A positive thread on Harry and Meghan (aka Thread 5)

[Mummy195]

A continuation for those who would like to look at the positive side of Harry and Meghan.

@clearedfortakeoff

Small little petty lies that are pile on top of each other, so first the public gets a 'niggling feeling'. They then say, what a pertulant pair, then it goes on and on and the public dislike them. That is how smearing works.

People can arrive at their own assumptions without media influence you know. Through seeing the evidence (H&M social media arrogant and assumptive proclamations in january where they laid the terms of their departure from an institution that is still funding them), to watching videos where Meghan arrogantly hopds back Harry so she can push forward reading her grandiose blogs where she feels important enough to change the world...

We can formulate a pretty good sense of her character from that alone before even commenting on the lies about self funding at college and self graciousness of her videos.

But can you really not see, that every assumption you arrive at is filtered through the media? Of cource it is, you have never met any of them informally, you don't know them at all. The only way you can judge them is through the lens of media - you so called 'evidence' is proved by the media. They choose what to show you to spin an angle.

@TheNavigator I take your point about the need to be aware of the media's slant on things. However there are some absolute facts I can't overlook when judging them. For example, their sudden announcement announcing they were leaving the royal family but would continue to 'colloborate' with the Queen. That phrase smacked of arrogance. MM standing in a very poor country where young women face a real threat of sexual violence and complaining no one asked her if she's ok. That was her - not the media twisting things. That suggests to me someone who is completely self involved. The way H spoke to Rhiannon Mills on the same trip - arrogant twat. H & M living , apparently rent free, in mansions way above their means.
Even if I put aside all the little 'smear' stories about this couple eg tights, air fresheners in church, tiaras, there are enough bare facts that suggest to me they are not a very nice pair.

But can you really not see, that every assumption you arrive at is filtered through the media? Of cource it is, you have never met any of them informally, you don't know them at all. The only way you can judge them is through the lens of media - you so called 'evidence' is proved by the media. They choose what to show you to spin an angle

If not the media, the evidence would be filtered through something else - a different lens but a lens nevertheless. 'Direct' word-of-mouth reporting is still a lens, no more 'objective' than any other as are books, leaflets, images, etc.. A human has created them all, whch means that whatever they are telling us is mediated by a perspective, a position, a view.

I agree with Miss Eliza. There is also plenty of 'evidence' in the court documents submitted by their lawyers (specifically MM for the AN case). There are plenty of facts out there that do not put them in a good light.

The only way you can judge them is through the lens of media - you so called 'evidence' is proved by the media.

Wrong. And I am continually baffled as to why this is so hard to understand. Their approach and thought process was laid out on their own website and Instagram account, they have made plenty of statements over the years/given interviews, as has their legal team in cases the couple has brought themselves. Then there is the response to Republic on the governance of their charitable entities. All of this is also in the public domain. Many of us don't need summaries and analysis from the papers you are so concerned about. It is entirely possible and reasonable to form a view on their behaviour from original sources alone.

There is plenty of information out there that can be assessed without being filtered through how it may later have been portrayed in the press. We know from the book, and directly from a paparazzo that Meghan would contact them to take shots of her before she met Harry. We know that she was looking to establish herself in the UK celebrity scene before she met Harry (she met journalists, including Piers Morgan and Mail on Sunday showbiz reporter Katie Hind) and we know from Meghan's own instagram account that she frequently dropped hints that she was seeing someone London-based before the relationship hit the press. We know that just before she met Harry she posted a very loving message on her instagram to her father for father's day, but then Harry never met him. There is plenty there to indicate from Meghan herself that she is a woman looking to maintain and raise her celebrity status, and also using her social media platforms deliberately to portray a calculated image of herself. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it does provide a useful background against which we can assess the other things that she and Harry have personally said, done, or published.

[quote MissEliza]@TheNavigator I take your point about the need to be aware of the media's slant on things. However there are some absolute facts I can't overlook when judging them. For example, their sudden announcement announcing they were leaving the royal family but would continue to 'colloborate' with the Queen. That phrase smacked of arrogance. MM standing in a very poor country where young women face a real threat of sexual violence and complaining no one asked her if she's ok. That was her - not the media twisting things. That suggests to me someone who is completely self involved. The way H spoke to Rhiannon Mills on the same trip - arrogant twat. H & M living , apparently rent free, in mansions way above their means.
Even if I put aside all the little 'smear' stories about this couple eg tights, air fresheners in church, tiaras, there are enough bare facts that suggest to me they are not a very nice pair.[/quote]
Your whole post seems based on the media's assertion with their opinions tbh. If you had not heard the media, you may not see anything wrong with anything that they have said or done. They hardly speak at all.

It's already been reported plenty of times that the story was leaked, DW even showed us that morning's paper print and was beaten to the chase by just a couple of hours by H&M. I am sure you are well aware of this.
There is nothing wrong with the statement itself. Infact, even now, they are collaborating with the Palace (known to us the The Queen) through working with the charities and organisations. Collaboration, you know the definition of the word, which suddenly became a dirty/ arrogant word according to the BM.

The Itv documentary was scheduled to be aired in the UK. They took out 5 minutes from the hour long doc to talk in a private space about mental health. They keep telling ppl all the time to be open about mh, yet they must be above mh issues themselves? You also seem to imply that Africans are too poor to have or worry about mh issues. For the tour, they covered everything from the issues that locals face daily and mh is one of them.
As for Rhiannon, well she knows better than to shout out snarky questions. H was not particularly rude, but she broke the media protocol and she knows it, good on H for setting her straight.

As for the mansion, well that is a most ridiculous complaint . They can live wherever they want, however. They do not have to answer to you or me about that. You also assume them not to be able to afford when you have no idea of their financial means.

Other thread pulled again!

@Serenster

There is plenty of information out there that can be assessed without being filtered through how it may later have been portrayed in the press. We know from the book, and directly from a paparazzo that Meghan would contact them to take shots of her before she met Harry. We know that she was looking to establish herself in the UK celebrity scene before she met Harry (she met journalists, including Piers Morgan and Mail on Sunday showbiz reporter Katie Hind) and we know from Meghan's own instagram account that she frequently dropped hints that she was seeing someone London-based before the relationship hit the press. We know that just before she met Harry she posted a very loving message on her instagram to her father for father's day, but then Harry never met him. There is plenty there to indicate from Meghan herself that she is a woman looking to maintain and raise her celebrity status, and also using her social media platforms deliberately to portray a calculated image of herself. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it does provide a useful background against which we can assess the other things that she and Harry have personally said, done, or published.

Here is another take on your stories :

Part of the job of acting is to promote your films and your fame. Therefore all of them do it for the job. Does not really have much to do with their private life really. PM himself admitted that the main cast for Suits were in contact with him and others as per instructions from the producers of the show. Infact he said, her co-star also dropped him, and he admitted that it must have been H's office who told her to stop being in touch with him and others. I would have thought royalists would be happy she listened to this advise. I imagine a lot of the ppl who marry in probably dropped all those sloane rangers and other socialites as well. So she sends a cryptic message to her London lover, what about it?

Her job was to raise her profile, that is what actors do. She then dropped all of that for her marriage. Don't really see what your point is here.

@My0My Yup. Couldn't believe that.

"Blaming the media" seems to me trite and lazy, especially when the more informed posts are well aware of the spinning they do and say so - often

Ironic, too, that many of the more glaring errors have been in posts seeking to defend H&M at all costs, using those very sources ...

Her job was to raise her profile, that is what actors do. She then dropped all of that for her marriage.

Well, we agree on the first part, at least. The second part is your opinion, not a fact. I rather think the things she has done, said and published since her marriage have showed that raising her personal profile is exactly what has motivated many of her actions.

Field Marshall Guthrie fell far away from the RF at The Mall. They did not even see him actually fall. Even the rags could not smear her on this. Please stop posting Murky Meg / BG nonsense on here.

Not surprised that the other thread has been deleted, given that speculation here about other RF members is left to stand, even when reported, yet deleted if about the Sussexes. Moderation is evidently running scared of a lawsuit from some individuals, yet fine with speculation and gossip about others where that is not the case.

awaits deletion

There is no such thing as 'more informed' posters on MN.

Very few ppl link the rags on here, in particular the Fail, S*n etc. It's best to wait till other sources tell us a story. I think we showed this welll in previous threads.

H&M have not published much outside of their work, so not too clear what you think she has been publishing about herself per say.

Things are left here to stand, because no one is doing a pile on from bottom feeding, obvious hater sites.

For the tour, they covered everything from the issues that locals face daily and mh is one of them

This at least is true, and it was reflected in the well deserved praise they got from the much-hated media during the earlier part of the tour
However while nobody suggests it's what should happen, clickbait-worthy whines about few asking how you are and relationships with a brother were always going to win out over the more worthy choices - something H&M would have known perfectly well

So the fact that they chose to go ahead with the self-indulgent stuff regardless is, yet again, a matter of judgement

@Mummy 195 That's a joke, right? When someone says things like that it's clear they don't care about 'bottom feeding' sites when they agree with the content. The moderation is not at all consistent. I don't report EVERYTHING I read, no, because I engage in the once time honoured tradition of hiding the thread or scrollin' on by.

Although for a site aimed at making parents lives easier and with a predominantly female user-ship, comments belittling some members of the RF taking maternity leave have been left to stand which does suggest slightly uneven handed moderation of threads pertaining to the RF

And your analysis of 'wait for the broadsheets' to publish a story is interesting. You understand that journalists often write for all sorts of papers concurrently? That someone who writes for/cuts their teeth on a tabloid can end up an editor at the Telegraph or the Times or a paper you may approve of? They may even accept a commission from the Guardian! Imagine that!

Is this thread full yet?

Also, I don’t remember Sophie badmouthing the other Royals, just Cherie Blair.

DTD at Balmoral then publishing it in a book is a bit vulgar, if you ask me.