Harry & Meghan 8: Time's Most Insufferable

[zee_four]

Just now, LilaMae said:

I agree @zee_four about Meghan's lack of understanding of her own privilege. Her attempts to invent a poor, working-class background for clout is disrespectful of people living and raising their children in actual poverty. 

Unfortunately, this lack of understanding carries over into her philanthropic work. Meghan seems stuck in the 90s with how she handles her charitable endeavours, there was a lot less knowledge then about best practice for delivering charity and how to best meet the needs of recipients.

For one example, the 40x40 thing she did for her birthday (where she got 40 friends to sign up to giving a 40 minute "session" to women who lost their jobs during the pandemic). Her birthday video to introduce the scheme was almost entirely about Meghan and riffing off her Duchess status, with the actual charitable purpose only briefly mentioned near the end of the video. The video itself was filmed with Meghan as the focus in her large mansion, which doesn't seem very appropriate since it's about women in poverty. On her website, there was no mention of how women could sign up for one of these sessions. But even worse, there was no thought given to how the women recipients would actually benefit from these sessions (mentoring doesn't usually just take 40 minutes), how the celebrity friends were in any way qualified to deliver them, and there was a lack of understanding for the reasons that women were actually unemployed. In many cases, it was because their entire industry shut down, or they had to provide childcare/homeschooling and couldn't work alongside it. A 40 minute session with a celebrity cannot help that situation, or indeed, many situations. Since Meghan's birthday, I haven't been able to find any updates on how these sessions have gone, or even if they took place. 

So yes, it is very irritating that Harry and Meghan have set themselves up as "philanthropists" without doing the work to understand what real help looks like. This is one of my main issues with Meghan and I don't think calling out this kind of behaviour (which Harry is very much guilty of too) is sexism. 

However, I do disagree with @zee_four on one thing- I don't think they have enough money to donate millions. Harry famously moaned on Oprah about how he only had a few million left from his mother, Meghan was never a big earner from Suits, and they have a very big mansion in an expensive US state. People upthread have already talked about how the Netflix/Spotify deals wouldn't just hand out millions without having the work to show for it. They have plenty of money compared with us peasants, but perhaps not for the lifestyle they're trying to lead.

Thanks! Your additional points are really well stated and I agree with as well!

In regards to your last point about my saying they could donate millions, you're right the way I phrased that is problematic because she could still help without donating "millions". The figure millions was meant to be tongue in cheek referencing her multi million dollar Netflix and Spotify deals, especially after the big fuss about being forced to provide for themselves like its the same as every other family that has to work, multimillion dollar mansion and other luxury lifestyle perks. But still she could potentially help in other ways.

IMO she hasn't shown she can do that though with any of her attempts, and on the off chance she could put the cause above her own press, donating to existing groups wouldn't require the time and resources for her to be vetted, trained, etc. It reminds me of when middle class US kids go raising thousands to fund their missioncation trips to whatever non Western country for a mission to help build a school or dig a wheel, things they're in no way qualified for. The money spent on trips could do 10+x more good work if it was used  by existing groups withum their professional structure and pay locals with those skills .

So yeah I think right now donating would be the best bet for her but you're absolutely right its not the only way to actually help not does actual help take millions or even money at all. Thanks for bringing that important point up!

[LilaMae]

2 minutes ago, zee_four said:

Thanks! Your additional points are really well stated and I agree with as well!

In regards to your last point about my saying they could donate millions, you're right the way I phrased that is problematic because she could still help without donating "millions". The figure millions was meant to be tongue in cheek referencing her multi million dollar Netflix and Spotify deals, especially after the big fuss about being forced to provide for themselves like its the same as every other family that has to work, multimillion dollar mansion and other luxury lifestyle perks. But still she could potentially help in other ways.

IMO she hasn't shown she can do that though with any of her attempts, and on the off chance she could put the cause above her own press, donating to existing groups wouldn't require the time and resources for her to be vetted, trained, etc. It reminds me of when middle class US kids go raising thousands to fund their missioncation trips to whatever non Western country for a mission to help build a school or dig a wheel, things they're in no way qualified for. The money spent on trips could do 10+x more good work if it was used  by existing groups withum their professional structure and pay locals with those skills .

So yeah I think right now donating would be the best bet for her but you're absolutely right its not the only way to actually help not does actual help take millions or even money at all. Thanks for bringing that important point up!

 

Definitely agree that people can help without having millions. I think I read somewhere that poorer people tend to give a larger percentage of their income to charity anyway. Charity can be done in so many ways if you don't have money though, but that type of volunteering is often in the form of things like driving disabled children to a social club or doing boring admin work. Not stuff that gets good photo ops.

I was actually thinking about those middle class kids going abroad when it comes to Harry and Meghan, so thanks for bringing that up. How does this still happen?! Would we accept unqualified kids from a country in Africa coming to build a new school without any regard for safe building practices and potentially taking away jobs for people here? Then why should they have to put up with it? 

 

[just_ordinary]

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

Making fun of a woman for not behaving as she should. . . .that's about as sexist as it comes. 

It's 2021, but women are still supposed to act a certain way, and certainly not like a "diva." If they don't, they pay the price. 

Sexism. That's the people's problem with Meghan Markle. But it's hidden behind complaints like "needs to know the difference between royalty and celebrity."

I do agree that royal women (or female celebrities or women in professionals settings …. Women in general) still face tons of sexism. How they look, how the behave, how they should behave….. in more traditional settings that’s worse because their role is much more defined. There is a reason that there are more love/hate blogs/accounts/threads about the women. Women get talked more about. Even here I think, even though I didn’t run the numbers, just a hunch. 
Meghan, Kate, Sophie, Anne, Camilla they all get way more flack for certain things than their male counterparts. And comparing women against each other is a massive thing everywhere. 
But there is also no denying that certain positions and settings carry behavioural expectations. That’s not a problem per se. That the expectations for women are different and sometimes higher is. The royal (and maybe political) sphere is different in so far that they represent their country and are paid by the people. So there are stronger feelings of the public about it. 
There are also expectations for men, but they are different and somehow they still get away with way more shit, or rather they are not as confronted with a bad public opinion. H&M weren’t forced out at gun point, they decided they wouldn’t want to deal with that anymore. Very valid, but their decision in the end. They could have displayed tons of shitty and shady behaviour and no one would have forced them out. They would have gotten away with it. Just like PA, hated but still on the inside. 

I think it’s ok to hold people to certain standards in certain positions. I think it’s gets complicated if the general standards for men and women are different. It gets unfair when women take the brunt of the outrage, while men get ignored. I would argue the standards is pretty much the same for all royals though (apart from the old looks debate about women). The men fail those standards just as much as the women or even more. They still don’t get as much flack. That’s the real problem to me.
I do not have a problem with the more traditional mindset inside the royal institution. Monarchies live of those details. Hierarchies and behavioural expectations are a massive part of it. No one forced people to comply though. You are always free to leave. And it’s not exactly threatening your livelihood if you leave this kind of privilege that’s why I think it’s ok to have those expectations.

Meghan either didn’t understand the job requirements or wasn’t willing to comply in some ways. I can understand that you don’t want to be always a half step behind your husband, always introduced second, always mentioned second. And only ever playing the third fiddle (fourth when George starts talking on stuff) in the general context. Because granny is the only really important one. And your father and brother in law will be. And I definitely also understand if you don’t want this got your children. All while being constantly criticised. I might have said enough as well. They could have decided never to be full time royals (enough spares or their partners did), they could have left (no ever changing statements about half in or out and security and money). But they didn’t go for a clean cut. They didn’t say, you are sexist and we don’t take it. They were told their ideas were not happening. They whined about every criticism- especially the deserved one and showed massive entitlement. They only started accusing the family personally AFTER they didn’t get what they wanted.

I do also think, that PA and PC get tons of flack in the press. But the tone of the articles is more serious and professional- probably because their problems are of more importance. Possible bribery and criminal behaviour are way more severe than a plunging neckline. That’s why criticism of women sounds meaner and more petty. If they would treat the slit of a dress with the same mindset they would be laughingstocks and there would be no artic to write really.

The really depressing part is, that the public is not just on the innocent receiving end here. If those stupid headlines about superficial shit gets more clicks and engagement they will produce more. And sadly the big majority of people consuming it very actively are women. No one forced them to bash H&M and ignore the articles about the men. 

[viii]

I think @Jackie3's point can be correct, as well as everyone else's. Meghan sets herself up for a lot of failure but whether people like to admit it or not, SOME of the criticism is sexist and racist. However, SOME of the criticism is valid. 

It's unfortunate it all gets lost in the mud because Meghan cries wolf every time. 

[zee_four]

6 hours ago, viii said:

I think @Jackie3's point can be correct, as well as everyone else's. Meghan sets herself up for a lot of failure but whether people like to admit it or not, SOME of the criticism is sexist and racist. However, SOME of the criticism is valid. 

It's unfortunate it all gets lost in the mud because Meghan cries wolf every time. 

Well said. Honestly at first I supported Meaghan. Seeing a fellow biracial woman join the BRF which has a deeply problematic past when it comes to race, was huge! Even though even before she was with Harry I'd heard quite a bit of her being snobbish and rude to employees and fellow neighbors in Toronto I gave her the benefit of the doubt and was hopeful for her being able to bring important issues about women and BIPOC to the forefront and combined with the BRF fame and wealth and philanthropy could help do a lot of good. 

I've always abhored the attacks that are racist in sexist in nature,  but instead of handling them like a mature, conscientious adult who has made herself a vocal figurehead for issues effecting women, especially BIPOC, she claims the slightest legitimate criticisms of her actions and words are all racist and misogynistic when they're not. She has done more damage for the legitimacy of intersections BIPoC and feminist issues than good. She acts like a alt right characture of a wealthy out of touch hypocritical Hollywood liberal and has turned legitimate issues of racism and sexism into a farce.

She didn't have to publicize and brand herself as a BIPOC Diana but she did and as such she should be held accountable for her continued actions and words that do nothing but damage the issues she claims to care about. Her insistence that any criticism of anything she does is racist misogyny  is no different than the MAGA  crowd she claims to oppose saying any criticism of their actions is communist antifa.

@Jackie3 didn't talk about how women face more criticism for their appearance and related things while men don't and that that's problematic. She responded to my comment claiming I'm sexist and anti women for daring to disagree or criticize MM. Thats pretty insulting and is no more legitimate than when MM hides from accountability behind broad insulting generalizations aimed at anyone who dare not worship her as the humanitarian world savior she believes she.

Hollywood fame has no accountability, while the BRF does (I understand the privilege they have allows situations like Andrew but I'm speaking in general). That applies to men and women. Lying about being poor while making a mockery of the daily reality the people you claim to be a leader for face is an insult whether its a man or woman. 

Engaging in that rhetoric is  detrimental to the real issues of racism and sexism we're still fighting. We can and need to do better. 🌞

[QuiverFullofBooks]

Watched the Ellen interview. Why would Meghan bother? My only guess is that Ellen is her rich neighbor, and sometimes you have to do stuff to keep the rich neighbor happy? The vendor segment was odd, but I don’t watch the show, and there’s a long tradition of strange interactions with the public on talk shows. Not quite sure if that’s negative points to Meghan for being undignified, or positive points for being a good sport.

[FrumperedCat]

One of the things that frustrate me is that they supposedly want to become financially independent and have been offered options such as with Netflix. And then they don't carry through. I understand that Harry didn't choose to be born royal and have that additional security need, but it seems they don't even put in the bare minimum to complete these seemingly easy money deals that could help the family fund their security.

[omilona]

18 hours ago, zee_four said:

Actually my problem is she is so privileged she is laughably out of touch with the issues she claims she advocates, that she thinks the reality of working class especially BIPOC American women is fodder for her Hollywood LA LA land experience qnd popularity. Just because she's a woman doesnt mean any legitimate criticism of her is "sexist", its not different than when Ivanka shills some fake attempt at relatability in an attempt for women's votes.  Insulting the intelligence of women believing we'll blindly follow someone with the same gender identity regardless of what they spew is sexist.

MM takes it a step further when she makes up stories of some sort of "rough" childhood to dish on LA talk shows, that anyone with access to the Wayback Machine can see doesnt add up. On top of that every single thing she does claiming to advocate for women is detrimental to what she claims she's trying to achieve and only helps her get her name in the tabloids. Using private phone numbers and calling GOP Congresswoman as the "Duchess of Sussex", treating these professional working women like subjects who should listen to her solely for a having a British royal title she refused to do the related work for? I may not agree with those Congresswoman but they deserve more respect than the stunt MM pulled. And what did it accomplish? She got to pretend to be Michelle Obama (which is also insulting to a black woman who worked her ass off and has put in the blood sweat and tears and whose work has made an actually difference and who faced criticism almost solely for her race and gender), but only in her own head and meanwhile made a laughing stock out of paid family leave to the individuals who have the power to give this desperately needed benefit to millions of American women but who are far less likely to after being set up and patronized by a rich Hollywood B... C... lister and BRF drop out who represents herself as first and foremost the DoS. For many women who desperately need such a thing, she's lived a charmed, privileged life, with private schools, fancy LA dinners with her Hollywood father, her studies abroad paid for by her parents etc. The details of her stories about growing up poor are even more insulting because they're based off ravist and classiest stereotypes and worse, they almost never match reality. She's making up stories in such a pass poor way, her own past blogs contradict most of her claims directly. And why? So she can pretend to slum it which is insulting to working class Americans, especially working class BIPOC women? She's play acting at the very real, very difficult, day in and day out reality of these women who don't get to step away to a life of luxury when away from talk show cameras.

If she really cared about the issues she claims to be a leader for, she would actually put her money where her mouth is. She would donate some of her millions to organizations that have a track record of helping, many staffed by professional working women. Whether it's helping fund childcare centers for working class mothers, giving money to charities to help working class women with babies in the NICU or other postpartum emergencies that prevent them from working which means they can't feed their other children, pay rent and more. There are people who dedicate their lives or at least their careers to actually doing something about the issue, whether its funding political groups that know how to successfully and respectfully engage bipartisan Congresspeople, or its directly helping the women who are suffering right now because there is no PFL. Her assumptions of being some sort of figurehead for these movements while so disrespectfully and inconsistently engaging with nothing more than photo ops, is messed up on so many levels. 

Instead she pitches a few lines of her "philanthropy " in between acting like a fool with no regard to the actual minimum wage working class people that were working those booths and had no choice but to be made fools of on TV because two rich bullies thought it'd be like funzies. 

The final straw is when anyone criticizes MM for legitimate reasons she pulls the sexist and racist card, when she's using her privilege to make a joke of the issues millions of women, especially those who are BIPOC, face. That response only makes more of a joke of the real issues of sexism and racism that exist. I see my indigenous family struggle everyday, especially the women, and the US is fucked up enough as is without MM handing the alt right GOP more ammunition against the working class, BIPOC and women.

*Standing ovation* I could not have said it better.

[viii]

16 hours ago, zee_four said:

Lying about being poor while making a mockery of the daily reality the people you claim to be a leader for face is an insult whether its a man or woman. 

I think this is my biggest Meghan pet peeve right now. Each new story that comes out about her childhood/youth makes her appear poorer and poorer, despite the irrefutable facts that she attended privileged schools growing up and had a lot of things handed to her, due to her father's position in the industry. 

Like... just own your shit, Meghan. Damn. There's no shame in being truthful about where you came from and owning it. 

[EmCatlyn]

Regarding the discrepancy between Meghan’s account of her past in her old blogs and her account now, I get the feeling she may have been exaggerating both times.  In her blog days she was trying to represent herself as more “refined and cultured” in her background than she was.  Now she is trying to represent herself as more “of the people” than she was.  The truth probably lies in between.  She seems to have been middle-class in income (on the average) and upper-middle-class in opportunities.  Whether that background was “privileged,” “average,” or “disadvantaged,” depends on your perspective and personal experience.

I don’t entirely fault her.  All of us may selectively bring up experiences that we have that we think will help us “connect” with others and/or that we think make us “interesting.”   What we tell one group of people in one context may be different from what we tell another group and still be “true.”

For example, I can tell you truthfully that from the time that I was 11 until I was 14, my family lived in a house with a leaky roof (the water ran down a couple of walls in heavy rain) and no hot water. I can also tell you about the same period that I attended an expensive private school (not on scholarship) and had no worries about money.  I also used to get a kick out of telling my college friends that I hadn’t been allowed to do dishes at home.  In isolation, each of these statements may suggest different things.  Together, they may not seem to add up— but they do. (For those who want it explained, I am putting it in a spoiler.)

Spoiler

We were leasing a house from a landlord that didn’t want to be bothered.  It was a great location and had four bedrooms (which we needed). The hot water heater had been stolen by the previous tenant. (A fascinating character who went on to be infamous for embezzling from the Catholic Church and taking a bishop hostage.) It took three years for my dad and the landlord to come to the agreement that our family would order the roof repairs and buy the hot water heater and then the landlord would reimburse us— which he did.  

Not having a hot water heater for three years was not a big problem for the adults (who had grown up with no hot water heaters).  In the tropics— we were in Puerto Rico— the water never gets terribly cold.  I hated it and my brother was not too keen either (but he didn’t have long hair to wash).  My mom would boil water for baths, but it was a hassle.

School tuition was heavily subsidized by my parents’ employers.  My dad’s job paid half, my mother’s job a bit less than 1/4.  The remaining amount was well within my family’s means.  We considered ourselves and were considered “middle-class.”

I was not allowed to do dishes because my great aunt, who lived with us, insisted that I should not spoil my hands. We did not have a maid or a dishwasher (not unusual for 1960s 70s Puerto Rican middle-class).  My mother and great-aunt did all the dishwashing.  I might help with dusting and other light housework, and my brother and I were expected to keep our rooms clean, but my great-aunt would throw a fit if she caught me washing anything in the sink. (This then is not a story of privilege but a story about a nutty relative.)

My point, of course is that if I want to “relate” to someone who suffered from a crummy house they were ashamed of, or were deprived of some comfort, I can do so.  And if I want to impress you about how I rubbed shoulders with the children of the privileged, I can tell you about my high school.😉

Back to Meghan, what gets me is she makes no effort to explain discrepancies in her narrative.  It feels as if she believes that whatever she says now is what people need to see as the truth.  It applies to her narrative about her relationship with her father, her account that she knew nothing about the Royal Family when she met Harry, etc.  

It is unfortunate because it affects her credibility in general and as others have pointed out tends to weaken her advocacy for her cause-of-the-day.

 

 

[Coconut Flan]

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Regarding the discrepancy between Meghan’s account of her past in her old blogs and her account now, I get the feeling she may have been exaggerating both times.  In her blog days she was trying to represent herself as more “refined and cultured” in her background than she was.  Now she is trying to represent herself as more “of the people” than she was.  

That's how I see it.   Either way she's shedding credibility by the day.

[just_ordinary]

10 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Regarding the discrepancy between Meghan’s account of her past in her old blogs and her account now, I get the feeling she may have been exaggerating both times.  In her blog days she was trying to represent herself as more “refined and cultured” in her background than she was.  Now she is trying to represent herself as more “of the people” than she was.  The truth probably lies in between.  She seems to have been middle-class in income (on the average) and upper-middle-class in opportunities.  Whether that background was “privileged,” “average,” or “disadvantaged,” depends on your perspective and personal experience.

I don’t entirely fault her.  All of us may selectively bring up experiences that we have that we think will help us “connect” with others and/or that we think make us “interesting.”   What we tell one group of people in one context may be different from what we tell another group and still be “true.”

For example, I can tell you truthfully that from the time that I was 11 until I was 14, my family lived in a house with a leaky roof (the water ran down a couple of walls in heavy rain) and no hot water. I can also tell you about the same period that I attended an expensive private school (not on scholarship) and had no worries about money.  I also used to get a kick out of telling my college friends that I hadn’t been allowed to do dishes at home.  In isolation, each of these statements may suggest different things.  Together, they may not seem to add up— but they do. (For those who want it explained, I am putting it in a spoiler.)

  Reveal hidden contents

We were leasing a house from a landlord that didn’t want to be bothered.  It was a great location and had four bedrooms (which we needed). The hot water heater had been stolen by the previous tenant. (A fascinating character who went on to be infamous for embezzling from the Catholic Church and taking a bishop hostage.) It took three years for my dad and the landlord to come to the agreement that our family would order the roof repairs and buy the hot water heater and then the landlord would reimburse us— which he did.  

Not having a hot water heater for three years was not a big problem for the adults (who had grown up with no hot water heaters).  In the tropics— we were in Puerto Rico— the water never gets terribly cold.  I hated it and my brother was not too keen either (but he didn’t have long hair to wash).  My mom would boil water for baths, but it was a hassle.

School tuition was heavily subsidized by my parents’ employers.  My dad’s job paid half, my mother’s job a bit less than 1/4.  The remaining amount was well within my family’s means.  We considered ourselves and were considered “middle-class.”

I was not allowed to do dishes because my great aunt, who lived with us, insisted that I should not spoil my hands. We did not have a maid or a dishwasher (not unusual for 1960s 70s Puerto Rican middle-class).  My mother and great-aunt did all the dishwashing.  I might help with dusting and other light housework, and my brother and I were expected to keep our rooms clean, but my great-aunt would throw a fit if she caught me washing anything in the sink. (This then is not a story of privilege but a story about a nutty relative.)

My point, of course is that if I want to “relate” to someone who suffered from a crummy house they were ashamed of, or were deprived of some comfort, I can do so.  And if I want to impress you about how I rubbed shoulders with the children of the privileged, I can tell you about my high school.😉

Back to Meghan, what gets me is she makes no effort to explain discrepancies in her narrative.  It feels as if she believes that whatever she says now is what people need to see as the truth.  It applies to her narrative about her relationship with her father, her account that she knew nothing about the Royal Family when she met Harry, etc.  

It is unfortunate because it affects her credibility in general and as others have pointed out tends to weaken her advocacy for her cause-of-the-day.

 

 

Perfectly phrased. We all do this to a certain extent. But if you use this to sell yourself to an audience you need to keep your stories straight. Especially as the internet doesn’t forget. There would have been several options to ease out of one version and built up another. But they jump from one extreme to the next. Her father taking her in, supporting her financially, helping her with her mixed race heritage in the most beautiful way, offering her many opportunities vs the long time estranged, blabbing, self serving, manipulative looser that she had to send money to and that wants to fleece her like a golden goose. The royal family, so supportive and loving, welcoming her with open arms, embracing her and becoming the family she never had vs the cut throat, cold blooded nest of racist vipers.

That destroys credibility pretty quickly, because either they lied/exaggerated in both versions or one is a complete lie told by them.

Another thing that annoys me even more is that they make every cause about themselves in some way. ITS NOT ABOUT YOU

Edited November 24, 2021 by just_ordinary

[louisa05]

16 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Regarding the discrepancy between Meghan’s account of her past in her old blogs and her account now, I get the feeling she may have been exaggerating both times.  In her blog days she was trying to represent herself as more “refined and cultured” in her background than she was.  Now she is trying to represent herself as more “of the people” than she was.  The truth probably lies in between.  She seems to have been middle-class in income (on the average) and upper-middle-class in opportunities.  Whether that background was “privileged,” “average,” or “disadvantaged,” depends on your perspective and personal experience.

I don’t entirely fault her.  All of us may selectively bring up experiences that we have that we think will help us “connect” with others and/or that we think make us “interesting.”   What we tell one group of people in one context may be different from what we tell another group and still be “true.”

For example, I can tell you truthfully that from the time that I was 11 until I was 14, my family lived in a house with a leaky roof (the water ran down a couple of walls in heavy rain) and no hot water. I can also tell you about the same period that I attended an expensive private school (not on scholarship) and had no worries about money.  I also used to get a kick out of telling my college friends that I hadn’t been allowed to do dishes at home.  In isolation, each of these statements may suggest different things.  Together, they may not seem to add up— but they do. (For those who want it explained, I am putting it in a spoiler.)

  Reveal hidden contents

We were leasing a house from a landlord that didn’t want to be bothered.  It was a great location and had four bedrooms (which we needed). The hot water heater had been stolen by the previous tenant. (A fascinating character who went on to be infamous for embezzling from the Catholic Church and taking a bishop hostage.) It took three years for my dad and the landlord to come to the agreement that our family would order the roof repairs and buy the hot water heater and then the landlord would reimburse us— which he did.  

Not having a hot water heater for three years was not a big problem for the adults (who had grown up with no hot water heaters).  In the tropics— we were in Puerto Rico— the water never gets terribly cold.  I hated it and my brother was not too keen either (but he didn’t have long hair to wash).  My mom would boil water for baths, but it was a hassle.

School tuition was heavily subsidized by my parents’ employers.  My dad’s job paid half, my mother’s job a bit less than 1/4.  The remaining amount was well within my family’s means.  We considered ourselves and were considered “middle-class.”

I was not allowed to do dishes because my great aunt, who lived with us, insisted that I should not spoil my hands. We did not have a maid or a dishwasher (not unusual for 1960s 70s Puerto Rican middle-class).  My mother and great-aunt did all the dishwashing.  I might help with dusting and other light housework, and my brother and I were expected to keep our rooms clean, but my great-aunt would throw a fit if she caught me washing anything in the sink. (This then is not a story of privilege but a story about a nutty relative.)

My point, of course is that if I want to “relate” to someone who suffered from a crummy house they were ashamed of, or were deprived of some comfort, I can do so.  And if I want to impress you about how I rubbed shoulders with the children of the privileged, I can tell you about my high school.😉

Back to Meghan, what gets me is she makes no effort to explain discrepancies in her narrative.  It feels as if she believes that whatever she says now is what people need to see as the truth.  It applies to her narrative about her relationship with her father, her account that she knew nothing about the Royal Family when she met Harry, etc.  

It is unfortunate because it affects her credibility in general and as others have pointed out tends to weaken her advocacy for her cause-of-the-day.

 

 

I don’t think this is what she’s doing at all.  She’s lying. “We went out for sushi once a month” is not a different interpretation of facts in comparison to “we could only afford the Sizzler salad bar”. They’re two opposite stories. This would indicate that one is a lie. Throw in eating at Musso & Frank once a week, privates school, homecoming queen, facials as a child…and it would appear that Sizzler is the lie. 

[viii]

6 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

But they jump from one extreme to the next. Her father taking her in, supporting her financially, helping her with her mixed race heritage in the most beautiful way, offering her many opportunities vs the long time estranged, blabbing, self serving, manipulative looser that she had to send money to and that wants to fleece her like a golden goose. The royal family, so supportive and loving, welcoming her with open arms, embracing her and becoming the family she never had vs the cut throat, cold blooded nest of racist vipers.

Literallyyyyyyy it is beyond annoying the way she does this. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

I don’t think this is what she’s doing at all.  She’s lying. “We went out for sushi once a month” is not a different interpretation of facts in comparison to “we could only afford the Sizzler salad bar”. They’re two opposite stories. This would indicate that one is a lie. Throw in eating at Musso & Frank once a week, privates school, homecoming queen, facials as a child…and it would appear that Sizzler is the lie. 

She could be referring to different periods in her life.  There may have been a period during which they ate out at fancy places and a period when the best they could afford was the Sizzler salad bar.

The “lie” is in not clarifying that the “Sizzler”period” was only part of her experience, and maybe not a representative part overall.  I agree that it is intentionally deceptive.  My point was that she isn’t necessarily making up stuff—just reporting it selectively, to manipulate her narrative. 

ETA: It is part of a pattern that goes beyond her retelling “childhood history.” And definitely destroys credibility.

Edited November 24, 2021 by EmCatlyn

[louisa05]

4 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

She could be referring to different periods in her life.  There may have been a period during which they ate out at fancy places and a period when the best they could afford was the Sizzler salad bar.

The “lie” is in not clarifying that the “Sizzler”period” was only part of her experience, and maybe not a representative part overall.  I agree that it is intentionally deceptive.  My point was that she isn’t necessarily making up stuff—just reporting it selectively, to manipulate her narrative. 

ETA: It is part of a pattern that goes beyond her retelling “childhood history.” And definitely destroys credibility.

The blog post about sushi told us it began when she was three and continued her entire growing up.  So unless she remembers Sizzler as a two year old, it would seem your theory falls apart.  It’s clearly very difficult for people to face that Madame Duchess might just be a chronic liar. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

The blog post about sushi told us it began when she was three and continued her entire growing up.  So unless she remembers Sizzler as a two year old, it would seem your theory falls apart.  It’s clearly very difficult for people to face that Madame Duchess might just be a chronic liar. 

🤣🤣🤣

I have no problem seeing Meghan as a chronic liar.  What I have been addressing is that her “lies” are often exaggerations rather than outright inventions.  It is not to excuse her but to analyze her “style.”

My guess would be that the Sizzler period happened between two periods of greater affluence and that when she told the sushi story she chose to omit the Sizzler period from her narrative only to revive it later as part of another narrative.   I think when she started blogging, she wanted to come across as sophisticated, worldly, affluent — even though she wasn’t.  I think that now that she is a duchess, she wants to make a big deal about her “just ordinary people” background.

However, I do not know.  Maybe she made everything up.  It just seems more likely that she starts out with a bit of truth and grows the story from there.  Her big problem is that she is trying to tell a different story than she used to, so the two stories clash. 

[Xanariel]

13 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

🤣🤣🤣

I have no problem seeing Meghan as a chronic liar.  What I have been addressing is that her “lies” are often exaggerations rather than outright inventions.  It is not to excuse her but to analyze her “style.”

My guess would be that the Sizzler period happened between two periods of greater affluence and that when she told the sushi story she chose to omit the Sizzler period from her narrative only to revive it later as part of another narrative.   I think when she started blogging, she wanted to come across as sophisticated, worldly, affluent — even though she wasn’t.  I think that now that she is a duchess, she wants to make a big deal about her “just ordinary people” background.

However, I do not know.  Maybe she made everything up.  It just seems more likely that she starts out with a bit of truth and grows the story from there.  Her big problem is that she is trying to tell a different story than she used to, so the two stories clash. 

I agree. Less of Meghan chronically lying and perhaps more her trying to emphasise different narratives - first the "refined young actress with sophisticated tastes who moves in moneyed circles and admires Ivanka" and then "the feminist, self-sufficient woman who paid her own way, didn't know anything about the BRF and has a relatable rags-to-riches life story". 

Neither a lie as such, just not perhaps letting on everything. And because the narratives appear quite far apart, it can trip her up when she's trying to highlight a different aspect. 

Edited November 25, 2021 by Xanariel

[zee_four]

On 11/24/2021 at 4:49 AM, louisa05 said:

I don’t think this is what she’s doing at all.  She’s lying. “We went out for sushi once a month” is not a different interpretation of facts in comparison to “we could only afford the Sizzler salad bar”. They’re two opposite stories. This would indicate that one is a lie. Throw in eating at Musso & Frank once a week, privates school, homecoming queen, facials as a child…and it would appear that Sizzler is the lie. 

i completely agree. If it were stories from various periods in life like I remember my mom sewing my costume for my the kindergarten play when all my friends moms or nanny bought theirs at the store but mine was the prettiest my mom worked hard on it and she still had time to readi to me when got home from her shift at the hospital.

Then my daddy was working on the movie sets and did such a good job he got an Oscar. I remember I went to his fancy apartment and we watched the tape together then I got a brand new dress and he took me that super fancy steakhouse (forget the name) and showed me off as his special girl and introduced me to all the people I saw on the tape who were in the movies and were so famous and nice.

Cute,  innocuous, yes different living situations are slightly alluded to but its really not a big deal, and could honestly just be mixing up time periods.

 

BUT that's not what she's doing. She's acting out pretty gross divergent stereotypes. She's not a great actress with a script of a team of writers whove written seasons of a decently popular B cable show. When she's acting out charactures of BIPOC poverty its even worse  They're also not even legitimate. 

When I look back at whenever some combinations of my huge and really impoverished Native side of my ohana make a treat of going out to eat, nobody lolo enough to go pay $5 for a keiki to eat some weeds! Plus tip!!! Hell no. One you never get a small kid aged 2-5 for her story, an all you can eat meal when you're poor. Even working middle class parents usually don't allow that my mom sure as hell didn't. Its like just giving the restaurant your money and leaving without getting food. The little keiki eat off the adults plate or better yet you do a kids eat free night. And you dont go to a sit down restaurant for a salad bar if you're stretching your pennies and want a treat. You go for family style plate lunch at one of the local "drive ins" (Hawai'i calls all the local plate lunch places this none are drive ins) or tents near the beach off the road on the weekend selling amazing food cheap. Hell you go to to KFC or another fast food place you don't have to tip at. You get the biggest, most filling meal you can. You can get 20 pieces of chicken and 3 large sides and biscuits for $30 at KFC right now. If you're truly struggling and poor you care about filling your keiki's stomachs and you dont have $15-16 to spend on a 4 year old who can at absolute best eat a small plate of salad. Let's say she absolutely adored salad. The treat would be making that at home with grocery produce which buying at all is a huge treat to many poor families. If you're going to do eating out as a special treat you don't spend the weekly allotment for your child in your grocery budget for an all you can eat salad bar. 

Even if her story was actually logical for a poor family, what she's saying isn't true. In MMs story it would have been in the early 80s, by 1985. $5 then is worth about $14 now. I also looked up some old Sizzler ads. One from NY Daily News (NYC) in Oct 1982 has an add for a steak, all you can eat fruit, salad and soup bar for $6.99. Another ad I saw from a mid 80s newspaper was $3.29 for all you can eat salad bar lunch with drink and then another steak and salad bar for $4.99. I think today the Sizzler salad bar is $9.99 all you can eat, and kids are a fraction of that.  Then the kicker, today in 2021 (or at least within the last couple years I'm not sure about the post COVID salad bar scene) kids salad bar for children 5-12 full price is $6.99

Every time she opens her mouth and tells some Dickinsonian tale of her impoverished roots it's like a satire of a privileged woman in a shitry drama class who is so clearly out of touch she comes up with ridiculous things like this and then is so over the top in her attempt to act them out. Like she is a stock character in an SNL type skit.

Its incredibly insulting and its really messed up that MM has labeled any detractor as racist. Some BIPOC I know are willing to put up with her BS out of solidarity, others only see the positive US media..  a lot of her biggest fangirls are white and gatekeep like no one's business. Someone aimed they did am online search about my family and know my mom presents white so I need to STFU. Ummm my mom is white I told her my dad is Native and she said she found my dad too and he's  white.. she searched using my last name and his first.. Haha that's not my dad. Using my dad's actual name  has very little  he is 75 and literally has no online presence outside of the White Pages. Oh except a few links to Ancestry and numerous genealogy trees with Hawaiian Homeland certificates and other things. But okay Karen tell me all about my ohana when you dont know their names and social media stalked me. That's the mind if craziness that any dissent becomes racist or sexist. Not just MM, but almost everything today.

(Side note- I've only been to a Sizzler in Pocatello Idaho every year for indoor nationals track meet. Our cosch was the USATF junior national sprint development coach and didn't play we all were top 3 nationally and we all got scholarships but we worked our asses off to be the best and to be the first in our families to go to school and to stay out of the neighborhood trouble. Our entirely BIPOC team from NE Denver all if the coaches were Black and all but teo of my teammates myself half white half Native and another girl who was Latina- the racism was ridiculous a bunch of my teammates said it was worse than anything they'd experienced in the South. Then again a lot of my teammates who wound up at CU Boulder left for SEC schools after a year because of the disgusting amount of wealthy white kids thinking saying the N word, belting full rap lyrics with the N word and other lines acceptable for individuals who have lived that experience but not rich ass white kids from La Jolla driving the BMW SUV daddy bought for a graduation present up to Breckenridge to snowboard and party with daddys platinum Amex every weekend do it and mocking ghetto stuff was acceptable brcause it was a "joke" and they're Californians so they "get it".... at the restaurants familiesbwould move away from us blatantly and be reseated so a bubble of empty tables was near us, we got followed by every security guard in a store or at the mall anytime we stepped in. It was shitty. We focused instead on kicking ass and dreaming about what we'd eat post race. We could only eat the salad bar but no cheese or dressings or creamy anything. But we were a junior national development team and we had a ton of sponsorships. )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EmCatlyn]

Quote

[According to] Christopher Andersen’s book “Brothers And Wives: Inside The Private Lives of William, Kate, Harry and Meghan” (Gallery) ….   …. on Nov. 27, 2017 — the same morning the engagement of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle was officially announced — Prince Charles mused to his wife, Camilla, “I wonder what the children will look like?”

The insider said that Camilla was “somewhat taken aback” by the question and replied, “Well, absolutely gorgeous, I’m certain.”

Lowering his voice, Charles asked: “I mean, what do you think their children’s complexion might be?”
     Page six

The story is dismissed as “pure fiction” by the Prince of Wales’s spokesman.

[just_ordinary]

11 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

The story is dismissed as “pure fiction” by the Prince of Wales’s spokesman.

I mean, in all fairness- what else would they say?

But I don’t think this particularly source is reliable for two reasons.  
(1) I highly doubt an American author has better sources into the Palace than the British tabloids. And no matter how much they love to bash H&M, they also wouldn’t miss the opportunity to drag the future king through the dirt and exclusively reveal that he is the racist. That’s to big of an opportunity to miss. And how the story reads it’s nothing he wouldn’t be able to recover from. 
(2) It goes against how H&M told the story themselves. H explicitly said he heard it and didn’t address it straight away and only when he told M, realised how bad it really was. Given, there are some vaguenesses about the story and we are left with some confusion, when this conversation happened or how many there actually were. But that’s up to H&M.

Please note: I do think a conversation/speculation about the skin colour took place. Because, let’s be honest - everyone talks about who a baby will come after in all sorts of outwards and inner possibilities. If it was in a dismissive way or pure curiosity or concern not of the skin colour but how the public/press would react to a darker skin baby (as in concern for the baby because sadly there are enough idiots out there) I don’t know. Harry didn’t seem to think it was too bad, and only M, after getting a second have account by him, thought it was really really bad. Or did he feel uncomfortable straight away but didn’t speak up? I cannot remember exactly. They never straight out said that they confronted the person. Point is, I would like to believe speaking up would have made the intention clearer and this either solved the drama or the person in question could have realised they went wrong and apologised. That’s wishful thinking on my part though. But zu have to admit, H&Ms hyper dramatic, truth bending and always vaguely communicating ways make it hard for me to just believe stuff happened exactly as they say. But- I don’t doubt they felt highly offended and hurt. That’s only for them to decide. (Just like only the alleged bully victims decide if she bullied them and not the alleged bully herself.)

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, just_ordinary said:

I mean, in all fairness- what else would they say?

But I don’t think this particularly source is reliable for two reasons.  
(1) I highly doubt an American author has better sources into the Palace than the British tabloids. And no matter how much they love to bash H&M, they also wouldn’t miss the opportunity to drag the future king through the dirt and exclusively reveal that he is the racist. That’s to big of an opportunity to miss. And how the story reads it’s nothing he wouldn’t be able to recover from. 
(2) It goes against how H&M told the story themselves. H explicitly said he heard it and didn’t address it straight away and only when he told M, realised how bad it really was. Given, there are some vaguenesses about the story and we are left with some confusion, when this conversation happened or how many there actually were. But that’s up to H&M.

Please note: I do think a conversation/speculation about the skin colour took place. Because, let’s be honest - everyone talks about who a baby will come after in all sorts of outwards and inner possibilities. If it was in a dismissive way or pure curiosity or concern not of the skin colour but how the public/press would react to a darker skin baby (as in concern for the baby because sadly there are enough idiots out there) I don’t know. Harry didn’t seem to think it was too bad, and only M, after getting a second have account by him, thought it was really really bad. Or did he feel uncomfortable straight away but didn’t speak up? I cannot remember exactly. They never straight out said that they confronted the person. Point is, I would like to believe speaking up would have made the intention clearer and this either solved the drama or the person in question could have realised they went wrong and apologised. That’s wishful thinking on my part though. But zu have to admit, H&Ms hyper dramatic, truth bending and always vaguely communicating ways make it hard for me to just believe stuff happened exactly as they say. But- I don’t doubt they felt highly offended and hurt. That’s only for them to decide. (Just like only the alleged bully victims decide if she bullied them and not the alleged bully herself.)

I tend to agree that the account in this new book is pure fiction, both for the reasons you state and because they claim to be reporting a conversation between Charles and Camilla which would surely be an odd conversation to have in front of other people—so who could be the source?  Is Camilla now disclosing things to the press?  Was the room bugged?  (I suppose a servant could have been present and not been noticed.  Or maybe the account comes from one of Camilla’s kids?  — She really comes out rather well, doesn’t she?)

I also tend to agree that the question of skin color was raised, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it was raised by Charles, but I would not necessarily assume “racism” as much as just wondering about kids and whom they will take after.

However, as you point out, this account is not the one Meghan and Harry told.  As I remember, Meghan said something along the lines of “there were questions about the color of Archie’s skin,” and she managed to juxtapose it with, “they wouldn’t make him a prince.”   Then Harry (who seemed a bit surprised, I thought) was asked about it and he clarified that the discussion about skin color had happened early on, before the were married/around the time they were married.  And he made it clear he hadn’t been bothered by it, but that when he told Meghan, she was.

I don’t agree that it should always be the person who “experiences” the racism or sexism (or bullying) who gets to call it.  The context and intent of an alleged racist or sexist or “bullying” comment are as relevant as how they are perceived. (I say this as a Hispanic female who has experienced bullying, discrimination, and harassment.)  As with everything else,  the speaker is responsible for understanding the context and trying to avoid offending, but the listener also needs to understand the context and not jump to be offended by innocent mistakes.

Back to the question of what was said about the kids’ skin tone, I could imagine someone wondering about skin tone the way people wonder about hair color, eyes, height and other personal attributes that kids can inherit from their parents. (Given that William is bald fairly young, I would be equally interested in whether Meghan carried the genes for male-pattern-baldness.) 

[just_ordinary]

@EmCatlyn I agree- I might have phrased my bullying comment a bit too strong compared to the racism one. I do think context is important. But it’s definitely up to the reviving end to feel however. And up to the messenger to make sure the message is understood. Communication is the key. But I think the BRF is not really a good communicating family in private (the fact that they are petty and jealous about each other and very concerned with status, no screen like heart to heart, all tears and bear hugs- which lots of Europeans don’t do and think fake and strange so no complaints). H&M have also shown to have a massive chip in their shoulder, communicate atrociously and love to be offended.
In general, I think it doesn’t hurt to apologise even if your intention was always the best and the context clears stuff up afterwards, because feelings still have been hurt. It’s a gesture with no actions because you might still feel fine about what you said/did. I think that’s an important thing to do actually.
But -and I might be completely off here- neither did the person know he/she made a not well received remark it seems, so had no chance to explain/apologies nor did M talk it out with the bullying victims after the allegations came to her knowledge. I have no idea if she knew before leaving or afterwards. First case, listen and make it work, second case - you can still acknowledge that you might have unintentionally come on too strong or that you might have been hard to work for because you were under immense pressure and that it wasn’t your intention to make working for her so hard. Second case stays a gesture but I actually think an important one to make. But acting as if you would never (not even unintentionally) and of course “would be the first to apologies if you did something wrong (but only you are the judge of that)” is not a great starting point to asses you character, flaws and faults included.

Edited November 29, 2021 by just_ordinary

[Coconut Flan]

So Megan felt free to be demanding (or interpreted as bullying) without taking ownership and also offended at a remark reported to her second or third hand without questioning?  Seems she wants to always be right and also the victim.  That's how I keep seeing her actions.

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

….
In general, I think it doesn’t hurt to apologise even if your intention was always the best and the context clears stuff up afterwards, because feelings still have been hurt. It’s a gesture with no actions because you might still feel fine about what you said/did. I think that’s an important thing to do actually.
But -and I might be completely off here- neither did the person know he/she made a not well received remark it seems, so had no chance to explain/apologies nor did M talk it out with the bullying victims after the allegations came to her knowledge. I have no idea if she knew before leaving or afterwards. First case, listen and make it work, second case - you can still acknowledge that you might have unintentionally come on too strong or that you might have been hard to work for because you were under immense pressure and that it wasn’t your intention to make working for her so hard. Second case stays a gesture but I actually think an important one to make. But acting as if you would never (not even unintentionally) and of course “would be the first to apologies if you did something wrong (but only you are the judge of that)” is not a great starting point to asses you character, flaws and faults included.

I tend to be big on apologizing for hurting people even it was accidental and/or you think a person is overreacting.  Kindness and courtesy never hurt.

Meghan did know about the bullying accusations before leaving the RF.  If I remember correctly, one of the reasons the Cambridges and Sussexes separated their offices was that when the alleged bullying was reported to William, he called Harry about it, and when Harry got annoyed and said Meghan was blameless, they had a huge fight.  Meghan then would have known that she was accused of bullying her staff.  What the Sussexes claimed about people who quit or whom they felt they had to fire was that these were people who were not good at their work.  There does not seem to have been any effort to discuss grievances and improve communication. (There may, of course, have been something we haven’t heard of.)

You are right that it appears that when Meghan says or does something that appears to hurt others and/or abuse privilege, she doesn’t accept responsibility, but she is quite quick to jump on anyone who says or does anything that hurts her.