Jump to content
IGNORED

Meghan and Harry 7: Recollections May Vary


Coconut Flan
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Their narrative frames the BRF as a repressive, fundamentally dishonest and racist institution 

Wait - it’s not?! 😜

  • Upvote 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, viii said:

Wait - it’s not?! 😜

😃😉😃  Yeah, well.  That’s another topic. 😉

My critique is of what I perceive as Harry’s building himself up at the expense of people he supposedly loves.  Given that Harry has reaped (and is reaping) many of the advantages of being part of the BRF, I find it inappropriate (not to say hypocritical) for him to do things that will hurt the family in public opinion.  

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I don't think that Harry's activities are really going to impact on his brother that much.

The BRF's main concern is their popularity at home; the Cambridges are very popular there while the Sussexes, to put it charitably, are not. Harry and Meghan doing a cosplay-tour is hardly going to dent that, particularly as reading your own book to underprivileged children in designer duds wouldn't go down as well in the UK as perhaps it does in America. 

The only concern I could see would be if the BRF felt there was an overriding impression that the Sussexes were still acting as representatives for the Crown.

That wouldn't necessarily be the Sussexes' fault - they did very publicly split from the BRF - but if Harry made another controversial comment like the First Amendment debacle, Buckingham Palace might well send out a clearly-worded reminder that they don't represent the BRF anymore. 

I'm more interested in the actual purpose of their appearances. They were oddly cagey when the Daily Beast approached their camp for comment about why they were doing it. I wonder if the rumours are true about it being part of their content for a new Netflix series? 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@EmCatlyn the title of Head of Commonwealth is not hereditary. The Queen campaigned for Charles and it was agreed on him as their next head of the Commonwealth in 2018. But the discussion is very much alive if the title should just go with the Crown. I think we will very probably not see a re-elect of a British monarch in the future. The Commonwealth has very much stepped out of the shadow of the Crown. Most members have a different head of state (no matter if they are a republic or a monarchy) and everyone knows that after QEII there are lots of likely candidates that will drop the British monarch. Nowadays you can join the Commonwealth of Nations without a direct or former constitutional link to the UK (Ruanda and Mozambique). Maybe it’s time the Crown let’s go of it. It’s a separate entity and doesn’t need the Crown anymore to function.
 

If they don’t stick with the Crown after Charles it might be less because H&M and more because the Commonwealth itself wants to exceed its origin. I can also see Wiliam expressing his wish not be elected in that position. With less working members in the family it wouldn’t be the worst idea to concentrate full effort to the UK itself. There are enough topics to wear yourself down. 
 

They already called the family racist. I don’t know what more they can do. And it backfired spectacularly. Not because people think the Windsors are angelic superhuman above reproach but because they cheapened their message with unclarity, half truths, and tons of entitlement. And I do think people overestimate the young people as a whole. As history has taught us, real change takes quite a long time to really settle in and tons of fighting, liberal and forward thinking young people will find themselves in the same pressures of adulthood (jobs, living, health, children) and quite some will drop their activism at one point. That’s not to say their actions won’t have an impact. It started something that has to be nurtured and will hopefully succeed in the future. But therefore it needs more than one generation and a bigger scale of supporters. A divided society as many of them are atm is not a good base. The change will come but slower than many wish for. And the BRF has decades to adapt to this.

Edited by just_ordinary
Added another thought
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Given that Harry has reaped (and is reaping) many of the advantages of being part of the BRF, I find it inappropriate (not to say hypocritical) for him to do things that will hurt the family in public opinion.  

Harry, for as much as I like him, is 10000000% hypocritical. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all fairness though, I guess the Sussexes might argue that they're not really deliberately doing anything to hurt their family? They saw the Oprah interview as just clearing the air and opening up a chance for healing. Now they're just travelling around to raise awareness for good causes. 

I suppose you could say that some might consider it a bit awkward and embarrassing for them to be doing this long-term. They're not representing the UK as Will and Kate would be on similar visits, but they don't really have separate careers in the way that people like Angelina Jolie and other UN ambassadors do. 

But presumably they may be trying to go the route of post-divorce Diana, which I guess is a valid path if they can sustain interest.  

Edited by Xanariel
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

In all fairness though, I guess the Sussexes might argue that they're not really deliberately doing anything to hurt their family? They saw the Oprah interview as just clearing the air and opening up a chance for healing. Now they're just travelling around to raise awareness for good causes. 

 

God knows why they thought that. The Royal Family has always been incredibly closed off emotionally, it was pretty obvious that there wasn't going to be Oprah Interview 2.0 where Charles sobs melodramatically and begs his son's forgiveness for "cutting him off financially".

8 hours ago, Xanariel said:

 

I'm more interested in the actual purpose of their appearances. They were oddly cagey when the Daily Beast approached their camp for comment about why they were doing it. I wonder if the rumours are true about it being part of their content for a new Netflix series? 

I saw a photo with Harry where he had a big recording device in his pocket, it's definitely a possibility. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • nelliebelle1197 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share




  • Recent Status Updates

    • mango_fandango

      mango_fandango

      It’s always so freaking annoying when you’re supposed to have a phone call at a certain time and it never comes…
      · 0 replies
    • Cartmann99

      Cartmann99

      Can we please do fall now?

      · 0 replies
    • meep

      meep

      I HATE MICROECONOMICS. That is all. 
      · 5 replies
    • PinkGreyBrown

      PinkGreyBrown

      LOL, I read the Bible an awful lot for someone who's a hard-materialist atheist. But, then, I was raised culturally Christian, & US culture is so deeply steeped in Christianity, it's difficult to escape it.
      I like the Bible websites, tending to like the gateway one better than the hub one, for usability reasons. I really like that they have all the versions, all the different books, & all the commentaries. I did buy a Bible, in college lol, a big fat scholastic bible with all the books & a ton of footnotes. I started an atrocity project with it long ago & it's full of post-its.
      I've definitely developed a preference in versions, liking the NIV best so far, it's marvelously clear & the least disappointing when I dig into the depths. The KJVs are muddled & difficult to understand. Recently I've gotten to thinking that's why all these my-own-private-patriarchal-cult & grifters & et al like the KJVs so much, cuz they're a more obscure version that requires more 'explaining', is more open to interpretation. In addition to the obvious historical reasons why, like feeling all connected to the Pilgrim eras, & sounding all Shakespearean.
      I mostly end up reading the Bible as a fact-checking exercise, wondering what the verses & chapters say, the verses that people will have in their bios or social media postings. Tho' I do a fair amount of wondering why people think a thing that ostensibly has Biblical roots, digging around that.
      Fwiw.
      · 1 reply
    • louisa05

      louisa05

      Second grade defeated me today. Worst class ever. 
      · 2 replies
    • PinkGreyBrown

      PinkGreyBrown

      This first-name-prevalance tool is one of my favorite websites ever. Sadly US-specific but nonetheless fascinating for nerds like me.
      · 1 reply
    • feministxtian

      feministxtian

      I hate English class. That is all.
      · 2 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      Did whatever I had change my personality at all?  Maybe a good thing if it makes my asshole tolerance even lower than before.
      · 0 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      Hey LinkedIn, do yourself a favor and learn how to read the fucking room already. 
      · 0 replies
    • Smash!

      Smash!

      Just started with Couch 2 5k. How I missed running!
      · 3 replies
  • Recent Blog Entries

×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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