Prue Leith on Meghan Marble

[ZebedeeDougalFlorence]

I just saw this article about Prue Leith's pronouncement on Markle's new programme, which she says she would never watch. She says that she isn't a Markle fan because of all the "touchy feeliness" and talk about what creams you put on your hands. She says life is too short to think about what people think of you. Prue Leith is around 80 years old (?) is alway impeccably and colourfully dressed, her hair just so, her skin is lovely, she is always talking about food that is or isn't "worth the calories" - all of which which suggests that she very much cares what people think of her and that she takes a lot of time with her own appearance even though she is much older than Meghan who I would argue - as I would for all young women - that they should enjoy and relish their youth and beauty and make the most of it while it lasts.

My question however is about why Leith found it so easy to make this comment in public. I can't imagine her judging another celebrity so publicly and forcefully. So what makes Meghan different to the others? What makes Leith so incensed that she had to be so negative about her in a TV interview? I am sure that Meghan is not the only touchy feely, hand moisturising celebrity on the planet.

Aside from your feelings about her estrangement from the royal family which has been discussed ad nauseam what legitimate reason is there for treating her like that?

https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/netflix-meghan-markle-duchess-lady-gaga-sussex-b1216699.html

And how do you surmise they are not?
or does poc posters criticising Meghan , upset you for some reason?

I didn't surmise one way or another. It was you who brought the whole subject up. And no it wouldn't upset me. Why should it?

I thought it was backing up what you said: that detractors of MM could be of any race.

I wasn't clear.

Ok , I see!
but you have to understand that some of the posters here have been present for quite a while and have been subjected to abuse and harassment and denial of who they are for voicing criticism of h and m !
saying a poc person is racist for criticism of Meghan is very triggering for that poc who probably has already been subjected to racism themselves.

You assume there is a racist narrative. That's your opinion. In my opinion there is not one. Neither on this board or in the wider media coverage of MM. Simply people calling her out on her many lies and criticising (fairly) her various activities. I have been posting on this board for quite a while now. I have never seen the racism you claim. Plenty of agism, sexism and racism against older white women though, as illustrated by several of the comments on this thread.

Another poster specifically referred to him, that's why I mentioned him. The spectators in question were white, working/lower middle class. You must have heard that term applied to that demographic group.

In a nutshell.

But at least people are being honest now and admitting it. Or perhaps it should be that in their haste to support Meghan they're wracking up one own goal after another.

@WeepixieI think the latter.

I don't necessarily make such an assumption. I was referring to something the pp had said, which was that people assumed that criticisms about MM were made by white people and therefore racist, while many of her naysayers might in fact be black (God, I personally hate reducing everything to black and white). So , I was making an observation about that.

One pp - Samcro - has made a personal statement about how they view Camilla, it doesn't mean that everyone who opposes the massive pile-on of MM does the same thing.

With respect, I would challenge your assumption that liberals would call what you describe as a "white, working/lower middle class" group of people "gammons" - especially given that many liberals are also "white, working/lower middle class". Use of the description Gammon usually has a more specific application and mostly depends on context, doesn't it?

“Gammon” does not mean white working/lower middle class man.It means a particular type of right wing white working/lower middle class man. cf Lee Anderson.

It's a word which is best not used.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/what-does-gammon-mean

It shouldn't be used.

It was brought up on this thread by @FromTheOfficeOfJammyTodger Noone else used it.

@glitterturdI merely explained what people who use it mean by it.

But I have to say I have never been entirely convinced by Gold’s argument.

In what context would it ever be ok to call a group of people that name?

Challenge away. I grew up and went to school amongst the white working class, grew up with the values of that community. They bear no resemblance to what is considered "liberal" now. Their perfectly ordinary, middle of the road views are considered "right wing". I went to university and now live and work beside some of the most privileged modern day liberals you can ever hope to meet in the UK. I've heard the way they talk about the people I grew up with for nearly 40 years. And their values bear no resemblance to my own.

No that's not correct. I didn't explain anything. I did put a link up though.

No context. Come on, you know what I mean. Curlew Kate's explanation was more articulate than mine, but that's what I meant.

Also, is every single white working class person considered right wing? I don't think so. By the way, I am similar to you in that I am from a working class background and also went to university.

Prue Leith is South African. Her Tory MP son has some, er, interesting views. Enough said.

Not very nice behaviour on this thread, i would ignore it if i were you @jeffgoldblum