Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Thread gallery
25
MamoruHisaishi · 31/03/2023 13:40

Badger1970 · 31/03/2023 13:01

Meghan and Harry both create strong reactions from people, so their names being used sells/generates clicks. Sadly for them, it's in a very negative way but I also think they made their beds with the situation.

At some point people will just be over them. Hopefully soon.

I think there was a lot of goodwill and empathy for them at the beginning. Even after they left, they were still well liked enough that most people were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they had acted more gracious and statesman like, like they were above it all just like the Queen or the Obamas, they would still have retained respect and sympathy even to this day. People respond better to those who give off positive and happy vibes, the ones who strive hard to make something of themselves without blaming others, and who know enough when to keep things private.

GrinAndVomit · 31/03/2023 13:44

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:33

Some people are entitledto have opinions about public figures while being irate at other people doing the exact same

It is very very different to be angry or irate about what our Government are doing (or not doing) and to express an opinion on that. Freedom of speech and politics should go hand in hand.
However, there is nothing that Harry has done that has affected my life.

Why do you pick out words and reorder them to give a completely different narrative to the one conveyed by the original author?

I clearly stated that you are being irate with other people for having similar opinions to you, just about different public figures.

MamoruHisaishi · 31/03/2023 13:45

skullbabe · 31/03/2023 13:16

Again - thread after thread is created about the same topic again and again. The topic 4 most popular threads right now on the royal board are about them and in them are the same arguments over and over again.

This does not happen with the others - there are not repeated threads talking the same rehashed topic over and over.

And? Free speech and all, if you don't like it then perhaps dont read it?

jeffgoldblum · 31/03/2023 13:46

I know you too @Roussette 😃 , but I'm not good at spotting similar posting styles unless really obvious, I know name changing is popular here but I'm too lazy and nothing I say is controversial enough to hide my name.

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:48

jeffgoldblum · 31/03/2023 13:46

I know you too @Roussette 😃 , but I'm not good at spotting similar posting styles unless really obvious, I know name changing is popular here but I'm too lazy and nothing I say is controversial enough to hide my name.

I tried to change my name once jeff. I got in a right pickle and had to come back as Roussette1 until MNHQ could sort it out.
No idea what happened!

I decided at that point NCing wasn't for me, to my cost at times I hasten to add. Sad

MamoruHisaishi · 31/03/2023 13:48

Whaeanui · 31/03/2023 13:22

Again - thread after thread is created about the same topic again and again. The topic 4 most popular threads right now on the royal board are about them and in them are the same arguments over and over again.

Exactly. The poster you were responding to has been on two threads here over the last few days and on both repeated over and over this stuff about Harry boasting about war and neither this thread or the other were about that. We could barely discuss the case the other thread was about. The other poster had posted nothing anywhere else on the site. Just an obsession over how a veteran should speak about his experience of war.

Ironic coming from someone who gets offended when others dare criticize Harry in any thread he's mentioned. Sorry but Harry is a joke, and I'm glad he's getting the scorn and mockery he deserves.

Whaeanui · 31/03/2023 13:50

I don’t think you know what irony means.

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:50

GrinAndVomit · 31/03/2023 13:44

Why do you pick out words and reorder them to give a completely different narrative to the one conveyed by the original author?

I clearly stated that you are being irate with other people for having similar opinions to you, just about different public figures.

OK. You don't understand about the difference between criticising public figures who shape our lives such as politicians and the PM. And the RF.
I can't explain further.

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:51

MamoruHisaishi · 31/03/2023 13:48

Ironic coming from someone who gets offended when others dare criticize Harry in any thread he's mentioned. Sorry but Harry is a joke, and I'm glad he's getting the scorn and mockery he deserves.

The thing is though... he isn't is he? As lots of posters on here are illustrating.

This is no echo chamber. The first few posts of this thread showed that.

jeffgoldblum · 31/03/2023 13:52

Yep @Roussette , I had to stop posting for a while myself as I kept getting jumped on and followed about! , god knows why?
I've never said much , it's stopped at the mo so , I'm back but who knows how long before it happens again!

GrinAndVomit · 31/03/2023 13:52

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:50

OK. You don't understand about the difference between criticising public figures who shape our lives such as politicians and the PM. And the RF.
I can't explain further.

You’re doing it again!

Stop twisting what I’m writing and then implying I’m stupid because of the narrative you have constructed for me!

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:54

GrinAndVomit · 31/03/2023 13:52

You’re doing it again!

Stop twisting what I’m writing and then implying I’m stupid because of the narrative you have constructed for me!

I have NO idea what your point is to be honest.

Except to make it personal.

jeffgoldblum · 31/03/2023 13:59

I firmly believe this thread was started by the op for the purpose of starting arguments, they haven't been back or made any comments.

Roussette · 31/03/2023 14:01

It is a bit 'light the blue touchpaper and run!'

Whaeanui · 31/03/2023 14:01

Undoubtedly Jeff.

MamoruHisaishi · 31/03/2023 14:02

diflasu · 31/03/2023 13:31

I'm more than sure she got digs at her that he didn't see and probably affected her behaviour in response.

Though I think American is in denial about how class ridden it is and how much social mobility they actually have.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/americans-overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country

I've seen her in Fringe and Suits series 1 and I thought then as now Meghan had screen presence and I've seen actresses with much less get more opportunities -marrying into another systems with everything stacked against you - I can see why you'd go your own way it just since then many of the things they've done I'm less enamoured about - I think they've been badly advised.

There are clearly issues with some sections of the media as well - idealise, devalue, discard in a cycle - is a good way of putting it and UK press can be brutal - the whole Liz Truss being out lasted by a lettuce seemed to surprise media in other countries.

I think it's actually worse because the US media manipulates the people enough so they ignore the class inequality, that it’s harder to move up the ladder because their whole system is designed to benefit the rich instead of the middle or working class.

MamoruHisaishi · 31/03/2023 14:03

Whaeanui · 31/03/2023 13:50

I don’t think you know what irony means.

Please do explain what it means, I'm all ears

GrinAndVomit · 31/03/2023 14:06

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:54

I have NO idea what your point is to be honest.

Except to make it personal.

You are irate at anyone who has anything remotely negative to say about H&M.
You claim this is because you hate bullying.

You have written very aggressive things about other people in the public sphere. You have insinuated personal insults at people on this thread. You have overlooked at very clear insults to people on this thread. People on this thread are not public figures. People on this thread are not changing the course of your life yet
this is apparently not bullying in your mind.

My point is, you are hypocritical in your unhealthy obsession in defending M&H.

purpledalmation · 31/03/2023 14:07

Whaeanui · 31/03/2023 12:37

the royal family do not 'employ' tabloid journalists

Their head of comms for C & C is former editor of Mail on Sunday, and her son works for ANL.

so ex journalists cannot change direction or employment? As I said they do not employ journalists they employ people who have changed their employment status.

PlanetLuna · 31/03/2023 14:08

ImSweetEnoughDarlin · 31/03/2023 13:08

No it isnt:

Meghan Markle has ‘warped sense of reality,’ isn’t ‘on the level,’ Vanity Fair writer says
‘What we know now about her is that she has a sort of a strange relationship to objective reality,’ says writer Vanessa Grigoriadas, who wrote about the Montecito-based duchess in 2018

Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: March 29, 2023 at 6:40 a.m. | UPDATED: March 30, 2023 at 11:02 a.m.

A Vanity Fair writer who was “ahead” of the curve for American journalists doing critical examinations of Meghan Markle opened up this week about what she’s learned since profiling the American Duchess of Sussex in 2018.
In a conversation with ex-BBC journalist Andrew Gold for his On the Edge podcast, Vanessa Grigoriadis explains why Meghan is the product of her upbringing in a dysfunctional family on the fringes of Hollywood, the world’s so-called dream factory.

As Grigoriadis explained in the podcast and in her Vanity Fair story, the wife of Prince Harry is an ambitious “striver” who has long sought to be “a household name” and to rise above her family’s middle-class but unconventional “shaggy-dog tale” existence. To do that, she worked hard in high school and college, struggled to make it in Hollywood, aggressively courted press attention as a B-list cable TV actor and crafted narratives about her life that are not necessarily aligned with “reality.” Grigoriadis agreed that the latter is a very Hollywood thing to do.

“What we know now about her is that she has a sort of a strange relationship to objective reality,” Grigoriadis said. “She has this warped reality and then she marshalls evidence underneath it to support a thesis that may not be the case.”

In Grigoriadis’ Vanity Fair story, which looks at the breakdown in Meghan’s relationship with her father, Thomas Markle, and her older half-siblings, she offered an example of the duchess’ self-mythologizing. When Meghan and Harry were still working members of the royal family, they embarked on a highly successful royal tour of Australia and the South Pacific. Crowds loved the duchess’ “almost magical mix of micro-management and moments of authenticity,” Grigoriadis wrote.

But Meghan’s “perfection” was “pierced” after she delivered a speech at a university in Fiji about the importance of college and of funding girls’ education, Grigoriadis said.

“It was through scholarships, financial aid programs, and work-study where my earnings from a job on campus went directly towards my tuition that I was able to attend university,” Meghan said. “And, without question, it was worth every effort.”

Meghan’s claims about putting herself through Northwestern University were moving and inspiring. But Grigoriadis and Gold said Meghan was clearly trying to place herself in a seemingly relatable rags-to-riches “Cinderella story,” laced with strong-independent-woman self-sufficiency.

Grigoriadis wrote that Meghan might not have been telling the truth — at least according to her estranged half-sister, Samantha Markle, who immediately took to social media to call B.S. on her college story. Samantha Markle said their father, a retired Hollywood lighting designer, paid for her college education. At the time, Samantha Markle called Meghan “delusionally absurd.”

In the podcast interview, Gold doesn’t ask Grigoriadis if Meghan is “delusional.” But he said he wonders how the former TV actor compares to the narcissists and sociopaths the writer met doing investigative stories on the NXIVM cult. Grigoriadis said Meghan isn’t “a psychopath,” but she said it’s her “hunch” that there is something off about “all of them” — meaning Meghan and her family.
As Meghan has been in the eye for close to seven years, she has begun to reveal some problems with “authenticity,” as Gold said. Grigoriadis described how those issues became apparent to her when she first reported on Meghan in 2018. Grigoriadis was told by people who knew the former “Suits” star that she can easily come across as warm and personable, but that she also isn’t “someone you can be friends with.”

Grigoriadis also mentioned a writer colleague, who spent a day with Meghan at her home in California, for a magazine profile.

“Her takeaway was, ‘This person just is not on the level,'” Grigoriadis said, with her friend also saying, “I don’t want to be here.”

While Grigoriadis didn’t name the writer or her publication, it’s easy to wonder whether she was talking about Allison P. Davis, a writer for The Cut who reportedly was handpicked by Meghan to write a profile of her. The 6,400-word story, titled “Meghan of Montecito,” was both a blockbuster and highly controversial.

Davis spent the day interviewing Meghan at her mansion in Montecito, where she moved after she and Harry departed left royal life in 2020. At first, it seemed that Davis had crafted a glowing tribute to the duchess, but bit by bit the story revealed itself to be a carefully worded takedown of her pretensions about her California lifestyle, her marriage, her parenting choices and her importance in royal history. It also presented the Northwestern theater major as performing through the interview, speaking as though she had “a tiny Bachelor producer in her brain directing what she says.”

Grigoriadis said she tried to get the writer to come on her own podcast, “Infamous,” but Davis refused. The writer said that people had been coming after her on the internet who are “stans of Meghan,” Grigoriadis said.

Meghan clearly wasn’t happy with the story, telling Variety a couple months later that she tends to be “really trusting, really open” but that she could “survive” the setback. By December, Newsweek royal reporter Jack Royston suggested that the story may have marked a turning point in how the American media covered Meghan and Harry, with American critics freely picking apart the couple’s Netflix documentary, “Harry & Meghan,” especially their continued practice of sharing royal secrets to stay relevant.

Grigoriadis agreed that the American media had long been in love with the Sussexes. She said she got pushback for her 2018 profile, with an editor telling her “We’re not going to say anything negative about Meghan.”

That’s in contrast with much of the British media, especially the tabloid press. While Grigoriadis said she’s not a fan of the tabloids, she disputed that idea that the tabloids were overwhelmingly racist or cruel to Meghan when she and Harry were first dating. Mostly, the tabloids were curious about the new woman in Harry’s life and were happy to sell newspapers by playing up the romance, she said.

Certainly, the tone changed after Meghan and Harry married, with stories starting to pop up about “tiara-gate” and either Meghan or Kate making the other cry before Meghan’s wedding, Grigoriadis reported in Vanity Fair.She also disputed the idea that the U.K. tabloids were this horrific “monster” in Meghan’s life. They may have been a monster for Harry, given that the paparazzi hounded his mother, Prince Diana, when she was alive and were present at her death, she said.

Harry also has been in London this week, to attend a hearing for a lawsuit against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail, alleging that its editors and reporters engaged in phone hacking and other means of illegal information gathering. Harry is one of seven claimants in the lawsuit, including Elton John, who say that Associated Newspapers invited their privacy privacy by using private detectives to intercept their phone calls and voicemails and to put tracking and listening devices on cars and in homes.

Grigoriadis differentiates between whatever Harry experienced from the tabloids and what Meghan dealt with.

“It’s not a monster in her mind because she is the one who would go out for drinks with Piers Morgan,” Grigoriadis said. “She was desperate for the press to be interested in her.”

Grigoriadis also said it’s become apparent that both Meghan and Harry believe they have “an ace in the hole” when it comes to addressing negative media attention. Harry will bring up how his mother “was killed” by the media. In this way, the media becomes “evil” and any press manipulation the Sussexes engage in is “completely justified” because they “are fighting this enormous braying monster,” Grigoriadis said.
This story has been updated.

What tf did I just read? 🦇💩

The Vanessa Grigoriadis comments are truly deranged. The main thrust of her article (and based on assertions from proven liar Samantha Markle) is that Meghan misrepresented her history including financial aid in college?? That’s a reach. US university tuition, especially someplace like Northwestern, is extremely expensive. No way did Thomas Markle pay for her full ride. Surely he contributed some, but scholarships, financial aid, part-time jobs for Meghan would’ve been a necessity.

The comments about Harry’s “ace in the hole” are especially nasty & repugnant.
There really is no bottom for these jealous, deranged individuals, is there?

See you next Tuesday, Grigoriadis! 😂

purpledalmation · 31/03/2023 14:09

Roussette · 31/03/2023 12:45

Harry's or meghans phones have not been hacked recently and even in the ongoing case which is over incidents that happened when he was a teenager, I don't believe his phone was hacked then

So... because of your dislike of Harry, you don't believe his phone was hacked, is that what you're saying?

my belief or opinion, like yours are irrelevant. My likes and dislikes equally irrelevant. This is about evidence.

MamoruHisaishi · 31/03/2023 14:10

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:51

The thing is though... he isn't is he? As lots of posters on here are illustrating.

This is no echo chamber. The first few posts of this thread showed that.

He's widely mocked in the media, whether in the US, in the UK and even in my own country. His low polling shows he isn't well liked and some of the more liberal websites I go to are more sympathetic to Meghan (for having to put up with him). The more he whines about being a victim of the royal family the less sympathy people have for him. Perhaps if he didn't show himself to be such an idiot, like believing that penguins live in the North Pole or that there's an island called Chunga Chunga, maybe people would take him more seriously.

skullbabe · 31/03/2023 14:11

MamoruHisaishi · 31/03/2023 13:45

And? Free speech and all, if you don't like it then perhaps dont read it?

Of course it’s free speech - however recall that this was in response to claim that people pushing backing against the relentless negativity were obsessive as opposed to those who seemed to create thread after thread in which to be negative.

jeffgoldblum · 31/03/2023 14:13

@MamoruHisaishi , did he really believe that about penguins and a country called ' chunga chunga ' ?
I've not seen that before?

Whaeanui · 31/03/2023 14:13

Of course it’s free speech - however recall that this was in response to claim that people pushing backing against the relentless negativity were obsessive as opposed to those who seemed to create thread after thread in which to be negative.

Not just creating negative threads, but dominating other threads and derailing with memes and attacks which are later removed, so that the actual thread topic others wanted to discuss is completely lost.

Swipe left for the next trending thread