Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Harry and Meghan-part 2

999 replies

BertrandRussell · 01/07/2019 07:45

Following on from this -it was just getting interesting. Someone posted about how Meghan called herself a feminist but hadn’t earned the title. I was interested to know how you earned the title- but the thread ended.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
escapade1234 · 03/07/2019 19:55

They’ve probably asked a whole host of celebs to be godparents and want to avoid the fall out.

crispysausagerolls · 03/07/2019 20:00

They both need to step away from the RF and bugger off and do their own thing (paid for by themselves)

ChardonnaysPrettySister · 03/07/2019 20:00

They probably don't want the ones they left out to know who the chosen few are.

Or they've been turned down and had to go B list.

mrscampbellblackagain · 03/07/2019 20:01

But we would love some celebs as godparents - imagine Barack holding Archie with George in the background. That would seriously break the internet Wink

IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 03/07/2019 20:02

Maybe they haven't asked W&K and don't want to draw attention to it.

There's another thread going on about whether the monarchy has a future. In their shoes I'd be mindful of not showing such contempt for the people who keep me in clover.

IABUQueen · 03/07/2019 20:02

They both need to step away from the RF and bugger off and do their own thing (paid for by themselves)

Why only them specifically?

MauritiusNext · 03/07/2019 20:02

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

OhDearGodLookAtThisMess · 03/07/2019 20:04

Hmm.
I've always been a bit of a Royalist, and defended them on here numerous times (name-change often).
Sorry, but this is one step too far. Fine, if they want a private Christening and private life and whatever the hell privacy they want. But they can fund their fucking 2.4 million quid refurb "privately" as well, then.

derxa · 03/07/2019 20:04

In doing all these announcements about privacy they're just hyping up interest. It's a very silly game

JaimeBronde · 03/07/2019 20:07

Fabulous idea MrsC (that's a compliment btw)

There are far more important things that deserve the vitriol that H&M are getting.
Oops I didn't realise that this thread is about H&M, aren't I the dizzy one today.......

IABUQueen · 03/07/2019 20:10

If the public opinion of Meghan has been rather disrespectful to Harry I think it’s in the best interest of the Royal family to give less access to the public to information they can use to abuse and trash Meghan.

Really. It’s simple.

There has been little respect for Meghan in the papers from the get go. If there wasn’t and they just wanted privacy for the sake of it then I understand.

But clearly she and her husband have the right to protect themselves..

And they are royals because they are part of the royal family and have to deal with what that brings.. for life. Including being treated as less than since they’re not heirs to the throne. Their kids being treated as less significant. Their names and history being known to the paper before they’re known to each other... their families being up for public scrutany.. gosh that would send anyone to a breakdown...

I have a problem with the whole royal family. But not with specific individuals just because they’re not fit for purpose. The whole institution bugs me but singling them out is not fair.

FannyWork · 03/07/2019 20:25

There have been 4 pictures......

Not of the Christening, unless you have a time machine.

And the Christening actually is very much a matter of protocol because the monarch is head of the church and the RF are supposed to support that so an event like a Christening is an important & significant rite which is usually publicly acknowledged in some form by the RF. In the past this has usually meant a couple of photos and a paragraph of details.

This has recently also developed into part of a deal with the UK press that occasionally Royals issue posed pictures of children (often taken by KM in the Cambridge’s case) at significant times (Christenings, starting school, birthdays) in return for an agreement they’ll otherwise be left alone to live as children and won’t be papped or followed when living their day to days lives.

That is why what the Sussexes are doing is very, very odd for people claiming that they want privacy. For start if people genuinely don’t want attention they generally don’t make lots of announcement saying that they don’t want attention.

Secondly, if they do want privacy there’s a very successful system in place that the Cambridge’s have already used. I find it curious they’ve not gone down the same road, knowing it is so successful.

Original poster
BertrandRussell · 03/07/2019 20:37

“There have been 4 pictures......

Not of the Christening, unless you have a time machine.”
No, of course not of the Christening. 4 pictures so far.

OP posts:
MsMaisel · 03/07/2019 20:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JaimeBronde · 03/07/2019 20:37

Interesting blind
blindgossip.com/the-shows-and-no-shows/#more-98797

Original poster
BertrandRussell · 03/07/2019 20:40

But the secret godparents thing is deeply strange. Particularly as it is bound to come out really quickly. Could it be because they are “celebrities” so not wanting the place to be mobbed? I don’t think that’s a good reason- but it is a potential reason.......

OP posts:
noodlenosefraggle · 03/07/2019 20:41

They know the Queen didn't bother to go to Louis'christening so she probably won't turn up for Archies. They can then claim The Queen disapproves.

ChardonnaysPrettySister · 03/07/2019 20:44

But what if they are celebrities?

If anything The Cloonnies, Oprah, Serena and so on are the being mobbed by the press anyway, so if anything they are well prepared for this. What's going to change for them? They are mega super uber famous anyway.

FannyWork · 03/07/2019 20:45

He should look at Edward and Anne for examples of how to just go about your business doing a lot of engagements every year. But they seem content to be the supporting stars and I am not sure Harry

Yep, and this is another thing where if H&M were given better advice, examples from other royals would have been useful to them.

He is the spare, not the heir. The last two people to do the same job have failed dismally. Margaret wad adored as a young woman but turned into a rude, unpleasant, snobby boozer who was bone idle but insisted others around her followed protocol by the letter. She ended up living on Mustique with a toyboy and had a stroke when she scalded her feet in a red hot bath pissed.

Andrew was a hero out in the Falklands but he and Fergie were hugely unpopular and ran up sky high debts and lived a jet set Eurotrash lifestyle mixing with some extremely insalubrious people who showered them with gifts, bribes and bungs, whilst doing little actual Royal work.

It’s frequently the same story. If spares are reconciled to the fact they’re in a supporting role and one which will only ever dimish, they do usually get on well (Anne, Edward). If they hang onto their own profile for their own dear life then they end up with trouble.

And given how quickly H&M have started with the PR guff and conspicuous displays of wealth doesn’t bode well for them.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 03/07/2019 20:49

if they do want privacy there’s a very successful system in place that the Cambridge’s have already used. I find it curious they’ve not gone down the same road, knowing it is so successful

I can't quite work out what you have in mind here ... ?

ajandjjmum · 03/07/2019 20:52

I thought it had already been announced that the Queen had another engagement.

dreamyspires · 03/07/2019 20:55

It doesn’t get much worse with these two. Secret godparents now? There’re an absolute joke. They want to exclude the very people who work their arses off paying taxes, that enables them to live lives of indulgence and sheer luxury. It’s like they’re deliberately trying to antagonise. Time for them to stand down, have all the privacy they want. Time people stopped excusing their awful behaviour too.

dreamyspires · 03/07/2019 21:02

Oh don’t be ridiculous, they’re handling the christening in the exact same way the Cambridges (and in fact all royals) handled all their kids’ christenings, except for not releasing the grandparents’ names ahead of time
That would ring true if they had kept a lower profile before the baby. They were more like the Kardashian’s then, now the total opposite. They seem to be playing mind games.

FannyWork · 03/07/2019 21:03

Could it be because they are “celebrities” so not wanting the place to be mobbed? I don’t think that’s a good reason- but it is a potential reason.......

IMO we’ll know the names, dress size, alma mater and eye colour of everyone involved by next week.

I get the feeling it’s going to be like the birth when they said they weren’t going to announce it for days then said they’d been misunderstood and we’ll they’d tell the press when she’s in labour, then did neither of those. They actually did the announcements in a pretty straightforward way but the whipping up of the ‘has she/hasn’t she’ hysteria made it a massive story instead of just a big one.

Put it this way, if they hadn’t made that announcement today, very, very few people would know or care what was happening at his Christening. But now they’ve made his Christening and the Godparents national talking points by claiming they want it secret.

It’s just PR guff. Next week they’ll just be claiming it was a misunderstanding and releasing pics of Amal, AOC and Oprah gurning round the font.