Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Owlswing on October 26, 2018, 10:11:08 PM
-
Samantha Markle takes another shot at her half-sister.
A vicious, vindictive, jealous bitch who is using the media to gain self-publicity? I think so but what do others think?
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/samantha-markle-calls-meghan-delusional-liar-fiji-speech-2-091400786.html
Knowing the anti-monarchy stance of most here I think I know the answer, but I've got to ask.
-
Who in their right minds gives a gnat's gnadger?
-
I don't think it makes any difference what anyone thinks of the Royals, Samantha Markle's behaviour is vile by any standards.
-
I zone out wherever I see her name.
-
It is nice to know that people with manners do still exist.
P S I do not, I regret to say, always demonstrate this trait.
-
There are definitely some advantages in not being able to see such unpleasant stuff published. No, I have not clicked on the link, but have inferred from above posts what is happening!
Since reading more about Meghan around the wedding time, I have a great deal of respect and liking for her.
-
Meghan seems like a nice person. Like any other, she has relatives who are not so nice...this is, apparently onesuch. I couldn't care lessabout wee Harry and Meghan's daft flummery, but sympathise with her over this.
-
Samantha Markle takes another shot at her half-sister.
A vicious, vindictive, jealous bitch who is using the media to gain self-publicity? I think so but what do others think?
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/samantha-markle-calls-meghan-delusional-liar-fiji-speech-2-091400786.html
Knowing the anti-monarchy stance of most here I think I know the answer, but I've got to ask.
What a ghastly woman, poor Megan. You can choose your friends, but unfortunately not your relatives.
I am a staunch monarchist.
-
I am a staunch Monotheist.
-
I am a staunch Monotheist.
Poor god! ;D ;D ;D
-
Who in their right minds gives a gnat's gnadger?
I suspect , if you are a male gnat, that is a big deal.
-
I am a staunch monarchist.
Why?
-
Samantha Markle takes another shot at her half-sister.
A vicious, vindictive, jealous bitch who is using the media to gain self-publicity? I think so but what do others think?
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/samantha-markle-calls-meghan-delusional-liar-fiji-speech-2-091400786.html
Knowing the anti-monarchy stance of most here I think I know the answer, but I've got to ask.
In a world where we protect freedom of speech she is perfectly entitled to express her views.
What she seems to be implying is that Meghan was not being truthful in claiming that she paid for her university tuition fees, indicating that they were in fact paid by her father. If that is the case (and I guess it would be pretty easy to verify) then that seems to be something that is in the public interest to know.
From the link her challenge seems to be entirely about the veracity of Meghan's claims in her speech.
-
Why?
Because I think the Queen is doing a fantastic job, and I think Charles and William will do a good job too. I probably know a little more than most on this forum about the topic due to family members who have dealings with the Royals over the years. It is not an enviable job at all, they are never off duty and they have very little privacy. Yes they have a bob or two more than the rest of us, but that doesn't make up for always being in the public eye, imo.
-
There are definitely some advantages in not being able to see such unpleasant stuff published. No, I have not clicked on the link, but have inferred from above posts what is happening!
Maybe you should click on the link because it is rather difficult to comment without knowing what she said.
From the article she is challenging Meghan's claim in her speech to have paid for her university tuition herself, or from scholarships. Samantha is claiming that to be untrue and that the tuition was paid for by her father. It would be odd to challenge Meghan on this if this wasn't true, and also wrong for Meghan to make this claim in a high profile speech if her father had actually paid for her university education. Either way surely it is pretty easy to be verified.
If Meghan is being 'economical with the truth', why is it 'unpleasant' to point this out.
-
Maybe you should click on the link because it is rather difficult to comment without knowing what she said.
From the article she is challenging Meghan's claim in her speech to have paid for her university tuition herself, or from scholarships. Samantha is claiming that to be untrue and that the tuition was paid for by her father. It would be odd to challenge Meghan on this if this wasn't true, and also wrong for Meghan to make this claim in a high profile speech if her father had actually paid for her university education. Either way surely it is pretty easy to be verified.
If Meghan is being 'economical with the truth', why is it 'unpleasant' to point this out.
Except Samantha Markle (who was Samantha Grant until her half sister’s engagement - care to speculate why?) has form on slagging MM and generally slinging any mud she feels like in her direction, the essence of which seems to be that she always had ideas above her station. Her interview immediately prior to this one was to complain that Kensington Palace did not mention her father in the baby announcement.
Samantha Markle knows that she can say whatever she likes because the Royals won’t respond to this kind of tittle tattle. MM’s college has already said they can’t comment because of privacy laws. Unless you are unaware of Samantha Markle’s history of giving her half sister as much shit as possible, to give any credence to her word is pretty ludicrous. And I think in any case the burden of proof lies with her, not MM.
-
Samantha Markle has not grasped the fact that over here we prefer not to do laundry in public. She seems ghastly! So obviously jealous of her sister.
Chances are dad made a contribution to Meghan's education, as he should, but she had to work to support herself. Nobody else's business, it's a pity it was mentioned in the speech but she probably doesn't write her own speeches, just gives the writers an outline. I couldn't care less and would never have thought of it.
That woman must read everything that Meghan say, shows how obsessed - consumed - she is. I hadn't read anything about it until this & frankly don't feel any better for knowing now so intend to forget.
Owl, what is a 'bi...woman'? Is it some new politically correct type of feminist gender term? Or is she half woman, half basilisk :D?
-
Chances are dad made a contribution to Meghan's education, as he should, but she had to work to support herself. Nobody else's business, it's a pity it was mentioned in the speech but she probably doesn't write her own speeches, just gives the writers an outline.
If her father paid for her fees then she was entirely wrong to claim otherwise in her speech. And indeed it undermines the message that she was trying to portray. Who actually wrote the speech is irrelevant - if it contained key factual inaccuracies those needed to be changed or Meghan needed not to have made that claim.
I agree it is, in most cases, nobody else's business - however it became everyone's business when Meghan made the claim in a high profile speech. That's what turned it from 'nobody else's business' to 'in the public interest'. Meghan made it so, not her half sister.
-
Except Samantha Markle (who was Samantha Grant until her half sister’s engagement - care to speculate why?) has form on slagging MM and generally slinging any mud she feels like in her direction, the essence of which seems to be that she always had ideas above her station.
I know she has form, but that is irrelevant to the issue of whether Meghan paid for her own fees (as she claimed in a high profile speech) or her father paid, which Samantha claims, and seems highly likely as it is well known that Thomas Markle won very significant amounts of money which he certainly used for Meghan's earlier education so it seems unlikely that she would have been 'cut financially loose' (as she claims) when she went to university.
-
In a world where we protect freedom of speech she is perfectly entitled to express her views.
Doesn't mean she isn't being vindictive etc by doing so.
What she seems to be implying is that Meghan was not being truthful in claiming that she paid for her university tuition fees, indicating that they were in fact paid by her father. If that is the case (and I guess it would be pretty easy to verify) then that seems to be something that is in the public interest to know.
Is it? Why?
From the link her challenge seems to be entirely about the veracity of Meghan's claims in her speech.
My brother and I would never grass each other up, not even to our parents, although I admit that that statement has never been tested in the situation where one of us has done something criminal.
-
If her father paid for her fees then she was entirely wrong to claim otherwise in her speech. And indeed it undermines the message that she was trying to portray.
If it undermines her message, which, as I understand it, was a positive one, surely it's better not to undermine it by digging up her past.
-
Doesn't mean she isn't being vindictive etc by doing so.
Nope, but as I pointed out it was Meghan who put the information about who paid for her fees into the public domain, not her half sister. Once it is out there then it is fair game for challenge and criticism.
Is it? Why?
Of course it is - do you think that a claim that a leading member of the Royal Family lied in a speech (and in doing so, if that claim is true, undermined not only the point she was trying to make but bringing the institution into disrepute) isn't an issue that is of public interest. I think it is much more of a public interest issue that most of the guff published about the Royals, which may be of interest to (some) of the public, but isn't in the public interest - the two aren't the same.
My brother and I would never grass each other up, not even to our parents, although I admit that that statement has never been tested in the situation where one of us has done something criminal.
But you might if your brother lied (as you see it) in a major public speech, and when you had a grievance that your brother was trying to 'airbrush' the rest of the family out of their background.
-
Nope, but as I pointed out it was Meghan who put the information about who paid for her fees into the public domain, not her half sister. Once it is out there then it is fair game for challenge and criticism.
Of course it is - do you think that a claim that a leading member of the Royal Family lied in a speech (and in doing so, if that claim is true, undermined not only the point she was trying to make but bringing the institution into disrepute) isn't an issue that is of public interest. I think it is much more of a public interest issue that most of the guff published about the Royals, which may be of interest to (some) of the public, but isn't in the public interest - the two aren't the same.
No I don't see why it is in the public interest. The worst that she has done id embellish her past to emphasise a generally positive point. I certainly don't think undermining MM is in the public interest. If she had a position of any real power, it would be different, but she is just a figurehead.
But you might if your brother lied (as you see it) in a major public speech, and when you had a grievance that your brother was trying to 'airbrush' the rest of the family out of their background.
I don't blame MM for trying to airbrush a vindictive snitch out of her background.
-
If it undermines her message, which, as I understand it, was a positive one, surely it's better not to undermine it by digging up her past.
I think the point she was making was that many people struggle financially to get to university, but that it is worth it - that is a perfectly legitimate thing to say. However to imply that she was just like that is fine if true - but if the reality is that actually her substantial fees for a very prestigious university were in fact paid for by her father who had recently won $740k in the lottery and had already bankrolled her through a prestigious and expensive high school, well that completely undermines her message. Indeed it turns it on its head entirely.
It is perfectly legitimate for anyone who feels that she was being dishonest to make that point publicly, as Meghan had already made her claim publicly.
Frankly if it is true that her father paid her fees Meghan, and her advisors and speechwriters, are pretty darned stupid to have claimed otherwise as they should have know better that someone (whether family or not) would contradict her. But it wouldn't be the first time that the Royals have got their PR badly wrong with regard to Meghan's extended family.
-
No I don't see why it is in the public interest.
You don't think a claim that a leading member of the Royal Family lied in a speech is in the public interest? Really?
-
I think the point she was making was that many people struggle financially to get to university, but that it is worth it - that is a perfectly legitimate thing to say. However to imply that she was just like that is fine if true - but if the reality is that actually her substantial fees for a very prestigious university were in fact paid for by her father who had recently won $740k in the lottery and had already bankrolled her through a prestigious and expensive high school, well that completely undermines her message. Indeed it turns it on its head entirely.
So why bring it up? Why undermine the message? I don't think SM blabbing to the press has made anything better for anybody except maybe giving her 15 minutes of fame and a pay check.
Frankly if it is true that her father paid her fees Meghan, and her advisors and speechwriters, are pretty darned stupid to have claimed otherwise as they should have know better that someone (whether family or not) would contradict her. But it wouldn't be the first time that the Royals have got their PR badly wrong with regard to Meghan's extended family.
So is it more likely that MM has stupid speechwriters or SM who has a history of this kind of sordid stuff is putting the boot in?
-
So why bring it up? Why undermine the message? I don't think SM blabbing to the press has made anything better for anybody except maybe giving her 15 minutes of fame and a pay check.
But as we've already established SM has form so she is almost certainly going to bring it up - why does she care. For her she has just been handed golden ammunition to continue her feud. But that doesn't alter the fact that the claim that she lied in her speech is in the public interest and it is perfectly legitimate for it someone to challenge her if they considered that she lied.
So is it more likely that MM has stupid speechwriters or SM who has a history of this kind of sordid stuff is putting the boot in?
Perhaps so, but a lie is a lie (if that is the case) and that it may have been stupid speechwriters makes no difference.
-
Perhaps so, but a lie is a lie (if that is the case) and that it may have been stupid speechwriters makes no difference.
But the point is who is telling the lie. You seem to be assuming it is definitely MM despite acknowledging that for her to be lying means she has to have stupid speechwriters whereas, for SM to be lying she just has to be vindictive.
Is it not possible that MM is telling the truth or is she automatically in the wrong because she is in the Royal Family?
-
But the point is who is telling the lie. You seem to be assuming it is definitely MM despite acknowledging that for her to be lying means she has to have stupid speechwriters whereas, for SM to be lying she just has to be vindictive.
Is it not possible that MM is telling the truth or is she automatically in the wrong because she is in the Royal Family?
I'm not making a judgement either way - although there seems to be a credible counter claim to her claim, and no doubt this could be proven.
What is beyond doubt is that at the time she was going through her education MM's father was exceptionally rich and that he had certainly bankrolled her through high school.
And that is actually the crux of the issue for me, it sits ill for a woman who's father had won about £1.2M (in todays prices) just a few years earlier, plus had a well paid job while she going through university to be claiming kinship with those genuinely struggling and from households with virtually no money. Perhaps this sits most ill with me as I know that nearly one quarter of the students at my institution come from backgrounds where their household annual income is less than £10k. Regardless of whether her father paid all or some (or even none) of her fees, MM isn't like those people. Not by a million miles.
-
I 'get' what the Prof is saying - Meghan Markle was financially better off than some of her contemporaries but, prompted by this thread, I delved into news threads dating back to before she was even engaged to Prince Harry and it seems she did win a scholarship and had to work to make up the shortfall. So, dad paid her school fees but probably didn't pay everything at university, we don't know the details but I think it likely he gave her cash sometimes.
The fact that sister Samantha took down her tweet quickly shows that she probably didn't know the full facts. Got her wires crossed or knickers in a twist if you like. Boy, how jealous is she!
Meghan would surely not be so daft as to out and out lie in her first official overseas speech.
-
I 'get' what the Prof is saying - Meghan Markle was financially better off than some of her contemporaries but, prompted by this thread, I delved into news threads dating back to before she was even engaged to Prince Harry and it seems she did win a scholarship and had to work to make up the shortfall.
Links please.
Certainly it appears that her half brother (who is no fan of Samantha by the widest margin) also confirmed that her father paid for her university education in an interview prior to the wedding which was anything but a hatchet job on MM:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5096335/Meghan-Markle-s-brother-lottery-win-set-stardom.html
'The money helped send Meghan to the $16,000-a-year Immaculate Heart Catholic School, one of LA's finest, followed by Northwestern University where she studied drama: 'Meg won scholarships to other universities but she wanted to go to Northwestern so she did,' her brother adds. 'The money helped.'
Whether he paid for everything or some of it is beside the point - but given that Northwestern University indicates that the cost of attending is currently about $75k per year then she was hardly going to be able to cover that cost via a few part time jobs.
So, dad paid her school fees but probably didn't pay everything at university, we don't know the details but I think it likely he gave her cash sometimes.
But the implication of her speech was that she covered her university costs entirely via scholarships and her work, she conveniently failed to mention anything about contributions from her millionaire father, who according to his son was earning about £350k per year (in 2018 terms) during her upbringing in addition to the £1.2M lottery windfall (again 2018 terms).
The fact that sister Samantha took down her tweet quickly shows that she probably didn't know the full facts. Got her wires crossed or knickers in a twist if you like. Boy, how jealous is she!
But her half brother isn't and cannot stand SM - yet he confirmed SM's claim way before the controversy.
Meghan would surely not be so daft as to out and out lie in her first official overseas speech.
Poor advisors and speech writers. Does it really seem credible that a father with a huge windfall and substantial annual income, who was paying perhaps tens of thousands of $ for her to attend high school would suddenly stop making major contributions once she'd earned a place at Northwestern.
-
Owl, what is a 'bi...woman'? Is it some new politically correct type of feminist gender term? Or is she half woman, half basilisk :D?
No - it is me trying not to be as unpleasant as her and call her a bitch!
-
No - it is me trying not to be as unpleasant as her and call her a bitch!
Lets focus on the claim rather than the person.
Just because you don't like her, does that make her claim necessarily false. Noting that her brother (who like you cannot stand SM) made the same claim before MM was married.
-
So, Prof D, can we have your evidence for it being 'unlikely that Meghan was cut financially loose' and also for the 'stupid speech writers'?
-
Lets focus on the claim rather than the person.
Just because you don't like her, does that make her claim necessarily false.
Right back at you.
-
Right back at you.
Ain't this the truth!
-
Right back at you.
So not actually prepared to answer the question I see.
I'll ask again - just because you don't like the SM does that mean her claim is necessarily false?
Maybe we should frame it in another way - way back in early 2017 Thomas Markle jn also said that his father paid for MM's Northwestern University education, at least in part. Are you claiming he is lying.
-
We don't know she lied.
The truth is probably that she got a scholarship and had to work but her dad gave her a bung occasionally. So she wasn't as hard up as some people but not as well off as others. Like many!
-
So not actually prepared to answer the question I see.
I'll ask again - just because you don't like the SM does that mean her claim is necessarily false?
Who says I don't like her? I don't know her.