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'm interested in the curtsying thing and the reconciling of it as a feminist as my ex is not British, won't say what. In his culture there is also an action that you do to show deference and I could not bring myself to do it and I don't think the inlaws were happy

And by the way, much of the coverage of the Sussexes' wedding that I've just skimmed notes that increased costs are largely due to an increased terrorist threat level which requires more security - so not their fault - and also notes that the wedding brought in huge sums to the UK economy. As I said earlier, it's hard to make blanket statements about the media coverage being all of one view.

They are more likely to observe protocol in public than in private.

You don’t know that. When the Queen rejigged the “rules” in 2012, I got the impression this protocol was to be followed in private. That is why it is very interesting.

No “evidence” as such - natch.

rocking: Annie, I meant that portraying women as rude and presumptuous was a pretty common way of trying to get them to shut up Oh yes, it's happened to me. Strengthens my resolve not to shut up though if I think I'm right. Happens to young people too of both sexes - don't be rude being used as a way to silence. It happens to be a way to get women to shut up but also others.

Encylco: When I lived in London I heard many a reference to "the Queen of England Really? I live here and never do apart from tourists or non-British people living here. Maybe I haven't noticed though.

My Dh's granny, born in Elephant and Castle, "Who do you think you are? The bleedin' Queen of England?"

So it shouldn't be said that "rude and presumptious" should never be said or applied to someone just because it's being said to a woman. Or a child for that matter. Both can be rude and presumptious, just as men can.

Not pointed at particular posters here at all, but women's clothing (and appearance) are a common battleground. We're not totting up other areas of royal expenditure in the same way we can easily access figures for Meghan and Kate's wardrobes.

Seneca: They are more likely to observe protocol in public than in private. In your opinion. I disagree and gave my reasons why.

Also, a lot of events they are together for they have met up at BP for example in private (before we see them on the balcony) so the curtsy wouldn't have been seen by the time they're in public - possibly. I don't know any more than you but I don't state things I don't know as fact.

annielouise

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

annielouise

...before they state something as fact.

Exactly. Sources are an historian’s vital tool.

Seneca: Look up any official document or statement on "order of precedence." Those are my sources. That and observation.

I wasn't talking about or asked about order of precedence though but curtsying - and for which you stated your view as right and what has been written in newspapers - tabloids and broadsheets - as categorically wrong, but still no evidence.

From reading one article alone, I like the 'call me Harry' and the Travalyst idea looks useful. I think travel is a weakness for me. I also need something similar for food as I've gone plant-based but it's often hard to weigh up the ethics of how food is grown.

@SenecaFallsRedux

I did say impression - just to avoid tedious back and forth stuff. 🙄

rocking true that it's a battleground, though much of this comes in the context of overall spending on each couple and their wedding, where other items were also listed.

It would help if the notion of re wearing clothes was treated as what it is for the average person - i.e. entirely routine - rather than a major sacrifice. There are lots of articles pointing out that Kate, Meghan, Anne etc are wearing something they've been seen in before in tones of wonder.

Seneca: She doesn't have to curtsy to any other woman (except queens of other countries) so that is a moot point about the blood princesses.

Again you don't know this as fact. It's just what you think is the case.

Yes, I've stood for the headteacher. Standing when men and women do it just seems less demeaning though than curtsying which is really lowering yourself, metaphorically speaking too. And is antithetical to being a feminist and believing in equality. As said before though she must love H a lot to compromise herself like that.

rockingchaircandle

From reading one article alone, I like the 'call me Harry'

So did I. It was more in keeping with the person he once was.

There are lots of articles pointing out that Kate, Meghan, Anne etc are wearing something they've been seen in before in tones of wonder.

Exactly.

It is NOT a “moot point” about the blood princesses. That they be accorded a mark of their true status must surely have been behind the Queen’s reasoning.

Fgs

rocking - exactly where did you concede the dress was obscene? wow, I think we all missed that. Good of you to admit it though.

There is no way I would ever curtsy or now or scrape to any one of them, however.

...or bow

Is that the bird dress?!

It's possible to be a feminist and not want to curtesy but not feeling confident enough not to. Is that such a terrible thing?

There are lots of articles pointing out that Kate, Meghan, Anne etc are wearing something they've been seen in before in tones of wonder.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3132160/Anne-timewarp-Princess-s-known-recycling-outfits-reveal-trusty-favourites-older-children.html

Seneca: rocking said you were engaging, I said only selectively and that you won't [engage] when it would mean admitting the amount spent on the dress was obscene as it would be an admission that you were wrong about something. I've asked many times how a feminist or humanitarian could reconcile the cost of it but you ignored it as you couldn't answer as it would mean perhaps admitting you might be wrong in some small way about M and her actions and motivations. Even rocking seems to have admitted now it didn't look good.

It was there, Annie! There was a lot of scrolling on by though, although I'm not sure who the 'we' you refer to is.

The royal we?