Why does the interview with H&M cause more anger and upset than the interview with Prince Andrew?

[KarenNotAKaren]

To preface - Im not a fan of Harry. Meghan I can give or take i think she mostly a victim to a husband who perhaps didn’t paint a full picture of what royal life is like and with her being American that way an easy thing to do.

Yes the Harry and Meghan interview contained porkie pies (about ‘getting married properly’, meh so what) and pretty shocking claims about racism and was full of total misunderstandings of royal protocol - such as going to HR for mental health help and then being confused when they point out you aren’t an employer. But I do feel it was their truth as to what they believe happened. I believe their behaviour is absolutely entitled and grotesque (Harry moaning about daddy cutting him off, mate your a 40yo millionaire read the room) but their anger stems from feeling genuinely wronged by people they love.

The Prince Andrew interview - he told great big fat barefaced lies that a 5yo would make up (“Oh well that can’t be true because I Erm…don’t sweat?”). All to cover up the fact he had sex with trafficked teenagers. He lied about his dodgy friendships, about medical conditions, about meeting women whose silence he later paid for. It’s absolutely outrageous that this interview as barely ever spoken about, he’s a TERRIBLE liar and I like H&M it’s not his truth it’s just a great big stonking fat lie from a nasty little pervert with an enormous sense of entitlement who has been treated pretty well and protected by mummy

Why do people get angrier about the interview if a (admittedly a bit of a tone deaf and stonking rich) couple who were actually just a bit sick of being harassed by the press and having their baby’s looks critiqued, than they do about an actual sex offender lying in his?

<Sigh>

I don’t think I CBA engaging with someone so unreasonable.

The intention doesn’t matter you’re right - but the RF and press don’t realise that “well we didn’t mean it that way Meghan” isn’t good enough. There’s bigger lessons to be learned. THAT’S what came across as H&M’s truth whereas clearly the RF and British press just can’t see what they’ve done wrong.

Fucking hell. I didn’t say you said mixed race people were ludicrous. You said the accusation was.

The accusation that’s been made by people. If the accusation is ludicrous. Then the people making the accusation are.

anyway. I am out. Your bigoted posts are appalling. You aren’t posting in good faith. You need to grow up.

No it’s ludicrous to so wildly misinterpret a comment that was clearly intended to defend Meghan not attack her.

I didn’t read it to way you read it. Big whoop

See ya! <cries into pillow>

I don't think there is more anger at H&M but unlike Andrew they don't keep a low profile and try not to give any more news fodder 🤷‍♀️

Exactly this

I find it odd that I’ve been aggressively accused of being racist and “not posting with good intent” (?!) after making no racist comments at all but someone who said “1/4 black” (FFS) gets no comments?

MN is weird sometimes

I suspect a lot of this may be that Andrew lied about himself to exonerate himself whereas Harry & Meghan lied about others, even their own family, to cast blame onto or to denigrate them.

Andrew's behaviour was worse but his lies were not hurtful or derogatory to others.

Whoppee for you - I don’t agree with you
Oh very mature

God it’s so fucking boring when people make things up.
Isn't it just

Andrew's behaviour was worse but his lies were not hurtful or derogatory to others.

Except the sex traffick victims he abused?

Sometimes particular threads on Mumsnet give the impression that the posters could start an argument whilst by themselves in a locked room.

And OP, it's perfectly possible to be outraged by both interviews and for different reasons. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Most people are utterly disgusted with Andrew, yet irritated by H and M too.

What really is your intention with this threat OP? To defend Meghan?

It's because differences of opinion about M&H are much more likely than about Andrew, since people almost universally agree that the latter is a disgusting scumbag and his interview was a bunch of lies and nonsense. It's difficult to get het up when you're all agreeing.

So people can argue about what M&H meant, whether it matters or not, whether XYZ royal person really said something racist - I mean, unconsciously biased - and whether Meghan is good for Harry and vice versa.

@KarenNotAKaren apart from the lying i think a lot of it about the way they are making money on the back of the royal family! they cant seem to find a way to earn without using and abusing the royal family name and member! it just isnt the one thing in uk and harry should have known that!! they stepped down and left the royal family so let them make their bed without slagging the royals off! ye gods, mad meg was only in the royal family for all of 18 months!!!! Harry is not exactly the brightest button in the box but even he should have known all the rubbish she was spouting was untrue!

To understand why consistently in our society, sex offender men cause very little upset.

I think it might be due to the fact that Andrew was a long-standing, established plonker, so it was kind of expected, nobody was too surprised that Arrogant Andy was making a fool of himself and showing himself up for what he is. Whereas H & M were still new to plonkery, so there was novelty value.

Those victims are still faceless, nameless and largely unproven so hard for the public to place. The main accuser, Virginia Giuffre has been painted by the press as money hungry and unreliable
Those lied about by H&M on the other hand are household names and some of them, e.g. the late Queen, highly regarded

I think most people would agree with that statement and find it appalling that sex offender men get away with behaving the way they do. This should obviously change. I don't think it's helpful however to compare that sort of behaviour to a completely different type of behaviour and suggest that we all make the same judgement using the same criteria. They are two very different things.

I must admit that I am suspicious when accusers go after money. Really do not have a blank page for any woman who accuse a men of rape and suing for millions. For me the priority is to put the rapists behind bars and prevent them from doing it to others.

I disagree.

In lieu of being able to do the latter, civil justice is often the only way forward. Plus being sex trafficked costs a lot on therapy and other health related issues, which is very expensive in the US so damn right I’d be suing too

Meghan was targeted from the moment she was introduced as Harry's girlfriend. Yes, it was because she was mixed race. However when that is mentioned here the deflection begins as we can see. She was never given a chance.
The evidence is there but when it is mentioned here, it is ignored, dismissed or minimised.

I think any woman he brought into his life would have been targetted - but he’s it was another thing to attack her about, another load in the ammunition.

Well being able to sue open the door to false accusations and claims. Some people have nothing to loose and target celebrities and high profile billionaires. Some can be innocent 😇 and still be sued for financial gain. However, of course some are guilty. PA was single out from a very big list of people that surrounded the trafficker in parties and high profile events. Some of them were like Epstein some were accused of guilty by association.

Mylovelygreendress · Today 18:03

How are you judging the amount of anger ?

Most people think Andrew is a despicable creep . Very few people have defended him therefore there’s not a lot to say .

H and M are very divisive. Some on here think they are wonderful, brave people who were forced to flee from the wicked RF while others think their behaviour has been pretty shoddy over the past few years .
Two such different views will obviously prompt a lot of debate.

I think this is right.

Comparing the 2 interviews is like comparing apples and oranges - apart from the fact that they are interviews, the whole context etc was totally different.

I think PA is an appalling specimen, and did so long before the Epstein business broke. By nearly all accounts he's arrogant, unintelligent and boorish to put it mildly. I think pretty much everyone agrees he's awful and frankly doesn't care what happens to him - it would be nice if he'd disappear. No controversy there at all.

But H & M are indeed divisive figures. Here I'm just offering my suggestion to answer your question - so please don't savage me! Harry and Meghan threw his family under a bus, which, however loathsome Andrew is, he has never done that intentionally. That hits people at a visceral level. The interview was just awful, too, from a journalistic point of view. Emily Maitliss was a tough questioner, a real journalist, but let's face it - Oprah was just giving them a platform to say what they wanted. She failed to challenge any of their statements, or to prod deeper. I remember the histrionic 'HWHAAT!?' when Meghan mentioned the skin-colour discussion - embarrassingly hammy.

I think H & M have cooked their own goose and I have very little sympathy for them. They also seem funny to many people, with their pretensions to being royal in the U S of A, and their self-congratulatory behaviour. They seem needy and desperate, which has led to some near-farcical goings on. Andrew is not funny in any way at all, which is why I suppose he gets left alone. He generally just skulks and sulks, and frankly most people forget he even exists most of the time.