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 😂

So? Why get agitated by that? People have clearly explained that it's clickbait.
It doesn't say anything bad about Meghan other than her food choices may be questionable in terms of ecology.
Dear lord, the fans should focus on the real issues, not this nonsense. Why does she lie so much? Why is she so hypocritical?
Avocado nonsense. Trivial.

The protocol of curtysing or bowing is deference to the office not to the person.

It's a collective recognition of the status of The Crown in the nations history and constitution. The person fulfilling that role at any one time may be a right knob or a saint, or more likely average.

The lower royals who may be curstied to when representatives of The Crown.

The real knobhead royals are the ones who don't understand this and who think they are special and we love their compassion and charisma.

The stand out best royals are the ones who understand they are fulfilling a function and represent something bigger than them and have a duty to do that. But they don't imagine they are uniquely more compassionate or charismatic than the people who bow to them due to the role.

HMTLQ was the perfect example of this. Unassuming. She could have been your Nan, if she hadn't been the queen, and believed she had a duty to fulfil that role.
She was really nothing special except she was the queen and represented The Crown.

People who want to get rid of protocol, & its symbolism really want to get rid of meaning, and shared meaning over time.
It sounds so egalitarian, but in reality it would just be replaced by something else new and invented, which hadn't been tested over time.

Excellent points, @StrawberryWasp . That's what some people on here don't seem to understand.

Seconded!

I understand what click bait is. I’d be interested to see how you would react if the name in the headline was the late Queen or Princess Anne -although I’m not sure I can see either of them having avocado for breakfast!

Why on earth would my response be different if it was the late Queen or Princess Anne? That makes no sense!
I'd have the same response - it's trivial nonsense and I'd ignore it. Just as I would for someone I was a fan of!

But as I said-I’m just trying to come up with reasons the Meghan fans might be fannish. Not saying they are right or rational-just speculating.

The wrong sort of curtsey?
here you are brushing aside the actual criticism with faux innocent comments.
nobody cares what type of curtsey she actually does or even if she doesn’t curtsey at all !
what she actually did in her Netflix show was mock and belittle the queen and the U.K. !
she did it to make herself look kooky and cute for an American audience ( many of which didn’t like it either!) .

It sounds so egalitarian, but in reality it would just be replaced by something else new and invented, which hadn't been tested over time.

The pigs start wearing the human clothes eventually.

But it’s not about Meghan. That’s the point.

It’s also how newspaper articles are devised and make it to print.

The issue of avocados and the Mexican cartels and the environmental issues is an ongoing topic and gets written about every year or so when a new report comes out - all the main papers had a similar story in 2019 based on a study from the Netherlands I think.

In the Daily Mail newsroom either the reporter or his editor pitched the idea of making it a bit more clickworthy by attaching some famous names who have expressed their love of avocado - Meghan had just been in the news because of a gossipy mention by her hairstylist. Out of all the celebs who had an ‘avocado’ connection I imagine her name tested the highest for SEO.

It might have even been added after the reporter did his first draft on the cartels - was told it was a bit dry and to perk it up with something.

The headline is then written by a completely different team who are experts in finding the best words, puns and copy that will fit the right amount of space and get the best return on clicks.

They’ll have tested several option to see what was getting the best result.

If a bigger name at that moment in time had been recently connected to avocados they would have used that person instead of Meghan.

But Meghan’s defenders always seem to assume that the intention was to write a negative Meghan story and they shoehorned the avocado into in, rather than the other way around.

Well, they're foolish to be a fan for that reason. See @wordler 's excellent response.

Exactly this. It was a nasty jibe on Meghan's part.

As i said, i understand what clickbait is. But if you can’t see how that headline would upset Meghan fans and reinforce their fannishness I’m afraid you don’t understand that aspect of human nature! And isn’t that what the his thread is about? What are her fans fans?

No I’m not. I’m speculating about why her fans might be fans. As per this thread.

How weird to be fans because of clickbait 😂
Do they have no judgement at all?!

Of course they are. I have said that many times. Althoygh it is a little naive to think the Mail didn’t choose M as their avocado eater, rather than a more popular royal.

I have a theory about the deep curtsey thing. It's all older women doing it so I wonder if at a certain point their knees give way and they do lower than they intend.

It would only 'upset' them if they have a preconceived notion of Meghan as a victim. And if they don't understand anything at all about how the media works, in particular the practice of inserting a high profile name with only a tangential relevance to the article, all with the aim of generating clicks.

And it also doesn't answer the question of why they were fans in the first place. Or why their fandom would be bolstered by something external to the object of said fandom. Tabloid headlines were something which happened to/about Meghan, not something done by Meghan herself. What exactly did she do to deserve this adoring fan base?

🤣Is that why Fergie is clutching her daughter’s hand??

Probably, or she'd end up on the floor!!

Do you really not understand why?
It's been explained many times!

At the time she was the new shiny thing in the royal family and therefore probably was the post popular royal in terms of searches and clicks. Who else did you have in mind?

Good points, @IcedPurple . Avocado nonsense would only bother those with a preconceived "victim" outlook on the issue.

Well, I did kind of start this hare running with my David and Goliath theory! But even the most dedicated anti Meghan person has to admit that she did get some absolutely vile press. Which, looked at from abroad would definitely fuel the victim idea.

Why "looked at from abroad"?
Do you think people from outside the UK have no critical thinking? Can't understand clickbait?