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?

Imagine being THIS dim and nasty. Does it make you feel good @Ellaelle to spread nasty lies about people you don’t know?

Still waiting on that evidence

Oh well if Ryanair did a funny tweet it must be true 🤣🤣🤣

Seriously I worry for the average IQ of the world

MN is not a gossip site.

As the wife of the former Lord Chamberlain, it is absolutely no surprise that Rose moves in royal circles and would be at same events as Camilla.

Charles appointed David Cholmondeley as a permanent Lord in Waiting last year (as he ceased to hold the Lord Chamberlain position on Queen Elizabeth’s death - he’ll be Lord Chamberlain again, assuming he’s still alive, when William becomes King as the position rotates). Their oldest son is also currently acting as a page to King Charles. Unsurprisingly, this means they appear at lot of Royal events. Correlation does not imply causation.

You do know she is not to quote you " duchess Meghan" ? At least get her title right. 🙄

Permanent Lord in Waiting! I thought he had a new role but couldn’t remember and it’s not on his Wikipedia page.

I think the Lord Chamberlain role rotates between 3 families so it’ll be someone else for William before it goes back to the Cholmondley’s for George.

Your last two sentences sum up the point that I was trying to make.

YaMuvva asked me for links. I’m answering her.

If you have a problem with my posts report me to mumsnet.

Where does the ‘reportage’ of these ‘lies’ come from? The media. And social media (I have a lot to say about sm too).

Politely requesting you scroll past my posts if they bother you.

I think it’s VERY telling that people misunderstand MN as ‘a gossip site’. You spend too much time on Celebitchy

I have

I can’t find anything.

Probabky because it doesn’t exist

If you actually read the source of the lies that are being called out, they are direct sources from Oprah, Spare, other speeches or interviews.

Blaming the media is futile when Harry and Meghan put so much out in the public domain themselves. And a lot of it doesn’t make sense, hence this thread.

I’m not sure what kind of site you think you’re on but you can’t block on MN

Half term, innit.

You can’t find very recent articles about rose Hanbury?

I must be better at googling than I know.

I think this is correct.

She said in an interview how incredulous she was that she was advised not to wear the "H" necklace as it was stoking press interest that she was finding troublesome - ie she was being advised on how to present differently (in line with their stated wishes). She appeared to resent the advice (and my reading was that she took it as a personal snub and/or attempt to gratuitously control, rather than a professional view on image management)

You can’t find very recent articles about rose Hanbury?

I must be better at googling than I know

So why is it that anything about H&M is lies reported by the wicked media, but anything about Rose Hanbury is truth?

And you do realise that you're using the 'media' just as much as anyone else for what you post, don't you?

I can’t find any about Camilla coaching Rose Hanbury

Isn't it typical that the nastiest shit-heaps who post on here are too lazy or in so much of a hurry to throw out their evil that they can't be bothered to write in sentences or punctuate anywhere?

Too used to posting on X, I suspect.

During that, it was obvious that the papers were using SEO

It really, really isn't because they know something. They are echoing what is being said on SM, to attract clicks. Unfortunately this is a widespread practice, as it the totally erroneous assumption it's because they are being restrained (legally or by a deal - the nature of which is never specified by those making such an insinuation).

So if bad actors on SM start ramping up some angle or other, it will leak into MSM when it gets noisy enough. It's feeding the mob - which MSM does to varying extents, simply because it needs to get people to buy its product (directly from readers, or via readership figures to advertisers) and this is believed to be an effective way to get those figures up

This. And a perfect example is when the “where’s Kate” stuff got picked up by the mainstream. Look how well that ended 😆

Please start a thread 2 @YaMuvva

It seems that some are actually very ill informed about the basic facts of the situation in the UK.

Apparently she's taken her under her wing adultress to alleged adul.... Well you catch my drift she's showing her the ropes, they are soft launching Rose, and there is no need to be so aggressive with me madam