Harry and Meghan Debacle

[RosesandIris]

Following on from Harry and Meghan Biography

I would have found H's contribution a bit irritating if I'd been her. And come to think of it, I wouldn't have wanted him hanging round like a bad smell and making helpful comments when I was doing my voiceover.

I'm surprised no one on this thread has brought up the fact that Archie is turning one and no one on his father's side has seen him for about six months- because of his parents' choice. I had my first dcs abroad and I bent over backwards to make sure my family got to see my dcs regularly. I just can't comprehend not making sure your df gets to see his dgs when you have the money and time.

I think the video, with all its new parent awkwardness, is one of the best things they’ve done. No pompous lecturing, no “shining a light” on issues they barely understand, no stiffness, just reading a book.

If this was the Harry and Meghan they’d shown from the start then they’d probably still be working royals instead of mansion-surfing through North America. I don’t doubt the media coverage of them has been overwhelming and painful at times but they haven’t helped themselves.

@LizzieSiddal

Every deletion you referenced was deleted after your allegations, so pretty useless. Presumably, you reported the thread, resulting in this post -

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.

So it is quite disingenuous of you to refer to posts deleted subsequently as having been deleted. Of course other posters can see posts that were deleted subsequently. It doesn't change the fact that, previously, there were ZERO deletions in 10 pages of posts (pages 18-28, 28 being the last page when you first started squawking).

Agree @winterlife.

I will also add, from pages 1-18, there were originally 7 deleted posts. Of those, 1 was deleted for referencing a deleted post, and 2 were deleted at the posters' requests. So really, 4 deleted posts.

Eight posts were deleted yesterday. Of those, one had been deleted previously at the poster's request.

So, overall, hardly the "free for all" @LizzieSiddal suggested.

Everyonenone
Here is a photo of what you were trying to put in the link - it was cropped for me. You can add things to photos and post them. It’s easier to post very short amounts of texts than to create a link imo.

I quite liked the video. She seemed much more normal and relatable. I liked that she let her grey hair show.
I was thinking maybe she could next time try and help Harry learn to read though

MissEliza
That’s the elephant in the room. Of course I thought it incredibly sad that the picture of the royals with Archie are rather old now. The b&w photo in the christening clothes was lovely though... It got me wondering what they’d be posting for his second and third birthdays. We are, however in the midst of a global pandemic right now so this would have always been the case even if relations were not so strained.

Of course we don’t know that the last time the RF saw Archie was even 6 months ago. It may have been much longer. Even before they left, I don’t think the extended family was seeing much if anything of him.

I don't think the fact that the royal family may not have seen Archie in person for several months is a major issue. Many grandparents don't live near their grandchildren but still have good relationships with them and nowadays with Skype etc keeping in contact is so much easier.

Lots of people on Mumsnet at the moment devastated at not cuddling mums/grannies etc after 7 weeks but for many families that's reality. I only saw my grandparents once or twice a year growing up but we loved each other very much.

I'm not a big fan of Meghan and Harry but we don't know what relationships they have with family or what other photos the family have but may not choose to show to the public.

Two things stuck me about the photo of Charles, Harry and Archie at the Christening. Firstly, photographs of the Christening were not to be released to the riff raff - I don't think we've seen that one before? In which case, Charles is showing he doesn't go along with the hiding away of Archie's christening. Secondly, Meghan is excluded. Make of that what you will.

I do believe that the senior royals know that everything they do will be examined, and must realise the message this would send.

I liked that she let her grey hair show.

Did she? That’s good to read.
I’ve decided to stop colouring my hair when I saw a photo of Queen Letizia of Spain with grey streaks.

Hope it’s a trend that picks up, grey can look distinguished on women too.

The christening photo was more a ‘generations’ photo wasn’t it?

ajandjjmum - That christening photo was the photo that Harry and Meghan posted to wish Prince Charles happy birthday. As pp said it's a generations photo. No hidden meaning in it at all.

It is a lovely photograph.

Whilst I agree with MNHQ that some comments have been unacceptable, they don't seem to pile into AIBU to delete the horrendous comments to posters on there. And the person is actually on the receiving end of that.

How long does one remain a "new mum" for? I always thought it was about 3 months, maybe six. I'm not sure that with a one year old you count as "new mum". IMO of course.

I agree, I wouldn’t class a mum of a one year old as a new mum anymore. That’s why the “young couple” and “new mum” descriptions annoy me, it’s to make them more endearing but they aren’t a young couple and new parents anymore.

That black and white christening photo. I'm not sure I see it as a snub to Meghan tbh. Feels more like a message to Harry to show how valued and loved he and his child are by his father. There was the photo of the Queen, Charles, William and George. Kate wasn't it, no one else was, it was the four monarchs and future monarchs and also Great Grand Parent, Grandparent, Parent and first born child. That photo maybe could have been equivalent for Harry perhaps?

Hamsterian "young couple" makes me want to throw up, they're pushing fucking 40!

I guess I’m not ancient then by these years. Are they dog years?

Whilst I agree with MNHQ that some comments have been unacceptable, they don't seem to pile into AIBU to delete the horrendous comments to posters on there. And the person is actually on the receiving end of that

This. If the 'spirit of Mumsnet' was really a thing, at least 50% of AIBU wouldn't be there. But that's not favoured celebrities, so crack on.

Young is relative! It doesnt annoy me to hear them described as young. I am 50 with teenagers so to me they seem young. They are not yet 40, their relationship is still new. Their child is a baby. they are immature

@Nikhedonia that's a very good point. I remember once people absolutely piling on me about something. I felt awful andMNHQ certainly did nothing to protect me. I came off MN for a couple of years because of it. I'm not sure why they're more concerned about celebrities who aren't actually on here but not the real people facing unkindness.