Do Princesses get to be "private" in public spaces?

[gardenmom5]

23 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

@mumto2- if you don't mind my asking.....what is the general local sentiment on the redo of "the cottage" renovation with tax money? 

from what I've read - pretty ticked off.

[Annie G]

24 minutes ago, SKL said:

I'm not sure what it means to be "on" in this context.  I mean I am "on" when I go to the ball game.  If "on" means I'm awake and not in my pajamas and have combed my hair (or at least put on one of those cute hats to hide my bed head).  I'm pretty much "on" whenever I leave the house.  It doesn't feel unfair to me.

I mean nobody is saying she needs to give a speech or do a volunteer gig at the Wimbledon.

I get what you’re saying. When I go to Target or take the grandkids to the farmer’s market or the park, I’m casually dressed and generally want to be left alone. I guess I have some compassion for famous people who don’t have that.  Every time Megan goes out she is under scrutiny. I wouldn’t want to live like that and I generally think it’s unnecessary to expect her to.  But like I said, I do get what you’re saying.   

[mathnerd]

the queen is the monarch and symbolic head of state- her family have regular jobs - their job description actually reads “princess “ etc. if they are sitting in a public arena and someone photographed them, it goes with the title and job. If she was illegally chased or photographed without consent in a manner embarrassing to her I would be sympathetic. I am not sympathetic if a royal sits in a national event as Wimbledon is and complains about being photographed. To my knowledge, the queen has never done that.

[Katy]

27 minutes ago, mathnerd said:

the queen is the monarch and symbolic head of state- her family have regular jobs - their job description actually reads “princess “ etc. if they are sitting in a public arena and someone photographed them, it goes with the title and job. If she was illegally chased or photographed without consent in a manner embarrassing to her I would be sympathetic. I am not sympathetic if a royal sits in a national event as Wimbledon is and complains about being photographed. To my knowledge, the queen has never done that.

 

But Meghan didn't complain.  Her security did, and yes, the queen's security has done that same thing many times.

[alisoncooks]

I'm in the "suck it up, buttercup" camp. I'm sure it gets dreadfully wearisome, having no privacy, but she chose to marry into it (unlike those born into it). 

[Shoeless]

Re: Meghan acting like a diva.  It's not just the "no photos, please" request.  It's the culmination of these events that generate negative press: showing up at Wimbledon in jeans, the $500,000 baby shower, the $2.4million renovation of Frogmore Cottage, not being appropriately dressed when meeting foreign nationals, generally not seeming to follow established royal protocol, the revolving door of personal assistants and nannies. 

I was very sympathetic to her when she first got married.  It's a big role to take on, and I expected there would be some "oops" moments.  It's been over a year, however.  I don't believe that anyone at Buckingham Palace is unaware of what's been happening.  No one at BP is saying "Muahaha! Let her fail! Stupid American!".  If she looks bad, they all look bad.  I'm sure the Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William all know of the bad press Meghan and Harry are generating and have spoken to them both about how to improve the public's perception of them and offered help.  Yet...a year later nothing has improved.  I don't think neither Meghan nor Harry really want to improve and follow established protocol.  I think they are deliberately thumbing their noses at it all, which...ok...a lot of people don't approve of the monarchy.  But it's really rich to have that attitude when you *are* a part of the monarchy and all of your expensive, ill-fitting clothes, your home, your personal body guards are provided for you by that same taxpayer-funded monarchy. 

Edited to add: and Harry is just as much to blame for the bad press as his wife.  He's supposed to be helping her fit into this role. 

Edited July 10, 2019 by MissLemon

[umsami]

17 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

Re: Meghan acting like a diva.  It's not just the "no photos, please" request.  It's the culmination of these events that generate negative press: showing up at Wimbledon in jeans, the $500,000 baby shower, the $2.4million renovation of Frogmore Cottage, not being appropriately dressed when meeting foreign nationals, generally not seeming to follow established royal protocol, the revolving door of personal assistants and nannies. 

I was very sympathetic to her when she first got married.  It's a big role to take on, and I expected there would be some "oops" moments.  It's been over a year, however.  I don't believe that anyone at Buckingham Palace is unaware of what's been happening.  No one at BP is saying "Muahaha! Let her fail! Stupid American!".  If she looks bad, they all look bad.  I'm sure the Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William all know of the bad press Meghan and Harry are generating and have spoken to them both about how to improve the public's perception of them and offered help.  Yet...a year later nothing has improved.  I don't think neither Meghan nor Harry really want to improve and follow established protocol.  I think they are deliberately thumbing their noses at it all, which...ok...a lot of people don't approve of the monarchy.  But it's really rich to have that attitude when you *are* a part of the monarchy and all of your expensive, ill-fitting clothes, your home, your personal body guards are provided for you by that same taxpayer-funded monarchy. 

Edited to add: and Harry is just as much to blame for the bad press as his wife.  He's supposed to be helping her fit into this role. 

There is a segment of the British press that has always disliked Meghan....because she is biracial, American, an actress, older than Harry, and a divorcee.  She is referred to by a bunch of very unkind names... reminds me of how the Duchess of York was treated (although no weight shaming).  That public treatment (as well as toe sucking) led to her divorce from Prince Andrew....yet....they basically continued to live together and still do.  I fear that is a risk for Harry and Meghan.   He obviously adores her...and she him...but the public scrutiny is harsh. 

There has also been press on how the Queen gets along better with Meghan vs. Kate....and that bothers people. 

The Baby shower was not paid for by the British public.  It was paid for by Meghan's friends in America.

As for the "cottage"...honestly, if one is expected to work 24/7 for the rest of one's life....why not get one's home renovated on the tax payer's dime?? How much tourism, good will, etc. do the Royal Family bring in?? Meghan and Harry are far more liked abroad....and while her biracialness hurts her with many people at home, it's a sign of a modern monarchy that is more relatable to many in the Commonwealth.  

The Queen apparently remarked on how late she worked in her pregnancy.  She did a cookbook that raised a lot of money for the women in the Grenfell Tower fire.   They've barely been married a year, and she has been "on" 24/7.  Even though she's an actress...and in theory knew what she was getting into....nobody can really prepare for it.  Also, she's far more popular and polarizing then say the Countess of Wessex.  So she draws more attention and criticism.  

I think they had every right to handle the christening as they did.... and it really wasn't that different from anybody else.  Private ceremony, followed by release of pictures.  

Having said all this... Wimbledon is a very public event...and the Royal Box doesn't get more public.  Her security did not handle it well.  

I do not think she can win, though.  She draws too much attention as the first biracial Princess....and as an actress.  I fear that in spite of the obvious love between her and Harry, it will be a tough fight.  

[Shoeless]

But the Christening was different form what everyone else.  It was held in the Queen's private chapel. Regular citizens don't get to have their babies christened there.  Regular citizens also don't get to keep the names of godparents secret.  They get to be public record.  

The reason Meghan and Harry get bad press is because they want to have their cake and eat it too.  They want the perks of royal life without any of the tiring bits. 

Everyone in the royal family is "on" 24/7.  Meghan and Harry aren't being put into a unique position.  Princess Anne had over 500 public engagements in 2018. Talk about being "on" 24/7! 

While the taxpayers did not fund the lavish baby shower, the ostentatious display of wealth is not received well by taxpayers.  It just looks greedy. 

[Joker]

I think many just love to hate her and it's weird. I also don't understand the many who say she just chose to marry into it. Dh and I were married after knowing each other for only 4 months. We both knew after being together just for a bit that this was it (more than 20 years and going strong). I can't imagine passing up my dh because of what others might expect of me. I doubt she fully realized it all right off the bat. 

I'm honestly starting to judge those hating on her more than I am anything she does. Yes, I think a princess can expect some privacy, even in public spaces, every now and then. I think the real problem is to think they don't. 

[umsami]

12 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

But the Christening was different form what everyone else.  It was held in the Queen's private chapel. Regular citizens don't get to have their babies christened there.  Regular citizens also don't get to keep the names of godparents secret.  They get to be public record.  

The reason Meghan and Harry get bad press is because they want to have their cake and eat it too.  They want the perks of royal life without any of the tiring bits. 

Everyone in the royal family is "on" 24/7.  Meghan and Harry aren't being put into a unique position.  Princess Anne had over 500 public engagements in 2018. Talk about being "on" 24/7! 

While the taxpayers did not fund the lavish baby shower, the ostentatious display of wealth is not received well by taxpayers.  It just looks greedy. 

Really?? So was Lady Louise's christening.  https://www.royal.uk/announcement-christening-lady-louise-windsor

Viscount Severn https://www.royal.uk/arrangements-christening-viscount-severn

Lena Tindall's christening was not held at Windsor, but was also private. https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/meghans-gorgeous-vintage-look-at-christening-of-zara-tindalls-baby/news-story/4339d6708be86794616fa92064e6097c

In these, I don't see any naming of the Godparents, FWIW....but as to that, honestly, why do you care?? Shouldn't that be a private decision regarding who may guide your child's faith? 

Still....it appears that royal christenings can be legally kept private.  Others may choose to release the names, but do they have to?? Legally no.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/9442282/queen-allowed-meghan-markle-prince-harry-archie-godparents-private/"“

However, details of royal christenings can legally be kept under wraps.

A spokesperson for the Church of England said: “Under the Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1978 all baptisms must be registered and the record made is normally publicly available for searches and for the making of certified copies of entries.

 

However the register to be used in this case is held privately by the royal household on behalf of the Crown and we understand that it has never complied with the usual requirement.

Instead, the details of Archie's baptism will be held on the royal register - which is likely to remain in the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle for posterity.

 

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson confirmed: "The baptism will be registered on the royal register and held privately as other royal baptisms have been."

”"

 

So once again, Meghan is getting grief for no reason whatsoever as far as I can tell.  These are all excuses...the real reason?? Probably similar to why some people were so negative to the Princeton and Harvard-educated extremely fit Michelle Obama and venerate a topless model over her today.

[gardenmom5]

11 minutes ago, Joker said:

I think many just love to hate her and it's weird.  

many of us who have become disgusted by the behavior were welcoming when their engagement was announced.  many were wishing for harry to settle down and be happy. I think MMs issues are less about being an American - and more about thinking she can continue with a Hollywood lifestyle and think she's made it big.  the RF is NOT "Hollywood", and the rules are very different.  to hold to Hollywood rules from BP - is disrespectful to the crown.  the callous attitude by both MM & harry has put paid to those who held well wishes for happiness.  now - it's just "will they grow up already?"

Camilla came aboard quite openly hated by many, with people actually wishing her dead - but she's worked and been patient, and done things to win over much of the public.  there are those who still hate her (and probably always will) - so, claims MM can't win I consider malarkey.  if she wants things to change, she needs to adjust her attitude.

[Shoeless]

7 minutes ago, umsami said:

So once again, Meghan is getting grief for no reason whatsoever as far as I can tell.  These are all excuses...the real reason?? Probably similar to why some people were so negative to the Princeton and Harvard-educated extremely fit Michelle Obama and venerate a topless model over her today.

 

Wow. 

No.

I don't like the way Meghan and Harry behave because it seems snobbish, elitist, and rude.  It has ZERO to do with her skin color. 

Wow. 

[mathnerd]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

 

But Meghan didn't complain.  Her security did, and yes, the queen's security has done that same thing many times.

Wow! I find it surprising that the Queen's security complained about press photographers at public events like the Wimbledon. I was not aware of that!!! 

Back to my original point: here is a link to Kate listing her job description as "Princess"

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/04/what-prince-william-and-kate-middleton-do-all-day.html

- in my opinion, the duty of the Royal Family is to represent their kingdom in a good light at all times. So, I am unsympathetic to Meghan allowing her security to complain about press photographers (and they will not overstep their authority had she not permitted it, after all, she is a Duchess). After she made a HUGE propaganda about how close of a friend Williams is and used it to show off her famous American connections, asking the press to back off at an event that is associated so much with her best known celebrity friend is not acceptable (if it were me, which it will never be, my friends would be my own business and if I don't want to be bothered by the press, I might go over to the Royal Retreat at the countryside and chill out).

Edited July 10, 2019 by mathnerd

[Joker]

2 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

many of us who have become disgusted by the behavior were welcoming when their engagement was announced.  many were wishing for harry to settle down and be happy. I think MMs issues are less about being an American - and more about thinking she can continue with a Hollywood lifestyle and think she's made it big.  the RF is NOT "Hollywood", and the rules are very different.  to hold to Hollywood rules from BP - is disrespectful to the crown.  the callous attitude by both MM & harry has put paid to those who held well wishes for happiness.  now - it's just "will they grow up already?"

Camilla came aboard quite openly hated by many, with people actually wishing her dead - but she's worked and been patient, and done things to win over much of the public.  there are those who still hate her (and probably always will) - so, claims MM can't win I consider malarkey.  if she wants things to change, she needs to adjust her attitude.

This is what I mean though. Why are you so invested? And if you are truly wanting Harry to be happy, he seems to be quite happy, so why not be happy with him? I think Harry and Meghan are grown ups and this idea that they have to fit your ideal is extremely weird to me. I don't see what she is doing as having a Hollywood lifestyle at all. I do see those wanting access to be very Hollywood though. 

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Eliana said:

But she's on maternity leave from that job right now. 

Then maybe she shouldn't be at Wimbledon or maybe she should be incognito.

When I was on mat leave, I didn't get any breaks outside (or inside) my house.  And I'm pretty sure my duties as a new mom were more burdensome than hers.  I mean, I had no help, financial or physical.  If the babies and I were sick and it was raining and I needed milk or diapers, too damn bad.  Out I went, cameras or no cameras.

(Nor did I get a real maternity leave from my job for that matter.  "Everybody works at least part time through maternity leave, if they are serious about their career," said my female boss.)

I guess I'm the wrong person to ask for sympathy here, LOL.

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, Joker said:

This is what I mean though. Why are you so invested? And if you are truly wanting Harry to be happy, he seems to be quite happy, so why not be happy with him? I think Harry and Meghan are grown ups and this idea that they have to fit your ideal is extremely weird to me. I don't see what she is doing as having a Hollywood lifestyle at all. I do see those wanting access to be very Hollywood though. 

I respect the queen, she has spent her life in service to her country.  She understands her job - and that among other things -  she is supposed to be there for all british subjects, no matter their persuasion.  she is representing her country - to all heads of state (even third world dictators who have visited), and she is, at the very least - civil.  no playing favorites.  I think the fact MM & harry DO "play favorites" - on the public stage, is a slap in the face to what she has spent decades working towards.

[Scarlett]

9 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

I don't keep up with celebs, so I don't know any of the particulars. But my general feeling is that if one is any sort of celebrity by choice then being photographed and asked for autographs comes with the territory. It's pretty much a job requirement, and one that the person certainly should have been aware of before pursuing/accepting a place in the spotlight. Also, as far as I'm aware no one has a right to privacy in a public space (that's here in the U.S.). But I've also never understood the allure of getting a photo or autograph of a celebrity. I just don't get the appeal. It's as if people think having a photo or autograph of someone famous increases their own importance? It kind of screams "low self esteem" to me. 

I know right.  The few times I have been close to a celebrity all I could think was how normal,they were 

[Katy]

4 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

many of us who have become disgusted by the behavior were welcoming when their engagement was announced.  many were wishing for harry to settle down and be happy. I think MMs issues are less about being an American - and more about thinking she can continue with a Hollywood lifestyle and think she's made it big.  the RF is NOT "Hollywood", and the rules are very different.  to hold to Hollywood rules from BP - is disrespectful to the crown.  the callous attitude by both MM & harry has put paid to those who held well wishes for happiness.  now - it's just "will they grow up already?"

Camilla came aboard quite openly hated by many, with people actually wishing her dead - but she's worked and been patient, and done things to win over much of the public.  there are those who still hate her (and probably always will) - so, claims MM can't win I consider malarkey.  if she wants things to change, she needs to adjust her attitude.

 

What Hollywood "Lifestyle"?  She was a b-list actress with a supporting part on a semi-popular cable show, a recurring role as a "Suitcase girl" on a crappy cancelled game show, and a handful of bad Hallmark movies.  She wasn't known for extravagance.  She was known for being kind and doing humanitarian work and trying to help women gain equality in developing nations. She was invited to some networking parties at Oprah's house so she developed friendships with other women she met there but she wasn't living some ridiculously lavish lifestyle, ever.  Possibly for her short marriage to her sociopath ex husband, but that ended as soon as she figured out what a fraud he was.

4 hours ago, MissLemon said:

...   I don't like the way Meghan and Harry behave because it seems snobbish, elitist, and rude.  ...

 

Can you give an example from their actual behavior and not from the press complaining about their staff?  Because as far as I can tell she is the opposite.  They've done quite a lot of humanitarian work, and many staff members who mysteriously "left" were initially hired on a temporary basis anyway until they could find permanent staff.  The idea that Meghan has control of ANY of it is ridiculous IMHO.

4 hours ago, mathnerd said:

Wow! I find it surprising that the Queen's security complained about press photographers at public events like the Wimbledon. I was not aware of that!!! 

Back to my original point: here is a link to Kate listing her job description as "Princess"

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/04/what-prince-william-and-kate-middleton-do-all-day.html

- in my opinion, the duty of the Royal Family is to represent their kingdom in a good light at all times. So, I am unsympathetic to Meghan allowing her security to complain about press photographers (and they will not overstep their authority had she not permitted it, after all, she is a Duchess). After she made a HUGE propaganda about how close of a friend Williams is and used it to show off her famous American connections, asking the press to back off at an event that is associated so much with her best known celebrity friend is not acceptable (if it were me, which it will never be, my friends would be my own business and if I don't want to be bothered by the press, I might go over to the Royal Retreat at the countryside and chill out).

 

Oh goodness. I didn't say the queen's security complained.  I said they limited photos.  They have many times.  No one in the press complains about that because no one in the press would dare justify threatening the life of the Queen.  Meghan's not an aristocratic British snob so she doesn't deserve it when the press are asked to give her the same respect of not shoving a camera in her face.  There is no evidence whatsoever that Meghan has anything to do with choosing OR directing her security (those orders come from the queen), but Meghan is the snob. 

Give me a break. She has the equivalent of secret service and yes it's wince inducing to have to ask a probably innocent person to put down his stupid cell phone but more than one assassination attempt worldwide has involved people hiding weapons inside cameras so minimizing the chance of weapons in cameras is STANDARD security protocol worldwide.  Even small phones that probably don't contain a spray bottle of poison but could.  Especially when there have been threats against her life from the moment the relationship leaked to the press.

[Melissa in Australia]

16 hours ago, PrincessMommy said:

It's summer and I'm bored... 

Apparently the Duchess of Sussex requested (demanded) that no photos be taken of her while at Wimbledon.  Which is silly because they *always* show who's in the royal box (area?) on TV - several times during the game.  I do realize that have a camera on you occasionally from a distance is very different than having thousands of cells phones pointed at you at closer range.  But, isn't all the demanding and secrecy just asking for MORE issues with photographers?

But, still... should she be given privacy in such an instance?  Isn't part of the royal duties to be a public figure and represent the royalty??  

she isn't a princess

 and doesn't know how to act as a royal

 no breeding I guess

[J-rap]

I don't follow British royalty, but isn't their main role nowadays to be a public symbol for the country?  That includes being the "face" of the country, which naturally means being photographed when in public.  I can see that one might get tired of that, but it is what it is.  It's a job that merges with personal life.

On a completely different note, I sometimes wonder how many family vacation photos, etc.,  I've accidentally ended up in, in the background, simply because I was there.  Wouldn't that be funny to see?  

 

[Selkie]

About the humanitarian work that someone mentioned upthread - from what I've read, she and Harry are rubbing people the wrong way with that and coming off as hypocritical. There is the perception that they are very in-your-face, about it, like "Look at us, we're humanitarians!" but it is very much "do as I say, not as I do". People are ticked off that Meghan & Harry are preaching about the environment and poverty while living a lifestyle of private jets, lavish renovations, couture clothes, etc.

[HomeAgain]

There is so much hate in this thread and it just goes to show a person can.not.win. no matter what they do.  Help others? Hypocritical.  Doesn't want to be photographed? Too bad, no rights because the public pays your salary. (and what a nasty thought that was, if we apply it to anyone who takes public funds).  Want privacy for your child?  Well, that's just wrong, even though it's a common occurrence.

What was your point in posting this, @PrincessMommy, other than to hate on another woman and give cause to criticize her no matter what?  Did you get what you wanted in scrutinizing her and inserting your own idea of her motivations in her actions?  Did the rest of you?  As no links have been posted to substantiate the nastiness and speculative thoughts in this thread, I can only assume it's all in your own minds and not in the least true.  And now many of us know who will be the first among us to tear the rest down.

[JustEm]

56 minutes ago, Selkie said:

About the humanitarian work that someone mentioned upthread - from what I've read, she and Harry are rubbing people the wrong way with that and coming off as hypocritical. There is the perception that they are very in-your-face, about it, like "Look at us, we're humanitarians!" but it is very much "do as I say, not as I do". People are ticked off that Meghan & Harry are preaching about the environment and poverty while living a lifestyle of private jets, lavish renovations, couture clothes, etc.

 

With this criteria many wealthy humanitarians are hypocrites. Shoot even none wealthy humanitarians are because they are living better than the people they are trying to help.  Other celebrities like Oprah and Angelina Jolie do tons for people who are in worse positions than them but they are still living incredibly well off of the money they have. Are they hypocrites as well?

[Selkie]

10 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

With this criteria many wealthy humanitarians are hypocrites. Shoot even none wealthy humanitarians are because they are living better than the people they are trying to help.  Other celebrities like Oprah and Angelina Jolie do tons for people who are in worse positions than them but they are still living incredibly well off of the money they have. Are they hypocrites as well?

I think a big part of the difference is that Angelina Jolie and Oprah earned their own money and have given away their own money, but Harry and Meghan haven't. The problem seems to be that people see them as living it up on taxpayer $$ while proclaiming themselves to be humanitarians.

[HomeAgain]

3 minutes ago, Selkie said:

I think a big part of the difference is that Angelina Jolie and Oprah earned their own money and have given away their own money, but Harry and Meghan haven't. The problem seems to be that people see them as living it up on taxpayer $$ while proclaiming themselves to be humanitarians.

Those hypocrites. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/prince-harry-meghan-markle-humanitarian-botswana/

Quote

 

Meanwhile, Meghan previously travelled to Rwanda with World Vision Canada in 2016, to support work on a clean water project. 

“Even with Meghan’s crazy schedule as an actor, she’s always made time for philanthropic endeavours,” said Gavankar. “It could be one day helping at a charity event and it could be an entire trip that she’s told nobody about to go help people in India.” 

“One of the things I love about both of them is that they don’t tell anyone,” she said. “They just go do good work in countries with nobody watching.” 

 

 

[JustEm]

15 minutes ago, Selkie said:

I think a big part of the difference is that Angelina Jolie and Oprah earned their own money and have given away their own money, but Harry and Meghan haven't. The problem seems to be that people see them as living it up on taxpayer $$ while proclaiming themselves to be humanitarians.

 

So, they don't get paid for their jobs of being the faces of the country?? According to many people on this thread they are to be working at all times when they are out in public but they haven't earned that money because it is taxpayer $$.  It really just sounds like people are just finding excuses to hate these people.  Do they feel the same way about Prince Henry and Kate?  Because they are humanitarians off of the taxpayer dime as well

[HomeAgain]

12 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

On Instagram.....there’s something tacky about the self promotion angle. If you want to do it, do it. Don’t turn it into a cheap social media ploy. 

Nothing has been said about Instagram.  What are you going on about, since you haven't provided any link to back your snark?

 

[HomeAgain]

1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

You’re making me feel attacked and oppressed. Can you stop tearing me down please? 

Irony abounds.

My apologies.

[Garga]

57 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

So, they don't get paid for their jobs of being the faces of the country?? According to many people on this thread they are to be working at all times when they are out in public but they haven't earned that money because it is taxpayer $$.  It really just sounds like people are just finding excuses to hate these people.  Do they feel the same way about Prince Henry and Kate?  Because they are humanitarians off of the taxpayer dime as well

 

I agree.  

[SKL]

1 hour ago, hjffkj said:

 

 According to many people on this thread they are to be working at all times when they are out in public...

Sitting in the stands alone, not interacting with people, is considered "working"?  Being presentable in public (something all normal people try to do) is "working"?

[SKL]

FTR I have lots of sympathy for the general hate MM experiences, and I don't expect her to do anything special when she attends a tennis match for personal entertainment.

But she (and her security etc) should let other people alone.  From what I read, people didn't even know she was there, and they were minding their own business which happened to involve cameras.  There is no indication anyone thought there was a security threat.  She interfered with other people's rights for no good reason (unless of course there is more to the story that hasn't been reported).

Edited July 10, 2019 by SKL

[EmseB]

9 minutes ago, SKL said:

Sitting in the stands alone, not interacting with people, is considered "working"?  Being presentable in public (something all normal people try to do) is "working"?

In the context of being a member of the royal family, yes. That is one reason why being a royal is considered a burden. A burden with a lot of perks, but yeah.

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, EmseB said:

In the context of being a member of the royal family, yes. That is one reason why being a royal is considered a burden. A burden with a lot of perks, but yeah.

Maybe I need to understand exactly what is being asked of her when she is sitting in the stands at Wimbledon, other than being appropriately dressed and keeping a neutral to pleasant look on her face.

I have had jobs where public persona is part of the "work."  As an extreme introvert with difficulty making small talk (autism runs in my family), the hard part is interacting with strangers and acting like I love it.  The relief part is when I get to sit and do my own thing.  Where anyone's eyes or cameras are turned at that point does not matter.

Also I do not think MM is particularly introverted.  She has run her mouth about things she isn't supposed to discuss publicly.  Clearly she wants to have it both ways.

Edited July 10, 2019 by SKL

[JustEm]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

Sitting in the stands alone, not interacting with people, is considered "working"?  Being presentable in public (something all normal people try to do) is "working"?

 

Of course it is if they are considered divas and disrespectful to the crown for making the request that pictures not be taken of them.  It is perfectly reasonable for anyone to request not having pictures taken, whether that request is respected is a different story.

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

Of course it is if they are considered divas and disrespectful to the crown for making the request that pictures not be taken of them.  It is perfectly reasonable for anyone to request not having pictures taken, whether that request is respected is a different story.

Not that anyone actually did intend to take a photo against her wishes ... but if they did ... being "asked" by her security detail is not really a "request" that a person can choose not to respect.

Personally I don't think it's reasonable to forbid people to take photos in a public place.

I do think it is really unfortunate that people are jerks and they are apparently looking for every chance to attack this woman (and certain other public figures).  That would be the press mostly - and the press were NOT being asked not to snap photos.

[Katy]

4 hours ago, Selkie said:

I think a big part of the difference is that Angelina Jolie and Oprah earned their own money and have given away their own money, but Harry and Meghan haven't. The problem seems to be that people see them as living it up on taxpayer $$ while proclaiming themselves to be humanitarians.

 

Well Harry inherited quite a lot of money in a trust from Diana.  But Meghan came into the marriage with an estimated 2-3x the net worth he had, because she didn't live lavishly and saved her money.  So idk that any of the above is true.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Why can’t someone chose not to respect the request?   It it against the law to disobey a polite request from a duchess or something?   

Supposedly her security guards made the "request."  If a security detail came up and said "please don't take photographs," I would not treat that as a "request."  I would assume that persisting to point my camera would have costs greatly in excess of the benefits.

[Katy]

6 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Why can’t someone chose not to respect the request?   It it against the law to disobey a polite request from a duchess or something?   

 

If you are less than six feet away and seemingly aiming a camera at her you could be attempting to murder her.  A security guard limiting that is not unusual.

Many assassinations were successful because someone had a weapon hidden in camera gear.

[catz]

18 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

If you are less than six feet away and seemingly aiming a camera at her you could be attempting to murder her.  A security guard limiting that is not unusual.

Many assassinations were successful because someone had a weapon hidden in camera gear.

I really doubt if that was the motivation.  Big public events like Wimbleton have tight security similar to airports.  Media is vetted before being allowed in with larger cameras, etc.  

She can instruct her security to ask people to stop.  People can continue to take photos if they want or be annoyed with her. 

 I think if you're a public figure at a public event where cameras are allowed, that is going to be a losing battle and the press won't take kindly in general.  Her choice though.    

[Selkie]

34 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Well Harry inherited quite a lot of money in a trust from Diana.  But Meghan came into the marriage with an estimated 2-3x the net worth he had, because she didn't live lavishly and saved her money.  So idk that any of the above is true.

Not that it really matters, but what??? Where did that information come from? I looked this up out of curiosity and everything I saw said that his net worth far exceeded hers.

[Katy]

11 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I really doubt if that was the motivation.  Big public events like Wimbleton have tight security similar to airports.  Media is vetted before being allowed in with larger cameras, etc.  

She can instruct her security to ask people to stop.  People can continue to take photos if they want or be annoyed with her. 

 I think if you're a public figure at a public event where cameras are allowed, that is going to be a losing battle and the press won't take kindly in general.  Her choice though.    

 

I don't think it is her choice.  Security protocol is not up to the protected, ever.  Not that long ago there was speculation that that guy who was assassinated in an airport by someone working for North Korea was sprayed in the face with poison. They ended up finding video evidence the poison was wiped on, but it would be really easy to hide poison in a smart phone and spray someone in the face with it, which is why this sort of thing isn't allowed.  Google it, this has happened many times before with the Royal family.  Then ask yourself why people are blaming Meghan for it and none of the other people whose security did the same thing.  I can't think of any reason that is good.

10 minutes ago, Selkie said:

Not that it really matters, but what??? Where did that information come from? I looked this up out of curiosity and everything I saw said that his net worth far exceeded hers.

 

I think it was a magazine I was reading in the dentist office before her wedding.  I don't recall which one.  Most likely People or Us Weekly or Oprah's magazine, based on what I normally read when waiting for a kid at the dentist.

[Corraleno]

9 hours ago, Melissa in Australia said:

she isn't a princess

 and doesn't know how to act as a royal

 no breeding I guess

Yikes — that's a really poor choice of words. She's not "well-bred"? Her bloodlines aren't pure enough? She's just a half-breed? I'm assuming you didn't intend it that way, but it comes uncomfortably close to the argument that she's tainting the purity of the royal bloodlines. References to her "breeding" are often a thinly (or not so thinly) disguised way of saying she's just not white enough to be royalty. If only Harry had married a nice, white, upper-class British girl who knew how to act properly, instead of that trashy half-black American actress...

 

[mumto2]

I’m not going to bother to find quotes........I started this earlier and went out for the day........pure memory and I refuse to hunt, pretty sure I am close to the right figures.......

The huge number of empty seats make me really sad.  I hadn’t read the press the first time I commented because I quit reading her press because I find it a bit embarrassing from the American POV.  MM had to know people were being prevented from watching the game and sitting in those seats.  As someone in the press recently said about her  “ Get over yourself, luv”.  Which I think is the attitude towards her.....if she wants to be private get off the internet and do your basic job.  She recently self defined herself as Princess,  she receives a whole lot of goodies like security, housing expenses, transport from the taxpayers.  Charles foots the bill for her clothing.  Someone maybe the Queen pays them.  

Before they quit the military and went on payroll Harry and William both officially lived off their military (ambulance service £) and their trusts.  Both Meghan and Kate are oddly each worth about £7 million.   I think the guys are both closer to 35.  The Royals except MM live tax free in the U.K.  MM needs to pay the IRS.

The real point here is I have absolutely no desire to support her lifestyle as a Global Humanitarian.  No desire to pay for security.....if she wants to pay, or Charles, or the Queen, or Oprah😂,  I wish them well.  Happy to have her support hospitals, schools, regiments.......attend garden parties......Take an occasional foreign trip.......Be a Princess on the taxpayers.

Not being allowed to take ANY photos because you have the misfortune to be seated near her........just wow.  She purposely went to an event where most people in that box want their photograph taken.  They dress to be seen.   She has been before,  she had to know.  As I said before watch it on tv, if she was under extreme risk why didn’t she stay home.  No need for her to go and ruin people’s day.  Selfish.

As a side note.......You all do know that when a Royal family member rewears or buys from common high street and press comment the British people where I live admire them for it.  Frugality is a highly praised virtue.  For instance people love that K and W used an on sale Cath Kidston bag as a diaper bag ( teen girl experts in my life figured they went on tour with a bag they may have spent £50 ish on) and that Kate’s boots are 15 yo.....etc. They relate,,,,,,,Wearing high street brands to public appearances is expected when appropriate.  A little M&S etc goes a long way......MM wore it once I believe but refused to take off the coat.  Kind of a slam in the face to all the common folks.  Kate goes to sales and stocks up.....wonder why people like her more!

Also Princess Anne recently commented .......totally paraphrasing.....that she was sick of mobiles in her face that she would rather just have a lovely time meeting the people.  To my knowledge she doesn’t do anything to people with phones.  I don’t think it’s considered an active threat by other Royals. 

[Corraleno]

Princess Anne's daughter, Zara Phillips, is married to a rugby player with a history of bar fights, drunk driving convictions, and rumors of infidelity. Many many royals, and their "well-bred" spouses, have had affairs, including Prince Philip (well known for his philandering), Princess Margaret (ditto), Margaret's husband Anthony Snowdon, Charles, Camilla, Diana, Andrew, Sarah Ferguson, Anne, Anne's former husband Peter Philips, and who knows who else. British royalty have literally been screwing around and doing scandalous things for millennia. Diana actually did a lot of very high-drama, attention-seeking things, as well as cheating on her husband, yet she's practically considered a saint.

But people are hating on Meghan for things like... asking not to be photographed, not publishing enough photos of her baby, doing charity work but not in the "right" way, etc. It's crazy to me how people have turned on her, picking apart the most trivial details of her life to use as proof that she's not fit to be a member of the royal family. I feel sorry for her and hope the stress she's put under doesn't destroy her marriage, as she and Harry seem to love each other very much.  ☹️

[Selkie]

30 minutes ago, mumto2 said:

As a side note.......You all do know that when a Royal family member rewears or buys from common high street and press comment the British people where I live admire them for it.  Frugality is a highly praised virtue.  For instance people love that K and W used an on sale Cath Kidston bag as a diaper bag ( teen girl experts in my life figured they went on tour with a bag they may have spent £50 ish on) and that Kate’s boots are 15 yo.....etc. They relate,,,,,,,Wearing high street brands to public appearances is expected when appropriate.  A little M&S etc goes a long way......MM wore it once I believe but refused to take off the coat.  Kind of a slam in the face to all the common folks.  Kate goes to sales and stocks up.....wonder why people like her more!

This is what I've always seen, too, when Kate rewears clothes - it is considered to be a good thing. I was surprised when someone upthread said that she has been criticized for it, because I've never seen that happen.

[Katy]

35 minutes ago, mumto2 said:

I’m not going to bother to find quotes........I started this earlier and went out for the day........pure memory and I refuse to hunt, pretty sure I am close to the right figures.......

The huge number of empty seats make me really sad.  I hadn’t read the press the first time I commented because I quit reading her press because I find it a bit embarrassing from the American POV.  MM had to know people were being prevented from watching the game and sitting in those seats.  As someone in the press recently said about her  “ Get over yourself, luv”.  Which I think is the attitude towards her.....if she wants to be private get off the internet and do your basic job.  She recently self defined herself as Princess,  she receives a whole lot of goodies like security, housing expenses, transport from the taxpayers.  Charles foots the bill for her clothing.  Someone maybe the Queen pays them.  

Before they quit the military and went on payroll Harry and William both officially lived off their military (ambulance service £) and their trusts.  Both Meghan and Kate are oddly each worth about £7 million.   I think the guys are both closer to 35.  The Royals except MM live tax free in the U.K.  MM needs to pay the IRS.

The real point here is I have absolutely no desire to support her lifestyle as a Global Humanitarian.  No desire to pay for security.....if she wants to pay, or Charles, or the Queen, or Oprah😂,  I wish them well.  Happy to have her support hospitals, schools, regiments.......attend garden parties......Take an occasional foreign trip.......Be a Princess on the taxpayers.

Not being allowed to take ANY photos because you have the misfortune to be seated near her........just wow.  She purposely went to an event where most people in that box want their photograph taken.  They dress to be seen.   She has been before,  she had to know.  As I said before watch it on tv, if she was under extreme risk why didn’t she stay home.  No need for her to go and ruin people’s day.  Selfish.

As a side note.......You all do know that when a Royal family member rewears or buys from common high street and press comment the British people where I live admire them for it.  Frugality is a highly praised virtue.  For instance people love that K and W used an on sale Cath Kidston bag as a diaper bag ( teen girl experts in my life figured they went on tour with a bag they may have spent £50 ish on) and that Kate’s boots are 15 yo.....etc. They relate,,,,,,,Wearing high street brands to public appearances is expected when appropriate.  A little M&S etc goes a long way......MM wore it once I believe but refused to take off the coat.  Kind of a slam in the face to all the common folks.  Kate goes to sales and stocks up.....wonder why people like her more!

Also Princess Anne recently commented .......totally paraphrasing.....that she was sick of mobiles in her face that she would rather just have a lovely time meeting the people.  To my knowledge she doesn’t do anything to people with phones.  I don’t think it’s considered an active threat by other Royals. 

 

Anne is what...  13 or 14th in the line of succession?  I think the security protocols for those (and their spouses) in the top 10 are a bit higher.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

Yikes — that's a really poor choice of words. She's not "well-bred"? Her bloodlines aren't pure enough? She's just a half-breed? I'm assuming you didn't intend it that way, but it comes uncomfortably close to the argument that she's tainting the purity of the royal bloodlines. References to her "breeding" are often a thinly (or not so thinly) disguised way of saying she's just not white enough to be royalty. If only Harry had married a nice, white, upper-class British girl who knew how to act properly, instead of that trashy half-black American actress...

Pretty sure she means nobody taught her how to behave.  It is said plenty often about white people.

Edited July 10, 2019 by SKL

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

Pretty sure she means nobody taught her how to act.  It is said plenty often about white people.

I assume that's what she meant as well, but it was a really poor choice of words because the whole concept of "good breeding" when applied to people stems from the idea that, just like with horses or dogs, some bloodlines produce superior results. Good bloodlines and "knowing how to act properly" have historically been seen as two sides of the same coin, with what counted as "good" and "proper" largely determined by race and class. Referring to a half-black American woman as lacking the "breeding" needed to be a member of the royal family is tone deaf at best.

[Katy]

15 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Well yes, I get this.  But I am pretty sure that wasn't the context of the request.  As best as I can tell it wasn't "For security reasons you are not allowed to photograph the duchess."  It seems like it was more "please don't take her picture."

Which, is still not unreasonable, IMO.  I mean, Megan and Cate seem to be more photographed than the *actual* heir to the throne.  And it's not like Harry will every inherit either.  It's not unreasonable in the least for Megan to ask for a few hours where she is "off" and can just watch a tennis match.  

 

So the security agent used poor verbiage.  Those who go into this field don't tend to be academically inclined.  Athletic, fast reflexes, good instincts, street smart yes. And he's likely low on the totem pole if he's assigned to her. This still doesn't address why people are so offended by not Meghan herself mind you, but by something a security guard said, when they have never had an issue when this is done on behalf of other members of the royal family.  Obviously there were hundreds of cameras focused on her at a safer distance.  The one camera less than 6 feet from her face was the person confronted by her security.  This is a completely ridiculous scandal invented by people who want to hate her.

Not long ago everyone hated Kate because she was a middle class social climber with a paved driveway.  Now they have someone to hate more and they do.  This sort of thing is why most Americans hate the concept of an aristocracy.

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, mumto2 said:

As a side note.......You all do know that when a Royal family member rewears or buys from common high street and press comment the British people where I live admire them for it.  Frugality is a highly praised virtue.  For instance people love that K and W used an on sale Cath Kidston bag as a diaper bag ( teen girl experts in my life figured they went on tour with a bag they may have spent £50 ish on) and that Kate’s boots are 15 yo.....etc. They relate,,,,,,,Wearing high street brands to public appearances is expected when appropriate.  A little M&S etc goes a long way......MM wore it once I believe but refused to take off the coat.  Kind of a slam in the face to all the common folks.  Kate goes to sales and stocks up.....wonder why people like her more!

And yet Diana wore expensive couture, was friends with many top designers like Gianni Versace, and was lauded as a fashion icon. If Kate was the one wearing expensive clothes and Meghan was wearing M&S, people would be praising Kate for her exquisite taste, and trashing Meghan for lacking the background to understand and appreciate designer clothes. The idea that wearing a coat over an M&S dress constitutes a "slam in the face to all the common folks" is just plain bizarre.