Harry and Megan

[DJC]

She has done plenty Pauly, she fell in love with a Prince, married him and became popular and nice. How dare she.

Meghan also had the audacity to be born of the wrong parents.

If her parents were of British or northern European descent and had a link to the nobility or, better still, an obscure European royal family, the media would love her, particularly if she was able to mind her Ps and Qs.

[LP]

Meghan also had the audacity to be born of the wrong parents.

If her parents were of British or northern European descent and had a link to the nobility or, better still, an obscure European royal family, the media would love her, particularly if she was able to mind her Ps and Qs.

Really, yet I can't help but think the Dutchess of York might have a different perspective.

Maybe Sarah should play the Ginger card? :o
 

[LP]

Wow. By that logic there must be scores of women out there who are secretly or overtly hoping something horrible happens to them so they can hit the big time. Maybe they already have a manager, a PR person and a book deal stitched up. Appalling.

Extending the rules by which celebrities conduct themselves and monetise their circumstance to all women is a bit of a stretch.

You have taken an extremist position, extending it to the general population is a logical absurdity, when it's clearly not extreme to suggest "celebrity" exists in fame for money and power, very far from the everyday person.

Oddly the rules of celebrity are bizarrely similar, whether you are a global or local entity.

Lo and behold, today the Harkles (Which seems a very appropriate nickname) have announced a "new show!

There is no such thing as bad publicity if you are a professional at publicity, Clarkson and Harkle thank-you for your attendance.

[DJC]

Really, yet I can't help but think the Dutchess of York might have a different perspective.

Maybe Sarah should play the Ginger card? :o

Really?

Fergie, despite numerous scandals and slip ups, has always been treated quite well by the media.  Perhaps because she was such a rich source of material.

Fergie, in her own words, is country gentry with a bit of old money” but doesn’t have links to nobility or obscure royal families.

[Gointocarlton]

Extending the rules by which celebrities conduct themselves and monetise their circumstance to all women is a bit of a stretch.

You have taken an extremist position, extending it to the general population is a logical absurdity, when it's clearly not extreme to suggest "celebrity" exists in fame for money and power, very far from the everyday person.

Oddly the rules of celebrity are bizarrely similar, whether you are a global or local entity.

Lo and behold, today the Harkles (Which seems a very appropriate nickname) have announced a "new show!

There is no such thing as bad publicity if you are a professional at publicity, Clarkson and Harkle thank-you for your attendance.

I don't care whether you are black, white, red yellow, poor, stinking rich, have Royal Blood etc, as law abiding human beings we all deserve to be treated with respect and not be subject to abhorrent hate online by faceless kents with seemingly no law to answer to. If that was your son or daughter who was subjected to it you'd be singing a different tune.

[PaulP]

Extending the rules by which celebrities conduct themselves and monetise their circumstance to all women is a bit of a stretch.

You have taken an extremist position, extending it to the general population is a logical absurdity, when it's clearly not extreme to suggest "celebrity" exists in fame for money and power, very far from the everyday person.

Oddly the rules of celebrity are bizarrely similar, whether you are a global or local entity.

Lo and behold, today the Harkles (Which seems a very appropriate nickname) have announced a "new show!

There is no such thing as bad publicity if you are a professional at publicity, Clarkson and Harkle thank-you for your attendance.

Your belief in two separate groups of women, i.e the celebrities and the nobodies, and how they each cope, react deal or benefit from vile abuse is truly bizarre.

And right on cue, we have a tweet from Clarkson :

Oh dear. I’ve rather put my foot in it. In a column I wrote about Meghan, I made a clumsy reference to a scene in Game of Thrones and this has gone down badly with a great many people. I’m horrified to have caused so much hurt and I shall be more careful in future.

Wow.

[LP]

Your belief in two separate groups of women, i.e the celebrities and the nobodies, and how they each cope, react deal or benefit from vile abuse is truly bizarre.

I did not realise celebrity and celebrity behaviour was constrained to the female gender!

I suspect there are way more than two sides, we probably need a pie chart or a degree in graph theory.

I'm not really debating you because the assertions you make about what I have written are a fantasy, Harry, Markle, Clarkson are not everyday innocent bystanders in these events, they are a contributing cause. They are not collateral damage, they are among each others key target in a war of celebrity profiteering.

With a greater than null possibility I'll have a grievance with my In-laws in the future, I must make an effort to deal with it privately and with some dignity, so I best get a slot booked on Oprah as soon as possible as it looks like there is a queue forming for the celebrity righteous wishing to tell their truths!

A coin does have two sides doesn't it [member=64]PaulP[/member] , even for those of us who are slightly myopic?

[PaulP]

Your belief that you understand the inner workings of Markle's mind, her motivations etc. is dubious at best. Your belief that you see the world "as it really is" amounts to little more than assuming the worst, and fairly typical of your tendency to always jump at shadows.

[kruddler]

The comments are awful,  and they need be condemned as such, without excuses and without  qualification.

Just as an aside Paul. Have you seen Game of Thrones? Do you get the 'Shame' reference?

I have not seen it, but the reference in question is quite well known even outside of GoT fans. Its become a popular meme and even used on AFL players and coaches. Its part of pop-culture.

I feel a lot of the negativity is people not understanding the reference/missing the joke.
Thats why my first post talked about context.

[LP]

Your belief that you understand the inner workings of Markle's mind, her motivations etc. is dubious at best. Your belief that you see the world "as it really is" amounts to little more than assuming the worst, and fairly typical of your tendency to always jump at shadows.

I don't know her mind at all, I don't claim to.

But her actions and words are on public display for all to see and hear, the two do not correlate!

For example, claiming media invasion of privacy, demanding distance and respect, then firing opening salvos of a private family debate via a lucrative Oprah Winfrey interview. Not really self-consistent, perhaps even outright contradictory!