No. I genuinely don't see the unpleasantness in suggesting that someone stops critisizing. It's going to hurt anybody to be critisized, but to be critisized on television when you haven't been warned of what is going to be said, must be awful. I fell sorry for members of the British RF.
I'm not making digs about anyone. A dig is a sly and subtle and slight attacks on someone. I'm being forthright and justifying my stance.
In a sense I am masked, because I use a pseudonym, like all posters. But I don't think there is anything wrong in critisizing what Meghan and Harry are doing. I'm open about my disapproval.
How can you think it is acceptable to say in a magazine article that you can be silent or you can speak out and you can be quiet until you choose not to be? Specifically, also, saying that you never signed anything to promise you won't speak about life with the British royals.
Is that not fighting talk and confrontational and saying, in no uncertain terms, that you have evil and injuring things that you can say about the Royal Family, when and if you choose?
Who do you know in real life, FurandFeathers who would ever say that?
Nobody, of course.
Can you not also identify signs of small courtesies shown to the couple at the Queen's funeral, such as room being made for them on the pew and walking alongside well-wishers with Kate and William? Harry wearing a uniform, which rules were bent to accommodate. I don't see any open unpleasantness being shown to H and M by W and K. The Royals are constantly trying to be conciliatory and kind to H and M. They've even retained those archaic titles. Tell me, don't you feel shocked and disbelieving by the way they want to hang on to them, when believing in egality and modern values?
Why would anybody want to critisize Meghan if she hadn't been dragging down the Royal Family? Most right-thinking thinking people don't critisize famous people unless their conduct is in some way undermining a public institution, or not in the public interest.
It seems to me that, instead of engaging in rational discussion, that you are just propagating this angle which is ' other people are being horribly mean!' and going for the emotional angle.
A lot of posters seem to do this on MN. It is ducking underneath the intellectual arguments and making it look to the casual reader as if the other person has been hateful. When this is done, it looks so incongruous. You get a: ' I can't believe how frightfully mean you have all been!' thrust into an ordinary discussion. It's very transparent what people are trying to do - it's to close down the arguments before they get undeniably compelling.