So Who Was It?

Can see myself changing my opinion by the time this has finished.

 

she is more false than Nancy Pelosi's teeth, poor Harry sat in that hen hut, looked lost, least Oprah not just fawning over her

 

omg just scrolled back, some of the things are so funny, proper lol, needed that thank you BBS

 

Was nice of Monica Lewinsky to lend Meghan one of her old dresses for the Oprah interview.

 

Filfth.!

 

Our old mate Piers has just walked off the set of his own show.

 

Why?

 

One of the other panelists questioned his mental health remarks yesterday and his constant barrage of tweets about Meghan.

So; true to form, he threw a strop and walked off. Think he's back on now.

 

Only watch ITV 4 for the snooker nowadays. Can't stand Piers Morgan.

 

absolute bellend of the highest order, he's jealous he didn't get the interview. i dont know why he's allowed anywhere near the news or TV after what he did as newspaper editor.

 

Having watched it now, I have changed my mind about it. I didn't realise they weren't getting paid (but accept it helps raise publicity for them if they wanted to capitalise), and feel that they came across well.

At the end of the day, he has been born into this and his path has collided with someone outside of this life. Given what also happened to his mum it is understandable he wanted to step back from it. Just because it was a privileged position it shouldn't mean he has to live his life like that. I wouldn't want my life predetermined for me.

I agree that he should have been afforded security, but not any monies which doesn't appear to be what they were seeking anyway.

 

A couple of thoughts after joining in yesterday:

The whole build up around the skin colour issue was based on Meghan's comment it happened a few months into the pregnancy. Yet when Harry joined and OW put the question to him he seemed to indicate it was mentioned when they first got together in a sort of "What would happen if they ever had a baby" kind of way ........ Wrong on either count, obviously but I think they told it differently and Harrys answer was less 'staged'.

My other thought - the Queen sees the role as her vocation which she will never relinquish. She'll see it through to the grave. I think that will change now. She's mid 90's, and will a woman that age, who's motto is "never complain, but never explain" really have the will to change that motto to a more open-door policy? Will she give us all a weekly podcast throwing light onto the inner sanctum? Will she start a blog? Will she join Facebook or start tweeting? Will she heck. But she will know something has to give. A new head would need to be open, accessible and believable. Someone with an opinion would be welcome. A younger Charles would have fit that bill - love or hate his opinions, whether they be on horticulture, architecture, the environment, at least he gave them. But he is now in his 70's himself. If he took on the role now I think he'd see it as a poisoned chalice - a position he has coveted all his life but would no longer fit. Therefore I can see a distinct possibility that William will be King before the end of the year. As strong a woman as Elizabeth is, I just cannot see her carrying on. I'm not sure Charles inherited that inner strength. And Diana's dream of modernising the monarchy will finally become a posthumous reality.

 

.

 

Really? Not a chance.

 

Just an opinion bud.

 

https://archewell.com

They mention on their website compassion being one of the things they stand for. I don't think the Royal Family or Thomas Markle will agree as they have been thrown under the bus for the past couple of years.

 

Is it possible to dislike intensely both sides in this scenario. I wouldn't trust what any of them say and I really couldn't give tuppence for any of them. Once again the tabloids are having a field day with the tawdry soap opera they've been fuelling and scripting for donkeys years. Deadenders with tiaras.