Harry & Meghan 14

[yolofish]

A thread for those who wish to discuss what's in the news and what your take on it is.

I think it must be what happens on threads designed to attack a family, this is the kind of atmosphere that is created

Not goady, not goady at all

Is someone going to tell me now that the last 14 threads haven't been that? They were designed to tut tut, and attack MM. Otherwise why name the last one Harry & Megan ....watching and waiting.

Blackandwhite I have on previous threads corrected things that are wrong. Not just as my opinion.

Rocking I dont think the "other side" is not thinking independently. I think we have each of us looked at what's out there and taken a view. These views dont align. It was ever thus with "issues."

That is actually very true OVienna

katie what actions? I'm open to be educated about her actions! But no doubt, my slant on them will be different to yours!

Rousette if you read back the threads from the beginning there is more than enough discussion about Ms actions to answe your question.

There are 14 threads, I'm not scrolling back through 14 of them to find negativity about MM's actions, because it's a common theme on them anyway.

well if you can’t be bothered to read the threads properly you can’t expect us to summarise.

That's just it though, isn't it? The posters who have participated see the discussion in a different way.

Well then Roussette you can't be that interested in the answer, so why bother asking?

And what's wrong with watching and waiting? Why can't people be interested in seeing what they do next

The last one I saw in the Sun was 'The five times Meghan Markle has upstaged Kate Middleton – and how Kate got her revenge'

Ha ha - how Kate got her revenge. That's just ridiculous!

Stories about Harry's friends not liking Meghan have been circulating since before the 'step back' announcement - here

My DS is also studying politics at uni. There are numerous seminars about primary and secondary sources, critical thinking etc.

He's been raised with a huge dose of scepticism when it comes to the tabloid press, but one exercise they did was really interesting.

They evaluated old tabloid stories regarding Charles and Diana's marriage between 1983-1988. When the stories quoted 'close' sources, they calculated a 90% accuracy rating. (By comparing against data sources which are now accepted as fact).

What does this piece of anecdotal trivia mean? Absolutely nothing! Except maybe that I no longer think that just because it's in a tabloid means it's automatically false. Or true.

And in other news, drum roll please... @sussexroyal has finally overtaken @kensingtonroyal on Insta!

11.1m followers vs 11m.

OK. I do not find MM's 'actions' deplorable like you do. I watch the press, I'm engaged here and out of this bubble, I read a lot! Not once have I thought 'oh god Meghan, that was awful.' I've skimmed over the threads, some I have read more than others (found some of the comments horrible and depressing, hence me not reading them word for word.) Don't worry, I won't ask next time, you just spout about 'her actions' and we'll leave it at that.

I read elsewhere that there are bots adding their IG accounts. This person said they've had to unfollow Sussex IG three times despite never having followed them. I do take it with a very large pinch of salt 🧂 obvs but I know this is done.

Who put up the photographer who took those candid shots of TM being measured for a suit in Mexico. Why did they do it? ( apart from money) Who tipped off the DM a month later; that there was CCTV in the Internet cafe; to prove it was a set up...

www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/kent-snapper-took-staged-markle-photos-183017/
www.coleman-rayner.com/about/
www.thedailybeast.com/inside-coleman-rayner-the-ruthless-paparazzi-who-almost-derailed-the-royal-wedding

If Coleman and Rayner are ex tabloid then they did not need to be employed/put up to take photos...they may work freelance and sell to the highest bidders. Only motive is money. Rayner has contacts from his time as a British paparazzo. Karl Larsen according to that Daily Beast article took photos of Thomas Markle looking crap: he works for that agency. Those earlier pics were touted and published in the Fail, Scum etc Rayner then sweet talks Thomas into new shots despite his agency having fat-shamed slob-shamed him beer-shamed him in the first place.
As for other paps, they know the score, can smell set-ups and in the case here, interview/follow up on anyone else in the pics like the pretend tailor David Flores.

Giving your opinion isn't goady! Labeling it as goady is a way of dismissing a comment without engaging with it.

People are justifying their view of these threads, and that's their right. I see them as much more harmful than a group of friends having a chat, and certainly not intelligent discussion. It's my right to have this view as well.

I'll disagree with people. As an overall point about many of the comments, they seem widely speculative and the worst possible interpretation of Meghan and Harry. So it leads to questions about why someone would draw such a conclusion. Again labeling this goady or nitpicking is trying to dismiss the criticism without addressing it. Fine, but a strange way to act on a discussion forum.

(To save time, I will assume that people who've already claimed I'm goady for giving my opinion, still think so. See above!)

I actually think that tagging people in seems a bit like targeting? It would be lovely if maybe people avoided it? Then it wouldn't seem quite like bullying? Just a thought.

Very true, callmeadoctor

Some interesting and insightful posts on this thread.

Yy to Toascznello's post at 21:49 re Leaving the Services. These are additional challenges for Harry.

On MM's charity work, when invited to do something with the UN she asked to shadow an intern for a week to understand what the work was about. I find that commendable.

However despite having looked for evidence of work she actually did, I can only find reports of "visits", "meetings" and "talking to", so I think that's basically it, she rocked up, talked to them, and had her picture taken. It's better than nothing, but until she married Harry I'm not sure what influence or profile she brought to the organisations she was involved in.

The article about Doria is interesting. I have said before I didn't get the love for her, as there was so little to go on. Her influence is not as benign as people think, imho. I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt re the house in Beverley Hills, it might be a security issue that Harry feels obliged to cover.

I share other poster's relief that things appear to be going quiet at least on the publicity front.

They will be far from quiet in the offices of BP, as various settlement permutations are worked out.

You weren't expressing an opinion Rocking just making a spurious claim that these threads were setup to attack a family. That's why I accused you of being goady

We're discussing public figures. No one has set out to attack anyone. Apart from a group of people in the thread whose collective name I shan't use because they don't like it

I can also correct falsehoods

Roussette

Blackandwhite
I wonder who leaked the info to The Sun?I have no idea. No one knows. But if your go-to reading is the DM, I presume you would guess at MM!*
I have no idea. That is why I stated that I wonder who leaked it.

My go to reading encompasses many on-line newspapers including DM.

No. I wouldn't guess at MM. I can hardly see her going directly to a newspaper to leak this story. I can believe it was one of H&M's team or a friend though. Perhaps leaked because Harry is not able to realise the implications of his/their decision on the RF and the complexities of it and him being a man in a hurry. Maybe a journalist friend in the know? Who knows?

It looks as if you were responding to me in your next couple of quotes as you haven:t referred to another poster when quoting. Just pointing out they weren't comments I made.

I read elsewhere that there are bots adding their IG accounts. This person said they've had to unfollow Sussex IG three times despite never having followed them.

I'm sure there are thousands of bots following both accounts, but the overtaking seems legitimate. H&M were always about 600,000 behind W&K - then their following surged after they made the announcement they were leaving the RF. Which makes sense, as there was huge publicity over the whole debacle thing. They've then been neck and neck for several weeks, and have finally overtaken.

I'm sure there will be a story in the Daily Mail soon - "Kate and William FUMING as Harry and Meghan eclipse them on Instagram", or some such like

The mentionitis of The Trump Threads. I feel as though some posters are attempting to impose their own preferred academic standards, as is in place on T T T

I don't think there's any one way to debate on this forum.

To me, some people seem to want to follow that standards of the gutter press, 'post whatever speculation you fancy, who needs proof?' and others follow the standards of the DM comments section 'post anything, as nasty as you like, free speech, banter, it's my opinion etc'. Most people fall between these standards and 'academic standards', myself included.

It's a polarised thread, both sides struggle to see the others perspective. I agree with posters who are pointing this out. I'm happy with my standards. We can all just follow our own.

Someone on
These posts mentioned Doria being more prominent than we thought and today there is an article about this and her influence on the couple.

well if you can’t be bothered to read the threads properly you can’t expect us to summarise.
Well said Sunset.

It really would be better for the RF to have a policy of no Instagram accounts for any of their members.

MM has abandoned her plans to become a British citizen - how will this pan out?

I thought they couldn't use social media much , but that's obviously not true.
I guess with William and Kate it's more restrictive , but I don't follow any of them so no idea! I suppose M and H have more freedom now?