Meghan Markle

[TQR 14,398]

The press are intent on vilifying Meghan because that’s what our vile press does. Harry and Meghan are intent on playing victims in some kind of publicity stealth boost. The Royals are intent on being as royally stiff as possible. All these feed off each other to create one over-publicised circle jerk that I and so many others couldn’t give a flying fuck about.

 

I wish it’d all just 

 

[Windsor 2,233]

Don’t worry guys.

 

I’m sure there’s an underpass somewhere with her name on it. Let’s hope the dim witted ginger prick is sat beside her when this reaches its inevitable conclusion.

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

According to the latest clip, Oprah wanted to interview her in March 2018 before the wedding but Meghan wasn't allowed to - unlike now. So, she didn't understand what being a royal means. "So, as an adult who lived a really independent life to then go into this construct that is different than I think what people imagine it to be."

 

Only to the American perception of being a Princess, dear. Us in the UK know exactly what it entails. It seems she is truly hell-bent on lifting up the curtain on what life in the Royal Family is really like. Or at least, what her view is. She's talking about being independent and being able to do what she wants - in that case, like @Toast said a little while ago, how on earth can they possibly retain their titles? If they want to be Hollywood celebrities, then off they go, without any royal ties whatsoever (you know, apart from all the familial ones that are going to be incredibly awkward over the next decade: Phil's death, Queen's death, Charles's coronation, William's investiture to name just a few). I suspect sooner or later it will all end in tears and she'll become another failed spouse marrying into the House of Windsor.

 

The bullying reports resurfacing plays into her victimisation narrative, "they're out to get me", rather than Ulitzer's point that the reports were buried to help her and are now being brought out as signs of her true nature. It's an unholy mess, that's likely going to overshadow the Queen's final years and potentially the Royals for the foreseeable, as she becomes the daughter-in-law to the King, and then the sister-in-law to the King (should it last that long).

 

Oh, and here's the BBC story that features the quote I mentioned above: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56293793

 

[msc 18,477]

The Americans seem to have a completely different idea of the royals (see the Globe magazine) and she clearly never watched a single Diana documentary. Admittedly all of those are shite. If you thought you were getting an American style big celeb marriage and instead were Fergie, I can see that being a culture shock.

 

We all know what Harry was getting out of it. "I'm shagging an actress, grandpa!" "Hmm, is she hotter than Zsa Zsa Gabor?" 

 

 

[Ulitzer95 12,642]

22 minutes ago, msc said:

The Americans seem to have a completely different idea of the royals (see the Globe magazine) and she clearly never watched a single Diana documentary. Admittedly all of those are shite. If you thought you were getting an American style big celeb marriage and instead were Fergie, I can see that being a culture shock.

 

We all know what Harry was getting out of it. "I'm shagging an actress, grandpa!" "Hmm, is she hotter than Zsa Zsa Gabor?" 

 

 

Americans likely watch things like The Princess Diaries thinking it’s a docu-drama inspired by our Royal Family.

 

Being a Royal is not fun. It’s not all glitz and glamour and Hello magazine dress spreads for princesses. It’s really intense work set – made compulsory by the notion of “duty”, coupled with a hell of a lot of media scrutiny.

[msc 18,477]

2 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:

Americans likely watch things like The Princess Diaries thinking it’s a docu-drama inspired by our Royal Family.

 

Being a Royal is not fun. It’s not all glitz and glamour and Hello magazine dress spreads for princesses. It’s really intense work set – made compulsory by the notion of “duty”, coupled with a hell of a lot of media scrutiny.

 

Indeed, its being a Head of State (for the ruling monarch) and their closest ambassadors for all sectors of society. One of the historical moments I'd love to have known is what went through the current Queens head when she realised she had become heir to the throne and not third in line going on 4th/5th as had been expected. (Well, that, and which Doctor Who is your favourite, ma'am? )

 

But in general, the interview stuff seems like that. So I can't see it lasting long. The spares go wild but they return to the flock.

[En Passant 3,741]

Which is what galls me most about these fuckers, as stated they are trying to get the easy life without the hard work bit. And the unmittigated nerve to want sympathy to go with it? FRO.

 

 

(edit, even air miles [and great uncle nonce] Andy occasionally did a bit of ribbon cutting.)

[Toast 16,141]

17 minutes ago, msc said:

 (Well, that, and which Doctor Who is your favourite, ma'am? )

 

I so wish you get the opportunity to ask her that.

Actually though .... you could write and ask her! 

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

14 minutes ago, En Passant said:

(edit, even air miles [and great uncle nonce] Andy occasionally did a bit of ribbon cutting.)

 

Fun fact: I handed him a spade at one such event. Bit of a bummer when the member of The Firm you've met becomes a persona non grata 15 years later...

[Ulitzer95 12,642]

4 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

I so wish you get the opportunity to ask her that.

Actually though .... you could write and ask her! 

Supposedly the Queen responds to all mail (with exceptions I imagine... any hate/inappropriate mail is presumably filtered out by a clerk first).

Though I imagine it'd be some wait to get a reply. Reminds me of the episode of The Simpsons when Marge writes to Ringo and gets a response 2 decades later. 
 

 

[En Passant 3,741]

7 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Fun fact: I handed him a spade at one such event. Bit of a bummer when the member of The Firm you've met becomes a persona non grata 15 years later...

 

Turns out it would have been better for all if you'd smacked him over the head with it, or better yet a sharp jab in the balls and taken the time in the tower.

[msc 18,477]

13 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

I so wish you get the opportunity to ask her that.

Actually though .... you could write and ask her! 

 

 She's allegedly a SF fan (she "intervened" in the 1950s when parliamentary figures wanted the BBC to cancel their repeat of the Nigel Kneale 1984 adaptation) and this is apparently a true story so it's not completely left field. Just mostly. 

 

 

*for "intervened" read "said aloud she was a fan, at which point they all were too!"

[time 8,611]

Is she dead? If not can we move this to the gossip, sorry extra-curricular, forum until she is?

[Ulitzer95 12,642]

1 minute ago, time said:

Is she dead? If not can we move this to the gossip, sorry extra-curricular, forum until she is?

Tbf, I felt the same way about the Trump thread every single day of 2018, 2019 and 2020 but DL has been a bit "dead" recently (other than the Prince Philip topic ofc, which is booming, for all the wrong reasons). So any attempt at conversation is a welcome change.

[Toast 16,141]

47 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Fun fact: I handed him a spade at one such event. Bit of a bummer when the member of The Firm you've met becomes a persona non grata 15 years later...

 

Shame he kept digging.

[Exu 250]

I've no interest in the Royal family and even less in harry and his missus but everywhere you turn you are confronted with meghan whining about the spotlight and how badly she was treated etc.

The one thing that is clear is that their relationship is probably the type where she gets up in the morning and tells Harry what to wear and what event to promote the 'brand ' they will be doing that day. 

A fair amount of brits, and probably more yanks are feeding this bollocks. 

They should move on instead of raking up the past.

What goes around comes around...

[Vaagheid 141]

Can someone who is more into the British Royals then me explain something to me.

 

Why does it seem all the focus and hatred (both in the media and the Royal family) directed to Harry and Meghan? Why is it not all of it directed to Prince Andrew? Who seems to be a way bigger problem for the Royal family and should be facing jailtime.

 

I honestly don't understand this.

[Ulitzer95 12,642]

20 minutes ago, Vaagheid said:

Can someone who is more into the British Royals then me explain something to me.

 

Why does it seem all the focus and hatred (both in the media and the Royal family) directed to Harry and Meghan? Why is it not all of it directed to Prince Andrew? Who seems to be a way bigger problem for the Royal family and should be facing jailtime.

 

I honestly don't understand this.

Don't agree with that at all. There was a lot of noise, both online and on tv/radio/in print about Andrew when the accusations were being thrown at him and when there were developments... particularly after he (rather foolishly) gave that television interview. Since then he's backed off entirely from the media, is making no public appearances and little to no new developments have emerged from the investigation into the allegations made.

It's as simple as that. The media have run out of road to keep spinning it as a story. There's no "news" to report on.

Whereas Harry and Meghan are always pinging out statements to the press, pointing the finger, refuting accusations, doing magazine exclusives, and now they've just granted a major interview to arguably one of the most prominent television presenters in the world.

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

37 minutes ago, Vaagheid said:

Can someone who is more into the British Royals then me explain something to me.

Why does it seem all the focus and hatred (both in the media and the Royal family) directed to Harry and Meghan? Why is it not all of it directed to Prince Andrew? Who seems to be a way bigger problem for the Royal family and should be facing jailtime.

I honestly don't understand this.

 

1. I'd say the hate isn't directed at Harry and Meghan as such. Certainly not in the first place. She has a pretty messy family history and a family that are all too keen to sell their stories. She's the future daughter-in-law of the King, so the papers lap it up. They love gossip. As has been mentioned in this thread, they also gave glowing coverage of their wedding and the birth of Archie and also favourable coverage of Meghan's attempts at raising the profile of female designers and those from underprivileged backgrounds. Things have turned in the past few months due to the war she's declared on the press. I'm not denying she has a case, and printing the letter she wrote to her father was a dick move, but we saw the same thing with those supporting the Leveson Enquiry - the press are vicious at anyone who attacks them.

 

2. The Queen remains immensely popular in the UK, particularly in the last 20 years. A lot of hard work has gone in to repairing The Firm's brand post-Diana, and the Golden and Diamond Jubilees, the successful rehabilitation of Camilla and the marriages and babies of the next generation, particular the popularity of Wills and Kate have seemingly ushered in a new respect and patriotism towards the Royal Family, particularly at times when an apolitical unifying figure has been needed following Brexit and Covid. Harry and Meghan attacking the Royal Family and, by extension, the Queen is not a popular move among a great many people in the country.

 

3. Prince Andrew is clearly a big problem for the Royals for all sorts of reasons. The press have given him a relatively hard time and continue to print stories related to attempts to get him to testify on the record in the States, but they won't perform the same witch hunt on him as they do with certain others. Why not? First, he's an actual royal, blue blood, not married in. Fair to say Diana, Fergie and Meghan got or get more grief than Charles, Andrew and Harry (they also look better in papers). Digging in for dirt and printing rumours about the Queen's son is not a good move if you're aiming to portray yourself as pro-Queen. Second, there's very little new stuff about Andrew and he hasn't been charged with a crime. Until one of those things changes, there's nothing much to say.

 

4. The Royals have essentially, sensibly, erased Andrew from existence. He hasn't visited Philip, he wasn't mentioned at Christmas and he wasn't even present, as far as the photos are concerned, at his daughter's wedding. I think he was mentioned in passing in the announcement of Eugenie's baby, but only in the phrase 'The Duke and Duchess of York are delighted' or words to that effect. He's been MIA since his car crash interview with Emily Maitlis, which was widely reported as a car crash (a metaphorical one this time). Out of sight, out of mind is clearly the Royals plan for now and the papers are happy to run with that. Until something new appears.

 

EDIT: Or what Ulitzer said more succinctly. 

[Toast 16,141]

I'm no fan of Andrew, but I don't like to see him described as a paedophile or "nonce".  Please can we keep these terms to mean people who sexually abuse pre-pubescent children.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the woman making the allegations was not a child at the time of the alleged incident.  As far as I understand it she was 17, which is over the age of consent in the UK and many other countries. 

[ladyfiona 2,588]

Not read everything here, but I will give you this information. My mother has a close friend who knows someone who worked in the royal household in Windsor with Meghan's team. It was well known that she acted like a diva and nobody got on well with her.

 

She told me this over a year ago well before any of this news about bullying allegations came about.

[Charles De Gaulle 484]

16 hours ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

Hmm, hard to gauge what he's thinking IMHO. Not that I give that much of a toss either way but... he clearly has major beef with the British press and hasn't forgiven them for the way they treated his mum and, in particular, for the circumstances of her life in the minutes before the accident. If one set of observers have their finger on this enigmatic pulse I'd say it's the super-minds behind the Daily Star

 

 

Fuck sakes does the daily mail even have standards anymore? People who make tripe headlines deserve to freeze to death as a homeless person on the streets.

[Ulitzer95 12,642]

9 minutes ago, Charles De Gaulle said:

Fuck sakes does the daily mail even have standards anymore? People who make tripe headlines deserve to freeze to death as a homeless person on the streets.

That's the Daily Star (Reach plc) above. Daily Mail is the DMG group. Star is Labour, Mail is right wing, so quite different papers.

[The Old Crem 3,605]

Going by Social Media  there is no sign yet of support for Meghan among people who supported her last year dropping. In fact it might even be increasing as the culture divide gets bigger,

[The Old Crem 3,605]

1 hour ago, Ulitzer95 said:

That's the Daily Star (Reach plc) above. Daily Mail is the DMG group. Star is Labour, Mail is right wing, so quite different papers.

The star is more populist than Labour - it might share an owner with the Mirror but it’s politics are not entirely the same.