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.

The picture is dreadful - at least of Harry. He looks odd.

“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.”

They certainly seem to look for trouble.

They don't have to. The haters and racists follow them.🤷‍♀️

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

The first photo is Harry as seen on the James Corden piece earlier this year (when they had tea on the top deck of a bus) and the second is his Time magazine photo. There’s definitely a big change in the hairline, whether photoshop or surgery!

He's never been as bald as that, that's the Photoshop!

Oh yes he is! Here’s the Diana. Memorial unveiling, mere weeks ago. (I’ve also attached a link to live footage of it, since you’ll doubtless claim this picture is also photoshopped….)

news.sky.com/story/princess-diana-statue-prince-harry-and-prince-william-reunite-for-unveiling-ceremony-at-kensington-palace-12346409

A quote from Spectactor article on the "Time" photos nails it on the head - "political or economical solutions" - no, just discussions about "compassion".

What a pair of vain pompous numpties they are.

"To the woke elite, social class and wealth inequalities are barely worth considering. If pushed, they shy away from talking about economic or political solutions – Heaven forbid! – but prefer discussing the need for yet more ‘compassion’. They’ll happily be photographed demonstrating equality, or make a speech via Zoom, but actually rescind the titles and inherited wealth, give up the private jet flights and the designer clothes? Not on your life. Charges of hypocrisy never land on this thick-skinned group who seem to think genuine lifestyle change is reserved for the little people.

So perhaps Time magazine deserves praise for publishing such sycophancy. It offers us yet more hilarious insight into the bizarre world-view of the woke elite. Harry and Meghan’s loyal fans will no doubt lap it up. The rest of us, meanwhile, can enjoy a laugh at the oblivious duo’s expense."

Thank you soooo much for the correction Serenster, I don't doubtless do anything though

Yeah marmalade I knew that Time mag award would trigger a few people so am loving it!

If someone shows me I’m wrong, Rousette, I apologise. It takes all sorts, though.

@Serenster why do you spend so much time cross referencing information on M&H a couple you clearly despise. I can't imagine why someone would devote this amount of time to a couple they dislike for whatever reason. Don't get me wrong if a post is inaccurate it should be corrected, I just wonder how you square what you really think about M&H against the amount of internet searching you must do on the threads that mentioned their name.
Not sure if you were the one who said they felt indifferent towards M&H but didn't like the one sided angle of posters saying they can do no wrong. In which case your posts seem to be the same just from the opposite direction.

The constant presentation of made/up statements as facts annoys me, @PreparationPreparationPrep and so when I read something that doesn’t sound right, I will check it. As others said on another thread recently, it really doesn’t take very long on google to check most things.

I do this whenever I read something that strikes me as incorrect, no matter the angle the poster is coming from - experience however has shown me that it’s more often the pro-Meghan and Harry posters who have the loosest relationship to the facts.

As to why - well, clearly there are some posters who don’t care whether what they post is accurate, so long as it supports their position. I don’t think we should just have to let that slide.

Ok it's just I don't remember seeing you pick up on any incorrect statements made against them.

"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.”

What does 'run towards the struggle' mean in terms of what they actually do?

(I'm still not clear what Archwell actually does, either)

I just find it weird when anyone has to prove 'he' really going bald' when who cares?!
I love bald men lol

It's like saying a woman is getting fat or older or whatever.
The character is what matters and whilst H can be a bit of a twerp at times I sure admire his character compared to PA at the moment

,neat shoehorn in of Andrew there

I agree that there is nothing wrong with going bald ( as long as you don’t opt for a combover 🤣) but I think the point that @Serenster was making was that H had not been photo shopped to look *more^ bald as Roussette had suggested.

Yeah, I got that loud and clear!

To be clear, I not at all bothered about the state of Harry’s hairline either . What does annoy me is the constant posting of things that aren’t factual at all to support the narrative that the poster wants to support. Just on this thread alone, which is only three pages, we’ve had:

• Meghan has been criticised for something that Kate also did (Subtext: Meghan gets treated more harshly than Kate when they do the same things, because racism. The truth is Kate verifiably never did what Meghan did, so the point is moot).

• Meghan and Harry’s position in Time’s 100 most influential people was as a result of a public vote (subtext: See! They are really popular! Whereas they were actually not mentioned in the one award that is voted for by the public - they were chosen by Time’s editors).

• Someone has mischievously photoshopped a photo of Prince Harry to make him look balder than he really is (Likely subtext: people are manipulating images to make Prince Harry look silly. No, he really is that bald, but has obviously made a deliberate decision to conceal that in a heavily photoshopped series of images - so he’s making himself look silly).

It is ironic that in a thread specifically titled “Admit you were wrong posters” aimed at those who aren’t ardent supporters of the Sussexes, these corrections have been completely ignored, or responded to with sarcasm. If the facts don’t actually support what you want to say, maybe don’t say it??

Serenster I have already acknowledged the baldy bit! What does it matter?
It doesn't.

Do you imagine that everyone on the cover of magazines aren't photoshopped apart from Harry?
Ummm... they are all photoshopped in some way. So they all make themselves look silly then, if we go by your statement.

@Serenster

If someone shows me I’m wrong, Rousette, I apologise. It takes all sorts, though.

Your fact checking is very flawed and as said, one way.

What you did was take pictures of Harry's back, when I clearly said, he has always had hair at the front. You do not disprove that he was always fully bald - say like his brother, right up to the front. So that is not 'fact checking'.

You did the same 'fact checking' about a rumour which I said will likely be started on some bottom feeding site. You then took an article that does not once state it's source - no palace sources, close friends etc. Which to me Cleary means they lifted the story from a bottom feeder.

You have done this quite often. Giving 'corrections' that are not really corrections.

@Roussette, of course the bald bit isn’t particularly important. Of course I fully accept that all magazine covers and articles are photoshopped, sometimes to ludicrous extents.

The three pictures they published here, to my mind, fall into the ludicrously over-photoshopped category. And, given these were specifically shot for the magazine and so presumably the Sussexes had approval rights, it’s clear this is the image they want to portray to the world. (Publications like People/Heat/Hello! Covers etc take publicly available images of the people they put on their covers and then tweak them as their own editorial teams see fit, without the subjects having any input. It’s the shoots like this, and Kate’s Vogue cover etc where the subjects will actually have input into how the final product looks).

Meghan has been criticised for something that Kate also did (Subtext: Meghan gets treated more harshly than Kate when they do the same things, because racism. The truth is Kate verifiably never did what Meghan did, so the point is moot)

Didn't some news outlet do a story comparing the headlines Meghan got to the headlines Kate got when they did exactly the same things?

Can we rename this thread “Heir and Hair”?

Well...Serenster admit it... you were always going to dislike any pic of them!

@AnnunciataZ. Yes indeed, ridiculous bias

Not at all, Rousette! I really liked the one they published in Time last year.

Oh good! Glad to hear it!

I will say, forgetting Harry and his hair or lack of it I didn't like the pic, he looked too short lol
However, I loved her jumpsuit and want to look like that in a jumpsuit, as opposed to me looking like a man in a boiler suit, in one 🤣

Yes, @AnnunciataZ it's a well publicised article and I don't know if posters think we have memories of a goldfish. It still gets quoted up to this day.

www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

Not sure why H&M are singled out, when everyone in that magazine as well as every glossy magazine cover gets potrayed in a glossy manner. It is not done as much as people are making out. They both went to a hairdresser and had make up obviously, but their bodies have not been altered, mm's freckles and their blemishes are there etc. The picture looks sharp and glossy as it should for a magazine cover.