Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Thread gallery
25
DuchessOfPort · 31/03/2023 13:05

Roussette - I have to say you’re not incapable of writing “vitriol and unpleasantness” about individuals yourself! I’ve just popped Harry’s name in instead of Johnson’s.

“I would LOVE [Harry] to be caught out in this. He thinks he is untouchable. He's a fucking liar all the time, I want his arse handed to him on a plate to wipe that smarmy smirk off his face. I detest him.”

and “ I don't loathe and despise two people I don't know who have no effect on my life but who I feel driven to start unpleasant threads about.”

you do loathe and despise and start threads about Andrew though?

The long and the short of it is your behaviour and opinion on what is ok to post about individuals changes according to the individuals and that is what happens for everyone else too!

“I’d never do blah blah”.
“oh actually I do but he’s elected so blah blah”
”it’s different for them because blah blah”.

You’re no different to any other poster on this board, you just like and dislike different people.

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:06

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 would like to think so too. But do you know what I think?

I think it's going to take until W&K's children become teens and are making friendships, having relationships. The vile media will then move on to them. Sadly.

H&M are the starter, the main course and the dessert at the moment. For instance, SarahF was on This Morning for about an hour yesterday yattering on about her new Mills & Boon, the Queen's corgis, Andrew, the daughters, America, H&M (she said little on that).... I've not seen a sniff of press on that.

The media are horribly obsessed with H&M to the exclusion of everything else. Charles's Germany visit got a look in but only just.
(Incidentally I was very disappointed to hear on BBC that he had the Royal car he often uses flown over to Germany instead of using one of their protected ones. So much for his eco views...)

ImSweetEnoughDarlin · 31/03/2023 13:08

Roussette · 31/03/2023 07:03

She has shown her face just once in months. Yet another thread to attack her. What is up with you? When is enough enough?

Luckily the link is behind a paywall so no one can read it and get worked up.

I think you need this...

https://m.facebook.com/ABC730/videos/the-meghan-markle-helpline/271094147923517/

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.

derxa · 31/03/2023 13:10

michaelmacrae · 31/03/2023 13:02

You do realise he is only human, don't you?

No. He's a veritable saint.

diflasu · 31/03/2023 13:11

Howsimplywonderful · 31/03/2023 12:54

Nobody fact checked Meghan’s anecdotes when she was a cable actress and she failed to realise people would check them when she married into the royal family

But instead of realising this, she is still pushing various fantasy narratives.

Less and less people are buying into them as she keeps getting tripped up by reality and facts

I always thought this as well.

It's a very different kind of fame even more peculiar than regular fame which perhaps isn't understood by those outside UK that it comes with much more scrutiny - though TBH Harry book has similar issues - the whole where he said he was was when relatives died vs where press at time had covered him being.

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:13

DuchessOfPort · 31/03/2023 13:05

Roussette - I have to say you’re not incapable of writing “vitriol and unpleasantness” about individuals yourself! I’ve just popped Harry’s name in instead of Johnson’s.

“I would LOVE [Harry] to be caught out in this. He thinks he is untouchable. He's a fucking liar all the time, I want his arse handed to him on a plate to wipe that smarmy smirk off his face. I detest him.”

and “ I don't loathe and despise two people I don't know who have no effect on my life but who I feel driven to start unpleasant threads about.”

you do loathe and despise and start threads about Andrew though?

The long and the short of it is your behaviour and opinion on what is ok to post about individuals changes according to the individuals and that is what happens for everyone else too!

“I’d never do blah blah”.
“oh actually I do but he’s elected so blah blah”
”it’s different for them because blah blah”.

You’re no different to any other poster on this board, you just like and dislike different people.

What is it with you people that spend your life 'advance searching' other posters? I actually find it really creepy.

I am quite entitled to talk about Boris Johnson however I like. He is an elected official and what he did or does affects my life, your life, everybody. There is nothing that Harry has done that has affected me or other people. If I type how BJ has affected others, I will be here all day.

As for Andrew. I have never said I loathe him. I really really dislike so much of what he did in the past and carried on with, and how they covered for him, and the Queen his mother enabled his behaviour. I could talk endlessly about the really bad things he has done and who he has mixed with. His character is abhorrent.

Are you saying that Andrew should be protected from all of this? He has done far far more damage to the RF than H&M and in years to come that will be seen and obvious.

Hope that helps. I couldn't let you searching my past posts go to waste could I ?!

skullbabe · 31/03/2023 13:16

MamoruHisaishi · 31/03/2023 12:28

Why does it bother others when public figures like Harry gets criticized? Catherine and William and Charles and Camilla get criticized here but none of Harry’s defenders seem too bothered by it?

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.

DuchessOfPort · 31/03/2023 13:18

I agree it must be infuriating for hypocrisy to be proved so easily with the AS function. It took nary a minute.

You don’t need to ascribe any motivation to me; as I said, you’re no different to any other poster despite what you may claim, you just like and dislike different people.

Nothing wrong with that given we are all allowed to express our opinions on public figures. Just try to refrain from making out you’re different or superior!

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:21

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.

Exactlly!

It's been going on since the day Meghan came on the scene. I am sick to death of hearing 'I thought she was a breath of fresh air but then....' because the vile threads started the day after they got engaged. I can link it if you want. Have a look.
It's entitled "I'm fucking sick of Harry & Meghan already".

That was 2017 I believe. And it was horrible.

Of course, that is not everyone, there are some measured reasonable people out there. But those that decided they were not going to like her from day one, are prolific.

Someone said on here a few weeks back "I knew she was trouble as soon as she opened her mouth on that engagement interview"
Poor bloody woman, she never stood a chance with views like that.

PlanetLuna · 31/03/2023 13:22

jeffgoldblum · 31/03/2023 12:55

Really ?
What in-depth medical info?
Penis info?
Critical comments about balding?
Personal text conversations?

I'm clearly reading more boring autobiography's .

Yes, really. 😂

Spare is beautifully written, honest, captivating, and indeed shocking in places - usually with humour. That’s why it’s a bestseller.

It unapologetically pushes back against much of what has been published about Harry by others. It’s bitterly cutting toward tabloids and their acolytes, but overall it is not hateful or mean spirited.

This review has an interesting take. https://slate.com/culture/2023/01/prince-harry-book-spare-sales-review.html

This whole invasion of others’ privacy argument is just nonsensical sour grapes. He’s an adult, free to set the record straight, which he did. We don’t all have to like it. 😏

Prince Harry’s Book Is Just Good Literature

I don’t give a fig about the royals, but Spare reads like a good novel.

https://slate.com/culture/2023/01/prince-harry-book-spare-sales-review.html

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.

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:24

DuchessOfPort · 31/03/2023 13:18

I agree it must be infuriating for hypocrisy to be proved so easily with the AS function. It took nary a minute.

You don’t need to ascribe any motivation to me; as I said, you’re no different to any other poster despite what you may claim, you just like and dislike different people.

Nothing wrong with that given we are all allowed to express our opinions on public figures. Just try to refrain from making out you’re different or superior!

You have proved NO hypocrisy. If I cannot criticse a Prime Minister or a political party, there is something very wrong in this country. And to try and make a member of the RF who does not affect policy in this country... the same as someone who does... is quite frankly, laughable.

Stop making it personal about other posters and concentrate on the subject in hand. It would make you far more reasonable.

GrinAndVomit · 31/03/2023 13:24

DuchessOfPort · 31/03/2023 13:18

I agree it must be infuriating for hypocrisy to be proved so easily with the AS function. It took nary a minute.

You don’t need to ascribe any motivation to me; as I said, you’re no different to any other poster despite what you may claim, you just like and dislike different people.

Nothing wrong with that given we are all allowed to express our opinions on public figures. Just try to refrain from making out you’re different or superior!

Hear hear!
Some people are entitled to be rude and insult other posters while claiming to hate bullying. Some people are entitled to have opinions about public figures while being irate at other people doing the exact same (in much milder terms might is add!).

MamoruHisaishi · 31/03/2023 13:26

PlanetLuna · 31/03/2023 12:58

A better strategy would be to stand up to, challenge and crush a brutal, corrupt, exploitative, and bullying system like the tabloid media instead of getting in bed with it.

Appeasement doesn’t work. The King is weaker because of his choice to get into bed with the tabloids.

By sharing personal info like his family members’ private parts, medical history and making a mockery of their physical appearances, and leaking their conversations, Harry himself has become the tabloid media. He’s become the very thing that he despises.

jeffgoldblum · 31/03/2023 13:27

I will say most of the posters here now were not here in 2017 or earlier , it seems off to blame them (or me!) for posts started then .

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:30

jeffgoldblum · 31/03/2023 13:27

I will say most of the posters here now were not here in 2017 or earlier , it seems off to blame them (or me!) for posts started then .

Which is why I talked of measured sensible posters who weren't like that...in my post. See below

Of course, that is not everyone, there are some measured reasonable people out there

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:31

But I will say jeff there are lot who are. They just have different names. I recognise the writing styles sometimes.

diflasu · 31/03/2023 13:31

AutumnCrow · 31/03/2023 12:43

I wonder if perhaps Meghan underestimated the nature of class snobbery in Harry's world. It's a completely different beast to that encountered in 'Hollywood dynasties' (see e.g. the narrative of the world of Gwyneth Paltrow). Both the UK and the US have snobbery, but the UK's in the circles in which Harry moves is uniquely and esoterically brutal. It's 'normal' to him to he doesn't completely see what she sees, possibly.

That and the media's tendency to idealise, devalue, discard in a cycle - sometimes the Daily Express can go through the cycle about a person in one day (and call it 'balance') - leads to a dysfunctional monarchy being dysfunctionally reported.

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.

Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

But in Europe, climbing the ladder is easier than most people believe

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

PlanetLuna · 31/03/2023 13:32

Jenpeg · 31/03/2023 13:02

Yes this. But taking a view this mean not swallowing the media narrative whole and shitting it straight back out again, people are being puppeted so easily in their evaluation of Meghan and they just don't question it

But taking a view this mean not swallowing the media narrative whole and shitting it straight back out again, people are being puppeted so easily in their evaluation of Meghan and they just don't question it

@Jenpeg

😂😂😂 Colourful and perfectly said!

@Whaeanui
Yes! Yes! A thousand times, yes! ^

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.

704703hey · 31/03/2023 13:33

Neither of them are the devil incarnate. They're not admirable either and certainly not 'humanitarians'. Their concern is themselves and their status.

They dominated the press during lockdowns as they were throwing a temper tantrum about not getting their own way and it sells clicks. Both of them thought they would always be funded.

jeffgoldblum · 31/03/2023 13:34

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:31

But I will say jeff there are lot who are. They just have different names. I recognise the writing styles sometimes.

Do you? , I sometimes think posters are suspicious but then how can you tell? , I know it would be unpopular but I wish name changing was stopped or flagged so you know who your responding to!

Jenpeg · 31/03/2023 13:35

PlanetLuna · 31/03/2023 13:32

But taking a view this mean not swallowing the media narrative whole and shitting it straight back out again, people are being puppeted so easily in their evaluation of Meghan and they just don't question it

@Jenpeg

😂😂😂 Colourful and perfectly said!

@Whaeanui
Yes! Yes! A thousand times, yes! ^

My anger typos really showing here 😂

taking a view like this means

I've done some breathing exercises haha

Roussette · 31/03/2023 13:37

jeffgoldblum · 31/03/2023 13:34

Do you? , I sometimes think posters are suspicious but then how can you tell? , I know it would be unpopular but I wish name changing was stopped or flagged so you know who your responding to!

I don't want to go into detail, but I do know. Posters do trip themselves up sometimes. Or bring up something inadvertently from years ago. While NCing is allowed, it will continually happen that you don't know exactly who you are responding to!
(But I know you jeff 😃)

goldenotter · 31/03/2023 13:37

Can I just say that counter to the OP post title many people reading and commenting on Meghan and all that she's "done wrong" have a warped sense of reality from reading and believing everything they read in the tabloid press.

"Meghan Markle has ‘warped sense of reality,’ Vanity Fair writer says"

Becomes

"Tabloid readers have ‘warped sense of reality,’ from believing everything they read about Meghan Markle in the tabloid press".

Honestly, if you only get your news from trash newspapers, rags and gossip sites that constantly degrade and slate one woman how realistic is it going to be that that is the gospel truth.

The newspapers have gone mad trying to find every little thing to slate her about. People like some of the people on here lap it up as if it's gospel truth. I find it a strange witch hunt. Haven't people got anything better to do than to hate on a woman they've never met.

Swipe left for the next trending thread