The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Our Extremely Royall Highnesses - Official Statement, Options
BobShilling
Posted: Thursday, January 9, 2020 2:22:45 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,448
Neurons: 7,871
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
To our beloved and adoring fans and followers.

Her Exceedingly Royal Highness, the Duchess of Sussex and We, The even more Excessively Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex have become Royally pissed off with playing second fiddle to Our Royal brother, who, by the sheer chance of being born two years before Us (The Phenomenally Royal Duke of Sussex), will end up as King and We won't.

Be it known therefore, that We (their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have resolved to give up all the responsibilities, duties and arduous bit of being Senior Royals, and concentrate instead on making a (Royal) mint for ourselves.

Fear not! We shall, of course, retain our Royal titles, residences, and all the Royal dosh that has come Our way over the last 35 years but, Our beloved and adoring fans and followers will be delighted to know, We confidently expect to rake in some £200 million a year by giving you the opportunity to pay Royally inflated prices for the hundreds of tasteless items we shall be stamping with our Royal monogram. We shall constantly remind you that no longer being a senior Royal does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that we are no longer Royal. We have always been, and will ever remain, Royally Royal, devoted to serving Her Majesty. the institution of the Monarchy and the Commonwealth in any way possible that benefits Ourselves.

For more information about Our Royal Highnesses, vist our website at https://sussexroyal.com/

Hope123
Posted: Thursday, January 9, 2020 11:53:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,178
Neurons: 52,483
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
That's not fair, Bob.

I doubt it was jealousy of his brother's position. In fact Charles, I think it was, who said that none of the royals really wants the top job. It's a BIG responsibility and hard work. We just watched several hours of TV about Queen Elizabeth's life and she has attended hundreds of affairs every year all these years. Her jaws must ache from smiling. A red box of govt papers to go through every evening. On duty 24/7 making important decisions to keep things running smoothly - she has actually helped many times with the right idea here or there to keep the Commonwealth together when it was in danger. For that I am grateful. They ALL do charity work and attend functions. No privacy of any kind. Elizabeth, Philip, William, and Harry have all worked in the military.

We all have to play the cards dealt to us by the accident of birth and make the best of it that we can.

In fact I think it was the fffing British media that killed his mother and is now relentlessly attacking his wife, I bet because of latent racism, that has caused this decision. Our media has never been much like that so we'd better make them stay that way if the Royals do indeed come here as reported.

Meghan has lived in Toronto and Harry spent some time during the Invictus games, making friends with Prime Minister Trudeau. They just spent a holiday in Victoria on Vancouver Island, Canada's “banana belt”. In fact if my family were not here, I'd be living in Victoria myself. Winter never gets colder than about 5C and the flowers at world renowned Butchart Gardens will be starting to bloom beginning of February. Moderate summers and not as much rain as the mainland. Right on the ocean, a quaint almost British city, Victoria is. Vancouver, an hour or so by ferry is the Canadian centre of film making. Meghan could even go back to work if she wants when the baby gets older.

The lure of Victoria and Canada was just too much to resist. 😀 I expect that is where they will go.

Brits always complain about the royals being freeloaders and now when they want to earn their own way and become financially independent, you are sarcastic. Furthermore they have not given up all their royal responsibilities “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have chosen their patronages to support charitable organisations that represent causes important to them and that honour the legacy of Her Majesty The Queen.”

I don’t blame them one bit. Good for you, Duke and Duchess, for being your own persons. You go, you two.


Welcome to Canada!

BobShilling
Posted: Friday, January 10, 2020 3:00:46 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,448
Neurons: 7,871
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Hope123 wrote:
Good for you, Duke and Duchess, for being your own persons.


Had they decided to withdraw from public life, attempt to find jobs, and live, as far as possible, as ordinary people, I would have been very much in favour. Indeed, when I first heard that they were stepping back, my immediate reaction was 'Good for you'. The children of Princess Anne and Princess Margaret have done their best to live 'normal' lives, and I thought Harry and Meghan were going to do the same.

Of course, they (the children of Anne and Margaret) have benefited enormously from the wealth and position of their parents, but they cannot be blamed for who and what their parents are/were.

A visit to https://sussexroyal.com/, THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE DUKE & DUCHESS OF SUSSEX soon had me heaving. Have you seen it? It oozes royalty and Royal Highnesses. For them 'being your own persons' appears to mean retaining all the immense privileges that go with being royal, and accepting none of the duties or responsibilities. They seem determined to have their cake and eat it.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 10, 2020 4:13:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,178
Neurons: 52,483
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
"No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money (and fame) you accumulate, or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/opinion/meghan-markle-prince-harry.html

You are speculating how they will behave before they even start partly because of their website, which was probably there before and only updated. Yes I glanced at it but was not looking for anything in particular or see anything unusual. Did you read carefully their funding arrangements? Full time jobs etc. I'm willing to give them a chance to see what they do. This is all very unprecedented, challenging, and scary and they must be just feeling their way.

As I speculated above, they are now saying it WAS the media that drove Meghan out. Bet they didn't count on Harry going too.

Canada has racism too but Canadians have shown that they are a small minority. We spurned right wing populism and anti immigration twice now. Since we don't have celebrities or royalty to harass, this will be telling about how the media react but from how they treat politicians mostly with respect I'm not expecting it to be like the US and UK media.

And with Johnson and Trump in those countries as leaders it will only get worse and worse!

There will be an outcry by Canadians if the media does start harassing them. I have seen a couple of bots on Twitter being put in their place already.

I suspect the Sussexes really did not want to make the break at all but since it was necessary for her well being, they tried to leave doors open. However, that is just me trying to put myself in her shoes. And he loves his wife and wants it to stop.

"And ironically, by taking matters into their own hands, Harry and Meghan’s act of leaving — two fingers up at the racism of the British establishment — might be the most meaningful act of royal leadership I’m ever likely to see."

BTW - I've tried to proof read but my eyes are still dilated after a trip to the optometrist and all letters seem to look very alike right now.

FounDit
Posted: Friday, January 10, 2020 8:22:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 13,740
Neurons: 65,646
I am surprised. I had no idea the British were racist. It's not something I've heard about here in the States. I thought race was of little importance there.

Hmmm. Learned something new today. Hopefully, such racism has limited exposure, though I wouldn't have thought it so in the Royal family, at least not publicly. Just goes to show, you never know.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 10, 2020 8:50:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,178
Neurons: 52,483
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:
I am surprised. I had no idea the British were racist. It's not something I've heard about here in the States. I thought race was of little importance there.

Hmmm. Learned something new today. Hopefully, such racism has limited exposure, though I wouldn't have thought it so in the Royal family, at least not publicly. Just goes to show, you never know.


There is racism everywhere, FD. I have no idea how much there is in the general public in the UK. Perhaps a minority same as in Canada.

And then add to that the polls not too long ago said there are about 13% who want a republic and to get rid of the royal family. Not to be confused with the racists.

I assume the media would be just subtly racist when the royal family is involved, but from some of what I've seen, the British media can be really vicious, especially the way they treat the whole royal family some times.

Bob would know more (I think he's an expat?) as I don't really follow the royal family.

Romany and other Brits would know more too.

I've just always liked Harry. William too. But Harry more.


BobShilling
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2020 7:16:49 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,448
Neurons: 7,871
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Hope123 wrote:

Bob would know more (I think he's an expat?) as I don't really follow the royal family.

I haven't lived in the UK for 20 years, but I spend a fair bit of time there with family and friends, and read British newspapers every day.

I am appalled by the barely disguised racism of a not insignificant minority of the British people I encounter both in general and towards Meghan in particular. Some parts of the British media are happy to play up to this, constantly drawing attention to her 'exotic DNA', and making it clear that she is 'different'.

As my first post in this thread shows, I think that Harry and Meghan have behaved hypocritically in their attempt to retain the benefits and drop the responsibilities of being 'royal', but I would completely understand their decision to withdraw from public life if it were wholehearted. They, and particularly Meghan, have been treated disgustingly.

Had Meghan been white (i.e. not of mixed race) and British (i.e., not American) with a respectable background (i.e., not an actor), the couple would have had a far easier ride with both press and public.



FounDit
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2020 11:07:56 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 13,740
Neurons: 65,646
Since Meghan had no choice in the matter of her parents race, nor the soil her mother was on when she gave birth to her, it seems quite foolish and silly to hate her for those things. But haters love to hate.
Romany
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2020 12:48:36 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,092
Neurons: 54,729
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
It wasn't until I read this thread that I found out that social media is advancing the theory that Megan is disliked because she has the blood of two different races in her. But it is cultural.

She's American and she's an actress. Edward VIII's abdicated over Wallace Simpson, remains bitterly at the forefront of the public consciousness.

No Royal has ever been allowed to marry an actress either - from Charles 1 onwards. Many people believe that the disaster that was George IV would have worked out completely differently, had George been able to have his morgantic marriage to her validated.

It's not that actresses are any longer looked upon as courtesans - nowadays it's because the life of a successful actor is the absolute antithesis of life as a royal. Actress can be outrageous, or sexy; they can do crazy things which sets everyone talking; take political stands; have tantrums or behave badly in public; break promises and contracts...everything that a royal may not do, ever, in their lives.

Protocol, history and culture are what informs royal behaviour. One has to be steeped in it to understand it - which is why every Heir to the throne - including Charles - ends up not having a childhood. From when they first begin to walk royals have to learn how to walk appropriately and to shake hands or greet people. From when they learn to speak they are tutored in how to address the people they meet - a duchess, another minor royal, an Earl, the head of a foreign country - their own family. The current Queen spent her first few years as monarch studying, being tutored, learning protocols.

Disney has indelibly defined for millions what a Princess is: beautiful, and beautifully dressed and adored, with nothing to do all day but look beautiful and beautifully dressed and go to glamourous places.

However, it entails a helluvu lot of work to become part of the royal family - a task which both Diana and now Megan. were unprepared to take on. Diana, however, wasn't starting off from scratch - she knew how to address a Duchess, and who to bow and who to bob to. She also knew how and where her own family history interested with monarchy, from the days of the first Spencer around 800 years ago.

Although I don't have tv I don't live under a rock. I come across newspapers in the bus or at work, I have social media accounts, I talk to hundreds of people a week. And I have never yet come across anyone or any group that disapproves of the Duchess along racist lines.

Many dislike the way in which she obviously feels disdain for royal protocols, and comes up with suggestions of her own; and her family seem not to be role models for correct and appropriate behavioral models for a lifetime spent in the company of the most powerful, well-known,important...and royal...personages in the world. Her biggest sin, in the eyes of many of the older people, is that she doesn't seem to understand the gravitas due to the Queen, nor behave with the respect with which all the rest of the family treat the Queen. And she seems to be more inward-looking than a royal is, and thus less likely to behave (or at least be seen to behave) for the common good rather than herself.

So those are all the reasons that people who are not fond of her give for disliking the Duchess. She's not "black" anyway - I remember scores of people roaring with laughter and indignation when this was first brought up - many people didn't even know she was regarded as "black". I've seen that the "racist" explanation is leaping to the forefront mainly on North American forums -there have even been comments on how many bots have been discovered to be actors in threads on this subject, and how many Trump supporters are seizing gleefully on this idea. As I remember FD seriously explaining that we were all racist; that we "just didn't know it"; I imagine that this is what it's all about.It all comes back to politics...how could anyone accuse the president and his supporters of being racist if EVERYBODY is racist? And if the Brits are as racist as the Americans then every racist policy and outrage that occurs in the world is justified.Applause

Besides which, it's far easier to ascribe Harry and Meghan's decision to racism if that is a familiar trope; than to make an effort to understand the value of protocol, history & culture that the stifling, artificial, life as a royal entails,(that most people don't even know about!) and which have informed their decision.

Bah Humbug!

(or, in the words of one of our columnists:- "... the suggestion that the public at large is instinctively hostile to the couple because a dingy, residual bigotry claws at the inner depths of the British zeitgest is absurd.)

Hope123
Posted: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:26:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,178
Neurons: 52,483
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Romany,

This is not the first time I've disagreed with your opinion, but it is pretty close to it.

I'm sure the discourse you've mentioned from the public with whom you interact is true, and that the protocols royals must endure are a large part of their decision.

But the media shapes the opinions and perspectives of the public in many ways.

She opened her own car door. Wow! She forgot and crossed her legs! Wow! She is right now single handedly dismantling the whole centuries'-old royal family. Wow! First she spends too much money - then recently Daily Mail said she SNEAKED back to Vancouver Island on £131 (assume this is cheap) flight. "Sneaked" - a loaded emotional disparaging word.

Why can't she act like Kate? She's not one of us! The media made sure the public sees her as bitchy, cocky, arrogant, difficult, can't even learn or flouts protocol. Look how she treats her family! (I'd disown them too, the way they acted.) And she ghosted poor Piers Morgan. (That shows intelligence on her part if she did.)

The media insist that it wasn't her race they objected to, it was some other thing that she'd done wrong. But no matter what she did it was never right. Like when she was criticized for guest-editing an issue of Vogue UK. "Dan Wootton, executive editor of The Sun went on TV to say, outrage in his voice, that "Royals don't guest-edit magazines!" Except that they have a long tradition of doing just that."

Then there are the racist undertones. There was the BBC commentator who tweeted an image of Meghan and Harry holding hands with a chimpanzee and joked that it was their son. Rachel Johnson, prime minister Boris Johnson's sister, commented that Markle had "rich and exotic DNA." "There was the Daily Mail headline "Harry's girl is (almost) straight outta Compton," on a story that enumerated the recent crimes that have taken place near Markle's childhood home, and listed all the street gangs known to operate in the area, reminding the reader again and again that the neighborhood where she was born "couldn't be more different" from the rich environment in which Prince Harry was raised." As if she still lived there.

"What colour will this baby be?" "A few years ago she'd be Harry's mistress."

If there is any doubt as to the true reason for objections to Markle, the Mail dug up her family tree and published it, writing, "Now that's upwardly mobile! How in 150 years, Meghan Markle's family went from cotton slaves to royalty." Right from the beginning there were loaded comments about Meghan’s ethnicity. Harry has said that a lot of it has been hidden from the public, with nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of the media.

"Harry took the extraordinary step of publicly confirming their relationship by releasing a statement that condemned the “wave of abuse and harassment” that Meghan had seen. He noted “the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.”

The tabloids, mainstream, and social media had to be getting their information from inside as only certain people would be able to leak that information. There are "vipers and backstabbers" all over the place in the royal family and/or the palace staff. I have not seen where any of the palace stood up for her but maybe I missed it.

With the British class system snobbery you've mentioned here many times that includes even how one speaks, I don't know how racism could be avoided. Not being "one of us" IS racism. It means they think there is cultural decline, the replacement of British people and culture. It is a lot of what brought on Brexit because of immigration and the rise of men like Johnson and Trump.

I know the UK media and tabloids are relentless with all the royal family, but what they've done to Meghan is different. It has been called "the quiet and unique brand of racism that takes place" in the U.K." And that is just as bad as the overt kind you find in the US and Canada.

(Info compiled from several media sources in UK, Canada, US.)

Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Sunday, January 12, 2020 10:42:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 33,938
Neurons: 219,930
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Romany wrote:
She's not "black" anyway - I remember scores of people roaring with laughter and indignation when this was first brought up - many people didn't even know she was regarded as "black".

Black!? What? She's whiter than I am!
I really didn't know. No-one I know has ever mentioned her race.

Has some news-shit news-sheet been saying there's something mis-coloured about her? I've not been following the grandkids for a while, and anyway keep away from "news" just because of this sort of idiocy.

OK - now I looked. How can it be anything to do with race, when the attacks are against two Duchesses - Meghan and Kate. And they're both white.



[image not available]

The Times said that commenters have claimed that Meghan's pregnancy is a scam and accused Catherine of being dull.
Citing an unnamed Palace aide in a report on the abuse, Hello! stated that while the Palace has always monitored comments, the abuse towards the two duchesses has become particularly vile, with some comments containing violent and serious threats.
It's not about race - except in the press.

Damn, she's paler than Trump!



Hope wrote:
Info compiled from several media sources in UK, Canada, US.

Yes - media sources.
The UK Media are racist - even racist against white people at times, if it serves their controversy-creating purposes. They'll attack anyone - and the Twits follow on and tweet the lies they see in the papers.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 9:15:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,178
Neurons: 52,483
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Drago,

You and Romany are correct about Meghan Markle looking white. As an actress in the public eye she said nobody knew or cared that she is of mixed race until she started dating Harry and the British press got interested. This was always about the press - not the British people.

Harry and Meghan know how they feel especially after what happened to his mother but who knows what the motivation of the press is other than to sensationalize everything to sell papers. Only the writers know as they print their "gotcha" moments.

Be nice if press in all countries went back to investigative journalism and dispensing the news instead of spreading gossip. But it is audience driven. Somebody must be buying those papers and tabloids.

Edited: Here we are discussing this topic as if it mattered to anybody except Harry, Meghan, and the royal family, while Australia literally burns and a political decision by a man has ultimately caused the deaths of 176 people. Canada and other countries mourn while he says not even a word of condolence, but threatens to attack their cultural centres and puts or threatens more sanctions on an already distressed people





Hope123
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 12:37:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,178
Neurons: 52,483
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Queen says all's good.



[image not available]
Hope123
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 6:55:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,178
Neurons: 52,483
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
I wasn't looking for it - just stumbled on to this comparison of how media treated Kate and Meghan in exact same situations.It really doesn't matter why - it is still pretty crummy.

I just saw the Sun and Daily headlines since Sussexes announced. What a sorry bunch of humans working for those tabloids.

So very telling as to why this woman says being a princess is no fairy tale so screw it. And I'm taking my prince with me. You won't have us to knock around.

They were in Victoria, BC, for six weeks and there was not one intrusion by media or anyone. They want to be ignored and the media here obliged.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

Since they will not take any public money but still work part time for the Queen and monarchy, I don't see how anybody can complain.


Lotje1000
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 2:32:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,154
Neurons: 647,939
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
I follow an advice blogger who writes posts on workplace issues and how you can deal with them. She was asked why someone would announce quitting their job before telling their boss (like Harry and Meghan did). She responded:

Quote:
Typically it means you have reason to fear guilt/gas-lighting/extreme efforts to stop you if you don't [...] Or that you have reason to fear the narrative will be spun in a really untrue way if you don't get ahead of it.


I don't think we'll ever know what exactly goes on behind the scenes, but I can imagine it must be tough to deal with a combination of stalking journalists (blowing your life out of proportion, giving a voice to people who should mind their own business), lingering trauma from losing a mother to impulsive paparazzi and the cogs and gears that shift behind the facade of Buckingham Palace.

There is no 'right' way to deal with this. If you don't announce it and leave, people will get upset and judge you. If you do announce it, they'll analyse what you wrote to death and judge you for it - no matter how you phrased it (too royal, not royal enough, too detached, too informal,...) If you stay, you get worn out by all the people who need something for you but give little back.

Power and fame are like a corset - it supports you and leaves you vulnerable at the same time.
BobShilling
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 11:12:48 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,448
Neurons: 7,871
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

Black!? What? She's whiter than I am!



You miss the point, Drag0. One of her parents is completely black, which means Meghan has 'black blood' Aaarrrrggghhh!

What is worse, one of her parents is white, which means that Meghan is, horror of horrors, mixed blood. Aaaarrrrgggghhhh!!!!

Now that we have established this, we of the caring press can blame all the 101 faults we invent in her on this extremely dubious background. Harry is 100% white (solid chap!) which means that all the problems in the marriage/royal family are Meghan's fault.

If we don't say this explicitly, we can at least imply it, and that is just as effective.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Friday, January 17, 2020 11:41:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 33,938
Neurons: 219,930
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hope123 wrote:
I wasn't looking for it - just stumbled on to this comparison of how media treated Kate and Meghan in exact same situations.

The bridal bouquets was the peak of it for me.
The SAME flowers, more or less, but for one it was "a bouquet of different wild-flowers, each with a special meaning" and for the other "a bunch of dangerous poisonous plants given to the little bridesmaids to harm them".

I still don't see the racism - "of a not insignificant minority of the British people I encounter".
I see some sort of discrimination from the PRESS. I know no-one who dislikes this girl, I know no-one who has mentioned her colour - only the media.
And as Bob says "we can at least imply it, and that is just as effective" - I haven't even seen any mention in the media about her colour. I may read the wrong sources. But if some people keep implying that it's racist, then "all Britons (and Englishmen) are racist!"

Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 17, 2020 8:35:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,178
Neurons: 52,483
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
I wasn't looking for it - just stumbled on to this comparison of how media treated Kate and Meghan in exact same situations.

The bridal bouquets was the peak of it for me.
The SAME flowers, more or less, but for one it was "a bouquet of different wild-flowers, each with a special meaning" and for the other "a bunch of dangerous poisonous plants given to the little bridesmaids to harm them".

I still don't see the racism - "of a not insignificant minority of the British people I encounter".
I see some sort of discrimination from the PRESS. I know no-one who dislikes this girl, I know no-one who has mentioned her colour - only the media.
And as Bob says "we can at least imply it, and that is just as effective" - I haven't even seen any mention in the media about her colour. I may read the wrong sources. But if some people keep implying that it's racist, then "all Britons (and Englishmen) are racist!"



Drago,

Of all the countries I would say Brits are the least racist and comfortable with diversity. Who knows what the motivation of the press was. Maybe they were smart enough not to be overt. But even if the media was racist, that does not implicate all Brits!

Or maybe it was just as Romany said - she isn't one of us. She's American, divorced, and an actress to boot. And she is not going to roll over and take it from the Royals or from the media. Too strong a woman?


This article says it is misogyny - policing correct behaviour to keep all women in their place. Maybe this author has a point.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-royals-culture-war/604981/

https://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst197064_Public-Example-of-Misogyny-that-Affects-All-Women.aspx





Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 8:01:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 33,938
Neurons: 219,930
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Who knows - I think it's mostly just in the nature of the press, most of them anyway.
What sells papers is a mix of conflict, blood, death, war, celebrity, alarm, confict, fear and conflict. This whole campaign CREATED its own conflict by reporting on non-existent conflict, alarm and fear.

However this investigator (below) has spotted another motive - he's Alan Rusbridger, principal of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford University - and is also Chairman of Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

Quote:
"To understand the “real” story of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, it helps to think in three dimensions. On one level, we have a story about a couple who, for perfectly understandable reasons, want a different kind of life: a new start, a fresh role, less scrutiny, more peace of mind. All eminently reasonable and not very remarkable.

But there is, of course, the second level: they’re inescapably royal. This is hardly the abdication: the constitutional ramifications of the sixth in line bailing out to a new life in Canada are not earth-shattering. But, whether you are a pope or a prince, there are undoubtedly complications in trying to assert a private identity that is decoupled from your apparent destiny or birthright.

The third level is the storytellers. Almost everything we think we know about this couple is filtered through journalists. It is unusually difficult to judge the reliability of most royal reporting because it is a world almost devoid of open or named sources. So, in order to believe what we’re being told, we have to take it on trust that there are currently legions of “aides”, “palace insiders”, “friends” and “senior courtiers” constantly WhatsApping their favourite reporters with the latest gossip. It has been known to happen. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. We just don’t know.

But trust in this third dimension is further compromised by the fact that none of the major players filtering this story for our consumption is exactly a disinterested bystander. All three of the major newspaper groups most obsessed with Harry and Meghan are themselves being sued by the couple for assorted breaches of privacy and copyright. There is, to any reasonable eyes, a glaring conflict of interest that, for the most part, goes undeclared.

For some years now – largely unreported – two chancery court judges have been dealing with literally hundreds of cases of phone hacking against MGN Ltd and News Group, the owners, respectively, of the Daily Mirror and the Sun (as well as the defunct News of the World).

The two publishers are, between them, forking out eye-watering sums to avoid any cases going to trial in open court. Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the second part of the Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we can only surmise what is going on.

But there are clues. Mirror Group (now Reach) had by July 2018 set aside more than £70m to settle phone-hacking claims without risking any of them getting to court. The BBC reported last year that the Murdoch titles had paid out an astonishing £400m in damages and calculated that the total bill for the two companies could eventually reach £1bn.

Last October, Prince Harry added his own name to the list of people claiming they had been hacked by both the Sun and the Mirror.

To understand why this is, to put it mildly, a bombshell, you would have needed to be following the patient work of Mr Justice Mann (and before him, Mr Justice Vos) in the anonymous Rolls Building, home to the chancery court, just off London’s Strand.

Publicly available court documents detail the alleged involvement of Rupert Murdoch’s son James and the reinstated CEO of News UK, Rebekah Brooks, in suppressing or concealing the true extent of wrongdoing within the Murdoch titles. The Sun’s official position is to “not admit” any unlawful activity, while simultaneously shelling out enormous sums so that this position can never be tested.

Over at the Mirror Group, there is a similar shyness about allowing daylight into the activities of past executives. Former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, one of the most vehement critics of the royal couple, does not find time or space to let his readers or viewers know that his name crops up very many times in the generic phone-hacking litigation particulars of claims in front of Mann. Morgan may be entirely innocent, but if you spend your time pouring venom over a claimant in a case that might touch on your own conduct, you’d think there was at least an interest to declare – every single time you do it.

And then there is the further legal action by Meghan against Associated Newspapers claiming assorted breaches of copyright, privacy and data protection. The Mail on Sunday claims “huge and legitimate public interest” in publishing extracts from a private letter from Meghan to her father. We shall see, but meanwhile there’s no harm in portraying her as a ruthless hypocrite and gold-digger. If Morgan’s on hand with the vitriol, everyone’s happy.

So, when reading about Harry and Meghan, it really does pay to keep your wits about you. There is a surface level to the story – not all of it untrue – and there are many anonymous sources of varying degrees of reliability to give colour and context. And, in the background, there are quite a lot of worried newspaper executives and former editors, who have absolutely zero interest in treating the couple kindly or even-handedly.

The metrics are irresistible: this couple sell newspapers and attract eyeballs by the billion. There is little hope that editors are going to dial down their coverage. But there is kindness; and there is fairness; and there is honesty. A little bit of each of those would help the rest of us understand better and trust more."
Hope123
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 10:57:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,178
Neurons: 52,483
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Excellent article, Drago. Another reason why the UK press is behaving that way now and will not change. Brought on by themselves in the first place by printing “stuff” that is litigation worthy or by hacking.

I also read an article about the pettiness and jealousy coming out of the palace to the UK media as the investigator in your piece mentioned. The article I read said that Meghan was labelled a diva when she said the smell of the old church had to be camouflaged for the wedding. I laughed when I heard that because last summer I went with my brother one afternoon to see his Trinity Anglican church because it was celebrating its 150th year. I smelled mold as soon as I walked in and after five minutes I was coughing and sneezing and left quickly. Old buildings ARE moldy and smelly for anybody.

::::

Anyhow, and so it begins in Canada. First opinion writers and then the Toronto Star editorial speculated about how Canada might have to pay for security (I doubt it but even so only 3 cents a day per person was the determined figure. I have no idea how they arrived at that figure.)

Then today I was surprised the Toronto Star printed an article by a free lance writer out of Vancouver, BC. She compared Harry to Charles II, Edward VII and Meghan to actress Nell Gwyn. She made Gwyn's commercialism unsavoury in great detail, making sure to spell it out that she considered Gwyn to be a gold digger. Title - “For a Modern Prince, Harry operates like kings of old”. All because apparently Harry told a Disney exec Meghan would love to do voice overs.

Of course the article omitted the part where the money Meghan earns goes to charity!

She also accused Harry of trying to control a critical press. lol She said it was just as they stifled criticism of Nell Gwyn, the king's main mistress.

I was surprised because The Toronto Star is probably one of the few sensible Canadian papers left. (not owned by Republican American hedge funds as many are and thus are told what to say) I considered writing a letter to the editor but didn't.

The Star actually still does investigative journalism and does try to make sure they keep to their ethics daily.

Then CTV News shared the statement by Meghan's father about it being a shame she walked away from every girl's dream. There were tweets condemning this action by CTV and comments saying we don’t want UK type tabloids to start in Canada.

I hope at least our press leaves them alone once the drama calms down. I doubt the move will stop the UK press.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.