Harry & Meghan 10: Even Less Relevant to the BRF

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

Since this is the Harry and Meghan discussion, I thought I’d mention that they don’t have footmen and that there is no height requirement for their private security.  😉

No, they're living the life in Santa Barbara. I think it's funny that while other aristocrats fight over old, damp cottages, H&M have ended up in a place that is sunny, warm and dry. Plus, incredibly gorgeous. Nope, no need for footmen in casual, laid back California!

I heard one royal writer say that "Even Prince Charles would be jealous of where Harry is living now." There's just nothing comparable in England.

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, viii said:

 

Dislike Harry and Meghan all you want but it’s so annoying to see them held to a standard that no other Royal couple is. 

They're promoting the fantasy that "good" royals only invite their best buds to the wedding, and people who are important to them politically (like Posh Spice!)

"Bad" royals invite every famous person they can think of, because they just care about fame and meeting celebs.  They  don't understand the *real* meaning of marriage. They are just shallow.

So they make up reasons to criticize the royals they dislike and promote the ones they like. The ones they like are usually the more traditional ones, like Wills and Kate, who follow the rules.

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Jackie3

[just_ordinary]

2 hours ago, viii said:

Oh come on. Majority of Royal weddings have celebrities invited that they don’t actually know and don’t hold much significant politically or diplomatically. William and Kate had Posh Spice - what does she have to offer in the political sphere? Absolutely nothing. 

Dislike Harry and Meghan all you want but it’s so annoying to see them held to a standard that no other Royal couple is. 

But they are not? People have been making fun of W&K (and especially Kate) about some of their wedding guest choices. It’s just not as present on the minds anymore and if people now bring them up in comparison to H&M they often act as if W&K wedding was perfection and without criticism and gossip. But at the time that was a very different picture.

 

I am very intrigued about what’s in this bullying report … sorry “review”. Not surprised it won’t be made public. I have no doubt that there are many problems in the system that protect the big heads (all of them). But with so much public push back against the claims by her, her friends and her lawyer, I would love to read black on white what was found.

Edited July 1, 2022 by just_ordinary

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, viii said:

Oh come on. Majority of Royal weddings have celebrities invited that they don’t actually know and don’t hold much significant politically or diplomatically. William and Kate had Posh Spice - what does she have to offer in the political sphere? Absolutely nothing. 

Dislike Harry and Meghan all you want but it’s so annoying to see them held to a standard that no other Royal couple is. 

As I said, I don’t care if H and M invited celebrities they didn’t know to their wedding.  I was under the impression that what they did was unusual, but if it wasn’t, I stand corrected.

[tabitha2]

It’s not that celebrities and socialites  were invited That’s SOP for these major Royal weddings but the fact that her family was almost totally absent and for me at least  he chose to use his allotted spaces  to invite celebrities rather than some close relatives. 

[louisa05]

A quick Google search tells me that William worked with those campaigning to land the 2012 Olympics for London. Also working on that campaign: David Beckham. 
Posh was a plus one to someone William actually did know. 

[tabitha2]

We all know that most every Royal or Royal adjacent like the Tindalls or Phillips have causes they are involved with so it’s politic as well just the right thing to do  to invite reps of those groups to your shindigs and If you can can get a celeb to speak for your cause and be a face for it all the better. I don’t see anything untoward in famous faces  at your wedding as long as you also remember the people who knew you when you had zits and a runny nose  and that heard your teenage angst. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by tabitha2

[louisa05]

Just now, tabitha2 said:

We all know that most every Royal or Royal adjacent like the Tindalls or Phillips have causes they are involved with so it’s politic as well just the right thing to to do  to invite reps of those groups to your shindigs and If you can can get a celeb to speak for your cause and be a face for it all the better. I don’t see anything untoward in famous faces  at your wedding as long as you also remember the people who knew you when you had zits and a runny nose  and that heard your teenage angst. 

And once again, it’s David not Victoria. William worked with him in 2013 on a conservation project. 
But I suppose for the purpose of the incorrect point being made “Posh” served the purpose better as it is possible they had not met her prior to the wedding. 

[viii]

I’m not saying whether or not they met her. I was correcting the point that celebrities are invited to *other* Royal weddings because they are either political or diplomatic. Victoria Beckham is neither. Harry and Meghan didn’t do an unusual thing by inviting celebrities they either didn’t know or only knew on a vague, surface level. Majority of Royal weddings have guests like that. 

[Jackie3]

5 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

It’s not that celebrities and socialites  were invited That’s SOP for these major Royal weddings but the fact that her family was almost totally absent and for me at least  he chose to use his allotted spaces  to invite celebrities rather than some close relatives. 

Again, not everyone has good family. Some people have family that get drunk and abusive at parties. Or who wouldn't follow royal protocol. Or who they just plain dislike! If it really was H&M's wedding--and not some staged political event--they can invite the people they like.

Shows courage to say "no" to inviting mean old Aunt Agatha.

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

as long as you also remember the people who knew you when you had zits and a runny nose  and that heard your teenage angst. 

If you don't like these people, why do you have to remember them? Weddings are expensive, and I'm curious why a couple should pay for guests that they don't want or like.

Obviously money is not an issue for the Royals, though it is for British taxpayers, who have to pay millions for the security detail involved. 

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

A quick Google search tells me that William worked with those campaigning to land the 2012 Olympics for London. Also working on that campaign: David Beckham. 
 

Well, then of course they are good chums.

So if you work on a campaign with someone, then it's OK to invite them to your wedding?  Even though they hardly know you? May not have even spoken to you? Have never socialized with you?

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Jackie3

[Melbelle]

David and Victoria Beckham were invited to the William and Catherine's wedding because David and William were friendly.  They had met and done various projects together through William's work as Patron/President of The Football Association for the UK.  William began that work in 2005 and is well known as a huge soccer/football fan throughout his life.  It is likely there were celebrities at W&K's wedding that they didn't know personally, but David and Victoria Beckham are not an accurate example, they, at least David, knew William without a doubt. 

The reason people bring up the celebrities angle with regards to H&M is it has been reported that celebrity invitees like Oprah had either never met them or only met them once in the days leading up to the wedding (after they were already invited).  At the time, I think the general public thought well, Meghan's an actress so these are her friends and acquaintances within the industry.  But that turned out not to really be truthful.  By marrying Harry she was able to connect with those people, wherein her Hollywood career she never really attained that level.  Of course, one could state that to Meghan inviting Oprah to her wedding was comparable to inviting the American Ambassador to the UK to W&K's wedding.  Because Oprah has the type of public currency in her world that an Ambassador would have within the world of the someone in direct line to be the Monarch like Charles or William. 

The make up of wedding attendees for us common citizens is complicated enough, I'm sure the attendees for weddings with both personal and political objectives, that are going to be viewed by millions, maybe even billions, carry complications it would take books to work through all the way.    

[louisa05]

4 minutes ago, Melbelle said:

David and Victoria Beckham were invited to the William and Catherine's wedding because David and William were friendly.  They had met and done various projects together through William's work as Patron/President of The Football Association for the UK.  William began that work in 2005 and is well known as a huge soccer/football fan throughout his life.  It is likely there were celebrities at W&K's wedding that they didn't know personally, but David and Victoria Beckham are not an accurate example, they, at least David, knew William without a doubt. 

The reason people bring up the celebrities angle with regards to H&M is it has been reported that celebrity invitees like Oprah had either never met them or only met them once in the days leading up to the wedding (after they were already invited).  At the time, I think the general public thought well, Meghan's an actress so these are her friends and acquaintances within the industry.  But that turned out not to really be truthful.  By marrying Harry she was able to connect with those people, wherein her Hollywood career she never really attained that level.  Of course, one could state that to Meghan inviting Oprah to her wedding was comparable to inviting the American Ambassador to the UK to W&K's wedding.  Because Oprah has the type of public currency in her world that an Ambassador would have within the world of the someone in direct line to be the Monarch like Charles or William. 

The make up of wedding attendees for us common citizens is complicated enough, I'm sure the attendees for weddings with both personal and political objectives, that are going to be viewed by millions, maybe even billions, carry complications it would take books to work through all the way.    

Pay attention, though, our troll is talking exclusively about Victoria Beckham not David. Clearly, he should not have been allowed to bring his wife.  
 

why don’t we talk about Gayle King being invited to the infamous baby shower? There’s a completely opportunistic invite. She publicly said she’d never met H or M. Then she was deputized to gush about it all on television. 

[tabitha2]

This tiresome person feels a compulsion to respond to and argue will absolutely everything.. can’t we just agree to ignore it? 
 

Now. Meghan has rather predictably  turned her two cents to the Abortion issue… another bandwagon to get a moments publicity by?   

 

 

[Coconut Flan]

For good news, I'm building my collection of troll memes.

Today we have a new entry:

[LilaMae]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

Now. Meghan has rather predictably  turned her two cents to the Abortion issue… another bandwagon to get a moments publicity by?   

 

 

Yes, undoubtedly. Of course, it's a very important issue. This is the piece that Meghan did with Gloria Steinem:

https://www.vogue.co.uk/arts-and-lifestyle/article/meghan-markle-gloria-steinem-abortion-rights

 

[prayawaythefundie]

I don‘t see a problem with Meghan commenting on the SCOTUS decision. She identifies as a feminist, so it‘s consistent with her interests and not random.
 

Senior royals are traditionally expected to stay neutral on politics (though some bend that „rule“ regularly) but everyone knows the Sussexes left, so this can‘t really be mistaken for the BRF meddling with American politics. This is one of their newfound freedoms, I guess. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[viii]

Of course Meghan spoke up about it. I’m not sure why anyone is surprised. It probably is Meghan jumping on another bandwagon, she has a history of doing that, but this time it actually aligns with her “interests” or whatever. 

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

I don‘t see a problem with Meghan commenting on the SCOTUS decision. She identifies as a feminist, so it‘s consistent with her interests and not random.

Senior royals are traditionally expected to stay neutral on politics (though some bend that „rule“ regularly) but everyone knows the Sussexes left, so this can‘t really be mistaken for the BRF meddling with American politics. This is one of their newfound freedoms, I guess. 

I don’t see a problem with Meghan commenting on the reversal of Roe.  It’s a topic that just about everyone is discussing right now.  I don’t have a problem with her giving her opinion on anything— celebrities do it all the time.

What I will criticize (whether it is Meghan or someone else doing it) is making comments or appearances in a way that calls attention to oneself more than the issue that one supports.  I cannot say that this is the case here because legalized abortion is very much a feminist issue and Meghan seems to be very much a feminist.  Further, as an American citizen she has the right to speak up about something that greatly impacts American women.

[tabitha2]

Unfortunately at this point It’s just so easy to doubt her intentions and her genuine commitment to anything. I want to be proven wrong about her this time. 

[anjulibai]

 Meghan's discussed women's rights before, and reproductive rights are a part of that. It's not surprising to pivot to this from other aspects of women's rights when it is such a major right that has just been taken away. There's so many other issues we should be focusing on for improving women's lives, it's sad we have to go back to something that was settled long ago. And it's scary to what this could lead to. 

[Jackie3]

7 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

What I will criticize (whether it is Meghan or someone else doing it) is making comments or appearances in a way that calls attention to oneself more than the issue that one supports

Reproductive rights are going down the drain, and you worry Meghan Markle will get too much attention?

I don't think women should worry about how loud they are on this issue. The louder the better! I understand you want Meghan to be quiet and demure when she speaks up. Fortunately, she may have other ideas.

Frankly, I don't think any woman should remain silent about this!  Especially a woman with a public platform. If she gets "too much" attention, who cares? Why does that bother you, anyway? What bothers me is the loss of reproductive rights. 

I hope she appears on the cover of People, if that helps bring attention to this issue. It doesn't bother me if she feels  satisfied with herself (which seems to be your concern). If she is able to draw attention/money/political clout to fixing this issue, then have at it, Meghan! Dont' worry about people who tell you how to talk.

 

7 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Unfortunately at this point It’s just so easy to doubt her intentions and her genuine commitment to anything. I want to be proven wrong about her this time. 

 I think she'd have been criticized harshly if she'd remained silent. If you care about abortion rights, you'd rejoice for each and every voice that was raised in protest.

 

[louisa05]

12 hours ago, anjulibai said:

 Meghan's discussed women's rights before, and reproductive rights are a part of that. It's not surprising to pivot to this from other aspects of women's rights when it is such a major right that has just been taken away. There's so many other issues we should be focusing on for improving women's lives, it's sad we have to go back to something that was settled long ago. And it's scary to what this could lead to. 

Three problems I have with this: 

1–She’s presented as some sort of expert on the issue. The interviewer claiming she’s equal to Gloria Steinem and one of the only two people capable of “putting (the ruling) in perspective”.  You have to be doing hard drugs to believe that. 
2–She mostly talked about herself as per usual, even identifying herself as supposedly having difficulty accessing reproductive health care due to race. That’s pretty gross coming from someone with wealth and extreme privilege. 
3–When this news broke, her priority was that someone take that ridiculous picture which tells us everything we need to know about her. 

[Four is Enough]

Well, the thing about Meghan is that she can't be both. 

If she wants to be the Duchess of Sussex, she has to toe the BRF line, and not express her opinions on the subject. Perhaps she could be present at the opening of a women's care center, but not the keynote speaker.

If she wants to be the Hollywood "influencer", she can't be the Duchess. For one thing, she's living in America and we don't have those. For another, she's stepped away from the role of royalty. For a third, she has to learn what she's talking about a lot better.

She should make up her mind. If she wants to single handedly revamp the BRF, she's going about it the wrong way. She may chip away at things, but she's not going to "fix" it all in one fell swoop. And since honey draws more flies than vinegar, she should mind the way she talks to people and the things she says to them.

[EmCatlyn]

14 hours ago, anjulibai said:

 Meghan's discussed women's rights before, and reproductive rights are a part of that. It's not surprising to pivot to this from other aspects of women's rights when it is such a major right that has just been taken away. There's so many other issues we should be focusing on for improving women's lives, it's sad we have to go back to something that was settled long ago. And it's scary to what this could lead to. 

As I said, I don’t think there is anything wrong with Meghan speaking up about the repeal of Roe.  She is not the only celebrity doing so.

I am not a celebrity, and I have been speaking up about it.😉

The way I look at it, however, the issue wasn’t “settled long ago,” and I think that was the problem.  The ERA never passed.  Women do not have the constitutional protection that we need.  We have relied on “interpretations” that could be re-interpreted. We need to work for laws that will protect women’s rights.  The most important right is surely the right to decide what happens in your own body.

Everyone should speak up about this.  

Edited July 2, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Editing errors

[WiseGirl]

22 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

This tiresome person feels a compulsion to respond to and argue will absolutely everything.. can’t we just agree to ignore it? 

The "ignore user" button is a beautiful thing.