How do republicans who support H&M feel about 'princess' lillibet

[purpledalmation]

I mean how do you reconcile the, to me, gross hypocrisy of saying you want to leave the royal family to pursue your own projects and for privacy and would give up their royal titles.

Their own projects so far consist of trashing the royal family and making money from it, while clinging to their royal titles.

Privacy consists of reality tv shows, public therapy sessions and a book tour.

They touted their children's privacy and security as a reason for leaving yet they name their children prince and princess. A sure fire way to draw attention to them and reduce their security.

I honestly want to know how people who want the monarchy gone yet praise harry and Meghan for their bravery in standing up to the RF, square this circle?

Maybe because Meghan said on Oprah they have a right to private lives? Sounds like privacy to me. Maybe because Harry said he hated growing up in a goldfish bowl? Sounds like he doesn't want that any longer.

After the NF series I heard an interview with someone involved in IPSO (press complaints) - sorry, can't remember the name, this was on R4 either Today programme or PM.

He said carefully that he couldn't comment on any specific case, but did say that the more private info someone has put in the public domain themselves, the less they can expect other information to be regarded as private.

So Rousette's analogy doesn't really work - it's not someone kicking down your door, it's someone walking through a door you've opened without specifically inviting them in.

@Roussette Is privacy a 6 hour docuseries on Netflix (a la Kardashian style) including seeing children in a bath, or printing a book where you talk about your frozen todger and losing your virginity, maintaining privacy? I'd prefer my door kicked in frankly.
@MrsMaxDeWinter If they wanted privacy 'on their terms' letting the press in when they wanted, it wasn't a good move to air over 7 hours of tell/show all TV plus 2 books, designed to generate as much publicity as possible with scandalous allegations about both families.

Your posts are always good for a laugh because they are great at defending the indefensible. What do H&M need to do for you to see reality?

It's also very important for them to maintain a public presence, hence the paps when they go out to dinner, or yesterday when Meghan went out to brunch. When you go for that sort of celebrity lifestyle, the privacy lines get blurred.

You don't read my posts do you purple. That much is obvious... you just want to rant about todgers, baths, virginity and all the rest of it. It's a go-to rant for when anti H&M posters get cross with push back and not everyone on a thread agreeing with them.
They did not go on Oprah and say they wanted privacy.

As is clear from the Where's Meghan posts here even when she is nowhere to be seen, her life and that of her husband will always be under a microscope. They are public figures. But even public figures have a right to privacy. Public figures may chose to write books about themselves, may chose to do interviews about aspects of their lives, may even choose to do documentaries, or more.

That they have done these projects for money is good for them. Enough people cash in writing about them. They have every right to make money from their own story and images.

The public, the media, can react to these interviews, documentaries, books etc. They can talk about them negatively or positively.

What is invasion of privacy, and is NOT acceptable is to hack into phones, to intercept emails, to publish private correspondence because that has not been authorised, to trawl through bins, to demand to see pictures of their kids etc. I was rightly upbraided yesterday for referring to the tampon incident where the privacy of Charles and Camilla was unfairly invaded. Charles was a public figure, but that was an invasion that was not at all in the public interest.

On the other hand, Charles chose to authorise a book that had negative comments about his parents. That was his right to do so, he chose to lift the veil on his privacy, in the same way that Meghan and Harry have chosen to lift the veil on theirs.

It's a fairly basic distinction that reasonably intelligent person can understand so I am struggling to understand why you don't get it.

'They did not go on Oprah and say they wanted privacy.'

No, but Harry did say they wanted privacy on Tom Bradby interview.

Also, they've gone on and on about press intrusion and have basically brought it all down on their heads. Harry courted attention after publication of his book - he did many interviews. They made a docudrama series. Did they think the press weren't going to be interested? Did they not want press interest? Of course they did. On their terms. Too daft to realise that's not how the press work. Or totally; disingenuous.

Also, as Lord Faulks pointed out if someone is “prepared to discuss [their private life] then it is not unreasonable for the press to write about it and to say to some extent they have brought an invasion of privacy on themselves”.

Ironically, the Royal Family appear to have far less press intrusion than Harry and Meghan. There is plenty of footage of them on official engagements - expected, but very few instances of pictures of any of them, including the children, otherwise. Whereas the paparazzi are now falling over themselves for pictures of Harry, Meghan and their children because it's fodder for the gossip mags and the Daily Mail. There are hundreds of photos of the Montecito mansion, taken by drones and paparazzi, but I wouldn't know what Adelaide cottage looks like.

To me, they're like Edward and Mrs S - if social media, camera phones and the paparazzi had been around in the thirties, they'd have been treated the same way. Good for scandal and gossip, thinking themselves far more important than they are, good for selling the muck raking mags,

Well said @MrsMaxDeWinter

Hating MM is a billion dollar industry. It will never stop, too many people make too much money from it.

mixedrecycling, absolutely - it was Lord Faulks who made those comments. Harry and Meghan want publicity (but only good publicity). So they will court journalists when it suits them. They're actually playing a game which they think they control.

So they will court journalists when it suits them

And you don't think the RF do that? Without that modus operandi, they would be completely ineffectual or ignored, or not exist. The RF rely on 'good' stories.

The symbiotic relationship between the media and the Monarchy is everything. Why do you think there are so many Royal Reporters? Why do you think Charles and William have government trained professional communications officers to spin the right story? It's a complex set of dynamics.

So no different.

Does this include being invited into someone's home and secretly taking photos as it's believed Meghan did after being invited to William and Kate's home?

Is invading someone's privacy perhaps writing about very personal matters in a book or discussing them in interviews? Without their permission or knowledge?

So Harry and Meghan's behaviour is no different to that which they vocally and vociferously pretend to despise. They're hypocrites. But we knew that.

Does this include being invited into someone's home and secretly taking photos as it's believed Meghan did after being invited to William and Kate's home?

Put down the Daily Mail. Seriously.

"as it's believed"... said by you... says it all. In other words... made up.

When did Meghan "secretly" take pictures?

Where have these "secret" pictures been published? And if it was "secretly done", how come you know about it?

Proof please, or it didn't happen.

Someone criticised H&M for courting journalists. I pointed out that the RF do it in spades and have done forever.

I want to see these secret pictures. There has been so much crap made up about Meghan it's untrue.

No wonder they left. Good on them.

Of course they do but it’s not quite the same, is it? They don’t whinge and complain over every single little story that is out there that they don’t approve of (yes, I know they have complained about some things but only really major stuff, they don’t keep banging on about press intrusion as a general thing). The Sussexes may not have said “we want privacy” in so many words, but that is what they have implied and what most people would understand them to mean (but obviously allows the hair splitters to carry on saying that they never said it). I am also
aghast that many don’t see a problem with Harry having revealed personal details and petty gripes in his book. I have asked several times what you think about his reference to the matron at school and you have never replied. And the reason people “bang on” as you put it about todgers and virginity etc is because Harry has put all this out there (excuse the turn of phrase) in his book. So I’m not sure what he has to complain about when he has revealed lots of really personal details about himself, family members and also people who are no longer on his life but have been included in the book

Ooh. Slightly off topic but talking of titles, just seem Edward is now DofE

Excellent news, and good for Edward.

I hope Charles's hand was not forced as it was for Archie and Lili, and it was simply announced on his birthday, but however it happened, I am glad Charles honoured his promise to the Queen.

Charles hand probably was forced. He has left Edward for ages wondering if he will get this or not and with leaks to the press that it may go to someone else instead.
Charles seems a control freak who likes to keep them all dangling. If he carries on like this he will come majorly unstuck.

Forget privacy for a minute. One thing they've been clear about is wanting to control and correct the narrative.

I get that it must be distressing to read untrue things about you (or what you perceive to be unfair or untrue). I honestly do - my mum was a journalist when I was young, and what she wrote about me makes me cringe to my roots.

But I think the instinct to want to curate, control and correct the narrative veers between staggeringly optimistic, daft, and narcissistic.

Because your vision of yourself is never going to perfectly match other people's. Not everyone is going to like you. A million people might read BS about your taste for avocados, but only a precious few of them will agree with that narrative or even remember it.

Instead of making war in the press, I think they'd be better advised to throw their weight behind good, factual and accurate reporting (except they don't seem to like that too much either, if it throws even a smidgen of negativity their way).

No I haven't replied. And I won't. I'm not in the mood for a pile on. Needless to say he was stupid.

It's just boring when every time someone makes what I feel is a valid point maybe opening up a discussion about privacy, it turns into either attacking the poster or going on about todgers and baths. That is not discussion.

So there you go, smilesy, I've answered you.

Am reading that "sources are eager to conform this has nothing to do with what hand yesterday.

Year right.

I hope Edward sits next to Meghan at the coronation so that he can say 'Thanks for the superb power play, Duchess!'

And she can say, 'You are welcome, Dukey. Suits you sir!"😃

I remember him being the only person at that last Commonwealth event being the only person with manners enough to know how to behave in public, he, Harry and Meghan gamely chatted and smiled while the rest looked absolutely hatchet faced.

I don’t know why there’s been so much speculation over the DofE title.

They tend not to do many big things, other than securing the direct line, in a short space of time after the death of the monarch.

He was never going to make Edward DofE right away. It was always going to be on an occasion after a decent amount of time had passed.

It is, however, interesting that it’s a lifetime title. So won’t pass to James and therefore, unlikely the Kent and Gloucester titles, won’t become a non royal dukedom. I think that will become more common with titles going forward.

It's obvious you're determined to see only negative in anything the RF do - which is to the detriment of any point you make.

If you know anything about BRF history you know they never do anything rapidly after big events.

HMQ died in September. KC's Coronation is in May. They want the focus at those times to be on those events.

Seems eminently sensible to be to announce Edward be named Duke of Edinburgh at this time on his birthday. It ensures the focus is on him - as it should be.

I'm pretty sure this has been the plan all along.