Do you think some of you are addicted to hating Harry and Meghan?

[wowwhataday]

More and more these manic threads are popping up on mumsnet, wild posts and theories and then hundreds of posts brimming with excitement about catching them out or exposing them. It’s like a game or a hunt. Have many of you crossed the line from interested to addicted?

"I'm no fan of them, but..." followed by some reasoned argument. Great, I can get on board you are just seeing something you perceive to be unfair, or giving a different viewpoint from a neutral stand point.

"I'm no fan but....you're bashing them, you're ripping them apart, you're all hypocrites, you're forelock tuggers, you're racist...." Come on now. Nobody believes you are a neutral bystander who just stumbled onto a thread on an obscure board.

Of course it’s just my opinion.

Samcro, maybe you could consider using phrases other "Meghan bashing" or "ripping apart" depending on how serious you think the affront is?

For example, a while ago you quoted a post of mine followed by something like "Oh, no Meghan bashing here then".
My post was, indeed, making fun of Meghan's IG post with the ducks, but thinking someone acting like they've never seen ducks before (clasping at her head in apparent disbelief) while ready and dressed for filming is worth a chuckle at the obvious pretence doesn't count as "bashing" imo.

"Laughing at" yes, "criticising" OK, but "bashing" sounds much more severe.
So if you call every post that doesn't say something positive about Meghan a "bash", the word loses its meaning.
Unless you weren't trying to be sarcastic and really did mean that wasn't "Meghan bashing"?

oh are we bringing up past posts now??
you were bashing her though.
but thanks for proving my point.

I’m sorry
CoffeeCantata
but I can assure you that if you have ever been on these threads defending H&M in any capacity at all, then you are subject to some replies that are extremely rude and condescending, often quite goady in tone and quite disrespectful, And that’s before the gifs appear! 😁. I would say that just as much rudeness comes from monarchists actually. And it comes repeatedly as monarchists seem to hunt in packs! 😀.

That last comment was meant to be light-hearted btw!

You have just described the answers that pro-people give as dim for example and I don’t think that is ok or even particularly true!

Here’s my reasoned argument fwiw.

First I am against media and sm pile ons directed at one person or couple in principle. Whether it is on one thread, on multiple news outlets, or it builds up to global vilification, because what it amounts to after a while is bullying, And people are making money off the back of someone’s misery. Who cares if some of the criticism is deserved? Unless you are Jack Bundy, or Fred West, no one deserves it to the level H&M have received it.

It must be horrible to be at the receiving end, and imho it’s not remotely proportionate, fair or justified, Also, Meghan did refer to suicidal feelings at the time of them leaving the UK, and sadly I have very good reasons within my own family to always take those sorts of comments seriously, especially from someone who is pregnant or has just given birth.

That general principle applies whether it’s Katie Price or Katherine Middleton who is the subject of repeated nasty comment, and I have posted before on Mumsnet saying that.

If you don’t care about or approve of the concept of royalty in general, then the position of being pro- H&M but not particularly liking what they do, that everyone queries, is not particularly problematic.

I think for example that Harry had a right to leave the RF and the UK if he wanted to. Although I didn’t agree with how he went about it.

Some monarchists though will never forgive him for what they see as an act of betrayal to his country, whereas I am not remotely bothered by it and I just don’t see it in those terms.

In fact I rather applaud him for trying to be independent even if he is stuffing it up atm! It’s bound to be difficult initially when he has lived a life of such insane privilege to date, in a protected bubble.

On proportionality, if you think that Harry is a horrible person and a liar, then I think there are potentially a lot of cover ups and dodgy things going on behind closed doors at the palace that aren’t aired in public and are not discussed enough.

For example, one wonders how long Andrew’s antics were known about and covered up?

To use another example, the Michael Fawcett debacle, where basically he was found to have bent the rules and resigned, but then set up independently and still does freelance work for KC. It all seemed a bit odd to me! And one of the results of the enquiry I believe, according to The Guardian, was that an accusation of sexual assault should have been investigated more thoroughly.

I have seen these events mentioned on several RF threads but there are far more threads about H&M than Andrew and Fawcett and combined!

I can kind of understand that Meghan is more interesting than Andrew to talk about, but come on, even putting aside the murky Epstein stuff, he very recently exposed the UK to a foreign national who was a potential security risk! Proportionality!

Another example; Charles gave approval to a biography and gave a long tv interview to the author and frankly caused a lot of stress to his family during the Diana-Camilla period. This is mentioned from time to time and is excused because he has been forgiven.

It may be an unpalatable thought to monarchists, but we are never going to hear the full story of BP’s part in the H&M debacle because the inner circle is afforded a degree of protection and they have endless resources to employ PR professionals who spin things for them. And some of the timings in relation to various leaks do appear to have been quite strategic. Obviously none of us will ever probably find out the truth. So Harry is at a disadvantage in the eyes of the public there.

In other words, they are all entitled and flawed! But pretend to be otherwise! And I dislike the hypocrisy. At least Harry is being honest that everything is not perfect and has tried to break away, And he pointed out lots of his own flaws in his book, So I disagree that what he has done is much worse than others in the RF.

You can’t have it both ways! Either you think what Harry said is a load of baloney and therefore it didn’t undermine the monarchy at all! Or what he said has some merit and it did?

I think Harry could have been more self aware when criticising his family and played his game far more patiently and strategically but I stand by his right to put his side of things.

My theory, like it or not, is that the reason many, not all, people are so against Harry is that they want or need for whatever reason, to be able to believe in the RF and its “charity”, and Harry has reminded us of the not so pleasant side of things and highlighted that they are all failing humans after all, just like us, except a lot richer!

This scenario often happens in a dysfunctional family where one person breaks out and becomes the scape goat for everything that has gone wrong, in the entire extended family, And they are blamed forever. Even though the situation in reality is a lot more nuanced than that. And the remaining members of the family bond more closely in opposition to the outlier. That doesn’t mean that the person who breaks out is all sweetness and light either,

The public’s need to believe in a fairy tale is I assume why people wait for hours in all weathers to see a well dressed family walk to church? It is a bit odd if you think about it! Either that or they are all history buffs! Or they possess more jingoistic sentiments than I do!

Anyway, that’s my attempt at an explanation as to why I have sympathy for Harry, but don’t consider myself a supporter as such, because I think they are all as flawed as one another, so why would I, especially when I don’t believe in the concept of royalty and favour a merit based society?

Actually, although I don’t support the concept of royalty, I don’t really hold any antagonism towards them as individuals, as they were born in to it. I even think some of the things they do have merit, I just wish they would be more open about how much they benefit financially and that there were less smoke and mirrors around funding and profit. I happen to think an elected head of state would be far more accountable in those areas. And would be able to be challenged more easily.

I think we should have all received a ballot paper concerning the monarchy, a respectful time after the the late Queen Elizabeth’s death, and that the people should have had an opportunity to say whether we wanted the institution to continue following a seventy year reign, or whether it’s time for a more directly accountable and transparent elected head of state, who is subject to the same laws and tax regulations as we are.

Even if 80% had voted yes, at least that would have sprinkled an element of democratic choice in to the mix. And it would have set a precedent for future votes.

I am well aware that a hereditary monarchy doesn’t work like that but imho its time for change. I know he has been ill but Charles hasn’t shown any inclination or sign at all that he wants to slim things down in terms of his assets. And he has now inherited his mother’s estates as well as those of the Queen Mother. His personal wealth shot up massively when he took the crown. If the number of working royals is smaller, why is their property portfolio growing extensively in number and value?

And bluntly, if the purpose of the royal family is to serve its people, then I think it would be courteous to consult and not assume that all of the British people support them.

I was interested to see on another thread yesterday btw that it was 68% to 32% saying that they didn’t think the RF was good value for money. So a lot depends on how you pose the question. And the tide is turning.

BTW, I will now no doubt be accused of waffling and “whataboutery” and that’s absolutely fine as I will be working and won’t see it. Posters were asking for an explanation as to why it’s possible to not support H&M and yet feel sympathy for them and that’s my attempt at one.

Samcro I don’t really understand why you say you are not pro when you most obviously are. There’s no shame in being pro H &M and expressing your feelings but to dress it up as you being impartial is not really true is it?

Samcro · Today 07:39
its true though, some of the stuff that is said about them is bashing and ripping them apart.

On MN I find 90% of people who are critical of H & M criticise their behaviour, actions and choices. It's rare to find outright bitchiness or malice about their physical appearance. I have no problem agreeing that Meghan is a very attractive woman and I have never said anything mean about her person.*

I urge you to look on Celebitchy where Catherine IS metaphorically ripped to shreds every single day by Sussex supporters. According to that sick lot, she never had cancer, William hates her and beats her regularly, William is having an affair with her friend Rose, and also involved in a homosexual relationship with Rose's husband. Catherine is a total mean girl who bullied Meghan out of the UK. She is an out-and-out racist, and often called KKKate. Her appearance is cruelly mocked; she's a skeleton, she looks 20 years older, she's a frump with her buttons and bows, her hair is a wig (or 'wiglet' as they like to say), she has 'work' done on her face pretty much every month but still looks like a hag because her nasty character shows on her face. Every appearance with her family if faked, she's drugged to keep her compliant and William and Charles hate her and want her out of the way.

Just a taster for you! And that's not even touching what they say about Camilla (Cowmilla) and Charles.

Please don't exaggerate and claim anyone on here ever 'rips Meghan to shreds' because it's a long time since I've seen anything approaching this kind of filth directed at her on MN - in fact, I don't think I ever have.

Should add that my asterisk (which I forgot about!) was meant to qualify that point because I think Meghan's choices about personal presentation do tell us a lot about her attitude to her bi-racial background. In the light of all the accusations of racism against her critics on here and elsewhere, I need some convincing that Meghan herself isn't just a bit coy when it comes to owning her African-American heritage. Just my opinion, and that's the only comment I'll make in criticism of her appearance.

I’m certainly NOT a monarchist and I don’t hunt in a monarchist pack either. I have my own opinion as to the sheer ridiculousness of H and M and the nonsense and lies that comes out of their mouths.

I would equally criticise the RF and especially Andrew who is as awful as they come. I hold them all to the same standard. Arguably maybe the RF managed to navigate their way through by using the moto never complain, never explain and maybe this is why they have survived all this time. H&M are trying desperately to revive their golden years of 2019-2020 where the power balance was mostly in their favour.

It’s now 2024 and things have changed. Many things they claimed have been disproven, their whining has become irritating and they have become irrelevant as more and more people saw through their veneer. People are now free to express their opinions and I don’t think a lot of their fans (sorry that word again) can accept this change of power balance as they can no longer shut down far from complementary discussions about the pair.

@Reallyhowisthatthecase333 . All your criticisms of the monarchy and republican talking points about the way it works to the detriment of the population are not defenses of H&M.

Their main issue when they left the RF was that they were not being treated with the privilege the RF enjoys and you say is not right. They were not getting their desired palace, the trappings (like tiaras) and the inherited estates; they were not getting the protection and secrecy and the supposed deployment of the men in grey to shut down the press; they were not being allowed to treat staff like serfs. They WANTED all that. They didn't want openness and honesty, a pared down monarchy and a reduction in their privilege and their supremacy. They wanted that, and they wanted to be paid for it and feted for it - not told they had to limit their spending, not told they need to stop treating staff like dirt and certainly not told to remember that they held their places through the grace of public favour (which includes our free press), not through their own greatness. And if you don't think they would be back here like a shot to take the throne if anything happened to the Wales family, then you really haven't been listening to them.

Harry's issues are not with the institution of royalty and a constitutional monarchy. Harry's problems are his personal ones and how he should have been afforded MORE privilege, more protection, more secrecy, more property, more wealth than he received.

Republicam and supporting Harry and Meghan really makes no logical sense. Their only use to republicans is to undermine the current monarch and his heir. But they represent the worst of what the monarchy can be: all the privilege and entitlement and none of the duty.

First I am against media and sm pile ons directed at one person or couple in principle. Whether it is on one thread, on multiple news outlets, or it builds up to global vilification, because what it amounts to after a while is bullying, And people are making money off the back of someone’s misery. Who cares if some of the criticism is deserved?

This is an interesting take, because your stance is very one sided, I can't think of anyone else, on a global platform, who have annihilated or vilified their family to the extent Harry and Meghan have, they managed to utilise two of the biggest biggest media outlets globally to direct their 'pile on'. Harry just a few days ago, claimed his own family want him to come to harm 'like his mother'.

A few SM criticisms by anonymous people is small fry in comparison to what H&M have done and for which they are rightly condemned and criticised.

Excellent post Reallyhowisthatthecase333 although I can't say I feel much sympathy for H&M who IMO have brought most of their woes on themselves with mis-steps predictable as such and never seemingly drawing any lessons from said mis-steps.

"Hunting in packs".

A royal family board has more people interested in and supportive of royalty and constitutional monarchy, than it has republicans and supporters of those parties who have attacked it. Go figure. It's not hunting in packs, it's being on a board where there is a majority of agreement from extremely well informed and articulate posters who all have their own viewpoints on the matter. It's a specialist board. If you go on a - I don't know - a knitting board and argue that knitting is shit and a waste of time, and why don't you go swimming instead, you'll probably expect a bit of pushback from the majority of those posting there.

Republicam and supporting Harry and Meghan really makes no logical sense.

As a republican I agree entirely.

All equally awful albeit in different ways.

Quite. The notion that posters on MN are somehow more powerful in their voices and able to bully 2 people who have massive resources and the world's media on speed-dial, and who, completely through their own choice, give interview after interview and place story after story into their preferred friendly press (of which there is still a great deal) is utterly ridiculous.

What about the Americans, the Germans, the French, etc, who all deride Harry and Meghan. Some of the worst criticism of them has come from the US (Fucking Grifters ??). The mocking of her Netflix show and Podcast show, the worst is from US media and US SM

You cannot claim their criticisms are because they are monarchists.

👍

Let us not forget Southpark either !

Written and produced by two Americans, produced in the US, aired by several US media outlets (NBC being one of them), that would never, ever have gone ahead in the UK.

I think your theory about those who criticise H&M is a bit of a pipe dream and an excuse for Republicans, it has nothing to do with Monarchists, RF fans or Brits.

And Family Guy.

And SNL.

Yes, and 99% of the YouTubers critiquing, criticising and mocking them are all US based.

Imo, I wasn't "bashing" her.
But it seems you're going to continue to make that verb do some heavy lifting, presumably for want of any alternatives.
And it's hard to give any examples of continuous repetition of "bashing" and "ripping apart" to the point where they're meaningless without referring to past posts.
I remembered you saying I was "bashing" Meghan and at the time thought "Ah, there we go again with same old vocabulary" and I was reminded of it by this discussion.

Reallyhowisthatthecase

Interesting points! Thank you for taking the trouble to explain. I have to dash out but here's a quick response:

Just briefly - I think on MN it does seem that a huge number of H & M supporters have disappeared and therefore you might think things are now rather unbalanced. But I would argue that that in itself tells us something - I think more and more people are finding them hard to defend.

My criticism of H & M is entirely behaviour-based. If Meghan and Harry had had a massive shouting match with Charles, Camilla, Catherine and William in the privacy of Windsor Castle and then flounced off without telling us the gruesome details, the world would be a happier place and none of us would be on these boards. But the chose to go absolutely nuclear. They trashed the RF, both personally and as an institution, and labelled Catherine and Charles as racists to a global audience. This is something which can never be forgiven on a personal level and which has actually caused all kinds of diplomatic problems for the UK, especially in the Commonwealth countries.

Even though they've now sheepishly retracted these accusations, the damage is done. The mud has stuck and the victims of their slander will probably be held in suspicion (if not contempt) forever by some people. And H & M did this for money.

I can't see how anyone can defend them. Sure - have it out within the family and move away, do your own thing. No problem there - but what they've actually done has created a living nightmare for their relations (and the country, to some extent). And as we know - Harry's no republican and neither is Meghan! Their only beef with the institution is that they're not royal ENOUGH!

This is just to explain why I believe people have a legitimate reason to feel angry with them and to criticise them. And they've done nothing since to make things better, put the record straight, apologise or make amends.

well said.

I don't want to go and read shit like that thanks.
that is on another site so not relevant. nice of you to repeat it all.

I can’t speak for any other forums- I can only talk about Mumsnet. I think what I find exasperating is that, while H&M have obviously behaved very badly indeed and Harry’s last interview was a disgrace, any mild suggestion that SOME stuff they do is OK seems to be immediate evidence of being a member of the “squad”. The Archwell Foundation has supported some excellent causes, for example. The Invictus Games seems to be a good thing. Some of those Instagram pictures are pretty. The jam, although completely ridiculous, is no more expensive than any other “souvenir” type product. A couple of the recipes on the Netflix thing looked quite interesting. All evidence of being a supporter of the whole shebang. As is questioning the work ethic of William and Catherine and that 4 holidays in 4 months might be a bit excessive or saying that Catherine might look better with her hair a bit shorter. It’s the frenetic nature of it that I find puzzling. There was a thread a while ago about Harry going to Las Vegas to present an award for the Diana Trust where he was being criticised for the language used by a gossip newspaper to describe it. Nothing about the Trust or the award. It’s weird, and I don’t know what anyone gets out of it. Including me, frankly!