Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

PrincessMommy

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

Recommended Posts

I don’t think being American helps her popularity but the fact that she doesn’t even really try to fit in is what really hurts her.  She doesn’t want to know how to be British or Royal unless it’s on her terms.  Also she somehow pushed a royal wedding through way to fast........the whole thing has been odd and the public noticed.  People were really happy for Harry and now I think the feeling is more a concern for Harry.  

 

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

sorta OT - same with ronan farrow.  people love to proclaim him as proof mia had an affair with frank Sinatra (after they were divorced) - he looks exactly like john farrow.  mia's father.

 

Mia did have a relationship with him.  So did Gloria Vanderbilt.  Both Ronan Farrow and Anderson Cooper resemble Frank more than their identified fathers.  Anderson Cooper flatly said, "Frank Sinatra is not my dad."  Ronan said, "Well, couldn't we all be Frank Sinatra's son?" 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

Who cares if she wants to be noticed or not. It is two different things to seek out attention because that is her job as a royal and having a phone a few feet from her seemingly in her face while she is in the middle of a conversation.

Yes, her security detail could have handled it better but her request not to have a phone in her face is not acting like a diva.  

it is embarrassing, and very disrespectful, to be treated in such a way.  it was multiple people - who didn't even know she was there, who were singled out by her security detail to "stop taking pictures of her" -.   ignoring the 200+ press photographers nearby...  one woman -  (she was taking pictures of the court), did go after the detail about the fact there was so much press there and they didn't ban them from taking pictures.  adding the fact MM was looking around to see who was looking at her. she said  security at least seemed embarrassed when called on it.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Katy said:

 

Mia did have a relationship with him.  So did Gloria Vanderbilt.  Both Ronan Farrow and Anderson Cooper resemble Frank more than their identified fathers.  Anderson Cooper flatly said, "Frank Sinatra is not my dad."  Ronan said, "Well, couldn't we all be Frank Sinatra's son?" 

go look up the pictures yourself.

that mia farrow would play around wouldn't surprise me - her mother freely admitted she did. (with john wayne.)  but he also looks like his grandfather.

Edited by gardenmom5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's against board rules to post celebrity photos.  You should take that down.

And apparently Mia has said Frank might be his biological father.  She didn't know but it was possible. He certainly doesn't look like Woody Allen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

He looks much more like a man Diana admitted an affair with than he does like his father.

ETA: James Hewitt

See I don’t see a resemblance at all there.  The nose and brow and eyes are totally Charles’.  Like, I’m shocked people would buy into that just based on images.  Putting the three side by side with no names or explanation, my kids link Harry and Charles no prob.

Both of them being redheads is about the closest similarity I see, and the family trees of both Diana and Charles explain that.

(and now my kids are muttering about why I’m having them assess photos of strange men 🤣)

  • Like 2
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if she is having a hard time as a new mom or has some unexpected leakage problems or something....I’m tempted to give her more grace than I would have if she hadn’t just had a baby.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arctic Mama said:

See I don’t see a resemblance at all there.  The nose and brow and eyes are totally Charles’.  Like, I’m shocked people would buy into that just based on images.  Putting the three side by side with no names or explanation, my kids link Harry and Charles no prob.

Both of them being redheads is about the closest similarity I see, and the family trees of both Diana and Charles explain that.

(and now my kids are muttering about why I’m having them assess photos of strange men 🤣)

I think he looks like both of them.  Who knows - after all they are all related in some way ... wasn't Diana a cousin of Charles?

There is DNA testing to prove it should that ever be necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Megan was hoping to avoid every tabloid talking about how she hasn’t lost her baby weight or whether she’s lost it too quickly or whether she’s had lipo or whatever else celebrities do after a baby. 

I guess I give her some grace- she just wanted to go watch her friend play tennis. Yeah, she’s a royal but it’s not healthy to expect royals or celebrities to be ‘on’ all the time when they are out.  

Edited by Annie G
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WendyAndMilo said:

I wonder if she is having a hard time as a new mom or has some unexpected leakage problems or something....I’m tempted to give her more grace than I would have if she hadn’t just had a baby.

this started before the wedding.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think he looks like both of them.  Who knows - after all they are all related in some way ... wasn't Diana a cousin of Charles?

There is DNA testing to prove it should that ever be necessary.

yes.  it was a favorite ploy of kings - give their mistresses titles, especially their illegitimate sons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Annie G said:

I wonder if Megan was hoping to avoid every tabloid talking about how she hasn’t lost her baby weight or whether she’s lost it too quickly or whether she’s had lips or whatever else celebrities do after a baby. 

I guess I give her some grace- she just wanted to go watch her friend play tennis. Yeah, she’s a royal but it’s not healthy to expect royals or celebrities or be ‘on’ all the time when they are out.  

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.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 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? 

🤣Not pleased.......

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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). 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 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. 

But she's on maternity leave from that job right now.  I don't think it is unreasonable to ask folks to give her a break during this time.  (But I also don't think being a celebrity means one has to accept being photographed or pestered 24/7 and I do think we should give each other privacy in public spaces if asked.)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by MissLemon
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Joker said:

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. 

Oh man.  ITA with everyone of this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@umsami I was with you until you had to drag Michelle and Melania into it.  Why do we have to criticize either woman?  They both have their own histories and accomplishments (Melania is far beyond just ‘a topless model’), and don’t deserve slights or digs for it.

Just like Meghan is criticized for spending too much on wardrobe, but dozens of articles have picked apart whenever Kate ‘recycles’ a dress to an event that she wore previously, with the implication that it’s cheap or low brow.  These women cannot win and I wish they wouldn’t even try.

I’m not much of a feminist by most definitions, but when we nitpick, criticize, and tear one another down for the stupidest of reasons and biases, EVERY WOMAN LOSES.

Edited by Arctic Mama
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by mathnerd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?  

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.” 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 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.

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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also- side discussion-  I thought Andrew and Sarah got divorced over her ton of debt not the toes? And then part of the scandal was later she took money from Jeffery Epstein to pay down the debt? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:


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

 

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

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...