Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

meeeeh

metaoblivia wrote: »

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.

That was a flippant comment but I'm pretty sure they will have to be in the shows somehow to sell them, even if it's just documentaries. I actually don't overly mind them but best comparison I could make is Lewis Hamilton becoming vegan, lecturing everyone on animal welfare and flying to every race in his private jet. I don't think it's intentionally hypocritical sometimes they are just too dense to see the irony.

Muahahaha

valoren wrote: »

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.

Good post but just on the neutrality of the Monarch it is largely a myth. Every Tuesday without fail the Prime Minister of the day has to go cap in hand up to Buckingham Palace for a meeting with the Queen where they discuss national policy and state affairs. These weekly meeting have been going on since she became queen in 1952 and Boris Johnson is now the 14th Prime Minister of her reign. The idea that the Queen is neutral on political matters is a myth, she is not having these meetings just to share biscuits and cakes.

And some of these meetings have been far from neutral on behalf of the Queen, she is reported to have had shouting matches with Margaret Thatcher over both the Falkland Islands invasion and the miners strike when Thatcher used the police to beat down the miners violently. On Brexit Nick Clegg revealed she is pro-Brexit, she said this at a dinner and Clegg blabbed it to the media before retracting it after the Royal household dressed him down.

The Queen being politically neutral is just a myth put out there by the Royal institution themselves. Why else does she need to have weekly meetings which the Prime Minister has no choice but to attend.

MoonUnit75

Muahahaha wrote: »

Good post but just on the neutrality of the Monarch it is largely a myth. Every Tuesday without fail the Prime Minister of the day has to go cap in hand up to Buckingham Palace for a meeting with the Queen where they discuss national policy and state affairs. These weekly meeting have been going on since she became queen in 1952 and Boris Johnson is now the 14th Prime Minister of her reign. The idea that the Queen is neutral on political matters is a myth, she is not having these meetings just to share biscuits and cakes.

And some of these meetings have been far from neutral on behalf of the Queen, she is reported to have had shouting matches with Margaret Thatcher over both the Falkland Islands invasion and the miners strike when Thatcher used the police to beat down the miners violently. On Brexit Nick Clegg revealed she is pro-Brexit, she said this at a dinner and Clegg blabbed it to the media before retracting it after the Royal household dressed him down.

The Queen being politically neutral is just a myth put out there by the Royal institution themselves. Why else does she need to have weekly meetings which the Prime Minister has no choice but to attend.

That's not what is meant by politically neutral. She is the head of state and so must be informed and express her opinion on the issues that affect the state when dealing with parliament.

When they say the monarch is politically neutral it means he/she is non-partisan. She is meant to be above the individual and collective standpoints and ideologies that feed day to day politics. The monarchy sits above these things as the unifying factor that draws all citizens/subjects together as one nation under the sovereign.

metaoblivia

meeeeh wrote: »

That was a flippant comment but I'm pretty sure they will have to be in the shows somehow to sell them, even if it's just documentaries. I actually don't overly mind them but best comparison I could make is Lewis Hamilton becoming vegan, lecturing everyone on animal welfare and flying to every race in his private jet. I don't think it's intentionally hypocritical sometimes they are just too dense to see the irony.

It may be a flippant comment, but I think that sort of characterization feeds into the worst perceptions about her. There are people who absolutely thought she and Harry had signed on to do a reality tv series when the Netflix deal was first announced.

I think many people want to see them - and Megan specifically - struggle because we love watching a beautiful, wealthy, out-of-touch woman (and I think she's all of those things) get her comeuppance. And then this massive Netflix deal came along, which was a great move for them. But that's not what a lot of people wanted to see, so now it feels like it's being derided simply because it seems to have delayed this comeuppance a large portion of Daily Mail readers are clambering for.

As to your other point about them appearing on screen, I'm happy to wait and see. I find that setting up a bunch of expectations based on my limited knowledge often just leaves me with egg on my face! :P However, if their names have global recognition, attaching them as producers/endorsers would likely be enough to give a project a decent publicity boost without them having to appear in it.

There's a podcast called "You're Wrong About," which hasn't done anything on Harry and Megan (yet), but covers a variety of topics that most people have at least heard of and have some misconceptions about. The common strand through all of these topics is how far the media is willing to twist a situation in order to create a sellable yet often incomplete narrative and then how pervasive that incomplete narrative becomes within the general public. And this has been happening for centuries. It's something I like to keep in mind with all news, but especially with gossip and entertainment news.

MoonUnit75

metaoblivia wrote: »

It may be a flippant comment, but I think that sort of characterization feeds into the worst perceptions about her. There are people who absolutely thought she and Harry had signed on to do a reality tv series when the Netflix deal was first announced.

I think many people want to see them - and Megan specifically - struggle because we love watching a beautiful, wealthy, out-of-touch woman (and I think she's all of those things) get her comeuppance. And then this massive Netflix deal came along, which was a great move for them. But that's not what a lot of people wanted to see, so now it feels like it's being derided simply because it seems to have delayed this comeuppance a large portion of Daily Mail readers are clambering for.

As to your other point about them appearing on screen, I'm happy to wait and see. I find that setting up a bunch of expectations based on my limited knowledge often just leaves me with egg on my face! :P However, if their names have global recognition, attaching them as producers/endorsers would likely be enough to give a project a decent publicity boost without them having to appear in it.

There's a podcast called "You're Wrong About," which hasn't done anything on Harry and Megan (yet), but covers a variety of topics that most people have at least heard of and have some misconceptions about. The common strand through all of these topics is how far the media is willing to twist a situation in order to create a sellable yet often incomplete narrative and then how pervasive that incomplete narrative becomes within the general public. And this has been happening for centuries. It's something I like to keep in mind with all news, but especially with gossip and entertainment news.

All very true, but the broken relationships, rapid staff turnover and alienation from both of their families is not an invention. One of the interesting things about her autobiography is that it shows almost all the tabloid fodder stories were true but the book now presents her spin on these events.

metaoblivia

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

All very true, but the broken relationships, rapid staff turnover and alienation from both of their families is not an invention. One of the interesting things about her autobiography is that it shows almost all the tabloid fodder stories were true but the book now presents her spin on these events.

I have no problem with a celebrity presenting their own "spin" on events. That's no more or less biased than a gossip newspaper spinning their own narrative. The gossip rags have an incentive to portray her negatively and she has an incentive to portray herself positively (that incentive, for both sides, is money - lots and lots of money!). If you're not questioning the veracity of both sides, then you've been had.

MoonUnit75

metaoblivia wrote: »

I have no problem with a celebrity presenting their own "spin" on events. That's no more or less biased than a gossip newspaper spinning their own narrative. The gossip rags have an incentive to portray her negatively and she has an incentive to portray herself positively (that incentive, for both sides, is money - lots and lots of money!). If you're not questioning the veracity of both sides, then you've been had.

I guess we'll find out more if and when Omid Scobie is called to testify. Then the pedal really hits the metal for their PR campaign. The fact is we have Meghan's account (almost all the anecdotes and recollections in the book are directly from her perspective and feelings at the time) and practically everyone else whose paths they have crossed.

You don't even need to read any of the circus surrounding them, just the pettiness of the statements they made on their own website and social media, their pattern of making announcements either in conflict with or directly after other royal announcements, the fact that they walked away from so many strong bonds, relationships and communities Harry had been involved with for decades to become effectively freelance social media influencers all point the same way.

Muahahaha

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

That's not what is meant by politically neutral. She is the head of state and so must be informed and express her opinion on the issues that affect the state when dealing with parliament.

When they say the monarch is politically neutral it means he/she is non-partisan. She is meant to be above the individual and collective standpoints and ideologies that feed day to day politics. .

I think you've missed the point I made- what you have described above is what is supposed to happen but I am saying that it does not happen that way at all behind closed doors and sometimes in public too. Otherwise what was she even doing expressing an opinion that she wanted to see Brexit happen? The Brexit supporting tabloids then led with the Queens endorsement of Brexit as a rallying call for a Leave vote before the referendum, after all if the Queen said it who were they to argue?

She also expressed an opinion on Scottish independence two days before that vote, again this is not being neutral and non-partisan, this was her getting involved in politics.

The monarchy sits above these things as the unifying factor that draws all citizens/subjects together as one nation under the sovereign

There is nothing unifying about her expressing opinions on Brexit or Scottish independence, both of which were highly contentious issues where almost half the public were against the Queens opinion.

As a monarch she is not supposed to be involved in politics but as said she meets with the Prime Minister of the day every single Tuesday and its not for the tea and biscuits. She is supposed to be a figurehead but if that were the case she would have no need for bending the Prime Ministers ear on a weekly basis. You dont see the Taoiseach of the day going up to the Aras every week because the Irish president is apolitical. This practice doesnt happen with Swedish or Dutch monarchies either, they are just figureheads for the State. The Queen is a different kettle of fish, while they sell the idea that she is just a figurehead to the British public the reality is she has the ear of the Prime Minister more than any other individual in the UK.

MoonUnit75

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think you've missed the point I made- what you have described above is what is supposed to happen but I am saying that it does not happen that way at all behind closed doors and sometimes in public too. Otherwise what was she even doing expressing an opinion that she wanted to see Brexit happen? The Brexit supporting tabloids then led with the Queens endorsement of Brexit as a rallying call for a Leave vote before the referendum, after all if the Queen said it who were they to argue?

She also expressed an opinion on Scottish independence two days before that vote, again this is not being neutral and non-partisan, this was her getting involved in politics.

Neither of these two examples stand up to scrutiny. She commented to a single 'well-wisher' outside the palace that people 'should think carefully about the future', before the Scottish referendum. She has never expressed any personal position on it that I've heard.

Likewise, defying the prime minister would have been a political act, not defying the prime minister is exactly in keeping with tradition. It just happened to infuriate remainers who felt she should have made a political stance. That's not the same thing as weighing in in favour of Brexit.

There is nothing unifying about her expressing opinions on Brexit or Scottish independence, both of which were highly contentious issues where almost half the public were against the Queens opinion.

You'll have to back these up with direct quotes.

As a monarch she is not supposed to be involved in politics but as said she meets with the Prime Minister of the day every single Tuesday and its not for the tea and biscuits. She is supposed to be a figurehead but if that were the case she would have no need for bending the Prime Ministers ear on a weekly basis. You dont see the Taoiseach of the day going up to the Aras every week because the Irish president is apolitical. This practice doesnt happen with Swedish or Dutch monarchies either, they are just figureheads for the State. The Queen is a different kettle of fish, while they sell the idea that she is just a figurehead to the British public the reality is she has the ear of the Prime Minister more than any other individual in the UK.

She's also the head of the commonwealth and therefore has interests and duties towards countries beyond her own parliament. The prime minister has no such obligations and is only answerable directly to the UK electorate. The monarchy in the UK and commonwealth traditionally has to be kept informed on internal and external affairs that might affect the state as well as the former colonies.

Either way, she takes no public stance on political issues. What she does speak about are common values that are supposed to unite all ends of the political spectrum. You can really see how the US would benefit from a head of state like this right now. They tried to make the first lady into such a figurehead but its always been a failure.

irishblessing

Neither Meghan nor Harry took a political position or stated a preference for a political party in the election. So where on earth is this conversation going.

silverharp

I wonder does this sum up their relationship?

https://twitter.com/Suffragentleman/status/1316309611255869440

MoonUnit75

silverharp wrote: »

I wonder does this sum up their relationship?

https://twitter.com/Suffragentleman/status/1316309611255869440

Laughing here at the responses: "I am in good spirits and am being looked after well"

Be right back

silverharp wrote: »

I wonder does this sum up their relationship?

https://twitter.com/Suffragentleman/status/1316309611255869440

Or this one! Unfortunate timing or...

meeeeh

OK that's just nonsense...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

meeeeh wrote: »

OK that's just nonsense...

Aye, that is some gentle comedy.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

Neither Meghan nor Harry took a political position or stated a preference for a political party in the election. So where on earth is this conversation going.

Yes, she did. You can hear her saying it yourself at 22 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PDgSsplLhk
She tells voters directly that "we all know what's at stake this year" and that she is "mobilised and energised to see the change we all need and deserve". That is calling for a change in leadership from Trump to Biden in plain english. She's abusing her royal title and connection to the British monarchy to influence an election. Other than marrying Harry she was a D list TV actress and blogger. Now she feels entitled to influence a democratic election.

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Yes, she did. You can hear her saying it yourself at 22 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PDgSsplLhk
She tells voters directly that "we all know what's at stake this year" and that she is "mobilised and energised to see the change we all need and deserve". That is calling for a change in leadership from Trump to Biden in plain english. She's abusing her royal title and connection to the British monarchy to influence an election. Other than marrying Harry she was a D list TV actress and blogger. Now she feels entitled to influence a democratic election.

That's a reach and a half. She's calling for people to vote and make any change they want to see. Lot's of things are at stake at every state level as well. Very important seats on a local, state and of course national level and measures to vote on as well. Every single year the Americans talk about change in their politics.

She's not abusing anything. She's American, living in America, who has stepped back as a working member of the royal family so she's entitled to voice her opinion like anyone else. They all try influence each other from politicians, to phone bankers, to canvasers to people in rallies, to family members and friends. Give over... If I suddenly became famous I'd speak up about issues important to me too. And then people like you would call me some d list xyz nobody and who do I think I am... In spite of the haters she is living her best life! :cool:

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

That's a reach and a half. She's calling for people to vote and make any change they want to see. Lot's of things are at stake at every state level as well. Very important seats on a local, state and of course national level and measures to vote on as well. Every single year the Americans talk about change in their politics.

She's not abusing anything. She's American, living in America, who has stepped back as a working member of the royal family so she's entitled to voice her opinion like anyone else. They all try influence each other from politicians, to phone bankers, to canvasers to people in rallies, to family members and friends. Give over... If I suddenly became famous I'd speak up about issues important to me too. And then people like you would call me some d list xyz nobody and who do I think I am... In spite of the haters she is living her best life! :cool:

In what world is voting for the current president "the change we all need and deserve". She's clearly meddling in the US elections. She was recently announced on America's Got Talent as "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex", still using her royal title. That is using her status as a member of a foreign monarchy as a platform to influence the result of a US presidential election.

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

In what world is voting for the current president "the change we all need and deserve". She's clearly meddling in the US elections. She was recently announced on America's Got Talent as "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex", still using her royal title. That is using her status as a member of a foreign monarchy as a platform to influence the result of a US presidential election.

The real world, lol. How does one meddle when they're literally a citizen living in their own country who has the right to vote and the freedom of speech enshrined in their constitution. She's not Russian ffs!!

She also has a title, so what. Being married to a prince doesn't mean she loses her rights. She does not work for the royal family nor live in the UK and the palace already said their comments are in their own capacity. They get it so why don't you?

irishblessing

By the way, I just recalled that Trump himself is saying that if the American people want change to vote for him and he's gotten absolutely roasted for it. Well for two reasons really. One being that Trump has already decided that when M&H spoke out about what's important that he doesn't represent the good things they were speaking to. Lol. The other reason he got roasted is because he's already president yet his ads and comments come from an angle basically saying "it's a shít show under me, so vote for me again to change it!" Not many brain cells, that one.

Here's what they said: they did not take a political position, and even if they had, as I already pointed out the palace itself said they are not working royals and comments are of a personal capacity.

Meghan said, "Now we're just six weeks out from Election Day, and today is National Voter Registration Day. Every four years, we are told the same thing, that 'this is the most important election of our lifetime.' But this one is. When we vote, our values are put into action and our voices are heard. Your voice is a reminder that you matter. Because you do. And you deserve to be heard."

Harry added, "This election, I'm not going to be able to vote here in the U.S., but many of you may not know that I haven't been able to vote in the U.K. my entire life," referring to the royal family's need to stay apolitical. (While they are not banned in writing legally from voting, they are expected not to.) "As we approach this November, it's vital that we reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity."

"So as we work to re-imagine the world around us, let's challenge ourselves to build communities of compassion," Meghan continued.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

The real world, lol. How does one meddle when they're literally a citizen living in their own country who has the right to vote and the freedom of speech enshrined in their constitution. She's not Russian ffs!!

She also has a title, so what. Being married to a prince doesn't mean she loses her rights. She does not work for the royal family nor live in the UK and the palace already said their comments are in their own capacity. They get it so why don't you?

Why didn’t she just say to vote for Biden then? Because she knew her Duchess title would be gone. She wants to keep it so she can profit from this status title, yet meddle in political elections at the same time. The queen won’t have their titles used by a blogger/podcaster activist.

suicide_circus

Theyre the Donald Trump of royalty.

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Why didn’t she just say to vote for Biden then? Because she knew her Duchess title would be gone. She wants to keep it so she can profit from this status title, yet meddle in political elections at the same time. The queen won’t have their titles used by a blogger/podcaster activist.

Why don't you ask her?

Even if she didn't have the Duchess title, Prince Harry will always be a prince and so a certain amount of fame will always come from that.

If she didn't keep her title, she'd have the likes of you and others saying how she disrespected the queen who gives it to her and Harry and how she's disrespected the UK and blah blah blah. No matter what she does some won't be happy.

The Queen no doubt loves her grandson and agreed to them doing this on their own so unless you hear otherwise from her lips maybe don't try speak for the Queen of England! Weird...

meeeeh

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Why didn’t she just say to vote for Biden then? Because she knew her Duchess title would be gone. She wants to keep it so she can profit from this status title, yet meddle in political elections at the same time. The queen won’t have their titles used by a blogger/podcaster activist.

Thats nonsense. She is not a working royal. If the title means you have to be above political opinion Sir Keir couldn't be Labour leader in UK. It makes sense those in line for throne keep stum but she is not so I don't know why she shouldn't voice an opinion.

MoonUnit75

meeeeh wrote: »

Thats nonsense. She is not a working royal. If the title means you have to be above political opinion Sir Keir couldn't be Labour leader in UK. It makes sense those in line for throne keep stum but she is not so I don't know why she shouldn't voice an opinion.

I think you just don't know what you are talking about. She is using a title bestowed on her by the queen as a member of the royal family. Are you seriously comparing them to a knighthood? A knighthood does not make you a member of the royal family. Meghan ranks above the princesses Beatrice and Eugenie when accompanied by her husband and directly below them when she is alone. They have represented the queen on official duties, her husband is the head of state's grandson. They have stepped away from official duties but it would take an act of parliament in the UK to remove him from the line of succession. Therefore, as his wife she remains within the line of succession unless the UK parliament remove them.

irishblessing

Your arguing is pointless. Neither one of them said anything they shouldn't have.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

Your arguing is pointless. Neither one of them said anything they shouldn't have.

irishblessing can deliver final judgement?

irishblessing

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

irishblessing can deliver final judgement?

I believe the Queen did, with her own announcement about it. They are their own private individuals acting in their own private capacity.

MoonUnit75

irishblessing wrote: »

I believe the Queen did, with her own announcement about it. They are their own private individuals acting in their own private capacity.

Can you post a link to the statement?

irishblessing

Earlier from the Queen: "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family. "I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life."

Buckingham Palace (aka the queen) sept 2020:

“The Duke is not a working member of the Royal Family and any comments he makes are made in a personal capacity.”

Google for a link, spoiled for choice as it's widely reported.