Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Grifters indeed! Can we have a lift Joe?

1000 replies

ThePoshUns · 20/07/2023 06:57

H&M asked if they could have a lift home on AF1 after HMQs funeral.
Environmentally friendly sure, but makes them look grabby and entitled again. Makes for a good story though.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
35
Iwantcakeeveryday · 20/07/2023 14:26

Anyone catching a lift pays? What does that even mean? You can’t just buy tickets. The Biden’s would be the ones on the hook for taking personal guests, not the guests.

Have you not been reading? The only person who doesn't pay, is the president. If he allows grandchildren to travel on it, he has to personally pay for that. Even when arranged, you do not fly on it on the taxpayers dime. That's what it means.

Iwantcakeeveryday · 20/07/2023 14:28

If they wanted to meet, its up to both of them. If Thomas can meet with journalists at 'his age' then he can organise meeting his daughters boyfriend. I think there were other, private issues with him and perhaps him and Meghan but it isn't really worth speculating on. Its their business.

Howsimplywonderful · 20/07/2023 14:28

It makes me want to watch the film Air Force one with Harrison Ford

MrsMaxDeWinter · 20/07/2023 14:29

Serenster · 20/07/2023 13:47

That is not opinion. Do you really not see the difference???

:Poster looks thoughtfully at their decades of experience in litigation, including media and defamation claims:

I’m quite happy with what I posted, thank you. 😀

Poster looks thoughtfully at Justice Matthew Nicklin's ruling in July 2022 that the article in question, headlined:

“Exclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret… then – just minutes after the story broke – his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute.”

... was indeed defamatory, and not, as argued by the Mail's lawyers, honest opinion.

A correct ruling because the story states a number of statements as fact, and not just opinion.

The only outstanding issues are whether it was accurate, or in the public interest. So basically whether the Mail has a defence to an article already found to be defamatory, and not opinion.

Thanks.

AliceOlive · 20/07/2023 14:32

Iwantcakeeveryday · 20/07/2023 14:26

Anyone catching a lift pays? What does that even mean? You can’t just buy tickets. The Biden’s would be the ones on the hook for taking personal guests, not the guests.

Have you not been reading? The only person who doesn't pay, is the president. If he allows grandchildren to travel on it, he has to personally pay for that. Even when arranged, you do not fly on it on the taxpayers dime. That's what it means.

Yes, it means the Biden’s personally pay for whomever rides along with them.

He pays, not the guest. It’s not something you can buy yourself. He can’t sell tickets to whomever wishes to ride along.

Do you not understand the difference?

AliceOlive · 20/07/2023 14:33

Iwantcakeeveryday · 20/07/2023 14:28

If they wanted to meet, its up to both of them. If Thomas can meet with journalists at 'his age' then he can organise meeting his daughters boyfriend. I think there were other, private issues with him and perhaps him and Meghan but it isn't really worth speculating on. Its their business.

Oh please. Any woman past the age of 18 decides who meets her parents. She’s an adult.

Millicentsparty · 20/07/2023 14:37

I'm just thinking back to introducing my boyfriend to my parents. I don't recall my dad trying to get my now husbands number or going to his place of work to introduce himself. That would be plain weird. My dad waited for me to introduce us. Isn't that the accustomed way?

shockthemonkey · 20/07/2023 14:38

MrsMaxDeWinter · 20/07/2023 12:29

You really need to stop the fatuous nonsense about trashing the royal family. Particularly as Harry and Meghan were at such pains to make, in my view, a loving distinction between the institution qua institution, and the family qua family. The trashing nonsense is a tired tabloid narrative that makes the royal family sound like a mafia organisation against which insiders cannot speak without retribution, insiders cannot leave, bound in some sort of servitude with a menacing omertà. But perhaps that is how you see it.

Basically, what you mean is that Harry and Meghan are supposed to just take the abuse of the family, aided by the tabloid media, because they left, but are trashing the family if they defend themselves or explain in any way.

Unless you mean it's okay for them to be hounded as relentlessly as they were without ever defending themselves.

Why is it not "trashing" for Meghan to be accused of making Kate cry, but when Meghan and Harry explain what happens, it's trashing?

Why is it not trashing to smear Meghan with anonymous bullying complaints, announce a big investigation just before the Oprah interview, then not release the results, but when Harry talks about William assaulting him it's trashing?

Why is not trashing when press releases are issued in Harry's name without his knowledge, but when Harry points out that the press is working hand in glove with the Palace it's trashing.

Why is it trashing for them to push back against the sexist narrative of "Megxit", or for Harry to explain that it was his decision. Should they just accept that narrative, without pushing back and explaining what it was that led to their departure?

I could go on, but you get the drift.

I think it's a question of where the "trashing" you're talking about is coming from.

So we have two sides - H&M vs the RF. Just to be clear, I am not "for" either side and I did not form an opinion on MM from the first few interviews or TV appearances - other than thinking how lovely she seemed.

Back to the actual "trashing" and where it's coming from.

On the one hand, we get trashing of the RF from the very mouths and pens of H&M - the RF are unwelcoming and inflexible, Kate made me cry, they withheld a title from my child because of his race, they're stingy and won't pay for us.

On the other hand, we get the trashing of H&M, not from the RF but from the press and SM - M made Kate cry, H&M are grifters, they can't stop trashing the UK and the RF, they pull the racist card, whatever...

I know I know, you're going to say that the RF are complicit in what comes out about H&M even when it doesn't come from them - that they could deny or rectify if they wished, or even that they are planting some of these stories. But that argument has been hashed and re-hashed ad infinitum.

potniatheron · 20/07/2023 14:41

Serenster · 20/07/2023 13:47

That is not opinion. Do you really not see the difference???

:Poster looks thoughtfully at their decades of experience in litigation, including media and defamation claims:

I’m quite happy with what I posted, thank you. 😀

Love this

You're a hero Serenster.

As Megan Markel Herself has said: "I think the biggest part of being a girl boss in the office, at home, or anywhere you go is just knowing your value."

ILikeDinosaurs · 20/07/2023 14:42

potniatheron · 20/07/2023 09:03

It's just that we have a sweepstake at work.

When the official engagement interview was aired, we clocked the body langauge and tone and most of us concluded that this was not a match made for eternity. So we chose years for divorce and put money in the pot. The pot will go to the winner's chosen charity.

I chose 2024 and my charity is Refuge (because Refuge is always my charity - not out of any shade thrown on H or M, lol). So if they can JUST HOLD OUT a little bit more until the end of the year, that's nearly £400 going to Refuge. I think it might actually be £400 - will check today.

So you bet on a couple divorcing to donate to a charity for abused women? That's so twisted and nasty.

potniatheron · 20/07/2023 14:43

MrsMaxDeWinter · 20/07/2023 13:12

This always makes me laugh.

Harry and Meghan use litigation strategically.

They do not and have not sued over every inaccurate thing ever. As far as I am aware, they have never sued over opinion. And any story about them that is attributed to anonymous sources, and that comes from the tabloids, is basically opinion.

They take legal action on clearly egregious matters where the legal line is crossed: eg a newspaper printing a private letter, phone hacking and illegal activities. Photos of their children that they have not released themselves would fall into the illegal category, which is why the DM recently blurred out faces in the pap photos of their kids.

Imagine suing Lord Colin Campbell's ex-wife, or Tom Bower, or Dan Wootton, or the crazy You tubers for all the loopy things they said. hey would have to move into the courthouse!!! And suing would give legitimacy where none is earned.

Lady Colin Campbell has a name, you know.

She is a person, not just an aristocratic man's "ex-wife".

Women have their own value. They do not owe their fame or their success simply to the man they marry.

Samcro · 20/07/2023 14:48

potniatheron · 20/07/2023 14:43

Lady Colin Campbell has a name, you know.

She is a person, not just an aristocratic man's "ex-wife".

Women have their own value. They do not owe their fame or their success simply to the man they marry.

Lady Colin Campbell was married to her husband for a bout a year, so there value is there husbands name (they divorced in the 70's)

themessygarden · 20/07/2023 14:48

The only thing I can think of is that on the Tig, she possibly embellished the closeness between herself and her father, otherwise I cannot imagine why she would not introduce them in person when she knew it was a serious relationship.

As for the lift on AF1, I imagine there is some truth in the rumour, will be interesting to see if any more detail comes out about it.

Howsimplywonderful · 20/07/2023 14:52

Jerry Seinfeld currently does ‘comedians in cars getting coffee’ perhaps Harry can beg for a lift on that - some of his podcast ideas did made me laugh ?

themessygarden · 20/07/2023 14:53

Millicentsparty · 20/07/2023 14:37

I'm just thinking back to introducing my boyfriend to my parents. I don't recall my dad trying to get my now husbands number or going to his place of work to introduce himself. That would be plain weird. My dad waited for me to introduce us. Isn't that the accustomed way?

Absolutely.

I brought my boyfriend (now husband) to a village in rural Ireland to meet my dad when we decided our relationship was serious and before we got engaged. I think he may have been the first person of colour to walk into the village pub.

My dad subsequently travelled to meet my future inlaws soon after we got engaged and they travelled to our hometown with us on a few occasions with our kids.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 20/07/2023 14:55

potniatheron · 20/07/2023 14:43

Lady Colin Campbell has a name, you know.

She is a person, not just an aristocratic man's "ex-wife".

Women have their own value. They do not owe their fame or their success simply to the man they marry.

No problem.

I am happy to call Lady Colin Campbell by the name of the ex-husband she married several decades ago and divorced after 9 months ...

... but only if you raise no objection to the Duchess of Sussex using the title she acquired on marriage to the husband she has been with 7 years longer than Lady Colin Campbell was with her ex-husband whose name she still uses.

Also, I hope you are happy to apply this statement of yours to the Duchess of Sussex.

Women have their own value. They do not owe their fame or their success simply to the man they marry.

potniatheron · 20/07/2023 14:56

Samcro · 20/07/2023 14:48

Lady Colin Campbell was married to her husband for a bout a year, so there value is there husbands name (they divorced in the 70's)

You’re right.

I honestly can’t imagine that anyone would be so gauche as to trade on the value of a royal name or title, even after they’ve left that person or family.

ArcaneWireless · 20/07/2023 14:58

Howsimplywonderful · 20/07/2023 14:52

Jerry Seinfeld currently does ‘comedians in cars getting coffee’ perhaps Harry can beg for a lift on that - some of his podcast ideas did made me laugh ?

I would pay to watch Harry working through Alan Partridge’s ideas.

potniatheron · 20/07/2023 14:58

MrsMaxDeWinter · 20/07/2023 14:55

No problem.

I am happy to call Lady Colin Campbell by the name of the ex-husband she married several decades ago and divorced after 9 months ...

... but only if you raise no objection to the Duchess of Sussex using the title she acquired on marriage to the husband she has been with 7 years longer than Lady Colin Campbell was with her ex-husband whose name she still uses.

Also, I hope you are happy to apply this statement of yours to the Duchess of Sussex.

Women have their own value. They do not owe their fame or their success simply to the man they marry.

Lady Colin left her marriage because her husband was violent towards her.

Divorce has saved the lives of millions of women like her.

Millicentsparty · 20/07/2023 14:59

ArcaneWireless · 20/07/2023 14:58

I would pay to watch Harry working through Alan Partridge’s ideas.

Haha. I want that guy from Spotify to get drunk and tell his story.

Howsimplywonderful · 20/07/2023 15:00

@Millicentsparty

That would be fun.

BadgerB · 20/07/2023 15:05

Hibiscrubbed · Today 11:23
I hope it’s true. It’s bonkers. I sort of admire how big a deal they see themselves as now, though.

Oh, so do I!
It really will shed light on how they see themselves. Such a disappointment if it turns out to be Press invention

potniatheron · 20/07/2023 15:05

Millicentsparty · 20/07/2023 14:59

Haha. I want that guy from Spotify to get drunk and tell his story.

I think we're going to be hearing a lot more from him! Personally I can't wait to hear how Harry pitched his idea for an interview with Vladimir Putin on childhood trauma.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 20/07/2023 15:15

potniatheron · 20/07/2023 14:58

Lady Colin left her marriage because her husband was violent towards her.

Divorce has saved the lives of millions of women like her.

I thought the divorce arose because of the circumstances of her birth and childhood and the husband claiming fraud? It is amusing though that he dropped his title ages ago, but she uses it.

I guess someone has to!

Millicentsparty · 20/07/2023 15:16

Personally I think Spotify guy has been put in a box with a label on it saying "not allowed to speak". Hehe.
I understand he's a sports jock so my only hope is that his favourite team loses unfairly loses and he gets so pissed off that he starts on a rant and reveals all. Or, that maybe when he leaves Spotify, he tells all then. He will know all the goss about them from the Spotify offices. Can't wait. 😀

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.