Why do Harry and Meghan tell porkies that are so easy to prove wrong?

[YaMuvva]

Starting with the porkie that Archie wasn’t gonna be titled. Anyone who understands the Letters Patent would know that as long as the Queen was alive this was never gonna happen. I said this when watching the Oprah interview and I’m pretty appalled they told such an easily provable lie.

Then Harry said that daddy cut his security off. Anyone who knows about RAVEC knows it is independent of the Royal Family and Charles couldn’t do this if he tried. Same with “Only titled people get security” / this was so easy to prove wrong.

And why are there 2 versions of the proposal story. Did they think we wouldn’t notice? Is one a Hollywood version for their American audience?

The same with the ‘how they met’ story - in their engagement interview they said it was a blind date, to Netflix they met on Instagram.

I also was puzzled at her saying she never wore bright colours and that royal women could never wear the same colour as the Queen. It’s just nonsense. See below pictures.

Why do they do this? My theory is that everything they do now is for an American audience who are used to the reality TV narrative of “Some scenes have been created for entertainment” style TV and just accept their narrative as partly fictional, as long as it’s entertaining?

I agree, @smilesy - it's a performance. No authenticity and no deeper meaning.

Because she is a manipulative narcissist and he is trauma bonded.

Very repetitive, too.

She doesn't even occasionally toss her word salad - except - have you heard that story about when she was 11 or so she single-handedly managed to persuade one of America's biggest multi-national companies to change their ad for dish-washing liquid? She tends not to mention that one . . . 🙄

She uses a lot of buzzwords like inclusion, bravery and truth. But she never, ever says a single thing of substance about any toipic, unless it's talking about herself.

I find it rather sad that as a society our intellectual perspacity has falled so far that we mistake vocal fluency and nice words for actual substance.

I see a lot of the Halo effect coming up in posts about Meghan (here and on social media more widely) - because she is beautiful and speaks confidently, people fall into a cognitive bias that everything she does is exceptional and because she is beautiful she is good.

Often you also see that applied the other way too - because Camilla is older an and not objectively beautiful, she’s taken to be ugly inside and out.

Obviously nether is true - people are complex and every one is different!

The Celebitchy crew frequently refer to Frogmore Cottage as a dilapidated shack, without a hint of irony.
They also conveniently forget that William and Kate lived in Nottingham Cottage with baby George.

Sorry- didn't see you had posted this.

But it's worth repeating. 😁

What is it about Harry that makes him ND?

The fact he's being discussed on MN? Let's face it, it's getting to the point on here where it's pretty well compulsory

Love prince Harry and princess Meghan they keep going from strength to strength good luck to them!!!!!!

@Emotionalsupportviper did urban dictionary only come up with the definitions post M&H’s references? I imagine so.

Do you really believe that @Ellaelle? looking at things objectively it seems hard to understand why you would think that’s true.

Yes the Fab Four speech of “women have a voice and they should use it!”

Wow, you have correctly identified women have a voice box.

It’s also a little bit of a saviour complex - actually in many parts of the world women can’t use their voices, in some places they are killed for speaking out. Not very empowering

🤣🤣🤣

Agree with the principle, except I'm not sure what she's said about herself that has any real substance?

Seems to me it's all self congratulatory waffle, and most of it (humanitarian, compassionate, etc.) the sort of thing it's for others to decide rather than herself

Because I’m a shameless pedant I’m going to correct you - she isn’t Princess Meghan

If the Sussex Squad had their way she would be Queen Meghan .

Getting personal seems to be the default setting in these parts.

That and refusing to acknowledge that it is never H&M’s fault and always everyone else’s fault.

The media. The establishment. The public. The old Pearl clutchers.

The two recurring problems.
Unhelpful, unnecessary and predictable.

She talks endlessly about minutiae of her life - the time she wrote a letter to the head of some household goods manufacturer; the time she decided to be an activist at school; the time she had an argument with her sister-in-law about a dress and how traumatic it was; the time she suffered emotional abuse by not knowing how to curtsey (despite having studied ballet).

these things might all be tedious and boring but they have substance - they are recounting actual events. Whereas about her apparent life's work, she has never once said anything of substance - so much so that I still don't know what her life's work is despite her doing numerous interviews, a docuseries and a podcast about it.

She's probably a Queen in Nigeria. By popular acclaim.

A wise post Serenster

Also, @CantDealwithChristmas - can anyone explain what qualifies her as a "leader"?
She's on all these women in leadership panels, having lead - absolutely nothing and no-one.

That’s a bit unfair. She leads Harry round like he’s a particularly stupid child. Credit where it’s due please

Leader doesn't mean what it used to mean. It used to mean having authority over others and guiding them on a particular path. Now it means having a social media channel on which one can spout baseless platitudes and shill candles. So in that sense she is, indeed, a leader

Also being in the acting profession involves “lying” convincingly.