Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Harry's latest ventures

999 replies

Viviennemary · 15/05/2021 18:23

Now being reported in the Daily Express that Harry is working on a new tell all documtary about royal life. This is according to his biographer Angela Levin. And even more disclosures about the royal family are forthcoming. Is this going to go on for years. We shall have to wait and sed. I think its very very wrong of him.

OP posts:
Cacacoisfarraige · 20/05/2021 14:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

IrmaFayLear · 20/05/2021 14:37

I just don’t think any member of the inner royal family is fit for life outside its protection. I suppose “entitled” is exactly the right word because they are, well, titled . Andrew’s behaviour is oafish and boorish, and Harry struts about looking aggrieved if he’s not afforded what he deems to be his rightful due. Waste of space, the pair of them.

waltzingparrot · 20/05/2021 14:41

I think Harry is not a well man.

It's all horribly, horribly sad.

Their baby will be announced on July 1st

ChiefInspectorParker · 20/05/2021 14:48

This reply has been withdrawn

Message from MNHQ: This post has been withdrawn

Viviennemary · 20/05/2021 14:48

Would anybody who was a mental health expert advise this going on TV in front of the whole world like this. Cant see it myself.

OP posts:
ChiefInspectorParker · 20/05/2021 15:03

This reply has been withdrawn

Message from MNHQ: This post has been withdrawn

ajandjjmum · 20/05/2021 15:19

@waltzingparrot

I think Harry is not a well man.

It's all horribly, horribly sad.

Their baby will be announced on July 1st

And called Diana or Philippa. Could of course arrive on the 10th June.
RubyViolet · 20/05/2021 15:43

Whoever has helped, enabled, encouraged Harry to show himself like this to the world may be looking at the Martin Bashir news and starting to feel a little uncomfortable.

It feels like there has been a feeding frenzy on him.

Viviennemary · 20/05/2021 15:52

I must say I was shocked to hear about Martin Bashir. He did seem a genuine sympathetic person. Shows how you can be taken in by folk.

OP posts:
Snog · 20/05/2021 16:30

When did the RF turn into the Jeremy Kyle show?

CokeDrinker · 20/05/2021 16:41

@mermaidsariel

Again and again, we have this merry go round of posters insisting that everyone is racist, that all dislike of Meghan's behaviour is racist, good for them for getting away from the racists. Danny Baker's behaviour was appalling and he was punished for it. There are unhinged people all over the internet. I am not on twitter or SM in general and I don't read forums attracting the more vociferous and unhinged.

I wish we could move away from this narrative of 'poor hard done by Harry and Meghan escaping from the racists'. The fact is they are free loading off their status which they have not earned. They are showing no respect for either family apart from Doria. They preach peace and goodwill to all mankind whilst hurting the family that gave them this platform in the first place. They show no gratitude, no accountability and no self reflection. Yet there are many who cannot see anything wrong with anything they say or do. Its' just 'poor victims of racism, glad they escaped'.

I think Meghan has been subject to racism.

I also think a claim can be made that she has been subject to imperial/empirical racism or at the least prejudice, when people on here are unwilling to even consider that there are cultural differences such as the marriage thing. It is not unusual at all for people in America, in Europe, heck even in my country of Australia - to refer to a vow ceremony (yes sans 2 witnesses) as a 'marriage' ceremony. The utter UNWILLINGNESS to even consider a cultural difference and instead leap to the assumption that it was a 'gleeful'/'smug' statement is proof of this. While antis may not be racist, by their determination to not give a quarter and to assume the worst of her instead of considering that there may be cultural differences at play (and heck, people on here refer to their partners parents as ILs even though not legally MARRIED proves that people will accept nuance when it suits them) here. People are so desperate to find fault with everything and everything she does.

As an Australian, I automatically knew what she meant when she said they were 'married' 3 days before in her eyes. Of course, it wasn't legal. But it is a phrase, a terminology. I think that colonialist prejudice is demonstrated in the prejudicial unwillingness to take what she says at face value, instead of the desperate need to find fault. Of course she was not legally married 3 days before. Duh, we all grasp that. But it is a cultural turn of phrase that was blown completely way all out of proportion.

It is the lack of recognition of nuance, the lack of cultural tolerance and allowance, that lends itself to people seeing racism. I myself, have never seen such an absolute irrational FUSS made over a bloody run-of-the-mill statement. All she said was they were 'married' (in their eyes) 3 days before. Most people in Australia would automatically 'get' what that meant. But for some reason, on here, on this site people in the UK are so dogmatically petty that they pounce on it.

In the grand scheme of things it is such a little and such a petty thing to go on about, and I, as a non-UK member of this forum, am gobsmacked at the complete unyielding dogmatic prejudice around such a petty issue. I just don't 'get' the UK over this. In Australia, you need 2 witnesses to be legally married. Just like in the UK. And in New Zealand. And in America. And in Canada. And in etc etc etc (please excuse my starting sentences with 'and'). It is a throwaway term that in most other European and other western countries would not raise an eyebrow (maybe also because America and Australia and etc etc etc have Common Law marriages? shrugs.)

I think the utter obsession over the 'married' 3 days before issue does demonstrate some empirical institutional prejudice, if not racism.

FFS. She meant they exchanged private vows 3 days before and that meant more to her than the big (which btw, they would have been obligated by the RF to hold, considering Harry's position) wedding. That to me, is understandable. I just think there are different shades of racism, and being intolerant of cultural difference is an example to that. Not everything Meghan does is some vindictive plan. The antis would have more acceptance and respect if they didn't go way out of their way to create an issue that is purely a cultural misunderstanding.

mermaidsariel · 20/05/2021 16:50

I don’t give a shit where and how they were married or what it means to them. What is really annoying is to have a huge public spectacle of a marriage for which the nation paid, only to be told or meant nothing to them. Especially when many of the guests weren’t even personally known to them but there for show. It’s just RUDE in any culture.

LittleBearPad · 20/05/2021 16:52

It’s not a cultural misunderstanding. It’s bollocks

CokeDrinker · 20/05/2021 16:54

@LittleBearPad

It’s not a cultural misunderstanding. It’s bollocks
That is an example of racism.
Cinclus · 20/05/2021 16:54

*Of course she was not legally married 3 days before. Duh, we all grasp that. But it is a cultural turn of phrase that was blown completely way all out of proportion.
In the grand scheme of things it is such a little and such a petty thing to go on abou*t

Tell that to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had to publicly deny that he had twice performed an illegal marriage ceremony.

CokeDrinker · 20/05/2021 16:57

@mermaidsariel

I don’t give a shit where and how they were married or what it means to them. What is really annoying is to have a huge public spectacle of a marriage for which the nation paid, only to be told or meant nothing to them. Especially when many of the guests weren’t even personally known to them but there for show. It’s just RUDE in any culture.
Really, as if Harry as the brother of the 2nd in line could have a quiet wedding. Harry never said it meant 'nothing' to him. Jus that, as is normal to most normal people, a private intimate ceremony would mean more. Oh, and many parents invite co-workers, friends, associates etc who their children don't know.

It's simply nitpicking and the obstinate refusal of the antis to admit this, further proves this point.

Blossomtoes · 20/05/2021 16:57

@LittleBearPad

It’s not a cultural misunderstanding. It’s bollocks
Absolutely it’s bollocks, almost as much bollocks as saying it’s racist - it would be equally bollocks whatever race(s) the couple were.
LittleBearPad · 20/05/2021 16:58

Thinking your absurdly long post is bollocks isn’t racist. But feel free to report to MNHQ if you want to.

CokeDrinker · 20/05/2021 16:58

@Cinclus

*Of course she was not legally married 3 days before. Duh, we all grasp that. But it is a cultural turn of phrase that was blown completely way all out of proportion. In the grand scheme of things it is such a little and such a petty thing to go on abou*t

Tell that to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had to publicly deny that he had twice performed an illegal marriage ceremony.

AGAIN, @Cinclus you are confusing a private intimate ceremony with a LEGAL ceremony.

You just don't GET IT. It is a weird obsession the Brits have. It's colonialistic prejudice.

Blossomtoes · 20/05/2021 16:59

Really, as if Harry as the brother of the 2nd in line could have a quiet wedding

The first in line managed it - it was a registry office job.

Gorgeouslilgirl · 20/05/2021 16:59

But the Archbishop isn’t huffing and puffing on this thread, is he?

It is bunch of professionally offended people, looking for slights

LittleBearPad · 20/05/2021 17:02

AGAIN, @Cinclus you are confusing a private intimate ceremony with a LEGAL ceremony

Jerry Hall made the same mistake. Didn’t work out well for her. The legal one is far more important.

Gorgeouslilgirl · 20/05/2021 17:03

And can the people moaning about the spectacle, don’t you usually argue that the RF is valuable and we should be grateful because of their tourism revenue?

Well, just be grateful to H&M too as their wedding presumably generated RF tourism revenue

Ocsetldil · 20/05/2021 17:04

I think if Chelsey Davie or Cressida Bonas were now DoS and had said the same, we’d still be raising our eyebrows.

LittleBearPad · 20/05/2021 17:04

£1 billion according to Meghan - not sure anyone worked out how.