Carlton Supporters Club

Has there been a more high profile bloke than Harry that's gone from champagne to crape as a result of marrying a dead set skank.
This bloke gone from being one of the most popular and loved members of the Royal Family to persona non grata.
I liked him because he was a fairly loose young fella and went against the establishment a bit.
Since he met this imbecile, its turned to cacca for him.

Since he met this imbecile, its turned to cacca for him.

The problem is GTC that is a perspective relayed to us by parties with vested interests, it's not an independant biographical peer reviewed treatise.

In the modern era truth is not truth, it's just a relabelled perspective.

I'm not sure life is any tougher in reality for Harry, than it is for Britany Spears or Paris Hilton, how they suffer. In fact Harry might never have been happier.

But having said that, I can tell you from first-hand experience of people I've known for many years, extreme wealth and money does not buy happiness. Yet the wealthy live in social circles that claim the very opposite, many live a lie, a life that is almost a tragedy.

My problems with them start when they paint themselves as victims, and do so for profit! :o

Got zero interest in the Royal Family, over privileged oxygen thieves who are responsible for the death of the only decent royal in Diana and her lousy ex in Charles married to that old boiler Camilla is a self centered disgrace hiding/ keeping his perverted brother who should be eating prison porridge.
As for Harry and Meghan....media whores looking for a easy dollar with Films, Docos, books and what ever else they can they can get while they exploit the bizarre interest the public have in them.

The problem is GTC that is a perspective relayed to us by parties with vested interests, it's not an independant biographical peer reviewed treatise.

In the modern era truth is not truth, it's just a relabelled perspective.

I'm not sure life is any tougher in reality for Harry, than it is for Britany Spears or Paris Hilton, how they suffer. In fact Harry might never have been happier.

But having said that, I can tell you from first-hand experience of people I've known for many years, extreme wealth and money does not buy happiness. Yet the wealthy live in social circles that claim the very opposite, many live a lie, a life that is almost a tragedy.

My problems with them start when they paint themselves as victims, and do so for profit! :o

Yeah nah, he was a good block till he met the skank

As for Harry and Meghan....media whores looking for a easy dollar with Films, Docos, books and what ever else they can they can get while they exploit the bizarre interest the public have in them.

Hollywood wasn't built on movies, it thrives and survives on scuttlebutt.

Hollywood wasn't built on movies, it thrives and survives on scuttlebutt.

Harry and Meghan are bigger than Hollywood, America love English Royals.Reality is Harry has a book coming out in January at $35 a hit.
It's his memoirs....tad early for a young bloke to be giving us his memoirs but guaranteed to make him some coin.
I'd expect similar from his Mrs too and more interviews with Oprah and others. As for the Netflix series...150 million easy money.....guilty as charged imo.
They are a media goldmine...

Nothing more than a glorified reality TV show.

I can't stand reality TV shows, and this is far from a good one.

"The Ginger and the Whinger".
Like it. 😁

I watched all 6 episodes with Mrs G2C, we both thought the first 3 were an utter waste of time and irrelevant to the whole thing.
The last 3 episodes were very interesting. @LP I don't know if you have watched it, its probably stuff you already know but the influence of the media (influenced by the "institution") on the whole Megxit (or rather Harrexit as he made the call) thing I found fascinating. The fact that the "institution" were not prepared to protect their son, grandson, daughter in law, grand children etc  from the media was a disgrace. An investigation found something like 83 "people" were responsible for the tens of thoudsands of  all the hate stuff directed at Markle on social media, a lot of it extreme and vile to the core. I can understand the move away from that environment, as she contemplated taking her life at one point. I can understand why they are maintaining the fight on accountability of general and social media organisations. We see similar problems here where young people take their lives as a result of being bullied via their socials.

Yanks will love em
Brits will hate em.

The problem is were only getting the version from one side without any rebuttal.
That rebuttal is unlikely to come in any form other than  "We care about Hassa and Meg, and wish them well."

It'll be left to the press (maybe with a bit of insider help) to challenge the claims made...and the press have a biased interest.

I guess the bottom line question is 'Would you go into a Royal marriage without some inkling of the fact that you would no longer control events. They'd control you?'

It would take a big ego to believe otherwise.

The funny thing is that in the history of the British Monarchy-brother v brother, cousin v cousin, father v son the Harry and Meghan saga would struggle to make the 'Top 40'

The difference-media coverage

I watched all 6 episodes with Mrs G2C, we both thought the first 3 were an utter waste of time and irrelevant to the whole thing.
The last 3 episodes were very interesting. @LP I don't know if you have watched it, its probably stuff you already know but the influence of the media (influenced by the "institution") on the whole Megxit (or rather Harrexit as he made the call) thing I found fascinating. The fact that the "institution" were not prepared to protect their son, grandson, daughter in law, grand children etc  from the media was a disgrace. An investigation found something like 83 "people" were responsible for the tens of thoudsands of  all the hate stuff directed at Markle on social media, a lot of it extreme and vile to the core. I can understand the move away from that environment, as she contemplated taking her life at one point. I can understand why they are maintaining the fight on accountability of general and social media organisations. We see similar problems here where young people take their lives as a result of being bullied via their socials.

Yeah I was on the fence but am on Team Harry now lol.

Yeah I was on the fence but am on Team Harry now lol.

I just wanna know the contents of "that" text from William to Harry.

Yanks will love em
Brits will hate em.

The problem is were only getting the version from one side without any rebuttal.
That rebuttal is unlikely to come in any form other than  "We care about Hassa and Meg, and wish them well."

It'll be left to the press (maybe with a bit of insider help) to challenge the claims made...and the press have a biased interest.

I guess the bottom line question is 'Would you go into a Royal marriage without some inkling of the fact that you would no longer control events. They'd control you?'

It would take a big ego to believe otherwise.

The funny thing is that in the history of the British Monarchy-brother v brother, cousin v cousin, father v son the Harry and Meghan saga would struggle to make the 'Top 40'

The difference-media coverage

I think she understood the control and protocols thing, they didn't expect the negative stuff once they became more popular than all the others. The public adored Harry and Meg initially, that narrative was the manipulated by the firm.

I think she understood the control and protocols thing, they didn't expect the negative stuff once they became more popular than all the others. The public adored Harry and Meg initially, that narrative was the manipulated by the firm.

Yep, it was Princess Diana Mk II. Imagine how Harry felt watching his missus go down the same path as his mum (more popular than the Queen, doing meaningful philanthropic work, being suppressed, the Firm feeding crap to the media and his missus getting mental health issues)... any wonder he wanted to protect her and get the fck outa there before they all destroyed her. I watched all six episodes and came away thinking that the Firm and sections of the UK media should be held to account.

It is quite incredible the number of people who have changed their opinion of Megan and Harry after watching the 6 episodes. The worm began to   turn when Harry and Megan became more popular than Kate and Will....... and then the machine took over!

I haven’t watched the series and probably never will as I have minimal interest in that family.  I did watch some of the old Queen’s funeral and was dismayed to see the male members of the family in their ribbon bedecked military uniforms … except for Harry!

The only one of the current lot to have actually served in a war zone and he wasn’t allowed to wear his uniform and the decorations that he earned.

It’s an anachronistic institution and it’s good that Harry and Meghan have shone a light on Pandora’s box of worms!

@LP I don't know if you have watched it, its probably stuff you already know but the influence of the media (influenced by the "institution") on the whole Megxit (or rather Harrexit as he made the call) thing I found fascinating.

It's always the screaming idiots that make the most noise in the media, Bolt, Jones, Panahi and Credlin are prime examples, and yes they have learnt that shouting like a lunatic and bullying people is profitable, and profit is really all they care about, they have sold whatever meek soul and minimal morality they had for the dollar!

The irony is not lost on me that when something goes horribly wrong, like somebody is hounded to death, the same people will blame the socials like somebody else was leading the band. In the long term, as abhorrent as it seems, "Stringing Em High" might be the only solution out of this mess, in much the same way a hanging a few out of Wall St windows tempered the GFC!

Ultimately, our very own Murdoch is to blame, Australian's should be seriously ashamed of our gift to the globe!

I haven’t watched the series and probably never will as I have minimal interest in that family.  I did watch some of the old Queen’s funeral and was dismayed to see the male members of the family in their ribbon bedecked military uniforms … except for Harry!

The only one of the current lot to have actually served in a war zone and he wasn’t allowed to wear his uniform and the decorations that he earned.

It’s an anachronistic institution and it’s good that Harry and Meghan have shone a light on Pandora’s box of worms!

I didn't want to make a comment until I'd heard the other side of the story... not the tabloid click-bait stuff. My intention was to not only attempt to understand the other side of the story but to also view it from a human or even psychological/mental health aspect. Got more than I bargained for!

It's worth a watch, David. A real eye-opener as to the machinations of the Palace and tabloids and their very suspect relationship. You raise a terrific point re Harry being the only one who'd actually served in a war zone, which, from experience, instantly broadens your view of life and deepens your respect for life.

Meghan's mum is a bloody ripper.

Harry and Meghan's philanthropic work is really impressive, along with committing their lives to their causes. They're not the make a donation and forget about it types, these cats get in, roll their sleeves up and get right amongst it with the folks at the coal face. Gotta respect that.

Nothing more than a glorified reality TV show.

I can't stand reality TV shows, and this is far from a good one.

I don't watch any 'reality' shows. They are very contrived and just not very interesting.
I won't be watching: not my cup of tea at all.

I'm actually 4th or 5th cousins to Princess Di, for what it is worth (nothing). But that still doesn't mean I want to see minutiae of royal lives from those who don't contribute.
On the other hand, I am scouring the 'net to find out who we're trialling for the VFL!

Do a google search for that sh1t stain excuse of a human Jeremy Clarkson and his comments about Meghan Markle. All the charm, brains and soul of an infected anal gland.

Do a google search for that sh1t stain excuse of a human Jeremy Clarkson and his comments about Meghan Markle. All the charm, brains and soul of an infected anal gland.

I just read the articles and YouTube coverage... we learned much about Clarkson and nothing about Meghan Markle. Very sad, but dangerous comments reflective of serious ignorance and deep misogynism that will only empower other deranged people and their vile perspectives.

Do a google search for that sh1t stain excuse of a human Jeremy Clarkson and his comments about Meghan Markle. All the charm, brains and soul of an infected anal gland.

I think that’s being disrespectful of anal glands Paul.

Clarkson is the epitome of entitlement and self-obsession and is always pushing the boundaries of civil society in his quest for gratification and financial advantage.

It’s bad luck duelling fell out of favour; watching Harry demolish him would be quite entertaining … if you’re into blood sports.

I know nothing about any of these people except Harry bears an uncanny resemblance to a non royal which could mean all of is exactly the outcome the royals wanted.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the epitome of entitlement and self-obsession and is always pushing the boundaries of civil society in his quest for gratification and financial advantage.

Of the people involved in this saga, from either side of the fence, you can just fill in just about any name you like at point Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and have a valid description.

I know nothing about any of these people except Harry bears an uncanny resemblance to a non royal which could mean all of is exactly the outcome the royals wanted.

I wonder how long before somebody creepily pinches a bit of DNA from the likely candidates, and gets it done over in analysis by one of these Ancestry type sites under a set of pseudonyms to settle the debate.

I'm pegging somebody like Murdoch!

Nah.
He's got the 'top of the head' Windsor pattern baldness ;D

I think that’s being disrespectful of anal glands Paul.

Clarkson is the epitome of entitlement and self-obsession and is always pushing the boundaries of civil society in his quest for gratification and financial advantage.

It’s bad luck duelling fell out of favour; watching Harry demolish him would be quite entertaining … if you’re into blood sports.

 :))  :))  :))  I was going to say exactly that, David, in response to Pauly's post... 'bit harsh on anal glands, they serve a useful purpose!'

I recall an interview with James May about a year ago, then Richard Hammond. It was clear that neither of them really had much time for Clarkson, a business relationship only. They both visit each other regularly but seldom visited Clarkson. May explained that, politically, he was the leftie social activist, Hammond the moderate and Clarkson the far right conservative.

I wonder how Amazon will react to Clarkson's bilious diatribe? Breach of contract?

I know nothing about any of these people except Harry bears an uncanny resemblance to a non royal which could mean all of is exactly the outcome the royals wanted.

Sadly for the conspiracy theorists, Harry was two years old when Diana first met James Hewitt.  Red hair is a Spencer trait and there is an uncanny resemblance between Harry and his grandfather, Phillip of Greece and Denmark.

Sadly for the conspiracy theorists, Harry was two years old when Diana first met James Hewitt.  Red hair is a Spencer trait and there is an uncanny resemblance between Harry and his grandfather, Phillip of Greece and Denmark.

...especially a bearded Phillip

Nah.
He's got the 'top of the head' Windsor pattern baldness ;D

IIRC James Hewitt had/has the same pattern.

IIRC James Hewitt had/has the same pattern.

As posted above, Harry was two years old when Diana first met Hewitt  ::)

@DJC According to whom?

Don't you know that a good conspiracy theory has a good answer to all questions!  There is always the chance that Diana knew Hewitt before and its all well covered up.

:D

im being facetious, i genuinely dont care about the Brittish Royal family.

IIRC James Hewitt had/has the same pattern.

Hairgate. :))

I've called in an expert ;)  :D

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/james-hewitt-prince-harry-dad-18852609

@DJC According to whom?

Don't you know that a good conspiracy theory has a good answer to all questions!  There is always the chance that Diana knew Hewitt before and its all well covered up.

:D

im being facetious, i genuinely dont care about the Brittish Royal family.

We share a similar interest in the British Royals Thry 🙂

I’m sure that there have been more than a few NPEs (that’s non-paternal event for those not obsessed with family history) in the Royal family over the centuries, one of the reasons why hereditary monarchies have no place in 21st century nations.  However, it’s pretty clear that Harry is not the product of an NPE.

I recall an interview with James May about a year ago, then Richard Hammond. It was clear that neither of them really had much time for Clarkson, a business relationship only. They both visit each other regularly but seldom visited Clarkson. May explained that, politically, he was the leftie social activist, Hammond the moderate and Clarkson the far right conservative.

I wonder how Amazon will react to Clarkson's bilious diatribe? Breach of contract?

I'm not sure how much time May and Hammond actually spend time together. I've heard May interviewed before (and Hammond for that matter) saying they only see eachother at work.

Before i join everyone, pitchfork in hand, can we get some context for these words?
I've heard Clarkson basically say similar previously about others and its usually done with a smirk on his face. A similar smirk you might find on a fisherman who drops a hook into a school of overenthusiastic fish. Its very much his dark sense of humour and comedic ability shining through.

He is the British version of Sam Newman. A lot of what he says is controversial. He actually believes very little of what he says though and its usually said to grab a headline and make a point.....sometimes far from the point it appears he is making.

Not saying he should've said it. Just suggesting a lot of people are missing the joke.....which is the way in the modern times.
The argument of whether the joke should've been made, is a deeper discussion that is part of the cancel culture umbrella.

I'm not sure how much time May and Hammond actually spend time together. I've heard May interviewed before (and Hammond for that matter) saying they only see eachother at work.

Before i join everyone, pitchfork in hand, can we get some context for these words?
I've heard Clarkson basically say similar previously about others and its usually done with a smirk on his face. A similar smirk you might find on a fisherman who drops a hook into a school of overenthusiastic fish. Its very much his dark sense of humour and comedic ability shining through.

He is the British version of Sam Newman. A lot of what he says is controversial. He actually believes very little of what he says though and its usually said to grab a headline and make a point.....sometimes far from the point it appears he is making.

Not saying he should've said it. Just suggesting a lot of people are missing the joke.....which is the way in the modern times.
The argument of whether the joke should've been made, is a deeper discussion that is part of the cancel culture umbrella.

Clarkson's daughter disagrees:

"My views are and have always been clear when it comes to misogyny, bullying and the treatment of women by media.

I want to make it very clear that I stand against everything that my dad wrote about Meghan Markle and I remain standing in support of those that are targeted with online hatred."

As Sean Biggerstaff commented, Clarkson is a "rancid old thug" and he uses what may pass as humor to some folk to lead the way for anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, misogynists, anti-science fruitloops and anyone else who shares his bizarre views on farming, regulation, welfare and politics.

Clarkson's daughter disagrees:

As Sean Biggerstaff commented, Clarkson is a "rancid old thug" and he uses what may pass as humor to some folk to lead the way for anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, misogynists, anti-science fruitloops and anyone else who shares his bizarre views on farming, regulation, welfare and politics.

Yes, his motivation for posting is irrelevant - it matters not whether it's just for clickbait, laughs or anything else. Maybe he's also kidding about hating Rose West. His comments are disgusting. In his sad delusional mind, I'm sure he thinks it's both hilarious and an "achievement" to get a rise out of the woke crowd.

@DJC According to whom?

Don't you know that a good conspiracy theory has a good answer to all questions!  There is always the chance that Diana knew Hewitt before and its all well covered up.

:D

im being facetious, i genuinely dont care about the Brittish Royal family.

I don't care about dates when they allegedly met, Ill bet whatever you like that one day, it will come out that indeed Hewitt is Harry's father. Why else would the "Institution" toss him out so easily. They talk about the Queen and Charles wanting to protect the "institution", well guess what Harry was part of your "institution therefore he should have been protected. Instead, he along with his wife were fed to the wolves.

Markle does everything she possibly can to get her face on the front page, then when the media mention her she claims she is being harrassed.

Markle is living the premise that there is no such thing as bad publicity, it looks to me that they aspire to the be new Kardashians, with a media coverage motto of "Whatever it Takes!" Every time the media call her out, every time the media call out the likes of Clarkson, Bolt, Jones, Panahi, etc., etc.., they are doing them all a favour! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

We've heard that somewhere before, for example CheatsFC turned the disgrace of being caught into record memberships! :o

Markle does everything she possibly can to get her face on the front page, then when the media mention her she claims she is being harrassed.

Markle is living the premise that there is no such thing as bad publicity, it looks to me that they aspire to the be new Kardashians, with a media coverage motto of "Whatever it Takes!" Every time the media call her out, every time the media call out the likes of Clarkson, Bolt, Jones, Panahi, etc., etc.., they are doing them all a favour! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

We've heard that somewhere before, for example CheatsFC turned the disgrace of being caught into record memberships! :o

Right. She's trying to make a buck by following the fairly standard celebrity route, so when deadsh1ts like Clarkson post violent misogynistic filth, then that's OK, because hey, that's just the price of doing business ? Maybe the b1tch just had it coming ? Surely you can see the narrative you're setting up here ? You do realise the media portrays Lady Di as holier than thou, despite the fact that she cheated on her husband. The narratives between the two women are totally different, and they're intended to be different, and they're structured to be different. I'm not for or against Di or Markle or anyone else.

And as for the comparison to Essendon, I mean what ?

No fan of the Royals as I have said before but didnt Lady Di cheat only after Charles had been finally outed as being with that old witch Camilla who had been with since pre marriage days to Di. Think Lady Di had every right to explore her options after having that cheating scumbag and part time tampon now King cheat on her for all those years and ruin her life.
Megan should have looked at Lady Di's life , demise and figured out what her life was going to look like if she became a Royal.
The wedding was bad enough with Kate and William looking like they were attending a funeral and Megans mother looking isolated like she was in Arkansas at a KKK rally....

No fan of the Royals as I have said before but didnt Lady Di cheat only after Charles had been finally outed as being with that old witch Camilla who had been with since pre marriage days to Di. Think Lady Di had every right to explore her options after having that cheating scumbag and part time tampon now King cheat on her for all those years and ruin her life.
Megan should have looked at Lady Di's life , demise and figured out what her life was going to look like if she became a Royal.
The wedding was bad enough with Kate and William looking like they were attending a funeral and Megans mother looking isolated like she was in Arkansas at a KKK rally....

Whether Di was justified or not, what sort of wife she really was, what sort of husband Charles was etc, are not the issue. The issue is the media portrayal of individuals, the way those narratives shape public opinion and why those narratives exist as they do.

Seems like some of Clarkson's views on life may have been framed on watching "A Game of Thrones"  ;)

Most of his views are shaped by being a white, male, self entitled pr1ck - a man who knows full well that the establishment is his safe space, backer and protector.

You can leave out the 'white' and 'male'.
That's a generalisation that's unrepresentative of all white, males
Just leave it at prick.

He was obviously trying to draw a comparison with the punishment for another estranged 'fictional royal' in Cersei Lannister.

The problem for Clarkson was that if you hadn't seen the show you're thinking WTF
If you have seen the show you're still thinking WTF, he's missed the mark by the side of the barn.

You can leave out the 'white' and 'male'.
That's a generalisation that's unrepresentative of all white, males
Just leave it at prick.
............................

I'm also white male and privileged, and my views on pretty much everything are the opposite of his. But that's not quite the point. There's no suggestion on my part that whites are inherently more racist, misogynistic etc. than anyone else. This is an issue of structured power imbalance. If the roles were reversed, there's every chance that blacks and other POC would behave as badly as the whites. Power and privilege cause blindness and entitlement over a period of time. But as far as the status quo in the developed world is concerned, facts are facts. The great majority of people who publicly express views like Clarkson, whether overtly or subtly, do happen to be people like him.

I don't know
I reckon in general (and I'm generalising myself a bit here) that the major interest in this situation is not from men at all.
In fact I suspect there's a bit of 'couldn't care less' about them amongst most males.

The most interest, and much of the criticism of Harry and Meghan I've seen comes from women.
Are others seeing that?

I'm also white male and privileged, and my views on pretty much everything are the opposite of his. But that's not quite the point. There's no suggestion on my part that whites are inherently more racist, misogynistic etc. than anyone else. This is an issue of structured power imbalance. If the roles were reversed, there's every chance that blacks and other POC would behave as badly as the whites. Power and privilege cause blindness and entitlement over a period of time. But as far as the status quo in the developed world is concerned, facts are facts. The great majority of people who publicly express views like Clarkson, whether overtly or subtly, do happen to be people like him.

I think we have to start being a bit careful with using labels like 'old', '
'white', 'male'.

These groups have a great variation in their thinking and views of life.

Far from being a privileged group under such labelling, when used in a derogatory manner, we're actually assuming an "intellectual inferiority" in terms of their thinking.
 

I think we have to start being a bit careful with using labels like 'old', '
'white', 'male'.

These groups have a great variation in their thinking and views of life.

Far from being a privileged group under such labelling, when used in a derogatory manner, we're actually assuming an "intellectual inferiority" in terms of their thinking.
 

I think of the 3, its the OLD part that is the main issue.
Jokes like that (half truths or not) are getting shot down and called out more and more these days.
He's made a career out of being controversal. He isn't saying anything different (in tone at least) than he has said he's whole career. While he hasn't changed, the audience has. He needs to be mindful of that.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Right. She's trying to make a buck by following the fairly standard celebrity route, so when deadsh1ts like Clarkson post violent misogynistic filth, then that's OK, because hey, that's just the price of doing business ? Maybe the b1tch just had it coming ? Surely you can see the narrative you're setting up here ? You do realise the media portrays Lady Di as holier than thou, despite the fact that she cheated on her husband. The narratives between the two women are totally different, and they're intended to be different, and they're structured to be different. I'm not for or against Di or Markle or anyone else.

And as for the comparison to Essendon, I mean what ?

Clarkson is only made relevant by your posts, his abhorrent rhetoric should not be used to excuse Markle's actions, actions that are clearly contrary to her words.

They aren't so much victim as they are instigator.

Much of the royalty is living proof of the dangers of inbreeding!

I can't be sure whether Diana's mental state and actions were cause or effect, the waters are too muddy.

Finally, as for the society socials queens standing up to defend Markle with assertions that Clarkson is proof of her media claims, well ..... It's a bit like cyanide claiming arsenic is evil!
 

Clarkson is only made relevant by your posts, his abhorrent rhetoric should not be used to excuse Markle's actions, actions that are clearly contrary to her words.

They aren't so much victim as they are instigator...................................................................

Right, so because in your eyes she's hypocritical, therefore she deserves :
a. a punishment,
b. the punishment specified by Clarkson.

In other words, as I said earlier, "b1tch had it coming."

Great work LP.

Charlie and Will really brought out the big guns with Clarkson.

Right, so because in your eyes she's hypocritical, therefore she deserves :
a. a punishment,
b. the punishment specified by Clarkson.

In other words, as I said earlier, "b1tch had it coming."

Great work LP.

No they are your words @PaulP I've never made such an assertion.

But I'm not going to swallow the spin that Markle is some sort of universal victim.

There is no morality in actions if they are motivated by cash, they don't deliver a key to heaven! ;)

Clarkson / Markle, they are opposite sides of the same coin, and they are working the same crowd. One works the pity angle, the other casts the first stone, but which is which?

We could rewrite this post, as a template as follows;

No they are your words, I've never made such an assertion.

But I'm not going to swallow the spin that ________ is some sort of universal victim.

There is no morality in actions if they are motivated by cash, they don't deliver a key to heaven! ;)

________ / ________, they are opposite sides of the same coin, and they are working the same crowd. One works the pity angle, the other casts the first stone, but which is which?

Insert whatever names you like in just about any order;

Clarkson / Markle
Depp / Heard
Packer / Carey
Pitt / Jolie
Pitt / Aniston

Pretty much anywhere this sort of public media war is declared, altruism is the victim and profit rules.

Most of the public anger and disgust, might well be emotions erupting at the thought of being gamed!

What an appalling ideology. What we have according to this view is a flat undifferentiated field created by and governed by the market forces of capitalism. There are no longer victims and perpetrators, no longer the powerful exploiting the weaker, no longer any need for ethics. Merely a level playing field of identical units,  who are either cynical opportunists or shameless hucksters  where victim hood is simply another marketing opportunity.  One step away from believing that Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins should be grateful to their abusers for making them famous. 

Markle has done nothing,  I mean literally nothing,  to deserve those comments, and no amount of spin from you is going to change that.  The comments are awful,  and they need be condemned as such, without excuses and without  qualification.

Markle has done nothing,  I mean literally nothing,  to deserve those comments, and no amount of spin from you is going to change that.  The comments are awful,  and they need be condemned as such, without excuses and without  qualification.

She has done plenty Pauly, she fell in love with a Prince, married him and became popular and nice. How dare she.

Merely a level playing field of identical units,  who are either cynical opportunists or shameless hucksters  where victim hood is simply another marketing opportunity. 

More often than it's comfortable for many to admit, as sad as that may be.

Often the first person engaged is a manager, ............ then a lawyer.

And in this regard the CheatsFC analogy is perfectly valid.

The rage is driven by the media, today News Ltd and Consolidated are running stories stating Markle was right about "The Media", "The Media" referred to in the 3rd party by News Ltd and Consolidated. Of course they do, .............. they are you ............. they are us!

One step away from believing that Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins should be grateful to their abusers for making them famous. 

This kind of highlights one of the issues with the discussion of this topic Paul.

Folks will often accept or reject an allegation as fact based on their own values and personal perceptions of the individuals.

In the case of Brittany Higgins it remains an allegation.
A jury who had listened to all the evidence had failed to come to a decision before the trial was eventually aborted.
That won't stop people believing what they want to believe.
I have no idea what happened in Parliament House.
The jury in the case couldn't be convinced either way at the point the trial was terminated.

Harry and Meghan have made some allegations.
In a similar fashon to the Higgins case the accused have chosen not to respond.
Into the void folks, from the outside, will put their own values, perceptions and life experiences to determine which side  to favour.

She has done plenty Pauly, she fell in love with a Prince, married him and became popular and nice. How dare she.

Terrific summary, GTC. You reminded us of what is truly important here - love (at the risk of seeming sentimental). On one very real level this is simply a love story. True love. Courageous love. And the petty jealousies and sinister reporting from loud, obnoxious and breathtakingly shallow (yet infuriatingly influential) sections of the community and media.

Love wins. And the likes of Clarkson, Rita, Andrew, Piers and other sections of the media etc., get to baste in their bile, whilst Harry & Meghan get to raise their family in LA and continue their meaningful philanthropic work. A life together of their own creation and choosing. Bravo.

This kind of highlights one of the issues with the discussion of this topic Paul.

Folks will often accept or reject an allegation as fact based on their own values and personal perceptions of the individuals.

In the case of Brittany Higgins it remains an allegation.
A jury who had listened to all the evidence had failed to come to a decision before the trial was eventually aborted.
That won't stop people believing what they want to believe.
I have no idea what happened in Parliament House.
The jury in the case couldn't be convinced either way at the point the trial was terminated.

Harry and Meghan have made some allegations.
In a similar fashon to the Higgins case the accused have chosen not to respond.
Into the void folks, from the outside, will put their own values, perceptions and life experiences to determine which side  to favour.

No doubt, but that way of thinking in the public sphere works to undermine victims.  Tame and Higgins are smart educated women. They make these allegations fully aware, either through briefing or through self knowledge, that any "rewards" they receive in making such allegations will be dwarfed by years and years of stress, vitriol, character assassination and the like. And they are prepared to endure all that in order to sell a few books, or appear on the telly for their 15 minutes of fame, when a conviction for the offender is far from a certainty ? Somehow I doubt it. The fact that the jury failed to reach a decision in the Higgins case tells you nothing about what really happened.

More often than it's comfortable for many to admit, as sad as that may be.

Often the first person engaged is a manager, ............ then a lawyer..........................

Wow. By that logic there must be scores of women out there who are secretly or overtly hoping something horrible happens to them so they can hit the big time. Maybe they already have a manager, a PR person and a book deal stitched up. Appalling.

She has done plenty Pauly, she fell in love with a Prince, married him and became popular and nice. How dare she.

Meghan also had the audacity to be born of the wrong parents.

If her parents were of British or northern European descent and had a link to the nobility or, better still, an obscure European royal family, the media would love her, particularly if she was able to mind her Ps and Qs.

Meghan also had the audacity to be born of the wrong parents.

If her parents were of British or northern European descent and had a link to the nobility or, better still, an obscure European royal family, the media would love her, particularly if she was able to mind her Ps and Qs.

Really, yet I can't help but think the Dutchess of York might have a different perspective.

Maybe Sarah should play the Ginger card? :o
 

Wow. By that logic there must be scores of women out there who are secretly or overtly hoping something horrible happens to them so they can hit the big time. Maybe they already have a manager, a PR person and a book deal stitched up. Appalling.

Extending the rules by which celebrities conduct themselves and monetise their circumstance to all women is a bit of a stretch.

You have taken an extremist position, extending it to the general population is a logical absurdity, when it's clearly not extreme to suggest "celebrity" exists in fame for money and power, very far from the everyday person.

Oddly the rules of celebrity are bizarrely similar, whether you are a global or local entity.

Lo and behold, today the Harkles (Which seems a very appropriate nickname) have announced a "new show!

There is no such thing as bad publicity if you are a professional at publicity, Clarkson and Harkle thank-you for your attendance.

Really, yet I can't help but think the Dutchess of York might have a different perspective.

Maybe Sarah should play the Ginger card? :o

Really?

Fergie, despite numerous scandals and slip ups, has always been treated quite well by the media.  Perhaps because she was such a rich source of material.

Fergie, in her own words, is country gentry with a bit of old money” but doesn’t have links to nobility or obscure royal families.

Extending the rules by which celebrities conduct themselves and monetise their circumstance to all women is a bit of a stretch.

You have taken an extremist position, extending it to the general population is a logical absurdity, when it's clearly not extreme to suggest "celebrity" exists in fame for money and power, very far from the everyday person.

Oddly the rules of celebrity are bizarrely similar, whether you are a global or local entity.

Lo and behold, today the Harkles (Which seems a very appropriate nickname) have announced a "new show!

There is no such thing as bad publicity if you are a professional at publicity, Clarkson and Harkle thank-you for your attendance.

I don't care whether you are black, white, red yellow, poor, stinking rich, have Royal Blood etc, as law abiding human beings we all deserve to be treated with respect and not be subject to abhorrent hate online by faceless kents with seemingly no law to answer to. If that was your son or daughter who was subjected to it you'd be singing a different tune.

Extending the rules by which celebrities conduct themselves and monetise their circumstance to all women is a bit of a stretch.

You have taken an extremist position, extending it to the general population is a logical absurdity, when it's clearly not extreme to suggest "celebrity" exists in fame for money and power, very far from the everyday person.

Oddly the rules of celebrity are bizarrely similar, whether you are a global or local entity.

Lo and behold, today the Harkles (Which seems a very appropriate nickname) have announced a "new show!

There is no such thing as bad publicity if you are a professional at publicity, Clarkson and Harkle thank-you for your attendance.

Your belief in two separate groups of women, i.e the celebrities and the nobodies, and how they each cope, react deal or benefit from vile abuse is truly bizarre.

And right on cue, we have a tweet from Clarkson :

Oh dear. I’ve rather put my foot in it. In a column I wrote about Meghan, I made a clumsy reference to a scene in Game of Thrones and this has gone down badly with a great many people. I’m horrified to have caused so much hurt and I shall be more careful in future.

Wow.

Your belief in two separate groups of women, i.e the celebrities and the nobodies, and how they each cope, react deal or benefit from vile abuse is truly bizarre.

I did not realise celebrity and celebrity behaviour was constrained to the female gender!

I suspect there are way more than two sides, we probably need a pie chart or a degree in graph theory.

I'm not really debating you because the assertions you make about what I have written are a fantasy, Harry, Markle, Clarkson are not everyday innocent bystanders in these events, they are a contributing cause. They are not collateral damage, they are among each others key target in a war of celebrity profiteering.

With a greater than null possibility I'll have a grievance with my In-laws in the future, I must make an effort to deal with it privately and with some dignity, so I best get a slot booked on Oprah as soon as possible as it looks like there is a queue forming for the celebrity righteous wishing to tell their truths!

A coin does have two sides doesn't it @PaulP , even for those of us who are slightly myopic?

Your belief that you understand the inner workings of Markle's mind, her motivations etc. is dubious at best. Your belief that you see the world "as it really is" amounts to little more than assuming the worst, and fairly typical of your tendency to always jump at shadows.

The comments are awful,  and they need be condemned as such, without excuses and without  qualification.

Just as an aside Paul. Have you seen Game of Thrones? Do you get the 'Shame' reference?

I have not seen it, but the reference in question is quite well known even outside of GoT fans. Its become a popular meme and even used on AFL players and coaches. Its part of pop-culture.

I feel a lot of the negativity is people not understanding the reference/missing the joke.
Thats why my first post talked about context.

Your belief that you understand the inner workings of Markle's mind, her motivations etc. is dubious at best. Your belief that you see the world "as it really is" amounts to little more than assuming the worst, and fairly typical of your tendency to always jump at shadows.

I don't know her mind at all, I don't claim to.

But her actions and words are on public display for all to see and hear, the two do not correlate!

For example, claiming media invasion of privacy, demanding distance and respect, then firing opening salvos of a private family debate via a lucrative Oprah Winfrey interview. Not really self-consistent, perhaps even outright contradictory!

I don't know her mind at all, I don't claim to.

But her actions and words are on public display for all to see and hear, the two do not correlate!

For example, claiming media invasion of privacy, demanding distance and respect, then firing opening salvos of a private family debate via a lucrative Oprah Winfrey interview. Not really self-consistent, perhaps even outright contradictory!

I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the difference between a public and private life. Simply because someone gives an interview or launches a new series it doesn't mean they want someone parked outside their house 24/7, rifling through their trash or trying to get a photo of that person taking a dump. Surely you can see the difference ?

I don't know her mind at all, I don't claim to.

But her actions and words are on public display for all to see and hear, the two do not correlate!

For example, claiming media invasion of privacy, demanding distance and respect, then firing opening salvos of a private family debate via a lucrative Oprah Winfrey interview. Not really self-consistent, perhaps even outright contradictory!

So if I understand correctly:
1. If you're famous, you have to cop the hate in the neck and HTFU.
2. If you're famous, you can't go public about your anguish and one most simply HTFU and keep quiet.

Just as an aside Paul. Have you seen Game of Thrones? Do you get the 'Shame' reference?

I have not seen it, but the reference in question is quite well known even outside of GoT fans. Its become a popular meme and even used on AFL players and coaches. Its part of pop-culture.

I feel a lot of the negativity is people not understanding the reference/missing the joke.
Thats why my first post talked about context.

Right. So if I claim to hate someone's mother / daughter etc., not in the same way that I hate Rose West, but on a cellular level, implying that the husband of this woman is pussy whipped, and that I twitch as I lie awake at night and dream of the day when this woman will be paraded through the streets, laughed at, ridiculed, spat at, carrying the cross to which she will be nailed, then crucified in a very visible and public place to send a clear message, then left to slowly and painfully die, then left on the cross for her body to decompose and be eaten by vultures, then finally tossed into a common grave, I guess I can also claim that I'm just making a zany joke, and not only that, I've added some intellectual rigour because I've presented a standard scholarly understanding of the last days and death of Jesus. And way more people should understand this reference than GOT, so I guess I'm really off the hook.

I think I understand context now.

He's not off the hook.
It was an idiot comment to make.
He was trying to make a 'witty tweet' and ended up looking like a 'nasty twit.'

Even most of us who immediately got the GOT reference would have thought it was a stupid comment..one that went way too far.
Do I really think he wanted to see that happen to her...of course I don't.
Yet someone who didn't understand the reference could easily feel that is exactly what he intended.

This topic is producing a fair bit of emotion, but as usually happens with these things once you've picked a side you tend to go a bit deaf to alternative thoughts.

Im with LP on this issue, Ms Markle knew the Royal playbook when she took on the role, your life will be non stop scrutiny like Di, like Kate etc. English Prince marries American actress.. did they really think they were going to live some anonymous lifestyle out of the public gaze and raise children, chickens and sheep together in some tranquil village in England without the media wanting to know their every move?
Numpties like Clarkson are part of the environment, TV celebs full of their own importance gobbing off on everyone and everything to stay relevant...its part of the job and you have to deal with it and use it to your advantage.
You win over the haters and play the long game, you dont run off to the USA and try and make a quick buck every way you can by selling your soul to the highest bidders.
They have had some real bad advice imho, they should have stayed, played the long game as I said and tried to change things slowly as they built their popularity and became more important to the image of the Royal Family.
Time to build a bridge with good King Charlie and maybe they can go on Top Gear or what ever Clarkson is hosting these days and win some haters over too.
Charlie and Camilla had to repent their wicked affair and sins when they got married and look at them now, everyone loves a repentant Royal giving a good prayer of Penitence...

Charlie and Camilla had to repent their wicked affair and sins when they got married and look at them now, everyone loves a repentant Royal giving a good prayer of Penitence...

Unless your name is Andrew, then you're buggered ;)

Lods, you call it an idiotic comment. I think it's much worse than that. And there are no get out of jail free cards. There's a line that's been crossed, and it's not good enough to say she knew what she was getting into. Someone who has done no wrong doesn't deserve that treatment.

Unless your name is Andrew, then you're buggered ;)

He will do a couple of years in Royal Purgatory then be allowed out to attend Royal functions if he behaves himself.
My guess is all this Megan/Harry stuff has worked in his favour and allowed him to slip under the media radar a bit and he is probably hoping it continues that way for a while.

Lods, you call it an idiotic comment. I think it's much worse than that. And there are no get out of jail free cards. There's a line that's been crossed, and it's not good enough to say she knew what she was getting into. Someone who has done no wrong doesn't deserve that treatment.

I don't know what greater negative tag I can put on it than 'idiotic'.
If he actually meant that he'd like to see her treated in that way then 'psychopathic' may have been appropriate.

He was being a smart-arse but if you use 'pop culture' to make a point, no matter how silly, you will always find a group of folks who will find it more offensive because they don't understand the reference you're making.

Right. So if I claim to hate someone's mother / daughter etc., not in the same way that I hate Rose West, but on a cellular level, implying that the husband of this woman is pussy whipped, and that I twitch as I lie awake at night and dream of the day when this woman will be paraded through the streets, laughed at, ridiculed, spat at, carrying the cross to which she will be nailed, then crucified in a very visible and public place to send a clear message, then left to slowly and painfully die, then left on the cross for her body to decompose and be eaten by vultures, then finally tossed into a common grave, I guess I can also claim that I'm just making a zany joke, and not only that, I've added some intellectual rigour because I've presented a standard scholarly understanding of the last days and death of Jesus. And way more people should understand this reference than GOT, so I guess I'm really off the hook.

I think I understand context now.

I'm not saying its justified or whatever, just that there is humour in it that people are largely missing.
Not everyone has the same kind of humour and when you reach as many people as he does, these kind of comments are ALWAYS going to piss someone off, sometimes, most people.

Not sure if you've ever watched Eddie Murphy - Raw (or Delirious) filmed in the 80's. At the time, it was about the funniest thing going around, cutting edge and very much pushing boundaries (and potentially overstepping a few times).
Now, go back and watch that now and it is very cringey in a lot of places. You can't tell the same gay jokes that were acceptable then. Society has changed. Eddie Murphy has transformed into Mr Disney with all his kid friendly movies now. He has evolved.
I'm sure he still has that rude side, but he doesn't let it out in public.

Clarkson is only 1 year older than Eddie Murphy and grown up with similar humour. He has not evolved....or at least hasn't learned to hide his inner voice.

Personally, i am very thick skinned and there is not much you can say to me (if anything) that will make me 'lose it'. I know i'm in the minority these days and everyone is delicate flowers and want the right to have babies, even if they don't have a womb (No thats not a gay joke - rather a movie reference) but our societies right to get offended has very much taken over our logic, reasoning and humour.
So when something like this gets as much air time as it does, i can't help but push back at the cancel culture peeps and try and bring a bit of perspective back.

Again, i'm not saying he should've said it. Just that the reaction is not warranted.

Right. So according to this, the reason for him not to say it is not because it is vile, offensive, misogynistic and overall just plain wrong. Oh no. The reason for him not to say it is because there are certain demographics who have no sense of humour, or at least not the requisite sense of humour. And who might those demographics be ? Well let's see : there's 6000 complainants, there's women (50% of the human species), many young people, libtards and members of the wokerati, progressives, minority groups of various stripes. By the time you go through the list, there's really only one demographic who thinks this is funny.

He will do a couple of years in Royal Purgatory then be allowed out to attend Royal functions if he behaves himself.
My guess is all this Megan/Harry stuff has worked in his favour and allowed him to slip under the media radar a bit and he is probably hoping it continues that way for a while.

Andrew is getting all the perks without doing any of the chores that Royals are supposed to do.  Harry got stripped of all privileges when he withdrew from some Royal duties.

Of course, the young girls who Andrew abused all have managers and lawyers and took advantage of Andrew so that they can reach a generous settlement 🙄

Going back to the point I made earlier, Andrew got to wear a uniform with medals aplenty at the Queen’s funeral while his nephew had to wear a civilian suit. 

The thing is that the Palace is protecting the rock spider and calling in media favours to do so, while throwing Harry and Meghan under the media bus.

Andrew is getting all the perks without doing any of the chores that Royals are supposed to do.  Harry got stripped of all privileges when he withdrew from some Royal duties.

Of course, the young girls who Andrew abused all have managers and lawyers and took advantage of Andrew so that they can reach a generous settlement 🙄

Going back to the point I made earlier, Andrew got to wear a uniform with medals aplenty at the Queen’s funeral while his nephew had to wear a civilian suit. 

The thing is that the Palace is protecting the rock spider and calling in media favours to do so, while throwing Harry and Meghan under the media bus.

Andrew is doing the one thing Harry and Meghan are not and thats keeping his gob shut, he should be doing Porridge down at the Scrubs or similar but we know that will never happen. Yep all his victims were paid off by his brother I presume with taxpayers money and I guess he will spend the majority of his time pretending to be a Good Prince by walking the Queens Corgis and hanging out with his ex trying to make it appear one big happy family again.
I think Harry and Meghan have done a fair job of throwing themselves under the bus and in front of anything that looks like a camera crew, media shy they are not.....

Clarkson actually profits from this attention, I don't even know what he stated, but I suggest it's no better or worse than a few million other 2-bob social media slobs from both genders.

The difference between Slob Average(Gender Neutral) on FB and the likes of Clarkson and Harkle, is that the professionals monetise the gig be it the latest version of bigotry, misogyny, misandry or the very trendy passive aggressive psychopathy, etc., etc., etc..

The only hard evidence I can see from much of this activity is proof of the ability of the celebrities to be completely tone deaf to the struggles of the vast population of the planet, and for the gullibility of fans to accept whatever is spoken by their idol regardless of evidence pointing to the contrary.

Clarkson actually profits from this attention, I don't even know what he stated, but I suggest it's no better or worse than a few million other 2-bob social media slobs from both genders.

The difference between Slob Average(Gender Neutral) on FB and the likes of Clarkson and Harkle, is that the professionals monetise the gig be it the latest version of bigotry, misogyny, misandry or the very trendy passive aggressive psychopathy, etc., etc., etc..

The only hard evidence I can see from much of this activity is proof of the ability of the celebrities to be completely tone deaf to the struggles of the vast population of the planet, and for the gullibility of fans to accept whatever is spoken by their idol regardless of evidence pointing to the contrary.

You worry me at times, Spotted One. So many sweeping generalisations and absolutes.

Have you watched the Harry and Meghan doco on Netflix? If you have you will see clearly that, especially Meghan, is constructing and using her celebrity to effect change, at the coal face, of important social causes. Because someone is a celebrity it doesn't automatically follow that their sole obsession is publicity for self.

You worry me at times, Spotted One. So many sweeping generalisations and absolutes.

Have you watched the Harry and Meghan doco on Netflix? If you have you will see clearly that, especially Meghan, is constructing and using her celebrity to effect change, at the coal face, of important social causes. Because someone is a celebrity it doesn't automatically follow that their sole obsession is publicity for self.

I get it @Baggers , I also get that she is a professional actress.

None of what I have seen or read explains the apparent contradictions in words versus actions.

As for the charitable stuff that wins over the public, I suspect that is what it is designed to do with little on no attached altruism, if and it is a big if, if there is some altruism it's potentially just a side effect. Win, win!

Personally, if you want to sign me up for a 8 digit media contract I'll also happily make a 7 digit donation without hesitation, you can trust me on that! ;)

Poor old Bill Gates, that bloke donates 10 and 11 digit amounts and they paint him as a megalomaniac and nutter, of course he's a WASP and not nearly WOKE enough!

Well well, more alleged fakery, well maybe at the bare minimum Hollywood style smoke and mirrors!

London: New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has moved to distance herself from Prince Harry and Meghan, saying her involvement in a new Netflix documentary series on leadership had nothing to do with the couple.

Ardern, along with teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg, is among seven “extraordinary leaders” interviewed on Live to Lead , presented and co-produced by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

So not quite the Harkle booster that Ardern has been played out to be, obviously that will just be an oversight by the producers, all clear nothing to see here just an aberration. Who were they?

Yet, I bet I'm still expected to fall in line with a Harkle apology, and I will get lambasted if I don't!

Like myself @ElwoodBlues1 might have just reached a new level of contentment, disappointed in humanity, but very happy not to be completely fooled!

Trust nobody, especially if they make a living off the back of the public's perceptions.

Bill Gates has been in the public eye for close to 50 years, and in that time would be lucky to have received 1% of the vitriol and hate that Markle has received in 2022., despite Gates being guilty of a string of personal and professional misdemeanours, and Markle being guilty of precisely nothing, other than the very sophisticated grievance that she is a (gulp)........opportunist, or even worse, (double gulp)...................... a hypocrite. Wow. Talk about protected species.

Poor old Bill Gates, that bloke donates 10 and 11 digit amounts and they paint him as a megalomaniac and nutter, of course he's a WASP and not nearly WOKE enough!

Sorry LP, but Bill isn't a WASP, even if you include Northern Europeans within the artificial Anglo-Saxon construct.  Bill's Scottish ancestors would be spinning in their graves at being lumped in with Sassenachs!  Although he attended a Congregational church as a child, Bill, Melinda and their children regularly attend/ed a Catholic church.  He is white, but not really from a US political elite family so the WASP label doesn't apply. 

Apart from when it clashes with his interests and objectives, Bill is as woke as you can get and is criticised by groups like Parents Defending Education and the Murdoch media for bankrolling the woke education agenda.

Apart from when it clashes with his interests and objectives, Bill is as woke as you can get and is criticised by groups like Parents Defending Education and the Murdoch media for bankrolling the woke education agenda.

While I agree, I suspect the accuracy of the labels and the various definitions mean very little to the social media trolls imposing their agendas on the wider general public.

Debating the very same definition of those labels just pigeon holes those participating in the debate of the definitions as elitist academics. The mad buggers have switched off before you've even closed your opening sentence! ;)

These labels are all media / social media stones, when most throw them they don't care if they are igneous or sedimentary, or if it started off life as a tomato and metamorphised!

Bill Gates has been in the public eye for close to 50 years, and in that time would be lucky to have received 1% of the vitriol and hate that Markle has received in 2022., despite Gates being guilty of a string of personal and professional misdemeanours, and Markle being guilty of precisely nothing, other than the very sophisticated grievance that she is a (gulp)........opportunist, or even worse, (double gulp)...................... a hypocrite. Wow. Talk about protected species.

For all Clarkson stated and profited from, it was Ardern's non-commissioned royalty free public service announcement that pulled the latest rug, maybe Ardern is a closet capitalist or a monarchist mole, both groups apparently have it in for Harkle!

Am I allowed to say "Pulled the Rug", or is that also some obscure reference to a Game of Thrones moment?

Sorry LP, but Bill isn't a WASP, even if you include Northern Europeans within the artificial Anglo-Saxon construct.  Bill's Scottish ancestors would be spinning in their graves at being lumped in with Sassenachs!  Although he attended a Congregational church as a child, Bill, Melinda and their children regularly attend/ed a Catholic church.  He is white, but not really from a US political elite family so the WASP label doesn't apply. 

Apart from when it clashes with his interests and objectives, Bill is as woke as you can get and is criticised by groups like Parents Defending Education and the Murdoch media for bankrolling the woke education agenda.

If nothing else, a Markle / Gates comparison provides an elegant snapshot into how power and privilege operate in contemporary society, if only in relative terms - who has it and who doesn't, who is able to obtain it and who isn't, what benefits it provides etc. One can quibble about whether or not Gates is "genuine" establishment, but the advantages afforded to him by his power and privilege completely dwarf Markle's.

If nothing else, a Markle / Gates comparison provides an elegant snapshot into how power and privilege operate in contemporary society, if only in relative terms - who has it and who doesn't, who is able to obtain it and who isn't, what benefits it provides etc. One can quibble about whether or not Gates is "genuine" establishment, but the advantages afforded to him by his power and privilege completely dwarf Markle's.

It's not the corridors of power that are the judge in the Harkle debacle, and it's not the corridors of power that ultimately foot the bill, it's more of a social and emotional grifting operation.

Apparently we have to believe Harkle, not because it's fashionable to ignore words contradicting actions even when 3rd parties expose inconsistency, after all Harkle speaks their truth, but because the story comes to us with a series of intermittent pearly white smiles interspersed with the odd tear.

Someone like Gates holds very little privilege or influence in that sphere of this debate, even if Gates offered a rational opinion it is more likely that he would find himself disadvantaged by public perceptions regardless of how bizarre they might be.

I realise now Her Majesty made a massive blunder, she should have responded to Harkle via Conan, a newbie mistake I suppose!

I get it @Baggers , I also get that she is a professional actress.

None of what I have seen or read explains the apparent contradictions in words versus actions.

As for the charitable stuff that wins over the public, I suspect that is what it is designed to do with little on no attached altruism, if and it is a big if, if there is some altruism it's potentially just a side effect. Win, win!

This is why I was hoping you'd seen the doco. The philanthropic work that Harry and Meghan do is not a platitudinous publicity machine for their egos. They actually work with the people doing the leg work... boots on the ground. Yes, there will be fluff and gloss and pearly white teeth and all the other trappings that go with promoting and attracting funding to a cause - one of the reasons that charities realise that they need high profile patrons. If you like, Harry and Meghan are patrons to their own charity (Archewell) who also get down and dirty in the trenches with their employees, as well as playing the glitz and fluff game to get attention. Their causes are ambitious and relevant. Especially empowering women.

Right. So according to this, the reason for him not to say it is not because it is vile, offensive, misogynistic and overall just plain wrong. Oh no. The reason for him not to say it is because there are certain demographics who have no sense of humour, or at least not the requisite sense of humour. And who might those demographics be ? Well let's see : there's 6000 complainants, there's women (50% of the human species), many young people, libtards and members of the wokerati, progressives, minority groups of various stripes. By the time you go through the list, there's really only one demographic who thinks this is funny.

That type of statement highlights what i am referring too.

Question - Do you have a favourite comedian?

If nothing else, a Markle / Gates comparison provides an elegant snapshot into how power and privilege operate in contemporary society, if only in relative terms - who has it and who doesn't, who is able to obtain it and who isn't, what benefits it provides etc. One can quibble about whether or not Gates is "genuine" establishment, but the advantages afforded to him by his power and privilege completely dwarf Markle's.

True, but Meghan, by virtue of her age, smarts, physical attributes, choice of partner, good works and developing media clout, has far greater potential to influence younger folk and women.  It’s that potential that has galvanised opposition to her among those who feel threatened; the Royals, elements of the media, the establishments, and people of influence; generally older, white men.

If Harry was going solo with this, I suspect that there would far less opposition and very little of the snide and offensive commentary.

That type of statement highlights what i am referring too.

Question - Do you have a favourite comedian?

No. There are people who find dogs mauling each other to death funny. Hate speech is precisely that. Dressing it up as an over the top, in joke, pop culture reference does not make it funny, does not make it clever, and does not make it acceptable. Rather than wasting your time, let me make it perfectly clear - there's nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise. Some things simply are not on.

True, but Meghan, by virtue of her age, smarts, physical attributes, choice of partner, good works and developing media clout, has far greater potential to influence younger folk and women.  It’s that potential that has galvanised opposition to her among those who feel threatened; the Royals, elements of the media, the establishments, and people of influence; generally older, white men.

If Harry was going solo with this, I suspect that there would far less opposition and very little of the snide and offensive commentary.

I agree with you. After several visits on business to England between 2010 and 2018 I became quite aware that elements of xenophobia and racial superiority were very close to the surface among the people we met.  When you add in Meghan's colour , she was in for a hiding from the media at the first opportunity.

Sorry to harp on about this but do folks have a breakdown on the demographics.
I generally think older white males don't get too worried about Meg and Harry.

They've got the young vote, no doubt... but my perception, reading some of the comments on social media and the news article comments, that most of the scathing criticism comes from middle aged to older females.

No. There are people who find dogs mauling each other to death funny. Hate speech is precisely that. Dressing it up as an over the top, in joke, pop culture reference does not make it funny, does not make it clever, and does not make it acceptable. Rather than wasting your time, let me make it perfectly clear - there's nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise. Some things simply are not on.

'No' was the answer i was expecting.

Always serious. Can't enjoy the little things and have a laugh.
Always looking for someone to point the finger at.

Australia has lost its sense of humour, larrikin, easy going nature.....and a lot of the world has too.

Too many Karens out there.

I'll say it again, just for the sake of clarity.
Should he have said it? Probably not.
Did he mean it word for word? Almost definitely not.
Is it a bad example to be saying such things? Sure.
Does it deserve the type of carry-on that it has received? Probably not.

Sorry to harp on about this but do folks have a breakdown on the demographics.
I generally think older white males don't get too worried about Meg and Harry.

They've got the young vote, no doubt... but my perception, reading some of the comments on social media and the news article comments, that most of the scathing criticism comes from middle aged to older females.

One recent poll in the UK found that 41 percent of those aged 55-64 viewed Meghan “very unfavourably”, while 52 percent of those aged 25-34 approved of her.  Conservatives voters don't like her but Labour voters do.

Another UK poll conducted after the Oprah interview found that 48% of those aged between 18 and 24 feel more sympathy for Harry and Meghan, while 15% are more sympathetic to the senior royals.  Britons aged 25 to 49 are split 28% to 24% between the Sussexes and the Queen.  Folk over 50 have more sympathy for the Queen by 46% to 13%, and 55% of those aged over 65 feel more sympathy for the Queen.  Those figures should change with Chuck substituted for Lilibet.

A 2020 International Women’s Day survey named Meghan as the most influential woman in the UK. The survey of 5,000 people had Meghan ahead of Greta Thunberg, Rihanna, human rights advocate Malala Yousafzai, and feminist campaigner Jameela Jamil.

A 2021 UK survey found that 55% of 18-24 year olds like Meghan, while 32% dislike her. Harry had similar results with 59% of Britons aged 18 to 24 having a positive opinion of him, with 28% disliking him. In contrast, 69% of people aged 65 and older dislike Harry and 83% dislike Meghan. 

I can't find any poll results by gender but the folk who are critical of Meghan are generally older white males.  Of course, that could simply reflect the over-representation of older white males in the English speaking media.

That type of statement highlights what i am referring too.

Question - Do you have a favourite comedian?

My favourite comedian was Bill Cosby … but he turned to be an entitled, sick, rapist bastard 🙄

My favourite comedian was Bill Cosby … but he turned to be an entitled, sick, rapist bastard 🙄

I suppose its better than Rolf Harris?!

One recent poll in the UK found that 41 percent of those aged 55-64 viewed Meghan “very unfavourably”, while 52 percent of those aged 25-34 approved of her.  Conservatives voters don't like her but Labour voters do.

Another UK poll conducted after the Oprah interview found that 48% of those aged between 18 and 24 feel more sympathy for Harry and Meghan, while 15% are more sympathetic to the senior royals.  Britons aged 25 to 49 are split 28% to 24% between the Sussexes and the Queen.  Folk over 50 have more sympathy for the Queen by 46% to 13%, and 55% of those aged over 65 feel more sympathy for the Queen.  Those figures should change with Chuck substituted for Lilibet.

A 2020 International Women’s Day survey named Meghan as the most influential woman in the UK. The survey of 5,000 people had Meghan ahead of Greta Thunberg, Rihanna, human rights advocate Malala Yousafzai, and feminist campaigner Jameela Jamil.

A 2021 UK survey found that 55% of 18-24 year olds like Meghan, while 32% dislike her. Harry had similar results with 59% of Britons aged 18 to 24 having a positive opinion of him, with 28% disliking him. In contrast, 69% of people aged 65 and older dislike Harry and 83% dislike Meghan. 

I can't find any poll results by gender but the folk who are critical of Meghan are generally older white males.  Of course, that could simply reflect the over-representation of older white males in the English speaking media.

It's the gender one I'm interested in.
It's true Public figures like Clarkson and Piers Morgan are out spoken.
I still don't believe most older guys give it a lot of thought.

Women of influence will probably come out in support because they have battled male dominated professions and beaten it.

But how does Meghan play amongst the average older female.

My sister reckons Harry's a traitor and should be sent to the Tower (No, she doesn't want him beheaded  ::)  ;D )

It's the gender one I'm interested in.
It's true Public figures like Clarkson and Piers Morgan are out spoken.
I still don't believe most older guys give it a lot of thought.

Women of influence will probably come out in support because they have battled male dominated professions and beaten it.

But how does Meghan play amongst the average older female.

My sister reckons Harry's a traitor and should be sent to the Tower (No, she doesn't want him beheaded  ::)  ;D )

I think you need to dig deeper into your hypothesis a bit Lods.

I reckon what you say is right, but i reckon for the wrong reasons.

More females would be vocal on the topic, because Girl Power and sticking together against Clarkson.
Older females would be more into the Queen because thats what they know and Megsie doesn't fit the stereotype so much. Perhaps moreso, its another case of the younger generation not respected their elders that pisses them off the most.
More males less so because, WGAF about the royals.

But how does Meghan play amongst the average older female.

My sister reckons Harry's a traitor and should be sent to the Tower (No, she doesn't want him beheaded  ::)  ;D )

Yes she is not alone, and these people are silent in the debate because they aren't generally active on the internet, but they'll read Clarkson like columns in a newspaper.

Harkle's demographic lives in an echo chamber, and it's not one that puts a high price on many old world values.

Not much commentary on the Ardern statement coming from the Harkle boosters, just going to let that slide are we?

Wasn't there a book titled appropriately about this very issue, something like "An Inconvenient Truth!"

I agree with you. After several visits on business to England between 2010 and 2018 I became quite aware that elements of xenophobia and racial superiority were very close to the surface among the people we met.  When you add in Meghan's colour , she was in for a hiding from the media at the first opportunity.

I think this attitude has been a part of English culture for a long time, and it's been amplified and given additional licence in the bifurcated media landscape that was pretty much invented by Murdoch. It comes as no surprise that most of the attack dog tactics against Markle come from the Fox / Sky stable.

OK, so let’s break it down
"Old, male, white, conservatives are the problem".
They don’t like Harry and more specifically Meghan.

We can give the ‘Old’ a tickoff. They are mostly not in their camp…but let’s extend it to the middle-aged and older.

They have the support of the young, that’s a given

I’m not convinced gender plays an important part, in fact I think that amongst the older group women are more critical, and men don’t give them a great deal of thought…but I’ll stand corrected if that proves not to be the case in future polling. It’s a view very much framed amongst my own circle of friends and family and reading social media and news article comments.

Conservative v Labour is another given, but we know that will always break down in terms of monarchy/anti monarchy beliefs.

Racism is cited as a key factor. What has me confused is that if it was an important element then why did it take a year or two to turn things around. Meghan was hugely popular in those early days. Did folk not realise Meghan was black. I thought Charles walking Mum down the aisle would have been a giveaway. There may be some racial aspect, but it would exist at a very minor level in the greater scheme of things, and in those few entrenched who weren’t fond of Meg from the start. That’s not to say it may not have been a more important factor with some members of the extended Royal family.

I suspect the truth of the anti Meg and Harry feeling is as simple as the old “Yoko Ono effect”.
Yes, there may have been a racial aspect to that one too for a section of critics, but the main focus was to most people, rightly or wrongly, "Yoko broke up the Band”.

Same with Meg. Her arrival resulted in a rift between brothers and family. When one member leaves the band there is usually going to be a bit of shouting.
Now they can all go their separate ways and still make ‘some pretty good music’ on both sides, but it will never be quite the same.

What we’ve had from Meghan and Harry is their version. Some have accepted that without question. It’s unlikely we’ll get a formal rebuttal from the palace. That may come through some of their minions in the press, but into that void folks are pretty much free to make up their own minds.
Harry and Meghan look to have some good intentions for lots of positive work away from the Royal family. That’s to their credit. They also need to make a living and they’re high profile enough to earn a good income. They certainly won’t be in the 'poor house' after their various Netflix and book deals, but while that coincides with attacks on the Royal family there will always be criticism.

https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/narcissist-or-not-meghan-doesn-t-deserve-this-game-of-thrones-humiliation-20221220-p5c7tx.html

A very balanced assessment IMO.

...........................

Racism is cited as a key factor. What has me confused is that if it was an important element then why did it take a year or two to turn things around. Meghan was hugely popular in those early days. Did folk not realise Meghan was black. I thought Charles walking Mum down the aisle would have been a giveaway. There may be some racial aspect, but it would exist at a very minor level in the greater scheme of things, and in those few entrenched who weren’t fond of Meg from the start. That’s not to say it may not have been a more important factor with some members of the extended Royal family.

I suspect the truth of the anti Meg and Harry feeling is as simple as the old “Yoko Ono effect”.
Yes, there may have been a racial aspect to that one too for a section of critics, but the main focus was to most people, rightly or wrongly, "Yoko broke up the Band”.

The change in mood is a top down effect. Meghan started popular because Murdoch knows that "build em up and tear em down" is a very successful business model. 

And as for Yoko, you may have noticed that in her and Markle's cases, the men are generally off the hook, and the women are to blame. Despite the fact that both Harry and Lennon are both educated, successful grown men, have a proven track record of making important decisions, and just generally acting like mature adults, and probably had women offering themselves 24/7 - but apparently all that goes out the window when it suits the argument, at which point they become "merely male", and unable to resist the charms of evil, shameless, opportunistic manipulative women. This narrative is crystal clear in both stories. Lennon and Harry are quite capable of deciding for themselves.

The change in mood is a top down effect. Meghan started popular because Murdoch knows that "build em up and tear em down" is a very successful business model. 

And as for Yoko, you may have noticed that in her and Markle's cases, the men are generally off the hook, and the women are to blame. Despite the fact that both Harry and Lennon are both educated, successful grown men, have a proven track record of making important decisions, and just generally acting like mature adults, and probably had women offering themselves 24/7 - but apparently all that goes out the window when it suits the argument, at which point they become "merely male", and unable to resist the charms of evil, shameless, opportunistic manipulative women. This narrative is crystal clear in both stories. Lennon and Harry are quite capable of deciding for themselves.

They are and they did.
And no-one doubts that they are strong men.
It's the same with Meghan and Yoko, who are strong, assertive women.

The point is that folks are giving all sorts of different reasons why people don't like Meghan including race, gender, age when the real reason is probably the simple and most obvious.
She's had a strong and assertive, but also disruptive impact on an institution lots of people like.

Sometimes life is just luck, luck of the draw, luck in the timing, being in a lucky place, look at poor Kate, can't run, polite, quiet, doesn't debate private issue on social media, and if things couldn't get any worse for her she was born caucasian, what chance did she have so disadvantaged?
(https://i.ndtvimg.com/i/2017-02/william-kate_650x400_41486368834.jpg)
Are we surprised at all she has turned out to be evil incarnate?

Maybe if she gets a regular slot on Oprah she can turn things around!

My favourite comedian was Bill Cosby … but he turned to be an entitled, sick, rapist bastard 🙄

Cosby was also one of my faves... love the dentist skit, I laughed till it hurt. My all time fave is probably George Carlin.

They are and they did.
And no-one doubts that they are strong men.
It's the same with Meghan and Yoko, who are strong, assertive women.

The point is that folks are giving all sorts of different reasons why people don't like Meghan including race, gender, age when the real reason is probably the simple and most obvious.
She's had a strong and assertive, but also disruptive impact on an institution lots of people like.

They, not she. "They've had a strong and assertive, but also disruptive impact on an institution lots of people like." They made the decision together. It's not her impact, it's their impact. Men have to accept responsibility too.

The point is that folks are giving all sorts of different reasons why people don't like Meghan including race, gender, age when the real reason is probably the simple and most obvious.

She's had a strong and assertive, but also disruptive impact on an institution lots of people like.

There is such irony that this is most hotly debated in social media over mainstream media.

If a politician got up and stated the things some of these social media celebrity types state, then compounded things by acting in such a contradictory manner, the media coverage would be ten fold what these "poor beleaguered celebrities" suffer. They wouldn't just be on the front page, they would be the front page!

Can you imagine if Kamala Harris asked for privacy and respect from the media, then sold her story as an Oprah exclusive?

But in reality, when the celebrity complaints about being pestered by the media start to get more coverage than the celebrity, it must burn them because it's a media dead end. They are going to have to go to another level to find coverage!

Cosby was also one of my faves... love the dentist skit, I laughed till it hurt. My all time fave is probably George Carlin.

You won't be surprised at all to find my favourite is from the darker side, Bill Hicks, something like Arizona Bay!
 

They, not she. "They've had a strong and assertive, but also disruptive impact on an institution lots of people like." They made the decision together. It's not her impact, it's their impact. Men have to accept responsibility too.

Yes.
It was a decision they made together.
And he's not off the hook.
My sister wants him in the Tower.

But look at it from this perspective.
Harry was a part of the family.
Meghan's arrival on the scene meant that situation now no longer exists.
He's estranged.
If she hadn't come along there's every chance Harry would still be part of the family.
He may be perfectly happy.
You would have to think that there are some aspects of that breakdown in connection that makes him a little sad.
It's that breakdown that has upset people.
But he's made his choice and stands strongly with his wife.

Yes.
It was a decision they made together.
And he's not off the hook.
My sister wants him in the Tower.

But look at it from this perspective.
Harry was a part of the family.
Meghan's arrival on the scene meant that situation now no longer exists.
He's estranged.
If she hadn't come along there's every chance Harry would still be part of the family.
He may be perfectly happy.
You would have to think that there are some aspects of that breakdown in connection that makes him a little sad.
It's that breakdown that has upset people.
But he's made his choice and stands strongly with his wife.

Observing as I do from a great distance, I'd suggest these ideas have been fermenting in Harry's mind before Meghan. I doubt she was the one who planted them and told him to pack his bags.  If they are indeed a team, they would have discussed, fleshed out, weighed up pros and cons etc. There has to be solid reasons for them leaving, because i can't think of too many advantages for them.

Not much commentary on the Ardern statement coming from the Harkle boosters, just going to let that slide are we?

Wasn't there a book titled appropriately about this very issue, something like "An Inconvenient Truth!"

Mmm, I suspect you may believe that because of this little black duck's opinions on the Harry/Meghan/media/Royal Family situation you've decided to label me a 'booster' for Harry and Meghan... nuh. For clarity, it's actually not about them as individuals, or any perceived affection you think I have for them... nuh, I have a passion for their rights to be treated fairly and to value their efforts to help others, their rights to live their life of service together without unreasonable constraint, vulgar condemnation, lies and crass belittlement on a deeply personal level. Many decades ago I got a tattoo on my left lower leg, a quote from Martin Luther King jr., "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." A principle I hold dear, a guiding light for my own life if you will.

As for Ardern, I see clearly that she is under political pressure at present -- indeed fighting for her political life -- and her distancing from this entire episode is just politics, not wanting to ruffle feathers and potentially lose a section of her supporter base. Disappointing perhaps, but appearing to not have a dog in this fight is strategically understandable.

They, not she. "They've had a strong and assertive, but also disruptive impact on an institution lots of people like." They made the decision together. It's not her impact, it's their impact. Men have to accept responsibility too.

In the documentary, it was clearly stated the decision to leave was Harry's as he wanted to protect his wife and children. I'm sure they discussed it together but he was the main driver and takes full responsibility, he was the one negotiating the exit with his father, brother and grandmother. She tried very hard to fit in and do the "right thing" but was largely unsupported and hounded out by the media (influenced by the "institution"). I think I'm correct in saying the worst of the hate and vitriol came after the left.

In the documentary, it was clearly stated the decision to leave was Harry's as he wanted to protect his wife and children. I'm sure they discussed it together but he was the main driver and takes full responsibility, he was the one negotiating the exit with his father, brother and grandmother. She tried very hard to fit in and do the "right thing" but was largely unsupported and hounded out by the media (influenced by the "institution"). I think I'm correct in saying the worst of the hate and vitriol came after the left.

Thanks Nando.

Observing as I do from a great distance, I'd suggest these ideas have been fermenting in Harry's mind before Meghan. I doubt she was the one who planted them and told him to pack his bags.  If they are indeed a team, they would have discussed, fleshed out, weighed up pros and cons etc. There has to be solid reasons for them leaving, because i can't think of too many advantages for them.

Totally agree. Harry has always been somewhat of a rebel and did not censor his disdain at the treatment of his mother... from both his family and the media. Only reasonable that he could see history repeating itself with his chosen partner in life and love, and sought to prevent his wife ending up like his mum.

And we should bear in mind that Harry stated, very clearly, that it was his decision, initially, to break from the Firm and for he and Meghan and the family to move away and create a life together in service to others.

I suspect that what really galls the conservative elements in the UK -- indeed the world -- is Meghan's apparent lack of humility and compliance. How dare a female member of the Royal Family be strong, outspoken and independent - gotta put that bitch in her place. In the US it is more acceptable - except among the further right leaning conservatives.

Generally agree Baggers. Worldwide it's the Murdoch press that are pushing the anti Markle line the hardest.

I suspect that what really galls the conservative elements in the UK -- indeed the world -- is Meghan's apparent lack of humility and compliance. How dare a female member of the Royal Family be strong, outspoken and independent - gotta put that bitch in her place. In the US it is more acceptable - except among the further right leaning conservatives.

 
 The Royal approach to things is 'never complain, never explain....'.  EIIR tried very hard to demonstrate no public opinion regarding anything controversial.  The Royal machine also works feverishly to keep their dirty laundry in-house (although that's not always possible).  But now that Harry and Meghan have opened a public laundromat, and given the Royals won't be getting on the front foot, the UK commentators have probably been given the green light to become proxy mud-slingers.

Certainly, the commentary is pointed, and quite offensive - and it's not doing either side in the argument any favours.

Let's not forget, H&M are getting a bundle of money for all of this stuff, so they can continue to fund their non-Royal existence.  The publishers/producers wouldn't pay that much to find out what the favourite cream was on the afternoon scone at the Palace.

To make matters worse, I suspect Meghan was a 'Princess' long before she married the Prince...... and that's why the UK press are lining up to shoot her down. 



 

The feud is between the brothers. Harry didn't like being treated as the 'spare'. Plenty of family fights are over favouritism of one sibling over the other. This is obviously next level.

Not much commentary on the Ardern statement coming from the Harkle boosters, just going to let that slide are we?

Wasn't there a book titled appropriately about this very issue, something like "An Inconvenient Truth!"

Have you read the statement from Ardern's office (not Ardern directly) or just the Sky News headlines?

As PM of a constitutional monarchy, Ardern has to tread a fine line when it comes to matters that may affect her head of state.  Being seen to be neutral in a Royal family dispute is non-negotiable.  Of course, as producers of the series, Harry and Meghan's roles are largely irrelevant when it comes to content, those involved, look and feel, etc.  Ardern's office's statement is aimed at folk who mistakenly think that Harry and Meghan have a more hands on role.

Have you read the statement from Ardern's office (not Ardern directly) or just the Sky News headlines?

As PM of a constitutional monarchy, Ardern has to tread a fine line when it comes to matters that may affect her head of state.  Being seen to be neutral in a Royal family dispute is non-negotiable.  Of course, as producers of the series, Harry and Meghan's roles are largely irrelevant when it comes to content, those involved, look and feel, etc.  Ardern's office's statement is aimed at folk who mistakenly think that Harry and Meghan have a more hands on role.

Yes, that's my impression also. It's a political manoeuvre, designed to show that she is non partisan, as you say. I'm quite certain she would been involved even if H&M were there at the beginning. I'm not sure if such a statement was necessary, but then she knows the mood, sentiments etc. of the NZ people much better than I.

I suspect that what really galls the conservative elements in the UK -- indeed the world -- is Meghan's apparent lack of humility and compliance. How dare a female member of the Royal Family be strong, outspoken and independent - gotta put that bitch in her place. In the US it is more acceptable - except among the further right leaning conservatives.

They were as popular as all get out at the start, labelled the new wave of modern Royal. The "institution" quickly influenced the change in that narrative, that's the crux of the issue here. I almost think the actual Royals themselves are powerless, its the aides and advisors that run the show. For example, when Harry wanted to meet with his Grandmother to sort it all out, she initially said yes and thought it a great idea. Just before he was due to arrive back in England, he received a core saying Her Majesty was too busy to meet him. He called her about it and she said "Yes apparently I have been told I am too busy".
Now in my mind/world, if I'm the Queen, I tell them all to GAGFed and say "I am meeting my Grandson whether you like it or not".
Instead she didn't so who has the real power in that establishment?

Now in my mind/world, if I'm the Queen, I tell them all to GAGFed and say "I am meeting my Grandson whether you like it or not".
Instead she didn't so who has the real power in that establishment?

Therein lies the problem - the Queen and the Grandmother are two different people - one is an institution, the other the matriarch of a somewhat dysfunctional family.  QEII understood that completely and always went to great lengths to ensure those two 'roles' were separate - her family life could not hold precedence over the Monarchy, and the institution of the Monarchy must be protected in all circumstances (in effect, she thought of herself as the 'caretaker' of the Monarch).

Hence, if the Grandmother wanted to do something that would be counter-productive for the Monarch, it would not be done.

Have you read the statement from Ardern's office (not Ardern directly) or just the Sky News headlines?

As PM of a constitutional monarchy, Ardern has to tread a fine line when it comes to matters that may affect her head of state.  Being seen to be neutral in a Royal family dispute is non-negotiable.  Of course, as producers of the series, Harry and Meghan's roles are largely irrelevant when it comes to content, those involved, look and feel, etc.  Ardern's office's statement is aimed at folk who mistakenly think that Harry and Meghan have a more hands on role.

I see, so it suits the Harkle boosters to claim those rules openly known by all commonwealth politicians were largely ignored by Ardern or Ardern's Advisory while making the Documentary, and post-facto are now being used to somehow weirdly explain away / discount Ardern's version of events.

Well, that's a bit arbitrary!

Seriously DJC, you are accusing Ardern of breaking the rules, then crediting Ardern with being prepared to risk that to blowing up in her face to protect a casual acquaintance.

I suggest based on recent statements and activities, it's far more likely Ardern or Ardern's Department has told it as it was, while Harkle has spun things differently to suit their platform.

Therein lies the problem - the Queen and the Grandmother are two different people - one is an institution, the other the matriarch of a somewhat dysfunctional family.  QEII understood that completely and always went to great lengths to ensure those two 'roles' were separate - her family life could not hold precedence over the Monarchy, and the institution of the Monarchy must be protected in all circumstances (in effect, she thought of herself as the 'caretaker' of the Monarch).

Hence, if the Grandmother wanted to do something that would be counter-productive for the Monarch, it would not be done.

Yes I get all that, the irony for me is that if she had in fact sat with Harry, she would have protected the Monarchy, by not doing so, she effectively destroyed it. After all, at the point, Harry was part of it. Its real simple, If you want popularity in 2022, act human FFS.

Yes I get all that, the irony for me is that if she had in fact sat with Harry, she would have protected the Monarchy, by not doing so, she effectively destroyed it. After all, at the point, Harry was part of it. Its real simple, If you want popularity in 2022, act human FFS.

You mean you should care for the little people like The Trump?

There is one side of this debate that is accountable, not just morally but legally accountable, like in as part of the nation's constitution.

While the other side is obligated contractually to a commercial entity.

As for Ardern, I see clearly that she is under political pressure at present -- indeed fighting for her political life -- and her distancing from this entire episode is just politics, not wanting to ruffle feathers and potentially lose a section of her supporter base.

It's not just "politics", there are laws involved and breaking them guarantees the end for a political career, what's the motive for Ardern to break the law?

This is not a law that metamorphised after the Documentary, and Ardern is not a newbie!

As for Harkle Boosters, whether you are or are not is irrelevant to me, I'll just presume this debate follows the wider social media / commercial media dialogues and some of my posts reference scope outside of our little corner of the internet. Harkle has never posted on here, nor has Clarkson, Jones, Bolt or Gates, at least not without being incognito!

I see, so it suits the Harkle boosters to claim those rules openly known by all commonwealth politicians were largely ignored by Ardern or Ardern's Advisory while making the Documentary, and post-facto are now being used to somehow weirdly explain away / discount Ardern's version of events.

Well, that's a bit arbitrary!

Seriously DJC, you are accusing Ardern of breaking the rules, then crediting Ardern with being prepared to risk that to blowing up in her face to protect a casual acquaintance.

I suggest based on recent statements and activities, it's far more likely Ardern or Ardern's Department has told it as it was, while Harkle has spun things differently to suit their platform.

Seriously LP, you should read Ardern's office's statement and stop relying on Sky News.  Ardern and others were interviewed for a Mandela Foundation project on leadership years before the Sussexes were engaged to get the program produced and aired.

Ardern simply confirmed the timeline so that she wasn't seen to be taking sides in the Royal family spat.  Harry and Meghan haven't made any comments to the contrary.

This is a fairly typical example of how the Murdoch media will take a straightforward non-event and try use it to attack those that they fear and/or hate, in this case, both Ardern and the Sussexes.

Yes I get all that, the irony for me is that if she had in fact sat with Harry, she would have protected the Monarchy, by not doing so, she effectively destroyed it. After all, at the point, Harry was part of it. Its real simple, If you want popularity in 2022, act human FFS.

Like the way you carve it to the bone, GTC old son. Sharp stuff. Spot on... be real and the folks will get you. Simple.

Seriously LP, you should read Ardern's office's statement and stop relying on Sky News.  Ardern and others were interviewed for a Mandela Foundation project on leadership years before the Sussexes were engaged to get the program produced and aired.

Ardern simply confirmed the timeline so that she wasn't seen to be taking sides in the Royal family spat.  Harry and Meghan haven't made any comments to the contrary.

This is a fairly typical example of how the Murdoch media will take a straightforward non-event and try use it to attack those that they fear and/or hate, in this case, both Ardern and the Sussexes.

Murdoch media... skillful year round cherry pickers. Sadly, though, there is enough of a market for their hysterics who want their daily feed of 'who do we hate today?'

As much as I deplore News Ltd I can't really blame the Harkle predicament on News Ltd, it's Harkle's own doing.

I'd love to lambast News Ltd, I probably can on dozens of issues in any moment, but I can't justify doing so just because one crooked story is relayed by a crooked messenger. Maybe it is a turd wrapped in dung, but does that really make better?

News Ltd aren't an exclusive source on this issue, and much of the various Harkle statements and behaviours are outside of News Ltd scope.

For all the rubbish coming from News Ltd, slamming of Clarkson or calling out misogyny, not a shred of highlighting News Ltd shortcomings will justify or excuse Harkle Guilding the Lily to paint a specific picture, and that they have done, cleverly I admit but innocently I doubt very much. Maybe Harkle are the royalty of plausible deniability.

I expect any day now to be labelled racist again because I think Phil Egan being investigated for fraud might cast a pall over the Dawks Racism investigation, and yet the facts remain a person investigating an integrity issue might not have any, yet we are bound to receive demands to believe the report is the truth. It's uncomfortable just like the Harkle events.

When the public accepts one lie over another, simply because of the way one of the lies might be packaged, the globe is heading into a very very sorry state.

The Egan story could potentially be spun off to its own thread at a later date. It's only been reported in the Murdoch press for now, so I can't read anything, but the timing is certainly interesting, to say the least.

The Egan story could potentially be spun off to its own thread at a later date. It's only been reported in the Murdoch press for now, so I can't read anything, but the timing is certainly interesting, to say the least.

The Egan story has been raised in the relevant "Trouble at Hawthorn" thread.  I'm not sure why it was raised here  :-\

The Egan story has been raised in the relevant "Trouble at Hawthorn" thread.  I'm not sure why it was raised here  :-\

Right.

People might mistake my position as being unsupportive of the disadvantaged, persecuted or downtrodden, quite the opposite.

There must be a solid foundation for change or it will unravel,  I'm not prepared to accept a quick fix off the back of potential fraud as the risk is too high.

The evidence must be beyond reproach, it can't be in any way subjective or illusory, opinions no matter how many are gathered on either side of the debate mean nothing! Not just on this issue, but for all important issues.

One thing is for sure and certain....Harry doesn't have much of a 'filter' for his thoughts and recollections. ::)

One thing is for sure and certain....Harry doesn't have much of a 'filter' for his thoughts and recollections. ::)

I think Harry turned off his thunkin a long long long time ago!

One thing is for sure and certain....Harry doesn't have much of a 'filter' for his thoughts and recollections. ::)

I found his thoughts and recollections raw and intriguing. I like the no holds barred attitude from him, about time someone from the "institution" did it. As he stated, he was sick and tired of others commenting on his life story which was full of BS, he is telling it from the horses mouth (apologies to Camilla however pun intended).

I found his thoughts and recollections raw and intriguing. I like the no holds barred attitude from him, about time someone from the "institution" did it. As he stated, he was sick and tired of others commenting on his life story which was full of BS, he is telling it from the horses mouth (apologies to Camilla however pun intended).

No doubt they're raw and intriguing.

But he's probably Number One on the Taliban hit parade....with a bullet. ::)

No doubt they're raw and intriguing.

But he's probably Number One on the Taliban hit parade....with a bullet. ::)

He ain't at the front of that queue Ill give you the tip.

I found his thoughts and recollections raw and intriguing. I like the no holds barred attitude from him, about time someone from the "institution" did it. As he stated, he was sick and tired of others commenting on his life story which was full of BS, he is telling it from the horses mouth (apologies to Camilla however pun intended).

Well said.

What I see is a very hurt young man; a young man who at a critical stage of his development lost his mother in tragic circumstances and in the 'family' he was in, keeping a stiff upper lip with no public displays of grief, was paramount. Then he had to live with the fact his father married the woman he was having an affair with whilst married to his mother - betrayal. Then Harry joined the military and fought in war zones... so he learned to fight back. And he's doing just that. Then he saw his partner/wife attacked by the 'family' and media similar to his mother - powder keg.

However, I did find Harry's comments re the 25 people he killed as very unwise.

However, I did find Harry's comments re the 25 people he killed as very unwise.

That was the type of thing I mean't by 'filter'.
The other thing is he's throwing bombs and then having to  backtrack.
In one breath Camilla is the 'villain' and the next he's saying he wasn't 'disparaging' about his stepmother.
Apparently there was no accusation of racism about their newborn on the Oprah show. It was an 'unconscious bias' by some individuals...something Harry himself was guilty of at times in his life. That's taken a bit of time to clarify...it was all the press's fault for misinterpreting it.
 
I have a bit of sympathy for him. He's had this conflicting life where he was torn between the strict Royal side of his family and the more unrestricted, albeit still aristocratic, influence of his mother's side of the family.
The truth is if he ever was suited for that Royal role, he no longer is.

If he wanted real change in the monarchy it would have been best to try and change it from the inside. He'll say he tried, but that type of thing is a lifelong battle.  All he's doing from the outside is alienating a large section of British public opinion, and he's taken on the most unwisest task of all in challenging the british press.
His father is right.
It's a battle he can't and won't win.
The fightback from their point of view hasn't even begun.

Harry will say it reached the point where it was no longer possible to stay, but having left the family and country he's now  gone full attack. That may gain him some sympathy in places like the USA, Canada and Australia. The rest of the world won't care (unless they're directly referenced e.g. Afghanistan). It won't be as popular in the UK.

Harry talks about 'his truth'. He knows the way the family works that they won't respond directly with 'their truth' (although some sources 'close to the palace' will no doubt throw a few grenades.)
That's the problem  'Harry's truth' + 'the family's truth' = 'the real truth'
We only have one side of the equation so we don't have the answer.

In any family relation there are always two sides of a story, two points of view, that may vary due to personal experiences and how they affected each individual.
Position in the family and memories of certain events can also make people see things very differently. I know through disagreements with my own family that recollection and reasons for events aren't always the same.

Harry's next move will be interesting.
Having put it all out there, if there is no response from the family (which seems likely) will he move on, or is there still more to come.

Harry's next move will be interesting.
Having put it all out there, if there is no response from the family (which seems likely) will he move on, or is there still more to come.

The Harkles have left themselves only one direction to go in, it's "all in" now with no way to circle back!

If I was cynical, and I might be known for being slightly cynical, I suspect the Harkles are trying to setup Megan as some sort of "US
 Monarch of the Minorites", "Queen of Aspen" a sort of up market Kardashian. But the question is, will a society that was built of revolution accept a monarch? To me it's a huge gamble as I see no middle ground, they will either succeed or be consigned to the rubbish heap of history! They are probably doomed to fade into obscurity much like Edward and Wallis before them.

Well said.

What I see is a very hurt young man; a young man who at a critical stage of his development lost his mother in tragic circumstances and in the 'family' he was in, keeping a stiff upper lip with no public displays of grief, was paramount. Then he had to live with the fact his father married the woman he was having an affair with whilst married to his mother - betrayal. Then Harry joined the military and fought in war zones... so he learned to fight back. And he's doing just that. Then he saw his partner/wife attacked by the 'family' and media similar to his mother - powder keg.

However, I did find Harry's comments re the 25 people he killed as very unwise.

Hurt indeed, when your family, royal or peasant, throws you to the wolves, that's grounds for hurt in anyones language.
As for the 25 kills quote, meh, that's the soldier in him coming out, just very matter of fact.

It's all a bit raw at the moment but you know, it's the way this thing works.... ten years from now all the focus will be on 'good looking' young royals George and Charlotte.

It's all a bit raw at the moment but you know, it's the way this thing works.... ten years from now all the focus will be on 'good looking' young royals George and Charlotte.

Rinse repeat

I don't think the Royals will emerge from all of this unscathed. I take your valid points and perspectives, Principal LODS, but there are enough UK-ites questioning the relevance of the Royal Family already... Harry's 'revelations' will further polarize for sure but they will almost certainly aid anti Royal Family voices.

QE did a remarkable job holding it all together but with the flawed Charles at the throne you could easily see the foundations begin to wobble... A lot. The Palace PR squad will be working overtime to maintain the diminishing sparkle and relevance of this not so royal, Royal Family.

As for the 25 kills quote, meh, that's the soldier in him coming out, just very matter of fact.

If that was a Japanese Prince making that statement .....................................

No soldier should ever take pride in or boast about his targets, I don't know anybody worth standing besides that does, here in Oz he'd be unwelcome at most RSLs for that vile emission. Being a soldier is a job, in war time it's a very dirty job, you take pride in defending your country and your peers, but you never boast about those who you helped fall!

If that was a Japanese Prince making that statement .....................................

No soldier should ever take pride in or boast about his targets, I don't know anybody worth standing besides that does, here in Oz he'd be unwelcome at most RSLs for that vile emission. Being a soldier is a job, in war time it's a very dirty job, you take pride in defending your country and your peers, but you never boast about those who you helped fall!

Agree, I found that statement repulsive too. Kind of stuff best left unsaid.

If that was a Japanese Prince making that statement .....................................

No soldier should ever take pride in or boast about his targets, I don't know anybody worth standing besides that does, here in Oz he'd be unwelcome at most RSLs for that vile emission. Being a soldier is a job, in war time it's a very dirty job, you take pride in defending your country and your peers, but you never boast about those who you helped fall!

Absolutely, Spotted One.

I don't know anyone I served with who boasted about 'kills'... In fact, quite the opposite, it was a subject not to be discussed - a painful subject. The odd psycho would keep numbers and boast but was pretty well shunned by the rest of us. The number one thing I got from serving in a war zone was how unnatural it seemed to harm other people, regardless of how much they were demonized. I don't think the Taliban will take it well, the words of Harry may well come back to bite him... And others.

I don't think the Royals will emerge from all of this unscathed. I take your valid points and perspectives, Principal LODS, but there are enough UK-ites questioning the relevance of the Royal Family already... Harry's 'revelations' will further polarize for sure but they will almost certainly aid anti Royal Family voices.

QE did a remarkable job holding it all together but with the flawed Charles at the throne you could easily see the foundations begin to wobble... A lot. The Palace PR squad will be working overtime to maintain the diminishing sparkle and relevance of this not so royal, Royal Family.

You may be right Baggers.
If the Royals were the only target that would be quite a fair guess.
But Harry's also chosen to take on the press.

At the moment he's a bit of a poster boy for the anti-monarchists but...
I wonder if some of the anti-monarchists don't look at Harry and the current dysfunction and see him as part of the problems of that regime.
The things he claims were not available to him, had they been forthcoming would have entrenched him in that system. He wanted to be more a part of it, not less.
The very title of his book "Spare" is an indication of someone who believed he wasn't as important as others and as a result he was missing out.

If that was a Japanese Prince making that statement .....................................

No soldier should ever take pride in or boast about his targets, I don't know anybody worth standing besides that does, here in Oz he'd be unwelcome at most RSLs for that vile emission. Being a soldier is a job, in war time it's a very dirty job, you take pride in defending your country and your peers, but you never boast about those who you helped fall!

Agree, I found that statement repulsive too. Kind of stuff best left unsaid.

 Agree with both comments.

A 20 year war that served its primary purpose - boosting the share price and profit margin of Raytheon et al.

Not sure Harry “boasted” about the 25 kills. I read the extract and he was being matter of fact. He didn’t keep a running count of the kills. That count was kept by his superiors. He was an attack helicopter gunner and all of his shooting was recorded and picked apart by his commander. As he tells it, his commander was trying to find fault with his subordinates and was desperate to catch them out. He was looking for any evidence that the rules of engagement hadn’t been followed and non-combatants were either harmed or were unacceptably close to the action. He was at pains to say that all of his kills were by the book and his real regrets were over those times he was unable to save fellow troops because of the rules of engagement. He specifically referred to a squad of Gurkhas in that regard. He also detailed the way the Taliban fighters were “othered” in such a way that lethal force was easier to inflict as it would have been hard to do that if they were seen as humans, and that process was easier because of the strong emotions created by the 9/11 attack. It was a fairly philosophical recollection rather than a gung-ho boast.

The extract was contained in a story in the Guardian written by a former British soldier who had fought in Afghanistan. He felt that it was a pretty accurate reflection of his own experiences and those of his comrades.

Not sure Harry “boasted” about the 25 kills.

If he's been verballed then he should sue the media, maybe he already is, because the selective quoting is making him look like public enemy No.1 and he will be more of a target because of those misquotes, and it is putting his family and friends at greater risk!

Sadly, such is the world we live in!

I agree Mav. I didn't find it boastful so much as depressing. The amount of reprogramming required to get around people's basic decency..............little wonder so many ex soldiers suffer so badly and live out their lives as barely functioning humans. The trail of devastation left by war goes well beyond the body count.

So given the trauma this guy has been through (loss of a parent, war experience, the responsibilities of being a young royal at odds with his family),  are we selectively picking the pieces and accounts to believe that reflect our own biases for or against the monarchy and discounting the fact that if we'd experienced similar we'd be pretty damaged human beings.
As such our thoughts and experiences would be affected and 'our truth' as we believe it would be a very real thing to us, but not necessarily 100% accurate in the eyes of others.

This goes a little bit deeper than just the 'he said, they said' conflict

Harry is a target with or without his kill score and so are his family and every other Royal, it comes with the job and why they spend so much on security. Not sure why people are so shocked with him killing 25 people either, its probably a lot more in reality with unaccounted for kills and with him being a gunner/weapons officer(rockets fired down to him too) on a helicopter, he wasnt being employed to polish the equipment.
What I find amusing is Harry said originally back around 2013 he compared shooting insurgents in Afghanistan to playing video games....he also said, "Take a life to save a life, "If there's people trying to do bad stuff to our guys, then we'll take them out of the game." No conscience at all in those comments so its not boasting to me just a bloke satisfied with the job he was doing and why he was doing it.  Working as an active team member in the Army and not being seen as a Royal buffoon looking for a shiny medal probably made him feel normal. Reckon he should have stayed in the Army and we wouldnt have to put up with this Royal Days of our lives BS being played out on every media outlet we have now.

Harry is a target with or without his kill score and so are his family and every other Royal, it comes with the job and why they spend so much on security.

One of his complaints was security for his family....but I'd suspect it may now be a lot less than it was and his movements not as controlled.

So given the trauma this guy has been through (loss of a parent, war experience, the responsibilities of being a young royal at odds with his family),  are we selectively picking the pieces and accounts to believe that reflect our own biases for or against the monarchy and discounting the fact that if we'd experienced similar we'd be pretty damaged human beings.
As such our thoughts and experiences would be affected and 'our truth' as we believe it would be a very real thing to us, but not necessarily 100% accurate in the eyes of others.

This goes a little bit deeper than just the 'he said, they said' conflict

From an outsiders point of view who has just read this thread (and generally goes at pains to avoid all monarchy gossip) the one question i have is this.
Has Harry done anything wrong?
In simplistic terms, he was in a toxic environment, he left, he has discussed it (in part). If this was someone on a talkshow (somewhere between Jerry and Oprah) then he'd be hailed for doing the right thing for him and his family (wife+kids).
The sole fact it happens to be the royal family seems to be clouding peoples judgement.
He can't help what family he was born into. He has a right to feel safe, happy and free as much as the next guy.

Where is the fire?

Where is the fire?

There probably shouldn't be one, but just when it's almost out, folks keep lighting it again.
Now there is a school of thought that we should let the whole thing just burn.
The fire brigade are buggered if they know how to put it out.
And the press are always keen to fan the flames.

There probably shouldn't be one, but just when it's almost out, folks keep lighting it again.
Now there is a school of thought that we should let the whole thing just burn.
The fire brigade are buggered if they know how to put it out.
And the press are always keen to fan the flames.

Who is lighting it and what fuel are they using though?

I don't see where the issue is. Is it simply royalists dirty on them leaving?

Who is lighting it and what fuel are they using though?

I don't see where the issue is. Is it simply royalists dirty on them leaving?

Books and interviews are what's got the current blaze going.
Papers love it  so they'll have a hundred different logs to throw on it.
(the latest one I just read is that Harry took so many psychedelic drugs they've caused him to open up too much). ::)
Royalists are dirty on them, they think a lot of it is made up or exaggerated.
Anti-Royalists love them and see it as the beginning of the end for the monarchy.
Many folks who watched the interviews have taken them on board without questioning them, often because of a personal bias....some have genuinely been swayed to sympathy by the interviews and to some extent changed their minds.

My personal point of view is that there is probably elements of truth in what Harry is saying, but I also believe that folks on the other end would have a completely different perspective in telling their story.

Maybe its just me, but i don't see the fascination with it all.
I said earlier, its just a trumped up reality show, and i dislike reality shows.

Hopefully, he's said whatever he feels the need to say and unburden himself, now he, and they, go on with their lives and it goes away.

One of his complaints was security for his family....but I'd suspect it may now be a lot less than it was and his movements not as controlled.

The palace pulled his security long ago,

The palace pulled his security long ago,

Yep
When they ceased to be 'working royals.'
They would have private security, but it's hard to believe it would be at a similar level.

My personal point of view is that there is probably elements of truth in what Harry is saying, but I also believe that folks on the other end would have a completely different perspective in telling their story.

Mrs G2C and I have been arguing this point all along, her saying "there's another side of the story". My view is that this is all very cut and dry for me, I basically believe Harry based on the fact that he is a man of reasonable character, I have no reason to doubt him (what he is being paid for books and interviews is completely irrelevant to me). My view is that Williams account would be the same as Harry's, the thing is you will never hear his (or anyone else's in the Royal Family) account. "Never explain, never complain" (except what they "put out" or plant in the media).

Mrs G2C and I have been arguing this point all along, her saying "there's another side of the story". My view is that this is all very cut and dry for me, I basically believe Harry based on the fact that he is a man of reasonable character, I have no reason to doubt him (what he is being paid for books and interviews is completely irrelevant to me). My view is that Williams account would be the same as Harry's, the thing is you will never hear his (or anyone else's in the Royal Family) account. "Never explain, never complain" (except what they "put out" or plant in the media).

That's fair enough...and you're right we're unlikely to hear from the palace.
That's the problem.
Into the void we put our own impressions of people and their reliability, and as you say you have a bit of respect for the cut of Harry's jib.
My position is that Harry may fully believe everything he says, but he can't be in the heads of the other people involved...and the reasons for their actions.
The emotional aspects also come into play. He may feel slights against him much more keenly. Being ignored by your older brother in the playground is basically par for the course. For the younger brother in a new and unfamiliar situation it could be very distressing.
The truth may be exactly as Harry believes, but it's not beyond possibility that in some of these situations his own emotions and repsonses have exaggerated his feelings of isolation and lack of care by his family...especially since there appears to have been some resistance to his choice of partner.

(Just as an aside...my second Grandson, a couple of years younger than my eldest is also called Harry. Two years difference (4 and 2 years old) and they're already spending most of the day fighting. Harry's sat Owen on his backside a couple of times. Hopefully they sort it out before they reach adulthood) ::)

My view is that Williams account would be the same as Harry's, the thing is you will never hear his (or anyone else's in the Royal Family) account. "Never explain, never complain" (except what they "put out" or plant in the media).

It's a bit hard to see William having Harry's back after the way Harry seemed to slander Kate, but of course what we read might not be true and only those on the inside will know!

Publicly I can't recall Kate ever putting a foot wrong, she might be the only modern equivalent of Old Liz! Who knows what goes on privately, but then again that is private isn't it and that is perhaps the whole point, at least until it seemingly sold a book or two!

Never go against the family eh?

With all due respect to all parties mentioned on this topic.  Irrespective of how bad he feels he has been treated he is not special, this is the life of a Royal.

He has abdicated, and if something unsavoury were to happy by pure happenstance, and he ended up King he would be the first one to sit on the throne and perpetuate the cycle.

This is all ducks and drakes IMHO.  If he was the heir apparent like his brother a lot of what is being mentioned here wouldnt be a factor.

Thats my two cents.  make of them what you will.  I abhor people who like to throw stones from the glass house.  Its no coincidence that as soon as William and Kate had a boy Harry was ostracised.  The future of the family is secure these unsavoury types can go.

Never go against the family eh?

With all due respect to all parties mentioned on this topic.  Irrespective of how bad he feels he has been treated he is not special, this is the life of a Royal.

He has abdicated, and if something unsavoury were to happy by pure happenstance, and he ended up King he would be the first one to sit on the throne and perpetuate the cycle.

This is all ducks and drakes IMHO.  If he was the heir apparent like his brother a lot of what is being mentioned here wouldnt be a factor.

Thats my two cents.  make of them what you will.  I abhor people who like to throw stones from the glass house.  Its no coincidence that as soon as William and Kate had a boy Harry was ostracised.  The future of the family is secure these unsavoury types can go.

They can all go as far as I am concerned, The Royal Family survives as a business only and there is nothing Royal or dignified about it as a family at all. Harry and Meghan are expected to earn around 1 Billion a year when they eventually lend their brand name to clothing and other fashion accessories etc so enough of the poor little prince routine please.
Some of the Royals business interests make amusing reading and they do like variety..eg
Willy now Prince of Wales inherited/owns Dartmoor Prison(where his uncle Andy should be holidaying) as well as the Oval cricket ground and my favourite... a bed-and-breakfast in Transylvania which I think they call a health retreat, dread to think what has gone on there over the journey. Of course its all under the guise of Charitable income from the earnings but Id doubt very much every last pound and penny finds its way back to the poor and needy folk in the old Blighty.
Of course Willy's wife and loyal Royal Catherine was busy spending her share on $335,247 worth of designer threads last year.....the number of Royal engagements was the same as in previous years just her taste got a bit more expensive I guess and then there is the younger Meghan to compete with.
Its time to wash away the Royal family and give all their wealth and assets back to the people and consign the Royal years to history. How good it would it be to switch on the TV and see no Royal news flooding the news channels, has the Ukraine War finished yet?...dont know but I can tell you that Harry and Meghans tomatoes in their vegetable garden are ripe for picking and they have a very friendly black Labrador on their 14 billion dollar estate.

On a related note...
Harry's home town of Monticeto got hit by a mudslide...or the threat of one.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64229528

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmq4WIjQxp0

They can all go as far as I am concerned, The Royal Family survives as a business only and there is nothing Royal or dignified about it as a family at all. Harry and Meghan are expected to earn around 1 Billion a year when they eventually lend their brand name to clothing and other fashion accessories etc so enough of the poor little prince routine please.
Some of the Royals business interests make amusing reading and they do like variety..eg
Willy now Prince of Wales inherited/owns Dartmoor Prison(where his uncle Andy should be holidaying) as well as the Oval cricket ground and my favourite... a bed-and-breakfast in Transylvania which I think they call a health retreat, dread to think what has gone on there over the journey. Of course its all under the guise of Charitable income from the earnings but Id doubt very much every last pound and penny finds its way back to the poor and needy folk in the old Blighty.
Of course Willy's wife and loyal Royal Catherine was busy spending her share on $335,247 worth of designer threads last year.....the number of Royal engagements was the same as in previous years just her taste got a bit more expensive I guess and then there is the younger Meghan to compete with.
Its time to wash away the Royal family and give all their wealth and assets back to the people and consign the Royal years to history. How good it would it be to switch on the TV and see no Royal news flooding the news channels, has the Ukraine War finished yet?...dont know but I can tell you that Harry and Meghans tomatoes in their vegetable garden are ripe for picking and they have a very friendly black Labrador on their 14 billion dollar estate.

Yep, and I wonder how William and his family would experience life without having to tow the company line? Liberated, I suspect.

Yep, and I wonder how William and his family would experience life without having to tow the company line? Liberated, I suspect.

While I do not envy them as they have a lot of public demand, living on and building immense private wealth off the back of the UK Taxpayer can't be too tough!

While I do not envy them as they have a lot of public demand, living on and building immense private wealth off the back of the UK Taxpayer can't be too tough!

The trade-off for loadsa loot versus having your life controlled, totally, by others would be untenable for most of us.

The trade-off for loadsa loot versus having your life controlled, totally, by others would be untenable for most of us.

There is a reason why the late Monarch referred to a life of service, and service is the price paid for privilege, in this regard HRH was peerless.

I'm not sure Harkle sees it that way, they seem to want the privilege, but to me they seem vehemently opposed to the service part.

Personally, in the role there is no escaping the service part, in the old days release from service was the gallows or guillotine!

I do realise the two abdicated, and I believe they repaid taxpayers some sum of money, a noble gesture, but a pittance compared to what they have been awarded. I'm not sure it even amounted to $0.01 on the dollar!

The trade-off for loadsa loot versus having your life controlled, totally, by others would be untenable for most of us.

Baggers, Reckon a lot of average folk wouldnt mind a few years in Royal shoes and living the dream. Harry marrying the Hollywood wife has wrecked the party and drawn the media heat. If he had done the expected thing and married a traditional Royal robot wife who played the game under Royal house rules they could all be still enjoying the high life and exploiting their privileged positions as per the norm instead of looking over their shoulders waiting for the next Harry missile to land.

Weird passage in Harry’s book:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/prince-harry-todger-princess-diana_n_63bf3ed8e4b0ae9de1c43a51 (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/prince-harry-todger-princess-diana_n_63bf3ed8e4b0ae9de1c43a51)

Trivia question. What’s Harry’s real first name?
A. Henry.

Baggers, Reckon a lot of average folk wouldnt mind a few years in Royal shoes and living the dream. Harry marrying the Hollywood wife has wrecked the party and drawn the media heat. If he had done the expected thing and married a traditional Royal robot wife who played the game under Royal house rules they could all be still enjoying the high life and exploiting their privileged positions as per the norm instead of looking over their shoulders waiting for the next Harry missile to land.

Take it one step further and say BLACK hollywood wife. That is where the trouble started.

It's funny I rarely think of the 'black' aspect of Meghan's heritage.
American-yes
Actress- yes
Black- rarely registers
Naturally if that trait was more obvious it probably would.

I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing :-\

It's funny I rarely think of the 'black' aspect of Meghan's heritage.
American-yes
Actress- yes
Black- rarely registers
Naturally if that trait was more obvious it probably would.

I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing :-\

You are looking through YOUR eyes, not the eyes of a royal.

Take it one step further and say BLACK hollywood wife. That is where the trouble started.

Yep...point taken, if she was English and had coloured skin it would have been equally frowned upon imho.

Take it one step further and say BLACK hollywood wife. That is where the trouble started.

I hope you're wrong. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt... doubt most (younger) Royals are racist. Personally, like Principal LODS, I've never seen Meghan as black, brown, yellow, white, red or chartreuse. In fact, like most Hollywood types, what stands out to me in terms of physical appearance are the polar white choppers in her cakehole.

I hope you're wrong. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt... doubt most (younger) Royals are racist. Personally, like Principal LODS, I've never seen Meghan as black, brown, yellow, white, red or chartreuse. In fact, like most Hollywood types, what stands out to me in terms of physical appearance are the polar white choppers in her cakehole.

As i've mentioned, i don't follow the royals. I didn't know who Megan Markle was before it was pointed out publicly (didn't know her hollywood career). One of the first things that was reported was that she was black (or had african/american heritage). I didn't know at the time, nor really cared, but i remember it being reported like that and it striking me as weird that it was even mentioned.

As i've mentioned, i don't follow the royals. I didn't know who Megan Markle was before it was pointed out publicly (didn't know her hollywood career). One of the first things that was reported was that she was black (or had african/american heritage). I didn't know at the time, nor really cared, but i remember it being reported like that and it striking me as weird that it was even mentioned.

I suspect that the storm around Meghan's ethnicity was more a media creation than anything else. We know how deeply conservative types within the media prefer the status quo is maintained, even extending to racial lineage.

I suspect that the storm around Meghan's ethnicity was more a media creation than anything else. We know how deeply conservative types within the media prefer the status quo is maintained, even extending to racial lineage.

This is probably true, the media have little or no morals and will play to the loudest voices, even if they are a clear minority.

The problem I have is that the Harkles seem to have picked up on this as a highly profitable tangent to all the other complaints they publicly air!

This is probably true, the media have little or no morals and will play to the loudest voices, even if they are a clear minority.

The problem I have is that the Harkles seem to have picked up on this as a highly profitable tangent to all the other complaints they publicly air!

People keep banging on about this being about money, I don't get that from what they have said to date. As for them  picking up on the racisms stuff, again I don't get that from what I have heard or read. Harry's main beef is about being sold out by family.

People keep banging on about this being about money, I don't get that from what they have said to date. As for them  picking up on the racisms stuff, again I don't get that from what I have heard or read. Harry's main beef is about being sold out by family.

Yes, Harry and Meghan don't need the money, but Harry needs to exorcise some demons.

Sadly, many of the Brits don't get it, but the "Royal family" is just another Pommy family with more than its share of flaws and skeletons in cupboards.  The difference is that it has the Palace to screen it from close scrutiny and make problems go away.

People keep banging on about this being about money, I don't get that from what they have said to date. As for them  picking up on the racisms stuff, again I don't get that from what I have heard or read. Harry's main beef is about being sold out by family.

So you expect them to come out and publicly state that some of it is about the cash! :o

As an aside I have a few UK associates who exist in the sort of circles that allows them some insight into the situation, they are even more cynical than myself, I've actually found myself trying to temper their perspective!

People keep banging on about this being about money, I don't get that from what they have said to date. As for them  picking up on the racisms stuff, again I don't get that from what I have heard or read. Harry's main beef is about being sold out by family.

That's the irony of the whole thing.
Harry didn't want to be out of the family.
He wanted to be more included, albeit with the ability to pursue personal favourite projects.
He wanted the same deal as his brother and his brother's wife.
He wanted his wife to be treated with respect, same as Kate.
All fair requests.

It's the hierarchial nature of the monarchy though that the 'heir' will always come before the 'spare'.
Andrew would have felt it all his life with Charles as his brother.
One of the differences is that Andrew had Phillip as a father. A man totally invested in the monarchy and it's traditions. He would have told Andrew that was his place and to suck it up.
In contrast Harry's mother was Diana, someone who more than any represents the problems of being involved in that system. Having seen what happened to his mother Harry would have been torn between 'duty' and concern for his family.
It's not surprising he rebelled.
But he remains torn.
He talks about doing work for his father if the issues can be resolved.
The issue isn't so much that he wants that separation, as that for him the break can't be clean....and he has to take a few parting shots that make reconciliation very difficult.

That's the irony of the whole thing.
Harry didn't want to be out of the family.
He wanted to be more included, albeit with the ability to pursue personal favourite projects.
He wanted the same deal as his brother and his brother's wife.
He wanted his wife to be treated with respect, same as Kate.
All fair requests.

He's speaking his truth, for the rest of us we have no way to tell if it is reality! ;)

The associates I have are Andrew's age / generation, went to the same schools, some of them served together in the same military units, they seem to think the situation as it has been relayed is as fictitious as it is scandalous! This idea that a family disagreement is somehow a lack of support or empathy is ridiculous, that the current events are a tantrum, the infant throwing his toys out of the cot because he didn't get his way! If this is true, who's tantrum is it, I can tell from the reports, which is why I refer to them as Harkle.

A hypothetical question, completely unsubstantiated, but still worth consideration. Is a famed Hollywood type likely to accept a low rank in the public pecking order, or are they naturally highly motivated and driven to be front of stage by any means necessary?

Being the Royal Spare or Royal medi-sub and complaining about it when ordinary folk are doing it tough everywhere in the world... how thoughtless and selfish given his life opportunities handed to him on a plate.  Thats how it works in life, sport and in the Royal family. Someone has to be the medi-sub or play off the bench.....maybe Harry can talk to his father's brother Edward and get some tips on being one of the Royal medi-subs and having to play in the twos all his life. Go and talk to Scottie Pippen and see how he handled being second banana behind Michael Jordan etc etc...
Its amazing how greedy and ungrateful entitlement can make you and Harry and his wife famed for their charity work need to have a look in the mirror and do a reality check. It might help them understand how lucky they really are and spare us from all this sooking up over Dad and his brother. Yep his Father and his witchy old wife are no good and his brother is a chip of the old block too but all families get these issues but not all families have a lovely Royal Lifestyle to fall back on. He hasnt got over his mothers passing and how his father treated her etc and I get that but we dont need a book,  a TV series and ongoing commentary, get a therapist, move on with your life and show everyone who is the better Royal .But accept you are not the star player on the Royal team and get the medi vest on and when you get your chance to play you can show who is the better player but in the meantime give it a rest ...

I can't believe the Royal Family is as 'racist' as they are being portrayed.
For one, their own family tree, like mine, contains ancestors from all over Europe, with some interesting asides in Western Asia (Armenia, the Kingdom of Jerusalem and a handful of Muslim princesses, to name but a few). Being racist is like biting their own b*m.
On the other hand, they may not have the language to express themselves. One of Queen Elizabeth's cronies got in trouble lately for not being able to express herself properly, when asking about the background of black lady she met. The poor old thing, seeing this incredible display of Nigerian culture, made a mess by saying "Where are you from?" instead of "What is your background?" I certainly didn't think she was being racist: she was being ignorant ( a crime that has a cure, called 'education'). Certainly, very few black people move in her circles, probably less so when the woman in question was growing up.

One of things Harry doesn't seem to understand is the lack of outward emotion that the Royals express. Showing too much of yourself was 'just not done' when Elizabeth was growing up, and hadn't been since at least the days of Queen Victoria. She would have brought up her offspring the same way: it was the only way she knew how.
Diana was not not like that, and Harry thinks he models himself more on her, but even she was relatively reserved in public.

Elizabeth, in particular, lead a life of service. her motto comes from her Hanoverian forebears:  'Ich dien." I serve. That was the cornerstone of her life.
Harry seems to have forgotten that part. Certainly Will and Kate haven't. Even the 'bad boys' haven't: it hurt Andrew to be relieved from Royal duties (even though he deserved it). That was the entire point of relieving him of his duties.

Yep his Father and his witchy old wife are no good and his brother is a chip of the old block too but all families get these issues but not all families have a lovely Royal Lifestyle to fall back on. He hasnt got over his mothers passing and how his father treated her etc and I get that but we dont need a book,  a TV series and ongoing commentary, get a therapist, move on with your life and show everyone who is the better Royal .But accept you are not the star player on the Royal team and get the medi vest on and when you get your chance to play you can show who is the better player but in the meantime give it a rest ...

Totally understand and as you point out, all families have their issues (large and small) and in the dealing with these bigger and more dramatic issues, many more within our circle of family, friends and loved ones will invariably become involved to some degree. However...

...These Royal/Hollywood & media cats have global, public audiences/connections. The ball games changes. These media types won't hesitate to share it all, along with their mandatory perspectives, opinions and judgements - voila, we're all sucked into this grand show, invited to do the same - share our perspectives, opinions and judgement, all fanned with great enthusiasm by these righteous media opinion broadcasters - let's keep these clicks a rollin'. Sheesh, if there's only a scintilla of a story these opportunists, pregnant with agendas (and a need to justify their relevance), will pour fuels of sensation on any issue to create glorious flames for the public to warm themselves by, and perhaps even admire the said broadcaster should their opinion align (with ours).

Of course the Royal individuals are hamstrung by rules and traditions and rely on media buddies to do their dirty work, as well as glittering PR machines to grandly embellish any good they do along with being the 'voice' of protection/justification etc. to the Royal individuals in times of need.

Equipped with more freedom than the Royal individuals, H&M are taking advantage of these media voices as well to share their side of the story, which of course includes their justified grievances and hurts, supportive cherry picking (as the other side does), grand gestures of all manner and a, right or wrong, healthy dollop of 'woe is me' - which dovetails beautifully into the perceived injustices we all carry.

Fortunately for most of us mere mortals we don't have to contend with all that! Devoid of media interest in our individual trials and tribulations, our squabbles remain in the family (unless someone resorts to illegal behaviour resulting in harm or death).

I can't believe the Royal Family is as 'racist' as they are being portrayed.
For one, their own family tree, like mine, contains ancestors from all over Europe, with some interesting asides in Western Asia (Armenia, the Kingdom of Jerusalem and a handful of Muslim princesses, to name but a few). Being racist is like biting their own b*m.
On the other hand, they may not have the language to express themselves. One of Queen Elizabeth's cronies got in trouble lately for not being able to express herself properly, when asking about the background of black lady she met. The poor old thing, seeing this incredible display of Nigerian culture, made a mess by saying "Where are you from?" instead of "What is your background?" I certainly didn't think she was being racist: she was being ignorant ( a crime that has a cure, called 'education'). Certainly, very few black people move in her circles, probably less so when the woman in question was growing up.

One of things Harry doesn't seem to understand is the lack of outward emotion that the Royals express. Showing too much of yourself was 'just not done' when Elizabeth was growing up, and hadn't been since at least the days of Queen Victoria. She would have brought up her offspring the same way: it was the only way she knew how.
Diana was not not like that, and Harry thinks he models himself more on her, but even she was relatively reserved in public.

Elizabeth, in particular, lead a life of service. her motto comes from her Hanoverian forebears:  'Ich dien." I serve. That was the cornerstone of her life.
Harry seems to have forgotten that part. Certainly Will and Kate haven't. Even the 'bad boys' haven't: it hurt Andrew to be relieved from Royal duties (even though he deserved it). That was the entire point of relieving him of his duties.

You're forgetting the treasonous Nazi sympathisers King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, Crash.  Although Churchill threatened to court martial Edward, the government of the day did its utmost to cover up their support for Hitler and their admiration of the SS and the concentration camps.  That's as racist as you can get, but the Palace looked after its own.

The Duke of Edinburgh's continuous racist comments and insults were dismissed by the BBC as 'gaffes".  As an Al Jazeera journalist wrote, "... the long panoply of his racist, sexist, elitist, misogynistic, class-privileged and unhinged prejudices is a mobile museum of European bigotry on display."

Then there's the fact that, in 1968, the Queen’s chief financial manager informed civil servants that “it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint coloured immigrants or foreigners” to clerical roles in the royal household, although they were permitted to work as domestic servants. 

Is Meghan the first person of African descent to marry into the Royal Family?  Possibly not.

Phillippa of Hainault (1314-1369) came from an area of the Low Countries that was once ruled by Moorish tribes and it was rumoured that she had Moorish ancestry.  Queen Charlotte (1744-1818) was a descendant of Mouran Gil, who was of Moorish descent.  Apart from that, Meghan is the only 'person of colour' to have married into Queen Elizabeth's bloodline in 39 generations. No wonder the Royals were just a little worried about her.  ::)

If phillip was greek how is he not a person of colour?

No joke, the greeks are not in any way shape or form considered anglo Saxon.  Olive skinned and closer to middle eastern than not.

If phillip was greek how is he not a person of colour?

No joke, the greeks are not in any way shape or form considered anglo Saxon.  Olive skinned and closer to middle eastern than not.

The Greek Royal family were Danes (Glucksburg) and Phillip's mum German (Hessian) and a great -grand daughter of Queen Victoria.

If phillip was greek how is he not a person of colour?

No joke, the greeks are not in any way shape or form considered anglo Saxon.  Olive skinned and closer to middle eastern than not.

Sorry Thry, but there are no Anglo-Saxons.  It's simply a made up (and possibly racist) term that is generally applied to folk who come from the British Isles.  In fact, British folk are a blend of Celts, Picts, Britons, Saxons, Jutes, Gaels, Scots, Norse, Romans, Numidians, Flemish, Normans, Germans and probably many other ethnic groups.

Furthermore, "persons of colour" are defined as "not European" although there is also a self-identifying definition; "someone who does not consider themselves to be white."

"Phil the Greek" was born in Greece and was of the Greek and Danish royal families.  His maternal grandfather, Prince Louis Alexander of Battenberg, was a naturalised British subject who changed his name to Mountbatten and paved the way for Phillip to eventually make his home in England.  Philip left Greece as a young child after the abdication of King Constantine and never spoke Greek.  He grew up in France and Germany, spoke English, French, and German and said that he thought of himself as Danish.  Although raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian, Philip converted to German Protestantism as a teenager.

You're forgetting the treasonous Nazi sympathisers King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, Crash.  Although Churchill threatened to court martial Edward, the government of the day did its utmost to cover up their support for Hitler and their admiration of the SS and the concentration camps.  That's as racist as you can get, but the Palace looked after its own.

The Duke of Edinburgh's continuous racist comments and insults were dismissed by the BBC as 'gaffes".  As an Al Jazeera journalist wrote, "... the long panoply of his racist, sexist, elitist, misogynistic, class-privileged and unhinged prejudices is a mobile museum of European bigotry on display."

Then there's the fact that, in 1968, the Queen’s chief financial manager informed civil servants that “it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint coloured immigrants or foreigners” to clerical roles in the royal household, although they were permitted to work as domestic servants. 

Is Meghan the first person of African descent to marry into the Royal Family?  Possibly not.

Phillippa of Hainault (1314-1369) came from an area of the Low Countries that was once ruled by Moorish tribes and it was rumoured that she had Moorish ancestry.  Queen Charlotte (1744-1818) was a descendant of Mouran Gil, who was of Moorish descent.  Apart from that, Meghan is the only 'person of colour' to have married into Queen Elizabeth's bloodline in 39 generations. No wonder the Royals were just a little worried about her.  ::)

DJC, did you know that, according to that expert genealogist and historian Alf Garnett,  the late Queen Elizabeth II could trace her ancestry all the way back to Jesus! 🙄🤣
That may have included a fair bit of embarrassing diversity?

Sorry Thry, but there are no Anglo-Saxons.  It's simply a made up (and possibly racist) term that is generally applied to folk who come from the British Isles.  In fact, British folk are a blend of Celts, Picts, Britons, Saxons, Jutes, Gaels, Scots, Norse, Romans, Numidians, Flemish, Normans, Germans and probably many other ethnic groups.

Furthermore, "persons of colour" are defined as "not European" although there is also a self-identifying definition; "someone who does not consider themselves to be white."

"Phil the Greek" was born in Greece and was of the Greek and Danish royal families.  His maternal grandfather, Prince Louis Alexander of Battenberg, was a naturalised British subject who changed his name to Mountbatten and paved the way for Phillip to eventually make his home in England.  Philip left Greece as a young child after the abdication of King Constantine and never spoke Greek.  He grew up in France and Germany, spoke English, French, and German and said that he thought of himself as Danish.  Although raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian, Philip converted to German Protestantism as a teenager.

Are you saying he would be viewed as an equal and not an inferior specimen?

Im not saying its right, but what im saying is that greeks are closer to Egypt than they are anything else.

These people dined out on racism.  Anglo-Saxon is not a racist term, it is the holy Roman empire embodied.

Thats not to say they were English solely.  They are the origin. Of white Britain and northern Europe.

I reject the premise of a United European vs everyone else mentality.

There is a reason Yugoslavia and the Slavs earn that name, and slavery didn't begin with black people

Alf Garnett Cookie?  That’s a blast from the past!

Alf was a figure of fun but I’m sure that more than a few viewers shared his opinions.

Are you saying he would be viewed as an equal and not an inferior specimen?

Im not saying its right, but what im saying is that greeks are closer to Egypt than they are anything else.

These people dined out on racism.  Anglo-Saxon is not a racist term, it is the holy Roman empire embodied.

Thats not to say they were English solely.  They are the origin. Of white Britain and northern Europe.

I reject the premise of a United European vs everyone else mentality.

There is a reason Yugoslavia and the Slavs earn that name, and slavery didn't begin with black people

Phil must have been viewed as acceptable if George IV agreed that he could marry his daughter and heir to the throne.

Of course the Greeks are closer to Egypt, Egypt was part of the Greek empire and many of the pharaohs were Greek.  My Greek friends from Egypt call themselves “Greek Greeks”.

Anglo-Saxon has nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire, although there is a connection between the HRE Hapsburgs and the British Royal family.  The term comes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, a compilation of Old English “historical” accounts by clerics who wanted to promote the primacy of English folk from Angle and Saxon stock.  They believed that the original Britons were from Troy.

Anglo-Saxon, in the context that you are using it, is both racist and belies an ignorance of European history.

Slavery was a fundamental part of the Roman empire, and Greek society before that.  It’s estimated that Athens alone was home to 60,000–80,000 slaves during the fifth and fourth centuries BCE.  Aristotle said that slavery was natural and necessary.

The Norse economy was founded on providing Britons, Irish, Franks, Slavs and others for the middle eastern slave markets and, yes, Slav = slave.

In the 17th century, at least 7,000 Britons were enslaved by Moorish slavers in what are known as the Turkish abductions.  The Moorish slavers also raided as far away as Iceland.  Of course, that doesn’t excuse the industrial scale slavery of African folk perpetrated by Western European countries and from which the British Royal Family benefited.  It also doesn’t excuse the indentured labour of Melanesian Kanakas in Queensland.

You might reject the notion of Europe and the rest, but that’s not how many Asians, Africans, Melanesians, Polynesians, Arabs, Persians, Armenians, Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians see it. 

Like it or not, you’re lumped in with the white folk Thry. Your family wouldn’t have been allowed into Australia if you weren’t.

Phil must have been viewed as acceptable if George IV agreed that he could marry his daughter and heir to the throne.

Of course the Greeks are closer to Egypt, Egypt was part of the Greek empire and many of the pharaohs were Greek.  My Greek friends from Egypt call themselves “Greek Greeks”.

Anglo-Saxon has nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire, although there is a connection between the HRE Hapsburgs and the British Royal family.  The term comes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, a compilation of Old English “historical” accounts by clerics who wanted to promote the primacy of English folk from Angle and Saxon stock.  They believed that the original Britons were from Troy.

Anglo-Saxon, in the context that you are using it, is both racist and belies an ignorance of European history.

Slavery was a fundamental part of the Roman empire, and Greek society before that.  It’s estimated that Athens alone was home to 60,000–80,000 slaves during the fifth and fourth centuries BCE.  Aristotle said that slavery was natural and necessary.

The Norse economy was founded on providing Britons, Irish, Franks, Slavs and others for the middle eastern slave markets and, yes, Slav = slave.

In the 17th century, at least 7,000 Britons were enslaved by Moorish slavers in what are known as the Turkish abductions.  The Moorish slavers also raided as far away as Iceland.  Of course, that doesn’t excuse the industrial scale slavery of African folk perpetrated by Western European countries and from which the British Royal Family benefited.  It also doesn’t excuse the indentured labour of Melanesian Kanakas in Queensland.

You might reject the notion of Europe and the rest, but that’s not how many Asians, Africans, Melanesians, Polynesians, Arabs, Persians, Armenians, Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians see it. 

Like it or not, you’re lumped in with the white folk Thry. Your family wouldn’t have been allowed into Australia if you weren’t.

never have been lumped in with the white folk and never will be.

Anglo Saxon in my context isn't racist.  Its referring to the class of people who have made me feel unaccepted in Australia my entire life.

Read the Wikipedia page. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons#:~:text=The%20Anglo%2DSaxons%20were%20a,identity%20was%20not%20merely%20imported.

Your version doesn't line up with historical truth DJC.

never have been lumped in with the white folk and never will be.

Anglo Saxon in my context isn't racist.  Its referring to the class of people who have made me feel unaccepted in Australia my entire life.

Read the Wikipedia page. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons#:~:text=The%20Anglo%2DSaxons%20were%20a,identity%20was%20not%20merely%20imported.

Your version doesn't line up with historical truth DJC.

My version is based on historical, archaeological, genetic and linguistic evidence.  Your version is based on a racist opinion; Anglo-Saxonism was a racial belief system developed by British and American intellectuals, politicians, and academics in the 19th century. It advanced the argument that the civilization of English-speaking nations was superior to that of any other nations because of racial traits and characteristics inherited from the Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain.  We now know that the Angles and Saxons played a relatively minor role; culturally, linguistically and genetically.

Rather than relying on Wikipedia, there are some excellent, very readable books based on the the most up to date research.  Alice Roberts is a great writer and I recommend her Buried: an alternative history of the first millennium in Britain, Ancestors: a prehistory of Britain in seven burials, and The Celts.  Robin Fleming's Britain after the Romans is another good read.  Then there is Blood of the Isles by Bryan Sykes that deals with the DNA evidence.  Finally, there's Stephen Pollington's An introduction to the Old English language and its literature.

My patrilineal ancestors arrived in Britain 6,500 years ago and settled in Cumbria where they stayed until four generations ago.  My matrilineal ancestors left the Spanish refuge at the end of the last ice age and made their way up the Atlantic coastline as the ice sheets melted.  They moved into Britain before the formation of the English Channel.  I have some DNA from Germanic Europe (Saxons) but I am mainly a mix of Britons, Celts, Gaels and Norse.  I am not Anglo-Saxon, primarily because it is a meaningless term culturally and biologically, but also because my DNA reveals my true ancestry.  The term was used to claim racial superiority in the 19th century and, by your own admission, is used by you to identify a class of people who you claim behaved in a particular way, and that's racist.

My version is based on historical, archaeological, genetic and linguistic evidence.  Your version is based on a racist opinion; Anglo-Saxonism was a racial belief system developed by British and American intellectuals, politicians, and academics in the 19th century. It advanced the argument that the civilization of English-speaking nations was superior to that of any other nations because of racial traits and characteristics inherited from the Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain.  We now know that the Angles and Saxons played a relatively minor role; culturally, linguistically and genetically.

Rather than relying on Wikipedia, there are some excellent, very readable books based on the the most up to date research.  Alice Roberts is a great writer and I recommend her Buried: an alternative history of the first millennium in Britain, Ancestors: a prehistory of Britain in seven burials, and The Celts.  Robin Fleming's Britain after the Romans is another good read.  Then there is Blood of the Isles by Bryan Sykes that deals with the DNA evidence.  Finally, there's Stephen Pollington's An introduction to the Old English language and its literature.

My patrilineal ancestors arrived in Britain 6,500 years ago and settled in Cumbria where they stayed until four generations ago.  My matrilineal ancestors left the Spanish refuge at the end of the last ice age and made their way up the Atlantic coastline as the ice sheets melted.  They moved into Britain before the formation of the English Channel.  I have some DNA from Germanic Europe (Saxons) but I am mainly a mix of Britons, Celts, Gaels and Norse.  I am not Anglo-Saxon, primarily because it is a meaningless term culturally and biologically, but also because my DNA reveals my true ancestry.  The term was used to claim racial superiority in the 19th century and, by your own admission, is used by you to identify a class of people who you claim behaved in a particular way, and that's racist.

So just to clarify, I'm racist for having suffered the WASP culture which was by your own comments was a 19th century superiority complex that actually persists today not to all people, but only against indigenous and other minority groups but doesn't apply to anyone of European ancestry?

Sorry trying to work out what point your making because arguing against anglo saxonism, and then stating its been around as a superiority complex since the 19th century doesn't discredit it really.  Whatever the history of the brittish peoples DNA might be, when they became the dominant thalassocracy of the world British imperialism reigned, and exploited others.

Call me racist if you like, but I dont think that applies to me:

characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

I dont think the people im referring to are a minority, or marginalised and I don't treat others as anything based on anything but their own behaviour.  Thing is, when I left my last job, I did so having been one of the Greek boys from IT.  Name used interchangeably with my colleagues, because you know who really cares which one of them we are speaking to, people asking me how the kids are (i dont have any, that was my team leader) and just generally feeling invisible.

Anyway, I'm one of the privleged ones I guess.  At least I'm not from Africa or Asia or indigenous because I'm not its ok to treat me as inferior and I should have no complaints?

I dont think the people im referring to are a minority, or marginalised....

This is not specific to you and your comments, but this highlights an issue i raised earlier.

Racism is racism. Majority/minority or not.....it shouldn't matter. I think there should be a distinction between racism (individuals) and systemic racism (perpetuated by government/society/majority).

I mentioned previously, that according to that definition, i would need to check my location and do a head count (to establish majority/minority status) to work out if something i said/heard was racist. That is frankly absurd. If someone says something against white/black/purple people here, or in africa, or in europe, or on venus, the comments are the same, the meaning behind them is the same, the location and people surrounding the comments are 100% completely irrelevant.
If i say something on tape, and its played in 1 country....its not racist. If that same tape is played in another country, it is suddenly racist? Ludicrous. It can be more (or less) offensive, sure, but its still racist (or not).

The sooner we understand that, and practice that, the better chance we have of ending it.

So just to clarify, I'm racist for having suffered the WASP culture which was by your own comments was a 19th century superiority complex that actually persists today not to all people, but only against indigenous and other minority groups but doesn't apply to anyone of European ancestry?

Sorry trying to work out what point your making because arguing against anglo saxonism, and then stating its been around as a superiority complex since the 19th century doesn't discredit it really.  Whatever the history of the brittish peoples DNA might be, when they became the dominant thalassocracy of the world British imperialism reigned, and exploited others.

Call me racist if you like, but I dont think that applies to me:

characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

I dont think the people im referring to are a minority, or marginalised and I don't treat others as anything based on anything but their own behaviour.  Thing is, when I left my last job, I did so having been one of the Greek boys from IT.  Name used interchangeably with my colleagues, because you know who really cares which one of them we are speaking to, people asking me how the kids are (i dont have any, that was my team leader) and just generally feeling invisible.

Anyway, I'm one of the privleged ones I guess.  At least I'm not from Africa or Asia or indigenous because I'm not its ok to treat me as inferior and I should have no complaints?

There you go again!

WASP culture!  What exactly is that?

As I have explained previously, the term WASP was used to describe an American ethnoreligious group who are the white, upper-class, Protestant historical elite, originally of British descent but broadened to include people of northwestern European descent.  There isn't and has never been an equivalent ethnoreligious elite group in Australia.  I have no doubt that some folk of  northwestern European descent gave you a hard time but I bet that they weren't all upper class or Protestant. 

Just to reiterate, the term Anglo-Saxon is used in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, annals compiled by monks and clerics to document the achievements of the ruling elite of southeastern England.  It is believed that the original manuscript was compiled during the reign of Alfred the Great but the story commences in 60BCE, the date they believed Caesar's invasion of Britain occurred.  Of course, there were no Angles and no Saxons in Britain when Caesar invaded.  The Angles and the Saxons and the Norse and Normans, Bretons and Flemish all came much later and, rather than replacing the original Britons or Celts, simply supplanted the ruling elites.  Anglo-Saxon is not a culture or a race but was a literary tool used to reinforce a ruling elite.

In the 19th century, some British and American intellectuals, politicians, and academics developed a racial belief system based on the mistaken idea that there was an Anglo-Saxon people.  These white, upper class elites were tagged as WASPs in America and your continued use of the term to describe Australians of northwestern European descent is wrong and racist, as is your categorisation of people who you claim weren't welcoming as Anglo-Saxon.

Racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalised."  Being a minority group or marginalised is not essential.  Your continued reference to Australians of northwestern European descent as Anglo-Saxons who made you feel unwelcome is racist.  Please stop!

A former colleague went for a holiday in Greece, partly to catch up with family and partly to have a good time.  George is blonde with blue eyes and speaks English with the faintest of Greek accents.  He went into a shop on one of the Greek islands and the owner ignored him.  When another customer came in, the owner went to serve him and the following conversation occurred, in Greek:

Second customer: "What about him? (pointing to George)
Owner: "The fecking foreigner can wait!"
George: "Who are you calling a fecking foreigner?"
Owner: "I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were Greek."

George didn't expect to be subjected to racism in his ancestral homeland and was horrified to think that "foreigners" could be treated so badly.

I had lunch with one of my oldest friends recently and she was telling me about her first experiences after emigrating to Australia from Egypt.  Like many Egyptian Greeks, her family fled Nasser's persecution and arrived in Australia with next to nothing.  She said that she and her family experienced nothing but kindness and help from Australians.  She went on to carve out a very successful career and her daughter is a famous singer-songwriter.  I wonder why the "Anglo-Saxons" treated them differently  :-\   

Reading all this debate, it can't help but confirm for me the root of this problem lies in the modern social media plasticity in the definition of the terms.

I see it in this most recent debate, where much of the debate hinges around "racism" being defined in the eye of the beholder, and I see it in many social media discussions where some famous media figure has hijacked a common term, for example turning "truth" into "their truth"!

Now we see a general "broadening of language" under a banner of wokism, where broadening means distortion, the term literal seems to have left the building.

Ultimately, with so many common terms using definitions based on personal perspectives, the final result has to be anarchy and chaos.

After all the chaos is caused and the many frauds exposed we rarely see a return to stability, normality is not resumed.

I see it as a problem of inertia and momentum of issues, people are too hesitant to call the issues out early, they don't want to rock the boat, they fear social media backlash, they do not want to be "cancelled", and there are nefarious types that know this and leverage it. The wise hoping that whatever the issue is will die away quietly stay quiet, and when it doesn't it gain momentum and then it can't be stopped, often all gathered on a fraud or distortion.

There you go again!

WASP culture!  What exactly is that?

As I have explained previously, the term WASP was used to describe an American ethnoreligious group who are the white, upper-class, Protestant historical elite, originally of British descent but broadened to include people of northwestern European descent.  There isn't and has never been an equivalent ethnoreligious elite group in Australia.  I have no doubt that some folk of  northwestern European descent gave you a hard time but I bet that they weren't all upper class or Protestant. 

Just to reiterate, the term Anglo-Saxon is used in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, annals compiled by monks and clerics to document the achievements of the ruling elite of southeastern England.  It is believed that the original manuscript was compiled during the reign of Alfred the Great but the story commences in 60BCE, the date they believed Caesar's invasion of Britain occurred.  Of course, there were no Angles and no Saxons in Britain when Caesar invaded.  The Angles and the Saxons and the Norse and Normans, Bretons and Flemish all came much later and, rather than replacing the original Britons or Celts, simply supplanted the ruling elites.  Anglo-Saxon is not a culture or a race but was a literary tool used to reinforce a ruling elite.

In the 19th century, some British and American intellectuals, politicians, and academics developed a racial belief system based on the mistaken idea that there was an Anglo-Saxon people.  These white, upper class elites were tagged as WASPs in America and your continued use of the term to describe Australians of northwestern European descent is wrong and racist, as is your categorisation of people who you claim weren't welcoming as Anglo-Saxon.

Racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalised."  Being a minority group or marginalised is not essential.  Your continued reference to Australians of northwestern European descent as Anglo-Saxons who made you feel unwelcome is racist.  Please stop!

A former colleague went for a holiday in Greece, partly to catch up with family and partly to have a good time.  George is blonde with blue eyes and speaks English with the faintest of Greek accents.  He went into a shop on one of the Greek islands and the owner ignored him.  When another customer came in, the owner went to serve him and the following conversation occurred, in Greek:

Second customer: "What about him? (pointing to George)
Owner: "The fecking foreigner can wait!"
George: "Who are you calling a fecking foreigner?"
Owner: "I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were Greek."

George didn't expect to be subjected to racism in his ancestral homeland and was horrified to think that "foreigners" could be treated so badly.

I had lunch with one of my oldest friends recently and she was telling me about her first experiences after emigrating to Australia from Egypt.  Like many Egyptian Greeks, her family fled Nasser's persecution and arrived in Australia with next to nothing.  She said that she and her family experienced nothing but kindness and help from Australians.  She went on to carve out a very successful career and her daughter is a famous singer-songwriter.  I wonder why the "Anglo-Saxons" treated them differently  :-\   

.

Interesting. 

The attitude of the British Royal Elites do behave this way, correct or incorrect?

They would rarely have married outside of what they consider the royal elites through history and largely did so to further their own political and imperial alliances in order to protect their peoples and forge alliances to grow their sphere of influence.

Regarding your discussion, I can't help but think that somehow you are taking exception to a considered truth of history that is generally well known, but now seems to be being revised.  That's fine, if I am incorrect ill put my hand up and state that.  I am big enough to admit if I am wrong, or wronging someone and its clear i've struck a nerve.  Whilst I work out what's going on, I am going to link some commentary here that I think may offer a perspective of why perhaps the exception shouldn't be with what I have written on this forum but perhaps with how attitudes shift differently for different people at differing times.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/how-anglo-is-australia

Speech by HE Paul Madden, British High Commissioner, to the NSW Community Relations Commission, Parramatta, 18 April 2013.





 

For moi, racism (any of the 'isms' really) is simply what David (DJC) highlighted in his post. Often the simplest and most straight forward explanation is the best or truest.

As discussed previously, racism does seem to have its roots in fear of difference (ending up being passed from generation to generation), and that really does lead to all manner of assumptions and judgements (often unfair). Seems to me that the isms really are a kind of dangerous laziness. Fear and ignorance walk hand in hand and sadly result in many folks (often minorities) bearing the brunt of hurtful, painful and even dangerous/violent actions. We're living through considerable change and still have a long way to go. And 'change' is another fear for many.