Topic: Prince Harry and Meghan to step back as senior royals

[BarryCrocker]

Doesn't tell you anything about the actual realities of what goes on within the family, how the staff work, what day to day life is really like though. I'm pretty certain for example that you won't find things under hobbies like "loves to strip the skin off his victims and wear it while dancing naked in the moonlight". Not saying Harry actually does that, but you never know.

But you might find photos of your future husband wearing a nazi uniform to a fancy dress party or using the term 'paki' when describing a military colleague.

[killer-heels]

But you might find photos of your future husband wearing a nazi uniform to a fancy dress party or using the term 'paki' when describing a military colleague.

Its ok, I am sure he has learned from such incidents.

[rob1966]

Its ok, I am sure he has learned from such incidents.

Are you saying people can't?

[diggerling!]

Doesn't tell you anything about the actual realities of what goes on within the family, how the staff work, what day to day life is really like though. I'm pretty certain for example that you won't find things under hobbies like "loves to strip the skin off his victims and wear it while dancing naked in the moonlight". Not saying Harry actually does that, but you never know.

Precisely. There is a world of difference between knowing some of the royals by name or celebrity reputation, and having a deep understanding of the inner machinations of the British monarchy. I had assumed that was what she meant when she spoke about not really knowing what she'd signed up to.

It's a bit depressing to see that so many people seem to have a built-in reverence for such a damaging and outdated institution and will effectively victim-blame in order to help prop it up. Servile twats the lot of them.

[rafathegaffa83]

And the fact she said she lived in Canada for 7 years previously. I know Americans are sometimes perceived as ignorant but surely you would know something about the head of state of the country you had spent that long in.

To be fair, most Canadians could care less about the monarchy.
Polls on this suggest anywhere between 55% to 66% of Canadians think the monarchy is no longer relevant and around 50% support the Queen no longer being the head of state.

The U.S (especially the U.S media) is more fascinated with the royals. The most Meghan would have probably seen of the royals in Canada is the Queen's face on the $20 bill.

[Hij]

It's often dangerous to draw too many conclusions from such articles or Meghan versus Kate lists, when they are written at different times by different people. The press have always adopted a pantomime mentality of good and bad / black and white / in favour and out of favour. The main reason for this of course is to sell papers. A little bit of exaggeration, or call it poetic licence is often used to "spice up" stories. How many times have we railed against negative stories against our own home-grown footballers for instance? The press invariably, would always look for the "scally" angle on stories relating to our local footballers.

Bigoted? In many ways, although usually the stories are just the right side of acceptable, for obvious reasons.

Take the Raheem Sterling article. Some people say it was racist in comparison with Phil Foden's. But at the time Sterling was considered a "flop". Many people will also look at the style of the bathroom he bought for his mother and consider it rather OTT and indeed "blingy". The article may have been slightly exaggerated for effect, but was it unfair? Was it racist?

Regarding Meghan and Kate, people with an agenda of very quick to call out articles as being evidence of racism. These people never stop to consider whether the individual articles were fair but exaggerated, or whether the narrative had changed in between articles.

Meghan claimed to be devastated by racist articles such as the "artichoke responsible for global warming". Strange then, that she was able to laugh and joke with Oprah, dismissing the article and quipping that it must've been a "pretty loaded piece of toast". On the one hand the article is dismissed as nothing more than lightweight, throwaway pulp, whilst on the other hand, heavily laden with racist intent. Which is it?

As noted above, similar complaints could have been made by Diana and Fergie at different points along their Royal journeys too.

This is bollocks.

Edit: To qualify, I think you are giving them too much of a get out clause for what is inherent and clearly different framing of two similar incidents based on race whether conscious or unconscious. The Raheem Sterling coverage wasn't just the bathroom but countless articles where the same issue would be represented differently with a white footballer. I'm no real fan of Raheem Sterling from a footballing point of view, but he was/is treated differently to some of his white peers in the framing of issues in the press. Plus a lot of these articles come from the same newspapers, so you'd hope they have editors or sub editors, or at least someone who looks across their output to see if things are framed consistently. To just say it's different people writing the articles isn't an acceptable excuse, especially when reporters are often told to look for negative articles that they can put together about certain individuals.

The same is true of the articles around Meghan and Kate. There has been a clear difference in the framing of the two of them. There is more than enough evidence out there that you could probably put an entire dissertation together about it. It persists still today.

I'm not particularly bothered about the royal family and don't think it should exist in 2021 so I don't really have a dog in the fight. The evidence is out there and it would be better for everyone if we admitted the problem exists rather than putting forward these half arsed excuses to pretend that they don't.

[killer-heels]

Are you saying people can't?

Of course he can. But he is a royal so I am not going to assume he can.

[diggerling!]

Anybody and everybody can be racist. We just care less about it when it's from those "punching up" as you mention.
Doesn't make it right. It's downright hypocritical. In a way, it further raises the distinction between those on the up and those on the down (apologies for the simplicity in the distinction, but it's late and the game is starting!). When it comes to race issues, we seem to hold white people to a higher standard than other races, which actually only further serves to place them on a pedestal. Lowering standards based on race, is to subliminally accept there is a difference in capabilities, and therefore expectations, for said races. In my opinion.

That's an, er, interesting take.

Do you not think that centuries of oppression by white people of people of colour, and the indoctrination of our society with such ideas as 'scientific' racism (which still have a big influence today despite being thoroughly debunked by modern science) carries any weight at all when comparing the relative impacts of racism?

[clinical]

The racist in the royal family then. Has to be Charles right?

[J_Kopite]

Of course he can. But he is a royal so I am not going to assume he can.

What a wonderful message! Don't bother trying to change your behaviour and become a better person, don't attempt to understand and acknowledge what you've done wrong in the past, because of who you are I'm going to stick to my position about you anyway.

No wonder this debate is so fractured.

[reddebs]

The racist in the royal family then. Has to be Charles right?

I reckon it's more likely to be Edward.

[TSC]

And the fact she said she lived in Canada for 7 years previously. I know Americans are sometimes perceived as ignorant but surely you would know something about the head of state of the country you had spent that long in.

Are Canadians even aware? 

Would imagine much of the world has other subjects to ponder than anything concerning UK’s royal herd.

[BER]

Celebrities vs. The Royal Family

The racist in the royal family then. Has to be Charles right?

In a major plot twist ...

[killer-heels]

What a wonderful message! Don't bother trying to change your behaviour and become a better person, don't attempt to understand and acknowledge what you've done wrong in the past, because of who you are I'm going to stick to my position about you anyway.

No wonder this debate is so fractured.

Society can change, I am all for people not being tarred with the same brush or losing jobs based on what they said a long time ago.

I just dont extend that to the Royal Family. The lot of them are a gang of c*nts.

[west_london_red]

The racist in the royal family then. Has to be Charles right?

Interesting that everyone is focusing on the men. Could be Camilla, Kate, Anne, Fergie, Sophie or one of the kids. Do we even know it’s a senior royal or one of the their cousins or uncles and aunts?

[killer-heels]

Interesting that everyone is focusing on the men. Could be Camilla, Kate, Anne, Fergie, Sophie or one of the kids. Do we even know it’s a senior royal or one of the their cousins or uncles and aunts?

Im sure she said royal but didnt narrow it down. Maybe they will sell the name of the person to Netflix and it will be revealed on The Crown?

[RyanBabel19]

It's often dangerous to draw too many conclusions from such articles or Meghan versus Kate lists, when they are written at different times by different people. The press have always adopted a pantomime mentality of good and bad / black and white / in favour and out of favour. The main reason for this of course is to sell papers. A little bit of exaggeration, or call it poetic licence is often used to "spice up" stories. How many times have we railed against negative stories against our own home-grown footballers for instance? The press invariably, would always look for the "scally" angle on stories relating to our local footballers.

Bigoted? In many ways, although usually the stories are just the right side of acceptable, for obvious reasons.

Take the Raheem Sterling article. Some people say it was racist in comparison with Phil Foden's. But at the time Sterling was considered a "flop". Many people will also look at the style of the bathroom he bought for his mother and consider it rather OTT and indeed "blingy". The article may have been slightly exaggerated for effect, but was it unfair? Was it racist?

Regarding Meghan and Kate, people with an agenda of very quick to call out articles as being evidence of racism. These people never stop to consider whether the individual articles were fair but exaggerated, or whether the narrative had changed in between articles.

Meghan claimed to be devastated by racist articles such as the "artichoke responsible for global warming". Strange then, that she was able to laugh and joke with Oprah, dismissing the article and quipping that it must've been a "pretty loaded piece of toast". On the one hand the article is dismissed as nothing more than lightweight, throwaway pulp, whilst on the other hand, heavily laden with racist intent. Which is it?

As noted above, similar complaints could have been made by Diana and Fergie at different points along their Royal journeys too.

This isn't true though.

Was it racist? Yes it damn sure fucking was. When have you ever seen so much hate and contempt for any other football player in this country? Now answer the same question again within the parameters of whether that player did anything wrong to fuel this contempt. Those excuses for the disparity between these portrayals are ridiculous. Its a running theme within the media and everyone who looks can see it, it's not even just a celebrity thing ffs. It's infuriating seeing so many excuses wheeled out for shit that is thinly veiled racism. Fair but exaggerated... why is this approach taken when it comes to the same people but not the others that are raised as the comparison... that is the racism ffs. The article Raheem spoke about wasn't even about him, it was a young City player who bought a house and Foden bought a house, both for their mums and the way the articles were framed were drastically different. Look at Maguire fighting in another country WITH POLICE and how it's portrayed when it comes to the media. 1000 different excuses were made for him and his mental health and wellbeing was the priority, where is this line of thinking when it's a player with a different skin colour? It conveniently always goes missing and the vile, hate fueled 'how dare they?' approach is taken.

I've lost count of the amount of times i've seen articles written about attacks or violence in which perpetrator 1 is 'a loner who MUST have mental health issues' and 2 is 'a terrorist/gang member, inciting hate and fear and has a criminal history or posed in a tracksuit in a picture'. If this exaggeration is a reason for it, why it is disproportionately used when the subject of the article is black? People should stop pretending this blatant shit isn't done with intent.

The disparity in the way two different groups are reported on is blatant, water it down all you want but it fuels racism and unfair narratives based on the complete wrong things. The thing is children can see these articles and nowadays with the internet its all accessible, growing up seeing people who look like you met with contempt for simply living is extremely damaging. Its funny how you claim this good vs bad stuff you fail to mention bad is near enough always pinned on the same people and good on others

Something doesn't have to simply be a blatant racial slur to be racist, i've had implied racist comments made to me for years, each one could be met with 'maybe this or that'... NO, it's fucking racist, dont try to dilute it or dress it up.

[killer-heels]

Prince William .. "The Royal Family are very much not racist".

Yeah right.

[Qston]

This isn't true though.

Was it racist? Yes it damn sure fucking was. When have you ever seen so much hate and contempt for any other football player in this country? Now answer the same question again within the parameters of whether that player did anything wrong to fuel this contempt. Those excuses for the disparity between these portrayals are ridiculous. Its a running theme within the media and everyone who looks can see it, it's not even just a celebrity thing ffs. It's infuriating seeing so many excuses wheeled out for shit that is thinly veiled racism. Fair but exaggerated... why is this approach taken when it comes to the same people but not the others that are raised as the comparison... that is the racism ffs. The article Raheem spoke about wasn't even about him, it was a young City player who bought a house and Foden bought a house, both for their mums and the way the articles were framed were drastically different. Look at Maguire fighting in another country WITH POLICE and how it's portrayed when it comes to the media. 1000 different excuses were made for him and his mental health and wellbeing was the priority, where is this line of thinking when it's a player with a different skin colour? It conveniently always goes missing and the vile, hate fueled 'how dare they?' approach is taken.

I've lost count of the amount of times i've seen articles written about attacks or violence in which perpetrator 1 is 'a loner who MUST have mental health issues' and 2 is 'a terrorist/gang member, inciting hate and fear and has a criminal history or posed in a tracksuit in a picture'. If this exaggeration is a reason for it, why it is disproportionately used when the subject of the article is black? People should stop pretending this blatant shit isn't done with intent.

The disparity in the way two different groups are reported on is blatant, water it down all you want but it fuels racism and unfair narratives based on the complete wrong things. The thing is children can see these articles and nowadays with the internet its all accessible, growing up seeing people who look like you met with contempt for simply living is extremely damaging. Its funny how you claim this good vs bad stuff you fail to mention bad is near enough always pinned on the same people and good on others

Something doesn't have to simply be a blatant racial slur to be racist, i've had implied racist comments made to me for years, each one could be met with 'maybe this or that'... NO, it's fucking racist, dont try to dilute it or dress it up.

Even people like me from my relatively sheltered world, and who have very limited experience of many of the issues can see that the coverage is racist. It is that blatant. Just comparing articles about essentially the same subject you can see how overt it is.

A few days ago in this thread I did admit I got it wrong in my argument that context was needed until some helpful posters pointed out to me the context that was provided during the interview. Unconscious bias ? Perhaps, but as I say, even I can see the obvious racism in a lot of coverage with the royals, footballers and many other walks of life.

The debate over the last few days has been very interesting and thought provoking for me. The comments about racism existing within ethnic communities is an issue that I was aware existed, but the level at which it exists has surprised me. You live and you learn but ultimately prejudice is prejudice.

What I have experienced over the years is prejudice towards where I am from. I am sure many of you on here have. Only from a select group of people, but in my job I did have cause to spend a lot of time in London with the legal community and others there, and the attitude towards Liverpool/Merseyside saddened me. Not from everyone by any means, but a decent number and the willingness just to say stuff wasn`t tempered at all. I am not comparing that to anything in particular, and am not pretending it has given me much experience at all, but the prejudice, whilst often delivered in an apparently "amusing" way, was nevertheless prejudice. Some of it was vile and you can imagine the references, certainly back then.

[Mimi]

Prince William .. "The Royal Family are very much not racist".

Yeah right.

I get he was asked this question as he was touring a school, but surely he could have had something better prepared because he must have known that the question was coming up any time he stepped out in public. I think even a “no comment” would be better than this answer.

What Megan and Harry described was undoubtedly racism. But they did it in the context of an Oprah Winfrey interview, which is a managed spectacle, and for the purposes of publicity as their income stream depends on publicity. As such, certain things had to be managed including Harry’s own incidents of racism. I personally think this is why Megan claimed she knew nothing about the family she was marrying into. These two would still be running around as the Sussexes and doing the royal grunt work if Megan had been treated better. The downstream benefits of the interview is that it has lead to a serious discussion of racism within British journalism and lead to the departure of Piers Moron.

[Sheer Magnetism]

This isn't true though.

Was it racist? Yes it damn sure fucking was. When have you ever seen so much hate and contempt for any other football player in this country? Now answer the same question again within the parameters of whether that player did anything wrong to fuel this contempt. Those excuses for the disparity between these portrayals are ridiculous. Its a running theme within the media and everyone who looks can see it, it's not even just a celebrity thing ffs. It's infuriating seeing so many excuses wheeled out for shit that is thinly veiled racism. Fair but exaggerated... why is this approach taken when it comes to the same people but not the others that are raised as the comparison... that is the racism ffs. The article Raheem spoke about wasn't even about him, it was a young City player who bought a house and Foden bought a house, both for their mums and the way the articles were framed were drastically different. Look at Maguire fighting in another country WITH POLICE and how it's portrayed when it comes to the media. 1000 different excuses were made for him and his mental health and wellbeing was the priority, where is this line of thinking when it's a player with a different skin colour? It conveniently always goes missing and the vile, hate fueled 'how dare they?' approach is taken.

Seems like we're getting wildly off topic but Sterling was landed in court on more than one occasion on allegations of assaulting women. It's not like when Beckham was being literally burned in effigy for being sent off in a world cup match, or when Rooney was constantly being put on the tabloid front pages for going out because reporters were tracking him 24/7 looking for dirt.

For what it's worth, I've always suspected the negative coverage of Markle has more to do with her being American, the echoes of Wallace Simpson that surround that, and her liability father. It's the flipside of Kate, who's ideal because she's safe, quiet and does nothing but go to public functions and get pregnant. If the mid-market tabloids had been primarily focused on her colour there would have been more gross focus on her 'exoticism'. Then again, those newsrooms have been infected by racism for years at the highest levels, so it would be naive to believe that never came into play.

[RyanBabel19]

Prince William .. "The Royal Family are very much not racist".

Yeah right.

He should have a word with Princess Michael of Kent who chose to name her two black sheep Venus and Serena and chose to tell a group of black people she deemed too loud in a public place 'go back to the colonies'

[rob1966]

He should have a word with Princess Michael of Kent who chose to name her two black sheep Venus and Serena and chose to tell a group of black people she deemed too loud in a public place 'go back to the colonies'

You'd hope that as that vile generation dies out, their disgusting views die with them.

[west_london_red]

Seems like we're getting wildly off topic but Sterling was landed in court on more than one occasion on allegations of assaulting women. It's not like when Beckham was being literally burned in effigy for being sent off in a world cup match, or when Rooney was constantly being put on the tabloid front pages for going out because reporters were tracking him 24/7 looking for dirt.

For what it's worth, I've always suspected the negative coverage of Markle has more to do with her being American, the echoes of Wallace Simpson that surround that, and her liability father. It's the flipside of Kate, who's ideal because she's safe, quiet and does nothing but go to public functions and get pregnant. If the mid-market tabloids had been primarily focused on her colour there would have been more gross focus on her 'exoticism'. Then again, those newsrooms have been infected by racism for years at the highest levels, so it would be naive to believe that never came into play.

I don’t think it’s being American or black, as most of our tabloid press have a pretty big hard on for the USA, it’s more that she’s a liberal American and at least in my mind that’s probably part of the reason the press have had it in for her. A lot of the causes she has identified with and supported are not aligned with the right wing press and she’s been vocal about them so they have gone after her, while Kate very much has the country Tory set wiff about her and doesn’t stray far from that script gets left alone. Even when Charles has started bringing up things like the environment and global warming, subjects that are generally identified with the left, he’s taken a kicking from the press over it.

[Nobby Reserve]

You'd hope that as that vile generation dies out, their disgusting views die with them.

You talking pensioners in general?

 

[killer-heels]

He should have a word with Princess Michael of Kent who chose to name her two black sheep Venus and Serena and chose to tell a group of black people she deemed too loud in a public place 'go back to the colonies'

Ha fucking hell. They really have no shame.

Off with all their heads.

[rob1966]

You talking pensioners in general?

 

You're never going to let that go are you?

[Mumm-Ra]

You talking pensioners in general?

 

[mallin9]

Im sure she said royal but didnt narrow it down. Maybe they will sell the name of the person to Netflix and it will be revealed on The Crown?

Every fuckingnday with this. Do you not recognize the twisted logic of victim-blaming here?  Let me try to summarize that second sentence:  they did it for money and fame.

Which fair do’s, you can think they did it all for money and Netflix deals. But you and countless other posters in here then tie yourselves in knots to prove no no, no victim blaming going on here. If you think accusations of racism are nothing but cries for attention then again, fair do, and it helps entrench my belief that you in turn are an asshole.

[Skeeve]

Love it when right wing gammons always cling to free speech when it involves them. Same with cancel culture, happy to complain when things get cancelled, but blow an aneurysm when Kaepernick protests silently

Indeed, you have the same idiocy happening with Dr Seuss, the right-wing in america were eager to cancel Dr Seuss when it was about the Lorax and conservation, but are eager to campaign on behalf of the racist content now. 

[Machae]

It's often dangerous to draw too many conclusions from such articles or Meghan versus Kate lists, when they are written at different times by different people. The press have always adopted a pantomime mentality of good and bad / black and white / in favour and out of favour. The main reason for this of course is to sell papers. A little bit of exaggeration, or call it poetic licence is often used to "spice up" stories. How many times have we railed against negative stories against our own home-grown footballers for instance? The press invariably, would always look for the "scally" angle on stories relating to our local footballers.

Bigoted? In many ways, although usually the stories are just the right side of acceptable, for obvious reasons.

Take the Raheem Sterling article. Some people say it was racist in comparison with Phil Foden's. But at the time Sterling was considered a "flop". Many people will also look at the style of the bathroom he bought for his mother and consider it rather OTT and indeed "blingy". The article may have been slightly exaggerated for effect, but was it unfair? Was it racist?

Regarding Meghan and Kate, people with an agenda of very quick to call out articles as being evidence of racism. These people never stop to consider whether the individual articles were fair but exaggerated, or whether the narrative had changed in between articles.

Meghan claimed to be devastated by racist articles such as the "artichoke responsible for global warming". Strange then, that she was able to laugh and joke with Oprah, dismissing the article and quipping that it must've been a "pretty loaded piece of toast". On the one hand the article is dismissed as nothing more than lightweight, throwaway pulp, whilst on the other hand, heavily laden with racist intent. Which is it?

As noted above, similar complaints could have been made by Diana and Fergie at different points along their Royal journeys too.

Oh dear 

[diggerling!]

Prince William .. "The Royal Family are very much not racist".

Yeah right.

Popbitch had this today...

Unmasking the Royal who voiced 'concerns' about the skin tone of baby Archie is almost certainly going to play out like Murder On The Orient Express: at some point or other, it's going to transpire they all had a hand in it. But as fingers flit between the obvious suspects, one person who's been getting a fairly easy ride is William.

Remember the whole "Prince Harry Nazi Costume" story? It almost didn't happen. The source who approached the Sun with those infamous shots of Harry at a "Colonial And Native" party didn't initially realise that they'd be the ones of interest. The person they'd originally been trying to shop a story on was William, who they claimed to have pictures of dressed up as a gorilla.

Luckily for whoever it was behind that gorilla mask, it obscured their face to such a degree that the Sun hacks couldn't make a positive ID. So they ended up running the Nazi shots instead.

[AlphaDelta]

I've deliberately swerved most of this carry on, my only input being I'd literally donate my bank balance to watch Piers Moron be eaten by sharks.

That said, someone claimed today that Piers Moron actually went on a date with Meghan Markle but she never returned his calls, hence is odious attitude. Is this internet baloney or actually true?

[Hedley Lamarr]

I've deliberately swerved most of this carry on, my only input being I'd literally donate my bank balance to watch Piers Moron be eaten by sharks.

That said, someone claimed today that Piers Moron actually went on a date with Meghan Markle but she never returned his calls, hence is odious attitude. Is this internet baloney or actually true?

She went out for a drink with him and a few others, not like a date or anything.  She clearly marked his card and fucked him off straight off the bat though, it's certainly personal with him.

[rob1966]

I've deliberately swerved most of this carry on, my only input being I'd literally donate my bank balance to watch Piers Moron be eaten by sharks.

That said, someone claimed today that Piers Moron actually went on a date with Meghan Markle but she never returned his calls, hence is odious attitude. Is this internet baloney or actually true?

Its what it has been twisted it into. He said on RTE a few years ago they were following each other on social media in 2015, met in London for a couple of hours in 2016 and then put her in a taxi and she went off to a party where she first met Harry and he's never heard from her again. He says she ghosted him. More likely she realised what a prick he is any had no interest in speaking to him again.

[AlphaDelta]

Its what it has been twisted it into. He said on RTE a few years ago they were following each other on social media in 2015, met in London for a couple of hours in 2016 and then put her in a taxi and she went off to a party where she first met Harry and he's never heard from her again. He says she ghosted him. More likely she realised what a prick he is any had no interest in speaking to him again.

Defo sounds about right, he's one bad egg him.

[Hendollama]

<a href="https://youtube.com/v/PShVQpBM5Zk" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://youtube.com/v/PShVQpBM5Zk</a>

Ozzy man has uploaded a brief summary of the interview.

[Mimi]

Every fuckingnday with this. Do you not recognize the twisted logic of victim-blaming here?  Let me try to summarize that second sentence:  they did it for money and fame.

Which fair do’s, you can think they did it all for money and Netflix deals. But you and countless other posters in here then tie yourselves in knots to prove no no, no victim blaming going on here. If you think accusations of racism are nothing but cries for attention then again, fair do, and it helps entrench my belief that you in turn are an asshole.

There is no victim blaming there though. It is true that Megan experienced racism at the hands of her in-laws, who happen to be the British royal family. It is also true that she and her husband are reliant upon publicity for their living.

I do not see why there is a need to say that what Megan said was not true. She describes incidents that are very much things that many people with a bit of melanin experience. The refusal to give her help when she needed it at the time of her pregnancy is something many women experience.

But to divorce her story from the context from which she is telling it is to ignore the class and economic effects of racism. It is to ignore the larger systemic effect of racism.

You can see the fallout of her story on people who are not in a position of privilege like she is. Particularly, on the black British journalists who have to keep their cool while listening to racist nonsense form the likes of Sharon Osbourne.

[RyanBabel19]

Its what it has been twisted it into. He said on RTE a few years ago they were following each other on social media in 2015, met in London for a couple of hours in 2016 and then put her in a taxi and she went off to a party where she first met Harry and he's never heard from her again. He says she ghosted him. More likely she realised what a prick he is any had no interest in speaking to him again.

To add to that... Piers Moron has been a married man since 2010

[kavah]

This made me laugh