Harry & Meghan 9: Pretending to Be Relevant

[viii]

6 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

It seems Harry's marriage made him a worse villain than Andrew. . . wonder what that's about? 

It does seem that way, tbh. Not just here but in the media overall. How curious. 

[louisa05]

4 minutes ago, viii said:

It does seem that way, tbh. Not just here but in the media overall. How curious. 

I don’t think it has. And people ignore the press about Andrew. There was a lot of fuss in the press that he was allowed to attend his fathers funeral and memorial and sit with the family. (I don’t think that was fair—regardless of anything, that was his father). And there’s been concern and objections about him appearing at Jubilee events from both the press and public. It’s suspected that limiting the balcony appearance to working royals and their minor children was more to easily keep him off than H$M. 
 

At the same time, Andrew has kept quiet and out of the way since being dismissed as a working royal. He hasn’t employed a Scobie of his own. No one is planting endless stories of his turmoil and goodness in the press. He’s not creating photo ops for himself. He has not gone out for a pretend royal tour. He doesn’t  run to the press to talk about his mother every time he sees her. And even in his disaster of an interview he did not trash the rest of the family. Meanwhile, H$M are giving  the press and public something to talk about every other day. The media isn’t going to do a daily rehash of old stories about anyone. They report the new stuff 

[DalmatianCat]

40 minutes ago, viii said:

It does seem that way, tbh. Not just here but in the media overall. How curious. 

I actually think most of the headlines in the US are actually astonishingly positive towards Harry and Meghan. If it were not for info I learned on this board I would have thought that Harry and Meghan were actually being denied security that was owed to them based on the US headlines, for example. US headlines also claimed that US prosecutors wanted Meghan’s help getting the “full story” about Andrew (that one always seemed like a huge eye roll), that Harry and Meghan have more insider info to share that will take down the monarchy, they get on Time Magazine, etc. I’ve only recently started to see more objective (and even critical) than positive headlines after they were dropped by Netflix. It seemed like getting dropped by Netflix woke some US journalists up to the fact that maybe there’s more to the story than  what they hear from Harry and Meghan’s camp.

[MomJeans]

I think it's such a poor attempt at a straw man to deflect snark from H&M by crying "BUT ANDREW!!!"

People hate Andrew.  I think he's an arrogant prick and likely rapist.  I don't even enjoy snarking about him because I think he's a disgusting human being. I have never seen Andrew's actions defended on this board.  I would not be surprised if his brother takes away his Dukedom when Charles is King.  

H&M are grown up theater kids in need of constant validation and attention.  They are also loudly and publicly petulant every time they perceive a snub.  When they do something that is praiseworthy, they often muck it up with poor communication or attitude.  It's very telling that their fans seem to only defend them by pointing out how bad Andrew is. As someone who rooted for them for a long time, I get it.  Even their fans know that their actions are not easy to explain.  

 

[louisa05]

18 minutes ago, DalmatianCat said:

I actually think most of the headlines in the US are actually astonishingly positive towards Harry and Meghan. If it were not for info I learned on this board I would have thought that Harry and Meghan were actually being denied security that was owed to them based on the US headlines, for example. US headlines also claimed that US prosecutors wanted Meghan’s help getting the “full story” about Andrew (that one always seemed like a huge eye roll), that Harry and Meghan have more insider info to share that will take down the monarchy, they get on Time Magazine, etc. I’ve only recently started to see more objective (and even critical) than positive headlines after they were dropped by Netflix. It seemed like getting dropped by Netflix woke some US journalists up to the fact that maybe there’s more to the story than  what they hear from Harry and Meghan’s camp.

This. The American press didn’t even call out their lies in the Oprah interview. The security claims were easily debunked. The three day early wedding being impossible was glaringly  obvious as everyone should know that you have to have witnesses for a legal wedding. But the press ran with the headline. The cruel and racist denying of a prince title for Archie was in reality due to rules put in place before the Queen was even born and I’ve never seen that explained in an American media source. But there was plenty of disgust over their false reason in our mainstream press and outrage over it is still seen around social media. The US press ran with the story of Harry being unfairly denied a wreath placed with his name on Remembrance Day when it’s not done that way, and indulged them running their tramp about the cemetery photos  everywhere. And they came out to positively cover their faux royal tour last fall  

 

[viii]

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

At the same time, Andrew has kept quiet and out of the way since being dismissed as a working royal. He hasn’t employed a Scobie of his own. 

Hmmm this is very true. Good point. 

30 minutes ago, MomJeans said:

I have never seen Andrew's actions defended on this board. 

He has 100% been defended on this board. It's gross. 

[just_ordinary]

The Andrew and Virginia story is pretty much old news as she had told her story publicly years ago. On top Andrew has also had his hand in several business scandals. As @MomJeans said, most people already hate him or at least think he is a disgrace, entitled idiot and very probably a criminal (no matter if you believe VG or not). All this partly explains why the UK is not jumping on him again. It already happened and sadly (just as in 2022) the rich and powerful get away or can buy themselves free. He has been written off long ago by most and the only good that came with it this time is that he has almost vanished from the public. And Andrew is definitely not a “fun to gossip about” topic. His offences are too shady to comfortably snicker about at tea. H&M are entitled idiots but not potential criminals or disgusting excuses for humans. They are victims of their own entitlement and pretty useless. Bitching about them is more fun because most of their actions don’t confront you with very uncomfortable things. And they make themselves easy targets. Writing about them is much easier and keeps the public much more entertained than the shit show that is PA. Tabloids are not exactly known for quality journalism, so they do exactly what I would expect them to do. 
In the end, while I believe he is definitely guilty to some extent, VG story has quite some wholes if you look at it from the beginning. Because he wasn’t proven guilty of anything doesn’t mean he is innocent. Even if she would be exaggerating, his relationship to Epstein (and continuing it) is a fact. But it’s also a fact that legally he is not found guilty as of now and with her accepting payment (and I definitely would have too, so no shade) he very probably never will be. This ending was good enough for VG it seems and I generally don’t think the angry mob should decide someone is guilty without proof. On the other hand I am not free from this sentiment in this case and think he deserves everything that comes at him, even though there is a tiny chance he never did anything illegal and maybe even closed his eyes about  Epstein (so never looked or asked and therefore never knew and made sure not to think about it too hard- which would still make him a shitty human).

I highly doubt though that PA or H will loose their Dukedoms. Westminster would have to get involved and quite honestly they have better things to do. Also, the existing precedence just doesn’t cover both cases (High Treason). It would be a bad look as well and hard to sell. Because both deserve to loose their future but for completely different reasons, so it would be a media train wreck. I wouldn’t touch it either. I think Dukedoms might become not inheritable or just with a special patent and a special rule for the heirs. That will solve this pretty quickly. PA will hopefully never be seen again at any royal event and H&M will continue to piggy back on being royal for another 5-7 years.

[tabitha2]

Why go through the trouble  as The Dukedom  of York is going to revert back anyway and  presumably Go to Louis as the future monarch’s second son. Yes, yes it should go to Beatrice and then  go to Charlotte eventually but the government has so much more more pressing issues to deal with than inheritance of ceremonial titles of figureheads.  

 

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

Why go through the trouble  as The Dukedom  of York is going to revert back anyway and  presumably Go to Louis as the future monarch’s second son. Yes, yes it should go to Beatrice and then  go to Charlotte eventually but the government has so much more more pressing issues to deal with than inheritance of ceremonial titles of figureheads.  

 

If it could be inherited by a female, though, it would go from Beatrice to Sienna. 

[Jackie3]

10 hours ago, viii said:

Hmmm this is very true. Good point. 

He has 100% been defended on this board. It's gross. 

No one has defended rape on this board. Unless you have a link.

Edited May 17, 2022 by Jackie3

[tabitha2]

39 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

If it could be inherited by a female, though, it would go from Beatrice to Sienna. 

British Peerages don’t work like that except in a very very specific and rare cases.Unless massive and historic changes are made Female Royals and Nobles wont inherit or pass on titles. In 20 years if the monarchy is still around maybe it will change for the younger girls but the likes of Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, Etc  are shut out. 

 

[MamaJunebug]

11 hours ago, MomJeans said:

H&M are grown up theater kids in need of constant validation and attention.

“Grown up theatre kids!”  He-hee, he-hee! /Beavis&Butthead

Read that Prince William was loudly booed during his official attendance at some important football event, took it in stride, hasn’t commented, probably won’t.

Thought about how H would’ve behaved, were he still working for The Firm. Surely his handlers would’ve bustled him out of there - but would “a source close to the Prince” have made a call to the media?  We’ll never know. Probably not worth thinking about. But it did occur.  

[prayawaythefundie]

1 hour ago, MamaJunebug said:

Read that Prince William was loudly booed during his official attendance at some important football event, took it in stride, hasn’t commented, probably won’t.

He was probably being prepared for that in advance though (and Harry would have been too) because the Liverpool fans are notoriously booing official symbols like the national anthem or the president of the FA (William‘s part there). They seem to have an ongoing bone to pick with „the establishment“ since the early 80s when they felt their city was neglected by Thatcher‘s government. You can read about it here: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/liverpool-fans-national-anthem-final-chelsea-b2024434.html?amp

[Jackie3]

On 4/19/2022 at 6:53 PM, FrumperedCat said:

It seems there is an upcoming interview with Harry to be aired in the USA. Apparently he wanted to pop by and make sure she's got the right people supporting her. Good of you to finally seem to care, Harry. I just feel his attention is so selective. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61157345

It's possible he speaks to her and doesn't tell you about it.

We are talking about one of the richest women in the world, with tons of servants, lady's maids, and her family around her. How attentive does he need to be, in such a case? Is it likely the Queen is going to be neglected in some way?  I'd have more concern about an old woman on Medicare in a nursing home . But no one seems as interested in such people, no glamour, I guess.

I'm also not sure how many grandsons check in on their grandmas care on a regular basis. 

Interesting how, before he married Meghan, no one cared or noticed how often Harry checked in with the Queen. 

Edited May 17, 2022 by Jackie3

[prayawaythefundie]

41 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

Interesting how, before he married Meghan, no one cared or noticed how often Harry checked in with the Queen. 

I guess people just assume he spoke to her more often when he was still in the country and not so busy regularly trashing the family in public.

As for the queen having lots of servants and family around, that‘s exactly the point: Why would Harry think she desperately needs him now? Does he think nobody looks after her if he doesn‘t pop in every other year?

[Topaz]

If the lady in the bed next to me is anything to go by, adult grandsons are pretty good at checking in on their grandmothers. She’s got six and they’ve been calling and visiting regularly.

[viii]

9 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

No one has defended rape on this board. Unless you have a link.

I never mentioned rape but people on this board have defended plenty of Andrew’s choices. Read through the threads if you’re that curious. Do your own homework. 

[tabitha2]

No. All I have seen is people trying to explain and reason out why Andrew in his thick head made some of the terrible entitled boneheaded choices he made with the ultimate answer being because he is all that . Explanations are not excuses for his behavior and no one had made excuses for him here. 
 

 

[prayawaythefundie]

What has one to do with the other though? I am totally capable of thinking Andrew is despicable AND being disappointed by Harry & Meghan at the same time. And by the way, to be disappointed you have to have once been invested. I was excited when Meghan joined the royal family in the beginning. Call me naive but I hoped the Fab Four could actually work as a team. So no, I never disapproved of Harry‘s marriage but I do disapprove of their sense of entitlement, their actions directed at both their families and - what looks to me like - lying.

[viii]

3 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

no one had made excuses for him here.

LOL okay 🤣 the denial is STRONG. 

Moving on....

40 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

I was excited when Meghan joined the royal family in the beginning. Call me naive but I hoped the Fab Four could actually work as a team. So no, I never disapproved of Harry‘s marriage but I do disapprove of their sense of entitlement, their actions directed at both their families and - what looks to me like - lying.

This is where I'm at. Everything was so promising at the beginning and I really thought the four of them would become a solid team. I still can't believe sometimes how quickly everything fell apart in such a short time period. 

[Jackie3]

 

4 hours ago, viii said:

I never mentioned rape but people on this board have defended plenty of Andrew’s choices. Read through the threads if you’re that curious. Do your own homework. 

I did! I read the contentious thread from a few pages back. Homework was done, but I still didn't see anyone defending rape, sex trafficking or anything of that nature. 

You said  people 100% defended him.  I'd like to see that. Please share the link!

Edited May 17, 2022 by Jackie3

[tabitha2]

She can’t that’s the thing because She has nothing back up the statement. Some people  talk a good game but got nothing..

[viii]

30 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

I did! I read the contentious thread from a few pages back. Homework was done, but I still didn't see anyone defending rape, sex trafficking or anything of that nature. 

You said  people 100% defended him.  I'd like to see that. Please share the link!

I'm talking about past threads. There are 9 separate threads on Harry and Meghan and in the later ones, there was plenty of Andrew talk. I wasn't even meaning @tabitha2 but she obviously feels a guilty conscience and needs to insert herself into the situation for whatever reason. It was mostly @EmCatlyn that tried "explaining" his actions but it came off a lot like excusing and she got backlash. Perhaps she remembers which threads it is. Unlike @tabitha2, I actually have a life so I can't comb through old threads to try and find something to justify my point, but I'll see what I can do.

Update: This is a good place to start. I had forgotten how @tabitha2 tried to label Andrew's heinous crimes as "One middle aged minor randy prince not keeping it in his pants". Gross. Anyway, this is a good place to start if you're really interested in seeing how some people excused away his behavior. 

That's the last I'm saying on this subject matter because it's off topic and pointless to argue over. 

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by viii

[tabitha2]

It never fails …you are still salty as  munching bag of Lays while lounging by the Dead Sea

 

But no one is an fan of Andrew here no matter what you claim and that’s a hill I will die on. 

 

 

 

[Jackie3]

3 hours ago, viii said:

I'm talking about past threads. There are 9 separate threads on Harry and Meghan and in the later ones, there was plenty of Andrew talk. I wasn't even meaning @tabitha2 but she obviously feels a guilty conscience and needs to insert herself into the situation for whatever reason. It was mostly @EmCatlyn that tried "explaining" his actions but it came off a lot like excusing and she got backlash. Perhaps she remembers which threads it is. Unlike @tabitha2, I actually have a life so I can't comb through old threads to try and find something to justify my point, but I'll see what I can do.

 

Link? From people 100% defending Andrew?

 

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by Jackie3