BettyS wrote: » Well, read the links and associated top comments that I said and then make up your mind Nobody was ever going to be good enough for the British public’s press's intrusion on the princes
BettyS wrote: » Well, read the links that I said and then make up your mind
Stateofyou wrote: » I absolutely think Meghan endured far worse, and the articles they ran comparing them both and the hypocrisy of the same action being ok for Kate but not Meghan. Then there's the racism element, being a foreigner and actress. All those examples have already been posted here on this thread. Regardless, I think the gutter press is such an ugly part of society, I would welcome seeing stricter rules on what they can publish and requiring proper sources.
BettyS wrote: » I don’t think that they were any worse to Meghan. I am enclosing the top comment from an article in 2010. Plenty more examples out there. They were really cruel to both, but they did not single out Meghan
Stateofyou wrote: » When was that, before they were married? Why would it have anything to do with her skin colour?
BettyS wrote: » Kate was mauled by the British press not so long ago. She was apparently too common for William. This had nothing to do with her skin colour.
afro man wrote: » Think this was the French Media that released these pictures they would not listen to the British Monarchy
Stateofyou wrote: » Missed this one. Well I read the Disney documentary she voiced was all for charity, and the fee donated directly to elephant conservation. Why wouldn't they use their best / biggest / only leverage to support themselves and their charitable foundation? I disagree on the point about stardom. He already has that as a royal prince. The issue with public perception I think is due in large part to the relentless negative media printing lies people read as gospel and it turns perceptions and support against them. Of course they need to take control of their own truth. I also think many have issue with her skin tone.
the purple tin wrote: » You are forgetting about Aonghus Von Bismarck :pac:
BettyS wrote: » You are using the argument of false equivalence. On a slight tangent, the median salary in this country is 40,000. If two people make 80,000 per year, and have to pay childcare costs and rent, raising 40,000+ for the deposit can feel like scraping it together. You surely cannot deny the immense privilege the royals have? The closest most of us on Boards will get to a private jet is as a spectator from afar. The money they have by any world standard is obscene
Stateofyou wrote: » Kate's published topless photos taken with an extreme long lens from the treetops suggest otherwise...
BettyS wrote: » Yes, but allegedly there was another, more damaging story about them that never made the light of day in the UK.
BettyS wrote: » I am playing Devil’s advocate here. So, granted he left for mental health reasons. But when he was talking to the executive from Disney about a role for Meghan and they lined up the Netflix, Oprah and Corden deals, the UK public saw them using their royal positions as a springboard to bigger and higher things. It seems in the eyes of the British public like it was his strategy all along to reach stardom, rather than a need for seeking equanimity. Ultimately, they are free persons. They are free to choose their course in life. Nothing is worth compromised mental health. It is the actions post-leaving that may have presented them in a negative light. I am not defining right or wrong, I am certainly in no position to do this. However, the issue now is the public perception.
Itssoeasy wrote: » I didn’t say that. Prince Harry said on tv that he had started to address those issues. He also said it helped he had William to talk to about it which seems to have broken down which is an awful shame if true. I don’t disagree that there’s an element of self preservation involved with the royal family and the press but they both use each other to keep things as they are. It’s a sad situation wrapped up a bizarre institution which probably amplifies the issues at hand. And btw Harry was well able to use the press to his own ends previously. Surely he could have played the press at their own game.
BettyS wrote: » Correct me if I am wrong, I agree with your point. Additionally, do the royal family not have immense power over what the UK press can report?
Leroy42 wrote: » And yet he has turned his back on the whole thing. So whether you, or anyone else, thinks he was past it, or will get past it, seems to be the opposite. Institutions change all the time. Was a time when divorce wasn't allowed. When the Queen didn't pay taxes. Hell when the queen was in sole charge. They didn't want to change it. They didn't want to stand up to the media. The worried that standing up to the media may result in the media being less fawning to them and thus place their institution in jeopardy from a public losing interest. The Queen has done a great job in bringing the Royal family back into the hearts and minds of the general public. But it's a marketing company, and Harry didn't want (as far as I can tell) to be part of the game. He doesn't seem to buy in that the price for their place in the media, is to have lies, and private details leaked. The queen could have done something to help, should have done more to help. They didn't. How much they did or didn't do, I've no idea. But nobody seems to be even asking. Its all Meaghan's fault, coming over here, with her notions and looking to change things. Get back in your box. And even they way they dealt with Harry, Rather than accept he wants to change things, he wants to step back from 100% but still do lots of good work, they gve him an ultimatum. Our way or the high way.
Stateofyou wrote: » Harry explicitly said his mental health was being destroyed, and Meghan said she was not doing well. Mental health issues will not wait for a more "convenient" time...
Itssoeasy wrote: » My impression from watching people talk about William and Harry is that after their mother died the British public became very protective of them. I don’t recall whether Kate Middleton was universally at the outset but being a member of the royal family isn’t a normal existence and most of them seem to get on with it. I think if Meghan and Harry had given it a few years then maybe the reaction to them leaving might not have been so negative. I mean I think the current situation will change whether Harry and Meghan like it or not when the queen dies and Charles becomes king. An institution like the British royal family isn’t going to fundamentally change over night seeing as it’s been in existence for centuries. Who says they didn’t help him ? I mean he’s spoken on TV about the struggles he had after the death of his mother with William and Kate and it seemed like he was getting past it.
Stateofyou wrote: » No matter what someone is going through in their own personal life, it's completely their own choice (or failing, in my opinion) to begrudge, judge, look down on, be angry towards someone else because they're perceived to have it better. Of course they're aware of their privileged position; they've dedicated their lives to service and helping others instead of looking out for only themselves and not even attempting to give back like so many others. They need to take control of their image and story because their popularity will in part make it easier for them to make the deals and pull in the kind of money it takes to make the big impacts they hope to have.
BettyS wrote: » My original post never denied the struggles they face. But while yes, they have their own strife, and as I mentioned before, I think that the concept of spare is abhorrent, they have considerable advantage materially over the average human being. A simple acknowledgment of their privilege by them rather than simply outlining all that is wrong with their lives, which they are entitled to do might endear them more to the public. The reality, be it fair, or not, is that people who have lost loved ones recently before their time or who have lost their job may not be able to relate and sympathise with them. They are entitled to share their opinion. But there are a lot of traumatised people around at the moment in society who may not be as open to their woes.
Leroy42 wrote: » I think everyone in the UK, the media especially, is looking at this all wrong. They are blaming Harry, and especially Megan, for wanting to leave. But nobody is asking how and why? This is a pretty monumental decision by Harry, and yet the most the media want to do is simply blame Megan for it. Nobody is asking what traumas and problems this fella has, or had, that has led him to this decision. Not only he is effectively turning his back on his family, but he is taking the risk of losing out on a very privileged existence. Rather than asking how he could possibly do this to the queen, people should be asking how the hell the queen allowed it to get this far. With all that money and privilege the easiest thing for Harry to have done is kept his mouth shut, turned up to the odd event, and lived his life. Like the majority of the royal family actually do. But he didn't, couldn't, opt for that. He needed things to fundamentally change. You can bet he brought issues up with his Da, the queen etc. It is sad that they couldn't bring themselves to look to actually help him. I know everyone thinks the queen is amazing, but as a grandmother, as a parent, as a role model, she seems to be completely lacking. Her family is completely screwed up.
meeeeh wrote: » I actually think it's an institutional problem. Similar to Catholic Church institution of Royal Family is more important than individuals in it. So there is no wonder they are screwed up. I don't find royals particularly interesting, however I find the position of very archaic institutions in the society very interesting. How their roles are scrutinized in one way and not scrutinized at all in another way (Andrew again). All this just proves to me that being born as certain rank is completely f***ed up. Plus I hold them responsible for influencing 90% of boring, frumpy wedding or horse racing outfits.
BettyS wrote: » My original post never denied the struggles they face. But while yes, they have their own strife, and as I mentioned before, I think that the concept of spare is abhorrent, they have considerable advantage materially over the average human being. A simple acknowledgment of their privilege by them rather than simply outlining all that is wrong with their lives, which they are entitled to do might endear them more to the public.
Leroy42 wrote: » With all that money and privilege the easiest thing for Harry to have done is kept his mouth shut, turned up to the odd event, and lived his life. Like the majority of the royal family actually do. But he didn't, couldn't, opt for that. He needed things to fundamentally change. You can bet he brought issues up with his Da, the queen etc. It is sad that they couldn't bring themselves to look to actually help him. I know everyone thinks the queen is amazing, but as a grandmother, as a parent, as a role model, she seems to be completely lacking. Her family is completely screwed up.
meeeeh wrote: » We can't deny what privilege we have in comparison to some untouchable in Calcutta. I don't deny one bit their privilege however that doesn't mean they aren't affected by certain issues like everyone else. It's a false belief that being rich is enough to be happy (it can help but it's not enough). I don't accept the argument that those richer than us should not complain about something just because they are richer.
Be right back wrote: » Why aren't they being interviewed together for the whole thing?
