New Sussex website

[MaturingCheeseball]

So I see there is a brand-new Duke and Duchess of Sussex website. Very glossy.

But the self-aggrandising! I just read Meghan’s bio and - cringe - it was the worst of LinkedIn. Sometimes less is more!

She didn't ask to see it before it went live?

@Bookist - most controlling person on the planet lol ... of course
It's someone else's
Fault! Would be interested to know what prompted that response though - I take it more than MN have complained 😋

She praises the agency’s “attention to detail”. Dear oh dear.

The thing is the wording, sentence structure and overall feel very much has her stamp on it. Much like Finding Freedom. They do like to pass the buck.

😀

Maybe it's a Brit versus American thing, but to me "from the desk of" implies someone with a Very Important Job, who has a secretary dealing with correspondence on their behalf. Not someone with an actual desk in a spare bedroom in her apartment, writing her own thank you notes for not-very-important things. It's all a bit of a show - an affectation. She could have thanked me in person next time she saw me (which will undoubtedly be taking the trash out later today, or some such!). It may now be a quaint Southern hangover, but goes to show it doesn't work with everyone (and I'm surprised it works for a Californian).

"From the office of" implies many staff, dealing with different aspects of the Very Important Job that can't possibly be handled by the Very Important Person themselves, who in any event is off doing much more important things: ex-Presidents, senators, congressmen/women, Supreme Court judges etc. As far as I can tell, H&M's office is that Pottery Barn table with two wooden thrones in the stone-walled library in their house, and they seem to be letting go of many staff. I may be wrong, though. I'm sure they do have PAs and whatnot.

Turtlerussell
Yes odd isn’t it, that certain posters use personal attacks or try to shame other posters to put them off posting. It’s almost like coercive control techniques

^^ This made me laugh out loud tbh!

Did you conveniently miss the stalwart monarchists posting gifs, making endless comments about cheese, or making personal attacks on specific posters that are carefully calibrated to fall within the talk deadlines … on other recent royal threads? Do these not count as diversionary tactics? Mumsnet HQ wrote a warning about it.

Believe me it’s not republicans being controlling. We are barely allowed a voice on here!

To return to the discussion, I think it’s interesting how people are so happy to follow the example set by Piers Morgan and Jeremy Clarkson and be almost gleeful in their hate of H and M. None of us know what they are really like in real life. I pity their dc growing up and reading all of this hatred directed at their parents that’s for sure.

Anyone who was once a member of the RF who makes a break for freedom is ostracised and discredited by the establishment as a matter of course. It’s been happening for centuries. That’s how they hang on to power. I am not saying that H and M are blameless but the global campaign of hatred directed at them by the British right wing press, aided and abetted by some establishment figures, and many posters on here, is completely disproportionate to their supposed crimes.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Prince Andrew gets to live in relative peace in the lap of luxury in the bosom of his family. How screwed up is that?

User3353235 · Today 15:40

I'm going to say something that I think everyone is innately aware of but nobody has articulated (I'm POC myself, for context).

Generally speaking, physical beauty and money overrides race. The more you have of both, the less your ethnic origin becomes a potential reason for something to dislike you. If you go to any ultra luxury 5 star hotel in the world you'll see a spectrum of people from all races and the atmosphere is incredibly harmonious. The reason being that they are all united in "richness" and that is far more of a uniting factor as opposed to their different races being a dividing factor. Every single human being appreciates physical beauty and your acquired political prejudices don't kick in immediately when you see an incredibly beautiful person. So extremely attractive and wealthy people cannot compare their experience of perceived racism with the lived experience of another POC who is does not fit typical beauty standards, living on the poverty line and doing work that's invisible to society.

However personality always remains a reason to dislike someone, regardless of their social status or appearance. Someone could be incredibly rich and successful but based on their actions or words, you have a fully justifiable reason not to like them.

These are the two issues that keep getting conflated with the Meghan debate and in she actively encourages it via narcissistic manipulation. Whenever faced with criticism, she quickly reduces her identity down to one single thing which is that she's (part) black. Therefore any dislike of Meghan can only be because she's black, which makes the perpetrator a racist. But ironically, in her own description of her identity, she's a wildly multi-faceted person ranging from wife, mother, friend, feminist, activist, philanthropist, actress etc. Surely there could be variables in all of those which are valid reasons to dislike her that have nothing whatsoever to do with race.

100%

You're right - there's no privilege like pretty, wealthy privilege.

And while I totally get that Meghan was subjected (and is still, in some murky areas) to appalling race-based abuse, I don't believe that the RF were anything b but thrilled to have her on board at first - it was a great feeling of moving into a new era for them and hugely positive for the country. And I think the vast majority of the public felt the same. I absolutely loved the wedding and all that it promised.

What's happened since then has been totally a result of other matters (which we on this thread know backwards so I won't waste time on them). But, as you say, it's a powerful card for Meghan to play when she decides it's in her interest. She was not keen foreground her bi-racial heritage while building her acting career, putting 'Caucasian' on her documents.

The aspects of Meghan that I don't like are nothing to do with her racial background. But on MN, it's always trotted out by someone late to the discussion party.

the British right wing press
The example above was from the BBC. Oh, and you might want to have a look at the report in the Guardian.
Royalists? The most devout royalists are those who will see no fault in Harry and Meghan; a couple who rely on, cling to and tout their connection to royalty, always emphasising their titles.

Meghan's recent statement in full:

“There is a reason I have worked with Ryan and the talented team at Article for a decade: their attention to detail, their creativity and care, and the thoughtful approach to design as well as to the user experience. They’re not just designers; they are collaborators who elevate your ideas into visual identities. They’re a very special company. Plus they’re Canadian, so I’m a fan.”

Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex
Archewell

Source

TBH I'm not a fan of their website (Article). The rendering on a mobile device is really off - client names should not be split by spacing like this, it doesn't look professional IMVHO.

Believe me it’s not republicans being controlling. We are barely allowed a voice on here!

I don't think it's as simple as 'monarchists hate H & M and republicans love them'. That would be totally illogical since H & M declare themselves to be supporters of the monarchy, and depend on it more for their 'brand' with each passing day. And I'll bet a lot of money that, since (as was once said) H & M are only a plane crash away from the crown, that they'd be on a private jet back to the UK very fast if they could be top dogs and get all the bling and attention.

Some people just don't fall for the fakeness and virtue signalling of H & M - whatever their views on politics.

I suspect that if some of Meghan and Harry's biggest fans on here had to work for them, they might lose the rose-tinted view of these two. Don't believe all the big-hearted, 'we're huggers' stuff!

Harry as the son of the current king, and brother to the future king, is forever connected to the monarchy whether he likes it or not. And he has always been very clear that he never wanted to leave or reject his title but circumstances made it very difficult for him to stay. Everyone conveniently ignores that point of course.

He and Meghan are royalists through and through - there's nothing wrong with that in itself . I just don't understand why people frame this as a royalist v republican discussion. Surely republicans would feel the same way about Harry and Meghan using titles, privilege and unearned wealth as other royals? Puzzling.

Thank you for a measured response CoffeeCantata it’s appreciated.

None of us know what they are like for sure though do we? Our perception of them is fed through a prism of ghost writers, journalists and tv production companies, all of whom have their eye on the money.

What we do know is that before all of this happened, Harry was one of the most unstuffy members of the RF who didn’t appear to be high and mighty in the way he came across. You can’t have a successful career in the forces if you put on airs and graces. And Meghan was a hard working actress who was a UN ambassador and did charity work.

This is the Royal Family board, after all.
Perhaps MN needs a Republic board?

Somehow, I don't think it would attract very much interest. I find republicanism worthy but very boring.

I think there are some genuine republicans who think that Harry and Meghan are useful tools who are helping to bring down the monarchy - whether that’s simply by exposing more of the inner workings or encouraging Sussex supporters to trash the current royal family members to add voices of discontent to the cause.

Then there are Sussex fans who only started to trash the royal family and monarchy once H&M had turned bitter after being denied the half in half out option they stated they wanted. This group would have been totally supportive of the royal family if Harry and Meghan were still part time working members.

On social media it’s very clear usually which camp people fall into. Here on MN it’s also quite clear with a bit of murkiness through some name changers.

Excellent points, @wordler . I think you're spot on about their supporters.

It isn’t a pure Royalist v Republican discussion but that is the way the arguments seem to be polarised on Mumsnet.

Personally I support Harry because he had the balls to challenge the men in grey coats and defend his wife against the establishment, when usually the wives have to be quiet and succumb to stepford wife status.

It is polarised. Personally, I would respect Harry more if he actually had supported his wife when she was pregnant and suicidal, as opposed to making her dress up and go out to the Albert Hall.
Perhaps he could somehow blame others for that, I don't know.

It's written by Omid Scobie, the dear friend of the Sussexes. Surely it must be true!

Good grief. Not a man to look up to.
Mind you, when she was in labour he finished off the canister of gas and air to get high, shows you what a great husband (and birth partner) he is
.

@Pringlescave376 - I'd hardly say Zara, Anne, Camilla, Margaret to name a few are Stepford wives.
Kate is playing a role, and doing a good job - she's probably far less SW behind closed doors, but she has a job to do - don't get me wrong, I'm not a royalist particularly but they live off the nation and they need to do their role accordingly. Few have made mistakes along the way, sure, but never as dreadfully as H or M - H before and after he met Megs and M obviously after as before she was unknown - albeit a PITA IMO