Megan and Harry again!

What lies behind? Jealousy , spite, ? Or maybe an altruistic outlook.?
There is so much inequality in the world that fact that we are communicating on laptops/ computers etc is an example , Puts all of us on here in a better situation than so many others.
If we chuck or computers out of the window , it won’t help anyone at all.
So we shouldn’t knock each other for doing something, even if some do have more than others.

I thought it was me who raised the crying with laughter emoji question? Never mind.

Rosie51 you obviously don't warrant a response - didn't you know that the thread is all about me? Tsk, get in line will you?

NellG sorry miss....... backs away tugging forelock......

Bridgeit I don't think ( without going back through every comment) that anyone has knocked them for the doing something (if you mean charitably, which I'm assuming). It seems to me that what puzzles people is why it has to be done so publicly, when the tradition - in both the UK and USA regarding charity work/awareness is that altruism is best delivered discreetly. I give a lot to charity, I don't feel the need to put it on here, or FB every time I do for instance. I give to support the charity, not to draw attention to how marvellous I am as a human being.

Plus, they are now making their status a commercial entity. That seems to be what bothers people too.

I think it is because certain people attract other people to donate Two examples :

I can tell everyone I donate to a charity supported by. ........
or
I wasn’t aware of that charity , it sounds like one I would like to support.

I dont care about Meghan, I dont even know if I like her, but I do care about the way womens behaviour is viewed and in some ways policed.
So in terms of Catherine keeping her head down is seen as a good thing, I dont really agree with that, I think lots of people keep their head down and it doesnt make them particularly happy. Now I have no idea whether Catherine is happy or not obviously, but the idea that keeping her head down is a positive I dont know. But then again I think be kind is generally bad for people as well!

Galaxy Surely when it's said Catherine keeps her head down, it really just means she accepts and abides by royal protocols? The same as anybody has to accept and abide by the conditions of employment if they choose to accept a job. Marrying into the royal family comes with certain expectations of public behaviour, whether male or female, Catherine appears happy to live by these. What she's like in private is totally unknown to us.

I'm sure that marrying into or being born into the RF wouldn't have suited me either, so for both H&M deciding it wasn't for them, for me isn't the issue.

It's the hypocrisy that annoys me. They want a private life yet seek publicity at every turn. They lecture others on saving the planet but it's a 'do as I say and not as I do approach'.

It's the portrayal of the UK as racist, of having never welcomed M which is quite simply untrue. I've seen criticisms of M here on GN being said to be rooted in racism when there's been none. What better way to shut down anything other than praise than to play the racist card.

They are courting publicity, pure and simple which carries risks and the main one is that you don't always get the publicity you want.

Maybe they believe in the old saying that there's no such thing as bad publicity. IMO they must believe that any is better than none because not for the first time and probably not for the last, this doesn't appear to be going well and the interview hasn't even been broadcast.

I don't think that discussion about M are purely based on the fact that she's a woman Galaxy.

I posted earlier on this thread that my observations and criticisms would have been exactly the same had she been a princess and H had married into her RF.

If a man were behaving the same way in the same circumstances, my comments would be the same.

Isn't that what makes this so worthy of discussion though? It's also what makes it less about M the individual, and more about what her actions represent regarding change - especially change for women.

This topic niggles at our feminism or lack of it I think.

Catherine can 'bow her head' as a woman within the RF as an institution and that can be seen as an act of respect - yet she could equally be seen as doing that as an act of subjugation. When she could be socking it to the man and using her position to profoundly influence women's issues. I suspect she does, but not in a way that the press wants to support. A bit like P Anne has been doing for years.

Yet M burps and the press are all over it - why? Because there is some inherent problem with these two women as individuals, or because they are both good examples of 'what a woman should be'?

Catherine's current behaviour supports the RF as a 'firm' and the traditional role of a woman in the family, any family. She appears to accept that she is part of something greater than herself, (yet I hope can still be herself). So 'we' like her, it's comfortable and unchallenging.

M on the other hand is a whirlwind of 'eff that for a game of soldiers'. Is she slapping 'us' in the face with change we just aren't ready for and ignoring the discomfort it's causing? Maybe.

If people want to be 'of service' this matters because service is primarily about what others need is't it?

Seems so much concern that Catherine ‘keeps her head down’
No different to the men who have married into the royal family, but it’s forgotten the Queens father was one of 5 brothers and 1 sister. The Queen has 3 sons and 1 daughter ,
Charles has 2 sons. So more females married into the royal
family than Male.

Sophie Wessex, Camilla, Catherine are doing what previous
duchess’s have done. Same as Phillip, Tim Lawrence do and Mark Phillips did.

They abide by the job description rules, Diana, Fergie , Megan
didn’t and got much publicity. Catherine has the sense not to
need the cameras

I've seen criticisms of M here on GN being said to be rooted in racism when there's been none. What better way to shut down anything other than praise than to play the racist card.
I've never been on GN at the point a M&H thread is axed Smileless. Is it always racism that gets the thread chopped? Or also posters being abusive to each other?

A very wealthy heir to the Throne and his wife selling viewing rights of an interview that will (possibly) cause distress to his family to the highest bidder.
This is not working to earn their own living.
Disgraceful.

And what about the D of E Annie? You couldn't find a more self opinionated man and yet he's spent his entire married life 'playing second fiddle' to his wife, the Queen.

Does anyone really believe he's like that in private?

The Queen mother could hardly have been described as a shrinking violet and bowing her head. She was a force to be reckoned with by all accounts.

H & M have, and continue to behave in an underhanded, disrespectful and publicity seeking way which is what I'm sure their critics are holding them accountable for.

It's been when posters have been abused by others accusing them of racism Ellainne resulting in what GNHQ terms as 'a bun fight'.

I agree eazybee it's disgraceful and would add distasteful.

Thanks Smileless.

Smileless I agree about the Duke, anyone think he is submissive as so got it wrong.

No one is being submissive to their partners, it’s ‘The Crown’ and duty to The Crown .

I think Anne is 14th in line , she accepts Charles is heir , always
has.

Bridgeit

I think it is because certain people attract other people to donate Two examples :

I can tell everyone I donate to a charity supported by. ........
or
I wasn’t aware of that charity , it sounds like one I would like to support.

True, but I think the charities might be happier to have less controversial links than M&H over time, but who knows? Maybe they will mature and prove all their detractors wrong.

Anniebach

She chose the day of the broadcast ?

Not that I’ve read.

Allegedly she expressed a preference on which channel she wanted it to air on, but we don’t know if she actually did

NellG

Bridgeit I don't think ( without going back through every comment) that anyone has knocked them for the doing something (if you mean charitably, which I'm assuming). It seems to me that what puzzles people is why it has to be done so publicly, when the tradition - in both the UK and USA regarding charity work/awareness is that altruism is best delivered discreetly. I give a lot to charity, I don't feel the need to put it on here, or FB every time I do for instance. I give to support the charity, not to draw attention to how marvellous I am as a human being.

Plus, they are now making their status a commercial entity. That seems to be what bothers people too.

I haven't ploughed through the whole thread because it's long one, so apologies if much of my post has already been stated up thread.

Nell I agree with all of that, particularly "altruism is best delivered discreetly" Allegedly the late George Michael would turn up and do stints at soup kitchens, swearing other volunteers to secrecy as well as making various donations anonymously on an individual basis, always making sure there was no public or hoo hah surrounding his acts of charity.

Harry and Meghan are being paid a staggering £18,000,000 by Spotify to deliver some podcast or other, musicians on the other hand, some who are struggling I believe are paid quite a meagre amount to have their music streamed through that site. Which does seem grossly disproportionate. I don't know how long these two will remain an interesting pair, which I imagine anyway is largely down to the furore surrounding their vocal trials and tribulations, rather than their deep concern about environmental issues etc, and it's not as if they cover anything in these pod casts on high profile issues that haven't been expressed already by people with far more gravitas and minus a great fat fee. I think they are trying to carve a public life out along the lines of The Obamas, but lack their intellect and life experiences. I don't think anything good will come out of the interview with Oprah, Harry is already sounding petulant and Oprah I imagine will be ten steps ahead in manipulating the direction of that interview. Neither do I see a lot of sympathy for Meghan's desire to have a "louder voice" For a couple who paradoxically wanted to live their life away from the glare of the spotlight, their waxing and waning on that seems to be driven by what is being financially dangled in front of their noses.

Anniebach

Seems so much concern that Catherine ‘keeps her head down’
No different to the men who have married into the royal family, but it’s forgotten the Queens father was one of 5 brothers and 1 sister. The Queen has 3 sons and 1 daughter ,
Charles has 2 sons. So more females married into the royal
family than Male.

Sophie Wessex, Camilla, Catherine are doing what previous
duchess’s have done. Same as Phillip, Tim Lawrence do and Mark Phillips did.

They abide by the job description rules, Diana, Fergie , Megan
didn’t and got much publicity. Catherine has the sense not to
need the cameras

I totally agree Annie both men and women who marry into the RF just get on with it, after all they have plenty of time beforehand to think about ‘is this what I want’.
Also, it’s not just Meghan Markle ( as was) is it? I think most people think much the same of Harry now, as he has happily gone along with the plans, he may or may not have been the instigator of the plans, could have been a joint effort.

lemongrove I wonder if he/they have significantly overplayed their hand?

Maybe, maybe not - America is a big place and they may well have a lot of support there. I suspect interest in them here will wane.

PS - I'm still tittering over another post of yours, involving Rab C Nesbitt. Lost my coffee on the keyboard! ?

TerriBull It's pretty unsavoury isn't it? Got to be honest it's p'd me off so much I've dropped my Spotify sub. Some other service can have my money. I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I'm sure M&H will seriously regret forcing me to personally deprive them of 50 billionths of a penny! ? But, godammit, it's the principle!

Yes it's very unsavoury. I can't help questioning their relevance anyway. California is in the midst of unprecedented hardship. From what I read there are a hell of a lot of homeless, more than ever, living in skid row type tent city affairs. Meghan's recent product placement on Oprah's show some sort of $20 dollar Frappe/latte/macchiato whatever bollocks drink, albeit a product of a female founded business, seems as irrelevant to me as whatever Gwyneth Paltrow is using to steam clean her private parts these days. New additions to an irrelevant elite living in expensive enclaves with seemingly a quest to enlighten the masses, but in what exactly

TerriBull I will never look at my steam mop in the same way again! ???

Yeah, all that being of service thing tends to wobble a bit when you look at it like that.

If that's them being the change they want to see in the world, thank god I'm getting older and wont have to witness the fallout - not sure I'll be able to afford it anyway at $20 a go!