Meghan Markle Archetype podcasts & interviews

[susan12345678]

As the last thread filled up & there's plenty of discussion of Meghan's interview in The Cut, seems worthwhile starting a new thread!

A read yesterday that a series of media interviews are planned to promote the podcasts. Should be very interesting if The Cut interview is anything to go by!

I wonder if that Stepford wife comment was aimed at anyone.

I suppose it's too much to hope that at some point tomorrow Harry or William will pick up the phone to the other, and say that for all their differences, they are the only ones who truly know how they both feel on this day. They are brothers - I so hope that at some point they can find a meeting point.

Sad that Meghan isn't more like Kate, who I feel would do everything in her power to achieve a reconciliation - even if only on personal matters.

I know I'm in dreamland!

Your response is a tad harsh, given that I was asking a genuine question.

It wouldn't surprise me at all that neither woman wanted the constraints and scrutiny of royal life, but neither has actually come out and said so. In fact, I don't think either has publicly commented on their relationship with Harry at all. He and Chelsy dated when they were both quite young, and his relationship with Cressida was pretty short, so I'm not sure marriage was ever seriously on the cards with either of them. Both of them seem to have got themselves much better husbands in any case.

I've just read the Cut piece, and it reads like a hatchet job buried deep in marshmallows.

I really don't think he would. Considering that all libel trials have to take place in the High Court, how lengthy the build up is and how generally the bad publicity generated from full reporting on libel trials often leads to more public damage than the initial accusation/wrong statement, I very much doubt that the Queen whose very effective motto has been "never complain, never explain" would countenance paying his legal bills for that.

Can you imagine mumsnet calling witnesses to explain why, in common parlance, the meaning of "peadophile" has changed to include a widely accepted colloquial meaning beyond its strict academic definition, and then the RF trying to explain why they are seeking to close down free speech amongst their subjects so as to financially benefit a man who has already paid out millions in civil damages for something he allegedly didn't do?

The best way forward for PA now is to quietly enjoy his wealth and privilege and to keep his head down, not seek out more notoriety. Libel trials often spectacularly backfire, even when they don't include matters that people are notoriously touchy about such as exploiting very young vulnerable teenagers.

Then you have to consider how many times online the same allegation has been made and how the RF and PA would justify coming after a bunch of mainly women...absolute PR disaster.

Then, in order to win damages, PS would have to prove that he had lost work or commercial income due to the damage to his reputation and not due to his own conduct. That too, would have to be fully explained in detail in evidence, including evidence relating to commercial enterprises that those involved would undoubtedly prefer to remain secret.

Yep totally agree.

I think Harry might well be fucked up/ unhappy/ mixed up, due to the fucked-up-ness of being a prince in the British RF.
But I’ve seen nothing to suggest that he’s not happy with his current life! And probably feels relieved to have escaped - but what do I know - what does anyone know??

👏👏👏

I don’t think they will split. I wouldn’t want them to anyway as they have young children whom they love.

I think they genuinely love each other. I hope so anyway. Hell of a cost to their families if they don’t.

@AchatAVendre continuing to libel someone isn't clever though is it. As another poster has already said he may or may not have had sex with a 17 year old who was allegedly trafficked. 16 is the age of consent in the UK. He denies it either way. And paedophiles prefer children, i.e. those under 16, and the true meaning is prepubescent children.

Have any interviewers asked her why they are misusing archetype in the place of stereotype? Or has there been any press release explaining the (mis) choice of words - looking at the website they carry on with the misuse (unless they are arguing that the perfect example of something could be detrimental which I guess is an argument which could be made).

Excellent description

While I am aware of the historical and sociocultural presence of the black temptress discourse, it is not being mobislised here (you will need to demonstrate how it is being drawn on in order to be convincing, not just reference it randomly). The references to H's entrapment do not refer to M at all. Instead, H is referred to as being trapped because of circumstances of his own making (e.g., children born in different countries). As such, posters are not showing their annoyance at H & M by drawing on a racist discourse. There are several other sources for their annoyance such as the 'do as I say, not as I do' trope.

I don’t care. I still respect facts, even if I don’t like them much

Hmm, a Stepford Wife. How is that not a stereo- sorry, Archetype?

As @SilverLiningPlaybook wrote "I do find it laughable that their whole marketing thing is about 'kindness, forgiveness, compassion' etc. They display none of these qualities towards their own families."

This absolutely.

😂

He didn't sue Virginia Guiffre for libel though, did he? Although apparently he didn't do anything wrong, you would think he would have sued her for defamation if that was in fact correct. Very lucrative to do so in the US courts but could also have done it to various newspapers who reported on the matter here.

This made me properly lol

Andrew York isn't go to sue anyone. Ever.

I think that the Firm must be bitterly disappointed in how this has turned out. They really wanted it to work, they wanted MM to be the person of colour ( is that okay this week) who married into the vile colonist institution and made it all alright, or at least a bit better. I think they tried pretty hard.

I don’t think that if Harry had wanted to marry a white blonde sit com actress who was a very recent divorcée , older than him , whom he had met less than a year before the announcement, they would have no been so accommodating. I don’t think the Archbishop of Canterbury would have broken the rules on divorced people marrying in church which had been enforced on the Prince of Wales and Camilla , especially when the bride had not been a member of that church for more than a month or two. I dont think they would have gone along with the charade of the white dress ( or three) and the veil which the Queen was fairly surprised by. I don’t think that the Prince of Wales would have escorted the bride down the aisle to marry his son the groom , when the bride had a a father, an uncle or …..well almost any one else of vague suitability.

As for the racism, the AOC found a black preacher ( Megan didn’t know him) for the wedding. They welcomed a gospel choir to perform during the service. Perhaps this was condescending, or the wrong sort of welcome, but I think they did their best.

they were allowed to rent from Soho Farmhouse, I believe an unprecedented choice of abode. Then they moved to Frogmore , which cost a small fortune to do up in a very individual style.

The Queen persuaded her personal secretary to work for Meghan. she invited her on the Royal train before she was married, an unprecedented gesture.

I think they did their best to welcome her, maybe not from the purest motives, but only God sees them and can judge them. I don’t think they have got much thanks for it.

I agree.

The photo at the top of the Cut article looks like someone had the Sherald portrait of Michelle Obama in mind when it was taken.

I looked up 'personality traits of grandiosity'.

Exaggerated beliefs of self-importance, superiority, achievement, and ability; manipulative behaviors as well as expectations of obedience, admiration, and entitlement; and preoccupation with “fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty, or the perfect mate".

This article has more.

psychcentral.com/blog/grandiosity-and-delusion-grandeur#definition

Grandiosity refers to a sense of specialness and self-importance that might lead you to:
boast about real or exaggerated accomplishments
consider yourself more talented or intelligent than others
dismiss or try to one-up the achievements of others
believe you don’t need anyone else to succeed
believe you’re above rules or ordinary limits
fail to recognize that your actions could harm others
lash out in anger when someone criticizes you or points out a flaw in your plans
Grandiosity often resembles self-centered or arrogant behavior, so people often don’t recognize it as a mental health symptom.

I wonder what causes it in the first place?

So true.