Meghan/Harry

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

If only I could afford to buy outright or pay the mortgage on a $10million home after being financially cut off by my family. He wouldn't know hardship if it came and kicked him in the you know what's.

It's not all rosy for the royal family though, the Queen finds it hard to pay her fuel bills. Perhaps we should organise a Cableforum funding page, we don't want to reduce her to having to claim Pension Credit:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-2088179.html

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I meant that Harry might not have necessarily been conceived during Christmas 1983 when Diana was surrounded by the royal family. It could have happened a few weeks before or after.

Perhaps Charles knows or suspects and this is why he felt able to refuse to take calls from him and finds his behaviour more annoying than if it were his own flesh & blood?

If he isn't the biological son of Charles, Harry has a mother who was only royal by marriage, which was subsequently revoked and his father wasn't anything to do with the royal family, yet he's been given all the privilage of a prince- even more galling for the family that, after doing this for Harry, rightly or wrongly, he has caused embarrassing issues for them.

Helluva lot of "what ifs" there, Richard - have you thought of taking up writing fiction, or being the Royal Correspondent for the Express or Mail?

Your initial premise was Hewitt was the father, but they didn’t meet until two years after Harry was born (according to multiple sources, including Hewitt)...

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Helluva lot of "what ifs" there, Richard - have you thought of taking up writing fiction, or being the Royal Correspondent for the Express or Mail?

Your initial premise was Hewitt was the father, but they didn’t meet until two years after Harry was born (according to multiple sources, including Hewitt)...

People can lie to suit what they want other people to think, which may or may not be the case, i'm obviously not privvy to that information so can only speculate.

Just to throw something else into the mix, take a look at post #9 and the other link here!

https://www.forumbox.co.uk/forum/thr...-pat/?pageNo=1

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...e-concert.html

I'd put money on Harry not being Charles son, but without a DNA test (which they'd never do), nobody will ever know for sure. I'm surprised the press haven't got someone to surreptitiously obtain the DNA of the men involved- would be a real scoop for them and may allow the palace to rid themselves of Harry, whilst degenerating the reputation of his late mother.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

<SNIP>

I'd put money on Harry not being Charles son, but without a DNA test (which they'd never do), nobody will ever know for sure. I'm surprised the press haven't got someone to surreptitiously obtain the DNA of the men involved- would be a real scoop for them and may allow the palace to rid themselves of Harry, whilst degenerating the reputation of his late mother.

You can't believe what you're writing, Richard.

1. Harry's eye's are as close together as the rest of the Royals, particularly Charlie Farley.

2. His smile, when he shows his teeth, is pure Charlie Farley (and indeed Mountbatten).

56% are unsympathetic towards the Markles in a snap YouGov poll tonight.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Harry says otherwise

Exactly, name names or it didn't happen

Originally Posted by Mick

They are also Hypocrites because didn't Harry foolishly wear a Nazi Uniform, whilst attending a party and got snapped by the press when he did so?

Didn't he refer to one of his soldier pals as his "paki friend." ?

Shoe fits, Harry Markle/Meagain...

---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

That's something else that's odd, both her husband and father in law were treated for mental health issues and her brother in law and husband run a charity based on mental health but apparently she was offered no help, doesn't add up for me

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

If only I could afford to buy outright or pay the mortgage on a $10million home after being financially cut off by my family. He wouldn't know hardship if it came and kicked him in the you know what's.

It's hilarious when he says he left the country like anyone else would have, man of the people, common touch etc

---------- Post added at 00:54 ---------- Previous post was at 00:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You can't believe what you're writing, Richard.

1. Harry's eye's are as close together as the rest of the Royals, particularly Charlie Farley.

2. His smile, when he shows his teeth, is pure Charlie Farley (and indeed Mountbatten).

But he doesn't have the royal gene of going from teenage heart throb to late middle aged bald man almost overnight

---------- Post added at 00:55 ---------- Previous post was at 00:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

56% are unsympathetic towards the Markles in a snap YouGov poll tonight.

Surprised it isn't higher tbh

[jfman]

Surprised the UK media entertain them.

Oh yes. Clickbait. Whip up the public into a frenzy and charge for clicks.

Money for old rope for the media here.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

If only I could afford to buy outright or pay the mortgage on a $10million home after being financially cut off by my family. He wouldn't know hardship if it came and kicked him in the you know what's.

Hardship comes in all sorts of ways.

When you are only a child and you lose your mum and have to cope with it whilst living your life surrounded by the media prying in then I can understand it is hard.


I think Harry could see history beginning to repeat itself with his family being tormented by the press.


He made the decision to protect his family.



At no point did they say they wanted to abandon their royal duties....just take a step back like many other royals do.
Instead they were seen as traitors and the Royal institution decided to take away everything and distance themselves from them.


Harry and Meghan did the right thing. Imagine being tormented by the media since you've been born and the constant abuse.

They decided to step away from that and are now exploring new opportunities. What they decide to do is up to them.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Hardship comes in all sorts of ways.

When you are only a child and you lose your mum and have to cope with it whilst living your life surrounded by the media prying in then I can understand it is hard.


I think Harry could see history beginning to repeat itself with his family being tormented by the press.


He made the decision to protect his family.



At no point did they say they wanted to abandon their royal duties....just take a step back like many other royals do.
Instead they were seen as traitors and the Royal institution decided to take away everything and distance themselves from them.


Harry and Meghan did the right thing. Imagine being tormented by the media since you've been born and the constant abuse.

They decided to step away from that and are now exploring new opportunities. What they decide to do is up to them.

Maybe I should have said he wouldn't know financial hardship.

Anyway, if they truly wanted to step out of the limelight then they could have done so but I don't think either of them could contemplate life without the media circus around them because I feel they're both getting a bit lost in their dillusions of self importance. If you court a life in the media (gutter press??) then don't be surprised if/when it turns on you because at the end of the day you're only there to sell column inches.

Originally Posted by jfman

Surprised the UK media entertain them.

Oh yes. Clickbait. Whip up the public into a frenzy and charge for clicks.

Money for old rope for the media here.

---------- Post added at 09:13 ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

56% are unsympathetic towards the Markles in a snap YouGov poll tonight.

Got a link?

---------- Post added at 09:16 ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

People can lie to suit what they want other people to think, which may or may not be the case, i'm obviously not privvy to that information so can only speculate.

Just to throw something else into the mix, take a look at post #9 and the other link here!

https://www.forumbox.co.uk/forum/thr...-pat/?pageNo=1

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...e-concert.html

I'd put money on Harry not being Charles son, but without a DNA test (which they'd never do), nobody will ever know for sure. I'm surprised the press haven't got someone to surreptitiously obtain the DNA of the men involved- would be a real scoop for them and may allow the palace to rid themselves of Harry, whilst degenerating the reputation of his late mother.

I do not pay attention to the gutter press because they always have an axe to grind.In fact I don't believe that the British Press/media is to be altogether truthful and neutral and hasn't been for the last 30 years.You need to stop reading the rubbish and speculation they spout or your brain will rot away.

[admars]

it's a bit like a modern day Stones Vs The Beatles, Nirvana Vs Pearl Jam, Blur Vs Oasis,

The Racist Vs The Bully

the media is building up the hype for a massive grudge match, let's get ready to rumble, or something

Royal commentators hoaxed into critique of Meghan interview before seeing it

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...fore-seeing-it

Leading royal commentators have come under fire after they were filmed giving their views about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s performance in their eagerly awaited interview with Oprah Winfrey for an undisclosed fee, days before they had seen it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Surprised the UK media entertain them.

Oh yes. Clickbait. Whip up the public into a frenzy and charge for clicks.

Money for old rope for the media here.

I look forward to this disappearing through lack of interest very quickly, they're not Royal, they no longer (well she never) serve the country. They should be of no interest to the UK.

They are essentially a couple of Beverley Hills B-listers.

There was nothing said in that interview that was in any way controversial, the media can try and spin it but there's nothing there to spin. She's a grifter, and has managed to get a payday for not very much content.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I look forward to this disappearing through lack of interest very quickly, they're not Royal, they no longer (well she never) serve the country. They should be of no interest to the UK.

They are essentially a couple of Beverley Hills B-listers.

There was nothing said in that interview that was in any way controversial, the media can try and spin it but there's nothing there to spin. She's a grifter, and has managed to get a payday for not very much content.

This.

I am surprised how many people want to pick sides in a family/institutional squabble they know little about. I don't think the interview with Oprah was a good idea as it comes across as playing the celebrity game, if they wanted to be taken more seriously in the U.K they should have done it with a U.K interviewer from BBC or Sky. This was designed for a U.S audience.

That said I also don't give much benefit of the doubt to the institution itself especially when see the stuff around Prince Andrew.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I look forward to this disappearing through lack of interest very quickly, they're not Royal, they no longer (well she never) serve the country. They should be of no interest to the UK.

They are essentially a couple of Beverley Hills B-listers.

There was nothing said in that interview that was in any way controversial, the media can try and spin it but there's nothing there to spin. She's a grifter, and has managed to get a payday for not very much content.

She should be applauded for being able to achieve such fame and fortune. In football we have the WAGs. A host of z list no marks result from Love Island.

It's a capitalist society. Give people what they want and you'll get coin.

I hope the British press leave them alone. For their, and our, benefit. I suspect however we will get more pointless stories because it sells the rags and saves them from having to do proper journalism.