Meghan and Harry 4: Working for Netflix

[tabitha2]

Now. Just an honest Question: What more do people want the Queen much less Charles to do? Andrew is a grown man and they can’t force him to do anything esp as Scotland Yard refused to pursue the matter. 
 

If The case had been followed through in the UK The Government would have taken action not the reigning powerless figureheads anyway.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

8 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Now. Just an honest Question: What more do people want the Queen much less Charles to do? Andrew is a grown man and they can’t force him to do anything esp as Scotland Yard refused to pursue the matter. 
 

If The case had been followed through in the UK The Government would have taken action not the reigning powerless figureheads anyway.

I agree with this.  I lay the failure to force him to testify at the feet of the US and British law enforcement agencies.  

If he's still getting money from the BRF that's on them, but if he's not all they can do is pressure him to do the right thing which people who are okay with sex trafficking probably won't do.  

If law enforcement acted appropriately nothing the BRF could do to influence (if they tried) should matter.  If they tried to influence Scotland Yard to protect Andrew I would hold them accountable, but if it's just le treating rich entitled people the way they always do and turning a blind eye on their heads be it.

[viii]

This is a genuine question - Harry and Meghan filmed their Oprah special beforehand. With Philip's hospitalization, is it even up to them when it airs? I would assume that would be the network's decision. Granted, they could request it be delayed, but I don't think it's a given they have the power to do that. 

And I'm not sure it should be delayed. Philip is hospitalized, but all reports show that he's comfortable and slowly improving. With all the public attacks coming from the BRF, then I think Harry and Meghan deserve to have their say. 

It's an ugly situation, but I think it's incredibly unfair to say it's all H&M. 

@tabitha2 The Queen ain't shit when it comes to Andrew. She shielded him for years. These accusations aren't new, they've been brewing for literal years. Also, when it all came to a head and she was forced to remove him from public service, she chose for him to walk with her to church, knowing full well that would indicate that while she would listen to the government and pull him back, he still has her full support. I'm a Lizzie fan, but Andrew is a sore spot where she has definitely shown her shady side. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just realized I repeated myself.  Nothing I say here is worth reading twice  

Edited March 3, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy

[tabitha2]

Epstein’s little black book was full of dozens of names of Celebrities, Royals, politicians with virtually all going about their lives without a care in the world with no fear of investigation. Many of them are Americans the FBI could actually get to if they  actually had the morals and balls for it while  Andrew OTOH Is untouchable unless he chooses not be.

 

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by tabitha2

[HerNameIsBuffy]

6 minutes ago, viii said:

he Queen ain't shit when it comes to Andrew. She shielded him for years. These accusations aren't new, they've been brewing for literal years. Also, when it all came to a head and she was forced to remove him from public service, she chose for him to walk with her to church, knowing full well that would indicate that while she would listen to the government and pull him back, he still has her full support. I'm a Lizzie fan, but Andrew is a sore spot where she has definitely shown her shady side. 

I hate myself for saying this, but as awful as denial of sexual abuse is (and it is) I have seen first hand how hard it is for even good people to accept the truth.

I am in no way condoning it.  It's not okay and denial harms victims and gives the predator an opportunity to create more.  It's a terrible thing.  

I think that she has and has had for years a blind spot when it comes to her son is not surprising.  It's hard to accept that someone you love so deeply (and IME love doesn't go any deeper than between a mother and child) could be capable of evil.  The cognitive dissonance would be overwhelming, I'd think.  

I know the BRF is both a family and a business, but when it comes to this if she's in denial it's because he's her baby and not because he's her employee...if that makes sense.  

Again, not condoning it just saying this falls into her being flawed and human for me rather than anything to do with royalty or privilege.  

 

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

 

And I don’t get people here endlessly fan girling and defending  a flakey nonsense spouting runaway prince and his B list starlet wife with a string of broken relations and controversy behind her... for God sakes, why?  
 

What is wrong with having failed relationships? I suspect nearly everyone here at FJ has had some. It sounds like you are shaming her for . . . what? Dating? Having sex? 

Why is being a "B list starlet" a terrible thing? It's more than I'll ever be. Are you an A list starlet, and is that better somehow? Is being on TV a shameful thing unless you reach the A list?

Why even use words like "starlet"? It sounds so slut-shaming and misogynistic.

It's really sad how women pile on other women, even in the 21st century.

2 hours ago, ADoyle90815 said:

I think a lot of the criticism that Meghan gets is because of racism because no matter what she does, it's always the wrong thing. I'm not saying she's perfect in any way, as people do make mistakes, but many of the negativity is slight racism. 

I absolutely agree it's racism. There's little to admire about Kate,  but she is pretty and white. 

[tabitha2]

It’s not just Andrew. If the Queen had a major flaw it’s not interfering in her adult children’s and grandchildren matters and life’s and avoiding issues with them when she needs to put her foot down. She is no disciplinarian and never has been.

[viii]

But why should she put her foot down? If they're grown adults, then they're responsible for their choices and decisions. If my grandparents tried to micromanage my life, there would be a lot of resentment and issues between us. 

@Jackie3 Kate certainly endured her years of flack from the public, but once she started having children and found her groove in early development work, it seemed to all settle down. Kate deserves far more criticism than Meghan does, imo. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, viii said:

But why should she put her foot down? If they're grown adults, then they're responsible for their choices and decisions. If my grandparents tried to micromanage my life, there would be a lot of resentment and issues between us. 

I agree ...which is why IMO their family shouldn't be a family, a business, and a brand.

As the matriarch I agree she shouldn't interfere in their adult lives.  But if I were employed by the business of the BRF I would be pissed she didn't keep a tighter reign on her employees.  The lines being so blurry has to cause pain for all involved.  Sadly she's not just mom and grams, she's da boss and imo those things are incompatible with healthy family dynamics.

[tabitha2]

Huh? What did Kate ever do to anyone? She is just a very traditional Royal and will make a  traditional Queen consort some day. That is neither a praise nor criticism as I don’t think Kate is all that interesting really though she is perfect for William as a mate and that’s not nothing. 

[Cat Damon]

43 minutes ago, viii said:

This is a genuine question - Harry and Meghan filmed their Oprah special beforehand. With Philip's hospitalization, is it even up to them when it airs? I would assume that would be the network's decision. Granted, they could request it be delayed, but I don't think it's a given they have the power to do that. 

I don't know how TV works, but I wondered this as well. What could they even do? Especially with all the press that's been surrounding the interview, I don't think there's a way at this point to delay it since it's airing in five days. 

I have been somewhat critical of both Harry and Meghan, not because they walked away (I genuinely think they love each other and used each other to get what they wanted- he wanted out and she wanted a higher profile, and there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion at all), but I do agree that their PR is horrible.

This may also be BEC, but I also get a little tired of everything single thing Harry and Meghan do being tied back to some kind of symbolism of Diana or not 'wanting history to repeat itself'. Meghan is not Diana any more than Kate is, and it just is a tired comparison in my opinion. Is it a way to keep public interest in them? I think instead of a tell-all interview, Harry needs continuing therapy to deal with the loss of his mother (I don't know that he isn't getting therapy, I just don't think a globally-aired interview is going to have the effect they would like on their public image).

Edit- I want to add that I know Kate and William make nods to Diana frequently, but they always do it in a positive light and not highlighting all of the trauma that William worked through from her death.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Cat Damon

[HerNameIsBuffy]

9 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

What is wrong with having failed relationships? I suspect nearly everyone here at FJ has had some. It sounds like you are shaming her for . . . what? Dating? Having sex? 

Why is being a "B list starlet" a terrible thing? It's more than I'll ever be. Are you an A list starlet, and is that better somehow? Is being on TV a shameful thing unless you reach the A list?

Why even use words like "starlet"? It sounds so slut-shaming and misogynistic.

It's really sad how women pile on other women, even in the 21st century.

First I defend the queen now I'm defending @tabitha2 's take on the royals.  Can someone check outside and see if hell has frozen over or something?   

I've taken issue in the past with Tabitha's IMO mercurial take on Meghan, but she wasn't shaming her for dating or having had sex.  She was referring to Meghan's failed relationships both with family, friends, former co-workers, etc.  I disagree that her family dysfunction reflects on MM's ability to have supportive relationships (some of her family members are horrible) but she wasn't shaming her for dating or sex.

And I don't see "starlet" as slut shaming or misogynistic.  It may be a bit archaic, but I enjoy bringing back words of yesteryear, but there is nothing sexual implied by the word.  Just that she was an actress aiming to be a star but not quite there.  Which I think is a fair assessment.  I had never heard of her as an actress before she took up with Harry, as opposed to major stars who have near universal name recognition regardless of whether or not people are familiar with their work.  

[tabitha2]

Diana and Meghan are nothing in holy hell alike. Using Diana’s name and persona for attention, profit or to emotionally manipulate people to be on their “side” is no better than when Lord Spencer does it and it’s tacky and disgusting either way.  
 

@HerNameIsBuffy

 

Yeah. I saw some pigs flying outside my window when you agreed with me on something. The end must be nye! 
 

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by tabitha2

[viii]

43 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Huh? What did Kate ever do to anyone? She is just a very traditional Royal and will make a  traditional Queen consort some day. That is neither a praise nor criticism as I don’t think Kate is all that interesting really though she is perfect for William as a mate and that’s not nothing. 

My issue is how people claim Meghan used Harry for higher publicity but then say nothing about Kate, a woman who sat around for over a decade while she waited for William to propose. In this day and age of women's progress, I think Kate has set it back far more than Meghan ever did. 

I still think Harry wanted to leave way before he met Meghan, she was just the girlfriend that didn't run away from the family, but said she'd run with him. That's the hill I'll die on. ?

[tabitha2]

That’s fair. I don’t think Kate set anything back though.She suits William, she suits The Royal family and seems very well suited to this very particular way of life. She seems like a great mom as well. Not every woman absolutely must be rebellious, outspoken or career oriented. There is one for both those women and the demure traditional types  

[viii]

She suits William because she suits what he needs her to be. She has groomed herself to be available to his every need. I would say that Kate is very career oriented, more so than Meghan. Being Queen Consort is a career, and Kate did everything in her power to make it happen. It's commendable but let's not pretend that Kate is a demure traditional type. There are plenty of factually based stories that contradict that. 

I will agree that she's a good mother and she seems to have found her groove in working the early childhood development. 

[tabitha2]

I feel To be a modern Royal women particularly a married in you have to be tough, thick skinned and dedicated to this anachronistic way of living. You also have to know that your husband is the royal and accept it. Sophie or Camilla and looks like Kate got this shit down.Diana was never going to be suited because of her temperament and emotional problems even if Charles had been the perfect husband and Meghan didn’t even seem to try all that hard 

 

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

9 minutes ago, viii said:

It's commendable but let's not pretend that Kate is a demure traditional type. There are plenty of factually based stories that contradict that. 

I agree that she pursued her career as future queen, but I think it's a matter of semantics.  She's demure and traditional professionally.   

I think the whole point of the women's movement was so we could all chose the options we have which best suit us.  Obviously, few of us have the option of becoming the future queen of England, but we all have different paths and the beauty of autonomy is being able to follow your own (as it works for your family, etc.)

I like to think that at the end of the day both Kate and Meghan, no matter their career/public moves, are a couple of moms who love their husbands and kids and are just trying to get through life as best they can.  

 

 

[viii]

7 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Meghan didn’t even seem to try all that hard 

I think you have to acknowledge that it wasn't an even playing field, though. Meghan got far more backlash for merely existing, just because she is biracial. 

7 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I like to think that at the end of the day both Kate and Meghan, no matter their career/public moves, are a couple of moms who love their husbands and kids and are just trying to get through life as best they can.  

I certainly hope so! I quite like William and Kate, and kind of wish they'd have one more child. They make the cutest kids! 

[tabitha2]

Yes. She was Biracial. But objectively other than some horrible radio hosts were disciplined and fired and idiot tabloid rags was welcomed by the British public, the leading press was very complementary, the Main senior Royals accepted her warmly. She was given all the tools to succeed. Mean while Camilla put up with the most awful unreasoning and unfair hatred for years... accused of drunkenness, being a home wrecker and even a murderess And still does from some circles. 
 

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by tabitha2

[hoipolloi]

2 hours ago, viii said:

The Queen ain't shit when it comes to Andrew. She shielded him for years. These accusations aren't new, they've been brewing for literal years. Also, when it all came to a head and she was forced to remove him from public service, she chose for him to walk with her to church, knowing full well that would indicate that while she would listen to the government and pull him back, he still has her full support.

All this. Andrew maybe an adult but he's also his mother's favorite son and her subject. There's enough leverage right there to get him into interviews with LE in the UK or the US if QEII chose to follow through. She hasn't and likely won't.

The question is whether or not Charles, once he's king, will exert pressure on Andrew to comply with these repeated requests from LE. Of course, by that time, things may be OBE if Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal trial unveils more information about Andrew's role in the Maxwell-Epstein world. There may be no choices for either Andrew or Charles about whether or not Andrew participates in any investigations.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal trial unveils more information about Andrew's role in the Maxwell-Epstein world.

I am praying nothing accidental befalls her before she can testify and also that they tighten the screws enough that she tells the truth while not escaping consequences for her actions.

 

[Anna Bolinas]

From the things I saw (and to be fair, I'm not British), Meghan was really not that accepted by the British press. There seemed to be a never-ending slew of articles, both before and after the wedding, about how Meghan was shallow, attention-seeking, a gold-digger, too American, a bad daughter (when all the stuff with her dad came out), putting on airs, unable to understand "her place," etc. To be fair, Camilla and Kate (and Fergie and Diana and Beatrice and Eugenie and Anne and the list goes on) have also gotten a lot of hate because misogyny is universal. But Meghan has the added difficulties of being a mixed-race American woman who didn't fit the preconceived notion of what a royal "should" be, and even though the press have slandered all those other royal women, somehow Meghan was still found wanting in comparison to them. Any flaws that Kate had seemed to disappear over night and she became like a living saint in comparison to mean, bitchy Meghan. None of them deserve to have all these horrible things said about them, and that's why I can't fault Meghan for basically telling them to kiss her ass. 

Also in regards to the interview: it was pre-taped. They couldn't have known Philip would be in the hospital during the time it was set to air. But I seriously will not be surprised if, should Philip die at some point in the next month, somehow the British press will blame Meghan and this interview for it.

[WiseGirl]

I agree with those that said their PR timing is awful.

Previously I stated they should live a quiet life because that is what I thought they wanted/ why they left the BRF to get away from intense scrutiny and to me, an Oprah interview doesn't line up with that statement. Then again I've never been hounded by the tabloids so maybe it is different. 

Since I've read the new posts I'm now thinking throw the lot of them in the Tower (of London) starting with Andrew. Of course leave the underage royals to, I don't know, go to school? 

And now I'm thinking of the Princes of the Tower and all the beheadings, and bodies, and creeping myself out. Time to distract myself, which probably means watching Maine Cabin Masters. I want a cabin.