Harry and Meghan -- Why I dislike them BOTH

[PipinwasAuntieMabelsdog]

I keep seeing threads that say everyone who dislikes the Sussexs is based on some form of racism and I wanted to put my view across. I will set the parameters of my points:

1. Meghan absolutely did receive racist coverage from sections of the British media.

1. I believe that there were threats to their safety by far right loons.
2. I believe they were both unhappy as working members of the RF

However...

I still find them both very disingenuous. They highlight and speak up against the racism of others, whilst failing to address Harry's previous and documented racist behaviour. As a Jew I cannot understand how Meghan can just remain silent about her husbands former mistakes. This makes her seem untrustworthy to me and seems like she will put up with anything for money and cache, whilst arguing (rightly) that racism is totally unacceptable. He keeps saying others need to learn and he is right, but he should acknowledge that he too needed to learn, acknowledge the support needed to help others learn and offer that support to others (including his own family, if needed).

Their attitude towards the public also seems 'off' and ungrateful to me and they seem to collocate the press and the public as the same thing. There is a lot of footage of the public support for them before, during and after their wedding. Yet, apparently, they did not want the big public wedding and the 'UK' was racist towards them. Harry particularly understands the 'deal' between the monarchy and the public and ought to have explained this to Meghan, the comments re the wedding on Oprah came across as quite spiteful and tone deaf. Almost like, 'we suffered through the big wedding for the plebs.' Ditto all the strange behaviour around Archie's birth. They could have followed the Tindall's approach if they wanted to avoid press intrusion.

During financial pressures around the world they are still complaining and not acknowledging their wealth and privilege, whilst claiming to give voice to the needs of those living in poverty and suffering. The Africa interview was a prime example for both of them. It just all comes together to make them feel untrustworthy to me, and makes me dislike them. I do not wish them any ill, but I wish they would acknowledge their fortune and live private, useful lives.

completely their fault, they did it, they said it.and they cannot unsay it. This is their issue. They can’t unsay what we are all about to hear and read

Absolutely, yes, but that's the risk if someone chooses to blast their personal issues all over the media. I've no doubt it'll be said that they had no choice, but there's always a choice with things like this and that's the one they made

In fairness the "wanting to change content" is largely supposition, since Meghan merely mentioned their story being presented "through someone else's lens", but she did also refer to Garbus as "trusted" so that's another hostage to fortune right there

The alleged differences between the book and the Netflix series is supposition too since we've not yet seen either, but frankly it would surprise me if there weren't "inconsistencies" when it's happened with so many other claims

As said so often, for me it comes down to a matter of judgement, and I'm still waiting for evidence that they have any worth the name

Read the second sentence 🙄

He was also the first modern royal to understand the importance being in touch with the public.

PP wasn’t.

Yes I wonder why George didn’t have his coronation televised? 🤔

How anyone can justify the amount of vitriol MM received via the UK press is beyond me, Piers Morgan and other right wing press (although I don’t think he believes himself to be right wing) pulled her to pieces and continue to do so. Nobody deserves that, it’s awful

She could have avoided a lot of the bad press she got by not ghosting people which really got their backs up. She initiated contact with Piers Morgan for her own gain before she met Harry, then rudely just blanked him. All she had to do was stay on friendly terms or civil terms. Same with her family, she could have just invited them to the wedding. It wouldn’t have meant having to be best buddies with any of them and it would have meant most of the disparaging articles about her wouldn’t have been written by these hurt and disgruntled people.
As an aside, I think it’s odd that she didn’t have even one childhood friend at her wedding.

The way meghans wiping her tears in the new trailers with both hands all the way down looks really weird and forced. She's no diana.

Surely she was just wiping from the left eye.

Left eye 😂

What does ‘left eye’ mean? I keep seeing it on every comment under the trailers and I feel very old and out of touch because I don’t know what it means!! 😩

For reference from the Sun ...

But in a film for her old lifestyle blog The Tig, Meghan revealed how she honed the acting ability to turn on fake tears.
The 2014 video, filmed at Soho House in Toronto, where her legal drama Suits was made, shows Meghan boasting that she can shed a tear for the camera in three seconds.
Asked by someone behind the camera if she can make herself cry, Meghan says: “Oh, I can do that so well. Oh my God, it’s crazy.
They’re like Meghan, one tear, left eye, go!” She adds: “Give me three seconds.”

Coincidentally, when the Queens hearse passed in front of her, the camera panned in and there was a tear...in her left eye. 😅

The most hilarious comment I have seen on the NF trailer was “I was so moved I had conjunctivitis out of my left eye”

Thank you!!

I love the comment that Meghan is so kind that she invited people she had never met to her wedding such as Oprah and the Clooneys

I think that could be very likely. Her first child still a baby, on tour etc. And then the talk about moving there. I think I would have been overwhelmed too, and it’s highly likely the interviewer asked her as she was having a low moment.

Anyway I just don’t think answering with ‘nobody has asked me that’ is reason to criticise a mum with a young first born.

Why the RF persist with tours when the children are so very young is perplexing?

It's quite true that motherhood brings pressure. I'm sure that Mumsnet was in large part set up to help working mothers who are finding it a challenge to put on a work face and attitude, with so much to think about and worry about, going on at home or in the nursery.

And you are correct to imply that, in retrospect, I didn't interpret the comment: 'not many people have asked if I am ok" as a comment like: "I'm ok - sort of". She was making a criticism, of others, on camera, about people not giving enough attention to her.

I'm used to politicians who think about their lives and work, and then make a considered decision to step away from their role, and announce it neutrally, not politicians who go on camera to vent, to complain, in the middle of a visit which has been structured to bring attention to extremely vulnerable young women who have few choices and options. And Meghan has always had options. Harry and Meghan were given an option not to be working royals and not to have the 'circus' which accompanies the role.

I don't know why royal tours are managed when families are very young, but at least she had her baby with her and could even bring him to interviews and visits ( as with Desmond Tutu), so she is better served than most working mothers. If she had later gone to America and kept a low profile, I might have interpreted her fatigue as you have done, but I haven't because she has now made a sensational drama about her own story, with her and Harry acting themselves, her acting herself crying, if I'm correct, as they surely didn't film each other crying, at the time, three years ago. So she likes dramatising herself - literally, and, in my belief, metaphorically.

The interview in Africa was the first time I saw something different. Until then I had just seen a glamorous love story, wedding etc. which was refreshing and captivating to witness a good opportunity for the RF and the potential for a biracial woman to use a platform and reach to have a huge positive impact on diverse and marginalised communities world wide.

There was something about her body language - the sort of breathless urgent tone (as I heard it) and her eye contact with the interviewer which left me confused. It felt to me that she knew she was doing something naughty / ground breaking talking publicly “off-script” and sort of fawning / simpering for sympathy at the same time. It sort of felt contrived or manipulative for some reason. She also looked smug / relieved when she finished the interview and walked off with Archie and Harry.

Might have read it all wrong - only my person feelings / reflections at the time that something was “off”.

@WidowTwanki something was off .. she said afterwards she was struggling with exhaustion ... she's just a human being the same as Kate ... not perfect - just a woman trying to balance it all

I can’t get my head round how every single complaint harry has, every single justification of his behaviour, centres on the treatment of Meghan . Even the hierarchy comment in the trailer is about Kate v Meghan, the briefing he refers to, the planting of stories, it’s about being planted against Meghan,

I was thoroughly of the thought that this was all about harry, his own unhappiness, but it is not. It’s all about Meghan. Every single reason he gives for what’s happened it’s about Meghan. So She’s driving this. She’s the organ grinder, he’s just rhe monkey She’s winding him up and watching him go.

it’s utterly fucked up. The man is a manipulated fool who is trying tk destroy his own family because of Meghan,

as soon as we saw her lies on Oprah, for example the baby skin colour comment, saying it was made when she was pregnant, to make it sound worse. It should habe told us then, this is all about and because of Meghan.

if she loved him, if she loved him, she’d be trying to protect him too. But she’s not, it’s all so self absorbed and attention seeking

This is not true.

I realised only when you posted that my post was deleted as I received no message from @MNHQ informing me, or explaining why.

I repeat what it said:

"I am an amateur anthropologist fascinated by the views of white women on Mumsnet."

My post was deleted even as many posts on various threads questioning Meghan's race etc are allowed to stand. Those posts are still there. There are still also posts stating Ngozi Fulani was in "African dress", which is not true, and justifying the interrogation she went through because she looked "other". Those posts are still there, but mine was deleted.

This is everything to do with @MNHQ's ridcuous deletion policies.

It is a fact that the majority of posters on Mumsnet are women. Hence the name.

It is not mysoginist to state that plain fact.

It is also a fact that the majority of posters are white.

It is not racism to point this out as this forum is a reflection of the wider country in which it operates. The United Kingdom is a white majority country. Forums like Mumsnet have majority white posters. Hence why we refer to ethnic minorities, as they are minorities in the context of a white majority.

I call myself an amateur anthropologist because I am interested in the anthropology of race and class in Britain, as refracted through views of the royal Family. I read Royal Family threads because I am fascinated by how questions of class, privilege and race are perceived, and I am interested in the Royal Family, a white establishment institution, which affected the history of black countries like mine. I am fascinated and interested to see whether lessons have been learned, and I get a lot of insights here.

I am sure you will get my post deleted again, but that is what I said.

And if @MNHQ deletes this post, I want an explanation as to why.

Thank you.

Quite selective with your racist and misogynistic quote - let me help you reveal the broader context of your words for all to see:

“As an amateur anthropologist interested in the curious workings of the minds of the white women of Mumsnet when it comes to Harry and Meghan, I am enjoying it immensely, but not for the same reasons as you.”

Nasty racist and misogynistic intent.

Don’t try to spin it as anything else.

It isn't racist to dislike people who lie. Whatever their colour. Remarkably stupid comment.

Why the RF persist with tours when the children are so very young is perplexing?

Meghan chose to go on the South Africa tour, Given Archie was still very young, it was initially planned that just Harry would attend, but she wanted to go too.

And the “not many people have asked me if I’m okay” comment was part of a discussion about her mental health generally - she followed it up by saying that she never expected joining the royal family to be easy, but she expected it to be fair.

as soon as we saw her lies on Oprah, for example the baby skin colour comment

is there a reason for thinking this is a lie? Given the racism consistently shown by the RF, it sounds all too plausible to me

It is also a fact that the majority of posters are white.

it is racist to use what you suppose to be the colour of my skin to make assumptions about me @MrsMaxDeWinter , surely you can see that?

I get that there is a power differential in this country between people with white skin and people with brown or black skin

but the solution to racism isn’t more racism

as I said after your previous racist comment, when you’re watching people, you’ll generally find they’re watching you right back

I just don’t think answering with ‘nobody has asked me that’ is reason to criticise a mum with a young first born

While this is debatable, I've always thought much of the objection was the context she said it in, as in once again focusing on herself on a tour highlighting people in even worse circumstances

A bit like Harry doing the Bradby interview on the same tour, or picking the rightly praised Invictus event to make his ridiculous claims about the late Queen telling him things she could discuss with no-one else, and making sure she had the right people around her

Overall it seems a theme with these two - no matter what they're doing or who they're meeting it's all got to be about THEM

Ah ok, did you not watch it?

she said it was said when she was pregnant. Harry then came on, Oprah asked him about it and he said oh yes that was said right at rhe Start when we first got together.