Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex

Status
Not open for further replies.
Americans are open season for bullying on British television, and then disguised under fun and games. I used to watch a lot of stuff on BBC. Bullying ethnic minorities is highly taboo but it’s easy to get around that by just never mentioning it specifically.
 
Last edited:
I increasingly feel the royal family is an anachronism and should be abolished - but as I am not British it’s really none of my affair.
 
40.png
LilyM:
40.png
IanM:
I think that she has also greatly underestimated the ruthlessness of the opposition. The British Establishment will now close its doors to her and her husband if only to ensure they themselves remain within the fold. Harry will learn to recognise this gradually and sit out in California wondering how his polo playing chums back home are doing as he pleads for voiceover jobs for his wife. Quite simply it`s another Edward/ Wallace affair with the same squandered opportunities.
I think the Edward/Wallis comparison is key. The last time a divorced American married into the royal family it led to almost unmitigated disaster and a lot of turmoil. Historical memories are long, not only in the UK in general, but the royal family in particular. After all, the Queen and Philip are old enough to remember the abdication crisis first hand.
But again, taking all the facts into account, the Queen and Prince Phillip accepted her quite happily despite a previous short marriage. The press never dug up any scandals or behaviours that were questionable. And could they really? Harry’s father divorced his mother and married his long time mistress. I remember an interview with Diana where she says he yelled at her that he wasn’t going to be the only Prince of Wales that never had a mistress. Then of course Prince Andrew was in the pooh for having dated a porn star Koo Stark and being associated more recently with a pedophile.

All these things placed in a row of facts, does not equate with reality that makes Meghan more reprehensible than the family that she is married to. To my sensitities, what Charles and Andrew did to the royal family is far more damaging that anything Meghan is alleged to have done.
I don’t disagree, although certain members of her family have indeed engaged in behaviour that is questionable to say the least - cashing in on interviews and books, for example.

The problem with Charles and Andrew is that they are born royal, unlike Meghan. Charles is additionally heir to the throne by right of birth, which is a matter the Queen can not change even if she wanted to. These facts make it much more difficult to deal with their misdeeds in the same way as she might with someone who has merely married into the family.

I do wonder how she would have treated Charles, for example, if she had been able to disinherit him when all the scandal around his marriage was at its worst.
 
there is historical authority that the British monarchy is elective among the eligible, and not by right. (Of course, such discussions usually involved armies . . . :crazy_face: 😱).

Nonetheless, it would give Parliament something to hang their hats on if they were to decide to pass over Charles . . .
 
Americans are open season for bullying on British television
I am an American and I enjoy quite a lot of British TV. I have not seen any examples of this. There was a nice reference in an episode of Endeavour to a Rhodes scholar by the name of Clinton who plays rugby.
 
But I genuinely don’t understand why there is so much hatred for this girl. I’m pretty sure I’ve read most of what’s out there about her history and personality and it just doesn’t measure up to this awful vitriol that she is receiving from people. Any ideas?
Media loves to pounce on any famous woman that’s slightly controversial. They attacked Kate for being a social climber, and when Meghan got into the picture, they treated Kate like a Traditionalist Queen while they treated Meghan like a deranged feminist.

I don’t agree with some of Megan’s politics, but she really doesn’t deserve the controversy. I do appreciate how she focuses on global women’s rights then most feminists in Hollywood. She’s less of a perfomative activist, and I respect her for that.

I really, really admire Harry for taking his marriage vows seriously. He vowed to love and protect her, and that’s what he did. It was more than the media headlines, it was her own father selling personal information to the media as well. I think Harry is a good example of how a husband in his position should act.

I think Harry and Meghan planned to step down once they have a child (Harry was treated badly by the press as a child, and was used as a tool to attack Princess Diana), and I think that’s fine. I don’t see the point of a monarchy. I don’t think it has a good chance of surviving anyway.
She was overwhelmingly popular in the press until she and Harry walked out, claiming (with great exaggeration) to have been hounded by the press.

The criticism has come after that - I wouldn’t call it hatred - because they seem to want to have their cake and eat it. They want to opt out of royal responsibilities (which are quite tough) but make a business out of being royal .
Tabloids were running horrid stories about her, people were even saying that she faked her pregnancy. Her father and half sister was getting paid by the British media to attack her publicly, and he sold a personal letter of hers. The media even edited their holiday picture to attack Meghan. The amount of negative headlines I saw about her was insane. I’ve never seen this sort of treatment before (I’m pretty young though, lol)

Anyway, from what I’ve read, they didn’t want to opt out of royal responsibilities. They wanted to do it part time so they can have a more quiet life and pursue private interests, but understandably, it wasn’t possible. So now they are no longer working royals but they still retain their patronages. Simply put, they will still be doing work that has some sort of moral value.
 
Last edited:
This (alleged) flouting of norms and protocol works against her. Many in the public don’t like it.
Meghan broke a pledge not to overshadow Camilla’s vital campaign against abuse by demanding the pictures of her private visit to the National Theatre be published the same day.

Palace officials remained tight-lipped about the row after Meghan went rogue with her own secret arrangements.

But one well-placed insider said: “Camilla’s work is very important to her and her decision to highlight the scourge of domestic violence at the 10th anniversary of Women of the World was a carefully thought-out plan.

“Over the last four years she has worked tirelessly, mostly behind the scenes but to great effect, to use her platform and personal experiences to highlight the issue and help sufferers.

"Of course it was known Harry and Meghan would be doing engagements this week, some privately, but everyone was in agreement that Camilla’s speech should take precedence. Unfortunately some people had other ideas.”
Two pictures given directly to the London Evening Standard at Meghan’s behest show her beaming in front of a new virtual reality technology at the theatre’s Immersive Storytelling Studio.
 
Last edited:
(alleged)
Key word is alleged. The tabloids have constantly been putting out narratives about every single move she makes, claiming that they have some sources. Such narratives are a bit silly, because it’s not like those posts actually stole limelight from Camilla. Meghan naturally gets more attention regardless (more people were still talking about her other appearance even without this visit)

Since this is a Catholic forum, it’s relevant to point out that such narratives aim to destroy someone’s reputation, which is sinful. It’s best if we disregard petty gossip tbh, as hard as it can be at times.
 
Last edited:
The tabloids have constantly been putting out narratives about every single move she makes, claiming that they have some sources.
The problem with the tabloids is half the time the “inside source” is real but their reputations are damaged by their sensationalism and questionable tactics. For instance, one tabloid managed to get hold of personal letters. They weren’t fake as they’re being sued by the Duchess for that.
Meghan naturally gets more attention regardless (more people were still talking about her other appearance even without this visit)
That’s true. Regardless, there was an embargo.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the tabloids is half the time the “inside source” is real but their reputations are damaged by their sensationalism and questionable tactics. For instance, one tabloid managed to get hold of personal letters. They weren’t fake as they’re being sued by the Duchess for that.
That’s the thing. Half of the time.

Meghan’s letter was given by her father, for instance. And he’s getting paid well by dragging her name through the mud. A source, when it’s actually real, may say something like ‘Harry and Meghan wants to trademark Sussex Royal, but the Palace isn’t keen due to the possible implications’, but the tabloids will turn it to ‘Meghan DEMANDS Queen to give her ROYAL TITLES, claims that the Queen “cannot tell her what to do!”’

Then Harry and Meghan would have to quickly release their own statements to clarify but the public, who is usually incapable of critical thinking, would look at these statements as confirmation of the tabloids’ claims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top