Talks about reconciliation 2

[bluegreygreen]

I've never started a thread here before, but I thought some people might be interested in this take on the story by a PR podcast I listened to yesterday (started listening to this podcast as I know very little about PR!).

It would be good to know if any of the resident PR people agree.

When It Hits The Fan: A Right Royal Whodunnit

I'm hopibg that someobe has told Charles that people with NPD don't keep their word. That they'll say in the moment what they need to, to get what they want; but will.then renege of it suits them.to do so.

Oooh - my absolute favourite telly programme!

Danny Robbins should be knighted (or is that 'nighted'?)

Will write to KC.

Honestly, Lime - I really was shocked at that excerpt. Yes - as Jeff says, it's there in black and white, approved by Harry, as a record of his dealings with his family and others, and his motivations. And I honestly thought my opinion of him couldn't get any lower! What a horror to his father, on the day of his grandmother's death too.

And, as for the NF doc being God's own truth, I think if you look more closely you'll find a huge amount of smoke and mirrors. What I'd like to know is: how much of what they put out in that doc would they stand by now? They've retracted so many things and tried to wriggle out of their claims. I do wonder if Harry (not so much Meghan - she has a different agenda, whereas he is still invested in the monarchy, clearly) has regrets.

Food for thought...

As Tyler Perry is finding out.

so true. the amount of ganging up on anyone who doesn't post in a certain way is awful.

Why do you all demand source evidence, then ignore it when it's provided? Why can't any of you provide receipts when you are asked? Why do you expect us to just accept what you are saying without evidence, when you don't? Why do you think you are exceptional?

A difference of opinion, or an opposing opinion, is one thing, it's the twisting of facts, (facts from the horses mouth no less) and fabricating the opposite of the truth, which is what is challenged and pointed out as being incorrect. Even when those actual words from Harry and Meghan are repeated as evidence, to point out the opposing opinion is in fact far from accurate, and actually far from reality, it's called 'ganging' up. Some posters can be very blinkered when it comes to Harry and Meghans' very public utterances.

Ganging up on!!!🤣🤣🤣 obviously this only happens to fans of h and m !!!! 🤣🤣🤣

I still don’t understand how Spare / NF doc are utterly reliable, but Randy’s list of facts largely sourced from Spare / NF doc is complete rubbish. Make it make sense 🤪

There's a growing theory amongst psychologists that dark triad behaviour has crept into social and political discourse, propagated by the social warrior type movements on the left. Gaslighting being a key component to that discourse. Telling you that you cannot believe what is in front of your eyes, and the words coming out of someone's mouth has a completely different meaning. Evidence - hard, established fact - is dimsissed as an opinion. Feelings, on the other hand, particularly of victimhood and "injustice" (objective, contrary evidence dismissed) are the truth. That perceived victimhood is turned into aggression and the unearned acquisition of power, and even when they are powerful, they will still claim their victimhood. It's the mind-bending, post truth world that H&M have capitalised on.

Slightly OT but I would really like to hear the things that Charles was saying which Harry dismissed as "nonsensical and disrespectful". I suspect they were neither.

To be arguing with his bereaved father in such a way is awful. The fact he included it in his book is staggering. He expected the public to read those words and be on his side, he has no idea how he comes across.

If he had been 14 it still would be a horrible indictment of his character - but nearly 40? No words.

Harry conveniently left out what his father said that was apparently so offensive.

I agree. I have yet to hear anything in the documentary or Spare which gives me a better view of his character. The recent BBC interview showed that he is still the same petulant child.

The men in grey suits are wizards of PR.

Because it wasn't?

What are you on about?
this place is an echo chamber. Only one view is allowed that is a fact.
there is no point anyone who has a different view posting also a fact.

Who knows. Harry and Meghan are offended by sausages and lip balm, so it's anyone's guess.

Can't answer can you? And that's why you people come onto these threads, expose your heroes through your own ignorance, and then throw your toys out of the pram.

Because it was probably very close to the bone, and likely not something either Harry or Meghan would want in the public arena.

This is a fascinating subject. It’s a development of the postmodern denial of the status of the author and the general rejection of authority. You see it in the academic world and it infects everything. I used to teach history and of course you want students to think critically, be aware of bias and evaluate sources. But we noticed that, with some students, when introduced to the idea that some sources might be unreliable, they then refused to believe in anything, or anyone. They couldn’t or wouldn’t do the due diligence to evaluate things for themselves.

It does worry me. You see it here - people who deny even the spoken words of H& M as evidence of their characters, motives and attitudes.

Well then post your different opinion but back it up with examples and evidence.

Don’t just tell other pps off.

What are little pigeons called?

Pigeon chicks are known by various names including peeps, pipers, squeakers, squealers, and squabs, the former of which are clearly due to the almost incessant cheeping baby pigeons make from the moment they are born.

Awful, isn't it? I'm dreading my kids going to university and coming up against this shit. It is Pigeon Chess on a macro scale.

I don't think it's an echo chamber. When I have defended Meghan from what I consider unfair interpretations of her actions people are happy to discuss with me. But it only works if everyone is happy to provide evidence to back up what they think and explain their conclusions.

Why bother then?