I find it fascinating

[CaraVirra]

I’m trying to understand something, and I’m asking this in good faith.

After looking into the Meghan and Harry situation, I’m genuinely confused about the level of hostility directed at them by the British public… especially when that hostility extends to their children.

I’ve read widely and tried to identify what concrete harm Harry and Meghan have actually done to the British public, and I’m struggling to find a clear answer.

The turning point people seem to cite most often is Harry’s book. But even there, it’s a personal account of his experiences inside an institution. If anyone has a reason to be angry about that, it would logically be the royal family… not the public.

So I’m left with a question I can’t quite resolve:

Why is the public so angry on behalf of an institution that hasn’t asked them to be?

Is this a cultural expectation around loyalty to the monarchy? A reaction to breaking tradition? A media-driven narrative that hardened into public sentiment?

I’m not here to defend or attack anyone. I’m genuinely interested in understanding the reasoning from people who feel strongly about this, because from the outside looking in, the intensity of the reaction doesn’t seem proportionate to any identifiable public harm.

If you’re willing to explain your perspective without defaulting to insults or assumptions, I’d appreciate the conversation.

< bangs head on table>

I need a drink .

Because she isn’t really a feminist, but women in her position and the image she wants to curate kind of have to pretend to be a feminist.

Feminists don’t throw other women under the bus or bully them.

Fake feminists DO create vanity projects that poses as feminism (the 40 minutes with a mentor for her 40th birthday) but is actually all about them.

Whatever happened to 40 at 40 ?

Like most vanity projects, it served only its creator.

I have finished for the week, and have cracked open a bottle. Sending a large, virtual glass over to you.

With a gentle suggestion that 'there's none so blind as will not see' 😎

I think that Spare had something for everyone - in the way of making people dislike Harry.

DH is an army veteran, he also fought the Taliban. He gave no shits at all about Harry before Spare and felt like many vets feel about other vets “We experienced the same and we are part of the few who knew what it was like over there”
Like Harry, DH killed people when he was serving. But from what DH says, you don’t ever talk about your “number” (I don’t know his and have never asked) or gloat or behave like your victims were trophies. Because despite them being the “bad guys”, despite it being the soldier’s jobs, even when you know you have to do it or you will die, even knowing you’re killing evil people - there’s an unspoken respect that that person you’ve killed is a human, with a family, and they happen to have different views to you largely based on where they were born and the circumstances they were born into.

So when Harry boasted about killing Taliban and gave a number and gloated, DH declared him to be a nasty over privileged little prick and reminded him of the upper class arse holes he served with (he said working class lads like him by far had the most compassionate ). It really got to DH. I think it bolsters my previous point that Harry’s audience is somewhat the half witted ignorant Americans who see guns and war as cool. But they arent . We are in a really supportive veteran community and nobody talks about their experience like Harry did in Spare, nothing like it.

My point is, when Harry seems to be so insensitive about so many topics, he really brings the dislike on himself

FWIW I'm banging my head on the table too.

We don't agree, that's it.

I won't listen to anything from you, thanks. And you know why.

The only reason I can think of is that you disagree with me?

I think.it is worth listening to people we don't agree with - and working out why we disagree, and considering whether the other person has a valid point.

Each to their own

I don’t know why these threads seem to descend into ill feeling. We are quite nice to each other on other threads!

Most people don’t give a shit. Social media amplifies the “haters”.

Most people probably wished them well then wished they would shut up and live a normal life without courting the media so are a bit eye-rolling about all the antics but don’t actively “hate” them.

This.

And they are very amusing, bless them!

They turn gold to dross, over and over again. A great reminder that money and privilege don't necessarily bring happiness or contentment.

And to appreciate what we have, rather than focus on anyone who has more and then feel deprived.

That is a very accurate summary of how I feel. I find them a bit silly but that they were in a pretty difficult position. Definitely not worthy of hate or the effort of disliking them that much.

I find H&M fascinating in a kind of "how much they've f*cked up golden opportunities" several times way. They had so much and they've drained an ocean of goodwill. I find them boring, but slightly annoying in that way pompous people who believe they're smarter than they actually are can be. I also don't like liars and bullies.

The OPs post is a bit bewildering - in that I don't see a huge amount of negative H&M stuff on my TwiX or TikTok - but what I do see is majority US media and posters. The huge amount of negative publicity (big stuff) they got in 2025 were all US publications - Hollywood Reporter and Vanity Fair. Also NY Post. Their popularity in the US isn't that much better than it is in the UK. So why is it always UK media/posters getting the blame?

Ask South Park and Family Guy why they ripped into them? They’re not British yet still felt the need to take the piss out of them! I wonder why that’s the case 🤔