The Harry and Meghan fuss

[domalino]

A classic, vintage post from yourself, I must say.

All the hallmarks of your usual guff are here; calling people liars, the shouty style, the patronising, condescending tone and the faux intellectual nonsense.

Problem is you did lie though didnt you? You can get angry about it, but you still keep claiming the Archbishop of Canterbury said something he didn't and you knew he didn't.

And the irony of lying about this while accusing someone of lying (and then being upset that someone points it out) is apparently completely lost on you...

 

[mancity1]

You’re optimistic if you think you’ll find a point that everyone is going to agree on

Yes a mad idea I thought might tone down the inevitable exchange of barbs and insults journolud.

At least you commented with some reason and good intent.

What was I thinking , back into my bluemooon free cage I traverse.

 

[BrianW]

Traditionally, marriage was a promise made by two people. It could be 'solemnised' anywhere, in the woods, in the toilet, in bed. It didn't matter, it just had to be a vow, freely made.

The church did not like this as it was too easy for one side or the other to disavow the marriage. It preferred a church wedding, before witnesses. But the marriage was still, essentially, the mutual vows.

The state has since legislated as to what does or doesn't constitute a legal marriage, and without that status, you don't get the privileges of marriage in the eyes of the law. But I remember the vicar saying to us that the marriage was made by us, and he and the others were primarily there as witnesses.

 

[Vic]

Traditionally, marriage was a promise made by two people. It could be 'solemnised' anywhere, in the woods, in the toilet, in bed. It didn't matter, it just had to be a vow, freely made.

The church did not like this as it was too easy for one side or the other to disavow the marriage. It preferred a church wedding, before witnesses. But the marriage was still, essentially, the mutual vows.

The state has since legislated as to what does or doesn't constitute a legal marriage, and without that status, you don't get the privileges of marriage in the eyes of the law. But I remember the vicar saying to us that the marriage was made by us, and he and the others were primarily there as witnesses.

Absolutely. "They have declared their marriage by the joining of hands and the giving and receiving of a ring. I therefore proclaim that they are husband and wife."

The register is just the record of it.

But the church does see beyond the state. "What God has joined together, let no-one put asunder."

Any private stuff sounds a bit like "betrothal" but there's never been a church rite for that.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Problem is you did lie though didnt you? You can get angry about it, but you still keep claiming the Archbishop of Canterbury said something he didn't and you knew he didn't.

And the irony of lying about this while accusing someone of lying (and then being upset that someone points it out) is apparently completely lost on you...

Another trademark post from yourself, if you don’t mind my saying so.

I won’t spend too much time on it, as it’s pointless discussing with you, as many others on here will attest. But it’s worth pointing out a few things, as the post does neatly highlight the way you behave on here, and demonstrates why you are probably the least endearing poster on the entire board.

First, you again call me a liar, without any proof or context. Then, you pull what I would regard as your signature move, namely moving the discussion off onto a bizarre tangent, either by making some absurd argument, or more commonly introducing another falsehood.

Here, you argue that I keep on making a claim about the Archbishop of Canterbury (all bit Monty Python, I must say). But a quick glance of my last post shows that I didn’t mention him at all, not once. So your claim is blatantly untrue. That doesn’t matter however as it’s simply a deflection tactic to divert from the main point of discussion, which is of course Meghan Markle’s apparent propensity to tell a few porkies.

This is the bit which your post conspicuously ignores. No mention is made of the unfortunate lie told to the High Court, or the absolute whopper she told about the Lion King/Nelson Mandela, a lie uncovered not by the UK media, but by Markle tripping herself up in a New York based magazine and a South African bloke who happened to tell the truth. But then you’d never reference this, as it does rather torpedo your argument. Better instead to come up with some nonsense about the Archbishop of Canterbury and keep banging on about that.

All very transparent, and very tedious, not least because of the high moral ground you pretend to occupy whilst doing all this. Little wonder so many choose to just ignore you.

 

[kaz7]

Anyway they are the duke and duchess of my county so i approve

 

[domalino]

Here, you argue that I keep on making a claim about the Archbishop of Canterbury (all bit Monty Python, I must say). But a quick glance of my last post shows that I didn’t mention him at all, not once

You do realise people can all see your previous comments? They don't just disappear and your comment about the Archbishop of Canterbury is on the last page.

"I didn't mention him at all, not once".

c) You also quote chancers like Mishal Husain at the BBC and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Both well known right wing nut jobs, and they’ve also shown their own hateful agenda by questioning Markle’s truth.

Another lie, you're a regular little Markle aren't you?

This is the bit which your post conspicuously ignores. No mention is made of the unfortunate lie told to the High Court, or the absolute whopper she told about the Lion King/Nelson Mandela, a lie uncovered not by the UK media, but by Markle tripping herself up in a New York based magazine and a South African bloke who happened to tell the truth. But then you’d never reference this, as it does rather torpedo your argument. Better instead to come up with some nonsense about the Archbishop of Canterbury and keep banging on about that.

I've not addressed those because they're exactly the same as the Archbishop non-lie, and as I've already posted the wider point here is not about any individual comment that the right wing press presents as a gotcha, it's about the

But the Lion King thing is another great example. She said she spoke to a South African at The Lion King film premiere, the only South African on the cast said he didn't speak to her. Right wing media goes into overdrive MEGHAN LIES!!!!.

Oh but then it turned out she'd been speaking to the South African composer, and a dozen of the original South African cast from the musical that were also invited to the premiere, so the bloke she spoke to wasn't the only South African cast member at the premier was he....

Another classic example of this hysteria around Markle, every statement she makes has a team of racist bigots deep diving into it, phoning everyone else involved and trying to get them to contradict or in some cases paying them to. The motivation isn't truth, or accuracy, it's let's examine every line this woman says in public and see if we can cast doubt on it.

Same thing with the BBC journalist. Meghan says the engagement announcement was all staged, tabloids phone up every single person involved to try and find one part of it that wasn't rehearsed and in the end all they manage is a BBC guy who didn't literally rehearse the thing before filming - which of course isn't the same as it not being rehearsed, and it isn't disproving anything Markle said, but the press found their "lie" they can sell to cretins like you.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

What have they been proven to have lied about exactly?

People keep repeating they’re liars but not actually mentioning what they’ve lied about.

Anyone who has watched an episode of Suits will attest to the fact that her claims to be an actress are a complete falsehood.

 

[Brewster's millions]

You do realise people can all see your previous comments? They don't just disappear and your comment about the Archbishop of Canterbury is on the last page.

"I didn't mention him at all, not once".



Another lie, you're a regular little Markle aren't you?




I've not addressed those because they're exactly the same as the Archbishop non-lie, and as I've already posted the wider point here is not about any individual comment that the right wing press presents as a gotcha, it's about the

But the Lion King thing is another great example. She said she spoke to a South African at The Lion King film premiere, the only South African on the cast said he didn't speak to her. Right wing media goes into overdrive MEGHAN LIES!!!!.

Oh but then it turned out she'd been speaking to the South African composer, and a dozen of the original South African cast from the musical that were also invited to the premiere, so the bloke she spoke to wasn't the only South African cast member at the premier was he....

Another classic example of this hysteria around Markle, every statement she makes has a team of racist bigots deep diving into it, phoning everyone else involved and trying to get them to contradict or in some cases paying them to. The motivation isn't truth, or accuracy, it's let's examine every line this woman says in public and see if we can cast doubt on it.

Same thing with the BBC journalist. Meghan says the engagement announcement was all staged, tabloids phone up every single person involved to try and find one part of it that wasn't rehearsed and in the end all they manage is a BBC guy who didn't literally rehearse the thing before filming - which of course isn't the same as it not being rehearsed, and it isn't disproving anything Markle said, but the press found their "lie" they can sell to cretins like you.

What was I saying before about being tedious?

Fortunately for all the other poor bastards on the thread, I don’t really have to say anything in reply as you’ve just proven my point for me. Again. The latest sleight of hand being deliberately quoting a different post to the one I was referring to, which even then didn’t prove your point about ‘keeping banging on’.

I would have thought that when you’re having an argument with a cretin like me, as you put it, you’d want to avoid swiftly and single-handedly proving them to be correct. But it seems you keep failing on that front. As you say, people can go back and read it all if they want, but why they’d want to revisit your nonsense when they don’t have to is beyond me.

Magnificent word salad on the Lion King porky by the way. Really special.

Anyway, have a good evening.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

It’s a simple enough thing for me.
If the woman I loved was being attacked by an entire nations written and broadcast media, as well as the establishment of said country I would very much want to put my point of view forward. If I had the opportunity, I too would do so on the widest possible setting.

Also, if when meeting my partners nanna I had to curtesy I would doubtless find it anachronistic and bloody hilarious, and I too would definitely take the piss out of myself for the way I curtesied.

The thing is though, I am a white male so I can have those opinions and society will nod along with me. Clearly if I was a successful, millionaire, beautiful young mixed-heritage woman I would be expected to know my place and be thankful for the abuse aimed at me.

All power to Harry and Meg. They’re good people.