I wonder if reconciliation is possible?

[sunnyblackwidow]

With Prince Philip now gone, the queen not as robust as she once was and grieving her loss, Prince Charles looked distraught today, Harry with a new baby on the way, memories of Diana's funeral today....I wonder if now isn't the perfect time for them to just all get together show their love for each other and clear the air (perhaps without Meghan's presence as she seems to inflame things).

I think it'll be telling how long Harry chooses to stay in the UK before he returns to the US (a clear indication of whether he's willing to hang around for a little while to mend fences or rush back home to Meghan and Oprah and Gail) I really wish the best for them all, family is everything but I'm not holding my breath.

@Roussette

Well.... I've always said it on site stuff... I don't think NCing should be allowed. It is unusual on a forum and I've been on a few. There could be a secure area for posters who need help and don't want to be identified.

It would stop 99% of the nastiness on here. Especially on the M&H threads. I don't change my name, I get recognised and that leads to vitriol. Everyone should own their name and stand by it

I know that many posters post something, NC, come back, post something else unpleasant, have a go at posters, NC again. And so on. There's an element ofa lot of posters on these threads with no history because they NC all the time.

The problem is that there are some very good reasons why posters might want/need to NC, so I don't think banning the practice is feasible.

I think the ideal would be that once you've posted on a thread you can only do so again under the same name.

That way if you want to NC elsewhere on the site that's fine but on threads you'd already contributed to them you'd have to NC "back" or accept you can't post again on that thread.

It would require some not insignificant development time from MNHQ however and I'm guessing they'd balance that against other features on their development roadmap that would drive additional revenue and the reduction in admin overhead that sock puppetry causes without such a feature.

This may well be true but to my knowledge Kate has never cleared seats for her and her friends to sit in isolation at Wimbledon or get body guards to stop take photos of her.
That was proven to be a total lie and you know it. What kind of agenda do you have, to feel the need to open your Big Book of Bad Bad Meghan and dredge up things from years ago all the time?

There is no evidence of any other prior bookings/cancellations by any mode of transport.

Are you really claiming that official royal trips to Balmoral for the entire Cambridge household, staff and entourage, wouldn't be booked in advance? That they simply ring up some random budget airline the night before they're due to travel, and cross their fingers there are enough seats?

You can't have it both ways. You can't insist that all royal travel is planned months ahead of time, then claim that of course the Cambridges don't bother to book flights till the evening before.

And please stop telling lies. No one has accused William of being involved in the decision to swap the planes. Simply that the fact he changed his travel plans at the last minute and informed the airline that press would be in attendance means it was a PR stunt designed to profit from Harry's bad press. The fact it resulted in two planes being flown across the country is just an example of an unfortunate PR own goal.

Sorry just to add that even banning NC full stop wouldn't prevent the very determined setting up multiple accounts - something that's fairly ubiquitous on Twitter (a d perhaps more common on here than people realise).

@DeRigueurMortis

Sorry just to add that even banning NC full stop wouldn't prevent the very determined setting up multiple accounts - something that's fairly ubiquitous on Twitter (a d perhaps more common on here than people realise).

It's more common on here than on twitter, because on twitter you have to go through the trouble of gaining followers.

@DeRigueurMortis
I do get what you're saying and I have the utmost sympathy for those MNers who need support in an anonymous way.
But...
it is unusual to have a forum where you can NC daily if you want. Many forums stopped the practice to discourage nuisance posts.

Yes to same name on a particular thread. That would stop sock puppeting which I think has to be reported to be stopped. But it doesn't really stop the problem of targeted unpleasant posts under a different name on the next thread.

Yes, and on your second post, I'm just surprised that ISPs can't be more carefully monitored. Given what we've said before... PBP's opening 30 MN accounts and actually getting round the ISP problem by using VPNs. Now that is a serious attempt to troll !!

MM never cleared any sits. The rags are so against her, they would never miss the opportunity to show us punters being harassed out of their sits. So it never happened. Someone also posted online that although it was one of the popular matches, there were infact lots of empty sits. Also there are pics of MM sitting with some families at some point during the match.

And by that logic, surely KM cleared sits, so that she and her entourage and Wimbledon staff can occupy the sits.

As for the Africans, I believe the black lady was infact the Headteacher, but the point is that you don't have to tell her you are doing a pr stunt to request that she is walking with you at a certain area where the photographers can snap her with you.
And you just have to tell the reporters about this one Ghanaian man who works in a senior position at the palace, never mind that we never heard about him before, and is he the only one fcs ?
Then the rest of your reporter friends interview black people just at a time when you are accused of racism.
Very convenient indeed.

I think what a lot of people don't necessarily realise is that it's a fairly common tactic in PR terms, that if you want to suppress one story you give give the Press another.

The Press just want clickbait so as long as they get "copy" they are happy to "trade" especially if it means they have a favour in hand.

Additionally, I think people think of the RF as being one big machine - it's not.

It's actually made up of multiple offices representing different parts of the RF who all have their own staff, PR and priorities.

Of course HMQ top trumps them all and can "dictate" certain approaches but on a day to day basis a lot of decisions are made in isolation.

Recent events have ensured they are all keen to sing from the same hymn sheet however when it comes to responding to H&M's latest activities.

So, it's not at all improbable that certain decisions are made to make one faction look good - even at another's expense.

If W did change the flights then my guess the thought was not being subject to the same criticism as H&M over private jets.

That's listening and responding to public perception and there's nothing wrong with that.

However the flip side is the story that followed was became a "compare and contrast" between the brothers.

Could that have been predicted? - perhaps yes but it doesn't mean the motivation was to smear H&M, it could equally have been not to fall into the same trap as them.

In many ways it's not always about the decisions that are made, it's about how the Press choose to "spin" them.

A prime example being the comparison between C and M - re: bump hugging/avocados/flower choices etc. Lots of examples of similar situations being reported positively/negatively respectively.

I do think there's lots of examples where H&M (the latter particularly) have drawn the short straw but at the same time I also think their PR approach overall has been detrimental to themselves and very misguided.

It's more common on here than on twitter, because on twitter you have to go through the trouble of gaining followers

Yes, to this. I didn't know it was a particular problem on Twitter for that reason. It took me years to get to my follower count but some beg for followers with followback tweets and I refuse to do that because I just don't care about the numbers that much. Quality over quantity

The Press just want clickbait so as long as they get "copy" they are happy to "trade" especially if it means they have a favour in hand

Yes to this big time.

I do think there's lots of examples where H&M (the latter particularly) have drawn the short straw but at the same time I also think their PR approach overall has been detrimental to themselves and very misguided

Hmmm.... I think MM received a very unfair press on all sorts of stuff as you quoted (bare arms/avocados/smell in the Abbey/ poisoning Charlotte and so on) compared to Kate. I also think they have at times mucked up their PR approach, yes, but I don't think one cancels out the other, like... because of that, Meghan deserves this awful press.

There is no way it can be a coincidence that H&M are the ones who always get caught out so much - not without insider help.

W has always flown private jet under the radar, even Charles does so exclusively.

What makes this even more insidious, is how protected Andrew is in all of this. All the while a laser focus on H&M and basically making up situations that are not even really there. Then you get people saying things like they are not helping themselves or their PR is bad. No, their PR is being deliberately thwarted.

p.s. DeRigeur to clarify... I am not saying that you mean she does deserve that. I am just speaking in general

Yes to same name on a particular thread. That would stop sock puppeting which I think has to be reported to be stopped. But it doesn't really stop the problem of targeted unpleasant posts under a different name on the next thread.

Yes I see your point about "the next thread".

I don't really see a way around it without "rules" that would be very difficult to implement and impact user experience.

I do think one thread/one name would help quite a bit though. Quite often I see goady posts that "feel" very similar in style/content and though I can't prove it, it does smack of a SP post.

Thing is though that the most troublesome and determined posters will always find a way through (eg with multiple accounts) so over zealous restrictions on NC'ing don't necessarily address the issue, rather they just make life harder for users NC'ing for appropriate reasons.

What makes this even more insidious, is how protected Andrew is in all of this
Oh god yes.
It is appalling.

Hmmm.... I think MM received a very unfair press on all sorts of stuff as you quoted (bare arms/avocados/smell in the Abbey/ poisoning Charlotte and so on) compared to Kate. I also think they have at times mucked up their PR approach, yes, but I don't think one cancels out the other, like... because of that, Meghan deserves this awful press.

No I don't think it's a case of cancelling it out.

Rather that both things can simultaneously be true.

Yes I agree really DeRigeur I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

And why should the many be penalised because of the few.

I never NC because I like my name and I can't be arsed 🤣

What would have really helped was if MM was treated like Sophie. They left her alone to get on with it.

They left M to get in with it too. She stuffed uo.

@Mummy194

What would have really helped was if MM was treated like Sophie. They left her alone to get on with it.

No they didn't!!!

I'm sorry but that's simply not true.

I'm not saying she was treated as badly as M, but she absolutely was targeted in the same way every woman (note not the men) joining the RF has been.

The difference with M is how much worse it was compared to the other women, not that they (D/S/S/C/C) escaped scott free....

It’s a bit like the Truman show isn’t it. Having your life broadcast to the world, and the world’s view of you polished or tarnished by the media and ‘sources’ depending on their own agendas, largely out of your hands. I suppose you make an enemy in the royal household and all sorts of things will leak, not necessarily by the family members themselves. And yet they all have to be prim and perfect and stiff upper lip about it to keep the criticism away from them. Perhaps this is what Harry means about being ‘trapped’ and maybe he sees it more clearly as the media scapegoat to William’s golden child?

It occurred to me watching and reading bits from the funeral, how every tear brushed away, every bit of eye contact, even lip reading private conversations... how intrusive this is. At a normal funeral, the only people there are known to the person, everyone looks forwards, not studying faces for every sign of emotion, not eves dropping on conversations. It’s like celebrity gossip magazines on steroids and I’m as guilty as anyone of being drawn in, but I do think it’s gone too far. This weird trade off between extreme privilege and having your real life serialised. You can’t blame H&M for rejecting that, even if I disagree with some of the decisions they’ve made since.

@mermaidsariel

They left M to get in with it too. She stuffed uo.

I don't agree with that either.

The press empirically did not leave her alone.

Though as posted below so think H&M's PR approach since the "stepping down" announcement has been very flawed to their dis-advantage.

I say that without malice, given as I've posted before I've no objections to them wanting "out".

I don't buy the argument she should have known what she was getting into. I can't imagine another situation where on MN people would object to someone thinking they could handle a certain dynamic/situation then finding out they couldn't and being criticised for not sucking it up for the rest of their life!

I don't mind them monetising their "brand" to earn a living. They need security and it's not cheap.

I've been pretty consistent that my objection to them is not what they've done, or why they did it but how they went about it (and are still going about it).

I always thought Fergie got the worst abuse, she didn't even get a honeymoon period. She was fat, she had red hair, she was too loud, they didn't like the house. It went on and on and still not much better now.

I might be biased as I am also a freckled red head, although not fat or loud and with a much smaller house.

@Mummy194

What would have really helped was if MM was treated like Sophie. They left her alone to get on with it.

Iirc Sophie was ordered to give up her PR business after she was caught out by the media. It looked like the things they didn't print were even worse judging by the "my Edward isn't gay " interview she gave shortly after the expose.

Rupert So agree. What a life it is.
I was musing on Kate the other day. I wonder if she is really happy. (not in anyway to do with her marriage, I don't mean that, I mean in the thought that This Is It, This is My Life)

I imagine she has friends round, playdates at the Palace for the kids (when covid allows) but never being able to go to their houses, or impromptu shopping trips when she's bored, or cocktails in a lovely bar or or or
What a gilded cage it is. Horrendous as far as I'm concerned.

I might be biased as I am also a freckled red head, although not fat or loud and with a much smaller house

I'll take on the fat and loud bit

@Roussette

Rupert So agree. What a life it is. I was musing on Kate the other day. I wonder if she is really happy. (not in anyway to do with her marriage, I don't mean that, I mean in the thought that This Is It, This is My Life) I imagine she has friends round, playdates at the Palace for the kids (when covid allows) but never being able to go to their houses, or impromptu shopping trips when she's bored, or cocktails in a lovely bar or or or What a gilded cage it is. Horrendous as far as I'm concerned.

Well it's certainly not a life I'd choose!

But I suppose that's the point - these women and men did choose it.

People often say "you can't help who you fall in love with" but I think that's naive.

If someone set me up on a date (or was asked directly) by a senior royal I'd simply say no.

It's not a relationship I'd be interested in cultivating from the outset.

At some point a decision has been made that it's "worth it" until in M's case that it wasn't anymore.

C had a long time (and even a split where she could have refused to rekindle the relationship) to understand the "nature of the beast".

M had far less time but I don't "buy" that she was clueless. Rather I think she was misguided about a lot of reality of being royal as opposed to an A list star. As below I'm fine with her saying "I can't do/don't want to do this".