Skip to main content
Topic: Harry and Megan (Read 9261 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #60
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.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #61
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
 
The Force Awakens!

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #62
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.
The Force Awakens!

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #63
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.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #64
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.
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #65
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.

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #66

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?
The Force Awakens!

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #67
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.

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #68
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.

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #69
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!
The Force Awakens!

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #70
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 ?

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #71
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.
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #72
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.

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #73
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.


Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #74
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...