Page 17 of 19 [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next

KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,186
Location: England

20 Sep 2022, 7:33 am

cyberdad wrote:
KitLily wrote:
It's not right to make children the target of public scrutiny at such a tragic time.

My dad died when I was 13, I would have fallen apart if I'd been made to walk behind his coffin in public. I mean, fallen apart more than I did in reality.


I'm sorry to hear that. Yes I agree it's not right, but unfortunately there are rituals that the children of heads of state must be seen mourning.


Thank you for your kind comment.

Hopefully time will move on and that ritual will stop.


_________________
I am here for interesting, meaningful discussions and thoughtful, rewarding conversations. I very quickly lose interest in long, drawn-out arguments.
***
I'm sorry if I get you mixed up with other people, I'm not good at telling people apart. Just remind me of our last conversation then I'll know who you are.


Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,100
Location: Over there

22 Sep 2022, 5:50 am

cyberdad wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
They were both in morning suits at the funeral today, and were both allowed to wear uniforms according to their rank at the lying-in-state earlier.
I think there was some issue about Andrew wearing medals and saluting so some silly protocol which he was not supposed to be doing since he was stripped of his privileges.
Saluting as required when in uniform is expected; in civvies, no.
That still holds even if he was granted special permission to wear it, and I think he's been involved in the armed forces for long enough to know how he's expected to behave.
Out of uniform... eh, not so much. :lol:

cyberdad wrote:
Harry and Meghan have been relegated to the back row...cousin purgatory
Not the back row, the second row. :nerdy:

cyberdad wrote:
Apparently twitter applauded further humiliation of Meghan by the official cameraman who chose an angle to blot out Meghan
There was no "official cameraman", there were several. That image is a still from the BBC's live coverage.
Cameramen at these events have to make do with the position they're allocated, and there were several other positions which showed her very clearly.
So yeah, more idiot Twitter hysteria of the "Let's all hate Meghan" flavor. :roll:


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,186
Location: England

22 Sep 2022, 5:57 am

I can't understand the hatred of Meghan. It is crazy. As far as I know, she hasn't murdered or abused anyone, she just doesn't fit in with her in laws. That's not a crime. Why should she fit in with in laws?

I know the ringleader is Piers Morgan, he has some weird obsession with Meghan, but he needs to back off.


_________________
I am here for interesting, meaningful discussions and thoughtful, rewarding conversations. I very quickly lose interest in long, drawn-out arguments.
***
I'm sorry if I get you mixed up with other people, I'm not good at telling people apart. Just remind me of our last conversation then I'll know who you are.


Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,100
Location: Over there

22 Sep 2022, 6:11 am

Same. It's idiotic, and looks like part of a trash newspaper-driven "Kate good, Meghan bad" line.
Unfortunately, crappy untrue tittle-tattle sells - and Piers Moron knows it.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,988

22 Sep 2022, 6:38 am

Well finally Meghan has some support from a member of the extended royal family
https://www.newidea.com.au/megahn-markl ... a-oxenberg



Matrix Glitch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,741
Location: US

22 Sep 2022, 7:48 am

If it wasn't for Meghan all the hate would be directed at Camilla.



KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,186
Location: England

22 Sep 2022, 8:13 am

It's the centuries old attitude: people, especially women, who marry into a big/powerful family get mocked and excluded. They're not 'one of us', says the family and their fans.

And because Meghan is black, that leaves her vulnerable to yet another nasty lot of bullies.


_________________
I am here for interesting, meaningful discussions and thoughtful, rewarding conversations. I very quickly lose interest in long, drawn-out arguments.
***
I'm sorry if I get you mixed up with other people, I'm not good at telling people apart. Just remind me of our last conversation then I'll know who you are.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,988

22 Sep 2022, 11:54 pm

Matrix Glitch wrote:
If it wasn't for Meghan all the hate would be directed at Camilla.


I think this makes me wonder that Megxit was Meghan throwing a hissy at the level of barriers placed in front of her. Had she stuck it out like Camilla she would eventually have been accepted. It's also somewhat unfortunate her Dutch relatives were low class and embarrassed her in public so she was never going to win anyway with Fleet street.



Matrix Glitch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,741
Location: US

23 Sep 2022, 12:33 am

I think Meghan is like the royal family version of Yoko Ono.


Edit: I had to Google that and I see I'm not the only one who came up with the analogy.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,988

23 Sep 2022, 6:05 am

Matrix Glitch wrote:
I think Meghan is like the royal family version of Yoko Ono.


Edit: I had to Google that and I see I'm not the only one who came up with the analogy.


And they both can't sing or act



KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,186
Location: England

23 Sep 2022, 6:41 am

I think it's something to with women joining big families.

My grandma had a big family, all the women who married the sons in the family got treated like sh1t. All the men who married the daughters in the family got treated like heroes.

It is the same with my husband's family. The men who married the daughters were welcomed, the women who married the sons were excluded.

Me and my sisters in law have all been treated with suspicion and never been seen as part of the family. :shrug:


_________________
I am here for interesting, meaningful discussions and thoughtful, rewarding conversations. I very quickly lose interest in long, drawn-out arguments.
***
I'm sorry if I get you mixed up with other people, I'm not good at telling people apart. Just remind me of our last conversation then I'll know who you are.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,988

23 Sep 2022, 8:59 pm

KitLily wrote:
I think it's something to with women joining big families.


I think its about joining elite British families. Sarah Ferguson and Diana Spencer were also given the cold shoulder as their family status/lineage was always questioned and they were not from thoroughbred stock as the Windsors who claim lineage to all the royal houses of Europe. Diana was rumoured to have had Jewish and east Indian ancestry.

Meghan Markle was a walking nightmare for the Winsdors given she was
- an older divorcee with a semi-acting career
- dodgy social media including bikini clad images
- a family that includes clearly non-European mother + low class attention seeking rabble on her father's side

To make matters worse she had a tendency toward diva type behaviour toward servants (to be fair all the royals likely treat the "help" in the same manner but are more discreet). Therefore any small slip-up and she was fair game, Fleet street watched her like a hawk.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,100
Location: Over there

24 Sep 2022, 6:34 am

cyberdad wrote:
Had she stuck it out like Camilla she would eventually have been accepted.
Camilla has the canny advantage over Meghan and manages her PR much better: when she married Charles, Prince of Wales in 2005, she was entitled to call herself the Princess of Wales but instead chose to use the "lesser" title Duchess of Cornwall.

Given that she was only recently past being seen as "that witch who ruined Diana's marriage" (which as we know now was pretty much doomed from the start) at the time of this marriage, she made a smart choice.
And unlike both Diana and Meghan, she was already accustomed to being involved with royal company - she "knew the ropes".


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Matrix Glitch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,741
Location: US

24 Sep 2022, 9:06 am

Cornflake wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Had she stuck it out like Camilla she would eventually have been accepted.
Camilla has the canny advantage over Meghan and manages her PR much better: when she married Charles, Prince of Wales in 2005, she was entitled to call herself the Princess of Wales but instead chose to use the "lesser" title Duchess of Cornwall.

Given that she was only recently past being seen as "that witch who ruined Diana's marriage" (which as we know now was pretty much doomed from the start) at the time of this marriage, she made a smart choice.
And unlike both Diana and Meghan, she was already accustomed to being involved with royal company - she "knew the ropes".

I was thinking someone who steps into that position is better off knowing the ropes. I'm wondering if that was the situation with William's wife. That marriage seems to have worked out perfectly well, including her assimilation.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,100
Location: Over there

24 Sep 2022, 10:33 am

Having the "right" background and knowing the ropes would definitely be an advantage - but Catherine seems to be an exception, in that as a "commoner" she just absorbed it all seemingly without difficulties. This was probably helped a great deal by William, being a younger royal and likely free of much of the rigid protocols and stuffiness of his father's generation.
But her relationship with William seems to be the fairytale marriage that Diana's never was.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,357
Location: temperate zone

24 Sep 2022, 10:54 am

Cornflake wrote:
Having the "right" background and knowing the ropes would definitely be an advantage - but Catherine seems to be an exception, in that as a "commoner" she just absorbed it all seemingly without difficulties. This was probably helped a great deal by William, being a younger royal and likely free of much of the rigid protocols and stuffiness of his father's generation.
But her relationship with William seems to be the fairytale marriage that Diana's never was.


Was thinking along those lines too. That Kate was a commoner, but somehow rose to the occasion and became the ideal royal princess- and took on the role with seeming seamlessness.

Meghan stumbled. But her background was even more "common" (more blue collar, less educated) than that of Kate Middleton. So some commoners can take on the role of being Royals, but some cannot. Its a crapshoot.