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

Mrsmum

retro:electro wrote: »

When you consider what Kate and Diana had to go through with regards to phone hackings and topless pictures being published, those headlines Meghan ensured are so trivial and petty they pale in comparison. How her bra strap being visible, her wearing trousers to an event, the fact she wears dark nail polish, eats avocados and whether or not she has a rift with her sister in law could be construed as racist, is reaching in its truest form.

Diana and Kate were chased down streets by paparazzi and had cameras thrust into their car windows. Meghan never had that happen. Harry put out a statement before anyone knew of her to stop harassing her but funny no photos of her being harassed ever emerged. There were so many positive stories and editorial pieces before the wedding, how she would be amazing for multiculturalism and diversity within the RF, freshen it up and what not. She seems to have forgotten all that, instead always concentrating on the negative and unable to cope at all with any criticism. Poor victim also whinging for years how her father betrayed her only to turn around and betray his family in front of the world.They sure would need to be told a few home truths.

retro:electro

Mrsmum wrote: »

Diana and Kate were chased down streets by paparazzi and had cameras thrust into their car windows. Meghan never had that happen. Harry put out a statement before anyone knew of her to stop harassing her but funny no photos of her being harassed ever emerged. There were so many positive stories and editorial pieces before the wedding, how she would be amazing for multiculturalism and diversity within the RF, freshen it up and what not. She seems to have forgotten all that, instead always concentrating on the negative and unable to cope at all with any criticism. Poor victim also whinging for years how her father betrayed her only to turn around and betray his family in front of the world.They sure would need to be told a few home truths.

Yes I remember the collective confusion from the media and public alike when Harry put out his “leave Meghan aloooone”, statement. I think the general consensus was that nobody had been harassing her and some didn’t even know she was his girlfriend. If anything, releasing a statement like that just drew more attention onto the pair of them.

I think she wants to be universally adored, and can’t handle even the most petty and trivial criticisms that many would just roll their eyes at.

Leg End Reject

retro:electro wrote: »

Yes I remember the collective confusion from the media and public alike when Harry put out his “leave Meghan aloooone”, statement. I think the general consensus was that nobody had been harassing her and some didn’t even know she was his girlfriend. If anything, releasing a statement like that just drew more attention onto the pair of them.

And she couldn't have wanted more attention now, could she?

Surely not ....

Mrsmum

retro:electro wrote: »

. If anything, releasing a statement like that just drew more attention onto the pair of them.

As was the plan.

jm08

banie01 wrote: »

Where are the examples of endemic media racism there?

When she started dating Harry:

Many racist Twitter trolls claimed that the prince should not be allowed to date a biracial person – harkening back to the mythical concept of ‘blue blood’ and royal purity. And, as Prince Harry was forced to explain in a public statement, paparazzi began to invade the privacy of both Meghan and her family, employing abusive tactics in order to find out more about them.

jm08

retro:electro wrote: »

Yes I remember the collective confusion from the media and public alike when Harry put out his “leave Meghan aloooone”, statement. I think the general consensus was that nobody had been harassing her and some didn’t even know she was his girlfriend. If anything, releasing a statement like that just drew more attention onto the pair of them.

I think she wants to be universally adored, and can’t handle even the most petty and trivial criticisms that many would just roll their eyes at.

Her mother had to leave her job because the people she worked for couldn't handle the media intrusion. Look what they did to her father? They offered money to her ex-boyfriend/husband to dish the dirt on her.

Leg End Reject

jm08 wrote: »

When she started dating Harry:

Were those tweets from private individuals or journalists afraid to publish in papers?

The former isn't "media" and the latter seem to run with what will sell so I don't think that's evidence at all.

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

Her mother had to leave her job because the people she worked for couldn't handle the media intrusion. Look what they did to her father? They offered money to her ex-boyfriend/husband to dish the dirt on her.

Those things happened as the relationship progressed and interest in them increased. Not at the very beginning when she was relatively unknown and many didn’t even realise Harry had a girlfriend.

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

When she started dating Harry:

Twitter trolls gonna troll. Hardly surprising. Some ejit writing racist bile on Twitter is not the same as a racist headline.

dark crystal

retro:electro wrote: »

When you consider what Kate and Diana had to go through with regards to phone hackings and topless pictures being published, those headlines Meghan ensured are so trivial and petty they pale in comparison. How her bra strap being visible, her wearing trousers to an event, the fact she wears dark nail polish, eats avocados and whether or not she has a rift with her sister in law could be construed as racist, is reaching in its truest form.

Yeah, it was a lot more insidious than that.

https://www.news24.com/channel/gossip/royal-news/pi-apologises-to-harry-and-meghan-and-the-queen-after-leaking-private-information-to-the-sun-20210319-2

https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-phone-hacked-news-world-lawsuit-too-late-rupert-murdoch-publisher-1569859

https://twitter.com/BInvestigates/status/1377901113614209024


I'm at a loss how anyone can actually defend scummy tabloid intrusion on any level tbh, even putting aside your own personal dislike of the victims.

walshb

Mrsmum wrote: »

Diana and Kate were chased down streets by paparazzi and had cameras thrust into their car windows. Meghan never had that happen. Harry put out a statement before anyone knew of her to stop harassing her but funny no photos of her being harassed ever emerged. There were so many positive stories and editorial pieces before the wedding, how she would be amazing for multiculturalism and diversity within the RF, freshen it up and what not. She seems to have forgotten all that, instead always concentrating on the negative and unable to cope at all with any criticism. Poor victim also whinging for years how her father betrayed her only to turn around and betray his family in front of the world.They sure would need to be told a few home truths.

Exactly..

Manufactured trashy and contrived nonsense.

No different than a Jordan, Katona, TOWIE.....

Just a different label....

The interview was just another attempt to hog the spotlight and get the notice..

Leg End Reject

jm08 wrote: »

Her mother had to leave her job because the people she worked for couldn't handle the media intrusion. Look what they did to her father? They offered money to her ex-boyfriend/husband to dish the dirt on her.

They do that to everyone though, it wasn't because Meghan is mixed race.

We've discussed here how Kate and her family were treated and ridiculed.

Diana was hounded, but her family was aristocratic. If Charles was engaged to "a commoner" at the time the public and press would have imploded with rage. At the time the heir to the throne was obliged to marry the "right" kind of breeding stock.

Harry and Meghan had more freedom than others in the family, but they're not happy even now that they're completely free.

jm08

Lashes28 wrote: »

So Meghan has said she had no help in teaching her royal traditions and ways but then also cried because Kate told her that tights on flower girls were traditional and she wanted them to have none?

I think all she said was that no one told her that she should curtsy to her husband's grandmother even in private.


My understanding is that Kate may have been a bit short with her in the build up to the wedding for not knowing this and due to other pressures on Kate such as her husband having it off with the neighbour while she was pregnant.

Leg End Reject

dark crystal wrote: »

Yeah, it was a lot more insidious than that.

https://www.news24.com/channel/gossip/royal-news/pi-apologises-to-harry-and-meghan-and-the-queen-after-leaking-private-information-to-the-sun-20210319-2

https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-phone-hacked-news-world-lawsuit-too-late-rupert-murdoch-publisher-1569859

https://twitter.com/BInvestigates/status/1377901113614209024


I'm at a loss how anyone can actually defend scummy tabloid intrusion on any level tbh, even putting aside your own personal dislike of the victims.

No one is defending it, merely pointing out that it's not unique to H & M.

Remember Charles and Camilla had their phones tapped and conversations leaked?

Charles saying he would love to be Camilla's tampon?

ETA: squidgygate it was called after Charles' pet name for Camilla.

retro:electro

dark crystal wrote: »

Yeah, it was a lot more insidious than that.

https://www.news24.com/channel/gossip/royal-news/pi-apologises-to-harry-and-meghan-and-the-queen-after-leaking-private-information-to-the-sun-20210319-2

https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-phone-hacked-news-world-lawsuit-too-late-rupert-murdoch-publisher-1569859

https://twitter.com/BInvestigates/status/1377901113614209024


I'm at a loss how anyone can actually defend scummy tabloid intrusion on any level tbh, even putting aside your own personal dislike of the victims.

None of that is racist though, which is what the point of the conversation was.
And I’m not defending that level of intrusion whatsoever. It doesn’t get much lower than hacking someone’s phone in my book. Completely and utterly unacceptable, whatever my views on the person might be. You can’t compare that kind of level of intrusion to pointless filler about what colour nail polish she wore. That’s the point I was expressing.

Mrsmum

Another thing I have to say I do not believe is her mental health claims. I'm not disputing that she was mentally unwell. If she says she was, who am I to dispute that but I do not believe she was prevented from getting help. Her husband was the absolute champion of so many mental health initiatives and he was already on the record saying he had received therapy himself for many years. If he wasn't ashamed for himself and knew where to get help, same applies for her. Also she was pregnant so already under the care of a team of doctors. Makes no sense that a woman in her mid thirties, wise to the world and not a shrinking violet in terms of expectations of thriving not surviving would be too meek to discuss her troubles in that department with her doctors. Not buying where she's trying to lay the blame.

dark crystal

Leg End Reject wrote: »

No one is defending it, merely pointing out that it's not unique to H & M.

Remember Charles and Camilla had their phones tapped and conversations leaked?

Charles saying he would love to be Camilla's tampon?

I do, and even though I personally can't abide Charles or Camilla, that invasion of privacy was reprehensible. However, it didn't decimate the royal family then, nor did Diana's interview, nor did the Queen's cold response to Diana's death etc, etc. Just as this one two hour interview won't decimate the Royal family now.

Btw, I never said it was unique to H&M, I was just countering what I perceive to be the trivialisation of their experience because many on here don't like them as people. This is a thread about H&M after all.

Leg End Reject

dark crystal wrote: »

I do, and even though I personally can't abide Charles or Camilla, that invasion of privacy was reprehensible. However, it didn't decimate the royal family then, nor did Diana's interview, nor did the Queen's cold response to Diana's death etc, etc. Just as this one two hour interview won't decimate the Royal family now.

Btw, I never said it was unique to H&M, I was just countering what I perceive to be the trivialisation of their experience because many on here don't like them as people. This is a thread about H&M after all.

I've never claimed it would decimate the RF, in fact I think M & H vastly overestimate their importance.

I've said before, the Andrew interview is the one that should have caused damage, this is just bitter tittle tattle from 2 people who didn't get to have their cake and eat it too.

jm08

Leg End Reject wrote: »

They do that to everyone though, it wasn't because Meghan is mixed race.

We've discussed here how Kate and her family were treated and ridiculed.

How were they treated? Kate got a bit of a going over, but the key difference is that the Firm stood by her where as they threw Meghan and Harry to the wind.

Diana was hounded, but her family was aristocratic. If Charles was engaged to "a commoner" at the time the public and press would have imploded with rage. At the time the heir to the throne was obliged to marry the "right" kind of breeding stock.

And it was horendous how Diana was used as a breeding mare while he continued to have his fling with Camilla.

Harry and Meghan had more freedom than others in the family, but they're not happy even now that they're completely free.

I think they will be very happy now that they have secured their future and are completely free. Going back to an interview of Meghan when she was 11 years old (over the sexist Proctor and Gamble advertisement which she got changed), she says at the end of it that if you see something that is not right you should speak up about it because you should help other people.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/heres-a-video-11-year-old-feminist-meghan-markle-taking-procter-gamble-1063357

retro:electro

dark crystal wrote: »

I do, and even though I personally can't abide Charles or Camilla, that invasion of privacy was reprehensible. However, it didn't decimate the royal family then, nor did Diana's interview, nor did the Queen's cold response to Diana's death etc, etc. Just as this one two hour interview won't decimate the Royal family now.

Btw, I never said it was unique to H&M, I was just countering what I perceive to be the trivialisation of their experience because many on here don't like them as people. This is a thread about H&M after all.

Because a lot of what was provided in that link was trivial nonsense and was used to support a wider point about the racism she received. That doesn’t mean they didn’t receive unfair and intrusive treatment also, as all Royals tend to —it just wasn’t provided in that specific link.

jm08

Mrsmum wrote: »

Another thing I have to say I do not believe is her mental health claims. I'm not disputing that she was mentally unwell. If she says she was, who am I to dispute that but I do not believe she was prevented from getting help. Her husband was the absolute champion of so many mental health initiatives and he was already on the record saying he had received therapy himself for many years. If he wasn't ashamed for himself and knew where to get help, same applies for her. Also she was pregnant so already under the care of a team of doctors. Makes no sense that a woman in her mid thirties, wise to the world and not a shrinking violet in terms of expectations of thriving not surviving would be too meek to discuss her troubles in that department with her doctors. Not buying where she's trying to lay the blame.

The way the family needed to help her was to defend her against the press like they did with Kate. Getting counselling wasn't going to help her mental health if the cause of it was the unrelenting criticism by the racist British tabloids.

jm08

retro:electro wrote: »

Because a lot of what was provided in that link was trivial nonsense and was used to support a wider point about the racism she received. That doesn’t mean they didn’t receive unfair and intrusive treatment also, as all Royals tend to —it just wasn’t provided in that specific link.

So, in your opinion, it was not racist?

retro:electro

jm08 wrote: »

So, in your opinion, it was not racist?

I didn’t see any racist headlines there, no.

Leg End Reject

jm08 wrote: »

The way the family needed to help her was to defend her against the press like they did with Kate. Getting counselling wasn't going to help her mental health if the cause of it was the unrelenting criticism by the racist British tabloids.

Kate's own family dealt with the press.

She was hounded, mocked for clinging on hoping for a proposal, followed down the street by photographers, had her ancestry traced and mocked, her mother was vilified as a social climber, mocked for being a former air hostess etc.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

The way the family needed to help her was to defend her against the press like they did with Kate. Getting counselling wasn't going to help her mental health if the cause of it was the unrelenting criticism by the racist British tabloids.

You're still expecting the royal family to lower themselves into 'she said, he said' nonsense with tabloid newspapers.
It doesn't happen and and why would they change that for one person? It's ridiculous and completely unneeded.
She did need counselling though, to help her get over her obsession with herself and what people say about her.
She isn't above criticism , either because she is female nor because she is mixed race.

dark crystal

retro:electro wrote: »

Because a lot of what was provided in that link was trivial nonsense and was used to support a wider point about the racism she received. That doesn’t mean they didn’t receive unfair and intrusive treatment also, as all Royals tend to —it just wasn’t provided in that specific link.

Well I have never claimed the headlines were as a result of direct racism, even if the biggest negative campaigns against her were spearheaded by The Daily Mail and The Sun, two tabloids that thrive on their 'little Englander' approach to outsiders, however, it would be incredibly stupid for any media outlet to come right out and say something incendiary and outwardly racist because it would be (rightly) hauled over the coals for doing so. Their 'straight outta Compton' headline skirted pretty close to the line, though...

I'm not claiming the negativity was all based in racism - easy for me because I'm anonymous and white - but let's not pretend we don't know the kind of insidious agenda the likes of those papers like the Sun & the Daily Mail like to push. They're hate rags, pure and simple.

Mrsmum

jm08 wrote: »

The way the family needed to help her was to defend her against the press like they did with Kate. Getting counselling wasn't going to help her mental health if the cause of it was the unrelenting criticism by the racist British tabloids.

She was the one who said she was prevented from getting help which I'm not buying. As for Kate, she suffered negative press for years, Waity Katie, her mother called trolly dolly I think was the term, that they were commoners, that they were social climbers, that Kate was jobless, when they split up and so forth and no, The Firm did not interceed at all. Kate just kept going in a respectful and dignified way unlike the other I'm a strong independent woman, why aren't you all protecting me drama queen,

dark crystal

Mrsmum wrote: »

She was the one who said she was prevented from getting help which I'm not buying. As for Kate, she suffered negative press for years, Waity Katie, her mother called trolly dolly I think was the term, that they were commoners, that they were social climbers, that Kate was jobless, when they split up and so forth and no, The Firm did not interceed at all. Kate just kept going in a respectful and dignified way unlike the other I'm a strong independent woman, why aren't you all protecting me drama queen

Kate will be wife of the King one day, Meghan won't. The most senior royals never tend to say anything in public other than pre rehearsed speeches and PR pieces.

I'm not an advocate of putting up and shutting up. If you didn't like Meghan's approach in her one interview, fine, that's just like, your opinion ,man! I don't particularly have an issue with anyone in the public eye giving a point of view. Isn't that what free speech is all about after all?

JoChervil

irishblessing wrote: »

Her apology note and flowers seems to suggest the same version of events. :pac:

Meghan said there was no instance in which Kate could have cried, that the story that came out months later was actually completely backwards.

You don't know, I don't know, we weren't there. But Meghan and Harry were and they know. There's no reason to disbelieve that and obviously, if untrue the palace are quite capable of defending Kate as already shown here.

If someone is telling bare faced lies to the world, you don't say they're much loved family members and leave it at that, you would express your huge disappointment in their version of events, and if it were a lie, there would obviously be huge love lost.

If they're so concerned about Archie, why discuss concerns about his skin colour, discuss changing the King George convention, and leave him without security? Please. They're not a kind compassionate family, they're a cold institution with a long history of racist colonialism.

She started her story about Kate, that Kate was upset. She didn’t say what was the reason for her upset. Kate sent flowers as any person with manners would do for their part of input. But it doesn’t make her guilty for the whole situation.

She didn’t want to reveal the whole story. Maybe because it was so trivial like girls socks (so why crying about them?) or maybe it was much more serious like body shaming of Charlotte, so it would be a child abuse. Some coverage was that Charlotte grew and Meghan was angry because it required another session of dress fitting and said, that she got big, what upset Kate, who was in vulnerable state after just giving birth to Prince Louis. If the palace would make the situation straight, would you like your child to be on front of all newspapers as too big?

retro:electro

dark crystal wrote: »

Well I have never claimed the headlines were as a result of direct racism, even if the biggest negative campaigns against her were spearheaded by The Daily Mail and The Sun, two tabloids that thrive on their 'little Englander' approach to outsiders, however, it would be incredibly stupid for any media outlet to come right out and say something incendiary and outwardly racist because it would be (rightly) hauled over the coals for doing so. Their 'straight outta Compton' headline skirted pretty close to the line, though...

I'm not claiming the negativity was all based in racism - easy for me because I'm anonymous and white - but let's not pretend we don't know the kind of insidious agenda the likes of those papers like the Sun & the Daily Mail like to push. They're hate rags, pure and simple.

You are arguing against points I never made. We were told that there was overtly racist headlines about Meghan and I simply asked for evidence of this as I’d never seen any, i was linked to an article which had a round up of petty reports on things like the colour of her nail polish, the fact she eats avocados and one time she wore trousers and sat on a chair. None of that is racist, unless you’re of the view that even petty criticism over trivial stuff is racism purely because the subject is mixed race.