Prince Harry and Meghan Markle thread

[Vlad]

I kindly request that all members participating in the MM and Harry thread dial back the vile rhetoric.

I am not opposed to discussing public personas on TPF, including the constant torrent of news surrounding the couple from this thread. But I find it troubling when their looks are being nitpicked apart to a degree that is just not appropriate.

This thread has drawn criticism over the years, and I discussed it at great length with Megs and the mods. I am not looking to close it down, but the vitriol needs to be dialed back.

My personal feelings about hate threads aside, this ultra-negative vibe is something better suited for other forums, Reddit, or elsewhere. I am holding our community to higher standards.

Thanks for reading.

 

[charlottawill]

 

[charlottawill]

 

[Chanbal]

Only sugars will pay for that!

A link between the author of the NYT article and the Harkles has been found…

 

[Chanbal]

 

[xincinsin]

Someone, not exactly a sugar but trying to be sympathetic and non-judgmental, claimed it was all due to photo angles and suggested we measure the angle of Zed's breasts against the dome of the bump. <face-palm>

Someone else blamed it all on bad underwear support.

I do have experience with someone who hid her pregnancy for months by using constricting underwear and loose clothing. She was already rotund, so the bump wasn't very noticeable. She might have concealed everything for longer if she didn't have a miscarriage. But Zed wasn't trying to conceal her pregnancy, quite the opposite, and bad underwear would not explain the mutating bump size.

 

[CarryOn2020]

At first, I thought he was wearing the beanie. Take a closer look. It looks like one of those infrared hats imo.

 

[gracekelly]

Bower is an attorney so that is a pretty serious thing for him to say without proof. We know that the OB/GYN who was thought to have delivered Aldi, came out and stated that she did not. The timing of the labor and birth were deliberately misleading. Is Bower working his way into saying that the baby was carried by a surrogate?

 

[bag-mania]

I don't think it's a paid puff piece. Zeynep Tufekci likes to think she understands complex topics and unravel them for the masses. To the horror of actual experts. She's done it throughout pandemic - she picks a side and sticks with it. When proven wrong, goes to 'science is evolving'. She's taken to attacking scientists whose side she hasn't picked. Actually, she is like TW - likes to hitch on to the current bandwagon passing through.

That’s why they put Opinion above her article’s headline in 6 pt. type. It’s too small for most readers to notice but the New York Times has covered it’s a$$.

 

[rose60610]

I don't think it's a paid puff piece. Zeynep Tufekci likes to think she understands complex topics and unravel them for the masses. To the horror of actual experts. She's done it throughout pandemic - she picks a side and sticks with it. When proven wrong, goes to 'science is evolving'. She's taken to attacking scientists whose side she hasn't picked. Actually, she is like TW - likes to hitch on to the current bandwagon passing through.

I read the entirety in the NYT, and as sappy gaggy pro Haz and TW as it was, I'd say about 85% of the 2000 comments were still against the drifters. Somebody speculated that Tufekci was affiliated with Archewell. As much as Claw and Cream-for-the-Cocksickle yearn and suck up to be in the international spotlight, nobody from the White House has come a-callin', have they? And for that matter, the Hollywood A-Lister crowd, nor the Hollywood Z-Lister crowd has ever even mentioned in passing that our Delusional Duo had been invited to anything. Wherever they went, they've invited themselves. United Nations, anybody? Cemeteries, anybody? Sites of tragedies, anybody? And...oh look! Cameras were involved!

 

[Chanbal]

At first, I thought he was wearing the beanie. Take a closer look. It looks like one of those infrared hats imo.
View attachment 5701001

Oh, thanks for the info! It makes sense. I thought it was a toupee.

 

[Hyacinth]

If true, she is most definitely correct about this!

“There’s a reason we haven’t seen her since the book came out,” explains the source. “She’s humiliated. She expected Harry’s book to get everyone onside after all their struggles, and instead her husband – and therefore her – has become a laughing stock.”


“She’s worried it makes her sound crazy,” says the source. “She can’t believe Harry went that far. They have been fighting about it.”

https://www.newidea.com.au/meghan-markle-response-to-spare

I doubt H did anything w/o her approval

ABSOLUTELY! The Half-Price Prince doesn't even dare pull out Todger Junior to go peepee without The Harrydan's written permission. There's no way in hell that book was published without her going over every syllable with an electron microscope. Who does she think she's kidding?

 

[Chanbal]

Bower is an attorney so that is a pretty serious thing for him to say without proof. We know that the OB/GYN who was thought to have delivered Aldi, came out and stated that she did not. The timing of the labor and birth were deliberately misleading. Is Bower working his way into saying that the baby was carried by a surrogate?

Tom Bower has a lot more information than what he published in his book. If the Harkles sue him, some of that information might become public. The Harkles may not like that.

There is a lot of activity about the alleged surrogate on Twitter. I bet the RF has the right information about the birth.

 

[gracekelly]

I’m leaning towards the silence being a regrouping, reinventing mixed in with some panic. She is not a person who gives up. Things have not been going to plan and neither of them think spontaneously.

 

[Hyacinth]

Not sure I buy this. I can't imagine that she didn't read the book during the editing process. (Some have even speculated that she had a hand in writing the last part of it since the style and voice of the last one-third is so different from the first part.)

If my DH were putting out a memoir, I'd certainly read it before it was published. Can't imagine that Harry would have refused to let her read it before publication.

So, yeah, she read the book, knew what was in the book, and obviously thought it made her (and them) look sympathetic, not foolish or stupid. Floating rumors that "she can't believe Harry went that far" are just damage control on MM's part or just tabloid gossip for clicks maybe?

Another entry in the "Mental Abuse" column of her divorce petition.

"...Is Emotional Abuse Illegal?
The simple answer is yes. Emotional abuse is classified as domestic violence and is punishable by law in many states, California included.

Emotional abuse (also referred to as psychological abuse, mental abuse, or coercive control) is defined as non-physical behaviors that are meant to control, isolate, or frighten you. It can be in the form of name-calling, humiliation, threats, jealousy, excessive monitoring, intimidation, dismissiveness, and more. An abusive spouse does not have to physically lay hands on their spouse in order to be held liable for emotional abuse..."

Divorcing an Emotionally Abusive Spouse: What to Expect

Emotional abuse and domestic violence can play a role in divorce. Learn how to prove emotional abuse in court. Read our blog to learn more.

www.ocdivorce.net

I'm just wondering, who is the abuser and who is the abused?

 

[Chanbal]

I read the entirety in the NYT, and as sappy gaggy pro Haz and TW as it was, I'd say about 85% of the 2000 comments were still against the drifters. Somebody speculated that Tufekci was affiliated with Archewell. As much as Claw and Cream-for-the-Cocksickle yearn and suck up to be in the international spotlight, nobody from the White House has come a-callin', have they? And for that matter, the Hollywood A-Lister crowd, nor the Hollywood Z-Lister crowd has ever even mentioned in passing that our Delusional Duo had been invited to anything. Wherever they went, they've invited themselves. United Nations, anybody? Cemeteries, anybody? Sites of tragedies, anybody? And...oh look! Cameras were involved!

It looks like NYT didn't like the question about funding.