Keeping up with the Markles

pc-guy said:
you are so wrong!

Harry clearly told her about the conversation and must have told her about the person who said it. she knew as much as what harry does and only difference is that she wasnt there. She could have told everyone in the world who said it and how the conversation went.

Instead she chose to throw this bomb and let it rip - by laying the accusation. And then expect Harry to pick up the pieces by what falsely accusing either his brother or his dad for being a bigot by doing so protecting his wife and the mother to his unborn child from being accused of being a liar or go on world wide television and say the truth and say it was all a misunderstanding and Meghan got it wrong and exergerated the whole thing?

Harry did neither and just left it and all he said was that the conversation about skin tone came up and he was taken back by it. The latter comment was probably prompted by Meghan's reaction or over reaction that night, I would have thought Harry would have the balls to challenge Will and Charles if they said something clearly not fit at the time of the conversation. Harry isnt exactly timid or have towed the line when it comes to family matters and how a royal should behave in the public let alone in the private.
Click to expand...

You are making assumptions there to fit your narrative.
Harry did neither and just left it and all he said was that the conversation about skin tone came up and he was taken back by it. The latter comment was probably prompted by Meghan's reaction or over reaction that night
Click to expand...
To me him being taken aback by the comment makes me think just that, the person said it and he thought WTF. There is no way he didn't know Meghan was going to bring this up, they would have gone over what they would and wouldn't say long before they say down with Oprah.

As for leaving it all hanging and not saying who said it, I don't think it matters. The person who said it knows, I would imagine the whole family now knows who said it, they are the only ones who count here. What you, me, the person next door thinks is pretty irrelevant. It's not like this is going to bring down the Monarchy (I'm more and more thinking that's a shame) this will be in the news cycle until something big or juicer comes along and people will just move on to that. The Windsors' aren't idiots, they'll keep their heads down like they always do and wait for it to blow over.
 
200sols said:
Its hardly far fetched is it but mud slinging with no evidence is usually frowned upon. Now they have created the 'who is the royal racist' game.
Click to expand...

The only evidence some would've accepted is both video and audio recordings. Even if they named it people would've said that without context it's meaningless.

To be fair to them, they raised the difficulty. My money would've went straight on Phillip but they said it wasn't him or Liz so it makes it a bit more tricky.
 
Dirk Diggler said:
I've heard it all now. :p
Click to expand...

Maybe you haven’t, a poster on a U.S. forum alleges that, “The rumors (sic), are that Archie was born by surrogate.”
I copied it, but it wouldn’t paste into this reply.
If the allegation was even remotely true, she did a terrific job of growing and patting that bump for months.
 
Junglist said:
To be fair to them, they raised the difficulty. My money would've went straight on Phillip but they said it wasn't him or Liz so it makes it a bit more tricky.
Click to expand...

Only leaves Charles or Wills really, nobody cares about the others!

As for context, families often discuss how newborn babies will look, their weight etc so why should skin colour in a mixed race family be any different?
 
200sols said:
Only leaves Charles or Wills really, nobody cares about the others!
Click to expand...
Currently my money is on Wills because why not.

As for context, families often discuss how newborn babies will look, their weight etc so why should skin colour in a mixed race family be any different?
Click to expand...

It's been presented as a concern. That's a bit different from a curiosity. My friends who had their first child last year, it never once crossed my mind to ask them "I wonder what skin colour it will be" as it's obvious that as a mixed race couple, it's not going to be white as chalk or black as the ace of spades and it will most likely be somewhere in between. Likewise when my partner and I decide to have a child I wouldn't expect someone to ask me how dark my child will be as it's not really relevant.

Sure, ask about who's hair it may have, what features it may take but asking specifically about skin colour seems weird to me.
 
Junglist said:
If the idea that Harry asked Meghan to not reveal a name is too far-fetched then I suppose we can just agree to disagree.

So I guess it's back to saying she played the race card cause it clearly is a 100% fabricated story. Good on her because she's played a blinder as it's got right under a lot of your skin.
Well played, Meghan. Well played.
Click to expand...
What is there to gain from hiding the content of the conversation and revealing the person? They already caused enough damage.

the only plausible reason is the truth isn’t what they claim.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
You are making assumptions there to fit your narrative. To me him being taken aback by the comment makes me think just that, the person said it and he thought WTF. There is no way he didn't know Meghan was going to bring this up, they would have gone over what they would and wouldn't say long before they say down with Oprah.

As for leaving it all hanging and not saying who said it, I don't think it matters. The person who said it knows, I would imagine the whole family now knows who said it, they are the only ones who count here. What you, me, the person next door thinks is pretty irrelevant. It's not like this is going to bring down the Monarchy (I'm more and more thinking that's a shame) this will be in the news cycle until something big or juicer comes along and people will just move on to that. The Windsors' aren't idiots, they'll keep their heads down like they always do and wait for it to blow over.
Click to expand...
Not giving the context and the name of the person matters a huge deal. In normal circumstances it would be a case of you words against mine. But they know that royal family won’t be able respond normally. Therefore all they got to do is to even mention the slightly in the sale of racism that is enough. If you actually level the true conversation and the persons name then we will have all the FACTS to make judgement for ourselves as opposed to the narrative they have dictated to us.

that’s the issue at hand. They have made the accusation with no substance and people are happy to believe them without questions.

the other side is what are there to gain from not revealing the conversation and the person if it is true. Absolutely nothing. The only reason for not revealing is to hide the truth.
 
Lysander said:
Couples talk, of course they do. But she was the one who brought it up in the interview.
Click to expand...


You dont think just maybe they sat down and had numerous discussions about the interview, what they would say, who would say it, how Oprah would then respond to get the best bang for their buck and so on.

this is not some little chat down the pub - this is an internationally broadcast interview designed to up their profile and keep the money flowing in - whilst also getting their own back on the family for not letting them carry on as the US showbiz branch of the Royal Family like they thought they could.

Anyway Wills (tm) has now said the Royal family is in no way racist - so i guess that ball is back in Harry's court. Wonder what his wife will instruct him to say
 
200sols said:
Only leaves Charles or Wills really, nobody cares about the others!

As for context, families often discuss how newborn babies will look, their weight etc so why should skin colour in a mixed race family be any different?
Click to expand...

I get how people might say I wonder if they'll get your nose, hair colour etc etc, but discussing skin colour in a mixed race family? Personally I wouldn't say it's OK to question the colour of someone's skin, but then again why do people question things like will they have ginger hair.......
 
Someone do please get in touch when this thread gets back on topic and stops being a foolish and pointless squabble about racism, freedom to be insulting and the odious Piers Morgan :D
 
Angilion said:
It's an insult specifically and explicitly created for and aimed solely at "white" people, which makes it inherently racist. As racist as any other word created explicitly to be a race-specific insult.

It was created to be aimed at men and almost always is, which makes it sexist in practice.

It was created to be aimed at men over a certain age and almost always is, which makes it ageist in practice.

You might not be bothered by those aspects of it, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Click to expand...

It isn't, that is nonsense and frankly the usual fare of unimpressive nonsense you spout with some vague air of unverified expertise. I'm not here to afford you an education in etymology when Google exists.

'The Left' boogeyman took a term that dates back to the 1600s purely to annoy people and it works hilariously well for the exact reasons I stated. It's a stupid 'whatabout racism against white men' argument.

It's boring, it's facile and it's intellectually bankrupt.

edit: inb4 the usual stream of mouthbreathers start 'educating' a 'leftist' who was a paid up Conservative party member and who has historical 100% blue voting record. :rolleyes:
 
pc-guy said:
Not giving the context and the name of the person matters a huge deal. In normal circumstances it would be a case of you words against mine. But they know that royal family won’t be able respond normally. Therefore all they got to do is to even mention the slightly in the sale of racism that is enough. If you actually level the true conversation and the persons name then we will have all the FACTS to make judgement for ourselves as opposed to the narrative they have dictated to us.

that’s the issue at hand. They have made the accusation with no substance and people are happy to believe them without questions.

the other side is what are there to gain from not revealing the conversation and the person if it is true. Absolutely nothing. The only reason for not revealing is to hide the truth.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. People will say the thing that was said but refuse to name the person all the time. It would sever no purpose to say the name. They'd probably be getting as much criticism for saying it as they are now for not. "Oh they didn't need to say his/her name then". I couldn't care less who said it, did someone say it, yes they may very well of said it, what context they said it in is another thing. The only people who seem up in arms about them not saying it are people such as yourself. Why do you care? Its not you or a family member or a friend, its a bunch of freeloading toffs who live in a different world to everyone on here.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
No it isn't. People will say the thing that was said but refuse to name the person all the time. It would sever no purpose to say the name. They'd probably be getting as much criticism for saying it as they are now for not. "Oh they didn't need to say his/her name then". I couldn't care less who said it, did someone say it, yes they may very well of said it, what context they said it in is another thing. The only people who seem up in arms about them not saying it are people such as yourself. Why do you care? Its not you or a family or friend, its a bunch of freeloading toffs who live in a different world to everyone on here.
Click to expand...
Look watch the interview. The whole issue came out amongst a load of innuendos. So it is convenient for her to cast race into the issue cos it justify her positions and her subsequent claim that Archie was denied of his title because of racism which is not true. she even made up some accord that she can’t recall.

when you claim sexism, racism, you can’t just say that person is racist or sexist. You have to bring proof. Just because someone commented on someone’s skin tone doesn’t mean it is racist. Since when can we not call people for what they are.

for them not coming out with even the context of the conversation or what was said, it beggars the notion that they are either lying about the whole thing or they have exaggerated the truth or mixed the truth with some falsehood.

Lastly, I have plenty mixed race couple friends. When they started to have families, colour of babies are often discussed and that was never discussed under any tome of racism or prejudice by the parents of the children or the other faintly members or even amongst friends.
 
maybe the culprit was the corgis ... when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom