NETFLIX: "Harry and Meghan"

[j swift]

 

I've always thought the logical counter argument has less to do with how much wealth the Royals bring into the country and more to do with who should be given the authority to take away their wealth. 

There's no precedent, beyond a revolution, which would allow the government of a country to take away property from its wealthiest family, in order to appease the concerns of a minority of the constituency.  That's a big job, and giving any governmental faction the duty of nationalizing wealth opens the door to controversy that could preclude Russians and other European families from wanting to invest in English real estate (especially considering that 40% of London is owned by foreign nationals). 

I mean, if you're a billionaire, would you want to buy a multi-millionaire dollar estate in a country that could take away your rights of ownership at will?  Just as if you were a middle-class Londoner would you want the Labour government to be able to throw you out of your house because they don't approve of your grandfather's politics?  You can't trust a government with the right to take away property from just one family, without giving them the right to take it away from all land owners.  Its a very slippery slope.

So, while it's all well and good to debate the historic moral rights of the royals, doing something about it has a ripple effect which could ruin the economy and the civil rights of its current citizens.

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by j swift

[JaneAusten]

But that is why you need a truth and reconciliation commission. It's funny how the leadership had no issue handing literally how many billions in pounds to those who owned slaves and their ancestors for how many hundred plus years but asking the family to share in paying those their ancestors exploited to accrue the wealth they have is a bridge too far. How long do some folks out there want to continue handing the wealthy even more of our hard earned money while ignoring those persecuted by the same people. I guess it makes more sense to allow TRF to use that same wealth to pay off Prince Andrews victims of his pedophilia.

Edited December 12, 2022 by JaneAusten

[Paul Raven]

If Harry and Megan found it impossible to work within the royal framework -fine. Leave , relocate and start again.

But to go on global television to complain(twice at this point) knowing that the Palace would not want or be able to respond doesn't sit right with me. Seriously, move on and demonstrate how you are going to achieve more by your decision.

Megan would never have this platform w/o hooking up with Harry and is happy to take center stage and present herself as some activist and humanitarian w/o actually doing much except leading a privileged lifestyle, some podcasts etc.

 

[DramatistDreamer]

Well, returning some of the stolen antiquities back to their countries of origin would be a good place to start. From the British Museum, to Buckingham Palace—they have the literal wealth that was looted from other lands stored in their buildings. Gold from Africa and India, antiquities and valuables from these continents plus Persia. And the money extracted from slavery is well documented in their financial ledgers— I have personally visited the British Museum, the Imperial Museum, Buckingham Palace and have seen this with my own eyes, while a student. The documentation of the wealth generated is online for anyone who cares to see. This isn’t a question of perception, these are cold hard facts, in literal black and white.

The only reason why Buckingham Palace was ever opened up to the public at all (and some spaces are still closed to the public) is because TRF was forced to open their doors to the hoi polloi because they were no longer allowed to operate on the taxpayer dole. It’s not the White House, you have to pay a fee to gain entry. That money goes into the coffers of TRF, but that is for their tax burden, that is separate from inherited wealth. How do people think Charles acquired the money to purchase all that land for investment? 

If H&M don’t want to move on, then they are perfectly in line with the Brits. Seriously have you ever lived in England. I have never lived in a place so taken with the past. Only when it comes to their history of colonialism and enslavement do they ever speak of moving on. Otherwise, it is reliving past glories on a continual loop. I was constantly reminded of the glories of “The Blitz” and the rebuild after “The Blitz”, while conveniently forgetting that they used auxiliary forces from their colonies in the Caribbean, the Indian subcontinent and Africa. 

Everybody’s history seems to be selective, not just H&M.

[j swift]

I've got no beef with Meghan as a person, and I thought her point about not being treated as if she was a black woman until she joined the royal family was thought-provoking; even if it wasn't completely true.

However, her podcast is so out of touch and wrong for the genre that I found it cringe-inducing.  Podcasts are best when they are personal takes, because the nature of listening to people speak is intimate.  However, Meghan uses her platform to promote an agenda, rather than tell about her experiences.

Her season finale had Andy Cohen, and they talked about her favorite subject, how women are portrayed on TV.  As if the most important issue for women today is not salary inequity or lack of opportunity based on gender, but the fact that there are shows about women arguing with each other.  But, it's not even an interview because podcast staff cuts up the dialogue and then allows her to comment on the subject's answers. 

However to me the biggest offense was when she referred to Gloria Steinem as "Glo" (the same with how she calls her husband H).  I have an a-hole rule, that you know someone is an a-hole when they casually drop a name using the their nickname in order to infer that they know them better than you.  Next season if she refers to the late Queen as Lilibet, I may throw up.

So, while I get why people find her unlikable, I still don't approve of vitriol that she receives.  And, given the huge ratings, it is preposterous to assume that most people feel negatively about the couple.

Edited December 12, 2022 by j swift

[dragonflies]

Telling their SIDE OF THE STORY is not whining or complaining 

Please register in order to view this content

 

 

and I used to like Kate till I saw how fake she is, when I read she made Meghan cry, cause she's basically a mean girl, I was done with her 

[I Am A Swede]

That's only Meghan's version. Maybe Kate's version is different.... 

And even if we, for argument's sake, accept that Meghan's version is true, then didn't she also say that Kate sent flowers and apologized?     Can you imagine?! Is there no limit to how mean someone can be.... 

[j swift]

So, I have all kinds of theories/fanfic about why Kate and Meghan fell out at Charlotte's fitting before the wedding.  But, it is undeniable that Kate re-wore her outfit from George's christening to the wedding in order to appear more thrifty than Meghan who wore Givenchy couture, which always struck me as a little petty.  Just as it is undeniable that someone sympathetic to Kate leaked the story to the press.

I mean Kate's outfit was not cheap, and re-wearing it one time, after spending millions to remodel her Kensington Palace apartment (while H&M were stuck in a two-bedroom cottage), is hardly an imposition.

[dragonflies]

Yep I agree, Kate seems the petty type and very mean girl ish, and all the leaks that make W&K "sympathetic" come from W&K's people, which is NOT a coincidence

 

I read recently from a RELIABLE source that Kensington Palace is behind almost all the stuff that was leaked to the "press"

Edited December 12, 2022 by dragonflies

[j swift]

I guess the thing that surprises me is that the social media narrative still focuses on Meghan's veracity, rather than the obvious media manipulation by the tabloids, given that "Meghan's a liar" has trended on my twitter feed for the past month. Especially, when UK citizens know that they have been manipulated by the tabloids into supporting political policies that aren't in their best interest (e.g. Tony Blair & Iraq, Brexit, and promoting fallacies about the NHS).

I mean, it's totally believable that Kate, (a girl from a social climbing, nouveau riche, family that owns the UK equivalent of Party City), would look down on an American actress joining the firm.  But, The Daily Mail has spun a narrative about Meghan from day one, (based on their economic desire to fuel a rivalry that sells papers and promote aspirational values and nationalism, in order to appease advertisers) that few on social media ever question. 

On the other hand, Meghan and Harry feed into the narrative by emphasizing the impact of the tabloid journalism (whose influence has declined with fewer people buying print newspapers), rather than focusing on their brand values like increasing respect for British veterans and gender equity.  If this series focused on the charities that they support, it would be boring, but at least we would learn more about the needs of people who rarely get media attention.  I think a lot of the vitriol is that most people don't see having negative press as much of a price to pay for living a life of luxury.

Edited December 12, 2022 by j swift

[dragonflies]

This seems plausible

 

 

[j swift]

So why do people seem more angry at Meghan than they are at being continually manipulated by the press who do not honor the best interest of the citizens of the UK?

Obviously people can be outraged by more than one thing at time.  However, I think H&M's point about the agenda of the tabloid press gets lost when it seems like they're whining about being photographed rather than exposing an example about how the press works in general.  Especially because their family and friends have been complicit in the support of British nationalism to sell goods and services for years.

[DramatistDreamer]

Didn’t John Oliver do an entire episode about the British tabloid media, or was it someone else?

I thought it was well known that the PR flank of TRF feeds informational tidbits to the press in exchange for flattering and/or less intrusive coverage. When someone no longer wants to ‘play the game’, it’s likely considered an affront, in breach of an informal contract and elicits an aggressive media response.

Because of John Oliver I became aware that TRF hosts an annual event for media and invites the tabloids alongside media stalwarts like the BBC. That would be like the National Enquirer being invited to be part of the White House press pool or the WHCD, or even to follow the East Wing on a diplomatic tour.

[j swift]

But, to use your example, it is like people be entertained or outraged that Jerry Falwell Jr had a threesome with a Miami poolboy, rather than being flabbergasted the National Inquirer exposed the tryst as a favor to Trump because Falwell did not endorse him in the primaries (according to Ronan Farrow's book).

Again, I think the failed opportunity of the H&M doc was demonstrating how we all get caught up in the gossip and miss the message about how a story serves a larger purpose. 

It's not just that Royals seek to exchange access for coverage, it is how tabloids propping up the ideals of British nationalism are used to sell everything from biscuits to Brexit.

Edited December 12, 2022 by j swift

[DramatistDreamer]

It’s also about how a former tabloid editor can one day become PM.

Harry seems to have a genuine hatred and fear of the tabloids in particular, from how he speaks of them. Although unfortunate, it wouldn’t be surprising if he pulled back from direct analysis as he seems to repeatedly accuse them of having a direct connection in his mother’s demise and continues to claim that he doesn’t want to lose another woman he loves to the same fate. Even before he met Meghan when he was wilding out, he gave the impression that he both loathed and feared the tabloids.