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

Just wandering...

301 replies

SweetTooth2 · 22/05/2023 15:00

What is it about H&M and/or the royals, that gets people so angry and worked up?

People being pretty hostile to each other on the royal threads these days?

There seem to be quite fierce emotions in defence of H&M and also attacking them.

What's it all about do you think? Why all the hostility on these boards on either side?

(Obviously loads of people not being hostile. I fully acknowledge that! Just wondering why some posters have so much emotion for or against, and why the hostility to those with differing opinions. What is being ignited or triggered in people?)

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
MayQueeen · 23/05/2023 17:31

@SweetTooth2

To answer your question, I think journalist and author Sisonke Msimang does a good job of explaining why many poc aren’t fans of Meghan:

Do not pretend celebrity princess Meghan Markle can meaningfully advance the cause of racial justice
It’s difficult to criticise the politics of someone who has been on receiving end of so much racist vitriol, but there isn’t much substance to the Duchess
I’ll be honest: I know nothing about the British royals. I have my plate full managing the shenanigans of my own recently coronated monarch, King Misuzulu, who heads the Zulu Nation, which means I have not paid much attention to the travails of the Markle-Windsor-Sussexes. (What even is their actual name?)
Like others, I have chuckled occasionally at Piers Morgan’s weird obsession with them, and I’ve made fun of British people who think Markle – rather than Prince Andrew – is responsible for the demise of the royal family. As a non-British Black person from a former colony, I’ve basically viewed the duo as overhyped celebrities who have inherited privilege and blood money, so I’ve paid scant attention to their family dramas.
But this week, as Markle launched her podcast with a viral and cringeworthy interview in The Cut, it was impossible to ignore them. By the end of the bafflingly narcissistic interview, I found myself wondering what Markle has done to deserve her spot at the top of the celebrity social justice advocate food chain.
Mandela grandson ‘surprised’ at Meghan wedding comparisonTo be sure, Markle has been on the receiving end of much racist vitriol since joining – and then leaving – the British royal family. And this has made it difficult to critique her politics.
And yet there is no denying the fact that Markle is a princess/not princess who married a prince/duke/former royal/current son of the next king of England whose family wealth is the consequence of ill-gotten gains at the expense of millions of Black and brown people around the world.
I am astounded, and frankly dismayed, that she is held up as a role model for Black girls. It disturbs me that Markle can tell girls – without irony – as she did this week: “You have the power within you to create a life greater than any fairytale you’ve ever read. I don’t mean that in terms of ‘You could marry a prince one day.’ I mean you can find love. You can find happiness.
“You can be up against what could feel like the greatest obstacle and then you can find happiness again.”
Markle’s message is perniciously deceptive. The love, happiness and triumph of which she speaks has primarily centred on her marriage.
It shouldn’t be surprising, of course. As the Black Lives Matters movement has moved off the headlines, so too do the conditions of racialised socio-economic injustice that captured the world’s attention.
In this environment, it makes sense that Markle, and others like her, are gaining such prominence. Hers is an activism that can be listened to, but doesn’t have to be enacted. Her politics that can be commodified and sold to the highest bidder; can be consumed, but doesn’t have to be lived.
But the revolution will not be Spotified, and Markle is no activist. Instead, the ex-duchess signifies the sort of empty race politics that is popular among elite American celebrities: she is thoroughly unremarkable – as many celebrities are – and her personal struggles have little to do with those of the majority of Black women who live in the countries she and her husband flitted between in recent years.
In the US, Canada and the UK, many Black women struggle with poverty, racial profiling and poor access to healthcare. Markle has yet to raise these questions in any meaningful way. Instead, she has penetrated a rarefied world of privilege that Hollywood stars can’t seem to get enough of.
Whereas her friends like Tyler Perry, Oprah Winfrey and Serena Williams have earned their places in the spotlight based on decades of hard work, Markle has parlayed her clever marriage into multimillion-dollar media contracts.
This is great for her, but we should be mindful of assuming that her personal success will have wider social applicability.
Markle seems vaguely aware that there isn’t a lot of substance to her status as Mrs Windsor-Sussex-Mountbatten. In one of the most talked-about quotes of this week’s interview, Markle recalls a South African cast member from the Lion King pulling her aside in London a few years ago.
According to Markle, “He looked at me, and he’s just like light. He said, ‘I just need you to know: When you married into this family, we rejoiced in the streets the same we did when Mandela was freed from prison’.”
It’s a ridiculous statement to make. Whether or not someone said these words, they are so patently incorrect that any self-respecting person would never have repeated them in public.
Of course, invoking Mandela’s name is not uncommon among celebrities: It’s a shortcut to legitimacy. Everyone from Piers Morgan to Madonnato Bill Cosby has tried to burnish their reputation by comparing themselves to the Nobel Laureate who faced the gallows without blinking and then spent 27 years in prison.
As Mandela’s grandson Mandla said in a response to the Markle article, “every day there are people who want to be Nelson Mandela, either comparing themselves with him or wanting to emulate him.” The younger Mandela has urged Markle to pull up her sleeves and get some work done.
To be fair, Markle seems poised to try to do some work. Her media projects all discuss racism, gender equality and social change. Still, there can be no mistaking her positionality: Markle is uber-famous for marrying a prince. We cannot continue to behave as though a celebrity princess can advance the cause of racial justice in any meaningful way.
Once we cut out the noisy racists who hate Markle because of her Black identity, it is plain to see that holding a rich out-of-touch woman up as a role model makes the road ahead feel that much harder for those of us trying to carve out lives that aren’t defined by beauty, royalty, celebrity or wealth.

i think the South Park episode also crystallised why the couple attract so much criticism.

MayQueeen · 23/05/2023 17:33

The running themes appear to be hypocrisy, vacuous virtue signalling and publicity seeking - all whilst the common people are suffering with a cost of living crisis

Rockybooboo · 23/05/2023 17:50

LadyMuckingabout · 23/05/2023 16:44

I googled something or other to check and was faced with lists of websites dedicated to praising H&M. Even one solely for M&H “artwork” Confused . You see all this I simply can’t understand. Yes, there is mean stuff on Reddit and often on here, but the level of fandom is quite weird - like they’re pop stars. Ages ago I ventured onto SussexRoyal and, my god, people were raising money for M&H - not for charity, but actually for M&H !!! (I wonder how H&M spent it…)

That's a different level of obsession and you get the same with other celebrities. I worked with a man who was obsessed with Cheryl Baker from Bucks Fizz. My mum's brother in law is obsessed with the Royal Family and has photos of them all round his home.

mixedrecycling · 23/05/2023 18:02

Thanks for posting that article @MayQueeen - it is what many of us have been trying to say.

tigger2022 · 23/05/2023 18:19

I’ve often thought it was great that there aren’t really any members of the royal family who people got weird about like Diana. You can’t imagine anyone covering their living room with Prince Edward commemorative plates. It feels a lot healthier. That is… until Meghan 😳

sheworemellowyellow · 23/05/2023 18:27

I will ask you to think about about when you're giving the benefit of the doubt why is the instinct to give it to the people who are actually using dogwhistles as opposed to the people who are actually try to call it out. Why your instinct is to smooth things over and discount and dismiss people on the receiving end. Why your instinct is to say that when people say that things actually hurt or harm them, your instinct is to tell us to hush and that it isn't so bad. Why is your instinct is to comfort the lost as you say as opposed to accepting that they are a lost cause?

It's not a question of giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. It's not about smoothing things over, and I haven't dismissed or discounted anyone on either side. Neither have I told anyone to hush or that things aren't so bad. Seriously, it's this sort of accusation in this sort of prose that loses me - and I'm nothing special. If it loses me, it loses others too. You're not going to get anywhere with me now. And I'm well aware that what you're getting at is that I'm guilty of internalized misogyny/racism/classism that I myself am unaware of (point proven - please don't insult my intelligence).

It's a question of the road to betterment being education, knowledge, compassion and empathy, on all sides, by all people. It's intelligent discourse, using considered words and thought. It's not doggedly repeating the same thing over and over, or putting words in people's mouths, or insulting them, or accusing them of saying things they haven't said, or telling them what they really mean when they're telling you what they really mean. I get that it's exhausting and why should you. But polarizing people is arguably even worse than saying nothing.

This article posted by you, @MayQueeen is exactly what many, many posters feel and think, imo, including me.

MayQueeen · 23/05/2023 18:40

@mixedrecycling @sheworemellowyellow
many of you have already said it fairly and succinctly - on numerous occasions. However, some posters have chosen to ignore and twist things. Maybe intentionally to stir the pot or maybe they genuinely interpret info according to their own confirmation biases 🤷‍♀️

MayQueeen · 23/05/2023 18:46

‘Prince Edward commemorative plates’

😂🤣 a shame, that’s the only one I’d be tempted to own for the pure kitsch value - bless him 😂

‘That's a different level of obsession and you get the same with other celebrities. I worked with a man who was obsessed with Cheryl Baker from Bucks Fizz. My mum's brother in law is obsessed with the Royal Family and has photos of them all round his home.’

It’s kinda fascinating, that people can feel such strong emotional connections with people so far removed from them. For some reason you’ve reminded me of the films perfect blue and black swan, great films - v creepy - when obsessive fandom takes a dark turn - may schedule a rewatch this weekend

mixedrecycling · 23/05/2023 18:56

MayQueeen · 23/05/2023 18:40

@mixedrecycling @sheworemellowyellow
many of you have already said it fairly and succinctly - on numerous occasions. However, some posters have chosen to ignore and twist things. Maybe intentionally to stir the pot or maybe they genuinely interpret info according to their own confirmation biases 🤷‍♀️

It's why I don't engage seriously with some of the posters here.

I tried to, and got attacked.

So now I am flippant, and am accused of 'mocking POC'. No, just mocking those who set themselves up as the self-appointed arbiters of racism. Who - in my opinion - trivialise the issue of racism.

So! Feel free to wonder or wander, as you prefer!

MayQueeen · 23/05/2023 19:04

‘self-appointed arbiters of racism.’ Lol great title

yeah a lot of the responses read like word salad don’t they, almost nonsensical. And I don’t think they’re really posted genuinely in good faith tbh. Funny how most threads end up hijacked, with all the familiar tired old lines trotted out, and the back slapping among that particular clique, and the way they then try and encourage other posters to pile on one poster they don’t like or try and encourage eveyone to ignore and ostracise particular posters - like it’s their own personal what’s app group rather an open online forum. I do check in every now and then cos some of their 🦇 💩 is funny 😆 I do enjoy the weird clearly made-up backstories about their made up lives though which they constantly throw in thinking it gives them an air of superiority and legitimacy 😂

MayQueeen · 23/05/2023 19:06

Cor did they really say you’re mocking poc for not engaging with them seriously? 😂 They aren’t representatives of poc nor official spokespeople on the subject, they don’t represent me - I don’t remember voting them in as my spokesperson 😂

Dalekjastninerels · 23/05/2023 19:07

SweetTooth2 · 22/05/2023 15:41

Oh I don't know! I reckon if I was a royal I'd have a sneaky peek at Mumsnet every now and again!!

I'd be posting too if I were one Grin

tigger2022 · 23/05/2023 19:14

The thing is, H&M wind people up in a fairly… boring way? Like, Harry is a straightforward hypocrite. He lectures people who go on their one international holiday about their carbon footprint but flies to his horsey game in a private jet. He tells people having kids is killing the environment and then goes and has 2 of his own. And Meghan occasionally says things that are kind of cringey/David Brenty (“Simba compared me to Mandela”, “and then all of the cabin crew stood up and clapped”). They are controversial in the most normie possible way. They are also literally titled aristocrats. It’s Occam's razor stuff - they are controversial because they are annoying in the most conventional possible ways. Those looking to the 17-18th century transatlantic slave trade or 19th century US racial segregation laws for explanations as to why Britain’s whitest man is unpopular are overthinking things.

MayQueeen · 23/05/2023 19:21

@tigger2022

omg you’ve nailed it 😂😂😂😂

david Brent 😭😂

MayQueeen · 23/05/2023 19:22

‘Those looking to the 17-18th century transatlantic slave trade or 19th century US racial segregation laws for explanations as to why Britain’s whitest man is unpopular are overthinking things.’

crying 😭😂

8roses · 23/05/2023 19:23

Yeah - we just don’t like them 😂😂 it’s not that deep

skullbabe · 23/05/2023 19:23

It's not a question of giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. It's not about smoothing things over, and I haven't dismissed or discounted anyone on either side. Neither have I told anyone to hush or that things aren't so bad. Seriously, it's this sort of accusation in this sort of prose that loses me - and I'm nothing special. If it loses me, it loses others too. You're not going to get anywhere with me now.

I'm not concerned now about trying to get anywhere with you but you have demonstrated the point quite neatly. You observed a conversation where POC were describing the actual witnessed racism that occurs on this very forum. You asked POC to not talk abut these issues on this forum because of the "superficial context as celebrity/royal gossip and Meghan bloody Markle". You stated that "people who fundamentally agree with you but just don't know: you're losing them by trying to tell them what they think. It's one thing to say "when you say x, this is what a POC hears", and another thing to say "you are racist because what you said actually means this other thing"."

You dismissed the racism that the posters were actually talking about in this very forum by saying that they shouldn't be talking about it in context of celebrity. You also dismissed the feelings of other POC who are affected by the racist things said on these threads (and this one in particular) because they are said in the context of royal threads - the question is when should we discuss it? Or should we be silent in the face of it? And finally - you have said that it is more important to say nothing than risk entrenching people further.

I do not repeat things over and over nor have I told people what they really mean but I understand now where you are coming from and won't be engaging further.

Serenster · 23/05/2023 19:28

I will ask you to think about about when you're giving the benefit of the doubt why is the instinct to give it to the people who are actually using dogwhistles as opposed to the people who are actually try to call it out.

On that point, there was a recent example on twitter following the coronation when a noted black commentator tweeted about how outrageously racist it was of the Queen to have her official portrait taken in front of offensive Blackamoor statutes on the mantelpiece beyond her. Only they weren’t Blackamoor statutes at all. They were bronze statues (a naturally dark metal alloy, used for literally more than 2000 years to produce statues) in the form of classical greek women figurines. When this was pointed out, the commentator didn’t apologise for her mistake, but instead instead maintained her point still stood.

Sometimes, there might be a dogwhistle. Sometimes however it might be someone so keen to see a dogwhistle that they assume one where none is intended. Plenty of posters, myself included, have been on the receiving end of these kind of accusations in past discussions. It’s not pleasant. As sheworemellowyellow, it loses people very quickly.

tigger2022 · 23/05/2023 19:31

(I do like Meghan over all, but sometimes things she says are clearly just cringey. If that’s a crime, take me away Officer)

sheworemellowyellow · 23/05/2023 19:42

skullbabe · 23/05/2023 19:23

It's not a question of giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. It's not about smoothing things over, and I haven't dismissed or discounted anyone on either side. Neither have I told anyone to hush or that things aren't so bad. Seriously, it's this sort of accusation in this sort of prose that loses me - and I'm nothing special. If it loses me, it loses others too. You're not going to get anywhere with me now.

I'm not concerned now about trying to get anywhere with you but you have demonstrated the point quite neatly. You observed a conversation where POC were describing the actual witnessed racism that occurs on this very forum. You asked POC to not talk abut these issues on this forum because of the "superficial context as celebrity/royal gossip and Meghan bloody Markle". You stated that "people who fundamentally agree with you but just don't know: you're losing them by trying to tell them what they think. It's one thing to say "when you say x, this is what a POC hears", and another thing to say "you are racist because what you said actually means this other thing"."

You dismissed the racism that the posters were actually talking about in this very forum by saying that they shouldn't be talking about it in context of celebrity. You also dismissed the feelings of other POC who are affected by the racist things said on these threads (and this one in particular) because they are said in the context of royal threads - the question is when should we discuss it? Or should we be silent in the face of it? And finally - you have said that it is more important to say nothing than risk entrenching people further.

I do not repeat things over and over nor have I told people what they really mean but I understand now where you are coming from and won't be engaging further.

This is just full of false accusations. My eldest DC is actually going through a phase of doing this: insists on having the last word, even if she's patently lying. I'm actually lol-ing at my screen. I asked POC to not talk about these issues, I dismissed racism by saying POC shouldn't be talking about it in the context of celebrity, I dismissed feelings, I've said it's more important to say nothing than risk entrenching people further - I mean, talk about seeing what you want to see rather than what's written! It's shockingly arrogant of you to think you don't need to read what's written, that you can read what you want to read (rather than what's written) and draw a derogatory conclusion you can fling at a poster and before announcing you won't engage further. How on earth can you get through life with any credibility with this sort of MO?! I think it's pretty much shot with me and any lurkers!

Hey ho. Back to the frocks it is!

mixedrecycling · 23/05/2023 19:44

MayQueeen · 23/05/2023 19:06

Cor did they really say you’re mocking poc for not engaging with them seriously? 😂 They aren’t representatives of poc nor official spokespeople on the subject, they don’t represent me - I don’t remember voting them in as my spokesperson 😂

Yes. Tried to engage, also pointing out their attitude was very much of the - no consistent agreement about the right phrase - more developed countries, global north, centre rather than periphery. That the majority of POC in the world don't have Meghan on their radar or feel any sense of solidarity with her, as she is incredibly privileged.

When POC have disagreed with them they have said the POC are also racist.

I have tried to discuss my (black, adopted) DD's experiences of being discounted as properly 'black' or 'African' by other UK teens of colour due to having a white adoptive mother. Despite DD having spent 80% of her life in Africa, and 1/3 of her life with her black birth family, and having strong, on-going connections with her birth family and other black role models.

Which is why you'll see them refer to 'black adjacent' people having 'adopted children'. It's a dig at me.

So, I have stopped taking them seriously. It isn't about standing up to racism, it is about ego.

JeandeServiette · 23/05/2023 19:45

Thanks @Cowparslee / I hadn't heard either of those. Is becoming quite the soap opera.

PicturesOfDogs · 23/05/2023 20:00

tigger2022 · 23/05/2023 19:14

The thing is, H&M wind people up in a fairly… boring way? Like, Harry is a straightforward hypocrite. He lectures people who go on their one international holiday about their carbon footprint but flies to his horsey game in a private jet. He tells people having kids is killing the environment and then goes and has 2 of his own. And Meghan occasionally says things that are kind of cringey/David Brenty (“Simba compared me to Mandela”, “and then all of the cabin crew stood up and clapped”). They are controversial in the most normie possible way. They are also literally titled aristocrats. It’s Occam's razor stuff - they are controversial because they are annoying in the most conventional possible ways. Those looking to the 17-18th century transatlantic slave trade or 19th century US racial segregation laws for explanations as to why Britain’s whitest man is unpopular are overthinking things.

David Brent! That’s exactly it!

nonheme · 23/05/2023 20:07

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

mixedrecycling · 23/05/2023 20:10

Sorry, not quite clear on what you mean. What is a race / foreign person issue?