Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

Status
Not open for further replies.
overedge said:
@puglover If this is the show I'm thinking of, the couple are white Christians. I bet the online abuse would be different, i.e. worse, if they were neither white nor Christian.
Click to expand...
No doubt - hence my comment about not claiming it was equivalent. It was just the most recent horrible example I became aware of as to the vitriol that is out there.
 
puglover said:
I think we can all agree that an alarming amount of social media/comments are toxic and dangerous. I am not claiming equivalency here. Recently during my many hours at home I have started watching home renovation/improvement shows. One I quite enjoy features a talented couple, husband and wife, fixing up their home town one house at a time. I am fairly new to the story but I understand that after a prolonged time of trying they got pregnant and happily announced the birth of a beautiful daughter. Apparently, their baby has been targeted with horrible comments online calling her "ugly" and words to that affect. I have noticed they now show her with them but from behind.
Click to expand...
Love Erin and Ben. And yes people made horrid comments about their baby.
They no longer post images of her on social media and rarely show her rather beautiful face on TV.
Why people think they have the right defined as
morally good, justified, or acceptable, really need a moral compass.
Who thinks that is ok.? Regardless of race, religion or whatever?

What makes it even more agregious is that Erin had an illness that left her with only a small possibility of ever becoming pregnant.

I don't think anything has been more detrimental to society than social media. It allows you to hit and hide without having to take any responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
 
Judy said:
Well I remember reading that about Michelle. Someone had posted it on their facebook and I think? the woman was over the moon about Melania (🤮). It was a disgusting comment. Michelle Obama was an awesome first lady.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the price of tomatoes?
 
MacMadame said:
OMG, social media was full of Trumpsters saying things like "we finally have a classy lady back in the WH" after Trump's win. These were often accompanied by heavily Photoshopped images where Michelle was made to look as bad as possible. For those people clearly classy = white. Especially since they would not normally call a woman who made soft-core porn or posed nude classy.
Click to expand...
Oh yah I remember that. Ummmm. Anyways two of my best friends((white) have kids with their hubbies, one from Kenya and one raised in Canada but parents originally from Africa. I ❤️❤️❤️❤️ their girls.
 
It's not just social media with the Royals though. It is pretty mainstream outlets.

I mean Piers Morgan saying all the shit he does would be an experience close to us in North America waking up and having horrible stuff said about us on Larry King Live.

Thankfully Larry didn't operate like Piers.
 
I think Piers Morgan is a bit more Fox and Friends with the ugliness of Hannity/Tucker thrown in. He is tabloid trash and just beyond the pale. I have heard his extreme hatred and vitriol towards Meghan and Harry stems from his shattered ego that they were once friendly and chatted regularly since before she met Harry. That they met up for drinks when she was in London and then she met Harry and he never heard from her again. So he feels she ghosted him and decided she is a social climber. And he is like a rabid dog with a bone that will never let go and has given a platform to anyone/thing that supports his POV to damage her publicly (such as interviewing on tv her estranged family members). The reality is she can't be dating a member of the BRF and be having drinks for tabloid trash like Piers Morgan. I would have made the same choice in her shoes but Piers is very much like Trump in that he will never forget any slight and is extremely vindictive.

(and I know some people here are going to bristle at the mention of Trump but sometimes when you need to use the best example to explain a personality to people who may not be that famiiar with him)
 
Piers Morgan is total trash, but the issue is he has a large audience in the UK and elsewhere. It's a bit like Hannity -- yes Hannity is total trash, but I know people who follow Hannity religiously and never miss his show. So if people in the UK believe every word Piers Morgan says then that's a problem.
 
I somehow missed the retroactive controversy over a set of earrings gifted to the Queen by Saudi Arabia that Meaghan M. wore, but someone I follow on Twitter linked to this Twitter thread by someone who describes herself as 'a historian & collections manager who has worked with archives of rare artifacts." Later in the thread she updates info about how the earrings got into the collection, but that doesn't change her basic premise that the very small number of people control not only choices, but also whether to disclose the background of each piece to the person choosing.

 
This thread does a good job of breaking down the earring situation, and separating fact from speculation:


Regardless of whether the provenance of the earrings was an issue at the time she wore them, the fuss being made about it now clearly seems a preemptive strike ahead of the Oprah interview. I am intrigued by the statement released by her lawyers that says this is orchestrated by Buckingham Palace, I feel like it’s the first time we’ve seen them say that outright, that the “Palace” is working against them? I think this is obviously a huge part of why they wanted to break away, Meghan at least wants to be able to defend herself. Every news story that has come out about them in the last year has been responded to with an immediate, strongly worded counterpoint from her spokesperson or lawyers. There is generally radio silence from Buckingham Palace or the royal family. I think what BP saw as standard operating procedure (never complain, never explain) she saw as a refusal to protect and defend her.
 
MLIS said:
This thread does a good job of breaking down the earring situation, and separating fact from speculation:


Regardless of whether the provenance of the earrings was an issue at the time she wore them, the fuss being made about it now clearly seems a preemptive strike ahead of the Oprah interview. I am intrigued by the statement released by her lawyers that says this is orchestrated by Buckingham Palace, I feel like it’s the first time we’ve seen them say that outright, that the “Palace” is working against them? I think this is obviously a huge part of why they wanted to break away, Meghan at least wants to be able to defend herself. Every news story that has come out about them in the last year has been responded to with an immediate, strongly worded counterpoint from her spokesperson or lawyers. There is generally radio silence from Buckingham Palace or the royal family. I think what BP saw as standard operating procedure (never complain, never explain) she saw as a refusal to protect and defend her.
Click to expand...
Good Lord... the more that comes to light about H&M, the more I just shake my head. Narcissistic to the core.
 
canbelto said:
How is this narcissistic? She has a right to put out her own comment on news. It's what publicists are for.
Click to expand...
If you read the entire Twitter thread discussion from The Court Jeweller (one of my fave bloggers!), there is some information/reporting about Harry's behavior, and Meghan's, from right after she wore the earrings the 2nd time, that sheds some light on their character. I guess it takes some years of royal-watching to be able to read between the lines of what is being said/not said, but my take on it is that they've been pretty arrogant and narcissistic for a good long while.
 
Karen-W said:
If you read the entire Twitter thread discussion from The Court Jeweller (one of my fave bloggers!), there is some information/reporting about Harry's behavior, and Meghan's, from right after she wore the earrings the 2nd time, that sheds some light on their character. I guess it takes some years of royal-watching to be able to read between the lines of what is being said/not said, but my take on it is that they've been pretty arrogant and narcissistic for a good long while.
Click to expand...

I read the twitter thread. I still don't get it. It's the Crown's responsibility to either accept or not accept gifts. It's also up to the Crown to allow those jewels to be worn or not worn. If they were given to her and she wore them ... that's not her fault. That's the responsibility of the Crown to dictate whether the jewels should be worn or not worn. This is a non-story.
 
@marbri Piers "Moron" Morgan and Trump are an excellent comparison. Both are full of themselves, both are shameless name-droppers, and both of them are habitual liars.
 
canbelto said:
I read the twitter thread. I still don't get it. It's the Crown's responsibility to either accept or not accept gifts. It's also up to the Crown to allow those jewels to be worn or not worn. If they were given to her and she wore them ... that's not her fault. That's the responsibility of the Crown to dictate whether the jewels should be worn or not worn. This is a non-story.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is a bigger story than you realize.

She got the jewels as an official gift which means they aren't really hers. She gets to wear them, exclusively, as long as she is a working royal - which was fine back in late 2018. At the time that she wore them, the Saudi government was in the news for their role in the death of a well-known journalist, so had the provenance of the earrings been known it would have made headlines as some sort of signal that the UK government was supporting the Saudi government. That is why the only information given about the earrings was that they were "borrowed." And when she wore them the 2nd time, the next month, and the KP officials said something to Harry about it (probably along the lines of "this could get dicey if word gets out who the earrings are from"), instead of recognizing that this was a potential diplomatic incident brewing, Harry "was incandescent" - and, reading between the lines - he wasn't mad that KP had maybe let them step into said potential diplomatic faux pas but that KP was warning H/M about wearing the earrings again - in other words "Meghan will wear whatever she damn well pleases, thankyouverymuchgoodbye".

You are free to have your own interpretation of what has been reported so far and claim it's a tempest over nothing. I'm free to have a different view, which I clearly have based on the additional context provided in The Times article that was being quoted in the thread with regard to KP sources basically talking off record ahead of the Oprah interview to make sure their POV of their dealings with H&M are out there. YMMV.
 
Karen-W said:
Actually, it is a bigger story than you realize.

She got the jewels as an official gift which means they aren't really hers. She gets to wear them, exclusively, as long as she is a working royal - which was fine back in late 2018. At the time that she wore them, the Saudi government was in the news for their role in the death of a well-known journalist, so had the provenance of the earrings been known it would have made headlines as some sort of signal that the UK government was supporting the Saudi government. That is why the only information given about the earrings was that they were "borrowed." And when she wore them the 2nd time, the next month, and the KP officials said something to Harry about it (probably along the lines of "this could get dicey if word gets out who the earrings are from"), instead of recognizing that this was a potential diplomatic incident brewing, Harry "was incandescent" - and, reading between the lines - he wasn't mad that KP had maybe let them step into said potential diplomatic faux pas but that KP was warning H/M about wearing the earrings again - in other words "Meghan will wear whatever she damn well pleases, thankyouverymuchgoodbye".

You are free to have your own interpretation of what has been reported so far and claim it's a tempest over nothing. I'm free to have a different view, which I clearly have based on the additional context provided in The Times article that was being quoted in the thread with regard to KP sources basically talking off record ahead of the Oprah interview to make sure their POV of their dealings with H&M are out there. YMMV.
Click to expand...
But if they aren't hers and belong to the Crown, how is it her problem that she wore them? And she's not the first royal to wear jewels that were gifts from regimes of questionable morality. Sophie accepted a gifted set of jewels from Bahrain and it even made the Daily Mail.

The jewels don't belong to Meghan. So if she wore them someone higher up must have signed off on them. So why isnt that person in trouble?
 
Karen-W said:
She got the jewels as an official gift which means they aren't really hers. She gets to wear them, exclusively, as long as she is a working royal - which was fine back in late 2018. At the time that she wore them, the Saudi government was in the news for their role in the death of a well-known journalist, so had the provenance of the earrings been known it would have made headlines as some sort of signal that the UK government was supporting the Saudi government.
Click to expand...
I don't know who was responsible for the decision to wear the earrings and who knew what and when. But let's not mince words; the Saudi government didn't just play a role in the death of a journalist, MBS had Jamal Khashoggi murdered and dismembered.

If Meghan and Harry (1) knew where the earrings came from and (2) decided that she should wear them twice within weeks of the Khashoggi murder, and feel like they are the ones who were wronged in this scenario, then ewwwww. If someone(s) let them take the fall for something that they could not have known about, that person is an asshole. I don't see a third option in which nobody knew anything.
 
Last edited:
Once again if the jewels don't belong to H&M but rather to the Crown then the Crown:
1) should not have accepted the jewels to begin with
2) should not have let Meghan wear the jewels if they didn't like the optics
3) should not have waited till NOW to leak this story
 
AxelAnnie said:
They were as much in love on their 69th anniversary as their first.

That was a different time. People actually made a commitment and stuck to it. All the more important to spend time actually getting to know the other person.
Click to expand...

People stuck to commitments because divorce was scandalous. Or, for many wives, divorce was not an option because they had no community support and no way to earn a living.

I don't think my mother would have remained married to my father were she in the same situation today. Same is true for at least half the women in the mining town I grew up in.

Lifelong marriage just doesn't work for some people, especially in cases where marriages were forced by pregnancy or community ties.



AxelAnnie said:
I betcha if divorce were made illegal, or required years to complete, we would see people waiting a lot longer to get married.
One of my daughter's friends got pregnant in college. The father wanted to marry her..........she did not want to make that kind of commitment. HUH? I always wondered what kind of commitment she thought having a baby was.
Click to expand...

A woman can be committed to raising a child without being committed to the father of that child. If she has no love for the father, or if they don't get on, she could be better off doing it alone, hopefully with support.

AA - women have long raised their kids on their own, without the help of the father, and with the help of community (there is the term 'othermothers' in black American communities.

Men die in wars, go off on explorations, or just bugger off because they don't want the responsibility of raising a child - which is left to the woman.
 
canbelto said:
But if they aren't hers and belong to the Crown, how is it her problem that she wore them? And she's not the first royal to wear jewels that were gifts from regimes of questionable morality. Sophie accepted a gifted set of jewels from Bahrain and it even made the Daily Mail.

The jewels don't belong to Meghan. So if she wore them someone higher up must have signed off on them. So why isnt that person in trouble?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily... that's why the info about how official gifts are handled within the BRF is important (and is included to start the twitter thread). The gift is for her exclusive use until she is no longer a working royal and she had them in her possession rather. They aren't checked out of the royal vault every time she wants to wear them like a regular library book but instead treated more like a longterm loan.

So, who would know until they saw her wearing them "oh, yeah, nooooo..." At best, her stylist should have checked, especially for any jewelry she planned on wearing to ensure there wasn't going to be an issue, and most especially to a formal government/state dinner like the one they attended in Fiji when she first wore them.

And the issue is twofold - 1) the giver was embroiled/involved in the death of the journalist and it was a current media story at that time, which makes the decision to wear the jewelry very questionable (and sure, Sophie has worn jewelry from the Bahraini rulers which - ehhh, but not accused of murder a month or so before she wore the jewels), and 2) Harry/Meghan's reaction when it was suggested she not wear the jewels again.

I suppose the other question I have (and when I have a break from work today, I plan on hopping on over to The Royal Forums discussion thread about Meghan's jewelry to get more info) is why this is coming right now. Did she not return the jewels once she and Harry opted out of being working royals? Because that is what I would have expected to happen. At that point, or upon her death had they remained working royals, the jewelry would go into the royal vault for wear by other royals.
 
Karen-W said:
The gift is for her exclusive use until she is no longer a working royal and she had them in her possession rather. They aren't checked out of the royal vault every time she wants to wear them like a regular library book but instead treated more like a longterm loan.
Click to expand...
That isn't what either Twitter thread said.
 
Whoa... So, earring-gate is just the tip of the iceberg with The Times' reporting on the Sussexes yesterday/today.


Some pretty strong allegations of bullying or mistreating employees on the part of Meghan - reported up to BP's HR department by Jason Knauf back in 2018 after the Fiji trip. It doesn't make Meghan or the Palace look good (seems the sense is the concerns about her treatment of staff were sort of hushed up/not really investigated/addressed at the time - which is just awful HR).

BP has issued the following statement:


Buckle up, folks, this is going to get far uglier before it's all said and done.
 
kwanfan1818 said:
I somehow missed the retroactive controversy over a set of earrings gifted to the Queen by Saudi Arabia that Meaghan M. wore
Click to expand...
I don't think it's clear that the earrings were a gift to or owned by the Queen. There's another rumor that they were a wedding present from Mohammed bin Salman to the Duchess of Sussex herself. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/03/buckingham-palace-to-examine-bullying-allegations-against-meghan. Let's not jump to conclusions here.
 
From what I understand, it sounded more like a culture clash than bullying. Meghan is an early bird and she would contact her staff as early as 5 in the morning. They didn't like that (guess everyone else likes to sleep in?). Americans tends to speak what's on their minds, sometimes without thinking first, so that could be another reason she rubbed them the wrong way. Bullying is a big word, and it seems more about misunderstandings. But who knows what really happened?
 
Lemonade20 said:
From what I understand, it sounded more like a culture clash than bullying. Meghan is an early bird and she would contact her staff as early as 5 in the morning. They didn't like that (guess everyone else likes to sleep in?). Americans tends to speak what's on their minds, sometimes without thinking first, so that could be another reason she rubbed them the wrong way. Bullying is a big word, and it seems more about misunderstandings. But who knows what really happened?
Click to expand...

Workplace cultures in the US and in the UK are very different. And from what I've read the Royal households have a whole different workplace culture on top of that. I'm not saying that bullying did or didn't happen, but I would guess that contacting people that early, unless there was already an agreement that the staff would be "on duty" then, would not go over well.
 
The 5 am texts are actually old news. Again, this is a thing BP should have briefed her on. In private companies in the US, bosses often expect 24/7 responsiveness to emails and texts. I actually have severe email anxiety and had to explain to my supervisor that since I can't eat or sleep or do anything until all email issues are resolved to please not send them late at night. My supervisor understands, but it doesn't stop my big boss from sending out huge email missives at 5 am.

But I'll just add ... if you read enough on royal forums ... Meghan's demands sound like small change compared to the demands Anne, Andrew, Margaret, and Diana regularly made on their staff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 21 (members: 0, guests: 21)

Similar threads

VGThuy
The Shibutanis Thread 7 . . . Years Later
Replies
10
Views
2K
my little pony
my little pony
AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)
ISU trying to modernize, is it working?
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
jägerbomb
jägerbomb
BaileyCatts
The Amazing Race - S37
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
On My Own
O
AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)
Nostalgia videos
Replies
4
Views
673
sadya
sadya
F
MY FIRST ON ICE RINK REPORT OF THE YEAR!!!
Replies
0
Views
420
FSWer
F
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information