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

BettyS

Ms2011 wrote: »

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.

People are frustrated with the rule-flouting. Granted, she may have been conscious about her body after her labour. However, it would be like me rocking up to a wedding in jeans and wondering what all the fuss is about. Dress codes apply to everybody. It is seen as a mark of disrespect when one flouts this. Wimbledon is steeped in its old traditions. It was never going to end well.

People were told not to take any photos of them. While she may have been “off-duty”, if a public figure sits in a public area, there is an extremely high likelihood that they will be photographed.

The mental health documentary will be interesting. I wonder in what capacity they will speak. If they speak from a personal perspective, that is fair enough. If they speak from an expert perspective, I am more uncomfortable with this. I think that it is important that the information is conveyed by somebody who actually works and has trained in the friend.

MoonUnit75

Ms2011 wrote: »

Exactly, it was just denim, hardly a reason to dislike someone.

It's not the denim, it's the 'dress codes don't apply to me' attitude that no doubt caused a headache for the event managers.

Again there is no evidence the empty seats had anything to do with her.

If you look at the photo of Meghan arriving you can see the people sitting in the seats that are soon to become simultaneously vacant have little grey badges or stickers, no doubt indicating they are entitled to be in the members area. So your contention is that, acting as one, everyone in that particular section of seating decided to leave the members area just as star player Serena Williams' match was starting?

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.

True, but the other royal family members recognise they have to give very, very little of themselves for the riches and privilege they enjoy.

MoonUnit75

BettyS wrote: »

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?

Never has the phrase 'circling the wagons' been more apt.

Ms2011

BettyS wrote: »

People are frustrated with the rule-flouting. Granted, she may have been conscious about her body after her labour. However, it would be like me rocking up to a wedding in jeans and wondering what all the fuss is about. Dress codes apply to everybody. It is seen as a mark of disrespect when one flouts this. Wimbledon is steeped in its old traditions. It was never going to end well.

People were told not to take any photos of them. While she may have been “off-duty”, if a public figure sits in a public area, there is an extremely high likelihood that they will be photographed.

The mental health documentary will be interesting. I wonder in what capacity they will speak. If they speak from a personal perspective, that is fair enough. If they speak from an expert perspective, I am more uncomfortable with this. I think that it is important that the information is conveyed by somebody who actually works and has trained in the friend.

Why are people getting frustrated on behalf of other people? The club didn't have issue with it. It would be like you wearing jeans to a wedding and the bride and groom being fine with it and another guest getting frustrated on the bride and grooms behalf.

The article I added above states that it's not uncommon for members of the royal family to request no photos when not working so she's obviously not the only one to do it.

Ms2011

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It's not the denim, it's the 'dress codes don't apply to me' attitude that no doubt caused a headache for the event managers.

Well the club didn't seem too bother and would welcome her back


If you look at the photo of Meghan arriving you can see the people sitting in the seats that are soon to become simultaneously vacant have little grey badges or stickers, no doubt indicating they are entitled to be in the members area. So your contention is that, acting as one, everyone in that particular section of seating decided to leave the members area just as star player Serena Williams' match was starting?

what I'm saying is I have no more of an idea what happened with the seat than you do, not even the papers knew the reasons.

True, but the other royal family members recognise they have to give very, very little of themselves for the riches and privilege they enjoy.

She did show Archie to the world just after he was born so its not like she kept him all to herself but people always seem to want more

JimmyVik

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It's not the denim, it's the 'dress codes don't apply to me' attitude that no doubt caused a headache for the event managers.

If you look at the photo of Meghan arriving you can see the people sitting in the seats that are soon to become simultaneously vacant have little grey badges or stickers, no doubt indicating they are entitled to be in the members area. So your contention is that, acting as one, everyone in that particular section of seating decided to leave the members area just as star player Serena Williams' match was starting?

True, but the other royal family members recognise they have to give very, very little of themselves for the riches and privilege they enjoy.

Maybe Meghan farted.

Ms2011

Ms2011 wrote: »

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.

Each little thing is perfectly defendable and excuses can always be made. But there are just so many of these incidents, which taken together paint a portrait in the public's mind. Of course someone who had given birth is all over the place. But just tick those little basic boxes and then everybody moves on. People are not expecting much. A photo and a name. It's not that complicated. Most normal people are happy and want to celebrate the birth of a new baby. But the extreme privacy over Archie just seemed a little bit mean-spirited.

It's the constant drama and game playing with the media that seems unnecessary.

JimmyVik

JimmyVik wrote: »

Maybe Meghan farted.

Her farts would smell of roses. And compassion.

JimmyVik

Deleted User wrote: »

Each little thing is perfectly defendable and excuses can always be made. But there are just so many of these incidents, which taken together paint a portrait in the public's mind. Of course someone who had given birth is all over the place. But just tick those little basic boxes and then everybody moves on. People are not expecting much. A photo and a name. It's not that complicated. Most normal people are happy and want to celebrate the birth of a new baby. But the extreme privacy over Archie just seemed a little bit mean-spirited.

It's the constant drama and game playing with the media that seems unnecessary.

When the price is right he will be all over the magazines.

MoonUnit75

Ms2011 wrote: »

what I'm saying is I have no more of an idea what happened with the seat than you do, not even the papers knew the reasons.

We know two things for certain. Seats in this area were occupied as she was arriving, the people are sitting there arms folded or otherwise engrossed in what was happening on the court, they don't look like they were even considering leaving. After Meghan arrives, all seats within a certain radius of her are empty except for her entourage and minders.

It's completely ridiculous to say there is no connection between the people vacating 40 seats in a packed court, Meghan's minders hassling people taking photos while she grins like the cat that got the queen and the papers reporting that other VIPs were left waiting outside.

Ms2011 wrote: »

She did show Archie to the world just after he was born so its not like she kept him all to herself but people always seem to want more

It's a monarchy ffs, people want tradition, demeanour and public service.

Ms2011

Deleted User wrote: »

Each little thing is perfectly defendable and excuses can always be made. But there are just so many of these incidents, which taken together paint a portrait in the public's mind. Of course someone who had given birth is all over the place. But just tick those little basic boxes and then everybody moves on. People are not expecting much. A photo and a name. It's not that complicated. Most normal people are happy and want to celebrate the birth of a new baby. But the extreme privacy over Archie just seemed a little bit mean-spirited.

It's the constant drama and game playing with the media that seems unnecessary.

I think the majority of drama and game playing is perpetrated BY the media.
I'd like to see anyone taken from a completely different background, plonked into the royal family, asked to run the gauntlet of traditions & expectations while trying to keep some sense of self and expect them not to fall at a few hurdles.
Throw into that living away from family and friends and becoming a new mother I actually think she handled things well for as long as she could and that's my take on the situation.

Ms2011

Ms2011 wrote: »

I'd like to see anyone taken from a completely different background, plonked into the royal family, asked to run the gauntlet of traditions & expectations while trying to keep some sense of self and expect them not to fall at a few hurdles.

I wouldn't expect then not to fall either, but I would expect them to respect the family they have married into.
I would expect her not to believe the family should change for her alone.
And I would never expect her to give an interview disrespecting that family that, by her own admission, welcomed her completely.

Ms2011

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

We know two things for certain. Seats in this area were occupied as she was arriving, the people are sitting there arms folded or otherwise engrossed in what was happening on the court, they don't look like they were even considering leaving. After Meghan arrives, all seats within a certain radius of her are empty except for her entourage and minders.



It's completely ridiculous to say there is no connection between the people vacating 40 seats in a packed court, Meghan's minders hassling people taking photos while she grins like the cat that got the queen and the papers reporting that other VIPs were left waiting outside.

So why weren't people screaming bloody murder that they had to move for Meghan?
The were apparently so incensed over a pair of jeans surely having to move seats to accommodate her would have been shouted from the rooftops


It's a monarchy ffs, people want tradition, demeanour and public service.

They showed Archie to the world, what more did they want, people don't have the right to every one of their private moments

Ms2011

bubblypop wrote: »

I wouldn't expect then not to fall either, but I would expect them to respect the family they have married into.
I would expect her not to believe the family should change for her alone.
And I would never expect her to give an interview disrespecting that family that, by her own admission, welcomed her completely.

I felt she spoke very respectfully of the queen and Kate in the interview.
I feel she was trying to put her side out after papers accusing her of all sorts for years and as alot of those stories contained the royal family I'm not sure how she could have don't that without mentioning them. Plus people wanted to know why they had stepped back from royal duties, how do you explain that without mentioning the royal family.

NSAman

Ms2011 wrote: »

They showed Archie to the world, what more did they want, people don't have the right to every one of their private moments

Of course they don’t..but have they sold those rights to Amazon yet? 300 million?

Ms2011

Ms2011 wrote: »

I felt she spoke very respectfully of the queen and Kate in the interview.
I feel she was trying to put her side out after papers accusing her of all sorts for years and as alot of those stories contained the royal family I'm not sure how she could have don't that without mentioning them. Plus people wanted to know why they had stepped back from royal duties, how do you explain that without mentioning the royal family.

She didn't need to come out to say anything about articles in gutter newsrags.
She needed to move on and forget about what people say about her. Rise above it.
They released a statement about stepping back from royal duties, which was more than enough, no need to lower themselves to tabloid rubbish arguments.

Also, knowing that the Royal family will not respond to anything, and then saying what they did about them? Very sneaky, underhand and extremely unfair.

Purple Mountain

Purple Mountain wrote: »

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

Not to mention when she made that off the cuff comment to the reporter in S Africa dissing the British as having a "stiff upper lip".

Be right back

bubblypop wrote: »

I wouldn't expect then not to fall either, but I would expect them to respect the family they have married into.
I would expect her not to believe the family should change for her alone.
And I would never expect her to give an interview disrespecting that family that, by her own admission, welcomed her completely.

I think she was given opportunities that Kate as the future Queen wasn't given, ie being invited to Sandringham before their wedding and she still wasn't happy. I do think she had a plan in mind and staying in the Royal family wasn't part of it.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

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

The thread isn't about Andrew, but he was criticised, I've done so several times.

He was also vilified in the thread about him at the time of the interview.

It's interesting that you have zero concern for Piers Morgan and have criticised him repeatedly, and thanked posts name calling him, here and elsewhere.


You seem more concerned with how women are treated, than criticism per se.

Sir_Name

Ms2011 wrote: »

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.

Do you genuinely think that M stating in the interview that the royal family had decided not to bestow a title on their son Archie. That 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" is M being happy for him to get a title if/when he is entitled. Its a simple yes or no...

Neyite

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?

Oooh there's about a billion differences, isn't there?

Ms2011

bubblypop wrote: »

She didn't need to come out to say anything about articles in gutter newsrags.
She needed to move on and forget about what people say about her. Rise above it.
They released a statement about stepping back from royal duties, which was more than enough, no need to lower themselves to tabloid rubbish arguments.

Also, knowing that the Royal family will not respond to anything, and then saying what they did about them? Very sneaky, underhand and extremely unfair.

Did you like her before the interview or is it just since the interview you dislike her?

Ms2011

Sir_Name wrote: »

Do you genuinely think that M stating in the interview that the royal family had decided not to bestow a title on their son Archie. That 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" is M being happy for him to get a title if/when he is entitled. Its a simple yes or no...

I'm not sure what you're asking me, do I think she'll be happy if he get the title of Prince?, then yes I do.

JoChervil

Ms2011 wrote: »

I felt she spoke very respectfully of the queen and Kate in the interview.
I feel she was trying to put her side out after papers accusing her of all sorts for years and as alot of those stories contained the royal family I'm not sure how she could have don't that without mentioning them. Plus people wanted to know why they had stepped back from royal duties, how do you explain that without mentioning the royal family.

I found her statement about Kate patronising and blaming.

And I don't find trashing the family of the Queen very respectful.
She definitely doesn't want to have the Queen on the other side, if the title for Archie or future inheritance depend on her...

Sir_Name

Ms2011 wrote: »

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 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're asking me, do I think she'll be happy if he get the title of Prince?, then yes I do.

I was very clear in what I asked... but maybe you are being deliberately obtuse. I will rephrase on the off-chance I am wrong.

Does M words reflect she is happy about the current title status.

JoChervil

BettyS wrote: »

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?

I think she is a control freak isolating her husband from his family entirely. How any form of communication between them can be made now?

Leg End Reject

Ms2011 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're asking me, do I think she'll be happy if he get the title of Prince?, then yes I do.

Archie won't get it now though, as neither H and M have HRH status now.

Ms2011

Sir_Name wrote: »

I was very clear in what I asked... but maybe you are being deliberately obtuse. I will rephrase on the off-chance I am wrong.

Does M words reflect she is happy about the current title status.

Obviously not that clear or I'd understand you.

Meghan didn't sound happy that Archie wasn't a Prince, is that the answer your looking for? That's the answer I would give if I am understanding your question correctly.

Ms2011

JoChervil wrote: »

I found her statement about Kate patronising and blaming.

Well obviously our views on that differ

Ms2011

Ms2011 wrote: »

Did you like her before the interview or is it just since the interview you dislike her?

Its not a like/dislike of her. I honestly didnt have any feelings towards her before. I hadnt seen the show she was on, and didn't know her as an actress, saw her play a delivery girl in Horrible Bosses. ( great film!)
but I didnt have any feelings about her either way.

I don't particularly like the way she has behaved now, I find it very disrespectful and completely unfair.