Opinions may Vary . A genuine question about why Meghan and Harry seem to attract such differing views.

[BasiliskStare]

I post this more in hope than experience but I would be really interested in a proper discussion about those who are fans or supporters of them , those who aren't and indeed ( of which there are many ) , those who are indifferent.

So - I'll start. There was an interesting post on another thread which said M&H come over as David and Goliath , standing up against "the Institution" - my paraphrase.

No spitting , no fighting , mind the furniture 😂

That’s the nature of a fandom. The fandomers write the fictitious narrative themselves so that it makes sense to them.

’Fact’ becomes irrelevant.

He’s not even the spare anymore! , hasn’t been since George was born.I

I'm not sure he every technically was - Charles was next in line then William so he's never been directly after the heir apparent.

I was surpised how many mostly US you tubers who seemed very surpised looking at actual line of sucession, with late Queens pasing, that Harry was after William's kids.

So I supposed referencing himself as spare worked - it obscured actual line of sucssion to people not as familiar and thus made them look more important and played up the victim narrative - oh poor overlooked me. From that view point his book was very cleverly titled.

Reading through the responses I notice that several 'non-critics', shall we call them, often cite Meghan's activities over the past couple of years - her projects and attempts at marketing etc. rather than the pre- and post-Megxit shenanignas with the OW interview, Spare and the documentary. If you only take her lighter activities into account, then I can understand why you find the negative views of her difficult to understand - flower sprinkles aren't a crime, I agree.

I've always suspected that a large proportion of pro-Meghan people were young, and but possibly they're younger than I thought! I guess, if you're in your 20s even, then all that nasty stuff (which some of us on here resent so much) is either ancient history, or you just didn't register it at all. And maybe the slightly older fans have gradually diminished in number due to realising what a cruel pair H & M are - in the light of the Queen and PP's death, and the illness of KC and Catherine.

Just a theory!

This is the crux of the matter. To some people "facts" are irrelevant.

We live in the age of "alternative truth" and facts are for old fuddie duddies.

A person judging H&M based on their own words and actions comes to a very different conclusion than a person selecting a narrative for H&M and then retrofitting real or imagined incidents to support the desired narrative.

I’m not saying she should. I’m suggesting ONE of the reasons people might like H&M ( which was, I thought, one of the purposes of this thread) MIGHT be that they like their royals a bit controversial.

Who are these people and why do they want controversial royals? Controversial how? What purpose does a controversial royal play? How does controversy assist the head of state in their role within the governance and the stability of the UK?

But I thought the whole point in explaining why their endeavours ( particularly Meghans) should not matter to us is because they are not royal?
however I would imagine that like myself most people prefer the royals to be boring uncontroversial and get on with what they should be doing!
there are already enough celebrities peddling drama.

Exactly. Highlighting good causes. Putting the spotlight on community endeavours. Honouring those who give their service to the public. Soft diplomacy to further the aims of the elected government vis a vis foreign relations/trade. Looking nice/smart while doing it a bonus.

Absolutely not making it all about themselves. Not using charity to bolster your image as a "philanthropist". Not courting celebrity. Not getting involved in politics you have no earthly right or qualification to be involving yourself in. Not using the vulnerable as a prop to your own poor image.

Wow this thread filled up quickly.

I had a look at celebitch-thingy site after someone mentioned it here and wow it's like North Korea. Meghan is a totally successful entrepreneur just a smidge under Bezos, Kate was never ill and copies Meghan at all times. Dutchy original products are past their sell by because they don't immediately sell out. Etc etc.

It's totally mad and quite vile in tone really and unlike here there are no dissenting voices of any kind it's a total echo chamber.

I might not say controversial but I do think some might like royals who are a bit different. Catherine has obviously just decided to go down the non-controversial , adhering to protocol line ( and in her position rightly so , I think. ) As younger son and wife I think H&M would have had a bit more leeway. A trivial example - not insisting young bridesmaids wear tights on a sunny day I thought was fair enough protocol or not.

I have absolutely no idea! The thread is about reasons why people might like M&H. Not rational or reasonable reasons why they might. Fandom is not rational.

My feelings about H&M went from indifference, to distaste around the time of the Oprah interview, the naming of Lillibet and Harry saying that he came to visit his Grandmother to make sure she was being taken care of properly (or somesuch bollocks).

It has descended to active dislike since Harry's extreme self-pitying interview with the BBC saying he'd like a reconciliation with his family. I don't feel sorry for him at all.

I generally have little respect for content creators and influencers - which is what they now are.

I am really genuinely very interested in what it is that people like or admire about them.

Really ? Andrew is controversial and ( almost) universally despised .

Unless I have missed it , I have yet to see any poster coming up with a reason why they like them!

I am interested ( although less than I used to be) partly because Harry and his offspring are still in the line of succession, and so it is just possible that he could become the Head of State. Possible although ( fingers crossed) unlikely.

I also just find Meghan fascinating as a stand alone phenomenon, she is unlike anyone else I have encountered or read about. I think the nearest is probably Heather Mills McCartney. I should love to see Meghan when she is completely alone and thinks herself unobserved; who would she be there?

Harry is just a spoilt and rather stupid person with a streak of malice. Perhaps if he had managed to persuade someone more neutral to marry him, he would be less of a trouble maker?

I think it’s no use trying to find rational explanations for fans being fans.As someone said earlier, fans become so invested they can’t back down. I have a very guilty crush on a now dead actor, who was not sent to prison for seriously assaulting his pregnant wife because he agreed to go on an alcohol and anger management program. 25 years later, many of his fans still think of him as a hero for agreeing to the program, and still abuse his wife in appalling terms for making him hit her. They genuinely believe he is the victim of his story. A story with published police reports and court records-and which the actor himself confirmed was true. If fans can do that, they can do anything.

can people not dislike them, without being fans?
I don't dislike them, but im not a "fan"
i like all the RF, but im not a fan, i haven't been a fan since the bay city rollers.

Well I am assuming you have not plucked this idea out of thin air. What/who/why inspired you to put forward that theory?

I suppose the difference is, Kate has done nothing to attract the vicious, vindictive hatred directed at her from the Squaddies. Literally nothing.

I always have the feeling Meghan is eaten up with jealousy of Kate (it would certainly explain the repeated picking over perceived slights) and perhaps that is what the Squad are responding to, trying to tear Kate down so their beloved can take her place.

Edited - sp

A good question!

Which of my theories are you talking about? Actually, it doesn’t matter. I just thought for a bit-wondering what might make people behave in such irrational ways- then wrote down what came into my head. So yes, I did pluck it out of thin air- but formed by a little real life experience of the irrationality of people in groups. Not sure what you’re expecting me to say.

You commented on Kate's clothing. It's deliberately non controversial so that they're not the focus of the event.
The Sussexes controversial? Well, they're certainly that. By design.

The one we are going back and forth on, clearly - that some people like controversial royals, which is why they like the Sussexes. Or is this another one of your made up takes, like the "complicated cancer narrative".

X-post with @CurlewKate 's edit.

The “controversial royals” theory was just another idea about why people might like H&M. People like to follow soap operas.