[quote BringBackThinEyebrows]@KidneyBeans
So by your logic, your online criticism of Prince Andrew is 'odd' because you don't know him.
The media interest surrounding Harry is driven by the connection to the Royal Family more than anything. It's quite a unique situation where someone who has grown up in the Royal Family, probably never had to sign a NDA, is willing to share private information about his own family. Marmaladeagain didn't make Prince Harry famous.
People have complained about overexposure, e.g. Piers Morgan featuring on several TV shows, paid to write articles, frequently trending online. But if they wanted to analyse and criticise something Piers said, they're welcome to do that too while saying they're sick of him. That's not "supporting a celebrity you don't like", that's "discussing the news".
I don't believe for a moment you've never been aware of public figures being discussed and criticised online.[/quote]
So by your logic, your online criticism of Prince Andrew is 'odd' because you don't know him.
Not at all, because a preponderance of evidence exists in the case of PA that doesn't exist with M&H. I haven't said that knowing someone directly is the only way of forming a judgement about someone. However I do think forming a judgement based only on insubstantial news reporting by the Royal Rota is an inherently flawed approach, and that continued engagement with that reporting sustains the problem of 'overexposure' that seems to upset the very people that create it.
There is clear evidence that PA has been long term friends with a convicted sex abuser and fraternised with trafficked women. I don't need to know him to interpret that evidence and form a judgement.
I don't put H&M's media overexposure (largely driven by the people who criticise them) in the same category. I see no clear evidence of them making similar poor choices or consorting with criminals in the same way. So to me those situations are very different.
Fascinating that you'd think they are equivalent though!