Harry and Meghan court dramas (not Suits)

[ARoseInHarlem]

Starting this thread while I digest the last few posts on the previous thread. I think the H&M saga could be as unsettling for the RF as the Charles & Diana bad publicity in the 1990s, if not worse.

why is large levels of criticism on some in the public eye acceptable but others aren't? What's the criteria?

I'd also like to know this. For example the Trump threads are now up to 102, every one of them peppered with vicious posts about personal appearance and mental health, and on one notorious occasion even hoping for his assassination
I reported that last one and was told that, while many might sympathise, the tone was perhaps "a bit much". A bit much?? Hoping for an elected world leader to be mudered?? Yeah right ...

FWIW I'm no fan either, but it's the principle I'm interested in and the difference in what's "allowed" about some and not others is glaring

On the radio this morning it said the Duchess of Cornwall is patron of 99 charities. This is too many. She’s on radio 5 at 10. So we will hear what she says.

I listened to this. Camilla was brilliant, she came across very well, very human. She's really done her research about domestic abuse, which was her main focus.

If Harry doesn’t address (his past racism) I suspect one of these days especially if he is interviewed somebody is bound to ask him about it

I'd enjoy seeing that, and suspect that that new-style woke Harry would very quickly be replaced by the hardcore royal attitude of "how dare you presume to question me?"

I just wonder why some people think it's acceptable for him but not H&M
I don't agree with personal comments on anyone's appearance. He couldn't help having covid, but as for this...

I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be but why is large levels of criticism on some in the public eye acceptable but others aren't? What's the criteria?

What Boris does affects you, it affects me, it affects everyone on MN and the country. What H&M does... does not affect my life, or yours.
We should criticise our PM when necessary and the Government because our everyday lives are shaped by what they do.

I have said it before but will say it again - Fergie, her daughters ( especially Beatrice) , Camilla , Margaret and Diana had much worse thrown at them. That doesn’t make it right but I truly don’t think MM has endured the nastiness that they did and still do in some cases
My gosh, I really don't agree with this. There is no way to prove my belief or your belief and it is just a matter of personal perception.

@mrscampbellblackagain

Prince Andrew and MM&HM have definitely brought a lot of I would have thought unwelcome but necessary scrutiny of the RF.

I am sure I read an article recently saying that the security of the entire RF needed to be reviewed as they weren't perceived as being so under threat now - I can't find it though.

I would like to see a big shake up, with them becoming largely self funding and only really getting their expenses covered for official outings.

I agree to making the Royal Family self funding. HMQ can take back the Crown Estates, and keep the £343.5 million revenue that currently goes to the Government Then she won't have to rely on the £67 million that she currently receives from the Government. I'm not sure how the Government will manage without the £343.5 million but who cares, the Royal Family will be self funding.

On a completely different note. David Sherborne (MM’s barrister) is acting for Johnny Depp against the Sun and Dan Wootton.

We should criticise our PM when necessary and the Government because our everyday lives are shaped by what they do

Absolutely - but how are our everyday lives shaped by his hairstyle, his past relationships, his accent and much else?
As said it's the principle I'm thinking of, and presumably if certain comments are off limits for one public figure they're off for all ... but apparently not

There's also the point that Boris, Trump and the rest were voted in (though never ask me why) and can be voted out again, whereas the RF sadly can't

@ Roussette as you say it is a matter of perception however calling Fergie the Duchess of Pork was shocking especially as she had 2 DC close together . Constantly criticising Beatrice and Eugenie’s appearance.
And let’s not forget the headlines about Fergie’s Dad’s misdemeanours ( as well as her own).
I honestly don’t think MM has had anything as nasty levelled at her . She is a smart , attractive woman but with an incredibly thin skin.

Royals and charity work - from a 2012 Guardian article written by Newport MP Paul Flynn

@ Roussette as you say it is a matter of perception however calling Fergie the Duchess of Pork was shocking especially as she had 2 DC close together . Constantly criticising Beatrice and Eugenie’s appearance.

Completely agree. I’m old enough to remember Fergie was bullied mercilessly by the press with absolutely disgusting misogynistic bile.

Absolutely - but how are our everyday lives shaped by his hairstyle, his past relationships, his accent and much else?
Agree. Personal posts about his appearance are not on. I'm only interested in what he is doing. Or not doing. As PM.
However, I suppose his past relationships has some bearing, in that no way would anyone before ever have been voted in as PM given his history, not acknowledging all of his DCs etc. But times change. And that applies to the RF too. Just a generation ago Margaret couldn't marry the man she loved because he was divorced, now it's no problem.

Royals and Charity Work....from an article 8 years old?

There are more negative MM threads than there are on BoJo?

I am posting on Mumsnet - right? There is at least one thread a day where he gets hammered on. There have been numerous dedicated to him alone. Tory is the ultimate insult for some on here.

This is a silly path to follow.

And yes, the distinction that M and H - and the RF more generally - are unelected is important and relevant here.

@alliwantisagoodnightssleep

Is this an implicit threat???

If so things could get interesting between MM and Jessica Mulroney.

*When Meghan makes a decision to ghost someone she doesn't usually go back,' a source told The Sun.

'When it comes to Jessica, hopefully she realizes that it's not a great idea. Jessica knows all her secrets and everything she's been through. This is not someone she wants to make an enemy of at this time.'*

I would imagine vice versa as well. The likelihood is that after many years of being so close, they both know things about each other (and each other’s family) that neither would like to be made public.

I think in 102 (Trump) threads the number of deleted posts probably could be counted on one hand

Exactly - because some of the more personal comments which are rightly deleted on H&M threads are apparently acceptable when directed elsewhere

Of course there's no comparison between the public effects of H&M and a world leader, but if a principle - or even a talk guideline - is worth anything it surely has to apply to all

@SunbathingDragon but MM is hardly likely to start dishing dirt on Jessica she would have nothing to gain from it. Jessica however...

Question for the legal experts. If someone from another country is called to testify in a court hearing and they refuse/don’t attend are there any repercussions?

[quote alliwantisagoodnightssleep]@SunbathingDragon but MM is hardly likely to start dishing dirt on Jessica she would have nothing to gain from it. Jessica however...

Question for the legal experts. If someone from another country is called to testify in a court hearing and they refuse/don’t attend are there any repercussions?[/quote]
I would imagine that depends whether JM is one of the sources for the People article and whether she says anything or not in court. MM could have plenty to gain in terms of an agreement for them to both stay quiet.

@TheSan it's me who keeps mentioning the National Theatre. I do so because it's an area of frustration for me that where Meghan does have a role and an expectation that she might speak up for the industry, she is not doing so. A much broader vague approach to BLM seems to be her preference. She could also get more people on side by speaking out about aspects of BLM where she has knowledge and experience, i.e. about racism in acting, television and Hollywood. Harry likewise could talk about issues of race in the armed forces, and address the infamous 'P word' remark to show how it seemed ok at the time but he can now see why it is so problematic. All relevant to current issues and to their own personal experiences.

All very good points buttery puffin.

[quote ButteryPuffin]@TheSan it's me who keeps mentioning the National Theatre. I do so because it's an area of frustration for me that where Meghan does have a role and an expectation that she might speak up for the industry, she is not doing so. A much broader vague approach to BLM seems to be her preference. She could also get more people on side by speaking out about aspects of BLM where she has knowledge and experience, i.e. about racism in acting, television and Hollywood. Harry likewise could talk about issues of race in the armed forces, and address the infamous 'P word' remark to show how it seemed ok at the time but he can now see why it is so problematic. All relevant to current issues and to their own personal experiences.[/quote]
I would say that she doesn’t because she appears to all intents and purposes have left the U.K. and the National Theatre is a U.K. charity. I can’t see how anyone can’t think it feeds in and links with Hollywood and Broadway, so struggling to understand why she isn’t being vocal about it, but perhaps Meghan feels her reach is to an American audience and that is what she is focusing on.

I do think that whilst they retain their titles of Duke & Duchess of Sussex even though they’re not using HRH (kept but not using!) then the majority of the British Public will feel entitled to have an opinion of how they present themselves, as they do remain part of the structure surrounding the unelected Head of State of the UK and some of other Commonwealth countries. The Monarchy is part of the political scene in UK - at the top albeit in a symbolic rather than operational way.

If they relinquish the Sussex titles (remaining HRH) and don’t get paid from the Estates of the Monarch & don’t actively attack the Monarchy then people will feel less emotive about it all. (This would put them on a par to Beatrice & Eugenie in my opinion).

If they want to publically criticise the monarchy through actions or words (Which it feels to me they are doing at the moment) then my personal opinion is that they need to relinquish titles and HRH and become private members of the Windsor family and receive no monies from the Monarchy in any way.

It is incorrect to attempt to clearly demarcate who does politics and who doesn't. Anyone will be 'doing politics' as long as they have instruments of power such as wealth, words or physical capabilities. We like to pigeon-hole politicians as the only ones doing proper politics while philanthropists do philanthropy, religions preach and royals royal. This is not quite the case. We are uncomfortable with the opagueness and the blurring of the lines of power between all of these groups. HaM do have political power as do the others on my list.

Meghan does have a role (with the National Theatre) and an expectation that she might speak up for the industry, she is not doing so

Perhaps this - which many Americans won't even have heard of - seems a bit boring compared to the glittery "latest causes" they appear to favour?

TBF some of these things are worthwhile, but it's hard to avoid the impression they'll jump on anything headline-worthy ... not so much out of real empathy as a desire to keep themselves relevant

It is incorrect to attempt to clearly demarcate who does politics and who doesn't. Anyone will be 'doing politics' as long as they have instruments of power such as wealth, words or physical capabilities

That's actually a pretty fair point, Barleylemon; it also throws into sharper relief the issue of who's authorised (elected) to speak for others and who isn't