More Archwell Podcasts

[susan12345678]

With another podcast set for release this week, The Sunday Times has a piece addressing Harry and Meghan's apparent strategy:

Courtiers are bemused by the Sussexes’ determination to rage against the past. As Davis observed of Meghan in her article: “She has taken a hardship and turned it into content.” A source who knows the Sussexes questions why Meghan “is constantly looking back at how awful it was to briefly be a royal. What does success look like, is it a number in the bank? Is it that they’ve killed off the monarchy?” Another Palace source says: “Ultimately they are bashing the institution that has put them in the position they’re in, the longevity of that strategy is not sustainable.”

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-and-meghan-keep-bashing-the-monarchy-because-its-good-business-royals-believe-nq29p6g7z

I'm curious about their strategy, too. They seem to think that criticizing the royal makes them look better - it really doesn't. Instead, it just makes them look petty and increasingly irrelevant.

marshmallowy mansion wearing haute couture, still moaning about it when the rest of the world has moved on, and she really should have too

But the rest of the world really really hasn't moved on, has it?

The DFail will dredge up anything, one particular day they had 21 articles about H&M.
And on MN when there is literally no new news about H&M, there isn't a time when there's no H&M thread. If all is quiet with the couple, a poster will still start a thread with something random about them, it is an addiction to knock them. I've known WEEKS when H&,M aren't doing anything to write about, but there will be a thread on here about something to do with them..

The world and MN are incapable of moving on. For the MSM it's a multi million pound business to write about them. For MNers...I have no idea

Well as Meghan has been given a world stage in the U.K. tomorrow to shape young leaders, with perhaps a camera crew in tow for their billionaire masters, on the back of some podcasts which contain some veg questionable material

@notanotheroneagain was expressing how she felt when phrases like “snout in a trough” made her feel especially in the context of what I was discussing (which was about why people of colour perceive racism in some elements of the reporting). I will admit I was also challenged by the use of this phrase but I didn’t respond to it straight away because I like to ensure that my responses are measured and when I thought about it some more I felt that the entire RF have their snouts deeply embedded within the trough that is the money of the British taxpaying public and it will as reasonable to apply it in H&M’s case. But I had to take that pause to get there. And I did.

This is where I feel the most challenged by discussions like this because of the language people use “snouts”, “snakes”, “second-rate”, “schemer” - they are mean spirited simply for the sake of it rather than adding to what you feel is genuine displeasure with Meghan’s behaviour.

So someone NC's to 'meghanmarklebitch'.

You couldn't make it up 😮
Oh well...one less post to read with a name like that

Rubbish - using metaphor and similes isn’t mean-spirited. It can make writing more interesting to read and short cut lengthy description.

I don’t like that either .

Thanks, yes, let's try and have some semblance of decency on this thread

I've reported it

Maybe if others do too it will be dealt with more quickly

Vile. That's completely unacceptable.

I hope so.

So someone NC's to 'meghanmarklebitch'

Appalling, wasn't it?
A shame not to make whatever point is is without descending to things like that

meghanmarkle I’ve reported you - your NC is abhorrent

I don’t want to burst your bubble, but even now, the vast majority of the Queen's subjects have the same racial heritage as her, that is white Caucasian. So how on earth can the concept of monarchy be inherently racist? Surely one of the main pulls for loyalty to the Crown was the concept that it was at the pinnacle of the Nation, a homogeneous entity.

I suppose you are actually referring to the British Empire, a long defunct institution which did not actually last very long?

I've reported too. I'm reading along in a somnambulant fashion and was thinking there have been some great thought provoking posts from posters who are more supportive of H and M and those who are not.

Awful and I hope MNHQ see it soon.

Wow! What a name-change. Vile
I will report too.

Ffs, they've only deleted the post, not the name!

Thanks, yes, let's try and have some semblance of decency on this thread

There mainly has been throughout. Let's not pretend that's anything but an anomaly.

Ffs, they've only deleted the post, not the name!

My message from HQ said they're "dealing with it off the boards" so maybe (hopefully!) the name will go too?

Im surprised that username was accepted. Aren't there systems to prevent that

Not pretending anything, I've been out all day so no idea!

Who said Meghan was treated with kid gloves? Are you okay? One newspaper linked her liking avocados to supporting war. Another newspaper - possibly the same one queried why she couldn't stop touching her bump when pregnant yet Kate was apparently just an excited soon-to-be-mum when cradling hers. It's of course possible to dislike anyone, not least anyone in the public eye, but in doing so it would be good to employ a degree of honesty. I don't doubt that Meghan has drank too much of the Hollywood, fame, look-at-me cool-aid but she certainly isn't the first. The issue people have with her primarily is that she had ideas above her station and a lot of that is rooted in anti-blackness whether you like it or not. People like to refer to these things as 'dog-whistle' racism, for those of us who are black we much prefer the standard common parlance 'racism'.

Just out of interest, Roussette, how did you know it was a namechange rather than a new poster?
Admittedly I'm hopeless with searches and so on under the new system, but I didn't realise you could tell

I'm coming off this thread but to answer you @Allthegoodnamesarechosen

Yes it's partly the white supremacy / colonial past - this is still evident in many artefacts closely related to the monarchy despite the empire being long gone .

I also mean one bloodline being 'superior ' .

That’s because she insulted white mothers by saying that they care less about their children than black women do, she seems to have trouble sorting her shoes out, and she can’t do simple sums before coming on the radio to talk about them. None of this is a recommendation if you want to be Home Secretary .

I don’t believe Diane has had more ‘abuse’ than Boris btw.