Discussing the things we liked about Harry and Meghan's Netflix documentary series

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

There are so many threads on things posters hated about Harry and Meghan, the Netflix series, and fair play to those posters, so I thought I would have a go at stating a thread discussing some of the things that posters liked about the series.

I'll start.

I liked that this was supposed to be this bomb detonation, but has actually been a measured, warm, and loving look at H and M's relationship, and the pressures that the press put on them, and also on other royals. I genuinely did not notice anything incendiary. Maybe that is still to come.

I enjoyed the thoughtful insights shared on the invisible contract, especially, as Harry says, having to perform for a press that you know has said hurtful things about people you love.

I loved the warm memories of Sandringham, and meeting the Queen. And Meghan's memories of growing up. I think it was a wise, though sad, that they did not include Thomas. I really loved hearing Doria: my favourite bit is when a journalist offered her money, for an interview about Meghan and she said, "That's my child!"

I also learned for the first time about Meghan's relationship with her sister Samantha's daughter Ashleigh. I had no idea that she had been raised by her grandparents who adopted her, or that she had such a warm and caring relationship with Meghan. Along with Doria's, that was my favourite interview.

I enjoyed hearing from her childhood friends, as it is often said here that she had no friends who came to the wedding etc, just celebrities. They seem a tight nit grip who have been here fr years, and I am glad she has them.

I was gobsmacked that she needed security in Toronto after the relationship was announced.

I also thought the discussion on racism, in its wider context of colonialism and imperialism, was very well done, but then again it was led by David Olusoga and Afua Hirsch, who are always great, and I love their writing.

Most of all I love that Harry confronted head on the Nazi uniform debacle, and what he learned from it. And I loved, loved, loved, the segment on his life in Lesotho where they gave him the Sesotho name, "Mahale". A wonderful name.

“It was one of the biggest mistakes of my life,” Harry said. “I felt so ashamed afterwards. All I wanted to do was make it right. I sat down and spoke to the chief rabbi in London, which had a profound effect on me. I went to Berlin and spoke to a Holocaust survivor. I could have just ignored it and made the same mistakes over again in my life. But I learned from that.”

I predicted on another thread that Harry would address this and other episodes head on in his book. I was scoffed roundly for this. I expect him to say more in is book, and I am happy to be proved right.

If only for this, I am very glad they did this.

Enough to want half in half out?

Enough to continue to cling to the toxic family branding (titles), to actively utilise and monetise their association with this toxic brand, no name their DC after the head of the toxic brand and to continue turn up to events to celebrate the toxic family?

Maybe? But as someone who has toxic family and have been estranged, I know that it is very difficult to do. So I don't judge.

An abused person in any relationship can also be quiet and stay out of the abusers way, but the minute the abused person does anything the abuser doesn’t like the abuser starts in again. Or sometimes the abuser starts in unprovoked, because they are having a shit day (or sales are down).

We are seeing the tabloid media abuse two people - like tabloid media have done to other people before them, time and time again. Unfortunately, it’s a very common response is to blame the abused by saying they are asking for it, time and time again.

I’m grateful abusive media is being held to account. More and more people are beginning to see how awful some of these media institutions are. And to understand just how manipulative, divisive, misogynistic, and often dog whistling racist they are willing to be for power and money.

And as for Andrew, the tabloid media are not writing 32 articles a day just in one paper, and people really aren’t scrutinising him all that much. He’s not all over mumsnet, is he? Topic after topic is not on Andrew. But really, why would anyone choose Andrew as a comparison argument to Harry and Meghan?

People here recommend Low Contact and No Contact all the time when talking about how to deal with toxic families.

I think the Half In Half Out was meant to be Low Contact. 😶

That’s a false equivalence but amusing to see you scrape the barrel so desperately.

No - people who withdraw from toxic families LC/NC don’t declare their loyalty to continue to serve that family, to closely associate with and proactively continue to utilise their branding (titles) or call their new baby after the matriarch!

No - people who withdraw from toxic families LC/NC don’t declare their loyalty to continue to serve that family, to closely associate with and proactively continue to utilise their branding (titles) or call their new baby after the matriarch!

Indeed. Then again, most people don't curtsey or bow to their toxic in-laws when they meet. And most people are not constitutionally bound together with their toxic families as most people are not in the line of succession to the throne.

These are weird and complex issues. My facetious comment was simply to say that this was their perhaps clumsy way of managing a situation with, not only family, but also constitutional implications. I believe Harry loved his grandmother, certainly more than he loves his father, and if this had happened after her death, he would have simply flipped a finger, but as she was alive when he left, this halfway house seemed best.

the relationship between the tabloids and the royal family is absolutely strange and really does not make the people who buy the tabloids look good. in some way they are perpetuating an unhealthy passive aggressive, coercive controlling, utterly unhealthy dynamic.
i didn't realize this and i now that it's been brought to my attention i will not review any online royal family info.

😂 I nearly died laughing reading what you posted here, nothing you say relates to the camera/media/attention seeking crazy that is sparkles. They cannot stop running to the media obviously the media is going to bite they can't keep away from it.

Sparkles is obsessed with media coverage.

An abused person in any relationship can also be quiet and stay out of the abusers way
**
You mean like choosing a career on TV for maximum exposure, or going to a foreign country to marry into one of the world's most famous institutions, hiring your own PR firm, creating your own web page , blogs and charity and announcing it to the media. Selling your story in interviews with Opera, selling your life story to Netflix, co othering many books. Inviting famous celebs to your royal wedding you don't even now to raise your popularity. Bitching about your 4th family knowing they won't reply, yep that kind of quiet and laying low 🤣

One paper has written 32 articles in a day - it's not a paper I read as I think it is vile and racist on a whole range of topics. Citing that as the norm is a tad disingenuous.

The paper I read most is The Guardian, which has had a handful of articles over a couple of weeks, including one by David Olusoga. On the whole they have been mildly pro-H&M in line with their mildly republican stance, but saying that this won't change anything and is part of the long-running co-dependency of the RF and the media. None of the articles have been particularly prominent, so I might not have seen them all. I think the Independent and BBC have been broadly similar, but am happy to be corrected as I haven't particularly been monitoring their coverage. The BBC sacked Danny Baker pretty smartish for a racist Tweet.

So let's be clear, when saying 'the media' how we are defining it - what The Daily Mail does is not typical of all media outlets, for example.

And the whole Andrew thing again - he isn't getting the attention because he is not putting himself out there for comment. H&M have. So they get commented on. He has been the subject of comment when e.g. escorting his mother to his father's memorial service. The level of comment was related to the level of 'putting himself out there for comment' - he walked in with his mother and sat next to her for the service. He didn't speak. If he had taken a less prominent place, came in by a side door and sat further away he would have had less comment. If he did a six hour piece about his life and times I suspect he would get a similar level of comment that H&M have, with rather less sympathy.

“So let's be clear, when saying 'the media' how we are defining it - what The Daily Mail does is not typical of all media outlets, for example.”

Yes, let’s be clear, I wrote ‘the tabloids media’ a number of times - 3 times, I think it was.

I like your post @Sigma33 . I agree with some of it.

Unfortunately the DM is the go-to paper for so many people, it's hard to get away from, their online presence is huge and very many buy into their vile rhetoric.

Yes, David Olusoga's guardian piece was well worth a read. I think the Guardian has a balanced view (DM readers won't agree!) and it's not been all fluffy love for the couple. Stuart Heritage who I know from old was scathing in his article about the series.

On Andrew... yes and no, I agree. The thing is.. when the Andrew scandal was at it's height (the Maxwell trial, statements by VG, Andrew dodging papers being served by running between Windsor and Balmoral)... there really was not huge traffic on the threads I started. Yes, some stalwarts like me followed it closely but it did not generate the sort of disgust it should've done, especially as I believe his actions have damaged the RF far more than H&M (just MY opinion, I don't want a pile on for saying that!)

I agree he isn't putting himself out there so isn't getting the criticism, but by god he wants to! He is and will continue to find every which way to enter back into public life, I believe the last go at it was via his daughters speaking to Charles but I can't remember if that was before the Queen died or not. Now she has gone, the chances have diminished of course. We will see his role at the Coronation, I believe he continually is testing the public's opinion to try and ingratiate himself again (like escorting the Queen into church)

😂 I nearly died laughing reading what you posted here, nothing you say relates to the camera/media/attention seeking crazy that is sparkles. They cannot stop running to the media obviously the media is going to bite they can't keep away from it.

The tabloid media were being racist and misogynistic towards Meghan well before they answered back

Maybe the threads didn't get much attention because 99% of MN posters agreed with you?

I think there is pretty much universal agreement he is an unpleasant, entitled piece of work (caveat, based on 'the media' - I doubt many people posting know him personally). I think there are grounds for querying specific details of what he did/didn't do, knew/didn't know, but as they don't make any significant difference to the overall picture they are not worth debating.

Actually, I tell a lie - I have (almost) met him! At one charity event I worked at. He walked forwards with the host being shown the exhibition. The royal rota photographer was in front of him, flash going off continuously. I was between the Royal Personage and the photographer, walking backwards to keep the photographer a metre or so away from Andrew. I can imagine it does take practice to give the appearance of not noticing the cameras when they are practically in your face - so think W&C are sensible in bringing their kids to occasional events to get used to it.

I’m not particularly interested in the royal family (and am not a Daily Mail reader!) so haven’t really kept up with the press coverage on Harry and Meghan - or so I thought. The Netflix series opened my eyes though that I had taken on as fact some of the stories printed in the press and subsequently repeated on TV etc. So agree with you @fallfallfall that the coverage is toxic and I am going to filter it out of my news reading even further.

What I wanted to ask you @rumship is whether you mean Meghan when you write “sparkles” and if so, why don’t you just call her by her actual name? To me, it comes across as mean bullying type behaviour, that you are making an underhand comment about who she is. This is what I just don’t understand - yes valid and reasoned criticism of her if that matters to you to express it, but why the nastiness and name-calling? She is a human being just like you - would you like it if someone treated you like that? Its beyond me why there is this kind of nastiness for someone that you don’t know and are unlikely to ever meet!

A quick Google suggests the readership of the Daily Mail is about 2 million people, UK population about 67/68 million. So about 3% of the population are DM readers. Others will fall on the spectrum from 'they're right about a lot of things but I don't usually read it' to 'can't stand it, actively disagree with everything they print'.

Then you've got those who are too young to read newspapers, those who don't engage with mainstream media, etc etc

I think they do have influence, and help to create a general environment of racism, but are not as influential as they would like to think, or as some people claim. They are certainly not typical of the UK media

And I was delighted to read that they showed a clip of Piers Morgan calling Meghan 'a rockstar' 😂

A quick Google suggests the readership of the Daily Mail is about 2 million people

Mail online has 24.7M unique monthly unique visitors. The 2M you quote is probably people going out to buy the paper?

Sadly I think they are very typical of UK media.

whether you mean Meghan when you write “sparkles” and if so, why don’t you just call her by her actual name? To me, it comes across as mean bullying type behaviour, that you are making an underhand comment about who she is. This is what I just don’t understand - yes valid and reasoned criticism of her if that matters to you to express it, but why the nastiness and name-calling? She is a human being just like you - would you like it if someone treated you like that? Its beyond me why there is this kind of nastiness for someone that you don’t know and are unlikely to ever meet!

Yes, it's a way of insulting and dehumanising her. I judge anyone who posts the pathetic names like MeAgain, Meegain and now this one.

24.7M from the UK? Or world wide?

24.7M from 8 billion isn't a huge percentage - though of course many (most?) will not have wifi...

Agree 100% with this.

It’s also similar to PP who brand posters “haterz” for stepping on to a public platform to engage in reasonable debate - equally dehumanising, bullying and censoring.

No idea. Here's the link. It appears to be over 191M worldwide.

I think we can both agree they are quite a force in the UK

The trust scores of all the 'big names' seems to have fallen:
pressgazette.co.uk/news/times-telegraph-trust/

Daily Mail/Mail Online is under 25%

Should be far less in my view! But readership doesn't directly translate to people agreeing/believing what they read.

As I said, they do have influence. I am not sure they have as much influence as you think they do. But as someone working in the refugee/asylum seeker sector in the early 2000s, yes, there was a ramp up in hostility that I experienced just working in the sector.

At times I quite enjoyed quoting fact and figures when hit by a diatribe about 'them', it was all too easy as those having a rant had nothing to back up their headline opinions.

Plus, I just didn't bother socialise with bigots. I didn't complain how hard done by I was because there were times when I was verbally attacked because I worked in the sector, I recognised I had the privilege of choosing where I worked and who I socialised with.

My sympathies were with those who were enduring the racist abuse and stuck for years in a dehumanising system with no means of escape. Or are desperate enough to get in that dinghy in the middle of winter and risk their life because the other options are worse.

Unlike the privileges H&M have - leave it behind, move to somewhere you prefer, and build the life you want. They have every right to do that, and good for them for doing it. But they were incredibly privileged and had no shortage of options, and a number of their difficulties were due, in my opinion, to an unrealistic fantasy of what their life would be. And rather than reflect on how their own choices, beliefs and expectations contributed to the situation, they have seen themselves as the innocent victims of everyone else being racist/jealous/ generally mean and nasty.

No one deserves or should be expected to tolerate racist, misogynistic or any abuse irrespective of their bank balance or social privilege.

However its a very different discussion to scrutinise the words and actions of those with privilege.

Interesting post sigma. There's an ongoing discussion on MN about asylum seekers. Quite an eye opener in parts and not in a good way