I am glad Kate is feeling much better,however

[portocristo]

Watching the news about the horrendous rubbish problem in Birmingham,this was followed by Kates film clip rambling about Windermere saying we need to connect with nature and couldn’t help thinking it was inappropriate.I bet cancer sufferers in Birmingham would love to do this instead of holding down a job worrying about col doing chores that I bet she never does and have stinking rubbish with rats in the streets. I have no problem with her video but thought the timing was so off. They sometimes need to read the room.

How do you know S "can't be bothered"?

While the Pope may have lived modestly - have you ever been to the Vatican? The opulence is off the scale! The riches of the church are beyond belief. I don't know how that makes the head of the Catholic church any different to the Royal Family?

Who was it introduced him to this thread?

Isn't it blatantly obvious? The riches of the RF wasn't enough for them, oh no, they thought they could make more! It's exactly why they left!

I’m genuinely glad you think the comments are shitty NewAgeNewMe.

I totally agree with you.

I don’t think it is baloney unfortunately though that they are not called out regularly enough which is the point I was making.

There is a lot of nasty speculation about Meghan’s pregnancies on the RF threads, for instance, whether they are fake or not, whether the bump is padding or not, whether she held her bump performatively or not, whether the bumps were too high or too low, whether her pregnancies were a result of ivf or not, including a nasty joke about placenta jam, in the following threads and I only had a cursory look just now:

#Sentabale #5

#Is it true that there was a framed photo of Diana on the bedside table when Meghan gave birth?

#Netflix deal, looking like it may be over for H&M.

#Harry RAVEC decision appeal

There may be more but those are the thread I just came across.

And in all of them, MrsLeonFarrell was the only poster I recognised as being generally monarchist in her views, who called it out and said it was wrong.

There may be others because I didn’t read through all of the threads, but let’s say objections from the monarchist side weren’t prevalent.

Quite a few republicans called them out of course.

My point really isn’t about the comments themselves, utterly distasteful though they are. The point I was making is that had those same comments been directed at other female members of the RF, there would have been an absolute uproar!

In other words, as I remember Roussette stating many, many, months ago, it has got to the point now where Meghan has been dehumanised to such an extent on sm that people feel it is ok to say some really disgusting things about her and her appearance and hardly anyone objects. Even people who consider themselves to be fair and decent.

How would any of us feel reading remarks like that about ourselves? Or how would we feel if our dc read them in a few years time?

And these comments are still being repeated now. I don’t think it’s ok.

Even if you dislike her and her actions, and think she is a horrible person in some way,
I still don’t think it’s ok.

Mostly, in the rest of Mumsnet, until fairly recently anyway, it’s hasn’t been seen as ok to criticise women who are in the public eye over their weight, clothes, body or general appearance. It makes you wonder why the rules are so different on the RF threads?

Indeed it is not! Most of the discussion on these threads is centred around Harry and Meghan's public words and deeds, that they put out there for everyone to see. Delude yourself all you want. If a person is telling you who they are, believe them!

The blind devotion and staunch defence of their every move is seriously weird!

Do you or do you not doggedly defend H&M regularly on this board??

Nobody needs to speculate about the pair of them, it's all out in the public domain!!

What is it that you have got against the Waleses?!

Why do you hate William and Kate?

My goodness Piggy...that's a good story

It’s Piggly. And it’s Ms Piggly, to you.

Just as a point of order.😀

That's not something I've seen a lot of on here in fairness. Most rational people think it's a pile of shit that Meghan wasn't pregnant! And have said so, repeatedly.

I haven't often seen republicans challenge nasty comments about Kate either but bizarrely a lot of them keep defending Harry and Meghan. Which makes literally no sense, because they're members of the RF whom they despise, just not working members!

And if William isn't working hard enough why doesn't the king, his boss, kick his arse? Or the late Queen?

@mainecooncatonahottinroofdo you or do you not doggedly defend W&C regularly on this board?

No, I "doggedly defend" the facts!

If I saw something I felt I needed to criticise regarding W&C, I would. However their behaviour is nowhere near the scale of his brother and SIL. I liked Harry a lot - I thought he seemed like someone who would be a bit of craic, but I thoroughly dislike how he has behaved since meeting his wife.

What do you "doggedly defend" then?! I can guess!

Can you seriously say this and in the next breath defend a millionaire who complained that his brother used to get more sausages than he did?!! Why is he still "banging on" about that?

I can’t prove it because I change my Mumsnet nn regularly because of the hacking incidents, but I have called out nasty comments about Catherine more than once.

Some of them were really hideous, especially around the time she was absent for cancer treatment. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw some of them. I found them utterly abhorrent.

And I don’t t think it’s as simple as Republican = fan of H & M.

It’s much more complex than that as individual posters have varied views.

Similarly, I wish people weren’t so quick to accuse posters of being members of the SS just because they have objected to some of the personal remarks made about MM!

Mostly, in the rest of Mumsnet, until fairly recently anyway, it’s hasn’t been seen as ok to criticise women who are in the public eye over their weight, clothes, body or general appearance. It makes you wonder why the rules are so different on the RF threads?
@Therovingsunlight77 I would like to know this too
I suppose it's because the incessant criticism about every bit of a woman's appearance, their face, smile, clothes, body, feet, hands called claws and far more...it can all be corralled into one area...the royal board. And it's easier to just let it run because it's not in chat, AIBU, or more of the general areas of the main forum. It's easier to manage I suppose and provides clicks for Mumsnet. There aren't threads so personal about a woman 'out there' amongst general traffic of the forum. I always find it a shame when someone does start a thread about the couple not on the royal board, and it gets moved to here, because you get far more measured opinions out there
Just my opinion

Adding a comma!

Seriously? I doubt they ever thought that they could make more than King Charles whose personal wealth is said to be £1.815bn

I applaud them for at least trying to earn their own money.

Yes I agree and I’ve also noticed that opinions differ outside of this topic. It honestly gives me hope that one day a republic may be possible, or at the very least, a much more transparent, accountable, slimmed down monarchy which abides by the same laws as the people it serves, including those relating to tax.

But they still expected to keep the £2+ million allowance that Charles gave them plus perks . Oh and retain titles.

Yes. Opinions are very different out there and not in here. More reasonable. More measured

I'm with your latter option. More transparency and a revised model of Monarchy because they aren't going anywhere!

Spelling!

Good for them. No one is removing titles for anyone. Why should theirs

Well there's certainly a strong correlation. Maybe you just haven't noticed it.

Equally, I wish people weren't so quick to accuse posters who criticise aspects of Harry and Meghan's behaviour as being "haters", or "frothing" or any of the old chestnuts that reappear with tedious regularity.

Seriously. They were never going to access Charles's entire wealth were they? They reckoned they could make more money trading on their royal status than Harry was going to be provided with as the king's son.

They were all about 'style' and not 'substance'. They wanted the glamorous parts of the roles but weren't prepared to carry out the more mundane.

I might "applaud" them too for "trying to earn their own money" if it were not for the way they have gone about it, monetising the privacy of close family members, while bleating about privacy for themselves! I can't abide double standards!

I don't care whether their titles are removed or not. Non-working members of the RF probably shouldn't have them, but that would exclude the likes of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie who were born into them, thanks to their odious father. I admire the decisions of Anne and Edward not to accept titles for their children.

I don't know why two American children need titles though, particularly when their parents made a song and dance about how they didn't want Archie to have one anyway, yet grabbed it tight at the first opportunity!

This has always been the case with the RF. Recently king Charles arrived at a food bank… in a helicopter. Its grotesque the level of wealth they hoard - and for what?

Does it matter? Aren't there grotesquely wealthy individuals the world over? What impact does it have on you?