Time to stop publicising this bi . . . woman

[Owlswing]

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.

[SteveH]

Who in their right minds gives a gnat's gnadger?

[Rhiannon]

I don't think it makes any difference what anyone thinks of the Royals, Samantha Markle's behaviour is vile by any standards.

[Robbie]

I zone out wherever I see her name.

[Owlswing]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[Roses]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am a staunch Monotheist.

[Roses]

I am a staunch Monotheist.

Poor god!

[jeremyp]

Who in their right minds gives a gnat's gnadger?

I suspect , if you are a male gnat, that is a big deal.

[SteveH]

I am a staunch monarchist.

Why?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Roses]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Robbie]

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  ?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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?