Meghan Markle Archetype podcast

[susan12345678]

Meghan's long-awaited podcast has launched. Sorry if there's a thread about this already. Has anyone listened to it yet? Thoughts?

@Xenia cross post 😂

I don’t understand that response at all . Just waiting for someone to come along and tell me I am being deliberately awkward and that what she said was 100% clear

She's just saying don't judge people because you don't know what's going on in their lives.

She missed off, unless it's family and hen they're fair game.

I am sure I read that they moved to other accommodation but can’t find a link . Can anyone remember?

Never expressed any anger towards you. I’ve made general observations about the kick-MM phenomenon but not directed at you in particular. Perhaps you misunderstood my posts?

I don’t understand it either.

But full marks to her for being able to put that amount of gobbledygook together in a heartbeat. She’s obviously had a lot of practice.

@ajandjjmum But it's OK for her to bitch about the family that welcomed her with open arms, and provided a lifestyle that was beyond her wildest dreams?

🤣 Our views of the royal family are rather different.

I agree with this.

It seems that some posters want to censor and silence any rational discussion on H&M and they do this by deliberately agitating and disproportionately amplifying with polarising, histrionics and inflammatory accusations of bullying and racism by other posters…..which derails the original easy going discussion.

Have a listen to Emily Maitless’ recent lecture at the Edinburgh Media Festival - this is the same dynamic - it’s standard Trumpian Populist tactics - scream and shout to silence others.

There are a few posters who come across as histrionic and unhinged and have done a great job of silencing over the years - you can see them escalate into even more high pitched histrionics as these threads go on.

My suggestion is not to reward bad behaviour - just don’t engage with them and fail on down their rabbit hole derailing trap.

Just continue rational debate and discussion above their heads ignoring their posts - much like you would if you were out for coffee with a friend and a tedious toddler was screaming and shouting for attention from another table.

I’m not clear if she means archetype or stereotype

From reading the transcript I'd say Meghan's not clear either, but perhaps it's a case of using "her word" just as she uses "her truth"?

Never expressed any anger towards you.

I was explaining why I believed the dog reference referred to PH rather than MM and you addressed a post to me on the same topic challenging me over it being OK to call MM names.

But it’s perfectly ok to call MM names, though, right? The whole article is an attack on Megan, so whether the dumb mutt comment was directed at her or Harry is moot.

I don't believe I misunderstood but I guess only you know your intent.

I was like, Can you just tell people what happened? And so much, I think, optically. The focus ends up being on how it looks instead of how it feels. And part of the humanizing and the breaking through of these labels and these archetypes and these boxes that we’re put into is having some understanding on the human moments behind the scenes that people might not have any awareness of and to give each other a break

It reads as though she is hoping to create the impression that she was not allowed to bring him with her, without actually saying so, possibly because that isn't true?
Hard to tell, it's a very clumsy & confusing statement.

That’s really interesting because someone asked upthread about why no one ever challenges Meghan but Serena actually did.

Maybe what she is saying is that it is all about how things look on the surface, rather than understanding how it impacts people and adjusting for that.

but the thing is, if the RF are seen as humans, like everyone else with vulnerabilities that should be accommodated, well, then they lose their royal deference. Like the kings of yore who had to be seen as invincible to justify their position.

@Ohnonevermind

We’re having a perfectly rational debate about a podcast

You keep telling yourself that. From the outside looking in rational is one thing it is not.

I can’t even be bothered to read the numbered list of issues you have with the things that someone you haven’t met said.

but the thing is, if the RF are seen as humans, like everyone else with vulnerabilities that should be accommodated, well, then they lose their royal deference. Like the kings of yore who had to be seen as invincible to justify their position

Yes, it's like peeking at OZ behind the curtain.
This is really at the heart of it - the royals can't really have it both ways - all the unimaginable wealth and luxury on the one hand, and to be treated like an ordinary person with feelings etc. The uncomplaining stoicism is part of the contract.

But full marks to her for being able to put that amount of gobbledygook together in a heartbeat.

I think that's a really good point.

I wonder if she felt a bit thrown over Serena challenging her actions rather than sympathising. And in her panic, she couldn't get her thoughts together quickly enough so it came out as gobbledigook. I think it just shows her lack of experience in interviews, that's all. If she hadn't been talking about herself, she wouldn't be drawn into longer speech. That's why good interviewers are really just prompts and not participants.
But it's a lesson learned for her.

I was referring to Jan Moir not you. I agreed the mutt reference was PH, but I explained why I thought the word was problematic in that context.

There are a few posters who come across as histrionic and unhinged and have done a great job of silencing over the years - you can see them escalate into even more high pitched histrionics as these threads go on
My suggestion is not to reward bad behaviour - just don’t engage with them and fail on down their rabbit hole derailing trap
Just continue rational debate and discussion above their heads ignoring their posts - much like you would if you were out for coffee with a friend and a tedious toddler was screaming and shouting for attention from another table

Superb advice, DFOD ...

"Never play chess with a pigeon
The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over
Then shits all over the board
Then struts around like it won"

@NanaNelly In the US as housing unit refers to government subsidized housing. I asked my husband (who say who? If I say Meghan) to define housing unit and he said the same.

if I google “housing unit” here’s the first news article that comes up. I’m nowhere near California.

www.gov.ca.gov/2022/08/24/in-los-angeles-governor-newsom-announces-694-million-in-homekey-awards-to-create-more-than-2500-new-homeless-housing-units-statewide/

It not a term I’ve heard anyone from the US would use to mean anything else.

from the US census
Housing Units

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (PEP), Updated annually. Population and Housing Unit Estimates

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the number of housing units for each year since the most recent decennial census. With each annual release of housing unit estimates, the entire time series of estimates beginning with April 1, 2020 is revised and updated. Housing unit estimates are produced for all states and counties

Definition:

A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall.

Scope and Methodology:

Methodology

I have lived in the US all of my life, and I am unequivocally telling you it means government housing, in normal conversation.

Of course the US government census bureau has their own language. If two people working for the census were having a discussion they might used the words that way.

Honestly, going on about the term housing unit is bonkers.

in that article they also talk about homes for the homeless. So is ‘home’ now derogatory because with is used in conjunction with accommodation for the homeless in the article?

what people might be upset about is that she felt that her baby wasn’t safe in the accommodation provided. Not that she said housing unit, ffs.

Why did you post about housing unit if you think discussing it is bonkers?

To be fair, on Twitter, it does seem that many are upset by that high profile, beautiful residence being dismissively referred to as a "housing unit" - they're taking it quite personally and honestly I don't blame them.

@DFOD

It seems that some posters want to censor and silence any rational discussion on H&M and they do this by deliberately agitating and disproportionately amplifying with polarising, histrionics and inflammatory accusations of bullying and racism by other posters…..which derails the original easy going discussion

Except no-one is trying to silence the discussion - simply giving their perspective - it’s an open forum.

I’m not sure that many people would disagree that MM was bullied by the tabloids and on social media and that racism played its part. You only had to read the comments online about her race and colour to see that. That’s not personal to posters on this thread who may or may not have been part of it.

I remain unconvinced that obsessive analysis of her every word on this forum comes across as rational. In fact, disproportionate amplification and inflammatory accusations are apt characterisations of the criticism.