Comments by "David Aspinall" (@yt.personal.identification) on "Don Lemon responds to Oprah's interview with Meghan and Harry" video.

Good advice...why keep going backwards just for the attention? If you want a private life, why give public interviews? Seems a at least a little hypocritical.
44
But but...Dianna was white. She had all the privileges. ...oh wait.
16
They chose to walk away from the Royal family. It's like quitting your job and complaining they don't still give a pay check.
9
@Herr tRumpenfuhrer You choose your friends, not your family. Do you want mine? Based on your assumptions, you appear to want to be near my family members. Are you sure? That is a very narrow mind you have there if you assume all families are worth keeping. ...on second thoughts. Maybe you need to be left alone with some of my family. Your assumptions betray your extremely limited view of the world. Good for you, you have a nice family. No need to be a rooster about it.
7
@freedomlife3623 You assume they set the record straight rather than conflating it with misinformation. Why would you blindly believe something said by someone with an axe to grind without assessing the validity with currently available information. Is Oprah supposed to add some level of credibility just by being the one to make money from this publicity stunt, with someone who wanted to get away from the public eye. I am not that gullible.
6
@Herr tRumpenfuhrer How do you manage that...split personality?
5
I thought it was because they chose not to be part of the official royal duty. When I quit my job, I don't keep the job title.
5
@bernadettebailey5370 Rewriting history doesn't produce facts. If I quit my job, I don't get to keep the title and perks. If I leave for privacy reasons, I don't do public interviews. Her credibility is questionable, by any logical measure. Edit spell
5
@Herr tRumpenfuhrer Hypocrisy at it's finest. You came at me fool.
4
@Herr tRumpenfuhrer Did you just resort to... "No, you are" ?
3
@cheesehead4670 They can tell their side. But at least acknowledge it is just one side, from someone with an axe to grind. This person looking for attention is the same one that wanted a quiet private life.
2
@rugr82day I see you are too young to realise how wrong you are. Also, too young to realise that when Charkes had kids, his brothers and sisters were removed from the central spotlight as the line of ascension changes. Before Chuck had kids, his siblings were very high profile. The same thing will happen with William's kids. They will become the new face, until the eldest has kids, and William's other kids fade into the background. The background being a life full of schedules and appointments, and appearances. Not exactly a free life. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Megan got there as his time in the spotlight was coming to an end...and she wants the attention. Proof - this interview. Dianna however, was full spotlight ALL the time simply because of he proximity to guaranteed line of progression. Very different situations, and very different motivations for Dianna compared to Megan. Megan isn't important enough to kill, Dianna was. ...and Megan just wants that attention. But sure, tell me I am the one missing something here.
2
The only thing we know for sure, is they chose to walk away from royal duties for privacy - and then went on a publicity jaunt.
2
@Michael John Russell You don't need to blindly believe someone who quit their job for privacy reasons, but wants all the perks and tells everyone in a public interview. There is no need to be a Megan fanboy
2
@mimzyjinx8142 wtf are you talking about? If you are coming at me, you clearly f'up
2
@Michael John Russell Blindly believing one side isn't free thinking. Ignoring recorded verifiable timelines is not free thinking. It appears you are confusing imagination with thinking.
2
@Michael John Russell Just because you don't trust the monarchy shouldn't mean you automatically believe everything said against them by anyone at all. Likewise, just because I question her credibility, doesn't mean I trust the monarchy either. Only idiots work like this...and US politics. Don't make rash calls just because you like one, or dislike the other - do it on merit. ...otherwise you are too easy to manipulate.
2
@bernadettebailey5370 They chose to leave the family duties. His duties and titles were removed, as per his request. Then they left. It was their choice to quit the job. You don't get the benefits and title when you quit. It was all very public at the time. We all saw the timeline unfold. The articles, dated, are all still available. Saying bs with exclamation marks doesn't make it true.
2
@pumpkinlashes596 You were there...? Yeah, let's blindly trust the triggered angry person with an axe to grind.
2
@pumpkinlashes596 They chose to quit the public eye. ...and failed even in that. You talk like you have facts. Gullible.
2
Your imagination must be fact. Let's act like it is.
1
@rugr82day Megan is alive. Please explain how Dianna has it better. I'll wait...
1
@mandlas.4305 Not the only difference. They killed Dianna...Megan lives.
1
@rugr82day OK pedant, your are technically correct. You didn't say Dianna had it better...you only said Megan had it worse, while comparing to Dianna. I am not sure you can classify that as "twisting it" though.
1
@sylviasworld9397 Dianna had MANY problems with the Royal establishment. It's basic common knowledge.
1
@koyelsg Dianna WAS in love. It can be blinding. She learned the truth, but at the time was in love. You can find many interviews of her saying it...or her book.
1
@mimzyjinx8142 Don't let facts get in the way. What are you doing?
1
@mimzyjinx8142 Did you go back an read my comment after I pointed out you messed up...or did your embarrassment lead you to just double down?
1
@mimzyjinx8142 The reason the person the comment was directed at didn't take offence, I guess is because they understand the concept of sarcasm. The second line is the giveaway.
1