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!).

I agree with you Laurie

I said the same goes for all of them from my point of view.

I agree that this isn't the reaction that Kate got.

The last Queen of Scotland was called Mary.

Same with the £56k dress and how that is perceived in terms of humanitarianism?

All the royals present as humanitarians and a big part of their job is to support charity.

Doesn’t stop any of them spending fuck tonnes of money on clothes, holidays, horses, art, etc etc.

Also, I'm really trying to avoid any talk of racism, not to deny its part, but because I've read other posts recently of how harmful it can be to see it discussed insensitively.

Talking of Kate she looked absolutely lovely at today's events

Laurie: I never really got the outrage about that either. The tax payer didn’t pay for that dress, it was before she had a clothing allowance. Either she bought it herself or she got it as a gift. Kate spent 5 times that on her wedding dress (also not funded by the tax payer) and there was no outrage that I remember.

First thing it doesn't matter who paid for the dress. It was an outrageous amount - twice the annual salary of the average worker in the UK and therefore didn't sit well with M and H portraying themselves as humanitarians - as they did later. It's tone deaf, especially given the cuts in the UK. Accepting it as a gift is still not good in my opinion, for the reasons above, it's an obscene amount. Kate I believe did spend more on her wedding dress. I think more than M's dress but the cost of neither wedding dress has been brought up in terms of any real criticism. The cost of M's wedding dress hasn't been criticised any more than Kate's. Both extravagant in my opinion.

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 I'm Scottish and I agree. There's no such title as 'Queen of England' now.

Annie, what somebody said on Sunday on a different thread might be considered bringing over issues from other threads. There's lots of debate going on here, and Seneca's engaging!

And, Buttery, yes I am a massive fan of evidence! This topic has certainly highlighted all the different ways to interpret it though. Its part of why I find history fascinating!

She spent considerably less.

The 56K dress wasn't Meghan's wedding dress, though, was it? So if we're comparing that to Kate's wedding dress, we're not comparing like with like.

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

But you've provided no source so what you've stated is merely your opinion on the curtsying situation. That's nothing to do with education.

It's tone deaf, especially given the cuts in the UK.

I’ve heard this argument before and find it difficult to reconcile with the fact that kate got married in 2011 when we were not long out of recession. Surely that was a much worse time to be extravagant.

The last Queen of Scotland was called Mary.

Actually the last Queen of Scotland was called Anne. She was also the last Queen of England. After the Acts of Union, technically those titles ceased to exist.

The 56K dress wasn't Meghan's wedding dress, though, was it? So if we're comparing that to Kate's wedding dress, we're not comparing like with like.

It was still a high profile dress for a high profile occasion.

Also, Kate hasn't tried to portray herself as a humanitarian. It goes back to the private jet thing - yes, they take them, I don't like it but it's not hypocritical unless you lecture on the environment - as per PC and PH.

Same with the dress. I don't like what they spend on clothing especially but I won't be critical unless you try to portray yourself as something else like a humanitarian as it is hypocritical. A £2-5k dress would have done and even that's a lot.

Every: 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. Agreed. Not easy to swallow at the best of times, even less easy when you make out you're about something else.

Do we have a statement from Meghan on her ‘humanitarian’ status?

It was the Vogue thing for me too, I liked her until then, but of all of the amazing women in the world (with xx chromosomes) to platform, she chose a person with xy chromosomes, because they're just one of the best women in the world. Yep, some feminist.

Drina; Many on this thread are educated in history, I’m sure, but not necessarily merely the history of the British Royal Family? And Seneca seems to have appointed herself an expert on the history and current form for curtsying although won't share her source apart from saying it's what she's observed when it is possible there are things that happen behind closed doors none of us know about and aren't privy to observing.

Seneca, it's fine to state something as "fact" if you can prove something is fact. For example you also said Edinburgh people are the nicest. "Fact." Then I came along and said don't be so sure - I know because I'm half Scots (mother from Glasgow) but I grew up on the Edinburgh side. They're not always the nicest - and that is a more believable fact.

I mean not always the nicest blindly and without question - Scots are definitely very friendly (imo).

rocking: "utterly rude and presumptious" must be accepted if someone were being "utterly rude and presumptious" - a criticism that can be levelled against male and female, not just feminists.

A lot of toxicity comes about rocking when people's words are taken out of context to prove a point. As long as that doesn't happen the toxicity can be avoided.

Seneca: The one that bothers me most is constantly talking about the Queen of England That must be Americans. I don't see that here. I think a lot of Americans think the whole of the UK is England. I did read geography isn't a strong point.

Not that it always is here either - saw a programme about people being stopped in the street and was astounded by the number of people that didn't recognise the outline of Australia.

When I lived in London I heard many a reference to "the Queen of England"

Seneca: But it is possible for an American to be educated in British history and related matters. Historians usually provide a source though.