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 😂

It really is an alternative universe. It doesn't deal in objective truth but in Harry and Meghan's truth (lies, to the rest of us).

I don't know why the extreme fans don't just go the whole hog and write a sort of Gospel According To Harry and Meghan, and have done with it! 😁

I totally understand the 'underdog' reference by @Petitchat . Easy to understand. The royal family are protected by parliament, the institution and the media most of the time. They can be as private as they want to be. They can have youtube documentaries pulled if they want, that type of thing. When harry and meghan left it was a total free for all by the media. Anything up to 30 articles a day about the couple in the likes of the daily mail, pure clickbait disparaging them and a lot of people making a lot of money off the back of negativity about them.

That doesn't make all they have done right. But I understand the underdog reference.

They're not protected by "the media" because there's no such thing. There are various editorial outlets, papers and programmes with different policies and ownership. So that's something of a generalisation, and it is not one "thing".
If they were protected, it's hard to explain how Charles and Camilla in particular, but also others, have got such negative coverage over the years.

I think people are questioning @Petitchat’s understanding of the term. Yours is different, not defined by popularity with the public.

Agree.

In parallel with that, I'm interested that condemnations of the UK for slavery rarely discuss the fact that it abolished slavery long before many other countries and that the Royal Navy was active against slavery on the Atlantic for years.

Oh, and the Daily Mail seems to be one of the tabloids/magazines of choice for H&M at the moment, if you read any of the articles by Bryony Gordon or Liz Jones. Very favourable.
They're not some pathetic ingenues, cowering against mighty press barons. They use publicity, they use SM and they use magazines, chat shows and tabloids.

They should be less relevant but all the time they're attempting to soak the taxpayer for Henry's dubious games initiative, his vexatious court cases and the wrap around security they crave they keep themselves in the public eye.

While refusing to engage has been a successful strategy for conflict averse C so far I think he would have done better to be seen to be doing something way before now. It wouldn't have changed the NC situation he's currently in and while Henry would no doubt have had the mother of all tantrums that would have faded from public consciousness by now.

As it is, C looks weak, questions and speculation are mounting and some may even wonder what H might know that keeps his father so docile.

Your user name!

‘Underdog’, tell that to the people they have trod on, those they have bullied and those they have lied about.

Underdogs don’t get to negotiate contracts worth hundreds of millions to disclose their gripes, petty or not. Underdogs don’t get to have direct access to publications to publish their very specific PR narrative, nor do they get to employ a huge Public Relations machine, that must surely rival a US political campaign,

‘Underdog’ is so far from who Harry and Meghan are, or have ever been, it almost feels like someone is making fun of them.

The British often root for the under-dog. c.f.Wimbledon. It is way past 11 and I must go and see if the Indians are being top-dogs at Birmingham, playing against the Koh-i-noor snatchers.
No, that has nothing to do with the OP question.

It’s not what they actually are-it’s how some people perceive them.

I don’t think the press hold back nowadays with them is RF unless specifically restricted by laws an injunctions, as with the agreement to leave the children in peace until their education finishes.

I see little deference when gossip and speculation sells so well!

Not quite . They didn’t want to leave ( remember their grandiose statement?) but when they didn’t get their own way , they flounced off .
Harry is desperate to be back in the fold. They are both desperate to maintain the Royal connection.
I find the whole thing fascinating. I really don’t know how 2 people who had so much have ended up flogging flower sprinkles and buying awards .

Haha of course! It’s from a thread called something like “Have you ever seen something you own on tv”. Someone said she still had the coat that Norma Major wore during the 1992 election campaign. It’s a funny thread - full of stuff like “Pam and Mick have my Wilco towel rail” and “my dad has the jumper that Frank Butcher is wearing in the photo Janine has in the car lot”.

Ruddy autocorrect made a hash of that! Sorry.

I do follow them closely for pure cringe entertainment. Its the gift that keeps on giving. My guilty pleasure - it brightens my day.

From an amateur pyschology perspective its amusing to check off the bingo card of a classic NPD and a folie a deux situationship.

Like you relating to the resiliance from your personal experinence - I relate to the victims of her bullying in the workplace.

I get a kick out of watching a grandiose, deluled, entitled, abusive and arrogant couple make absolute tits of themselves, sabotaging their immense privilege and unprecedented opportunity. I also enjoy the intrigue of seeing them tripping over their own lies.

Its both deeply satisfying and highly amusing to see them flail around in their narcissistic rage (because they didnt get 1/2 in1/2 out) and now get their comeuppance. Their attacking of the BRF and perfomative victimhood is a direct response to not getting their way. The high profile flounce and repeated self-rightous, vexatious tantrums for years and years is driven by revenge and being unable to accept the word 'No'.

I have compassion for the many, many people, over many years and across numerous continents, who have been casualties of their malicious and bullying behaviour.

Just normal people rocking up to their jobs in good faith to earn a living have suffered significant emotional and mental injury requiring professional intervention, from MM's abusive behaviour in the workplace. This has been documented and reported in numerous high profile and highly credible industry publications who would have watertight legal counsel for sign-off.

The silence and lack of action re libel and defamation from this highly litigious pair tells you all you need to know.

I think one of the problems we have is that people need to perceive better!

Theres so much swallowing whole and lack of scrutiny with H’n’M fans.

I would have gone with “ unpleasant “

Brilliantly put.

😂😂

Excellent points, @Keaaaano 👌

If you see them as underdogs then surely you do not believe them either. Life of joy, soon to be billionaires, free and happy, married for love. No US tabloids, as they don't exist. In their "lens" wouldn't the underdogs be the trapped unhappy royal family.

Don;’t forget that, post Oprah, they wielded so much power that being critical about them on the media (Piers Morgan, Sharon Osborne) put your job at risk. Constitutional monarchies have no such power.

An extremely good and often overlooked point!

There’s actually a growing movement of psychologists who have observed that dark triad traits of thinking and behaviour have bled into public life/public policy/political influence/governance at all levels/social discourse, and has led to some of the nefarious, liberal authoritarian and reality bending movements of the last 20 years. H&M embody the type.