Deletion message makes no sense in context of thread

[Pelleas]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_royal_family/3978326-could-meghan-still-be-queen-if-the-cambridge-s-were-killed-in-a-plane-crash

This thread was deleted with a message about having a single thread in relation to Harry and Meghan, with a link posted to a message about racism. I don't understand this in the context of the thread, which was a hypothetical question about the line of succession, to which many had posted informative responses. I didn't see every response on the thread, but it didn't seem to be critical of Harry and Meghan in its tone. I'm not contesting the deletion if MNHQ thought it warranted, but the content of the deletion message didn't seem to reflect its content at all - could MNHQ possibly explain this further?

Hi Pelleas, we took the thread down after receiving a number of reports that its sensationalism was not in the spirit of the site ('if the Cambridge's were killed in a plane crash') and was turning into yet another 'Meghan thread'. Our deletion message acknowledged the original intention of the discussion (a hypothetical discussion about the line of succession) whilst attempting to provide some context around our moderation of threads on this subject.

Hi Michael, thanks for your reply.

It seems rather unfair to label the thread's premise as 'sensational' when there's been a lot of recent news coverage of the concerning fact the Cambridges still fly together (e.g. www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1279552/royal-travel-prince-william-kate-middleton-prince-george-travel). There is a risk attached to this behaviour and given that taxpayers (we Mumsnetters!) are funding it and have a very legitimate interest on who becomes our future monarch, it's very reasonable to ask the question of what would happen should there be an accident. If you like, the question is 'in the public interest' and it was acknowledged in the OP that it isn't something anyone would want to happen.

I didn't think it was turning into 'another Meghan thread' - it had moved on to a very interesting discussion about the line of succession in general, and whether Archie's dual citizenship would enable him to be President of the United States.

"It seems rather unfair to label the thread's premise as 'sensational' "

I don't think you'd even see a headline such as that in the Sun or DM, so yes, it's completely sensational. It's also in unbelievably poor taste and goady.

Do you really have nothing more interesting to fill your hours? I can recommend some good books if you like .

The question of what is interesting and how a person wants to 'fill their hours' is a subjective one, KaptainKaveman. Is there a particular reason why you think I should abandon what interests me in favour of what interests you?

There is a risk attached to flying in a plane - it isn't poor taste to acknowledge it, and I don't think you understand the term 'goady' if you think it's 'goady' to refer to it.

Where you the op of that thread @Pelleas? What a random thread to write and then to get annoyed it's gone! Agree with captain v v poor taste!

No, I wasn't the OP of the thread - I was just enjoying the ensuing discussion.

I was just enjoying the ensuing discussion

Yeah I bet you were.

Did you actually read the thread, Kaptain? We were talking about the line of succession.

I'm not much of a monarchist, so no. I don't fantasise about them dying in plane crashes though.

Just the thread title was enough tbh.

It’s a shame the thread went

Yes I know it was a crap title, but the actual contents (about the line of succession) was interesting (especially the bits about Edward VIII and impact on HMQ)

It hasn’t become dominated by anyone (except perhaps Prince Andrew) st the point up to which I was reading it

Assume it must have veered badly after that point

SouthernComforts Do you not understand the difference between a hypothetical question and a 'fantasy'. I might post a thread asking, for example, 'What would happen to my house if my husband and I died in a plane crash?' - that doesn't mean I am 'fantasising' about it.

If it was just the title that was upsetting people, it could have been amended to a more neutral 'if the Cambridges were unable to succeed to the throne' rather than losing the whole thread.

I think people who didn't read the thread were assuming it was some kind of thread criticising the Cambridges/Sussexes, but it was a thread about the technicalities of the line of succession and the process of abdication.

People like Kaptain might not be able to understand why that would be interesting, but it's part of life that you have to accept not everyone finds the same things interesting as you do. For instance, I can't understand why someone would find football more interesting than history, but I don't go around telling football fans their interest isn't legitimate and they should read history books instead of watching the World Cup, just because I don't share the same enthusiasms.

And telling a stranger on the internet that they 'need a MH assessment' is an appalling thing to say, when you know nothing whatsoever about the person's mental health.

I agree with you Palleas. I think the post title was worded badly but it could have been amended (which we see happen regularly on MN) but the thread was about succession to the throne. The deletion message mentioning H&M and references to racism are just ridiculous and over sensitive for some reason, like all H&M thread moderation.

Of course they were mentioned in a thread about succession to the throne, but they were not dominating the thread.

I found the references to racism inappropriate and very unfair to the posters on the thread - no one had expressed an opinion on whether they would want Meghan to become queen or not, or, indeed given any comment on Meghan as an individual - the question was, in a technical sense, would it still be possible, given that the Sussexes have stepped back from Royal duties. As a republican, I don't want us to have a monarchy at all but that's an opinion I hold regardless of who those monarchs might be.

There are certain individuals who can't be mentioned on MN, because some posters are obsessed and lose all track of what's a reasonable or acceptable thing to say.

Look at Maddie McCann. We can discuss her now that it's been pretty much confirmed that the parents were not involved. For years any mention of Maddie would get a thread deleted, because there were - quite frankly - some total arseholes who would share hurtful and libellous 'theories' about her death. Some people are just incapable of seeing celebrities/public figures as real human beings. So because of the handful of posters who can't or refuse to control themselves, none of us were allowed to post about Maddie.

It's the same with Meghan. Most people discuss her in a reasoned way. But there's a minority of posters (and often they aren't Mumsnetters at all but people with no posts outside of Meghan threads, who spam dozens of different forums with anti-Meghan stuff, and who sockpuppet like mad and keep registering new accounts after being banned - these people are not MNers who just want to discuss Meghan!) who are completely fixated with hating her, who have completely demonised her to the point they can't even see her as human, who engage in overt racism and spill all kinds of vitriol and abuse.

Look how many threads about the current situation with the Sussexes have been derailed by posters harping on about online conspiracy theories (non-existent sex tape, Meghan being a former prostitute, Archie being a fake baby) or irrelevant stuff that happened years ago like how successful Meghan's acting career was, or why Meghan is EVIL for wanting scented candles/diffusers at her wedding even though Kate had the exact same thing. Almost every thread about the Sussexes gets derailed into an endless recitation of every single thing Meghan's done wrong from birth onward, every single tabloid lie or online conspiracy theory. Often with covert racism and nasty personal abuse to anyone with a different opinion. The haters even insist on gatecrashing the pro-Meghan threads, because they are so fixated on hating her and refuse to accept that anyone doesn't loathe her. It's honestly evangelical, like some kind of hate cult.

It's just the same as the posters who derail every thread about unsolved mysteries with conspiracy theories about the McCanns. MNHQ couldn't police the minority who couldn't behave so they banned it. MM is likely to go the same way if posters don't stop creating dozens of goady threads and just stick to the two long-running threads in the Royal section.

To be honest, I don't bother with threads that are specifically about the Sussexes - as a republican, my view is that whether the conduct of the Royals is beyond reproach or reprehensible, we shouldn't have a monarchy, so for that reason the minutiae of the Royals' private lives is irrelevant to me.

However, I am interested in history (including historical royals), the laws surrounding abdication and primogeniture and general obscure legal technicalities, exceptions, anomalies and loopholes (my apologies to @KaptainKaveman for having dry, boring, academic sorts of interests instead of liking bungee jumping or EastEnders, but it takes all kinds to make a world) and it seems ridiculous that the line of succession should be a taboo topic, especially when Meghan was barely mentioned on the thread.

Most people discuss her in a reasoned way. But there's a minority of posters (and often they aren't Mumsnetters at all but people with no posts outside of Meghan threads, who spam dozens of different forums with anti-Meghan stuff, and who sockpuppet like mad and keep registering new accounts after being banned - these people are not MNers who just want to discuss Meghan!)

Sadly this is completely correct, it's very depressing and it's no wonder Mumsnet wants to try and keep the number of H and M threads to a manageable level. Some of those posters are on other sites bragging about their multiple bans from this site. You wonder what kind of lives they lead to develop that obsession.

I also found the discussion on the succession really interesting, it's a shame these threads tend to get derailed by a minority of people with an obsessive dislike of MM.

I think mnhq has given the reason, why not start another thread on the discussion points you wish to talk about, but without the goady if they died in an plane crash stuff?

So something like “ if William was to abdicate or find himself unable to take the throne what would occur in terms of royal protocol on succession”

I really don’t see why it needs to be about Meghan at all?

Bluntness100 I didn't start the original thread - I agree it's probably not the way I'd have worded the title had I done so.

The OP's original question had been answered and the discussion had moved on to wider points, mainly about long-dead Royals. It's probably not something you could recreate by restarting the thread, as it had 'evolved'.

I think what happened was that some people saw the title, didn't bother to read the thread and thought 'ooh, a Meghan-bashing thread, let's report those nasty posters' - presumably because they're the sort of people who are unable to understand that others might have an academic interest in such things as primogeniture - they clearly have the kind of soap-opera mindset that tells them everyone must either love or hate the Royals based on what various dimwits are saying on Facebook, and are thus unable to grasp that others might have completely different ways of looking at life.

But, hey-ho, the thread has gone and the moment has passed.