Thread about Harry and Meghan that has no deletions

[OverUnderSidewaysDown]

Play nicely and don’t say anything that will get your post (or the thread) deleted. I’ll start. Archie is cute and it would be lovely to see him more often.

@WineIsMyCarb God knows. So odd.

The problem for Harry is he doesn’t understand ( arrogance) he is not the person to shine a light ( his words ) on inequality/climate change
One area where he really could have focused and I think tried to make a genuine contribution was the military charities but all the flitting /disrespect to the queen and the Lion King debacle has completely damaged his credibility
If you want to make a difference that’s great but step back and be gracious to recognise you might not be the right person for every cause !

bluebell I think most people left to go over to the other site/s. It’s MN’s own doing if they don’t return though and a vast amount of what was excessively heavily moderated has now been stated as true in Finding Freedom which was written by someone a judge has formally announced is fed information directly from H&M.

@WineIsMyCarb

Forgive me if I'm repeating something further up the thread, but WRT the Gloria Steinem interview... why would Steiner do it? What's in it for her? Meghan is trying to 'establish' herself in this market to build their career/business, but why would Steinem agree to this interview? Presumably doesn't need the money (and doesn't strike me as someone who does 'stuff' for fashion/society magazines for money. The privilege of meeting H&M? Unlikely. Why would she do this interview?

Apparently Steinem has a film about her coming out at the end of next month so I’m guessing she had to do it for promotion purposes. Even so, it seems odd and I gather Steinem has received backlash from some of her fans for it.

I still lurk but I much prefer the other place. We are respectful of other people’s opinions, things are resolved if things become too heated and we self police quite adequately, thank you. It’s where the grownups are.

Shamefully, I had never heard of Gloria Steiner before this interview. Was she big in the 70s? I’d be interested to know what Diane Keaton and Jane Fonda et al think of MM.

@YouSayWhat I recommend Mrs America to learn a bit more about Gloria! Its on IPlayer and really good.

I do wish I knew where everyone had gone though! I assume MN is deleting all references to it!

Steinem and Markle share the same pr agents.

Ok I'm joining in here. What happened to the IG of the DIL of a former Canadian PM?is that vague enough?
She posted a lovely throwback photo from a Royal Wedding then deleted it and now her account is private.

YouSayWhat a clue about the other place?

LittleBearPad me, too.

@Didkdt

Ok I'm joining in here. What happened to the IG of the DIL of a former Canadian PM?is that vague enough? She posted a lovely throwback photo from a Royal Wedding then deleted it and now her account is private.

Rumour has it that she was asked to remove it by Team Sussex.

I did wonder whether Sunshine Sachs was involved!

I am a long term lurker on this thread but can't help commenting. I think MM herself but more obviously the very many different reactions to her are absolutely fascinating, especially as these reactions seem to be divided to some extent by age group.

If she and Harry want to continue banging on about equality, one thing I would really like them to do is to clearly explain what sort of equality they are seeking, and how practically they are going to support that. Because equality is not just one thing, it has many different definitions - it could be equality of opportunity or outcome, for example, and they might be talking about equity rather than equality. Are they interested in redistribution or recognition? Or both? Do they understand the difference between the two?

I have absolutely no idea at the moment but can only presume that they do not mean equality of outcome for example, or significant redistribution, because if so it would make their own position entirely unsustainable and especially hypocritical. But if they are only interested in some vauge notion of recognition then that seems largely pointless to me and really is just virtue signalling.

More generally I really think that the fact that so many (younger?) people support them (especially MM) and do not call out their hypocrisy - and claim that doing so necessarily indicates some sort of racism and mysogyny - signals a sort of triumph of neo-liberal identity politics in which people have been convinced that deep structural and material inequalities can co-exist with 'woke' identity politics, and in fact, are often not seen as inconsistent at all. The fact that feminists such as Gloria Steinem also seem now to go along with this is especially fascinating.

I absolutely do not think that MM should be vilified and I do think much of the abuse she has received is racially motivated. And that is completely wrong.

I cannot see though how she and her supporters square the completely unearned privilege (and voice) she has acquired on marriage (into one of the most obvious bastions of unearned privilege) with her entirely vague position on equality.

As I say, though, the fact that many people think this is fine does say something fascinating about our current times.

Sorry - that was very long!

@ajandjjmum but why would they do that they would just look silly and petty those photos are available everywhere

Anyway, I’m confused. Has Harry always been as equal a fan to Rugby League as he is to Rugby Union? Is League generally a bit safer than Union? I used to belong to a David Lloyd gym and it was always advisable to be in the pool at 10am on Tuesdays as the local RL team players came in for pool training. Woof!

Meghan and Harry deserve success.

Why?

What have they done that makes them so deserving?

@inexcessive

I am a long term lurker on this thread but can't help commenting. I think MM herself but more obviously the very many different reactions to her are absolutely fascinating, especially as these reactions seem to be divided to some extent by age group.

If she and Harry want to continue banging on about equality, one thing I would really like them to do is to clearly explain what sort of equality they are seeking, and how practically they are going to support that. Because equality is not just one thing, it has many different definitions - it could be equality of opportunity or outcome, for example, and they might be talking about equity rather than equality. Are they interested in redistribution or recognition? Or both? Do they understand the difference between the two?

I have absolutely no idea at the moment but can only presume that they do not mean equality of outcome for example, or significant redistribution, because if so it would make their own position entirely unsustainable and especially hypocritical. But if they are only interested in some vauge notion of recognition then that seems largely pointless to me and really is just virtue signalling.

More generally I really think that the fact that so many (younger?) people support them (especially MM) and do not call out their hypocrisy - and claim that doing so necessarily indicates some sort of racism and mysogyny - signals a sort of triumph of neo-liberal identity politics in which people have been convinced that deep structural and material inequalities can co-exist with 'woke' identity politics, and in fact, are often not seen as inconsistent at all. The fact that feminists such as Gloria Steinem also seem now to go along with this is especially fascinating.

I absolutely do not think that MM should be vilified and I do think much of the abuse she has received is racially motivated. And that is completely wrong.

I cannot see though how she and her supporters square the completely unearned privilege (and voice) she has acquired on marriage (into one of the most obvious bastions of unearned privilege) with her entirely vague position on equality.

As I say, though, the fact that many people think this is fine does say something fascinating about our current times.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. You've expressed it very well.

Lots of us have been saying versions of this since January (this is not to downplay the great way you've put it.)

We are respectful of other people’s opinions, things are resolved if things become too heated and we self police quite adequately, thank you. It’s where the grownups are

Oh yes. As long as you don't have an even slightly different opinion on H&M. There isn't much call for self policing in an echo chamber! 😂

I think the reason the photo on the IG of the DIL of the former Canadian PM was removed was because it was open to misinterpretation. It could be seen by a doting mother as a moment of pure joy. Or it could look like a small boy having a good laugh at the bride.

[quote Didkdt]@ajandjjmum but why would they do that they would just look silly and petty those photos are available everywhere[/quote]
Best ask them!

I did say it was rumour, but I suppose the reason for it being possible is that MM has said that she can no longer be friends with JM, and a photographic reminder of her family being closely involved in the wedding is now an embarrassment. Although as you say, the photos are readily available elsewhere.

@OverUnderSidewaysDown

I think the reason the photo on the IG of the DIL of the former Canadian PM was removed was because it was open to misinterpretation. It could be seen by a doting mother as a moment of pure joy. Or it could look like a small boy having a good laugh at the bride.

That is interesting, hadn't thought of that.