Invictus 2025

[Mylovelygreendress]

Why is Meghan on the stage ?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14374977/Meghan-lovingly-Prince-Harry-Invictus-Games-Vancouver-crowd.html

Are you actually attending the games yourself in person then? Because that’s the only way you can be a direct observer without going through one news prism or another?

The Behaviour Panel, body language experts, have commented on Meghan holding Harry's face when kissing. By holding his face she is covering it up so the focus is on her.

So watching live video feed is not enough then?
Meghans own released instagrams also not to be trusted?

That photo of the poor woman in a wheelchair lifting her hands in exasperation while the people behind her look appalled or amused says it all.

BTW, you keep forgetting we have no tabloids in the US. 😁

No @BemusedAmerican , we need to let it go apparently!

Well, at least we aren't reporting him. Some American vet should just tell them off. Trump would probably give them an award.

How's the superbowl coming on?

Who said they wanted them back?

Come back? Where? Not the UK please God no!🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

Why let go when she is comedy gold?

Nope - I watched MM speech filmed directly and shared on SM and have commented on that - as I said direct from the horses mouth - no prism between.

Just watched Meghan's speech and my thoughts, for the little they are worth, are as follows:

1. She very much followed the Kamala Harris approach to speech-making - cringe-inducing attempts at familiarity ("Hello, YOU!") coupled with breathless excitement. I don't like this style: women have traditionally found it difficult enough to be taken seriously as public speakers, and adopting a style more reminiscent of a gauche lower sixth former accepting a an end-of-term prize, sells us all short. Moreover the Kamala approach to oratory was roundly rejected by the American public at the ballot box just a few short months ago...maybe the Canadians still haven't had quite enough of it?
2. The speech was presumably designed to be about Invictus, and the athletes. I counted 11 references to Meghan herself, and 3 to the athletes, one of which also inserted herself. That's quite some ratio.
3. I'm not keen on the over familiarity, which verged on disrespectful and patronising at times. Starting her speech with "Hello....YOU!" was disrespectful - it's the kind of greeting I use when bumping into a family member or very close friend unexpectedly in town. Not a collective greeting to a large group of athletes whose skills have been forged in the fire of trauma and determination to overcome. Likewise the description of the games to come ("My husband's so excited...he's going to do CURLING with you all!") struck the deeply patronising tone of David Brent addressing his wheelchair-using colleague. Meghan, Meghan, you're a smart woman, and you must have rehearsed this countless times. Why did your PR adviser not correct this awful tone?
4. Why is Meghan so averse to using Harry's name? My Ex used always to refer to me as 'my wife', even to people who knew us both pretty well. It's so reductive.

Overall in my view it was the verbal equivalent of the deeply domineering and disingenuous hugs Meghan was allegedly constantly attempting to force upon William and Kate. One out of five stars for me.

I cannot believe once again we have this rictus grinning, preening pair attention seeking and taking the focus from the vets. Just sit down.

Their every move and facial expressions looks fake and contrived. I've no idea how the vets and their families can stomach it.

It's not just rictus grinning.

It's INRICTUS grinning :-)

Yes, as I said above I don't have children myself but my first thought was how often she and Harry choose to leave their young children when they really don't have to.

All those twee stories about the 'morning rush' were weird too. We know that neither of them has a job and they surely have home help, so why exactly would there be morning chaos in Maison Montecito? And that thing where the kids asked why Harry was always on the phone, only to be told it was for Invictus? What was the point of that? Are we supposed to think he's great or what?

@GiveMeSpanakopita excellent analysis.

It doesn't start until tonight. We got snow and it actually stuck. We are clearing it up. I've been listening to plows all morning.

How do you know that is the speech in its entirety though?

Remember that there are many levels of editing before a story reaches us; choosing what to include and what to leave out.

Look, I am not saying her speech isn’t cringey or self-referential, but I wouldn’t necessarily trust anything that is put out about her now, because there is a set narrative that is not unbiased.

Also, I query whether she deserves this level of scrutiny? She is not a war criminal or a politician with evil intent. She’s a minor celebrity making a cringey speech at a charity event fhs! I think the level of vitriol aimed at her is out of all proportion to what she has supposedly done. There are a million self reverential celebrities out there! That is literally the world she grew up in!

Also, we know from recent history, that once someone dares to leaves the RF, the wagons circle those in the innermost circle to protect the status quo and the “friends of” the establishment brief and leak against those who have left. It’s how they ensure loyalty and compliance! And how they maintain privilege.

Are people really naieve enough to think that the RF is not all about serving themselves as much as it is about serving us?

Each to their own, but I feel uneasy contributing to the “noise” against H & M when it seems excessive and I am doubting the motivation behind it. Especially when I think there are far more important issues worth observing that relate to the RF themselves eg tax avoidance, parliamentary lobbying and special privileges.

Sorry @BemusedAmerican , the time difference confuses me!
Sorry about the snow , we had it predicted here but it didn't materialise.

Let what go?
Who wants the Sussexes to return to the UK? Only very die hard Royalists, I assume, who would support them, no matter what.
I do hope Invictus continues to be a success, but it will be in spite of that silly pair, not because of them.

"Are you actually attending the games yourself in person then? Because that’s the only way you can be a direct observer without going through one news prism or another?" I think direct filming is valid for forming an opinion.

I don't see people picking on her here. I do think that her behaviour and actions do invite ridicule and opprobrium at times and that is fine given how much she tries to get herself in the public eye with no sense of embarrassment whatsoever. I think the JC GOT comment was out of order but that doesn't mean anyone who criticises M agrees with that comment. I think she's had a fairly easy ride in the UK press thus far at the IG. And by and large I think most comments on this thread have been thoughtful , not spiteful , and in many cases just downright funny.

So, I still think her introduction of Harry was ill judged and cringy ,she is pushing herself forward more than she should , and the PDAs are just a bit weird.

I am Spartacus 😊

No idea, that's been said before and contradicted many times.

I think she is desperately trying to look like a loved up teenager to quell the divorce rumours. I bet as soon as she's off camera the whole act drops away.

She’s a minor celebrity making a cringey speech at a charity event fhs!

Exactly.

So why all the talk about 'prisms' and 'objectivity' as though some self aggrandising waffle which I wouldn't even call a 'speech' were a matter of great geostrategic relevance?

Sorry @Iwasexpectingitfrankly732 , even if I believed all that rhubarb, the days of blaming the royal family for bad pr for these two is over!
It ended when the US started reporting and criticising them , it no longer works .