Harry v NGN 2

[mainecooncatonahottinroof]

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

As you were!

I obviously can’t comment on a post that I can’t identify.

But if someone is shown to be factually incorrect by quite a few posters, then they should own it rather then complain about bullying, Yes I agree, assuming this works both ways.

That doesn’t mean though that there haven’t been some instances where posters have been harangued rather unfairly.

Yes point taken about Royalist term too. I suppose it’s short hand for “many of the regulars on this board who tend to defend the monarchy in a general sense”. I am aware that they don’t all necessarily agree about everything.

I have never seen anyone pro royals say that! Clearly I wasn’t invited!

Have you ever been on Twitter in recent years and seen the Sussex squad posts?

If not then you won’t recognize the phrases and comments from there which started appearing here on certain threads.

It’s not happened recently - the last time it was very obvious was around the time of the ‘where’s Kate’ moment.

The previous time that really stood out for me was when Kate and William were on the Jubilee tour in the Bahamas and Belize.

And a few years ago at the height of Megzit was when threads critical of Meghan were targeted.

Either MNHQ has become better at managing this or MN has just fallen off the radar of the ‘Squad’ or their numbers are dissipating but it’s not something I’ve seen for months now.

have never seen anyone pro royals say that! Clearly I wasn’t invited!

Me neither! I feel quite miffed!

I listened to an interesting viewpoint expressed by fashion blogger Tom Fitzgerald in a podcast this week. He had been an approached by Vanity Fair (in July last year!) for the piece they were writing to mark the 5th anniversary of “Megxit”. They wanted some thoughts from him about Meghan’s fashion choices.

He noted that as he was quoted in the article, and it had generally been taken to be fairly uncomplimentary of the couple, he had received a lot of pushback from Sussex fans about why can’t people just leave them alone, and not comment on them. To which he responded that this is who they are now, they are celebrities who work diligently to keep themselves in the press and in the public eye because doing so is vital to keep the interest in their commercial projects, and they are no different from any other celebrity in this regard (whom he also covers on his blog and comments on). And people cannot discuss the public works and image of Harry and Meghan without mentioning their private struggles because that's how they've deliberately chosen to construct their image - via Oprah, Spare, the Netflix documentary etc - all of that is absolutely core to how they’ve present themselves.

Which I would agree with. If you welcome and seek publicity bearing upon your private lives so long as it shows you only in a favourable light you can’t really complain of an invasion of privacy, if true, if it shows you in an unfavourable light. In other words, if you court publicity but only on your own terms, you live by the sword and die by the sword.

@BigWillyLittleTodger Well I did see it. I have zero idea how many people were in the group though.

(The other intersting bit about the podcast was the long lead time of the Vanity Fair article - it was planned and reaserched six months out because it had to be fact checked and go through Legal. In other words, nothing about that article was hastily thrown together, or not checked).

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!)

But saying that you find the discussion 'dull' isn't the same as it being a 'pile on'.

And if the poster in question digs their heels in and continues to defend their factual inaccuracy, despite evidence to the contrary having been posted, as happened in this case, then of course posters are going to continue to point out the error. It's a public discussion board, and a pretty tame one in the scheme of things. If you say something which is just plain wrong and chose to insist upon it, you don't get to plead 'bullying' when this is pointed out.

And to be honest, it's not up to you to say what's 'unnecessary' or not. Some of us might find repeated sneering at other posters 'unnecessary'.

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.

There's only a fairly small number of 'core' posters here compared to AIBU, although the recent spate of name changing has muddied the waters somewhat. So perhaps people take things more 'personally.'

(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.)

Good to get your stamp of approval.

Who said that, then?

I do recall one poster (who no longer posts under that name) admit that they were in contact with other posters off the Board - and then walk that back quite a bit when asked about it. But that was a poster who supported Meghan and Harry.

Recollections may vary

Wow I’m quite surprised about the Facebook page! I suppose that’s everyone’s right though. Why that would be seen as necessary I’m not sure? It seems a bit extreme to me.

I think it’s a bit unfair if there is a coordinated effort going on behind the scenes versus people who are posting as genuine individuals. But hey Mumsnet is free and accessible to all!

I am aware that the Sussex Squad exists because it’s mentioned all the time on this board, but I thought of them as more “out there” in the more trashy realms of the internet. Like the comments section of various celebrity gossip sites.

@Andtheweaselgoespop56 It may have been a group for people who support the Royal family in general rather than one set up in response to MN. But they did confirm they talked about MN threads and posters on there

to be honest, it's not up to you to say what's 'unnecessary' or not.

Good to get your stamp of approval.

It’s a discussion/debate where we’re all sharing our opinions – the internet has long since moved on from needing to add “IMO” or “IMHO” to posts. However, in my opinion, pile-ons are unnecessary; and in my opinion, the tone has generally been robust but civilised – perhaps until now…

I’m interpreting your post to me as erring on the aggressive side of passive aggressive, but please correct me if I’m wrong, maybe it’s lighthearted – tone doesn’t always come across in text. (I’m also guessing you think my tone is sneering? Since it’s not the first time you’ve accused me of that! When generally, I’m just here for the lols and celebrity gossip. But again – tone doesn’t always come across.)

It's a bit of a leap from people discussing threads to a co ordinated effort behind the scenes

I'm eyeing everyone up now to see if they are in the special gang

Wow I’m quite surprised about the Facebook page! I suppose that’s everyone’s right though. Why that would be seen as necessary I’m not sure? It seems a bit extreme to me.
I think it’s a bit unfair if there is a coordinated effort going on behind the scenes versus people who are posting as genuine individuals. But hey Mumsnet is free and accessible to all!

You do realise just because a poster claims this does not make it true particularly when they can’t even evidence it? Do you believe everything anyone tells you?

Fair enough 😀

But they did confirm they talked about MN threads and posters on there

People do that all over the place though! There’s several threads being uncomplimentary about my user name on Reddit for example. Which is presumably coming directly from people who read and comment on the Royal family board. I think it’s funny. Which goes back to what I said about personal resilience…

Their main gathering is on Twitter which is a cesspit of a place compared to MN and even compared to places like the Daily Mail’s comment sections.

I was quite interested in learning more about how they were organizing around the time of the Jubilee tour because they were instrumental in driving the ‘racist colonial’ ‘misguided’ ‘disastrous’ tour angle and were managing to get quoted in the mainstream media - it was fascinating to watch how social media can drive the news agenda if your ‘group’ can attract a higher profile poster or two and amplify a series of stock phrases.

So for a while I followed a set of people to see how it worked. Had to block them all in the end because it was very toxic.

There are also a few people using the Squad to make money from them by seemingly aligning with their views and then pushing products or paid services on them. That Bouzy guy who was in the Netflix documentary with Meghan and Harry was one of them.

Even worse - personally, and for the quality of debate - are those posters who maintain that criticism of Meghan is racist - she is being criticised because she is Black, she would not be criticised if she were white, therefore the criticism is because she is Black and therefore racist.

I think I found MN in the first place via it being talked about all over the place. I still happily follow Mumsnet Madness, it gives me a direct line to find juicy threads I might have missed; I was thrilled the day one of my replies was picked apart on its Twitter thread for being especially mad. A badge of internet honour.

Twitter is not a gathering place. It is just another very large social media site.

@Serenster Reddit has a life all of its own, bizarre but funny

Off to Google if anyone is talking about me…!

Although I chose a poor user name for that as presumably the search is going to turn up actual Wordler discussions first.

What didn’t they like about your user name @Serenster ?

Yes I should have prefaced my comments with if it exists

I have found Orca’s previous comments to be quite measured though, in other words. she doesn’t come across as a poster who starts a rumour just to make trouble.

She's goi g to be furious now if they aren't talking about her

Not sure what point you are making?