+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: Harry and Megan (/thread-5901.html)
Re: Harry and Megan - Gointocarlton - 12-21-2022
(12-21-2022, 09:25 PM)PaulP link Wrote:They, not she. "They've had a strong and assertive, but also disruptive impact on an institution lots of people like." They made the decision together. It's not her impact, it's their impact. Men have to accept responsibility too.In the documentary, it was clearly stated the decision to leave was Harry's as he wanted to protect his wife and children. I'm sure they discussed it together but he was the main driver and takes full responsibility, he was the one negotiating the exit with his father, brother and grandmother. She tried very hard to fit in and do the "right thing" but was largely unsupported and hounded out by the media (influenced by the "institution"). I think I'm correct in saying the worst of the hate and vitriol came after the left.
Re: Harry and Megan - PaulP - 12-21-2022
(12-21-2022, 10:08 PM)Gointocarlton link Wrote:In the documentary, it was clearly stated the decision to leave was Harry's as he wanted to protect his wife and children. I'm sure they discussed it together but he was the main driver and takes full responsibility, he was the one negotiating the exit with his father, brother and grandmother. She tried very hard to fit in and do the "right thing" but was largely unsupported and hounded out by the media (influenced by the "institution"). I think I'm correct in saying the worst of the hate and vitriol came after the left.
Thanks Nando.
Re: Harry and Megan - Baggers - 12-21-2022
(12-21-2022, 09:55 PM)PaulP link Wrote:Observing as I do from a great distance, I'd suggest these ideas have been fermenting in Harry's mind before Meghan. I doubt she was the one who planted them and told him to pack his bags. If they are indeed a team, they would have discussed, fleshed out, weighed up pros and cons etc. There has to be solid reasons for them leaving, because i can't think of too many advantages for them.
Totally agree. Harry has always been somewhat of a rebel and did not censor his disdain at the treatment of his mother... from both his family and the media. Only reasonable that he could see history repeating itself with his chosen partner in life and love, and sought to prevent his wife ending up like his mum.
And we should bear in mind that Harry stated, very clearly, that it was his decision, initially, to break from the Firm and for he and Meghan and the family to move away and create a life together in service to others.
I suspect that what really galls the conservative elements in the UK -- indeed the world -- is Meghan's apparent lack of humility and compliance. How dare a female member of the Royal Family be strong, outspoken and independent - gotta put that bitch in her place. In the US it is more acceptable - except among the further right leaning conservatives.
Re: Harry and Megan - PaulP - 12-21-2022
Generally agree Baggers. Worldwide it's the Murdoch press that are pushing the anti Markle line the hardest.
Re: Harry and Megan - tonyo - 12-21-2022
(12-21-2022, 10:19 PM)Baggers date Wrote:I suspect that what really galls the conservative elements in the UK -- indeed the world -- is Meghan's apparent lack of humility and compliance. How dare a female member of the Royal Family be strong, outspoken and independent - gotta put that bitch in her place. In the US it is more acceptable - except among the further right leaning conservatives.
The Royal approach to things is 'never complain, never explain....'. EIIR tried very hard to demonstrate no public opinion regarding anything controversial. The Royal machine also works feverishly to keep their dirty laundry in-house (although that's not always possible). But now that Harry and Meghan have opened a public laundromat, and given the Royals won't be getting on the front foot, the UK commentators have probably been given the green light to become proxy mud-slingers.
Certainly, the commentary is pointed, and quite offensive - and it's not doing either side in the argument any favours.
Let's not forget, H&M are getting a bundle of money for all of this stuff, so they can continue to fund their non-Royal existence. The publishers/producers wouldn't pay that much to find out what the favourite cream was on the afternoon scone at the Palace.
To make matters worse, I suspect Meghan was a 'Princess' long before she married the Prince...... and that's why the UK press are lining up to shoot her down.
Re: Harry and Megan - madbluboy - 12-21-2022
The feud is between the brothers. Harry didn't like being treated as the 'spare'. Plenty of family fights are over favouritism of one sibling over the other. This is obviously next level.
Re: Harry and Megan - DJC - 12-21-2022
(12-21-2022, 11:47 AM)LP link Wrote:Not much commentary on the Ardern statement coming from the Harkle boosters, just going to let that slide are we?
Wasn't there a book titled appropriately about this very issue, something like "An Inconvenient Truth!"
Have you read the statement from Ardern's office (not Ardern directly) or just the Sky News headlines?
As PM of a constitutional monarchy, Ardern has to tread a fine line when it comes to matters that may affect her head of state. Being seen to be neutral in a Royal family dispute is non-negotiable. Of course, as producers of the series, Harry and Meghan's roles are largely irrelevant when it comes to content, those involved, look and feel, etc. Ardern's office's statement is aimed at folk who mistakenly think that Harry and Meghan have a more hands on role.
Re: Harry and Megan - PaulP - 12-21-2022
(12-21-2022, 11:36 PM)DJC link Wrote:Have you read the statement from Ardern's office (not Ardern directly) or just the Sky News headlines?
As PM of a constitutional monarchy, Ardern has to tread a fine line when it comes to matters that may affect her head of state. Being seen to be neutral in a Royal family dispute is non-negotiable. Of course, as producers of the series, Harry and Meghan's roles are largely irrelevant when it comes to content, those involved, look and feel, etc. Ardern's office's statement is aimed at folk who mistakenly think that Harry and Meghan have a more hands on role.
Yes, that's my impression also. It's a political manoeuvre, designed to show that she is non partisan, as you say. I'm quite certain she would been involved even if H&M were there at the beginning. I'm not sure if such a statement was necessary, but then she knows the mood, sentiments etc. of the NZ people much better than I.
Re: Harry and Megan - Gointocarlton - 12-22-2022
(12-21-2022, 10:19 PM)Baggers link Wrote:I suspect that what really galls the conservative elements in the UK -- indeed the world -- is Meghan's apparent lack of humility and compliance. How dare a female member of the Royal Family be strong, outspoken and independent - gotta put that bitch in her place. In the US it is more acceptable - except among the further right leaning conservatives.They were as popular as all get out at the start, labelled the new wave of modern Royal. The "institution" quickly influenced the change in that narrative, that's the crux of the issue here. I almost think the actual Royals themselves are powerless, its the aides and advisors that run the show. For example, when Harry wanted to meet with his Grandmother to sort it all out, she initially said yes and thought it a great idea. Just before he was due to arrive back in England, he received a core saying Her Majesty was too busy to meet him. He called her about it and she said "Yes apparently I have been told I am too busy".
Now in my mind/world, if I'm the Queen, I tell them all to GAGFed and say "I am meeting my Grandson whether you like it or not".
Instead she didn't so who has the real power in that establishment?
Re: Harry and Megan - tonyo - 12-22-2022
(12-22-2022, 12:01 AM)Gointocarlton date Wrote:Now in my mind/world, if I'm the Queen, I tell them all to GAGFed and say "I am meeting my Grandson whether you like it or not".Therein lies the problem - the Queen and the Grandmother are two different people - one is an institution, the other the matriarch of a somewhat dysfunctional family. QEII understood that completely and always went to great lengths to ensure those two 'roles' were separate - her family life could not hold precedence over the Monarchy, and the institution of the Monarchy must be protected in all circumstances (in effect, she thought of herself as the 'caretaker' of the Monarch).
Instead she didn't so who has the real power in that establishment?
Hence, if the Grandmother wanted to do something that would be counter-productive for the Monarch, it would not be done.