Demographic(s) which determinedly support H&M no matter what

[Ratherhaveacupofteaandabiscuit]

I am bewildered that anyone can support H&M in light of all their shenanigans.

There is no need to base an opinion on what others write about them, these two show who they are with their own words and actions.

Who are the determined supporters and why would anyone close their eyes to the (inconvenient) truth to continue to fit a preferred narrative?

It reminds me of other scenarios where fans of celebrity figures insist their idol is wonderful despite all evidence to the contrary.

Is it sex, age, race, location? Is it an inability to change their mind after an initially favourable judgement was made?

I wonder what it is that unites die hard H&M supporters?

All these posts saying "I just judge what they have said! <Here's the detail>" or "Here's the timeline" - so weird and obsessive.

I have a science background. I prefer source information to press spin.

Other people may also have backgrounds which mean they prefer to go to the original source of any information.
That is not 'obsession', and name-calling is generally considered rude in polite company.

I don’t know why this thread has turned into an opportunity for posters to insult critics of HAM when the thread is supposed to be exploring the mindset of why there is a certain demographic who see no wrong in H&M’s behaviour and will defend them to the hilt no matter what they do, mind you that is the mindset of those types of posters, they can’t defend H&M’s actions so they throw out cheap insults instead. Twas ever thus.

Exactly.

Where would historians be if they only read about people they like?!🤣

I’ve also read a lot about the Abdication Crisis and I’m fascinated by how much more information has gradually come out about that subject since I was a child. What once was sold as The Man Who Gave Up His Crown for Love was in fact a very different story involving Nazi sympathy and what seems to have been an unequal relationship - the more savvy Wallis soon tired of the handsome but dull Prince. But they knew that, having presented that narrative to the world, they had little choice but to stick together.

It was a huge threat to the monarchy and it’s been said that Megxit and the subsequent (unprecedented) anti-RF publicity offensive by H and M will be seen in a similar light. The historical parallels are fascinating.

Same way all threads on here go unfortunately!

No. Why would I be? Harry wasn't the heir or the King.

It made no difference to me if he opted out and he was entitled to a choice.

What a strange question.

If H&M had gone off to live a private life without the mud slinging and had given up their RF titles instead of trading upon them I would have no complaint at all.

But they do want to be part of the RF.

They have always wanted the advantages of being part of the RF just not the inconvenient work part.

Now, having failed with their supposedly fabulous "freedom" and commercial ventures they want to even more from the RF without ever even acknowledging the harm they did and the greater harm they tried to do and still are trying to do.

Those things do make me cross.

Yes it’s utterly tiresome isn’t it? can’t form a decent argument so insult posters instead.

The pps who say “You know nothing about them!” Or “Why the hate (🙄) for people you don’t know?” Make me laugh like a drain.

Er, well, there’s just the many whingeing interviews, the scandalous memoir, the Netflix documentary plus masses of waffley speeches and publicity initiatives, all of which come direct and unmediated from the mouths of H and M.

So - if they claim, despite this record, that we don’t know anything about them…are their supporters saying they’ve been lying?

Perish the thought!😂

I don’t know if it was a typo but I love HAM as an acronym for Harry and Meghan.

Marvellous!

The parallels are indeed fascinating coffee.

I would like to hope that their love/relationship was the one thing they did not lie about/exaggerate/elevate.

They both chose the path - one would hope that they still support and love one another after everything. Despite everything.

I fear it would feel very lonely trying to navigate the mess that you both had a hand in. It would be so much worse if either party had to do that on their own.

My sympathy will remain limited because of the harm they have caused and tried to cause others. As said, there has been no acknowledgement of that at all.

I can’t see how that would be ok for those who support them.

That said, I would hate to see either side broken - despite them not seemingly having that consideration for others.

On the PR threads we call them the HAMS 😂 there was a poster (can’t remember which one to credit them unfortunately) who got tired of typing their full names out every time so came up with HAMS instead and it stuck 😀

I agree. I don’t like them. They’ve been cruel and hypocritical but I hope they can make their relationship work for the sake of their children.

The children who have been pretty much deprived of both grandfathers, their aunts, uncles and cousins on both sides of the family. I wonder if they’ll have some awkward questions for their parents one day soon?

Blimey - wait until they read "Spare"!
Talk about questions 😨

Oh gosh yes. Poor little things.

😉

This follows the predictable trajectory:

Pps start with “How can you hate people you know nothing of?”
They’re then told that we do know about them. HAM critics then go to the trouble of explaining in detail how we know about them.
Then we get the accusations of obsession: “Why do you know so much if you hate them?” Were told it’s “quite disturbing”, the amount of information we know!🙄

It’s a well-worn path…

But hey- anything which deflects from engaging with the real discussion.

I remember his speech at Diana's funeral where he went on at length about how the "blood family" of Diana, meaning the Spencers, would save Harry and William from the nasty old RF.

Turned out to be just hot air.

He was far too busy shagging around plus he later (very quietly) acknowledged that Harry and William were being well cared for by the RF anyway.

He also failed to mention how he refused Diana the home she wanted on the family estate not long before she died.

I think even less of him for bringing out this unnecessary new book which is presumably likely to make him a lot of money (unless all profits are to charity?) and add visitors to his family seat also making him more money.

So much for his complaints about her as the most hunted woman in the world.

If he was in any way decent he would leave Diana and the past in peace.

That was a crass and nasty thing to do at a funeral - I remember it well.

They weren’t any better. Didn’t they allegedly refuse to back her when she wanted to pull out of the wedding because her face was on the tea towels?

They seemed to me to want the connection more than she did.

It seems that the nephew didn’t fall far from that particular family tree.

How fortunate he was to find a spouse that wants the connection too.

And isn’t averse to go grave rubbing.

And if he does put the knife in with Charles I hope he’ll also reflect on his own very far from perfect record as a husband and father.

As KC reflected when he wrote his book about his parents failing, blaming them for his own less than perfect record.

My point being, none are perfect, most point a finger or two.

Surely anyone that understands how “interviews” work recognize that Oprah piece was not one.

Actually - they never pop up on my feeds.

The only place I see people pay attention is here.

Rehashing the same old same old, time and time again.

Preening and validating each other!

I’m sure they still have a few fans and more than a few detractors, but the majority view is that they stopped being relevant to the UK a long time ago.

Ah, not always rehashing the same thing. A number of new developments recently. Charlotte Griffiths and the little white pill for one. But perhaps it’s true that their critics have to validate one another’s reaction to that because absolutely no one else will even acknowledge it.

You can hair split as long as you like BUT all women who marry in to that family get annihilated by the press who drive narratives about them. They are all cannon fodder at the time.

MM was hounded because of her colour, because of the fact that she is American, she was divorced and possibly worst of - an actress.

PoW was hounded because she her mother was an air hostess, the grandchild of someone who lived in a cottage, the niece of junkie uncle Gary, was lazy, was waity, too skinny, not hard working enough, graby.

Fergie was fat, gormless, worthless, shameful, wanton

Diana was hounded because she was crazy, jealous, passive, nuts.

Until she died then she a saint.

Camilla was hounded because she was the mistress, ugly, a drunk, a smoker, shag anyone in her open marriage. Until KC spent enough money on turning public opinion around. How much did that cost I wonder?

We in Britain accept that it is ok for women in the public eye to be dragged down and humiliated before they are built up again by the (mainly men) who dragged them in the first place.

In short, we accept sexism and misogyny.

It trickles down and impacts us all.

And then we wonder why we cannot trust the police...

Watch this!!