Meghan Markle has ‘warped sense of reality,’ Vanity Fair writer says

[blitheringblackberries]

Interesting article

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/03/29/meghan-markle-has-warped-sense-of-reality-isnt-on-the-level-vanity-fair-writer-says/

So my post stands. Thanks

The poster doesn't believe his phone was hacked.

I wouldn't like to talk about your 'little habits' !!

“I'm astonished on MN how many people think they can offer opinion as though it were evidence.”

*So my post stands. Thanks

The poster doesn't believe his phone was hacked.*

🤣🤣

No. You accused that poster of denying hacking just because they "don't like Harry". They've not denied he was hacked/bugged, they've questioned which method was used. It's still just as awful be it phone or car.

@Roussette

It truly is astonishing.

As is the lengths pp will go to to explain away evidence of collusion between the RF and tabloids, including their most obvious hiring policies.

Nope.

I said... so you don't think Harry's phone was hacked. Hacking. Not bugging a car. I didn't say about bugging a car. Read back!

Some like to pretend that there is some huge media/RF conspiracy behind Harry and Meghan's unpopularity. But everyone else knows that the real reason is their own behavior - especially the lies and hypocricy.

This article is interesting because it highlights one of the reasons for Meghan Markle's unpopularity: her complete lack of authenticity.

As someone else said, if you're a C-list actor, people aren't going to fact-check your anecdotes in interviews. If you're marrying into the RF, scrutiny is inevitable.

The media were all over Kate's family in the lead-up to her wedding. They had a field day with her dodgy uncle Gary - and what did she do? She invited him to the wedding.

Meghan's behavior from the outset suggested something was off. Then her siblings were telling the media all sorts of nasty things about her, some of which turned out to be true.

I think Meghan and her sister Samantha as extremely similar, personality-wise.

*Nope.

I said... so you don't think Harry's phone was hacked. Hacking. Not bugging a car. I didn't say about bugging a car. Read back!*

Oh dear.

I read what you wrote. The poster was not denying Harry had his privacy violated. They were responding to someone else who used hacking, they responded saying they didn't believe it was a phone hacking but the car being bugged. Not because they hate Harry, as was your accusation, but because they were establishing fact.

Bugging/hacking, it's the same devious way of violating privacy with I'm sure the same outcome. Private conversations overheard and used to see newspapers. Which that poster was not denying and in fact even on the post they said it was disgusting.

My point is you removed part of the post which changed the context. The bit you posted, along with your own words made it appear the poster was out and out denying anything had happened in the realms of hacking/bugging. You stated they were doing this because they "don't like Harry". This is patently untrue, as proven by the next sentence (and the rest of the post).

Interesting how you use the quote function often yet didn't on that post.

Grrr bold fail!!

And just for the sake of transparency, this is the full post we're discussing.

Whatever! Posters do far worse than me on here.

I have had deleted posts that illustrate that. But fine. Say what you want.

An alternative view on why this man was employed by the palace was precisely because he had the right contacts, knew how the system worked and could operate it to the benefit of his new employers

Hell of a risk to take though; if those contacts are kept green there's no knowing what might be passed on and how this could end up - and that's quite apart from the issue of how it looks

I think the podcaster has every right to talk about her life and experiences, just as Harry has done. It’s fair for a journalist to pick it up and run with it as-well. I don’t think there’s anything nefarious here. I read the article, it didn’t convince me Megan is delusional or whatever the title said.

Just wanted to say that. I tried to read all the comments but i got lost in all the bickering. 😬

A hell of a risk I agree.

Well you know what they say. Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer! Who knows the strategy?

I'm astonished on MN how many people think they can offer opinion as though it were evidence.

I didn't say it was "evidence", it is my opinion.

You can talk, anyhow:

She also puts on an act which is as fake as they come, and hijacks woke causes for her own ends. She is basically a shallow individual who knows how to work the media to her own ends. Those ends being fame and money. She was lucky enough (or shall we say connived enough) to marry a man with no honour or decency and precarious mental health ripe for someone like MM to manipulate.

Your opinion based on zero evidence.

Her aim from the get go was hollywood fame and fortune and Harry was a means to an end. She is clever enough to employ good PR teams and clever business people to run the very dodgy Archwell, which is not technically a foundation, but parades as one.

Your opinion based on zero evidence. See, we can all do it?

You pontificate as if your pompous opinions are always fact, but it isn't.

*they aren't.

@purpledalmation to be fair, her PR people are not that great - given she’s tanked like a lead weight 😂

Meghan's behavior from the outset suggested something was off. Then her siblings were telling the media all sorts of nasty things about her, some of which turned out to be true.

So much for prev posters saying she was liked at the start and her behaviour was the reason for the constant ‘criticism’. Her siblings did not grow up with her and rarely met her. That is actual fact. Meghan just had Samantha’s ridiculous case dismissed. The judge said Samantha’s own evidence disproved her claim 😂 The article is complete nonsense.

Whatever! Posters do far worse than me on here.

😂It's OK to misrepresent, as long as other people do worse?

I didn't misrepresent. I said the poster disputed phone hacking.

No misrepresenttion there.

😂😂😂 She has indeed! I think she keeps sacking them in the hope someone can actually do a Lazarus act on them.

*I didn't misrepresent. I said the poster disputed phone hacking.

No misrepresenttion there.*

You removed a key part of their post and said they were denying it because of their dislike of Harry. When in fact, they acknowledged he had his privacy violated. It wasn't said in a 'that absolutely didn't happen way' it was clearly more of a 'I'm under the impression this is how it actually happened rather than that'. What's wrong with that? After all they've still acknowledged something untoward happened and denigrated the perpetrators. It's like if someone broke a window kicking a ball at it and someone else said 'I don't believe it was a ball, I believe it was a stone that broke the window'. They're not disputing the broken window - or in this case violation of privacy - they're querying the means by which the window was broken.

People say they want debate, then when a perfect post to debate pops up they repost it without context and accuse the OP of having nefarious intentions.

@michaelmacrae She lies... a court proved this. Woke causes for her own ends... racism when she lied about Archies skin colour. Environmentalism.... when she takes private planes everywhere. Feminism ..when she uses men to reach her goals, then discards them when she's reached them (poor first husband and discarded bf when she met PH), Shallow.. as in the Tig (can you get more shallow than an internet 'influencer'? Her aim to get to Hollywood...well she's pretty near there and has hollywood friends like oprah and Helen D. and to cap it all I suggest you go look at all the documentation around Archwell and the £3 m of £30 m paid to good causes. Look at the tax returns etc. Its way too complicated to go into here, but dodgy AF.

OK!

Hope you enjoy your Friday night whilst nit picking and splitting hairs about someone's post on a forum!

I said that phone hacking was disputed. Correct. ✅