Meghan Markle: Family and Background - November 2017-May 2018

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Honestly, you are comparing apples to oranges her. Guardian is a Republican leaning paper to begin with and the DF is the DF. Their commenters aren’t even all British citizens.

Your comments on media commentary are also a little naive. Guardian readers are often republicans, yes. The Daily Mail is a newspaper. A very widely read and popular newspaper. Don't write them off simply because you don't like the views they print. Look at the commentators. Take them seriously, even if you believe them to be the minority. A few will absolutely be bots or paid comments but add together the Guardian readers, the Sun readers, the Telegraph readers, the Daily Mail readers, the Morning Star readers, the Times readers, the Indie readers, the Spectator readers....and what do you have? You have at least some indication of a general view. Not the majority view, I stress that. But a view which nonetheless exists and must be taken seriously. Then will you budge and accept that this issue with Meghan's sister might be worth giving a little bit of thought to in the future?

Ish makes a good point. Yes, this could happen to any member of the Royal Family and not just Meghan. You make several good points - it may never happen. This might be all she has and now it's gone, she'll fade away into obscurity. But the ostrich approach is a dangerous one. The monarchy absolutely cannot withstand any more "minor issues" or major scandals for that matter once there's a change of government. Looking long term, Meghan will have to find a way to deal with this sort of thing to minimise the damage if something bigger comes out in her sister's book that makes the front pages. It's about damage control. Today, it's easy. Harry shouldn't have provoked Samantha in this way. It was a silly comment to make. But what about in 6 months or a year when the book is out and it's not so easy to ignore in a political climate that has run out of patience?

[Pranter]

In Twitter world (that I'm seeing) about this half sister the majority of folks think she's just out to cause trouble.

FB is trending the same way on the threads I'm seeing about it. Samantha needs to go away and stop trying to cause trouble is the general consensus.


LaRae

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Pranter

In Twitter world (that I'm seeing) about this half sister the majority of folks think she's just out to cause trouble.

FB is trending the same way on the threads I'm seeing about it. Samantha needs to go away and stop trying to cause trouble is the general consensus.


LaRae

I'm seeing the same, so I think that is definitely a more representative view. But my argument is that we can't just write the opposing view off as if it doesn't exist or isn't important.

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by Pranter

In Twitter world (that I'm seeing) about this half sister the majority of folks think she's just out to cause trouble.

FB is trending the same way on the threads I'm seeing about it. Samantha needs to go away and stop trying to cause trouble is the general consensus.


LaRae

I'm seeing the same. To every 'pro' Samantha comment, there are 15-20 'have some shame and stop cashing on your sister' comments.

[Pranter]

The monarchy isn't going anywhere unless the majority of the folks under said monarchy desire it.

There's always going to be people who don't like what the monarchy does because they don't like the monarchy.



LaRae

[jacqui24]

I hardly doubt Meghan has done anything that would be on a scale to affect the lives of millions in a country that she wasn't living in at that time. Samantha Markle isn't worth giving time to by Meghan or Harry.

[Gaudete]

As I said before, I hope you're right in that. And I hope you're right when you say that she has nothing else to say of any consequence. I really do hope so.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

As I said before, I hope you're right in that. And I hope you're right when you say that she has nothing else to say of any consequence. I really do hope so.

It makes me wonder why you are afraid that there *is* more that she has to say. You seem to be afraid that this is only the beginning, why the fear?
Why assume the worst?

[Gaudete]

Why not? Better to be prepared for worse to come and be pleasantly surprised than to say it’s nothing and then have to rush to defend it when it occurs. I don’t know that there is more, you don’t know that there isn’t. But I tend to take Baden Powell’s advice: be prepared.

[Pranter]

If there was anything deep/dark and serious the folks who vetted Meghan when Harry started dating her would of already found it out. Not to mention the media who have no ethics at all when it comes to these things. They've had almost 2 years to dig up something...nada.


LaRae

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

Why not? Better to be prepared for worse to come and be pleasantly surprised than to say it’s nothing and then have to rush to defend it when it occurs. I don’t know that there is more, you don’t know that there isn’t. But I tend to take Baden Powell’s advice: be prepared.

Look, we are all prepared that the next time there is news from Meghan and Harry, Samantha would be bringing herself out to chat about it. And likely, when the wedding rolls around, she'll be crying poor me when she doesn't get an invite to the wedding. However, after a year of alternating between trashing and praising her half-sister, and admitting to not having any contact in almost 10 years, there is little facts offered by her because she, quite frankly, just isn't part of Meghan's life and hasn't been in a long time. I highly doubt that's going to change.

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Pranter

If there was anything deep/dark and serious the folks who vetted Meghan when Harry started dating her would of already found it out. Not to mention the media who have no ethics at all when it comes to these things. They've had almost 2 years to dig up something...nada.


LaRae

That's true. Though any good journalist worth his salt knows a story will have far more of an impact after the marriage than it will before.

However, after a year of alternating between trashing and praising her half-sister, and admitting to not having any contact in almost 10 years, there is little facts offered by her because she, quite frankly, just isn't part of Meghan's life and hasn't been in a long time. I highly doubt that's going to change.

I've conceded that point twice before now. I doubt it too. But just as I can't say it definitely will be an issue, you can't say it definitely won't be. The truth is, only Meghan and Samantha know what Meghan and Samantha know. It'll be upto Samantha to share anything more as and when she chooses and for Meghan to be prepared for that.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

Why not? Better to be prepared for worse to come and be pleasantly surprised than to say it’s nothing and then have to rush to defend it when it occurs. I don’t know that there is more, you don’t know that there isn’t. But I tend to take Baden Powell’s advice: be prepared.

Why not? Why yes may be the better question. It seems an exhausting way to take things and surely not one for me, but if it is convenient for you then good for you.
I was just wondering as you have stated that the BRF can't take any more storms or scandals. If that would be so -and if there would be reason to expect that any might yet come- then the institution would be really fragile, which it's not.
They have seen much worse than a jealous half-sister.

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Look, we are all prepared that the next time there is news from Meghan and Harry, Samantha would be bringing herself out to chat about it. And likely, when the wedding rolls around, she'll be crying poor me when she doesn't get an invite to the wedding. However, after a year of alternating between trashing and praising her half-sister, and admitting to not having any contact in almost 10 years, there is little facts offered by her because she, quite frankly, just isn't part of Meghan's life and hasn't been in a long time. I highly doubt that's going to change.

I agree. And, *if* something would come up, no one other than Meghan would be prepared to deal with it. I really don't think she and Harry have not discussed this yet, so I really don't expect anything "tragic" to occur.

She is not to be held responsible for the actions of a relative that she hasn't seen in ages. Anyone with a sound mind would think the same, I assume.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

I've conceded that point twice before now. I doubt it too. But just as I can't say it definitely will be an issue, you can't say it definitely won't be. The truth is, only Meghan and Samantha know what Meghan and Samantha know. It'll be upto Samantha to share anything more as and when she chooses and for Meghan to be prepared for that.

A leopard doesn't change it's spots. One thing I can say is that some people aren't that difficult to read. Samantha isn't the type to keep her trap shut and highly driven by emotions. If she had any dirt, it'd out by now.

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Skippy

Why not? Why yes may be the better question. It seems an exhausting way to take things and surely not one for me, but if it is convenient for you then good for you.
I was just wondering as you have stated that the BRF can't take any more storms or scandals. If that would be so -and if there would be reason to expect that any might yet come- then the institution would be really fragile, which it's not.
They have seen much worse than a jealous half-sister.

I think you're reading the odd line from my posts and making a conclusion that I've stated several times over is not my argument. So for the sake of repeating it again....

1. I have said that at present, the Royal Family is in a good and stable position. It has been aided in overcoming recent issues with the help of a friendly government. It may not have that asset for much longer.

2. I said that IF that is the case, and the government does change, then in that situation the Royal Family would be put under a far harsher scrutiny which means it cannot risk any more scandal or gossip to undermine the institution.

3. I said (about 6 times) that I really hope this issue with Samantha will go away in time and that the Palace are prepared for anything bigger which may come in the future via a book or a new series of interviews or articles. But I should have thought it prudent to be prepared for that possibility rather than to write it off completely as nonsense.

These three points have been written into every post I've made on this issue and keep being overlooked because there's a worrying trend in any thread connecting with Meghan that anyone who raises a doubt or a concern somehow dislikes her or is against this marriage. It's lovely to see people want to protect Meghan but these are all things that have been discussed with almost every Royal marriage and I don't see the harm in speculating in order to be prepared for a future that may be unstable - whether that instability comes from within or outside of the Royal Family itself and their relations.

[Mirabel]

It's best to just ignore Samantha. To attempt to buy her off will just give credence to her nastiness.

She can say whatever she wishes, but if it is known that Meghan has no contact with her, there will be a limit to any allegations she can make.

The more distance between them, the better for Meghan.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

I think you're reading the odd line from my posts and making a conclusion that I've stated several times over is not my argument. So for the sake of repeating it again....

1. I have said that at present, the Royal Family is in a good and stable position. It has been aided in overcoming recent issues with the help of a friendly government. It may not have that asset for much longer.

2. I said that IF that is the case, and the government does change, then in that situation the Royal Family would be put under a far harsher scrutiny which means it cannot risk any more scandal or gossip to undermine the institution.

3. I said (about 6 times) that I really hope this issue with Samantha will go away in time and that the Palace are prepared for anything bigger which may come in the future via a book or a new series of interviews or articles. But I should have thought it prudent to be prepared for that possibility rather than to write it off completely as nonsense.

These three points have been written into every post I've made on this issue and keep being overlooked because there's a worrying trend in any thread connecting with Meghan that anyone who raises a doubt or a concern somehow dislikes her or is against this marriage. It's lovely to see people want to protect Meghan but these are all things that have been discussed with almost every Royal marriage and I don't see the harm in speculating in order to be prepared for a future that may be unstable - whether that instability comes from within or outside of the Royal Family itself and their relations.

I'm not disagreeing with you because I like Meghan. In fact, I consider you as someone that does like Meghan. There are posters that does make comments to purely shed Meghan in a negative light. I don't think that you are one of those. I'm disagreeing you because I just don't see where the facts of this worry come from and we have varying degrees of what is considered a scandal and what is not.

The truth is, non fact based gossip will always be around. Things like Samantha Markle being bitter isn't going to make a difference. What will make a difference is bad acts from members of the royal family or those advising them, which aren't any right now. Samantha Markle bitching about her half-sister, a woman who herself has not done anything reckless (other than maybe agreeing to marry into this family, but that's a different issue) after tabloids have turned over every stone. And not having Samantha's book published is easy, tie it up in litigation. Let's try not to make mountains out of molehills.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

I think you're reading the odd line from my posts and making a conclusion that I've stated several times over is not my argument. So for the sake of repeating it again....

1. I have said that at present, the Royal Family is in a good and stable position. It has been aided in overcoming recent issues with the help of a friendly government. It may not have that asset for much longer.

2. I said that IF that is the case, and the government does change, then in that situation the Royal Family would be put under a far harsher scrutiny which means it cannot risk any more scandal or gossip to undermine the institution.

3. I said (about 6 times) that I really hope this issue with Samantha will go away in time and that the Palace are prepared for anything bigger which may come in the future via a book or a new series of interviews or articles. But I should have thought it prudent to be prepared for that possibility rather than to write it off completely as nonsense.

These three points have been written into every post I've made on this issue and keep being overlooked because there's a worrying trend in any thread connecting with Meghan that anyone who raises a doubt or a concern somehow dislikes her or is against this marriage. It's lovely to see people want to protect Meghan but these are all things that have been discussed with almost every Royal marriage and I don't see the harm in speculating in order to be prepared for a future that may be unstable - whether that instability comes from within or outside of the Royal Family itself and their relations.

I have not read the odd line from your posts, I have read them all. That's why I asked where your fear comes from. It's not wrong to be cautious, but you want to be prepared for the possible worst. That is your right, I just think it's unnecessary and possibly unhealthy.

I see the future on a brighter scale than you do, but as you are probably used to watching things with (slight) trepidation, go ahead

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I'm not disagreeing with you because I like Meghan. In fact, I consider you as someone that does like Meghan. There are posters that does make comments to purely shed Meghan in a negative light. I don't think that you are one of those. I'm disagreeing you because I just don't see where the facts of this worry come from and we have varying degrees of what is considered a scandal and what is not.

The truth is, non fact based gossip will always be around. Things like Samantha Markle being bitter isn't going to make a difference. What will make a difference is bad acts from members of the royal family or those advising them, which aren't any right now. Samantha Markle bitching about her half-sister, a woman who herself has not done anything reckless (other than maybe agreeing to marry into this family, but that's a different issue) after tabloids have turned over every stone. And not having Samantha's book published is easy, tie it up in litigation. Let's try not to make mountains out of molehills.

Are you my ghost reader? You phrase it more precise than me.

[Sunnystar]

As far as the hacks who write these articles with quotes from her, I really have to wonder how they restrained themselves from not laughing in her face when she claimed that Meghan's nephew would crash the wedding if he didn't get an invitation. Even of they are a bunch of yellow journalists they still know just how impossible it will be for anyone to crash a royal wedding. This isn't some soiree at the Beverly Hills Hilton, after all.