Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

meeeeh wrote: »

She married a spare royal. That nowdays makes people qualified to waffle on just about everything from ecology to race relations, mental health and penguins or elephants. I despise how British media threated them but neither do I particularly want to hear their lectures. I can understand why Brits are keeping royal family but they really are just a bunch of very unimpressive people with a huge platform.

I couldn’t agree more. The Royals are in a prominent position by accident of birth rather than merit. I think what was so revealing about the infamous Prince Andrew interview was how really, really bang average some of them are intellectually.

Cienciano

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

They must be spending a fortune on PR consultants to keep them in the news. Every day there's at least two and often more than three different stories about them on the landing page newsfeed. Epitome of famous for being famous.

All you're showing here is you read trash news sources. And if you don't know how the likes of the Daily Mail works at this stage, you're a lost cause. They feed on outrage.

MoonUnit75

Cienciano wrote: »

All you're showing here is you read trash news sources. And if you don't know how the likes of the Daily Mail works at this stage, you're a lost cause. They feed on outrage.

When I open my browser it shows me the actual news and straight below it today are four puff-piece press releases and non-stories about them. One about how they decorated their new mansion, another one about how she says breastfeeding is like running a marathon, one on how she meditates to escape 'trolls' and another with the extraordinary revelation that they witnessed their sons first steps while in lockdown.

I don't read the Daily Mail.

irishblessing

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Hold up. I tell you the very video I’m talking about. You completely dismiss what I’ve said but you haven’t even seen the video?

And yes, if you are going to pontificate, you should know what you’re talking about. She had said herself that she didn’t know about Black History Month. So it appears it wasn’t important to her.

Pontificate :pac::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You're the one talking about it. So you can't produce a link or what? Lots of things are important to me, but I don't always know what's on. Do you?

irishblessing

meeeeh wrote: »

She married a spare royal. That nowdays makes people qualified to waffle on just about everything from ecology to race relations, mental health and penguins or elephants. I despise how British media threated them but neither do I particularly want to hear their lectures. I can understand why Brits are keeping royal family but they really are just a bunch of very unimpressive people with a huge platform.

Did you just refer to a human being as a "spare?" You'd wan't to get your own opinion and not the rags bile that you obviously consume. Says more about you than Harry who couldn't help but be born. But you can help your bitter opinions about strangers!

Lecture, or speaking about what they feel is important? They can't control how you *feel* about their opinions. :pac:

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

She's the Mary Sue of her own ghost-written biography! Have you read it, or at least attempted to read it between breaks to dry-wretch into the bathroom sink? Complete drivel that they obviously fed directly and indirectly to Scobie, a guy who lies about his own age in interviews.



You don't know anything about them if you haven't kept track of all the staff they went through. Likewise, these staff are up to their ears in NDAs. She also knows the royal family have a long-lived policy of not bitching about their staff or family matters to the press so won't counter her PR.



Exactly, she moved in with a large extended family then extracted what she needed and moved to where suited her best. And no, she did not move to be with her mother, they first moved to Canada, knowing Canada is obliged to foot the bill for security for royal members.



There is, Michelle Obama is black, female and speaks out on issues of race, gender, equality etc. but failed to leave a trainwreck of broken families and relationships behind her or alienate the press.

Or-she lived there and owned a home too for many years. Jaysus. You don't seem strangely jealous at all.

Why don't you write a biography so, you seem quite invested with insider knowledge. Boards own Mary Sue :pac:

Who cares whether or not the "press" aka rags are alienated... give me a break.

Cienciano

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

When I open my browser it shows me the actual news and straight below it today are four puff-piece press releases and non-stories about them. One about how they decorated their new mansion, another one about how she says breastfeeding is like running a marathon, one on how she meditates to escape 'trolls' and another with the extraordinary revelation that they witnessed their sons first steps while in lockdown.

I don't read the Daily Mail.

All can be either turned off, edited so you see something you're interested in or they show you that shíte because you click similar stuff before.

They don't have to be the daily mail. "Breastfeeding is like running a marathon" is a prime example of outrage porn for clicks.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

Or-she lived there and owned a home too for many years. Jaysus. You don't seem strangely jealous at all.

Why don't you write a biography so, you seem quite invested with insider knowledge. Boards own Mary Sue :pac:

Who cares whether or not the "press" aka rags are alienated... give me a break.

How do you know she's really lovely despite all the broken relationships and family estrangements? Where do you get 'true' information on her personality?

MoonUnit75

Cienciano wrote: »

All can be either turned off, edited so you see something you're interested in or they show you that shíte because you click similar stuff before.

They don't have to be the daily mail. "Breastfeeding is like running a marathon" is a prime example of outrage porn for clicks.

Thanks, I wasn't actually looking for tech support though! I was demonstrating my point that they have a well-oiled PR machine that keeps them in the news and keeps their 'brand' relevant and therefore lucrative. None of the stories are from the Daily Mail. Seriously, the scapegoating of one paper in the face of one car crash after another is getting old.

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

How do you know she's really lovely despite all the broken relationships and family estrangements? Where do you get 'true' information on her personality?

Based off her own history of charity and equality issues, I like the things she's involved in and speaks up about, and from the way she speaks (her actual interviews) she seems intelligent and passionate. People who know her or have worked with her also speak highly of her. And finally, the fact she hasn't given me any reason to think badly of her. I'm happy for her and Harry and glad to see all the good they're trying to do. Which has made and will make a bigger impact on the world than me, you or anyone else here I'm guessing.

Cienciano

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

None of the stories are from the Daily Mail. Seriously, the scapegoating of one paper in the face of one car crash after another is getting old.

The type of newspaper/source that posts the clickbait stories about Royals are either the Daily Mail or clones of it's type of journalism. It's working on you anyway, you're outraged about their behavior.

MoonUnit75

Cienciano wrote: »

The type of newspaper/source that posts the clickbait stories about Royals are either the Daily Mail or clones of it's type of journalism. It's working on you anyway, you're outraged about their behavior.

This 'you're outraged' thing, is it a new fad among wokesters? It seems to be the go-to retort when there's nothing useful to add. I don't know if you are one of the woke flock, hopefully it's not spreading.

Again, you totally miss the point that they are pushing out puff-pieces and press releases to paint them in a positive light. Someone asked earlier about their PR machine. I don't need tech support on my news feed, assumptions about the news sources on my news feed or psychoanalysis. I'm just trying to get my point across without this constant bull5ht diversion tactic.

meeeeh

irishblessing wrote: »

Did you just refer to a human being as a "spare?" You'd wan't to get your own opinion and not the rags bile that you obviously consume. Says more about you than Harry who couldn't help but be born. But you can help your bitter opinions about strangers!

Lecture, or speaking about what they feel is important? They can't control how you *feel* about their opinions. :pac:

I think it's clear you take this a lot more seriously than I do.

BTW I don't read tabloids.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

Based off her own history of charity and equality issues, I like the things she's involved in and speaks up about, and from the way she speaks (her actual interviews) she seems intelligent and passionate. People who know her or have worked with her also speak highly of her. And finally, the fact she hasn't given me any reason to think badly of her. I'm happy for her and Harry and glad to see all the good they're trying to do. Which has made and will make a bigger impact on the world than me, you or anyone else here I'm guessing.

That's fair enough. One thing the last decade taught us though is pay less attention to the public persona and veneer of righteousness, watch out for the wake of discarded and alienated friends, family and colleagues.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

irishblessing wrote: »

Pontificate :pac::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You're the one talking about it. So you can't produce a link or what? Lots of things are important to me, but I don't always know what's on. Do you?

Irishblessing, this was a widely released clip!

Here’s part of it anyway. But seriously, this is not some obscure footage.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2020/oct/01/its-about-community-meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-celebrate-black-history-month-video

irishblessing

meeeeh wrote: »

I think it's clear you take this a lot more seriously than I do.

BTW I don't read tabloids.

I don't call human beings spares, what a horrible thing to say. Live and let live. You're the one taking yourself way too seriously and going around offended by people you don't even know.

irishblessing

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Irishblessing, this was a widely released clip!

Here’s part of it anyway. But seriously, this is not some obscure footage.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2020/oct/01/its-about-community-meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-celebrate-black-history-month-video

What's your point. She barely lived in the UK, she can't know everything. She said she was glad she knows now and is excited about it. What more do you want from her? Her lived experience from a black perspective is in the US, and that's where she's most heavily involved. Who's fault is it anyway she wasn't aware when she lived there? I would say that's the fault of the ignorance of the family she married into. Why don't you say shame on the family she married into who didn't openly mark the occasion once she joined the family. Give me a break. She can't be everything for everyone all the time. Do you hold yourself to that same standard?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

irishblessing wrote: »

What's your point. She barely lived in the UK, she can't know everything. She said she was glad she knows now and is excited about it. What more do you want from her? Her lived experience from a black perspective is in the US, and that's where she's most heavily involved. Who's fault is it anyway she wasn't aware when she lived there? I would say that's the fault of the ignorance of the family she married into. Why don't you say shame on the family she married into who didn't openly mark the occasion once she joined the family. Give me a break. She can't be everything for everyone all the time. Do you hold yourself to that same standard?

She lived there for three years. That’s not barely living there.

As for the bizarre and inane bolded question, I’m not looking to be anything to anyone and seeking a public profile. Anyone who does, opens themselves up to criticism.

irishblessing

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

She lived there for three years. That’s not barely living there.

As for the bizarre and inane bolded question, I’m not looking to be anything to anyone and seeking a public profile. Anyone who does, opens themselves up to criticism.

Obviously desperate.... how dare she try and live her life the best she can with the man she loves and try and improve things where she can! I mean the absolute cheek of her living somewhere for 3 whole years and during that time getting married, having to stay confined within the RF whilst moving house twice, becoming pregnant and then a first time mother, enduring horrible slander and racism (having described it as barely survivable so her mental health was hugely suffering) while still trying to do some good in charity work and family duties and while all that is going on not knowing everything there is to know yet! I'm sure you would do so much better in her shoes. :rolleyes:
Are you normally this mean spirited in real life, or do you just reserve that for people you don't know behind your keyboard?

meeeeh

irishblessing wrote: »

I don't call human beings spares, what a horrible thing to say. Live and let live. You're the one taking yourself way too seriously and going around offended by people you don't even know.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29111548#:~:text=If%20your%20average%20first-born,the%20heir%20to%20the%20throne.&text=In%20less%20healthy%20times%2C%20his,the%20spare%20to%20the%20heir%22.

It's a common expression used for those who are second in line to the throne (or something similar) in case something happens to the heir. You might think it's horrible thing to think but it is exactly how royal or similar families operate and stay in power/position through the centuries. Getting offended by it won't change it but it will give you an excuse to be outraged about something. So knock yourself out.

valoren

It's worth remembering that William is a future Monarch. It adds a significant layer of complexity to this simply being two royal brother's falling out and immersing ourselves in the gossip of it. William knows that the Monarch and the Royal Family needs to be absolutely unbiased, impartial, apolitical and neutral. The Monarch is meant to be steadfast and a constant. To be so means to protect the Monarchy itself. Whatever government forms and the policies they might have must always be beneath an overriding Monarch. I think that was his agenda in having his brother take it slowly in terms of marrying i.e. discover what Meghan is like, grasp what her outlook and personality is, determine if she is suitable to being unbiased, neutral etc. I would imagine William would have had Harry and his spouse very much at the forefront but there were pre-requisites to his choice of spouse. Think about it. Do we know what Catherine thinks about Brexit? About Black Lives Matter? About #metoo? etc? We haven’t got the foggiest idea and that’s what the Royal Family is about. Neutrality, Promoting Good Causes, Charity. Having no “position” is the default position. They are perfectly entitled to have private opinions on the above but it must never be made public. William is skating to where the puck will be i.e. his own reign and in the intervening period to have a growing crib sheet of his brother and his wife’s conduct as a means of sullying his reign is not an option.

It presumably wasn’t William suggesting his brother couldn’t marry Markle but more him imploring him to be very mindful of and act on how suitable for such a role she is and if she feels suitable for it herself. It must have been obvious from private interactions that Meghan was opinionated, political and unapologetically outspoken thus setting off the alarm bells. That Harry decided to get the hump over this initiating a rift between them was his choice. If he couldn't see the bigger picture then his service in royal life was to be significantly diminished. Williams attempt to temper Harry’s impatience proved prescient. Meghan is not at all suited to a representative role in the Royal Family as her personal politics and public opinions are not aligned with maintaining a status quo. She is absolutely entitled to whatever viewpoints and opinions she has however now that Harry supports his wife then, quite simply, there can be no accomodating a senior place for them in Royal Family in the decades ahead. He married a head strong woman who has opinions and viewpoints, one's which can be attacked and criticised, which, given their unique status can be monetised.

That’s what William was, for me, attempting to temper. It simply doesn’t align with the Royal house of Windsor and Harry can stifle upset all he wants. For William, it’s nothing personal, it’s “business”. His brother married someone who isn’t (and doesn’t want to be) unbiased, neutral, apolitical. She wishes to monetise her status, be a banal insta/fashion blogging influencer, to be a “voice” on issues of the day and make significant bank where/if possible. I would, given the end of the Kardashians show, envisage them leveraging Netflix's interest to start a reality show along the same lines after their one year review with the palace next year. It would be a highly scripted show all about the optics.

On a deductive level, you look at the litany of broken friendships and relationships she has. The Duchess of Sussex doesn't get along with her father, her siblings. She has discarded a litany of associates, ghosted a host of formerly close friends. Now she doesn't get along with her brother in law, the future King, and his wife. A swathe of Royal staff quit in quick succession after she married into the Royal family. These, altogether, would be people of various nationalities, status and life experience yet there is one common denominator linking them all; they knew and interacted with Meghan Markle. Note the past tense. So when she says on a podcast that she was the most trolled woman in 2019 then, given that common denominator, it beggars the question "Why?".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

irishblessing wrote: »

Obviously desperate.... how dare she try and live her life the best she can with the man she loves and try and improve things where she can! I mean the absolute cheek of her living somewhere for 3 whole years and during that time getting married, having to stay confined within the RF whilst moving house twice, becoming pregnant and then a first time mother, enduring horrible slander and racism (having described it as barely survivable so her mental health was hugely suffering) while still trying to do some good in charity work and family duties and while all that is going on not knowing everything there is to know yet! I'm sure you would do so much better in her shoes. :rolleyes:
Are you normally this mean spirited in real life, or do you just reserve that for people you don't know behind your keyboard?

You are taking this VERY personally! :eek:

And seriously, irishblessing, I wouldn’t be lecturing anyone else about being a keyboard warrior. You’re the one who’s been lashing out insults at various forum members for the last few days.

irishblessing

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You are taking this VERY personally! :eek:

And seriously, irishblessing, I wouldn’t be lecturing anyone else about being a keyboard warrior. You’re the one who’s been lashing out insults at various forum members for the last few days.

You can always tell when one doesn't have a good leg to stand on when the only thing they can say is some variant of 'calm down,' or you're taking it very personal,' and then making a bald faced lie to try and have a point where you don't have one.

So you don't like Meghan taking anything personal, but you can't even take a different opinion on a forum board yet she had to endure slander and bullying and racism. Between the two of ye Meghan would be less sensitive I'm sure. :pac:

McGinniesta

I'd ride her.

irishblessing

meeeeh wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29111548#:~:text=If%20your%20average%20first-born,the%20heir%20to%20the%20throne.&text=In%20less%20healthy%20times%2C%20his,the%20spare%20to%20the%20heir%22.

It's a common expression used for those who are second in line to the throne (or something similar) in case something happens to the heir. You might think it's horrible thing to think but it is exactly how royal or similar families operate and stay in power/position through the centuries. Getting offended by it won't change it but it will give you an excuse to be outraged about something. So knock yourself out.

Just because the RF may have referred to the second born as spare (or are you getting that from The Crown, lol) it doesn't make it right. Actually calling someone a spare is ridiculous. The RF is also outdated and damaging to it's own members, as is well documented.

The outrage here towards two specific members of the RF (hello, Prince Andrew deserving of any ire, anyone??) is bizarre so I could also say knock yourself out but you clearly already have and intend to.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

irishblessing wrote: »

You can always tell when one doesn't have a good leg to stand on when the only thing they can say is some variant of 'calm down,' or you're taking it very personal,' and then making a bald faced lie to try and have a point where you don't have one.

So you don't like Meghan taking anything personal, but you can't even take a different opinion on a forum board yet she had to endure slander and bullying and racism. Between the two of ye Meghan would be less sensitive I'm sure. :pac:

And that’s the ignore list.

irishblessing

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And that’s the ignore list.

Yet you couldn't just do it, you had to say that. Because you don't like the shít (aka "criticism") coming back at you but it's just fine for you to do that to others. :rolleyes:

meeeeh

irishblessing wrote: »

The outrage here towards two specific members of the RF (hello, Prince Andrew deserving of any ire, anyone??) is bizarre so I could also say knock yourself out but you clearly already have and intend to.

Ignoring the other nonsense I would just like to point out that this is just plain whataboutery. I find royals boring so don't expect much comment on anything from me except their fashion choices (utterly boring, Megan is the best dressed).

However there is a special irony in signing deal with Netflix to film Kardashians 2 and complaining about media intrusion.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

meeeeh wrote: »

Ignoring the other nonsense I would just like to point out that this is just plain whataboutery. I find royals boring so don't expect much comment on anything from me except their fashion choices (utterly boring, Megan is the best dressed).

However there is a special irony in signing deal with Netflix to film Kardashians 2 and complaining about media intrusion.

Indeed. Andrew is obviously way, way worse than Meghan and Harry. I mean, that goes without saying.

metaoblivia

meeeeh wrote: »

Ignoring the other nonsense I would just like to point out that this is just plain whataboutery. I find royals boring so don't expect much comment on anything from me except their fashion choices (utterly boring, Megan is the best dressed).

However there is a special irony in signing deal with Netflix to film Kardashians 2 and complaining about media intrusion.

My understanding is that their deal with Netflix is similar to the deal the Obamas signed with Netflix, where the focus is more on producing programming rather than starring in.

I think it's fine to dislike and disapprove of Megan's choices, however far removed from her actual life you may be. But I think characterizing the Netflix deal as Kardashians 2 implies that they intend to film a reality series based on their home life when by all indications, that is not at all what they're looking to do.

meeeeh

metaoblivia wrote: »

My understanding is that their deal with Netflix is similar to the deal the Obamas signed with Netflix, where the focus is more on producing programming rather than starring in.

I think it's fine to dislike and disapprove of Megan's choices, however far removed from her actual life you may be. But I think characterizing the Netflix deal as Kardashians 2 implies that they intend to film a reality series based on their home life when by all indications, that is not at all what they're looking to do.

That was a flippant comment but I'm pretty sure they will have to be in the shows somehow to sell them, even if it's just documentaries. I actually don't overly mind them but best comparison I could make is Lewis Hamilton becoming vegan, lecturing everyone on animal welfare and flying to every race in his private jet. I don't think it's intentionally hypocritical sometimes they are just too dense to see the irony.

Muahahaha

valoren wrote: »

The Monarch is meant to be steadfast and a constant. To be so means to protect the Monarchy itself. Whatever government forms and the policies they might have must always be beneath an overriding Monarch. I think that was his agenda in having his brother take it slowly in terms of marrying i.e. discover what Meghan is like, grasp what her outlook and personality is, determine if she is suitable to being unbiased, neutral etc. I would imagine William would have had Harry and his spouse very much at the forefront but there were pre-requisites to his choice of spouse. Think about it. Do we know what Catherine thinks about Brexit? About Black Lives Matter? About #metoo? etc? We haven’t got the foggiest idea and that’s what the Royal Family is about.

Good post but just on the neutrality of the Monarch it is largely a myth. Every Tuesday without fail the Prime Minister of the day has to go cap in hand up to Buckingham Palace for a meeting with the Queen where they discuss national policy and state affairs. These weekly meeting have been going on since she became queen in 1952 and Boris Johnson is now the 14th Prime Minister of her reign. The idea that the Queen is neutral on political matters is a myth, she is not having these meetings just to share biscuits and cakes.

And some of these meetings have been far from neutral on behalf of the Queen, she is reported to have had shouting matches with Margaret Thatcher over both the Falkland Islands invasion and the miners strike when Thatcher used the police to beat down the miners violently. On Brexit Nick Clegg revealed she is pro-Brexit, she said this at a dinner and Clegg blabbed it to the media before retracting it after the Royal household dressed him down.

The Queen being politically neutral is just a myth put out there by the Royal institution themselves. Why else does she need to have weekly meetings which the Prime Minister has no choice but to attend.

MoonUnit75

Muahahaha wrote: »

Good post but just on the neutrality of the Monarch it is largely a myth. Every Tuesday without fail the Prime Minister of the day has to go cap in hand up to Buckingham Palace for a meeting with the Queen where they discuss national policy and state affairs. These weekly meeting have been going on since she became queen in 1952 and Boris Johnson is now the 14th Prime Minister of her reign. The idea that the Queen is neutral on political matters is a myth, she is not having these meetings just to share biscuits and cakes.

And some of these meetings have been far from neutral on behalf of the Queen, she is reported to have had shouting matches with Margaret Thatcher over both the Falkland Islands invasion and the miners strike when Thatcher used the police to beat down the miners violently. On Brexit Nick Clegg revealed she is pro-Brexit, she said this at a dinner and Clegg blabbed it to the media before retracting it after the Royal household dressed him down.

The Queen being politically neutral is just a myth put out there by the Royal institution themselves. Why else does she need to have weekly meetings which the Prime Minister has no choice but to attend.

That's not what is meant by politically neutral. She is the head of state and so must be informed and express her opinion on the issues that affect the state when dealing with parliament.

When they say the monarch is politically neutral it means he/she is non-partisan. She is meant to be above the individual and collective standpoints and ideologies that feed day to day politics. The monarchy sits above these things as the unifying factor that draws all citizens/subjects together as one nation under the sovereign.

metaoblivia

meeeeh wrote: »

That was a flippant comment but I'm pretty sure they will have to be in the shows somehow to sell them, even if it's just documentaries. I actually don't overly mind them but best comparison I could make is Lewis Hamilton becoming vegan, lecturing everyone on animal welfare and flying to every race in his private jet. I don't think it's intentionally hypocritical sometimes they are just too dense to see the irony.

It may be a flippant comment, but I think that sort of characterization feeds into the worst perceptions about her. There are people who absolutely thought she and Harry had signed on to do a reality tv series when the Netflix deal was first announced.

I think many people want to see them - and Megan specifically - struggle because we love watching a beautiful, wealthy, out-of-touch woman (and I think she's all of those things) get her comeuppance. And then this massive Netflix deal came along, which was a great move for them. But that's not what a lot of people wanted to see, so now it feels like it's being derided simply because it seems to have delayed this comeuppance a large portion of Daily Mail readers are clambering for.

As to your other point about them appearing on screen, I'm happy to wait and see. I find that setting up a bunch of expectations based on my limited knowledge often just leaves me with egg on my face! :P However, if their names have global recognition, attaching them as producers/endorsers would likely be enough to give a project a decent publicity boost without them having to appear in it.

There's a podcast called "You're Wrong About," which hasn't done anything on Harry and Megan (yet), but covers a variety of topics that most people have at least heard of and have some misconceptions about. The common strand through all of these topics is how far the media is willing to twist a situation in order to create a sellable yet often incomplete narrative and then how pervasive that incomplete narrative becomes within the general public. And this has been happening for centuries. It's something I like to keep in mind with all news, but especially with gossip and entertainment news.

MoonUnit75

metaoblivia wrote: »

It may be a flippant comment, but I think that sort of characterization feeds into the worst perceptions about her. There are people who absolutely thought she and Harry had signed on to do a reality tv series when the Netflix deal was first announced.

I think many people want to see them - and Megan specifically - struggle because we love watching a beautiful, wealthy, out-of-touch woman (and I think she's all of those things) get her comeuppance. And then this massive Netflix deal came along, which was a great move for them. But that's not what a lot of people wanted to see, so now it feels like it's being derided simply because it seems to have delayed this comeuppance a large portion of Daily Mail readers are clambering for.

As to your other point about them appearing on screen, I'm happy to wait and see. I find that setting up a bunch of expectations based on my limited knowledge often just leaves me with egg on my face! :P However, if their names have global recognition, attaching them as producers/endorsers would likely be enough to give a project a decent publicity boost without them having to appear in it.

There's a podcast called "You're Wrong About," which hasn't done anything on Harry and Megan (yet), but covers a variety of topics that most people have at least heard of and have some misconceptions about. The common strand through all of these topics is how far the media is willing to twist a situation in order to create a sellable yet often incomplete narrative and then how pervasive that incomplete narrative becomes within the general public. And this has been happening for centuries. It's something I like to keep in mind with all news, but especially with gossip and entertainment news.

All very true, but the broken relationships, rapid staff turnover and alienation from both of their families is not an invention. One of the interesting things about her autobiography is that it shows almost all the tabloid fodder stories were true but the book now presents her spin on these events.

metaoblivia

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

All very true, but the broken relationships, rapid staff turnover and alienation from both of their families is not an invention. One of the interesting things about her autobiography is that it shows almost all the tabloid fodder stories were true but the book now presents her spin on these events.

I have no problem with a celebrity presenting their own "spin" on events. That's no more or less biased than a gossip newspaper spinning their own narrative. The gossip rags have an incentive to portray her negatively and she has an incentive to portray herself positively (that incentive, for both sides, is money - lots and lots of money!). If you're not questioning the veracity of both sides, then you've been had.

MoonUnit75

metaoblivia wrote: »

I have no problem with a celebrity presenting their own "spin" on events. That's no more or less biased than a gossip newspaper spinning their own narrative. The gossip rags have an incentive to portray her negatively and she has an incentive to portray herself positively (that incentive, for both sides, is money - lots and lots of money!). If you're not questioning the veracity of both sides, then you've been had.

I guess we'll find out more if and when Omid Scobie is called to testify. Then the pedal really hits the metal for their PR campaign. The fact is we have Meghan's account (almost all the anecdotes and recollections in the book are directly from her perspective and feelings at the time) and practically everyone else whose paths they have crossed.

You don't even need to read any of the circus surrounding them, just the pettiness of the statements they made on their own website and social media, their pattern of making announcements either in conflict with or directly after other royal announcements, the fact that they walked away from so many strong bonds, relationships and communities Harry had been involved with for decades to become effectively freelance social media influencers all point the same way.

Muahahaha

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

That's not what is meant by politically neutral. She is the head of state and so must be informed and express her opinion on the issues that affect the state when dealing with parliament.

When they say the monarch is politically neutral it means he/she is non-partisan. She is meant to be above the individual and collective standpoints and ideologies that feed day to day politics. .

I think you've missed the point I made- what you have described above is what is supposed to happen but I am saying that it does not happen that way at all behind closed doors and sometimes in public too. Otherwise what was she even doing expressing an opinion that she wanted to see Brexit happen? The Brexit supporting tabloids then led with the Queens endorsement of Brexit as a rallying call for a Leave vote before the referendum, after all if the Queen said it who were they to argue?

She also expressed an opinion on Scottish independence two days before that vote, again this is not being neutral and non-partisan, this was her getting involved in politics.

The monarchy sits above these things as the unifying factor that draws all citizens/subjects together as one nation under the sovereign

There is nothing unifying about her expressing opinions on Brexit or Scottish independence, both of which were highly contentious issues where almost half the public were against the Queens opinion.

As a monarch she is not supposed to be involved in politics but as said she meets with the Prime Minister of the day every single Tuesday and its not for the tea and biscuits. She is supposed to be a figurehead but if that were the case she would have no need for bending the Prime Ministers ear on a weekly basis. You dont see the Taoiseach of the day going up to the Aras every week because the Irish president is apolitical. This practice doesnt happen with Swedish or Dutch monarchies either, they are just figureheads for the State. The Queen is a different kettle of fish, while they sell the idea that she is just a figurehead to the British public the reality is she has the ear of the Prime Minister more than any other individual in the UK.

MoonUnit75

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think you've missed the point I made- what you have described above is what is supposed to happen but I am saying that it does not happen that way at all behind closed doors and sometimes in public too. Otherwise what was she even doing expressing an opinion that she wanted to see Brexit happen? The Brexit supporting tabloids then led with the Queens endorsement of Brexit as a rallying call for a Leave vote before the referendum, after all if the Queen said it who were they to argue?

She also expressed an opinion on Scottish independence two days before that vote, again this is not being neutral and non-partisan, this was her getting involved in politics.

Neither of these two examples stand up to scrutiny. She commented to a single 'well-wisher' outside the palace that people 'should think carefully about the future', before the Scottish referendum. She has never expressed any personal position on it that I've heard.

Likewise, defying the prime minister would have been a political act, not defying the prime minister is exactly in keeping with tradition. It just happened to infuriate remainers who felt she should have made a political stance. That's not the same thing as weighing in in favour of Brexit.

There is nothing unifying about her expressing opinions on Brexit or Scottish independence, both of which were highly contentious issues where almost half the public were against the Queens opinion.

You'll have to back these up with direct quotes.

As a monarch she is not supposed to be involved in politics but as said she meets with the Prime Minister of the day every single Tuesday and its not for the tea and biscuits. She is supposed to be a figurehead but if that were the case she would have no need for bending the Prime Ministers ear on a weekly basis. You dont see the Taoiseach of the day going up to the Aras every week because the Irish president is apolitical. This practice doesnt happen with Swedish or Dutch monarchies either, they are just figureheads for the State. The Queen is a different kettle of fish, while they sell the idea that she is just a figurehead to the British public the reality is she has the ear of the Prime Minister more than any other individual in the UK.

She's also the head of the commonwealth and therefore has interests and duties towards countries beyond her own parliament. The prime minister has no such obligations and is only answerable directly to the UK electorate. The monarchy in the UK and commonwealth traditionally has to be kept informed on internal and external affairs that might affect the state as well as the former colonies.

Either way, she takes no public stance on political issues. What she does speak about are common values that are supposed to unite all ends of the political spectrum. You can really see how the US would benefit from a head of state like this right now. They tried to make the first lady into such a figurehead but its always been a failure.

irishblessing

Neither Meghan nor Harry took a political position or stated a preference for a political party in the election. So where on earth is this conversation going.

silverharp

I wonder does this sum up their relationship?

https://twitter.com/Suffragentleman/status/1316309611255869440

MoonUnit75

silverharp wrote: »

I wonder does this sum up their relationship?

https://twitter.com/Suffragentleman/status/1316309611255869440

Laughing here at the responses: "I am in good spirits and am being looked after well"

Be right back

silverharp wrote: »

I wonder does this sum up their relationship?

https://twitter.com/Suffragentleman/status/1316309611255869440

Or this one! Unfortunate timing or...

meeeeh

OK that's just nonsense...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

meeeeh wrote: »

OK that's just nonsense...

Aye, that is some gentle comedy.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

Neither Meghan nor Harry took a political position or stated a preference for a political party in the election. So where on earth is this conversation going.

Yes, she did. You can hear her saying it yourself at 22 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PDgSsplLhk
She tells voters directly that "we all know what's at stake this year" and that she is "mobilised and energised to see the change we all need and deserve". That is calling for a change in leadership from Trump to Biden in plain english. She's abusing her royal title and connection to the British monarchy to influence an election. Other than marrying Harry she was a D list TV actress and blogger. Now she feels entitled to influence a democratic election.

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Yes, she did. You can hear her saying it yourself at 22 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PDgSsplLhk
She tells voters directly that "we all know what's at stake this year" and that she is "mobilised and energised to see the change we all need and deserve". That is calling for a change in leadership from Trump to Biden in plain english. She's abusing her royal title and connection to the British monarchy to influence an election. Other than marrying Harry she was a D list TV actress and blogger. Now she feels entitled to influence a democratic election.

That's a reach and a half. She's calling for people to vote and make any change they want to see. Lot's of things are at stake at every state level as well. Very important seats on a local, state and of course national level and measures to vote on as well. Every single year the Americans talk about change in their politics.

She's not abusing anything. She's American, living in America, who has stepped back as a working member of the royal family so she's entitled to voice her opinion like anyone else. They all try influence each other from politicians, to phone bankers, to canvasers to people in rallies, to family members and friends. Give over... If I suddenly became famous I'd speak up about issues important to me too. And then people like you would call me some d list xyz nobody and who do I think I am... In spite of the haters she is living her best life! :cool:

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

That's a reach and a half. She's calling for people to vote and make any change they want to see. Lot's of things are at stake at every state level as well. Very important seats on a local, state and of course national level and measures to vote on as well. Every single year the Americans talk about change in their politics.

She's not abusing anything. She's American, living in America, who has stepped back as a working member of the royal family so she's entitled to voice her opinion like anyone else. They all try influence each other from politicians, to phone bankers, to canvasers to people in rallies, to family members and friends. Give over... If I suddenly became famous I'd speak up about issues important to me too. And then people like you would call me some d list xyz nobody and who do I think I am... In spite of the haters she is living her best life! :cool:

In what world is voting for the current president "the change we all need and deserve". She's clearly meddling in the US elections. She was recently announced on America's Got Talent as "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex", still using her royal title. That is using her status as a member of a foreign monarchy as a platform to influence the result of a US presidential election.

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

In what world is voting for the current president "the change we all need and deserve". She's clearly meddling in the US elections. She was recently announced on America's Got Talent as "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex", still using her royal title. That is using her status as a member of a foreign monarchy as a platform to influence the result of a US presidential election.

The real world, lol. How does one meddle when they're literally a citizen living in their own country who has the right to vote and the freedom of speech enshrined in their constitution. She's not Russian ffs!!

She also has a title, so what. Being married to a prince doesn't mean she loses her rights. She does not work for the royal family nor live in the UK and the palace already said their comments are in their own capacity. They get it so why don't you?

irishblessing

By the way, I just recalled that Trump himself is saying that if the American people want change to vote for him and he's gotten absolutely roasted for it. Well for two reasons really. One being that Trump has already decided that when M&H spoke out about what's important that he doesn't represent the good things they were speaking to. Lol. The other reason he got roasted is because he's already president yet his ads and comments come from an angle basically saying "it's a shít show under me, so vote for me again to change it!" Not many brain cells, that one.

Here's what they said: they did not take a political position, and even if they had, as I already pointed out the palace itself said they are not working royals and comments are of a personal capacity.

Meghan said, "Now we're just six weeks out from Election Day, and today is National Voter Registration Day. Every four years, we are told the same thing, that 'this is the most important election of our lifetime.' But this one is. When we vote, our values are put into action and our voices are heard. Your voice is a reminder that you matter. Because you do. And you deserve to be heard."

Harry added, "This election, I'm not going to be able to vote here in the U.S., but many of you may not know that I haven't been able to vote in the U.K. my entire life," referring to the royal family's need to stay apolitical. (While they are not banned in writing legally from voting, they are expected not to.) "As we approach this November, it's vital that we reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity."

"So as we work to re-imagine the world around us, let's challenge ourselves to build communities of compassion," Meghan continued.