Does anyone want a thread for people who are happy for Harry and Meghan? Thread 3

[Samcro]

new thread hope Dave comes back

They didn't mention them because the rift between them is huge.
And no one "owns" this thread. A question was asked in its title, does anyone want a happy thread? (or similar).
Some do. Others don't, particularly. Or at least, want to enter a debate and challenge some of the frankly sycophantic nonsense that has been spouted.
I'm a royalist, but not to the ridiculous extent exhibited in here at time.

Samcro

The 'agenda' is to bury any good news about the Sussexes.

There are a few very vocal people who talk negative all the time about H&M so that it sounds like they are very unpopular. The media have also tried. But the truth is that most people don't care one way or another. Some like the work they have been doing. Most people would just shrug.

Well I think that the story of them delivering food packages was good news and it's been fairly high profile.
And I don't see it as them attention-seeking either, as the camera footage was clearly from cctv, not tipped-off paparazzi. The person/people relating the event were package recipients.

Where has it been said that H&M are attention-seeking for delivering food parcels?

It’s not on this thread obviously, but is on social media.

I have little interest in either of them now they have made it so very plain what they think of us Brits, so why should I seek out information on them?

Then why are you here and why would you ask the above question? I don’t seek them out either but they pop up on my social media feed.

they have made it so very plain what they think of us Brits

Really? Stepping down for a myriad of reasons that was plain to see despite the echo chamber that is mumsnet acting as if it came out of the blue, many acting as if they own them by constantly moaning about their use of taxpayer money while ignoring the money spent by other royals. The RF (not just Harry & Meghan) cost £1.24 per person.

news.sky.com/story/the-royal-accounts-this-is-why-the-monarchy-cost-41-more-last-year-11748503

They also paid back the money they used for Frogmore and are still renting it, yet even people moaned about that after saying earlier they should be paying it. Frogmore was going to be renovated regardless. They donated £90,000 excess funds from their wedding (which they said any money made would go to charity in the first place) to Feeding Britain but I guess that won’t be enough in some people’s minds.

There is always talk about them wanting to have their cake and eat it to, but the same could also be said about their critics.

Some do. Others don't, particularly. Or at least, want to enter a debate and challenge some of the frankly sycophantic nonsense that has been spouted

Well said.

A slightly unusual situation has developed. It is vaguely interesting and has thrown up some questions about the nature of monarchy, their finances and the point of the royal family. A lot of us are British and so have no choice but to live under a monarchy and fund it.

Why should we have to split into two completely separate camps; one wildly sycophantic and one purely critical?

Why shouldn’t we be allowed balanced, nuanced adult discussion?

And I don't see it as them attention-seeking either, as the camera footage was clearly from cctv, not tipped-off paparazzi. The person/people relating the event were package recipients.

That doesn’t prove anything either way. Tip off is still possible and that could come from inside the Sussex camp or outside of it.

There are a few very vocal people who talk negative all the time about H&M so that it sounds like they are very unpopular. The media have also tried. But the truth is that most people don't care one way or another. Some like the work they have been doing. Most people would just shrug.

I do agree with this. I worked retail in two different shops and most of those who mentioned it of various age groups either weren’t bothered, or weren’t surprised and happy for them, didn’t hear anyone speaking about them say anything negative. Most of the negativity is online which isn’t surprising.

They didn't mention them because the rift between them is huge

Hearsay.

The only 'nonsense' is the vitriol that is taken against H&M with no proof whatsoever. No one in their right minds would just fully accept information from an unnamed source. That means that person is not taking responsibility and I just take that is tittle tattle to make some money. In the case of MM, the man who said he was offered money to lie about them, talked on record himself. So, he can be questioned.

H&M have never said anything bad about The Brits. Ever. It has been clear as day that they have issues with the press, that is even on their lawsuit papers. The likes of DM tend to say ' they are telling us / the public', when H&M have done so such thing. So they get people worked up and act as if H&M are insulting us/ HMQE etc. when they did not.

And Roussette you are right.

Ppl don't want to admit they have been fed nonsense about H&M. So they dig their heels in.

But as we are starting to see, the difference between global and British coverage of them is like black and white.

They also paid back the money they used for Frogmore
Did they? Do you have a source for that, because the only thing I ever saw written about it was that they "wished to," which isn't quite the same thing at all.

Stepping down for a myriad of reasons that was plain to see
I think that is part of the issue - their reasons were NOT "plain to see." For most of the general public, everything was trotting along quite nicely, with the same goodwill towards them as was shown around the time of the wedding, when all of a sudden, there was some "unusual" responses from them, and then the perceived stroppy behaviour from them at the end of their Africa tour (which had been going so well), and then, Wham! They were gone.
I think many on the general public were genuinely taken aback, felt that their goodwill was being thrown back in their faces, and hurt to be accused of racism, and much of the backlash against them stems from this.

But as we are starting to see, the difference between global and British coverage of them is like black and white.
That's just not true!! Have you not seen some of what the US press has written about them? The Canadians are reportedly pissed off with them and the Americans are very much against the idea that they might have been expected to pay for their security.
And it wasn't anyone British who papped Meghan out walking her dogs, or who ran to the press about them delivering food parcels.
Still, some people only see what they want to see.

Still, some people only see what they want to see

And don't we know that! Works both ways that does

Of course.

Most regular national and international channels have been reporting the good things about H&M. Even worldwide publications like CNN have done.

A few tabloids that most people laugh at, have had the usual vitriol. But here in the UK, the most popular press tend to downplay any good that H&M do. Either not report, or spin it in a negative light.

Those were paps for hire, anyone would have hired them including the DM, who splashed the pics all over the place.

Can you explain why Meghan was smiling directly at them? And why her security men weren't paying more attention?
That could have been anyone hiding in those bushes, with long camera lenses that might have looked very much like guns.

"Hearsay."

Yeah, OK, let's say that then!

Roussette: thanks for enquiring about my DM. Yes she is well and gardening. She has great neighbours and we phone her obviously.

I do think that, at the moment H&M are not of great interest. They have walked away. W&K try and say the right things but decamped and think everyone is able to have the same set up as them. They haven’t ever had to think about DC cooped up in flats and queueing at the supermarket. It just feels like faux concern at the moment and it’s difficult to see what they have actually contributed. I guess they will pin the medals on when they next award them.

How is MM smiling directly at the paps when they were so far away there was even a road with cars between them. DM or The Sun had this video. They were zooming in and out with their long lens camera as you would do for sports, so when she looked ahead it was as if she was looking at them. Who knows if she was talking to baby Archie.

And if they eventually saw them, I doubt bodyguards are supposed to leave their client unprotected behind, while chasing paps who are far away.

That was weeks ago! Who cares now? Not many of us. Let’s see what they do in the future.

What was weeks ago?

That was weeks ago! Who cares now? Not many of us.

TBF, someone is either interested in HaM’s relationship with the media, or they’re not. So revisiting some of the more puzzling incidents is valid if that’s what’s being discussed.

Let’s see what they do in the future.

Either we are being ordered to “be happy for them” and “positive” about their actions, it we are waiting to see what they do in the future.

It can’t be both. We cannot all undertake to be huge fans of their future decisions and doings.

They did the deliveries this week, last one on Wednesday.

When she couldn’t put the baby carrier on in Canada!

I believe the thing that was weeks ago was the pap walk in the woods, or intrusive press photographs of a dog walk, depending on your interpretation.