Megan and Harry again!

Ratings , it’s all about the ratings.

maddyone

Only in your mind Summerlove.

You obviously know no history of the issue.

I can't imagine that anybody who follows Oprah in the US will be in the least interested Her Maj's speech, but H&M? That's entirely different. Diana was incredibly popular in the States and now one of their own has bagged Di's son. Disney or what????

Alegrias1

Good question NellG, just been thinking about his while I hung the washing out . I expect what I am about to say will ruffle a few feathers but here goes anyway....

There are things posted on here, i.e. Gransnet, that are downright nasty about all kinds of people in the public eye. Sometimes I point it out, sometimes I don't. Sometimes others do. The line between justified criticism and insults or character assassination just seems to be non-distinct for some posters. Remember "Screechy-gate"? . Or the Oscar winning actor who was referred to as having a potato-face on another thread? Now some will say that's just light hearted, I think its unacceptable.

So if someone says there was nothing nasty posted, and the thread is littered with nasty comments, then demonstrating that is a good way of proving the opposite case. I don't expect the original posters will care what I think, but if you see unpleasantness that is then denied, I think you should point it out.

Totally fair.

I do remember 'screechy-gate', and believe it or not spent quite a lot of time looking at my my input to it - even spending an interesting few hours reading articles on why women's tone of voice is an issue. I tried to deal with it with humour, but unfortunately seemed to make it worse. I came to the conclusion that I shouldn't have posted what I did, even though I wasn't making the insult, I was using the insult and it wasn't my finest moment. I got a bit arsey about it because I was being judged by many involved and in judging me they were using invective and personal attack which was such a double stnadard- I kept it erring on humorous because to do anything else at the time would have caused it to go into ultra meltdown. Given that I ended up practically being accused of peeing on the Scottish border and burning effigies of NS it was, all in all a bit of a pointless debacle. Although I don't doubt that the silent majority got a great deal of entertainment value from it. So much so, I did consider changing my name here to ENSA [wink}

Anyway, the point of saying that is not just to you, but to anyone reading that sometimes it's worthwhile thinking about what 'you' did actually say and sometimes it's worthwhile to give yourself a good slap upside the head for being a cocky idiot in saying it. Lessons can be learned, even at our age.

I don't know about actors who look like potatoes, I must have missed that - no doubt if pushed I could think of one or two who do!

Anyway, I can't police what words people use, but I can moderate my own words, and tone - if not always successfully. I believe that to be about self respect and respect for others.

March 8th is both:
Commonwealth Day and
International Womens' Day.

I'm guessing both dates have some relevance?

I wasn't thinking about an American audience for the Queen's speech but the UK audience, together with what IMO is such an obvious display of disrespect and disregard for the Queen by her own GS.

"Disney or what????" not sure about that trisher but fairy tales do spring to mind; the grim ones.

Meeeeeghan!!

Yes I'm sure they do but not sure how an interview that begins with M and Oprah with H joining in later would be relevant to International Women's Day though.

Much to do with Commonwealth day, were they not given a position for duties in the Commonwealth ?

Ellianne

March 8th is both:
Commonwealth Day and
International Womens' Day.

I'm guessing both dates have some relevance?

Your post, I think, points at possibly the crux of the issue.

On Commonwealth day, the Queen, a monarch by birthright, tradition etc, etc but NO choice - will give a speech.

On International Women's Day a SELF APPOINTED 'ambassador' of women and general do gooding will appear on a chat show.

Sorry about the caps - too much of a faff to do bold on this device.

Anyway, it's no guess as to which will get the bigger audience, but I can pretty much guarantee which will come out looking better and with her dignity intact.

The Queen actually appointed the Duchess of Sussex as Vice-President of The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust on International Women's Day.

Ellianne Total 'up your's' then by the look of it? Or am I missing something important? Like she's not self appointed?

Hmmmm - shall I be positive for a moment?? Perhaps the two of them have decided to present a united front in the message they intend to give - as they are still family? Or have I been sniffing the gas again?

Lay off the gas NellG ?

I'm not sure if it is pure coincidence or not, there must be some correlation and it is interesting to spit the difference
I assume the Queen will be supported by other members of her family in the address. Meghan will be pretty much going it alone.
And also wasn't it the last official public appearance the couple made in Westminster Abby last year, with scowly faces all round?

*spot not spit!

But Annie, everything is so much nicer when I do, I'm all positive and optimistic and...nice... ?

Yes it was the last official appearance with poor Edward and Sophie stuck between the couples

In terms of looking better and retaining her dignity, the Queen will win hands down. As for the ratings I think it was tickingbird who posted earlier that higher ratings don't necessarily equate to popularity.

I didn't know that Ellainne Just think how much more impact full, relevant and probably interesting what M will have to say to Oprah on International Women's day, could have been if she'd remained Vice President of The Queen's Commonwealth Trust.

My view, for what it’s worth, is that the Queen's TV appearance has been known about for weeks. The organisation of this doesn’t happen overnight.
The Oprah programme has been arranged quickly and was recorded last week. That is a widely known fact.
Some of it is being redone as they were stripped of their patronages. They obviously didn’t want to tell Oprah this so she seemed under the impression things were remaining the same. They were half in, half out. Last week removed all doubt about that.
The Oprah programme has been arranged to deliberately coincide with the RFs family programme. Not one week later or even one month later. No, the exact same day.
Guess who will be in the front pages of every newspaper the next day. And they wonder why people dislike M&H.

Wasn't it on the same day Meghan famously said she could "feel the embryonic kicking of feminism?"
She obviously saw a connection.

Well fingers crossed it will be the Queen who will be on the front page over newspaper Forsythia.

It sounds as if Oprah agreed to the interview without being made aware that they were about too, or may be stripped of their patronages. Where have you read/heard this?

Megan felt an embryonic kicking of feminism, did the Queen
feel a bloody kicking .

I didn’t know one had to be a bitch to be a feminist

Smileless2012

Well fingers crossed it will be the Queen who will be on the front page over newspaper Forsythia.

It sounds as if Oprah agreed to the interview without being made aware that they were about too, or may be stripped of their patronages. Where have you read/heard this?

I have read this online in various places, the evidence supports it anyway as it is being refilmed. I think It was designed to clash with the Commonwealth programme but, instead, events have overtaken them.

Thanks Forsythia.

Whoa, steady there Annie! You'll have the swoopers back on the thread with that kind of fighting talk.