Admit you were wrong posters?

[antsy]

So are those posters who were frothing about how outrageous it was that Harry and Meghan's baby was going to be born by caesarian on Prince Philip's birthday, June the 10th, admit they were wrong?
This was alleged to be another attention-seeking move on their part.
But look, the baby was born on an ordinary date and was a natural birth.

'This was alleged to be another attention-seeking move on their part'

You're right op, sorry I do apologise. The attention seeking stunt wasn't booking a section on his birthday afterall!

@YetAnotherSpartacus

I don't understand the vitriol leveraged against them (or why it is allowed to stand here) and I wish them well. I guess some people just have sad lives.

I agree with you.

I also heard nothing at all about their baby being born by C section on Prince Philip's birthday. What a strange idea, as if.

@Serenster

I wasn’t one of the posters “frothing” about the story, but would note that there were definitely press reports out over the weekend saying that “sources” had revealed that Meghan’s due date was 10 June (this date would also have been Phillip’s 100th birthday). This was not information previously known to anyone, and it attracted worldwide press coverage.

In reality, as we now know, the baby had actually already been born at that point, which was announced later on the weekend. So - there are a couple of options. One: the due date story was complete fiction, made up by a journalist to give them something to write about. Another possibility is that the story was released by Harry and Meghan as part of a planned PR strategy that would seed a story about them to get them on all the news platforms, follow it up with the actual birth news, and then release some nice puff pieces about the gifts and congratulations they are receiving, and how they have zoomed with the Queen etc, in order to give them several days at the top of the news cycle.

In case you think that latter scenario is unlikely, it is the exact playbook they followed for Archie’s birth. They announced Meghan had gone into labour several hours after Archie was born, and then once all the outlets had the story running, dropped the news of his birth.

But exactly the same thing happened with Catherine. They said she'd gone in to labour only after the baby was born. That happened with all 3. No one complained about that.

That’s not what happened at all, @Rosebel.

With Prince George, Buckingham Palace announced on the morning of Monday 22 July 2013 that the Duchess had gone into hospital at 6am that morning, and was in the early stages of labour. George was then born at 4.24pm that afternoon, by which stage there were loads of people outside the hospital. His birth wasn’t announced publicly until around 8pm that evening, though. The parents took him home the next evening.

Charlotte was born at 8.34am on 2 May 2015. I haven’t found a time for the announcement from the Palace (if you check through the Cambridge Official Twitter account you will be able to find it, though) but a journalist who covered the birth has written that “on Saturday May 2, an early morning email from Kensington Palace sent me racing to the hospital. Kate had been admitted in labour at around 6am” Charlotte’s birth was announced just after 11am and her parents took her home that same evening.

Louis was born at 11.01am on 23 April 2018. Again, the Palace had made a statement at 8.22 that same morning that the Duchess had gone to hospital and was in the early stages of labour. His birth was announced later that day and they left hospital with him later.

Now that I have a bit more time, I’ve found the tweet announcing that the Duchess was in labour with Charlotte - sent 2 hours before she was born (that one was obviously a quick delivery!).

Serenster I'm glad you are able to write facts and back them up.

I see Rosebel hasn't been back to admit she was wrong!

While I think H&M are a PITA, I've never "frothed" in my life. Does one have to chew soap o get started?

I really couldn't care less, other than to hope there was no repeat of the nonsense surrounding little Archie's birth.

The trouble with shielding and obfuscating the facts around such things is that it inevitably leads to people getting to my stage of "Meh, Who cares?" I'm not sure if that's what they want or not.

@Serenster

I wasn’t one of the posters “frothing” about the story, but would note that there were definitely press reports out over the weekend saying that “sources” had revealed that Meghan’s due date was 10 June (this date would also have been Phillip’s 100th birthday). This was not information previously known to anyone, and it attracted worldwide press coverage.

In reality, as we now know, the baby had actually already been born at that point, which was announced later on the weekend. So - there are a couple of options. One: the due date story was complete fiction, made up by a journalist to give them something to write about. Another possibility is that the story was released by Harry and Meghan as part of a planned PR strategy that would seed a story about them to get them on all the news platforms, follow it up with the actual birth news, and then release some nice puff pieces about the gifts and congratulations they are receiving, and how they have zoomed with the Queen etc, in order to give them several days at the top of the news cycle.

In case you think that latter scenario is unlikely, it is the exact playbook they followed for Archie’s birth. They announced Meghan had gone into labour several hours after Archie was born, and then once all the outlets had the story running, dropped the news of his birth.

You should have ended at journalist made it up instead of creating an unlikely scenario about the Sussexes who do not need the press to talk about their baby, as they are being hounded as it is.

They also do not speak to British press, so how you conclude they leaked about Archie is beyond me. What you wrote also does not even make sense.

People "conclude" that anonymous sources are authentic because there have been way too many stories put out that way that couldn't have been anything else, often with timing that's in extremely poor taste. The wreath at Philip's funeral comes to mind. Meghan admitted to doing it with Finding Freedom (despite repeatedly denying it publicly), and I have no doubt v.2 will be more of the same. If they don't want people to believe that anonymous "leaks" come from them, they can stop releasing information that way any time they choose. Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

PurpleOkapi taking a break from defending Prince Andrew to hop on this thread and criticise Meghan over a funeral wreath story. Sounds about right.

Sorry, should I have started blathering about Andrew on a thread about Meghan? Apparently that's the thing to do now.

I don’t remember the thread but I do think that H and M do a lot for dramatic effect.

I'm on threads all over the auction. Is there a limit?

Sorry, should I have started blathering about Andrew on a thread about Meghan?

No, it just struck me as a bit odd to criticise them over not very much and after coming to the defence of an alleged rapist. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to H&M (who aren't accused of any crime) it seems.

People who care so much about these two parasites need to leave them to it.
They don't add to anything to anybody or anything, even their own families!! They don't have jobs or have a role in society.

They are solely focused on their own needs and feed off the attention and money they get pursuing those needs.

Gosh, at least some celebrities bring entertainment to us, these two bring bugger all 😆

@Aspiringmatriarch

Sorry, should I have started blathering about Andrew on a thread about Meghan?

No, it just struck me as a bit odd to criticise them over not very much and after coming to the defence of an alleged rapist. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to H&M (who aren't accused of any crime) it seems.

That seems…perfectly normal to me Aspiringmatriarch? People have all sorts of views, positive and negative about Harry & Meghan’s observed day to day activities and actions, as they also do about Andrew (his general arrogance, his ridiculous interview, his lack of judgment regarding Epstein, his movements this summer etc etc). I don’t think you can say that Andrew hasn’t been criticised fairly roundly for the things we have seen him do, and those that have been reported?

When it comes to more serious matters, like actual allegations before the court around conduct where none of us know what really happened, people are a bit more circumspect. As you would expect, surely?

That seems…perfectly normal to me Aspiringmatriarch?

I'm sure it does as you're doing the same thing.

Can't quite get my head around criticising them for made up nonsense and then going into bat for Andrew on another thread. But each to their own i guess.

Totally off topic but I just had share my amusement. H&M are listed in Time Magazines 100 most influential people edition today, all well and good although the blurb about their activism is some classic word salad.

The pictures though! Somebody went waaaaay overboard with the photoshopping, Harry get's the lion's share of it. He's mysteriously developed a ridiculously thick, bushy head of hair again out of nowhere. The photoshopping is so extensive that they look like their images have been superimposed on the background because the editing has made them look so unnatural.

Did you actually look at the other pictures of other nominees? They all look the same. A classic glossy mag and Time is making money out of it as they are selling canvas etc.

The votes were by the public, lots did not make it through. The foreword is from the Head of Central Kitchen - think he knows what he is talking about.

@Rainbunny

Totally off topic but I just had share my amusement. H&M are listed in Time Magazines 100 most influential people edition today, all well and good although the blurb about their activism is some classic word salad.

The pictures though! Somebody went waaaaay overboard with the photoshopping, Harry get's the lion's share of it. He's mysteriously developed a ridiculously thick, bushy head of hair again out of nowhere. The photoshopping is so extensive that they look like their images have been superimposed on the background because the editing has made them look so unnatural.

His head in that photo looks as though it's come from another picture - it's a little bit too big. Weird.

And they've made his hair too orange.

dontyouwish2 I haven't criticised their inclusion in Time Magazine's list at all. I just commented on the really bad photoshopping and I have looked at the other people's pictures, most of them are nowhere near as badly photoshopped.

I'm not blaming H&M for the bad photoshop either, that would be Time Magazine editing. I remain however, amused at the way they've made Harry look.

The votes were by the public, lots did not make it through

Nope. Only the winner of the Reader's Poll is chosen by the general public. The link below states TIME’s editors ultimately select the honorees on the TIME100 list.

Here’s the link to the Reader’s Poll for 2021 - won by Britney Spears. The Sussexes are not mentioned in the results.

time.com/6096468/time-100-reader-poll-results-2021/

Can't see what you are on about myself. Harry has always had more hair towards the front.

As for accusing Jose Andres of word salad............ Sounds short, accurate and straightforward to me.

“In a world where everyone has an opinion about people they don’t know, the duke and duchess have compassion for the people they don’t know. They don’t just opine. They run toward the struggle.”