Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 209
Like Tree875Likes

Thread: Love 'em or hate 'em: the Harry & Meghan megathread

  1. #121
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    56,038

    Default

    Obviously they’re doing it to distract from another pillow pregnancy


    LIFE
    Why Prince Harry Finally Snapped

    The royal lawsuit against a British tabloid, and what Princess Diana has to do with it.

    By HEATHER SCHWEDEL
    OCT 02, 20197:59 PM



    Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, and Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, in Johannesburg on Wednesday.
    Chris Jackson/Getty Images
    Although she notably starred in the legal drama Suits prior to her foray into royalty, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, is not especially known as litigious. She’s usually off doing her princess thing (so it’s more like Dresses than Suits). But this week, she and Prince Harry announced that they are indeed suing a tabloid in England. How did we get here? Is Harry following President Donald Trump’s footprints to an all-out assault on the press? What does this have to do with Princess Diana? All those questions and more, answered below.


    Who are Meghan and Harry suing, and why?
    On Tuesday, while the couple was still finishing up a 10-day tour of Africa (dramatic timing!), Harry announced the lawsuit against the parent company of the Mail on Sunday, a British tabloid. At issue specifically was a private letter from Meghan to her father that the tabloid published earlier this year. The prince also released an incensed 500-word statement (“written himself and not passed by the queen’s advisers,” according to the Daily Beast) calling out the paper’s “relentless propaganda” and “ruthless campaign” against Meghan. “I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been,” Harry’s statement said.
    Have the royals ever sued the press before?
    Yes, many times in fact, so it’s not unprecedented.


    Has press coverage of Meghan really gotten that bad?
    Throughout this year, royal observers have noted that tabloid coverage of the Sussexes has been particularly aggressive, and it escalated during Meghan’s pregnancy and maternity leave, as stories continued to emerge about her estranged father and half siblings. Recently, the duchess was criticized for her guest editorship of an issue of British Vogue and her use of Elton John’s private jet, among other things.
    What’s the deal with the specific letter the duke and duchess are suing over?
    The couple did not specify which letter is at the center of the suit, but all signs point to one published in February, handwritten by Meghan and provided by her father, Thomas Markle. What was so special about this letterthat it pushed the couple over the edge into legal action? Meghan supposedly wrote the missive to her father after her wedding last year. At the time of the wedding, Meghan and her father’s relationship was reportedly in a rough patch because of his decision to speak to the press, and he did not attend. Friends of Meghan said the purpose of the post-wedding letter was to ask to heal their relationship privately, but Thomas told the tabloid the letter left him “devastated.” “Your actions have broken my heart into a million pieces,” an excerpt read.
    What law do the royals allege that publishing this letter broke?
    The royals claim the letter was manipulated to mislead readers (through the omission of words) and is in breach of the U.K.’s Data Protection Act 2018, which requires the permission of the author to publish a letter. The Mail on Sunday in turn announced that it plans to defend its case vigorously.
    Didn’t Harry write a letter yelling at the press for being terrible to Meghan already?
    Yes, he did: In 2016, the prince censured British tabloids for racist coverage of his then-girlfriend.
    Does this mean Harry is taking a page out of Trump’s “fake news” book?
    Even if this is the start of a full-on war against the papers, it would still differ considerably from Trump’s war on the media. The U.K. tabloids have … very different journalism standards and practices. More austere outlets like the Guardian would seem to be exempt from this war, in contrast to Trump’s disdain for our high-minded New York Times and Washington Post.


    Why did Diana come up in all of this?
    The most dramatic part of Harry’s statement compared his wife’s situation to that of his late mother, Diana, who died in a car accident while being pursued by paparazzi, warning that he does not want to see “history repeating itself.”
    There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.
    Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.

    How have the lawsuit and statement been received so far?
    A BBC royal correspondent called Harry’s statement “remarkably outspoken” and “a stinging attack on the British tabloid media.” Another royal commentator told the news agency, “The press—particularly the tabloid press—is far less powerful now than it was during his mother’s era.” Also working in Harry’s favor is that his popularity is at an all-time high; NBC News cited a recent poll that ranked him the second-most popular royal—after his grandmother. The press storm is a good reminder for Harry that whatever the outcome, Granny remains No. 1.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  2. #122
    Elite Member ShimmeringGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,649

    Default


  3. #123
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    56,038

    Default

    I just read that and it’s the typical passive-aggressive bullshit we’ come to expect from racist old biddies. It’s not that they hate Meghan because she’s not a white royal fembot, and it’s not like they’ve enjoyed acting like racist garbage these past two years, it’s that they love harry and British (white, conservative) tradition. And she’s really sad about it, you guys. If only Meghan would understand.


    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  4. #124
    Elite Member ShimmeringGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,649

    Default

    That was a stupid headline. They're acting like a scorned woman begging for some affection from a man that had moved on to someone else.

  5. #125
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    31,421

    Default

    I think the Queen should have the ability to dissolve the British tabloid press instead of the ability to dissolve Parliament.

  6. #126
    Elite Member Sarzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    15,728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShimmeringGlow View Post
    That was a stupid headline. They're acting like a scorned woman begging for some affection from a man that had moved on to someone else.
    Yeah I feel embarrassed for her!
    Kittylady likes this.

  7. #127
    Super Moderator twitchy2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Milliways
    Posts
    58,604

    Default

    Week in Review: Harry and Meghan treatment shows how messed up Britain's attitude to royalty is
    By Ian Dunt
    Friday, 4 October 2019 1:57 PM


    The monarchy is quite obviously an insane idea. Centuries after the scientific revolution, we maintain a head of state system based on bloodlines, in the name of people whose ancestors were only recommended by virtue of their efficiency in killing their competitors.

    Most of the pomp that we associate with it is not even truly traditional. They're developments from the late 18th and early 19th Century, when states all over the world started attempting to create a kind of ceremonial awe around the nation - from national anthems, to national days, to national flags.

    This is when the Americans initiated their extremely creepy and fascist-looking worship of the flag in the morning, a practice they still continue to this day. We installed a complex system of pageantry and theatre towards the monarch. People treat it like it existed since time immemorial, but it's all nonsense. It is to royalty what Disneyland is to mice.

    And yet it's one of those baffling wrinkles of history that the system actually works fairly well. Many liberals and left-wingers take umbrage at that, insisting that any society which worships unearned status is obviously fundamentally broken on a deep moral level.

    Opinion Former News


    That argument has merit, but it is countered by two other more prosaic ones. Firstly, the monarchy is not falling apart. Small measure of success that, admittedly, but in the current climate it's a fairly important one. Most of the other aspects of British identity and stability are in a state of complete disarray. The monarchy is not. And that alone suggests there's something to recommend it.

    Secondly, the alternatives seem worse. The moment the head of state is elected, they are sucked into party politics at best and the culture war at worst. Austria's 2016 presidential election, again for a largely ceremonial role, saw a fascist and a green duke it out. It seems pretty likely that is exactly the type of dynamic we'd see here if we democratised the head of state system.

    It's best that the head of state be non-democratic. That's what allows them to represent the whole country and not just some slice of it. Exactly how they're chosen outside of that fact is unimportant. Perhaps we could have the person with the longest shins, or the winner of the women's high jump, or whoever can answer the most questions about the Archers. But seeing as we have this insane system instead of that insane system and it seems to be working OK overall, we might as well stick to it.

    There is a price to that, though. It is the completely mental discombobulation we seem to have over the monarchy as human beings.

    That was on display this week in the aftermath of Prince Harry's statement about the legal action he is taking with his wife Meghan against the Mail on Sunday. "I've seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person," he wrote. "I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces."

    Plenty of the criticism of the couple of valid. If you take private jets while talking about climate change people are going to write some very fair stories about whether that makes sense. But plenty of it is sneering, puerile, grim and in some cases driven by an unspoken sense of racism. The coverage of Meghan Markle is not akin to that of other royals. It is much more hateful.

    The reaction of parts of the press was drearily predictable. In the Sun, Jane Moore said the prince was trying to "wield the loss of his mother as a weapon". It is a grotesque way to talk about the loss of someone's parent when they were a child. Then she victim-blamed Princess Diana for the accident in Paris in 1997 in a manner which whitewashed the role of the paparazzi. "On the night of her death, she was safely ensconced in the Paris Ritz but chose, at midnight, to leave in a car being driven by a man three times over the French drink-driving limit." In the Mail, Stephen Glover called the prince "unbalanced" and emphasised a similar account of her death.

    This is the sour spot of Britain's relationship with the royals. It's a kind of hinge, between the most mortifying fawning and sudden spasms of hateful bile.

    Both aspects are ugly. The blathering idiocy of royalist deference, which seems as if Britain were making its own satire of Downton Abbey but actually living it out and taking it seriously. And then the sudden spiteful inhumanity it shows towards those same people if they fail to live up to their insane expectations. One of Harry and Meghan's greatest crimes, according to the press, is their reluctance to offer up their baby for ceaseless public scrutiny.

    Both cases involve a kind of dehumanisation - as gods and then as devils. Both cases are unhealthy for the people they're aimed at and shameful for the people who promote them.

    It really doesn't have to be this way. It's not a core part of the system. The Netherlands has a monarchy, as do several other European countries, and they don't act this way. You can keep the constitutional fix without the mental breakdown. All that's required is that we dial it all down a bit. But then, in our present state, that's not something we're very good at.

    source: https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/201...s-how-messed-u
    As Canadian as possible under the circumstances

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    "What's traitors, precious?" -- President Gollum

  8. #128
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    56,038

    Default

    ^^^
    Sums it up perfectly.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  9. #129
    Elite Member Ravenna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,636

    Default

    Bah, the queen shouldn't be allowed to dissolve anything other than her antacid tablets.
    Brando and yanna like this.

  10. #130
    Elite Member Novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Beyond Caring, then hang a left.
    Posts
    45,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twitchy2.0 View Post
    Week in Review: Harry and Meghan treatment shows how messed up Britain's attitude to royalty is
    By Ian Dunt
    Friday, 4 October 2019 1:57 PM


    The monarchy is quite obviously an insane idea. Centuries after the scientific revolution, we maintain a head of state system based on bloodlines, in the name of people whose ancestors were only recommended by virtue of their efficiency in killing their competitors.

    Most of the pomp that we associate with it is not even truly traditional. They're developments from the late 18th and early 19th Century, when states all over the world started attempting to create a kind of ceremonial awe around the nation - from national anthems, to national days, to national flags.

    This is when the Americans initiated their extremely creepy and fascist-looking worship of the flag in the morning, a practice they still continue to this day. We installed a complex system of pageantry and theatre towards the monarch. People treat it like it existed since time immemorial, but it's all nonsense. It is to royalty what Disneyland is to mice.

    And yet it's one of those baffling wrinkles of history that the system actually works fairly well. Many liberals and left-wingers take umbrage at that, insisting that any society which worships unearned status is obviously fundamentally broken on a deep moral level.

    Opinion Former News


    That argument has merit, but it is countered by two other more prosaic ones. Firstly, the monarchy is not falling apart. Small measure of success that, admittedly, but in the current climate it's a fairly important one. Most of the other aspects of British identity and stability are in a state of complete disarray. The monarchy is not. And that alone suggests there's something to recommend it.

    Secondly, the alternatives seem worse. The moment the head of state is elected, they are sucked into party politics at best and the culture war at worst. Austria's 2016 presidential election, again for a largely ceremonial role, saw a fascist and a green duke it out. It seems pretty likely that is exactly the type of dynamic we'd see here if we democratised the head of state system.

    It's best that the head of state be non-democratic. That's what allows them to represent the whole country and not just some slice of it. Exactly how they're chosen outside of that fact is unimportant. Perhaps we could have the person with the longest shins, or the winner of the women's high jump, or whoever can answer the most questions about the Archers. But seeing as we have this insane system instead of that insane system and it seems to be working OK overall, we might as well stick to it.

    There is a price to that, though. It is the completely mental discombobulation we seem to have over the monarchy as human beings.

    That was on display this week in the aftermath of Prince Harry's statement about the legal action he is taking with his wife Meghan against the Mail on Sunday. "I've seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person," he wrote. "I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces."

    Plenty of the criticism of the couple of valid. If you take private jets while talking about climate change people are going to write some very fair stories about whether that makes sense. But plenty of it is sneering, puerile, grim and in some cases driven by an unspoken sense of racism. The coverage of Meghan Markle is not akin to that of other royals. It is much more hateful.

    The reaction of parts of the press was drearily predictable. In the Sun, Jane Moore said the prince was trying to "wield the loss of his mother as a weapon". It is a grotesque way to talk about the loss of someone's parent when they were a child. Then she victim-blamed Princess Diana for the accident in Paris in 1997 in a manner which whitewashed the role of the paparazzi. "On the night of her death, she was safely ensconced in the Paris Ritz but chose, at midnight, to leave in a car being driven by a man three times over the French drink-driving limit." In the Mail, Stephen Glover called the prince "unbalanced" and emphasised a similar account of her death.

    This is the sour spot of Britain's relationship with the royals. It's a kind of hinge, between the most mortifying fawning and sudden spasms of hateful bile.

    Both aspects are ugly. The blathering idiocy of royalist deference, which seems as if Britain were making its own satire of Downton Abbey but actually living it out and taking it seriously. And then the sudden spiteful inhumanity it shows towards those same people if they fail to live up to their insane expectations. One of Harry and Meghan's greatest crimes, according to the press, is their reluctance to offer up their baby for ceaseless public scrutiny.

    Both cases involve a kind of dehumanisation - as gods and then as devils. Both cases are unhealthy for the people they're aimed at and shameful for the people who promote them.

    It really doesn't have to be this way. It's not a core part of the system. The Netherlands has a monarchy, as do several other European countries, and they don't act this way. You can keep the constitutional fix without the mental breakdown. All that's required is that we dial it all down a bit. But then, in our present state, that's not something we're very good at.

    source: https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/201...s-how-messed-u
    Except it’s wrong for example:-
    This is the sour spot of Britain's relationship with the royals. It's a kind of hinge, between the most mortifying fawning and sudden spasms of hateful bile.”

    Its not Britain’s relationship but the press’ relationship that the project onto the british public.
    mostroop and Kittylady like this.

  11. #131
    Elite Member ShimmeringGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,649

    Default

    Papa Markle has yet another interview with the DM whining about how he had to defend himself against Meghan's mean old friends in People Magazine last year and that's why he released parts of the letter to the DM. A reporter not with the DM speculated on Twitter that he only released parts of the letter because some of it points out his bizarre behavior and the lies he may have told the press.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-share-it.html

  12. #132
    Elite Member Brando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,686

    Default

    Her father absolutely hates her. HE is the toxic narcissist in that family.
    Shinola likes this.
    When you came in the air went out. And every shadow filled up with doubt. I don't know who you think you are, But before the night is through,I wanna do bad things with you.

  13. #133
    Elite Member rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    46,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShimmeringGlow View Post
    Papa Markle has yet another interview with the DM whining about how he had to defend himself against Meghan's mean old friends in People Magazine last year and that's why he released parts of the letter to the DM. A reporter not with the DM speculated on Twitter that he only released parts of the letter because some of it points out his bizarre behavior and the lies he may have told the press.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-share-it.html
    Hmm, there are lots of puff pieces planted in People. Meghan likes to use the US press to improve her image. While I will never understand why Thomas Markle didn't attend his own daughter's wedding and give her away, he has a right of reply in this unwinnable game like anyone else.

    Harry is playing with fire IMO. I can't help feeling his multiple lawsuits are a distraction/warning against material the press have against Harry/Meghan which they don't want to come out.
    DawnM74 likes this.
    I have some famous friends and I have mostly not famous friends.

  14. #134
    Silver Member Sweets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    498

    Default

    I thought perhaps it was to stop something from coming out too.

    If they don't want to be a press target, then they should take note of how the Count & Countess of Wessex live and conduct themselves. You hardly ever see anything of them in the press.

    Quote Originally Posted by rollo View Post
    Hmm, there are lots of puff pieces planted in People. Meghan likes to use the US press to improve her image. While I will never understand why Thomas Markle didn't attend his own daughter's wedding and give her away, he has a right of reply in this unwinnable game like anyone else.

    Harry is playing with fire IMO. I can't help feeling his multiple lawsuits are a distraction/warning against material the press have against Harry/Meghan which they don't want to come out.
    DawnM74 and rollo like this.

  15. #135
    Super Moderator twitchy2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Milliways
    Posts
    58,604

    Default

    So what is it that Eddie and Sophie do differently?
    Brando and C_is_for_Cookie like this.
    As Canadian as possible under the circumstances

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    "What's traitors, precious?" -- President Gollum

Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Meghan Markle & Prince Harry - WE Day UK 2019
    By palta in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: March 7th, 2019, 03:00 PM
  2. Prince Harry & Meghan Markle in Auckland
    By dowcat in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 30th, 2018, 10:00 AM
  3. Meghan and Harry at Wellchild Awards
    By BelledeJour in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: September 5th, 2018, 02:43 PM
  4. Harry and Meghan (in Givenchy) in Ireland
    By BelledeJour in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: July 19th, 2018, 04:51 PM
  5. Prince Harry & Meghan Markle at their wedding
    By BelledeJour in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: May 25th, 2018, 09:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •