Do you mean statements in the media quoting from the interview? I’ve written reams on that point in this thread here Harry And Meghan, Is The Queen Right? and specifically about how my impression was different after watching the interview compared to what I’d read in the paper. Given that the paper was the Guardian which is generally “Team Meghan”, I can’t imagine how the The Daily Hate Mail reported it. As the opening post in this thread posited, the MO of the tabloid journalist is to take what was said, take some parts out, change the order and emphasis of passages and use them as a kit or a collage to write something entirely different.
I meant that there is a great deal that Markle has said and its often not quite true. Perhaps other people have come across these untrue/ exaggerated/ loose with the truth statements and formed a fair opinion for themselves and don't necessarily need to watch the entire interview. There's been years of this, though hopefully this was the peak of it, and it will lessen. The best way to be convincing is to tell the truth, and mix in a few untruths. I'm not at all convinced that giving a person the chance to persuade you with a long sorrowful tale is better than reading a transcript and deducting the facts from what was actually said. Don't you find that in court? BTW. I looked up the titles in reference to implied "Archie doesn't get one because everyone is mean to us/ me/ him". There is a charter which governs who gets titles and when. Archie gets one, when Lizzie pops her cloggs and Charlie gets the sparkly hat. There is no conspiracy.
That is one of the very best, most eloquent and very well thought out posts I have ever seen on the forum, I salute you.
One thing that puzzled me at the fake marriage staged at my expense, how come only MM mother was there from here guest list, only 1 person, tell me how abnormal that is. Sorry I forgot, I think Oprah was there too, what a coincidence. Reckon that deal was wrapped up before she walked down the aisle. Good riddance I say.
Only my late father was at my wedding. For my wife, no-one. Not all people have had a happy family life. Some are from disfunctional families, some have no family at all. I havent spoken to my mother for over 30yrs. Whilst happy families may be generally the norm, it isnt the reality for everyone. Ah, finny Brilliant. Some people really need to expand their ability for rational thought and reasoning. But with their blind acceptance of what they percieve as truth gleened from our media, they are further handicapped. Remember what our media did to that poor soul during the murder of that lady down Bristol way. ( I cannot recall exactly whom). Vilified for the crime of being excentric and gay, simply because he was a neighbour. Remember Hillsborough and the 96? I could list reams and reams. But no, you have closed minds and very little going on between your ears anyway.
It was rather galling to be told that the massive £45 million pound wedding was for my benefit, and that they needed another one prior... "I was thinking about it, you know our wedding—three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that.... We just called up the Archbishop...". Except of course anyone who knows the laws in the UK is aware that getting married in the back yard, even with the head of the church present is not possible. So blatant lying or exaggeration, or misunderstanding? What luck that the Archbishop had nothing to do that afternoon!
MEGHAN Markle and Prince Harry’s team warned the BBC to be impartial in their coverage before their bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview aired. The bizarre warning – sent to correspondents at the Beeb on Monday – reminded them to not just use “old white men” in subsequent debates around the divisive sit-down. Above according to many press reports. Surely that is a racist comment “old white men” Where and how and to who do I officially complain to then. It was in The Sun so must be true.
Have you considered looking up the definition of racism? Generally it means to use a persons colour or ethnicity to denigrade or belittle, oppress or bully etc in simple terms. Desribing someone as old white men is hardly racist. Us whiteys are hardly oppressed due to our pinky hues. On the contrary, we as a race are responsible for the overwhelming majority of racism against everyone else who does not have our skin colour. We are the problem. We are the minions, recruited by the media to perpetuate these stereotypes in order to further a racist agenda. Divide and conquer. We are being used, manipulated, wound up and then directed.
I think its impossible to understand how racism directed at oneself must feel without experiencing it firsthand. Its never done in jest.
Examples? Please provide ones which are straight from the horse's mouth rather than "A Palace source/friend claimed...." I've already said that I think she was holding back and not telling it "warts and all" in respect of some issues. One which springs to mind is the argument with KM (MM and KM argued over bridesmaids' dresses - KM "made" MM cry - KM apologised and sent flowers - 6 months later a gutter tabloid reported that MM had made KM cry). I suspect that it may have been more like six of one, half a dozen on the other but KM graciously did the right thing because MM was the bride. Perhaps they have but that is for them to justify basing their views on partial and indeed often out of context and massaged info rather than you guessing on their behalf. BTW, exaggeration or the telling of untruths in evidence does not necessarily mean the story as a whole is false. In fact the judge in a criminal trial will in appropriate cases specifically give the jury a warning about that issue, to the effect that otherwise truthful people sometimes lie to bolster a weak case, to protect someone, out of panic, or to cover up embarrassment/disgraceful behaviour. It's called a Lucas direction. You couldn't be more wrong. The opposite is true and such a document with the exception of business documents, statutory exceptions under (IIRC) s.116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, preserved common law exceptions such as res gestae or the transcript of a PACE compliant interview under caution at a police station is hearsay and inadmissible. Hearsay is generally inadmissible because it is seen as unreliable and dangerous to admit it. When it is admitted, it comes with "health warnings". In order to save time and expense editing out the irrelevant or inadmissible questions, these days the usual practice for dealing with interview transcripts at trial is (but only if the defendant agrees) for them to be read out in a sort of call and response between pros counsel reading the questions and the officer in the case (OIC) playing the part of the defendant by reading out the answers in that deadpan tone which police often adopt. However, even a perfectly accurate transcript does not tell the whole tale and I don't really like that sort of corner-cutting so unless the interview was an absolute car crash, I generally prefer to have the interview played so the jury can see and/or hear how the defendant answered. I can remember one striking example of where the OIC really got into the role of playing the defendant and was giving the performance of a lifetime, delivering the answers with a kind of sneering, menacing mockney snarl that some ham actor in Guy Ritchie film would have been proud of. I got the judge to send the jury (some of whom had started exchanging glances and sniggering behind their hands) out and told him I wanted to put a stop to this farce by having the interview played and lo and behold, it was the OIC's tone of voice that was dripping with malice, while the defendant had been pretty meek. Hearsay is more readily admissible in civil proceedings, but only if the party serves notice and explains why the witness cannot attend to give oral evidence. The other side also have the right to require the attendance of that person to to be cross-examined. Then if the hearsay is admitted into evidence, the judge has to give themselves a warning that the evidence may not carry the same weight as live oral evidence and they may also draw adverse inferences about the failure of a witness to attend trial to give oral evidence Again, I say that it is ironic and bizarre that people who routinely savagely decry and deride the MSM for its falsehoods and manipulation in order to pursue an agenda, are not only willing to base their views of someone on their reporting when it suits them but in some cases are positively refusing to watch that person give their side of the story in interview. You need to watch the interview because that is a misrepresentation of what she said and how she said it. Archie does not currently have the right to the title "Prince" but when Charles becomes King, and so he becomes the grandson of the reigning monarch in the male line, he could have had that title granted on a discretionary basis (Charles' children are already Prince/Princesses by virtue of that discretionary grant by the Queen). She mentioned conversations had taken place in which it was discussed that the convention would be changed, with the effect that when the time came Charles would not make such a grant to Archie. There may be good reasons for that, eg: Charles has expressed a wish to thin the ranks of the Monarchy and MM may have misunderstood the reasons, but IIRC that announcement came hard on the heels of the questioning about the possible colour of his skin. Furthermore, she claims the the Palace announcement which stated or implied that it was their choice that Archie would not take that title was untrue as they were not given a say in the matter. FYI: in my assessment of her interview,* I tried to be as objective and dispassionate as possible and have pointed out where I found difficulties with her account. On the one hand, I kind of have some skin in the game because she is in a mixed marriage and claimed there was discrimination, esp by the Press. On the other hand, politically, I find the idea of the Royal Family's vast wealth and privilege abhorrent, some of what she and Harry were complaining about was kind of 1st World Problems to the power of 10 and made me reach for my tiny violin and tbh I don't really take to her as a person as she's a bit too sweet to be wholesome, more than a little "eat pray love" sanctimonious and and I think she probably can be quite difficult and pushy. *Edit: confusion reigns as there are two separate threads going in two different sub-forums which both discuss the interview. I am referring to what I wrote here and in posts following: Harry And Meghan, Is The Queen Right?
Not sure I agree there, firstly let me state that I am from an ethnic minority etc etc. Because I am white I have only had racist comments made to me on a few occasions and I know it is in another league for people of colour living in what would be labelled white countries. I do not believe that racism is mainly dished out by whites. I believe that there is inherent racism in most cultures. Being widely traveled, say when in Morocco people there will say very bad things about another race/religion, that’s just one example, I am not picking on Moroccans . What about the poor immigrant workers building the football stadia in Quatar, bet they get treated very well?Right now I’m in Ireland. If I park my UK registered car in the local town it will be damaged because they think I’m British etc etc. Anything different is seen as not the norm. So I just want to mention the alleged comment made about how brown Megan’s baby might be. I reckon no matter what colour you are , that is a question that many many families would have no matter what their ethnic origins in similar circumstances the world over. If those words were the ones spoken I say not the most sensitive , clumsy even and someone more eloquent would be having the same thoughts about the same question dressed in a different way. BTW my comment on old white men was meant to spark debate. I think the connotations are racist. It’s creating a stereotypical image of how and what old white men are. It’s like saying all Jews have big noses or are tight, it’s like saying Irish people are not clever, and the list goes on. Clearly all wrong. As I said, having done a lot of traveling I find that the vast majority of people are friendly and welcoming, the poorer they are the more welcoming they are. It’s always very interesting to spend time with such people. They teach me far more than the shite that is on our news stations and Internet shit full of rubbish.
You need two sources. Something the BBC used to do. Now they are complicit in manipulating what actually happened.
Thanks for the info re the legal aspects and court proceedings. Its always interesting to get the inside information especially as my source was Grisham before you! I really can't be bothered to look up Markles suspect comments over the years, but they've been made -I think at least so. How about the bombshell "We got married in the backyard" Which would you use to characterise that out of untrue/ exaggerated/ loose with the truth?
Read with interest some of the posts in this thread and I hope I can convince a few to re think some of their opinion. I don’t know why they did the interview. Seems pretty stupid to me especially when your grandfather is probably at deaths door and the rest of the family have enough to worry about. I am a Republican. I would vote for a republic tomorrow for many reasons relating to hierarchy, class system, misogyny and bigotry. but another reason is choice. We should be allowed to choose our head of state. To be fair, we should also consider choice for the Windsors. Lizzie has no choice but to work until she dies. That’s wrong. Harry had no choice about the family he was born into. Should he be denied to choice to opt out of the family business if he wants to? I think he should be allowed to do something else if he wants to. I also think that since he had no choice in joining the family business that he has a right to protection. If the majority want a royal family then the royal family should pay for it. He especially has a right to protection since he did 2 tours in Afghanistan, one as a foot soldier and one as a helicopter pilot. The guy has a huge target on his back. And it’s bigger Because he served his country in Afghanistan Despite the stupidity of the interview and wondering what the motive to give it was, it is obvious that Meghan has suffered a huge amount of racism from the press and consequently had mental health issues as a result. Who buys these papers? Who is responsible for regulating them? I don’t think it’s acceptable to dismiss the complaints of press racism or her contemplating suicide. Those two are strictly off limits as far as I am concerned
Lizzie can abdicate. I could guess at the reasons why she has not done so, but so can everyone else. I think you make a good point re security for them especially re Harrys army past. That said it was a career that he wanted, and pushed hard to become involved in combat if his own statements at the time were true. I would be furious if the taxpayers were spending £10million a year flying a crew of armed guards around the world. So for me a compromise could easily be found by him living most of the time in Kensington Palace... I don't know if the press criticism of Markle is based on her racial roots, I don't read the tabloids ever. If racism is there it should be prosecuted severely. I do have the impression that she feels very entitled -hardly surprising after five years of Royal living- but it doesn't change the fact that she lives in opulent luxury, and so could be a little less demanding & a lot more grateful.
