Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Æthelthryth the Texan

More Royal drama

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, OKBud said:

 

 No one I've spoken to this past week except my own husband and one particularly up-to-date on the news guy even knew she was American or that this whole thing is happening. 

 

18 hours ago, SamanthaCarter said:

First time I ever heard of Meghan was when my DHs aunt (German lady married to Army Lt Colonel) started posting about her engagement. 

 

16 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Yeah; my husband doesn’t know her from Bob, except for some awareness of their climate change stances.  But he did say “the coverage between the two brothers and their wives seems pretty slanted, why is that?”.

 

So am I the only one who watched Suits and knew her from that show before she even started dating Harry?

2 hours ago, PrincessMommy said:

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who edits and re-edits.  And I still find glaring mistakes after I post.  🙄

Haha! I sometimes feel like I should have my signature as "Reason for multiple edits: found another mistake." 😂

Edited by Lady Florida.
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

So am I the only one who watched Suits and knew her from that show before she even started dating Harry?

 

 

That's how DH knew of her. 

For my part I didn't even know USA was still a channel lol but I think it's funny now. USA---she's an American....you get it 😊

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

 

 

So am I the only one who watched Suits and knew her from that show before she even started dating Harry?

Haha! I sometimes feel like I should have my signature as "Reason for multiple edits: found another mistake." 😂

No,  not the only one.  I loved the show, didn't like her character though, but then again, I very rarely like female characters 🙂

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

 

 

So am I the only one who watched Suits and knew her from that show before she even started dating Harry?

 

Have never watched Suits but I did know that there was an actress named Meghan Markle "out there" in the acting world.  I didn't even specifically link her to the American acting world but the English speaking acting world in general.

One note on the sympathy thing (which has nothing to do with what Lady Florida said but I'm too lazy to go back to quote other people):  I don't think that I need to be crying for them or saying "there, there" so in one sense I don't really have sympathy for them but more of a dispassionate feeling about them.  But "no sympathy" seems to be code for "lets heap abuse on them" or "lets hate them".  And I do feel like that isn't right because they haven't committed any crimes like some celebrities/ world figures I read about.  And no, I don't think that having money is a crime.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

 

Haha! I sometimes feel like I should have my signature as "Reason for multiple edits: found another mistake." 😂

or another "incomplete thought" -

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

So am I the only one who watched Suits and knew her from that show before she even started dating Harry?

It’s not in Netflix or Prime....I don’t think. Also it’s a TV Drama, right? We’re more sci-fi, conspiracy, literary tv watchers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SamanthaCarter said:

It’s not in Netflix or Prime....I don’t think. Also it’s a TV Drama, right? We’re more sci-fi, conspiracy, literary tv watchers. 

It's on Netflix.

I loved Suits and watched it religiously.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people really think any private citizen can, without an inheritance, afford the kind of security they will likely need?

Share this post


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

Do people really think any private citizen can, without an inheritance, afford the kind of security they will likely need?

Many people in Canada think that their country’s relationship with the royal family is best conducted from across the ocean and a senior royal moving in is going to mess up the relationship with the monarchy (in a nutshell, they are happy to have the monarchy out of sight and in the U.K. this is another ill effect of lingering colonial attitudes in the Commonwealth countries). So, moving to Canada is not without controversy for Senior Royals, it seems. 
Edit: this could affect state spending on the security details of this couple.

Edited by mathnerd
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Do people really think any private citizen can, without an inheritance, afford the kind of security they will likely need?

in this case - that's irrelevant.  Harry has a 40M pound inheritance from his mother's and great-grandmother's estates.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

So am I the only one who watched Suits and knew her from that show before she even started dating Harry?

Nope.  I still wonder how Mike is dealing with all this

 

  • Haha 6

Share this post


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

Do people really think any private citizen can, without an inheritance, afford the kind of security they will likely need?

Probably most private citizens without that kind of money don't NEED that kind of security.  KWIM?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SKL said:

Do people really think any private citizen can, without an inheritance, afford the kind of security they will likely need?

I don't think so, but they have plenty of money for personal security. If they need to manage their lifestyle so their security fits within their budget, I won't cry. 

I think most people in the USA don't care much at all. Even on the board, most people probably don't care. I know I'm just passing time with idle fluffy news while sick and avoiding serious issues. 

I think she has not been treated well, but probably not much less well than Kate or the others at certain points. I don't fault them for wanting to leave the system, however, if they don't want to keep the perks. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whew,   we  can all breath the sigh  of relief - MM is fine, she is posting for pictures again, in Canada. She obviously recuperated rather quickly  from all that horribleness of public life.

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

Whew,   we  can all breath the sigh  of relief - MM is fine, she is posting for pictures again, in Canada. She obviously recuperated rather quickly  from all that horribleness of public life.

In my experience, this sort of snide hostility is usually reserved for a person who is known and hated in real life. Like a despised relative or a high school rival, or the woman who won the pie contest at the fair when you thought your pie was better. Do you know her? Why do you hate her? 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lang Syne Boardie said:

In my experience, this sort of snide hostility is usually reserved for a person who is known and hated in real life. Like a despised relative or a high school rival, or the woman who won the pie contest at the fair when you thought your pie was better. Do you know her? Why do you hate her? 

In my experience the word "hate" should be reserved for something really serious.

This is not serious. This is ridiculous. They wanted to step away from public life. Within  a NY minute she is posing for pics. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

In my experience the word "hate" should be reserved for something really serious.

This is not serious. This is ridiculous. They wanted to step away from public life. Within  a NY minute she is posing for pics. 


Again, they never said they wanted to step away from public life. They want to step away from full time royal life. There is so much made up stuff in this thread.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Meghan can make half of her critics somewhat happier by continuing working FT as a working royal or whatever, for the rest of her life, or she can make the other half of her critics somewhat happier by living under a tree, in a hole in the ground, for the rest of her life. Are those the choices? Royal or invisible? How far does the "invisible" option extend?

As long as she only shows her face when and where people approve. Which people, though, and how is she to tell which group has the majority on a given day...maybe she could just live her own life. If that's the final decision, it makes sense to me.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Whew,   we  can all breath the sigh  of relief - MM is fine, she is posting for pictures again, in Canada. She obviously recuperated rather quickly  from all that horribleness of public life.

Are you referring to the photos taken on Tuesday during visits to two women's charities? The visits she made privately, with no press or fanfare, from which a few photos were released by the charities, not Meghan?  I'm trying to understand why a private visit to a couple of local charities in the community where she is staying would provoke such a snide and sarcastic comment.

If she became a hermit and did no charity work, she'd be slammed for being selfish and uncaring and refusing to her privilege and position to help others. But if she does work with charities, she's slammed for attention-seeking, even when the visits were private, with no press or instagramming or any attempt to call attention to herself. And of course if she'd insisted that the charities sign some kind of legal agreement not to take or release any photos, she'd be slammed as a stuck-up diva trying to control everyone. 

Haters gonna hate. 😕

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Are you referring to the photos taken on Tuesday during visits to two women's charities? The visits she made privately, with no press or fanfare, from which a few photos were released by the charities, not Meghan?  I'm trying to understand why a private visit to a couple of local charities in the community where she is staying would provoke such a snide and sarcastic comment.

If she became a hermit and did no charity work, she'd be slammed for being selfish and uncaring and refusing to her privilege and position to help others. But if she does work with charities, she's slammed for attention-seeking, even when the visits were private, with no press or instagramming or any attempt to call attention to herself. And of course if she'd insisted that the charities sign some kind of legal agreement not to take or release any photos, she'd be slammed as a stuck-up diva trying to control everyone. 

Haters gonna hate. 😕

 

see, there is that word again - hate.  Very strong word.

I mean, she COULD just simply ask nicely not to take / post any pictures. There are ways to do charity work without ending up on front page of Yahoo.

OK, for everyone who keep insisting that I am hating on this woman too  much- please try to use a different word. It's just not appropriate in this situation.  Then again, it's a free country, so say what you want I guess....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SereneHome said:

I mean, she COULD just simply ask nicely not to take / post any pictures. There are ways to do charity work without ending up on front page of Yahoo.

So she should eliminate one of the major benefits she can provide to charities — visibility — in order to appease people who don't like her and will criticize everything she does anyway? I can only imagine the headlines if she'd insisted no one be allowed to photograph her. She clearly left it up to the charities to choose how they want to handle it; she did not release any photos herself. And I just checked the Yahoo news page — I cannot find a single photo of Meghan Markle, no matter how far down I scroll. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mathnerd said:

Many people in Canada think that their country’s relationship with the royal family is best conducted from across the ocean and a senior royal moving in is going to mess up the relationship with the monarchy (in a nutshell, they are happy to have the monarchy out of sight and in the U.K. this is another ill effect of lingering colonial attitudes in the Commonwealth countries). So, moving to Canada is not without controversy for Senior Royals, it seems. 
Edit: this could affect state spending on the security details of this couple.

Or  as my favorite Dickens line says:  "I prefer to admire her from a distance".  😄

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StellaM said:

I want to make an apology before the thread ends. 

No, my opinions haven't changed. I still don't like either of them, I think the amount of fuss has been ridiculous, and I wish they'd go away and be private citizens privately.

But I was not clear and explicit that some of the backlash the couple has faced has been racist, and I made the mistake of considering that condemnation of things like the brooch,  

 

what many might not understand

Princess Micheal of Kent was the one who wore the broach.  (yes it was wrong)  at the time I felt it said much more about her, than meghan. following it,  there was an interview about her with her daughter's former serious boyfriend. it wasn't flattering to her.

- she's generally not respected or liked by many.    some might even say - disrespected and held in disdain,  tolerated at best.  some watch her only to see what ludicrous thing she'll do next. (not worth my time.)    - long before meghan ever appeared on the scene. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SereneHome said:

see, there is that word again - hate.  Very strong word.

I mean, she COULD just simply ask nicely not to take / post any pictures. There are ways to do charity work without ending up on front page of Yahoo.

OK, for everyone who keep insisting that I am hating on this woman too  much- please try to use a different word. It's just not appropriate in this situation.  Then again, it's a free country, so say what you want I guess....

 

Anne does a ton of charity work every year - she's hardly ever in the tabloids.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Anne does a ton of charity work every year - she's hardly ever in the tabloids.

Anymore....she's boring now. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Anne does a ton of charity work every year - she's hardly ever in the tabloids.

I think that is less because of what Anne wants (not that she WANTS to be front-page tabloid news) but because the tabloids don't want her.... Anne is not going to sell to "the masses"  ( or whoever actually buys tabloids)....  The fact that Meghan (or any other celebrity/royal) does sell, says more about "the masses" than about the individual plastered on the front page.  

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Still a mystery to me.

I mean, someone buys them. But who ? Years in the UK and I never lived in or visited a house with a red top.

Surely it's probably more to do with breakfast television ? Or social media ?

(I don't think Anne has ever courted the papers - that's deliberate).

 

The only time it is acceptable (still embarrassing) to buy a red top is if they have a coupon you want........many years ago thanks to The Sun (I think) my family went to Euro Disney for less than £50 including the ferry crossing......that included Disney tickets.           Lots of people buy them when they have a deal and pitch the paper.  I think I heard of the deal via a home ed forum........a red top may have had Dr Who episodes on dvd.......some paper did.  Bought those too!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for her visit to the "charity for girls" - she only met with the staff.  her own staff preapproved everything that was released, and they gave her a piece of jewelry. - why is a charity giving such an expensive gift?

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish them the best as well. They will rake in tens of millions of dollars in coming years and have freedom in top of it and ability to lend their celebrity to causes they want. It’s the best world for them. Wish we were all so privileged, but that’s life for you. 
There is no long term future for silly monarchies. This is a much better way for them as a family to go forward. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

for her visit to the "charity for girls" - she only met with the staff.  her own staff preapproved everything that was released, and they gave her a piece of jewelry. - why is a charity giving such an expensive gift?

 

 

 

The charity didn't give the gift, the artist that made it gave the gift. Or should the artist not be allowed to give things they have made to whomever they choose? I'm betting that the artist realized that in giving the gift to such a high profile person they would get publicity that would more than outweigh the cost of the jewelry. 

And yes, her staff approved what was released. Should they not have? Should she have refused to let the charity use her photo, even though by using it they could draw attention to their work?That would be better?

Honestly, you are taking things that are good things and twisting them to sound bad. Why?

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


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

for her visit to the "charity for girls" - she only met with the staff.  her own staff preapproved everything that was released, and they gave her a piece of jewelry. - why is a charity giving such an expensive gift?

The artist herself gave the gift on behalf of the charity. The charity did not buy jewelry and give it to MM. 

 Regardless of what she did or talked about, the two non-profits she went to that day seem quite happy about her visit. I used to work in non-profit and still have friends in the industry. I can tell you that having well-known people visit or attend an event is a Very Big Deal. It almost always results in publicity, and often leads to increased interest and participation from local leaders. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

 

Oops, I can't delete the quote box. Sorry, gardenmom5, for the mistake.

 

Well Meghan's dad is at it again and disparaging her and Harry in the press. I feel for her. What a betrayal.

Edited by IfIOnly
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, IfIOnly said:

Well Meghan's dad is at it again and disparaging her and Harry in the press. I feel for her. What a betrayal.

What a jerk. The half brother doesn't sound like any prize either. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

What a jerk. The half brother doesn't sound like any prize either. 

Or her half sister Samantha. She's been spewing to the press as well. Yeah, "what a jerk" was my first thought too.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, katilac said:

The artist herself gave the gift on behalf of the charity. The charity did not buy jewelry and give it to MM. 

 Regardless of what she did or talked about, the two non-profits she went to that day seem quite happy about her visit. I used to work in non-profit and still have friends in the industry. I can tell you that having well-known people visit or attend an event is a Very Big Deal. It almost always results in publicity, and often leads to increased interest and participation from local leaders. 


And donations to an often unknown cause.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:


And donations to an often unknown cause.

 

Yeah, I saw a cookbook in one of our cheap department stores that Meghan had a hand in producing. I can't remember how she became involved in their little venture, but lending her name and knowledge helped them fundraise, and she wrote a very nice preface too.

Share this post


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

The artist herself gave the gift on behalf of the charity. The charity did not buy jewelry and give it to MM. 

 Regardless of what she did or talked about, the two non-profits she went to that day seem quite happy about her visit. I used to work in non-profit and still have friends in the industry. I can tell you that having well-known people visit or attend an event is a Very Big Deal. It almost always results in publicity, and often leads to increased interest and participation from local leaders. 

Quoting myself like a nerd because I wanted to add some detail and a bit of a digression. 

Some people were thinking that the charity gave her the jewelry, which cost $1,696. They didn't, but I can tell you that charities routinely spend far more than that to have entertainment or business celebrities attend an event. When galas have a celebrity guest? The charity almost certainly paid all of their expenses to be their, which generally exceeds two grand by a good bit. They know the increased donations and ticket sales will more than make up for the expense. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, katilac said:

Quoting myself like a nerd because I wanted to add some detail and a bit of a digression. 

Some people were thinking that the charity gave her the jewelry, which cost $1,696. They didn't, but I can tell you that charities routinely spend far more than that to have entertainment or business celebrities attend an event. When galas have a celebrity guest? The charity almost certainly paid all of their expenses to be their, which generally exceeds two grand by a good bit. They know the increased donations and ticket sales will more than make up for the expense. 

...which (if I am not mistaken) is one of the benefits of having royal sponsorship--no "fee."  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the new announcement basically shows that most of the stuff people were assuming and complaining about were not true, never true, and were just people jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst about people.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Patty Joanna said:

...which (if I am not mistaken) is one of the benefits of having royal sponsorship--no "fee."  


Yes. Unfortunately or fortunately, Royal sponsorship came with more strings than they were willing to accept.

Share this post


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


Yes. Unfortunately or fortunately, Royal sponsorship came with more strings than they were willing to accept.

Oh, I get that.  

I was thinking about the benefit royalty (as opposed to celebrity) provided to charity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the releases, I wonder if they really think the public will now stop annoying them ... I rather doubt it, at least not for a while.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SKL said:

Reading the releases, I wonder if they really think the public will now stop annoying them ... I rather doubt it, at least not for a while.


Probably not, but this way they have more freedom in how they deal with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SKL said:

Reading the releases, I wonder if they really think the public will now stop annoying them ... I rather doubt it, at least not for a while.

I think that eliminating “palace sources “ who seem to have their own agenda that doesn’t always match the royal family’s will help to some degree. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2020 at 5:14 PM, Dotwithaperiod said:

Like the recently pardoned killer who started his own line of clothing. Totally cool!

Eta He was acquitted of war crimes and granted clemency though his own guys claimed he was a dangerous lunatic and they messed with his sniper gun to keep him from doing more awful things. So yes, that makes it even more palatable that he’d try to profit off of his celebrity status among the you know who’s, lol.

That is disgusting and even more disgusting that people would actually buy the stuff. 🤮

I try not to be vengeful, but as we say around here, someone needs to take that guy out behind the barn. 😡

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2020 at 1:20 AM, moonflower said:

why would you ever wear shoes in the house??? 

PREACH IT SISTER.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SKL said:

Reading the releases, I wonder if they really think the public will now stop annoying them ... I rather doubt it, at least not for a while.

I think that this couple wants the "good" publicity and are offended when the treatment gets rough by the press. This couple is hounded by the press because they court the press in the name of the charities that they represent, and once in the limelight, then, they are expected to take the good with the bad by the press. Fortunately, Harry has a ton of money from Diana's estate and he could hire as much protection and security that his wife needs in Canada easily. But, the funny thing is, they could be the most secure in the UK where grandma is Queen and is the supreme commander of all security services (as will daddy be, one day soon) rather than in another country with criticism on budget expenditure on royals on their soil etc.

As for how they will be treated in the future, it is highly unlikely that the paps are going to fold up their camera gear and walk away because they live in Canada now. This couple is capable of drawing eyeballs by the billions to their activities and hence will attract attention no matter what they do. They will draw especially more attention than ever if they collaborate with super-high-profile celebrities like Oprah and Michelle Obama as it is rumored, in which case, there will be more people tailing these two snooping on what coffee cup they are carrying and what shoes their toddler is wearing.

  • 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...