Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

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?

Why didn’t she just say to vote for Biden then? Because she knew her Duchess title would be gone. She wants to keep it so she can profit from this status title, yet meddle in political elections at the same time. The queen won’t have their titles used by a blogger/podcaster activist.

suicide_circus

Theyre the Donald Trump of royalty.

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Why didn’t she just say to vote for Biden then? Because she knew her Duchess title would be gone. She wants to keep it so she can profit from this status title, yet meddle in political elections at the same time. The queen won’t have their titles used by a blogger/podcaster activist.

Why don't you ask her?

Even if she didn't have the Duchess title, Prince Harry will always be a prince and so a certain amount of fame will always come from that.

If she didn't keep her title, she'd have the likes of you and others saying how she disrespected the queen who gives it to her and Harry and how she's disrespected the UK and blah blah blah. No matter what she does some won't be happy.

The Queen no doubt loves her grandson and agreed to them doing this on their own so unless you hear otherwise from her lips maybe don't try speak for the Queen of England! Weird...

meeeeh

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Why didn’t she just say to vote for Biden then? Because she knew her Duchess title would be gone. She wants to keep it so she can profit from this status title, yet meddle in political elections at the same time. The queen won’t have their titles used by a blogger/podcaster activist.

Thats nonsense. She is not a working royal. If the title means you have to be above political opinion Sir Keir couldn't be Labour leader in UK. It makes sense those in line for throne keep stum but she is not so I don't know why she shouldn't voice an opinion.

MoonUnit75

meeeeh wrote: »

Thats nonsense. She is not a working royal. If the title means you have to be above political opinion Sir Keir couldn't be Labour leader in UK. It makes sense those in line for throne keep stum but she is not so I don't know why she shouldn't voice an opinion.

I think you just don't know what you are talking about. She is using a title bestowed on her by the queen as a member of the royal family. Are you seriously comparing them to a knighthood? A knighthood does not make you a member of the royal family. Meghan ranks above the princesses Beatrice and Eugenie when accompanied by her husband and directly below them when she is alone. They have represented the queen on official duties, her husband is the head of state's grandson. They have stepped away from official duties but it would take an act of parliament in the UK to remove him from the line of succession. Therefore, as his wife she remains within the line of succession unless the UK parliament remove them.

irishblessing

Your arguing is pointless. Neither one of them said anything they shouldn't have.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

Your arguing is pointless. Neither one of them said anything they shouldn't have.

irishblessing can deliver final judgement?

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

irishblessing can deliver final judgement?

I believe the Queen did, with her own announcement about it. They are their own private individuals acting in their own private capacity.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

I believe the Queen did, with her own announcement about it. They are their own private individuals acting in their own private capacity.

Can you post a link to the statement?

irishblessing

Earlier from the Queen: "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family. "I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life."

Buckingham Palace (aka the queen) sept 2020:

“The Duke is not a working member of the Royal Family and any comments he makes are made in a personal capacity.”

Google for a link, spoiled for choice as it's widely reported.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

Earlier from the Queen: "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family. "I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life."

Buckingham Palace (aka the queen) sept 2020:

“The Duke is not a working member of the Royal Family and any comments he makes are made in a personal capacity.”

Google for a link, spoiled for choice as it's widely reported.

OK, but where did the palace say neither of them said anything they shouldn't have like you claimed?

irishblessing

Did you miss the part where the queen said "independent life?"

They would have condemned the words he and Meghan used if it was really that big of a problem as to cause some kind of royal crisis. It obviously didn't.

Also I remembered they did give up their titles, the HRH. The Duke/duchess is gifted by the queen and he will always be a prince. Harry has often said, "just call me Harry," when people ask. Baying for blood here is just ridiculous.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

Did you miss the part where the queen said "independent life?"

They would have condemned the words he and Meghan used if it was really that big of a problem as to cause some kind of royal crisis. It obviously didn't.

Also I remembered they did give up their titles, the HRH. The Duke/duchess is gifted by the queen and he will always be a prince. Harry has often said, "just call me Harry," when people ask. Baying for blood here is just ridiculous.

The queen wouldn't comment on any sleaze or scandal like this. The statement they did make about their comments being 'in a personal capacity' is the opposite of saying 'they didn't say anything they shouldn't have'.

They didn't give up HRH, they agreed not to use it. Their own statement says this. "As agreed and set out in January, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will retain their “HRH” prefix, thereby formally remaining known as His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex and Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will no longer actively use their HRH titles as they will no longer be working members of the family as of Spring 2020."

They are also supposed to be on a 12 month trial period out of royal duties, they've probably buggered that up now though with their book and the deal for WokeFlix.

No one is 'baying for blood', unless they want to be known as self-righteous, narcissistic hypocrites then they should stop acting like this. Leaving the monarchy for 'privacy' but then moving to LA and making regular video appearances and issuing constant press releases about their son. They just seem like phony hypocrites. They used Omid Scobie like a puppet to write their book and now have thrown him completely under the bus. It will be interesting to see how that works out for them.

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The queen wouldn't comment on any sleaze or scandal like this. The statement they did make about their comments being 'in a personal capacity' is the opposite of saying 'they didn't say anything they shouldn't have'.

They didn't give up HRH, they agreed not to use it. Their own statement says this. "As agreed and set out in January, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will retain their “HRH” prefix, thereby formally remaining known as His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex and Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will no longer actively use their HRH titles as they will no longer be working members of the family as of Spring 2020."

They are also supposed to be on a 12 month trial period out of royal duties, they've probably buggered that up now though with their book and the deal for WokeFlix.

No one is 'baying for blood', unless they want to be known as self-righteous, narcissistic hypocrites then they should stop acting like this. Leaving the monarchy for 'privacy' but then moving to LA and making regular video appearances and issuing constant press releases about their son. They just seem like phony hypocrites. They used Omid Scobie like a puppet to write their book and now have thrown him completely under the bus. It will be interesting to see how that works out for them.

"Sleaze." :pac: It's not like they're out on the town being shady. OTT much? And how do you presume to know what the queen would or wouldn't do.

Exactly-they gave up using their HRH titles.

They haven't buggered up anything. For all you know the RF are proud of them and their work.

So you're going to name call on them like all the other cyber bullies who don't know them personally- tell me do you have children or co workers and do you think it on for them to be name called online?

They didn't leave the Monarchy for "privacy." Where do you get that from all they've been through in life. And they are serious about their private life. They successfully sued interfering tabloids there who used a drone to take pics of their son and her mother illegally, and another of her hiking with Archie. They handed over all material and publicly apologised. When they do videos it's because they're WORKING and during the times of COVID they are doing remote calls like 2/3rds of the rest of the planet. FFS. As for Omid he's not under any bus. Last I read he's still making supportive reports on them and is working on the Netflix project. Maybe you need some hobby as a source to direct all your life's bitter resentments... why can't. you just be happy for them and supportive. What does it matter to you.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

"Sleaze." :pac: It's not like they're out on the town being shady. OTT much? And how do you presume to know what the queen would or wouldn't do.

Exactly-they gave up using their HRH titles.

They haven't buggered up anything. For all you know the RF are proud of them and their work.

First you said they didn't take a stance on the election, then you said they did but they are entitled to, then you said the queen said their words were perfectly fine. Now your saying the queen distancing herself and the royal family from their comments doesn't mean they aren't proud of their weekly woke sermons.

So you're going to name call on them like all the other cyber bullies who don't know them personally- tell me do you have children or co workers and do you think it on for them to be name called online?

I'd be telling my children not to be lecturing the public, many of whom are now unemployed, sick or involuntarily separated from their families, about privilege and racism if they ever reach the top 0.1% of global privilege and status. Especially if its by virtue of being born and marrying into it. I'll tell them if they do, they can only blame themselves for such arrogance and entitlement.

They didn't leave the Monarchy for "privacy." Where do you get that from all they've been through in life.

The statement on their website: "The Royal Family respect and understand the wish of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to live a more independent life as a family, by removing the supposed ‘public interest’ justification for media intrusion into their lives."

And they are serious about their private life. They successfully sued interfering tabloids there who used a drone to take pics of their son and her mother illegally, and another of her hiking with Archie. They handed over all material and publicly apologised. When they do videos it's because they're WORKING and during the times of COVID they are doing remote calls like 2/3rds of the rest of the planet. FFS. As for Omid he's not under any bus. Last I read he's still making supportive reports on them and is working on the Netflix project. Maybe you need some hobby as a source to direct all your life's bitter resentments... why can't. you just be happy for them and supportive. What does it matter to you.

They don't want to live a private life, that's hilarious. Have you ever heard of Gordon Moore? He's donated around $5 billion dollars from his $6.5 billion net worth to charitable and environmental causes. That is 'taking action'. Not like Meghan's 'taking action' which means zoom calls with people who are actually relevant. Google him and see how many video podcasts, baby stories, America's Got Talent video messages, Netflix deals and election interventions he or his family have made in the last 6 months. He seems to lead a pretty quiet, private life while still making an enormous difference to people's daily lives and the future of the planet. Harry and Meghan are now 'famous for being famous' podcasters.

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

First you said they didn't take a stance on the election, then you said they did but they are entitled to, then you said the queen said their words were perfectly fine. Now your saying the queen distancing herself and the royal family from their comments doesn't mean they aren't proud of their weekly woke sermons.

Very disingenuous. No they didn't take a specific stance on a party nor a candidate. Yes, they're entitled to their opinion. No, I did NOT say 'the Queen said their words were perfectly fine.' You're putting words in my mouth to try and have a point where you don't have one. Go again. I quoted the Palace verbatim.

I'd be telling my children not to be lecturing the public, many of whom are now unemployed, sick or involuntarily separated from their families, about privilege and racism if they ever reach the top 0.1% of global privilege and status. Especially if its by virtue of being born and marrying into it. I'll tell them if they do, they can only blame themselves for such arrogance and entitlement.

They're not lecturing. That's just you getting the hump about anything they say which really isn't their problem. They're highlighting issues they see as important as any other person or company or group or corporation does. We all know how it works you just begrudge them. Meghan has been doing charity work and speaking out on issues since she was young and living a normal life. Nice try.

The statement on their website: "The Royal Family respect and understand the wish of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to live a more independent life as a family, by removing the supposed ‘public interest’ justification for media intrusion into their lives."



They don't want to live a private life, that's hilarious. Have you ever heard of Gordon Moore? He's donated around $5 billion dollars from his $6.5 billion net worth to charitable and environmental causes. That is 'taking action'. Not like Meghan's 'taking action' which means zoom calls with people who are actually relevant. Google him and see how many video podcasts, baby stories, America's Got Talent video messages, Netflix deals and election interventions he or his family have made in the last 6 months. He seems to lead a pretty quiet, private life while still making an enormous difference to people's daily lives and the future of the planet. Harry and Meghan are now 'famous for being famous' podcasters.

How does questioning they want to be living a private life then giving an example of someone else's charity work in any way make sense? Do at least try and make a sensible point. Lots of people make documentaries and highlight issues-the duke and duchess are in good company considering Barack and Michelle, and Oprah to name just a very small few have done similar. It's obviously not the extent of their charity work either. Meghan just donated the entire proceeds of her Disney VoiceOver to an elephant conservation, off the top of my head. Very bizarre post. And what charitable actions are you taking, hmmm?

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

Very disingenuous. No they didn't take a specific stance on a party nor a candidate. Yes, they're entitled to their opinion. No, I did NOT say 'the Queen said their words were perfectly fine.' You're putting words in my mouth to try and have a point where you don't have one. Go again. I quoted the Palace verbatim.

Hold on, you said "Neither one of them said anything they shouldn't have." and when I asked can you pass final judgement on that you said: "I believe the Queen did, with her own announcement about it. They are their own private individuals acting in their own private capacity."

So, yes, you said you believe the queen had passed judgement on it and that she had no problem with them saying to "vote for the change we need and deserve" in the upcoming US presidential election.

They're not lecturing. That's just you getting the hump about anything they say which really isn't their problem.

They are literally lecturing people, on video, about race and privilege. She told all the working and stay at home or single parents out there just struggling to keep the show on the road and food on the table that 'I couldn't be proud as a mother if I didn't try to make the world a better place for him'. Not 'proud as an activist/messiah/fashion icon'. Isn't that great, when you have servants and staff and a multi-million dollar mansion. A single parent raising children on low wages, keeping them fed, building their confidence and education has just as much, if not more, to be proud of as an actress and blogger IMO.

What about this nugget of patronising guff: ""If you aren't going out there and voting, then you're complicit. If you are complacent, you're complicit."
Says the wife of a man who has never voted as he wants to remain neutral. Neutral isn't good enough for the little folk.

They're highlighting issues they see as important as any other person or company or group or corporation does. We all know how it works you just begrudge them. Meghan has been doing charity work and speaking out on issues since she was young and living a normal life. Nice try.

How does questioning they want to be living a private life then giving an example of someone else's charity work in any way make sense? Do at least try and make a sensible point. Lots of people make documentaries and highlight issues-the duke and duchess are in good company considering Barack and Michelle, and Oprah to name just a very small few have done similar. It's obviously not the extent of their charity work either. Meghan just donated the entire proceeds of her Disney VoiceOver to an elephant conservation, off the top of my head. Very bizarre post. And what charitable actions are you taking, hmmm?

The point you missed is that so many people make a massive, tangible difference to the lives of less fortunate people every day while keeping a private life and not sending out weekly updates on their opinions and family life. Doing work for charity doesn't in any way require cameras in your home and celebrity appearances. They claimed they were getting away from media attention but actually seem to hunger for it even more.

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Hold on, you said "Neither one of them said anything they shouldn't have." and when I asked can you pass final judgement on that you said: "I believe the Queen did, with her own announcement about it. They are their own private individuals acting in their own private capacity."

So, yes, you said you believe the queen had passed judgement on it and that she had no problem with them saying to "vote for the change we need and deserve" in the upcoming US presidential election.

They are literally lecturing people, on video, about race and privilege. She told all the working and stay at home or single parents out there just struggling to keep the show on the road and food on the table that 'I couldn't be proud as a mother if I didn't try to make the world a better place for him'. Not 'proud as an activist/messiah/fashion icon'. Isn't that great, when you have servants and staff and a multi-million dollar mansion. A single parent raising children on low wages, keeping them fed, building their confidence and education has just as much, if not more, to be proud of as an actress and blogger IMO.

What about this nugget of patronising guff: ""If you aren't going out there and voting, then you're complicit. If you are complacent, you're complicit."
Says the wife of a man who has never voted as he wants to remain neutral. Neutral isn't good enough for the little folk.

The point you missed is that so many people make a massive, tangible difference to the lives of less fortunate people every day while keeping a private life and not sending out weekly updates on their opinions and family life. Doing work for charity doesn't in any way require cameras in your home and celebrity appearances. They claimed they were getting away from media attention but actually seem to hunger for it even more.

I still didn't say the words you said I did, so hang on yourself! I can say what I think those words mean and also the earlier words from her direct statement which you just omitted, but I'm not pretending to know what the queen thinks or will do as you have stated.

As for the weekly updates and cameras with every appearance I believe you meant to say the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Because that's exactly what they do but you've no words for them of course. Hmm...

I didn't miss any point, if you actually made a good one I'd be shocked.
Look, you're stooping low here and bashing them for the sake of it. Lots of women (and men) work hard and to try to change things for our kids' futures. Pretty normal stuff.

This back and forth is getting tiresome now, will leave you to it. You're going to be as mean and bitter and harsh as you want to be anyway I'm not going to change your mind or waste my time.

Meghan said it best:
"There are always going to be naysayers," the Duchess of Sussex said. "But at the end of the day…you know, I used to have a quote up in my room many, many moons ago and it resonates now perhaps more than ever when you see the vitriol and noise that can be out in the world. It’s by Georgia O’Keefe and it’s, 'I have already settled it for myself so flattery and criticism go down the same drain and I am quite free.'"

"The moment that you’re able to be liberated from all of these other opinions of what you know to be true, then I think it’s very easy to just live with truth and live with authenticity, and that is how I choose to move through the world," Meghan finished.

:pac:

I really don't get why companies pay them money to hear their opinions on.......well, anything, frankly.

One was born into royalty and a life of privilege and the best education money can buy. The other is a person who pretends to be other people for a living.

Why would anybody look to them for inspiration or wisdom? Beggars belief.

irishblessing

irishblessing wrote: »

"The moment that you’re able to be liberated from all of these other opinions of what you know to be true, then I think it’s very easy to just live with truth and live with authenticity, and that is how I choose to move through the world," Meghan finished.

:pac:

Why doesn't she just ignore the media then? Why take them to court and get Harry to make a statement calling them racists?

irishblessing

Deleted User wrote: »

I really don't get why companies pay them money to hear their opinions on.......well, anything, frankly.

One was born into royalty and a life of privilege and the best education money can buy. The other is a person who pretends to be other people for a living.

Why would anybody look to them for inspiration or wisdom? Beggars belief.

Are you really asking why anyone listens to the opinions of famous people? Like it's new?! Many people around the world loved Princess Diana and have felt a certain way towards her boys and watched them grow so they're interested in them. A lot of people are interested in H&M especially now Americans since they now have a claim to royalty, ha ha. They seem like lovely, compassionate and genuine people trying to do some good. Many people are attracted to that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why doesn't she just ignore the media then? Why take them to court and get Harry to make a statement calling them racists?

She does now, after her mental health was apparently torn to shreds. They took them to court because their personal privacy at their home was violated. It was illegal. Celebrities in CA fought hard for strong rules to privacy to protect their families. The media has been racist towards Meghan, google it. They have resources, money and a platform to speak out against it. Others wouldn't have the same so in speaking up for themselves they are trying to protect others from the same bs and change things. Fair play to them. His mother was hounded by the press the night she died and it haunts him, I feel sorry for him in regards to the media and how horrible of an impact it constantly has in his life. They cross the line.

Be right back

I think if they really wanted privacy, they should have stayed in the UK and not LA which is all paparazzi! You would rarely see private images of the Cambridges and certainly nothing of them in their private houses, unless they choose to release it. No drones permitted etc and certainly not over the Sussexes house which is on a Heathrow flight path.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

Meghan said it best:
"There are always going to be naysayers," the Duchess of Sussex said. "But at the end of the day…you know, I used to have a quote up in my room many, many moons ago and it resonates now perhaps more than ever when you see the vitriol and noise that can be out in the world. It’s by Georgia O’Keefe and it’s, 'I have already settled it for myself so flattery and criticism go down the same drain and I am quite free.'"

"The moment that you’re able to be liberated from all of these other opinions of what you know to be true, then I think it’s very easy to just live with truth and live with authenticity, and that is how I choose to move through the world," Meghan finished.

:pac:

I'll get these nuggets printed on magnets, my fridge will be able to make a real, impactful and meaningful difference to all our futures.

JP Liz V1

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/opinion/meghan-markle-miscarriage.html

Neyite

I'm sympathetic to anyone suffering baby loss but I'm afraid that article's writing style made my teeth itch.

Her comment in South Africa was a turning point for many - but not in the way she thinks. It was tone-deaf and all about how hard she has it, with her millions and her mansions and plethora of staff, all the while surrounded by people barely scraping by in extreme poverty and deprivation.

I think it turned a lot of people right off them.

Stateofyou

Neyite wrote: »

I'm sympathetic to anyone suffering baby loss but I'm afraid that article's writing style made my teeth itch.

Her comment in South Africa was a turning point for many - but not in the way she thinks. It was tone-deaf and all about how hard she has it, with her millions and her mansions and plethora of staff, all the while surrounded by people barely scraping by in extreme poverty and deprivation.

I think it turned a lot of people right off them.

Money doesn't buy happiness, a very famous quote I believe.

People who appear to "have it all" can suffer, and are allowed to talk about their struggles like anyone else. Just because there's poverty and hardship everywhere in the world doesn't mean that her own personal struggles aren't valid. There's poverty and hardship here too, but telling others to basically stfu in light of what others don't have or to appreciate what you have because someone else is always worse off is what is damaging and harmful to mental health. There was never going to be a good time or place for her to speak up for some people. As you say she has millions and mansions and a plethora of staff so she should just stfu. Not very kind.

cnocbui

Neyite wrote: »

I'm sympathetic to anyone suffering baby loss but I'm afraid that article's writing style made my teeth itch.

Her comment in South Africa was a turning point for many - but not in the way she thinks. It was tone-deaf and all about how hard she has it, with her millions and her mansions and plethora of staff, all the while surrounded by people barely scraping by in extreme poverty and deprivation.

I think it turned a lot of people right off them.

Your comments are a turning point and turn off for me. First class begrudgery. Worthy of the Daily Mail.

How did she get what she has; was it handed to her on a plate, or did she work for it? Just look at her mother and her life.

silverharp

Stateofyou wrote: »

Money doesn't buy happiness, a very famous quote I believe.

People who appear to "have it all" can suffer, and are allowed to talk about their struggles like anyone else. Just because there's poverty and hardship everywhere in the world doesn't mean that her own personal struggles aren't valid. There's poverty and hardship here too, but telling others to basically stfu in light of what others don't have or to appreciate what you have because someone else is always worse off is what is damaging and harmful to mental health. There was never going to be a good time or place for her to speak up for some people. As you say she has millions and mansions and a plethora of staff so she should just stfu. Not very kind.

at the end of the day her whole sthick is lecturing people on why they are not as good as her, she is her own worst enemy

MoonUnit75

Interesting timing for her to write about herself all the same, after it was confirmed she did indeed feed private information to the ghost writers of her book.

Neyite

cnocbui wrote: »

Your comments are a turning point and turn off for me. First class begrudgery. Worthy of the Daily Mail.

How did she get what she has; was it handed to her on a plate, or did she work for it? Just look at her mother and her life.

It's not begrudgery at all. I thought she was great when she first joined the RF. I thought that a bit of diversity and someone from a different country could bring a fresh perspective and relevance to the RF. I think fair play to her for being a hard worker all her life and being successful. I still think fair play that she and her husband left the RF to give themselves more agency over their lives.



However she was on a royal tour of South Africa. It's aim is for their status as Royals to draw attention to social issues of that country. She was working. Can you, off hand and without googling remember anything that came out of that tour that benefits SA or the people of SA, or, like me, is the first thing you can recall was that she spoke about how hard her life is.

Muahahaha

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

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.

It was more than her giving a throw away comment to a well wisher, it was a planned political intervention into the Scottish referendum by the Queen and all the Tory media reported her comments as her wishing for the union to remain intact. It came about because a shock Sunday Times opinion poll showed that the Independence side had taken the lead just 10 days before polling day. David Cameron and Downing Street were in panic mode and the Queen was horrified that Scotland might leave the union. Cameron later wrote in his book that he was delighted that the Queen intervened, he also said he had told Palace officials that the Queen raising her eyebrow "even a quarter of an inch" would help the remain campaign that he was leading.

She planned the intervention a week in advance and it was discussed within the Royal Family. What she didnt plan on happening was for Prince Andrew to go blabbing about her plans to intervene to the editor of the Financial Times at a lunch he had with Andrew in Buckingham Palace just days before the vote took place.

Neyite

Stateofyou wrote: »

Money doesn't buy happiness, a very famous quote I believe.

People who appear to "have it all" can suffer, and are allowed to talk about their struggles like anyone else. Just because there's poverty and hardship everywhere in the world doesn't mean that her own personal struggles aren't valid. There's poverty and hardship here too, but telling others to basically stfu in light of what others don't have or to appreciate what you have because someone else is always worse off is what is damaging and harmful to mental health. There was never going to be a good time or place for her to speak up for some people. As you say she has millions and mansions and a plethora of staff so she should just stfu. Not very kind.

Well no, I never said that. At all. Nor was I unkind.

I've simply pointed out that a multi millionaire married to an even more elite multi millionaire standing in the middle of Johannesburg after 10 days of touring a country with significant poverty, humanitarian issues and social problems as a working Royal and speaking about how tough their life is was a bit tone deaf at that moment in that place.



It's a discussion to be had certainly. And any publication would have cut off their right arm to publish that interview from her. But just wrong time and place.

Stateofyou

Neyite wrote: »

Can you, off hand and without googling remember anything that came out of that tour that benefits SA or the people of SA, or, like me, is the first thing you can recall was that she spoke about how hard her life is.

Easily. I remember it being widely reported that she gave an inspirational speech quoting Maya Angelou and spoke about being a woman of colour and their sister. It was said to be empowering for them. She was standing on a tree stump when she delivered it. She talked about the great work being done there in local communities. And I remember seeing pictures and video of her dancing with locals.

The spinning of her truth into negativity and it being all that you focus on from that trip really says more about you than it does about her.

ohnonotgmail

Stateofyou wrote: »

Easily. I remember it being widely reported that she gave an inspirational speech quoting Maya Angelou and spoke about being a woman of colour and their sister. It was said to be empowering for them. She was standing on a tree stump when she delivered it. She talked about the great work being done there in local communities. And I remember seeing pictures and video of her dancing with locals.

The spinning of her truth into negativity and it being all that you focus on from that trip really says more about you than it does about her.

I think the problem is that some of the posters here have read too many daily mail articles about her.

Sardonicat

Why anyone would be interested in a celebrity's 'truth'is beyond me. Because she shares her story, that validates other people's experience? Because before it happened to her it wasn't 'real' for them? And she did on her h0le make her own breakfast and change her own kid's nappy. I don't agree with the Megan bashing in the press. I do think it has racism at its core. But I equally abhor the worship of celebrity, the equating of smiling, waving and talking about yourself with 'work' and the 'sharing' of your own private tragedies as some kind of evangelical, life changing awareness raising. That applies to anyone in the public eye. Its appalling narcissism and the fact that so many ordinary people lap this sh1t up is a sad reflection of the self obsessed culture of the west.

Stateofyou

Sardonicat wrote: »

Why anyone would be interested in a celebrity's 'truth'is beyond me. Because she shares her story, that validates other people's experience? Because before it happened to her it wasn't 'real' for them? And she did on her h0le make her own breakfast and change her own kid's nappy. I don't agree with the Megan bashing in the press. I do think it has racism at its core. But I equally abhor the worship of celebrity, the equating of smiling, waving and talking about yourself with 'work' and the 'sharing' of your own private tragedies as some kind of evangelical, life changing awareness raising. That applies to anyone in the public eye. Its appalling narcissism and the fact that so many ordinary people lap this sh1t up is a sad reflection of the self obsessed culture of the west.

Because it's a platform. People follow celebrities and are interested in what they have to say. That's literally why millions of people follow their social media accounts. Sometimes the things they say or the causes they're involved in bring great awareness, comfort and change, usually more than any average Joe could accomplish. Yes, her sharing her story, and anyone sharing their stories on social media actually brings healing and comfort not only to the person sharing but the people consuming it. That's the whole point in her speaking up about her miscarriage-it's not a private tragedy and many women (and men) need to speak out about their experience. It helps themselves and others feel less alone. Ordinary people I know in real life speak up on their social media pages too for the same reason. The culture of sweeping everything under the rug and suffering in silence is starting to change, and rightfully so.

Loveinapril

Sardonicat wrote: »

Why anyone would be interested in a celebrity's 'truth'is beyond me. Because she shares her story, that validates other people's experience? Because before it happened to her it wasn't 'real' for them? And she did on her h0le make her own breakfast and change her own kid's nappy. I don't agree with the Megan bashing in the press. I do think it has racism at its core. But I equally abhor the worship of celebrity, the equating of smiling, waving and talking about yourself with 'work' and the 'sharing' of your own private tragedies as some kind of evangelical, life changing awareness raising. That applies to anyone in the public eye. Its appalling narcissism and the fact that so many ordinary people lap this sh1t up is a sad reflection of the self obsessed culture of the west.

The subject of pregnancy loss is such a personal thing that not many women share it. It was only when I had a miscarriage that I realised how many women in my life had experienced them. There is still a lot of shame around it. So I really appreciate anyone with a following bringing it to light. Miscarriage can happen to anyone, regardless of status so it normalises it a bit when someone like Meghan Markle speaks about it. I really like her but no matter what you think, the woman lost a baby and is discussing it publicly. She should get respect for that alone.

cnocbui

Neyite wrote: »

It's not begrudgery at all. I thought she was great when she first joined the RF. I thought that a bit of diversity and someone from a different country could bring a fresh perspective and relevance to the RF. I think fair play to her for being a hard worker all her life and being successful. I still think fair play that she and her husband left the RF to give themselves more agency over their lives.

However she was on a royal tour of South Africa. It's aim is for their status as Royals to draw attention to social issues of that country. She was working. Can you, off hand and without googling remember anything that came out of that tour that benefits SA or the people of SA, or, like me, is the first thing you can recall was that she spoke about how hard her life is.

Yes, eaasily: The joyous welcome she got, the smile on peoples faces conveying that SA was not just a dump of black misery. The showcasing of that positive face of SA to the world was of great benefit I think.

She is the daughter of basically a single black mother who through her own efforts and tallent earned a personal wealth of over $3 million. She was involved in overseas charity work for several years before she met Harry and was exposed to the vile and bile of the Daily Mail. She is personally far more accomplished and praiseworthy than the poster mum the other brother married and whom the DM ceaslessly fawn over.

It never ceases to astonish me the power of the Dail Mail to shape peoples opinions and the absolute inability of those same people to not be able to recognize and filter out it's biased vomit. So many drones on this thread who have been duly programmed by the DM it's scary.

Sardonicat

Loveinapril wrote: »

The subject of pregnancy loss is such a personal thing that not many women share it. It was only when I had a miscarriage that I realised how many women in my life had experienced them. There is still a lot of shame around it. So I really appreciate anyone with a following bringing it to light. Miscarriage can happen to anyone, regardless of status so it normalises it a bit when someone like Meghan Markle speaks about it. I really like her but no matter what you think, the woman lost a baby and is discussing it publicly. She should get respect for that alone.

I have every sympathy for her loss and yours. It is a tragedy. I just think it's also tragic that as a society we seem to need celebrities to validate our experiences

But no, I dont have to respect her for talking about herself.

Sardonicat

Stateofyou wrote: »

Because it's a platform. People follow celebrities and are interested in what they have to say. That's literally why millions of people follow their social media accounts. Sometimes the things they say or the causes they're involved in bring great awareness, comfort and change, usually more than any average Joe could accomplish. Yes, her sharing her story, and anyone sharing their stories on social media actually brings healing and comfort not only to the person sharing but the people consuming it. That's the whole point in her speaking up about her miscarriage-it's not a private tragedy and many women (and men) need to speak out about their experience. It helps themselves and others feel less alone. Ordinary people I know in real life speak up on their social media pages too for the same reason. The culture of sweeping everything under the rug and suffering in silence is starting to change, and rightfully so.

The fact that we require celebrities to 'speak out' about tragedies that effect them in order to bring healing is a frightening indictment if our culture.

eviltwin

Loveinapril wrote: »

The subject of pregnancy loss is such a personal thing that not many women share it. It was only when I had a miscarriage that I realised how many women in my life had experienced them. There is still a lot of shame around it. So I really appreciate anyone with a following bringing it to light. Miscarriage can happen to anyone, regardless of status so it normalises it a bit when someone like Meghan Markle speaks about it. I really like her but no matter what you think, the woman lost a baby and is discussing it publicly. She should get respect for that alone.

I don't think celebrity types sharing their pregnancy loss stories is much help. If there is a stigma its not going to be broken by famous people sharing it on social media. And it seems every few weeks a famous person suffers a loss like this, its hardly ground breaking or brave or whatever people are calling it.

Wibbs

Stateofyou wrote: »

People who appear to "have it all" can suffer, and are allowed to talk about their struggles like anyone else. Just because there's poverty and hardship everywhere in the world doesn't mean that her own personal struggles aren't valid. There's poverty and hardship here too, but telling others to basically stfu in light of what others don't have or to appreciate what you have because someone else is always worse off is what is damaging and harmful to mental health.

Actually I would say what can be equally bad for mental health is a lack of perspective. It has been my observation down the years that people I've known with clinical depression is that one of the first things to go is a lack of perspective. Almost as a given as a symptom of that disease. People who are more likely to say "times are bad, but jaysus, I could have it worse" are much less likely to be depressed.

Now it's a bit of a chicken and egg. What comes first, the condition or the lack of perspective? But yeah I would believe that a component of mental health problems that seem to be more prevalent of late in the west is a lack of perspective and a focus on the self, rather than the wider world.

So yes while easy tropes like "money can't buy happiness" have some validity, the poor are much more likely to suffer from mental health issues(though that in itself is a complex relationship). And the plain fact is someone who is wealthy has more access to mental health services and is far more insulated from many of the stresses of even the average person, never mind the poor. They have different stresses of course. In her case the crazy levels of scrutiny by a hostile press and coming into a culture of stiff upper lip keep a lid on it which is alien for both her culture and generation really wouldn't help.

Wibbs

Sardonicat wrote: »

The fact that we require celebrities to 'speak out' about tragedies that effect them in order to bring healing is a frightening indictment if our culture.

We always have had that to some degree or other. In the past it was more likely to be religious figures or indeed royalty that spoke out on such matters to the commoners. The vacuum left by those old certainties has been filled with "celebrities" to quite the degree. And unlike in the past where people became famous for doing something of note, these days they just need to be famous which sets a low bar for entry and expertise and are too easily influenced by others and the need to keep the attention of celebrity itself.

Brussels Sprout

I haven't read this thread so I'm probably not the first person to mention this: I've been watching The Crown recently and the similarities between this relationship and Edward VIII's from 80+ years ago are uncanny:

• Price is product of a loveless marriage
• Falls in love with American Divorcee
• Perception is that she dominates him
• Strained relationship between her and his family
• He ultimately chooses to give up his titles for her
• Moves abroad
• Famous for holding lavish celebrity parties (pending)
• Dodgy nazi past

Neyite

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't think celebrity types sharing their pregnancy loss stories is much help. If there is a stigma its not going to be broken by famous people sharing it on social media. And it seems every few weeks a famous person suffers a loss like this, its hardly ground breaking or brave or whatever people are calling it.

In Ireland this year, women who've began to bleed, had to attend their appointment without their partner due to covid. They've had to undergo scans alone, be told their baby is dead alone, and get sent home to bleed. You'd need to have miscarriage complications get a bed in Ireland, let alone one with your loving husband by your side. You are lucky if you even get an appointment. I'm guessing MM wasn't told that they won't look at you in the EPU until after your third miscarriage. Or that they won't refer you to Gynae. She probably didn't have to stand in a packed Boots arguing with the sales assistant that she needed Neurofen plus and have to explain to them exactly why a miscarriage warrants more than paracetamol. And I'm fairly sure sure that MM didn't have to get up and get on with looking after her toddler alone in the house because her husband couldn't miss work.

So really, her experience is worlds away from mine or my friends. Mother to mother, she has my utmost sympathy for her loss but I can't really identify with her experience as it bears little resemblance to my own ones.

Although a very kind midwife let me out a side door rather than walk the gauntlet of a waiting room full of happy pregnant women, and MM likely gets smuggled out side doors all the time so I guess we had that in common that time?

Sardonicat

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually I would say what can be equally bad for mental health is a lack of perspective. It has been my observation down the years that people I've known with clinical depression is that one of the first things to go is a lack of perspective. Almost as a given as a symptom of that disease.



/quote]

As a sufferer of that condition and as someone who is hovering on the cusp of an 'episode' can I say you've hit the nail on the head there. It's most definitely a symptom, a very unfortunate one that has understandable negative consequences on relationships. I would say, from my own experience, that my perspective shifts to inward looking when I'm sick, my base line is very happy go lucky, easy going, but as to whether that is true for anyone else with the black dogs, obviously I cant say. But there is no harm on being reminded to look around you. It's not negating anyone's suffering but it is a way of re-situating your self in the world and showing you the way back to it. Obviously, there's a time and a place and a way of doing that that goes deeper than saying 'other people have it worse, be grateful for what you've got'.

A celebrity sharing they have depression does not make my experience of it more valid. That someone I know would listen to what they have to say about how to be there for someone with it over what I have to say actually saddens me. In fact, if you're someone who pays attention to that stuff, I don't think I want the kind of support you'd give, cos I doubt it would be little more than empty platittudes.

Now Wibbsy told a bit of truth in his post. A hard one and one that has done me good to read today. Its done way more for me than some famous individual sharing a diagnosis of a mood disorder. I don't often agree with you, Wibbs but you actually really helped me today. Thanks.

cnocbui

Neyite wrote: »

In Ireland this year, women who've began to bleed, had to attend their appointment without their partner due to covid. They've had to undergo scans alone, be told their baby is dead alone, and get sent home to bleed. You'd need to have miscarriage complications get a bed in Ireland, let alone one with your loving husband by your side. You are lucky if you even get an appointment. I'm guessing MM wasn't told that they won't look at you in the EPU until after your third miscarriage. Or that they won't refer you to Gynae. She probably didn't have to stand in a packed Boots arguing with the sales assistant that she needed Neurofen plus and have to explain to them exactly why a miscarriage warrants more than paracetamol. And I'm fairly sure sure that MM didn't have to get up and get on with looking after her toddler alone in the house because her husband couldn't miss work.

So really, her experience is worlds away from mine or my friends. Mother to mother, she has my utmost sympathy for her loss but I can't really identify with her experience as it bears little resemblance to my own ones.

Although a very kind midwife let me out a side door rather than walk the gauntlet of a waiting room full of happy pregnant women, and MM likely gets smuggled out side doors all the time so I guess we had that in common that time?

That would all be beacuase she doesn't live in this lovely country. Another black mark against her, no doubt. How dare she not have to suffer Ireland's 2nd world health system.

Stateofyou

Sardonicat wrote: »

The fact that we require celebrities to 'speak out' about tragedies that effect them in order to bring healing is a frightening indictment if our culture.

We don't require anything. But it helps due to their large following/platform. But as I said ordinary people speak out too.

Stateofyou

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually I would say what can be equally bad for mental health is a lack of perspective. It has been my observation down the years that people I've known with clinical depression is that one of the first things to go is a lack of perspective. Almost as a given as a symptom of that disease. People who are more likely to say "times are bad, but jaysus, I could have it worse" are much less likely to be depressed.

What is your observation based off of, Wibbs? Are you a therapist, or have you collected some other kind of data that backs your opinion up?

bitofabind

I feel bad saying this but she has a way of making it seem like she's acting no matter what it is she does or says. There's just something that smacks of inauthenticity about her and seems to be backed up by the trail of broken relationships and lost family members in her wake.

I have nothing but sympathy for mothers and families that have suffered this type of loss and I'm not immune to it myself. I have sympathy for MM and Harry for going through this, after a year of crazy turbulence. And I also do see the value in truth telling and raising awareness to break down taboos. But MM's words feel hollow, flowery, dramatic, like a scene out of a movie, and then the bizarre turn of tying her baby loss to political rhetoric, like a PR opportunity. What happened to the need for privacy?