Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Interesting that you deem Caroline Flack in the same bracket as Prince Andrew.

Well nowhere did i say that actually.

Although now you mention it, both have been tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion despite legally not being found guilty of any crimes. Old Andy might be morally dubious but he is not like Jimmy Saville contrary to what the internet says.

When it comes to abuse are we to treat people differently or should we be consistent in abusing everybody or abusing nobody? What's the rule here?

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

Well nowhere did i say that actually.

Although now you mention it, both have been tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion despite legally not being found guilty of any crimes. Old Andy might be morally dubious but he is not like Jimmy Saville contrary to what the internet says.

When it comes to abuse are we to treat people differently or should we be consistent in abusing everybody or abusing nobody? What's the rule here?

The abuse at Caroline Flack was levied at her for presenting a TV show. Her co presenter spoke about it in the documentary.

There are no allegations against Caroline Flack for having sex with a minor.

There are against Andrew.

Princess Calla

Ms2011 wrote: »

But she didn't go to sit in the royal box though, she went to sit with her friends and watch another friend play during a private socialising occasion.

The Royal Box is in centre court.

This match was court 1, as she only stayed for this match I don't think she had any intention of going to the Royal Box.

There's no dress code for spectators, within reason.....you're not allowed wear advertising or political clothing etc.

A blazer is smart, she is sitting down so seriously who cares what's on her legs that can't be seen.

Ms2011

Princess Calla wrote: »

The Royal Box is in centre court.

This match was court 1, as she only stayed for this match I don't think she had any intention of going to the Royal Box.

There's no dress code for spectators, within reason.....you're not allowed wear advertising or political clothing etc.

A blazer is smart, she is sitting down so seriously who cares what's on her legs that can't be seen.

Thank you, I was genuinely starting to think I was missing something here.

ceadaoin.

Princess Calla wrote: »

The Royal Box is in centre court.

This match was court 1, as she only stayed for this match I don't think she had any intention of going to the Royal Box.

There's no dress code for spectators, within reason.....you're not allowed wear advertising or political clothing etc.

A blazer is smart, she is sitting down so seriously who cares what's on her legs that can't be seen.

It's because she was in the members area, where there is a dress code, which says no jeans.

MoonUnit75

JoChervil wrote: »

As you see people started filling these spaces before she arrived. A grey hair women shifted from her place because of jeans!

I would hate, if this happened to my mum.

Maybe I'm wrong but I see at least 8 people in that photo who were shifted out of their seats so that Meghan wouldn't have to share oxygen with commoners.

If that's the case then in just that one outing she moved along people who paid for tickets, broke dress codes, hassled at least one guy taking a selfie, fecked off before the English player's game and lied about the palace never defending her (making a statement to say people are often hassled by their heavies for taking photos, which seems unlikely).
Edit: Worst of all, she seems to have commandeered her PA's hat

anewme

anewme wrote: »

The abuse at Caroline Flack was levied at her for presenting a TV show. Her co presenter spoke about it in the documentary.

There are no allegations against Caroline Flack for having sex with a minor.

There are against Andrew.

There are no assault allegations against Andrew. There were for Caroline Flack. Neither were found guilty legally of any crime but deemed guilty by the calm and reasonable social media users. Quite similar. So they should be treated equally. Either everyone gets abuse or nobody gets abuse should be the rule.

Purple Mountain

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's the royal box in Wimbledon. Everyone knows or should have an expectation of a certain level of dress code that would not include jeans. It seems like Meghan was just constantly challenging every norm and convention in the royal institution. Each one of them on their own are small and petty but added up they paint a picture of a difficult, hostile and selfish woman who refuses to accept any blame or responsibility or compromise on anything.

If I could thank this multiple times I would.
To me, she came into the royal family with a view to being this woke American trying to shake up an outdated institution. She wanted that to be her "legacy".
Instead she should have respected the tradition she married into or jogged on.

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

There are no assault allegations against Andrew. There were for Caroline Flack. Neither were found guilty legally of any crime but deemed guilty by the calm and reasonable social media users. Quite similar. So they should be treated equally. Either everyone gets abuse or nobody gets abuse should be the rule.

If you watched the documentary, Caroline Flack got hate way before she went out with Harry Styles, way before there were any charges (which were not proven and disputed)

Basically, she got hate for presenting a TV show. Her co- presenter Olly Murs referenced the level of hate for them presenting a TV show.

Again, interesting that you view Caroline Flack same as Andrew, who supported a convicted paedophile and brought them into the Royal Circle.

If you believe Meghan deserves the same feedback as Andrew, that speaks volumes too.

Ih fact, it could be argued Meghan received worse feedback then Andrew.

Certainly, some of the posters who gave been harshest on Meghan here, have been quite sympathetic to Prince Andrew.

Purple Mountain

Purple Mountain wrote: »

If I could thank this multiple times I would.
To me, she came into the royal family with a view to being this woke American trying to shake up an outdated institution. She wanted that to be her "legacy".
Instead she should have respected the tradition she married into or jogged on.

I think so. She was going to be the saviour. Centre of attention. And woe betide anyone who stood in her path. Cue the bullying and resignations. And as soon as she got called out on any hypocrisy, out came the race, bullying and mental health cards. Always the innocent victim.

anewme

anewme wrote: »

If you watched the documentary, Caroline Flack got hate way before she went out with Harry Styles, way before there were any charges (which her partner disouted)

Basically, she got hate for presenting a TV show. Her co- presenter Olly Murs referenced the level of hate for them presenting a TV show.

Again, interesting that you view Caroline Flack same as Andrew, who supported a convicted paedophile and brought them into the Royal Circle.

Was the hate for both of them or just Flack?

Should we abuse Andrew or hold off in case it impacts on his mental health? If he commits suicide do we then do a re-think?

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

Was the hate for both of them or just Flack?

Should we abuse Andrew or hold off in case it impacts on his mental health? If he commits suicide do we then do a re-think?

Did Andrew receive the same level of personal abuse here in this thread as Meghan?

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Did Andrew receive the same level of abuse here in this thread as Meghan?

No he did not.

Does that mean he is fair game for abuse? Or is all abuse wrong?

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Did Andrew receive the same level of personal abuse here in this thread as Meghan?

But why would he?
I don't even know why he is being brought into a thread about Harry and Meghan, surely be deserves his own thread for his behaviour!

valoren

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's the royal box in Wimbledon. Everyone knows or should have an expectation of a certain level of dress code that would not include jeans. It seems like Meghan was just constantly challenging every norm and convention in the royal institution. Each one of them on their own are small and petty but added up they paint a picture of a difficult, hostile and selfish woman who refuses to accept any blame or responsibility or compromise on anything.

...or keep provoking and prodding until they get a reaction which they can subsequently exploit. A cry bully.

anewme

bubblypop wrote: »

But why would he?
I don't even know why he is being brought into a thread about Harry and Meghan, surely be deserves his own thread for his behaviour!

I did not bring him in.

So direct that question at the poster who brought him in please.

anewme

anewme wrote: »

I did not bring him in.

So direct that question at the poster who brought him in please.

Just a general point really, not directed at anyone in particular, even though I know I quoted you!

beakerjoe

Dear god this thread has gone off the rails on both sides....

Spiraled out of control.

end of the road

JoChervil wrote: »

The next reason: the circus with Archie's birth.

If one wants friendships, one shares certain moments with them. There is two way street. It was her decision to stay alienated. And it has nothing to do with the colour of her skin.

They were hiding she went to a labor, they were hiding the day of his birth, they didn't want to show him at once. They didn't want to reveal his God's parents. etc.

If you show a middle finger to people, who are funding your lifestyle, don't expect them to be happy with it.

It was her, who didn't want to cooperate with the press, so how she can be surprised by their coverage.

You reap, what you sow.

it's not their fault the tax payer was funding them, that's just one of the aspects of being a senior member of the royal family.
they paid back the money for the refurbishment of their home where they lived while being senior members, a refurbishment which would have had to happen anyway and which they actually owed nobody anything on, but did it as a gesture of good will.
the fact the tax payer funded them does not mean they actually owe people anything, especially intimate moments, people can be unhappy with them all they like, but they don't get to treat people like how megan was treated because both her and harry wanted the birth of their child to be between them.
megan is a human being, she was a woman who had just given birth, not some prize cow there as some sort of freak show to be paraded around the place for people's entertainment.
megan had no obligation to co-operate with the press, she owes the press nothing.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the royal box in Wimbledon. Everyone knows or should have an expectation of a certain level of dress code that would not include jeans. It seems like Meghan was just constantly challenging every norm and convention in the royal institution. Each one of them on their own are small and petty but added up they paint a picture of a difficult, hostile and selfish woman who refuses to accept any blame or responsibility or compromise on anything.

only in the beliefs of people who want that to be the case.
for the rest of us, it's simply someone doing their own thing and not being a robot to some irrelevant drivel.
first world non-issue really.

Augeo wrote: »

She seems to have bought into lots of the 'I'm a Princess' sh1t when it suited her. IMO.

she very well may have, but it's the littlest and most irrelevant first world problem ever.

JoChervil

end of the road wrote: »

it's not their fault the tax payer was funding them, that's just one of the aspects of being a senior member of the royal family.
they paid back the money for the refurbishment of their home where they lived while being senior members, a refurbishment which would have had to happen anyway and which they actually owed nobody anything on, but did it as a gesture of good will.

It was not a gesture of a good will. It was a deal with the Queen. They were allowed to keep it as their UK home but they had to return taxpayers money, if they wanted to leave RF.

end of the road wrote: »

the fact the tax payer funded them does not mean they actually owe people anything, especially intimate moments, people can be unhappy with them all they like, but they don't get to treat people like how megan was treated because both her and harry wanted the birth of their child to be between them.

Do you think Kate revealed all to the public and didn't have intimate moments? She was able to keep up with tradition and share her joy with British people. It is this attitude, how you treat others: as friends or enemies. If you treat others as enemies, so don't be surprised by public reaction back to you.

end of the road wrote: »

megan is a human being, she was a woman who had just given birth, not some prize cow there as some sort of freak show to be paraded around the place for people's entertainment.

Do you really believe that Kate or Diana showing their newborns were a freak show? You can twist everything in this way. And what's wrong with informing people, that the child was born?

end of the road wrote: »

megan had no obligation to co-operate with the press, she owes the press nothing.

Of course she hadn't. But then don't do a global interview and moan, that press didn't like you.

And my post was an answer to a poster, who couldn't see, why press and people didn't like her.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

it's not their fault the tax payer was funding them, that's just one of the aspects of being a senior member of the royal family.
they paid back the money for the refurbishment of their home where they lived while being senior members, a refurbishment which would have had to happen anyway and which they actually owed nobody anything on, but did it as a gesture of good will.
the fact the tax payer funded them does not mean they actually owe people anything, especially intimate moments, people can be unhappy with them all they like, but they don't get to treat people like how megan was treated because both her and harry wanted the birth of their child to be between them.
megan is a human being, she was a woman who had just given birth, not some prize cow there as some sort of freak show to be paraded around the place for people's entertainment.
megan had no obligation to co-operate with the press, she owes the press nothing.




only in the beliefs of people who want that to be the case.
for the rest of us, it's simply someone doing their own thing and not being a robot to some irrelevant drivel.
first world non-issue really.



she very well may have, but it's the littlest and most irrelevant first world problem ever.

A first world problem that apparently warranted a 2 hour sit down with Oprah. Oh the struggles!

Sir_Name

Ms2011 wrote: »

So either way they are not anti title.

I never said they were anti-title. You quoted "Archie was eligible for a "courtesy title" at birth, such as Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. At the time, it was reported that Harry and Meghan had chosen not to give him a title. But the duchess told Oprah, "it was not our decision to make".10 Mar 2021"

As stated they had a choice between the two titles available to them (Earl of Dumbarton - one of Harry's subsidiary titles - or Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor) and they didnt appear to chose either.

So lets take the facts, and facts only...
- Archie was not entitled to a HRH title
- H&M were offered the choices of two other titles
- H&M turned down the titles of Earl/Lord
- H&M stated there was behind the scenes discussions. This was related to security/safety on leaving the RF, and they were refused as we all know.
- M stated in the interview the royal family had decided not to bestow a title on their son Archie. She said she was never given a reason why "the first member of color in this family was not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be. That is not true. Harry and William at that stage are the queens grandchildren and have titles. Archie is a great-grandchild. The convention states that when Charles was made King he would be made a HRH.

Maybe she didnt understand the convention, maybe she did and wanted it for security reason etc but fact remains M did not speak the truth during that interview regarding the titles.
An the implication it was because of the colour of his skin. Disingenuous.

Ms2011

Sir_Name wrote: »

I never said they were anti-title. You quoted "Archie was eligible for a "courtesy title" at birth, such as Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. At the time, it was reported that Harry and Meghan had chosen not to give him a title. But the duchess told Oprah, "it was not our decision to make".10 Mar 2021"

As stated they had a choice between the two titles available to them (Earl of Dumbarton - one of Harry's subsidiary titles - or Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor) and they didnt appear to chose either.

So lets take the facts, and facts only...
- Archie was not entitled to a HRH title
- H&M were offered the choices of two other titles
- H&M turned down the titles of Earl/Lord
- H&M stated there was behind the scenes discussions. This was related to security/safety on leaving the RF, and they were refused as we all know.
- M stated in the interview the royal family had decided not to bestow a title on their son Archie. She said she was never given a reason why "the first member of color in this family was not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be. That is not true. Harry and William at that stage are the queens grandchildren and have titles. Archie is a great-grandchild. The convention states that when Charles was made King he would be made a HRH.

Maybe she didnt understand the convention, maybe she did and wanted it for security reason etc but fact remains M did not speak the truth during that interview regarding the titles.
An the implication it was because of the colour of his skin. Disingenuous.

My quote was to show that they weren't rebelliously against titles per se as was reported they just didn't give the original title to him.
If or when he is entitled to get the Prince title they seem happy for him to have that.

Ms2011

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the royal box in Wimbledon. Everyone knows or should have an expectation of a certain level of dress code that would not include jeans. It seems like Meghan was just constantly challenging every norm and convention in the royal institution. Each one of them on their own are small and petty but added up they paint a picture of a difficult, hostile and selfish woman who refuses to accept any blame or responsibility or compromise on anything.

But if the All English Club didn't have a problem with it why would it bother anyone else.

https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a28348436/meghan-markle-wimbledon-jeans-controversy/

Ms2011

Ms2011 wrote: »

But if the All English Club didn't have a problem with it why would it bother anyone else.

https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a28348436/meghan-markle-wimbledon-jeans-controversy/

You think they need the hassle that would come from ejecting her for denim? It would have caused a furore. They turned a blind eye but it was needlessly provocative. Why would you wear denim to an event like that, but yet she wears designer dresses for her Zoom calls? I think she just wanted to test every rule, every boundary constantly. Clearing out the seats around her. Banning people from taking photos near her. Refusing to allow video of people arriving at the babies Christening. Confusion over when exactly she went into labour. Refusing to reveal the names of the Godparents. Refusing to pose for a photo with the new baby leaving the hospital. Small, tiny things in and of themselves. But symptomatic of a control freak who just will not go with the flow of an institution hundreds of years old that she willingly married into.

BettyS

Gayle seems to be running back and forward to the media with drips and drabs of “breaking news”. Her indiscretion is completely odious. I wonder will she be ostracised by the couple for her d’alliance with the media? Or will it be acceptable in her case?

BettyS

What do the Harry and Meghan supporters think of Meghan suing her father for breach of privacy and them breaching the privacy of personal conversations between Charles/William and Harry and leaking it via Gayle. Can somebody genuinely explain the difference to me?

JimmyVik

BettyS wrote: »

What do the Harry and Meghan supporters think of Meghan suing her father for breach of privacy and them breaching the privacy of personal conversations between Charles/William and Harry and leaking it via Gayle. Can somebody genuinely explain the difference to me?

Man, Woman.

Ms2011

Deleted User wrote: »

You think they need the hassle that would come from ejecting her for denim? It would have caused a furore. They turned a blind eye but it was needlessly provocative. Why would you wear denim to an event like that, but yet she wears designer dresses for her Zoom calls? I think she just wanted to test every rule, every boundary constantly. Clearing out the seats around her. Banning people from taking photos near her. Refusing to allow video of people arriving at the babies Christening. Confusion over when exactly she went into labour. Refusing to reveal the names of the Godparents. Refusing to pose for a photo with the new baby leaving the hospital. Small, tiny things in and of themselves. But symptomatic of a control freak who just will not go with the flow of an institution hundreds of years old that she willingly married into.

Exactly, it was just denim, hardly a reason to dislike someone.
Maybe she was self conscious of how her body had changed having not long since had her first child, a pair of jeans and a large blazer probably felt more comfortable especially if she thought people would only be only too happy to get an unflattering picture of her.
Again there is no evidence the empty seats had anything to do with her.
And anything to do with her pregnancy and her child is her perogative to do as she feels comfortable, I'll never judge someone for doing what they felt was best for themselves or their child, its such a sensitive time for all first time mothers let alone someone in the public eye.

Purple Mountain

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You think they need the hassle that would come from ejecting her for denim? It would have caused a furore. They turned a blind eye but it was needlessly provocative. Why would you wear denim to an event like that, but yet she wears designer dresses for her Zoom calls? I think she just wanted to test every rule, every boundary constantly. Clearing out the seats around her. Banning people from taking photos near her. Refusing to allow video of people arriving at the babies Christening. Confusion over when exactly she went into labour. Refusing to reveal the names of the Godparents. Refusing to pose for a photo with the new baby leaving the hospital. Small, tiny things in and of themselves. But symptomatic of a control freak who just will not go with the flow of an institution hundreds of years old that she willingly married into.

Tights/no tights for the flower girls!
Making a point of walking down the aisle alone.