Jump to content

Menu

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


PrincessMommy
 Share

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

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.

Last week there were mobiles when William went to visit Dianna’s fans memorial birthday event https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1147837/Princess-diana-birthday-prince-william-kensington-palace-royal-news.  He is higher if it really matters.   Not going to hunt more.

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

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.

 

Kate mixes her couture and doesn’t pre announce her outfit than apparently refuse to show it.  Whatever I read,  people were waiting to see her in that dress for the publicity value.  Yes, people were insulted and M&S is a British company fighting to stay in business.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

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.

We don't really use the term "breeding" to mean upbringing in the USA (at least where I live), but maybe that is common usage where M. in Australia grew up.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mumto2 said:

Kate mixes her couture and doesn’t pre announce her outfit than apparently refuse to show it.  Whatever I read,  people were waiting to see her in that dress for the publicity value.  Yes, people were insulted and M&S is a British company fighting to stay in business.

I googled Meghan Markle and "M&S dress" to see what this huge controversy was about and all I can find is that she wore a £49 M&S sleeveless/off-the-shoulder dress to a Remembrance Day service, and although she arrived wearing a coat — hardly surprising for November! — she took off the coat when she was seated inside, just like everyone else. There are photos of her sitting in the audience without the coat. Was she supposed to take it off outside in the cold and do a few twirls so everyone could take photos and give her points for bargain-shopping? I can't find anything saying she "pre-announced" the dress — in fact, the reports seem to indicate that it was the press who speculated the dress was M&S, and M&S confirmed it after the fact. She has been photographed in other M&S items as well as clothes from other high street stores.

This really is a perfect example of the fact that people who don't like her will go to incredible lengths to pick her apart. She's been criticized for wearing sleeveless dresses, for wearing v-neck dresses, for wearing dresses that are too tight and dresses that are too loose, for not wearing pantyhose, for wearing wedge shoes, and she was even dragged for carrying her name-tag in her hand at Royal Ascot instead of pinning it to her dress! That kind of unrelenting pressure and scrutiny ruins marriages and ruins lives. The idea that members of the royal family are "public property," with no right to expect any kind of normalcy or privacy (because... taxes), is so destructive. I don't believe the rumors that she and Harry are planning to move to Africa for a few years, but I wouldn't blame them a bit if they did!

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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...

 

So sorry. not what I was meaning to convey at all - lack of whiteness was not on my radar at all. I was meaning she has no class. 

I didn't mean to cause offence at all. 

 I live in a country where colour is not an issue at all. so it didn't cross my mind that people might think that I was referring to her colour at all

so sorry 😞

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Selkie said:

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.

Me too.  I was also surprised when someone mentioned here Kate was criticized for re-wearing some clothes.  That was not what I had read in the press. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

So sorry. not what I was meaning to convey at all - lack of whiteness was not on my radar at all. I was meaning she has no class. 

I didn't mean to cause offence at all. 

 I live in a country where colour is not an issue at all. so it didn't cross my mind that people might think that I was referring to her colour at all

so sorry 😞

No worries.  I wondered if it was simply a difference in colloquialisms between countries.  It's an older term that used to be used here in America (many moons ago)... but modern PC sensibilities have caused it to go out of use because of the above ugly assumptions.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone hasn't seen the photo, this is Meghan's security guy asking the man who literally has his phone a few feet from Meghan's face, to please not take photos of her.  Such a diva, wanting to watch a tennis match without a camera directly in her face. 🙄 Also, a spokesman for the All England Lawn Tennis Club stated that "reports that members were blocked from entering the members seating while Meghan was there are completely untrue."

 


 

[Photo removed]

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some British tabloids/media are reporting that this guy was taking a selfie and there was no actual issue.  I have ZERO issues with MM.  I think her and her husband are darling together, their baby photos are precious and it's their prerogative on releasing those photos.  I don't care about her clothing one whit.  I had no idea there was any controversy with her until reading this thread. 

But I do find a public figure showing up a public event and then changing the rules to their liking when hundreds if not thousands of people in that stadium were taking and posting photos with abandon a bit obnoxious.  It says right on the Wimbledon web site photos are allowed - no flash and no very large lenses.  And I don't care if it's her or the queen or Kate or Pippa.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours 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. 

 

Prince Harry and his wife aren't "regular citizens." We should not expect them to act like them, either.

Prince William's children were christened in a private chapel as well - The Chapel Royal at St. James Palace. It is the London residence of the Prince of Wales. "Regular citizens" don't get to have their babies Christened there, either. I'll bet "regular citizens" can have private christenings if they want them, though.

They do plenty of work on behalf of the Queen, I'm not sure why you think that they aren't doing any of the "tiring bits."

I would think it hard for the royal family to not "display wealth." They are wealthy people who own castles, palaces, estates, etc.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PrincessMommy said:

No worries.  I wondered if it was simply a difference in colloquialisms between countries.  It's an older term that used to be used here in America (many moons ago)... but modern PC sensibilities have caused it to go out of use because of the above ugly assumptions.  

 

Yes. Funnily enough, the Australian dialect comes with Australian cultural baggage, not American cultural baggage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to point out the irony that Prince Andrew used to be close friends with Jeffrey Epstein and who knows what sort of criminal implications of underage sex trafficking may come from that connection, but instead of discussing that there's this whole thread blaming MM  for how rude her security guard was to a man who stuck a camera in her face.  Double standards much?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Katy said:

I'd like to point out the irony that Prince Andrew used to be close friends with Jeffrey Epstein and who knows what sort of criminal implications of underage sex trafficking may come from that connection, but instead of discussing that there's this whole thread blaming MM  for how rude her security guard was to a man who stuck a camera in her face.  Double standards much?

 

Many wealthy people have been friends with Epstein at one point or another,  I hardly see a reason to talk about how each of them could possibly be part of his crimes.  I am sure some big names could possibly be implicated in his criminal actions as the investigation digs deeper.  However, accusing and speculating everyone who has ever been close with the man is far different than discussing an actual incident that occurred with MM.  If it were to come to light that Prince Andrew's friendship with him is relevant to his crimes I'd be very interested in discussing it but not discussing a connection that hasn't been made isn't a double standard.

Edited to add:  I read up a bit on Prince Andrew and learned he was accused of raping an underage girl.  It doesn't appear to be related to the Epstein case but it of course means speculating is a little more justifiable than previously mentioned.  I still don't see it as a double standard since at least for me his previous actions weren't known as I don't follow the royals.  I've learned a lot about them doing research for this particular thread.

Edited by hjffkj
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are jobs you just do not go in to if you don't want to be in the public eye. She was an actress to begin with so she does not get my sympathy.

 

However, if this whole insisting no one photograph her is new, I would ask if this could be because of postpartum depression or anything, or her just feeling bad about her body changing from having the baby. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Katy said:

I'd like to point out the irony that Prince Andrew used to be close friends with Jeffrey Epstein and who knows what sort of criminal implications of underage sex trafficking may come from that connection, but instead of discussing that there's this whole thread blaming MM  for how rude her security guard was to a man who stuck a camera in her face.  Double standards much?

Why judge?   There is already a thread about the legality of Epstein's case.  If you'd like to start another one related to who knows him, and who may be indicted as well, you are free to do so.

Edited by PrincessMommy
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Some British tabloids/media are reporting that this guy was taking a selfie and there was no actual issue.  I have ZERO issues with MM.  I think her and her husband are darling together, their baby photos are precious and it's their prerogative on releasing those photos.  I don't care about her clothing one whit.  I had no idea there was any controversy with her until reading this thread. 

But I do find a public figure showing up a public event and then changing the rules to their liking when hundreds if not thousands of people in that stadium were taking and posting photos with abandon a bit obnoxious.  It says right on the Wimbledon web site photos are allowed - no flash and no very large lenses.  And I don't care if it's her or the queen or Kate or Pippa.  

But neither she nor the security guard said that no one could take photos of her. The security guy just asked TWO people to refrain from taking photos at close range: the man who was literally sticking his phone in her face, and a woman who was sitting a few seats away and who responded by writing a scathing tabloid article trashing Meghan's "control freakery" and "the celebrity-driven values of Team Sussex." There's zero evidence that the request even came from her, versus being a decision made by the security guy. If I was a security guard and I saw that man walk up and stick his phone a few feet from Meghan's face, I would instinctively tell him to back off. Maybe he was taking a selfie, or maybe he originally intended to take a photo of her and then changed to selfie mode when he saw the security guy coming for him — why would someone specifically go up to Meghan and aim a camera directly at her face from a few feet away, just to take a selfie??? Whatever he was doing, it was seriously intrusive. There are plenty of photos of her at the event, so obviously there was no blanket prohibition on photos. The fact that the press and social media have blown up this one stupid tabloid article into "photo-gate" is ridiculous. Piers Morgan ranted on TV that Meghan should "stop squealing about privacy and go back to America." Which is what all this is really about: how dare a mixed-race American actress from the wrong side of the tracks marry into  the British Royal family — she doesn't belong here.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Janeway said:

There are jobs you just do not go in to if you don't want to be in the public eye. She was an actress to begin with so she does not get my sympathy.t feeling bad about her body changing from having the baby. 

But she didn't apply for a job, she accepted a marriage proposal from the man she loves. There is a huge difference between knowing that your marriage comes with certain public duties, and that it means having to live within certain constraints, and realizing that you are going to be publicly shredded on a daily basis by people who hate you for no reason. People have written the most VILE things about her, about her family, about her looks, about her clothes, about pretty much everything she does and says. People totally rip her apart and then act offended that she doesn't want to make herself even more vulnerable, be even more available to the public, share even more information, give up even more of the little privacy she has. That's a hell of a price to pay just to be with the person you love. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Corraleno said:

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.

 

I don't think any of them ever get trashed for wearing high street brand clothes or M&S. In my experience when I lived there, the British public, and the press, thought it was a good quality  not a bad one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, MissLemon said:

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! t looks greedy. 

Public engagements in 2018:

William 220
Harry 193
Meghan 96
Kate 87

Please explain why Meghan and Harry are criticized for "wanting the perks of royal life without any of the tiring bits" when they are in fact working just as hard as William and Kate. Note that Meghan wasn't even a member of the family for the first 5 months of the year, and she was pregnant for the last 4 months! 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SKL said:

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).

Oh come on, the hyperbole here is over the top. She didn't say anything to anyone about photographs, let alone "interfere with other people's rights." Her security guy politely asked TWO people, one of whom was literally pointing a camera directly in her face from a few feet away, to not take photos of her. And who knows what really happened with the 2nd person, who has managed to parlay a 30 second conversation into tons of publicity for herself, including multiple TV interviews and a widely-quoted tabloid article. If there's a publicity-hungry diva in this story, it's not Meghan. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TCB said:

I don't think any of them ever get trashed for wearing high street brand clothes or M&S. In my experience when I lived there, the British public, and the press, thought it was a good quality  not a bad one.

That was my point — if Meghan did something other royals were praised for, people would find a way to turn it into a negative. She gets trashed for wearing expensive clothes, even though she does mix it up with high street fashions, and when she wore a £50 dress from M&S she still got trashed, because apparently wearing a coat over your dress in November is a calculated slap in the face to the entire British public. No matter what she does, people will twist it into a negative. She could pull a drowning child out of the water and provide CPR and people would say she was just doing it for attention and she should have called 999 instead of making it all about her. She just cannot win. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Oh come on, the hyperbole here is over the top. She didn't say anything to anyone about photographs, let alone "interfere with other people's rights." Her security guy politely asked TWO people, one of whom was literally pointing a camera directly in her face from a few feet away, to not take photos of her. And who knows what really happened with the 2nd person, who has managed to parlay a 30 second conversation into tons of publicity for herself, including multiple TV interviews and a widely-quoted tabloid article. If there's a publicity-hungry diva in this story, it's not Meghan.  

The camera was not "directly in her face" and he wasn't even taking her photo.

Most people agree that it was not appropriate to tell people not to take pictures.  Whether it was initiated by MM or her security detail is not the point IMO.  The question in this post was whether "princesses" are entitled to privacy in public.  I think the answer is no.  I'm not calling her a diva, I just think the action taken was inappropriate.  If this was not MM's choice then her security people need some education.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SKL said:

The camera was not "directly in her face" and he wasn't even taking her photo.

The camera was most definitely right in her face. 

(Note to mods: this is a link, not an upload)

[Sorry, deleted it anyway because it's better to be safe than sorry with Susan's reputation/legal stuff/you get the idea.]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corraleno,  

 Look closely at the second photo you've linked.  I don't think the guy climbed up any stairs at all.  He looks like the same man who is sitting in the small section of seats directly below the section where the Duchess is sitting.  He's wearing a dark shirt with a green and white striped sweater or something tied on...isn't he the same man who is also shown sitting next to the woman crossing her legs?  To me, it looks like he just stood up and turned around to take the photo.

 '

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complaints about "taxpayers having to foot the bill" for extravagant renovations to Frogmore Cottage are also bogus. The renovations were paid for out of the Queen's annual Sovereign Grant. Yes the Sovereign Grant comes from taxes, but the money spent at Frogmore came out of the Queen's own budget and did not cost taxpayers a dime in additional funds. Frogmore was already earmarked for renovation before the Sussexes decided to move there, because it was "seriously dilapidated," having been previously converted from a family home into dormitory-style staff accommodations, and it needed all new plumbing, wiring, windows, a new roof, and various other repairs. It's a Grade II Listed building, so all renovations must be in keeping with the original look and design of the building, which makes renovations expensive. All interior decor, furniture, appliances, curtains, etc., were paid for privately by Harry and Meghan.

They were living in a small 2-bedroom cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace, and now they have a 5-bedroom home (owned by the British Crown, not them) in which to raise their family. William and Kate have in a 21-room apartment at Kensington Palace, renovated at a cost of £4.5 million, and a 10-bedroom Georgian mansion in Norfolk with a tennis court and swimming pool that was renovated at a cost of £1.5 million. Where's the outrage about that?

Why are Meghan and Harry portrayed as lazy, greedy leeches on the taxpaying public when they live in much smaller and less expensive accommodations, while doing just as many public engagements, as William and Kate? 

 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Laurie said:

Corraleno,  

 Look closely at the second photo you've linked.  I don't think the guy climbed up any stairs at all.  He looks like the same man who is sitting in the small section of seats directly below the section where the Duchess is sitting.  He's wearing a dark shirt with a green and white striped sweater or something tied on...isn't he the same man who is also shown sitting next to the woman crossing her legs?  To me, it looks like he just stood up and turned around to take the photo.

Yes, you're right, I stand corrected. When I looked for additional photos of that part of the stands, it does appear to be the same guy, so I edited my post. I can still see why security would have thought he was too close to Meghan and was taking her photo, though — the camera was aimed right at her face from a few feet away. As far as I know, that guy wasn't even offended and wasn't the one who made a big issue out of it, it was the woman who wrote the tabloid article who claimed Meghan was "demanding" that no one be allowed to take her photo, when there's no evidence that she made any demands or that her security guy even spoke to more than those 2 people. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the royal women need to recommence carrying fans to hide behind.

Tabloids make up nastiness because that's what sells, and I'm glad their new digs got renovated. Someone should do the same with the buildings of parliament before they fall down. That's a heck of a job. Maybe even the queen would have to save up for that. But maybe it'd be seen as inappropriate for the queen to pay for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Public engagements in 2018:

William 220
Harry 193
Meghan 96
Kate 87

Please explain why Meghan and Harry are criticized for "wanting the perks of royal life without any of the tiring bits" when they are in fact working just as hard as William and Kate. Note that Meghan wasn't even a member of the family for the first 5 months of the year, and she was pregnant for the last 4 months! 

 

kate had a baby in 2018 - she was on maternity leave. 

5 hours ago, Corraleno said:

But neither she nor the security guard said that no one could take photos of her. 

 neither person was taking a picture of her.  and depending upon the angle - appearances about distance and position can be extremely deceiving.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

kate had a baby in 2018 - she was on maternity leave. 

So in the 6 months or so that Kate was not on maternity leave in 2018, she did 87 public engagements, and in the 7 months that Megan was a member of the royal family (including 3 months when she was pregnant), she did 96. She did an additional 26 before they were married. Are those not comparable numbers? Do you think those numbers justify the claim that Kate is a diligent, hard-working royal, while Meghan is just a lazy social-climber who wants the perks of royalty without doing any of the work?

 

22 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

neither person was taking a picture of her.  and depending upon the angle - appearances about distance and position can be extremely deceiving.

What's really deceiving is the fact that this entire "scandal" is based on a single report — with absolutely no corroboration — by a woman who has managed to spin the fact that a security guard may have asked a guy, who seemed to have a camera aimed at Meghan's face from a few feet away, not to take a picture, into a tabloid story about out-of-control Meghan's diva demands that no one was allowed to take any photos of her during a public appearance at Wimbledon. And then every other tabloid in the UK and the US, and many other sources, picked up and ran with the story despite the fact that she can clearly be seen in another photo interacting with fans and allowing herself to be photographed. 

If you google this story you'll find that every single report leads back to one of two sources: Sally Jones and her buddy Piers Morgan who interviewed her on ITV and ranted that Meghan should "go back to America."  He has had a vendetta against Meghan since he tried to date her and she ghosted him after one date because she met Harry at a party the night after she had drinks with Morgan. He has been relentless and cruel in his attempts to brand her a liar, a fake, and a social climber who is out to "destroy the monarchy." 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the kind of vindictive BS Piers Morgan spews about Meghan and Harry: “They could easily have afforded to pay for all these renovations themselves rather than for just a few fittings and fixtures, particularly as the Queen gifted them the actual property, but they didn’t want to. Instead they wanted to make cash-strapped nurses, teachers, soldiers and police officers pay for large chunks of the expense.”

It's not their house! They don't own it and never will. They can't sell it any more than the Queen can sell off Windsor Castle. And the renovations were not paid for by the "cash-strapped" working poor, they were paid for by the Queen out of the annual budget she gets that is specifically earmarked for the renovation, maintenance, and upkeep of Crown properties. Why should they be expected to pay for extensive structural repairs to a 200 year old property they've never owned, and never will? As members of the royal family they're allowed to live in Crown property, just like every other member of the family, including William & Kate, Charles & Camilla, Anne, Andrew, Edward & Sophie, Beatrice, Eugenie & her husband, and multiple cousins of the Queen. So why are Meghan and Harry singled out?

When William & Kate moved into their 20-room apartment at Kensington Palace, the renovations cost £4.5 million, paid for from the same funds that paid for the renovations at Frogmore Cottage. Why wasn't Piers ranting about how entitled and selfish William and Kate were for forcing poor nurses and teachers to pay for the renovations on "their" home instead of paying for it themselves? 🙄

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TCB said:

Yes it does! You're hating on them for hating on her. I don't know what the truth is about Meghan. I don't suppose any of us really do.

Shame on me for asking for links and expecting people to back up their vitriol with something other than ugly rumored gossip.

What terrible standards I have.🙄

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTR the report I saw said the selfie guy was about 5 feet away - which is IMO a comfortable distance from anyone in a public place designed to pack in crowds of thousands.  In the photo you can see that there is at least one row of empty seats between selfie guy and the duchess.  If you've ever been in a stadium, you must have had people taking photos much closer than that.

I don't give a dang about the cottage etc etc.  I'm surprised at the passion on both sides of this argument.  The duchess was brought up in a privileged lifestyle and continues in a different privileged lifestyle.  Like anyone in that position, she has haters whose criticisms are stupid, wrong, and vicious.  None of this should surprise anybody.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Corraleno said:

 

If you google this story you'll find that every single report leads back to one of two sources: Sally Jones and her buddy Piers Morgan who interviewed her on ITV and ranted that Meghan should "go back to America."  He has had a vendetta against Meghan since he tried to date her and she ghosted him after one date because she met Harry at a party the night after she had drinks with Morgan. He has been relentless and cruel in his attempts to brand her a liar, a fake, and a social climber who is out to "destroy the monarchy." 

Piers Morgan does seem to come a bit unglued.  Not sure what backlash he's getting over in the UK, but if that happened with a US situation, the rest of the media would have a field day with that kind of talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

So what happened to all of the people who were supposed to be in those seats at or is it typical that many were empty? 

There were actually lots of empty seats there, not just in the area around Meghan. The All England Lawn Tennis Club said they were not aware if the Palace or anyone else had requested that specific block of seats, and stated that it was completely false that anyone had been prevented from taking their seats in that area. Here's a photo from Wimbledon the day after Meghan visited, and you can see large sections of empty seats which had nothing to do with her!

Piers Morgan's unhinged rant claiming she was sitting in the Royal Box, and therefore purposely attracting attention and then demanding privacy, is false (like pretty much everything else that comes out of his mouth). She was not in the Royal Box at Centre Court, she was in regular seats at Court 1, and she was not there as a representative of the royal family, she was there to watch her BFF Serena Williams, and after the match she left the stands to visit Serena.

The crowd at Wimbledon the day after Meghan was there. (Note to mods: there are no celebrities or even identifiable faces in this image, which comes from a public video provided directly by Wimbledon.)

621855900_ScreenShot2019-07-11at1_01_47PM.thumb.png.848829b0e923e8b89825f1f823cc17a3.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SKL said:

FTR the report I saw said the selfie guy was about 5 feet away - which is IMO a comfortable distance from anyone in a public place designed to pack in crowds of thousands.  In the photo you can see that there is at least one row of empty seats between selfie guy and the duchess.  If you've ever been in a stadium, you must have had people taking photos much closer than that.

I don't give a dang about the cottage etc etc.  I'm surprised at the passion on both sides of this argument The duchess was brought up in a privileged lifestyle and continues in a different privileged lifestyle.  Like anyone in that position, she has haters whose criticisms are stupid, wrong, and vicious.  None of this should surprise anybody.

Me too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm late to the question, but I think a big part of the problem is that everyone now takes cell phone photos constantly.

It's one thing to be a public person, and have some photographers shoot a picture of you at the tennis match, which goes back and they print an ok one in the paper.  It's totally another to have people doing it constantly so there are hundreds of them and some jerk posts a photo of you picking your wedgie out of your butt on Instagram.

It's not a reasonable request of people, it's not healthy for them and it isn't healthy for the watchers either.  These arrangements of public personas only work if we recognise certain boundaries.  Which we no longer do.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The public contract has changed.  It used to be that almost the only ones taking pictures at events were press and the press was circumspect about which pictures they published.  Now, everyone has a camera in their pocket and the press seems to go out of their way to print pictures that might embarass famous people and anyone with an smartphone can publish pictures to a worldwide platform that are unkind or out of context.  

Also, I don't know much about her but it's my understanding that she is a brand new mom.  Postpartum depression is real and common.  I'm not going to dissect her character because she asked for no photos.  It's unkind for anyone to attack someone for being potentially overwhelmed in this mix of circumstances.  

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish Mom were alive so I could ask her how Princess Grace of Monaco was treated after leaving Hollywood and marrying a royal. Smaller country, probably more control of the press back then, and, well, that would be last on my list to discuss with Mom, actually!

I am reminded of a clip I saw years ago of Sly Stallone doing press for a movie he did w/ Dolly Parton. (They both probably would like to pretend it never happened, lol.) Sly said how Dolly had schooled him on the importance of being kind to the fans. I think he was acting above giving autographs and she said she's always give them b/c her fans made her. It was sweet. 

I see both sides of wanting privacy and fame. Throw in royals living off the others' taxes and it's a more sensitive subject. All I know is that I'm so glad I'm not famous. I would like to try being wealthy, though!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2019 at 9:35 PM, Corraleno said:

But she didn't apply for a job, she accepted a marriage proposal from the man she loves. There is a huge difference between knowing that your marriage comes with certain public duties, and that it means having to live within certain constraints, and realizing that you are going to be publicly shredded on a daily basis by people who hate you for no reason. People have written the most VILE things about her, about her family, about her looks, about her clothes, about pretty much everything she does and says. People totally rip her apart and then act offended that she doesn't want to make herself even more vulnerable, be even more available to the public, share even more information, give up even more of the little privacy she has. That's a hell of a price to pay just to be with the person you love. 

I am talking about the fact that she was an actress in the first place. One does not go in to that profession if being in the public eye is a problem for them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Janeway said:

I am talking about the fact that she was an actress in the first place. One does not go in to that profession if being in the public eye is a problem for them.

 

But that isn't necessarily true.  There are plenty of known celebrities who manage to keep their private lives private.  And there are plenty who love acting and go into the profession because they enjoy the art but then choose to leave it or spiral out of control because they were not prepared for what fame entails.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

That’s what I mean - in the aggregate it seems like a never ending stream of nitpicking.  So it’s not enough that she went out with him and to a charity game with her SIL, now she isn’t holding him right.  WTH?

Like a new mom needs a guilt trip from the Internet for something so trivial?

I know right.  I found it so shocking and remembering my days as a new mom I know it would sting even if I do know that people are stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

I thought of  this thread today when I read an article about MM getting mom shamed over the way she was holding her baby.  Good grief people go find something real to complain about.

 

I saw that and just thought it wasn't even worth mentioning because I assumed the people who already think she's out seeking attention would either dismiss it or see it as attention seeking that she brought the baby out in that manner so soon after the Wimbledon thing.  She can't win.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...