Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

meeeeh wrote: »

She married a spare royal. That nowdays makes people qualified to waffle on just about everything from ecology to race relations, mental health and penguins or elephants. I despise how British media threated them but neither do I particularly want to hear their lectures. I can understand why Brits are keeping royal family but they really are just a bunch of very unimpressive people with a huge platform.

I couldn’t agree more. The Royals are in a prominent position by accident of birth rather than merit. I think what was so revealing about the infamous Prince Andrew interview was how really, really bang average some of them are intellectually.

Cienciano

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

They must be spending a fortune on PR consultants to keep them in the news. Every day there's at least two and often more than three different stories about them on the landing page newsfeed. Epitome of famous for being famous.

All you're showing here is you read trash news sources. And if you don't know how the likes of the Daily Mail works at this stage, you're a lost cause. They feed on outrage.

MoonUnit75

Cienciano wrote: »

All you're showing here is you read trash news sources. And if you don't know how the likes of the Daily Mail works at this stage, you're a lost cause. They feed on outrage.

When I open my browser it shows me the actual news and straight below it today are four puff-piece press releases and non-stories about them. One about how they decorated their new mansion, another one about how she says breastfeeding is like running a marathon, one on how she meditates to escape 'trolls' and another with the extraordinary revelation that they witnessed their sons first steps while in lockdown.

I don't read the Daily Mail.

irishblessing

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Hold up. I tell you the very video I’m talking about. You completely dismiss what I’ve said but you haven’t even seen the video?

And yes, if you are going to pontificate, you should know what you’re talking about. She had said herself that she didn’t know about Black History Month. So it appears it wasn’t important to her.

Pontificate :pac::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You're the one talking about it. So you can't produce a link or what? Lots of things are important to me, but I don't always know what's on. Do you?

irishblessing

meeeeh wrote: »

She married a spare royal. That nowdays makes people qualified to waffle on just about everything from ecology to race relations, mental health and penguins or elephants. I despise how British media threated them but neither do I particularly want to hear their lectures. I can understand why Brits are keeping royal family but they really are just a bunch of very unimpressive people with a huge platform.

Did you just refer to a human being as a "spare?" You'd wan't to get your own opinion and not the rags bile that you obviously consume. Says more about you than Harry who couldn't help but be born. But you can help your bitter opinions about strangers!

Lecture, or speaking about what they feel is important? They can't control how you *feel* about their opinions. :pac:

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

She's the Mary Sue of her own ghost-written biography! Have you read it, or at least attempted to read it between breaks to dry-wretch into the bathroom sink? Complete drivel that they obviously fed directly and indirectly to Scobie, a guy who lies about his own age in interviews.



You don't know anything about them if you haven't kept track of all the staff they went through. Likewise, these staff are up to their ears in NDAs. She also knows the royal family have a long-lived policy of not bitching about their staff or family matters to the press so won't counter her PR.



Exactly, she moved in with a large extended family then extracted what she needed and moved to where suited her best. And no, she did not move to be with her mother, they first moved to Canada, knowing Canada is obliged to foot the bill for security for royal members.



There is, Michelle Obama is black, female and speaks out on issues of race, gender, equality etc. but failed to leave a trainwreck of broken families and relationships behind her or alienate the press.

Or-she lived there and owned a home too for many years. Jaysus. You don't seem strangely jealous at all.

Why don't you write a biography so, you seem quite invested with insider knowledge. Boards own Mary Sue :pac:

Who cares whether or not the "press" aka rags are alienated... give me a break.

Cienciano

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

When I open my browser it shows me the actual news and straight below it today are four puff-piece press releases and non-stories about them. One about how they decorated their new mansion, another one about how she says breastfeeding is like running a marathon, one on how she meditates to escape 'trolls' and another with the extraordinary revelation that they witnessed their sons first steps while in lockdown.

I don't read the Daily Mail.

All can be either turned off, edited so you see something you're interested in or they show you that shíte because you click similar stuff before.

They don't have to be the daily mail. "Breastfeeding is like running a marathon" is a prime example of outrage porn for clicks.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

Or-she lived there and owned a home too for many years. Jaysus. You don't seem strangely jealous at all.

Why don't you write a biography so, you seem quite invested with insider knowledge. Boards own Mary Sue :pac:

Who cares whether or not the "press" aka rags are alienated... give me a break.

How do you know she's really lovely despite all the broken relationships and family estrangements? Where do you get 'true' information on her personality?

MoonUnit75

Cienciano wrote: »

All can be either turned off, edited so you see something you're interested in or they show you that shíte because you click similar stuff before.

They don't have to be the daily mail. "Breastfeeding is like running a marathon" is a prime example of outrage porn for clicks.

Thanks, I wasn't actually looking for tech support though! I was demonstrating my point that they have a well-oiled PR machine that keeps them in the news and keeps their 'brand' relevant and therefore lucrative. None of the stories are from the Daily Mail. Seriously, the scapegoating of one paper in the face of one car crash after another is getting old.

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

How do you know she's really lovely despite all the broken relationships and family estrangements? Where do you get 'true' information on her personality?

Based off her own history of charity and equality issues, I like the things she's involved in and speaks up about, and from the way she speaks (her actual interviews) she seems intelligent and passionate. People who know her or have worked with her also speak highly of her. And finally, the fact she hasn't given me any reason to think badly of her. I'm happy for her and Harry and glad to see all the good they're trying to do. Which has made and will make a bigger impact on the world than me, you or anyone else here I'm guessing.

Cienciano

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

None of the stories are from the Daily Mail. Seriously, the scapegoating of one paper in the face of one car crash after another is getting old.

The type of newspaper/source that posts the clickbait stories about Royals are either the Daily Mail or clones of it's type of journalism. It's working on you anyway, you're outraged about their behavior.

MoonUnit75

Cienciano wrote: »

The type of newspaper/source that posts the clickbait stories about Royals are either the Daily Mail or clones of it's type of journalism. It's working on you anyway, you're outraged about their behavior.

This 'you're outraged' thing, is it a new fad among wokesters? It seems to be the go-to retort when there's nothing useful to add. I don't know if you are one of the woke flock, hopefully it's not spreading.

Again, you totally miss the point that they are pushing out puff-pieces and press releases to paint them in a positive light. Someone asked earlier about their PR machine. I don't need tech support on my news feed, assumptions about the news sources on my news feed or psychoanalysis. I'm just trying to get my point across without this constant bull5ht diversion tactic.

meeeeh

irishblessing wrote: »

Did you just refer to a human being as a "spare?" You'd wan't to get your own opinion and not the rags bile that you obviously consume. Says more about you than Harry who couldn't help but be born. But you can help your bitter opinions about strangers!

Lecture, or speaking about what they feel is important? They can't control how you *feel* about their opinions. :pac:

I think it's clear you take this a lot more seriously than I do.

BTW I don't read tabloids.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

Based off her own history of charity and equality issues, I like the things she's involved in and speaks up about, and from the way she speaks (her actual interviews) she seems intelligent and passionate. People who know her or have worked with her also speak highly of her. And finally, the fact she hasn't given me any reason to think badly of her. I'm happy for her and Harry and glad to see all the good they're trying to do. Which has made and will make a bigger impact on the world than me, you or anyone else here I'm guessing.

That's fair enough. One thing the last decade taught us though is pay less attention to the public persona and veneer of righteousness, watch out for the wake of discarded and alienated friends, family and colleagues.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

irishblessing wrote: »

Pontificate :pac::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You're the one talking about it. So you can't produce a link or what? Lots of things are important to me, but I don't always know what's on. Do you?

Irishblessing, this was a widely released clip!

Here’s part of it anyway. But seriously, this is not some obscure footage.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2020/oct/01/its-about-community-meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-celebrate-black-history-month-video

irishblessing

meeeeh wrote: »

I think it's clear you take this a lot more seriously than I do.

BTW I don't read tabloids.

I don't call human beings spares, what a horrible thing to say. Live and let live. You're the one taking yourself way too seriously and going around offended by people you don't even know.

irishblessing

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Irishblessing, this was a widely released clip!

Here’s part of it anyway. But seriously, this is not some obscure footage.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2020/oct/01/its-about-community-meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-celebrate-black-history-month-video

What's your point. She barely lived in the UK, she can't know everything. She said she was glad she knows now and is excited about it. What more do you want from her? Her lived experience from a black perspective is in the US, and that's where she's most heavily involved. Who's fault is it anyway she wasn't aware when she lived there? I would say that's the fault of the ignorance of the family she married into. Why don't you say shame on the family she married into who didn't openly mark the occasion once she joined the family. Give me a break. She can't be everything for everyone all the time. Do you hold yourself to that same standard?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

irishblessing wrote: »

What's your point. She barely lived in the UK, she can't know everything. She said she was glad she knows now and is excited about it. What more do you want from her? Her lived experience from a black perspective is in the US, and that's where she's most heavily involved. Who's fault is it anyway she wasn't aware when she lived there? I would say that's the fault of the ignorance of the family she married into. Why don't you say shame on the family she married into who didn't openly mark the occasion once she joined the family. Give me a break. She can't be everything for everyone all the time. Do you hold yourself to that same standard?

She lived there for three years. That’s not barely living there.

As for the bizarre and inane bolded question, I’m not looking to be anything to anyone and seeking a public profile. Anyone who does, opens themselves up to criticism.

irishblessing

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

She lived there for three years. That’s not barely living there.

As for the bizarre and inane bolded question, I’m not looking to be anything to anyone and seeking a public profile. Anyone who does, opens themselves up to criticism.

Obviously desperate.... how dare she try and live her life the best she can with the man she loves and try and improve things where she can! I mean the absolute cheek of her living somewhere for 3 whole years and during that time getting married, having to stay confined within the RF whilst moving house twice, becoming pregnant and then a first time mother, enduring horrible slander and racism (having described it as barely survivable so her mental health was hugely suffering) while still trying to do some good in charity work and family duties and while all that is going on not knowing everything there is to know yet! I'm sure you would do so much better in her shoes. :rolleyes:
Are you normally this mean spirited in real life, or do you just reserve that for people you don't know behind your keyboard?

meeeeh

irishblessing wrote: »

I don't call human beings spares, what a horrible thing to say. Live and let live. You're the one taking yourself way too seriously and going around offended by people you don't even know.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29111548#:~:text=If%20your%20average%20first-born,the%20heir%20to%20the%20throne.&text=In%20less%20healthy%20times%2C%20his,the%20spare%20to%20the%20heir%22.

It's a common expression used for those who are second in line to the throne (or something similar) in case something happens to the heir. You might think it's horrible thing to think but it is exactly how royal or similar families operate and stay in power/position through the centuries. Getting offended by it won't change it but it will give you an excuse to be outraged about something. So knock yourself out.

valoren

It's worth remembering that William is a future Monarch. It adds a significant layer of complexity to this simply being two royal brother's falling out and immersing ourselves in the gossip of it. William knows that the Monarch and the Royal Family needs to be absolutely unbiased, impartial, apolitical and neutral. The Monarch is meant to be steadfast and a constant. To be so means to protect the Monarchy itself. Whatever government forms and the policies they might have must always be beneath an overriding Monarch. I think that was his agenda in having his brother take it slowly in terms of marrying i.e. discover what Meghan is like, grasp what her outlook and personality is, determine if she is suitable to being unbiased, neutral etc. I would imagine William would have had Harry and his spouse very much at the forefront but there were pre-requisites to his choice of spouse. Think about it. Do we know what Catherine thinks about Brexit? About Black Lives Matter? About #metoo? etc? We haven’t got the foggiest idea and that’s what the Royal Family is about. Neutrality, Promoting Good Causes, Charity. Having no “position” is the default position. They are perfectly entitled to have private opinions on the above but it must never be made public. William is skating to where the puck will be i.e. his own reign and in the intervening period to have a growing crib sheet of his brother and his wife’s conduct as a means of sullying his reign is not an option.

It presumably wasn’t William suggesting his brother couldn’t marry Markle but more him imploring him to be very mindful of and act on how suitable for such a role she is and if she feels suitable for it herself. It must have been obvious from private interactions that Meghan was opinionated, political and unapologetically outspoken thus setting off the alarm bells. That Harry decided to get the hump over this initiating a rift between them was his choice. If he couldn't see the bigger picture then his service in royal life was to be significantly diminished. Williams attempt to temper Harry’s impatience proved prescient. Meghan is not at all suited to a representative role in the Royal Family as her personal politics and public opinions are not aligned with maintaining a status quo. She is absolutely entitled to whatever viewpoints and opinions she has however now that Harry supports his wife then, quite simply, there can be no accomodating a senior place for them in Royal Family in the decades ahead. He married a head strong woman who has opinions and viewpoints, one's which can be attacked and criticised, which, given their unique status can be monetised.

That’s what William was, for me, attempting to temper. It simply doesn’t align with the Royal house of Windsor and Harry can stifle upset all he wants. For William, it’s nothing personal, it’s “business”. His brother married someone who isn’t (and doesn’t want to be) unbiased, neutral, apolitical. She wishes to monetise her status, be a banal insta/fashion blogging influencer, to be a “voice” on issues of the day and make significant bank where/if possible. I would, given the end of the Kardashians show, envisage them leveraging Netflix's interest to start a reality show along the same lines after their one year review with the palace next year. It would be a highly scripted show all about the optics.

On a deductive level, you look at the litany of broken friendships and relationships she has. The Duchess of Sussex doesn't get along with her father, her siblings. She has discarded a litany of associates, ghosted a host of formerly close friends. Now she doesn't get along with her brother in law, the future King, and his wife. A swathe of Royal staff quit in quick succession after she married into the Royal family. These, altogether, would be people of various nationalities, status and life experience yet there is one common denominator linking them all; they knew and interacted with Meghan Markle. Note the past tense. So when she says on a podcast that she was the most trolled woman in 2019 then, given that common denominator, it beggars the question "Why?".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

irishblessing wrote: »

Obviously desperate.... how dare she try and live her life the best she can with the man she loves and try and improve things where she can! I mean the absolute cheek of her living somewhere for 3 whole years and during that time getting married, having to stay confined within the RF whilst moving house twice, becoming pregnant and then a first time mother, enduring horrible slander and racism (having described it as barely survivable so her mental health was hugely suffering) while still trying to do some good in charity work and family duties and while all that is going on not knowing everything there is to know yet! I'm sure you would do so much better in her shoes. :rolleyes:
Are you normally this mean spirited in real life, or do you just reserve that for people you don't know behind your keyboard?

You are taking this VERY personally! :eek:

And seriously, irishblessing, I wouldn’t be lecturing anyone else about being a keyboard warrior. You’re the one who’s been lashing out insults at various forum members for the last few days.

irishblessing

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You are taking this VERY personally! :eek:

And seriously, irishblessing, I wouldn’t be lecturing anyone else about being a keyboard warrior. You’re the one who’s been lashing out insults at various forum members for the last few days.

You can always tell when one doesn't have a good leg to stand on when the only thing they can say is some variant of 'calm down,' or you're taking it very personal,' and then making a bald faced lie to try and have a point where you don't have one.

So you don't like Meghan taking anything personal, but you can't even take a different opinion on a forum board yet she had to endure slander and bullying and racism. Between the two of ye Meghan would be less sensitive I'm sure. :pac:

McGinniesta

I'd ride her.

irishblessing

meeeeh wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29111548#:~:text=If%20your%20average%20first-born,the%20heir%20to%20the%20throne.&text=In%20less%20healthy%20times%2C%20his,the%20spare%20to%20the%20heir%22.

It's a common expression used for those who are second in line to the throne (or something similar) in case something happens to the heir. You might think it's horrible thing to think but it is exactly how royal or similar families operate and stay in power/position through the centuries. Getting offended by it won't change it but it will give you an excuse to be outraged about something. So knock yourself out.

Just because the RF may have referred to the second born as spare (or are you getting that from The Crown, lol) it doesn't make it right. Actually calling someone a spare is ridiculous. The RF is also outdated and damaging to it's own members, as is well documented.

The outrage here towards two specific members of the RF (hello, Prince Andrew deserving of any ire, anyone??) is bizarre so I could also say knock yourself out but you clearly already have and intend to.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

irishblessing wrote: »

You can always tell when one doesn't have a good leg to stand on when the only thing they can say is some variant of 'calm down,' or you're taking it very personal,' and then making a bald faced lie to try and have a point where you don't have one.

So you don't like Meghan taking anything personal, but you can't even take a different opinion on a forum board yet she had to endure slander and bullying and racism. Between the two of ye Meghan would be less sensitive I'm sure. :pac:

And that’s the ignore list.

irishblessing

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And that’s the ignore list.

Yet you couldn't just do it, you had to say that. Because you don't like the shít (aka "criticism") coming back at you but it's just fine for you to do that to others. :rolleyes:

meeeeh

irishblessing wrote: »

The outrage here towards two specific members of the RF (hello, Prince Andrew deserving of any ire, anyone??) is bizarre so I could also say knock yourself out but you clearly already have and intend to.

Ignoring the other nonsense I would just like to point out that this is just plain whataboutery. I find royals boring so don't expect much comment on anything from me except their fashion choices (utterly boring, Megan is the best dressed).

However there is a special irony in signing deal with Netflix to film Kardashians 2 and complaining about media intrusion.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

meeeeh wrote: »

Ignoring the other nonsense I would just like to point out that this is just plain whataboutery. I find royals boring so don't expect much comment on anything from me except their fashion choices (utterly boring, Megan is the best dressed).

However there is a special irony in signing deal with Netflix to film Kardashians 2 and complaining about media intrusion.

Indeed. Andrew is obviously way, way worse than Meghan and Harry. I mean, that goes without saying.

metaoblivia

meeeeh wrote: »

Ignoring the other nonsense I would just like to point out that this is just plain whataboutery. I find royals boring so don't expect much comment on anything from me except their fashion choices (utterly boring, Megan is the best dressed).

However there is a special irony in signing deal with Netflix to film Kardashians 2 and complaining about media intrusion.

My understanding is that their deal with Netflix is similar to the deal the Obamas signed with Netflix, where the focus is more on producing programming rather than starring in.

I think it's fine to dislike and disapprove of Megan's choices, however far removed from her actual life you may be. But I think characterizing the Netflix deal as Kardashians 2 implies that they intend to film a reality series based on their home life when by all indications, that is not at all what they're looking to do.