To think the palace should issue a statement condemning Clarkson's comments?

[Reindeersnooker]

I'm all for their dignified silence on everything else. I don't trust Harry or Megan. But Jeremy Clarkson's comments are horrific and were made in Britain against a woman who has become a member of their family.

NOT issuing a statement sends out such a hurtful message and indicates that anything can be said about her, for all they care. Even the MPs have managed to put something on paper.

It's clear that Harry will be beyond hurt if they do nothing and this time he'd have a point, IMO. Each comment like this published in the press erodes the boundaries for online trolls. If I was Meghan, I wouldn't feel I could return to the UK as it's clear the normal rules don't apply to her. What will her children think of Britain when they grow up and become aware of these articles? Won't they be likely to wonder how the palace responded? While it makes no sense to try and placate Harry generally, letting this play out without one word of censure to the press seems needlessly provocative.

It wouldn't be difficult to issue a statement saying something to the effect of "We stand against bullying and hate speech..." Two lines to indicate they see it and it's not ok.

Or not?

No, they can't do that. If they issued a statement this time, they'd have to do it for any horrible article or media piece, otherwise it would look like they are endorsing those articles they don't comment on. There are simply too many terrible and hurtful articles about Meghan and also other family members and they'd never be able to address them all.

I believe they've already dealt with this behind closed doors, hence Clarkson's apology and his daughters condemnation of what he did.

It is incredibly facile to demand the RF put out a public statement. I am sure they are doing the best they can but without feeding the ridiculous media frenzy, that is the right thing to do.

JC would have written that article even if the Lady Susan thing didn’t happen.

They sacked her immediately and apologised then organised an in person apology. Would did you expect them to do - turn back time?

Some posters have made interesting points about free speech. Where do we draw the line? If he had said he dreamt of the day when she was raped and murdered would we think it shouldn't have been published?

As a woman, the fear that would descend if a man expressed a desire to see me paraded naked and pelted with excrement by a hateful crowd could spill over very easily into a fear of being raped and murdered by his followers. I'd certainly be watching my back. Which is different to being offended and would not be very different to harassment, which we don't allow. Is this the price tag for the principle of free speech?

Or the Russian commentators who speculated and advocated for drowning and raping Ukrainian children. Do we have to leave a space for that and allow these conversations to unfold because free speech is sacred?

I really don't know.

Their ‘dignified’ silence perhaps. While, of course, campaigning against violence against women. I also find it hard to believe that the subject of the article was not discussed at the recent event with Camilla.

No, they definitely shouldn't. There have been thousands of articles written about this situation and they're right to ignore them & keep doing their job. Just because Jeremy Clarkson's a gobshite doesn't mean they have to get involved. It's for Press Standards to deal with complaints.

The Independent doesn’t have a paywall and dunno who Catherine is, but it doesn’t really matter: you asked when Dick said that, I’ve provided a secondary source (she said it on the Today show and a quick Google will substantiate that in multiple legitimate news sources), claimed the vigil was a joint effort with police (it wasn’t, and ditto). It was widely reported at the time that Dick had called the vigil illegal; she later said on the Today programme that Kate was there in a working capacity (she wasn’t, but that’s irrelevant).

None of which is really relevant to the point: which is when she wants to, Kate makes herself visible for political and personal causes; she could have attended in a hat and mask, she chose to be visible. The point is not whether vigils are legal or not (it was during lockdown and the ever-changing made-up rules), the point is “Never explain, never complain” is a total myth: they complain, explain, brief, leak, and change the rules constantly. The fact they’ve chosen silence on this particular instance speaks volumes.

To not make it about her. A young women had been killed and the papers were writing about Kate attending like that was the important part. The RF knew that would happen.

It’s all a PR exercise and I don’t like that, these are real people’s lives and tragedies being used for good PR and petty games.

My problem with this is that they have recently issued statements in support of non royals. They have, in the past, issued statements about negative press for family members.

This is no ordinary news article and Camilla is patron of an organization on violence against women.

They should make a dignified statement in order to help their own PR. Right now the optics are such that what Harry was saying true.

At the end of the day, condemning this publicly is the right thing to do.

They chose not to. Which means they plan to continue to allow the press free reign and have no plans of stopping the process that enables women in the royal family to be abused at the hand of the press.

Why would it have been? Why would he match up to Camilla and discuss tomorrow’s article content with her?

The posters crying out about misogyny it also blaming Camilla perhaps have an irony deficiency?

the RF are not responsible for Jeremy Clarkson. They do not speak for him. When someone made racist comments, a person they WERE responsible for who represented them, they acted immediately and appropriately. Maybe THE SUN - you know, the organisation who actually have some accountability and responsibility- could do with taking a leaf from the RF’s book that way.

You don’t know who Catherine is? Really?

I’ll give you a clue: it’s her name. Kate is not her name or a name she uses.

It’s not for Dick to speak on the RF’s behalf. And the independent article had one paragraph so maybe that’s their faux pas.

I do see what you mean now about vigil being illegal due to lockdown - I forgot the rules were still in place, though surely by 2021 outdoor gatherings were fine?! Anyway. As you were.

Did she make it about her? I don’t think she did. And if you thought the vigil was about Catherine then I’m afraid that’s your problem not hers.

Again - poster using a thread about a woman being the subject of a hate article, blaming and/or condemning that woman’s female relatives, should perhaps examine their own internalised misogyny.

I agree. I have even less respect for them now.

What power do you think the RF hold that they can ‘stop the press’ doing anything?

I think that most people would say that police treatment of Patsy Stevenson was the main story of the Sarah Everard vigil. The image of her on the floor while lots of officers cuff her was a shocking image - especially when there were gatherings with men that was not handled anywhere close to that night.

What power do you think the RF hold that they can ‘stop the press’ doing anything?
The fact they do it all the time by trading stories and access, just like any other major celebrities with press offices?

I don’t think it was all about Kate. But the press did try to push that. I’m able to realise that the important thing was that Sarah had died. But what many people take away from these things are ‘wow, isn’t Kate wonderful for going’. The RF machine know that and that’s why they do this. You’re naive if you think not.

That’s not to say Kate was not affected by Sarah’s murder, I think most people, certainly most women, were. You’d have to no heart to have not been appalled and saddened. And I don’t dislike Kate, I think she seems kind. But I think we all know that she is used as necessary to create certain impressions when it suits, and this was not the occassion to gain ‘likes’. That’s not misogyny, it’s just decency and respect for Sarah and her family and friends.

Yes, I worded that wrongly. They can't stop the press.

But they can condemn it publically and stop participating in the royal rota.

I can see both points of view tbh.

I can see exactly why Harry thinks, just because everyone (wives) has been treated this way, doesn’t make it okay, and that they should speak out.

But I also can see why they don’t.

I imagine their advice to H&M was to ride it out, because when you engage with statements to the media, you’re feeding it. That’s what you’re doing, you’re encouraging the media to comment even further.

Ultimately, this is very interesting to me, because we’ll have to wait and see which approach comes out on top, and whose happiest at the end of it all

I can’t believe it hasn’t come up on the bbc news website either.

That’s not stopping press though that’s throwing someone else under the bus.

You think that they could have stopped the Clarkson piece?

Do the people criticising Kate for attending the vigil also criticise Meghan for the same at Uvalde?

I think that’s far more comparable than this JC situation.

(I don’t criticise either for going to either btw).

TheWomanTheyCallJayne
· Today 18:06

Yes, a balanced, disinterested view. I don't know much about what MM is supposed to have said and done, he only time I pay any attention is when there's some shit storm about them.

you can think Kate was wonderful and also recognise it was about Sarah Everard.

I loathe it when these thing happen and people go ‘but the public will THINK like this’ and present a ridiculous viewpoint that nobody at all thinks.

Even though they’ve literally never done that before? Except with Meghan.

Maybe THE SUN - you know, the organisation who actually have some accountability and responsibility- could do with taking a leaf from the RF’s book that way.

Oh, I’m sure it does. The royal institution has a long history of non-accountability and propaganda/PR. Other unscrupulous establishments could certainly learn a thing or two from them.