Harry & Meghan 10: Even Less Relevant to the BRF

[LilaMae]

I've said it before, but honestly, Meghan really needs to get back on twitter. Twitter/Instagram/etc. are designed for people to give short statements on their own lives or current events, and it wouldn't look as strange if she was just tweeting about stuff after it happens like every other celebrity. Instead, she makes a huge thing of writing letters/articles or publishing official statements on her website, which makes people believe that she's actually planning to make maternity leave/gun control/whatever into a big deal that will be followed up by her Archewell charity. Only it never turns out that way, and I'm starting to think it's because Meghan is basically trying to do social media without actually using social media. 

And I agree that Harry and Meghan need to stop using their British titles. In an American political context, it comes off at best as ridiculous and at worst like they are trying to leverage their aristocratic privilege.

[Jackie3]

15 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

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.

 

Why can't she? 

Actually, she IS the Duchess and she is expressing her opinions. So it's possible.

[EmCatlyn]

13 hours ago, LilaMae said:

I've said it before, but honestly, Meghan really needs to get back on twitter. Twitter/Instagram/etc. are designed for people to give short statements on their own lives or current events, and it wouldn't look as strange if she was just tweeting about stuff after it happens like every other celebrity. Instead, she makes a huge thing of writing letters/articles or publishing official statements on her website, which makes people believe that she's actually planning to make maternity leave/gun control/whatever into a big deal that will be followed up by her Archewell charity. Only it never turns out that way, and I'm starting to think it's because Meghan is basically trying to do social media without actually using social media. 

And I agree that Harry and Meghan need to stop using their British titles. In an American political context, it comes off at best as ridiculous and at worst like they are trying to leverage their aristocratic privilege.

Good point.  I certainly think she has the right to speak up on anything that interests her, but I finds the way she speaks up comes across as a bit pompous, as though she had an inflated view of her own importance.  You are absolutely right that if she were just posting to her instagram page or the social media of her choice, it would come across as more spontaneous and closer to what most other celebrities do.

As far as the titles go, I just find it weird that they use them so much in an American context.  Meghan is a US citizen, and unless she is attending a British social event, she has no need of the title.  Harry likes to present himself as “just folks,” so what’s with bringing forward the title so much?

Maybe they just haven’t finished reinventing themselves.

[tabitha2]

Remember when she got private numbers and started calling female politicians?  Oh she thinks she is important shit. All she did was annoy them in reality. 

[EmCatlyn]

Quote

[It has been] reported that the couple was filming a behind-the-scenes look into their home life in Montecito. The docuseries, which is thought to include their two children as well, doesn’t have a title yet. However, it’s been dubbed “Keeping Up With Sussexes” and according to a royal expert, will have to have some drama just like Keeping Up With the Kardashians or any other reality TV show.

“For any good fly-on-the-wall documentary, you need some tension, you need drama, otherwise, it’s just boring, isn’t it?” royal editor Richard Eden said (per the Latin Times). “You know, Netflix, they do want bang for their buck.”

Harry aand Meghan Moving Ahead with Reality Show

 

I have run into speculation that the Sussex children will be included in the “ducu-series” about the Sussex’s life.  So far has no confirmation.

It would be ironic if they left the RF for privacy but end up having to give up privacy to make money.  

[just_ordinary]

22 hours ago, louisa05 said:

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. 

Very true. There is no real rule that keeps the royals from being public about their political opinions or from voting. It’s a choice for them. Only the monarch is in such a position really. I mean Charles had no problem writing to politicians to influence or to speak out about Ruanda(?) just last week. Also- the UK (and lots of European countries) are thankfully not as polarised in many topics. Mandatory masks, vaccination rules, climate change or even abortion. There’re enough countries that are ok with certain compromises. For the abortion example that might mean you can have one without getting persecuted. That gets often accepted even by the people that are in general against abortion (it’s not as if anyone is pro-abortion but making it possible as a necessary „evil“ or choice). Many conservatives here are fine with or are least accepting legal abortions and enough left wing people were against a mask mandate and stayed anti-vacc.
So the royals are fine to speak up about a lot of things that can be seen as political or merely humanitarian or whatever. 
I have no problem with them showing their colours and getting vocal, be it climate change, violence against women, deportation or abortion. 
My problem is when they are presented as experts when they are clearly not. When they have to bring everything back to them. When they jump from cause to cause, depending what’s hot on the news only to forget all about it when the next thing comes around.

Sadly, H&M look a lot like piggy back riding on those topics. And EVERYTHING is kind of their problem as well. It can never be completely about others. Not saying the others do it much better, but they also don’t try to appear as humanitarian saints as much.

[viii]

3 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

It would be ironic if they left the RF for privacy but end up having to give up privacy to make money.  

They didn’t leave for privacy, they left for privacy on their terms. If they want to show their children in a documentary, that’s their choice. What they didn’t appear to like was the expectation from the royal rota and whatnot. 

[LilaMae]

1 hour ago, just_ordinary said:

Very true. There is no real rule that keeps the royals from being public about their political opinions or from voting. It’s a choice for them. Only the monarch is in such a position really. I mean Charles had no problem writing to politicians to influence or to speak out about Ruanda(?) just last week. 

There are no real rules, but Charles has caught quite a bit of flack over the years over trying to interfere in politics even at a low level. 

 

3 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I have run into speculation that the Sussex children will be included in the “ducu-series” about the Sussex’s life.  So far has no confirmation.

It would be ironic if they left the RF for privacy but end up having to give up privacy to make money.  

It would make a bit of a mockery of all the fuss that was made when Archie was born about pictures/godparents' names etc. 

The Sussex children are at awkward ages for a docu-series. They're obviously too old for the whole "Guess what I'm pregnant/just had a new baby!" excitement, but too young to do anything interesting. There have been reports about Harry and Meghan doing a docuseries since around autumn last year. When it comes out, will people even be bothered about the events that it is portraying?

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, viii said:

They didn’t leave for privacy, they left for privacy on their terms. If they want to show their children in a documentary, that’s their choice. What they didn’t appear to like was the expectation from the royal rota and whatnot. 

Everyone says that, but it doesn’t ring true. They reveal much more of their private life than anyone else. They’ve announced stuff like first words about their kids (probably exaggerated), Harry filmed his therapy session, M tips the paps when she shops or whatever.  (photos are all from Backgrid—a company that supplies pap photos in request and gives the subject a cut in return for being told when and where to get photos). And, of course, they spilled their guts to Oprah for international broadcast. 
His family has and maintains far more privacy. None of it was ever about privacy at all. It’s about making money giving away their lives which they could not as working royals. 

[viii]

2 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Everyone says that, but it doesn’t ring true. They reveal much more of their private life than anyone else. They’ve announced stuff like first words about their kids (probably exaggerated), Harry filmed his therapy session, M tips the paps when she shops or whatever.  (photos are all from Backgrid—a company that supplies pap photos in request and gives the subject a cut in return for being told when and where to get photos). And, of course, they spilled their guts to Oprah for international broadcast. 
His family has and maintains far more privacy. None of it was ever about privacy at all. It’s about making money giving away their lives which they could not as working royals. 

You clearly missed my entire point. They left for privacy on THEIR terms, which means if they want to call the paps and spill all the inner details about their family, that’s their prerogative. They wanted their blabbing to be on their terms, and not the Firms. 

Of course they'd do well to sit back and lay low but they clearly don’t want to. They want to exploit every connection they can, which is their right, no matter how tasteless or annoying it seems to the rest of us. 

[louisa05]

40 minutes ago, viii said:

You clearly missed my entire point. They left for privacy on THEIR terms, which means if they want to call the paps and spill all the inner details about their family, that’s their prerogative. They wanted their blabbing to be on their terms, and not the Firms. 

Of course they'd do well to sit back and lay low but they clearly don’t want to. They want to exploit every connection they can, which is their right, no matter how tasteless or annoying it seems to the rest of us. 

Their terms do not equal privacy at all. So that defense needs rephrased. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

I’m reading the Duke of Kent’s new memoir. It’s interesting. It was written during lockdown, and his co-author, Hugo Vickers, observes pointedly that the Duke was able to live a fulfilling life, do lots for charity, and support the Queen, all within the system. It’s a reasonable point, but I do think that Harry’s had far more press and public intrusion into his life than Eddie Kent. Not to mention that his wife Katherine was anonymous to the point of being a school teacher, and certainly didn’t have the same experience as Meghan. (And yes, I get that was largely because they behaved very differently.)

[EmCatlyn]

Has Lillibet been christened?  I wondered (briefly) when the first birthday picture came out, and apparently other people do also.

Quote

…[R]oyal followers thought that maybe Lili would be christened this June, as the entire family flew to England to celebrate the Queen's Platinum Jubilee. At the time, royal correspondent Richard explained his thoughts to Express on how it could potentially happen.

"Lilibet, as far as we know she hasn't been christened yet and this is just speculation but I think quite a lot are wondering whether the family will use the time here to have a small, private christening…”

Good Housekeeping

Clearly she was not christened during the brief Jubilee visit, so do we think she was christened quietly already or is she still unchristened?  I don’t think Meghan would care about christening, but would Harry feel Lilibet was being denied something if she wasn’t?

Incidentally, if Meghan and Harry decide not to christen the kid, that is definitely their right — just as it is their right to get paid by paparazzi for their pictures, or control their narrative, or put their kids on a reality tv show or give speeches about anything they want.  No one here is saying that Meghan and Harry don’t have the “right” to do anything they want to do.  We can, however, snark about it.  That’s our right.😉

[viii]

Y’all reach the hardest to twist words. 

And no - I doubt she is christened yet. We would have heard about it by now if she was. Harry and Meghan struggle to keep things to themselves. 

[Jackie3]

 

On 7/1/2022 at 3:07 AM, tabitha2 said:

t’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. 

I'm glad Kate isn't a social climber, at least!

 

 

Quote

The drama queen and attention seeking in a matter of opinion.

 

I'm glad Kate isn't attention seeking! 

 

Edited July 4, 2022 by Jackie3

[prayawaythefundie]

@Jackie3 Wait, haven‘t you been praising Meghan for defending women‘s rights? Are you really slut shaming Kate for that dress now? That‘s hilarious! 🤣

Edited July 4, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[Jackie3]

10 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

@Jackie3 Wait, haven‘t you been praising Meghan for defending women‘s rights? Are you really slut shaming Kate for that dress now? That‘s hilarious! 🤣

I'm sorry you see a "slut" in this picture.

It must be difficult to see a "slut" in every woman who looks good. You might want to try to reframe that in a healthier way.

I understand, though. It's hard not to be jealous of such youth and beauty, isn't it? But calling her a "slut" is shaming. 

I see a pretty young woman trying to gain the Prince's attention.  

 

Edited July 4, 2022 by Jackie3

[louisa05]

52 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

I'm sorry you see a "slut" in this picture.

It must be difficult to see a "slut" in every woman who looks good. You might want to try to reframe that in a healthier way.

I understand, though. It's hard not to be jealous of such youth and beauty, isn't it? But calling her a "slut" is shaming. 

I see a pretty young woman trying to gain the Prince's attention.  

 

She was modeling for a friend’s fashion show for charity. She likely didn’t choose the outfit herself. And the story that it got William’s attention is one more piece of tabloid gossip that very well may be made up. 
I’ve asked people this before: how could William have met a woman that people would consider acceptable and not cast her as the gold digger or social climber or whatever? They met at university as many couples in the world do. The only answer I’ve ever got is that it would have been acceptable had he married a member of the aristocracy.  And that is just classism. Which would be mighty ironic if it’s your answer. 

[tabitha2]

You gotta know there were many many young women trying/ hoping to gain his attention. There were other aristocrats or  socialites in his circle just as pretty or more so, just as rich and connected but she had something that set her apart in his eyes and kept them together for years.  I think She had the qualities to be wife and future Queen he needed and he realized this. 

[LilaMae]

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

I'm sorry you see a "slut" in this picture.

It must be difficult to see a "slut" in every woman who looks good. You might want to try to reframe that in a healthier way.

I understand, though. It's hard not to be jealous of such youth and beauty, isn't it? But calling her a "slut" is shaming. 

I see a pretty young woman trying to gain the Prince's attention.  

 

You know exactly what you were doing, so quit your bullshit.

[prayawaythefundie]

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

I'm sorry you see a "slut" in this picture.

It must be difficult to see a "slut" in every woman who looks good. You might want to try to reframe that in a healthier way.

I understand, though. It's hard not to be jealous of such youth and beauty, isn't it? But calling her a "slut" is shaming. 

I see a pretty young woman trying to gain the Prince's attention.  

 

What? Wait… what? I was calling YOU out for slut shaming her, darling. You might want to look that up. 😉

[viii]

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

I see a pretty young woman trying to gain the Prince's attention.  

Maybe Kate did switch universities to attend the same one as William. Maybe she did participate in a fashion show in the hopes to catch his eye. Regardless of all the “maybes” that we don’t know, we know that the Firm is fiercely protective of their own. Kate and her family would have been heavily scrutinized and William must have felt that there was nothing suspicious in her behaviour. He must have been confident enough in her motives. Considering they’ve been together for over twenty years, continuing to question their beginning just seems dumb. They clearly get what they want out of each other, so who are we to say otherwise?

Edited July 4, 2022 by viii

[just_ordinary]

I mean Kate and her mother didn’t force him to the altar at gunpoint. They might have tried to put her in his way and be as agreeable as possible but that is no guarantee for a relationship or marriage to happen. I hate the narrative of “snatching someone” by plotting. Because it completely underestimates the motives and feelings of the other party. As if the other one is a brainless sponge. William must have seen something in Kate to go through with all of it. If it’s love, passion, convenience, her family, bring able to still sleep around…..a bit of everything? I don’t know. My personal believe is that it’s less passion but a comfortable love and friendship, with him being happy she fits in well enough and her family has been filling in for his for a long time. I can see him marrying her partly for her family. They definitely took him in and grounded him through his more difficult years. I seriously doubt he married on a whim and had some clear ideas. And I do believe Kate went in eyes open. She definitely opened her families door to other circles and is the future Queen of England. If there were no affection whatsoever I doubt they would still be together.
 

There are lots of rumours what Kate and her mother have allegedly done. As with most stuff my guess is 75% is made up and 20% are highly exaggerated. And again it’s always the women. Where was her father in all this? And if it were true, Wiliam would be a spineless idiot and should never be given any responsibilities because he is apparently to dim to think for himself. 

[louisa05]

3 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I mean Kate and her mother didn’t force him to the altar at gunpoint. They might have tried to put her in his way and be as agreeable as possible but that is no guarantee for a relationship or marriage to happen. I hate the narrative of “snatching someone” by plotting. Because it completely underestimates the motives and feelings of the other party. As if the other one is a brainless sponge. William must have seen something in Kate to go through with all of it. If it’s love, passion, convenience, her family, bring able to still sleep around…..a bit of everything? I don’t know. My personal believe is that it’s less passion but a comfortable love and friendship, with him being happy she fits in well enough and her family has been filling in for his for a long time. I can see him marrying her partly for her family. They definitely took him in and grounded him through his more difficult years. I seriously doubt he married on a whim and had some clear ideas. And I do believe Kate went in eyes open. She definitely opened her families door to other circles and is the future Queen of England. If there were no affection whatsoever I doubt they would still be together.
 

There are lots of rumours what Kate and her mother have allegedly done. As with most stuff my guess is 75% is made up and 20% are highly exaggerated. And again it’s always the women. Where was her father in all this? And if it were true, Wiliam would be a spineless idiot and should never be given any responsibilities because he is apparently to dim to think for himself. 

Go check out the video of them on the red carpet at the Bond premiere when she wore the gold dress. He’s practically drooling. There’s some passion still. After 20 years. 

[Jackie3]

12 hours ago, louisa05 said:

She was modeling for a friend’s fashion show for charity. She likely didn’t choose the outfit herself. And the story that it got William’s attention is one more piece of tabloid gossip that very well may be made up. 
 

It was a university charity show. The theme was "The Art of Seduction." The student who designed the dress did not know Kate. Read up on it! 

So, yes, the Art of Seduction, lol. That was the name of the show. However, I would challenge people who call Kate "a slut"-- that's really offensive. She was an attractive girl trying to get a boy's attention. There's nothing slutty about that!

But it was certainly an attention-getting dress (actually it was a skirt that she decided to wear as a dress). Here's what Newsweek had to say about it.

Quote

It's a look-at-me, sexual shout-out, reflecting both the youth of the wearer—Middleton is now 29—and the culture of its times. 

Do you feel it's OK for Kate to seek attention (as she surely was), but Meghan should keep her head down low?  Why?

10 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I mean Kate and her mother didn’t force him to the altar at gunpoint. They might have tried to put her in his way and be as agreeable as possible but that is no guarantee for a relationship or marriage to happen.

They were attention-seeking. But you're OK with that, if it's Kate!