As Ever #3 As If

[PrettyFlyforaMaiTai]

Another thread to discuss the rebranding of ARO and the merchandising of With Love, Meghan

Part 2: www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5278062-as-ever-2-whatever

It possibly explains why William and Catherine kept their children close to them as soon as the service was over.

All the bridesmaids except Charlotte walked out of the Chapel together. Kate held Charlotte's hand and they sapwood apart from the other bridesmaids on the steps. Charlotte is sitting on Kate's lap for the drawing room photos later, still apart from the other bridesmaids. It's all quite obvious. There's a piece of footage showing Meghan throwing a look of venom at Charlotte as she reaches the head of the aisle. Immediately afterwards, she fixes Jessica Mulroney's daughter with a sacharine smile as she hands her her bouquet. Grim behaviour in public, and absolutely foolish when you know everything is being filmed and that the footage will be scrutinised the world over. Does Meghan totally lack the ability to manage herself or is she rather dim?

They have more money than I’d thought, poss 200 million plus (?) how vital is their need to generate lots more & how strong the drive to do so?

I think Marina has been reading these threads as the perfume idea was discussed here....

Says who?

But if that's true it makes it even worse they are marketing their children.

She certainly seems in the grip of very strong impulses that she seems unable to control or manage . What sort of person would feel that way about a little girl.? It’s all about control and being the centre of attention for Meghan. She is venomous and completely self seeking.

Your misogyny is mind blowing. What exactly is wrong with her being single and childless? I really despair at women like you.

It was discussed because it had previously been talked about on the RO/MH podcast as an incredible money-spinner.

I think you've misinterpreted "modeling a lifestyle". It's not pretense or lack of authenticity. Perhaps "representing a certain type of person" would describe it better.

Portraying yourself enjoying a dignified, secure, middle-class life that you've created for yourself, free from the grind of poverty, and without apology about how far you've come compared to where your ancestors started is a quintessentially American narrative arc that resonates with most of American society, but especially with black Americans.

As far as I can see, the restrained affluence of H&M's home is an element of a visual narrative about who black Americans are and where they belong, that has mirrored the changing fortunes of black people in the US over the last 100+ years.

The look says 'abundance and the expectation of abundance', and it's especially significant as a contrast with the historical experience and portrayal of black people's lives that screamed "not like us" to generations of white audiences - not hard working, not disciplined, incapable of ever improving their lot in life.

The California ranch style furniture and decor and the neutral palette in interior shots of H&M's Montecito home that I've seen are a casually comfortable style, very relatable and accessible to most middle class Americans, including middle class black Americans.

What a representation or modeling of abundance and the expectation of abundance in the home and the California lifestyle of H&M signifies to a black American audience is the overcoming of obstacles deliberately set against it from the earliest days of the colonies. It is an encouraging visual that validates the community's belief in itself and in the possibility of establishing solid, financially secure families and passing on that security to future generations.

It is an encouraging visual that validates the community's belief in itself and in the possibility of establishing solid, financially secure families and passing on that security to future generations

It’s a visual that says see how far I’ve come since I married my white Prince and It’s not a good look at all.

Exactly. I have seen very little evidence that Meghan is interested in her ancestry or her community, except when it directly benefits her. She is Nigerian when she visits the country but didn't visit their team at Invictus, She claims she is local to the fires when she can be publicised visiting after new accusations of bullying.

I'm not sure Hermes blankets are middle class and apart from that one shot of their apparent study, whose most striking feature was a pile of her book, we haven't seen where they live anyway. Going from the exterior alone mock Spanish is hardly celebrating where she came from.

I try to be even handed about Meghan but the PP needs evidence to speak of her as if she is a cultural warrior proud of her ancestry and supporting her community and it simply isn't there. Even the elements of her wedding that celebrated her ancestry were chosen by Charles not Meghan.

There is an allegation (damn, can't remember the source - it may have been Tom Bower, but I've also read an account from one of the Givenchy seamstresses who was present on that stressful day) that Meghan and Jessica Mulroney were unkind to Charlotte during the fitting - and that that was the real issue, not the fit of the her dress.

It was claimed that Jessica and Meghan ganged up on Charlottte, priasing Jessica's daughter (an older girl) and criticising Charlotte. Now this sort of thing definitely happens in the world of mums and children - I've seen it myself - before anyone says it's too far-fetched -mums taking out their dislike of another parent on a child. Of course we can never know, but I can well imagine that Meghan, already jealous and resentful of Catherine and feeling extra stressed, might have bitched to her then bff, Jessica, and they both made things uncomfortable for Catherine and Charlotte. Meghan might have thought it was a good opportunity to put Catherine in her place, away from Palace eyes.

Yes, I agree that Catherine's holding on to Charlotte as you describe was very noticeable and I can well imagine the reason for it! I'd want to protect my toddler from the unholy alliance of Jessica and Meghan.

I took it that the poster was saying why, in their opinion, most of Swift's songs are bitter towards men because maybe she wanted a settled relationship and children and, so far, had been disappointed. I didn't take it as a misogynistic post.

Edit typo

That Jane Pauley interview was stomach-churning. Has to be seen to be believed. Just revolting, I usually tend to excuse a lot of her behaviour as an intrinsic lack of awareness and poor social skills that she for some reason is unable to improve. But in that interview she made me shudder, her smirking about her amaaazing children while sat directly next to those broken, bereaved parents who looked visibly destroyed and shattered.. she was sticking yhe knife in for sure. In that moment I felt she was actually quite evil and I considered whether she genuinely has some kind of psychopathic personality disorder rather than just a narcissistic one. Sometimes when I see her with her dogs I wonder if she is mean to them when she is in a foul mood, she seems like the type. Catherine was certainly right to be protective of Charlotte, the look Meghan gave her was murderous. All those bridesmaids and page boys were simply props for the day, she doesnt have a relationship with a single one of them. I wouldn't have thought any child ever crosses the threshold of their home other than their own two.

I have always felt that Meghan and Harry's home screamed overblown, out of date decor. The kitchen she filmed WLM in is far more aspirational in my eyes - clean lines, bright, timeless with a hint of country kitchen. I assume that's why it was filmed there.

Yes, being rescued by a night in shining arm is hard aspirational or progressive.

@MaggieMistletoe I hope you are wrong about possible isolation of the kids, just picking up on that. People have noted Lily says something like ‘if I am allowed to or if you say I can’ re: M’s offer re: watering the plants. A small thing perhaps but it’s maybe a red flag re: dysfunctional set up or even an abusive one that those who have endured similar may note. Or it’s just a very polite & deferential kid but something in the way she said it…

I noted the tone deaf comments too re: suicide - once, given editing etc potentially we don’t see possibly forgiven but then there’s the surviving not thriving thing in Africa which has always stunned me. No caveats, ever (?), of ‘I know I am very fortunate however…’ Possibly Harry is similar. If moments of mortifying faux pas most grow & learn from them…

Thomas perhaps shows similar unawareness at times re: faux pas?

NB: BFF Jessica, was M’s distancing herself appropriate due to her comments. I love my BFFs & would be supportive if in eye of any storm unless extremely good reason. I know they are of really sound character.

"the elements of her wedding which celebrated her ancestry were chosen by Charles, not Meghan" spot on, @MrsLeonFarrell .
Not only did Charles go to significant personal expense, but he was the one who tried to make this an inclusive celebration.
He booked the Gospel Choir and the Black cellist and the African American preacher. There seems to have been little acknowledgement of that.

Meghan looked very different in that interview to the way she usually appears. She did look very angry, and I thought - we're seeing the real Meghan here. Something had clearly happened just before the interview, and then JP asked a question which Meghan hadn't approved, and, boy, the look on her face.

What I found upsetting about it was the way the bereaved couple weren't 'included'. M and H didn't turn to them, look over at them or use subtle body language to bring them into the interview.

That interview sounds awful. Harry and Meghan are so inadequate as a couple and clearly very unsuited to public roles. They don't have the intelligence or sensitivity.
Polo husband - Trad Wife is really their social and cultural limit.

Exactly, @Weepixie marrying into the very white Royal family, as Chris Rock put it,'the OG colonists'. Choosing to live in one of the most 'white' enclaves in California, where the reporter from The Times commented that the only diversity you see are those who come in and out on a daily basis to serve the rich white residents.

Not sure how validating that is (unless the goal is to nab yourself a rich white man /woman)

According to reports , Meghan was furious with JP and complained about her to the show’s producer as well as having a row with JP off air .

I think the child must be Archie, given the size of the child's hand. But yes, the way he timidly says, " I can do it, if you want me to..." gave me a lump in my throat. As ever, the way MM interacts with and talks about children is not like any parent I know.

And so much for preaching about our children and online harm. That video can now be manipulated by anyone wishing to make mischief, even if M is just showing faceless body parts and back shots.

That was a very uncomfortable interview for a number of reasons. Neither of them are any good at interviews and their weaknesses were very exposed. I thought the interviewer was very polite but gently probing. If she’d interviewed them instead of OW perhaps we wouldn’t be where we are now.

The trouble is, they don't face interviews which probe or put them on the spot.
They've been allowed just to put out false stories and their ludicrous agenda.