First - I've been a lurker for years - I only get my 'mainstream' news here, maybe DailyKos - but I also have my own interests I research etc.
I'm not singling you out BTW - just you asked 'proof' - first - not surprisingly I'm a liberal feminist democratic socialist.
I try not to become 'politicized' - but that's what's gone on we aren't polarized - we are all 'politicized' - including 'our side'.
I have a deep interest in history & such & therefore know quite a bit about the Royal Family & a deep respect for them, & the UK, their traditions etc. - Queen Elizabeth & Prince Philip are/were both incredible & both kicked some Nazi butt - I am forever grateful to them.
Anyway! Look - I think most Americans have innate biases against the RF, & also a lot of hooey with regard to Princess Diana - I think there are a lot of knee jerk reactions......
I think I'm probably more versed in the reality of the RF that most Americans, & I get most of us do not give much of a f*ck, right?
But let's not be 'like them' & go off with opinions that are not grounded in facts - let's not assume someone is speaking truth just because they 'look or act like us' kinda thing - let's not just preach to the choir, you know?
I don't read things & make urls, or anything - this stuff is in the common domain, news articles, news clips, markle's interviews, markles writings including her own blog, also biographies that have the sources in them - so forgive me for not having some kinda link for each thing - maybe I should start doing so....if Markle truly tries to ingratiate herself in democratic politics: I just might!
Long winded sorry - but, yeah: Markle did tell many lies in that 'interview' - and one source you can trust is CNN right - they had, I think within a week of that O 'interview' a bit of an expose on it - now, it got buried, renamed etc - that was pressure, just as so many journalists were pressured, if not outright fired, or resigned if they dared to question her 'truth'
That should deeply disturb all of us....
You asked:
1) The married three days before they, um married - literally saying the Archbishop is on some kinda speed dial & came over & married them - well of course he was forced to respond because that would be illegal! He did respond - he said they had 'a conversation'.
2) Archie wasn't a given title Prince because the RF are racists - um, nope & what a vile disgusting nasty accusation - it would not have mattered who Harry married - his children would not be born with titles Prince or Princess (Archie does have honorary title Queen bestowed as gift however)
3) security was 'cut off' like a punishment - NOPE - when you aren't a working royal things are different, they don't get security anyore than the rest of non-working royals do
4) Daddy cut them off: NOPE - not at all, & the yearly report on the RF etc (just blanking on what it's called) proves the RF right, & H a liar: they were very well-funded by Daddy despite their own private millions
5) Markle had no idea who the RF were, or Prince Harry - actually she wrote about them on her own blog, & she claims to have a degree in international relations (not sure that isn't also a lie though) - yeah, incredibly preposterous claim (lie)
6) She had zero preparation for her new role as a working royal - again google is your friend - & she herself spoke of the family & being prepared in the engagement interview (she also said how wonderful, supporting & welcoming they were) - there were stories from places who specialize in British traditions & they were quite proud they'd worked with her
7) No one can speak to her mental state but she lied about the circumstances of that weekend - conviently her make-up buddy deleted his twitter/instagram posts however you can still find them, as all is eternal in internet-landia - dove tailing with this is the nonsense that the RF would not like the 'look' of mental health issues - for Gawd's sake they head numerous charities, organizations - Harry himself was part of this, he had his own therapy by his brother's suggestion - Hell the Queen has had therapy - it doesn't quite wash does it? Markle being denied help as she wanders the halls in search of HR - she was also pregnant - she'd have the best possible care. HOGWASH I say
Okay -there's more in that 'interview' but you can find it all online....
I want to address her preposterous letter to senators - again too much to go into
But mainly she says she worked a 13 in CA at a Fro Yo shop to 'make ends meet' LOL!!!!
Wow, this is when I truly wonder about her - I think she's just some con artist....anway:
TRUTH: her father was a well-respected, award winning lighting director in Hollywood - very solid career: he won the lottery: he spent it on her education
She was going to 20,000 a year private schools, ballet & tap classes, japanese food in Santa Monica, yearly trips to Mexico & Hawaii, her father when she was 15/16 took her & a friend on a trip through Europe (famously as it would be pictured in front of Buckingham Palace), horse back rides, etc. yeah real rough childhood......
What Ive said is fact-checked in biographies about her, her own words in interviews and/or her blogs....
Working Royals do not enter politics & they do not make any personal money of any kind - non working royals can do as they wish, & IF they have titles: they do not use them - such as both Princess Eugenie & Princess Beatrice - they've normal lives, jobs etc: but they go by Eugenie York & Beatrice York etc
It is absolutely wrong & very bratty & against protocol for Markle to cold call senators (in general) saying 'hi, this is Meghan Duchess of Sussex' or for that matter Harry investing in things & calling himself "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex"
Yeah, they sure cling to those titles - thats because they don't have anything else, they don't have any particular talent, intelligence nor creativity & they sure as heck cannot listen to any advice.
This is waaay long - sorry, but - you asked 
& I appreciate you - not trying to make my first post nasty.......nothing personal - just getting this off my chest I guess...
I value this site so much & all who contribute - thanks for reading!!
Editing - forgot - CBS on that 'interview' very deliberately & knowingly altered newspaper headlines to back Markle's claims - that's just wrong - they also claimed they were all UK papers, when in fact some were other countries: including the US - but none of them were racist toward Markle - again there's plenty about this - I think these papers who were maligned are seeking a lawsuit - I don't know where that stands
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read