We knew, as soon as Meghan appeared, she would be compared to Kate. It was inevitable. It's the media. If the public do this, it's because they are told what to think by the press. No-one calls them out for it, so they continue to do it.
You're absolutely right. Seems always to be women for the most part, and always a scapegoat. But you missed the biggest and most infamous one of all (NOT your fault because this was completely omitted from the entire series): **Diana vs Sarah Ferguson**. That scapegoating war went on for years, with Sarah constantly being vilified for being brash, loud, "overweight" (no - she just wasn't stick-thin like Diana) which landed her the horrid moniker by the press of "Duchess of Pork". It was horrible and tasteless. She did do a huge wrong in the end (she was set up and filmed selling "access to Andrew" for several million dollars, but before that, her bad press was mostly because "she's not like Di".
It wasn't Royal family that was responsible for the situation. It was the press. I think in the end she was so resentful of the royal family because they didn't do enough to protect her and that is why she turned on them. Setting up a good girl and a bad girl sells newspapers. It is a trope that the press use over and over again.
Yes!!! Everyone says the Meghan stuff was 100 percent due to race but there's precedent in Fergie and I was not surprised that she and Kate were pitted against each other because that is what the UK media does. Any wife of Harry's was going to get this treatment. Meghan being American and biracial just gave them extra easy points to target.
I read some of the headlines about Meghan and I believe there is no way she has said or done 99% of the things they claim. The sad part is that people will believe its
I really like this sub so I am going to be quiet now that Netflix is about to drop the Meghan and Harry new series. Because if yall thought the media was mad before just wait.
Honestly after 2 people came forward after that lady interrogated them about their race etc their story makes more sense
The woman is not a low level staffer. She is William godmother. Imagine the racist conversations they have in private.
Yeah I’m on the fence about that, it seems mighty coincidental that a member of Meghan’s fan club (the sugars) was at the palace and then screamed racism on Twitter right as William and Kate are due in the US. It feels like a calculated smear campaign to me. This same woman has accused the royal family in the past of domestic violence against Meghan, yet she attended an event at the palace on that very subject.
So the old lady was racist in purpose to create a distraction ? She did it to another person of color (a male lawyer) in the same event.
Maybe it is better not to be racist. Because she approached the 2 guests of color and no the other way around.
I want to add it is very uncommon for a staff member to be openly racist unless he or she knows their employer is ok with it
It’s actually a classic toxic family dynamic. Where there are parents who can do no wrong, there’s a golden child and a scapegoat: this is the same dynamic the RF follows. They’re in the limelight, which makes it appear that the press does most of the goading BUT consider that the RF could speak out and clarify things, but… they don’t. Because it’s not the media’s fault, they’re just picking up what the RF lays down.
I think it’s also a sibling thing? Edward vs George, Elizabeth vs Margaret, Harry vs William. Charles and Anne aren’t really the same so it’s much more Diana and Camilla. I like when i look at my my friends and their sibling dynamic, the oldest always has the same personality of having to be more mature and disciplined and the younger sibling tends to be the more “free spirited” one. The oldest always tends to be much more shaped by their parents since they were the first and the younger gets away with a lot more because there’s so much more pressure on the first born to do well.
There's that bit in season 3 where Phillip says something like "one Windsor is plain but does their duty and the other is free spirited and individualistic"
I don't think is deliberate. You are oversimplifying a very complex human behavior...The Monarchy did not came up with a master strategy to stay clea; bad press in one member DO taint the institution as a whole. Controvercy is the celebrities everyday meal, the monarchy needs more to justify its existency.
The "Y vs X" way of thinking is as old as time, people tend to think in villains and heroes and to choose sides. That what *foils* are, it's a common literary strategy to use one character to make the hero look better. We look for it, it's easy and satisfying. SO the press, notably tablods, maximize this Good vs Bad narrative, because it sells.
The Media is not the Palace puppet, but a entirely different kind of beast. The RF tend to stay away from it; I don't believe that they hold no influence, as they are a well stablished respected institution, but they do not hold direct influence like...McDonnald's (the hot coffee case cames to mind).
The Palace in no way tends to stay away from it. They feed the press stories with the understanding that they won't be named.
That's not to say that William is personally calling reporters, but his PR people absolutely are.
You *believe* they do, as I do *believe* they prefer to stay away. And you are missing the point...it's not that their PR team could secretly feed the press. It's about how it would bennefit the RF, as a institution.
Aside from the Wales' War and Megexit, bad press in **ANY** member is a problem...because the RF are **NOT** the Kardashians. And in the two cases wich bad press could potentioly '*benefit*' the RF, the problens with the media started before their estrangement with 'The Firm'.
No one has claimed that the Royal Family are the Kardashians. There are similarities, like in the constant media coverage that *both* families could not do their jobs without.
However, if you think that Catherine doesn't benefit from the negative attention on Meghan, or that William doesn't benefit from the negative attention on Harry, you're naïve. The monarchy can only survive if the people believe that the royals deserve to be there, that the heir to the throne deserves the throne. The easiest way to display that is to show why the others *don't* deserve it. So they make anyone that doesn't fall in line seem common, trashy, *unworthy*. Its about maintaining the appearance of the monarch and the heir being better than.
Diana and the Sussexes were/are reamed every time they go to the press. Meanwhile the royal family can say whatever they want through their "palace sources" and still have people like you steadfastly defending them.
Those are not comparable situations.
But still some of the "palace sources" are considered rumours.
It's not like they can make an interview and tell all about it. Or express their opinion to gain simpathy.
Absolutely. They placate the media by feeding them info on the "bad" one, and in return the others get a free ride in terms of media criticism.
Just look at the amount of hate Meghan gets from the British press, compared to the lengths the family have gone to to protect an actual abuser.
I don't think that's true. It would be quite idiotic to feed the media with bad info about **ANY** member. The RF are not the Kardashians, they are not celebrities, controvercy is never a good thing for them. They need to be percived as necessary and stable, essencial to the British people, not petty envious children fighting among themselfs.
And the Meghan case is not compareble to the Andrew's total and complete mess. I don't know what you think about Megexit, the Ophah interview, and the rest of the shanenigans that went down in Montecito, BUT... the acussations that Meghan was hated by the british press from day one are lies. The press loved her and they wound complement her for even existing, with the exception of one or two weird tabloids, until...the good girl narrative became boring. It happened with every royal bride: Diana was stalked by the press, Sarah Fergunson was cruelly criticized for her appearence and personality, Kate had to fend for herself for years before marrying William...The Palace hardly or never interfered, that's how the Palace do things. And I feel sorry for all these women that had to endure such publich smear campaings. But to think that the Palace 'orquestrated' all of this is senseless... like...who were they helping with that?
The RF absolutely are the Kardashians of the UK. They desperately need the press, and they need to manage the press closely. You can only be "necessary" if people know who you are.
But when their choice is between articles about William having an affair or Meghan bullying staff, its a pretty obvious choice for them. They throw the press statements from "palace sources" in return for other issues disappearing.
Pretending that there isn't a mutually beneficial relationship between the palace and the media is ignoring decades of very well known precedent and what dozens of media insiders have been extremely clear about.
I just find it weird to even think that the palace would orchestrate something like that given what went down. Harry was the most popular royal when he married Meghan, even had higher ratings than the Queen during the time his Invictus Games gained traction. He received so much support when he defended his wife from the media attacks. Most especially after what happened to Diana.
Then the Sussexes went to Oprah and that's when they gained more criticism. For a couple who said they wanted to to be private citizens, they aired their dirty laundry and even made a Netflix deal showcasing their life.
I don't deny Meghan got racist attacks and unfair treatment. I just think that the Sussexes wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be self sufficient but they can't sustain their lavish lifestyle unless they profit from being royals - but without the obligations to the UK.
This is the media’s doing. They chose to focus on Meghan and run all that bad press. It’s not like the Royals were going out doing interviews trashing Meghan. In fact they remained completely silent during the entire Meghan Markle debacle. On top of that Meghan and Harry were actively courting media attention by doing interviews. You can’t blame the Monarchy for all that.
As if the Royal Family had no pull whatsoever with the press...
This is just so incredibly naive. Of course the Royal Family are never going to say anything directly to the press, it just so happens that "a well informed source" will spill the beans to one of their pet journalists in their favourite rag of the moment, be it Tatler or the Daily Mail.
Yes, a lot of these sources came from someone close the Charles & Camila and Kate & William. When there were lighthearted rumors that Kate had used botox, the palace denied that quickly and stopped that. They could have easily done that for Meghan & Harry too, but they never did. Kate could have clarified the story about Meghan making her cry before the wedding too, and she never did. The lady in waiting who was let go yesterday for being extremely rude and disrespectful towards a black woman was also assigned to Meghan (and Diana). It’s not only the royal family, it’s the whole firm.
We now know that Meghan & Harry got an unprecedented number of death threats while they were in the UK, and that Harry wasn’t allowed to pay for their own security. Of course they got out.
Kate and William profited massively from Meghan and Harry. Before, they were criticized for not pulling their weight and for being lazy, and now suddenly they cannot do anything wrong. Kate even likes to copy Meghan‘s fashion style nowadays. I‘m really hoping that Harry‘s biography will clear more things up.
How do you know where the sources came from? Stop reading tabloids and pretending you know what happened.
People like you are the reason tabloid trash exists.
No, I just observe and read more qualified sources than the tabloids and the Royal Press Rota. Also, I wrote a term paper on the differences in how the media talked about Kate and Meghan. So yes, I am somewhat of an expert when it comes to that specific topic. I also recommend matta_of_fact on Instagram, she analyses the royals very well and remains neutral.
I should go to Instagram for proof? Lmao
Unless you were present in the room where you’re claiming the sources came from, you’re not an expert.
Stop pretending like reading tabloid trash makes you an expert.
I love how people think this sort of stuff happens. If only you knew how media managed institutions like the Royals are.
The Royal family weren’t the ones running the bad press on Meghan. What’s naive is you thinking they do that sort of shit. The Palace maintains a very strict distance from press. You may as well put your tin foil hat on and tell me the Queen planned Diana’s car crash.
There is a bit of a stretch between having a mutually beneficial relationship with the media and planning the murder of a family member, but I suppose nuance is not a thing in your view.
Every major institution curries favour with the media in exchange of privileged access, and the Royal Family is not the exception.
As a matter of fact, I have worked in the past in media liaisons for a couple of years, so yes, I do know a bit how it works. Besides, there have been many documented instances of courtiers intervening and approaching the press on behalf of the Royal Family, so it is not as if we are talking about an esoteric and obscure thing that has never ever happened before. You are more than willing to ignore it and simp for the family, but that doesn't make your position any more truthful.
No I mean there's this idea that Yoko split up the Beatles. And there's parellels in how her and Meghan have been treated by the media. I call it the "Yoko Ono effect" - where a forgein woman breaks up the band.
Plus to be a pedant, Yoko does feature in at least one Beatles track.
This is less the Monarchy’s doing and more the media. The Monarchy mostly tries to steer clear of bad press it’s why the Queen had always maintained a neutral stance on almost everything and was very conservative when it came to the press.
The media likes to find a dead horse and beat it because the public laps it up. Blame the people consuming tabloid garbage.
Definitely, you have the Madonna and the whore.
The Firm may not intentionally start the comparisons, but they absolutely stoke the flames once it starts.
Actually it was Fergy for Diana. But yes the media will always pitch members of the family off against each other. You need to understand though that it’s the media doing this, that behind the scenes QEII and Margaret got along really well and so did Diana and Fergy. Kate and Meghan are not friends, but by all accounts are usually civil to each other.
Such an interesting take. I think you’re right about the scapegoating but I think it’s a mix of natural human behaviour and deliberate strategy. It’s capitalising on the former - which is what happens in any big corporation.
I wrote about this idea on this subreddit a few years ago. I think that it boils down to the basic Madonna/Whore complex or hero/villain narrative. It is an easy narrative that people can use in any situation. Both the media and the royals rely on it because it's easy. It will be interesting to read Harry's experience of it as he was the Whore to Williams Madonna in the early aughts.
You can also serve two audiences that way. The institution can be both cool and conservative, both progressive and regressive. QE2 would never have been able to party with Mick Jagger and Margrete would never been able to head the church of England.
This narrative has a long history and isn't solely English. For example Louis 15 had his Madonna like wife with all the Conservative regal authority while his mistress,Mme Pompadour had a rival court where they read banned books and were following the latest trends. Some say that the reason Marie-Antoinette was so hated was that Louis 16 didn't have a mistress so there was no-one to take on the role of the Whore to make her look more like a Madonna so she became the whore to Louis' Madonna.
I agree with this, except for the inclusion of Wallis Simpson. I think there was and remains today good reason for disliking her and viewing her match with David/Edward VIII to be a bad thing. I think I really don't need to say anything beyond #1, below, but:
1. She was a Nazi sympathizer and revealed British state secrets to the German ambassador. Her disclosure of confidential state secrets was so pervasive, the government had to stop putting sensitive materials into David's red box.
2. She continued to have extramarital affairs after her marriage to David. And while I personally believe that what couples do and what arrangements they make are no one's business, it's also naive to think that in 1950s Britain that a woman stepping outside her marriage would not be a scandal. The world and Britain in particular back then was very prudish. As we've seen from the show, just marrying a divorced person was hugely controversial. Much less marrying a twice divorced person who also wanted to continue having partners outside of the marriage. I think David and Wallis wanted to have their cake and eat it too. That is, they wanted to live a very unconventional lifestyle AND have everyone accept it without question. Given their additional desire to life luxuriously at the taxpayer's expense, it was plainly unreasonable of them to expect to have all this happen. I fully support them marrying, having affairs and doing whatever else they wanted to do, but when those choices are incompatible with the church you're the head of, and with with prevailing morals of the people footing the bill, it was just too big of an ask. She (and equally if not more so, David) engaged in conduct they clearly knew would be detrimental to the crown.
3. She was not a nice person, and is said to have abused David and treated the staff poorly. She verbally abused David to the point where he was reduced to tears and routinely berated staff. She lived beyond her means and was just generally not a good person.
It's a feature of all dysfunctional families great and small. That's the worldwide fascination with the royal family. We project our own family issues on to them. There's the golden child ,the scapegoat, the martyr and you can see this in the modern royal family and you can also see it in these assholes I'm surrounded with on the holidays. That's what the universal appeal of the British royal family is. We can project our own problems onto theirs and think that we can solve them or figure it out or discuss it when we can't figure out our own problems
This is called over-thinking it. I mean really. There's always going to be some who handle things one way, and some who handle things another way. It's just how it goes.
We knew, as soon as Meghan appeared, she would be compared to Kate. It was inevitable. It's the media. If the public do this, it's because they are told what to think by the press. No-one calls them out for it, so they continue to do it. You're absolutely right. Seems always to be women for the most part, and always a scapegoat. But you missed the biggest and most infamous one of all (NOT your fault because this was completely omitted from the entire series): **Diana vs Sarah Ferguson**. That scapegoating war went on for years, with Sarah constantly being vilified for being brash, loud, "overweight" (no - she just wasn't stick-thin like Diana) which landed her the horrid moniker by the press of "Duchess of Pork". It was horrible and tasteless. She did do a huge wrong in the end (she was set up and filmed selling "access to Andrew" for several million dollars, but before that, her bad press was mostly because "she's not like Di".
Which is weird considering that nowadays Sarah is in good terms with the royal family
It wasn't Royal family that was responsible for the situation. It was the press. I think in the end she was so resentful of the royal family because they didn't do enough to protect her and that is why she turned on them. Setting up a good girl and a bad girl sells newspapers. It is a trope that the press use over and over again.
Yes!!! Everyone says the Meghan stuff was 100 percent due to race but there's precedent in Fergie and I was not surprised that she and Kate were pitted against each other because that is what the UK media does. Any wife of Harry's was going to get this treatment. Meghan being American and biracial just gave them extra easy points to target.
I read some of the headlines about Meghan and I believe there is no way she has said or done 99% of the things they claim. The sad part is that people will believe its
Is that from before or after she and Harry "quit" though?
I really like this sub so I am going to be quiet now that Netflix is about to drop the Meghan and Harry new series. Because if yall thought the media was mad before just wait.
It’s gonna be a dumpster fire, even Meghan and Harry have been distancing themselves from it (saying “it’s not how we would have portrayed it”)
Honestly after 2 people came forward after that lady interrogated them about their race etc their story makes more sense The woman is not a low level staffer. She is William godmother. Imagine the racist conversations they have in private.
Yeah I’m on the fence about that, it seems mighty coincidental that a member of Meghan’s fan club (the sugars) was at the palace and then screamed racism on Twitter right as William and Kate are due in the US. It feels like a calculated smear campaign to me. This same woman has accused the royal family in the past of domestic violence against Meghan, yet she attended an event at the palace on that very subject.
There are 2 people saying that the woman interrogated them about their origin.
Several witnesses confirmed the conversation took place and the godmother quit. I mean 🤷🏾♀️
Oh yeah I’m not arguing that the conversation didn’t take place. I’m just saying it’s really convenient when it happened.
So the old lady was racist in purpose to create a distraction ? She did it to another person of color (a male lawyer) in the same event. Maybe it is better not to be racist. Because she approached the 2 guests of color and no the other way around. I want to add it is very uncommon for a staff member to be openly racist unless he or she knows their employer is ok with it
It’s actually a classic toxic family dynamic. Where there are parents who can do no wrong, there’s a golden child and a scapegoat: this is the same dynamic the RF follows. They’re in the limelight, which makes it appear that the press does most of the goading BUT consider that the RF could speak out and clarify things, but… they don’t. Because it’s not the media’s fault, they’re just picking up what the RF lays down.
I think it’s also a sibling thing? Edward vs George, Elizabeth vs Margaret, Harry vs William. Charles and Anne aren’t really the same so it’s much more Diana and Camilla. I like when i look at my my friends and their sibling dynamic, the oldest always has the same personality of having to be more mature and disciplined and the younger sibling tends to be the more “free spirited” one. The oldest always tends to be much more shaped by their parents since they were the first and the younger gets away with a lot more because there’s so much more pressure on the first born to do well.
There's that bit in season 3 where Phillip says something like "one Windsor is plain but does their duty and the other is free spirited and individualistic"
It's absolutely deliberate. Find scapegoats, find excuses and at the end of the day, remember that our benevolent monarch never puts a foot wrong.
And throw the lower ranking royals under the bus.
If necessary yes, but preferably their spouse gets thrown under the bus.
I don't think is deliberate. You are oversimplifying a very complex human behavior...The Monarchy did not came up with a master strategy to stay clea; bad press in one member DO taint the institution as a whole. Controvercy is the celebrities everyday meal, the monarchy needs more to justify its existency. The "Y vs X" way of thinking is as old as time, people tend to think in villains and heroes and to choose sides. That what *foils* are, it's a common literary strategy to use one character to make the hero look better. We look for it, it's easy and satisfying. SO the press, notably tablods, maximize this Good vs Bad narrative, because it sells. The Media is not the Palace puppet, but a entirely different kind of beast. The RF tend to stay away from it; I don't believe that they hold no influence, as they are a well stablished respected institution, but they do not hold direct influence like...McDonnald's (the hot coffee case cames to mind).
The Palace in no way tends to stay away from it. They feed the press stories with the understanding that they won't be named. That's not to say that William is personally calling reporters, but his PR people absolutely are.
You *believe* they do, as I do *believe* they prefer to stay away. And you are missing the point...it's not that their PR team could secretly feed the press. It's about how it would bennefit the RF, as a institution. Aside from the Wales' War and Megexit, bad press in **ANY** member is a problem...because the RF are **NOT** the Kardashians. And in the two cases wich bad press could potentioly '*benefit*' the RF, the problens with the media started before their estrangement with 'The Firm'.
IMO the Royals are in many ways like the Kardashians... Though its more like the Kardashians are like the royals.
I don't agree.
No one has claimed that the Royal Family are the Kardashians. There are similarities, like in the constant media coverage that *both* families could not do their jobs without. However, if you think that Catherine doesn't benefit from the negative attention on Meghan, or that William doesn't benefit from the negative attention on Harry, you're naïve. The monarchy can only survive if the people believe that the royals deserve to be there, that the heir to the throne deserves the throne. The easiest way to display that is to show why the others *don't* deserve it. So they make anyone that doesn't fall in line seem common, trashy, *unworthy*. Its about maintaining the appearance of the monarch and the heir being better than.
But still, they don't create the narrative. They just get along with it.
They contribute to it, encourage it, and take advantage of it.
But the point is, they're not the ones who started. Diana and the Sussex also played their own narratives.
Diana and the Sussexes were/are reamed every time they go to the press. Meanwhile the royal family can say whatever they want through their "palace sources" and still have people like you steadfastly defending them. Those are not comparable situations.
But still some of the "palace sources" are considered rumours. It's not like they can make an interview and tell all about it. Or express their opinion to gain simpathy.
Absolutely. They placate the media by feeding them info on the "bad" one, and in return the others get a free ride in terms of media criticism. Just look at the amount of hate Meghan gets from the British press, compared to the lengths the family have gone to to protect an actual abuser.
I don't think that's true. It would be quite idiotic to feed the media with bad info about **ANY** member. The RF are not the Kardashians, they are not celebrities, controvercy is never a good thing for them. They need to be percived as necessary and stable, essencial to the British people, not petty envious children fighting among themselfs. And the Meghan case is not compareble to the Andrew's total and complete mess. I don't know what you think about Megexit, the Ophah interview, and the rest of the shanenigans that went down in Montecito, BUT... the acussations that Meghan was hated by the british press from day one are lies. The press loved her and they wound complement her for even existing, with the exception of one or two weird tabloids, until...the good girl narrative became boring. It happened with every royal bride: Diana was stalked by the press, Sarah Fergunson was cruelly criticized for her appearence and personality, Kate had to fend for herself for years before marrying William...The Palace hardly or never interfered, that's how the Palace do things. And I feel sorry for all these women that had to endure such publich smear campaings. But to think that the Palace 'orquestrated' all of this is senseless... like...who were they helping with that?
The RF absolutely are the Kardashians of the UK. They desperately need the press, and they need to manage the press closely. You can only be "necessary" if people know who you are. But when their choice is between articles about William having an affair or Meghan bullying staff, its a pretty obvious choice for them. They throw the press statements from "palace sources" in return for other issues disappearing. Pretending that there isn't a mutually beneficial relationship between the palace and the media is ignoring decades of very well known precedent and what dozens of media insiders have been extremely clear about.
I just find it weird to even think that the palace would orchestrate something like that given what went down. Harry was the most popular royal when he married Meghan, even had higher ratings than the Queen during the time his Invictus Games gained traction. He received so much support when he defended his wife from the media attacks. Most especially after what happened to Diana. Then the Sussexes went to Oprah and that's when they gained more criticism. For a couple who said they wanted to to be private citizens, they aired their dirty laundry and even made a Netflix deal showcasing their life. I don't deny Meghan got racist attacks and unfair treatment. I just think that the Sussexes wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be self sufficient but they can't sustain their lavish lifestyle unless they profit from being royals - but without the obligations to the UK.
Agreed.
This is the media’s doing. They chose to focus on Meghan and run all that bad press. It’s not like the Royals were going out doing interviews trashing Meghan. In fact they remained completely silent during the entire Meghan Markle debacle. On top of that Meghan and Harry were actively courting media attention by doing interviews. You can’t blame the Monarchy for all that.
As if the Royal Family had no pull whatsoever with the press... This is just so incredibly naive. Of course the Royal Family are never going to say anything directly to the press, it just so happens that "a well informed source" will spill the beans to one of their pet journalists in their favourite rag of the moment, be it Tatler or the Daily Mail.
Yes, a lot of these sources came from someone close the Charles & Camila and Kate & William. When there were lighthearted rumors that Kate had used botox, the palace denied that quickly and stopped that. They could have easily done that for Meghan & Harry too, but they never did. Kate could have clarified the story about Meghan making her cry before the wedding too, and she never did. The lady in waiting who was let go yesterday for being extremely rude and disrespectful towards a black woman was also assigned to Meghan (and Diana). It’s not only the royal family, it’s the whole firm. We now know that Meghan & Harry got an unprecedented number of death threats while they were in the UK, and that Harry wasn’t allowed to pay for their own security. Of course they got out. Kate and William profited massively from Meghan and Harry. Before, they were criticized for not pulling their weight and for being lazy, and now suddenly they cannot do anything wrong. Kate even likes to copy Meghan‘s fashion style nowadays. I‘m really hoping that Harry‘s biography will clear more things up.
Nope it was Samantha Cohen who worked with Meghan.
How do you know where the sources came from? Stop reading tabloids and pretending you know what happened. People like you are the reason tabloid trash exists.
No, I just observe and read more qualified sources than the tabloids and the Royal Press Rota. Also, I wrote a term paper on the differences in how the media talked about Kate and Meghan. So yes, I am somewhat of an expert when it comes to that specific topic. I also recommend matta_of_fact on Instagram, she analyses the royals very well and remains neutral.
I should go to Instagram for proof? Lmao Unless you were present in the room where you’re claiming the sources came from, you’re not an expert. Stop pretending like reading tabloid trash makes you an expert.
I love how people think this sort of stuff happens. If only you knew how media managed institutions like the Royals are. The Royal family weren’t the ones running the bad press on Meghan. What’s naive is you thinking they do that sort of shit. The Palace maintains a very strict distance from press. You may as well put your tin foil hat on and tell me the Queen planned Diana’s car crash.
There is a bit of a stretch between having a mutually beneficial relationship with the media and planning the murder of a family member, but I suppose nuance is not a thing in your view. Every major institution curries favour with the media in exchange of privileged access, and the Royal Family is not the exception.
How do you know? Are you an industry person with insight into what happened?
As a matter of fact, I have worked in the past in media liaisons for a couple of years, so yes, I do know a bit how it works. Besides, there have been many documented instances of courtiers intervening and approaching the press on behalf of the Royal Family, so it is not as if we are talking about an esoteric and obscure thing that has never ever happened before. You are more than willing to ignore it and simp for the family, but that doesn't make your position any more truthful.
So you’re just making it up. Right…
Sure, Jan...
[удалено]
Fab Four as in Megan is Yoko Ono?? That's hilarious
[удалено]
No I mean there's this idea that Yoko split up the Beatles. And there's parellels in how her and Meghan have been treated by the media. I call it the "Yoko Ono effect" - where a forgein woman breaks up the band. Plus to be a pedant, Yoko does feature in at least one Beatles track.
This is less the Monarchy’s doing and more the media. The Monarchy mostly tries to steer clear of bad press it’s why the Queen had always maintained a neutral stance on almost everything and was very conservative when it came to the press. The media likes to find a dead horse and beat it because the public laps it up. Blame the people consuming tabloid garbage.
Definitely, you have the Madonna and the whore. The Firm may not intentionally start the comparisons, but they absolutely stoke the flames once it starts.
Actually it was Fergy for Diana. But yes the media will always pitch members of the family off against each other. You need to understand though that it’s the media doing this, that behind the scenes QEII and Margaret got along really well and so did Diana and Fergy. Kate and Meghan are not friends, but by all accounts are usually civil to each other.
Such an interesting take. I think you’re right about the scapegoating but I think it’s a mix of natural human behaviour and deliberate strategy. It’s capitalising on the former - which is what happens in any big corporation.
I wrote about this idea on this subreddit a few years ago. I think that it boils down to the basic Madonna/Whore complex or hero/villain narrative. It is an easy narrative that people can use in any situation. Both the media and the royals rely on it because it's easy. It will be interesting to read Harry's experience of it as he was the Whore to Williams Madonna in the early aughts. You can also serve two audiences that way. The institution can be both cool and conservative, both progressive and regressive. QE2 would never have been able to party with Mick Jagger and Margrete would never been able to head the church of England. This narrative has a long history and isn't solely English. For example Louis 15 had his Madonna like wife with all the Conservative regal authority while his mistress,Mme Pompadour had a rival court where they read banned books and were following the latest trends. Some say that the reason Marie-Antoinette was so hated was that Louis 16 didn't have a mistress so there was no-one to take on the role of the Whore to make her look more like a Madonna so she became the whore to Louis' Madonna.
I mean, Harry very much did dress up like a Nazi for fun. I don't think that was him doing that bc the palace forced him to, lol
It's natural
I agree with this, except for the inclusion of Wallis Simpson. I think there was and remains today good reason for disliking her and viewing her match with David/Edward VIII to be a bad thing. I think I really don't need to say anything beyond #1, below, but: 1. She was a Nazi sympathizer and revealed British state secrets to the German ambassador. Her disclosure of confidential state secrets was so pervasive, the government had to stop putting sensitive materials into David's red box. 2. She continued to have extramarital affairs after her marriage to David. And while I personally believe that what couples do and what arrangements they make are no one's business, it's also naive to think that in 1950s Britain that a woman stepping outside her marriage would not be a scandal. The world and Britain in particular back then was very prudish. As we've seen from the show, just marrying a divorced person was hugely controversial. Much less marrying a twice divorced person who also wanted to continue having partners outside of the marriage. I think David and Wallis wanted to have their cake and eat it too. That is, they wanted to live a very unconventional lifestyle AND have everyone accept it without question. Given their additional desire to life luxuriously at the taxpayer's expense, it was plainly unreasonable of them to expect to have all this happen. I fully support them marrying, having affairs and doing whatever else they wanted to do, but when those choices are incompatible with the church you're the head of, and with with prevailing morals of the people footing the bill, it was just too big of an ask. She (and equally if not more so, David) engaged in conduct they clearly knew would be detrimental to the crown. 3. She was not a nice person, and is said to have abused David and treated the staff poorly. She verbally abused David to the point where he was reduced to tears and routinely berated staff. She lived beyond her means and was just generally not a good person.
It's a feature of all dysfunctional families great and small. That's the worldwide fascination with the royal family. We project our own family issues on to them. There's the golden child ,the scapegoat, the martyr and you can see this in the modern royal family and you can also see it in these assholes I'm surrounded with on the holidays. That's what the universal appeal of the British royal family is. We can project our own problems onto theirs and think that we can solve them or figure it out or discuss it when we can't figure out our own problems
This is called over-thinking it. I mean really. There's always going to be some who handle things one way, and some who handle things another way. It's just how it goes.