Meghan and Prince Harry are moving to the U.S./Canada - OFFICIAL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling the same awful RRs won’t stop negative press.

Yea I don’t think that they will. However, I think being away from the courtiers and honestly their family will reduce the flow of leaks.

Half the leaks were from MM’s camp!

Huh? You’ve repeatedly said that she’s unpopular because she’s a narc and that’s why the coverage is bad. Or that press coverage is bad because the press is always mean to wives in the beginning. So now you think she leaked a bunch of negative stories about herself?

Don't be obtuse. Not all leaks are negative. Obviously her leaks were to defend herself and protect her image.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was this already shared?

Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton That May Show Why She And Prince Harry Are Cutting Off Royal Reporters

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bfsharefacebook&ref=mobile_share

That's obscene. Such double standards.

Anyone who follows the Royals knows that you could pull out headlines showing the poor treatment of any Royal.

That is true; there are bad articles about all of them. But find me an article that is a direct comparison of one royal doing or being involved in the exact same thing as another royal where one is praised and the other is eviscerated. This is not about "some bad press". This about the press savaging Meghan for doing the same as her sister-in-law, repeatedly. I've asked in this thread before for links to specific, shoddy, mean and/or wrong things Meghan has actually done. Not those speculated or from "anonymous sources" aka made-up tabloid rumors. But of course, there's nothing.

[Anonymous]

Boo hoo. Don’t read the tabloids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boo hoo. Don’t read the tabloids.

Lol, this is ridiculous. You can't counter the claim so you come back with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling the same awful RRs won’t stop negative press.

+1. Benghazi and Hillary's emails prove that they don't need new material to generate critical headlines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boo hoo. Don’t read the tabloids.

Lol, this is ridiculous. You can't counter the claim so you come back with this.

DP. I agree. Did she quit because her ILs were mean to her or because of mean articles in the tabloids? They're saying it's the latter. So don't pay so much attention to the mean articles. Just stick with the nice ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was this already shared?

Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton That May Show Why She And Prince Harry Are Cutting Off Royal Reporters

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bfsharefacebook&ref=mobile_share

Buzzfeed?

It's quite possible to selectively compare examples while ignoring everything else, including the flattering press Meghan received. You just want to ignore those because it doesn't fit your narrative.

The Royals have decades of nasty press behind them. Every single one of them has been brutally raked over in the media. Even Kate. None of you were clearly alive at the peak Fergie scandals of the 1990s / early 2000s.

Meghan just can't cope. And she didn't want to deal with the royal duty. That's something most of you are missing on this thread. Being royal isn't just about having photographs taken. It's mostly duty. Acting as a symbol of the British state even when opening a hospital or going to a military concert. It's endless rota of duty. That's 99% of what the Queen does.

And now they're moving to Canada, which is likely just a pit stop on the way somewhere else. But what is their future? To be symbols of something. Well, newsflash, that means more press. They know that. The nasty press isn't going away. But what is going away is the obligation of duty. She wants to have the status/"influence" of the Duchess of Sussex without any of the duty obligation and that is why she's not popular in the UK any more. People would have a lot more respect if the pair intended to move to a farm and live a simple country life but that's not their plan, is it? They want to be influencers. They fully intend to be in the public eye. But without the titles and royal status they have no claim or merit to be an influencer. Which means they will only be a different kind of celebrity parasite.

It was circulating here the day before it was "published" in Buzzfeed. Seems like something her PR team put together.

Very clear though and almost impossible to counter. Hence your attempt to discredit. Who cares if it came from her PR team or not.

What's there to counter? It's a manufactured leaflet that isn't representative of the press treatment each has gotten, or the treatment the Royal family has gotten ion general. Here is a teaser for you... go read about the leaked Charles and Camilla tapes and then come here and talk about leaks. Someone made fun of Meghan's belly holding boo hoo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling the same awful RRs won’t stop negative press.

A feeling? How about fact. They absolutely will not stop. H & M will just be located farther away from it. In London and on tour, the press travels along with them unless they go into their private rooms. It‘s know that the press pack is so closely knit with royals, they hang out together, have drinks, know about each others’ families. Sometimes have tiffs and arguments, travel on the same flights.

So they won’t be quite as near to that group. H&M only had a few kind people (kind to them) in that pack.

They don’t want an end to Pres. They want to retain control of it. They want all good press.

Additionally, two things can be true at once
1) many of the negative press pushers are racist and push unfair negative stories
2) she and Harry have done a handful of things that are worth criticism

Last, the spare has ALWAYS had the highest highs and lowest lows of press coverage. They loved Margaret and tore her to pieces. Edward the vi (who made himself the ‘spare’) was very popular, and got ripped. Charles and the siblings have had their respective protection (took us a long time to know about Diana’s and Charles’s troubles) and respective negativity (andrew’s wife. Anne’s younger scandals).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling the same awful RRs won’t stop negative press.

A feeling? How about fact. They absolutely will not stop. H & M will just be located farther away from it. In London and on tour, the press travels along with them unless they go into their private rooms. It‘s know that the press pack is so closely knit with royals, they hang out together, have drinks, know about each others’ families. Sometimes have tiffs and arguments, travel on the same flights.

So they won’t be quite as near to that group. H&M only had a few kind people (kind to them) in that pack.

They don’t want an end to Pres. They want to retain control of it. They want all good press.

Additionally, two things can be true at once
1) many of the negative press pushers are racist and push unfair negative stories
2) she and Harry have done a handful of things that are worth criticism

Last, the spare has ALWAYS had the highest highs and lowest lows of press coverage. They loved Margaret and tore her to pieces. Edward the vi (who made himself the ‘spare’) was very popular, and got ripped. Charles and the siblings have had their respective protection (took us a long time to know about Diana’s and Charles’s troubles) and respective negativity (andrew’s wife. Anne’s younger scandals).

The press LOVED Harry for so long (after he grew older and rehabbed the Vegas bad boy image)
The press loved Harry and Meghan for the first year, w/ exception: the overt racist people

These publishers create patterns of narratives to follow. Build someone up just to push them down. Then create foils of all of the Royal characters. Kate v Meghan. Camilla v Kate. Harry v will.

[Anonymous]

The timing of all of this being so soon after the Jennifer Meyer jewelry issue is interesting. The palace leaked stuff on Meghan there, and put her in a negative light. I think they can’t trust that the PR around them is working for them, and not against them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling the same awful RRs won’t stop negative press.

Yea I don’t think that they will. However, I think being away from the courtiers and honestly their family will reduce the flow of leaks.

Half the leaks were from MM’s camp!

Huh? You’ve repeatedly said that she’s unpopular because she’s a narc and that’s why the coverage is bad. Or that press coverage is bad because the press is always mean to wives in the beginning. So now you think she leaked a bunch of negative stories about herself?

Don't be obtuse. Not all leaks are negative. Obviously her leaks were to defend herself and protect her image.

What if she did? Are you arguing that leaking to trash someone and leaking to defend yourself are equally acceptable? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling the same awful RRs won’t stop negative press.

Yea I don’t think that they will. However, I think being away from the courtiers and honestly their family will reduce the flow of leaks.

Half the leaks were from MM’s camp!

Huh? You’ve repeatedly said that she’s unpopular because she’s a narc and that’s why the coverage is bad. Or that press coverage is bad because the press is always mean to wives in the beginning. So now you think she leaked a bunch of negative stories about herself?

Don't be obtuse. Not all leaks are negative. Obviously her leaks were to defend herself and protect her image.

What if she did? Are you arguing that leaking to trash someone and leaking to defend yourself are equally acceptable? Really?

No, not what I'm arguing. Reread the chain if you don't understand. It's pretty straightforward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Now they just look like grifters.

Maybe to you. To me and a lot of other people (see the majority positive international coverage) they look smart: they are protecting their child, setting up a way to independent wealth, and getting themselves away from a toxic family. Seems brilliant.

Yes... they are going to make a fortune (or try to make a fortune) by being grifters.... because that's what it is. Manipulating rich people to make yourself rich through huge speaking fees when you say nothing of particular merit. At least other famous speakers have illustrious careers (former presidents, for example).

I'm all for people making a fortune but let's not pretend this is a morally better way of doing it, especially as the at the same time want to be spokesmen for oppression and environmental causes and all that at the same time. Errr? Am I missing something here? Why not donate your fat speaking fees to save the environment rather than paying for your private jet, eh?

Like I said earlier, I'd have total respect and completely support them if their plan was to retreat to a quiet life somewhere. Live an environmentally sustainable lifestyle on a farm in western Canada. Maybe pop back to the UK a few times a year for ceremonies but otherwise live very privately with just their children and close friends. That would meet their need for privacy and to have their own life. But that's not what's happening, is it? They want to be a different kind of royal: celebrities. Which means they'll still be in the nasty public eye, full media attention, press following them everywhere, jetting around the world on high carbon private jets to lecture about saving the environment, hanging out on the red carpet with the Clooneys and other celebs.

Shrugs.

There are many ways to live a sustainable lifestyle that don’t require you to live on a farm. If that is the only way to do it then we are truly effed. They need security. Harry has previously had his life threatened and been a target of kidnapping while he was in the military. Plus if they are as reviled as you say they are in the UK then they are also at risk. So either they can have their costs paid by Charles or they can work. But you seem to be against either.

Rather telling you ignored the hypocrisies involved here.

Living in a big mansion and jetting around in a private jet all the time = hypocrite, not environmentalist. Making a fortune through speaking fees and grifting from your new foundation, while telling people how to be better environmentalists while simultaneously not following it yourself = hypocrite.

That was a big part of the criticism laid against Harry and Meghan over the past year or so.

Actions speak louder than words. And unfortunately their actions to date aren't encouraging. What they proclaim they want to do does not match up with the realities of being a proper environmentalist or a proper social reformer. Saying you're retreating from the royal life to live the quiet life a la Greta Garbo is utterly honorable and understandable. Leaving the royal life to be another shallow rich celeb with double standards is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The timing of all of this being so soon after the Jennifer Meyer jewelry issue is interesting. The palace leaked stuff on Meghan there, and put her in a negative light. I think they can’t trust that the PR around them is working for them, and not against them.

I almost forgot that MM was clearly making side deals from the beginning and using her public appearances to hawk merchandise for her friends which is both an abuse of her privilege and position and against royal protocol. No wonder the family couldn’t stand or trust her. She continues to prove why she got bad press

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boo hoo. Don’t read the tabloids.

Lol, this is ridiculous. You can't counter the claim so you come back with this.

DP. I agree. Did she quit because her ILs were mean to her or because of mean articles in the tabloids? They're saying it's the latter. So don't pay so much attention to the mean articles. Just stick with the nice ones.

Funny. Meghan claimed she never read articles about herself to keep herself grounded. What a joke.