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?

I agree with you OP although I'm slightly more on M&H side! I cannot believe that people seem to not be outraged at what Andrew has done. Its out right appalling.

Yep

I thought she donated a large portion of the money she got to charity.

There was plenty at the time and since then he kept his head down Harry and meghan...have not they keep popping up AND ANOTHER THING! ALSO! And changed their stories around he has been consistent in his "story" then zipped it there is nothing new to say so people ran out of saying it

The PA interview is widely known to be an abhorrent catastrofuck but the fact remains that H&M decided to remove themselves, and said so publicly, that they wanted privacy and wanted to remove themselves from the British royal family and its life.

So why are they so desperate to seek publicity and are also so desperate to be treated as royals?

Just fuck off off to Tinseltown and stay there to live your private life.

The Andrew interview infuriated and enraged me. He's an arrogant, repulsive man.

The H&M interview was just titillating, bitchy, family gossip. The kind you watch between your fingers. And the vast majority of what they claimed in the interview has been found to be...wanting...in the factual department.

Andrew had been pretty unpopular for years so his reputation couldn't really get worse.

Harry & Meghan were very popular - I'm old enough to remember the overwhelmingly positive coverage she got when the relationship was announced and after the marriage, it was only after the "pity poor us" interview in South Africa they got any real public pushback.

Since then Andrew has pretty much been out of the public eye, except for the occasional big family public occasions, and the overwhelming response is that we would prefer not to see him.

H&M have been on a cycle of increasingly desperate PR pushes to regain popularity that consistently seem to backfire. Its like a car crash you can't look away from. Titillating and purient, but that's where we are.

I view Andrew as loathsome and vile who should face charges if there is a case to answer.

I view H&M as I view the Kardashians - it's just a bit of celeb gossip, mildly irritating but overall harmless.

Edit for grammar

Meh if you hang around sex traffickers i Shevardnadze no sympathy if you’re tarred with the same brush in afraid

I have no idea why I wrote ‘have’ and autocarrot changed it to Shevardnadze but it’s amused me greatly!

Because a lot of people are quite racist, pretty misogynistic and rape apologists. It sounds glib, but your average man (or woman) on the street will be less sympathetic towards a black woman (and her associates) than a privileged, white man. Even a privileged, white man who is clearly lying through his teeth about shagging trafficked teenagers.

Do people get angrier at H&M, or do they just generate more discussion because there are more people on opposing "sides".

If someone started a thread "AIBU to dislike prince Andrew" it wouldn't be much of a thread because no one would really disagree (except perhaps to say that "dislike" isn't strong enough) so it would probably disappear off active threads fairly quickly.
"AIBU to dislike Harry and Meghan" however, would cause arguments. Some people like them, others don't, it would be a long thread of back and forth, probably descending into insults.
I don't think that means people are angrier, I think there's just more disagreement so it's more widely discussed.

Agree with the posters saying this isn't about sides, despite what some people try to present it as.

I don't think I've met anyone offline who thinks the Andrew interview was anything other than awful and his track record is rather shady. There's not much of a discussion when a privileged man hangs around with a convicted sex offender and the material in the public domain suggests his conduct wasn't much better.

A lot of people on and offline had mixed opinions about Harry and Meghan, with a lot of people starting supportive or optimistic, but each time they sell their story, release some gossip, do an interview etc they're inviting people to comment on the content they put out there. It means people are going to discuss it.

I think @CoffeeCantata and @Mylovelygreendress both put it well.

I find it tiresome that the race card gets pulled out every time someone doesn't like Meghan for doing something. You can dislike people of all races for their behaviour not always to do with their race.

For me what I disliked about H&M was the sensationalism. I am not a SouthPark fan but yes they got that spot on.

PA no matter if you like it or not OP he has not been convicted. As you spoke of "your/their truth" I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

PA was spoiled. Supposedly the late queen's favourite and didn't have to do a great deal to be favoured and pampered. Due to this attitude and behaviour (Randy Andy was openly admired in the 80s) and how Sarah Duchess of York was made the one who had wronged him by her behaviour while poor PA was away " working hard in his helicopter"... this was the narrative he had until his mid to late 30s. It's been said PA is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Isn't it possible that it never occurred to PA that his friend (Epstein) was up to no good? Isn't it possible that He simply thought that that pretty girl wanted to be with him because he was PA and ALL girls would want to be with him for this?

He said he didn't remember her. His number has to be in triples perhaps more... He is way too important to remember every face he meets or sees naked.....

COULD PA's "truth" be he is a spoiled rich bloke who had no awareness and due to this it had never occurred to him Trafficking was a possibility and there was any other possibility bar the girl was " really into him as he was a prince?"

Now before anyone jumps at me .. I am not saying this is what I fully believe as it's not. However, if we are bringing it in as "H&Ms truth" then why is it not something PA can bring in?

I didn't like either interview.

M&H interview leaves a distaste in my mouth.
I don't often speak of PA's interview as what is there to say? No matter if he did it or not (Again he was not convicted) I do believe that girl was trafficked and that is horrific.
2 very different sensations.

@MrsFinkelstein Harry & Meghan were very popular - I'm old enough to remember the overwhelmingly positive coverage she got when the relationship was announced and after the marriage, it was only after the "pity poor us" interview in South Africa they got any real public pushback.

Absolute rubbish and yet another attempt at rewriting history. It happens all the time on here. Meghan was attacked right from the start with the outta Compton and the Pornhub articles from DM and the Sun.
In November 2016 a plea was made to the British press who were accused of introducing racial overtones to articles days after H&M relationship was confirmed. Comment pieces made various references to Meghan including the Rachel Johson article. Then followed the pile ons on social media and so it began. How many threads were removed from this forum?

Michael of Kent yet another one from within the family wearing the Blackamoor brooch to an event which Meghan attended (2018). The first arrests for offences including threats against Harry and Meghan were made as early as 2018. White powder sent to Meghan was treated as a racist hate crime, this was also 2018, There are so many incidents all prior to any trip to South Africa.

@Enko what exactly do you mean by playing the race card? I read that on these forums regularly. usually as a put down for anyone who dares raise the real threats of racism Meghan has endured. Perhaps read what Neil Basu Assistant Commissioner of the Met Police said about the RACIST threats against Meghan before making such an ill informed comment. The minimising of the threats made against Meghan and her children is appalling.

@unbelieveable22 I am NOT stating that Meghan hasn't had racism I know she has I've seen some of the headlines. So no need to "educate me"

What I am saying is comments like the one here earlier
"Why is mixed raced Meghan disliked" (no matter if you agree with how that was written or not as the thread derailed) it is NOT always due to her race that she is disliked. That is what I find tiresome.

It is possible to dislike someone's behaviour due to that behaviour without it be due to race. So pulling out the
"This can be the ONLY reason why she is disliked." Is untrue.

She can be disliked for many other reasons.

(disclaimer before anyone further "educates" I am fully aware that at times behaviour dislike can be racist in nature too - again not always)

For me. I don't dislike either H or M I don't know them. I do feel they have both behaved very poorly and chosen very unwisely.

I don’t know where you get your news from but the non tabloid newspapers have covered the allegations surrounding Prince Andrew and Epstein in far more depth and prominence than the reaction to Meghan and Harry’s interviews and book. The coverage is still continuing with countless articles in recent weeks following the unsealing of court documents.

It’s like the Post Office Scandal, it’s been covered assiduously by The Times, Daily Telegraph and Private Eye for years and years but because it’s not in the tabloids or social media people don’t know about it.

I don’t know anyone who thinks that Andrew is anything other than loathsome. 99% of posters on MN agree he is a nasty piece of work but it wouldn’t exactly be an interesting thread if 1000 posters all said “ Andrew is despicable “

@unbelieveable22 I never said she didn't have negative coverage, but the only one trying to spin the narrative here is you.

Her coverage was 95% positive. Those articles you mention were appalling, and were rightfully called out. Other than those (& the couple of other nasty, purient articles always mentioned), her coverage was generally positive. It was never going to be 100% positive, which IMO was H&Ms issue. But it was majority positive.

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.

However, we keep on debating every little true or untrue thing about Harry and Meghan while saying that ‘we all don’t like Andrew, we are agreed, nothing to discuss.’ When, in fact, discussions about the powerful institutions - monarchy govt and media - and societies we live in, that allow for individuals like Andrew to thrive, remain for the most part unchallenged, when this is a perfect place to start the discussion, on a parenting site mostly frequented by women.

To the poster who said Andrew had gone quiet unlike H&M, I’d like to remind them of the coronation - Andrew in velvet robes and regalia was very visible, his visible ride to church with the late Queen soon after the settlement, his visible ride to church with W&K, his Christmas Day walk to church with the other royal family members, very visible, mostly because he thought it would be fun to stop and question the onlookers in what seemed (tome) a rather passive aggressive way and ask them ‘why did they photograph and video them etc.. and did they think what it would be like in the other side ( being observed doing the walk)’ he seemed to be wanting to take advantage of his position while showing that he despised and resented the people who make that position possible. He certainly didn’t understand them. Imo, They were being asked by him to consider ‘his feelings’. (But very little was made of that on here - should have consumed whole threads).

Addressing the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ posters. I agree with that belief but do find it difficult to struggle with the concept when he has decided to not answer for himself in court. It’s important to acknowledge that not long before Andrew settled, his friend Ghislaine Maxwell had lost a similar civil case to Virginia Guiffre. He settled instead of being taken to court, so it now appears to me that he doesn’t want to have to defend himself, that he’s avoiding it. And to do that he paid a reportedly huge settlement. Or the late Queen paid it.

(I’ve been 2 hours answering this because I’m minding my little grandchildren and only popped back to my mobile when they got busy for 5 minutes here and there, so sorry if I’m repeating anything that may have already been pointed out).

Agree with much of your post although important to point out that Virginia Guiffre dropped her case against Alan Dershowitz when he defended it and counter-sued her for defamation. She admitted she was "mistaken". So I don't think we can necessarily extrapolate that Prince A is guilty just because he settled rather than going to court (in his mother's jubilee year). He should have gone to court though as he's achieved little by settling IMHO other than kicking the can down the road (which was maybe the intention).

Damn I lost a whole post in repy to your post. @Walkingwashingmachine

Anyway, I do not extrapolate that Andrew is guilty. No way. I leave such matters to the courts - I’ve said I agree with ‘innocent until proven guilty’. I’m hoping with time we will get the answers to the unanswered questions held by so many of us.

Re Alan Dershowitz:

To be clear on that ( I didn’t mention him because of Virginia’s mistake that he seemingly accepted as a mistake - the matter seemingly settled).

The agreement, confirmed by the parties, resolves all the litigation between them. Dershowitz told CNN, “I am gratified that Virginia Giuffre has dropped all of her claims against me and has admitted that she now recognizes she may have made a mistake in identifying me.”

8 Nov 2022
https://www.cnn.com › 2022/11/08

Dershowitz has said more since his name was mentioned in the ‘Epstein documents’’.( I won’t read them all. When I have time I’ll read some of the opinions of the more legally knowledgeable)

Dershowitz very recently went on ‘news nation’ and spoke for over 30minutes apparently; but I’m not subscribing/signing up to news nation so here’s an article from the Independent - a bit of a catch up.

Epstein documents

Sexism, power and class. PA is deeply unlikeable but he was a 'party prince' in his youth and only doing what lots of other rich entitled men were doing at the time. He is also a fool.

MM is seen as disruptive to the status quo, disrespectful to those in power and there is a desire to put her in her place. It helps that her lack of authenticity makes her deeply unlikeable too.

I think because pretty much everyone agrees that Andrew was lying, and condemns him outright for at the very least being morally bankrupt. There's no need for thread upon thread because there's nothing to discuss. With M&H, whilst their wrongs are minor in comparison, people insist on defending their lies and misleading statements, hence more to discuss/argue about. It's that simple.

No p

Op I

@KarenNotAKaren

I didn’t read CurlewKates post as being racist either. I’ve read a lot of her posts and know there was no intention to be racist there. I also understood the point she was making. So would most regular posters to the RF board, I imagine.

I agree with you, and I’m sorry you have been called a bigot for saying it was not a racist post.

Also, I was taught that it is racist to refer to a person’s race in fractions. And why has no one jumped on that?

I’m still reading through the thread so perhaps people have pointed that out, and I’m just late to post on this matter.

Surely this is a ref to ‘what is it that makes you so attracted to the millionaire Paul Daniels’. I’m very surprised most people didn’t spot that. Maybe I’m old