Netflix has delayed start of Meghans show

[Viviennemary]

Just seen on Sky News. Breaking News headlines. Delayed because of the wild fires didn't say if this was technical difficulties or it would be a bit crass to launch a frothy type lifestyle show with all the devastation. Anyway it might be shelved for good with any luck.

You go first?

They missed out the really dynamite one about her representatives shopping around a post-Harry-divorce book.

@HeddaGarbled It's the same MO across a plethora of threads, I agree. DARVO. We shouldn't fall for it. I guess the urge by the majority to have a good faith argument, hear other viewpoints and not have this forum as an echo chamber is abused by those who accuse us of just the opposite. So maybe we should just ignore, as is our prerogative.

Edited, tagged wrong poster.

It’s not bullying you at all! It’s asking g you a question. I e seen a lot of your comments on various posts and you are not backwards in coming forwards with your comments about other people.

At the moment, the avid fans seem to have disappeared (from this thread, at least) in the same way they did after the Where's Kate movement collapsed (which was around the same time as Dan Wooton's article on the Sussex Squad). That was a learning moment for me, when I realised that all the posters I had been engaging with in good faith were probably working from a script. Some of them trying to shut down debate and get posts removed.

The squads behaviour is beyond bizarre

I’m a trashy tabloid girl at heart so I’d have splashed with: PRINCE HARRY: ‘MUM WAS MURDERED’. Huge glam pic of Di in her heyday; inset pic of child Harry and Di.

Angle that this is completely bonkers, obviously, so then tread that fine libel line that therefore he is also bonkers, but his viewpoint gives a huge insight into why he is the way he is. Chat to some psychologists, sidebar about Meghan reparenting him and some of her Di cosplay outfits.

It’s arguably the biggest story: he thinks WHAT?! And surely a major schism between the brothers even before Meghan came along, a weakness she exploited. (I clown around all the time that Phil was in that tunnel, grinning behind the wheel of the Fiat Uno, but only because it winds up a certain demographic of posters, not because I believe it.)

Does anyone else remember, when Al Fayed was trying to get a British passport and couldn't (and the DoE was beleived to be blocking it)?

Private Eye had a meme (before meme's were a thing) that involved Al Fayed saying "It was the fuggin' Duke of Edinburgh" every time something bad happened.

Oh my god, that brings back memories of a certain poster who appears to have changed names now who was arguing til they were blue in the face that that death threat to Camilla was completely made up by her to gain sympathy, that Camilla’s webpage didn’t have an email submission form (sure, not any more once she started getting messages like that! But it’s there on archived versions) and that the web form wouldn’t accept a fake email address like this one (the program doesn’t check the address, it just delivers the message..I have managed inboxes that receive such web form messages and know you get a lot of dross…).

All in service of the narrative that the Sussex Squad are blameless and the Royal reporters are evil racist agitators in the pay of the Palace to libel and smear Meghan and Harry.

(Which is the same being pushed now by the way - the Vanity Fair article was just the last in the Palace’s plan this week to out-do the launch of Meghan’s Netflix show. First Kate made a visit to the Royal Marsden, then William visited paramedics and a pub in Birmingham - and was to fly a helicopter to visit the army air corps base that got rescheduled due to poor visibility - and then the Palace got VF to publish this article. All calculated to overshadow Meghan’s show. Never mind the fact that ”With love, Meghan” was only announced on 2 January and Kate and William’s engagements were 11 and 1 days later respectively - and would clearly have taken some planning behind the scenes. Not to mention the fact that VF is an entirely independent American magazine and the article would have taken weeks to research, write and then be scheduled for the February edition. You couldn’t make it up. Except - they do).

For me this is perhaps the most interesting thing about Harry and - especially - Meghan: the behaviour of their supporters. It's an endlessly fascinating study in human psychology, mass-hysteria, self-delusion, group-think, cult mentality etc etc.

It doesn't seem to matter WHAT the pair do - they are idolised by the Squad. And the tactics are fascinating (if depressing and horrible). As pps have said, there's now a predictable response to any attacks and revelations on H & M. Sometimes it's to launch an attack on the RF (esp Catherine and William), sometimes it's the 'bingo card' of why do you care, you don't know them, the 'r' word and the lols. This time it appears to be 'keep schtumm', which is interesting and probably is the best thing they can do in the circs - but pretty much shows their desperation and bankruptcy of ideas/defences.

Being an extreme Sussex supporter has every characteristic of being in a cult. I look on Celebitchy occasionally (for research purposes only, you understand -it's vile) and the attitudes there are bizarre and quite disturbing. They refuse to expose themselves to anything critical of the pair and believe everything is a Royal Family-derived conspiracy. They think Catherine's visit to the Royal Marsden was arranged to deflect attention from Meghan's bloody cooking show! They are utterly deluded and in some cases, very sick people. I hope for the sake of us all that they represent a tiny, tiny proportion of the population.

@Rhaidimiddim indeed, there's a very deliberate agenda that you can see at play - as you say a form of script, often to derail debate, deflect and shut down discussions.

When I spot those posters most of the time I just skim over without even reading the post as the best thing to do is just ignore. But it's hard not to get drawn in at all, as there's a desire from those posting in good faith to have a reasonable discussion, even with opposing views.

And to add - a signature of those posters was to declare regularly "I'm not a fan, but".

Under UK privacy law they have to respect a person’s private/family life. Divorce speculation would be covered by that, and given the VF article was reporting rumour from two different angles I am sure they have been advised it’s safest not to go there.

(Commentators might refer to it then, as you get a bit more latitude in expressing a clear opinion versus what is reported in the paper as news).

@CoffeeCantata agreed about the SS. What I'm always interested in is the extent to which how many of them are genuine cult followers, engaging in this behaviour because of their genuine devotion to the couple, and how many are paid as part of an ongoing PR strategy.

It would be fascinating if someone did an exposé of the whole business somewhere down the line - ironically it would be perfect for a Netflix documentary series, and if I was them I'd be lining something up for the minute their contractual relationship ends.

For me this is perhaps the most interesting thing about Harry and - especially - Meghan: the behaviour of their supporters. It's an endlessly fascinating study in human psychology, mass-hysteria, self-delusion, group-think, cult mentality etc

Yes, isn’t it.

I’m not sure what privacy law you are talking about?

Of course they could write about the divorce book allegation.

The DM did exactly that.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14298481/amp/Meghan-Markle-friends-deny-rumours-approached-book-deal-potential-divorce-Prince-Harry.html

The Mail and the Times will have very different risk appetites!

Risk of what? There’s no risk in reporting about the allegation that VF published

@Serenster it took me back to that poster too! They were adamant and repeated in various threads that CT had lied about a death threat because yahoo had confirmed the email address cited didn’t exist. You explained how the contact form worked etc and that no email was required therefore jumping to ‘liar liar, pants on fire’ was a tad overblown and they were ‘well NO ONE knows who sent the death threat but I have my thoughts’

Edited to remove random emoji

Years ago I read a very interesting book, which annoyingly I can't now find, about how humans needed something to believe in/belong to.
It looked at sport, and in particularly football, taking the role of the church/religion, but any of these social movements work in the same way.

Of course there is! Harry and Meghan could sue them in the UK for invasion of privacy, and since the Times could only rely on the fact that the allegations had been published in a foreign jurisdiction with a far higher legal tolerance of free speech, and The Times itself has no evidence of whether the allegations are true, they would likely decide it’s not a strong case.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when Charles gets his daily news update 😃

Or sitting around the table at the Middletons when another Sussex PR assault hits. They must detest Harry and Meghan, I would never forgive someone who did to my daughter and her young family, what H&M did to Catherine, William and their kids. I think I would be really vengeful somehow, I would savour every second of their downfall. The Middletons are a lesson in discretion and class.

You cannot sue for invasion of privacy for a newspaper reporting on a published allegation.

It’s the reason the UK press haven’t reported on the rumours that William had an affair with Rose Hanbury (the existence of the rumours have been reported on overseas, as many Sussex fans have pointed out).

(edited to remove the most random spellcheck ever. I doubt William having an affogato with Rose would be quite so newsworthy 🤣 )