Jeor Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 I do also wonder how much the paparazzi and press will stop if the Sussexes become private citizens. As private citizens, they would have the moral right to privacy which they wouldn't have enjoyed as royals, but I don't think this moral right will manifest itself in actual privacy. Hollywood celebrities routinely have their privacy invaded by zealous photographers at airports or outside their homes, etc. This type of intrusion could still well happen to the Sussexes. I feel for them because they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. They're obviously trying to do something about it, but I'm not sure that it will work. They also suffer because the Cambridges are playing the opposite game. Kate Middleton has obviously decided to give the press what they want (the ridiculously early post-maternity appearances, the official family portraits and inviting photographers to the occasional "walking the kids to school" shots) and in doing so she's received gentler treatment overall, though initially she did suffer early on as Wills' girlfriend. Essentially in return for granting tightly controlled but regular access, the Cambridges have struck a deal with the devil, and their tactic of appeasement seems to be working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Kate’s also white English rather than mixed-race American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 3 hours ago, Jeor said: I do also wonder how much the paparazzi and press will stop if the Sussexes become private citizens. As private citizens, they would have the moral right to privacy which they wouldn't have enjoyed as royals, but I don't think this moral right will manifest itself in actual privacy. The thing is that, as many have said, there are not many paparazzi photos of Harry and Meghan. And I can bet that there will be far more once they leave the royal family. I am not sure anyone understands what they really want. Per many experts, what they have written on their website is either (1) not their choice or (2) in total contrition to what Royal family is supposed to represent. 58 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said: Kate’s also white English rather than mixed-race American. It would be downright rotten of them to push that sort of narrative. For all we know, everyone in Palace wanted them to be successful, they were given a lot of leeway in many things, the Queen openly welcomed Meghan. It seems that everyone in Palace wanted them to succeed and somehow they didn't. Not as a couple, they seem to love each other, but as part of the royal family. It is such a shame, especially given the fact that Prince Charles was already working on giving them more freedom. I think this interview really explains what a messy situation this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 It's not that I don't have sympathy for Meghan. But surely the answer is obvious. Abolish the monarchy. No more tabloid intrusion. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Does anyone here actually believe Harry has any Windsor blood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 The other difference with Kate is that she has almost completely toed the line and ditched any remnant of her real self and just become a sort of personality free clothes horse, smiles at camera, looks sympathetically  at sick children, never says or does anything political or controversial. She has become completely uninteresting, like her husband. Which seems to be the Royal tactic when it comes to dealing with the press ( certainly seems that way in the Crown anyway). Meghan and Harry by contrast are much more interesting, she’s an actual American tv Star with a sad back story, he’s the lively roguish brother. It would always be difficult for them to fade into the background, and they haven’t helped themselves by taking political stances publicly, which never goes down too well. Add in the parallels to Wallis Simpson and there’s a ton for the press to latch onto. Also i get the sense that the British press is often about relationships and who you know. Outsiders coming into the royal family almost always struggle and get some awful treatment. Anyone old enough to remember Fergies treatment in the 80s or was it 90s, will not envy being called fat, lazy, ugly, badly dressed, money hungry.  Where as established Royals seem to be able to navigate these scandals a bit easier... I’m still shocked that Prince Andrew got away as likely as he did all this time.   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 2 hours ago, Heartofice said: I’m still shocked that Prince Andrew got away as likely as he did all this time.  I'm glad you brought this up! Isn't it strange that the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha has been hiding a sweaty, club-crawling child rapist for decades, with barely a fraction of the media interest or investigation that has been devoted to, say, a half-black American woman who married a second son? Andrew was doing anything he wanted, to anyone he wanted, more or less out in the open, and no one in the supposedly ruthless tabloid press felt compelled to hack his voicemail or publish his personal correspondence. Why the unequal treatment? He literally had the nickname Randy Andy, his grotesque shit was an open secret for decades, and it took Epstein's arrest to get anyone to look at him sideways. Even after his obvious bullshit excuses exploded into the worst kind of press for his family, he gets attention for a week or two and then he gets to recede into the background. Whatever kind of treatment Meghan Markle was supposed to expect from the British press and public, shouldn't she at least be treated more kindly and less invasively than a goddamn child rapist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Why do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Just now, Heartofice said: Why do you think? I asked first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 I already answered. I suspect his connections with the press and the royal machinery have protected him for quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 18 minutes ago, Heartofice said: I already answered. I suspect his connections with the press and the royal machinery have protected him for quite some time. The "royal machinery" seems to be protecting him even after his disastrous and similarly unsanctioned interview, while Meghan Markle has been left to twist in the wind. Do you think it's naive of Markle, and unworthy of sympathy, for her to be surprised that she got worse treatment the press and "royal machinery" than her sex criminal uncle-by-marriage? I've been told that all royals are supposed to expect vicious press treatment and invasion of privacy, and she should have known that was going to be the case, yet Andrew's been out at clubs groping teenagers for decades and literally cavorting with a convicted child rapist, with just a wink and a nod. You can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Firstly I believe the machinery, if it exists ,would be primarily be concerned with protecting the royals from huge scandals that could bring it down. It’s not keeping all stories out of the press. Andrew has been subject of numerous stories about being a letch, a party boy and total bellend for many years. So even he isn’t totally protected. If you had spent the last 20 years in Britain you know he’s hardly been depicted as a hero. And that’s not mentioning his ex wife who was treated terribly by the press, as have numerous other outsiders ( one of whom died in a car crash caused by the press) So now it’s your turn, why DO you think there is a supposed disparity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Which Tyler Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Does the royal stuff really count as "Politics"? Or should it be in "Celebrity 'News' "? Or is it political in as much as it distracts everyone from the pile of shit were sinking ever deeper into?  So at some point this year, Brexit will have cost us more than the entirety of our contributions to the EU since our first involvement. And yet, there's still £120M to be spent on a party to "celebrate" our attempted suicide. I see there's a new whistleblower revelation on Cambridge Analytica - but no-one cares because Harry said something. The report into Russian interference that was going to be released just as soon as we got the election over and done with has... erm... shrunk without a trace, and indeed, without a comment, because Megan said something. Of course, the whole "Prince Andrew's a rapist of underage girls" thing has been entirely forgotten, because the queen's upset with her grandson...  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 5 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Firstly I believe the machinery, if it exists ,would be primarily be concerned with protecting the royals from huge scandals that could bring it down. It’s not keeping all stories out of the press. Andrew has been subject of numerous stories about being a letch, a party boy and total bellend for many years. So even he isn’t totally protected. If you had spent the last 20 years in Britain you know he’s hardly been depicted as a hero. And that’s not mentioning his ex wife who was treated terribly by the press, as have numerous other outsiders ( one of whom died in a car crash caused by the press) So now it’s your turn, why DO you think there is a supposed disparity? Can you just get your story straight? Is there "royal machinery" or not? I think there's a disparity because most of Western society is predisposed to ignore the criminal conduct of wealthy white men while women and people of color get shit on for the most trivial missteps. I also think the "royal machinery" -- palace staff and PR people and their friends in the press -- were willing to sell Markle out and shop unflattering stories about her while going to extraordinary lengths to protect a grotesque sexual predator, who is also a stone fucking bigot. So in the end, I think it's perfectly reasonable for Meghan Markle to be surprised she didn't get more support and protection from her husband's family. She may or may not have been naive about how she'd be treated. The PR professionals employed by her in-laws, and her in-laws themselves, should absolutely not have been surprised, and thus they have failed or betrayed her, which may be a pretty good fucking reason for her and her husband to want to separate from the "royal machinery" and not keep in close consultation with them while doing so. And I think your willingness to criticize her surprise and declare yourself unsympathetic because she should have known better gives a big fucking pass to a lot of malice and bad actors all around her, but that's firmly in keeping with the people you choose to defend vs the people you choose to criticize throughout all your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 31 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: Can you just get your story straight? Is there "royal machinery" or not? If you'd spent a bit more time reading and less time trying to smugly rush out your latest bad faith 'gotcha' moment, you'd notice I used the word 'suspect', meaning I'm just guessing, its speculation. Which is fair because the rest of your post veers between speculation and pure fantasy. Quote I think there's a disparity because most of Western society is predisposed to ignore the criminal conduct of wealthy white men while women and people of color get shit on for the most trivial missteps. This is of course predictably the only conclusion possible from you because it's pretty clear you view the world in these childishly simplistic terms. I'd suggest that there is much more going on than that. If you were suggesting that Meghan is receiving worse treatment than everyone else due to her race then I'd expect some sort of evidence to back that up? I'd expect that white women who joined the royals would be given a free pass. Sadly looking at the experiences of Diana, Sarah Ferguson and even Camilla Parker Bowles I'd say that wasn't the case. Quote I think it's perfectly reasonable for Meghan Markle to be surprised she didn't get more support and protection from her husband's family. Why? Because there are plenty of other cases of it happening before. Why is she so surprised? Her husband's mother died whilst being chased by the press. She famously complained of getting no support from the royal family. Honestly, I don't know where you needed to have been hiding for the past 30 years for any of this stuff to be surprising in the least. She clearly under estimated the extent to the press intrusion in her life, but that really makes her come across as incredibly naive, and while I don't think she deserves the treatment she got, she absolutely should have known it was going to happen from the start. That is why I am not very receptive to her calls for sympathy.   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 If you'd actually bothered to read instead of rushing to normalize a status quo of inequality as you always do, I said her unequal treatment is partially due to her being a woman, and your list of women mistreated by the "royal machinery" proves me right. I don't need to know where you've been hiding for the last several decades to ignore that wealthy white men get preferential treatment all over, but you've certainly done your part to perpetuate it with your sneering attacks on a woman who hasn't done much except be surprised by how fucked up your national culture is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: If you'd actually bothered to read instead of rushing to normalize a status quo of inequality as you always do, I said her unequal treatment is partially due to her being a woman, and your list of women mistreated by the "royal machinery" proves me right. I don't need to know where you've been hiding for the last several decades to ignore that wealthy white men get preferential treatment all over, but you've certainly done your part to perpetuate it with your sneering attacks on a woman who hasn't done much except be surprised by how fucked up your national culture is. Ok so you are admitting she hasn't been treated badly due to her race? We are getting somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Just now, Heartofice said: Ok so you are admitting she hasn't been treated badly due to her race? We are getting somewhere. It's a combination of her race and gender you pillock. As I fucking said in the post you fucking quoted that you nevertheless reduced to me blaming it solely on race. For all your bad faith whining about my lack of nuance, you have never once engaged with the whole of my arguments. You always boil it down to a dumb strawman before you choose to engage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Just now, DanteGabriel said: It's a combination of her race and gender you pillock. As I fucking said in the post you fucking quoted that you nevertheless reduced to me blaming it solely on race. For all your bad faith whining about my lack of nuance, you have never once engaged with the whole of my arguments. You always boil it down to a dumb strawman before you choose to engage. So if she was white she'd be treated better? I'm just trying to get to the heart of what you're saying here. You are very confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Just now, Heartofice said: So if she was white she'd be treated better? I'm just trying to get to the heart of what you're saying here. You are very confused. I'm not confused, and my central fucking thesis is not hard to grasp. It's not my fault you're incapable of grasping the nuance you claim to crave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.