FGS @Lucaslucas1612 You truly think you are the font of wisdom don't you, and that you are the bringer of new light, information and arguments that I've never heard of before, don't you? I hate to tell you, but I, along with others on here, have heard and rebutted every single one of your 'points' over and over and over and over again to at least 50+ other posters, you are not bringing anything new. That, is the point.
FGS coke you really are determined to miss the point of everyone's post aren't you? This is the last time I will engage with you as you just don't seem to want to understand what others are pointing out.
A) use private jets continuously to get around and go on holidays whilst telling others we all need to make changes, we are all responsible for the climate emergency. Saying that they have planted some trees so it's ok.
They have rarely used private jets, but in the most memorable case I believe you are talking about, they were already there and Elton John gave them a lift back in his private jet. See, what you are doing is putting them against impossible hurdles they cannot pass. You are playing at ideological purism just to point score. No one could possibly pass your test. What you are suggesting is no one should advocate for the environment, because there is not one single person that can be 100% ideological purist in practice - not even Greta; not even the Attenboroughs. Obviously, due to the position Meghan (and Harry) holds, it is not possible for them to take public transport. So they fail at the first hurdle. Your position of ideological purism is dangerous, and would see no one advocate for the environment because they could never pass your impossible hurdle test, and the natural result of that is people won't want to be criticised, so that means we would have less/nobody advocating for the environment. Your position is opportunistic at it's best, ideological purism and dangerous at it's worst. No one can be 100% pure. All we can do, is advocate the best we can, and even someone needing to take private jets is better to advocate than not advocate. No one can pass your impossible ideological purist high jump. No one. No one on this earth. But the solution isn't for those who are in the position to advocate to be silenced by the masses like yourself. It is for those who can lend a voice - knowing we are all fallible, to do so as much as they can.
B) complain about being treated unfairly and having lies said about them and having no right to reply. Then doing a very public interview saying all sorts of criticisms about the British press, the RF and 'the firm'.
The RF do indeed have the right to reply. They always have. The Palace has the right to make Official Statements about anything, at any time. If they choose not to, that's their choice. However they have always had the right of reply. As Harry has said and indeed backed up by other journos, the RF have galas and dinners with the press and have and are able to influence or 'bury' stories. A British journo on a previous Harry thread has confirmed this. However, when Harry and Meghan were working members of the RF, they had to run everything by the Queen, or The Palace. They had no right of reply, unless the Queen gave permission. And the Queen can authorise any statement she wishes. Stories have been rebutted before by The Palace.
C) complain that the RF are racist and they have been singled out and treated badly by them and the press and the British public for the colour of her and her sons skin but then sign a contract with P & Q.
This really shows how desperate and petty you are being here. Not withstanding the fact that the Queen herself has a contract with P & G (which I bet you either didn't even know about until this thread, or didn't care), a skin cosmetics company has nothing to do with racism, any more than skin tanning companies or solariums have to do with racism. It is a desperate reach and reflects very poorly on you. We don't know the reason every user chooses the creams. The point is that skin whitening in itself is not a bad thing. Only people who need a reason to nitpick will grasp at that. Is it possible people who want white skin will use it? Sure. Just as people who want darker skin will buy fake tan. Or use tanning beds. It's a product. If people choose to be whiter or darker in skin tone, that's their choice. It doesn't have to mean racism or anything deeper than what it is.
D) say they are being hounded by the press and have no privacy etc so we re moving and stepping down from the RF. fair enough. Then use their titles as much as they can to further their own causes, do high profile interviews, sign tv deals etc but don't want their dc pictured going to school.
This myth of 'having no privacy' has been debunked to death on here. Nowhere did Harry or Meghan say they wanted privacy as a reason for moving. They never mentioned privacy. What they said they wanted was to be able to have some control over the narrative (a previously mentioned, everything must be okayed by the Queen), and the timing, and they wanted to escape the daily grind of the British press. At no stage have they said privacy was a reason.
You see, I didn't miss any 'point', because you never made any point, to begin with. I have been doing this for awhile and I have seen your talking points at least 600+ times on this forum alone. You seem to think you were the first to bring up these.....talking points. I and many others have seen these same talking points over and over and over and rebutted them over and over and over. I can't miss a point, when nothing you have provided is a point. Fellow posters and I have seen it all before, you seem to think you're the first one, you're presenting something new, and I just missed it. I didn't. You added no points, all you've added is false claims, half truths and distortions and in a couple of places, outright fabrications. Nothing you've said is new. I didn't miss any point. You never had a point to begin with. You've missed our points, our rebuttals, and our explanations for why your assumptions are wrong.