Megan and Harry again!

Lucca

NellG. Thank you for permission to post. I didn’t realise you were in charge. I only used the crying with laughter emoji in the loosest sense as I don’t think there’s a “ are you seriously saying that “ emoji

No need to explain, everyone knows what you're doing. It's fine, I don't mind.

Galaxy It isn't really Ms behaviour that interests me, it's the massive reaction any discussion of her provokes and what that's about. So my interest is more in all 'your/our' reactions and what underlies them because human behaviour is interesting.

So I'm definitely not telling anyone not to post, I'm just asking them to stop saying they don't care but... when they clearly do care, even if it's not about MM personally.

I should say Some of the press, not all

And the press are not interested in reporting pleasant things that any of the RF do, they just want any dirt they can scrape up.

I literally just told you at 11:53 why I post on these threads

You didn’t literally tell me anything. You appeared to be aiming your post at “GoodyNell”.

You seem to enjoy sarcasm and laughing emojis in your posts but get riled up when you receive a response.

I’ll leave it there. It’s a beautiful day where I am so I’m off for a walk. Enjoy your day.

NellG. Thank you for permission to post. I didn’t realise you were in charge. I only used the crying with laughter emoji in the loosest sense as I don’t think there’s a “ are you seriously saying that “ emoji

Catherine doesn’t ‘do a Diana or a Fergie or a Megan’ , she carries out public duties as expected, same as Sophie and Anne, their private life is - private

I agree, Galaxy

It's not a life to live

Catherine always responded well I suppose. She certainly had a lot of criticism, as did her family. But she just kept her head down

We don't see vast amounts of them in the media. Maybe that's how to play it. Calm and steady.

Who knows, she may well become more vocal as years go by

Surely the poster & the post are
intertwined ,it is part & parcel of who we are.

Hollysteers Agreed. Though I can see what the thread critics are saying, I can't give their argument massive credibility because this discussion will in no way have a harmful consequence for H&M. Because it is not invective directed at them, but conversation about them and everybody gossips.

(Potential Swoopers - please note the difference between consequence and effect before anyone wants to tell me I might be hurting H&M's feelings).

Besides, most of the criticism here isn't of any of the arguments, or views it's because I personally piss a lot of gransnetters off and they want to take me down a peg to two. Which is fine, they can try

I comment on these threads because I find the view of what is acceptable behavior very different to my view. So someone said the reason for the threads is to better understand her behaviour. I suppose I think her behaviour is fairly bog standard. If I entered into the royal family ( which is fairly unlikely unless one of the unmarried royals has a very specific type of women in mind!) I imagine I would last 5 minutes and then run screaming. And to be honest I would think anyone who did the same was the sane one. Being in the rf appears to be a disaster on the whole for those who enter it. So in a sense I wonder why there are not endless threads on Catherine's behaviour which to me is completely alien to myself and well pretty much everyone I know.

tickingbird

NellG You raised some very good points and along similar lines to ones I have raised on other threads. Why do GN’s that purport to have little to no interest in the RF or H&M regularly come onto the threads specifically to berate others and usually to derail said threads? I do know why they do it but won’t drawn on that but suffice to say if there’s any thread guaranteed to get heated or deleted, apart from a political one, it’s a Harry & Meghan one, and always caused by those that ‘have no interest’!!

I literally just told you at 11:53 why I post on these threads.

Good to see you're channelling your inner John Proctor Alegiras

Nah, in all seriousness you make a good point regarding the parallels - and not just in relation to the M criticisms on this thread ( and elsewhere), but there is also a parallel in the behaviour of some of the posters who are uncomfortable with the opinions of others. Lots of swooping in and pointing fingers because it's easier to condemn the poster than the post and more comfortable than examining why the topic makes them so uncomfortable.

But, the major difference, which imo is greater than the similarity is that the consequences are not the same. McCarthyism was a regime, policing a perceived threat to society and people truly suffered for it. The crux of the Crucible's message is in the innate hypocrisy of all involved.

There's zero problem with having balance in a discussion and you are often the one who brings it. But my argument was that it's because you care about the issues, not because you don't.

I care about the issues too, it's why I'm still here talking about it - I am no more invested in M as a person than you are but her actions form the bread of an interesting 'meat' sandwich.

So, in reality has this discussion ever 'really' been about M?

If the D&D of Sussex (I bet Sussex is pleased with them) kept their heads down, like the Gloucesters for example, we would not have a thread like this. We cannot stick our heads over the parapet without a comeback, for good or ill and unless they are completely misguided, they must know this.
We are the only creatures who gossip (ever see your cat having a gossip over the garden fence?) and unless it gets out of hand, is completely normal and dare I say it, enjoyable.

People don't like to admit to being wrong, Anniebach!

But deep inside, they know!

I am curious why some make a statement of what they think is
fact yet never reply if their fact is wrong . A problem with saying - ‘I was wrong’ ‘i was mistaken ‘ ?

I don’t post on threads I have no interest in , have no wish to derail any thread

Apparently even the absence of a question mark proves that you were talking s***. grin* Not necessarily Alegrias ?

Apparently even the absence of a question mark proves that you were talking s****.

I thought the issue was you took Anniebach's question and reformulated it into a statement that she hadn't made. As she was the only one to have asked that question, the criticism was interpreted to be referring to her.

Can't answer for anybody else but I think the use, or in my opinion overuse, of the crying with laughter emoji (especially when there are 4,5 or 6 in a row) is often used as a nasty put down, not a genuine response.

It is indeed Annie.

Huge coincidence maddyone. perhaps they will speak on the Commonwealth during the interview,

There are loads of threads that I have no interest in.
I don’t post on them!

NellG You raised some very good points and along similar lines to ones I have raised on other threads. Why do GN’s that purport to have little to no interest in the RF or H&M regularly come onto the threads specifically to berate others and usually to derail said threads? I do know why they do it but won’t drawn on that but suffice to say if there’s any thread guaranteed to get heated or deleted, apart from a political one, it’s a Harry & Meghan one, and always caused by those that ‘have no interest’!!

One poster doesn’t recognise a question mark

I think that no one on here or in the general public have the first idea whether Meghan chose the date of the broadcast or not.

Rather a huge coincidence though isn’t it!