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

Multipass

BettyS wrote: »

You’re right, 2013 is decades ago.

If you read my posts, I am not arbitrating on the posts. I am trying to point out that Harry and Meghan have publicly condemned somebody as a racist for a comment that is on par with some of Philip’s former gaffes. Is it not hypocritical to accept one set of standards for one person and another for other people?

And don’t ever bring up Harry the nazi :pac:

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

And some of us are laughing at the vitriol and cattiness and quoting of the gutter tabloids against them! To be fair :pac:

But they didn't speak up 'because they didn't get to keep the wealth they had planned to keep.'

And they're far wealthier now on their own so guess who's having the last laugh while living their own lives!!

PS: Some would definitely say speaking up about racism is the right moral stance. Don't get it twisted

Nobody who is anyway decent would justify racism on this thread. Racism disgusts me on many levels. The point, if you read the posts, that people are trying to make is that Harry and Meghan made an allegation of racism when they stated about Archie’s title. This was subsequently disproved. Is perception of racism, despite contrary facts, enough to result in the condemnation of somebody as a racist?

BettyS

Multipass wrote: »

And don’t ever bring up Harry the nazi :pac:

And the Pakistani man incident...

BettyS

I could go on to RTÉ and claim that I am being bullied by my neighbours and they are discriminating against me. Does nobody have to e right to question my claims and scrutinise the evidence? Or should everybody gather around and support me?

dark crystal

BettyS wrote: »

Omid Scobie is the new spokesperson for the royal family

Makes a change from Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage I guess.

BettyS

dark crystal wrote: »

Makes a change from Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage I guess.

In no case is it correct. I would despise people putting words in my mouth about how I feel or behaved in very intimate family matters. Especially somebody that I do not know

Doggos

BettyS wrote: »

You’re right, 2013 is decades ago.

If you read my posts, I am not arbitrating on the posts. I am trying to point out that Harry and Meghan have publicly condemned somebody as a racist for a comment that is on par with some of Philip’s former gaffes. Is it not hypocritical to accept one set of standards for one person and another for other people?

Concerns about what their child's skin colour might mean goes far beyond a "gaffe."

They didn't publicly condemn anybody. I thought they were quite careful and diplomatic about how they spoke up, and not revealing who. But the what, which led to the why- in leaving.

Who says they accept what Philip has said? They have spoken up about the reasons they left, not every last thing they've ever disagreed with privately.

Are you holding the same charge at the rest of the royal family for not speaking up about it either? Or how about Andrew? Does this mean they all accept sexual exploitation of minors? Is that not hypocritical of you to only expect those two to speak up? Should they all just blast each other now and be done with it? Maybe :pac:

Multipass

Doggos wrote: »

Concerns about what their child's skin colour might mean goes far beyond a "gaffe."

They didn't publicly condemn anybody. I thought they were quite careful and diplomatic about how they spoke up, and not revealing who. But the what, which led to the why- in leaving.

Who says they accept what Philip has said? They have spoken up about the reasons they left, not every last thing they've ever disagreed with privately.

Are you holding the same charge at the rest of the royal family for not speaking up about it either? Or how about Andrew? Does this mean they all accept sexual exploitation of minors? Is that not hypocritical of you to only expect those two to speak up? Should they all just blast each other now and be done with it? Maybe :pac:

But it didn’t lead to the ‘why’ - you’re conveniently forgetting about their time in Canada, they wanted to be part time royals, they wanted to trademark and market their titles. They didn’t find their principles until they reached Oprah.

Doggos

Multipass wrote: »

But it didn’t lead to the ‘why’ - you’re conveniently forgetting about their time in Canada, they wanted to be part time royals, they wanted to trademark and market their titles. They didn’t find their principles until they reached Oprah.

Trademark? He's a royal prince in line to the throne, and who clearly loves country and his people. He served in their military for 10 years.

I'm not conveniently forgetting anything, what an odd thing to say. Obviously they were in Canada not for "principles" but to separate from the control of the royal family who were obviously letting themselves be controlled by the toxic media. They wanted a new way forward and who can blame them. Anyone would!

Doggos

BettyS wrote: »

In no case is it correct. I would despise people putting words in my mouth about how I feel or behaved in very intimate family matters. Especially somebody that I do not know

Isn't that what you're doing here to them on this thread?

Multipass

Doggos wrote: »

Trademark? He's a royal prince in line to the throne, and who clearly loves country and his people. He served in their military for 10 years.

I'm not conveniently forgetting anything, what an odd thing to say. Obviously they were in Canada not for "principles" but to separate from the control of the royal family who were obviously letting themselves be controlled by the toxic media. They wanted a new way forward and who can blame them. Anyone would!

Yes trademark. So that they could make lots of lovely money off this institution which he so condemns.

Doggos

BettyS wrote: »

I could go on to RTÉ and claim that I am being bullied by my neighbours and they are discriminating against me. Does nobody have to e right to question my claims and scrutinise the evidence? Or should everybody gather around and support me?

You could (if they'd entertain a randomer about their aggro, lol).

If you went on RTE to speak up about your neighbours in light of the severity of the situation - be willing to risk still living there with them afterwards (or maybe you're choosing to sell and move to Canada, lol) and face potential slander charges if you couldn't prove it,x then I think most people would be sympathetic to your situation. You wouldn't be the first nor the last to do so.

After all, it was said Meghan and Harry have proof of all their claims so obviously when they weighed it up it was worth speaking up.

Doggos

Multipass wrote: »

Yes trademark. So that they could make lots of lovely money off this institution which he so condemns.

Trademark just doesn't fit here, sorry I don't see it.

He was born into the family and he doesn't have a choice. He will always be the son of the future king and forever have a target on his back and international interest no matter what he does.

Edit to add- and they have to pay for security somehow. Due to that lifelong target.
First project is about the Invictus Games. Probably they will get a windfall after that publicity. Fair play.

He condemns certain actions. There's a difference there.

Multipass

Doggos wrote: »

Trademark just doesn't fit here, sorry I don't see it.
.

This might help,
from Jan 2020
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/12/harry-and-meghan-seek-global-trademark-sussex-royal-brand

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are seeking to register the “Sussex Royal” brand as a global trademark for a range of items and activities including clothing, stationery and the running of “emotional support groups”, international filings suggest.

The application covering Australia, Canada, the EU and US was filed in December with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in the name of their new foundation, according to details online.

As well as the application to register Sussex Royal – which the couple have been using on their Instagram account and on a website launched last week as they announced they were “stepping back” as senior royals – one was also made to register “Sussex Royal the Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex”.

Six classes were listed in the applications, covering printed matter such as magazines and greeting cards, clothing ranging from footwear to pyjamas, charitable fundraising and management, as well as education and social care services including the organising and conducting of emotional support groups.

Yonce

.

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

Concerns about what their child's skin colour might mean goes far beyond a "gaffe."

They didn't publicly condemn anybody. I thought they were quite careful and diplomatic about how they spoke up, and not revealing who. But the what, which led to the why- in leaving.

Who says they accept what Philip has said? They have spoken up about the reasons they left, not every last thing they've ever disagreed with privately.

Are you holding the same charge at the rest of the royal family for not speaking up about it either? Or how about Andrew? Does this mean they all accept sexual exploitation of minors? Is that not hypocritical of you to only expect those two to speak up? Should they all just blast each other now and be done with it? Maybe :pac:

And the gaffes that Philip made would not be considered gaffes by many. They would be classified as more offensive than mere gaffes. Have you actually bothered to read any of my enclosed links? You are wilfully misunderstanding my posts. My point is that the “gaffes” by Philip are as offensive as the comments about the skin colour. Yet the couple lavish praise on Philip. Do explain?

Did I misread the title of this thread? Is it a thread about Andrew? Just checking?

Doggos

Multipass wrote: »

This might help,
from Jan 2020
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/12/harry-and-meghan-seek-global-trademark-sussex-royal-brand

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are seeking to register the “Sussex Royal” brand as a global trademark for a range of items and activities including clothing, stationery and the running of “emotional support groups”, international filings suggest.

The application covering Australia, Canada, the EU and US was filed in December with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in the name of their new foundation, according to details online.

As well as the application to register Sussex Royal – which the couple have been using on their Instagram account and on a website launched last week as they announced they were “stepping back” as senior royals – one was also made to register “Sussex Royal the Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex”.

Six classes were listed in the applications, covering printed matter such as magazines and greeting cards, clothing ranging from footwear to pyjamas, charitable fundraising and management, as well as education and social care services including the organising and conducting of emotional support groups.

Hahahahaha, so like, the same thing William and Kate did? It's to protect their status actually. So some Tom, Dick and Harry (pardon the pun) can't go selling their wares with their names and 'brand' of the royal family all over it.

Damn... ya'll will literally try to stick anything negative on them! The dedication here is almost impressive :pac:

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

Isn't that what you're doing here to them on this thread?

Please find me examples of posts where I pretend to know what they are thinking?

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

You could (if they'd entertain a randomer about their aggro, lol).

If you went on RTE to speak up about your neighbours in light of the severity of the situation - be willing to risk still living there with them afterwards (or maybe you're choosing to sell and move to Canada, lol) and face potential slander charges if you couldn't prove it,x then I think most people would be sympathetic to your situation. You wouldn't be the first nor the last to do so.

After all, it was said Meghan and Harry have proof of all their claims so obviously when they weighed it up it was worth speaking up.

What is the proof? Another allegation. In a judiciary setting, allegation alone is not enough to condemn somebody?

Multipass

Doggos wrote: »

Hahahahaha, so like, the same thing William and Kate did? It's to protect their status actually. So some Tom, Dick and Harry (pardon the pun) can't go selling their wares with their names and 'brand' of the royal family all over it.

Damn... ya'll will literally try to stick anything negative on them! The dedication here is almost impressive :pac:

William and Kate didn’t ‘step back’ from the job.
It’s hardly the actions of someone reeling from the pain of racism from the royals is it, wouldn’t you reject the ‘brand’ if you really believed that the brand had rejected your child on racial grounds.

The dedication to idealising them is almost impressive.

Doggos

BettyS wrote: »

And the gaffes that Philip made would not be considered gaffes by many. Have you actually bothered to read any of my enclosed links? You are wilfully misunderstanding my posts. My point is that the “gaffes” by Philip are as offensive as the comments about the skin colour. Yet the couple lavish praise on Philip. Do explain?

Did I misread the title of this thread? Is it a thread about Andrew? Just checking?

Have you bothered to consider my pov?

I have read his gaffes recently as they have been splashed all over the news after his death.

You're wilfully ignoring that any of the other royal family can choose to speak up over them too, but none of them have and you'll only fault H&M for it. Why is that?

How do you know they didn't say something privately about it? You don't. We only see what we're let to see.

No sorry, I don't agree his 'gaffes' (that go back decades) are as offensive as direct racism towards their children.

Title of the thread says Harry and Meghan. So technically, anything and anyone to do with them is probably fair game or are you a moderator here? By that logic then what has Prince Philip's gaffe's got to do with it that you're bleating about on here?

dark crystal

Multipass wrote: »

This might help,
from Jan 2020
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/12/harry-and-meghan-seek-global-trademark-sussex-royal-brand

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are seeking to register the “Sussex Royal” brand as a global trademark for a range of items and activities including clothing, stationery and the running of “emotional support groups”, international filings suggest.

The application covering Australia, Canada, the EU and US was filed in December with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in the name of their new foundation, according to details online.

As well as the application to register Sussex Royal – which the couple have been using on their Instagram account and on a website launched last week as they announced they were “stepping back” as senior royals – one was also made to register “Sussex Royal the Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex”.

Six classes were listed in the applications, covering printed matter such as magazines and greeting cards, clothing ranging from footwear to pyjamas, charitable fundraising and management, as well as education and social care services including the organising and conducting of emotional support groups.

William and Kate also trademarked their brand, no? It's done so other people cannot profit from their image. It's a protection measure as much as anything else.

Doggos

Multipass wrote: »

William and Kate didn’t ‘step back’ from the job.
It’s hardly the actions of someone reeling from the pain of racism from the royals is it, wouldn’t you reject the ‘brand’ if you really believed that the brand had rejected your child on racial grounds.

The dedication to idealising them is almost impressive.

So what? The point is protecting their brand and status at the end of the day. No matter what their job is or isn't. None of them want to see Mary on the street corner selling t-shirts, mugs and underwear with their faces on them. :pac:

Amazing dedication to finding any stick to beat them with!!

valoren

Doggos wrote: »

Hahahahaha, so like, the same thing William and Kate did? It's to protect their status actually. So some Tom, Dick and Harry (pardon the pun) can't go selling their wares with their names and 'brand' of the royal family all over it.

Damn... ya'll will literally try to stick anything negative on them! The dedication here is almost impressive :pac:

That was part of the Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge along with Prince Harry. It's purpose is for charity, to raise money for the Foundation not to personally enrich themselves. Different from wanting to trademark SussexRoyal while becoming financially independent i.e. trading off it. I'm sure if Kate tried to hock trademarked t-shirts on instagram I'm sure it wouldn't last very long.

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

Have you bothered to consider my pov?

I have read his gaffes recently as they have been splashed all over the news after his death.

You're wilfully ignoring that any of the other royal family can choose to speak up over them too, but none of them have and you'll only fault H&M for it. Why is that?

How do you know they didn't say something privately about it? You don't. We only see what we're let to see.

No sorry, I don't agree his 'gaffes' (that go back decades) are as offensive as direct racism towards their children.

Title of the thread says Harry and Meghan. So technically, anything and anyone to do with them is probably fair game or are you a moderator here? By that logic then what has Prince Philip's gaffe's got to do with it that you're bleating about on here?

Did you read the list on my enclosed link? I beg you to do so. Many of these comments were after 2000. I don’t think that anybody could call them innocuous.

My point is that they condemn racism from one member. Yet, many would consider the comments of Philip as racist, if not more racist than the comments by the unknown member of the royal family. Where was their condemnation of racism in this case?

I think that you are just trying to deliberately troll the forum.

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

So what? The point is protecting their brand and status at the end of the day. No matter what their job is or isn't. None of them want to see Mary on the street corner selling t-shirts, mugs and underwear with their faces on them. :pac:

Amazing dedication to finding any stick to beat them with!!

There are certain brands that I disagree with fundamentally because they violate my core principles. I certainly don’t associate myself with these brands (I don’t buy them, I don’t talk about them) because I don’t want to be associated with something that supports views so radically different to my own

It is easy to have principles when it doesn’t come out of one’s own pocket

Doggos

valoren wrote: »

That was part of the Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge along with Prince Harry. It's purpose is for charity, to raise money for the Foundation not to personally enrich themselves. Different from wanting to trademark the SussexRoyal while becoming financially independent i.e. trading off it.

Seriously? The Royal Family are literally enriched by their charity roles. They live in palaces on taxpayer funded salaries and properties because of the charity work they do.

If they didn't make a deal with Netflix, then Invictus Games wouldn't stand to benefit as much as they're about to. That's the way it works. People to a great extent become aware of charities and the work they do because the royal family (or whatever celebrities) sponsors them.

We've already covered the reason for the trademark protection. You don't see them selling merch with their faces on it, do you?

Doggos

BettyS wrote: »

Did you read the list on my enclosed link? I beg you to do so. Many of these comments were after 2000. I don’t think that anybody could call them innocuous.

My point is that they condemn racism from one member. Yet, many would consider the comments of Philip as racist, if not more racist than the comments by the unknown member of the royal family. Where was their condemnation of racism in this case?

I think that you are just trying to deliberately troll the forum.

Don't beg, please. It's beneath you

Maybe they have privately condemned them. You don't know. Maybe it's all part of the reasons why they pushed and ran. They're not responsible for every member of the royal families actions, as much as you'd apparently like them to be. They're all accountable for their own behaviour. And if the people Philip spoke to considered it racist, it's their choice to speak up or not.
On the other hand M&H were directly subjected to unacceptable racism towards their future children so that's an understandable reason to make a choice to speak out about it all things considered.

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

Seriously? The Royal Family are literally enriched by their charity roles. They live in palaces on taxpayer funded salaries and properties because of the charity work they do.

If they didn't make a deal with Netflix, then Invictus Games wouldn't stand to benefit as much as they're about to. That's the way it works. People to a great extent become aware of charities and the work they do because the royal family (or whatever celebrities) sponsors them.

We've already covered the reason for the trademark protection. You don't see them selling merch with their faces on it, do you?

Netflix and Oprah is not the only way to raise awareness for charities.

You can hardly deny that they have benefited enormously from their deals? Or did I miss the part that it is purely altruistic?

Where is the evidence that there has been increased donations to these charities after their deals?

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

Don't beg, please. It's beneath you

Maybe they have privately condemned them. You don't know. Maybe it's all part of the reasons why they pushed and ran. They're not responsible for every member of the royal families actions, as much as you'd apparently like them to be. They're all accountable for their own behaviour. And if the people Philip spoke to considered it racist, it's their choice to speak up or not.
On the other hand M&H were directly subjected to unacceptable racism towards their future children so that's an understandable reason to make a choice to speak out about it all things considered.

But what about the documented hurt that Philip’s comments caused other people? Should we only publicly speak out if it directly affects us? As long as they are not hurting my family, then it is cool. By not condemning publicly, they are essentially condoning. And with their gushing comments about him, they are endorsing. Many people were very hurt by Philip’s comments.