Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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
LaurieMarlow · 09/07/2019 18:38

I didn't realise that there'd be security concerns that the Duchess of Sussex would have that, say, the Duchess of Cambridge (likely to be queen and hence possibly more "important"

It’s not a bald comparison between the two women.

It could be anything. Particular intelligence received on the day. Particular issues with manning that court. Or they may not have had the staff available to secure the area in any other way. I haven’t got a clue obviously, security wouldn’t be my area.

However I don’t see any reason to jump directly to ‘Meghan being entitled’ as the reason, like her detractors are doing. It could be a whole hoard of other things.

BertrandRussell · 09/07/2019 19:08

Oh, shut. I try really hard not to be cryptic, sorry. If someone doesn’t understand me, it’s my fault not theirs. The person who taught my children circus skills (yes, I am that much of a cliche) said that if you miss a ball someone throws to you, it’s the thrower’s fault, not the catcher’s.

OP posts:
MauritiusNext · 09/07/2019 19:14

This reply has been deleted

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

BertrandRussell · 09/07/2019 19:28

“implied H and M critics were racists but they just didn't realise!”

I didn’t think I was implying that. I think I am saying quite clearly that many of them are!

OP posts:
MauritiusNext · 09/07/2019 19:36

This reply has been deleted

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

IncandescentShadow · 09/07/2019 19:41

You know that feeling about someone you get instinctively, they look down their nose at you while cosying up to those who they see as more powerful/rich. You hear stories about their arrogance and bad treatment of people, their body language is fake and for the cameras. They demand their bodyguard goes around disinterested people telling them not to take photographs of you. They aren't especially talented or beautiful a woman but know how to work what they've got to their end game, they have a history of relationships and then discarding their partners when someone richer comes along, etc

  • ignore all that with Meghan Markle, she is a saint. We are not allowed to make negative comments about her. Because we don't know her personally. Even those who do know her personally, such as her father, aren't allowed to. Because, quite remarkably, this paragon of virtue has sprung from a family so awful that the saint herself cannot bear to speak to them or even to invite them to her wedding [even the lawyer/ambassador uncle who got her an internship].

This saint of virtue will instruct us upon how to donate to charity and support worthy causes, with our taxed personal income.

This alone justifies the saint's massive PR budget. Although based on her behaviour at Wimbledon, she does rather like to remind the minions that she is royal now and very different rules apply to her.

BertrandRussell · 09/07/2019 19:42

“. H and M give us plenty of ridiculous behaviour to criticise.“

The Royal family give us plenty of ridiculous behaviour to criticise. There has to be a reason M (sorry H and M) attracts more criticism than the others.

OP posts:
CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook · 09/07/2019 19:54

Speaking of ridiculous behaviour why is Piers Morgan continually acting like a lover scorned? I see him waxing lyrical in that DM article yet again. I know M has supposed history of freezing out people, but in his case it was some pretty average online fandom followed up with a one time drink in a pub - hardly a friendship.

His gripe seems to be her not returning his calls and not maintaining their association and 'confiding' and trusting in him Diana style i.e, providing him editorial fodder.

joyfullittlehippo · 09/07/2019 19:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

derxa · 09/07/2019 19:58

There has to be a reason M (sorry H and M) attracts more criticism than the others. It's as if history didn't exist for you Bertrand
www.history.com/news/princess-margaret-affair-roddy-llewellyn-divorce-antony-armstrong-jones-lord-snowdon
Throughout my 60 years there has been rabid criticism of the Royal Family by the press and the public.

MauritiusNext · 09/07/2019 20:03

This reply has been deleted

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

IncandescentShadow · 09/07/2019 20:14

joyfullittlehippo there isn't a name from that first hand account. Whereas there is a named woman who was told to stop taking photographs who was apparently quite far away. Thats quantifiable evidence that would stand up in court. I don't really care either way, I just find it a bit forelock-tugging to defend everything wrong that members of the RF do as being mistaken interpretation by the peasants.

BertrandRussell The Royal family give us plenty of ridiculous behaviour to criticise. There has to be a reason M (sorry H and M) attracts more criticism than the others.

There has been past press criticism but not as much as you might expect due to their frankly appalling behaviour. And Prince Andrew's rumoured connections with Jeffrey Epstein have gone very quiet. I find Meghan and Harry's behaviour a bit vulgar, a bit noueveau riche in that they court attention but then like to act all grand when it doesn't suit them. Very contrived and not remarkable people outwith the fame that royalty brings.

I know a few older type aristocrats due to my business, and I had a very amusing chat with one of them who told me that the RF were considered inferior in status to many of the older families, who wouldn't want to marry their best into them. The present RF were of course cousins living in Germany who were put on the throne by parliament who wished to avoid a Catholic monarchy. They're not as old as many European royal families in direct lineage and they do behave in a very car crash way at times, considering they are in the public eye. A lot of the more wealthy older families in the UK wouldn't have 'permitted' their eldest son to marry one of the Middletons, as they were too obviously social climbing. The RF can't afford to be so choosy.

I would have been impressed if Harry had married a woman who had had a decent career in one of the professions, particularly if she had been a nurse or a doctor or similar, ie someone who had actually experienced the world of work [unlike Catherine] and was clever. But who on earth would have married him, other than a slightly hardened, on-the-make actress? It suits the RF very well, because she's mixed race enough to appeal to the commonwealth but she's part white and American and a native English speaker. So not too radical a choice. Still going to fit in.

I don't see them as that a convincing couple, particularly with all of Harry's African trips and the example of philandering he has been set by his father. But Meghan is probably a good choice in that she won't care, as she has all the status and privilege she has ever wished for now.

I really wish that we didn't have a RF, its a ludicrous concept in this day and age, particularly when they behave badly. If they were a modicum of respectable behaviour and set a good example, like the Queen, I would see their purpose. But not this lot.

LaurieMarlow · 09/07/2019 20:15

For example, I don’t remember a single instance of Kate bring criticised for touching her bump.

The amount of times it came up here in relation to Meghan was mind blowing.

DidItAgainOops · 09/07/2019 20:21

I know a few older type aristocrats due to my business, and I had a very amusing chat with one of them who told me that the RF were considered inferior in status to many of the older families, who wouldn't want to marry their best into them

What an odious way of thinking.

GlitchStitch · 09/07/2019 20:23

I just find it a bit forelock-tugging to defend everything wrong that members of the RF do as being mistaken interpretation by the peasants.

Yes, this. Apparently the poor sod at the tennis who just wanted a selfie with the court and has now been accused online of being a creepy stalker should have known that having the temerity to stand up in his seat and turn around in the vicinity of M would be problematic.

Funny though how photographic evidence and a named person's account can be dismissed in favour of an anonymous one when it suits.

IABUQueen · 09/07/2019 20:31

I think loyal people usually naturally resist change.. it scares them.

Which is why I think most royalists have a problem with Meghan and those that don’t care about the monarchy don’t see a problem.

I think Meghan having an identity which is not common to the royal family, and celebrating that identity instead of melting into a new one is causing unsettling feelings amongst royalists.

It’s causing such weird witch hunt.. waiting for her to trip to justify why everyone feels unsettled.. she is guilty until proven innocent. Stranger danger and all.

They probably don’t mean to be racist, but her race is one way in which her identity is different and plays a huge part.. it is bound to cause changes to Harry and the royal family and that was Harry’s choice to make not hers. whether it’s being black or being American. And a change that most of us should celebrate in this day and age..

However... what’s unsettling is the type of scrutiny she is getting.. “social climber”, “manipulating Harry”, “she changed Harry”...... not in the same sense any other English girl would’ve been seen..

It’s either misogyny or subtle racism, or I’m inclined to think a combination of both.

Society is vulnerable to misogyny and subtle racism. We still haven’t fully reformed. And the press played on that narrative very well.

Screw your Daily Mail.

It requires active efforts to counteract this narrative to neutralise the effect.. which is why some of us are bothering with this..

Because this doesn’t reflect as much about Meghan as it magnifies the reality of what society is suffering from. And is a clear call for more activism.

IncandescentShadow · 09/07/2019 20:37

IABUQueen I think loyal people usually naturally resist change.. it scares them.

Diditagainoops to be fair, I think they were more concerned to avoid their daughters marrying into a family whose males seem unable to grasp the concept of fidelity or having one woman in your life, and treating people well. Charles had two main mistresses after all. Camilla and Diana Tryon.

IABUQueen · 09/07/2019 20:38

I do think it doesn’t help that they married too quickly. It was their decision entirely..

But as royalists are like the unbegotten children of the monarchy, Its Almost like how a divorced mother needs to give her children time to adjust to a new arrival into their home... they need to adjust expectations and need time for that.

A phenomena that has become a bit exaggerated because of the change someone like Meghan brings to the traditional style of the monarchy.. because she is a “breath of fresh air”.. children like routine and royalists like consistency. :D

I think the rest of us see Harry as a human who has a right to choose..

But many royalists are seeing monarchy as their “imaginary home” with a new invader.. and a very unfamiliar type of invasion.

Oh well.. not sure what the solution is, royalists need some counselling to accept that it wasn’t personal. Grin

LaurieMarlow · 09/07/2019 20:41

Great post IABU I totally agree.

I think people who support a royal system have a clear sense, somewhere inside, of the type of person that should be elevated to this kind of privilege. And it isn’t a mixed race, American actress.

Lots of these feeling will be operating at a subconscious level and the crazy post rationalising I’ve seen on here is an attempt to deal with them.

IABUQueen · 09/07/2019 20:44

So while it’s natural to feel “unsettled” if you are a royalist.. be sure that the reason you feel this way is because of YOU. Not because of Meghan.

Because of harry’s decision to not take your “feelings” into consideration when he rushed the marriage. Not because she was grabbing him off you.

But what’s not acceptable is you justifying your feelings of being “unsettled” with deregatory scrutiny utilising slut shaming, racism and misogyny...

This is between you and Harry. Meghan didn’t owe you anything before the marriage contract and she went into the marriage with her identity as anyone should. Harry made the decisions without taking you into account.

Grin

Hug yourselves and move on. And take it up with Harry children.

GotToGoMyOwnWay · 09/07/2019 20:44

Prince Philip wasn’t wanted as he was a Greek, Kate was a social climber apparently with an air hostess for a mother (shock, horror, Fergie was a breath of fresh air - look how that ended! Marry into the royal family & be prepared to be ripped apart. It’s not just Meghan who it’s happened to - she’s just the latest in a long line.

IABUQueen · 09/07/2019 20:54

BUt really this Meghan phenomena is a chance for society to challenge their threshold on diversity and feminism..

To analyse Social triggers that make us sink into misogyny.. when it comes to relationships and expectations of women.

Find a new perspective on things.

To me, this is a cool social experiment which is why I’m invested Grin. Who is in?

DidItAgainOops · 09/07/2019 20:57

to be fair, I think they were more concerned to avoid their daughters marrying into a family whose males seem unable to grasp the concept of fidelity or having one woman in your life, and treating people well

Ah, so they were saying that the British RF have lower moral status than other, older families. Righto.

IABUQueen · 09/07/2019 21:07

Also might be a notion of “how dare you Meghan think you deserve me to bow down to you, you aren’t the type that I would do that to. You aren’t allowed to look down at me because you and I are equals”.

Well as a non royalist, I believe the same to be for any member of the royal family. I wouldn’t bow down to any of them. I don’t think they should dare be snobby around me. And because they are they’re just not my type of people.

But to royalists, it seems like the rule is breakable for certain creatures but not for others...

“White privilege” and “colonial mentality” spring to mind.

Of course, Meghan doesn’t qualify. She is just like any one of us.. “how dare she become rich without earning it?”.

Welll.... I don’t think anyone in the monarchy earned it. And I don’t think anyone deserved it. And No ONE is privileged over no one, because that assumes the other is inferior which is subtle racism.

If anything, Meghan to me, helps in knocking down this concept of untouchable monarchs and makes it more likely to remove them from history.. she exposes them as vulnerable humans like any of us... Shock

Therefore.. Royalists, I think really, the issue is you. Smile

derxa · 09/07/2019 21:09

BUt really this Meghan phenomena is a chance for society to challenge their threshold on diversity and feminism..
Oh get over yourself

Swipe left for the next trending thread