Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
GHScorpiosRule

The Royals: All the People Who Unironically Wear Robes and Crowns

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, RedDelicious said:

I agree. All the contrast was edited out and it makes it difficult to readily appreciate or understand what the photo actually is. It’s just difficult to see, especially if you’re a person who needs vision correction (like me). I’m not a fan of centered photographs really but it would have been fine if they just stopped at one or two layers of edits instead of what looks like three or four. The vagueness of the photo (caused by over-editing, not the orientation of the subject) keeps you at arms length instead of welcoming you in. 

I also think that it seems like a spontaneous shot that looks staged, if that makes sense. Like the use of balloons and Archie's clothing suggest this was a 2 year old playing and the parents snapped a shot, but the sepia filter and the complete invisibility of Archie's face (compared to, say, a side picture that also would have obscured his face but not so obviously) make it look staged.

This is a contrast to their pregnancy announcement photo:

image001%252520(3).jpg

This is a staged shot that LOOKS spontaneous. The little touches like the bare feet and the gentle baby bump tell a great picture. I love this shot.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

26 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I also think that it seems like a spontaneous shot that looks staged, if that makes sense. Like the use of balloons and Archie's clothing suggest this was a 2 year old playing and the parents snapped a shot, but the sepia filter and the complete invisibility of Archie's face (compared to, say, a side picture that also would have obscured his face but not so obviously) make it look staged.

This is a contrast to their pregnancy announcement photo:

image001%252520(3).jpg

This is a staged shot that LOOKS spontaneous. The little touches like the bare feet and the gentle baby bump tell a great picture. I love this shot.

It can be both.

I used to do pro photography WAY back when only film was available.  With digital, it costs nothing to simply keep shooting.

I'd stage a shot, but then (since I was mostly doing actors or model's head shot and 4 shots on the back things) I'd talk to them about little things, to get the mood I wanted, tell a joke, or tell a story.  Just keep shooting with non actors, with actors, let them take on a roll.

In this one, the photographer probably staged the shot, but them let them interact as they wished, and caught this sweet moment.

(Once people get used to you being there, it gets very easy.  I remember I used to not put any film in my camera for the first hour or so, by then they were more comfy and good shots came.)

  • Like 7
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Hiyo said:

Meghan being biracial and a foreigner and divorced were always going to be things used against her by elements of the British media (which like England has become a much more conservative, less tolerant place over the last decade or so). In the eyes of certain people, too many strikes against her.

Diana back in the day probably fit all of the criteria of what a British princess marrying the heir of the UK monarchy should be (white, English, virginal, daughter of an aristocrat), and even she had to deal with a hostile media at times.

I was surprised back when Diana became engaged to Charles that the British press referred to her as a "commoner." Not being British myself,  I wasn't sure about the technicalities of being considered royalty--had to look it up. Yes, Diana was hounded by the press from the very beginning, too-but there was also a lot of positive attention, too. 

I don't know if Meghan is the most wonderful person or if she is a social-climbing bitch (it really doesn't matter to me, personally)--most people are complicated beings--but I do know that certain press factions picked apart her every move, look, family background, etc. to the extent that I was thinking, "What the hell? She's only human, for Christ's sake, cut her some slack!"

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I was surprised back when Diana became engaged to Charles that the British press referred to her as a "commoner."

That is strange, given her family's background and that her title before marrying Charles was Lady Diana.

ETA: Scratch that, as wives and daughters of peers are considered commoners.

Edited by Hiyo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Regarding the name thing in tabloids, I've commented on this before and noted that while I never give tabloids the benefit of the doubt on anything, in this case, I really think this is simple SEO and nothing else. 

In other words, the tabloids want their shitty, lying articles to get as much reach as possible because greater reach, mean more clicks, which translates to more money. And the fact is outside of those enmeshed in royal watching, many use the more casual names.

Bottom line is how many average people go around referring to Kate as Duchess of Cambridge or Meghan as Duchess of Sussex. No, to the average person, they're Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle.

Same as how many people refer to William as the Duke of Cambridge or Harry, the Duke of Sussex. Many still refer to them as Prince William and Prince Harry. So that's what the average person is likely going to search for. 

  • Like 9
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

14 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

The tabloids also use Kate Middleton.   Not everything is a slight to Meghan.   Also, just because the tabloids do it does not mean the Royals are thinking every second of what they might do.   And quite frankly, in my opinion, just because the tabloids will do it is no reason to recreate that here.    We aren't the tabs.    We should rise above their behavior and give everyone the benefit of the doubt:

1.   the papparazzi caught Meghan on a errand with Archie.   She didn't release the photo to steal Louis' thunder.

2.  Charles released a nice picture of his GRANDSON's birthday (not his daughter in law's birthday) showing a picture of 3 generations of men.   It was not a slight that Meghan was not included in the pic.  

We should be better than the tabs and not read nefarious things into every move made by the BRF.

 

2 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

Regarding the name thing in tabloids, I've commented on this before and noted that while I never give tabloids the benefit of the doubt on anything, in this case, I really think this is simple SEO and nothing else. 

In other words, the tabloids want their shitty, lying articles to get as much reach as possible because greater reach, mean more clicks, which translates to more money. And the fact is outside of those enmeshed in royal watching, many use the more casual names.

Bottom line is how many average people go around referring to Kate as Duchess of Cambridge or Meghan as Duchess of Sussex. No, to the average person, they're Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle.

Same as how many people refer to William as the Duke of Cambridge or Harry, the Duke of Sussex. Many still refer to them as Prince William and Prince Harry. So that's what the average person is likely going to search for. 

Plus, these are the names these women had worn for a good while before marrying, I find it hard to see it as a slight. I'm now 38 and if I got married, I'm not sure if I'd change my last name, but even if I did, I wouldn't be offended by people using my former one. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

LOL this reminds me of a teacher I used to work with who used to scream at students if they called her "Ms. _____________." She would thunder, "It's MRS. ___________. I am not a spinster!"

It was a really big deal for a certain type of extremely old fashioned woman, and I've noticed in social media that those are the ones who get offended by the use of "Middleton" and "Markle."

Oddly people didn't seem to get offended with "Lady Diana Spencer," I guess because the Spencers were an aristocratic family and "Lady Diana Spencer" conveyed Diana's blue-blood bonafides.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Lady Whistleup said:

LOL this reminds me of a teacher I used to work with who used to scream at students if they called her "Ms. _____________." She would thunder, "It's MRS. ___________. I am not a spinster!"

It was a really big deal for a certain type of extremely old fashioned woman, and I've noticed in social media that those are the ones who get offended by the use of "Middleton" and "Markle."

Oddly people didn't seem to get offended with "Lady Diana Spencer," I guess because the Spencers were an aristocratic family and "Lady Diana Spencer" conveyed Diana's blue-blood bonafides.

Was this teacher from an older generation?  I can't see anyone my age (very young GenX/old Millennial - Xennial, basically) do something like this, though I'm known to correct parents (sometimes angrily!) when they introduce me to their children as "Cynthia" rather than Ms./Mrs. Lastname.  Or even "Auntie" if I'm not a close friend of theirs ("Auntie" for non-relatives and non-BFFs is common in Hong Kong and Hong Kong-Canadian culture). 

I'm personally not offended by the use of Kate or Meghan's respective birth last names/maiden names.  Especially for Meghan, it's the name she made her name from as an actress.  And really, I don't know anyone who is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, PRgal said:

Was this teacher from an older generation?  I can't see anyone my age (very young GenX/old Millennial - Xennial, basically) do something like this,

I'm an early 30s Millennial, and I did correct one of my students (granted, he was a college freshman and not a kid) for the inverse--calling me Mrs. I wasn't mean about it. Actually, it was a one-two correction. He called me by my first name, and I said "Please call me Ms. XXX" because I didn't want that level of informality with any of my students, and then he called me "Mrs. XXX," so I tacked on the "Ms." again. 

He was a little embarrassed obviously, but he didn't seem overly scarred by it, and I wasn't offended. Actually he ended up being one of my favorites and gave me a hug at the end of the semester. 

I think it's more a matter of what you were taught (which can be dictated by region or even just family) than your age, though I agree someone younger is less likely to care. 

Edited by Zella
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, PRgal said:

Was this teacher from an older generation?  I can't see anyone my age (very young GenX/old Millennial - Xennial, basically) do something like this, though I'm known to correct parents (sometimes angrily!) when they introduce me to their children as "Cynthia" rather than Ms./Mrs. Lastname.  Or even "Auntie" if I'm not a close friend of theirs ("Auntie" for non-relatives and non-BFFs is common in Hong Kong and Hong Kong-Canadian culture). 

I'm personally not offended by the use of Kate or Meghan's respective birth last names/maiden names.  Especially for Meghan, it's the name she made her name from as an actress.  And really, I don't know anyone who is.

Yeah she was from an older generation, and apparently her first husband was a jerk who cheated on her so when she married a second time she wanted everyone to know it. 

Anyway, Prince Edward the Windsored paid a visit to a vaccine site:

https://www.instagram.com/p/COicbeAHSC_/

Also Camilla visited a DV shelter:

https://www.instagram.com/p/COnNsPHDnrd/

Edited by Lady Whistleup
  • Like 4
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

This sort of reminds me of the Television Academy Interview with Barbara Feldon   (in 2007)in which she was asked for  her  name at birth. At that point, she got out 'Barbara Hall' before she started giggling. She explained that she has used her   surname of Feldon from her onetime marriage (as she was married to a Belgian named Lucien Verdoux-Feldon from 1958 until their 1967 divorce) for so long that she momentarily forgot her original surname. Then she later said that if she had to do it over , she'd have kept her original surname. 

The above said, I haven't heard whether the Duchesses of Cambridge or Sussex  get upset, accept or even might prefer their original surnames. Still, I think unless one hears otherwise from them personally, it would be better to refer to them by their current titles out of respect. 

Edited by Blergh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 hours ago, Adiba said:

I don't know if Meghan is the most wonderful person or if she is a social-climbing bitch

I don't think she's either, she's somewhere in the middle, like the rest of us. The trouble is, each side push to the extreme and make the other side want to push back to the extreme. There is nothing particularly exceptional about her one way or another but she's not allowed to just be, she has to be Saint Meghan the Martyr to her extreme supporters and the She Devil of Evil to her extreme anti-supporters.

I do think she had no idea the shit show it was going to be, which I think is somewhat naïve, given how conservative "royalists" tend to be, how depressingly conservative the world in general seems to be getting (it isn't just the Brits who are super racist, this side of the pond is no fucking picnic either, we just blindly love celebs until we don't so we cut them way more slack...until we attack them because they are yesterday's news), what Diana went through, which I would hope Harry mentioned to her, because he had to know the shit was going to hit the fan when he married a bi-racial, divorced, non-British actress. 

Of course the level of hate thrown her way is ridiculously extreme. It's not like she stands a chance in hell of ever being Queen so who cares who the "spare" marries? 

 

  • Like 20
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

For those who are using Archie's birthday tweet to argue that Prince Charles is trying to erase Meghan from the family, here is what Charles and Camilla posted on Meghan's last birthday.  Lovely photo:

 

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/7/2021 at 4:33 PM, BlackberryJam said:

never, ever read the comments on newspaper/magazine sites. I like my sanity too much.

 

As have I. It's chilling to realize how many racists/misogynist/homophobic people are out there.

  • Like 7
  • Sad 7

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

For those who are using Archie's birthday tweet to argue that Prince Charles is trying to erase Meghan from the family, here is what Charles and Camilla posted on Meghan's last birthday.

If you are addressing that to me, I never said any such thing.

I said the tabloids would jump on it.  (They did.)

I said that I believe the Palace and Charles knew that they would, because they only other option is that they are too stupid to live.

I never said Harry or Meghan were or would be upset.

I said that after that Oprah interview, it would have made sense for Buckingham Palace to use a bit of common sense, and not post something that would and has fanned the "get Meghan flames."

I don't give a shit about Meghan either way, but I don't like bullies, and I don't like users.  

I said that the ugliness constantly being in headlines, and getting a lot of support, makes me ill.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think Charles posting that photo was "bullying" Meghan. I really don't.

I think "bullying" is a really loaded term and should only be used when there's actual malicious intent.

Edited by Lady Whistleup
  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I don't think Charles posting that photo was "bullying" Meghan. I really don't.

I think "bullying" is a really loaded term and should only be used when there's actual malicious intent.

He knows the tabloids bullying and constantly insulting Meghan drove his son out of the country and the monarchy.

He didn't bully, but he knew, or should have known, or his "gray suits" should have known that this is exactly what would happen.

It did.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

If you are addressing that to me, I never said any such thing.

I said the tabloids would jump on it.  (They did.)

I said that I believe the Palace and Charles knew that they would, because they only other option is that they are too stupid to live.

I never said Harry or Meghan were or would be upset.

I said that after that Oprah interview, it would have made sense for Buckingham Palace to use a bit of common sense, and not post something that would and has fanned the "get Meghan flames."

I don't give a shit about Meghan either way, but I don't like bullies, and I don't like users.  

I said that the ugliness constantly being in headlines, and getting a lot of support, makes me ill.

My question is, what should Charles have done? If he didn’t post anything he would be criticized for it like he was over Charlotte. William and Kate used a photo with the whole family and they were criticized for using the same photo they used last year. If they use a photo Harry and Meghan haven’t released they will be criticized for violating Archie’s privacy. I literally can’t see a scenario that won’t look bad to someone. Every choice leads to a “he should have known situation”.

I just saw a headline that decrying that Charles has only seen Archie twice and W/K has only seen him once. Which for one is complete crap since W/K have been photographed with him twice.  But more importantly we’re in a damn pandemic where many, many grandparents have gone long periods without seeing their grandkids. It’s all just so stupid. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 15
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Umbelina said:

He knows the tabloids bullying and constantly insulting Meghan drove his son out of the country and the monarchy.

He didn't bully, but he knew, or should have known, or his "gray suits" should have known that this is exactly what would happen.

It did.

Well maybe I only follow major news sources and some fairly highbrow royal fashion blogs but I did not see the blaring "Prince Charles insults Meghan" headlines.

Maybe Piers Morgan and his ilk would pick up on it but you can't live your life and manage your social media to placate the lowest common denominator.

I've said this before that I'm a Meghan fan and think that the racism directed at her was horrible but I'm also a little tired of the Passion of the Meghan responses that have popped up since the Oprah interview. Like how her fans refer to her as a "humanitarian." It's a bit too much.

  • Like 14
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Dani said:

But more importantly were in a damn pandemic where many, many grandparents have gone long periods without seeing their grandkids. It’s all just so stupid. 

Exactly!  I just went out and mailed a parcel to my son and his family containing Easter presents and birthday stuff because I kept hoping we'd see them but it ain't happening and I figured I may as well send the stuff before I send out the Christmas presents!  I haven't seem them in months (and even then it was a socially distant visit) and they live one province over and less than an hour's drive.  So yeah spare me the crap about mean Meghan depriving grandparents of visits with the grandchild or cruel Charles refusing to allow visits - or whatever version is being played by whoever.  

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

He knows the tabloids bullying and constantly insulting Meghan drove his son out of the country and the monarchy.

He didn't bully, but he knew, or should have known, or his "gray suits" should have known that this is exactly what would happen.

It did.

What, exactly, happened? I don't read tabloids (or anything about royals other than what is shared here.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Jane Tuesday said:

What, exactly, happened? I don't read tabloids (or anything about royals other than what is shared here.)

Just the usual crap.  Prince Charles snubs Meghan on Archie's birthday, ha ha ha.  Speculation crap like Charles may want to reconcile with Harry, if he finally dumps that bitch Meghan.

On and on.  Had he just added a simple thing like "Have a wonderful day with your mum and dad!" or whatever, none of the media crap would have happened.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Umbelina said:

Had he just added a simple thing like "Have a wonderful day with your mum and dad!" or whatever, none of the media crap would have happened.

I don't think adding anything would have lessened it. Someone would still wig out about who was named first or why someone was named and not pictured. 

  • Like 7
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

3 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

On and on.  Had he just added a simple thing like "Have a wonderful day with your mum and dad!" or whatever, none of the media crap would have happened.

They would have just found something else. Why did dad come second? is he on the outs with Harry now? Why didn't he post a picture? Is he ashamed of having a mixed race grandchild? Is Archie too "ethnic" looking for the royals? blah blah. There is no winning so they might as well just post what they want. 

Thing is, if Meghan is a decent human being (and I do think she is) she probably didn't feel slighted half as much as the media want her to feel slighted. She probably thought "awe, there's my boy with his dad and grandad. He was so tiny. He's growing too fast". I doubt she looked and thought "where am I in that picture?!!?!?!!" or felt half the rage her more zealous fans feel on her behalf. 

  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Thing is, if Meghan is a decent human being (and I do think she is) she probably didn't feel slighted half as much as the media want her to feel slighted. She probably thought "awe, there's my boy with his dad and grandad. He was so tiny. He's growing too fast". I doubt she looked and thought "where am I in that picture?!!?!?!!" or felt half the rage her more zealous fans feel on her behalf. 

My guess is that is correct.

That doesn't mean she's loving all the headlines and renewed attacks though.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Any celebs who lives their life by what the gutter trash tabloids say is just foolish. You cannot live your life based on the lowest common denominator press.

  • Like 13
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

That's just it.   Nothing will stop the attacks.   The tabs are making money off it.   As noted if it wasn't the picture it would be something else.   So Charles (and the rest) cannot make decisions based on how the tabs and Meghan haters will make a big deal out it.   Because ANYTHING they do, the tabs and Meghan haters will use to attack the Duchess.   So they might as well just do what they want to do.   

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post

I wasn't addressing anyone in particular with my post.  With the discussion of what the tabloids were saying about her absence in Charles' photo honoring Archie, I just decided to see how they handled her birthday greeting.  It was a beautiful, solo photo of Meghan.  I didn't read the comments to see if people thought that was an insult to Harry or Archie.

And just to (hopefully) change the topic, does anyone follow Camilla's book club?  It looks interesting, but I haven't tried the suggested books yet.

https://www.instagram.com/duchessofcornwallsreadingroom/

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

Just the usual crap.  Prince Charles snubs Meghan on Archie's birthday, ha ha ha.  Speculation crap like Charles may want to reconcile with Harry, if he finally dumps that bitch Meghan.

So, just tabloid speculation? I think we can all agree that they don't need an excuse. No matter what, there was going to be a story around Archie's birthday. They know Meghan drives clicks. Negative stories bring in the haters and the people who get off on outrage porn. There were going to be stories no matter what Charles did or did not do. 

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post

I specifically remember Fergie being referred to as a commoner, but I don’t ever remember Diana being referred to as such (even though technically they both were). 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

It's chilling to realize how many racists/misogynist/homophobic people are out there

You should check out the comments section for an average EW.com article...on second thought, better not to. That site's comments section is just so, so toxic.

Quote

That doesn't mean she's loving all the headlines and renewed attacks though.

Unless she is checking out the websites of conservative UK publications, she probably won't be seeing much of those headlines while living in California.

Quote

And just to (hopefully) change the topic, does anyone follow Camilla's book club?  It looks interesting, but I haven't tried the suggested books yet.

I might check out one of the books on that list. I realize the title obviously has different connotations, being a British book published in the 1930s and all, but with a title like Right Ho, Jeeves, it has to be entertaining.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

Really after so many members of the BRF have fallen for fakes who turn out to be reporters you would think they would do a little more vetting of anyone who asks for "help."   And Putin seems an odd choice for the Queen's Cousin to sell access to.   

  • Like 4
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Or maybe just stop offering to "help" with shady business deals?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

Really after so many members of the BRF have fallen for fakes who turn out to be reporters you would think they would do a little more vetting of anyone who asks for "help."   And Putin seems an odd choice for the Queen's Cousin to sell access to.   

Logically and intellectually, I completely agree. 

However, this is someone who felt that (at the time) marrying the one who has since called herself Princess Michael of Kent was worth losing his spot in the British royal succession line due to her faith AND has stayed married to her through zillions of her meanspirited insults and rumors of her being not entirely true to him despite no one else evidently liking her (and their kids now being grown). She's the Windsors' Marty Ingels (Shirley Jones's late husband that none of her family or friends could stand).

So him seeming to be in league with someone like Putin angers and saddens but does not surprise me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

19 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

Anyway, Prince Edward the Windsored paid a visit to a vaccine site:

I see what you did there. 🤣

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I've said this before that I'm a Meghan fan and think that the racism directed at her was horrible but I'm also a little tired of the Passion of the Meghan responses that have popped up since the Oprah interview. Like how her fans refer to her as a "humanitarian." It's a bit too much.

When black women know, we know and as long as elements in the media (and it's not just British tabloids) dehumanize Meghan to make attacking her sport, we will continue being a bit too much.  

And that's all I have to say on that.  

 

Edited by MissAlmond
  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I do think she had no idea the shit show it was going to be, which I think is somewhat naïve, given how conservative "royalists" tend to be, how depressingly conservative the world in general seems to be getting (it isn't just the Brits who are super racist, this side of the pond is no fucking picnic either, we just blindly love celebs until we don't so we cut them way more slack...until we attack them because they are yesterday's news), what Diana went through, which I would hope Harry mentioned to her, because he had to know the shit was going to hit the fan when he married a bi-racial, divorced, non-British actress. 

Of course the level of hate thrown her way is ridiculously extreme. It's not like she stands a chance in hell of ever being Queen so who cares who the "spare" marries? 

I have said this before but it bears repeating.

Diana was royal-adjacent her entire life. Her own grandmother was lady-in-waiting to QE II. Yet her upbringing and background clearly did not prepare her for life as an actual royal, for life with that family.

All the Googling or chats with Harry in the world could not possibly have prepared Meghan, a divorced American and woman of color, for what life would truly be like married to a member of the BRF. Even Harry was blindsided by the absolute vitriol from the press that Meghan received. Because what his mother experienced and what Kate, more recently experienced, while clearly hurtful and unacceptable, wasn't in the same universe of the sheer volume of nasty attacks from the press Meghan and Archive received. Diana and Kate also did not have to contend with themselves or their children being attacked for no other reason than them being a person of color. That the racism was not simply isolated to the press but to within members of the BRF is yet another layer of awful. 

  • Like 17
  • Sad 7

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, CountryGirl said:

Because what his mother experienced and what Kate, more recently experienced, while clearly hurtful and unacceptable, wasn't in the same universe of the sheer volume of nasty attacks from the press Meghan and Archive received.

I've often wondered if the level of nasty attacks would have been lessened if prominent haters like Piers the Racist had never gotten on the hate bandwagon.  It truly is the gutter press that is the problem,  I have elderly expat friends who read things like The People's Friend and Hello Magazine religiously and I have never seen anything but positive coverage of all things royal - including Meghan - in there.  Had Piers and his ilk treated Meghan badly but the same badly that they treat any woman who dares marry into the Royal Family would it have ever gotten so bad?  I

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I definitely think had Her Majesty and the Firm had publicly  told Mr. Morgan and his ilk to 'naff off' when they started their vitriol, they likely would have slunk back under the rocks they emerged from ASAP to have never been heard from again. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MissAlmond said:

When black women know, we know and as long as elements in the media (and it's not just British tabloids) dehumanize Meghan to make attacking her sport, we will continue being a bit too much.  

And that's all I have to say on that.  

 

If standing up for what is right, for speaking up and speaking out on behalf of one’s own self or for someone who is being unjustifiably attacked, and especially when they are being attacked because of the amount of melanin in their skin, is “too much” or too “passionate,” then so be it. 

I am a white woman so I would never, ever  try to speak for women of color and substitute my experience for their own because they simply aren’t comparable. I cannot begin to put myself in Meghan’s shoes but I can be an ally for all women, especially women of color, and mankind in general to use my voice to be an advocate for them. I didn’t even “royal” before Meghan arrived on the scene except for watching the royal weddings or the coverage of Diana’s death and funeral (the latter of which even my definitely non-royal husband tuned in to watch). But when I saw this breath of fresh air marry into that family and yes an American gal like myself, I paid attention and when I saw how swiftly she was attacked, you best be believing I was in her corner  

 

  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post

23 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Had Piers and his ilk treated Meghan badly but the same badly that they treat any woman who dares marry into the Royal Family would it have ever gotten so bad?  I

If the racist element were removed and the attacks were periodic like with other Royal women (the press picks on the others in turn) it would not have been so bad, I think.   Because 1) there would have been positive coverage too and 2) it could  have been written off as it's just the way it is, you get used to it, it will be someone else's turn next week and you get a breather.   As an actress she would know not everyone would like her and there would ALWAYS be SOME bad press.   She could most likely deal.

 

 But it was RELENTLESS, EVERYTHING Meghan did was wrong.   Hell they are still doing it -- EVERYTHING is seen through the lense of Meghan.   Plus the racism, the open speculation of what color Archie's skin would be (baby skin, how about that?)   

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post

The racism thing I've noticed is not just a Meghan thing. I'm not a celeb but the other day in a TEACHER Facebook group a social studies teacher told me to go back to China. She wasn't a Russian-bot troll who leaves comments on the Daily Mail comment section. She's a woman whose middle school, wedding photography business, OTHER side business, and social media are all accessible with one click.

This rarely happened to me before maybe a year or two ago. Now I've noticed that people are posting vile racist stuff with their real names. 

Not really going to speculate why the racism has become so much more open and celebrated but it's not just Meghan. 

Edited by Lady Whistleup
  • Like 1
  • Surprise 1
  • Sad 22

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Blergh said:

I definitely think had Her Majesty and the Firm had publicly  told Mr. Morgan and his ilk to 'naff off' when they started their vitriol, they likely would have slunk back under the rocks they emerged from ASAP to have never been heard from again. 

I think you are really overestimating the power of The Queen and The Firm.

3 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I've often wondered if the level of nasty attacks would have been lessened if prominent haters like Piers the Racist had never gotten on the hate bandwagon.  It truly is the gutter press that is the problem,  I have elderly expat friends who read things like The People's Friend and Hello Magazine religiously and I have never seen anything but positive coverage of all things royal - including Meghan - in there.  Had Piers and his ilk treated Meghan badly but the same badly that they treat any woman who dares marry into the Royal Family would it have ever gotten so bad?  I

Piers is a vile human being but he, in many ways, just jumped on a bandwagon of sentiment that already existed. The tabloid stories are awful but you can find the exact same(and much worse) type of comments on social media before a single article is written. 

3 hours ago, CountryGirl said:

If standing up for what is right, for speaking up and speaking out on behalf of one’s own self or for someone who is being unjustifiably attacked, and especially when they are being attacked because of the amount of melanin in their skin, is “too much” or too “passionate,” then so be it. 

It’s not even a little but there are clearly people who have taken the defense of Meghan to such an extreme and have lost all prospective. For me, it’s the people who refuse to listen to Meghan’s own words. Meghan made distinctions in the interviews between different groups and many (not on here) are completely ignoring that. It has created a very contentious environment around any conversation that even tangentially touches Meghan. 

2 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

The racism thing I've noticed is not just a Meghan thing. I'm not a celeb but the other day in a TEACHER Facebook group a social studies teacher told me to go back to China. She wasn't a Russian-bot troll who leaves comments on the Daily Mail comment section. She's a woman whose middle school, wedding photography business, OTHER side business, and social media are all accessible with one click.

This rarely happened to me before maybe a year or two ago. Now I've noticed that people are posting vile racist stuff with their real names. 

Not really going to speculate why the racism has become so much more open and celebrated but it's not just Meghan. 

I have wondered if it actually becoming that much more open or if it is just spreading to the point I, as an Asian, am now more aware. Sometimes I look around and am floored by how openly racist people are but when I look back realize I had the luxury of being oblivious to a lot of very blatant racism. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 12
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

Not really going to speculate why the racism has become so much more open and celebrated but it's not just Meghan. 

It's become more open because there are simply more avenues to catch many in the act and call them out publicly. So to some it seems like it's suddenly gotten so much worse than it ever was when no, in reality, it was always there and awful. Social media and smart phones with cameras just didn't exist back then to capture it all in real time. 

I find some of the "Meghan defenders are just as extreme" narrative interesting. As I noted before, this is very much a chicken and the egg thing and so we can all go round and round in circles, pointing fingers each and every which way. 

In other words, did the defenders just become extreme or is some of their extremism a response to the extreme vilification of this woman that is, by the way, a coordinated hate campaign by an entire media system in a country?

Look, the bottom line is you will always find the fringe extreme, if you want to call them that, in all fandoms. My best friend and I talk about this all the time and I always joke to her that if I had to go back and do my Masters again, I might have done it in Psychology just to do a thesis on fandoms and understand how and why some get to the crazy extreme. 

So sure you might point to some people on social media defending Meghan as over the top. But it's no different than those who don't care for her. Many are quick to say that just because they don't care for her doesn't  mean they're racist or crazy conspiracy spinning people. And that's fair.

But we certainly know that the extreme exists because it's all over social media. The ones spinning tales about her faking pregnancies, blackmailing her way into the Royal Family, never going to Northwestern, supposedly being married three other times, lying about her age, etc. 

Point being that ALL fandoms produce extremes and social media has just made it worse since as I've said before, social media is the breeding ground for trolls and stans. 

That said, I feel like reducing this conversation to the "all sides get so passionate" is grossly missing the point; which is that a nation, aka England, has a fucked up and twisted media system that continuously harasses, bullies and tortures people for sport. And that they continue to get away with it because they have a lot of the so called people in power by the fucking balls. 

Harry put it on blast in the Oprah interview. And I'm sure some stuck their fingers in their ears and poo-poohed it as nonsense. But long before Meghan ever came around, when she was still growing up in California, Hugh Grant (yes that Hugh Grant) put in on blast. People need to go search YouTube, where in front of a panel of Members of Parliament and former judges and whoever else, he laid it bare and called them all out. 

That these tabloids daily harass and torture people, because they hacked his phone too, commit all kinds of crime to blackmail and abuse public figures and get away with it because guess what, they have shit on the judges and the members of government who are the ones who are supposed to be keeping them in line. They fucking own them. Oh and fyi, that includes many of the Royals too.

And so these same publications, waged a full out smear campaign war on this one woman and made her a lightening rod for every ism - racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. And so they turned her in an embodiment of something to hate. They dehumanized her.

There are many who at this point don't see Meghan as someone worth any empathy, kindness. They don't see her as a person. She's just the villain in their story. And THAT is the real narrative here.  And to make it anything else, is to miss the point, IMO. 

Edited by truthaboutluv
  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post

If you really want to read something fucked up, just google “News of the World phone hacking scandal”.

Heck, thats just one of the many scandals of NOTW, but it was the one that actually got them shut down.

Edited by Hiyo
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

In my mind one of the most surreal aspect of being a royal is having your face on stamps and money.  Prince Charles of Luxembourg was given that bizarre honor for his first birthday tomorrow. It looks like an ad for Shutterfly. 
 

69981FDA-5270-4170-9A4D-114634E3BF7E.jpeg

  • Like 7
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
OtterMommy

Everyone has stated their views on the Sussexes and no one is going to change anyone's mind.  Any further excessive bickering may lead to a temporary suspension of this thread.  If you do not agree with someone's opinion, please scroll to the next post.  If you feel the need to take a stronger action, please use the ignore function.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size