H & M - The Cat, The Barber and the Argyll Pheasant Pluckers

[TheMustressMhor]

I hope I've got what everyone wants in the title of this, the twelfth thread in the series.

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the SCOLDS don't actually add anything to the conversation but lots of exclamation marks and orders for us not to say thus or that?

I think it may just be you .Is it this post you are referring to ?

Can you stop with this narcissist stuff!

You have no idea if she is it not. You just want another stick to beat her with!

If it is ,perhaps you've missed the point that was being made You have no idea if she is it or not

Although your use of the plural suggests there are others ....which would they be ?

re MM's uni fees: didn't TM say at some point that for years afterward he was repaying loans he'd taken out to fund her university education?

Spot on @Cuttingthegrass

and katiegoestoaldi MN has asked that posters stop speculating about the mental health of individuals .I presume ( I'm not sure ) that is referring to talk about narcissism

Can we please bear in mind that it's really not on to speculate about someone's mental health? We'd hate to have to delete this thread but if the speculation continues, we will need to take it down.

Maybe there are SCOLDS in MNHQ

I can't understand why people are sympathising so much with Thomas Markle after watching the programme.

He admitted to telling lie after lie, albeit maybe for the right reasons/intentions, but he's still lied, he's not exactly trustworthy.

He feels his daughter owes him, he said she gave him $20,000 dollars over 2 years.

He said at the end they H&M owe him, and that it's time to 'look after daddy'.

He's sold his soul. Meghan is his daughter, and even if she is not a nice person which we don't know for sure, he shouldn't be doing all this. If he wanted to reach out to her he could do so in private.

I’ve just started watching the Crown (where have I been hiding?!) and am finding the Wallis and Edward abdication really interesting.

Seeing them sitting in their Parisian mansion entertaining and hosting the Queen’s coronation made me think of M&H having all of their celeb friends around to watch future royal events.

I also remember a blind about Meg having nicknames for the royals like Wallis did would love to hear them.

@Shinynails

It’s not really what Thomas said.
It was just his adoration of his daughter; his sadness, being left on his own to deal with the press.

(Reminds me of Diana; during their engagement, Charles was saying poor Camilla, she s got 4 reporters on her doorstep. Diana wanted to say and I’ve got about 30)
Kate has also run the gamut of the press. Meghan has never had Press camping on her doorstep till she moved to Canada.
She went from Obscurity to Kensington Palace. Most press attention has been controlled (the Royal rota) or courted by her.

I’ve never been surrounded by press, but when travelling, I’ve had unwelcome attention from complete strangers and It’s not nice.
You do want to hide away, and if you’re going about your daily business like going to the supermarket and being stalked by press, it must be awful.
For Harry to never meet his father in law is just bad manners at the very least.

Let it wash over your heads.

I don't agree with the Telegraph analysis.

Meghan came across as a very loved but also massively over-indulged child and I think that's how she's remained. TM was obviously very emotionally dependant on her and she learned to use that to her advantage. Along comes Harry with the same emotional neediness and bingo! he was putty in her hands.

Theirs (the Markles's) seemed like a home that lacked security and could break apart at any moment, there were obviously times of feast and famine, and both parents came across as quite flaky. It was very unclear from the documentary who was looking after Meghan and when.

It's not surprising that she found Harry's background attractive, with its 1000 year history, nor that once part of the institution she couldn't hack it.

I can't understand why people are sympathising so much with Thomas Markle after watching the programme.

Same. I'm really scratching my head about it. He came across as a complete sleaze to me. The completely unnecessary references to her playing prostitutes and strippers early in her career. Why would he mention those roles? His voice even changed when he said it.

He's lied and lied and lied, so why are people so quick to believe everything he said last night? He's completely driven by a pay day. 3 bankruptcies later he's clearly poor with money and thinks his rich daughter should be funding him.

He's got a dreadful history with the rest of his family too. I just find it weird he's getting so much sympathy.

I, too, do not agree with the Daily Telegraph analysis of the TM TV interview.

In fact I have not made up my mind about Thomas Markle Snr. at all.

and katiegoestoaldi MN has asked that posters stop speculating about the mental health of individuals .I presume ( I'm not sure ) that is referring to talk about narcissism

No, it came in response to lilybetsy's comment that she feared for Harry's mental health.

OVienna

And yes it is inexcusable there are wrong dates in the programme
Oh dear. I wonder if he's getting the dates all jumbled up?
MM met Trevor in 2004 so maybe when he said "married" he meant 'met' (although he was still out by a year)?

He then probably said Suits started in 2011 as he got mixed up with the actual date of the marriage.

It's not a good impression. He is normally just at home so I wonder if 6 days of being interviewed was overwhelming for him?

For Harry to never meet his father in law is just bad manners at the very least.

I'm not sure. He could only go by what she told him. Imagine the post on MN:

I have a difficult relationship with my family. I've been LC or NC with various members of it for years. I've recently got engaged and we're planning our wedding. My fiance is insisting on meeting my family and inviting them to the wedding. I'm not happy about doing this because of issues in the past. AIBU to think he should respect my wishes on this?

Oh ,ok thanks myimaginary I wasn't clear .How do you know ,did MNHQ explain ?

Guardian article about M&H being influencers

Several points: they could make cash in the short term, but have to be careful not to tarnish the Royal Brand.
They are moving into Kardashian, not Obama territory.

Former a Guardian royal correspondent said:

I can see a lot of parties with Harry standing in the corner and people saying, "There's the bloke who used to be in the royal family"

The trouble is that Meghan really wants to be in Kardashian territory.

Someone upthread mentioned about Oprah being reported as being supportive . I've seen an Oprah show which she does with Dr Phil about something called B.A.I.T.E.R.S. which is an acronym ( B = backstabber,etc ) . They also talk about the nefarious 15, which are the characteristics of BAITERS. Maybe Oprah should re watch some of her old shows . The clips of these shows are still up on Youtube.

I have not made up my mind about Thomas Markle Snr. at all.

It's difficult isn't it? There have definitely been wrongs done on both sides. He seemed like a loving but maybe irresponsible parent. Didn't like the dynamic between him and Meghan, it seemed unhealthily dependant on his side. On the other hand he spent time with her, indulged her passion for performing, provided her with the best education he could afford and was an actively supportive parent while she was there. The drama teacher clearly knew and had time for him.

The money thing though. There may be good reasons why none of the family (except Meghan) seem to be able to manage their money but it's a recurring theme.

In an earlier post someone alluded to his prolific purchasing of lottery tickets. Was that a hint that TM might have/had a gambling problem? That might make him desperate and prone to poor decision making.

I'm also unsure about TM, but I think Meghan is very like him and that can cause clashes.

It came straight after the post, peredito.

Ok thanks .That post mentioned narcissism a few times so I thought it was that .

Makes more sense that it was about Harry .

The only thing I would say about a Thomas Markle is that he seemed like a drinker to me. I got that vibe. I am not sure why.

I wonder whether he is the type that is absolutely lovely when sober - but a different kettle of fish when he has had a few drinks. Who knows.

@OVienna
I've just had another look at that article you linked and I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion. I thought you were referring to TM having got the dates wrong so I thought he'd got confused. However, the article states:
"The programme broadcast that they got hitched in 2005, but it was six years later that they walked down the aisle at the Jamaica Inn in Ocho Rios, Jamaica."
"They divorced two years later in 2013."

"Another inaccurate date was about when Meghan, 38, began playing Rachel Zane in Suits - the documentary said it was in 2007 - but it was actually 2011."
So, without going back to watch again I'm not sure whether the article is stating that Channel 5 got those dates wrong or TM did.

Either way, I agree they should have ensured no inaccuracies in the dates.