....is.

@MaMelon

Exactly as *@luckylavender* says. If - by some massive stretch of the imagination - she didn't understand the difference between being married 3 days before the legal ceremony then her DH, who was sitting right next to her at the time she spouted this nonsense, could have immediately stepped in a cleared up any confusion.

Although as I said, someone upthread explained when she would absolutely have known in relation to the 'Californian/didn't know' claim.

@MaMelon Of COURSE she understood! I'm not saying that! I am saying she USED A TERM SHE WAS FAMILIAR WITH. Of course she knew it wasn't legal. She never said it was legal.

@MaMelon

Exactly as *@luckylavender* says. If - by some massive stretch of the imagination - she didn't understand the difference between being married 3 days before the legal ceremony then her DH, who was sitting right next to her at the time she spouted this nonsense, could have immediately stepped in a cleared up any confusion.

Although as I said, someone upthread explained when she would absolutely have known in relation to the 'Californian/didn't know' claim.

He didn’t even back her up when she said it! He trivialised it by singing “Just the three of us ...”

@Blossomtoes Denying the experiences of someone from a different culture is racist, however much you try to dress it up.

This thread is horrible. Anyone happy to denigrate another woman needs to take a good look at themselves.

How do you know what she knew and meant?