Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

999 replies

Mummy195 · 28/07/2020 11:58

@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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
WurraBurra · 31/07/2020 11:26

The thing that annoys me about Paul Burrell is that the joke about the Queen’s horse farting was doing the rounds in 1987 but when he went I to the jungle for iacgmooh, he passed it off as a true story.

I think he should go to LA and be Harry’s butler. It would be perfect:

Sir, the press have been at it again.

What have they been up to? fckers

Let me tell you a story about your mother. The Princess always did this...

Coffee4Queen · 31/07/2020 11:27

The most overtly misogynistic & racist were deleted

I lurked but could never understand why threads were deleted for being racist. It would be interesting to see the specific posts/comments MN and some posters thought were racist

Original poster
Mummy195 · 31/07/2020 11:27

No, I do not expect her to have special treatment.

The RRs kept insisting that she did.

OP posts:
OVienna · 31/07/2020 11:27

The bridal shower cost can be fudged though. I am not necessarily suggesting she's done that but what goes into that figure? Did they lay out an itemised bill? I doubt it but I wouldn't expect it in the court docs as that is not what this case is about - it is not about whether the articles in the DM were wrong. It would be very hard for either side to provide a conclusive figure one way or another.

OVienna · 31/07/2020 11:28

Roussette I don't disagree. Every generation has their battle, it would appear.

OVienna · 31/07/2020 11:34

I've got to get on but I was going to say Harry popped up on my Linkedin the other day, with a speech. I don't think it was with Travalyst but i can't look now.

I actually think fewer people may be following the details of all of this and forming a view on them than you might imagine - maybe even in the US. They might be fine to get some work on that front. It's hard to say. People who spend -too much- time online like myself are not necessarily in a majority.

I thought they were great and missed all the back and forth around much of the stuff we're talking about now. It was the Instagram post and the website that got my attention in a WTF sort of way.

Original poster
Mummy195 · 31/07/2020 11:34

@OVienna

The bridal shower cost can be fudged though. I am not necessarily suggesting she's done that but what goes into that figure? Did they lay out an itemised bill? I doubt it but I wouldn't expect it in the court docs as that is not what this case is about - it is not about whether the articles in the DM were wrong. It would be very hard for either side to provide a conclusive figure one way or another.
It would be difficult for the DM to lay out the figure.

MM would just ask for the receipts from the friend who organised it, and in all likelihood that is what she did, so they could be confident in putting it out to court.

Just like I am sure they are confident that the bathtubs and other nonsense does not exist. Easy to prove if it's not physically there.

OP posts:
MeghanSussex · 31/07/2020 11:34

One of my favourite things she did was driving the King of Saudi Arabia round her estate a couple of years ago- a subtle show of support for Saudi women campaigning to be able to drive.

That's one of things I admire about HMQ. Deeds, not words. After all, words are so easy whereas actually doing things quietly, subtly, things that really count - that's what's important. The Princess Royal goes about it the same way. Sheer class.

ajandjjmum · 31/07/2020 11:41

@OVienna

The bridal shower cost can be fudged though. I am not necessarily suggesting she's done that but what goes into that figure? Did they lay out an itemised bill? I doubt it but I wouldn't expect it in the court docs as that is not what this case is about - it is not about whether the articles in the DM were wrong. It would be very hard for either side to provide a conclusive figure one way or another.
I agree. Figures can be made to say anything you want. They were presumably not audited, so any slant could be put on the individual sums.
jeffgoldblumlovespenguins · 31/07/2020 11:43

Can I ask what RRs are?
All these two letter codes are confusing!

OVienna · 31/07/2020 11:43

It isn't quite that simple, you see, @Mummy195. What is a 'gift' and what is a 'shower cost'. She can include whatever she likes in that figure and it isn't a 'lie.' Litigation is like that - there is in fact interpretation in the 'facts' that people put forward. That why people go to court.

Not in the case here, though, which I am guessing you're not disputing? This case is not about whether the articles are true or not. It never has been.

myrtleWilson · 31/07/2020 11:44

Re the baby shower cost - has the figure actually been cited in the papers as the quotes I've seen from that section just say "significantly smaller fraction" but as a PP poster said (apologies I can't recall who) the costs (big amount or small fraction thereof) wouldn't be out of step in that circle of friends....

Original poster
Mummy195 · 31/07/2020 11:47

Royal Reporters / could also be Royal Rota.

Can we please stop with the snarky maybe MM is perjuring herself in court. It's not really positive, and unproven, while at the same time defamation.

OP posts:
OVienna · 31/07/2020 11:47

The reality is also that it would not be at all difficult for the MoS to develop or gain access to sources at the locations where these events were held that are unconnected to Meghan and her friends for estimates of the costs.

Hotels etc are notoriously leaky places. It wouldn't be hard at all.

As I have said repeatedly, I understand why people get angry at the tabloids but the focus should be on HOW they get their information at least as much as whether it's true or not. It is very naive to think it's all lies.

OVienna · 31/07/2020 11:47

No one is saying she's perjuring herself! Blimey.

OVienna · 31/07/2020 11:49

You think paps don't cultivate employees at these sites for tip offs? They probably have dozens and dozens of them in their phones.

jeffgoldblumlovespenguins · 31/07/2020 11:50

@Mummy195

Royal Reporters / could also be Royal Rota.

Can we please stop with the snarky maybe MM is perjuring herself in court. It's not really positive, and unproven, while at the same time defamation.

Please show these snarky perjury posts! You can't throw out baseless accusations for the hell of it!
EthelMayFergus · 31/07/2020 11:53

@TheChristmasPrincess

So what did everyone think about Prince Harry’s eco tourist speech (the one alikened to a carnivore advocating vegetarianism by the former undersecretary of State for transport)?
Unfortunately I can no longer watch his speeches, due to the copied mannerisms of his wife he now comes across as insincere. However the 'carnivore advocating vegetarianism' could probably cover all of their preaching imo.
Samcro · 31/07/2020 11:55

i thought a friend payed for it, can't remember who.

ajandjjmum · 31/07/2020 11:58

@Mummy195

Royal Reporters / could also be Royal Rota.

Can we please stop with the snarky maybe MM is perjuring herself in court. It's not really positive, and unproven, while at the same time defamation.

Not positive - but I thought this was a catch all thread now re. M & H?
Original poster
Mummy195 · 31/07/2020 12:14

Judging by the looks of this thread, so far, the positive for H&M changed long ago. It has indeed been hijacked by loads of accusations against MM for lying, calling them names /assigning negative labels (childish, petulant etc.). not so stealth digs on how other royals - even from overseas are much better than them, undermining how they do their work, negative foreshadowing for their future etc. etc.

You know, they usual from the negative threads.

OP posts:
Original poster
Mummy195 · 31/07/2020 12:16

PS: those who have been saying there is nothing on PA, so that is why they are quiet about him and not MM. There has been an update on the GM case, feel free to critique there rather than on H&M.

OP posts:
TheNavigator · 31/07/2020 12:18

@Coffee4Queen

The most overtly misogynistic & racist were deleted

I lurked but could never understand why threads were deleted for being racist. It would be interesting to see the specific posts/comments MN and some posters thought were racist

I think it is pretty obvious why threads were deleted for being racist. Mumsnet could not possibly allow racist threads to stand on their site. The other threads always descended into such unpleasant vitriol, they had to be zapped. If posters cannot stop the threads they love descending into endless baseless attacks on MM then they obviously need to find another site to post the nastiness, which many posters have done - MisogynistNet or some equivalent, I guess.

It is just a shame to read so much snark on this thread against MM - I wonder whether posters will be able restraint their hate enough to prevent deletions. We will have to wait and see...

alliwantisagoodnightssleep · 31/07/2020 12:26

TheNavigator, Mummy195

As per previous comments from MN. Posters can post on whatever thread they wish as long as it is within MN Guidelines. Perhaps a bit of forward thinking would have made you realise that if you continually force posters off one thread they will just come and join an existing one.

I guess the phrase is you reap what you sow...

Crispsginchoc · 31/07/2020 12:29

“Snark”. Or a difference of opinion. We can’t all agree, however the name calling (snark and calling people hateful) for expressing a different point of view, is surely not in the spirit of the thread.