Positive thread on Meghan again

[Mummy194]

Now that at the other knock off MN chat has been shut down, we seem to have an influx of those posters on here with new or encouraged accounts.

For those who are not interested in trawling through negative post after the other. You can come on here for positive news about Meghan and Harry.

Why not, everyone else seems to be viewed positively, without 'cynicism'. I don't mind taking this at snail pace, we just post on the good things about H&M, they sure seem to be doing a lot of that lately, and it's really buried under the negativity on MN.

@StormzyinaTCup

Maybe Tom Bradby was wrong to ask the question then and there in the first place.

Yes, he shouldn't have asked that question. Or maybe asked it on another occasion in another ordinary interview.

@Roussette

Well.... look at the lack of outcry about Prince Michael of Kent. C4 Dispatches did a programme on him last week. There he is arranging meetings with Putin's henchmen for the sum of £10,000 a day. No one has mentioned it on any royal thread! (apart from me) There he is using his royal status for personal profit to provide access to Putin's regime.

Yet we are shocked about a question asked of Meghan whilst in africa 3 years ago.

There is a vendetta against her and him, that's all I can say.

The Kents are not working Royals, they are, to all intents and purposes private citizens. I do not believe they get security. They may attend functions as Royal Family members BUT not as representatives of the Queen. That's the difference with them.

[quote CokeDrinker]@Lucaslucas1612 Please don't lie. They were asked a question. It took them by surprise. They didn't volunteer the information out of the blue.

See this is what I mean by the antis being deceitful and outright lying and twisting things to suit their agenda and narrative. Answering a question turns into 'they made it about' and 'she moaned'. Seriously.[/quote]
But what caused him to ask the question? I doubt he suddenly thought it up, it must have been in some context to previous conservations. Yes, he probably shouldn't have asked it OR was he told to ask it? Perhaps their advisors should have checked what was being asked.

The Kents are working Royals. We've had enough posters in the past bang on about how many duties he does. He represents the Queen at different engagements and undertakes royal duties. And the Queen (i.e. us the public) pays for his 7 bedroom apartment in KP.

Even if he didn't, you think it's OK that he uses his royal name to make £10,000 a day selling access to Putin?

This is from a parliament website. Just for your info.

That this House notes the Press reports that, in future, £125,000 a year is to be paid for the accommodation occupied at Kensington Palace by Prince Michael of Kent; calculate that at today's rental the Prince has already enjoyed a £3 million gift from the taxpayer over the 24 years of his marriage; questions whether £125,000 is the full market value of a seven bedroom, seven sitting room apartment adjoining the accommodation previously occupied by Princess Diana; notes that the rooms are on a truly palatial scale, whereas a more normal four bedroomed house nearby is being rented at more than £95,000 p.a.; and invites the Royal Household to explain how the rental was arrived at when the apartment enjoys the benefit of being within a security screen.

Yet Meghan answered a question. Right

Sorry, that reply was to @Hanidjed7

They were not asked it as a surprise , they were given warning of the questions , TB has admitted this . That said they may not have fully realised how it would be edited.

Far worse though is there association with P&G what are they thinking, did they not do any due diligence . I really want to think well of them but they keep shooting themselves in the foot and this one is a really big mistake .

'We all know that someone else’s suffering doesn’t make our own pain any less. But the way she spoke was like someone complaining they’ve burnt some toast to their NDN whose house has just burnt down.'

Exactly! There is a time and a place and that wasn't it. Nothing to do with wibbling at the 'raw emotion' just a bit by the utter self absorption of them both.

The Prince micheal of kent stuff is equally as bad but he isn't on Spotify, Oprah and podcasts saying it was all everyone else's fault and maybe down to genetic pain or something.

You both must have been watching something totally different to what I watched.

Ahhh... a comment about Prince Michael of kent. Hooray! But it's all OK because he isn't on Spotify!

You really couldn't make this up.

The thing is this is a thread about Meghan and any comment about Prince Michael is whataboutery.

I note no comment about the P&G deal .

@ChiefInspectorParker

What do you mean 'the way she spoke'?

Choosing that moment, on the tour, to say that not many people had asked if she was okay. Choosing to say it to tv cameras. Making the tour and the coverage of the tour about her.

Tone deaf doesn’t begin to describe it.

Look at Princess Diana. She liked being in the spotlight. She had awful struggles and emotional pain. When she went to visit people who were suffering she used her star power and charisma to make it about them.

Imagine her coming out of an AIDS ward or a minefield and when asked about it, saying ‘well actually not many people have asked me if I’m okay’.

Brilliant, if there were a 'like' button I'd definitely use it for this post.

They made it about them from that point on. I, and most people in this Country, fully supported her and thought she'd be great for RF until the moment she moaned about her lot in one of the poorest Countries in the world whilst representing HMQ. It showed a lack of respect, manners, societal awareness, and empathy.

From then on the hypocrisy and them both started showing. It beggar's belief that a feminist was wearing designer clothes but they were paid for by her father in law, using a title by virtue of marriage and then had the audacity to moan about her life whilst poverty and illness was all around her in Africa tour. Maybe Tom Bradbury shouldn't have asked that question but it should never have been answered like it was!

I don't see the fuss about what Meghan said during the tour of Africa. I actually felt sorry for her as she was under a huge amount of pressure from the press and had been for a while.

I don't think everything they do is great but they are very obviously held to a higher standard than other royals and are very unfairly treated by the press.

I hate the constant criticism of them and think it has reached worrying and even more ridiculous proportions. Every time I think it can't get worse it does.

Just awful really.

Ahhhh got you! On other threads any royal can be mentioned and is frequently.

But not this one. Not allowed.

I will mention it as much as I want, sorry. And Prince Andrew if I fancy too.

Because double standards matter to me.

I am following about P&G on the other thread.

@GlencoraP

They were not asked it as a surprise , they were given warning of the questions , TB has admitted this . That said they may not have fully realised how it would be edited.

Far worse though is there association with P&G what are they thinking, did they not do any due diligence . I really want to think well of them but they keep shooting themselves in the foot and this one is a really big mistake .

I take it from this that you boycott all products made by P&G brands?

I didn’t say it wasn’t allowed , of course it’s allowed, I am just pointing out that it’s whataboutery , which it is .

there is whataboutery by the bucketload on every single H&M thread. Usually praising other Royals and saying how wonderful they are in comparison to H&M

@SetPhasersTaeMalkie

I hate the constant criticism of them and think it has reached worrying and even more ridiculous proportions. Every time I think it can't get worse it does.

I know. It's got out of hand.

Yes I try to , I won’t claim to be perfect , sometimes with subsidiary companies it’s hard to know the ownership but I do my best, but then again I am just little old me and no one pays any attention to whether I approve or not , I am not on a global stage.

I certainly wouldn’t condone somebody signing a deal to promote them though , or even to take money from them as endorsement especially when they are espousing opinions is direct conflict with a company’s actions. I would expect high profile deals like this to have been crawled over with a fine tooth comb so their endorsement is not accidental.

I note no comment about the P&G deal .

That's because it has been extensively covered on this thread. Please read the whole thread, and stop taking us back in circles. The queen approves of them, and you probably have the in your house too.

Yes, they have a Royal warrant or something don't they?

@Roussette

Imagine finding ourselves here again.

Oh god no, none of them are wonderful. Some are better/worse at representing the Queen than others though in PR terms, talking about your own problems whilst in a position of extreme privilege seems crass and insensitive.

Tbh I think they are both a pair of attention seekers.

His grandmother has just lost her life partner and he should have least took his foot of the gas out of respect Clark least for a bit..