Does anyone want a thread for people who are happy for Harry and Meghan? Thread 2

[DaveCoaches]

I wimped out of the other thread title I planned as I thought it might look goady.

But please let’s keep it as the reality-and-let's-avoid-idle-speculation-and-reliance-on-dodgy-sources thread (thanks Seneca!).

She simply cannot handle that

Whereas this comment is based on what evidence exactly?

I never really got the outrage about that either.

Then I am appalled at your attitude to squandering vast sums of money on fripperies.

Then I am appalled at your attitude to squandering vast sums of money on fripperies.

Was Kate’s quarter of a million wedding dress (5 times that) ok then?

Are we in a court of law?! Evidence this and evidence that...

Just catching up with the thread, it's moving fast!

Musing about the curtsying protocol (whatever it may be). What would happen if any of them decided not to follow protocol and refuse to curtsy (or any other protocol, like who enters a room first etc)? I know it would not go down well but I wonder what the repercussions would be if you continued not to follow it, however outdated they are?

So basically, you - being an American - actually know better than the British Queen?

Of course not. I didn't say that I know more than the Queen. I said that certain newspaper information is wrong.

I am American; this is quite true. But it is possible for an American to be educated in British history and related matters.

Kate will be Queen one day. Her position vis a vis fripperies, is different as we all know. ( How many more times??)

Evidence this and evidence that...

It’s so annoying when you can’t just present your prejudices as fact! I get ya

M can spend her own money on what she likes. However, when you're about to become a senior royal and many people in that country are going hungry, you should expect criticism, even if it's your own money. It's insensitive and arrogant.

The same goes for all of them.

Many on this thread are educated in history, I’m sure, but not necessarily merely the history of the British Royal Family?
Do tell @SenecaFallsRedux...

Everycloud12

M can spend her own money on what she likes. However, when you're about to become a senior royal and many people in that country are going hungry, you should expect criticism, even if it's your own money. It's insensitive and arrogant.

The same goes for all of them.

Precisely. The waste is sickening.

Annie, yes thank you for your advice. Let's all aim for less toxicity!

utterly rude and presumptious is an interesting choice of words, often aimed at feminists, although I'm in no way saying that was your intention. And, I can't presume to know Meghan's plans and haven't.

Why not give the swing example?

Because it isn't credible to give an imaginary example when there are real ones. It was stated earlier in the thread that assertions here are subject to more rigorous scrutiny than on other threads, so it makes sense that everyone, from whatever viewpoint.. offers actual, credible evidence where it's required to distinguish evidence from speculation.

For the record, I am happy to agree that there has been unpleasant, unkind, unfair and at times racist media coverage of Meghan. I think we need to be careful about the blanket statements made on that basis (as is also the case in, for example, the sad event of Caroline Flack's death) but hostile coverage certainly exists and I think that was acknowledged by many members of the public when the Sussexes announced their intention to sue the Mail on Sunday. All the comment I saw at that time was along the lines of 'good for you Harry' and expressed the feeling that things had gone too far. It's since then that public opinion has shifted again.

US news outlets get things about the RF and British history wrong often as well. Sometimes I email them to set the record straight. It's just a little service I provide. Sometimes they make corrections. Usually, they ignore me.

The one that bothers me most is constantly talking about the Queen of England as though the rest of the UK doesn't exist. As a former resident of Scotland, I find that particularly objectionable.

Precisely. The waste is sickening

You don't sound sickened over Kate spending vast amounts though.

It's ok if you're going to be queen? It's not wasteful then?

Are we in a court of law?! Evidence this and evidence that...

Laurie said she expected it earlier in the thread. And rocking is a big fan! I'm also happy to share opinions as long as expectations of evidence are applied fairly to all posters.

I think generally people who are not British should certainly not have to bow or curtsy - the latter certainly involves a fair bit of scraping too.

However, within the Royal Family, the niceties should certainly be observed.

Why would someone only be concerned about their own president?! Let's not get personal

I'm also happy to share opinions as long as expectations of evidence are applied fairly to all posters.

Buttery I can give whatever example I choose!

If you think it's not credible, that's your prerogative.

If mumsnet has an issue with me, so be it.

I certainly don't need your permission to post!

The same goes for all of them.

But that standard isn’t applied. Kate didn’t get pulled apart for spending nearly five times that of her (family’s) money.

Yes, she’s higher in the hierarchy, but Meghan was also a senior and working royal. She spent considerably less.

It’s yet another example of her being held to a different set of standards.

On Sunday, Seneca said: Lots of very questionable sources have been cited for all sorts of negative and speculative comments throughout those now 19 threads.

Seneca: *And they're wrong" - what's the source for this apart from your "knowledge" and what you've observed, as you say? Nothing presumably as I've asked and you can't support it and it's coming over as very arrogant to state you're right (and therefore the other person has to be wrong) and that's that without any evidence.

Also, how does a stated feminist reconcile her principles to even only having to curtsy to the queen, if you are right and M doesn't need to curtsy to anyone but the queen? I'm asking as you've stated you're a feminist so might have some insight. Any answer would be fine for debate purposes but not answering looks like you don't have an answer as you agree it's not compatible but won't/can't say that as you don't like to admit you might be wrong on even the smallest of things.

Same with the £56k dress and how that is perceived in terms of humanitarianism? No answer as you can't presumably. That's fine but don't then categorically state you're right when you don't have answers or refuse to answer.

The one that bothers me most is constantly talking about the Queen of England as though the rest of the UK doesn't exist. As a former resident of Scotland, I find that particularly objectionable

It depends on your feelings about the monarchy and your feelings about having independence, if you are a Scot. I am happy for her to be referred to in such a way.

It's far more credible to take historic coverage and use that to predict press reaction that to state that M won't curtesy to "blood princesses" based on nothing as far as I can see.

It's since then that public opinion has shifted again. I definitely agree about the hostile press, I think we agree a lot there.

Definitely mistakes were made too (I do think on both sides!) but the shift in (parts of) the public opinion has been led by the press, who still had their earlier motives plus extra motivation to paint them badly due to the court case and to absolve themselves.