"They don't just report the news, they create it": on Meghan, Harry and the Press

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

The much trumpeted story of the Dior deal is such a classic tabloid creation, isn't it.

I enjoyed this Grazia article that lays bare the utter nuttiness.

First the tabloids report the rumours as though they are true.

"Meghan to sign with Dior!"

No sources, just speculation based on Meghan and Harry wearing clothes by Dior a handful of times.

Then when both the Sussexes and Dior report that the rumours are not true, (Dior spokesperson said they are "nonplussed" about where the rumours came from) they spin it into "Meghan Rebuffed by Dior!"

This has also happened with Meghan's much rumoured run for the presidency: Robert Jobson actually wrote, with a straight face, in his book published in April 2023, that she was absolutely, certainly and most definitely going to run for president in 2024.

I mean any critical person would realise that the timelines don't make sense, she would have needed a fundraising Super PAC by the time the book was published, and in any event, Democrats don't normally challenge a sitting president ... but hey ho, Meghan is running for president in 2024 because a "Royal Correspondent" said so (and they are so knowledgeable about the American presidency) and a tabloid published it.

And it's the same with The Tig. She is going to launch it any day now. She wants to rival Gwyneth Paltrow! Story after story, based on nothing but speculation.

Rumour after rumour, speculation published as "news" to create media stories about a woman whose plans are not known to the tabloids because she and her husband made it crystal clear even when they were in the UK that they don't engage with the tabloid press.

And there are no "palace sources" who can speak with any kind of plausibility about the Sussexes, so the tabloids make it up as they go along, whipping up headline after headline, driving their readers into a frenzy over things they create ...

While ignoring the important news, like the damning questions by the judge in the Mirror Group case, who asked why the journalists, among them Piers Morgan, have not come to court to testify in the phone hacking trial ...

Oh no, that's not as important to report on as Meghan's fictitious Dior deal, completely implausible rumours of her presidential ambitions, and the speculated upon plans to best Gwyneth Paltrow!

https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/in-the-news/meghan-markle-smear-campaign-dior-spotify-faking-interviews/

as I have been told on here before it's not up to me to link to articles that talk about this.

Who cares when she went into labour or what they told the press... really...

They had a lovely little boy, they did a photo op of their choosing, the public got to see how excited they were to be parents, and a footage of little Archie. Surely that's all that matters.

Sorry but yet again you have exaggerated and spun off into other areas. I don't see the need to further explain what is an opinion that many have. You don't agree - that's fine.

Yes that is fine for you - others not so. It happens.

Which is what they were refused.

So they slotted in their own little thing in the back garden between rehearsals with the archbishop - now touted as lies, despite they never mentioned witnesses or signing of anything. So clearly a heart to heart marriage for them only. The Bishop did not say this never took place, he said, there were confidential meetings between him and them.

Later, we were told the big wedding brought in millions anyway.

Royalists?

There is the version, you know, that M was in talks to sell the first baby picture. Whatever, who cares, I have no interest in seeing royal babies.

Where some posters are definitely wrong is saying that M&H wanted a quiet wedding (hence the “marriage” 3 days before). Harry was adamant he had the same sort of wedding as William and was angling for Westminster Abbey (where Andrew as “spare” had married).

Do you honestly believe that they didn’t want a big wedding? Harry who complained that he only got two sausages when William got three. That Harry?

It’s your opinion. Don’t attempt to represent the ‘many’. I would imagine the vast majority of people care very little about the precise moment a woman other than themselves or their partner gave birth. As someone who has given birth recently, my main concern was neither the time my little one was delivered nor the narrative my partner told friends and family, it was the health and well-being of our newborn. I expect that is the priority of most mothers.
Although I don’t think Meghan’s actions after giving birth to her first child needs to be justified to a stranger.

Whether or not they wanted quite such a big wedding is not that relevant. The point being made was I do not think of their comments about their private ceremony as a 'lie'. It was, to them, a private wedding. Lots of people do this without ever having a legal wedding. It is not therefore an attempt to be dishonest, but sharing that they had a private 'wedding' before the one shared with millions. Nothing wrong with it. It got blown out of all proportion.

So funny to me that it was Harry and Meghan who did a 'flaff' about hiding the birth to the public. When they never directly spoke to us. So surely, the flaff was with the palace and their internal communication.

Interesting.

So why did she not sell pictures of Lili when she was born then, if this "version" is accurate?

In fact, of both kids since then?

Unless by "version" you mean rumour, much like the Dior rumour that started this thread?

It is this kind of thing that makes it hard to accept that you dislike Meghan for what she has done, because here you are, spreading a story that is simply not true.

But it was reported at the time and he confirmed it in Spare. It's been posted her and on SM all the time.
He also details how when the small one was not allowed, he looked at the appropriate venues.

Why did the Archbishop of Canterbury have to make a statement about it then. Meghan went to a Catholic school. She knows very well how serious and important the marriage ceremony is. She agreed to having a religious wedding.

I can believe that they wanted a smaller wedding -- it is in keeping with Meghan's whole hippy dippy California vibe. Her first wedding was a barefoot beach in Jamaica ... not something at the Ritz!

I can believe that they were persuaded to have a bigger wedding, and so the other venues were discussed and discarded as Harry says.

That said, I am so glad they had that joyful public wedding.

If only because they had that gospel choir, which in turn led to the only warm moment at the miserable coronation, the dancing gospel singers who sang the Alleluia, and lifted what really was a cold and fairly joyless event!

Maybe gospel choirs will now be a thing at all future royal events. Amen to that!

He did not, he answered a direct question from a reporter.

Probably because he was getting hounded by the press but so? So what? They consider it their own private wedding. I think that's lovely and detect no lies. Its so ridiculous the OTT reaction to it. But its obvious why. The press and royal fans need to try and paint them as liars at any and all opportunity so they never have to address how they treated her and the insanity that is the institution surrounding the royal family.

I especially loved that young man who played the cello .

This backyard wedding thing is really over played @derxa

Especially as Harry and Meghan themselves issued a clarification the VERY NEXT DAY.

The clarification makes it clear that that they exchanged were personal vows. Of course they did not get married without witnesses: that "just the three of us" should have been enough for people to know what they were talking about, but as there was deliberate confusion from the tabloid press, they issued a clarification the very next day, on 22 March 2021.

https://www.today.com/popculture/meghan-harry-clarify-they-privately-exchanged-personal-vows-official-wedding-t212586

oh thanks @MrsMaxDeWinter I actually never knew that they issued that statement afterwards, was it even covered here in the uk? But as I always assumed myself, they meant a personal and private exchange of vows. So strange that people reacted the way they did to it. Same as with the birth of Archie, its their flipping life! Their key life moments, why is everyone sticking their oar in? Its like the whole country is their in laws making demands about their wedding, their baby, their jobs, where they live....Jesus!

yet here you are talking about MOST mothers? You imagine one way and others imagine another way. That's life so equally you expecting that the priority of most mothers feel a certain way is your opinion which you are entitled to.

From that article I read this as a lie.

The couple said they actually "got married" three days before their lavish 2018 wedding that was televised around the world.On Monday, a spokesperson for the Duke and Duchess clarified to TODAY that the couple "privately exchanged personal vows a few days before their official/legal wedding on May 19."

ha?

Its not a lie. Its what they think about their exchanging of vows that matters, not yours. Plenty of people have non-legal and non-religious ceremonies. Dissecting every little thing to try and create the narrative they are liars is truly a waste of time.

Is looking for the truth though really sticking their oar in especially when a couple are on a global TV programme insinuating and telling blatant lies - however romantic some may think it is. I think that was probably the reason why it got so much publicity because it came from a globally televised interview. If M had said to a friend " oh we don't really consider that our wedding, we got married in the garden three days before" no one would have known or cared. Some people look benevolently on this tale whereas others see it as a lie. So be it.