Harry and Meghan Debacle

[RosesandIris]

Following on from Harry and Meghan Biography

Not posted on here for a while but reading with interest, totally agree about moving away from talking about the video, it has no bearing on the up coming court case. Does anyone think the 5 friends actually exist? If they don't MM would be in deep do do.

Da Da almost always precedes Ma Ma, much easier for babies to pronounce.
Mine is the same age as Archie.

The friends must surely exist, wouldn’t that be checked before publishing?

Archie looked well loved, well taken care, comfy in the clothes he was wearing and its obvious he's used to be read to.

I thought the same. And have said so.

Clearly they do have a say in when and how images and news are released. I think this will be relevant to the court case.

That's a reach I think. It's not comparable with independent newspaper articles, this is comparable to an engagement.

Sorry, to be clear, I didn't mean the video would be relevant - that would be ridiculous I agree - but it does support other evidence that they do have some editorial control.

I agree he looked very well cared for and happy. I've never doubted for a moment that Meghan and Harry are good and loving parents. He is clearly a much loved child.

Two-finger salute?

the possibilities are endless. I hope there’ll be a film adaptation.

If the friends did it without her knowledge and she is extremely upset about it, how come she is still speaking to them (assuming, actually, that she is? Do we know this?)
People have been cast aside for much less in the past.

I feel the 5 friends must exist because it's too far fetched a number for her to pretend to be all of them. Had it been 1 or 2 "friends" giving the interview then that would more likely be fake. One of them is definitely the lady who was good friends with the editor of People when the article came out.

It's basically inconceivable that five friends spoke to People without her consent. People is basically just a vehicle for authorised PR

Hi all

We're nipping in because we've got a few words to say about the long-running Meghan threads (we've just deleted a handful of 'not in the spirit' posts on this thread).

Above all, Mumsnet is a parenting site and our mission is to make parents lives easier. That's parents everywhere, including Meghan.

Posts with little context, designed to attack looks, personality or even parenting, are likely to be deleted. They are simply not in the spirit of the site, and not what Mumsnet is about.

We're all just trying to do our best and lets face it, parenting isn't easy. We need a bit of peace, love and respect on these threads if we're to continue hosting them. Imagine being on the receiving end of posts before sharing them - that's an easy way to evaluate whether or not it'll go down well.

We're happy for people in the public eye to be discussed, but if it becomes a campaign designed to belittle and attack every single thing about a person, famous or not, then we're not going to be able to stand by that and the thread will be removed.

Please do bear this in mind going forward.

It's wrong to be bitchy about elements of the video and anything about Archie is uncalled for.

I do think it's reasonable to comment that the video was more reading to the camera than reading to Archie, and for a couple who have made such a big fuss about their privacy this video is another of their choices that draws attention to themselves.

Their job is charity work and similar, that would be this video - wouldn't it?

@Myimaginarycathasfleas
Ah. If don't blame them if they are giving access to friendly outlets (as many public figures do). I don't think they should have sent the letter to editors. However, those papers were never positive (starting right at the beginning with Straight Out of Compton).

A fact that many people don't know is that royal reporters have private access to all the royals. Harry only used to do off the record pub meetings and Meghan didn't give access to the tabloid stable of RRs (which they didn't like). However, some royals have had home meetings and events with then (some RRs mentioned barbeques with the Cambridges).

This is a bit of a double edged sword - it offers a chance to get your points across and to gain favourable coverage in exchange for stories. On the other hand, the tabloids are fickle and can turn or write negative stories.

I think that Harry is the one who is the most anti-tabloid and turning on them isn't a good idea, but I guess he had had enough.

Head down, work hard was an option but I guess they didn't want to be the punchbag for years. I also think he felt betrayed or upset by the BRF for never supporting them, even though they were shutting down much bigger and worse things.

Their job is charity work and similar

No it isn’t anymore. They aren’t working Royals. Save the Children has been Princess Anne’s patronage for many years.

M and H don’t have a ‘job’. No doubt they would like to be paid for appearances and voiceovers now, but they don’t have
any defined role.

Wow, my first deletion I think.

If someone in the public eye releases a cheesy video and is beyond criticism... Has MN received a threat of legal action?

They will carry on doing charity work and they are continuing with patronages they have.
Save the Children has been Princess Anne’s patronage for many years.
That doesn't mean that others can't do something with them too.

Wow, my first deletion I think.
Has MN received a threat of legal action?
Maybe you broke a rule?

A fact that many people don't know is that royal reporters have private access to all the royals. Harry only used to do off the record pub meetings and Meghan didn't give access to the tabloid stable of RRs (which they didn't like). However, some royals have had home meetings and events with then (some RRs mentioned barbeques with the Cambridges).

Being on friendly-ish terms with the RRs is a sensible, pragmatic approach. The Royal rota reporters are part of the package of being in a senior working royal. They always have been.

Harry - and Meghan - certainly had at least one home meeting with a journalist (from a UK broadsheet), although they're not a royal reporter.

I also think he felt betrayed or upset by the BRF for never supporting them, even though they were shutting down much bigger and worse things.

From recent reports from their friends, it seems that Harry wanted the BRF to remove the tabloids from the Royal Rota and was told no. That's an unreasonable expectation on his part. The tabloids have always provided more royal coverage - good or bad - and always had more readers who are interested in the royals (again, for both good and bad).

They come across as self-important hypocrites. They have little of substance to offer but expect to be deferred to as though they were highly intelligent or knowledgable. It's embarrassing.

I wish they would finally pursue the 'private' life they claim to want, but shan't hold my breath. What they really want is lots of attention - and unquestioning deference.

Agree, that clip was awkward. She was performing.

Also, her choice of book, is it a duck or a rabbit. Very deeeeep. Things arent what we see?!

I didn’t break a rule. I was critical of a video I found awkward and unnatural. If MN wants to start censoring posts, I don’t think the website will thrive.

Posts with little context, designed to attack looks, personality or even parenting, are likely to be deleted. They are simply not in the spirit of the site, and not what Mumsnet is about.

Thank you @MNHQ

I didn’t break a rule. I was critical of a video I found awkward and unnatural. If MN wants to start censoring posts, I don’t think the website will thrive.

Are you new around here? MNHQ have always deleted whatever they like.

And have you read what LilyMNHQ has posted on this page?

You can't see any deletions on this thread? - Ok we obviously need a third opinion so I've reported the whole thread to MNHQ, pointing out the deletions and asking why they are allowing such a nasty thread to continue on a parenting site

That's your prerogative. If Talk guidelines are broken they'll delete posts which is as it should be. At the time you posted about lots of deletions, though, and I replied, there were none to be seen on recent pages of the thread - as @Winterlife said at the time. The video discussion has also extended quite a way since that point. Since context is important, let's have some.