Sussexes and bullying campaign

[DeepThinkingGirl]

Hi everyone !

Does anyone find the constant bullying of the Sussexes to affect their mental health ?

I find the mainstream misogyny to be a reflection of how society really does view women as a whole and how othering it is of people of other cultures.

I think baby Lilibet would be very sad to know the world received her with such strong opinions against her naming. It’s really sad that the world so full of hate doesn’t provide a nice place for kids to grow confidently.

I feel like if this happens in a powerful royal family, what’s there to hope in your average family!

Btw I have in law issues and I find the attitudes towards the sussexes triggering and upsetting

I’m mystified, what “volumes” does it convey?

@Gorgeouslilgirl

What does it mean a “source is good enough”? What is the standard of proof they need to show?

And if it is indeed all above boards and robust, why can’t these sources be named? After all they are hardly whistleblowers at risk like Snowden!

If they are not speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the Head of State, then they are simply gossiping, no? What they are saying are not matters of public interest.

What the lawyers are checking for is that the media outlet isn’t laying itself open to an expensive libel case. If something is at all controversial, the lawyers need to be satisfied that the judge would consider the source good enough to support the claim being made, if it went to court. So they’d the standard that has to be met; would a judge believe it, basically.

Snowden was an absolute rockstar but it ruined his life. Is he still stuck in Russia? Not sure but he went through the mill.

Most people can’t afford the blowback or there’s a lot of office politics involved, so they are happy to meet the journalist, and the journalist verifies their identity and their info (and often there is a long term relationship between a source and a journalist) but they don’t want paparazzi staking out their house or whatever, so they don’t want their name published.

OTOH, sometimes a higher up will want something leaked and get a friend or employee to do it on condition of anonymity (that happens on business, it’s also something Camilla Parker Bowles did a lot on Charles’ behalf in the nineties when he wanted to get his side across- she was always an unnamed source). MM certainly does that. All sorts of very famous people do that. Sometimes they ring their favourite journalist themselves and it gets attributed to “a friend of...” when it’s published. Princess Diana used to do that a lot, and then after she was dead some of the journalists involved were free to discuss it.

That’s basically it. Obviously Snowden is at the whistleblower end of things and you also get anonymous whistleblowers, then everything through to gossip columns and the Palace is a very special case. But at the end of the day you need to be able to “stand up” what you publish.

"I’m mystified, what “volumes” does it convey?"

That her patience is shot, and she's no longer going to tolerate Sussex "sources" spouting nonsense, in the belief that the Palace will remain silent and not refute anything.

H&M were part of the institution and working royals when lots of rubbish was published, with “unnamed sources”. The palace should have clamped down then.

Except it gets more complicated still, because there is more than one palace. Kensington palace issues W&K’s communications, Prince Charles’ come from Clarence House. Most of the others come alongside the Queen’s out of Buckingham Palace.

The Sussexes did have their office with the Cambridges at KP, but moved it to Buckingham Palace when they moved Jose to Windsor. However they still kept briefing the media directly and contradicting their own press officer (something Harry’s mum also did). It’s a big old complicated mess.

House not Jose!

“ Most people can’t afford the blowback or there’s a lot of office politics involved, so they are happy to meet the journalist, and the journalist verifies their identity and their info (and often there is a long term relationship between a source and a journalist) but they don’t want paparazzi staking out their house or whatever, so they don’t want their name published. ”

Ah, they are happy to dish gossipy dirt but don’t want any blow back?

In the meanwhile there are real investigative journalists out in HK and other countries, who take their work seriously, not as “gossip” mongers.

No wonder we have Brexit and BJ! There is a paucity of fourth estate doing their job seriously.

@CallmeHendricks

"Rubbish" has been printed about the Royals for ever and a day. It's not unique to Harry & Meghan, regardless of what they might have us believe. The Royals have always adopted a "least said, soonest mended" approach. Their stance has always been that to respond just give legs to the whole thing. Of course they weren't going to go public and say "oh, by the way, in the run-up to the wedding, emotions were running high and so-and-so got upset because such-and-such thought a, b or c." Can you imagine the precedent that would set, and the can of worms it would open. To be honest, no one CARED who cried, if anyone of both did.

The fact that the Queen has let this be known at this time (after ALL this time) speaks volumes!

Yes I absolutely agree.

It’s a huge move. All very interesting to watch.

I think baby Lilibet would be very sad to know the world received her with such strong opinions against her naming

I suspect she will be sadder to know she was named as part of some weird PR move to pretend that , despite the Sussexes slagging off their whole family and everything the Queen stands for, they respect the Queen. Because they aren't stupid people - even the staunchest of Republicans can't say a bad thing about Elizabeth II. The minute they show disrespect to the Queen herself, any iota of support crumbles.

Notice how in their Oprah interview they fawned over how lovely she was whilst seemingly ripping apart the other family members, and everything the RF - who their beloved Queen is head of - is about

@CallmeHendricks

"I’m mystified, what “volumes” does it convey?"

That her patience is shot, and she's no longer going to tolerate Sussex "sources" spouting nonsense, in the belief that the Palace will remain silent and not refute anything.

Like what?!

Whether K made M cry?

Any thing that appears in the rags about the RF?

Or only if it is something related to H&M?

May be it means that there will no longer be ‘unnamed sources” but everything will be through proper transparent channels and spokespersons? Like, you know, most head of states?

Also, the pair of them are hardly leading the quiet unassuming life with the paparazzi hounding their every move. They, like other celebrities, are purposefully putting themselves out there to be judge. Isn't rule number one that celebs have to take the bad with the good. They aren't entitled to be adored by everyone, and can't cry "bullies" when people dislike them. and their immense wealth and privilege must surely stem the blow of a few meanies online?

• Ah, they are happy to dish gossipy dirt but don’t want any blow back?

In the meanwhile there are real investigative journalists out in HK and other countries, who take their work seriously, not as “gossip” mongers.

Yes I do agree to an extent, that war reporting and human rights journalism seem more important.

OTOH, what happened this week was a bit more than gossip. The apparent topic was a baby’s name but that’s a McGuffin. This is a power play at the palace. It is about who is in charge and whether the Queen in going to be undermined on an ongoing basis.

The fact that our country is (anachronistically) headed up by a squabbling family makes it seem like a series of Dallas, but that’s the issue really. Can the monarchy keep its dignity and public image together despite Andrew and Harry and the other rogue members and keep enough public approval to survive?

It would be a really weird ending to a thousand years of history if H&M were the catalyst for a republic.

The Royals have always adopted a "least said, soonest mended" approach.

Then how come William and Kate throw tantrums and use extreme legal threats whenever anything vaguely negative is published, or even non-negative things they want suppressed, including making false allegations that leads to Channel 4 outing them as being liars?

"throw tantrums?"

Really? If that's the kind of exaggeration and misrepresentation you resort to, there's no point conversing with you.

Just once I'd like to see a Meghan Basher actually stick to the subject, rather than attempt to derail the thread into personal abuse at every single opportunity.

Where is the personal abuse?

@ohforarainyday

The Royals have always adopted a "least said, soonest mended" approach.

Then how come William and Kate throw tantrums and use extreme legal threats whenever anything vaguely negative is published, or even non-negative things they want suppressed, including making false allegations that leads to Channel 4 outing them as being liars?

Examples?

@ohforarainyday

The Royals have always adopted a "least said, soonest mended" approach.

Then how come William and Kate throw tantrums and use extreme legal threats whenever anything vaguely negative is published, or even non-negative things they want suppressed, including making false allegations that leads to Channel 4 outing them as being liars?

Could you explain what you mean? I have no idea what the Channel 4 thing is. Not entirely keen to guess what you might mean by “tantrums and extreme legal threats” or “suppression”, either.

The complaints (public letter of complaint plus legal threats) over the Tatler article for taking the piss out of Kate and calling her middle class.

William's extreme over-reaction (invoking "human rights violation) over a little article about Kate falling out with a neighbour which is made the William/Rose Hanbury affair rumour go viral in the first place because people couldn't figure out why William was having such an extreme overreaction to an article that wasn't even about him.

That's not counting the absolute flood of "palace sources say William thinks this" or "palace source says Kate is upset about that", which obviously could be made up, but there are an awful lot of "palace sources" leaking stories that are positive towards the Cambridges and essentially put their side of the story across, and it's on the record that Cambridge staff have leaked or in some cases sold stories to the tabloids.

Channel 4 filmed Gordon Brown arriving at Holyrood Palace for a private, unpublicised meeting with Will and Kate. C4 were planning to run an expose on Will and Kate holding secret/private political meetings. Kensington Palace censored this and killed the story by making a false allegation that the footage had been taken on private property. Channel 4 News said the footage had all been shot while standing on the public street outside the palace, and pretty much said that Will and Kate were lying in order to try to cover up their political meeting. The meeting was later added to the court circular after the fact.

Ah well I would say there’s three elements at play in those examples of K&W’s approach to press relations:

1. There is a certain amount of antagonism that both brothers feel towards the press, and concomitant protectiveness towards their wives re the media, and it isn’t always entirely helpful and has occasionally been a definite bad thing. Both of them have spoken about their feelings towards the media and both have confirmed that it’s due to their childhood experiences with their mum and the photographers. Sometimes a problem in both camps but W&H are both stubborn sods so what can you do?

2. I think the whole Hamburg thing possibly did become an issue between the Sussex and Cambridge camps and that causes it to just explode. (I think the rumour got dragged into the row between the brothers but I’ve heard different versions).

3. I think the Gordon Brown thing was a genuine political gaffe and it was their press people that jumped all over it, trying to put out the fire, not W&K personally.

There is definitely a sensitivity that both brothers share about media, though, and it’s coming out in different ways and different points, and maybe William worked it out of his system a bit while Harry was still suppressing everything, but neither of them are over it yet and it has certainly caused overreactions from both of them. I agree with you there.

Hanbury not Hamburg

You know what I completely agree with you. I think those are very reasonable and well-reasoned points.

(Sometimes I surprise myself. )

Ha!

It’s nice that some of us can agree sometimes.