UK Politics: And Brexit came swirling down

[Jen'ari]

On 1/10/2020 at 2:50 PM, Heartofice said:

And yet the British Monarchy are still incredibly popular with Brits.

This is a bit of a generalisation, I more feel it’s a vocal minority that are either strongly pro or anti the monarchy, the vast majority arn’t too concerned either way.

22 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Two things. First are we talking about a British five? *shudder*

Second. I think you underestimate him, We are living in the age of Ed Sheeran. So chances are he would find some drunk bird (we're talking about Britain afterall) in a Karaoke bar, even if he just looks like Ed Sheeran after a deworming.

 

In terms of either musical ability or looks I think some of us would still pick neither of them!.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Jen'ari said:

This is a bit of a generalisation, I more feel it’s a vocal minority that are either strongly pro or anti the monarchy, the vast majority arn’t too concerned either way.

In terms of either musical ability or looks I think some of us would still pick neither of them!.

Your wish is my command.

C'mon on now, everybody saw that coming.

[HexMachina]

4 hours ago, Risto said:

Couple of thoughts...

1. Not informing Queen or Prince of Wales and having done this speaks about petulance. It is almost childish. I mean, it seems that no one in the family knew which is sad on so many levels. No one denies them desire to be independent, but there are right ways to do so. This was wrong. The worse thing was that it seems Prince Charles discussed this with them and there are reports he told them to do everything by the book and find the solutions for numerous logistical problems before announcing anything. And they did this? Oh, boy... I would not like to be member of the Royal Family these days.

2. I feel that Sussexes have created a Shakespearean drama out of their lives. I mean, you complain about newspapers spreading lies about strained relationship with the family, and you do this? You mention Diana, and the entire royal correspondence has said that there haven't been paparazzi pictures of the two. Meghan was granted some freedoms some others haven't (remember how Catherine had to dress up and pose in front of the media mere hours after giving birth to, was it Charlotte?). I mean, she is not the first outsider and she should have known what being married to Prince means. There was an article filled with how Diana, Camilla, Fergie and Catherine have been called throughout the past 30 years and Meghan was no exception. It is not OK, most certainly but as an adult, you have to understand that some things will happen.

3. Returning to what, supposedly, Charles told to the two of them. They managed to create such a mess that no one really knows what they expect and how the things will move on. They want to be financially independent and separate, but they expect to keep certain privileges and yes, titles. They want to work for the Queen, while outlining something that Royal Family is fundamentally against. 

They speak about independence, while being keen to keep the perks. They speak about respect and love, while blindsiding the family in the worst possible way. They speak about press while not separating the news from the comment or understanding how positive image they have been having for quite some time. Honestly, I feel that they really have no idea what they want. 

No, you really don’t. Just because it happened to others doesn’t make it right when it happens to someone else, and it doesn’t put that person in the wrong for wanting out from that kind of treatment. I have no fondness for the Royal family at all but the idea that Meghan should have just sucked it up and allowed the BS treatment to continue is beyond crass.

[Jen'ari]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Your wish is my command.

C'mon on now, everybody saw that coming.

Thanks for that .

[A wilding]

5 hours ago, Risto said:

1. Not informing Queen or Prince of Wales and having done this speaks about petulance. It is almost childish. I mean, it seems that no one in the family knew which is sad on so many levels. No one denies them desire to be independent, but there are right ways to do so. This was wrong. The worse thing was that it seems Prince Charles discussed this with them and there are reports he told them to do everything by the book and find the solutions for numerous logistical problems before announcing anything. And they did this? Oh, boy... I would not like to be member of the Royal Family these days.

The scuttlebutt is that their plans had leaked to a UK tabloid that was about to publish them, forcing them to go public prematurely.

Which, assuming it is true, is a good illustration of the amount of scrutiny and pressure that they are under ...

 

[Mladen]

30 minutes ago, A wilding said:

The scuttlebutt is that their plans had leaked to a UK tabloid that was about to publish them, forcing them to go public prematurely.

Which, assuming it is true, is a good illustration of the amount of scrutiny and pressure that they are under ...

 

According to some royal correspondents, they and other news organizations have been talking about this for quite some time. Them doing this was more of confirmation of things that some news outlets have been talking for a while. I mean, putting up a website without informing Queen, Prince Charles or Prince WIlliam... That really sucks.

1 hour ago, HelenaExMachina said:

No, you really don’t. Just because it happened to others doesn’t make it right when it happens to someone else, and it doesn’t put that person in the wrong for wanting out from that kind of treatment. I have no fondness for the Royal family at all but the idea that Meghan should have just sucked it up and allowed the BS treatment to continue is beyond crass.

Helena, it is not about her being ready to be subjected to body-shaming, racism etc. It is more of understanding that given her new position, there will be an occasional article that won't be positive. 

The problem as I see is that no one can actually pinpoint the negative press. All those journalists who report from House of Windsor actually speak that the pair got incredible amount of positive press. They were moving the Royal Family in right direction and their chemistry and love shown every time they were together spoke about idyllic marriage. Also, it seems that Queen was welcoming Meghan with open arms, learning from past mistakes, probably. For all intents and purposes, The Royal Family scored again. Big time.

And then the rumors resurfaced about strife between two  brothers, about Harry wanting to step down and Charles advising them on how to do that. They have been vehemently denying that. Yes, some of the press was racist and misogynist putting all the blame on Meghan, but the press closest to Windsors actually believe they mistook online commentary with the news, which, frankly, is something that many of us have done at some point.

And then there was some valid criticism about using private planes while speaking about environment or making a documentary about African tour into their own sap story. 

They obviously seem like they want a change and they want to lift the restrictions they have as members of Royal Family. But they have really done bad job in that. They want freedom but they seem to be happy in demanding for British to continue paying for their excursions. I am not sure how Crown will respond, but given the fact that both Elizabeth and Charles wanted to lower the costs of Royal Family (which are huge due to the fact they have incredibly high number of Senior Royal Members, which is a consequence of Elizabeth's long lifespan), I really can't see how Harry and Meghan would get what they are asking at the moment. 

[Jeor]

3 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

No, you really don’t. Just because it happened to others doesn’t make it right when it happens to someone else, and it doesn’t put that person in the wrong for wanting out from that kind of treatment. I have no fondness for the Royal family at all but the idea that Meghan should have just sucked it up and allowed the BS treatment to continue is beyond crass.

Certainly Meghan has been treated poorly and shouldn't have to put up with that sort of thing, and she shouldn't take it lying down. I think the issue that some people have is her protestations that this was all unexpected. She's incredibly naive to not have expected some element of Diana-like treatment.

A more comparable thing would be politics. Politicians can regularly talk about how difficult the job is and how civil conversation has disappeared, etc. No problem with that and people can agree with it, and politicians can fight for a better political environment and dialogue. But if a politician says, "Wow, I got into politics but didn't expect all the publicity and for it to be so cutthroat," then they're likely to lose more than a few sympathy points.

[DanteGabriel]

I've said this before but apparently it didn't penetrate the fog of other people's smug assumptions: you can expect crappy treatment and still be overwhelmed by it, especially when you've got a newborn (my wife literally cried when I went back to work after my parental leave ended).

You can be warned and be prepared for invasive treatment and lack of privacy and still be surprised and upset when, say, tabloids publish a private letter you wrote to your dickhead father, or when lies about you become the prevailing narrative.

@Heartofice has spent pages and pages railing against the "unfair" treatment of people like Nigel Farage and Andy Ngo, who are actual liars and bigots and shitty human beings who have caused real pain and suffering to lots and lots of people. But he feels compelled to lie and exaggerate about Meghan  Markle's naivete or complaining. HoI, for example, said she said no one ever asked about how she was doing. Actually she said "not many people" have asked in that famous interview from a few months ago.

Y'all can be smug pitiless dipshits all you want, but if you're going to keep whining about her here, try to have at least a modicum of honesty and consistency.

I'm not some monarchist or even particularly a fan of the Sussexes, but the dumb claims that keep getting uncritically regurgitated and chewed over by callous dickheads is a little much.

[Mladen]

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I've said this before but apparently it didn't penetrate the fog of other people's smug assumptions: you can expect crappy treatment and still be overwhelmed by it, especially when you've got a newborn (my wife literally cried when I went back to work after my parental leave ended).

Oh, dear Lord... No one denies that. Especially during the pregnancy. But, I think that we should also take into account what many of the royal correspondents have been speaking - the press has not been as negative as one assumes and the family, it seems, supported both of them in coping with that. 

6 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Y'all can be smug pitiless dipshits all you want, but if you're going to keep whining about her here, try to have at least a modicum of honesty and consistency.

OK, no need to attack each other here. I, personally, believe that this is not Meghan's fault. I believe they are in this together and I believe have used enough of "they" to make such a point. That said, something obviously went wrong here from the fairytale wedding that melted the hearts of billion people who watched that to this sudden "divorce" from the rest of the family, without even informing them. It's not about her, it's about them. At least for me.

[DanteGabriel]

19 minutes ago, Risto said:

Oh, dear Lord... No one denies that.

Maybe take it up with these guys then.

 

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

Certainly Meghan has been treated poorly and shouldn't have to put up with that sort of thing, and she shouldn't take it lying down. I think the issue that some people have is her protestations that this was all unexpected. She's incredibly naive to not have expected some element of Diana-like treatment.

A more comparable thing would be politics. Politicians can regularly talk about how difficult the job is and how civil conversation has disappeared, etc. No problem with that and people can agree with it, and politicians can fight for a better political environment and dialogue. But if a politician says, "Wow, I got into politics but didn't expect all the publicity and for it to be so cutthroat," then they're likely to lose more than a few sympathy points.

 

On 1/9/2020 at 2:04 PM, Heartofice said:

She should have been very aware of what she was getting into when she married Harry so I have little sympathy there. 

 

Also, "royal correspondents don't think it's been so bad" doesn't carry much water with me. It rather strikes me as something like hearing white people say racism isn't such a problem. If you're the person accused of the bad behavior, you don't get to judge its impact.

[polishgenius]

Fucking lol at the idea that Meghan's press hasn't been that bad. Or that nobody can point to where it has been bad. I googled for five seconds and found an article, but fuck, I don't really care and generally avoid following them except occasionally clicking a particularly ridiculous looking article if it pops up while I'm signing in to yahoo, and even I noticed the difference in treatment between her and Kate was night and day.

[Mladen]

25 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Also, "royal correspondents don't think it's been so bad" doesn't carry much water with me. It rather strikes me as something like hearing white people say racism isn't such a problem. If you're the person accused of the bad behavior, you don't get to judge its impact.

Yes, but here is a catch. If they had problems with press talking about rift in the family and suddenly they do something like this, don't they actually confirm the story all along?

2 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Fucking lol at the idea that Meghan's press hasn't been that bad. Or that nobody can point to where it has been bad. I googled for five seconds and found an article.

Yeah, but I suppose that there is some difference between some tabloids and social media trolls and royal corespondents. That said, the pair had a support of the family. Or, at least that looked that way. I mean, this is bad, really bad, but do they really think this will stop if they step back from their duties? I mean, how different they expect media to treat them now? Was the entire problem in the fact that they were royals? Now, everything will be OK?

[polishgenius]

1 minute ago, Risto said:

I mean, how different they expect media to treat them now? Was the entire problem in the fact that they were royals? Now, everything will be OK? 

It means they get to choose when and where they engage with the media to a much greater extent.


 

2 minutes ago, Risto said:

Yeah, but I suppose that there is some difference between some tabloids and social media trolls and royal corespondents.

I really don't understand why you're assigning some special privileged place to 'royal correspondents' but even if you do... why should their be a difference? They don't get less invasive because they work for the Mail or the Sun.

[Mladen]

26 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

It means they get to choose when and where they engage with the media to a much greater extent.

So, that was the issue here? They didn't get to choose when and where they could engage the media? 

No, really, I don't understand this... You say that they have been treated like shit. OK, I agree. But how their decision to step down from their functions, basically quitting the job of serving the country, for which they have been paid rather well, changes that?

27 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I really don't understand why you're assigning some special privileged place to 'royal correspondents' but even if you do... why should their be a difference? They don't get less invasive because they work for the Mail or the Sun.

Because they are the people who write the most about the royals, the ones getting the exclusives and have first-hand knowledge. I would be surprised if most of them don't have established relationship with most members of the royal family. 

On the other hand, social media and some tabloids answer to no one. If royal correspondent writes something, Palace or someone else get to ask questions how they came to that sort of POV. With tabloids there are no control, no communication. And having heard and read some of their opinions, it does seem that they have not been participating in any vitriol directed to Sussexes, The lion's share of them spoke about how Harry and Meghan actually confirmed the rumors of division in royal family, more than anything else. 

[DanteGabriel]

I'd like to apologize for my language in previous posts: "dipshits" and "dickheads" was not necessary.

However, I just can't understand the sentiment that being piled on by tabloid press and gossip mongers and social media schmucks for not much beyond having a tough time acclimating to her new high-pressure life is not fair, but... she should have expected it, so she doesn't deserve sympathy? You don't even have to say anything about it, you can just sneer at her in private and be on your way. But it's irresistible to give your opinion about what she deserves and let the world know you... don't feel sympathy for someone who's having a hard time from unscrupulous people. I think that says a lot more about you than about her.

And at least one person expressing their disdain for her naivete the most enthusiastically has, yes, advocated at length for kinder, fairer treatment of provable liars who should similarly be well prepared for public scrutiny, and who have done a lot more to earn the scorn of the world.

[Jeor]

35 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'd like to apologize for my language in previous posts: "dipshits" and "dickheads" was not necessary.

Thanks. You would have noticed that I started my post (the one you quoted) by saying that Meghan had been poorly treated and shouldn't have to put up with it, or shouldn't have to take it lying down.

Perhaps you were railing more at @Heartofice, but if you looked closely at my comments, I simply pointed out two things - Meghan's naive not to have expected some bad treatment from the press, and that she's going to lose sympathy points for saying she didn't expect it. I don't think either of those points are particularly controversial.

And pointing out that someone is making their own situation worse is not the same as saying the entire situation is their fault. I think Megan (and Harry) could have handled things better, but I'm not saying that it's a mess completely of their own making.

[Jeor]

24 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

However, I just can't understand the sentiment that being piled on by tabloid press and gossip mongers and social media schmucks for not much beyond having a tough time acclimating to her new high-pressure life is not fair, but... she should have expected it, so she doesn't deserve sympathy?

Probably the best way I can put it is this - there are two types of sympathy at play here.

Meghan deserves sympathy for the poor treatment she's getting, absolutely. But she doesn't deserve sympathy for being "surprised" that it happened in the first place. The second type of sympathy is what I've been talking about.

[DMC]

I think there should be a distinction here in terms of what Meghan - or Harry or any of the royals - should "expect," and the type of abuse that is legitimately scary to live with.  I would agree the comparison to a politician is valid in terms of what Markle should have "known what she's getting into" in regards to press coverage, or any words on a screen.  Even the racist stuff, every minority candidate has to endure that, and almost all don't have nearly as high a profile as the royal couple.  But what is different is the actual, physically intrusive tactics of the tabloids.  That's what killed Diana, and while I don't really follow this shit much, I think that's what Harry was referring to when he invoked her memory.  And that is clearly distinct from what almost all politicians have to deal with (and the ones that do have much more aggressive security staff).  It's not based on the press saying mean things.

[polishgenius]

5 hours ago, Risto said:

Because they are the people who write the most about the royals, the ones getting the exclusives and have first-hand knowledge. I would be surprised if most of them don't have established relationship with most members of the royal family. 

On the other hand, social media and some tabloids answer to no one. If royal correspondent writes something, Palace or someone else get to ask questions how they came to that sort of POV. With tabloids there are no control, no communication. And having heard and read some of their opinions, it does seem that they have not been participating in any vitriol directed to Sussexes, The lion's share of them spoke about how Harry and Meghan actually confirmed the rumors of division in royal family, more than anything else. 

I seriously don't understand what it is you're actually saying here. You seem to be suggesting that hate and vitriol and unfair biased coverage doesn't count if it doesn't come from some 'official' kind of source.


 

 

5 hours ago, Risto said:

So, that was the issue here? They didn't get to choose when and where they could engage the media? 

It was one of them.
 

 

5 hours ago, Risto said:

But how their decision to step down from their functions, basically quitting the job of serving the country, for which they have been paid rather well, changes that?

Well obviously it does. A significant portion of the negative coverage has been neeky, dogwhistle-racist stuff based on the idea that Meghan isn't a proper princess and isn't representing her princess role properly. If they're no longer in that role there will no longer be any reason to attack her for wearing the wrong clothes or briefly turning her head while standing on a balcony, or whatever they decide to signal with next time.

[Mladen]

31 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I seriously don't understand what it is you're actually saying here. You seem to be suggesting that hate and vitriol and unfair biased coverage doesn't count if it doesn't come from some 'official' kind of source.

I am saying that being Prince or not doesn't change how some media work. I am not saying that it doesn't count, but I think that those closest to them, were not giving them hard ball, but were actually quite supportive. Which is weird given the fact they are leaving that support system (then again, their decision to leave the Palace, perhaps means they were not feeling as supported as I, and many believe they have been)

34 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Well obviously it does. A significant portion of the negative coverage has been neeky, dogwhistle-racist stuff based on the idea that Meghan isn't a proper princess and isn't representing her princess role properly. If they're no longer in that role there will no longer be any reason to attack her for wearing the wrong clothes or briefly turning her head while standing on a balcony, or whatever they decide to signal with next time.

I am not sure this will stop and I am not sure they understand how much bad press they can invoke by doing this. Are we really naive that the bad press will stop once they leave the royal family? I honestly don't believe that. Especially given the fact that what they outlined is not a full independence, but some sort of "half-independence". Perhaps you are right and all the nastiness will end. I seriously doubt that. Especially given the fact how much public loved Harry as a Prince.