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?

You don’t have to count them, it tells you how many times the OP has posted.

As above.

I personally enjoy the fact that some have convinced themselves it is all about racism.

There are poc here too.

With skin on their body that matches their face.

I'm intrigued by all the people who get so het up about them, I find it oddly fascinating so I thought I would express my views. 😂

And if you had read them whilst passing judgement you would have seen the reason why @YaMuvva has time on their hands eh?

Of course everyone is open to criticism but the scale of abuse of H&M is on another level, her for being black and him for having the temerity to marry a black woman.

A skim read was nauseating enough.

Who on here has criticised her for being black and him for marrying a black woman? Overtly racist shit like that would be deleted anyway. I agree stuff like that has been thrown at them but it’s hardly “on another level”

Yes I have. I answered as soon as you asked.
You obviously missed it

I don’t think Megan identifies as black does she, she identifies as mixed race?

I think it’s ok to take issue with someone’s actions as long as it’s about rhe actions not the colour of their skin. I do feel it’s not ok to always think it has to be the latter.

@Lifeomars no one cares.

Actually, my first word WAS crocodile. I had animal wallpaper and my dad used to walk me round naming all the animals, and one day when he got to crocodile I said it with him.

I'm not particularly intelligent or anything, kids just repeat what they hear.

No-one is "het up" - we're having a discussion.
Maybe that's projection?

@bellezarara you need to go back to the 1930s.

OP. Why do you care?

Because they are delusional and see the world from their view no matter how far from reality that is. Like the real marriage took place the day before and the multi million pounds wedding (paid for by us mugs) was a sham. They make me absolute sick. Can't stand them. No wonder William wants nothing do with them.

Well, this thread has moved on!

First posts - here are the (easily proven) lies as told by M&H

Second lot of posts - you all hate H&M/you’re racist/none of you read Spare/you’re all angry saddoes. 🐿️ 🐿️🐿️

Did the bat signal go up?!

I wouldn't know. I'm not that obsessed with what other posters choose to do on a free forum.

What we are doing on here is engaging in the millennia-old and highly pleasurable pursuit of chatting amongst ourselves and taking pompous elite people down a peg or two. Evolutionary psychologists such as Pan & Hsaio argue that gossip has a vital societal function: that the evolution of gossip is the joint consequence of its reputation dissemination and selfishness deterrence functions. Specifically, the dissemination of information about individuals' reputations leads more individuals to condition their behavior on others' reputations.

So, it's natural. And it's fun.

What you are doing is wandering around a site policing what others choose to talk about. People typically do this for one of several reasons: innate delusions of moral superiority, boredom, frustration, virtue-signalling, low self-esteem are all common reasons. It's a rather more recent behaviour that's emerged with the internet, although curtain twitchers have existed since time imemorial and you're welcome to keep twitching yours. We'll keep chatting :-)

I think that oft repeated question has been addressed....

I am sure there are people who dislike Meghan because of her colour. And just a brief look on a site like Tattle will show you a load of right wingers who hate Meghan for being a woman with opinions and Harry for allowing his wife to be a woman with opinions. There's a lot of general anti-woke, pro Reform/MAGA types who hate Harry and Meghan because of their own personal and deeply unpleasant belief systems.

BUT I am not seeing that here, and the fact there there are awful people saying awful things elsewhere doesn't mean that Harry and Meghan are immune from legitimate criticism. They have opened up about themselves via interviews, a Netflix docuseries and an entire book. We don't know them, but we know what they tell us and we are allowed to make judgements on it. I dislike Harry because of the cruel way he spoke about the disabled woman who worked at Eton, dismissed by him because she had the audacity to not be attractive and/or able bodied. I find Meghan cringe worthy with her ridiculous statements like dancing on the streets of South Africa on her wedding day, which was completely denied by the person she claims told her that. Also the sobbing into the arms of the captain who recognised her 'sacrifice' for the UK - because spending 18 months (with multiple holidays along the way) in free central London accomodation in exchange for turning up at a few events made such a positive impact on the UK. The journalist for The Cut interview was a woman of colour, I don't get the impression she had a positive view of Meghan after the meeting, is she racist?

If 'the squad' want to send their people over here to shut down the discussion, could they at least do it in a more engaging and informed way?

She identifies as a Princess

Brilliant post @CantDealwithChristmas 👏👏👏nail on head.

Well just to get back to the original question , I wonder why Harry would not know when his children would be prince and princess - surely to goodness he would have known this . I thought on the Oprah interview Meghan was a bit disingenuous to imply it was because they were mixed race - surely she had someone who could have googled and looked it up or phoned someone at the,Palace or , or asked her husband FFS . - and assuming Oprah knew the question and she was the one who said was it because they were mixed race with a nod from Meghan I wonder if Oprah feels a bit played by them . Surely Oprah has researchers who could have checked it if she knew the questions she would ask

I do agree with PP in that if Meghan said - we felt we were married 2 / 3 days before - fine - Don't say you were . A bit embarrassing when the ABoC has to contradict you

But I think they know the RF will not contradict or engage so I think they have decided they can say what they like.

But yes I agree I cannot see why they say things which are so easily disprovable.