Harry and Meghan News thread

[Viviennemary]

I thought we could have a thread for latest news. MN did say they didn't mind one or two threads. And no rules except stick to MN guidelines. It's Meghans birthday today I just read. And the Queen has wished her a very happy birthday on the royal Instagram page according to that popular Oracle the DM.

Puzzledandpissedoff

But wasn't she reported to have said she'd never live in the US while Trump was president ... ?

Are you saying she didn't mean it? Shock, horror!

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8611025/Prince-Harry-says-single-one-defeat-racism.html

Referencing an actual Daily Mail article as don't want to get blatted for speculation. PH saying that "Social Media is stoking a crisis of hate" but he then gives an interview on systemic racism....on social media. That makes loads of sense.

Does being married to MM give PH unique insights or experience of racism that he previously didn't have? This is a genuine question not idle speculation. Because examining PH's speech topics from several years back it does not appear that racism was a huge priority for PH prior to meeting MM as he rarely spoke or gave interviews about it or gave any indication that it was something he felt strongly about. I would have thought it would have made a lot more sense for MM to have done the interview as she could then speak from actual experience of being mixed race. It's a bit like a man giving a speech on sexism against women when as a man his experience would be limited to having observed female relatives or friends experience this rather than being directly affected himself.

There's also the privacy thing. PH and MM made a big thing of wanting to retreat from Royal duties and leave the UK because they wanted more privacy. Lecturing the rest of us on "what needs to be done" not only gets everyone's backs up but isn't really typical behaviour of someone who genuinely wants to live a quiet private life with his family.

I think his marriage must have given him a new insight, surely.

I haven’t watched it, but would be interested to know if he mentioned his own previous comments and if he addressed that issue

It would be so, so much easier to accept any level of lecturing from Harry on race if he would be explicitly clear about his own past racism and apologise for it.

But for what it's worth, I actively disagree with his point about it requiring everyone to fix race issues. It's actually much, much more effective to focus entirely on socio-economic repair and equality of opportunity than to focus on micro-aggressions, micro-traumas etc. The more aggrieved BOTH sides feel at the other ('they're always oppressing me' vs 'I can't do wrong for doing right') the further you get from the solution. Whereas if you focus on providing a life that is secure, free from physical threat and with solid opportunities for living well, then communities find it far easier to coexist on an even footing. That DOESN'T involve everyone. It requires the sacrifice of the actually privileged (not just those with a slight advantage of not being an ethnic minority but broadly underprivileged), and the effort of government to provide solid educational and social funding.

So disposing with Princes who sponge off billionaires would be a good place to start.

It would be so, so much easier to accept any level of lecturing from Harry on race if he would be explicitly clear about his own past racism and apologise for it.

That’s true, and a little bit more humility in general. His high-handed lecturing style will just annoy a lot of people.

Cracking post thecatsthecats

PH saying that "Social Media is stoking a crisis of hate" but he then gives an interview on systemic racism....on social media. That makes loads of sense

I didn't watch that particular interview - there's only so much I can stand - but perhaps Harry thought his contribution was fine because he was speaking against the alleged hatred?

However as the beneficiary of colossal privilege, and with a proven background of personal racism, it's perhaps a shame that the sensible option of keeping his mouth shut seems not to have occurred to him

Great post , the cats

@Grinchlywords

Great post , the cats

Seconded 👏

It would be so, so much easier to accept any level of lecturing from Harry on race if he would be explicitly clear about his own past racism and apologise for it.

I completely disagree. Nothing would make it easier to take any sort of lecturing from an ultraprivilidged, hyper insulated, white, British male on race and inequality particularly as it related to the United States. This is the racial version of mansplaining (racesplaining?) and I think he should STFU.

@Mominatrix

It would be so, so much easier to accept any level of lecturing from Harry on race if he would be explicitly clear about his own past racism and apologise for it.

I completely disagree. Nothing would make it easier to take any sort of lecturing from an ultraprivilidged, hyper insulated, white, British male on race and inequality particularly as it related to the United States. This is the racial version of mansplaining (racesplaining?) and I think he should STFU.

Well I didn't say it would make him qualified!

Right now he's an unqualified hypocrite. If he acknowledged and apologised, he could be downgraded to just unqualified, which is easier to swallow.

I would say though that "converts" do have a value in racial reconciliation. One of the things I dislike in recent racial discourse is the polarisation of views and the winnowing out of different voices to the point where (for some) the only acceptable contributions come from from the victim group.

Whereas there's plenty of evidence that shutting out contributory voices does nothing to advance reconciliation programs, and you need advocates who've "converted" to sell the message. (Nelson Mandela was one such convert and was very open about his transition from terrorism to advocating peaceful reconciliation). I worked on a reconciliation project regarding the Armenian genocide and encountered factions of academics who didn't want reconciliation, and competing factions within different diaspora of genocide victims. Those who denied the genocide of other groups as if it would make their genocide less specially painful. That denied accepting aid or reparations from perpetrator groups.

So neutral and conciliatory and objective voices play an important role in the process.

The trouble is, Harry doesn't have the humility or introspection to take such a role. He has thus far failed to engage with his own racist acts, failed to relinquish the privileges of his position and assumed a role of authority he's unqualified for.

The thing is no one is going to listen to someone who takes it upon themselves to lecture others about what they should and should not be thinking /doing purely by virtue of the fact that they are rich and famous. Would we listen to Victoria Beckham lecturing us on our lifestyles and behaviour? Especially if she failed to live up herself to any of her ideals. The person lecturing needs to be exceptional and exemplary or very knowledgeable in order for anyone to take them seriously. They are none of those things. I find it insulting and laughable.

The moderation on M&H threads is considerably more intensive on than on other topics.

Except for the Feminism Chat board, especially on the topic of trans! :)

Apropos H&M, I find the topic fascinating and agree with ppl that I find it extremely patronising for H to lecture everyone on racism, just because he married a mixed-race woman. I've had to deal with racism on a personal lesson since I was a child and these shallow lectures don't change anything. It's just words.

I've got to the point where I don't want to hear another word of advice from those two. The more they go on the less popular they will become. The only other royal I really don't like is Princess Michael of Kent. And we hardly ever hear or see her.

The Guardian have published a review of Finding Freedom - not a spoiler to say they generally aren't impressed. The reviewer notes it is a "like mother, like son" for Prince Harry, being a re-run of "Diana: Her true story", and sets out that it put the boot into Kate rather than William and treats us to all sorts of details no-one probably wanted to know. It notes it is more interesting about the topics it avoids entirely (Prince Andrew, the twitter storm gossip about Prince William having an affair) than what it does say. Given the author is firmly on their side in terms of the press coverage they received from the tabloids, this is probably not the review they were hoping for.

www.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/10/finding-freedom-by-omid-scobie-and-carolyn-durand-harry-and-meghan-and-the-making-of-a-modern-royal-family

Related to the Guardian review picking up on the anti-Kate theme, Omid Scobie was interviewed on American tv this morning, and also spoke about the book. He said:

"Being a newcomer, and knowing Kate was once a newcomer, I think there were times where she knew that Meghan felt that she could have, or needed a bit more support from Kate, but didn't get it in some of those important moments."

and:

""There were awkward moments, such as the day the women happened to cross paths at Kensington Palace (in early 2017, when Harry and Meghan were still only dating), and although both were heading out to go shopping - in the same street - Kate went in her own Range Rover"

The fact that this shopping story is being pushed by the book and Meghan's camp astounds me, as the first the world knew about it was when it was published in February 2017 on a Canadian gossip site run by someone both Meghan and Jessica Mulroney knew. If I were Kate, and saw my brother-in-law's new girlfriend appeared to have passed on an event between the two of us, with a malicious spin, there is NO WAY I would be anything other than extremely wary of her. Can the authors really not see that this episode is massively double-edged for Meghan?

Imagine holding a grudge because somebody you hardly knew didn't give you a lift to the shops three years ago.

I've read the review. To have a go at Kate the way they have is really low. They know who the soft target is, clearly. They obviously feel they can retell these stories about her with impunity for whatever reason. It's vile.

I hope Kate never has to see that couple at an event that isn't carefully orchestrated again. I wouldn't go anywhere near either of them again in a way that would allow informal contact that could be played back at me via one of their 'outlets.' It's sad with respect to Harry but true. I am glad Kate has a solid family behind her to get her through this. I would be really upset.

Its just so petty, coming across like those people who post cryptic posts on fb about being hard done by and then put pm me hun in the comments
Seriously by that logic I should be having a massive strop because my bff and her family were at a beach 6 miles away from my house and didn't invite me or my family to join them.
Strangely enough I'm not having a strop. I'm grown-up enough to understand that people are allowed to invite/ not invite as they choose.

Imagine holding a grudge because somebody you hardly knew didn't give you a lift to the shops three years ago. Indeed. It wasn't very friendly of Kate but God knows what the interactions were between the two previous to this. None of us will ever know because Kate and William will never write an equivalent book or authorise one.

Serenster, thanks for the Guardian review link. Fascinating to read this take on the book. If true, no wonder Kate barely acknowledged them at the Commonwealth service.
Also, if true, fancy firing someone in the middle of the night...

There could be all sorts of reasons for it. Is the DM serialising it?

I can’t see how the shopping incident is an issue. Presumably, at the time, Kate will have required security and it was probably important that her security team planned the trip and risk assessment. I wouldn’t be surprised if last minute changes aren’t permitted, especially for someone to join who wasn’t a friend of Kate’s and wasn’t in the Royal Family.

I also find the whole insinuation that Kate should have done more to help Meghan quite ridiculous. Kate had a role of her own, two young children and a husband, and then from summer 2017 she was pregnant and suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum again. Why on earth is it her role to support Meghan? Isn't that Harry's job? Isn't that Harry's staff's job? What is a professional, accomplished woman in her mid-30s doing complaining about her sister-in-law's lack of support anyway? (and why then say in your engagement interview that Kate had been "incredible"?).

@Serenster

I also find the whole insinuation that Kate should have done more to help Meghan quite ridiculous. Kate had a role of her own, two young children and a husband, and then from summer 2017 she was pregnant and suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum again. Why on earth is it her role to support Meghan? Isn't that Harry's job? Isn't that Harry's staff's job? What is a professional, accomplished woman in her mid-30s doing complaining about her sister-in-law's lack of support anyway? (and why then say in your engagement interview that Kate had been "incredible"?).

Because she’s looking for someone to blame maybe.