But they refused to consider the motivation of the Hollywood actress who covets the limelight and is addicted to the spotlight and possibly wanted to get even with the monarchy for denying her that by curtailing her excesses. She was livid that her voice was silenced and that she no longer gets all the attention and front page befitting of a Hollywood actress who married a real life prince. For her it is all about light, camera and action and she was not ready to role play for anyone or take a subsumed position behind those royals who are higher than her in ranking including Kate Middleton. She made her calculation and rebelled accordingly and then followed it up with the Oprah interview to thrash a family that welcomed her with open arms. That she did not tell truth and at best told only her own version of truth is also obvious.
Meghan Markle said that she called her father and urged him not to do an interview with British tabloid before her wedding. That she repeatedly demanded to know whether he has already granted them the interview so that she can intervene to prevent them from publishing anything that would mess up her wedding. She said that her father assured her that he did not grant any interview so she relaxed and did not proceed to muscle the tabloid to prevent any publication that will show her in bad light. But she claimed in the interview that she was scared for her life and that the palace did not protect her and allowed the British tabloid media to run her over like a roadkill. Query, if she could have intervened to prevent the publication of her father's interview as she stated, why then did she not prevent the publication of stories which she complained that were injurious to her hurt feelings? A "naive" little girl which she played in the interview but who could influence the publication of her father's interview. Really? So which part of the two stories is the lie since both cannot be true.
ICHEOKU says is emphatic that the Meghan's account of her experiences in the royal family will not pass the smell test and if she were put through a lie detector test, will fail woefully. Imagine a Hollywood actress complaining that she was turned into a commodity by the British media who used stories about her to sell their newspapers and magazines as well as overall air time. According to Harry's account, he did not like that the British media "commoditized" his wife and were not mindful that she is a human being. How again does Meghan make her money if not through being sold as an actress to a world of her fans who tune in to watch her put up acts? So, if she could commoditize herself and make millions from doing it, why can't others cash in on her fame and also participate in the commoditizing business as well. Is her complaint that the British tabloid were not sharing their profit with her and if not, did she ever consider copyrighting herself to prevent such peeling off of profits. So again which part of the story is true, that she is not a commodity or that others profited from her being a commodity?
She also claimed that her son Archie was denied a royal title of Prince because he is colored and not a full blooded pure white bred. But she deliberately forgot or failed to say that a 1917 edict by King George streamlined those descendants who are qualified to be named princes and princess and that her Archie was part of the excluded descendants. That it was a long running position which did not suddenly come into being just because a black woman married into the monarchy and begot a black son named Archie who cannot become a prince. But she intentionally made it to appear that her son Archie was specifically targeted and denied a title which is rightfully his in order to trigger resentment of the monarchy by the public as a racist institution which hates black people. A well intentioned Meghan would not have brought up the issue during the interview but her entire action was a planned attack on the monarchy, hence she did not care about the derivative innuendos and inferences and she cashed in on it. So, again which one is the truth, that Archie was denied a royal title or that Archie was not within the contemplated offsprings to be so designated?
Meghan's half sister Samantha Markle has come out to debunk Meghan's claim that she hardly knew her as according to Meghan they did not grow up together, neither have they been in close contact in a long time and that Samantha changed her last name back to Markle just recently because Meghan met and married a prince. Samantha provided pictures, documents and other photographic evidence to back her account of extensive relationship with Meghan including photographs of them as recently as 2008 during her graduation as well as childhood pictures which the two took together and change of name certificate. Meanwhile Meghan did not produce any such evidence to back up her salacious account of what went down in the palace and other experiences which she complained about; yet they want everybody to believe her just because she is a woman and women ought to be believed. ICHEOKU says but Samantha Markle too is a woman and she backed her own story with evidence which means that she should be believed doubly. So, again which part is true, that Meghan and Samantha hardly know each other or that Meghan was dodgy with her story?
It appears that Piers Morgan was right afterall in not believing Meghan Markle particularly her "suicidal thought" story as evidence shows that she lied about some parts of her story and could have lied about all of them. She is a tough mean gal who grew up in Crenshaw/Compton areas of Los Angeles, tough neighborhoods and she have seen it all and enough not to be easily intimidated nor overwhelmed by palace intrigues, to the extent that she would have contemplated taking her own life. ICHEOKU is not saying that it did not happen but that it is also possible that it did not happen. She is a manipulator extraordinaire, an actress, who can wangle her way through any situation and who even threw her family overboard in her desperate quest to marry a prince. She did not allow her father to attend her wedding and made another man to walk her down the aisle, an honor reserved for fathers. Even her half sister was not invited as well. Anyone who could do such is simply capable of just anything.
The only rational conclusion in Meghan Markle's dramatic exposition with Oprah Winfrey is that she played the racial and mental health issue cards just to get even with the British monarchy. Who doesn't know for example that a child born by a black woman for a white man will not be white but colored. So how dumb must the palace be to be otherwise anxious about the color of Archie when it is an already known fact that he will be off white at best. Anyway, lets hope the matter is now rested with the palace's response and that the intended bloodbath has been averted. It was a shame that Meghan Markle went this far to disparage a family who welcomed her into their midst with open arms and she was callous in disrupting a hitherto healthy relationship between Prince Harry and his brother Prince William. What Lady Di put together, Meghan ruthlessly put asunder. It is pitifully sad.
No comments:
Post a Comment