A positive thread on Harry and Meghan (aka Thread 6)

[Mummy195]

@rousette

I'm sure you won't mind that your excellent link gets 'pinned'.

Some of the things MM did before marrying H.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282990766097301504.html

I actually quite like the sound of Angela Kelly from that article. It may have not meant to be complimentary but it made her sounds like someone who takes no prisoners but does a great job for HMQ.

A positive thread about H &M.
Nothing negative about them here.

Also, ppl have been writing all sorts of snark about MM, without you complaining, one of them even put out a Private Eye which did not even make any article or explanation, just pure snark. And you said nothing, and now there is an article detailing what supposedly took place and you are so offended?

Please give me a break.

Why has a nasty article about Angela Kelly been posted on a 'positive' thread about Harry and Meghan? Seriously, why? What has a nearly 10 year old opinion on HMQ's dresser got to do with the title of this thread?

@Serenster

They are perfectly apt comparisons- female flight attendants have well-drawn uniform and make up policies. That's exactly what you were talking about. Compliance is about meeting the ethical standards of your work place. As public figures, royals have ethical standards they are expected to comply with. How about press relations then? All organisations I have worked in have policies around fitting in with the press office schedule, and not doing your own thing with the press, as protection of the corporate brand is paramount. These are not unusual job requirements. Being unable or unwilling to comply with them isn't generally acceptable behaviour for any employer.

I don't see that nail varnish and tights have anything to do with ethics. And I really dont agree that forcing women to wear makeup is to do with ethics. Sexist outdated culture maybe but ethics, definitely not. In fact I'd say it's unethical to force women into a stereotypical appearance. It reminds me of Addicted To Love.

@meercat23

I actually quite like the sound of Angela Kelly from that article. It may have not meant to be complimentary but it made her sounds like someone who takes no prisoners but does a great job for HMQ.

Well there you go, ppl see the other side of it.

Anyway, enough of the faux outrage, ppl have been calling H childish and petulant right on this thread without anyone batting an eyelid. Lots of times. Now, one article you find offensive.

Yes, ppl have been talking about Angela just on the posts beforehand.

@EthelMayFergus

Why has a nasty article about Angela Kelly been posted on a 'positive' thread about Harry and Meghan? Seriously, why? What has a nearly 10 year old opinion on HMQ's dresser got to do with the title of this thread?

Yes this! Why is she even being brought up at all?

I didn't bother reading the article about Angela Kelly. Someone who is so trusted by the Queen is likely to attract jealousy, particularly given her working class background. She could be a right bitch (!) but she's very good at what she does.

It's an example of 'the plain nastiness, gossip and speculation' that Lily just said wouldn't be tolerated. I won't report, I think it's good to see the double standards.

Out of curiosity Mummy195, do you believe that article written by Camilla T?

Mummy, the 'outrage' as you call it is because you are one of the first to be 'outraged' when anyone says anything critical of H&M. Then you go and do it about another woman who so happened to have had some sort of disagreement with Harry according to Omid's new book. It's like it's only H&M who are not allowed to be criticised but literally anyone else is fair game, especially if they may have wronged H&M.

@TofinoSurf

Mummy, the 'outrage' as you call it is because you are one of the first to be 'outraged' when anyone says anything critical of H&M. Then you go and do it about another woman who so happened to have had some sort of disagreement with Harry according to Omid's new book. It's like it's only H&M who are not allowed to be criticised but literally anyone else is fair game, especially if they may have wronged H&M.

All of this!

I agree that it is a nasty article and very similar to many, many of the comments and threads about Harry and Meghan.

The only double standard is some posters name calling H&M and quoting all sorts of nastiness and then going around being offended when one article about some woman who was being discussed on the thread. Or are we supposed to only talk about how wonderful AK is, while at the same time piling on H&M. Bearing in mind H&M ARE being piled on, not this AK, who apparently is being so protected.

I don't know if what took place is true or not, but I am not aware of any smear campaign against her, so have no reason to believe it's all made up.

I did like Meghan's dress, I just knew she would wear a boat neck sort of style.
Although Kate's dress was really superb for her position, I did find it a bit too structured, especially the bodice bit. She did look wonderful though.

I loved the top half of Eugenie's dress, I found the bottom half a bit sticky outy, but again she looked lovely.

Can you imagine the outrage if an article was posted about MM that claimed her nickname was AK-47!

The article about AK does not bother me either way in the slightest. I don't really care if someone wants to share it. What bothers me is the double standards that if someone had posted a similar article about MM they would have been reported and banned.

Where is this current pile on of H&M happening?

Anglea Kelly is a mum too. If we want to drag ourselves back to that discussion ...

Yes, it is double standards, I agree there

Yes I also agree re double standards. I also am very uncomfortable with being told who can post what and where on this site. I believe it’s an open forum with all views and opinions welcome (not personal attacks obviously!)

@TofinoSurf

Ppl have put loads of posts worse than that on here, and even now they still comment and validate such articles. Those posters never get banned. Nice try though.
What you can do now is think about how offended you feel, and multiply it by the pile on that MM has and you get the jist of why ppl report to MN.

PS : it may sound unlikely, but I hardly report posters as I don't have time to come on here and agree they should stay as proof. Plenty of times, I have come on and found posts and threads zapped. I remember more than one time being hounded out of the negative thread for dispelling lies, I received some DM's from non-posters who told me to get out of the negative thread and expressed their disagreement. So there are lots of ppl who are not happy with this pile on, but may not have the energy to deal with negativity.

Was the old hatchet-job article on Angela Kelly posted because of the current news reports that have named her in the MM tiara row? If so, that's really shabby.

She's a skilled and professional member of HMTQ's team, and has done a wonderful job of costuming Her Majesty and Princess Beatrice.

@jeffgoldblumlovespenguins

Where is this current pile on of H&M happening?

The last time posters counted was around 20, then it became too obvious, so the numbers were removed. That was months ago. There must have been another 20 since then, with some removed.

You may pretend not to be aware, but everyone can see it.

Then there is the name changes, not sure what that is about, whether it's to confuse new posters into thinking there are more negative ppl against MM or what. But even MNHQ complained about the confusion it's causing.

Of all the recent dresses, M's would have been my favourite. However, the wrinkling around the waste really annoyed me. Given that was custom made and cost a small fortune, it should have been perfect. Also, M's hair was a bit messy, some strands started to come loose. I'm honestly not trying to be unkind. I think if you're doing the hair of a bride whose wedding will be watched by millions, you should be at the top of your game. I liked M's evening look. Kate's evening look was lovely as well.

I haven't read the article, but I do think some posters are dismissing just how vile a lot of the comments were on MM on thread after thread after thread. The most overtly misogynistic & racist were deleted, but that still left hundreds of really unpleasant stuff. One poster even went to the trouble of starting a witless & unpleasant mock blog to mock her, complete with faux Americanisms treating her as a total object of ridicule.

That level of hate cannot be compared to a link to one unpleasant article.

@HarryDaylight

out of curiosity, do you believe that all those negative articles on MM are hatchet jobs too?

I asked where the current pile on was?
Not about threads from yesteryear !
No one on this thread has been unkind.