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 couldn’t make it up. Except - they do.

Absolutely agree with this and the rest of your post @Serenster. These posters are defending a couple that are more than happy for their supporters to behave, bully and abuse people like they do. Including issuing death threats to children! Completely despicable and indefensible. Yet these posters continue to excuse or refuse to believe and continue to defend the couple and their actions.
I also agree with @CoffeeCantata that it’s cult like in their devotion and unquestioned loyalty. Quite scary really.

Maybe that’s where the rumour started @Serenster - Rose and William had a slice of tiramisu and an affogato and someone misunderstood as an affair!

Thats why you branding me a hero whirshippernof Meghan or msgahn supporter Thats a personal attack to me.

I am new to this thread but hilarious to see someone experiencing being "branded" a Meghan supporter as "a personal attack". Why is it a personal attack to be described as supporting Meghan? Do you not support Meghan? You're not exactly neutral - your posts are never critical and often stick up for her or try to deflect the criticism of others.

Also, so many posters refuse to admit to being Sussex Squad or even be aware of the network. Yet, they constantly give themselves away. Like the poster questioning the photos and even shoes Catherine wore to the baby bank engagement and then posting the same rhetoric about her cancer battle…..they eventually out themselves.

Those rumours were not published in a reputable outlet. If those rumours had been published in the NYT, of course the UK papers could report on the allegation.
But it was a sordid internet rumour, that’s why they didn’t report. There was no basis of truth.

If UK papers had done their own investigation and found out they he had had an affair, of course they could print it! If he sued, then they have veritas as their defence.

I still have no idea what UK privacy law you are talking about though? Do you mean the ECHR Art 8?

The rumours about William and Rose are pasta their sell by date. Chianti just drop it?

I'm glad you went there. I've wanted to raise the possibility that some of them at least are on a payroll but (having had posts removed in the past) wasn't sure it if was allowed to query the bona fides of some posters, even if anonymously.
Some of the posts seem too well constructed for amateur cult members.

It would be quite apt - the law on the impact Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (the right to privacy and a family life) all kicked into life when Catherine Zeta Jones married Michael Douglas in New York and gave an exclusive to OK! Magazine. Hello! magazine smuggled a secret camera into the reception and published photos of Catherine being fed wedding cake by Michael before OK! could get its lavish edition out.

The newlyweds sued Hello! In the UK for breach of their right to a private family event, but OK! magazine’s claim against Hello! for spoiling its exclusive failed. Those were the days! 🤣

(this post has been brought to you by the exclamation mark…)

elessar
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.

Maybe it would be fascinating.

It could look at the cult like behaviour of the more extreme members of the Sussex Squad and the similarities it shared with the more extreme royalists. They tend to mirror each other in behavior.

Has there here been a documentary about the extreme fans that supported Amber Heard vs their equivalent on Jonny Depp’s side?

We have a new one shaping up now. Blake Lively vs Justin Baldoni. The same patterns look like they are developing again.

And then you get the new names appearing - often with the "not a fan" disclaimer, and you're back in their game.

I got a post deleted for mentioning, ahem, type of chess in relation to these posts. Chequers it is from now on - thank you VF.

We have a new one shaping up now. Blake Lively vs Justin Baldoni. The same patterns look like they are developing again.

I'm following this one too.
There are certainly similarities between all three couples.

Those rumours were not published in a reputable outlet. If those rumours had been published in the NYT, of course the UK papers could report on the allegation.
But it was a sordid internet rumour, that’s why they didn’t report. There was no basis of truth.

Last year during “Where’s Kate” the rumours were published in the NYT, in the NY Post, by Sky Australia, Vanity Fair and Town & Country magazines in the US, mentioned by Stephen Colbert on tv…plus plenty more.

Spectre8 has been posting here for a long time and very regularly. She’s a long time member of this forum and unlike me she does not come and go and name change when she does.

She has repeatedly said she won’t be pushed into answering. It’s starting to look like a bunch of people are piling on her.

These are probably the most interesting ones

No, not rumours of Kates disappearance. They published articles about the hysteria of the online world claiming to be concerned about her welfare and why the palace didn’t put a stop to it by releasing some formation. No one was printing that she had been attacked by William, she had died etc.

I think you’ve misunderstood my post?

The media outets I have listed were all publishing around March 2024 that there were rumours, unproven, of an affair between William and Rose. These are all reputable media outlets.

But despite this, UK media has not published these rumours in the UK. I understand this to be because the UK media outlets are mindful of the risk that either William or Rose could sue them for breach of their privacy and right to a family life (under Article 8 of the ECHR as you queried earlier, which is part of UK law under the Human Rights Act). You have said that that is not the reason UK media haven’t published the rumours and suggested that the real reason is because they are just internet rumours and no reputable publication overseas has published them. But reputable publications overseas clearly have published them.

This is the weirdest thing, they all do it, they spend hours on every thread defending their heroes like attack dogs and then claim they are not fans of Meghan and Harry and treat it as a personal attack when called a fan, it’s their MO.

The Rose and William rumour was started by the odious Dan Wooten in February 2019 in the Sun showbiz/gossip section (he was never a royal reporter), as the alleged falling out of the "Turnip Toffs" over Catherine wanting Rose to be sidelined. This rumour was not repeated in any other British publication because no other paper could find any evidence to substantiate the rumour.

The rumour took flight online, fueled by Hadley Freeman asking on Twitter in March 2019 what she was missing/failing to understand. The equally odious Giles Coren gave his infamous reply about the affair rumours being true - which he has repeatedly, subsequently stated was him making up shit whilst drunk, and that he has no connections with that circle of people to know anything - but too late. Coren's twitter nonsense was picked up by a certain Sussex squaddie and writer of fan fiction about the Sussexes, who posited that dog bowl gate was about W&H fighting over the alleged affair. She too tried to walk this back, but again, too late, since that particular rumour also went viral. And it was picked up in US and European publications as having some factual truth about it, but never in British newspapers.

During the "Where's Kate?" nastiness of March 2024, UK papers were reporting on what US publications, commentators like Colbert and WME sheep were parroting based on internet rumours. They were not reporting that the rumours had any basis in fact, only that they were being discussed.

Interestingly, it is alleged that Coren spent time with the Sussexes and their usual crowd of pals (including a pregnant Meghan) at the opening of Soho House in Amsterdam shortly before his infamous post in 2019.

Internet rumour says that the rumour started from a Meghan supporter after Rose Hanbury was sat next to Prince Harry at a state banquet.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2017071340604/prince-harry-rose-hanbury-spanish-state-banquet/
Meghan wasn’t invited because she was a girlfriend rather than wife at the time.

Indeed . It was reported at the time that Meghan was furious that she was not allowed to attend .
The reason Harry accompanied Rose was because her husband was on official duty .

All ties in with the 'Meghan mean girl' reputation which has been exposed.

I can't remember the source of this idea, but it's not a new one - as these threads will testify!

The lovely Giles Coren (ugh) started the affair rumour on social media. But, very suspiciously, he was just back from a weekend at Soho House where he'd been in a party containing a very disgruntled Meghan Markle (in the wake of the banquet to which she hadn't been invited and Harry sat next to Rose). I'll say no more than that! I can't honestly think why Giles Coren would give a hoot about this matter himself.

Another allegation - I think from Tom Bower (apologies for being so lazy on this freezing afternoon that I'm making no effort to check sources etc) is that the Middleton family invited Meghan more than once to their home but both/all the invitations were declined. Apparently they also invited Meghan and Doria to stay with them before the wedding but this again was declined.

Obviously Meghan and Doria might have had very good reasons for being based elsewhere on the eve of the wedding but I mention these things to point out that Catherine and the Middletons did reach out to Meghan and try to welcome her. Tom Bower suggests that it didn't serve Meghan's purpose in many ways to become friendly with them - it didn't fit with the victim narrative or the racism, for a start.

It’s interesting that the victims of Meghan’s ire seem to be mainly women who are her peers and therefore seen as competitors (Rose Hanbury, the Princess of Wales). She was careful to steer clear of the late Queen, although I think she massively underestimated the Queen’s importance (bizarrely) and only seems to begin to comprehend it when the late Queen died 🤷‍♀️

I think this is the core of it. People need to believe in something - a myth or an idea - and for some, Meghan herself as a woman of colour being victimised but triumphing is a very attractive focus for adoration, as is the idea of the perfect love story against the odds of the couple themselves.

I can completely understand why many PoC, who may have suffered racism, are attracted to Meghan as someone who appears to champion them and who has achieved status despite societal prejudice. But I also feel it's a rickety myth that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. For a start, Meghan's identification as a Woman of Colour has not been consistent and quite frankly, I don't get the impression she does identify with black culture in the US. I could be wrong, but it doesn't come across to me. She sees herself as, a Hollywood babe and I don't see much inclination on her part to identify with the majority of African-Americans. (Nigerians are another matter! She seems more prepared to reach out to what she probably sees as romantic and exciting African culture).I think the American preacher at her wedding and the Gospel choir were actually KC's idea and maybe Meghan was even a bit irritated by this suggestion from a well-meaning father-in-law.

Just my impressions - but my point is that I think many of her fans project their hopes and fears on to her without really observing or analysing her actual behaviour - to say the least!

I agree that the women of the RF seem to be particularly in Meghan's crosshairs - Catherine especially.

I can see why Meghan underestimated QEII's influence and importance. I was surprised by the international reaction to her death. I was in Greece with a group of other European colleagues when she died. They all wanted to give me their condolences and spoke extremely fondly of her. One of my friends queued to give his respects and was surprised by the number of non Brits, particularly the French (whose Palace of Versailles is held up as a reason to get rid of the monarchy!). So I actually don't blame Meghan at all, Harry is a different matter.