Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
American Hustlers: Meghan and Harry
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
It's the same as anyone who disagrees with Meghan is a racist. |
Anonymous
I thought she did have her own camera crew at Uvalde? |
Anonymous
Was that the premise of them leaving? I always got the impression that it was largely because they were being treated terribly by the press and felt the family was letting them take the hits instead of protecting them. It also seems like Harry has some long-simmering tensions with his dad and brother as a result of being on the outside looking in on the whole line of succession, and that came to a head. I don't remember them being like "We could change the world, if only we were more empowered by the Queen." It seemed like a private family spat that became public because it's the BRF. |
Anonymous
The level of fixation and anger towards them is "hate." Not in like a "hate speech" kind of way, but just in that you can tell that people spend a weird amount of time being mad about Harry & Meghan and it's like... why. Like people on this thread are mad that Meghan went to Uvalde and that she handed out water during the fires with Jose Andrés org, is that right? I don't actually know about either of those things but it just seems like standard rich socialite stuff. Why would you be mad that she visited the site of a horrible tragedy. It probably annoyed some people there and made other people feel good that this famous person came and expressed an interest in them. Standard stuff. Same with the fires. Is it really offensive? Is this really worth getting worked up about? Who does this hurt. I will repeat: I don't get it. There are so many people who fall into this same category (wealthy, a bit of Main Character Syndrome, but by and large harmless and may even occasionally do some good). Why the fixation on these two? They just seem so innocuous to me. |
Anonymous
Of course it was. In Harry's words from the article you haven't read: "The couple repeatedly expressed frustration in Harry & Meghan that Meghan wasn’t tapped as an asset for upholding the crown’s international interests in an era when Prince William was tasked with expressing “profound sorrow” for the “appalling atrocity of slavery” during a tour to Jamaica. As historian David Olusoga says in the docuseries, “Part of what makes the inability of the palace to defend Meghan an even bigger disaster is that the center of the argument for the monarchy in this country is the commonwealth. The commonwealth is 2.5 billion, mainly Black and brown people. Here was a woman who looked like most of the people in the commonwealth.” Harry speaks shortly after and says the palace and its denizens “have already missed an enormous opportunity with my wife and how far that would go globally.” The source familiar with the couple says it’s important to note that Harry isn’t an anti-monarchist. “He just didn’t like the way things were run within the institution,” he says. “His issues are about people and behaviors, not tradition.” " |
Anonymous
It isn’t about about race for a lot of people and it’s annoying that everyone reflexively uses this as an excuse. You know who a lot of people HATE for being inauthentic and rich and having a lifestyle brand? Gwenyth Paltrow. Meghan is very similar to her, except with the added benefit of being a duchess (who hates how victimized she was by the royal family, but can’t stop using her title and the royal story). |
Anonymous
I love TLo so this is said with love but: this is the pettiest $hit, omg. It's pure speculation and gossip mongering. I love reading their blog in part because I enjoy observations like this but this is just idle gossip and b!itchery. "She claimed she was forced to wear neutrals but HA! she now wears them by choice!" This is about the level of commentary and critique I'd expect from a particularly clique-y group of waitresses at an expensive restaurant in discussing the socialites who dine there. That Vanity Fair manages to fill so many pages with this is really something. I'm sure it will sell and get them clicks, so good for them. But let's be realistic about the level of "journalism" here. This is a longer, more elegantly written version of a Daily Mail article about Meghan eating avocados while pregnant. |
Anonymous
It's more interesting than the nonsense said by this couple that says nothing really at all. |
Anonymous
They left bc Meghan/rachel was called out for being a bully and rude to staff. She claimed they were racist and played the victim card, manipulating Harry into thinking she wasn’t “safe” and poor Harry had unresolved issues with his mother not being safe… Harry does obviously have a lot of issues to begin with, he abused drugs and alcohol and was pretty inappropriate at times. We are all just a work in progress. Meghan seems to love drama. It’s just funny, those of us who’ve had a damaging narcissist in our lives recognize the same behaviors from her. And by the way, they take their own camera crew everywhere - disaster tours, touristy global tours, and forbid any outside press from their tours. Much of it is staged. I just feel for the children. |
Anonymous
For me, it’s because of the children. It’s just terrible. |
Anonymous
Right, I agree -- Meghan is offensive at about the same level as Gwyneth Paltrow. They are remarkably similar except that Gwyneth grew up much richer and more privileged and her was a full nepo baby whereas Meghan was merely MC to UMC and maybe partially nepo baby due to her dad's industry connections (but nowhere on the level of Bruce Paltrow and Blythe Danner). But people don't get nearly this angry about Gwyneth Paltrow. Yes, she gets hate, but nothing like Meghan. I remember a thread last year where Meghan and Harry went to a basketball game and there were a few grainy photos of them in a suite, and people were doing like technical analysis on whether the other people in the suite hated them and if they were getting divorced based on how many inches were between them in a photo or something. And this detailed breakdown of Meghan's outfit (which was just like a nothing outfit, a pair of shorts and a blazer, it was nothing exciting or offensive or particularly attention grabbing). I've never seen people respond that way to a few pap shots of Paltrow eating lunch or attending an event, have you? So I find myself baffled as to why people are soooo fixated on Meghan and the only think I can come up with is that it is discomfort with a WOC marrying into the royal family. I'd love to be wrong but I can't think of another explanation as to why she gets this response. It's very weird to me. There are so many celebs like this that don't get anywhere near this level of attention or anger. |
Anonymous
What about the kids? They are wealthy kids in an intact family whose parents appear to do a pretty good job of shielding them from the press. This is like the least upsetting thing about Harry & Meghan. I don't even know what those kids actually look like and that actually a good thing. |
Anonymous
Nope. It happened after their Netflix deal was announced, but before they released anything. She was seen near cameras - and had a couple photographers following her from the crowd at one point - so haters concocted stories that she brought her own camera crews. The cameras were already there for the memorial. Yes, she walked in front of them and she was aware that they’d snap her picture, but she didn’t bring them with her. She didn’t need to. There is only footage of her at the memorial, but she made several other stops that day - no pics. They could have just stopped and said “pap stroll” at Uvalde, but that wouldn’t be enough to make people angry. Textbook misinformation campaign. |
Anonymous
I guess it’s because they’re juxtaposed with their cousins who have a very public life. Most celebrities choose privacy for their kids, especially if they were child stars themselves. Living in California makes that easier. |
Anonymous
Why was she there exactly? |