Meghan WAS banned from Balmoral after Queen’s death

[SnottyLottie]

In his book, Harry also claims that his father told him that Meghan should not come to Balmoral. The Queen was staying at her Scottish estate when she died last September.

The prince wrote: "Then my father called again. He told me I was welcome at Balmoral, but… without her. He started to explain his reasons, but they didn't make any sense at all, and it was disrespectful as well. I did not tolerate it from him.

"Don't even think about talking about my wife like that.

"Repentant, he said, stammering, that he simply didn't want the place to be full of people. Nobody's wife was going to go, not even Kate, he told me, so Meg shouldn't either."

source: news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-asked-his-father-not-to-marry-camilla-as-moment-he-was-told-about-his-mothers-car-accident-revealed-in-book-12780602

You realise they are TABLOID reports. Where are the OFFICIAL statements from the Royal Family, on their letterhead, posted on the RF site? I want official, formal statements. Not DM headlines that 'say' the RF stated something. Don't post a mishmash of DM headlines again. I want the official statements by the actual RF.

Those are statement issued to the press by BP. Hence they are in the press, not on the royal site, because the press is what most people will read. Why should they also put something on the royal website?

I mean, I can see what you're saying. You want official website announcements on headed paper otherwise you won't believe them. Despite the statements being issued to the press for the widest possible circulation, you're not going to believe them because the statements weren't issued in the way you think they should have been. Therefore, your thinking goes, the RF can't possibly have been serious about defending MM.

But where is the proof that they are statements BP gave to the press? Tabloids saying 'sources' at BP said..... is not evidence of any statement ever being made, at all.

But where is the proof that they are statements BP gave to the press? Tabloids saying 'sources' at BP said..... is not evidence of any statement ever being made, at all

<sarcasm alert on>No, you're right. Tabloids must have made them all up and the RF colluded with them in the deception because they were playing such a long game. Spending millions on the wedding, the titles, the homes and all the rest was just throwing dust in our eyes and blind us to their evil wiles <sarcasm alert off>

You're not going to believe whatever the RF and the tabloids say anyway, are you, so what does it matter what statements they issue and how?

But why is it any different to the statements which Harry and Meghan supporters appear to deplore 'a palace source' etc, and the palace are briefing against them yet if it's supportive it's a lie and it's not really the palace.

This is not how any press office works. (Not just the palace ones, any one) You want those, you’ll have to change the entire system. Good luck with that…

A press office would have names. If it were official, a name (such as Press Secretary Jane White). Anyone who isn't gullible knows the word 'sources' sans a name, is a made up lie. It's like when "sources said" Jennifer Aniston was pregnant, around 314 times.

"sources" is code word for made up by the tabloid. Surely most people by now know that.

So how come 'sources' are RF briefing against Harry and Meghan if you're a fan of Harry and Meghan, yet 'sources' are a tabloid made up lie when it's the RF issuing supportive statements for Harry and Meghan?

I suspect Harry knows who those people were briefing against him. He even spoke of the agreement that William and Harry said about this.

Surely, to any reasonable person "sources" is a mixture of truth and lies. Newspapers have an incentive to make stuff up, but press offices have an incentive to reveal information in a covert way.

Either way, the tabloids were either getting secret briefings from the palace in support of Meghan (which is against the H&M narrative) or the tabloids were making stuff up in support of Meghan (which is also against the H&M narrative).

WHO CARES?

Anyone who knows anything about dealing with the press means “off the record” comments are given all day, every day, and mean the words can be quoted but they can’t be attributed to a named individual. That is an officially sanctioned comment and is quite a different thing to a leak.

Press Office names may not be given regularly in any event because the staff are not speaking personally, they are speaking on behalf of their employer. So they often get quoted as their employer: “Buckingham Palace said” or “Downing Street said…” . If you look at the letterhead press releases you claim you want, they are phrased as “Statement from the Press secretary of XYZ”. They aren’t signed.

I worked in various press offices for 30 years. On the handful of occasions I or one of my staff was mentioned by name by the media the editor got a dressing down they never forgot. Press office staff are never identified by name. Never.

Jason Knauf was the communications secretary to H&M. He’s really well known!

Yes he is. Who else can you name from any of the royal press offices? How often do you see press office staff named in news items?

@Blossomtoes
Was. He left. Lee Thompson. Victoria O’Byrne. They are all in the public domain and are employed to ensure the Royal image is maintained.

“Sources” can be just about anyone. The government has “sources”. Meghan had friends who were “sources”. It’s generally people who have titbits or decent robust info from the subject. If it’s blatantly untrue, expect the press to be sued. As, mostly, they are not, expect the “sources” to have accurate info!!

“Page 32 of this thread, 13.08 yesterday afternoon - lots of instances of the palace issuing statements in support of Meghan. Go and have a look. It doesn't support your narrative though”

yeah, I looked closely at over half of those tabloid headlines yesterday. A Very tiresome endeavour, and now I’m very surprised that it’s been presented as true. I googled the headlines, and found the ‘originals’ on the internet. Some are doubled up on, (exact same tabloid shot in 2 of the yellow squares ), some full of the usual ‘source’ bullshit. One looked like it could be legitimate (but it was about avocados or something - I’ve forgotten), and there was the one from Harry’s office,(already mentioned here, presented twice if I recall correctly).

I didn’t search for them all, but was not impressed because they aren’t all legitimate denials from the palace, although it’s been presented as such.

But all the 'anti' stuff from palace sources is of course believable? Okeydoke.

Why do you keep reading this drivel. Read a broadsheet!