Meghan and Harry 5: Oprah, Racism, and Gossip! Oh My!

[HerNameIsBuffy]

10 hours ago, omilona said:

Also, let's not forget the sucky most  immediately prior  husband who got his rings mailed back, right???  Or Jessica Mulroney whose 3 children were in the 'wedding' which Molotov said wasn't the wedding for $30,000,000 who was  subsequently thrown under the bus by MM, right up until this week when MM sent her flowers...so 'AUTHENTIC" https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/meghan-markle-and-jessica-mulroneys-friendship-timeline/. They all sucked too, 'right????' as Molotov says?  You know why I call her Molotov Mayhem? Because she loves to blow up relationships and leaves a trail of destruction and chaos in her wake. That is her FACTUAL history.

I'm sorry Meghan hurt you so badly.  What did she mail back to you?

[viii]

11 hours ago, omilona said:

Louise, James, Beatrice and Eugenie will need to step in.

Step in to do what, exactly? If the rumors are true that Charles plans to slim down the monarchy, then in about 1-5 years we will see that happen. I don't think any more royals are needed. 

5 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

The more of the retire, the less engagements there will be. The BRF will have to find a new MO.

They definitely should take note on how other monarchies work with just around 5-8 members and create their own spin on it.

I agree, I don't think there's a need to have so many full-time working royals. This pandemic has shown that they can do far more engagements when done virtually and I wonder if that will have a lasting impact in the future. 

10 hours ago, omilona said:

Or Jessica Mulroney whose 3 children were in the 'wedding' which Molotov said wasn't the wedding for $30,000,000 who was  subsequently thrown under the bus by MM, right up until this week when MM sent her flowers...so 'AUTHENTIC" https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/meghan-markle-and-jessica-mulroneys-friendship-timeline/. 

I'm not sure you can hold this one against Meghan. She was friends with Jessica for years - her sons were in her wedding, she left Archie with Jessica when they came back to London to hand in their two weeks notice. When Jessica's world rightfully blew up because she's an ignorant racist, I don't think it's fair to blame Meghan for dropping her. Should she have tried to educate her/drop her faster? Probably. However, the fact that Jessica dragged Meghan's name into her scandal when Meghan was already going through struggles of her own shows what a poor person/friend Jessica was, and I applaud Meghan for taking a step back. 

Sometimes friendships need some space, it doesn't mean it's over for good. 

Edited March 18, 2021 by viii

[closetcagebaby]

29 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I'm sorry Meghan hurt you so badly.  What did she mail back to you?

I can only guess it was a more than a lifetime supply of question marks. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

11 minutes ago, viii said:

Step in to do what, exactly? If the rumors are true that Charles plans to slim down the monarchy, then in about 1-5 years we will see that happen. I don't think any more royals are needed. 

I agree, I don't think there's a need to have so many full-time working royals. This pandemic has shown that they can do far more engagements when done virtually and I wonder if that will have a lasting impact in the future. 

I'm not sure you can hold this one against Meghan. She was friends with Jessica for years - her sons were in her wedding, she left Archie with Jessica when they came back to London to hand in their two weeks notice. When Jessica's world rightfully blew up because she's an ignorant racist, I don't think it's fair to blame Meghan for dropping her. Should she have tried to educate her/drop her faster? Probably. However, the fact that Jessica dragged Meghan's name into her scandal when Meghan was already going through struggles of her own shows what a poor person/friend Jessica was, and I applaud Meghan for taking a step back. 

Sometimes friendships need some space, it doesn't mean it's over for good. 

Such a great point.  It's so easy to paint public figures as villains or heroes and hard to remember sometimes that human beings are complicated.

Some, like Andrew, I've got no problem tossing on the vile heap because the evil he's done so outweighs anything decent there may be about him he doesn't deserve the effort of looking for the nuance.  It's kind of like the whole 'Hitler liked dogs' thing...it will never matter.  

But Meghan?  I just don't understand either the vitriol or the fangirling.  (Tbf I haven't seen fangirling here, but I blame all of you for my having checked out discussions about this on Reddit.  Makes this place look as civil as a tea party for the Queen on our worst day.)

My casual observer* take on her is that she had no idea what she was really in for when she married the man she loved and had an understandably tough time dealing with the bigotry and elitism thrown at her in a role for which she was wholly unprepared.  She handled some of it well, some of it terribly, and they clearly hired a team of distracted kittens to do their PR as Idk what else could explain some of their disastrous missteps.  As a person I think she's had some complicated relationships which is totally understandable given her father is a dysfunctional shit show, but she seems to be able to go no contact and set boundaries, which I respect.  

I do think that as totally valid as her struggles with the very real racism she's faced are, there was a cultural element at play which would have been a problem for many Americans regardless of their ethnicity.  There are just things that many people of the UK seem to take for granted that are just done when it comes to royals which a lot of Americans would struggle with.  Of course there are always exceptions, but Americans don't tend to do that stiff upper lip thing - nor is it something most of us aspire to.  The BRF has a level of formality that has no real correlation here and I think you could study it for decades and still struggle within it's confines once you have to live it.

*Casual observer compared to you guys as I know only what I read here or yesterday on Reddit before I fled in a cloud of yikes.  However, someone did look askance when this topic came up that I knew so much about the situation so ....note to self, keep this useless information online.   

(Yes, I am writing this to avoid a report I need to finish....why do you ask?)

[Grandma D]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Such a great point.  It's so easy to paint public figures as villains or heroes and hard to remember sometimes that human beings are complicated.

Some, like Andrew, I've got no problem tossing on the vile heap because the evil he's done so outweighs anything decent there may be about him he doesn't deserve the effort of looking for the nuance.  It's kind of like the whole 'Hitler liked dogs' thing...it will never matter.  

But Meghan?  I just don't understand either the vitriol or the fangirling.  (Tbf I haven't seen fangirling here, but I blame all of you for my having checked out discussions about this on Reddit.  Makes this place look as civil as a tea party for the Queen on our worst day.)

My casual observer* take on her is that she had no idea what she was really in for when she married the man she loved and had an understandably tough time dealing with the bigotry and elitism thrown at her in a role for which she was wholly unprepared.  She handled some of it well, some of it terribly, and they clearly hired a team of distracted kittens to do their PR as Idk what else could explain some of their disastrous missteps.  As a person I think she's had some complicated relationships which is totally understandable given her father is a dysfunctional shit show, but she seems to be able to go no contact and set boundaries, which I respect.  

I do think that as totally valid as her struggles with the very real racism she's faced are, there was a cultural element at play which would have been a problem for many Americans regardless of their ethnicity.  There are just things that many people of the UK seem to take for granted that are just done when it comes to royals which a lot of Americans would struggle with.  Of course there are always exceptions, but Americans don't tend to do that stiff upper lip thing - nor is it something most of us aspire to.  The BRF has a level of formality that has no real correlation here and I think you could study it for decades and still struggle within it's confines once you have to live it.

*Casual observer compared to you guys as I know only what I read here or yesterday on Reddit before I fled in a cloud of yikes.  However, someone did look askance when this topic came up that I knew so much about the situation so ....note to self, keep this useless information online.   

(Yes, I am writing this to avoid a report I need to finish....why do yoi think 

I definitely see a fan girl right here along with quite a few others on this snark site.

[formergothardite]

What exactly is one supposed to do with rings when they get divorced? Mailing them back seems like the nice thing to do. Lots of people pawn them, which can also be appropriate. WTF was wrong with what she did?

This seems like a super weird thing to bitch about. Like people are just looking for things to dislike her for even when what she is doing is totally normal.

I personally think Harry and Meghan are probably superficial twits who should absolutely not discuss personal phone calls and should instead focus on discussing that racism the family is so prevalent that Harry grew up thinking racism was okay.  Look at how Charles using a racist nickname was normalized. Discussing how damaging it can be for children to be trotted out as props from birth and to be treated as a "spare" would also be a much needed conversation. They can be critical of the royal business without bringing up their recent personal conversations. 

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

22 minutes ago, Grandma D said:

I definitely see a fan girl right here along with quite a few others on this snark site.

We're using different definitions of that term.  I think of a fangirl as someone who thinks she's awesome and can do no wrong.  I saw several on Reddit who thinks she's super brave and might be the one to topple the monarchy.  

I haven't seen that here.  What I do see is people pushing back against some pretty extreme vitriol directed at her I personally don't understand.  That's not fangirling.

[Grandma D]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

We're using different definitions of that term.  I think of a fangirl as someone who thinks she's awesome and can do no wrong.  I saw several on Reddit who thinks she's super brave and might be the one to topple the monarchy.  

I haven't seen that here.  What I do see is people pushing back against some pretty extreme vitriol directed at her I personally don't understand.  That's not fangirling.

That's fair. Different definitions. I think we also disagree on what extreme vitriol looks like. But this really is just a diversion, so it doesn't matter in the end. 

[Seahorse Wrangler]

Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Meghan and queen sparks outrage

 

Quote

French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has prompted outrage after releasing a cartoon depicting the UK's Queen Elizabeth kneeling on the neck of Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, invoking the death of George Floyd.

The cover image cartoon came days after Meghan and her husband Harry made a series of damning accusations against the royal family in an interview with Oprah Winfrey -- including that the skin tone of the couple's child, Archie, was discussed as a potential issue before he was born.

The couple would not reveal who had made the remarks, but said it wasn't Queen Elizabeth II or her husband, Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. In the interview, Meghan also described having regular suicidal thoughts during her pregnancy and brief time as a working royal, and the couple said the palace had offered Meghan and Archie inadequate security and protection.

 

[viii]

That's disgusting. 

[SweetJuly]

7 minutes ago, viii said:

That's disgusting. 

That's Charlie Hebdo for you. They have a style that can be described as intentionally disgusting and outrageous. 

[viii]

2 minutes ago, SweetJuly said:

That's Charlie Hebdo for you. They have a style that can be described as intentionally disgusting and outrageous. 

I've never heard of this man before. I'm glad he's receiving backlash. 

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

4 minutes ago, viii said:

I've never heard of this man before. I'm glad he's receiving backlash. 

Charlie Hebdo isn't a man. It's a satirical French magazine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo

There was a terrible mass shooting there in 2015.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

[just_ordinary]

They are known for being extremely uncomfortable sometimes. There are no boundaries for satires for them. I mean, putting the Queen/monarchy on the same lvl as that police officer while also trashing Meghan‘s over-the-top victimisation is extremely uncomfortable for everyone involved. But I would say it painfully makes the connection between the obvious racism in the USA that we see in the news here and how it helps us to hide from our own racism. Just because our problems aren’t as obvious doesn’t mean they don’t exist. We might not literally kneel on someone’s throat (even tough it’s a fact that POC get treated rougher) but we have plenty of examples. George Floyd’s tragic death has become a powerful symbol that unites those issues. - I say that completely aware that there is a massive backfire in how the material of dying POC is used. I think this movement has a point. 

From a caricaturist POV, it’s actually pretty clever piece, because everyone can see something in it (pro/anti both sides) but it’s also a powerful message that goes beyond their family drama.

I can simultaneously chuckle but at the same time feel extremely uncomfortable because I also like to delude myself that Europe is way less racist than the USA, which is not the whole truth. We have a long way to go still.

I would completely understand if people are offended. But, if you don’t like it- don’t read it, I guess?

Edited March 18, 2021 by just_ordinary

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

They are known for being extremely uncomfortable sometimes. There are no boundaries for satires for them. I mean, putting the Queen/monarchy on the same lvl as that police officer while also trashing Meghan‘s over-the-top victimisation is extremely uncomfortable for everyone involved. But I would say it painfully makes the connection between the obvious racism in the USA that we see in the news here and how it helps us to hide from our own racism. Just because our problems isn’t as obvious doesn’t mean it does exist. We might not literally kneel on someone’s throat (even tough it’s a fact that POC get treated rougher) but we have plenty of examples. George Floyd’s tragic death has become a powerful symbol that unites those issues. - I say that completely aware that there is a massive backfire in how the material of dying POC is used. I think this movement has a point. 

From a caricaturist POV, it’s actually pretty clever piece, because everyone can see something in it (pro/anti both sides) but it’s also a powerful message that goes beyond their family drama.

I can simultaneously chuckle but at the same time feel extremely uncomfortable because I also like to delude myself that Europe is way less racist than the USA, which is not the whole truth. We have a long way to go still.

I would completely understand if people are offended. But, if you don’t like it- don’t read it, I guess?

I think that's an interesting take.  I generally enjoy satire, but for me this reads as trivializing her valid complaints (comparing her to someone who actually lost his life due to racism) and simultaneously putting the Palace on par with a murderer.  I'm not sure what they were trying to say with this hyperbole, but from my perspective it seemed to be mocking her complaints by juxtaposing them with the tragedy of George Floyd.  

But I'm not their audience and I find it interesting that you saw something in it that was valuable and thought provoking.  

I agree very much with your last sentence.  I personally find it offensive, but I don't think things like this should be censored.  They are allowed to publish and people are allowed to respond which is how I think it should be.  

[just_ordinary]

@HerNameIsBuffy both interpretations are valid. Maybe the caricaturist was using it in a mocking way? Who knows. That’s why I admire how it’s constructed. It panderes to two audiences, allows different readings AND could be a piece to spark worthwhile discussions. The intended meaning might not count anymore at that point.

[hoipolloi]

Re: Charlie Hebdo. Going to side with those who interpret this as savagely sharp satire, primarily directed at the BRF and not MM, because that's what Charlie Hebdo does. Their satirical depictions of the Prophet Muhammed were blamed for the horrific 2015 massacre of many of their staff. 

In other news, when you pull out the "some of my best friends are ____" trope, it's NOT a good look, and it makes me think it's more likely William was the BRF member who made the offensive remarks H & M recounted in their interview.

 

Edited March 20, 2021 by hoipolloi
Clarity

[formergothardite]

Did Will hire Harry’s PR team?! The statement about the family not being racist to now trotting out a black friend is just not a good look. Especially when there is a Maori politician speaking out about how unsurprising the accusations of racism are. The racist shit Prince Phillip was saying in public as late as the 2000s was horrifying and he had to be saying worse in private. This family for sure has a racism problem. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Fwiw John Oliver wasn't surprised  by the revelations.  He said he was only surprised they cleared Prince Phillip on it.  

 

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy

[viii]

I think we all assumed that it was Philip until Harry clarified it wasn’t, LOL. 

I also found it interesting William’s sources are talking to the media about how he doesn’t feel trapped, he was born into his role, and Harry’s comments were off the mark. It’s been no secret for years that William was resentful of his lot in life, he made comments and people around him commented on it as well. He doth protest a bit too much, I’d say. 

[adidas]

On 3/19/2021 at 6:10 AM, viii said:

I've never heard of this man before. I'm glad he's receiving backlash. 

Didn’t the attack make news worldwide?

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-55336094

Until now I’ve stayed out of the interview discussion because I’m so incredibly torn. The allegations are horrific but sadly I’m not surprised by some of what they said. The media has treated them appallingly. However, other things said are probably exaggerated and I still believe that the Sussexes are both victims and perpetrators. But that doesn’t mean that institutionalised racism or white privilege can be ignored or denied. “No, because I have a black friend” is one of the worst responses possible.

[just_ordinary]

As always I wouldn’t give too much about those sources. There are many „friends“ that are mere friendlyaquatintinces at most. I always side eye „friends“ that come out of the blue to defend (criticise). Why is this guy even coming forward? Surely, you would be not happy if your friend used you in such a blatant move? Why would you accept to be paraded around?

I think this has nothing to do with BP. If anything we learned in the last 3 years, it’s that friends defending you in a newspaper is definitely not helping your case. What is Wiliam winning apart from admitting that he needs not-racist PR? People double down on him because they need a reason why this incredibly close bond of brothers is so extremely fragile now. For some it’s Meghan, for some it’s Kate, for some Harry and now we have a racist Wiliam in the mix. How convenient. 

I guess the guy looks for his 15 minutes of fame and that was a convenient opportunity.

[klein_roeschen]

4 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I think this has nothing to do with BP. If anything we learned in the last 3 years, it’s that friends defending you in a newspaper is definitely not helping your case. What is Wiliam winning apart from admitting that he needs not-racist PR? People double down on him because they need a reason why this incredibly close bond of brothers is so extremely fragile now. For some it’s Meghan, for some it’s Kate, for some Harry and now we have a racist Wiliam in the mix. How convenient. 

I guess the guy looks for his 15 minutes of fame and that was a convenient opportunity.

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I don't think that the brother bond wasn't as close as it was during childhood for a very long time. Williams status as heir of the heir with the very different expectations alone will do that. And I think their PR painted them and the brother bond in a way more better light than it is behind closed doors and thats unterstandable, no need to give out more fodder to these fucking tabloids. And I would not surprised if William is the one with skin comment. William is trained to hold his tongue in check in public and he is still associated with his mother Diana. But I have the feeling that he isn't this Mr nice guy family father in private.

[viii]

8 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Surely, you would be not happy if your friend used you in such a blatant move? Why would you accept to be paraded around?

Yet when Meghan refused to stand for Jessica Mulroney doing that to her, she was criticized. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

7 minutes ago, viii said:

Yet when Meghan refused to stand for Jessica Mulroney doing that to her, she was criticized. 

In that case it was Meghan's fault.

Just like this morning when they accidentally put sugar in my latte and I had to go back and get another one....freaking Meghan is to blame for that, too.   

Everything bad that happens in the world if you dig deep enough to find root cause it will always be Meghan Markle.