Jump to content
IGNORED

Meghan and Harry 2: Now with Archie


Coconut Flan

Recommended Posts

It’s a good article and raises a lot of fair points. I think it’s given at this point that Meghan has an American agenda and eventually that’s going to bite her in the ass. 

  • Upvote 1
  • WTF 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, adidas said:

Yet another attempt to pick apart anything and everything she does. The arguments against her acting as editor for the upcoming Vogue don’t even make sense. She does this? Wrong! She doesn’t do it? She just gets tax payer money and doesn’t work. She does what the article’s writer suggested and start Instagram live interviews? I’d bet my neck people would get bonkers. While she didn’t always act perfectly, the constant and over the top bashing of her actions and very person show a level of  hatred against a former black US “commoner” that I see with growing disgust. If people mind her so much, maybe they should take issue with the monarchy and not her personally. 

45 minutes ago, viii said:

It’s a good article and raises a lot of fair points. I think it’s given at this point that Meghan has an American agenda and eventually that’s going to bite her in the ass. 

What would her having an “American agenda” even mean? She’s American and spent most of her life there, why should she act as if that never happened? She most likely brings her experiences and opinions into her new role as a British working royal and instead of hiding her identity, she allows people to see it.

I’m neither British nor a monarchist but such theories go too far imo. What’s next? Trump planted her to infiltrate the Windsors?

Edited by FluffySnowball
  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course she’s American and allowed to have pride in it, but when the British taxpayers pay for your lofty lifestyle, it should be respected. She has become a British citizen and become baptized in the Church of England - noble; but ultimately... who cares? It seems like a small issue to gripe about, but the way she continually chooses American stylists, photographers, charities, celebrities, etc instead of British doesn’t reflect well on her. 

It was her choice to move to England and become a part of the British royal family. It doesn’t mean forget her roots, but I do think she’s going to continue receiving backlash until she learns to embrace Britain. 

  • I Agree 7
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, viii said:

I do think she’s going to continue receiving backlash until she learns to embrace Britain. 

The harassment won’t make her “learn to embrace Britain”, it might lead her to fake it. She’s already chosen to leave her home, career and freedom behind to become part of the British RF and be a working royal, let alone having a child with another British royal. (That’s quite a step, considering the fact she apparently has secret American agendas and can’t bring herself to embrace Britain enough.)

I’m convinced the bullying won’t stop and for the most part, it isn’t caused by Meghan’s own actions. Some people hate her for a variety of reasons. Envy is one, racism another, sexism surely plays a role. There’s a foreign-born black woman who just doesn’t want to bow down and give up her opinions and passions because a white patriarchal system tells her to. But she still wanted to marry the guy she loves! How dare she?? The audacity! 

All the talk about the taxpayers: Well, if British people hate the monarchy (or at least dislike the idea of giving millions of dollars to a family each year that did nothing to deserve being filthy rich and utterly privileged) then they have every right to work towards abolishing it. However, in the current situation, they’re stuck funding a number of individuals that are at liberty to marry who they please and spend huge amounts of taxpayer money. Among them is a queen who is recorded on camera laughing about horribly offensive jokes that compare blacks to apes, an cheater, a guy who at the very least is friends with an orgy-throwing pedophile, and the list could go on. Meghan really isn’t a person the royal family has reasons to feel ashamed of, they can go sweep their own scandals and problems under their expensive Persian carpets. 

I’ve lived in NZ for years and am in support of a republic. The fact that a country in the South Pacific celebrates the birthday of an Englishwoman by means of a bank holiday is ludicrous. One can’t get rid of the royals fast enough if it’s up to me. But as long as members of the British RF carry their current titles and have their privileges, I don’t whine about how they should or shouldn’t do this or that.

Lastly, after all the British press has said and written about Meghan, she has reasons to take the damn taxpayer money, leave her “commoners” and tell them to go screw themselves. Respect should go both ways.

Edited by FluffySnowball
  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry just gave an interview where he said he and Meghan would have just two children so that they can reduce strain on the environment. Unfortunately, the implication he left people with is that he’s ragging on his brother, who already has three children and by some accounts, wants more. And again, I just find the environmental lecturing to be tiring when they’re not practicing what they preach. I imagine I could have five or six children and still have less of an environmental impact than someone with the lifestyle of the BRF. No private jets, no fleet of cars, one statistically small residence, no helicopter, no exotic food that requires a lot of resources to make and causes pollution, no spending hundred of thousands on clothes and jewelry. It’s just a very bad look to preach at people about material consumption and reducing, reusing, and recycling when your lifestyle is basically one huge ostentatious display of unimaginable wealth and privilege. 

  • Upvote 16
  • I Agree 16
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, ViolaSebastian said:

Harry just gave an interview where he said he and Meghan would have just two children so that they can reduce strain on the environment. Unfortunately, the implication he left people with is that he’s ragging on his brother, who already has three children and by some accounts, wants more. And again, I just find the environmental lecturing to be tiring when they’re not practicing what they preach. I imagine I could have five or six children and still have less of an environmental impact than someone with the lifestyle of the BRF. No private jets, no fleet of cars, one statistically small residence, no helicopter, no exotic food that requires a lot of resources to make and causes pollution, no spending hundred of thousands on clothes and jewelry. It’s just a very bad look to preach at people about material consumption and reducing, reusing, and recycling when your lifestyle is basically one huge ostentatious display of unimaginable wealth and privilege. 

And don't preach about racism when your own track record is highly questionable (Nazi costumes, racial slurs, etc...). And how about not preaching about saving wildlife between hunting trips to shoot wild animals (with your private jet for transport). Or maybe don't use Instagram to advertise your personal brand and preach at everyone that social media is bad. 

Harry needs to maybe work on practicing what he preaches. 

  • Upvote 15
  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

And don't preach about racism when your own track record is highly questionable (Nazi costumes, racial slurs, etc...).

I disagree with that. Prince Harry made some horrific mistakes in the past but to my knowledge (keep in mind I don’t follow the royal family closely) there’s nothing to suggest he hasn’t seen the errors of his (old) ways and changed. Cause he was an idiot in the past doesn’t mean he can’t speak out in defense of his wife when she’s targeted by racism on the daily. Of course he not only has the right to, he’s also obligated. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, FluffySnowball said:

I disagree with that. Prince Harry made some horrific mistakes in the past but to my knowledge (keep in mind I don’t follow the royal family closely) there’s nothing to suggest he hasn’t seen the errors of his (old) ways and changed. Cause he was an idiot in the past doesn’t mean he can’t speak out in defense of his wife when she’s targeted by racism on the daily. Of course he not only has the right to, he’s also obligated. 

He was preaching to all of us this week that we all have an unconscious bias, except he apparently does not. And children don't notice skin color or differences (buzz...wrong, YRH... just one of many possible links: https://www.ms54.org/uploads/4/8/4/5/48453461/children_are_not_colorblind.pdf) and we all need to be like them. 

But tell me again how enlightened he is now. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

But tell me again how enlightened he is now. 

Ahm... please show me where I claimed he’s enlightened now. 

What I said was that it’s fine he speaks out in support of his wife after all the racist harassment she’s received. I stand by my statement. 

And about him “preaching to all of us” - don’t let that get under your skin. I get it’s annoying being the “commoner” in a monarchy, but he can only preach to those who listen. If you disagree, fine! I’m not knowledgeable enough to say whether his claims (everyone has a bias, etc.) are correct, but I also don’t look up to him for guidance. He doesn’t bother me. In the same time, I find the hatred ridiculous. Yeah, he’s rich and privileged and I’d love to have money like him. But it’s not his “fault” he was born a British prince ??‍♀️ I don’t get anything out of entertaining hatred against him or his wife. 

Edited by FluffySnowball
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, louisa05 said:

And don't preach about racism when your own track record is highly questionable (Nazi costumes, racial slurs, etc...).

Well now that that racism is personal and involves his wife and child(ren), let's hope he gets it now.

Edited by WhoompThereItIs
  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s fair game to continue to criticize Harry for his idiotic costume choice. It was a really, stunningly stupid decision to wear something like that or to attend a party like that at all. William deserves criticism for attending as well, though he at least had the sense to not show up as a Nazi.

That said, I also think Harry has every right to speak out on racism. The Nazi costume happened well over a decade ago and people - even ridiculously rich and privileged people - are capable of change in a period of time like that. I think Harry especially has a right to speak out concerning racism when it directly concerns his wife or child.

As for the environmental, hunting, etc. stuff - that criticism I honestly do get. I appreciate that they’re attempting to bring attention to some pretty important issues, but it does seem hypocritical at times. I don’t know who decides who gets to fly private for which flights or anything like that, but is it possible that might not always be a choice the Royal in question might be making on their own?*

*Strictly when it concerns public appearances, not private events. I honestly have no clue if this would be a security concern or something.

  • Upvote 10
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like what Meghan did with her Vogue issue. While the idea wasn’t revolutionary (I have seen tons of issues in this style) it’s still a good idea. I am however not too impressed with her choice of cover women. They are good choices but some fall short in comparison to others. But it is a good and solid issue and therefore she did a good job. (and I madly in love with the Gucci tweed dress she wears in some promo photos.)

It is also fantastic that they promote causes to save the environment. 

BUT sometimes they have a way of getting across very pleased with themselves/better than you/all high and mighty and judgemental.

My criticism is not so much on Meghan with her Vogue issue. But I do wonder why people have to make out as if this was the most revolutionary thing ever? It might have been for the Vogue which just shows what a commercialised and in the end insignificant Magazin it is in the times we live. Reading the Vogue for its great research or important topics on racism/equality/beauty standards/politics is like reading the playboy for its articles (which are actually very well researched at times who would have thought that). It’s a beauty Magazin that desperately tries to stay relevant and lives of selling stuff to people. Like every other online Influencer.

 

My big criticism right now is Harry and his comments about “having two children to protect the environment”. They can have as many children they want for whatever reason they seem fit but he has no right to judge others on their reproductive choices (as long as those children are well cared for). That is exactly the attitude that drives people away.

@VelociRapture Even if all job related things are out, their private lifestyle still generates a huge carbon footprint. That goes for all of them by the way. But cutting things out is uncomfortable and they, like most of us don’t want to bring real sacrifices. Could you imagine them never undertaking huge private holidays at some „exotic“ destinations? Or stop buying another expensive sports car for their private vehicle fleet? Cut out foods with the highest carbon footprints as red and white meat, soy, corn, everything that comes by plane/ship and fish? (Because apart from factory farming it’s actually transportation and storage that adds to it.) Or start to differently maintain their grounds so they won’t need uncountable gallons of water for perfect green grass? The Vogue issue could have been printed with non toxic colours on paper that is actually well recyclable, no testers in it, or why not make it an solely online issue to save water, paper etc. Just an example because I don’t blame Meghan she did not do that and in this case it’s Harry to criticise as it was his comment not hers.

Harry’s comment was entitled and ignorant at best, but for me it screamed of hypocrisy and judgment. And sadly, in the end it over powers the rest.

 

On a general not:

And I am sooooo annoyed by all those radical Meghan lovers and haters.

Meghan gets paid to promote Britain. This Vogue issue was a good solid job and she should be proud of it. But there is no denying that she has failed before and she will fail again. They all do and they all get the bitchy treatment of the British tabloids. I think many are new to the scene and have no idea what kind of articles Camilla or Kate got when they were the new kid on the block. Especially Camilla. And while it’s obviously not ok, people need to stop acting as if Meghan gets the worst treatment- because honestly I think Camilla would still win this comparison. 

Simultaneously, she is not the devil himself. She is beautiful and puts a lot of effort in her jobs. She could be on of the biggest assets and even if not- she and Harry and their children deserve to be happy. Many get lost in pettiness or worse, racism. Which is just wrong.

  • Upvote 11
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Meghan gets paid to promote Britain

This is one of my issues. She gets paid to promote Britain, so IMO she should be wearing British/Commonwealth designers. It was British Vogue so why not put all British forces for change on the cover?  

She and Harry are tiresome in that they plead they want their privacy and then do or say things that just bring more attention to them. He preaches to the masses about limiting the number if children they will have. Does he really not understand that not everyone has access to birth control and thus can make choices like that? I don't think they understand how tone deaf they can be at times. And the shade from that comment towards his brother and in turn his nephew, ugh.

 It is like they are working so hard to keep relevant because they think their spot in the limelight will be taken over in a few short years, which it will because the media will move on to the Cambridge children once they are of age and Harry and Megan will be in the background.

  • Upvote 4
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I like what Meghan did with her Vogue issue. While the idea wasn’t revolutionary (I have seen tons of issues in this style) it’s still a good idea. I am however not too impressed with her choice of cover women. They are good choices but some fall short in comparison to others. But it is a good and solid issue and therefore she did a good job. (and I madly in love with the Gucci tweed dress she wears in some promo photos.)

It is also fantastic that they promote causes to save the environment. 

BUT sometimes they have a way of getting across very pleased with themselves/better than you/all high and mighty and judgemental.

My criticism is not so much on Meghan with her Vogue issue. But I do wonder why people have to make out as if this was the most revolutionary thing ever? It might have been for the Vogue which just shows what a commercialised and in the end insignificant Magazin it is in the times we live. Reading the Vogue for its great research or important topics on racism/equality/beauty standards/politics is like reading the playboy for its articles (which are actually very well researched at times who would have thought that). It’s a beauty Magazin that desperately tries to stay relevant and lives of selling stuff to people. Like every other online Influencer.

 

My big criticism right now is Harry and his comments about “having two children to protect the environment”. They can have as many children they want for whatever reason they seem fit but he has no right to judge others on their reproductive choices (as long as those children are well cared for). That is exactly the attitude that drives people away.

@VelociRapture Even if all job related things are out, their private lifestyle still generates a huge carbon footprint. That goes for all of them by the way. But cutting things out is uncomfortable and they, like most of us don’t want to bring real sacrifices. Could you imagine them never undertaking huge private holidays at some „exotic“ destinations? Or stop buying another expensive sports car for their private vehicle fleet? Cut out foods with the highest carbon footprints as red and white meat, soy, corn, everything that comes by plane/ship and fish? (Because apart from factory farming it’s actually transportation and storage that adds to it.) Or start to differently maintain their grounds so they won’t need uncountable gallons of water for perfect green grass? The Vogue issue could have been printed with non toxic colours on paper that is actually well recyclable, no testers in it, or why not make it an solely online issue to save water, paper etc. Just an example because I don’t blame Meghan she did not do that and in this case it’s Harry to criticise as it was his comment not hers.

Harry’s comment was entitled and ignorant at best, but for me it screamed of hypocrisy and judgment. And sadly, in the end it over powers the rest.

 

On a general not:

And I am sooooo annoyed by all those radical Meghan lovers and haters.

Meghan gets paid to promote Britain. This Vogue issue was a good solid job and she should be proud of it. But there is no denying that she has failed before and she will fail again. They all do and they all get the bitchy treatment of the British tabloids. I think many are new to the scene and have no idea what kind of articles Camilla or Kate got when they were the new kid on the block. Especially Camilla. And while it’s obviously not ok, people need to stop acting as if Meghan gets the worst treatment- because honestly I think Camilla would still win this comparison. 

Simultaneously, she is not the devil himself. She is beautiful and puts a lot of effort in her jobs. She could be on of the biggest assets and even if not- she and Harry and their children deserve to be happy. Many get lost in pettiness or worse, racism. Which is just wrong.

Yes, I specifically mentioned just the private travel for public occasions as possibly being out of their control. Private trips are a whole other matter, as I’d assume they’d have full control over how they travel for those. I could be wrong though.

You're correct that Camilla and Catherine both got a ton of pretty disgusting attention from the press when they were new to the family as well. Neither of them were also subjected to the racist attacks and undertones that Meghan has been though. None of it is ok (in my opinion) when it’s not based on any valid criticism, but the racist attacks just seem particularly nasty to me.

As for Harry’s comment, it didn’t strike me as being rude or judgmental towards anyone else. I don’t remember the exact wording, but I got the impression that having just two kids was something he and Meghan decided was a way they personally could help - not that it was the only way anyone should ever help. Criticizing him for the travel and hunting is completely legitimate, but I think it’s reaching a bit when people have accused him of purposely shading his brother and SIL or judging those with more than two kids. 

  • Upvote 6
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

Yes, I specifically mentioned just the private travel for public occasions as possibly being out of their control. Private trips are a whole other matter, as I’d assume they’d have full control over how they travel for those. I could be wrong though.

You're correct that Camilla and Catherine both got a ton of pretty disgusting attention from the press when they were new to the family as well. Neither of them were also subjected to the racist attacks and undertones that Meghan has been though. None of it is ok (in my opinion) when it’s not based on any valid criticism, but the racist attacks just seem particularly nasty to me.

As for Harry’s comment, it didn’t strike me as being rude or judgmental towards anyone else. I don’t remember the exact wording, but I got the impression that having just two kids was something he and Meghan decided was a way they personally could help - not that it was the only way anyone should ever help. Criticizing him for the travel and hunting is completely legitimate, but I think it’s reaching a bit when people have accused him of purposely shading his brother and SIL or judging those with more than two kids. 

You are right. He hasn’t said it outright and this might a complete wrong interpretation.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry and Meghan wouldn’t be the first couple to decide they didn’t want lots of kids after experiencing  the realities of pregnancy, childbirth and a newborn. Maybe the environmental reason Harry gave recently was just handy at the time. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2019 at 9:13 PM, Smash! said:

If I normally work with clients in an office and I'm on maternity leave I can't just show up at work and talk to one of my best clients, even if it's not at all work related and just for fun. It's a matter of what's appropriate in a social context and not regarding to maternity leave

Just catching up on this thread, I know it was a page or two ago now but I just wanted to respond to this.

 I’m in the UK like Meghan, and employees on maternity leave are entitled to up to 10 KIT (keeping in touch)  days where they can come into work without affecting their status (and thus their pay). It has to be agreed by both the employee and employer but if your major client was in town and everyone agreed then you would be able to come in and meet with them. In the case of the royals their job is public appearances so going to the Lion King premier (or Trouping the Colour) is her version of that. When I saw the photos of the premiere I actually joked “so that’s what a royal KIT day looks like. 

Now I’m aware that being royal isn’t a standard job with a contract and salary, so she’s not in statutory maternity leave but a number of people, not specifically here, have made the argument that she should be considered like anyone else on mat leave so I just wanted to put another point of view forward. I’m also aware that I’ve probably thought a lot more about this than the royal family did ?

  • Upvote 11
  • Thank You 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2019 at 12:20 AM, Topaz said:

Just catching up on this thread, I know it was a page or two ago now but I just wanted to respond to this.

 I’m in the UK like Meghan, and employees on maternity leave are entitled to up to 10 KIT (keeping in touch)  days where they can come into work without affecting their status (and thus their pay). It has to be agreed by both the employee and employer but if your major client was in town and everyone agreed then you would be able to come in and meet with them. In the case of the royals their job is public appearances so going to the Lion King premier (or Trouping the Colour) is her version of that. When I saw the photos of the premiere I actually joked “so that’s what a royal KIT day looks like. 

Now I’m aware that being royal isn’t a standard job with a contract and salary, so she’s not in statutory maternity leave but a number of people, not specifically here, have made the argument that she should be considered like anyone else on mat leave so I just wanted to put another point of view forward. I’m also aware that I’ve probably thought a lot more about this than the royal family did ?

Not the OG poster but I wanted to point out, that Meghan does work engagements while on mat leave. No one is saying she cannot do that or that this is wrong. They were very upfront about it before she went on mat leave.

The problem is when they blurr they lines between official engagements and private fun (aka using the same privileges while being at work, but demanding it has to be oh so private). The Lion King appearance is a tricky one though.

Nice to hear that you can have those KIT days. I imagine its very benificial to show face and to stay on peoples minds for when you plan to return.

 

For people who are very interested In the Duchess of Sussex or the Duchess of Cambridge I can recommend the two blogs, run by the same author:

http://madaboutmeghan.blogspot.com/

http://hrhduchesskate.blogspot.com/

She does a good job, covering them. You won't find any criticism (apart from some comments) there though. I assume the auther is US based and she sometimes looks from a very different lense than UK based sources (positive or critical). But she does a truly fantastic job, researching fashion AND the charity work they do. In the last months she seems to fall for more gossip sources though (the alleged feud between the brothers- which even if true is just not our business and not confirmed by them so it is all gossip).

Sadly, there only seem to be the two extremes left. Sugar-coating or dragging through the mud. Many balanced blogs have shut down. They couldn't deal with the flood of obviously racist or just horrific comments in their section anymore and just shut down. People seemed to think, just because a blog criticised them it was ok to go all out. So therefore there are no balanced resources left.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people tend to take "having fewer kids for the sake of the environment" REALLY personally and see it as judgemental. I'm an environmental scientist, and the data is clear: having one fewer kid and not taking planes are the top two things you can can personally do to fight climate change. I don't know how to make that more palatable, but there it is.

The other way of thinking of climate change is that large industries are by far the biggest polluters (mostly oil, gas and coal companies). So we can pressure those companies into cleaning up their business. Of course they are mostly providing us with fuel for our cars and planes so that has got to change. https://www.activesustainability.com/climate-change/100-companies-responsible-71-ghg-emissions/

Sounds like Harry is more into hunting than Meghan but it is possible to do this in a sustainable fashion.

Anyway! I don't get the Meghan hate. As far as we know, she's buying American designer clothing from her royalties off Suits. Who knows. It would be great if she took fewer plane trips or talked publicly about offsetting the carbon or whatever.

  • Upvote 6
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2019 at 5:09 PM, FluffySnowball said:

The harassment won’t make her “learn to embrace Britain”, it might lead her to fake it. She’s already chosen to leave her home, career and freedom behind to become part of the British RF and be a working royal, let alone having a child with another British royal. (That’s quite a step, considering the fact she apparently has secret American agendas and can’t bring herself to embrace Britain enough.)

I’m convinced the bullying won’t stop and for the most part, it isn’t caused by Meghan’s own actions. Some people hate her for a variety of reasons. Envy is one, racism another, sexism surely plays a role. There’s a foreign-born black woman who just doesn’t want to bow down and give up her opinions and passions because a white patriarchal system tells her to. But she still wanted to marry the guy she loves! How dare she?? The audacity! 

[... snip ...]

Lastly, after all the British press has said and written about Meghan, she has reasons to take the damn taxpayer money, leave her “commoners” and tell them to go screw themselves. Respect should go both ways.

I agree that the idea of Royalty is fairly ludicrous and we'd probably do better without it.  But as it is, it's there, and Britain has developed an unspoken social contract between the RF and the people that allows each to justify or accept their existence.  What that also means is that the RF must publicly behave in a proscribed manner. 

The RF justifies their existence by positioning themselves as a neutral, uniting face of Britain (and the Commonwealth).  Beyond that, they still technically play a role as the constitutional head of state, so they have to appear scrupulously neutral when it comes to politics. The RF (both men AND women) "brings awareness" to lots of causes, but they very rarely express opinions on how things should be done, or the right way of doing/thinking about issues because it can wade into those verboten areas - look, for instance, at the criticism Prince Charles received for the Black Spider papers.  So no, if Meghan has decided (and she and Harry do have a choice) to remain working Royals, she cannot publicly be espousing her "passions and opinions," not if they wade into anything even remotely political.  Neither can Harry.  

Let's just look at one thing - the Vogue issue.  I think the optics of that were bad on several points, but I'll focus on the political aspect.  In it, Meghan chose to feature Jacinda Ardern, a proudly socialist Labour Party politician.  She chose to feature Michelle Obama.  Both are very public, left-wing political figures.  Personally, their politics tend to align with mine, but that's not the point.  A person with right-wing views could easily argue that a member of the RF is using their position to bolster one particular political ideology.  To put it in perspective, I tried to imagine the converse - if, for instance, a RF member used their position to feature Nigel Farage's girlfriend, or Melania Trump.  I would absolutely criticize a project like that.  

So although I've seen it suggested repeatedly that racism and sexism are the primary driver of the criticism, I don't think that's true.  It's because she (and Harry) are straying from that safe path where the working members of the RF are little more than public, posing symbols of Britain and the Commonwealth.  

  • Upvote 8
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's fair to compare Michelle Obama to Melania Trump.

Michelle Obama spent most of her career in the public sector working towards positive social change, both locally in Chicago and nationally. She is very much the epitome of what that Vogue issue is supposed to be about. 

What exactly has Melania Trump done to make the world a better place? 

As for Laure Ferrari, I can't find any specific work that she's done that is in any way close to the types of things Michelle Obama has done, and in deed, the think tank she ran seems to be under investigation for funneling money illegally to UKIP. 

I honestly can't think of anyone that is involved in the types of public works that are highlighted in the Vogue issues that are conservative. Meghan's involvement doesn't change the fact that people that do that type of work are generally liberal, and that's certainly something that's been pointed out time and again by other outlets. 

Meghan could have been not involved with the Vogue issue and they'd still be able to put out a similar piece. 

I also want to add, Harry has collaborated with Michelle Obama for years now, and has spent time with President Obama. Harry even did an interview with him. It's not surprising, then, that Meghan would include Michelle Obama, for that alone. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, anjulibai said:

I don't think it's fair to compare Michelle Obama to Melania Trump.

I'm not.  It's not about Melania Trump, or whoever Farage is dating, and whether they have done equivalently good things to the people Meghan featured - those were just hypotheticals to try and put myself into the shoes of another person.  My point is about the idea of famous people promoting "awareness of issues"  versus profiling or doing a feature on a politician who - presumably - is either trying to get re-elected or trying to get her party re-elected (i.e. Michelle Obama and Prince Harry talk about struggles veterans face, versus Michelle Obama talking about herself/Meghan talking about how great Michelle Obama is as a person).   Michelle Obama was first lady and is still very involved in the Democratic party, particularly the endorsement process.  Jacinda Ardern, presumably, is going to try to get re-elected in 2020.  

Profiling a politician is very different from profiling a private citizen doing good works who happens to support a particular party.  Every voter has political views.   But a celeb who supports the Democrats - let's use Sarah Silverman as an example because I love her - isn't a politician.  Neither Silverman nor her friends are going to lose their jobs if the Democrats don't win.  She's just a private citizen who believes in the same issues they support, not a politician whose role necessarily involves trying to get positive PR/exposure for the party. 

And wrapped up in those features of politicians is inherently a measure of positive media exposure and support for a particular party and ideology.  The NZ Labour Party (and their self-described "Anti-Trump" leader) and the Democrats in the US just got a free PR for leading figures in their party due to the Duchess of Sussex.  That's where I see the problem.  

  • Upvote 8
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, acheronbeach said:

I'm not.  It's not about Melania Trump, or whoever Farage is dating, and whether they have done equivalently good things to the people Meghan featured - those were just hypotheticals to try and put myself into the shoes of another person.  My point is about the idea of famous people promoting "awareness of issues"  versus profiling or doing a feature on a politician who - presumably - is either trying to get re-elected or trying to get her party re-elected (i.e. Michelle Obama and Prince Harry talk about struggles veterans face, versus Michelle Obama talking about herself/Meghan talking about how great Michelle Obama is as a person).   Michelle Obama was first lady and is still very involved in the Democratic party, particularly the endorsement process.  Jacinda Ardern, presumably, is going to try to get re-elected in 2020.  

Profiling a politician is very different from profiling a private citizen doing good works who happens to support a particular party.  Every voter has political views.   But a celeb who supports the Democrats - let's use Sarah Silverman as an example because I love her - isn't a politician.  Neither Silverman nor her friends are going to lose their jobs if the Democrats don't win.  She's just a private citizen who believes in the same issues they support, not a politician whose role necessarily involves trying to get positive PR/exposure for the party. 

And wrapped up in those features of politicians is inherently a measure of positive media exposure and support for a particular party and ideology.  The NZ Labour Party (and their self-described "Anti-Trump" leader) and the Democrats in the US just got a free PR for leading figures in their party due to the Duchess of Sussex.  That's where I see the problem.  

I see your point here. The Royals are supposed to stay neutral politically, so I can see how this could, technically, be seen as an issue by someone. I think they were included because the theme of the issue centered around people making changes in the world and that’s what politicians are supposed to do, but maybe it would have been better PR-wise to include someone else - like scientists working on really important medical breakthroughs, for example. So your argument seems like a fair enough critique to me as explained the way you did here.

I saw other criticism of the cover on the news that struck me as really, really stupid though. Apparently there are people who are pissed off that “only” five of the people photographed are white. Because, apparently, us whites aren’t represented enough in the media already. :roll:

  • Upvote 7
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2019 at 1:46 PM, VelociRapture said:

I see your point here. The Royals are supposed to stay neutral politically, so I can see how this could, technically, be seen as an issue by someone. I think they were included because the theme of the issue centered around people making changes in the world and that’s what politicians are supposed to do, but maybe it would have been better PR-wise to include someone else - like scientists working on really important medical breakthroughs, for example. So your argument seems like a fair enough critique to me as explained the way you did here.

I saw other criticism of the cover on the news that struck me as really, really stupid though. Apparently there are people who are pissed off that “only” five of the people photographed are white. Because, apparently, us whites aren’t represented enough in the media already. :roll:

God yes some of the criticism of the RF is so incredibly moronic.  I saw a load of posters today criticizing four year old Princess Charlotte for sticking her tongue out at her grandfather.  A few weeks ago I saw someone ranting because Meghan removed a bunch of beauty marks/freckles from her face that she had when she was younger. 

Honestly, when you have RF members fucking an underage sex slave, this all pales a bit, doesn't it?

  • Upvote 9
  • I Agree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • laPapessaGiovanna locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.