Harry & Meghan 8: Time's Most Insufferable

[EmCatlyn]

5 hours ago, FluffySnowball said:

I assume that’s the smallest problem. After all, we know that the royals also travel privately, e.g. to Africa, where William even allegedly proposed marriage to Catherine. The Cambridge’s apparently also spend some of their holidays traveling with the Middletons to some island (I have forgotten where to exactly, was it in the Caribbean?). So if they wanted, they could visit Harry and Meghan in the US. 

Also, i doubt they work all that much. Now, I’m not sure how many engagements Charles has, but W and C aren’t known for being overly hardworking so I’m sure they could fit a holiday into their schedule. 

I think if Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and the 3 kids and whatever other royals came along all flew to California for the christening of Harry and Meghan’s daughter, it would get a lot of attention and people might object to the cost in a way that they don’t when some of them go on “private” trips to Africa or whatever.  And I also think that, though the royal schedule isn’t “40 hours a week” busy, almost anything they do can be complicated and involves more than just a few relatives getting on a plane for a christening.  But I may be wrong.🤷‍♀️

I definitely agree that the royals’ schedules and the ease/difficulty of their travel to the US for a christening is the least of the reasons a US  christening is unlikely to take place.  

[Xanariel]

It's really a pity, because paid leave is a very worthy cause to highlight. 

But Meghan's parents having to be frugal in childhood (when she went to expensive private schools and hung out on TV sets later in life) perhaps wasn't a strong enough example to justify the very good point she wanted to make. 

And personally, it comes as a very, very bad look to be lobbying US politicians under the letterhead of 'Duke and Duchess of Sussex' rather than emphasising Meghan's status as a normal American citizen - especially after publicly insisting the title doesn't matter to her compared to being a mother. 

[Smash!]

Didn‘t they throw a fit because they weren’t allowed to use Sussex Royal anymore? I believe her title matters to her, despite wanting out of the RF.

While paid maternity leave is a good cause why not make it about paid sick leave? They could have highlighted that many people had to go to work sick during the pandemic and didn‘t get vaccinated out of fear they had to miss work due to the aftereffects.

 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

Diana doesn’t have an active thread (just as well), so I’m posting this here. I watched “Diana: The Musical” on Netflix, and it wasn’t nearly as bad as the reviews led me to think. Snobs. Yes, it’s cheesy, and the lyricist isn’t Lin-Manuel Miranda, but some of those simplistic couplets really hit the nail on the head. The actress playing Diana is a little too old - in the 1990s scenes, she looks a lot like Hillary Clinton. They have to simplify things, so there are omissions: the Queen but not Philip; only one of Diana’s siblings; only Hewitt out of Diana’s lovers; only Paul Burrell out of the army of royal staff; and only Charles’ interview, not Diana’s. The only historical things that bothered me were that they had Charles give Diana an emerald and diamond necklace on their first date (please), and they implied that Diana was hospitalized for her self-harm. 

I suppose Harry and Meghan wouldn’t watch it, and that $100 million helps keep the peace with Netflix, but it must be strange to be “working” for a business that’s making entertainment out of your mother’s tragic life.

[just_ordinary]

7 hours ago, Xanariel said:

It's really a pity, because paid leave is a very worthy cause to highlight. 

But Meghan's parents having to be frugal in childhood (when she went to expensive private schools and hung out on TV sets later in life) perhaps wasn't a strong enough example to justify the very good point she wanted to make. 

And personally, it comes as a very, very bad look to be lobbying US politicians under the letterhead of 'Duke and Duchess of Sussex' rather than emphasising Meghan's status as a normal American citizen - especially after publicly insisting the title doesn't matter to her compared to being a mother. 

Her childhood is basically irrelevant for the argument. Doria doesn’t have more children so maternity leave didn’t affect her and when she lived with Thomas maternity leave wouldn’t have affected her either. I do think the whole thing is actually about paid parental leave but as she is the youngest it really didn’t affect her life that much - especially because the mindset around parental leave is pretty new. I know when my father did it 35 years ago it was a BIG thing and he got lots of comments about it, and not nice ones. And yes, money was tight and her childhood sounds exactly like the norm, not poor but also not rich childhood to me. (Still baffled how modern my parents were in many ways that I only can appreciate now).

She should have stayed with her and H experiences. How much they value to be equal partners in terms of raising the children on all levels. How much they needed time to bond and arrive in their new family of 3/4. How important it was that he was available after birth and what a benefit it was that he is such a hands on dad (no Horror stories about the helpless father that doesn’t know how to dress the child, what it likes to eat or play or read atm or throws a fit whenever daddy is supposed to do bedtime). And then- STOP talking about yourself. Talk about the others. Not everything needs to be mirrored in your life to be part of your interests or campaign. You can fight for lots of things (paid parental leave, paid sick leave) or against them (racism, homophobia) without being affected by it personally. 
 

I am not that bothered by her using her title. I mean, they love to put it on everything in big neon letters (what happened to “just call me Harry”?) and that looks pretty desperate and ridiculous but apart from that it’s fine. In the end- neither are the BRF a-political (HMTQ is the only one that needs to act like it, but since last week we all know she isn’t) and almost all of them have lobbied politically. The publicly doesn’t like it, but that isn’t keeping them from doing it.

If the US politicians don’t object to get supporting/campaigning/lobbying letters from someone using a foreign title I don’t think there is a problem. The fact they don’t represent the UK played out in public in such a spectacular way, there is really no need to do anything about it. I also think the difference between supporting a cause and lobbying is fluid. If Wiliam pens a public letter to the government about climate change I doubt anyone would cry “lobbying”. Or Kate pointing out the problems for young children in performative years and how underfunded nurseries are. All those topics can be interpreted as political or just social/humanitarian causes. If they start writing private letters, urging people to vote a certain way, making promises (tit for tat) or insinuating personal benefits for the person that gets the letter or doing it very clearly for their own direct (financial) benefit - now that’s problematic. That’s what PC partly did in his spider letters and that’s why the Queen got her hands slapped a couple of times. At this point, I think the most problematic thing they did was openly endorsing one candidate in an election. On the other hand- everyone knows that all of Western Europe and their HoS endorsed him.

4 hours ago, Smash! said:

Didn‘t they throw a fit because they weren’t allowed to use Sussex Royal anymore? I believe her title matters to her, despite wanting out of the RF.

While paid maternity leave is a good cause why not make it about paid sick leave? They could have highlighted that many people had to go to work sick during the pandemic and didn‘t get vaccinated out of fear they had to miss work due to the aftereffects.

 

Yes. They didn’t want out of the BRF though. They wanted to step back from work but very much continue to be royal, represent the Queen on tours when asked and “collaborate” from time to time. Just living wherever they want and making money on the side. Leaving the BAD BRF because they are so suffocating and racist only became a thing after they got denied their preferred half in/half out option and weren’t allowed use Sussex royal and the HRH. BUT THEY ARE TOTALLY STILL HRH- JUST NOT USING IT. Yeahhhhhhh- they do have a massive chip on their shoulder about their titles and styles. 
On the one hand, it’s part of their name so there is really no need not to use it, especially as they live in a country where this type of titles name doesn’t hold any special significance. On the other hand, not using the title would be the logical step after your hard fight to leave an institution that treated you so badly. 
H will always have to depend on his titles (even if only were a Prince at one point) because he really hasn’t much going for him, especially in the US. M could work under MM just as successful. But I think she loves the “elevated” position. The second she or her advisors deem the title more hindering than helpful she will stop using it. I also can see H not taking well to the suggestion to operate without the titles.

Paid sick leave is actually very important for parents too. Those little virus breeders get sick a lot and cannot go to daycare or school. I think she only chose the topic because iirc it is discussed in senate right now already? Paid sick leave is not in the headlines atm, so she cannot piggy back on it.

Edited October 22, 2021 by just_ordinary

[tabitha2]

As usual jumping on the subject of the moment bandwagon. Typical. 

[Smash!]

8 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

They wanted to step back from work but very much continue to be royal, represent the Queen on tours when asked and “collaborate” from time to time. Just living wherever they want and making money on the side.

Isn‘t that how Princess Madeleine of Sweden lives? Minus the tours and I don’t know about the money making.

[just_ordinary]

1 hour ago, Smash! said:

Isn‘t that how Princess Madeleine of Sweden lives? Minus the tours and I don’t know about the money making.

It’s similar but on a much much smaller scale. She isn’t earning money under the use of her title and it’s only ever present when she does something for charity as far as I know. Her husband specifically denied the offer of a title so there wouldn’t be a conflict of interest/any restrictions so he could continue his job.

They live in the US but you don’t hear much about them. She is involved in her mothers charity but still not very public and only turns up occasionally for royal events in Sweden. 

Their three children have lost their place in the royal households and their HRH (together with the children of her brother). They retained their duke/duchess titles and are still members of the royal family but will not play any official role for the Swedish monarchy. They will not receive any money but have to work (or life of their patents wealth).

I don’t think Madeleine represents the Swedish monarchy apart from joined engagements like the Nobel Prize. She lives very much under the radar and very private.

The Swedish public is also highly critical of her, because she still receives money from her father- so basically public money. And for “leaving the country behind” and stuff. The cutting down of the royal household did help though- especially because the parents of the removes children were fine with it and didn’t complain.

Edited October 22, 2021 by just_ordinary

[louisa05]

Meghan wrote blog posts about vacations in Mexico and Hawaii as a child. She posted on Instagram once that her dad took her to lunch at Musso & Frank’s every weekend after picking her up from dance classes. The place absolutely never had a $4.99 salad bar. She blogged about regular family outings to a Sushi restaurant. 
But let’s do go on about her sad impoverished Sizzler salad bar childhood. 

Edited October 23, 2021 by louisa05

[QuiverFullofBooks]

6 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Meghan wrote blog posts about vacations in Mexico and Hawaii as a child. She posted on Instagram once that her dad took her to lunch at Musso & Frank’s every weekend after picking her up from dance classes. The place absolutely never had a $4.99 salad bar. She blogged about regular family outings to a Sushi restaurant. 
But let’s do go on about her sad impoverished Sizzler salad bar childhood. 

The problem with Meghan's writing about her childhood is that she's trying not to use the phrase, "before my dad won the lottery..." I think both the Sizzler bar and the Musso & Frank's stories are true, but at different times. Maybe she should come clean and say, "people shouldn't have to win the lottery to be able to take care of their kids."

[EmCatlyn]

6 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Meghan wrote blog posts about vacations in Mexico and Hawaii as a child. She posted on Instagram once that her dad took her to lunch at Musso & Frank’s every weekend after picking her up from dance classes. The place absolutely never had a $4.99 salad bar. She blogged about regular family outings to a Sushi restaurant. 
But let’s do go on about her sad impoverished Sizzler salad bar childhood. 

All else aside, being able to go to the Sizzler salad bar is not exactly poverty.

I wonder if Meghan was always so privileged that she thought it was poverty?

Certainly if she was among the poorest in her social group she may have felt she was disadvantaged in some way, and her life after success and then becoming a royal would certainly seem to reinforce the idea that people who go to the Sizzler salad bar are a bit disadvantaged. (All that iceberg lettuce!)

It is just very clueless.

3 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

The problem with Meghan's writing about her childhood is that she's trying not to use the phrase, "before my dad won the lottery..." I think both the Sizzler bar and the Musso & Frank's stories are true, but at different times. Maybe she should come clean and say, "people shouldn't have to win the lottery to be able to take care of their kids."

Yes!  I would add that your parents can take perfectly good care of you and never take the family out to fancy restaurants.

To be sure, her father winning the lottery is probably not part of the story Meghan wants to tell because encouraging poor people to buy lottery tickets would be irresponsible.  She could, however, have talked less about the restaurants and more about the issue of parents having time to spend with their kids, which I thought was the point of parental leave.

[louisa05]

27 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

The problem with Meghan's writing about her childhood is that she's trying not to use the phrase, "before my dad won the lottery..." I think both the Sizzler bar and the Musso & Frank's stories are true, but at different times. Maybe she should come clean and say, "people shouldn't have to win the lottery to be able to take care of their kids."

Her sushi restaurant story references remembering it as early as age three. She also uses it to brag about her sophisticated palate. 

[viii]

Meghan tone deaf? Surely not. 

[EmCatlyn]

Quote

That Meghan would use the status she has now attained, both through her acting career and as the Duchess of Sussex, to lobby her representatives in government is a quintessentially American thing to do. Here in America, you can want paid family leave, use your clout to try to achieve it and not have an ulterior motive. Here, it’s seen as “giving back,” in taking everything that you’ve worked so hard for and achieved success in and paying it forward. Here in America, coming from humble roots to arrive at a place of power and influence is considered admirable. It’s something to be proud of.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/culture-lifestyle/meghan-markle-letter-pelosi-schumer-backing-paid-leave-exposes-class-d-rcna3644

The gist of the article from which this is taken is that the main reason the tabloids in the UK are so hard on Meghan is “the Uk’s ingrained class system” and that Meghan is attacked because she won’t stay in the social place whete she was born.

I would find the argument more persuasive if it weren’t trying to portray Meghan’s narrative of being too poor to eat anywhere but the Sizzler salad bar and her use of Duchess of Sussex stationery as an “American” thing.

However, I have to admit that “have your cake and eat it too” may be part of the American Dream.  We want to be “middle class” (that is, not too privileged) but want to live in whatever we think of as “luxury.”  At the same time, we think of certain things as “necessities” that many other people would think as “luxuries.”

I am still stuck at the idea that having lunch at the Sizzler salad bar is some sort of sign of poverty.  To me, the problem with Meghan is that she wants to have it both ways:  she wants to identify with the “poor and downtrodden” when it seems romantic to do so, but she is really a terrible snob (in both the old sense of the word which meant, “social climber” and the more common, current sense of a privileged person looking down at those less privileged).

If it is the American Dream to be able to look down on others even while claiming to be “one of them,” maybe Meghan does represent that Dream.

And maybe I am totally un-American to criticize her.

[Four is Enough]

Huh. Who knew. When Mr. Four and I were dating, trips to Sizzler or Ponderosa were a great intro to date night. We both thought we were up-and-comers, what with the fact that we were both working and making money.. But now MM says we were actually poor?

Who'd a thunk it?

[MomJeans]

Yes, as someone who grew up at Ponderosa (basically the East Coast Sizzler) I feel like I have to defend the Sizzler.  😆It was solidly middle class. 

And also, where on Earth were my parents supposed to take us to eat?  Ruth's Chris?  We were kids.  I'm shocked we got to eat out as much as we did.  I barely trust my own kids at Shake Shack.

I know Meghan has a terrible relationship with her father, but I would be so embarrassed if one of my kids grew up and started telling the entire world we were poor, because we are not.  I can't imagine Doria is thrilled to hear the poverty narrative either.  

As someone who read through the Tig the moment it was rumored Meghan was dating Harry, her childhood and family narrative was very different back then.

And like many things these two do, there was no need to create this bleak childhood narrative to support their cause.  

 

[louisa05]

57 minutes ago, MomJeans said:

Yes, as someone who grew up at Ponderosa (basically the East Coast Sizzler) I feel like I have to defend the Sizzler.  😆It was solidly middle class. 

And also, where on Earth were my parents supposed to take us to eat?  Ruth's Chris?  We were kids.  I'm shocked we got to eat out as much as we did.  I barely trust my own kids at Shake Shack.

I know Meghan has a terrible relationship with her father, but I would be so embarrassed if one of my kids grew up and started telling the entire world we were poor, because we are not.  I can't imagine Doria is thrilled to hear the poverty narrative either.  

As someone who read through the Tig the moment it was rumored Meghan was dating Harry, her childhood and family narrative was very different back then.

And like many things these two do, there was no need to create this bleak childhood narrative to support their cause.  

 

I think she’s tried to make herself out to be some self made grand success story—her own hard work and ambition took her from a bleak impoverished childhood to a life of fame  and luxury. 
Pay no attention to the private school, dance lessons, homecoming Queen photos, expensive university, sorority life, embassy internships arranged by relatives, acting roles got through dad’s connections  and the house purchased with her husband’s money.  

[nelliebelle1197]

On 10/19/2021 at 2:52 AM, just_ordinary said:

@EmCatlyn I disagree on both accounts. PC and PW have been able to travel to weddings and christening all over the world, in royal and private capacity. Security and travel were no problem for the private occasions. Neither was their work schedule. Even when their attendance was public knowledge before the date. I think if H&M don’t drum up their being there and give enough time frame to schedule it in, they are perfectly able to make it happen if they want to. And I think they should. L deserve it, and they won’t break a leg to take the high road (is that the right phrase??).

I also think if Bishop Curry wants to christen Lili that’s absolutely fine. It’s his decision really. They cannot make him, but I am pretty sure he is the only pastor they personally know in the US. I don’t find it weird to ask a priest/pastor you have at least some relationship with to perform the christening instead of a stranger. And many are very willing and happy to accompany the religious future of couples/families and feel honoured to be asked. It sounds pretty normal to me, but maybe because here it happens very frequently that people ask the person that officiated their own christening/confirmation to do the wedding or christening if they are not unreasonable far away. It’s not as if the christening gets more special because he is a bishop. Most people in Europe have no involvement with their church at all. They show up for Christmas and maybe Easter and very few in between. Most don’t even know their pastors name (or if their church is Unitarian/Lutheran/Reformed)- easier in the UK where CoE would probably be the default, but I wonder if anyone would truly notice the difference. H and I assume M as well are cultural Christians. So there is no surprise they are not involved in any churches. That doesn’t mean that cannot christen their child into one though. If the church doesn’t mean, why should we? That’s pretty much standard. If you just want to do it for the cultural aspect it’s also not that important if it’s Lutheran, CoE or Episcopalian or whatever. So, I think it’s fine. Christen wherever you want, choose the godparents you want and ask whoever you want to officiate. If they make a massive spectacle out of it I would raise eyebrows but I doubt it. They try to keep to children pretty hidden. And I am sure if they don’t get the HMTQ with L picture it will stay that way for a bit longer. 

I disagree - I have two close friends who are Episcopal priests. The bishop should NOT be doing celebrity christenings for non-active members. In order to marry a 20-year Catholic friend of ours and her Baptist fiancee one of my priest  friends had to ask for special permission and do a lot of extra work. If those two are not active parish members, they have no business calling on the bishop. There are rules in the church and they should not be above them.

[just_ordinary]

1 hour ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

I disagree - I have two close friends who are Episcopal priests. The bishop should NOT be doing celebrity christenings for non-active members. In order to marry a 20-year Catholic friend of ours and her Baptist fiancee one of my priest  friends had to ask for special permission and do a lot of extra work. If those two are not active parish members, they have no business calling on the bishop. There are rules in the church and they should not be above them.

I think you misread my points? I said very clearly that I absolutely understand if active church members are angry with those two, who seem not to be active or devoted or even church members at all IF they get a special treatment. That’s all just unbased rumours at this point. I just said a bishop shouldn’t be generally seen as a above to christen a child. And that I think it’s generally ok if a bishop agrees to do a christening with people he knows even if they are not part of his congregation. He was part of their wedding, so asking him (it’s not as if he is bound to agree) is not completely out of the blue. 
 

Re: Sizzler- Iirc Meghan was saying that the salad bar at Sizzler was indeed a very rare treat. That’s not the same as claiming, regular meals at Sizzler show that you are poor. 
The problem- her old narrative shows better and more expensive places as regular options. That just doesn’t fit together. Maybe she sugar coated her childhood. Her blog was not her private diary, so I guess she bend her stories to fit the picture (which everyone does, so definitely expected and fine with me). Problem- the internet doesn’t forget and old stories have a habit of catching up with you. Especially if you try to rewrite your past to publicly.

[EmCatlyn]

36 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

I think you misread my points? I said very clearly that I absolutely understand if active church members are angry with those two, who seem not to be active or devoted or even church members at all IF they get a special treatment. That’s all just unbased rumours at this point. I just said a bishop shouldn’t be generally seen as a above to christen a child. And that I think it’s generally ok if a bishop agrees to do a christening with people he knows even if they are not part of his congregation. He was part of their wedding, so asking him (it’s not as if he is bound to agree) is not completely out of the blue. 
 

Just to clarify: the whole thing about Bishop Curry began with a speculation from the British press that what Harry and Meghan would/should do was to have the bishop christen Lili in the US.  There has never, as far as I know, been any suggestion that M and H were planning to ask him to participate—just the assumption that if they asked, he would do it.

My initial comment was about that assumption. We don’t need to go over the whole discussion, but I want to make clear that the idea came from the British press.  I kind of thought it was funny that as angry as they are at H & M some in the British press took it for granted that H & M would be granted a special privilege by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.  

[nelliebelle1197]

2 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I think you misread my points? I said very clearly that I absolutely understand if active church members are angry with those two, who seem not to be active or devoted or even church members at all IF they get a special treatment. That’s all just unbased rumours at this point. I just said a bishop shouldn’t bI e generally seen as a above to christen a child. And that I think it’s generally ok if a bishop agrees to do a christening with people he knows even if they are not part of his congregation. He was part of their wedding, so asking him (it’s not as if he is bound to agree) is not completely out of the blue. 
 

Re: Sizzler- Iirc Meghan was saying that the salad bar at Sizzler was indeed a very rare treat. That’s not the same as claiming, regular meals at Sizzler show that you are poor. 
The problem- her old narrative shows better and more expensive places as regular options. That just doesn’t fit together. Maybe she sugar coated her childhood. Her blog was not her private diary, so I guess she bend her stories to fit the picture (which everyone does, so definitely expected and fine with me). Problem- the internet doesn’t forget and old stories have a habit of catching up with you. Especially if you try to rewrite your past to publicly.

I am responding to this phrase:

I also think if Bishop Curry wants to christen Lili that’s absolutely fine. It’s his decision really.

It is actually NOT fine because even christening or weddings by a workaday Episcopal priest require a lot of hoops and a lot of permissions, etc. if the parties are not active members of the church.  It should not be his decision if every priest underneath him and every Episcopal congregant cannot get the same privilege.

[WiseGirl]

On 10/22/2021 at 9:50 AM, just_ordinary said:

They live in the US but you don’t hear much about them.

Wish Meghan and Harry would be like this.

I loved Ponderosa! My mom would take my brother and I there for dinner when my dad was working out of town. *memories*

Edited October 24, 2021 by WiseGirl
Spelling

[nokidsmom]

7 hours ago, MomJeans said:

Yes, as someone who grew up at Ponderosa (basically the East Coast Sizzler) I feel like I have to defend the Sizzler.  😆It was solidly middle class. 

And also, where on Earth were my parents supposed to take us to eat?  Ruth's Chris?  We were kids.  I'm shocked we got to eat out as much as we did.  I barely trust my own kids at Shake Shack.

Growing up, my folks didn't go out much either by themselves or with all of us, but taking us all to Sizzler / Ponderosa let's just say it was definitely middle class.  Not fancy but not poverty by any means.

 

[SoSoNosy]

I am still open-mouthed at the cost of the dress she wore for the Oprah interview ($5k? $7k?); she was close to term with her pregnancy, and very vocal about not having another child.  How do you spend that much on a dress???  I am comfortable financially, but spending $200 for a piece of clothing makes me think again; I can't get in her head.   We didn't have Sizzler or the like in the little town I grew up in, but there were diners and restaurants; my parents weren't able to afford meals out but my grandparents were kind of wealthy so we got to go out every so often.  We didn't consider it poverty, nobody else was going out all the time either.

[EmCatlyn]

8 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Just to clarify: the whole thing about Bishop Curry began with a speculation from the British press that what Harry and Meghan would/should do was to have the bishop christen Lili in the US.  There has never, as far as I know, been any suggestion that M and H were planning to ask him to participate—just the assumption that if they asked, he would do it.

My initial comment was about that assumption. We don’t need to go over the whole discussion, but I want to make clear that the idea came from the British press.  I kind of thought it was funny that as angry as they are at H & M some in the British press took it for granted that H & M would be granted a special privilege by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.  

You know, I just happened to re-read my original post and realized that I did not make it clear in my post that I had read the comment in the British press or noted the irony that people angry at H & M still thought it would be natural for the highest ranking Episcopal bishop to christen their child.  Therefore I am doubly glad that I posted the above.  (My original post addressed how I would be disappointed in the bishop if he did christen the kid.)

It is really funny how we don’t always remember exactly what we said or emphasized even though it was only a few days ago.  Sometimes there are several possible things to comment on.  Memory is tricky.

Edited October 25, 2021 by EmCatlyn
Typo- fragment