|
Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2021 18:22:11 GMT
Yes, that’s what they wanted to do. They wanted to prevent Archie from becoming a prince at all. Honestly, it’s just insane if they wanted to change the convention because they were worried about Archies skin colour. I, again, think it has to do with them not wanting Meghan to have a dynastic connection with the BRF and them not wanting an American citizen to be so close to the throne. That’s also why they are running a campaign to have Harry withdraw himself from the line of Succession. I hope he doesn’t do it. There has to be something more to it all, otherwise Meghan wouldn't have brought it up. But...IF...Harry has his own skeletons in the closet, the Succession may be out for him, too. If Archie is truly of the body born, then we won't be removed from the Succession. Harry has been scapegoated for a long time, but I think he did his father and family a disservice by not being completely honest about what the real issues are. He and Meghan were mostly saying everything but.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2021 18:22:18 GMT
|
|
bonnie
Count/Countess
Posts: 359
|
Post by bonnie on Mar 8, 2021 18:33:45 GMT
^I agree about Kate. Even though Harry was spilling tea about Charles, Kate was shown as a liar. I think Harry does regret thousand times that he was nice to her. The only point I didn't understand was about Archie and title. He can't get prince title by law until Charles is a king. But some sources I've read claimed that "palace" wanted to take away his prince title even when Chuck is a king. Yes, that’s what they wanted to do. They wanted to prevent Archie from becoming a prince at all. Honestly, it’s just insane that they wanted to change the convention because they were worried about Archies skin colour. I, again, think it has to do with them not wanting Meghan to have a dynastic connection with the BRF and them not wanting an American citizen to be so close to the throne. That’s also why they are running a campaign to have Harry withdraw himself from the line of Succession. I hope he doesn’t do it. They won't as they won't take DoS titles away. At least until QE loss. First is QE has good relationship w/Harry and second is that next under hit is Andrew. So not now.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Mar 8, 2021 18:47:15 GMT
If they would get William under actual control and keep his you-know-what wife in line, none of this would happen.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2021 23:31:00 GMT
If they would get William under actual control and keep his you-know-what wife in line, none of this would happen.
Oh, I agree completely! But now, we get the grandfathers' of Archie having their motives and characters called into question, innocent people in the BRF who are not racists being seen as such, the people of the UK blanketed, too, with the accusations of racism, and even some American commentators commenting, well, look where it came from, etc, etc?). I'm even surprised that people are taking everything they are saying as the gospel truth, but not even questioning why they are saying things or even admitting that there could be another side to the story? I found Harry's comment about the skin colour and never revealing who said it to be very unfair, disingenous and cowardly. Yes, cowardly. If you are claiming something as vile as that, at least call the person out or even let them have the opportunity to maybe defend or explain themselves? I feel also that they are using Archie as some kind of bargaining chip - I think poisoning a child against his family and essentially alienating it is just one of the sleaziest and meanest moves one can make. If there was a legitimate reason, well, then, but there doesn't appear to be in this case. I wouldn't be scared with either grandfather and think that of the 4 grandparents, their temperaments and intentions seem(ed) the most honest. Just my say.
|
|
sophia
Baron/Baroness
Posts: 89
|
Post by sophia on Mar 8, 2021 23:32:45 GMT
Yes, that’s what they wanted to do. They wanted to prevent Archie from becoming a prince at all. Honestly, it’s just insane that they wanted to change the convention because they were worried about Archies skin colour. I, again, think it has to do with them not wanting Meghan to have a dynastic connection with the BRF and them not wanting an American citizen to be so close to the throne. That’s also why they are running a campaign to have Harry withdraw himself from the line of Succession. I hope he doesn’t do it. They won't as they won't take DoS titles away. At least until QE loss. First is QE has good relationship w/Harry and second is that next under hit is Andrew. So not now. Of course they won’t take his titles, they cannot. Not unless he commits treason, and this interview didn’t even go as far as Dianas Panorama interview did. They are encouraging him to rescind them. I think they want him to give up his line in the succession for himself and his offspring.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Mar 9, 2021 3:52:31 GMT
Queen, 94, 'REFUSES to sign off Palace response to Oprah interview' and demands more time despite day of emergency talks with Charles and William after Harry 'pressed the nuclear button' and 'blew up the family' in interview with Meghan
William is the root cause of this mess and people need to stop pressuring HM to act hastily. Harry simply cannot get stripped of his succession status and right now moderate behavior is best. For some reason, everyone is shrieking about stripping Harry of everything and who knows what that might lead to.
'One of the most disingenuous diatribes I've ever had to witness': Piers Morgan slams Meghan and Harry's 'appalling' interview and says it 'devastated' their relationships with the Royals on DailyMailTV
BEL MOONEY: My pity for these sad, naive, damaged souls
Just who ARE Harry and Meghan accusing of race slur? It's not the Queen or Prince Philip... so who in the Royal Family is said by the couple to have queried the colour of their son's skin?
No way they could keep their bodyguards: Former royal security unit chief blasts 'arrogant' assumption Harry and Meghan could retain their protection after stepping back
DOMINIQUE SAMUELS: This clash of the Royals was about culture... NOT colour
Meghan and Harry's sensational claims fact-checked: How friend contradicted Meghan's claim she never Googled Harry, the truth about that secret wedding and whether Archie really should have been a prince
Meghan the mermaid and a tale with a fishy ending: As the Duchess claims she's like a cursed Disney character, SARAH VINE asks does her story really hold water?
The only winners from this are those who hate the monarchy: By attacking the Royal Family in such an imperious way, Harry and Meghan have come perilously close to obliterating the whole institution...and they must now lose their titles, writes RICHARD KAY
Meghan Markle's half-sister Samantha SLAMS her Oprah interview, accusing Duchess of using 'depression as an excuse to treat people like dishrags' - and firing back at her claim that they haven't seen each other in 20 years
MICHAEL RIEDEL: Britons think Harry and Meghan are brats. But we Americans adore them
ROBERT HARDMAN: Allegations about Archie's title, his 'dark skin' and royal protection... but there are so many more questions than answers
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 9, 2021 3:58:08 GMT
Queen, 94, 'REFUSES to sign off Palace response to Oprah interview' and demands more time despite day of emergency talks with Charles and William after Harry 'pressed the nuclear button' and 'blew up the family' in interview with Meghan William is the root cause of this mess and people need to stop pressuring HM to act hastily. Harry simply cannot get stripped of his succession status and right now moderate behavior is best. For some reason, everyone is shrieking about stripping Harry of everything and who knows what that might lead to. 'One of the most disingenuous diatribes I've ever had to witness': Piers Morgan slams Meghan and Harry's 'appalling' interview and says it 'devastated' their relationships with the Royals on DailyMailTV BEL MOONEY: My pity for these sad, naive, damaged souls
Just who ARE Harry and Meghan accusing of race slur? It's not the Queen or Prince Philip... so who in the Royal Family is said by the couple to have queried the colour of their son's skin?
No way they could keep their bodyguards: Former royal security unit chief blasts 'arrogant' assumption Harry and Meghan could retain their protection after stepping back
DOMINIQUE SAMUELS: This clash of the Royals was about culture... NOT colour
Meghan and Harry's sensational claims fact-checked: How friend contradicted Meghan's claim she never Googled Harry, the truth about that secret wedding and whether Archie really should have been a prince Meghan the mermaid and a tale with a fishy ending: As the Duchess claims she's like a cursed Disney character, SARAH VINE asks does her story really hold water?
The only winners from this are those who hate the monarchy: By attacking the Royal Family in such an imperious way, Harry and Meghan have come perilously close to obliterating the whole institution...and they must now lose their titles, writes RICHARD KAY
Meghan Markle's half-sister Samantha SLAMS her Oprah interview, accusing Duchess of using 'depression as an excuse to treat people like dishrags' - and firing back at her claim that they haven't seen each other in 20 years MICHAEL RIEDEL: Britons think Harry and Meghan are brats. But we Americans adore them
ROBERT HARDMAN: Allegations about Archie's title, his 'dark skin' and royal protection... but there are so many more questions than answers
Just reading these links... oh my. I can't wait for the Thomas Markle rebuttal.
|
|
bonnie
Count/Countess
Posts: 359
|
Post by bonnie on Mar 9, 2021 10:52:03 GMT
At least he told that he sold stories to press. This is actually the best he could tell, highfive to PR specialists. I only want to know why Sam did sell the same stories and where are her kids now.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Mar 12, 2021 22:14:18 GMT
I hadn't seen this specific thread and spoke on this topic in the Markle v Press/Royal Family/Markles/Besties threads. Shall I post those here instead and is there a way to erase those over there? They are relevant to both threads, incidentally.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 12, 2021 22:59:36 GMT
I hadn't seen this specific thread and spoke on this topic in the Markle v Press/Royal Family/Markles/Besties threads. Shall I post those here instead and is there a way to erase those over there? They are relevant to both threads, incidentally. You can post where you wish, Guest, if something needs to be moved, typically an Admin/Moderator can move it. I really wish you would sign up with us, Guest, as you seem to be posting some interesting items. You are most welcome to sign up! Admin
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Mar 12, 2021 23:05:06 GMT
At least he told that he sold stories to press. This is actually the best he could tell, highfive to PR specialists. I only want to know why Sam did sell the same stories and where are her kids now.
I think at first he was just being a proud Dad, but afterwards, once he was slandered by his own daughter, he spoke out to defend himself.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 12, 2021 23:28:28 GMT
At least he told that he sold stories to press. This is actually the best he could tell, highfive to PR specialists. I only want to know why Sam did sell the same stories and where are her kids now. I think at first he was just being a proud Dad, but afterwards, once he was slandered by his own daughter, he spoke out to defend himself.
Seems like he is holding back, still. I wonder why his "crimes" are so bad yet her mother's are not. Is it because he can counter a lot of her background claims and Doria just shuts her mouth and accepts the loot? hmmm..... It's hard to go on the defensive and make claims against the world when you have your own secrets you don't want anybody to know. Kind of hypocritical and a form of bullying to set the attack dogs out on those who question your pat narrative, too. JMO
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Mar 13, 2021 0:13:29 GMT
I think at first he was just being a proud Dad, but afterwards, once he was slandered by his own daughter, he spoke out to defend himself.
Seems like he is holding back, still. I wonder why his "crimes" are so bad yet her mother's are not. Is it because he can counter a lot of her background claims and Doria just shuts her mouth and accepts the loot? hmmm..... It's hard to go on the defensive and make claims against the world when you have your own secrets you don't want anybody to know. Kind of hypocritical and a form of bullying to set the attack dogs out on those who question your pat narrative, too. JMO
I think Meg is one of those people who thinks that her mother will never let her down, despite the fact that her mother has in many ways, never been there for her. I think Meg will continue to have problems and stop basically making good choices until she realizes that her father is the one she should be showering love on.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Mar 13, 2021 4:21:24 GMT
I hadn't seen this specific thread and spoke on this topic in the Markle v Press/Royal Family/Markles/Besties threads. Shall I post those here instead and is there a way to erase those over there? They are relevant to both threads, incidentally. You can post where you wish, Guest, if something needs to be moved, typically an Admin/Moderator can move it. I really wish you would sign up with us, Guest, as you seem to be posting some interesting items. You are most welcome to sign up! Admin
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Mar 13, 2021 4:37:31 GMT
Okay, thanks. I'm swamped and hardly on any internet forums usually.
I had intended these about the interview so I am pasting these as one post here.
I'll add to it these that at the time of Markle's lie to get her early acting job on TV show Century City to join SAG, in addition to sending loads of paper resumes saying SAG union member status, there existed about a handful of mostly internet actors' databases. These all stated SAG union member status or not too. Since the casting director expressed doubt she was telling the truth, as she indeed lied saying she was a SAG member, any casting director would have had access to at least one or most likely more of these databases.
This is another reason why I wonder if she only lied to this casting director and production company or if she lied to everyone. The fact that her dad and, if she any agent her representatives, were vouching for her by arranging jobs and representing her is also very unsettling since she knew she compromised their reputations too by lying. So I wonder if she lied to everyone. The casting director accepted her repeated lies, and I don't know how they would unless she stated deceptively she had been a SAG member on her resume, which would have been submitted to them, and to all these databases.
I think the article today too listing some of the dishonest statements in the interview interesting too. Again, I am not for this monarchy in light of their deeds. I also wonder what ever happened into the investigation that Jacintha Saldana's family I thought inquired into since I thought they had not been convinced she seemed suicidal.
Also, this suggests that the jobs she has had in her adult career have regularly been secured through nepotism or dishonesty, or characterized by some sort of intimate, amorous relationship with a colleague or someone she works with. At any rate, her later jobs appear to be union jobs, and she lied to secure her union member status.
Here are the posts:
"I'm not up to date on this situation and do not know an enormous amount about it. However, the reason it is hard to believe Markle is I saw an article and video of her saying she lied at work. She lied she was a SAG union member to be hired to say a couple lines on a TV show. She said she lied repeatedly about it. She said this publicly on a panel while laughing and saying what a fraud she is.
She should not have been hired and would not have been apparently if she had not lied. She lied in order to basically leave the company no choice than to I think pay some fine and have her Taft Hartleyed into SAG so that she could then join due to this job she otherwise would not have gotten. It was a union job so the company was not allowed to hire her, a nonunion member.
She described that the company had sounded like it had doubts if she was telling the truth. She said the casting director kept asking her and she kept lying.
The company did not found at the truth until it was too late to replace her.
She said that the casting director was so upset that many years later to that day it had no contact with her.
Then she laughed.
Becoming a SAG member is a big hurdle. Many talented actors lose jobs to union members until they somehow come up with a way to become a union member themselves.
She grew up with a very accomplished DP father on a very successful, famous TV show. It sounds like he helped her start her career. She already had a much easier time starting out than most because of her father's help. However, even though she knew how the industry works, through relationships, and how unsettling this would be to the casting directors and company, she lied.
Not only that. She said this story to answer a question publicly as a panel member about how to become a union member for actors starting out.
She laughed very hard telling that story and sounded very happy with herself.
I had empathy for her during the interview though do not know if she is saying the truth because I have seen her outright lie and laugh about it.
I also know that much of what she said did not make sense. For example, she said they had no intention at all of doing a deal with streaming companies.
However, I saw, as they were serving as royals funded by taxpayers, they pitched her voiceover services to the head of Disney.
Therefore, they appeared to have planned this all along.
So many other statements also made no sense at all. So it is hard to believe her.
I will add that at the time I saw this video I looked Markle up. I thought it interesting the casting director had their doubts about if she was lying or telling the truth and kept asking her if she truly was a union member, as it turned out she still lied about.
Since in truth she was not union, her resume would have no SAG credits on it.
This lie occurred on a TV show called Century City. You can look up Markle's credits and see she only has two "credits" before this. One is "uncredited" on Married with Children. This is the show she said in a late-night talk show interview that her dad was DP on. During this late-night talk show interview, she and the host have almost nothing to talk about. They do not talk about her work or accomplishments especially. They simply make very awkward jokes and allusions to her revealing dress.
She most likely had no lines on Married with Children, which is consistent with how she had not been a union member.
The other was one appearance on a soap opera, General Hospital. If her publicly listed age is correct, she would have been around 23-24 at the time of this Century City TV show job of about 2 lines. It is very hard for a nonunion actor to make a living unable to be hired for SAG jobs, even as much as companies would like to hire them if they are talented though are not allowed to. Becoming a union member is a big, celebratory event for an actor that earns it with integrity after suffering heartbreak as they are losing roles to union actors though are told they are the first choice until the last second.
At around the time of this Century City job, actors used to print and send many hard copy paper photographs and resumes to their agents to send to casting directors in the hope one might let them audition.
These resumes said their agent's, or if they had no representative their own, contact information and their credits. It also said their union status.
Did she only lie to this casting director or was she lying to everyone on these loads of resumes?
For a casting director to audition then hire an actor they had reason to doubt was telling the truth when this actor has almost no credits is something an actor would be very thankful for.
It stood out to me she treated them and the production company this way then spoke about it publicly on a panel giving advice to other actors starting out, knew how much this upset the casting director to that day many years later yet laughed happily as she called herself a fraud.
It's interesting too she said in this interview she "lost" her father. Since she herself lied at least once, if not more, said she knew her father sounded like he was being hunted by the press then apparently learned he let his photo be taken by one photographer once then lied to her about it, it simply sincerely causes me to wonder how come she does not speak to him about this, since he was going through serious surgery at the time.
Also, I saw how she and Harry pitched herself to do Disney voiceover work as they attended an event as taxpayer-funded full-time royals and it seemed highly strategic.
I just saw that if you look up her dad, Thomas Markle's, credits, he was lighting director on General Hospital too.
So she got her first two "jobs" on TV shows her dad had worked on in senior positions. Then she lied to get her third job, which ended in a burnt bridge with that casting director.
Even if he isn't credited on her other credits, it is not outside the realm of possibility he helped her access to other jobs too, since I think I read he helped her start. Before Suits, she mostly had one or two liners as far as I could tell. That is called a day player. The scenes I saw of her in Suits had not been well acted. Since I read she appeared unclothed on it, I thought she would have understood that she would have to adjust and establish herself in her new role.
I saw very favorable press of her until coverage of how they spoke about the environment as they rode unnecessarily in private jets.
So that and how her and their statements in the Oprah interview sounded contradictory to each other's and known facts causes it to be hard to believe her.
I agree that the subjects mentioned are important and empathetic. I also agree that Andrew should be investigated. I think the monarchy should be abolished due to their deeds.
I think anyone that did their research into the monarchy, Gandhi, Kate, Will, Uncle Gary, the Maison de Bang Bang in Ibiza, the young girls and drugs offered there in the time frame Kate and Will vacationed there, Edward, Wallis, Epstein and Andrew would have had reason to think the family might be racist.
Any monarchy family in which Harry, his upbringing and family members thought it okay for him to attend an event in public dressed as a Nazi, as heir to the throne, comes across as racist. I sincerely am curious how he thought that okay and if he is ever going to explain how come he did that and how come he did not address the family privately about this other situation given how much grace had been showed him about that and his other actions."
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Mar 13, 2021 4:50:51 GMT
Sorry for a few typos at the header of the post before as I included the posts here.
I think the U.K. monarchy should be abolished. I think all its property should turned into museums and, as such, ,given back to benefit the taxpayers, British and its colonialized people through history.
I think the suggested donation for entry should be used for restoration/upkeep, research, book/articles publications and documentaries. I think these should research and education everyone on the truth about the monarchy and the effects, including to this day, of colonization, their misdeeds and falseness/manipulation of media.
I think Saville should be more researched also.
I think these documentaries should be shown at these museums and properties and stream globally.
I think all of these misdeeds should be investigated and appropriate action should be taken against these.
Andrew, Epstein, Charles, Saville, Kate, Emma Sayles, Killing Kittens, Will, Gary Middleton, Maison de Bang Bang.
How is it that one monarchy family has four members with direct ties to someone involved with this sort of offering, more often than not of the underaged offered for illicit relations and, if you include uncle Uncle Gary through marriage, then five members?
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Jul 18, 2021 20:01:36 GMT
Sorry for a few typos at the header of the post before as I included the posts here. I think the U.K. monarchy should be abolished. I think all its property should turned into museums and, as such, ,given back to benefit the taxpayers, British and its colonialized people through history. I think the suggested donation for entry should be used for restoration/upkeep, research, book/articles publications and documentaries. I think these should research and education everyone on the truth about the monarchy and the effects, including to this day, of colonization, their misdeeds and falseness/manipulation of media. I think Saville should be more researched also. I think these documentaries should be shown at these museums and properties and stream globally. I think all of these misdeeds should be investigated and appropriate action should be taken against these. Andrew, Epstein, Charles, Saville, Kate, Emma Sayles, Killing Kittens, Will, Gary Middleton, Maison de Bang Bang. How is it that one monarchy family has four members with direct ties to someone involved with this sort of offering, more often than not of the underaged offered for illicit relations and, if you include uncle Uncle Gary through marriage, then five members? The Windsors are not smart.
|
|