General News about the Sussex Family, Part One: May 2019 - March 2020

[Pranter]

It becomes ridiculous. If we are going to hold the wealthy by that rule then we must also hold the middle class to that rule. So if you are middle class then you would not be allowed to speak on X issues lest you appear hypocritical (or double standard) to those who have even less than you do.

Everyone needs to discuss these issues, not lecture or tell others what they must do, but talk about the issue itself and ways to resolve them without attacking the person.



LaRae

 

[Osipi]

Everyone needs to discuss these issues, not lecture or tell others what they must do, but talk about the issue itself and ways to resolve them without attacking the person.

Its got us talking for a few pages whereas if Harry had never thought of going to Google Camp, we probably wouldn't even realize that the event actually happened in the first place. This year it was all focused on climate change. I see it much like we saw Harry and Meghan at the European premier of the remake of "The Lion King". Perhaps its just me but if Harry and Meghan had not attended and it was made public, I'd never have realized that Disney (organization that I suppose has deep pockets) tacked on the "Protect the Pride" campaign.

I do give those that attended the recent Google Camp kudos for giving of their time and energy and support for causes that affect all of us in one way or another. That's what really matters in the long run.

 

[tommy100]

I'll just put this here and run...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/9665193/meghan-markle-vogue-royal-rite-passage-opinions-shouldnt/

IT is with a heavy heart and a fully clutched pearl that I must issue yet another dire weather warning.

Please can Prince Harry and Meghan stop providing us with this absolute gale of nonstop content?

It’s getting ridiculous now — it’s getting unroyal now — that last week alone Meghan announced she was launching a weird clothing line, writing a children’s book about dogs, and had guest-edited the September issue of Vogue, in which she offered advice beyond all kombucha-sniffing parody on “how to pivot from a perspective of frustration . . . to optimism” and “the power of the collective”.

Harry, for his part, travelled to Sicily where he gave a “barefoot” speech at a five-star “Google camp” on climate change.

No one knows whether he could actually feel the humming of the guests’ 114 gas-guzzling private jets through the soles of his feet as he did this, but hopefully fellow climate messiahs Naomi Campbell and Leonardo DiCaprio clapped so hard they drowned it all out.

It wasn’t so much the things that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex did — it was the frequency and unrelenting madness with which they did them.

Personally, I didn’t even mind that Meghan did Vogue. Royals have always done Vogue — it’s what they do.

In the 1930s and 1940s, you could barely stop them licking Vogue’s star photographer Cecil Beaton. In the 1990s, Diana was hardly off the cover.

What’s weird isn’t that Meghan did Vogue, it’s that she did it in such a peculiar, grovelling, faux-humble manner, pretending she didn’t want to appear on the cover for fear of being “boastful” — I think she meant “presumptuous” — while coming across as exactly that (why do one page when you can do 300-plus?).

Instead of doing a cover shoot like predictable old Kate, she’d offered what I’ve come to dread — her opinions.

These include her thoughts on the “food-sharing app Olio”; and her belief that a magazine is “like a beautiful meal”.

I haven't posted the whole article. Certainly there may be an argument that the couple are over exposing themselves and their views.

 

[Curryong]

Except that Meghan has never announced that she is writing a children's book or books. Nor is she launching a clothing line of her own. The fact is that these were assertions published in tabloids not from BP or the Sussexes. False stories as this particular journalist must have known.

 

[Chloep]

I'd like some clarification on the rules of posting constant, repetative pieces from the Daily and the Sunny?

I mean we can't discuss the people behind these stories here anyway - no matter how much they are called out and discredited by actual journos. Just search for Wotton's name on Twitter. Just so very embarrassing.

All these stories and opinion pieces say the same. But really it is the writers and the editors they say the most about.

 

[JR76]

I'd like some clarification on the rules of posting constant, repetative pieces from the Daily and the Sunny?

If you go further back in the thread you'll find posts by the mods regarding what you ask about.

 

[Dman]

The faster we get back to some official royal engagements, the better. It’s time to put these ugly months behind us.

 

[Rudolph]

The faster we get back to some official royal engagements, the better. It’s time to put these ugly months behind us.

The summer is always slow with royal news. It used to be negative story after negative story about the Middletons and there was never any ‘quota’ system in place.

If ‘negative’ opinions aren’t allowed then clearly positive opinions can’t be allowed and then where do we go.

The royal family have always attracted comment both fair and unfair. Britain has a fervent tabloid press. Clearly this is a private forum and the owners and moderators can do as they like but I think as long as it’s done in a civil manner all opinions should be welcomed.

 

[Dman]

The summer is always slow with royal news. It used to be negative story after negative story about the Middletons and there was never any ‘quota’ system in place.

If ‘negative’ opinions aren’t allowed then clearly positive opinions can’t be allowed and then where do we go.

The royal family have always attracted comment both fair and unfair. Britain has a fervent tabloid press. Clearly this is a private forum and the owners and moderators can do as they like but I think as long as it’s done in a civil manner all opinions should be welcomed.

What’s happening is pretty unprecedented. I just wanna get back to some sanity. You know - some engagement announcements, some away days, the royal tour and some nice pictures and videos. I’m just over these nasty months.

 

[muriel]

The summer is always slow with royal news. It used to be negative story after negative story about the Middletons and there was never any ‘quota’ system in place.

If ‘negative’ opinions aren’t allowed then clearly positive opinions can’t be allowed and then where do we go.

The royal family have always attracted comment both fair and unfair. Britain has a fervent tabloid press. Clearly this is a private forum and the owners and moderators can do as they like but I think as long as it’s done in a civil manner all opinions should be welcomed.

What’s happening is pretty unprecedented. I just wanna get back to some sanity. You know - some engagement announcements, some away days, the royal tour and some nice pictures and videos. I’m just over these nasty months.

Fair point re the slow news period. This year, the focus of the negative comments by the Press seem to be Prince Andrew and H&M.

That said, I don't see the negativity towards H&M recede in the near term. IMO, I think there are two factors at play here:

> There have been a number of missteps on their part (which I shall not go into, as i do not want to derail the thread), and that has led to an erosion of trust. Till that is addressed, I am afraid it will be open season.

> It is clear that H&M are forging a path quite different to the one being pursued by Harry previously. It takes some time for clarity of this role to get established, and for it to get communicated publicly. Till that bigger picture gets communicated, one can expect comment on everything from the value a guest editorship of Vogue, to attending Google events in Sicily, to developing fashion lines in aid of charity, to campaigning to save the environment or protect wildlife.

 

[Ista]

I'd like some clarification on the rules of posting constant, repetative pieces from the Daily and the Sunny?

I mean we can't discuss the people behind these stories here anyway - no matter how much they are called out and discredited by actual journos. Just search for Wotton's name on Twitter. Just so very embarrassing.

All these stories and opinion pieces say the same. But really it is the writers and the editors they say the most about.

I think it's kind of a slippery slope, though. If posting links to the DM and Sun is banned, what is ok and how do you make those determinations? And who gets to decide what is and is not reputable, reliable, and based on fact? Talk about a headache for the moderators! At that point you might as well close down the Sussex threads permanently.

Ultimately, I think as long as links are within the guidelines determined by the moderators, it's up to each individual on the forums to decide how much weight to give each of the stories posted in the links. I'm fairly skeptical about much of what is posted in the tabloids, but they do very occasionally offer an interesting perspective, and frequently, fantastic photos.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

When I have had questions about whether a post has been allowed, I have pushed the report post button and noted my question or concern for the moderating team. Whether or not the post has been a problem, the moderating team has always been excellent in responding.

This assumes, though, that the point is truly to gain clarification on what is allowed... not to start another circle of back-and-forth amongst members or express underhanded frustration at the moderating team.

 

[tommy100]

I posted the link to Camilla Long article for two reasons
a) it did sum up some of my feelings towards recent activities of H&M
b) it was in the Times originally (traditionally a more moderate less tabloid paper) but then shared with the Sun (another paper owned by the same people)

I think if we start censoring and refusing to post opinion articles that are negative thats a hugely slippery slope. Would we only allow positive ones too or would they also be banned? That said I do think the line should be drawn at articles appearing in credible, mainstream media outlets , especially those in the UK where the RF are based.

I would think posting ranting opinion pieces from just anyone with a keyboard would be overstepping (and of course there are the opinions that do go far too far, either way) but to ignore how the mainstream media react to the couple, both good and bad, would give an ill informed impression of them and the current situation in the UK.

To a certain extent we have to act as our own mini moderators (as simply the poor mods here can't be over everything all the time and its unfair to expect them to always act for us) and ask ourselves - is this adding to the conversation, it is something that other people will see and ponder on, does it represent the views of other people or just one ranty shouty person.

I have a lot of friends who unlike us here take very little notice of royals and the RF here in the UK and, picking up a paper with H&M on the front for some reason or another commented "I'm sick of hearing about them". I probed a little deeper and she said she wasn't really bothered one way or another about them as a couple and didn't mind them going out doing visits etc but was sick "of the drama" around them. I think, honestly, that probably sums up most average peoples thoughts on them. Not that they don't like them or even have a strong opinion one way or the other but simply want to hear less fuss around them.

I am not saying that is necessarily H&M's fault at all, the media will make up pure speculation and gossip in the absence of hard facts but most people looking at the current situation would agree something needs to change. I guess atm its a case of waiting to see who blinks first - H&M or the media.

 

[ACO]

The fact one of the papers created a full on “exclusive” on a bogus prank and claimed it as fact pretty much sums up my view of a lot of the press at the moment.

People will believe what they want based on their own personal bias. We all do. It is what it is.

Really looking forward to actual news being reported again.

I also laugh at Wootoon’s so called dog book exclusive when he also had the “exclusive “ Meghan was not doing Vogue. I think it’s safe to say after Together, Vogue, and clothing capsule they really are clueless about her projects.

Just better to wait for them to reveal their work instead.

 

[_Heather_]

I posted the link to Camilla Long article for two reasons
a) it did sum up some of my feelings towards recent activities of H&M
b) it was in the Times originally (traditionally a more moderate less tabloid paper) but then shared with the Sun (another paper owned by the same people)

I think if we start censoring and refusing to post opinion articles that are negative thats a hugely slippery slope. Would we only allow positive ones too or would they also be banned? That said I do think the line should be drawn at articles appearing in credible, mainstream media outlets , especially those in the UK where the RF are based.

I would think posting ranting opinion pieces from just anyone with a keyboard would be overstepping (and of course there are the opinions that do go far too far, either way) but to ignore how the mainstream media react to the couple, both good and bad, would give an ill informed impression of them and the current situation in the UK.

To a certain extent we have to act as our own mini moderators (as simply the poor mods here can't be over everything all the time and its unfair to expect them to always act for us) and ask ourselves - is this adding to the conversation, it is something that other people will see and ponder on, does it represent the views of other people or just one ranty shouty person.

I have a lot of friends who unlike us here take very little notice of royals and the RF here in the UK and, picking up a paper with H&M on the front for some reason or another commented "I'm sick of hearing about them". I probed a little deeper and she said she wasn't really bothered one way or another about them as a couple and didn't mind them going out doing visits etc but was sick "of the drama" around them. I think, honestly, that probably sums up most average peoples thoughts on them. Not that they don't like them or even have a strong opinion one way or the other but simply want to hear less fuss around them.

I am not saying that is necessarily H&M's fault at all, the media will make up pure speculation and gossip in the absence of hard facts but most people looking at the current situation would agree something needs to change. I guess atm its a case of waiting to see who blinks first - H&M or the media.

I would absolutely agree with this, particularly that which I've bolded. Allowing only positive or only negative opinions to be shared is indeed a very, very slippery slope. While it's very true that there are extremists on both sides of that spectrum, the fact remains that it's walking a very fine line to insist that only those who hold the Sussexes in the highest esteem or only those who can't stand them be allowed to share their thoughts, opinions, and perspectives.

From what I've gathered from my British friends, much of the general public is relatively indifferent to much of what the BRF does, they enjoy the occasional public celebration of a wedding, a birth, etc., they hold the Queen herself in high esteem, and they're tired of hearing about the Sussexes and drama surrounding them. They believe that Harry has lost the plot and has become a completely different person than the guy they used to have an affection for and they do not hold high opinions of Meghan. They seem to believe that she's very high maintenance and does not at all seem to just "get on with it." At least for my British friends, she is regarded as a bit ridiculous and there's been lots of eye rolling around things like her designer wardrobe, her baby shower, the impression that she's trampling on British tradition, her "virtue signaling" and the impression of hypocrisy....whether fair and deserved or not, Meghan (and now Harry, too) do not seem to be very popular with the British public that I'm personally acquainted with.

 

[ACO]

I can respect your circle views thing one way. I’m seeing more and more people saying they never cared for the royals yet like Meghan because of the pile on coverage. In fact Victoria Murphy just did a podcast for The Guardian where they highlighted some public figures, some republicans, who said this. So while most are tired of the coverage it’s hitting folks in a different way and also creating supporters out of people who normally wouldn’t care.

Frankly I don’t think anyone can say how the overall public feels about any of the royals. People make bold proclamations but that doesn’t really mean much in the grand scheme one way or another.

 

[Rudolph]

I think if you’re a republican in Britain the fact a biracial American has married into the firm will mean zilch.

If you want the monarchy abolished I don’t think liking Meghan will change your views on anything

Just today on GMB, host Richard Madeley said he was surprised at how short of a ‘honeymoon’ period there was for Meghan and he agrees with the general consensus that she’s made progress but needs to moderate her message somewhat.

 

[ACO]

It’s not really about liking her or not but it’s interesting seeing people who typically don’t care whatsoever about the royals feel the need to defend one.

GMB (along with the other shows) has been interesting to watch in the past weeks. You point out today’s show presented them as falling out of favor but a few days ago another had a go at the overall negative press and how it seems manipulative.

So in this case I think they fairly showing all sides.

 

[Nico]

I have a lot of friends who unlike us here take very little notice of royals and the RF here in the UK and, picking up a paper with H&M on the front for some reason or another commented "I'm sick of hearing about them". I probed a little deeper and she said she wasn't really bothered one way or another about them as a couple and didn't mind them going out doing visits etc but was sick "of the drama" around them. I think, honestly, that probably sums up most average peoples thoughts on them. Not that they don't like them or even have a strong opinion one way or the other but simply want to hear less fuss around them.

I had exactly the same experience with some long time friends in the English countryside last week. Generally people i met were indifferent to the Royals either, albeit very respectful to the Queen on the long history she represents.
The Sussexes are seen as celebrities, and that's very true that there is clearly some tiredness about all the hype around them. It's even becoming a laughing matter. The other thing i noted is that the Meghan effect is seen more as an American one. To summarise people i know are not impressed.

And to clarify my point and to avoid to be accused of Meghan bashing or worse by the usual brigade, my friends were not particulary sweeter with the other royals, calling them a living wax museum, but at least typically English, part of some kind of a well established folklore...

I would say the attitude toward the Sussexes is not really vindictive, it's more eye-rolling ...

 

[soapstar]

Reminder:

• The media is now no longer a topic of discussion. All comments on royal reporters, journalists, media outlets, or any comments with the intention of making the media the topic of discussion instead of the content of the article will be removed immediately by the moderating team.
  

Any further comments discussing the media/royal reporters will be deleted.

 

[Lilyflo]

At least for my British friends, she is regarded as a bit ridiculous and there's been lots of eye rolling around things like her designer wardrobe, her baby shower, the impression that she's trampling on British tradition, her "virtue signaling" and the impression of hypocrisy....whether fair and deserved or not, Meghan (and now Harry, too) do not seem to be very popular with the British public that I'm personally acquainted with.

Speaking for my bit of the British public - amongst my daughter's friends (in their 30s), Harry & Meghan are the most popular. My son & his friends (in their 30s) are mostly anti-monarchy & would prefer an elected president. My daughter & I also have friends & acquaintances who would prefer us not to have a monarchy at all after the Queen dies. Amongst my monarchist friends (in their 60s), the Queen is top, then Charles, Wills, Harry & their wives all about the same. There's very little interest or time for any of the others although everyone always says that Anne appears to work hard.

 

[Curryong]

Same here with my extended family in the UK. No interest in the lesser known royals like Prss Anne, the Wessexes etc, really, but among the twenty to thirty year olds Meghan and Harry are quite well liked. There's still a lot of respect for the Queen among all groups but perhaps not so much for her son.

 

[Dman]

The main senior royals are very popular. They draw the crowds, tourist, National and International interest. They keep the very heart of the old Monarchy ticking. Nothing has changed that. If you don’t believe me, just wait until this couple emerge from their maternity leave and summer hiatus.

 

[Zaira]

Polls came out are mere couple of months ago and Harry was as popular as ever.

I think there are segments of people who just *want* Harry to be less popular because they don't like his wife. And try to push this narrative that he is less popular in the hope it sinks in.

But that is in my experience with my friends and community in the UK, tempered with people who now like him because they see how he has matured. So really a net neutral change.

The main senior royals are very popular. They draw the crowds, tourist, National and International interest. They keep the very heart of the old Monarchy ticking. Nothing has changed that. If you don’t believe me, just wait until this couple emerge from their maternity leave and summer hiatus.

I hope you are right dman. I am honestly very tired of it all.

 

[Mirabel]

Frankly I don’t think anyone can say how the overall public feels about any of the royals. People make bold proclamations but that doesn’t really mean much in the grand scheme one way or another.

I tend to agree.
Most of the comments on the press articles are more amusing than anything else.
There will always be critics and admirers.
For every person drooling over Meghan and Harry, there's another urging Kate to have more children to push them further from the throne.

 

[soapstar]

If you wish to continue discussing the popularity of Harry and members of the BRF, please take it to the 'Support for the Monarchy in the UK' thread.

 

[Rudolph]

An article without photos that Harry and Meghan along with Archie spent five days in Ibiza.

https://amp.majorcadailybulletin.co...d-meghan-ibiza.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

[MARG]

If they managed to pull that off, good for them. They could do with a break from the world. Any photos would not be published in the UK anyway since they are not supposed to breach privacy.

 

[Countessmeout]

Would only be breaching privacy if photos were taken at the villa. If they were in public they woukd be fair game. We see the royals on holidays plenty.

If they flew in privately it would probably not be too hard for them to remain incognito in public.

But these Holliday stories pop up all the time who knows what is true.

 

[MARG]

Absolutely right. We don't
'Know