Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

Harry & Meghan savaged by South Park

692 replies

sydneysunset · 17/02/2023 10:30

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/south-park-mocks-meghan-and-harry-and-their-high-profile-pleas-for-privacy-btkq9g2mg

Their standing in the US is at an all-time low. US audiences seem to hold them in the same contempt as people in the UK

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
jeffgoldblum · 18/02/2023 16:16

@AliceOlive was quoting another poster, not her syntax error.

Gilmorehill · 18/02/2023 16:16

Ridemeginger · 18/02/2023 14:45

They didn't want "privacy"? Maybe. They wanted the limelight for sure. What they didn't want was scrutiny, accountability or any sort of negative reaction to their actions. And that shows in Harry's attitude that his noble birth should afford him the right to say and do exactly what he wants, but he should be protected from critique at all times.

Exactly.

AliceOlive · 18/02/2023 16:35

@Sayitagainmyl

Do you mean debase like repeatedly posting an image of a man shoving something up his arse?

AliceOlive · 18/02/2023 16:36

jeffgoldblum · 18/02/2023 16:16

@AliceOlive was quoting another poster, not her syntax error.

Thank you. And I wondered if you caught why I pointed out the misspelling? I don’t care, but it seems like a clue!

jeffgoldblum · 18/02/2023 16:43

@AliceOlive , I'm sorry I didn't catch it! , I'm a bit out of sorts today and a bit slower than usual ( threw my back out lifting a heavy bag of groceries! , idiot!) .

Coxspurplepippin · 18/02/2023 16:43

'The irony is that H and M never asked for privacy and released a statement saying this was fabricated by media to silence them. They left due to the intense, unrelenting bullying and racism.'

They left because their half in, half out requirements were dismissed by HMQ as unworkable. Surely if you hate the institution you'd want all out.

I really can't be bothered to wade through it again to find the exact quote but Harry did talk about wanting privacy in the Tom Bower interv.

jeffgoldblum · 18/02/2023 16:46

@Coxspurplepippin , this has apparently been written out of history.
Along with the delightful... service is universal and no one owns the word royal .
Apparently figments of our feverish imagination no doubt! , I'm sure some clever sort will have screenshots though!

ThighMistress · 18/02/2023 16:54

Yes, the “Sussex Royal” interlude must not be mentioned ….

AliceOlive · 18/02/2023 17:02

ThighMistress · 18/02/2023 16:54

Yes, the “Sussex Royal” interlude must not be mentioned ….

That was one of the points made in the BBC article I linked. and it speaks to the fact that, by taking advice from others, they could have avoided so many missteps.

Here it is:

“BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the couple have "considerable savings", including Harry's inheritance from Princess Diana's estate and the money Meghan earned as an actress.

But, asked about whether they might get jobs, he added: "There is a problem for members of the Royal Family - relatively senior ones, even if they say they're no longer senior - getting jobs, because they are seen to monetise their brand and you run into a whole host of questions about conflict of interest".

www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751.amp

IcedPurple · 18/02/2023 17:43

Sayitagainmyl · 18/02/2023 16:11

@AliceOlive South Park is a satirical animation that is known for deriding public figures. So it’s not necessarily indicative of what the creators feel for the individuals they mock. Coming onto an online forum time and time again to debase the same individuals is a far more personal act and reveals more about the commentator than their subject. I believe MN’s founder refers to such commentators as ‘deranged’. I’m sure most others of sound mind would agree.
P.S. ‘obsessed with hate for them’ is an example of poor syntax. But I’m just being pedantic.

You've offered absolutely nothing of substance to this discussion. Only pretentious prose slagging off people you've never met, which is rather ironic.

Despite the obvious resemblance of your pompous, unintentionally comic and highly personal posts to those of several previous posters, you appear to be a 'first time poster'. So how do you know the posting records of people here? Why are you so interested in them? To borrow a theme from your own posts, what does it say about your life that you are so fixated on the posting habits of people you've never met, on a forum you've supposedly just signed up for?

And what would BBC Science Focus say?

IcedPurple · 18/02/2023 17:47

ThighMistress · 18/02/2023 16:54

Yes, the “Sussex Royal” interlude must not be mentioned ….

Wasn't there a photograph of a monogrammed 'Sussex Royal' doormat outside the Montecito housing unit in one of the approximately 7000 interviews for Spare?

jeffgoldblum · 18/02/2023 17:59

Yes @IcedPurple , there definitely was!

jeffgoldblum · 18/02/2023 18:02

Here we are was in a telegraph interview apparently!

Harry & Meghan savaged by South Park
Harry & Meghan savaged by South Park
karamazing · 18/02/2023 18:36

Don't worry, she only posts at the weekend (hint 😉) but it's hard to disguise arrogance.

jeffgoldblum · 18/02/2023 18:44

I'm sorry Kara, I'm still too dim to get it!

Datdamndamp · 18/02/2023 19:07

BemusedDad · 18/02/2023 10:52

notanotheroneagain is Benjamin Butterworth and I claim my £5.

Gasp .......

IcedPurple · 18/02/2023 19:31

jeffgoldblum · 18/02/2023 18:02

Here we are was in a telegraph interview apparently!

It's unfortunate to have to stare at Harry's crotch but yes, a Sussex Royal monogrammed doormat it is!

Good thing they weren't allowed to use that 'brand' in California. Imagine what they'd be flogging. Sussex Royal willy warmers. Sussex Royal unbreakable dog bowls. Maybe a collaboration with Elizabeth Arden for a special limited edition monogrammed Sussex Royal Eight Hour Cream?

Sayitagainmyl · 18/02/2023 19:36

IcedPurple · 18/02/2023 17:43

You've offered absolutely nothing of substance to this discussion. Only pretentious prose slagging off people you've never met, which is rather ironic.

Despite the obvious resemblance of your pompous, unintentionally comic and highly personal posts to those of several previous posters, you appear to be a 'first time poster'. So how do you know the posting records of people here? Why are you so interested in them? To borrow a theme from your own posts, what does it say about your life that you are so fixated on the posting habits of people you've never met, on a forum you've supposedly just signed up for?

And what would BBC Science Focus say?

Show quote history

If I were to quote any journal to describe the behaviour of some of the regular royal watchers on MN it would more than likely focus on the theme of psychiatry. But your protestation leads me to believe that my impression of those that gravitate to these threads is entirely accurate. Find a more fulfilling and meaningful activity to fulfil your days, months and remaining years than obsessing over a happily, married couple whose lives you could never emulate. Cue the protests: ‘My life is very fulfilling’ blah blah blah!! Who are you kidding? Even the MN founder was able to sum up the character of your small but vocal group in one word: ‘deranged!’ And you provide evidence to support her summation every time you take to your keyboard.

IcedPurple · 18/02/2023 20:00

Sayitagainmyl · 18/02/2023 19:36

If I were to quote any journal to describe the behaviour of some of the regular royal watchers on MN it would more than likely focus on the theme of psychiatry. But your protestation leads me to believe that my impression of those that gravitate to these threads is entirely accurate. Find a more fulfilling and meaningful activity to fulfil your days, months and remaining years than obsessing over a happily, married couple whose lives you could never emulate. Cue the protests: ‘My life is very fulfilling’ blah blah blah!! Who are you kidding? Even the MN founder was able to sum up the character of your small but vocal group in one word: ‘deranged!’ And you provide evidence to support her summation every time you take to your keyboard.

Show quote history

Am I the only one getting visions of a precocious teenager tapping away in their bedroom with an air of grim determination, making frequent references to an online thesaurus?

And BBC Science Focus?

karamazing · 18/02/2023 20:02

jeffgoldblum · 18/02/2023 18:44

I'm sorry Kara, I'm still too dim to get it!

Dear Sir or Madam will you read my book,

jeffgoldblum · 18/02/2023 20:09

Ahh @karamazing , i think im getting it now , particularly with @IcedPurple last post ! , I'm not normally this slow .. I promise! 🤣😳😉

AliceOlive · 18/02/2023 20:14

www.pressreader.com/uk/focus-science-and-technology/20220706/282690460878025

What an odd quote to slice out of this article. It should have been properly cited as a component of Danish-American psychoanalysts Erik Erikson’s theory.

The article isn’t really suggesting it’s true. Just a theory.

What a weird little article, too!

jeffgoldblum · 18/02/2023 20:19

Did you read it @AliceOlive ? , I was not clicking on anything from that poster!

Also apologies for not stating what my links were I was in the middle of tea for the kids , one was about not owning the word royal and the other was universal service, the links are from a news site called first?

There were many similar ones from N Y post and daily mail and others but I know some posters are sniffy about publications , I'm sure someone could unearth their original tweets but I'm not on twitter.