Piers Morgan

[victor]

Love him or hate him?

Well personally i don't always agree with his views but he has a right to air them
But it seems today that as soon as you disagree with someone it immediately makes you "racist"

As for Harry's claim of racism at the Palace WHY won't he name the person responsible?
Very easy to make a statement that you don't fully explain ---mud sticks

I have seen reports that when in the Army Harry called a colleague a "P***" but that was ok as he didn't say it with malice
Double standard???

[cromwell]

Can't stand the man.
He has this act going (and imo it is an act) that he is the fearless voice of whatever.
Nobody can be as perpetually outraged as he seems to be. He's like the old radio shock jocks. Be loud and controversial and get the ratings up.
I'm probably the most pro-free speech person you'll ever meet but I don't like Morgan.
And he didn't seem to like free speech when that weatherman gave him some free speech right back!

I agree with your point about the accusation of racism Vic. It was made in a way that can't be contradicted, because the person who is alleged to have said it wasn't named - so who can say "I never said that"?

Double standards? I agree again; I don't care what Harry said and I don't doubt that he said it affectionately, but it is a no-no these days and in his new incarnation as Harry, Prince of the Woke, I would expect him to be apologising for it. But then I don't suppose the elite go in for apologising.

[Workingman]

The Hewitts played the race card(s) and they knew full well what they were doing.

Ginge said that racism in the media played a "large part" in why they left. Given that there were thousands of articles written about them there must be hundreds of examples, mustn't there, hundreds. Give us a few, just a handful.

It's very easy to sit down with a sympathetic interviewer and throw out accusations about those who cannot defend themselves knowing that no hard questions would be asked, an interviewer who has not shied away from doing the same thing herself. And so it came to pass.

If I were Liz I would remove their titles - all of them. They might not be able to leave the family, but they sure as hell can be removed from the institution.

I never liked Morgan, but that does not make him wrong.

[Suff]

I have an auto avoid on all Harry/Meghan stories, Piers Morgan stories and just about anything that graces the front page of the DM.

There are times when I agree with Morgan and there are times when I think he is a total dick.

For the Harry Meghan saga, I think the very best thing to do is completely and utterly ignore it. They are looking to play this. Drop it. Dead. Don't answer, don't argue, don't justify, just completely ignore it.

I am following my own advice on that.

[medsec222]

I agree Suff. I am fed up hearing about them now. When Harry and Meghan first got married the press heaped praise on them. They seemed to be doing so well with their overseas tours and I am sure the majority of the public approved 100% of the job they were doing. Then things seemed to turn sour and the blame was laid at the door of the media. Meg apparently was blameless and not supported by the palace machinery despite having their own hand-picked team. Piers is only saying what he thinks but apparently he is a bit of a loud mouth. I personally have never seen him on television or seen the programme. Regarding the 'racist' remark, members of mixed race families may possibly have had similar conversations when a baby is due and speculated about this within the family, and not in a racist or derogatory way,. I would hope that whoever made the comment in the Royal Foamily was just expressing curiosity rather than any malice. In the event, whoever is at fault here, it is a family matter,, with a father and son falling out and two brothers falling out. I think the Queen's statement was exactly right in the circumstances and the family should now be left to sort it out themselves.

[TheOstrich]

Regarding the 'racist' remark, members of mixed race families may possibly have had similar conversations when a baby is due and speculated about this within the family, and not in a racist or derogatory way,. I would hope that whoever made the comment in the Royal Foamily was just expressing curiosity rather than any malice. In the event, whoever is at fault here, it is a family matter,, with a father and son falling out and two brothers falling out. I think the Queen's statement was exactly right in the circumstances and the family should now be left to sort it our themselves.

We have a niece who, around 15 years ago, decided to marry a Mauritian. SiL gave her blessing, but also sat her down and asked her right at the outset if she was prepared to receive possible derogatory comments about any offspring's skin tone, perhaps, for example, from strangers in a supermarket queue. Niece said yes, she was absolutely fine with that, the marriage went ahead and has been very successful; there are 2 children and as they've always lived in a multicultural area of London, they haven't AFAIK encountered any problems. So yes, the issue does get "talked about" in society generally, and it doesn't have to be a racist comment. Just sayin'.

In fact, there is only one "racist" in this whole episode. It is Markle herself - clearly aided and abetted by Winfrey, and endorsed by the likes of Abbott - who has fully aired her own woke-racist views, and has no doubt done a huge amount of harm to the whole integration / diversity-acceptance issue. She will have polarised opinion; plenty of reactionaries out there will now be prepared to wear the "racist" tag as a badge of honour. She is so introspective, she has no idea what potentially she has done; witness the recent polls that 40-50% of respondents in this country want the Sussexes stripped of their titles. That's polarisation for you. As I've said previously, the best way forward is to starve her of the oxygen of publicity, and hope the whole Sussex saga dies a death. I suspect though that's a forlorn hope.

I've never followed or watched Piers Morgan and I don't have an opinion of him, although I suspect this recent ruck serves more to enhance Morgan's position than denigrate Markle. But he entitled to spout his views whilst we still have free speech, in the same way that Markle is. Neither of them come out of it with any credit.

I think the Palace have played it the only way they could - straight bat and all that. I think stripping the Sussexes of their titles now would probably be counterproductive. And I don't think Markle will ever name the Royal personage who offended her. Having played the racist card, if she did name a name and couldn't prove it, she'd be on the end of one hell of a lawsuit ....

[Kaz]

Like Suff, sometimes I hate Morgan, and sometimes I agree absolutely with what he says - he is certainly Marmite!

I am shocked and saddened about the interview - it's despicable to throw the "R" bomb into the mix, but not name names. The Queen does not deserve this - to paraphrase Shakespeare "How sharper than a serpent's tooth, to have an ungrateful (grand)child

[Suff]

As I don't follow any of this effluent, it is hard to form an opinion. But it is also very hard to avoid all the crap in the press now and over they years.

My back of the head "feeling" on this is that Harry has significant unresolved issues around the loss and eventual death of his mother. He was the younger child and is of a vastly different temperament than William. I remember, over the years, his almost fanatical attachment to his unit in Afghanistan and his absolute refusal to be removed from the field, after someone in the press leaked his general location, until it was made abundantly clear that if he remained with them and there was a concerted attempt to try and kill a member of the UK royal family, he would be putting his unit in extreme danger. His response to that situation spoke "family" much more than his attachment to his real family.

Over the years I read about the penthouse parties and the living life on the edge, but this is really what military people do and he had taken to this much more naturally than most of the Royal family.

As for the Paki comment thing? Try actually living and working in a very closely knit Army unit. Scots are Jocks, Irish are paddy's, Welsh are Taffs and Pakistani's are Paki's. You might even get a few Indians who are called Paki's if they're not calling them Ghandi or something. It is the way they learn to live and work together. They also call civilians the "Great Unwashed", want to get upset about something, try that one on for size. I've only met one actual case of racism in the Army and it was done to one of the nicest black guys I've ever met. The second he complained it was dealt with, the perpetrators were severely reprimanded and the situation never happened again. But the thing was it had to be done properly, the guy who was being abused had to have three clear instances of the abuse with evidence and witnesses before complaining. Just as I had to allow guys to punch and knock me about without reacting before making a complaint. That's the Army, it is how it works and it is how a community can use nicknames which Civilians find fit the R word.

Then Harry met Meghan, clearly dotes on her and so the media blitz began. It would, of course, be Harry, the one with unresolved family issues, who would take not one seconds thought that he would be blazing a whole new trail with a mixed race wife in a media shitstorm which would be about nothing but just how much money could be made out of the story by the media. After all his father is a divorcee, who married a divorced woman who's ex husband is still alive. That situation caused an abdication crisis once.

The problem here, as Mrs S see's it and I kind of agree, is that Meghan never really understood the Royal family and the structure in it. This is not the US where the most grasping, unscrupulous, money grabbing and R word using person can claw their way to the top. Katherine will be Queen one day, the people love her, she appears to be a wonderful, well adjusted, person who is devoted to her family. Meghan will _never_ be Queen. I am in agreement with Mrs S on that. I don't believe Meghan really understood the situation before the wedding.

As for the child thing? It is a very natural question to ask yourself. One of my cousins has a father in law who is the president of a prominent country that is hardly ethnically British. When his daughter was born his genes were flattened. Yet my son, married to an Argentinian girl of historical Swiss and Italian descent wound up having a blue eyed blond baby girl with bright white skin. She was laughing when she told me, they gave her the baby and she said "who's baby is that?".

That is my take on the whole thing. Ignore it and it will go away. Give the press an inch and it will go on forever. They had to drop Diana eventually, but Harry gives them a perfect excuse to rake it all over again and feed the woke movement into the bargain. The discerning viewer has an off button. The discerning reader can choose not to buy tat.

[Workingman]

Harry has always had a side to him and there were signs, as there were with his mother during the split, that all was not well. There are professional people watchers who look out for and notice these things and it was obvious that he had been brought low on a few occasions. That did not mean he was mentally ill in a 'needs to be sectioned' way, but he was depressed, no doubt about that.

Unfortunately the media lumps everything mental health wise all together so that in their weird world someone who is depressed also gets tagged as manic depressive, paranoid, schizophrenic a sociopath.... you get the drift.

Markle has now played the media version of the mental health card and it is unseemly, imo. I am sure there were times when she felt lonely, left out, anxious and a bit angry, but so have most of us at some time in our lives. We might want a sit down and a quiet chat, but what we don't do is go out looking for 'treatment' or professional help. Her claims that she was pushed away or ignored cannot be backed up, but it is also true that there can be no defence against them - it's her word against theirs and she holds the microphone.

The advice being given to them over this whole affair is not very good.