Justine has called anti-Meghan sentiment here deranged

[vera99]

In the Telegraph today got to be worth a thread of its own. She is of course right !

Shocking - happy I didn't see this and I would have reported it but I can imagine a few posters who join in with threads like this.

Yeh I’m not sure about the pp comments

This, I don’t mind Meghan. I don’t mind Harry either really but his book (or at least the translation of it) is hilarious.

And let’s be honest, on the Royal Family in general, they need us to be interested in them, it’s literally their raison d’etre. You don’t get thousands of people waving flags without the flip side (within reason, obviously). If no one’s there when they turn up to open a library or whatever, then what then? That’s why they dance with the devil (of the press).

They could stop, but they don’t want to.

Yeh this is it when it’s all wall to wall NHS / doom it’s just a laugh. It used to be more like this and has since become so depressing on here.

I don’t have a strong view on MM, not sure I’ve posted that much on her in particular but the book plus threads on them are funny

@ItWasDobbinAtTheMareAndSpare
The King is a constitutional monarch. He could leave it at that. No one has to turn up to see them at all for the king to retain his position within the nation. In fact if no one sees them, and they make fact finding visits, so be it. Most of us don’t go around waving flags or turn out to see them anyway. It’s a minority that do that. We do however prefer the king to a president (who in earth could we have?) and at least it’s a constant and consistent form of democracy. The king has no discretion to do anything but is there as a sounding board and figurehead. Waving crowds are optional.

Someone refused the invitation to my first wedding because they reckoned it wouldn’t last. They were right and I should have listened.

I have family in America and they are shocked by the level of vitriol.

Oh yes the good old US of A. The pinnacle of racial tollerance, gun regulation and historical abuse of its native population. Give me a break no e one gives two shits what yanks think.

The king has no discretion to do anything but is there as a sounding board and figurehead

If that's the case, perhaps you could explain why Sovereign's Consent was brought into being - and worse, how Charles managed to get it extended to himself even while still Prince of Wales?

@Blossomtoes - but did they suggest a Bet it wouldn't last , that's my point - the idea of a bet that someone's relationship won't last

Oh some people would love it if M and H's marriage didn't last. I have no idea if it will or not. Statistically even without taking into account the characters of the two, loads of marriages end in divorce.

Personally I hope after all this book stuff has died down (and I am finding so much of that batshit/funny) they live quiet lives in the US and never come back to the UK again and I can return to being more interested in the Telly Addicts topic and the interactive threads about the Eurovision song contest etc.

No, they said flat out it wouldn’t last. I can’t see how a bet would have been any worse.

There are American hate sites about William and Kate though - one well known one in particular that many posters here seem to pick up stories from that currently has a new thread for every negative thing said about the Wales’s in Spare to date (much like MN does now). There are hundreds of comments there under each pulling the couple apart (on that site anything positive at all about them is deleted by the moderator, by the way - people claim MN is an echo chamber!). Twitter is also an absolute cesspool.

It’s not even like Meghan and Harry is the only contentious issue on MN that gets people wound up, and sees abusive posts. The other one is far more of a political hot potato though. On twitter, abuse follows any position taken, no matter how innocuous, or so it seems to me.

So this is not a “UK people are deranged bigots” issue. There is a wider issue here about people’s willingness to say abusive things online, and the extreme position taking and partisanship it reflects (the latter being an area where I think the US is by far a more obvious example).

And underneath all of that are the people who just want to have a discussion about an issue that is clearly of interest to many people. The Royal Family is clearly not a niche topic, given their global fame, role in the UK state and interesting history. Many opinions about them and their activities vies are possible. That discussion rather gets lost in the shouting, however.

Well yes, obviously from a technical and constitutional standpoint. I suspect they don’t think so though. Think about the ‘events’ we have where the expectation is arial views of thousands and the red arrows. Think about how the pushback on how much the monarchy costs us is how much they might make in tourism, etc etc. They obviously very much do care about public opinion, and is what is driving all of this.

@ItWasDobbinAtTheMareAndSpare
They do care. I’m sure you are right. But should they? How events are televised isn’t down to them. I think some big events are expected but they could be scaled back. A sort of Royal austerity! In these times it would be understood and a PR coup!

I agree but think they do have a large input into the big events being televised. It’s a, erm, symbiotic relationship, I guess. Where it gets grubby is the stuff that Harry alludes to (I guess no longer just alludes) / although he’s just the same now - although not hiding it I suppose.

PreparationPreparationPrep
@Blossomtoes - but did they suggest a Bet it wouldn't last , that's my point - the idea of a bet that someone's relationship won't last
*
No, they said flat out it wouldn’t last. I can’t see how a bet would have been any worse.*

Then we have to agree to disagree - a comment is unkind but a bet is mean spirited and unkind.

@Puzzledandpissedoff
I have no idea what you are talking about. We have Parliamentary sovereignty in this country. The uk government passes legislation and the monarch gives consent. If you really want to read what the King can do read the King’s and Prince’s consent document issued by the Government in November 2022. It makes sparkling bedtime reading.

The uk government passes legislation and the monarch gives consent

No, the monarch gives assent once the government has passed legislation ... consent is the function whereby he's allowed to interfere before it's even been properly debated, which is why I queried the remark that he "has no discretion to do anything"

My sibling’s episodes occurred during psychotic episodes. But apparently there can be other causes - neurological ones. I don’t know about those.

A feature is that the person doesn’t realise they are making no sense. At least it was in so in my sibling’s case.

I reported that thread. Attacking a woman some on MN don't like for how she dealt with her grief from a miscarriage was an incredible low.

And mumsnet is particularly deranged for the number of posters saying awful things about Meghan and Harry.
Loads of comments suggesting Harry is a hair breadth away from being sectioned for example.
And vicious attacking of anyone who challenges them.

She’s absolutely right.

She is.

There are a few posters who are deranged when it comes to Meghan. I won't mention names but I'm a bit worried about the level of hate they towards her. It started before the wedding. It reminds me of a gang of vicious school bullies.

Posters accuse them of dishonesty, hypocrisy, being self serving etc. I think If you did enough digging, you could apply that to all the Royal family.

Charles wrote a book with Jonathan Dimbleby in 1994 detailing the distant relationship he had with his parents and the breakdown of his marriage. Harry would have been 10 at the time and his dad had admitted commiting adultery.

Oops posted too soon

Charles admitted adultery to the whole world. Diana did the same. He spent loads of time in boarding school and he was out on parade at his mothers funeral.
If you write an autobiography then you have to put the good in with bad. I've read a couple of them Anne yes they do talk about their families.