The absolute state of the Daily Mail (re Meghan Markle)

[Hithere12]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7298013/Meghan-Markles-organic-baby-shawl-used-swaddle-Archie-workers-earning-37-PENCE-hour.html

This is there top story. Meghan is using a cheap shawl & DM have found the factory it was made in.

She’s been criticised non stop for her spending, uses something cheap and the DM visit the sweatshop it was made in! I’m sorry but we are all guilty of this, very few people I’m sure track down where everything they buy is made and how much the staff are paid.

It’s just getting ridiculous how they’ll find literally anything to criticise.

If the DM want to expose sweat shops (something they care little about usually) they have the resources and man power to do so but they don’t give a shit they just want to go after Meghan.

Explain your definition of a role model.

Somebody who has achieved in a way that you would like to and who reminds you that things are possible. Someone who is flawed and gets things wrong, but who “persists”. Someone who has overcome obstacles. Someone who speaks our for what they believe.

A little more critical thinking about what constitutes a “good cause” and how those causes can best be advanced would be welcome.

Somebody who has achieved in a way that you would like to and who reminds you that things are possible. Someone who is flawed and gets things wrong, but who “persists”. Someone who has overcome obstacles. Someone who speaks our for what they believe. Fair enough but you can find people like this in your own community.

I'm sure a lot of people considered this woman a 'role model' until it all came crashing down. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camila_Batmanghelidjh
Conversely many people considered Germaine Greer a 'role model' but now she's been no platformed.

“A little more critical thinking about what constitutes a “good cause” and how those causes can best be advanced would be welcome.”

Actually, I think the support the DofS has given to The Hubb Communiry Kirchen, one25 and SmartWorks is pretty well thought our. What am I missing?

separatelives

When a royal " supports" a charity it doesn't require anything arduous on their part.

Exactly. That should really go without saying but it looks as e actually have to TYPE IT OUT!!

as if we

Bertrand you almost make it sound like M and H are completely without fault.

dexra

If you slavishly follow the beliefs of another person then surely that is a cult. Or religion. And I know how much you hate religion, Bertrand

Indeed.

Completely without fault? Saintly you mean? Hmmmmmm

“Bertrand you almost make it sound like M and H are completely without fault”
Not if you’ve read my posts I don’t. For example, the post where I said I have no time for anyone who hunts or plays polo. I have no idea what Meghan is like as a person (unlike many others on this thread!) I am only talking about her public persona, which I have no issue with- and which I prefer to many other members of the Royal Family.

Bertrand you almost make it sound like M and H are completely without fault.

That’s not true at all now is it? Re-read the posts.

Woke causes are rejuvenating the monarchy.

How very confusing for all woke folk.
Defending the monarchy by definition is not on the list of woke causes, but suddenly it’s de rigeur to defend Meghan from the normal cut-and-thrust that everyone in public life is subjected to. Becoz she’s a victim. Yeah, sure she is.

Bertrand that's fair enough, but just going off her public persona, why does it merit such strong defence of her. Like you say, you don't know her, her public persona is just how she presents herself to the world. It's not the real her, so why do you care so much.

I do think woke and Brexit are my two most hated words in the English language.

i do think woke and Brexit are my two most hated words in the English language.

Why?

Bertrand - and actually all undying Meghan supporters - not to pick on Bertrandrussell here as it’s for all;

what do you think of Meghan not showing up to the Invictus medal ceremony in Oz because she was tired - though she would have been giving prizes to ex servicemen who had their limbs blown off? She (as above) made it to lunch in a pretty dress, so not THAT tired. She was pregnant, yes, but not limbless in defence of other people’s rights. And the people who said to Harry “where’s your wife!” And he shouted back “pregnancy is taking its toll!” To amputees. Who must have been a bit surprised when she swooshed forward an hour later apparently fine. I feel the queen would have said “go to Invictus - nap over lunch”.

And what do you think of Harry deciding not to go to the Royal Marines’ memorial in favour of schmoozing at the Lion King premiere? Do you think the donation outweighs his attendance at a military memorial? Is £3m or £1m or £500k worth him ditching his commitment to lives lost in military service. These are genuine questions as I think largely H&M roll with the punches and there are loads but these are two things that have been rarely brought up and I find difficult to defend. I don’t care what she wears at Wimbledon, I don’t care what she spends, I don’t care if he wears shoes or goes barefoot in front of billionaires and says be environmentally friendly. He’s not wrong! I do, however, think if you say you’ll be at a military memorial that Disney should not be able to buy you out. But I am open as to why H&M supporters can give this the thumbs up as I have cast about and so far not found a reason I can get behind but I can’t think of everything! I do support them. The papers have it in for them. 90% of crappy articles are so mind crushingly teaching for pointless criticism. Laverne Cox is not Meghan. Etc etc.

@BertrandRussell your post at 13.39???

I never ever normally pipe up on these threads but just watch in horror. But you claim to remember the absolute roasting that Sarah Ferguson got in the press?? Don't you remember the Duchess of Pork headlines? And the hideous polls about people rather fucking goats??? Come on. That's a million miles worse than allegations of excessive bump rubbing and over-consumption of avo on toast

But you claim to remember the absolute roasting that Sarah Ferguson got in the press?? Don't you remember the Duchess of Pork headlines? And the hideous polls about people rather fucking goats??? Come on.

Completely agree with this. I am an old gimmer and remember the absolutely shocking vitriol “Fergie” received at the time. And unlike today, there wasn’t a way for her friends and supporters to defend her. It was a one way street as far as the media went and she was absolutely slaughtered.

I think people are just pointing out as WashPosh above does the inherent issues with behaving the way they have been.

Duty, and service above all else is what the Queen does. It’s not that difficult to work out.

The younger ones need to work out where their priorities lie.

Yes the RF don’t (often - although Harry is fond of saying how unfair everything is) often respond to criticism and they get it.

However there is a clear case to be put here that the woke, lefty liberal agenda championing what are political causes, no matter how well meaning or how popular they are with royal fans and / or republicans is a step into territory which is dangerous for them longer term.

They are in “danger” of becoming something controversial political figures, pushing an agenda (even if rooted in “save the world” type language which few could actually disagree with) which really lays in the political and corporate sphere.

Being seen to be pushing too much in one direction with its myriad of vested interests, sponsors and money involved, could lead to great unpopularity.

This is the domain of elected political leaders and officials, civil servants, not self appointed guardians of what is right, the sixth or seventh in line to the throne and his wife. Not whilst they benefit from an ultra, luxurious, very wasteful and excessively privileged lifestyle which has been and is mostly funded directly or indirectly by the taxpayer, including the poor.

The Head of State can rightly be seen as first and foremost a diplomat and has certain licence.

A representative and a part of the Foreign Office’s work, in a way.

I’m not sure the D of S and his new wife can be seen or should ever be seen in the same way nor given licence to act as such.

If they want to push specific agendas, or simplistic answers to complicated questions they should be in politics and renounce their royal positions and their public funding.

I very much doubt they would. Like Princess Margaret, they like the trappings, power, and access. It’s cold outside, having to make your own way and pay your own way.

But they are not there to “lead” us and tell us how we should be living, not least when they live in a way which does not practice what they preach.

@Janista. Totally agree.

I also am a firm believer that there has been a massive fall out within the RF about this and how to deal with it. It’s very clear that H and M have said “we’re doing what we like and you can’t stop us”. The rest will sit back and watch as it all eventually blows up and hope they don’t get caught in the fallout.

The absolute best thing for a member of the Rf to do is work hard, quietly and without an egotistical agenda. Sophie, Edward and the Queen are examples of this. Sophie champions a lot of very important causes but she doesn’t make it all about her. She understands she is a public servant.

Meghan in my view is someone who likes attention. She has a big ego and she doesn’t like being constrained or restricted. I suspect she doesn’t like being advised and does not listen.
She doesn’t seem particularly interested in learning about this country and its culture, more concerned with moulding herself on rich US celebrities and courting favour in those circles.

She seems tone deaf to public opinion. If she’s criticised, her response seems to be to pull up the drawbridge and refuse to play ball. That is just going to make things worse.

If it’s true that the Queen has asked Sophie to mentor her, that would be a very good thing. But somehow I doubt she would listen. She is intent on doing things her way and that doesn’t work unless the public are behind you. Diana became a bit of a renegade but people loved her.

The criticism of Fergie was awful, but she made some really poor decisions and paid no attention to public opinion. It was her downfall. Fergie also loved the trappings of wealth and fame but didn’t understand the obligations that come with it.

I’m sure Meghan means well, but she thinks she can operate as a private citizen , turn up to a few public events and take the money and privileges, whilst keeping the public at a distance and lecturing us on how to live.

Choking laughing at the idea that Sophie Wessex is everything a royal should be and someone Meghan should model herself on.

She did far more actual damaging stuff in her time than Meghan (despite the frothing). Have you forgotten all this stuff?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2001/apr/09/qanda.derekbrown

Personally I’d never judge any woman for pulling out of something during pregnancy. She was first trimester (correct?) and in the midst of a gruelling tour.

Who knows what was going on with her, but I’d believe she was wrecked and needed the break. Shitty to judge her. She’s been very supportive of Invictus at all other times.

What’s the evidence for her ‘wanting to be a private citizen’ again?

As we keep pointing out, she’s enthusiastically carried out her royal engagements.