Harry and Meghan

[ricardo 7,385]

I made a decision to respect their pleas for privacy.

So I didn't  watch it.

[king canary 7,605]

I haven't watched it but having read about it I don't see how anyone comes out of it looking good.

It isn't a great shock to me that the Royal Family is a bit racist and I imagine being part of it must have its challenges. I have no love for them and would happily abolish them tomorrow.

But ultimately moaning about being cut off financially from a mansion in California and talking about his brother and Dad being 'trapped' as if they were some victims rather than some of the most privileged people in the entire world just blows my mind. Not an ounce of self awareness in any of them.

[Barbe bleu 823]

.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[horsefly 4,298]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

Picture the scene – the D&D of S, on their much publicised tour of Africa, were in Malawi – one of the very poorest countries in the world. For several days they’d been meeting people whose stories would make anyone with a scintilla of perspective realise just how lucky they are. Children who’d lost limbs from land-mines, lost relatives from starvation or internecine warfare – and what was their reaction? They decided that was the appropriate moment to announce to the world, via their friendly stooge Tom Bradby, that their life as members of the Royal Family wasn’t easy. It beggared belief. Meghan thought we all needed to know it’s really, really hard being Royal whilst being a new mother – as though the vast retinue of domestic servants doesn’t ease the pressure, even just a little bit – and, as if that wasn’t enough of a burden, poor Meghan complained that no one had thought to ask if she was okay.

The mind boggles. Truly, it takes superhuman levels of self-absorption to spend time with children who’ve lost their limbs and their families to a war and then turn to the camera and whine, “Yeah, but what about meeeee?”

Whilst I have no interest in watching the Oprah interview there is a grim fascination that comes from just how tin-eared the two of them are doubtless going to be. The trouble is there will be plenty in their new target audience – America – who will lap this sanctimony up, and imagine that poor Harry and Me-Again are victims. Incredibly, there seem to be one or two posters here who feel the same.

They’ve lectured us on climate change – castigating people who most likely take one flight a year for their holidays – before they themselves hop into the sybaritic comforts of a private jet, that will take them off for another much-needed break from the pressures of their opulent life. Not to mention that, to ensure their tour of Africa was at the right level of comfort, special cars were shipped out to waft them from one photo-op to the next. Their carbon footprint must be absolutely staggering – but God forbid a newspaper might question the Sussexes’ claim to be “committed environmentalists”. Any criticism is obviously proof of racism.

The suggestion – echoed by some on these very pages – that any criticism aimed at the Duchess of Sussex must be rooted in racism is completely unsupported by any evidence or even common sense. You can’t deny that, during their engagement and for the wedding itself, the coverage was universally positive and everyone seemed perfectly happy with the idea of her bringing a fresh and different outlook to the hide-bound monarchy. The matter of her heritage was seen as a positive.

It was only when the two of them started on this ghastly “celebrity” path, constantly virtue signalling and associating themselves with “woke” totems that the tenor of the coverage changed. Surely, that would be more down to their perceived insincerity and hypocrisy than any evidence of racism towards her?

Just imagine the messages that will pour forth from their Netflix documentaries – Meghan reinventing herself as Feminist role model – though ‘Marry a Prince and give up your day job’ is a somewhat regressive feminist message in 2021, isn’t it? It could hardly be more hypocritical if Harry, as a member of the Royal family, criticised someone for nepotism.

LA is welcome to them. A city built on insincerity and hollow adulation of fame. It’s a shame because Harry seemed as though he was a decent sort. He obviously enjoyed his time in the Army and seemed keen to dedicate himself to the Invictus games, association with Military charities and general royal duties. He enjoyed enormous amounts of good will from the British people and seemed to be growing into his role. Any such good will has since evaporated.

When you live in a gilded cage it is never advisable to complain to those outside that your golden handcuffs chafe.

Frankly I find the Royal Family an utter bore and would rather the lot of them disappeared from the public scene. It's laughable that a "mature democracy" still has an unelected head of state determined by the privilege of inheritance. However, what you write is a very skewed account as you must know. Was it really morally impossible for them to raise awareness of the plight of children who are victims of land-mine injuries and also raise their concerns about the hostile press that Meghan had been subject to on a consistently regular basis? I suspect the fact that this particular issue is so inextricably assocciated with Harry's mother probably reminded him acutely of the hostility Diana received at the hands of the press, and which played a huge part in her subsequent misery and tragic death. And I suspect that Harry was indeed genuinely concerned that he could see the same horrors repeating themselves in the case of his wife. You might be right that that wasn't the most opportune time to raise the issue but I would have thought that most of us, having not endured what he did as a young boy, might show a little bit of understanding in this respect, as one might assume his memories and emotions were probably very intense during that visit.

Any positive press coverage they got at the time of their wedding evaporated astonishingly quickly to be replaced by an unjustified hostility towards Meghan. Perhaps this was most infamously highlighted by the "baby-bump" comments, (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html) the same paper, of course, having previously gushed about how wonderful Kate's identical behaviour had been.

Your claim that Meghan "re-invented" herself as a "feminist role model" is simply untrue. She had a long history of feminist and race activism that long preceded her relationship with Harry. And your claim, " ‘Marry a Prince and give up your day job’ is a somewhat regressive feminist message in 2021, isn’t it?" rather betrays your hostile attitude to her rather than any hypocrisy on her part (or do you similarly want to suggest that the pioneering suffragettes, who were almost exclusively drawn from the aristocracy and other privileged classes, were also sending out a "regressive feminist message"?).

I find it odd to find myself defending the "Royal couple", but I hope it's clear that I only do so in respect to the issue of fair treatment. I have no particular like or dislike of either of them and ditto for most of the RF (although I would happily insert a sturdy Norfolk pitchfork into Andrew's royal bollox). Personally I hope they willingly give up their royal titles, not that the press would ever let us forget that they once had them even if they did so. This current episode in the Royal soap opera would do us all a favour if it ushers nearer the day when we grow up an find ourselves an elected head of state.

 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

2 hours ago, kick it off said:

That's also one of several reasons I don't buy her being a great head of state. She doesn't say or do anything, except once a year releases a video.

https://writeroyalty.com/2019-by-the-numbers-royal-work-round-up-part-1/

In 2019, the last non-pandemic year, the Queen performed nearly 300 official engagements. She doesn't just release a video "once a year". I appreciate your position and your opinion, but wild exaggerations are just diluting your valid arguments.

The Queen has, over 60 years, contributed more to this country than any politician, celebrity or other person. Her family may not be perfect, and some of them are downright awful, but the Queen herself has dedicated her entire life with remarkably little in the way of scandal compared to other monarchies around the world.

[Mr Apples 1,320]

Tedious, self-obsessed, attention-seekers pull stunt which gathers huge amounts of attention from those happy to slavishly feed the tedious, self-obsessed, attention-seekers...hmmmmm, what were the odds? 🤔 🤣

Apples

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

2 minutes ago, Mr Apples said:

Tedious, self-obsessed, attention-seekers pull stunt which gathers huge amounts of attention from those happy to slavishly feed the tedious, self-obsessed, attention-seekers...hmmmmm, what were the odds? 🤔 🤣

Apples

Do you sign off every post with "Apples"? 

[Ken Hairy 3,772]

18 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

I think its pretty obvious who they are suggesting made the comment, which is why there is a reluctance for them to name them. Obviously I'm not sure me naming my suspicion on a public forum is the greatest idea, but I think you can read between the lines with other comments they made. 

[Herman 9,756]

It's Piers Morgan I feel sorry for. When it comes to questions on race a fat, old gob****e should be allowed to spout his ill informed opinions. Poor bloke. 

[Yellow Fever 3,780]

1 hour ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

https://writeroyalty.com/2019-by-the-numbers-royal-work-round-up-part-1/

In 2019, the last non-pandemic year, the Queen performed nearly 300 official engagements. She doesn't just release a video "once a year". I appreciate your position and your opinion, but wild exaggerations are just diluting your valid arguments.

The Queen has, over 60 years, contributed more to this country than any politician, celebrity or other person. Her family may not be perfect, and some of them are downright awful, but the Queen herself has dedicated her entire life with remarkably little in the way of scandal compared to other monarchies around the world.

The Queen generally may have done a good job, but none of it excuses the run away train wreck that the monarchy is.

All the scandals be that Margaret, Diana, Andrew, Harry, Charles (and yes the older ones too just not so published then - Mrs Brown and many others have a reputation) are just the tip of the iceberg of all that's wrong with a high profile celebrity Monarchy in the 21st century.  It is straight out of a TV soap - West Enders.

It simply doesn't work as modern model and is broken. If it survives this in its current form it will crash again in a few years (it was only Andrew's shenanigans a year or so ago - bet he's pleased the spotlight has moved on). Similar interviews with Diana a few decades ago. It's now fodder simply for Oprah and Jeremy Kyle and the mindless daytime TV talk shows. Best put out of it misery.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,716]

37 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

I think its pretty obvious who they are suggesting made the comment, which is why there is a reluctance for them to name them. Obviously I'm not sure me naming my suspicion on a public forum is the greatest idea, but I think you can read between the lines with other comments they made. 

It was Kate! 😉

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

17 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

The Queen generally may have done a good job, but none of it excuses the run away train wreck that the monarchy is.

All the scandals be that Margaret, Diana, Andrew, Harry, Charles (and yes the older ones too just not so published then - Mrs Brown and many others have a reputation) are just the tip of the iceberg of all that's wrong with a high profile celebrity Monarchy in the 21st century.  It is straight out of a TV soap - West Enders.

It simply doesn't work as modern model and is broken. If it survives this in its current form it will crash again in a few years (it was only Andrew's shenanigans a year or so ago - bet he's pleased the spotlight has moved on). Similar interviews with Diana a few decades ago. It's now fodder simply for Oprah and Jeremy Kyle and the mindless daytime TV talk shows. Best put out of it misery.

I think that sums it up.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Picture the scene – the D&D of S, on their much publicised tour of Africa, were in Malawi – one of the very poorest countries in the world. For several days they’d been meeting people whose stories would make anyone with a scintilla of perspective realise just how lucky they are. Children who’d lost limbs from land-mines, lost relatives from starvation or internecine warfare – and what was their reaction? They decided that was the appropriate moment to announce to the world, via their friendly stooge Tom Bradby, that their life as members of the Royal Family wasn’t easy. It beggared belief. Meghan thought we all needed to know it’s really, really hard being Royal whilst being a new mother – as though the vast retinue of domestic servants doesn’t ease the pressure, even just a little bit – and, as if that wasn’t enough of a burden, poor Meghan complained that no one had thought to ask if she was okay.

The mind boggles. Truly, it takes superhuman levels of self-absorption to spend time with children who’ve lost their limbs and their families to a war and then turn to the camera and whine, “Yeah, but what about meeeee?”

Whilst I have no interest in watching the Oprah interview there is a grim fascination that comes from just how tin-eared the two of them are doubtless going to be. The trouble is there will be plenty in their new target audience – America – who will lap this sanctimony up, and imagine that poor Harry and Me-Again are victims. Incredibly, there seem to be one or two posters here who feel the same.

They’ve lectured us on climate change – castigating people who most likely take one flight a year for their holidays – before they themselves hop into the sybaritic comforts of a private jet, that will take them off for another much-needed break from the pressures of their opulent life. Not to mention that, to ensure their tour of Africa was at the right level of comfort, special cars were shipped out to waft them from one photo-op to the next. Their carbon footprint must be absolutely staggering – but God forbid a newspaper might question the Sussexes’ claim to be “committed environmentalists”. Any criticism is obviously proof of racism.

The suggestion – echoed by some on these very pages – that any criticism aimed at the Duchess of Sussex must be rooted in racism is completely unsupported by any evidence or even common sense. You can’t deny that, during their engagement and for the wedding itself, the coverage was universally positive and everyone seemed perfectly happy with the idea of her bringing a fresh and different outlook to the hide-bound monarchy. The matter of her heritage was seen as a positive.

It was only when the two of them started on this ghastly “celebrity” path, constantly virtue signalling and associating themselves with “woke” totems that the tenor of the coverage changed. Surely, that would be more down to their perceived insincerity and hypocrisy than any evidence of racism towards her?

Just imagine the messages that will pour forth from their Netflix documentaries – Meghan reinventing herself as Feminist role model – though ‘Marry a Prince and give up your day job’ is a somewhat regressive feminist message in 2021, isn’t it? It could hardly be more hypocritical if Harry, as a member of the Royal family, criticised someone for nepotism.

LA is welcome to them. A city built on insincerity and hollow adulation of fame. It’s a shame because Harry seemed as though he was a decent sort. He obviously enjoyed his time in the Army and seemed keen to dedicate himself to the Invictus games, association with Military charities and general royal duties. He enjoyed enormous amounts of good will from the British people and seemed to be growing into his role. Any such good will has since evaporated.

When you live in a gilded cage it is never advisable to complain to those outside that your golden handcuffs chafe.

You should publish that piece Fen. Its the best opinion I've read or heard from anyone.

[daly 501]

I’ll second that

[daly 501]

47 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

It was Kate! 😉

Time for Cluedo

It was the butler

[Tetteys Jig 830]

10 minutes ago, daly said:

Time for Cluedo

It was the butler

Charles ain't it...

[Ken Hairy 3,772]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

The Queen generally may have done a good job, but none of it excuses the run away train wreck that the monarchy is.

All the scandals be that Margaret, Diana, Andrew, Harry, Charles (and yes the older ones too just not so published then - Mrs Brown and many others have a reputation) are just the tip of the iceberg of all that's wrong with a high profile celebrity Monarchy in the 21st century.  It is straight out of a TV soap - West Enders.

It simply doesn't work as modern model and is broken. If it survives this in its current form it will crash again in a few years (it was only Andrew's shenanigans a year or so ago - bet he's pleased the spotlight has moved on). Similar interviews with Diana a few decades ago. It's now fodder simply for Oprah and Jeremy Kyle and the mindless daytime TV talk shows. Best put out of it misery.

This 👍

[Jim Smith 2,317]

I tried to watch it last night with an open mind and to be honest I think she came across better in that interview than she has done in several before and I am sure there is a degree of truth in some of what she claims but I just can;t shake the feeling that its all very calculated, a little bit fake and they know precisely what they are doing when they drop these little bombs (with just enough detail to cause trouble but not enough for anything to be verified).

Maybe some old duffer did make a clumsy comment about what their baby might look like but the lack of context on that and detail of who it was makes it incredibly hard to assess yet if you look at social media the whole royal family are being lambasted as racist off the back of that comment.

Coupled with that if you were looking to get do an interview like that 3 or 4 things to try and make you bulletproof then racism, mental health struggles, drawing the analogy with Princess Diana and fears over security for your child would probably be those points and sure enough they all popped up at regular intervals. Plus a suggestion over jealousy over Meghan's performance on the tour of Australia which basically precisely mimics an episode of the Crown.

I just don;t see that its credible that (at a time when they had not said they were stepping back and were fully fledged royals because this was before Archie was even born) the palace were telling Harry that he and Archie could/would not have security.

I also think there are some inconsistencies in what they said. I don;t buy this "I knew nothing about the royal family" line. She also said she exhauasted all avenues to get help when struggling with her mental health but then Harry said he would never have been able to have a conversation with anyone in his family about her mental health struggles. The implication seems to be that it was courtiers behind the scenes she went to. But then again the royal family are being blamed for it (despite not apparently knowing about it) and this came at a time when Meghan and Harry were actually publically fronting/running a Mental Health charity with William and Kate and had recently appeared on stage together with them talking openly about mental health. Her mum had also spent the last three years working in a mental health clinic. 

All in all, it just doesn;t quite add up for me but appreciate we all see these things differently.

[Yellow Fever 3,780]

33 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I tried to watch it last night with an open mind and to be honest I think she came across better in that interview than she has done in several before and I am sure there is a degree of truth in some of what she claims but I just can;t shake the feeling that its all very calculated, a little bit fake and they know precisely what they are doing when they drop these little bombs (with just enough detail to cause trouble but not enough for anything to be verified).

Maybe some old duffer did make a clumsy comment about what their baby might look like but the lack of context on that and detail of who it was makes it incredibly hard to assess yet if you look at social media the whole royal family are being lambasted as racist off the back of that comment.

Coupled with that if you were looking to get do an interview like that 3 or 4 things to try and make you bulletproof then racism, mental health struggles, drawing the analogy with Princess Diana and fears over security for your child would probably be those points and sure enough they all popped up at regular intervals. Plus a suggestion over jealousy over Meghan's performance on the tour of Australia which basically precisely mimics an episode of the Crown.

I just don;t see that its credible that (at a time when they had not said they were stepping back and were fully fledged royals because this was before Archie was even born) the palace were telling Harry that he and Archie could/would not have security.

I also think there are some inconsistencies in what they said. I don;t buy this "I knew nothing about the royal family" line. She also said she exhauasted all avenues to get help when struggling with her mental health but then Harry said he would never have been able to have a conversation with anyone in his family about her mental health struggles. The implication seems to be that it was courtiers behind the scenes she went to. But then again the royal family are being blamed for it (despite not apparently knowing about it) and this came at a time when Meghan and Harry were actually publically fronting/running a Mental Health charity with William and Kate and had recently appeared on stage together with them talking openly about mental health. Her mum had also spent the last three years working in a mental health clinic. 

All in all, it just doesn;t quite add up for me but appreciate we all see these things differently.

I actually agree with a lot of this - the DDS's I think are very self serving. But then that's the problem with the current celebrity Monarchy muddle. You can't pick and choose who you get. The DDS are as part and parcel of the Royal family as are Queen & slitty eyed DofE or Andrews' issues. They are all tarred by the same brush. You can't it seems have one without the other. Severely prune, to the ground if need be or simpler just to get rid.

[Herman 9,756]

Get rid and get rid of the press that survives off this garbage. Both are holding the country back and in the press's case, doing more damage to us than anything else. 

[Bill 1,788]

its the chickens I feel sorry for

[Indy 3,298]

6 hours ago, kick it off said:

Because she's the head of ****ing state and that's part of the job? 5 US Presidents have apologised for it, King Phillipe of Belgium apologised for it, The olowu of the Iwo people in Nigeria has apologised for it, the Church of England and Bank of England have apologised, even the CEOs of various business institutiions such as Lloyds have, yet the queen, whose ancestors were directly involved, hasn't. That's kind of the point of using this kind of thing as a "teaching moment" - it has to be acknowledged, not swept under the carpet.  That's also one of several reasons I don't buy her being a great head of state. She doesn't say or do anything, except once a year releases a video.

Accept the serpent tail (although it looks more like a black skinned mermaid to me than the devil). The skin hue seems to vary by medal design. Here are some clearer versions of the same medal (slightly different designs) that have been used.... Recipients can now opt for an updated design that doesn't feature dark skin after Michael Palin and the governor general of Jamaica refused to wear their medals and demanded a less racial design.

 

I’m sorry KIO absolutely pointless to apologise for something so outdated, by generations, it’s a meaningless gesture in my opinion.... They had nothing to do with it directly so just don’t get it as it’s not sincere in my view! Still we all see things differently it’s like someone apologising to someone else because their long distant relative had killed theirs 250 years ago!

You as a teacher must see it as a tool to use to educate tolerance and virtue of treating everyone humanly, everyone equal, these are the lessons to take from these bile acts of the past, not to be repeated.....certainly not to be used as a media tool for sympathy or guilt!

Edited March 9, 2021 by Indy

[Indy 3,298]

My word Fen Canary, superbly written summery, totally agree with your views, brilliant on both comments!💛💚

[Yellow Fever 3,780]

7 hours ago, kick it off said:

Accept the serpent tail (although it looks more like a black skinned mermaid to me than the devil). The skin hue seems to vary by medal design. Here are some clearer versions of the same medal (slightly different designs) that have been used.... Recipients can now opt for an updated design that doesn't feature dark skin after Michael Palin and the governor general of Jamaica refused to wear their medals and demanded a less racial design.

 

 

Neve realized these gongs have such racist undertones. Design needs changing immediately and fully understand why some won't accept them as is.

Arh - I see the design has already been changed - light skinned devil.

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Yellow Fever

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

4 hours ago, Herman said:

It's Piers Morgan I feel sorry for. When it comes to questions on race a fat, old gob****e should be allowed to spout his ill informed opinions. Poor bloke. 

I think walking out of a TV show you are presenting is a first. I have no opinion on the Sussexes, having no facts on which to base an opinion, but it is ironically self-centred to walk out of your own TV show because you have been accused of having a self-centred reason for accusing the Sussexes of being self-centred...🤓

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I'm not sure what much of Breakfast television is meant to be.

Sky seem to have it just about right in terms of blend but do retch at "so lovely to see you".

BBC is seemingly stuck as to whether they are news or entertainment.

ITV has become a joke. Morgan believes its all about him and his opinions. And he has that silly woman Susannah just sitting there. I understand he tries to push politicians to answer rather than waffling but its just gladiatorial now.

[Indy 3,298]

Up the Bolshevik Revaluation, down with stinking rich self obsessed media loving power hungry people, let’s take our world back! 😂👍

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

5 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Do you sign off every post with "Apples"? 

Not Pears Morgan?

[Herman 9,756]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I think walking out of a TV show you are presenting is a first. I have no opinion on the Sussexes, having no facts on which to base an opinion, but it is ironically self-centred to walk out of your own TV show because you have been accused of having a self-centred reason for accusing the Sussexes of being self-centred...🤓

I don't know who the other fellow is but he talked a lot of sense. Calmly and clearly. That's probably why he walked. 😀

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 minutes ago, Herman said:

I don't know who the other fellow is but he talked a lot of sense. Calmly and clearly. That's probably why he walked. 😀

Clearly caught out by the references to his B list rating.