A positive and non-bashing thread about Meghan and Harry

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

I have rejoined Mumsnet after leaving a few times. The first time I left was because I was concerned about the coverage and uncomfortable undertone of the commentary on Meghan Markle after the engagement was announced, before she had said a word, and before she had married into the Royal Family.

I came back around the time she and Harry left the UK, to be stunned by the pages and pages upon pages of virulent threads. At that time Mumsnet actually banned all threads about Meghan, it had become so toxic.

They have now made their lives in Montecito, but still the virulence continues. Yes, she speaks in a mix of therapy plus corporate gobbledegook, yes, she is occasionally vapid and irritating.

But who is she actually harming that she deserves all this virulence?

Yesterday, when the new UK Prime Minister was elected, the coverage in the Super Tory Daily Mail was all about a seven minute speech to a bunch of young people. Article after article after article. Body language experts. Counting the number of times she said "I" in a speech in which she sought to inspire young people by attempting to relate to them. Before that, 18 articles were devoted to the first podcast by the Daily Mail alone. 18!

Same with her podcasts. The series is about HER and HER take on labels, and she discusses HER take with HER guests.

It's all very anodyne, even vanilla. It does not deserve any of the vitriol sent her way.

SO:

As the next twelve weeks are going to be wall to wall Meghan, and the Meghan haters and detractors have several threads here that fill up rapidly with bile, scorn and mockery, I have started this thread, reminiscent of previous " positive" threads, to talk about what some of us like, enjoy, find amusing and even (gasp) admire, in the next few Meghan rich weeks.

If you don't have anything positive to say, that's okay, you can keep to the existing threads.

Looking forward to a bile-free discussion of everything Meghan!

But dont you hope they are going to blow the lid off the whole royal nonsense ? Insiders revealing and confirming what we all suspect will have so much more impact .

I do, yes but I also suspect that those who don't want to see or or hear it will as ever be tying themselves in knots trying to explain it away.

Have you sources for them spending 'millions and millions' for publicity and positive PR? Yes they have a PR Agency, but they don't use SM so I am confused as to how they can be spending this humungous amount on publicity? Who to? They are reported on without having to push a lot of money anyone's way...

Have you looked at any of the Charities they support and how highly they are thought of? World Kitchen for instance. Sentebale, Invictus etc. I think you have made sweeping statements that they do nothing when that is not the case. Have a look at this article about their charities. No doubt you will come on and say ... ahhhh but we don't know they are doing this. That is a false argument because time and time again detractors of M&H say 'stop advertising the fact you are supporting a charity, do it quietly' , no doubt that is what they are doing. Read right the way down that article, many charities they support and it says 'Harry quietly volunteered for this charity and that charity...'
So there you go.

Andrew is keeping a low profile because the public loathe him and he is a disgraced member of the RF. There would be a public outcry if he tried to come back from his dreadful behaviour spanning decades.

He was going to do a lot of a sex trafficking charity, so he said when he had the rug pulled out from under him.... we haven't heard a squeak about that since.

I'm fairly neutral on H&M, apart from thinking that M is beautiful and dresses well. I am always aghast by the sheer number of threads and amount of vitriol M generates, it all seems so wildly disproportionate to her supposed 'crimes'. It is a Mumsnet oddity I can't fathom, it certainly feels like there is a classist, misogynist and racist undercurrent - a 'who does she think she is?' type of vibe.

Sorry... my post was in answer to @susan12345678

@susan12345678

Why the hell should M and H keep a low profile?
What's it to you? People respond to them in ways they don't to the rest of the royal horrors .
I assume you are royalist ? I suppose you must try to discredit them for that reason .
I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt - let's see what have to say re monarchy because they've said v little so far

He’s keeping a low profile

He's reportedly been exploring potential paths back to royal life with Mummy at Balmoral.

Yes - all of this .

Yeah, in cahoots with Eugenie and Beatrice.

The same Eugenie who is a big pal of Harry and Meghan. And it's that little detail that worries me. I was rather hoping that one of H&M's 'truth bombs' would be a massive slagging off of royals who cavort with sex traffickers and other wrong 'uns, but I might be disappointed there.

God knows I've been disappointed by the Queen's protection of the ghastly Andrew and the various posters on here who fail to see that he did anything wrong.

All of them are disappointing, I guess. But I live in hope that Harry and Meghan will blow the lid off Andrew as an ethical favour to the world.

Great footage Roussette thank you! 😊

I agree with you about the "dim" comments too. People shouldn't be judged solely on their academic prowess. It takes skill and patience to ride a horse, sail a yacht, fly a helicopter , shoot a gun, leading a troop of men in a conflict situation - there are all different types of accomplishments that are valuable in different contexts - and as you have pointed out , people can keep on learning.

But (forgive me because I usually agree with you on these threads) there is a huge difference between leaving school at fifteen and bettering yourself afterwards through education and attending one of the most elite educational establishments in the country and making so little of that opportunity. H perhaps had other legitimate reasons relating to the death of his mother as to why he didn't do well so, opening up the conversation away from H as an individual but speaking more generally, if you are privileged enough to attend such a school, or an elite university, and you are in effect taking the place of a bright child from a poor background , I think you have a moral responsibility to work hard and do well.

And that is what imho is so skewed about privilege in this country because often these very well off individuals waste the opportunities that are handed to them on a plate. Indeed it takes a particular sort of self discipline to study and work hard when you don't need to for financial reasons.

It's slightly better now than when I was at university in the eighties I think (or is it?) but I know three trust fund individuals from that era and both of them have not excelled at life. The rest of us have had to work to fund ourselves and our families and we have (inevitably) grown, had our corners knocked off, and our horizons have expanded, while they have been stuck in their own bubble and remain virtually the same as they did at eighteen in terms of competence at life and relationships. For them, not inconsiderable material comforts aside, not having to work has honestly been a burden not an advantage.

Apologies to the op for drifting off topic but the above is partly why I am turning in to a republican in my old age. Partly because I think being royal is a poisoned chalice for any individual born in to the RF and partly because having a monarchy embeds privilege at the heart and very centre of our society, skewing our moral judgements, and I think the UK would be so much better off as a meritocracy in this day and age.

Correction, sorry, two of them have not done well in life and one s made a late attempt at doing something serious.

@Fishpawsandchips

Welcome to republicanism!

I would say one thing re royalists on mumsnet- they really don't reflect how the royals are viewed in wider society .

I dont know one person who doesn't hate them. You could say that's my self selecting group but bearing in mind the constant PR brainwashing from parts of the establishment they really should be more popular than they are .
Society is more open and information comes form different sources . That is death to royalty , esp one as out of touch as the UK royals .

@Fishpawsandchips

I get what you're saying because my male siblings were treated very very differently and they flew. I would love to go into more detail, it's gobsmacking, but it's so identifying and personal, I just can't 😊

In the interest of fairness, I remember numbered threads about Andrew. See attached.

@themessygarden

Yes but not numbered threads started by the same Meghan haters , was my point

Their zeal for criticism seems very limited to one individual

Aren't those threads started by Roussette ?
I remember them . I remember some individuals on them spout the same ' she consented ' ' it was legal' disgusting defence I've seen in the Meghan hater threads

Don't know why

Yes I managed to get to 4 !
When on MM threads and being told to stop talking about Andrew and start a thread instead, I would link to them and say come on over and discuss it then. Didn't happen

Unlike the M&H ones which I wish I could remember how many. The numbered ones about 50 or more, the general ones I once counted and were over 350
But that count was a couple of years ago

Yes but HM , Charles and William have said a resounding no .

But as I ( and others ) have said - virtually everyone agrees that Andrew is a despicable shit . Not much to discuss there unless you want to think up new words.
H and M are hugely divisive hence the discussions .
One thing that slightly amused me yesterday was the way their visit went - walkabout, photos, handshakes, chit chat . Almost as if they have realised that the royal style is actually a good way of engaging with people .
Very glad that the hundreds of cameras no longer trigger Harry .

No.

At the time there was a lot to discuss.
It was when some of his patronages were taken back but not all, his Mum shielding him, his trips up and down the country avoiding papers being served, the VG court case, his ex continually going on about what an honourable man be was, the Swiss chalet and the impending court case, the blowback from that interview, his astronomical legal fees and who paid...that's just a sample.

But as I ( and others ) have said - virtually everyone agrees that Andrew is a despicable shit . Not much to discuss there unless you want to think up new words.

Unfortunately, no they don't.

HM the Queen doesn't agree that Andrew 'is a despicable shit'.

The Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice of York don't agree that Andrew is 'a despicable shit'.

The jury is out on what Harry and Meghan think - they may even disagree on this. (I would obviously love to know.)

On the very many threads that I was on with @Roussette, notable during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, a very large number of posters did not agree that Andrew was 'a despicable shit'. Read them, and you'll see. It was extraordinary - posters were actually defending him.

Personally I think that 'despicable shit' is far too mild for him, btw.

The numbered threads on MM were almost all detractors posting, anyone disagreeing was seen off...you all agreed they were awful but managed to keep those threads going?

SpinCityBlues

Yes I remember. They blamed everyone but Andrew.

It was the girls' faults. Where were the parents. They loved the money. They were over the age of consent. (When I talked about the 13 year old triplets flown in for a birthday surprise for Epstein....crickets)

The ignorance about grooming, coercion, bribery and trafficking was astounding

I meant posters on MN as I am sure you know .

That's what Spin is talking about. As am I.
I have illustrated the defence of Andrew and demonisation of the victims in my last post

No, she named HM , B and E first !