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.

They are still using her maiden name I notice.

Sloppy journalism there.

I don’t mean to sound patronising but I think maybe the people getting het up about Andrew ShOULD do some research. The accusation is not that he knows a paedophile, the accusation is that this paedophile was procuring young, sometimes illegally young women to farm
Out to his “friends” of which Andrew was one.
The unproven accusation is fairly obvious.

TheFormidableMrsC

Can’t you read? He was still friends with Epstein AFTER Epstein’s pedophilia conviction. I’m sure the Queen would let Rolf Harris paint her after his conviction

@Hithere12

And people say anything to get in the papers - I even found an article accusing our Queen and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, with the pope and the CIA hunting naked human children for fun. Are you the sort, who if reads this silly bollox in print actually believes it ?

www.ign.com/boards/threads/european-royals-killing-naked-children-for-fun-at-human-hunting-parties.454091193/

Prince Andrew did more than just have a photograph taken with Epstein. The cover up of their friendship is appalling. It's not like Epstein's behaviour is a sudden surprise.

And I do judge people who did tacitly consent to Saville's behaviour by not speaking out and enabling him to carry on for as long as he did.

YANBU but I wouldn’t expect better from the DM.

They are still using her maiden name I notice.

I wouldnt get too hung up about that - for identification purposes, women tend to retain their maiden names - Elizabeth Woodville, et al even 400 years later

It's just embarrassing. I honestly cringe on the DMs behalf.

@Hithere12 Why are you being rude? Who is "he"? I was referring to the fact that nobody accused the Queen of being in cohoots with paedophiles. Yes I can read, thank you but I know little of the Epstein case so I am not in a position to comment.

IAsk Up to her to decide though, not the DM.

Sarah Vine just fancies herself as some edgy provocateur. She will be so happy she's trending on Twitter.
As for the DM-I would not line a budgie's cage with it.

IAskTooManyQuestions

Just like with most rape accusations they are near impossible to prove, but what can be proved is he continued his friendship with Epstein after he was a convicted pedophile.

They are still using her maiden name I notice

I’m not absolutely sure I know what the royals’ surname is. Mountbatten-Windsor? Wales? Cambridge?

They still use Kate Middleton too so this one is actually personal to Meghan

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

I disagree totally. My perception of her is a publicity hungry woman who if reports of those in the media are accepted was looking for a wealthy famous English man long before she met Harry. If you start from that premise and then tub thump about your humanitarian credentials you know you are going to be scrutinised and subject to critism. The cost of her baby shower in NY compared with banging on about the environment carbon footprints is a case in point.

Personally, I think this DM article is fair enough. Anything people in that position buy and are seen to wear/use in publicly sells out instantly and they know it.

It's no bad thing to draw to public attention to the manufacturing process because A) it means the sellers are scrutinised and have to answer for it to the media - if that includes in the long run increasing the pay to the workers paid a pittance that's a good thing and B) if it means the Royal family style advisers pay a bit more attention to their sourcing before endorsing goods by using them publicly - again in the long run it will benefit the workers.

These workers were being paid £70 a month to make a shawl that sells for £33.

I’m pretty sure it’s “Windsor”

I haven’t seen this but I did see a suck-up article about Boris Johnson’s mistress at the weekend. Some people in the comments were pointing out the mistress bit, and how she’s behaved. They got an absolute kicking. It’s mad that they have a go at MM, who wouldn’t be able to do any of the things they are complaining about without Harry onboard, but write in glowing terms about Johnson’s extramarital shag

The cost of her baby shower in NY

But Serena Williams paid for the baby shower? It wasn’t tax payer funded? Most papers deliberately left that out

www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/royals/meghan-markles-baby-shower-cost-dollar200000-and-serena-williams-paid-for-it/ar-BBTR7SX

I’m not a fan of MM but this is day in day out negative coverage for every small thing she does. It’s like a witch hunt. And yes she’s an American, so her baby shower would be in America where most of the people she knows lives.

Sometimes I wonder how much I would be paid if I were hired to shill PR online. 🤔

The DM is going after MM just as they did with Diana.
If you must read the DM do not click on those stories. No clicks = no revenue.

The shawl story is pathetic but she gives them ammo. The preachy humanitarian stuff gets people's backs up and when you are preachy if your own actions aren't seen as above reproach then you will be targeted.

She claimed to want to 'hit the ground running' when she became royal which is admirable but hasn't really left any room for her to take her time, develop a 'relationship' with the public and see how things are done. Much of that is Harry's responsibility and that of the woeful PR they have too.

How many times have you met her tellit ?
If the answer is never you are basing your ridiculous comments on hate rags like the DM. Good luck with that.

My perception of her is a publicity hungry woman who if reports of those in the media are accepted was looking for a wealthy famous English man long before she met Harry

Why would you believe those reports from “anonymous sources” when so much of what’s reported is utter crap?

She could do right though. She just gets it very very wrong. She's appalling.

She just gets it very very wrong.

How?

they did it to Margaret, Diana, Sarah, Sophie, Anne, Zara, Kate, both the York girls, its Meghans turn
Only women. I wonder how they can get away with being so blatantly misogynistic.