Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly just think they bring a lot of the hate on themselves. If they stayed out of the press and stopped giving such drama-filled interviews, then no one would have anything to say about them, good or bad.

That’s not what they want. They want adulation and global celebrity humanitarian status, so they’re trying to keep themselves relevant. Unfortunately the only thing they have to sell is their litany of grievances against the BRF, which isn’t the best product given their goals. But they’re working with what they have.

Unfortunately, the problem is that their connection to the royal family is currently the most interesting thing about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I imagine it is so painful for Harry to have a dad who has essentially rejected him. I am not a huge fan of H&M because they come across as money greedy but the news that Charles plans to create a monarchy where he excludes Harry’s kids is terrible and feels racist. He may want a smaller monarchy but he only has two kids and their mother was killed in a horrific way. He has zero sensitivity. He should be trying to fix things instead of creating more space. A smarter person would say okay if you want the titles/security then you need to agree that they spend a certain amount of time in U.K. etc.

You don't get it. Monarchy is not an egalitarian, inclusive enterprise. There is #1, and then there is everyone else, and there is no equality among them, and none is expected. Harry knows that very well but he's been indulged too long. It's a bit much to milk his mother's death twenty years later. Normal people recover by now.

People don't ever really get over losing a mother so young and there's no timeline for "normal grieving". Yet he's had a good military career and is trying to help others with Invictus and his other foundations. Don't be a jerk.

William lost the same mother and has miraculously managed to remain functional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I truly just think they bring a lot of the hate on themselves. If they stayed out of the press and stopped giving such drama-filled interviews, then no one would have anything to say about them, good or bad.

That's not true and you know it. They were getting unprecedented amounts of hate and "trolling" for years before news of the Oprah interview even broke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly just think they bring a lot of the hate on themselves. If they stayed out of the press and stopped giving such drama-filled interviews, then no one would have anything to say about them, good or bad.

That's not true and you know it. They were getting unprecedented amounts of hate and "trolling" for years before news of the Oprah interview even broke.

The Sussexes and their supporters always claim this, but it's not true. They got criticism, sure. The vast majority of it was on justifiable and reasonable grounds, such as that they (mostly Meghan) were breaking typical norms that the BRF followed. Some examples (among many others) are: not wearing a hat on an engagement with the Queen when the Queen was wearing one, discussing political subjects in public, refusing to follow the typical royal baby protocol when Archie was born. Yes, she got blasted for all of this, and it's because she married into a family and a role with strict rules, and kept breaking them, presumably purposefully. Their oft-repeated claim that they were regularly subjected to racist treatment in the press just doesn't bear out. There were a couple of high-profile incidents, such as a reporter tweeting a monkey cartoon when Archie was born and the DM running a headline calling Meghan "straight outta Compton," but those were correctly called out as racist in the moment. The reporter who wrote the tweet was fired from his job immediately because of it. It's not true that the UK collectively looked the other way with regard to racist things said about them.

Some people have said that there was disparate press treatment of Kate and Meghan, but of course there was - Kate is a known quantity, the mother of three royal children, and has earned respect and popularity over the 20 years she's been in the public eye (10 of them as a member of the BRF). Meghan hadn't earned any goodwill (despite that, she had some at the beginning), and was an American newcomer. I'm not defending it, but anyone who expected them to be treated the same - at least at the beginning of Meghan's tenure - is delusional. People also forget that Kate herself was subjected to terrible and mean stories about herself and her family for a long time. Also not defending it, but the type of coverage Meghan got was not "unprecedented."

Yes, there were also stupid stories about Meghan eating too many avocados or wearing an ill-fitting outfit or whatever else. That comes with the territory of being a public figure/celebrity, and most celebrities have the good sense to ignore that kind of stuff. There isn't a single public figure who gets uniformly positive coverage, and that's one tradeoff that comes with all the perks. If she were so sensitive to stuff like that, she should have moved on from Harry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly just think they bring a lot of the hate on themselves. If they stayed out of the press and stopped giving such drama-filled interviews, then no one would have anything to say about them, good or bad.

That's not true and you know it. They were getting unprecedented amounts of hate and "trolling" for years before news of the Oprah interview even broke.

The Sussexes and their supporters always claim this, but it's not true. They got criticism, sure. The vast majority of it was on justifiable and reasonable grounds, such as that they (mostly Meghan) were breaking typical norms that the BRF followed. Some examples (among many others) are: not wearing a hat on an engagement with the Queen when the Queen was wearing one, discussing political subjects in public, refusing to follow the typical royal baby protocol when Archie was born. Yes, she got blasted for all of this, and it's because she married into a family and a role with strict rules, and kept breaking them, presumably purposefully. Their oft-repeated claim that they were regularly subjected to racist treatment in the press just doesn't bear out. There were a couple of high-profile incidents, such as a reporter tweeting a monkey cartoon when Archie was born and the DM running a headline calling Meghan "straight outta Compton," but those were correctly called out as racist in the moment. The reporter who wrote the tweet was fired from his job immediately because of it. It's not true that the UK collectively looked the other way with regard to racist things said about them.

Some people have said that there was disparate press treatment of Kate and Meghan, but of course there was - Kate is a known quantity, the mother of three royal children, and has earned respect and popularity over the 20 years she's been in the public eye (10 of them as a member of the BRF). Meghan hadn't earned any goodwill (despite that, she had some at the beginning), and was an American newcomer. I'm not defending it, but anyone who expected them to be treated the same - at least at the beginning of Meghan's tenure - is delusional. People also forget that Kate herself was subjected to terrible and mean stories about herself and her family for a long time. Also not defending it, but the type of coverage Meghan got was not "unprecedented."

Yes, there were also stupid stories about Meghan eating too many avocados or wearing an ill-fitting outfit or whatever else. That comes with the territory of being a public figure/celebrity, and most celebrities have the good sense to ignore that kind of stuff. There isn't a single public figure who gets uniformly positive coverage, and that's one tradeoff that comes with all the perks. If she were so sensitive to stuff like that, she should have moved on from Harry.

History keeps the record, and it will not remember this particular chapter in royal family history kindly, nor the enablers or apologists who for some reason insist on peddling misinformation and rumors to justify the obsessive level of hate they perpetuate against this woman. Not a "stan" (dumb word), just an observation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly just think they bring a lot of the hate on themselves. If they stayed out of the press and stopped giving such drama-filled interviews, then no one would have anything to say about them, good or bad.

That's not true and you know it. They were getting unprecedented amounts of hate and "trolling" for years before news of the Oprah interview even broke.

The Sussexes and their supporters always claim this, but it's not true. They got criticism, sure. The vast majority of it was on justifiable and reasonable grounds, such as that they (mostly Meghan) were breaking typical norms that the BRF followed. Some examples (among many others) are: not wearing a hat on an engagement with the Queen when the Queen was wearing one, discussing political subjects in public, refusing to follow the typical royal baby protocol when Archie was born. Yes, she got blasted for all of this, and it's because she married into a family and a role with strict rules, and kept breaking them, presumably purposefully. Their oft-repeated claim that they were regularly subjected to racist treatment in the press just doesn't bear out. There were a couple of high-profile incidents, such as a reporter tweeting a monkey cartoon when Archie was born and the DM running a headline calling Meghan "straight outta Compton," but those were correctly called out as racist in the moment. The reporter who wrote the tweet was fired from his job immediately because of it. It's not true that the UK collectively looked the other way with regard to racist things said about them.

Some people have said that there was disparate press treatment of Kate and Meghan, but of course there was - Kate is a known quantity, the mother of three royal children, and has earned respect and popularity over the 20 years she's been in the public eye (10 of them as a member of the BRF). Meghan hadn't earned any goodwill (despite that, she had some at the beginning), and was an American newcomer. I'm not defending it, but anyone who expected them to be treated the same - at least at the beginning of Meghan's tenure - is delusional. People also forget that Kate herself was subjected to terrible and mean stories about herself and her family for a long time. Also not defending it, but the type of coverage Meghan got was not "unprecedented."

Yes, there were also stupid stories about Meghan eating too many avocados or wearing an ill-fitting outfit or whatever else. That comes with the territory of being a public figure/celebrity, and most celebrities have the good sense to ignore that kind of stuff. There isn't a single public figure who gets uniformly positive coverage, and that's one tradeoff that comes with all the perks. If she were so sensitive to stuff like that, she should have moved on from Harry.

History keeps the record, and it will not remember this particular chapter in royal family history kindly, nor the enablers or apologists who for some reason insist on peddling misinformation and rumors to justify the obsessive level of hate they perpetuate against this woman. Not a "stan" (dumb word), just an observation.

Harry and Meghan will be a minor footnote in royal family history. Their relevance is already limited, and they'll be further sidelined as the Cambridge kids grow up and the public starts becoming interested in their lives. The BRF has weathered a lot and comes out just fine in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I imagine it is so painful for Harry to have a dad who has essentially rejected him. I am not a huge fan of H&M because they come across as money greedy but the news that Charles plans to create a monarchy where he excludes Harry’s kids is terrible and feels racist. He may want a smaller monarchy but he only has two kids and their mother was killed in a horrific way. He has zero sensitivity. He should be trying to fix things instead of creating more space. A smarter person would say okay if you want the titles/security then you need to agree that they spend a certain amount of time in U.K. etc.

You don't get it. Monarchy is not an egalitarian, inclusive enterprise. There is #1, and then there is everyone else, and there is no equality among them, and none is expected. Harry knows that very well but he's been indulged too long. It's a bit much to milk his mother's death twenty years later. Normal people recover by now.

People don't ever really get over losing a mother so young and there's no timeline for "normal grieving". Yet he's had a good military career and is trying to help others with Invictus and his other foundations. Don't be a jerk.

William lost the same mother and has miraculously managed to remain functional.

Because as you stated the heir is prioritized. Also debatable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly just think they bring a lot of the hate on themselves. If they stayed out of the press and stopped giving such drama-filled interviews, then no one would have anything to say about them, good or bad.

That's not true and you know it. They were getting unprecedented amounts of hate and "trolling" for years before news of the Oprah interview even broke.

The Sussexes and their supporters always claim this, but it's not true. They got criticism, sure. The vast majority of it was on justifiable and reasonable grounds, such as that they (mostly Meghan) were breaking typical norms that the BRF followed. Some examples (among many others) are: not wearing a hat on an engagement with the Queen when the Queen was wearing one, discussing political subjects in public, refusing to follow the typical royal baby protocol when Archie was born. Yes, she got blasted for all of this, and it's because she married into a family and a role with strict rules, and kept breaking them, presumably purposefully. Their oft-repeated claim that they were regularly subjected to racist treatment in the press just doesn't bear out. There were a couple of high-profile incidents, such as a reporter tweeting a monkey cartoon when Archie was born and the DM running a headline calling Meghan "straight outta Compton," but those were correctly called out as racist in the moment. The reporter who wrote the tweet was fired from his job immediately because of it. It's not true that the UK collectively looked the other way with regard to racist things said about them.

Some people have said that there was disparate press treatment of Kate and Meghan, but of course there was - Kate is a known quantity, the mother of three royal children, and has earned respect and popularity over the 20 years she's been in the public eye (10 of them as a member of the BRF). Meghan hadn't earned any goodwill (despite that, she had some at the beginning), and was an American newcomer. I'm not defending it, but anyone who expected them to be treated the same - at least at the beginning of Meghan's tenure - is delusional. People also forget that Kate herself was subjected to terrible and mean stories about herself and her family for a long time. Also not defending it, but the type of coverage Meghan got was not "unprecedented."

Yes, there were also stupid stories about Meghan eating too many avocados or wearing an ill-fitting outfit or whatever else. That comes with the territory of being a public figure/celebrity, and most celebrities have the good sense to ignore that kind of stuff. There isn't a single public figure who gets uniformly positive coverage, and that's one tradeoff that comes with all the perks. If she were so sensitive to stuff like that, she should have moved on from Harry.

History keeps the record, and it will not remember this particular chapter in royal family history kindly, nor the enablers or apologists who for some reason insist on peddling misinformation and rumors to justify the obsessive level of hate they perpetuate against this woman. Not a "stan" (dumb word), just an observation.

Harry and Meghan will be a minor footnote in royal family history. Their relevance is already limited, and they'll be further sidelined as the Cambridge kids grow up and the public starts becoming interested in their lives. The BRF has weathered a lot and comes out just fine in the end.

The past is not prologue. All of them will be relegated to the dustbin of history as each year more of the BRF fans die and more of those who are apathetic or hostile come of age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly just think they bring a lot of the hate on themselves. If they stayed out of the press and stopped giving such drama-filled interviews, then no one would have anything to say about them, good or bad.

That's not true and you know it. They were getting unprecedented amounts of hate and "trolling" for years before news of the Oprah interview even broke.

The Sussexes and their supporters always claim this, but it's not true. They got criticism, sure. The vast majority of it was on justifiable and reasonable grounds, such as that they (mostly Meghan) were breaking typical norms that the BRF followed. Some examples (among many others) are: not wearing a hat on an engagement with the Queen when the Queen was wearing one, discussing political subjects in public, refusing to follow the typical royal baby protocol when Archie was born. Yes, she got blasted for all of this, and it's because she married into a family and a role with strict rules, and kept breaking them, presumably purposefully. Their oft-repeated claim that they were regularly subjected to racist treatment in the press just doesn't bear out. There were a couple of high-profile incidents, such as a reporter tweeting a monkey cartoon when Archie was born and the DM running a headline calling Meghan "straight outta Compton," but those were correctly called out as racist in the moment. The reporter who wrote the tweet was fired from his job immediately because of it. It's not true that the UK collectively looked the other way with regard to racist things said about them.

Some people have said that there was disparate press treatment of Kate and Meghan, but of course there was - Kate is a known quantity, the mother of three royal children, and has earned respect and popularity over the 20 years she's been in the public eye (10 of them as a member of the BRF). Meghan hadn't earned any goodwill (despite that, she had some at the beginning), and was an American newcomer. I'm not defending it, but anyone who expected them to be treated the same - at least at the beginning of Meghan's tenure - is delusional. People also forget that Kate herself was subjected to terrible and mean stories about herself and her family for a long time. Also not defending it, but the type of coverage Meghan got was not "unprecedented."

Yes, there were also stupid stories about Meghan eating too many avocados or wearing an ill-fitting outfit or whatever else. That comes with the territory of being a public figure/celebrity, and most celebrities have the good sense to ignore that kind of stuff. There isn't a single public figure who gets uniformly positive coverage, and that's one tradeoff that comes with all the perks. If she were so sensitive to stuff like that, she should have moved on from Harry.

History keeps the record, and it will not remember this particular chapter in royal family history kindly, nor the enablers or apologists who for some reason insist on peddling misinformation and rumors to justify the obsessive level of hate they perpetuate against this woman. Not a "stan" (dumb word), just an observation.

Harry and Meghan will be a minor footnote in royal family history. Their relevance is already limited, and they'll be further sidelined as the Cambridge kids grow up and the public starts becoming interested in their lives. The BRF has weathered a lot and comes out just fine in the end.

The past is not prologue. All of them will be relegated to the dustbin of history as each year more of the BRF fans die and more of those who are apathetic or hostile come of age.

Maybe, maybe not. None of us know. But the BRF’s demise has been predicted many times, and it’s never come to fruition. And interest or disinterest in the BRF is dynamic, not static. Personally, I think that there will be some new and renewed interest, particularly among people who are young now, in ~15 years when George, Charlotte, and Louis are old enough to have interesting lives, romantic interests, etc. We’ll see. But if the institution is dismantled in our lifetime, it won’t be because of Harry and Meghan. They’re unpopular in the UK anyway, and are basically only somewhat relevant here because of their nonstop PR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I imagine it is so painful for Harry to have a dad who has essentially rejected him. I am not a huge fan of H&M because they come across as money greedy but the news that Charles plans to create a monarchy where he excludes Harry’s kids is terrible and feels racist. He may want a smaller monarchy but he only has two kids and their mother was killed in a horrific way. He has zero sensitivity. He should be trying to fix things instead of creating more space. A smarter person would say okay if you want the titles/security then you need to agree that they spend a certain amount of time in U.K. etc.

The monarchy is a separate entity from the family, though. In order to survive, the monarchy has to be managed as a business, which I understand is hard when family dynamics are involved. But it's not racist. British taxpayers support the BRF and they don't want to pay for security, etc., for more members than a small core group. If Archie and Lilibet are extended titles and full working royal status, they'll expect the same for their kids eventually. Where does it end? Harry is #7 in line at this point; he was always meant to have a scaled-back role after William had kids (see Andrew, Edward, and Anne - they're not equals in title or status to Charles, nor should they be). I think the fact that he was allowed to essentially have co-equal status to William as a senior royal until after he was married is a good indication of the fact that the BRF has been lenient and generous with Harry (possibly too lenient and generous, given the tremendous level of entitlement he seems to have now) - probably because, in part, of his mother dying when he was so young. As the future head of the institution, Charles needs to be clear-headed about making strategic decisions, because poor ones might take down the whole thing. I am somewhat sympathetic to the situation on a personal level, but it's really not personal.

Also, let's be clear that they weren't excluded from royal titles and privileges. If they had cooperated with the BRF's expectations and stayed in the UK, they still had a luxurious, rent-free royal residence (Frogmore Cottage) that was theirs for life, status as "senior royals", taxpayer-funded security (which seems to be extremely important to them), and secondary titles (at minimum) for their kids. Archie is technically styled as the Earl of Dumbarton, H&M just chose not to use it. The problems with this arrangement appeared to be that (1) it depended on H&M being a "secondary" couple in status to W&K, which Meghan (and possibly also Harry) couldn't stand, and (2) they wanted to monetize their royal status by doing high-profile commercial deals and become global celebrities in their own right, which is fundamentally incompatible with being a senior royal. So when they were told that they had to choose between staying in the BRF and striking out on their own, they chose the latter. But to now complain and whine about how they voluntarily quit the BRF and moved abroad and have now been (as a totally foreseeable consequence) cut off from the perks that the BRF enjoys is absurdly entitled and frankly, just stupid.

There is a huge difference from the hundreds of hangers in and two brothers whose dad will be king. Same two brothers whose mother diedd in a highly sketchy manner. No security. In her case she opted for none but we see what happens when you do not have security. They left after they were told their son would have no security and would not be a prince and I do not blame them. Charles should make better decisions. He should find a way to make this work better. Charles is already not likable and this makes it worse. I would allow the kids to have titles provided they were raised in England at least a certain so mount per year. You can always find a way to work something out. I could see a greater chance of monarchy going under if this present situation is not resolved. Megan is not a dummy and she will make sure it works out for them. I am starting to like her more. Maybe Harry needed a Megan because he is weak without her.

They chose not to work and then complained because they still wanted all the benefits. Some people might think that sounds very entitled.

no they wanted to keep working, but the brf wanted them to work less... hence why they've been more productive in the last 3 months than any w&k have been in years. you guys can't keep your stories straight, can you?

LOL! You’re the one inventing new stories each time someone calls you out.

+1. Where are you getting this idea? They wanted to "work" by making commercial deals as senior royals, not work by doing the actual work that the BRF expects from a secondary (not in direct line to the throne) royal - such as visiting charities, maintaining patronages (maybe not the top-tier or most glamorous ones, but they did make an effort to allow Meghan to do things she found interesting, such as her cookbook project and the fashion line benefitting women returning to the workforce), opening hospitals, etc.

The BRF did slap down the idea that they could maintain senior royal status while simultaneously exploiting their connection to the BRF for profit, such as by doing the Netflix and Spotify deals that they signed onto within the last year. That's not because they're mean, it's because that kind of stuff makes the family look shady to the public. This really upset H&M because they saw themselves as the popular stars of the family, and wanted to develop a source of income that wasn't limited by what the BRF/Charles chose to give them. Which is, again, fine, but to then complain that the BRF withdrew their royal privileges after they chose to walk away to make money is pretty ridiculous.

Taxpayer funded security is for working members of the BRF, which H&M are not, and which Archie will not be. There is zero reason why Archie should be entitled to security if he's not a working royal, and it's better not to instill that expectation from the beginning than to take it away after the beneficiary is used to it. In the UK, Archie would generally have been accompanied by his parents' PPOs, so it's not like he'd have been some helpless newborn surrounded by wolves. Most of the Queen's grandchildren and great-grandchildren, with the exception of the Cambridge children (because they're the children of the future king), don't have personal security. If you start down that path, there's nowhere to cut it off.

They were told that Archie would not be a prince before the deals hence why they made the deals to leave. Keep up. Now that I realize this, a lot makes sense and I am more sympathetic. They had to leave. They were forced. They needed a lot more money to keep safe. I get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly just think they bring a lot of the hate on themselves. If they stayed out of the press and stopped giving such drama-filled interviews, then no one would have anything to say about them, good or bad.

That's not true and you know it. They were getting unprecedented amounts of hate and "trolling" for years before news of the Oprah interview even broke.

The Sussexes and their supporters always claim this, but it's not true. They got criticism, sure. The vast majority of it was on justifiable and reasonable grounds, such as that they (mostly Meghan) were breaking typical norms that the BRF followed. Some examples (among many others) are: not wearing a hat on an engagement with the Queen when the Queen was wearing one, discussing political subjects in public, refusing to follow the typical royal baby protocol when Archie was born. Yes, she got blasted for all of this, and it's because she married into a family and a role with strict rules, and kept breaking them, presumably purposefully. Their oft-repeated claim that they were regularly subjected to racist treatment in the press just doesn't bear out. There were a couple of high-profile incidents, such as a reporter tweeting a monkey cartoon when Archie was born and the DM running a headline calling Meghan "straight outta Compton," but those were correctly called out as racist in the moment. The reporter who wrote the tweet was fired from his job immediately because of it. It's not true that the UK collectively looked the other way with regard to racist things said about them.

Some people have said that there was disparate press treatment of Kate and Meghan, but of course there was - Kate is a known quantity, the mother of three royal children, and has earned respect and popularity over the 20 years she's been in the public eye (10 of them as a member of the BRF). Meghan hadn't earned any goodwill (despite that, she had some at the beginning), and was an American newcomer. I'm not defending it, but anyone who expected them to be treated the same - at least at the beginning of Meghan's tenure - is delusional. People also forget that Kate herself was subjected to terrible and mean stories about herself and her family for a long time. Also not defending it, but the type of coverage Meghan got was not "unprecedented."

Yes, there were also stupid stories about Meghan eating too many avocados or wearing an ill-fitting outfit or whatever else. That comes with the territory of being a public figure/celebrity, and most celebrities have the good sense to ignore that kind of stuff. There isn't a single public figure who gets uniformly positive coverage, and that's one tradeoff that comes with all the perks. If she were so sensitive to stuff like that, she should have moved on from Harry.

History keeps the record, and it will not remember this particular chapter in royal family history kindly, nor the enablers or apologists who for some reason insist on peddling misinformation and rumors to justify the obsessive level of hate they perpetuate against this woman. Not a "stan" (dumb word), just an observation.

Harry and Meghan will be a minor footnote in royal family history. Their relevance is already limited, and they'll be further sidelined as the Cambridge kids grow up and the public starts becoming interested in their lives. The BRF has weathered a lot and comes out just fine in the end.

The past is not prologue. All of them will be relegated to the dustbin of history as each year more of the BRF fans die and more of those who are apathetic or hostile come of age.

Maybe, maybe not. None of us know. But the BRF’s demise has been predicted many times, and it’s never come to fruition. And interest or disinterest in the BRF is dynamic, not static. Personally, I think that there will be some new and renewed interest, particularly among people who are young now, in ~15 years when George, Charlotte, and Louis are old enough to have interesting lives, romantic interests, etc. We’ll see. But if the institution is dismantled in our lifetime, it won’t be because of Harry and Meghan. They’re unpopular in the UK anyway, and are basically only somewhat relevant here because of their nonstop PR.

Nonstop PR? The tabloids talk about them CONSTANTLY, PR or no PR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly just think they bring a lot of the hate on themselves. If they stayed out of the press and stopped giving such drama-filled interviews, then no one would have anything to say about them, good or bad.

That's not true and you know it. They were getting unprecedented amounts of hate and "trolling" for years before news of the Oprah interview even broke.

The Sussexes and their supporters always claim this, but it's not true. They got criticism, sure. The vast majority of it was on justifiable and reasonable grounds, such as that they (mostly Meghan) were breaking typical norms that the BRF followed. Some examples (among many others) are: not wearing a hat on an engagement with the Queen when the Queen was wearing one, discussing political subjects in public, refusing to follow the typical royal baby protocol when Archie was born. Yes, she got blasted for all of this, and it's because she married into a family and a role with strict rules, and kept breaking them, presumably purposefully. Their oft-repeated claim that they were regularly subjected to racist treatment in the press just doesn't bear out. There were a couple of high-profile incidents, such as a reporter tweeting a monkey cartoon when Archie was born and the DM running a headline calling Meghan "straight outta Compton," but those were correctly called out as racist in the moment. The reporter who wrote the tweet was fired from his job immediately because of it. It's not true that the UK collectively looked the other way with regard to racist things said about them.

Some people have said that there was disparate press treatment of Kate and Meghan, but of course there was - Kate is a known quantity, the mother of three royal children, and has earned respect and popularity over the 20 years she's been in the public eye (10 of them as a member of the BRF). Meghan hadn't earned any goodwill (despite that, she had some at the beginning), and was an American newcomer. I'm not defending it, but anyone who expected them to be treated the same - at least at the beginning of Meghan's tenure - is delusional. People also forget that Kate herself was subjected to terrible and mean stories about herself and her family for a long time. Also not defending it, but the type of coverage Meghan got was not "unprecedented."

Yes, there were also stupid stories about Meghan eating too many avocados or wearing an ill-fitting outfit or whatever else. That comes with the territory of being a public figure/celebrity, and most celebrities have the good sense to ignore that kind of stuff. There isn't a single public figure who gets uniformly positive coverage, and that's one tradeoff that comes with all the perks. If she were so sensitive to stuff like that, she should have moved on from Harry.

Don’t agree that it was fair treatment. As we have seen the BRF will pull negative stories for Kate and Andrew when they feel like it. Meghan was a poor fit and unprotected. Also Meghan was a poor fit because she has a very American view of merit and hard work and positive enthusiasm being rewarded. She’s the only one out of the Cambridges and Sussexes that has ever had a real, can actually pay the bills without parental money job. Kate’s mom is basically a British Kris Jenner who groomed her daughters to marry the highest status man they could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly just think they bring a lot of the hate on themselves. If they stayed out of the press and stopped giving such drama-filled interviews, then no one would have anything to say about them, good or bad.

That's not true and you know it. They were getting unprecedented amounts of hate and "trolling" for years before news of the Oprah interview even broke.

The Sussexes and their supporters always claim this, but it's not true. They got criticism, sure. The vast majority of it was on justifiable and reasonable grounds, such as that they (mostly Meghan) were breaking typical norms that the BRF followed. Some examples (among many others) are: not wearing a hat on an engagement with the Queen when the Queen was wearing one, discussing political subjects in public, refusing to follow the typical royal baby protocol when Archie was born. Yes, she got blasted for all of this, and it's because she married into a family and a role with strict rules, and kept breaking them, presumably purposefully. Their oft-repeated claim that they were regularly subjected to racist treatment in the press just doesn't bear out. There were a couple of high-profile incidents, such as a reporter tweeting a monkey cartoon when Archie was born and the DM running a headline calling Meghan "straight outta Compton," but those were correctly called out as racist in the moment. The reporter who wrote the tweet was fired from his job immediately because of it. It's not true that the UK collectively looked the other way with regard to racist things said about them.

Some people have said that there was disparate press treatment of Kate and Meghan, but of course there was - Kate is a known quantity, the mother of three royal children, and has earned respect and popularity over the 20 years she's been in the public eye (10 of them as a member of the BRF). Meghan hadn't earned any goodwill (despite that, she had some at the beginning), and was an American newcomer. I'm not defending it, but anyone who expected them to be treated the same - at least at the beginning of Meghan's tenure - is delusional. People also forget that Kate herself was subjected to terrible and mean stories about herself and her family for a long time. Also not defending it, but the type of coverage Meghan got was not "unprecedented."

Yes, there were also stupid stories about Meghan eating too many avocados or wearing an ill-fitting outfit or whatever else. That comes with the territory of being a public figure/celebrity, and most celebrities have the good sense to ignore that kind of stuff. There isn't a single public figure who gets uniformly positive coverage, and that's one tradeoff that comes with all the perks. If she were so sensitive to stuff like that, she should have moved on from Harry.

Don’t agree that it was fair treatment. As we have seen the BRF will pull negative stories for Kate and Andrew when they feel like it. Meghan was a poor fit and unprotected. Also Meghan was a poor fit because she has a very American view of merit and hard work and positive enthusiasm being rewarded. She’s the only one out of the Cambridges and Sussexes that has ever had a real, can actually pay the bills without parental money job. Kate’s mom is basically a British Kris Jenner who groomed her daughters to marry the highest status man they could.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly just think they bring a lot of the hate on themselves. If they stayed out of the press and stopped giving such drama-filled interviews, then no one would have anything to say about them, good or bad.

That's not true and you know it. They were getting unprecedented amounts of hate and "trolling" for years before news of the Oprah interview even broke.

The Sussexes and their supporters always claim this, but it's not true. They got criticism, sure. The vast majority of it was on justifiable and reasonable grounds, such as that they (mostly Meghan) were breaking typical norms that the BRF followed. Some examples (among many others) are: not wearing a hat on an engagement with the Queen when the Queen was wearing one, discussing political subjects in public, refusing to follow the typical royal baby protocol when Archie was born. Yes, she got blasted for all of this, and it's because she married into a family and a role with strict rules, and kept breaking them, presumably purposefully. Their oft-repeated claim that they were regularly subjected to racist treatment in the press just doesn't bear out. There were a couple of high-profile incidents, such as a reporter tweeting a monkey cartoon when Archie was born and the DM running a headline calling Meghan "straight outta Compton," but those were correctly called out as racist in the moment. The reporter who wrote the tweet was fired from his job immediately because of it. It's not true that the UK collectively looked the other way with regard to racist things said about them.

Some people have said that there was disparate press treatment of Kate and Meghan, but of course there was - Kate is a known quantity, the mother of three royal children, and has earned respect and popularity over the 20 years she's been in the public eye (10 of them as a member of the BRF). Meghan hadn't earned any goodwill (despite that, she had some at the beginning), and was an American newcomer. I'm not defending it, but anyone who expected them to be treated the same - at least at the beginning of Meghan's tenure - is delusional. People also forget that Kate herself was subjected to terrible and mean stories about herself and her family for a long time. Also not defending it, but the type of coverage Meghan got was not "unprecedented."

Yes, there were also stupid stories about Meghan eating too many avocados or wearing an ill-fitting outfit or whatever else. That comes with the territory of being a public figure/celebrity, and most celebrities have the good sense to ignore that kind of stuff. There isn't a single public figure who gets uniformly positive coverage, and that's one tradeoff that comes with all the perks. If she were so sensitive to stuff like that, she should have moved on from Harry.

History keeps the record, and it will not remember this particular chapter in royal family history kindly, nor the enablers or apologists who for some reason insist on peddling misinformation and rumors to justify the obsessive level of hate they perpetuate against this woman. Not a "stan" (dumb word), just an observation.

Harry and Meghan will be a minor footnote in royal family history. Their relevance is already limited, and they'll be further sidelined as the Cambridge kids grow up and the public starts becoming interested in their lives. The BRF has weathered a lot and comes out just fine in the end.

The past is not prologue. All of them will be relegated to the dustbin of history as each year more of the BRF fans die and more of those who are apathetic or hostile come of age.

Maybe, maybe not. None of us know. But the BRF’s demise has been predicted many times, and it’s never come to fruition. And interest or disinterest in the BRF is dynamic, not static. Personally, I think that there will be some new and renewed interest, particularly among people who are young now, in ~15 years when George, Charlotte, and Louis are old enough to have interesting lives, romantic interests, etc. We’ll see. But if the institution is dismantled in our lifetime, it won’t be because of Harry and Meghan. They’re unpopular in the UK anyway, and are basically only somewhat relevant here because of their nonstop PR.

It’s not because of Harry and Meghan but because of their failure to contain that situation or to respond to their attacks in an intelligent way. Like it or not if the Sussexes say they are racist people will pay attention to them and having one person say that the family is not racist doesn’t cut it. Like we all know Prince Harry and Prince Phillip have said and done racist things and last time I checked there in the family too. Plus are we supposed to surmise the institution is racist? Or what? They can’t just try and ignore them and hope they go away nor should they try and go tit for tat. They should

You may be right that if they can hold on (again the fact that they have in the past means nothing) until the Cambridge children are of age then they may have some hope IF they aren’t too Windsor-y looking. There’s tons of nepotism models and tik tok stars that are popular with the younger set but they are all good looking. Also that’s what used to make William more popular than Harry when they were younger until he lost all his hair. Big if though that Charles doesn’t run it into the ground. He seems reasonably intelligent but makes all his decisions emotionally. Being a steady hand has really been one of QEII’s strengths. That and her ability to make sacrifices for the crown which none of these men seem able to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly just think they bring a lot of the hate on themselves. If they stayed out of the press and stopped giving such drama-filled interviews, then no one would have anything to say about them, good or bad.

That's not true and you know it. They were getting unprecedented amounts of hate and "trolling" for years before news of the Oprah interview even broke.

The Sussexes and their supporters always claim this, but it's not true. They got criticism, sure. The vast majority of it was on justifiable and reasonable grounds, such as that they (mostly Meghan) were breaking typical norms that the BRF followed. Some examples (among many others) are: not wearing a hat on an engagement with the Queen when the Queen was wearing one, discussing political subjects in public, refusing to follow the typical royal baby protocol when Archie was born. Yes, she got blasted for all of this, and it's because she married into a family and a role with strict rules, and kept breaking them, presumably purposefully. Their oft-repeated claim that they were regularly subjected to racist treatment in the press just doesn't bear out. There were a couple of high-profile incidents, such as a reporter tweeting a monkey cartoon when Archie was born and the DM running a headline calling Meghan "straight outta Compton," but those were correctly called out as racist in the moment. The reporter who wrote the tweet was fired from his job immediately because of it. It's not true that the UK collectively looked the other way with regard to racist things said about them.

Some people have said that there was disparate press treatment of Kate and Meghan, but of course there was - Kate is a known quantity, the mother of three royal children, and has earned respect and popularity over the 20 years she's been in the public eye (10 of them as a member of the BRF). Meghan hadn't earned any goodwill (despite that, she had some at the beginning), and was an American newcomer. I'm not defending it, but anyone who expected them to be treated the same - at least at the beginning of Meghan's tenure - is delusional. People also forget that Kate herself was subjected to terrible and mean stories about herself and her family for a long time. Also not defending it, but the type of coverage Meghan got was not "unprecedented."

Yes, there were also stupid stories about Meghan eating too many avocados or wearing an ill-fitting outfit or whatever else. That comes with the territory of being a public figure/celebrity, and most celebrities have the good sense to ignore that kind of stuff. There isn't a single public figure who gets uniformly positive coverage, and that's one tradeoff that comes with all the perks. If she were so sensitive to stuff like that, she should have moved on from Harry.

Don’t agree that it was fair treatment. As we have seen the BRF will pull negative stories for Kate and Andrew when they feel like it. Meghan was a poor fit and unprotected. Also Meghan was a poor fit because she has a very American view of merit and hard work and positive enthusiasm being rewarded. She’s the only one out of the Cambridges and Sussexes that has ever had a real, can actually pay the bills without parental money job. Kate’s mom is basically a British Kris Jenner who groomed her daughters to marry the highest status man they could.

Don’t agree that Meghan should have expected the BRF’s protection in that way when she basically started making trouble immediately. That’s referring to the reports of being difficult with staff, wedding planning, and regular refusals to comply with royal norms and codes of behavior. I don’t agree with their defense of Andrew, but he’s the Queen’s son and she has a maternal soft spot for him, so that’s why they do it. And Kate dealt with all kinds of unflattering stories for many years, none of which were batted down by the BRF. If they do it now, it’s because she’s earned the goodwill for it by being a pleasant family member and good employee. The BRF was obviously willing to give her some concessions at the beginning, like having Charles walk her down the aisle and allowing her to do engagements with other family members before the wedding.

Yes, obviously Meghan is a poor fit for that reason. The BRF is about as diametrically opposed to a meritocracy as you can get. I don’t think that’s a secret or particularly difficult to understand, so if she didn’t like it, she shouldn’t have married in. She chose to for her own reasons, one of which was almost certainly to raise her public profile. There have been many stories and reports from her former associates that she’s highly ambitious and had been looking for a well-connected spouse (and it’s pretty clear based on the fact that she uses her title at every opportunity, despite her public separation and grievances with the BRF that she’s very happy with it), so calling the Middletons gold/status diggers seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.