Harry and Meghan

HARRIS MARKLE 2024

Deleted User wrote: »

Markle Winfrey would be even better

That would be almost unsurvivable. Deepak Chopra as Secretary for Health?

California Über Alles!

JoChervil wrote: »

But she is proud of being so compassionate. I don't see it in her with this timing.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a35686307/prince-harry-meghan-markle-womens-history-month/
"Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan Call for “Real Acts of Compassion” to Help Women Around the World".

Maybe they should start from themselves then?

So 14 months after leaving she wanted to set things straight? Why not at once? And if it was a nonsense, so why bother?

Setting her own new brand by trashing family of her husband and in Harry's case his own family is the lowest low in my opinion. It is selling them for a silver.

And what about other innocent people accused of racism?

By their own admission it was a one person, then they excluded the Queen and Prince Philip, so from seniors there are minimum 4 people left (Charles, Camila, Kate, William) but there are also more seniors in RF though not so close to her.

In June last year her best friend from Canada lost a lot because of a racist scandal. So she knew exactly how damaging such accusations are. Yet they decided to accuse 4 people, when only maximum one (if allegations are true) was guilty. So what about that remaining 3 innocent people? Is it ok to put such dirt on them? Is it OK to make such vague accusations, when no one can practically fight it back?

And for what? For a nonsense from the press?

I think she was keeping her head down and keeping quiet while her case against ANL was ongoing. You can’t be in a middle of a lawsuit that’s suing for a breach of privacy and seen to be doing an interview with the most famous talk show host in the world airing dirty laundry for the world to see.
Now that is all settled we are seeing the real Meghan.

Im not a guy that likes or follows the royals. However, my wife catches up on the news with them from time to time. Im only aware of Meghan from the show Suits.
Without knowing anything about her really except what I learned from the snippets of my wife's convos I overheard, my general impressions were that she was certainly not a tabloid favourite.
But in saying that, I dont have an opinion on her either way really, Im sure most of the tabloid stories are nonsense.

So I wound up watching the interview with my wife. I have to say Meghan did not come across well at all. I didnt believe a lot of what she said. After some clarifications on the royal protocol from my lovely wife, I think Meghan twisted a lot of the facts to suit her. It was my impression that she implied that the lack of security for her family was at least in part, racially motivated. Same with her kids not being princes and princesses.
Also her claiming to have no idea about the royal family and the associated media circus....come on.......
She made it sound like it was someone's decision to withhold security and titles. When in fact you need to be a full-time working royal to get around-the-clock protection, or something to that effect. Plus she was moving country and isnt the security actually provided by Scotland Yard or some agency like that?
A lot of what she said was very...specifically chosen language and vague enough to not hook her on anything. Her making such a deal of the media seems at odds with her now, appearing on an Oprah tell-all, starting podcasts etc. I can understand her wanting to put her side of the story out though, but I think she chose a moment that would give maximum impact for her profile. I think she is very clever, I think most of what she spoke about has a grounding in reality but she has spun the facts to her benefit. On the flipside, I believe her that she was suicidal which is a terrible state for anyone to be in.
If its true that according to the rules, H&M would never have received security and their children would never be princes' or princess' anyway then it shows her to be quite stupid though. Which I dont think she is.
Look Im sure someone will pull up time codes and quotes from the interview or something and prove me wrong, or point out that my understanding of royal protocol is incorrect, thats fine, this is just an uninvolved person's opinion.

end of the road wrote: »

she is either a compassionate person or she isn't, timing of an interview makes not a jot of difference to whether she is or isn't compassionate.
when she decided to address things and set the record straight is her business and choice.
the members of the rf accused of being racist have plenty of avenues available to fight those allegations, including a liable case in the courts.
as i said, scraping under the barrel for things to have a go at her for.

Well, it proves that she isn't, only that she aspires or a better word pretends to be in public eyes.

"Scrapping" sentence is below the level of discussion to comment on...

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

That’s what so nasty, sneaky and manipulative about what she said, you can’t pursue a libel case unless you are clearly identifiable as a person in the libellous statements. She effectively threw an invisible grenade at the royal family as a whole.

She also claims how harmful the things that were said about her were while at the same time introducing a US and global audience to the nasty ‘waity Katie’ slur when most of the viewers outside the UK would never have been aware of it. Then, to really rub the salt in, she says ‘I can’t imagine what that must have been like’ because Harry and herself got married in record time. I suspect that whole segment was revenge for William advising Harry to take things more slowly.

I think it is more to it. She is desperately jealous of Kate and her position in RF.

JoChervil wrote: »

Truly compassionate person. Can't imagine but will do it again to a much bigger audience.

And downplay how massively hurtful it must have been for Kate, by saying your treatment was much worse. I don’t remember there being anything derogatory about Meghan splashed along the side of a bus

Its probably for a newspaper story

JoChervil wrote: »

Well, it proves that she isn't, only that she aspires or a better word pretends to be in public eyes.

it doesn't though, it just proves she did an interview.

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

That’s what so nasty, sneaky and manipulative about what she said, you can’t pursue a libel case unless you are clearly identifiable as a person in the libellous statements. She effectively threw an invisible grenade at the royal family as a whole.

She also claims how harmful the things that were said about her were while at the same time introducing a US and global audience to the nasty ‘waity Katie’ slur when most of the viewers outside the UK would never have been aware of it. Then, to really rub the salt in, she says ‘I can’t imagine what that must have been like’ because Harry and herself got married in record time. I suspect that whole segment was revenge for William advising Harry to take things more slowly.

or you know, she perhapse was showing empathy to kate for the nasty slur, and was informing the world of how she wasn't the only one who receives nasty comments out of the rf, that kate gets them as well, to show that certain sub sections of the british press are just trash.

JoChervil wrote: »

I think it is more to it. She is desperately jealous of Kate and her position in RF.

she left the rf, so why would she be jealous of kate's position within an organisation both her and her husband decided they didn't want a big part in anymore?
it makes no sense, which would suggest it likely isn't the case.

end of the road wrote: »

it doesn't though, it just proves she did an interview.

So we differ

end of the road wrote: »

she left the rf, so why would she be jealous of kate's position within an organisation both her and her husband decided they didn't want a big part in anymore?
it makes no sense, which would suggest it likely isn't the case.

Well, I think this impossibility for them to be in a better position than Kate and William played a big part in their departure.

end of the road wrote: »

well, we don't know whether they were in a better, the same or a worse position as kate and william.
even then, to be honest, harrydidn't seem to have his heart in royal life before he met megan anyway.

But we do know. Kate and William will be on the throne one day. Slim chance for Meghan and Harry.

2nd and 6th position makes this difference in RF.

JoChervil wrote: »

But we do know. Kate and William will be on the throne one day. Slim chance for Meghan and Harry.

2nd and 6th position makes this difference in RF.

again we don't.
it was always a very slim chance that harry would ever be king, and even then he does not seem to have ever actually wanted it, unlike william who does seem to want it.
being king isn't automatically a good position, whether one wants the job or not will play the main part of whether it is or isn't a good position.

Looks like someone else thinks that a lot of the negativity towards Meghan is due to media programming:

Associate Professor Lauren Rosewarne, a University of Melbourne sociologist, adds: “She’s a woman, she’s an outsider to the royal institution, she’s a person of colour, she’s smart, and she’s American. So she hits a number of factors that stir judgment and in this case that’s manifesting in a disproportionate amount of hatred.”
...
More crucially, Rosewarne says for three years people have, perhaps indirectly, absorbed a negative image of Meghan that has been tirelessly pushed by the tabloid press; from the comparisons to her dutiful sister-in-law to the insinuations she is trying to be Diana 2.0 and the use of the term “Megxit”.

Rosewarne says this creates an “audience that is ready to tear someone down”. The downfall of Britney Spears, recently recounted in a New York Times documentary, shows how the tabloids can destroy a person.

The uncomfortable truth, Rosewarne says, is that this means much of the public disdain levelled at Meghan is grounded in racism and sexism. “[Because] the input for the hatred has likely been stoked by an absolutely sexist and racist tabloid press,” she says. “Comments can be racist or sexist even if a person doesn’t see themselves that way: this isn’t about self-perception.”

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/behind-the-loathing-of-the-duchess-of-sussex-20210318-p57bxg.html

Interesting that the Daily Mail is currently engaged in two simultaneous campaigns to try and stoke public opinoin against two other women it perceives as threats to the conservative party and UK: Nicola Sturgeon and Ursula von der Leyen.

A more apt masthead would be The Daily Misogynist.