Harry v NGN 2

[mainecooncatonahottinroof]

I don't think we're done talking - and I never start threads!

As you were!

OFGS. There are many examples on
many threads on here of posters arriving, announcing that they are “republicans” and then proceeding to big up the Sussexes. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that they are fans of the Sussexes and not actual republicans. I don’t need them to spell it out for me. That is what I am talking about. Nothing to do with other people who
are in favour of the Sussexes. Or the Waleses or any other member of the RF. Or actual republicans. If you read my last post properly you will see that I said as much. The point I am making is that there are some posters who declare they are republicans who by their subsequent words and gushing praise of the Sussexes make it clear they are not. I am NOT saying that everyone who ever posts in support of the Sussexes is a crazed fan of theirs. Got it?

I do agree with this; I think a multitude of views are represented on here and it's wrong to jump to pat conclusions so that if one person writes "that" then they are by definition a supporter or detractor of "them".

For example, sorry, but I genuinely believe it's possible to be a Republican and be sympathetic to Harry's stance. That doesn't mean you necessarily support or even like him, or everything he has done, or the way he has done it, and it's irritating to be constantly accused of that.

I do think it's possible for a Republican to be more sympathetic to an underdog generally though. Of course H is not an underdog in social terms, he is as privileged as they come, but he is an underdog in his stance against the Establishment and against NGN, especially when virtually every editor or CEO of formerly prestigious and unbiased papers such as The Times and The Washington Post, are former Murdoch employees. The global opprobrium he is receiving imho, is not consistent with what he has actually done. But that's just my view. That doesn't make me a Sussex lover though!

That's just my response to the world as it is. In an ideal scenario, I would far prefer that there are no Princes or Kings or anyone who inherits a title through birth alone, for the simple reason that I think it's better if we at least try to be as fundamentally fair as we can be to everyone, in an undeniably unfair world.

At the risk of re-starting arguments, which I don’t want to do, I think it helps calm debate if we can at least try and acknowledge one another’s experiences, rather than dismissing them outright.

Have you considered that lots of posters have been reporting they felt chased off or ganged up on, on this particular board, because that was their genuine experience?

I think we all know of at least one long-standing Republican poster by name who never appeared on here again after getting what appeared to be rather unfair and harsh treatment. And she was a lovely poster too.

I think sometimes it’s not so much intentional but a numbers game. When one Republican posts, about twelve royalists reply! That’s a simplification, but speaking for myself and no one else, you can feel harried if every single one of your posts is quoted and contradicted multiple times. I am not saying my posts aren’t up for contradiction as much as the next person’s btw, of course they are! But the balance is out of whack which is no one’s fault.

And that’s a charitable interpretation; as mentioned previously, there were all of those threads with the cheese talk and memes intended to lock out Republican viewpoints and fill the threads so no one with a different perspective could post. In-jokes are fine and all good fun for those posting them, but not so much if you are on the receiving end and they are used as an exclusionary tactic.

Anyway, thankfully, the debate has become more civilised of late and I hope we can keep it that way?

Obviously, dubious comments about anyone going through cancer are utterly indefensible. I very much agree with you there. It’s nasty and unnecessary.

A friend of mine has gone through preventative cancer treatment recently, after a suspect polyp was found, and without going in to details, it is very long drawn out, painful and unpleasant process, involving a bowel re-section, and several operations, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. Never mind someone whose job is to be in the public eye and be photographed through zoom lenses. A total nightmare. So my sympathy is very much with Catherine at this time, as it is with anyone going through this awful experience.

I see what you are saying up to a point. My issue is that the Sussexes in hanging on to their titles for grim death, insisting on deference from others and using such ridiculously pompous things such as “the office of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex” are hardly behaving as if they don’t believe in Royalty are they? I really don’t think they are the underdogs as they never really wanted to leave the RF. I’m sure some sort of compromise over them leaving could have been reached if they hadn’t wanted to maintain their royal status and swan in whenever they felt like it 🤷‍♀️

@Andtheweaselgoespop56 The problem with " my truth" is that it doesn't always mean that it is "the truth"

I wouldn't want anyone hounded off a thread, on this board or any other, but making statements like that can shut down discussion and that isn't helpful

In terms of that poster I am quite sure she is here under another name, I hope so as she had a lot of very valid points. I didn't always agree with her but her opinion is as relevant as anyone else's

In terms of that poster I am quite sure she is here under another name, I hope so as she had a lot of very valid points. I didn't always agree with her but her opinion is as relevant as anyone else's

She has a very distinctive posting style, definitely here and recognisable. I’m glad she has returned to posting (never doubted that she would), there’s a place here for everyone’s viewpoint.

@Likewhatever agreed

Personally, I think there is plenty of hypocrisy purposely brought into these discussions, it gets irritating and eventually causes an argument and derailing, one or two of the posters who used to post under different names were regularly pointed to occasions where they had completely different opinions and who flip flopp in their stance depending on who the discussion was about. . The most frustrating are the discussions being derailed with the 'whatabout' scenarios, again usually the same posters, just different user names.

The criticism of the Sussex's is about how they use Harry's Royal birth to further themselves in a celebrity driven environment, while still hanging on to the coattails of the Monarchy to attain privileges they really are not entitled to. That criticism is not going to go away as long as they hang on to their royal titles and certainly there is now another level of criticism coming from the very celebrity establishment they are trying to be seen a part of.

Until the UK population votes for a republic, the Royal Family will continue to hold a very prestigious and important position in the UK and for some reason are more popular now than they have been for years.

I can understand your perspective too.

I didn’t know that it’s proven though that it was them wishing to hold on to their royal status that solely caused the rift was it?

Even though I wish there wasn’t a Monarchy, as it stands atm, Harry can’t help being son of a King and brother of the eventual monarch.

That is who he is, just as much as I am proud to be the grandchild of a postman.

And to be fair to him, he is not really trained to do anything but serve the country or serve in the army. And he was good at both! So I can understand his reluctance to give it all up completely.

So just because he is rejecting the role that was set out for him within the institution, doesn’t meant that he can avoid his circumstances of birth. If that’s being status-driven then so be it? He is never not going to be related to King Charles or Prince William is he? Status-driven to me indicates someone who is trying to be someone they are not. It’s just a different interpretation.

Also, as mentioned below. I respectfully take issue with the “half in-half out” term anyway. King Charles and Prince William, alongside their royal duties, are running fully commercial enterprises, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which each generate an annual income of about £20 million and enjoy at the same time, protected tax status. Why does that not qualify as half-in, half-out?

I don’t intend any of this to come across in a bolshie way just to be clear! It’s just a different perspective.

What I find fascinating is the variable views on these boards from the royals just being ordinary people who through luck of birth and history happen to be where they are, to comments about birthrights, titles and being born a prince etc as if the royals are noble by birth with some kind of blue blood.

with Harry I think I can see that being born into his unique circumstances is both a massive privilege and a massive curse - not what I would want or choose and I do feel a lot of sympathy for him (I am about his age so ive grown up in the uk with his and William’s life stories in my consciousness all my life)

It sounds like he would love to climb out of the goldfish bowl but doesn’t really know what a “normal” life on the outside looks like or the risks/hard work it requires to provide for yourself and a family. I suspect that there is a deep seated belief that he is something better/apart from everyone else because he is “royal” and this sense of entitlement is hard to shake off.

i would say I am also a constitutional monarchist in terms of the function of our country, but I’m not convinced it’s the best thing for those born into the centre of it, particularly those who don’t fit the mould or find their place in it all.

Well a poster of another thread thinks we are all going to become part of America and the Royal Family will be abolished anyway.

I agree totally with everything you say with the assumption that it applies both ways.

Also, I am very glad if that poster has returned under a different name. I haven’t seen any particularly recognisable posts tbh, but that’s great if they are back!

I think sometimes it’s not so much intentional but a numbers game. When one Republican posts, about twelve royalists reply! That’s a simplification, but speaking for myself and no one else, you can feel harried if every single one of your posts is quoted and contradicted multiple times. I am not saying my posts aren’t up for contradiction as much as the next person’s btw, of course they are! But the balance is out of whack which is no one’s fault.

That’s on you though, surely? Or do you think that if you turn up with your opinion on a public message board, and find you are in the minority with that view, everyone else has to not post? This isn’t the BBC and the universe owes no-one balance…just that they abide by the talk guidelines. 😀

If you’re feeling harried because you find yourself in the minority, that might be an indication that you need a thicker skin, or more resilience? Rather than deciding that is the problem of the other posters and criticising them for (a) having, and (b) expressing contrary views.

Trump has managed to get a hotel in Scotland, that's his limit with us!

I think sometimes it’s not so much intentional but a numbers game. When one Republican posts, about twelve royalists reply! That’s a simplification, but speaking for myself and no one else, you can feel harried if every single one of your posts is quoted and contradicted multiple times. I am not saying my posts aren’t up for contradiction as much as the next person’s btw, of course they are! But the balance is out of whack which is no one’s fault

Yes it isn’t anyone’s fault at all, if you post as a self proclaimed republican in the Royal Family section you will more than likely be in the minority, what I object to strongly is the the proclamation that you are being ‘hounded off’ ‘bullied’ ‘ganged up on’ etc. when your post then attracts a lot of comments back, I mean what do you expect? It’s a discussion forum and just because you are a republican doesn’t give you free pass to not be challenged.

There was a period of time where there was clearly some sort of organized and targeted Sussex Squad posters on here. They were new user names - using similar phrases and repeating awful things said about William and Kate on Twitter.

If you’d ever read any of the Squad tagged posts on Twitter it was really easy to spot those posters on here.

They would flood any thread that was critical about Meghan and create arguments with other posters escalating it to the point that the whole thread would get taken down.

During that time there were also some very strong republican posters who clearly thought that Harry and Meghan were going to be the kind of disrupters who could help bring down the monarchy.

Ironically, seeing what a mess the Sussexes made of things seems to have made more people appreciate the core royal family more.

You don’t see the Squad led posters as much anymore but occasionally they pop up.

The last time I saw someone complain about being 'ganged up on' was a few days ago. The poster in question made a post which was clearly and demonstrably factually incorrect. Several posters pointed this out, with evidence to support their claim. There were no personal attacks. The poster then complained about being 'bullied' but nothing of the sort was going on.

Is there a limit to the number of people who can point out factual errors on a public discussion board? And claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is a 'royalist', whatever that means, is tiresome.

I agree with you that anyone who is a crazed ' pro Sussex fan' cannot be a Republican. Harry has never said he didn't believe in the Royal Family in fact he said he does absolutely believe in the Monarchy. His belief in the Monarchy is more ' Divine Right of Kings' that they should have all the privilege and none of the scrutiny, so its a bit silly to be a Sussex fan and a Republican. However all I have seen are people saying they get an undue amount of negative attention for doing not that much, and whatever they are doing is really now up to them. Saying that doesn't make you a 'crazed fan'. It just means let them do what they want as private citizens. The constant attention is what is giving them publicity and why they get invited to things. Because everyone knows that the mere mention of them is enough to drive traffic to whatever it is they are doing. The Royal Family and William and Kate are in a different position. We need to look at that they are doing, because they are meant to be representing us. They get a huge amount of privilege in return. They should be being scrutinised by Parliament, the courts and by the press. By and large they are not. And that is because of the very deals Harry is complaining about. He is part of the problem, not the solution.

There was a period of time where there was clearly some sort of organized and targeted Sussex Squad posters on here. They were new user names - using similar phrases and repeating awful things said about William and Kate on Twitter

Yes there was and it reached its height with the Mother’s Day card and the where is Kate campaign, it was horrendous on here, then shortly after these disrupters disappeared so I’m pretty sure it was an organised campaign and maybe mumsnet shut them down.

Do you mind explaining what you mean by hypocrisy being brought in to the discussion because personally I think it’s ok to point it out when H&M are being accused of something that the RF are doing too!

i dislike the celebrity world too but that literally was who Meghan was before marriage. She was invited to speak at the UN and endorsed products and got invited abroad to speak before she met Prince Harry. I just see her as having returned to what she did before but now with her dh. Just like H has carried on with Invictus.

So again it’s a different interpretation: status seeking and putting on airs and graces, or simply doing what they always did?

Btw, I have never really understood the term whataboutery, but if it means bringing stuff up solely to derail then I agree completely.

Totally agree too about contradictory posts just for the sake of disruption.

I defend name-changing though because everyone can and and I have nc’d regularly since the site had security issues, it’s not specifically for this board, so I am not sure why that is wrong?

And I agree that until the UK public votes otherwise, the Monarchy and most members of the RF remain popular and important Establishment figures; the chance to vote though would be most welcome!

I do not think there was ever an organised group of Sussex supporters.
I did once see supporters of the Royal Family admit they are all on a facebook group together and discuss threads here.

You are unaware of the Sussex Squad?

Is there a limit to the number of people who can point out factual errors on a public discussion board?
I think there is, yeah. Obviously it can’t be policed or a hard limit set, but from a reading-the-thread perspective it’s quite dull to wade through pages all responding to the same thing in the same way, particularly if there’s a long time between those responses so it’s not a case of simultaneously posting but instead, everyone wants a go; similarly if it’s not a factual error thing but simply a “lots of people don’t agree” it’s unnecessary to have a pile-on. (I don’t enjoy seeing pile-ons in AIBU, either!)

It’s as derailing as inserting a “What about P A?” (For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not bringing him up, I’m bringing up the bringing up of him!)

And I don’t think it’s entirely a case of developing a thicker skin or more resilience; as a pp pointed out, maybe multiple posters have brought up the sense of being “hounded” because this board can sometimes go that way, more so than AIBU. Should it all be on posters to toughen up and take it or get off the royals board, or is it worth considering that maybe there has been a pack mentality on occasion? (For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t think this thread is that, and I think the tone of this discussion has been robust but civilised.) I’d love to see behind-the-scenes at MNHQ and see whether this board is high on the moderation wack-a-mole chart.

Yes.
There was a lot of interest in the theories around Catherine at the time and the threads were often on trending.

Yes you were unaware of the squad?