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

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Positive thread on Meghan again

1000 replies

Mummy194 · 07/05/2021 19:16

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
27
YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 17/05/2021 14:20

Hello. This thread is quickly becoming derailed and while we generally prefer to let conversations flow, we should remind people that this is a thread intended for positive news, as the title suggests. Please refrain from taking it off-topic. Thank you.

Roussette · 17/05/2021 14:24

Thanks Becky. Smile
I think that horse has bolted though!

derxa · 17/05/2021 14:25

Or the Vegan thread and saying 'why not have a proper sausage, you know you want to!' But that's exactly what does happen. Or conversely on a dog out of control amongst livestock thread, farmers are attacked as if they're the spawn of the devil. It's alright if dogs worry sheep to death because they're going to be slaughtered anyway.

Roussette · 17/05/2021 14:41

Well, derxa that's not right and I really wouldn't go on the vegan thread saying that. Or say that on a livestock thread.

I was only pointing out that the thread title sort of leads posters to believe that there might be a more positive slant on here than elsewhere

derxa · 17/05/2021 14:50

@Roussette

Well, derxa that's not right and I really wouldn't go on the vegan thread saying that. Or say that on a livestock thread.

I was only pointing out that the thread title sort of leads posters to believe that there might be a more positive slant on here than elsewhere

Fair enough. The only trouble is that everything posted in praise of Meghan will be left unchallenged whether it is true or not. Anyway I'll leave you all to it.
Roussette · 17/05/2021 15:05

I would expect that proper news links would be left unchallenged. Like the $50million raised on Archie's birthday for Covax vaccine program. I've seen that for instance in about 6 different sources! It's not opinion, it's fact.

As are many other links on here.

Aspiringmatriarch · 17/05/2021 15:11

The reason KM and PW don't get so much negative press and criticism is because they don't speak out their opinions as much, they stay neutral.

Just cautiously popping back on here... I had to take a break because there was some quite nasty stuff on here last night. But I'd like to respond to this, because I think it's true in a way. KM and PW do absolutely play the royal game in that they present a sort of relatable yet aspirational image, they're outwardly pleasant, and they don't take a stance on anything that could be perceived as political or controversial. And it probably helps that they're both British, as opposed to Harry and Meghan where Meghan is obviously an American - a Californian actress no less. So there's a cultural difference in how she presents and some of that doesn't land as well with the UK public, especially those who are more 'small c conservative'.

A PP said that she felt Meghan was initially not so much accepted as on probation and there was a sense of waiting for her to trip up. I agree with that. There was always wariness. And with things like the writing on bananas thing, which was well received by the charity involved but widely mocked in the press and on here, it just became part of the narrative. And the press is all about the narrative because that's how they connect with readers. Nobody can definitively say Meghan did this or that because she's being manipulative or because she's genuinely being nice. It's all in the interpretation. But to circle back to this point about staying neutral, Meghan and Harry are poles apart from Kate and William - they do take a stance, they left royal duties, they left the country, they objected to the bullying rather than just 'riding it out.'

As soon as you take a stance, some people will warm to you more and others will feel alienated. And personally I support what they've done because I can just imagine how intolerable I would have found their situation. When you're giving something your all and it's met with so much criticism and there are lies being printed which you feel powerless to address, that must feel terrible. So I don't think to myself, these are two privileged people, I'm punching up here, they need a reality check. I'm actually interested in their perspective and I'm open to it. It doesn't mean I think they're perfect, there are things I could criticise. But that's different to an approach of looking at one thing, putting a very definite spin on it (which is always going to be inserting an interpretation), finding something else that matches up with that, and so on, until you're picking on the tiniest things.

And you can say that someone is whinging or that they're hurting and wanting to put their perspective forward. Two interpretations of the same thing. You can put it into a context where it's two millionaires feeling sorry for themselves in their LA mansion, or you can put it into a context that Harry has had an incredibly tough time in some ways, and Meghan became deeply unhappy just like Diana and Fergie before her, because the royal family plus the British press is a pretty toxic combination.

I'm rambling on now, but I do kind of get why they're divisive. I just happen to like them and thought hey, a nice positive thread on here. How naive I was. Grin

But honestly, I do wonder why you would see 'positive thread' and think oh, this is the right place for me to come on and say everything I dislike about this person. How is that a) in any way necessary and b) not just incredibly rude and arrogant?

StormzyinaTCup · 17/05/2021 15:12

I’m always a bit sceptical tbh with these types of threads (I’ve been a member of MN for 15 years+ so seen it all before). That whilst the title may be innocuous and clear enough the motive may be somewhat ‘cloudy’. I am conscious when I post not to offend or post anything that could be misconstrued when I see things slightly differently.

I am more than happy to clear off if my input is not wanted or needed (there is no shortage of other threads where I can freely waffle on Smile).

Adios AmigosSmile

Lampzade · 17/05/2021 15:19

@Aspiringmatriarch

The reason KM and PW don't get so much negative press and criticism is because they don't speak out their opinions as much, they stay neutral.

Just cautiously popping back on here... I had to take a break because there was some quite nasty stuff on here last night. But I'd like to respond to this, because I think it's true in a way. KM and PW do absolutely play the royal game in that they present a sort of relatable yet aspirational image, they're outwardly pleasant, and they don't take a stance on anything that could be perceived as political or controversial. And it probably helps that they're both British, as opposed to Harry and Meghan where Meghan is obviously an American - a Californian actress no less. So there's a cultural difference in how she presents and some of that doesn't land as well with the UK public, especially those who are more 'small c conservative'.

A PP said that she felt Meghan was initially not so much accepted as on probation and there was a sense of waiting for her to trip up. I agree with that. There was always wariness. And with things like the writing on bananas thing, which was well received by the charity involved but widely mocked in the press and on here, it just became part of the narrative. And the press is all about the narrative because that's how they connect with readers. Nobody can definitively say Meghan did this or that because she's being manipulative or because she's genuinely being nice. It's all in the interpretation. But to circle back to this point about staying neutral, Meghan and Harry are poles apart from Kate and William - they do take a stance, they left royal duties, they left the country, they objected to the bullying rather than just 'riding it out.'

As soon as you take a stance, some people will warm to you more and others will feel alienated. And personally I support what they've done because I can just imagine how intolerable I would have found their situation. When you're giving something your all and it's met with so much criticism and there are lies being printed which you feel powerless to address, that must feel terrible. So I don't think to myself, these are two privileged people, I'm punching up here, they need a reality check. I'm actually interested in their perspective and I'm open to it. It doesn't mean I think they're perfect, there are things I could criticise. But that's different to an approach of looking at one thing, putting a very definite spin on it (which is always going to be inserting an interpretation), finding something else that matches up with that, and so on, until you're picking on the tiniest things.

And you can say that someone is whinging or that they're hurting and wanting to put their perspective forward. Two interpretations of the same thing. You can put it into a context where it's two millionaires feeling sorry for themselves in their LA mansion, or you can put it into a context that Harry has had an incredibly tough time in some ways, and Meghan became deeply unhappy just like Diana and Fergie before her, because the royal family plus the British press is a pretty toxic combination.

I'm rambling on now, but I do kind of get why they're divisive. I just happen to like them and thought hey, a nice positive thread on here. How naive I was. Grin

But honestly, I do wonder why you would see 'positive thread' and think oh, this is the right place for me to come on and say everything I dislike about this person. How is that a) in any way necessary and b) not just incredibly rude and arrogant?

Great post .
Lucaslucas1612 · 17/05/2021 15:23

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Lucaslucas1612 · 17/05/2021 15:24
  • opinion changed.
Roussette · 17/05/2021 15:24

Great to see you back @Aspiringmatriarch. What a thoughtful post.

I agree with the Californian actress not sitting well with some over here, and also in particular the Courtiers in the Palace, the men in grey suits. They are the ones running the show really. The Queen and Charles are just the figureheads.

To me personally... I always try to see the good in someone as opposed to looking for the negative. But I think us British are all for building someone up, then pulling them down. And I think it was all so exciting to have an American divorcee marrying into the RF, then she wrote on the bananas in a way only an American can do and it was puzzling for some and the press turned on her because they realised what clickbait she was. She was their meal ticket! And now she has successfully sued them, the negative stories are ramping up because they've lost money, she's left, she's stood up to them and said 'No More'. We will control the narrative, not you.

Well done the both of them. I am sure they will be happy and fulfilled over there doing their own thing, good on them.

Lampzade · 17/05/2021 15:29

@ohforarainyday

It's hilarious watching the racist house of cards come tumbling down.

Mail on Sunday: absolutely creamed in court.

The Sun: on the verge of bankruptcy.

The RRs who participated in the "cash for lies" scandal video: publicly shamed and outed as liars.

Emily Andrews: fired.

Jason Knauf: Fired.

Melissa Touabti: Fired.

Meghan and Harry: Standing ovations of 40k people and $100million deals.

The revelation that the Mail on Sunday's lawyers accidentally CCd Meghan's lawyer into an email they wrote to Jason Knauf - an email revealing how much Jason was working with the Mail - and how Jason was subsequently forced to do an about face to avoid committing perjury and was then sacked from the fancy big bucks CEO job he got as a reward for leading the smear campaign against Meghan is sweet, sweet justice indeed.

Meghan just keeps winning! GrinGrinGrin

I am of the belief that your enemies can be used to elevate you. I don’t always agree with everything Meghan and Harry do or say, but I truly believe that they were treated appallingly and understand why they went to live in America. They are doing very well and I wish them the best.
JingsMahBucket · 17/05/2021 15:29

I am more than happy to clear off if my input is not wanted or needed (there is no shortage of other threads where I can freely waffle on smile).

Adios Amigossmile

Your opinion wasn’t wanted or needed last week and you also said you were going to clear off then too but kept obsessively returning to pee on the post. Adios.

StormzyinaTCup · 17/05/2021 15:37

Your opinion wasn’t wanted or needed last week and you also said you were going to clear off then too but kept obsessively returning to pee on the post. Adios.

Posters shouldn’t @ me to my inbox then - you can’t have it both ways. Final Adios Amigos Smile

CallmeHendricks · 17/05/2021 15:56

"Your opinion wasn’t wanted or needed last week"

How rude! This is an open site and any one of us is entitled to post where we like.

Samcro · 17/05/2021 15:58

I do like the way posters are defending their right to post off topic on this thread. yet if anyone with a differing view posts on one of the masses of other threads, well lets be nice and say they are not made welcome.

CallmeHendricks · 17/05/2021 16:00

Then take it up with those specific posters. I am not responsible for what others may or may not do on different threads.
MN is not one homogenous group.

Samcro · 17/05/2021 16:04

i am

goldierocks · 17/05/2021 16:59

”The revelation that the Mail on Sunday's lawyers accidentally CCd Meghan's lawyer into an email they wrote to Jason Knauf - an email revealing how much Jason was working with the Mail - and how Jason was subsequently forced to do an about face to avoid committing perjury……”

The official court documentation doesn’t say this. The matter of the email is addressed in paragraphs 49 and 50:

49. The application relies on some hitherto unseen emails sent by the defendant’s solicitors, RPC, to Addleshaw Goddard in early November 2020, shortly before the pleading of the Re-Re-Amended Defence. The documents have come to light because they were attached to a querulous letter of recrimination that RPC sent to Addleshaw Goddard on 8 April 2021, in response to the new information in the letter dated 6 April 2021, and copied to Schillings, the solicitors for the claimant. It is said that this was done by mistake, but the defendant does not suggest that the evidence is inadmissible. The claimant also relies on Addleshaw Goddard’s letter of 16 April 2021 in which, responding to RPC’s complaints, it described some telephone exchanges of November 2020.

50. The most significant features of these documents, on the claimant’s case, are these:

(1) In an email, dated 2 November 2020 from RPC (Mr Mathieson) to Addleshaw Goddard (David Engel), Mr Mathieson sought assistance from Mr Knauf, referred to the defendant being “hamstrung in pleading this point further”, and said that the defendant did not want to put on the record a case that was incorrect. No assistance was provided. Nothing transpired to improve the defendant’s position.

(2) An email from Mathieson to Mr Engel of 5 November 2020 (the eve of service of the Re-Re-Amended Defence), is said to confirm that the defendant “simply did not know whether or not Mr Knauf had helped with the drafting of the Letter”.

(3) Addleshaw Goddard’s letter to RPC of 16 April 2021 is said to show that, in a phone call following the 5 November email, Mr Engel told Mr Matheson that it was unlikely Mr Knauf would be willing to support the defendant in pleading to the copyright claim

Another interesting snippet:

61. The account of the Mathieson/Engel telephone conversation does not get the claimant over the line. Mr Engel’s account is that what he said was that as Mr Knauf wanted to stay neutral in relation to the dispute, it was “unlikely that he would be willing to support your client in pleading to the claimant’s amended copyright claim”. He went on make clear that “this did not detract from the fact that Mr Knauf was potentially willing to provide evidence and/or documents at trial, but on the basis that it was provided to both parties". A fair reading of the conversation, on this account, is that Mr Knauf’s position was being presented in a studiously neutral fashion. He was not expressing a reluctance to support the defendant’s case; he was saying that his evidence (if provided) would support or undermine either the case for the claimant or the case for the defendant.

smilesy · 17/05/2021 18:07

I was just reading through this thread from the beginning. It did indeed start off as positive and the first 2 or 3 pages are positive comments or just posters saying hello. Then one of the “positive” posters starts to talk about Prince Michael and his misdemeanours. Not sure how that is positive about MM. Then a bit more positivity. Then more on Prince Michael and how bad he is and a few side swipes at other members of the Royal family, with a bit of piss taking of aristocratic titles for good measure. Then some slagging off of the DM and the Telegraph, by positive posters. Then a bit of a discussion on the wedding. Someone then mentions about M needing help with Her MH and being surprised that Harry couldn’t get her help. Discussion about why it was felt that M could have got help through her gynae in which many less than positive things were said by positive posters about the capability of professional gynaecologists to care for the mental health of their patients. OP has post deleted for some very unpleasant name calling. Then lots of to-ing and fro-ing in favour and against H&M. Disagreement about whitening products being racist. And so on. The last couple of pages before the comment from MNHQ were largely by positive posters being unpleasant towards anyone who did not agree with them.
I agree that some of the arguments got out of hand and that there was unpleasantness from both sides, but it is disingenuous and untrue to blame all this on those who were not “positive” about H&M

CallmeHendricks · 17/05/2021 18:15

Thank you @smilesy.
I thought I was going mad.

Roussette · 17/05/2021 18:31

So smilesy have you just come on to tell us how awful this thread is?

Or what?

I brought up Prince Michael of Kent as you well know. Quite in context too. It was about titles. And the comparison of the 6 M&H press stories and not one on him.

And I will keep bringing the likes of him and PAndrew up to highlight the unfairness of the criticism towards M&H in comparison.

And for me, there was then some defence from me against a now deleted post. And of course that's from someone with an agenda towards me.

And a lot of explaining the more positive side of M&H interminably.

Would you like me to do a 'summary' of the Harry thread for you? 😂Fair's fair after all.....
There's plenty to pick out.

smilesy · 17/05/2021 18:58

No I haven’t, Roussette. Stop taking everything as though it is aimed at you. I wanted to point out that people complaining about posters not being “positive” about Meghan have in some case derailed the tread themselves and been extremely unpleasant and goady. I am not including you in this. I’m just bored with shouty people talking rubbish and refusing to accept another point of view, or even actual evidence which proves what they are saying is wrong. That is not how to have a discussion. And no you weren’t the first to bring up Prince Michael. The OP did before you. That was what I was taking issue with as not relevant to a positive thread on MM. All I’m saying is, if it’s a positive thread about someone then that is what it should be. It would have been very boring but there you go 😀

Angiedx · 17/05/2021 19:09

You know it’s often said that when people tell you who they are listen

So often we ignore what we see and hear but every time I delve into these threads re H&M whereby my interest lays I hear them shouting again.

So many people are so blinded to their own prejudices they cannot see what is in plain site

Go help in Africa take a sabbatical in an African orphanage ( read as we are too good for you but here is an option of those who are less than

Help disadvantaged youth from ethnic minority’s backgrounds
Don’t get above your station

And on and on it goes

And then those same people get all wide eyed when called out in their crap.

I see racism and witness it unveiled under a veneer of concern and charity.

It then makes so much more of what you read suspect as we are human and when burnt once expect to be burned again by the same flames.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.