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?

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1071582-nyc-governor-starts-receiving-complaints-against-meghan-and-harry

Common Ground.

1 year ago:

Thanks for the extra long quotes from articles. Saves me from having to click the link and read the actual article. Super helpful!

Update this year.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/prince-harry-meghan-markle-faced-reckless-behavior-new/story?id=107638706

Can you post the entire body of the article please? @DingDingaling

I always appreciate that. Even better if you could intersperse the massive wall of text with some of your own thoughts so it all gets mixed together.

You mention the 'straight outta Compton' article which has already been debunked as the work of two LA journalists. And yet it keeps coming back, like the zombie article that it is.

It was written ‘in Los Angeles for the Daily Mail.’ I have no idea what nationality Ruth styles is but this was a Daily Mail article - paid for and published by the Daily Mail.

This reminds me a little bit of the argument that the paparazzi chasing the car in which Diana died were not UK photographers therefore British tabloids are not to blame. Whether they were British or not is beside the point. The reason they were chasing that car is because their target market was the UK tabloids - who were paying insane amounts of money for photos of Diana.

The UK tabloids really like to distance themselves from their questionable practices. They always point the finger elsewhere. Just like they did recently with the Kate frenzy. The tabloids stirred like crazy and then, when it began to seem to unseemly (even for them) they withdrew themselves from the conversation and blamed sm entirely. Except for a couple of journos who wrote mea culpa articles the rest were poring blame on sm and accepting no blame for their own actions.

They’ve done it again in the past week or two, with their sly Rose and Camilla articles. Stirred up a resurgence of questions around Kate on sm once again.

Photos of Diana were globally sought after just as ones of Kate were bought by a German magazine. Those things transcended national boundaries.

I'm not defending tabloid practices, I was pointing out that the charge of widespread racism was trumped up and exaggerated.

Are you a tag team trying to disrupt reasonable debate?

On that subject you might like to think about why the Sussexes pose such a problem for the UK and the Western alliance. Disrupting stories about them might get you flagged as Russian or Chinese agents, lol.

Try reading some intelligent analysis for once

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3784176-the-trouble-with-harry-and-meghan/

There is a world of difference between ‘fair criticism’ and hammering a woman’s personality, looks, actions, voice, words etc repeatedly - there is nothing fair in that.

We are seeing extreme policing of women, by the media, and on sm now. Meghan is one of many women being policed. But she’s receiving a giants share of it. Very few women are so thoroughly policed as Meghan Markle is at this time, and has been for years now. In a time when women’s rights are being generally undermined globally. It is no coincidence imo.

Are you a tag team trying to disrupt reasonable debate?

On that subject you might like to think about why the Sussexes pose such a problem for the UK and the Western alliance. Disrupting stories about them might get you flagged as Russian or Chinese agents, lol.

is this an attempt to stifle debate?

There is nothing reasonable about hating on Meghan Markle.

Yes! 👏

'Hating on'...I seem to have found myself back in the playground.

I suggest you read the article I linked to by Mark Toth an expert security analyst and economist and as far from your characterisation of 'hating on' that it's possible to get. He's done quite a few on the Sussexes.

I’m new here so learning the ‘ropes’. I may not get things right but I am always open to helpful comments to ensure that I remain within the guidelines. Apologies for any errors too, I can’t edit once posted and I have used the preview button to ensure things are posted okay.

Blocking the thread with out of date articles will get you reported eventually.

Besides, history is an endlessly moving thing...what was true about Markle 3 years ago no longer holds. Try updating your knowledge.

Considering how people bang on about the couple still from this period and talk about the period of time the articles were written it makes said articles and opinion relevant. Where do you think the hate came from? A vacuum? History is history and if people still want to peddle falsehoods about them it is worth doing a deep dive into the media that spawned hellfire in the UK.

I am trying to figure out where the hate originated which causes Harry and Meghan to engage with people who are openly trolling a woman with cancer. That’s a level of hate Harry and Meghan are actively displaying in real time. And why? Because of some lipgloss?

I posted that article when it came out.

The car chase was interesting. The cab driver stated in two interviews that they weren't in danger. The video footage that I watched posted on X was tame. NYPD said that H & M were partly to blame by disregarding police advice.

https://nypost.com/2024/02/28/us-news/nypd-sources-deny-reports-police-found-has-beens-harry-and-meghan-really-were-chased-by-paparazzi/

Diana died because she wasn't wearing a seatbelt and her driver was impaired.

In the photos and videos of the NYC cab, Meghan and Doria are not wearing belt or harnesses, which is illegal in NYC. When you are in yellow cab, the message to buckle up plays non-stop until you do so. Everyone in that cab seemed oblivious to the fact that they were not wearing belts. If they had been in a a terrifying chase, I would expect them to wear them.

I would be interested to delve into the South African view of PH and MM. My understanding is they were very offended about her comments they were accommodated in a ‘housing unit’ and say that she exaggerated the risk Archie was under because of a ‘fire.’ There is also the comment she made about South African’s dancing in the street, arising from a conversation with an actor which later appeared to not have happened. For me, a once MM supporter, it’s this kind of thing which makes me wonder what she is trying to achieve. I blame PH too for not realising how incredibly cosseted and protected he was by the RF and exposing his family to all sorts of faux pas and ridicule. What’s the endgame here? It feels like he wants to create a rival family to William’s. Instead of being free they look to be more trapped then ever, without all the benefits and help they previously enjoyed. I think he suffers from a combination of utter stupidity and rank arrogance. Typical old Etonian.

Diana died because she wasn't wearing a seatbelt and her driver was impaired.

I don’t disagree but being chased was a factor. And my point was not about that, it was about how the UK tabloids create mayhem, & stir people up (all for clicks and money) and then pretend it wasn’t them.

Or are we at the point that we are going to defend some of the worst practices of the UK tabloids in order to support our own narratives?

I would be interested to delve into the South African view of PH and MM.

I imagine, like in any country, SA citizens will have a variety of views.

That's nuts. Even at low speeds, WHY weren't they wearing seatbelts? They take a couple of seconds to clip and unclip.

The whole taxi ride thing was pretty odd.

I remember Harry moving around very agitated, with his phone camera recording; while Meghan and Doria were just sitting there, silent and blank-faced. I wondered then whether they were acting very neutrally and placidly to try and keep him calm, almost as if to placate him, although it's equally as likely it was to not give that photographer a reaction. I thought Harry's behaviour, decision-making and subsequent ill-judged statement was worrying tbh. I felt sorry for the women, that's for sure. I thought he must be extremely difficult to live with.

My thoughts have moved on somewhat since then, having seen a fuller picture.

Investigated by the NYPD and reported widely back in February: From the article linked:

“Explaining the conclusions of the police investigation, the judge said: “The investigation had found reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws and persistently dangerous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of paparazzi during the night in question.
“They had operated vehicles, scooters and bicycles in a manner that forced the security team, which included the NYPD lead car, to take evasive actions on several occasions and a circuitous route to avoid being struck by pursuing vehicles or trapped on side blocks.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/news/prince-harry-meghan-markle-chase-b2504021.html

Yes, I appreciate there would be a variety of views, which is why it would be interesting.