The timing of this seems suspicious
March 3, 2021 3:46 PM Subscribe
Buckingham Palace to investigate after Meghan Markle accused of bullying staff The Windsor War continues.
To recap the last year in Sussexit drama: First, Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan quit The Firm, a fact that was made permanent recently. The Queen thinks them continuing to serve part time is not possible, Harry and Meghan politely disagree with that assessment.
They also announced that they are having a second child and won a lawsuit against the tabloids. Prince Harry hung out with James Corden recently. Also, Harry and Meghan are now doing an interview with Oprah airing on March 7. Some are claiming that the interview 's airing should be canceled due to Prince Philip's hospitalization.
Now Buckingham Palace says they are launching an investigation into whether or not Meghan bullied staff members in 2018. “The Royal Household has had a Dignity at Work policy in place for a number of years and does not and will not tolerate bullying or harassment in the workplace,” it said."
The timing of this is....interesting, don't you think?
Jezebel reasonably points out that While the Windsors Investigate Meghan Markle's Rudeness, Perhaps They Could Look Into Prince Andrew's Alleged Pedophilia.
To recap the last year in Sussexit drama: First, Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan quit The Firm, a fact that was made permanent recently. The Queen thinks them continuing to serve part time is not possible, Harry and Meghan politely disagree with that assessment.
They also announced that they are having a second child and won a lawsuit against the tabloids. Prince Harry hung out with James Corden recently. Also, Harry and Meghan are now doing an interview with Oprah airing on March 7. Some are claiming that the interview 's airing should be canceled due to Prince Philip's hospitalization.
Now Buckingham Palace says they are launching an investigation into whether or not Meghan bullied staff members in 2018. “The Royal Household has had a Dignity at Work policy in place for a number of years and does not and will not tolerate bullying or harassment in the workplace,” it said."
The timing of this is....interesting, don't you think?
Jezebel reasonably points out that While the Windsors Investigate Meghan Markle's Rudeness, Perhaps They Could Look Into Prince Andrew's Alleged Pedophilia.
“The Royal Household has had a Dignity at Work policy in place for a number of years and does not and will not tolerate bullying or harassment in the workplace,”
This is a workplace where if your boss goes past you stand back against the wall, say nothing, and look at the floor until she's gone.
posted by biffa at 3:50 PM on March 3, 2021 [122 favorites]
This is a workplace where if your boss goes past you stand back against the wall, say nothing, and look at the floor until she's gone.
posted by biffa at 3:50 PM on March 3, 2021 [122 favorites]
Ima gonna take this with a grain of salt the size of Lot's wife. So far, all I've seen is that Meghan is getting the full Yoko treatment.
posted by Capt. Renault at 3:55 PM on March 3, 2021 [43 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 3:55 PM on March 3, 2021 [43 favorites]
The royal family's instincts about what will and will not make them likeable couldn't possibly be worse and they never learn from their mistakes. Does anyone really think this bullying actually happened? Why not just let them go off on their merry way?
posted by bleep at 3:57 PM on March 3, 2021 [21 favorites]
posted by bleep at 3:57 PM on March 3, 2021 [21 favorites]
Everything I've seen regarding Meghan Markle points to racism against a black woman. I wasn't really very familiar with the British coverage of her, but for some reason I looked at the Twitter account of one "royal expert" named Angela Levin, and...that person is unhinged. The racism was blatant, not even the covert plausible-deniability type I'm generally used to seeing in Canadian and American media. It was unreal. I'm so used to seeing racism hidden, couched in so-called polite language that it was jarring to see someone just...let their racist flag fly with no fucks to give.
I got tired of the monarchy a long time ago. Apparently the Queen et al cost each Canadian $1.68 per year. I realize that's like, what, ten pence in pounds sterling, but frankly I think it's too much. Less sarcastically, I don't like the fact that as a country we cling to these useless, racist colonizers. Canada still has so many problems with our racist colonial legacy; if we are serious about Truth and Reconciliation, let's just cut ourselves loose from the British royal family because they're not helping.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 3:58 PM on March 3, 2021 [94 favorites]
I got tired of the monarchy a long time ago. Apparently the Queen et al cost each Canadian $1.68 per year. I realize that's like, what, ten pence in pounds sterling, but frankly I think it's too much. Less sarcastically, I don't like the fact that as a country we cling to these useless, racist colonizers. Canada still has so many problems with our racist colonial legacy; if we are serious about Truth and Reconciliation, let's just cut ourselves loose from the British royal family because they're not helping.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 3:58 PM on March 3, 2021 [94 favorites]
The longer this stuff goes on the better Harry and Meghan look. I don't know why Buckingham Palace is trying to drag this out though. And really, is Meghan's bullying going to be anything other than "this black woman treated me in the same manner as everyone else here?"
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 3:59 PM on March 3, 2021 [63 favorites]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 3:59 PM on March 3, 2021 [63 favorites]
Y'know, if I were a royal right now I'd be keeping my head the fuck down because if I were a UK citizen right now I'd be wondering why we need these people during the twin debacles of climate change and brexit.
ETA: team Meghan all the way, btw.
posted by Horkus at 4:00 PM on March 3, 2021 [15 favorites]
ETA: team Meghan all the way, btw.
posted by Horkus at 4:00 PM on March 3, 2021 [15 favorites]
Someone really needs to teach the Queen about the Streisand Effect.
Your grand-kids don't want to be part of the family business?
Fine, then cut them out and forget about them. Let them fade into obscurity like half the damn royals in Europe.
Every time you call attention to them, you just give the tabloids more fodder to go after your family.
Let them go off and be obscure.
posted by madajb at 4:08 PM on March 3, 2021 [23 favorites]
Your grand-kids don't want to be part of the family business?
Fine, then cut them out and forget about them. Let them fade into obscurity like half the damn royals in Europe.
Every time you call attention to them, you just give the tabloids more fodder to go after your family.
Let them go off and be obscure.
posted by madajb at 4:08 PM on March 3, 2021 [23 favorites]
The timing of this is....interesting, don't you think?
Detracting attention away from the Queens consent scandal which broke 3 weeks ago.
posted by Lanark at 4:09 PM on March 3, 2021 [24 favorites]
Detracting attention away from the Queens consent scandal which broke 3 weeks ago.
posted by Lanark at 4:09 PM on March 3, 2021 [24 favorites]
The Saudi earring thing is incredible. Who at Buckingham Palace wants people to think about where the Crown's jewels come from?! I should know better, but I'm always astonished by how bad these people are at their jobs.
posted by grandiloquiet at 4:10 PM on March 3, 2021 [23 favorites]
posted by grandiloquiet at 4:10 PM on March 3, 2021 [23 favorites]
It can both be true that the royal family is bad and that this bullying treatment of staff did really happen.
posted by kickingtheground at 4:18 PM on March 3, 2021 [22 favorites]
posted by kickingtheground at 4:18 PM on March 3, 2021 [22 favorites]
Worth revisiting: 15 Headlines Show How Differently The British Press Treat Meghan Markle Vs Kate Middleton.
posted by Capt. Renault at 4:26 PM on March 3, 2021 [46 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 4:26 PM on March 3, 2021 [46 favorites]
Lemme connect a couple dots here.
Chris Ship at ITV, who appears to think his story is favorable to the Cambridges: "At the time Jason Knauf was overseeing the media of both the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex before the couples split their households and offices. ... But those close to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex say that the bullying complaint was submitted by Mr Knauf on behalf of two other employees without their knowledge. Those same sources say the complaint was "rescinded" when those two staff found out about it and that is why the HR department at the Palace took the matter no further."
Oh, would that be Jason Knauf, who has been leaking Meghan's private business since 2017, has been named in the press and in court documents as doing so, and who was allegedly a big part of why Harry and Meghan moved to Frogmore Cottage and set up a separate household outside of Kensington Palace? Who was allegedly going to testify on behalf of the Daily Mail before Markle won her case without need for a trial because there was no possible legal way for the Daily Mail to prevail?
(And why does Knauf get such flattering coverage in the tabloids, talking about how trusted he is? BECAUSE HE FUCKING LEAKED TO THEM CONSTANTLY.)
In conclusion, I direct your attention once again to this excellent Buzzfeed listicle showing the difference in how the tabloids cover Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle. (My favorite one is how Kate Middleton having lilies-of-the-valley in her bridal bouquet shows how she understands the language of flowers, but Meghan Markle having lilies-of-the-valley shows she's trying to murder Princess Charlotte.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:27 PM on March 3, 2021 [121 favorites]
Chris Ship at ITV, who appears to think his story is favorable to the Cambridges: "At the time Jason Knauf was overseeing the media of both the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex before the couples split their households and offices. ... But those close to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex say that the bullying complaint was submitted by Mr Knauf on behalf of two other employees without their knowledge. Those same sources say the complaint was "rescinded" when those two staff found out about it and that is why the HR department at the Palace took the matter no further."
Oh, would that be Jason Knauf, who has been leaking Meghan's private business since 2017, has been named in the press and in court documents as doing so, and who was allegedly a big part of why Harry and Meghan moved to Frogmore Cottage and set up a separate household outside of Kensington Palace? Who was allegedly going to testify on behalf of the Daily Mail before Markle won her case without need for a trial because there was no possible legal way for the Daily Mail to prevail?
(And why does Knauf get such flattering coverage in the tabloids, talking about how trusted he is? BECAUSE HE FUCKING LEAKED TO THEM CONSTANTLY.)
In conclusion, I direct your attention once again to this excellent Buzzfeed listicle showing the difference in how the tabloids cover Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle. (My favorite one is how Kate Middleton having lilies-of-the-valley in her bridal bouquet shows how she understands the language of flowers, but Meghan Markle having lilies-of-the-valley shows she's trying to murder Princess Charlotte.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:27 PM on March 3, 2021 [121 favorites]
Buckingham Palace to investigate after Meghan Markle accused of being Black.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:30 PM on March 3, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:30 PM on March 3, 2021 [12 favorites]
We have no idea what the Oprah show on Sunday will "reveal"!!!11!!1!
But probably racism from the English Monarchy and such, there's a surprise. Or a giant nothingburger.
posted by Windopaene at 4:32 PM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
But probably racism from the English Monarchy and such, there's a surprise. Or a giant nothingburger.
posted by Windopaene at 4:32 PM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
The racism was blatant, not even the covert plausible-deniability type I'm generally used to seeing in Canadian and American media. It was unreal. I'm so used to seeing racism hidden, couched in so-called polite language that it was jarring to see someone just...let their racist flag fly with no fucks to give.
You mean like the report by the Times of London quoting "a source" that the Duchess "wanted to be a victim"?
posted by Preserver at 4:38 PM on March 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
You mean like the report by the Times of London quoting "a source" that the Duchess "wanted to be a victim"?
posted by Preserver at 4:38 PM on March 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
I will say, I was just going to read an article about the highlights of the Oprah interview the next day, because I like celebrity gossip but not enough to spend two hours watching TV about it.
BUT NOW I'M DEFINITELY WATCHING OPRAH, because how bad does this have to be for Buckingham Palace to be rushing out these ham-handed accusations of bullying and murder earrings?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:41 PM on March 3, 2021 [16 favorites]
BUT NOW I'M DEFINITELY WATCHING OPRAH, because how bad does this have to be for Buckingham Palace to be rushing out these ham-handed accusations of bullying and murder earrings?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:41 PM on March 3, 2021 [16 favorites]
Those two links above that show the difference in coverage is... wow. Unbelievable.
And subtle and insidious when they ALWAYS refer to Kate by her title, but always call Meghan "Meghan".
posted by knownassociate at 4:42 PM on March 3, 2021 [8 favorites]
And subtle and insidious when they ALWAYS refer to Kate by her title, but always call Meghan "Meghan".
posted by knownassociate at 4:42 PM on March 3, 2021 [8 favorites]
This just goes to show that people really CAN grow up and change. Who'd have thought that the prince who wore the Nazi uniform as fancy dress would be the one we ended up rooting for?
posted by rikschell at 5:29 PM on March 3, 2021 [90 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 5:29 PM on March 3, 2021 [90 favorites]
And this season on The Crown. . .
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:31 PM on March 3, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:31 PM on March 3, 2021 [5 favorites]
Making last month's pregnancy announcement themselves (compare: the royal press release for the 2018 pregnancy) indicated the severing was a done deal, and the Sussexes are far better off for it. (The House of Windsor managed to completely botch their greatest p.r. gift in decades; as a thought exercise [retaining some of the classism, lacking the anti-Black racism here], imagine if Monaco had spit on Grace Kelly. These are horrible people, with staggeringly inept advisors.)
The couple have been 'stripped' of their royal patronages, and those charities have lost great, charismatic spokespeople for their causes. Harry founded the Invictus Games, and he'll still be a part of that as a private patron. Same goes for his work with WellChild, a national charity for sick kids, and Sentable, which he co-founded with Lesotho's Prince Seeiso 15 years ago. Meghan will still work with Mayhew, an animal welfare charity, and the Smart Works Charity, which helps women dress and prepare for job interviews.
And it's not like they haven't been busy volunteering in Los Angeles, including working last August's Baby2Baby "back-to-school" charity event. This, barely a month after the miscarriage, a loss only made public in November. Fuck it, I'm pulling for these two, you know?
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:35 PM on March 3, 2021 [39 favorites]
The couple have been 'stripped' of their royal patronages, and those charities have lost great, charismatic spokespeople for their causes. Harry founded the Invictus Games, and he'll still be a part of that as a private patron. Same goes for his work with WellChild, a national charity for sick kids, and Sentable, which he co-founded with Lesotho's Prince Seeiso 15 years ago. Meghan will still work with Mayhew, an animal welfare charity, and the Smart Works Charity, which helps women dress and prepare for job interviews.
And it's not like they haven't been busy volunteering in Los Angeles, including working last August's Baby2Baby "back-to-school" charity event. This, barely a month after the miscarriage, a loss only made public in November. Fuck it, I'm pulling for these two, you know?
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:35 PM on March 3, 2021 [39 favorites]
I do not find it hard to believe both that the Duchess of Cambridge might have been a bad boss, and that the way people reacted to her was racially prejudiced. I think, as the above links have shown, that the way the palace staff and press have responded to the Duchess of Cambridge is absolutely racist in nature - identical gestures get interpreted negatively, because the underlying emotion is not "ooh princess" but the revulsion of a black person demanding respect. Being an American and having to navigate the ludicrous social expectations of the British royal family would be difficult for anyone.
But the Duchess was an actor before her marriage, and actors get an opportunity to taste power without responsibility or empathy pretty early. I've heard enough reports of actors being bad bosses that I'm not willing to rule out that she might have been one, even if I think lines like "she was looking to be a victim" are patently horseshit.
posted by Merus at 5:37 PM on March 3, 2021 [8 favorites]
But the Duchess was an actor before her marriage, and actors get an opportunity to taste power without responsibility or empathy pretty early. I've heard enough reports of actors being bad bosses that I'm not willing to rule out that she might have been one, even if I think lines like "she was looking to be a victim" are patently horseshit.
posted by Merus at 5:37 PM on March 3, 2021 [8 favorites]
Is this an intowerable offence?
posted by clavdivs at 6:05 PM on March 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 6:05 PM on March 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
I'm wondering if the "bullying" may have been of this form:
Palace staff: *Dumbest fucking palace nonsense anyone's ever heard*
Meghan Markle, American: You cannot possibly be serious.
Palace staff: surprised_pikachu.jpg
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 6:09 PM on March 3, 2021 [43 favorites]
Palace staff: *Dumbest fucking palace nonsense anyone's ever heard*
Meghan Markle, American: You cannot possibly be serious.
Palace staff: surprised_pikachu.jpg
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 6:09 PM on March 3, 2021 [43 favorites]
This is a workplace where if your boss goes past you stand back against the wall, say nothing, and look at the floor until she's gone.
I am reminded of this slice of the sublime from Olivia Colman in The Favourite.
posted by turbid dahlia at 6:13 PM on March 3, 2021 [4 favorites]
I am reminded of this slice of the sublime from Olivia Colman in The Favourite.
posted by turbid dahlia at 6:13 PM on March 3, 2021 [4 favorites]
The "Duchess of Cambridge" is Kate Middleton; for a fellow frequent tabloid target, called lazy and haughty at best, the Duchess of Sussex's departure may be bittersweet.
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:14 PM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:14 PM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
Merus: But the Duchess was an actor before her marriage, and actors get an opportunity to taste power without responsibility or empathy pretty early.
I'm genuinely super curious what you mean by this, Merus. (And full disclosure, I am an actor.)
posted by minervous at 6:16 PM on March 3, 2021 [9 favorites]
I'm genuinely super curious what you mean by this, Merus. (And full disclosure, I am an actor.)
posted by minervous at 6:16 PM on March 3, 2021 [9 favorites]
The Royal Family is a moronic Aristocratic accretion that I don't really care about that much...
But I do hate racist English newspaper tabloids, fvck those assholes, and fvck right-wing media anywhere in the world.
posted by ovvl at 6:22 PM on March 3, 2021 [9 favorites]
But I do hate racist English newspaper tabloids, fvck those assholes, and fvck right-wing media anywhere in the world.
posted by ovvl at 6:22 PM on March 3, 2021 [9 favorites]
Bummer that Canadians pay to support the monarchy; the British get a certain amount of tourism for Royal Spectacle, but Canada doesn't seem to derive any benefit. I enjoy the spectacle, the movies, while having no use for monarchy.
Racism? Scandalous jewelry? It's a shame the Royals don't see what Duchess Meghan has to offer, and make the most/ best of it.
and that Jezebel headline is perfect.
posted by theora55 at 6:29 PM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
Racism? Scandalous jewelry? It's a shame the Royals don't see what Duchess Meghan has to offer, and make the most/ best of it.
and that Jezebel headline is perfect.
posted by theora55 at 6:29 PM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
But the Duchess was an actor before her marriage, and actors get an opportunity to taste power without responsibility or empathy pretty early.
Ah yes, the unstoppable power you achieve by being... *checks Wikipedia* suspect #2 on an episode of CSI:NY at the tender, formative age of 25.
Or perhaps you mean the power of being the fourth lead on about the 60th most watched TV series by age 30. Being a dutchess is practically a step down from there.
posted by Superilla at 6:36 PM on March 3, 2021 [39 favorites]
Ah yes, the unstoppable power you achieve by being... *checks Wikipedia* suspect #2 on an episode of CSI:NY at the tender, formative age of 25.
Or perhaps you mean the power of being the fourth lead on about the 60th most watched TV series by age 30. Being a dutchess is practically a step down from there.
posted by Superilla at 6:36 PM on March 3, 2021 [39 favorites]
Yes, I wrote the wrong Duchess because I was on mobile and didn't want to look it up. That's on me.
I'm genuinely super curious what you mean by this, Merus. (And full disclosure, I am an actor.)
Actors starting at around Markle's level - where you're a star on a popular TV show and firing you would delay production, be a huge headache and might potentially tank the show - start to enjoy some of the perks of fame. Little annoyances that everyone else has to deal with that remind us we are mortal start to get smoothed away. You start to taste a little power, and science has demonstrated what folk stories have known for centuries, that without those little moments where not everything is under your control, your ability to empathise starts to degrade.
Actors deal with this in different ways. Some take on the mantle of professionalism, and respect the time and energy of everyone on set. Some practice their empathy by taking on more difficult roles, that require them to learn about others and convey them truthfully on screen. And some just enjoy the power, and become assholes. There's a whole list of famous Hollywood assholes.
Which, now that I write this out, is a curious thing - it's usually an open secret who the assholes are in the industry, and palace vetting is generally pretty thorough. The Firm would never have let Harry and Meghan get close if she'd been an asshole to people on set, that's exactly the kind of embarrassing story that would have come up during the courtship. I think I've convinced myself that this is a frame-up.
posted by Merus at 6:41 PM on March 3, 2021 [14 favorites]
I'm genuinely super curious what you mean by this, Merus. (And full disclosure, I am an actor.)
Actors starting at around Markle's level - where you're a star on a popular TV show and firing you would delay production, be a huge headache and might potentially tank the show - start to enjoy some of the perks of fame. Little annoyances that everyone else has to deal with that remind us we are mortal start to get smoothed away. You start to taste a little power, and science has demonstrated what folk stories have known for centuries, that without those little moments where not everything is under your control, your ability to empathise starts to degrade.
Actors deal with this in different ways. Some take on the mantle of professionalism, and respect the time and energy of everyone on set. Some practice their empathy by taking on more difficult roles, that require them to learn about others and convey them truthfully on screen. And some just enjoy the power, and become assholes. There's a whole list of famous Hollywood assholes.
Which, now that I write this out, is a curious thing - it's usually an open secret who the assholes are in the industry, and palace vetting is generally pretty thorough. The Firm would never have let Harry and Meghan get close if she'd been an asshole to people on set, that's exactly the kind of embarrassing story that would have come up during the courtship. I think I've convinced myself that this is a frame-up.
posted by Merus at 6:41 PM on March 3, 2021 [14 favorites]
And what about Andrew? Will he step up to address the claims against him?
posted by Silvery Fish at 6:51 PM on March 3, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by Silvery Fish at 6:51 PM on March 3, 2021 [6 favorites]
I keep thinking to myself, WHO thinks this is a good PR strategy??? Most Americans are like, "Well, if she didn't like the publicity, she shouldn't have married Prince Harry." And the palace's strategy seems to be to ... introduce Americans to the British tabloid press? Which makes Americans who assumed it was like "US Weekly" (aka, sensationalist "People") recoil in absolute horror when they find out it's not. And WHO thinks the way to go up against OPRAH is to trot out some "royal reporters" who are obvious PR flacks carrying water for the palace? I understand that's how (much of the) royal reporting works in the UK, but they seem to be trying to influence the story in the US, and they are doing a very, very bad job that completely misunderstands the difference in media landscapes.
But then I remember this is the same crack PR team that thought sending by far the dumbest royal to sit for an interview with the BBC and explain how he's definitely not a pedophile because his hands don't sweat because of some heretofore unreported injury during the Falklands War (i.e., the sort of thing that's easily fact-checked) was a really good idea that would help them control the story.
And then I feel the teensiest bit bad for them, because they're like a blueberry about to be run over by the steamroller that is Oprah and they don't even know how far out of their league they are. But then I remember they keep throwing Meghan Markle under the bus to shield a pedophile from scrutiny and I think, "SQUISHY SQUISHY LITTLE BLUEBERRY!"
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:16 PM on March 3, 2021 [98 favorites]
But then I remember this is the same crack PR team that thought sending by far the dumbest royal to sit for an interview with the BBC and explain how he's definitely not a pedophile because his hands don't sweat because of some heretofore unreported injury during the Falklands War (i.e., the sort of thing that's easily fact-checked) was a really good idea that would help them control the story.
And then I feel the teensiest bit bad for them, because they're like a blueberry about to be run over by the steamroller that is Oprah and they don't even know how far out of their league they are. But then I remember they keep throwing Meghan Markle under the bus to shield a pedophile from scrutiny and I think, "SQUISHY SQUISHY LITTLE BLUEBERRY!"
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:16 PM on March 3, 2021 [98 favorites]
I am really curious how this all plays in the UK because from here it just looks like they are thinking what they did wrong during the Diana period was that they weren't nasty enough
posted by jeather at 7:57 PM on March 3, 2021 [68 favorites]
posted by jeather at 7:57 PM on March 3, 2021 [68 favorites]
One thing's for sure...
Oprah's on, she's stealing the show!
Oprah's on, got a date, gotta go!
Such a great little jingle. I miss the 90s.
posted by Fukiyama at 8:03 PM on March 3, 2021 [7 favorites]
Oprah's on, she's stealing the show!
Oprah's on, got a date, gotta go!
Such a great little jingle. I miss the 90s.
posted by Fukiyama at 8:03 PM on March 3, 2021 [7 favorites]
Isn't it a shame that in order to get grandchildren, your children have to get married and bring some horrible outsider into the family that nobody actually wants?
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:14 PM on March 3, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:14 PM on March 3, 2021 [4 favorites]
I keep thinking to myself, WHO thinks this is a good PR strategy???
Indeed. The net result is that somebody like me--who absolutely cannot be arsed about anything to do with the royal family and/or celebrities in any way, shape or form--will now be glued to Oprah on Sunday night for the pure pleasure of seeing some racist jerks get a tiny piece of what they deserve.
Well played, gentlemen. Well played indeed.
posted by rpfields at 8:30 PM on March 3, 2021 [15 favorites]
Indeed. The net result is that somebody like me--who absolutely cannot be arsed about anything to do with the royal family and/or celebrities in any way, shape or form--will now be glued to Oprah on Sunday night for the pure pleasure of seeing some racist jerks get a tiny piece of what they deserve.
Well played, gentlemen. Well played indeed.
posted by rpfields at 8:30 PM on March 3, 2021 [15 favorites]
The Ptolemies got around that for quite a long time, jenfullmoon.
posted by clew at 8:30 PM on March 3, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by clew at 8:30 PM on March 3, 2021 [12 favorites]
Isn't it a shame that in order to get grandchildren, your children have to get married and bring some horrible outsider into the family that nobody actually wants?
Well you don't have to but then you risk getting a Charles II of Spain.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:33 PM on March 3, 2021 [31 favorites]
Well you don't have to but then you risk getting a Charles II of Spain.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:33 PM on March 3, 2021 [31 favorites]
Before Meghan Markle, I had a vague idea that the royal family did something people found somewhat useful in England. Like graciously serving dinner to Barack & Michelle Obama so the Prime Minister could keep writing laws or whatever instead of hosting.
Since Meghan, I've heard nothing but terrible things about all of them and it becomes less and less clear what they do except have tons of money they stole from their citizens and colonies, and bully their family members. They supposedly help charities but it doesn't involve giving them money so...???? They were so mean and racist I ended up learning how useless they are as well. Oops.
Sorry to my British pals if these people are serving some purpose to you and I am downplaying it!
posted by Emmy Rae at 8:54 PM on March 3, 2021 [21 favorites]
Since Meghan, I've heard nothing but terrible things about all of them and it becomes less and less clear what they do except have tons of money they stole from their citizens and colonies, and bully their family members. They supposedly help charities but it doesn't involve giving them money so...???? They were so mean and racist I ended up learning how useless they are as well. Oops.
Sorry to my British pals if these people are serving some purpose to you and I am downplaying it!
posted by Emmy Rae at 8:54 PM on March 3, 2021 [21 favorites]
Entrails etc.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:01 PM on March 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by mr_roboto at 9:01 PM on March 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
I think if someone on my staff was setting up little oppo drops like this saudi earrings thing, I might throw a few elbows their way too.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 9:14 PM on March 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 9:14 PM on March 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
The thing is that shitty boss actors are no different than shitty bosses that are shitty because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. I have serious doubts that Meghan Markle was any worse than most of the rest of the family. Indeed, my initial inclination would be to believe that she wasn't actually notably shitty, especially when compared with the rest of them.
It's really quite amazing how the constant backbiting has turned my opinion on the royal family from one of somewhere between ambivalence and ever so sightly positive (ceremony, properly deployed, can give a disparate population a common point of pride) to one of fuck 'em, it's time to send them away into the ranks of the mildly (by 2020 standards) wealthy until they fritter it away.
I say the best solution is to let them keep the castles and take away the lands, letting them groan under the stress of trying to keep that shit up like most of the rest of the nobility has had to suffer.
posted by wierdo at 9:27 PM on March 3, 2021 [10 favorites]
It's really quite amazing how the constant backbiting has turned my opinion on the royal family from one of somewhere between ambivalence and ever so sightly positive (ceremony, properly deployed, can give a disparate population a common point of pride) to one of fuck 'em, it's time to send them away into the ranks of the mildly (by 2020 standards) wealthy until they fritter it away.
I say the best solution is to let them keep the castles and take away the lands, letting them groan under the stress of trying to keep that shit up like most of the rest of the nobility has had to suffer.
posted by wierdo at 9:27 PM on March 3, 2021 [10 favorites]
Why not just let them go off on their merry way?
Pour encourager les autres?
posted by bryon at 9:30 PM on March 3, 2021
Pour encourager les autres?
posted by bryon at 9:30 PM on March 3, 2021
Twitter has some good info:
From Toronto: "I worked on a set in Toronto when Meghan was on Suits. The ADs, PAs, and other crew on my show who had also worked with her loved her. LOVED. Set dynamics being what they are... I do not believe this bullying narrative for a microsecond." downthread there are stories from people who worked on Suits that are similarly complimentary. If there was dirt, the tabloids would've printed it by now.
There's also a theory that someone at Kensington Palace was leaking stories about Meghan to the press in exchange for no coverage about the rumored affair between Prince William and a neighbor in Norfolk.
posted by mogget at 9:36 PM on March 3, 2021 [55 favorites]
From Toronto: "I worked on a set in Toronto when Meghan was on Suits. The ADs, PAs, and other crew on my show who had also worked with her loved her. LOVED. Set dynamics being what they are... I do not believe this bullying narrative for a microsecond." downthread there are stories from people who worked on Suits that are similarly complimentary. If there was dirt, the tabloids would've printed it by now.
There's also a theory that someone at Kensington Palace was leaking stories about Meghan to the press in exchange for no coverage about the rumored affair between Prince William and a neighbor in Norfolk.
posted by mogget at 9:36 PM on March 3, 2021 [55 favorites]
LaineyGossip:
" But the fact that this detail is being packaged in the story about bullying is …DIRTY. No matter who you believe in this situation, the fact of the matter is the British royals, who supposedly abide by the “never complain, never explain” way of life have actively jumped into the mud.posted by jenfullmoon at 9:59 PM on March 3, 2021 [8 favorites]
Whether you believe the royals or you believe Meghan though, the fact of the matter is that they’re worried enough about what she’s going to say, and how it will make them look, that they’re pulling this out in retaliation. Whether or not you believe the royals and their account of what Meghan was like to work with, it’s impossible to separate the timing of all these so-called revelations ahead of the Oprah interview and whether or not the royals are actually concerned about people being bullied or if they’re really just concerned about their reputations. Now that they’ve opened the door to these internal HR matters though, can we ask more questions about this?"
Man, those Saxe-Coburg kids really don't like it when one of their own marries an American. Wonder if they're stil cranky about that whole 1776 thingy.
posted by los pantalones del muerte at 10:28 PM on March 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by los pantalones del muerte at 10:28 PM on March 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
Can't see why they would be—King George was of the House of Hanover. The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha wasn't founded until 1826.
posted by The Tensor at 10:45 PM on March 3, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by The Tensor at 10:45 PM on March 3, 2021 [12 favorites]
Isn't this the world of media trying to make a marriage a bad thing due to race? I mean, isn't this just racism? Maybe I'm missing it, but that seems the simplest answer.
posted by valkane at 12:08 AM on March 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by valkane at 12:08 AM on March 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
The repeated tone deafness of the monarchy always makes me wonder about the reckoning that will occur with the death of Elizabeth II. She's reigned for multiple generations at this point, so it feels like her role as monarch is a much a given as tea and foul weather. I don't see Charles getting that same kind of blithe acceptance. Elizabeth is a figure from outside of time, her heir not so much, which makes his out of touch royal persona all the more offensive. I have a hard time envisioning England ditching the monarchy entirely, I could definitely see its role being severely curtailed, particularly if the keep making the young, attractive, cosmopolitan Sussexes their punching bag.
posted by Panjandrum at 12:27 AM on March 4, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by Panjandrum at 12:27 AM on March 4, 2021 [14 favorites]
How the British press has treated Markle vs how they have treated Middleton. Just in case anyone needs a backgrounder here.
posted by vacapinta at 12:39 AM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by vacapinta at 12:39 AM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
I am really curious how this all plays in the UK because from here it just looks like they are thinking what they did wrong during the Diana period was that they weren't nasty enough
It looks ridiculous and after a few years of being fairly pro-monarchy during the Kate and Wills period public opinion seems to be shifting again to questions about whether the crown can survive the death of Liz.
Not that there will be a republic any time soon but it chimes with the erosion of the Union and the inward parochialism of England. Can certainly see the Commonwealth drifting away and Australia, NZ and Canada deciding it’s time to finally burn their bridges.
posted by brilliantmistake at 12:42 AM on March 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
It looks ridiculous and after a few years of being fairly pro-monarchy during the Kate and Wills period public opinion seems to be shifting again to questions about whether the crown can survive the death of Liz.
Not that there will be a republic any time soon but it chimes with the erosion of the Union and the inward parochialism of England. Can certainly see the Commonwealth drifting away and Australia, NZ and Canada deciding it’s time to finally burn their bridges.
posted by brilliantmistake at 12:42 AM on March 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
My first thought on reading this was how unsurprising it is that DARVO is part of the Windsor playbook. Not that it's impossible for two things to be true at the same time (e.g. Meghan Markle has endured racist abuse in the press and also bullied Buckingham Palace staff), but it doesn't ring quite as plausibly as "increasingly irrelevant dynasty likely in terminal decline desperately tries to cling to power through whatever means necessary".
posted by terretu at 12:46 AM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by terretu at 12:46 AM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
Silvery Fish: "And what about Andrew? Will he step up to address the claims against him?"
he'd be sweating bullets right now, if he could.
posted by chavenet at 1:05 AM on March 4, 2021 [28 favorites]
he'd be sweating bullets right now, if he could.
posted by chavenet at 1:05 AM on March 4, 2021 [28 favorites]
The repeated tone deafness of the monarchy always makes me wonder about the reckoning that will occur with the death of Elizabeth II
I think they'll be gone within a decade of her death and the delightful inhabitants of Normal Island will elect Boris as head of state.posted by fullerine at 2:03 AM on March 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
From the UK media point of view, the right-wing media, a.k.a. the media, has been waging a relentless and ongoing hate campaign against Meghan Markle. Every second or third day the Daily Mail has a front page story about how horrible she is, even now. The punishment for daring to sue only gets worse if you dare to sue and win.
So in terms of how it looks to an average British person looking at an average British newspaper: it looks like Meghan Markle is history's greatest monster, and will continue to look like that.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:32 AM on March 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
So in terms of how it looks to an average British person looking at an average British newspaper: it looks like Meghan Markle is history's greatest monster, and will continue to look like that.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:32 AM on March 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
I think they'll be gone within a decade of her death and the delightful inhabitants of Normal Island will elect Boris as head of state.
And that's exactly why I'm still (just about) a monarchist - i.e. having a ceremonial head of state. I would not look forward to the Farage vs Johnson vs Blair "HOW many lies?" campaign to be the president of England and Wales - I'm assuming Scotland and NI will be leaving the Union in the not too distant future.
I have a huge deal of sympathy for Harry and Meghan. His mother was effectively killed by the paparazzi, and the toxic British media certainly didn't do her mental health any favours. With the outright unveiled racism his wife has been consistently greeted with, I think they absolutely did the right thing getting the hell out of that toxic nightmare.
Before Meghan Markle, I had a vague idea that the royal family did something people found somewhat useful in England. Like graciously serving dinner to Barack & Michelle Obama so the Prime Minister could keep writing laws or whatever instead of hosting.
Since Meghan, I've heard nothing but terrible things about all of them and it becomes less and less clear what they do except have tons of money they stole from their citizens and colonies, and bully their family members. They supposedly help charities but it doesn't involve giving them money so...???? They were so mean and racist I ended up learning how useless they are as well. Oops.
Sorry to my British pals if these people are serving some purpose to you and I am downplaying it!
Well, it avoids us having some Trump-a-like as president, so that's of some nominal value. The Queen is still a source of soft power, precisely for hobnobbing with VIPs - a state visit has its uses. And there's the tourism value, from the "olde englandy" people that just want a picture of Buck Palace and some men in tall furry hats. The royal patronage of charities does help them, in that they get a spokesperson who can get wealthy people in a room and gladhand them for money, and raise their profile.
Is that value outweighed by the harm the racist, sexist, pedophile-protecting rentier-wealth-extracting machine does? I'm increasing inclined to think "burn it all down" - preferably with Andrew still in the building. The British public is more prone to cap-doffing than many think, but I'm not at all convinced the Firm will survive the death of the Queen for long, unless William gets to take over pretty quickly from his mad dad.
And anyone other than us thinks it's a good idea to still have this bunch of chinless wonders anywhere near their government structure should really be having a good think about that, IMO.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 2:53 AM on March 4, 2021 [15 favorites]
And that's exactly why I'm still (just about) a monarchist - i.e. having a ceremonial head of state. I would not look forward to the Farage vs Johnson vs Blair "HOW many lies?" campaign to be the president of England and Wales - I'm assuming Scotland and NI will be leaving the Union in the not too distant future.
I have a huge deal of sympathy for Harry and Meghan. His mother was effectively killed by the paparazzi, and the toxic British media certainly didn't do her mental health any favours. With the outright unveiled racism his wife has been consistently greeted with, I think they absolutely did the right thing getting the hell out of that toxic nightmare.
Before Meghan Markle, I had a vague idea that the royal family did something people found somewhat useful in England. Like graciously serving dinner to Barack & Michelle Obama so the Prime Minister could keep writing laws or whatever instead of hosting.
Since Meghan, I've heard nothing but terrible things about all of them and it becomes less and less clear what they do except have tons of money they stole from their citizens and colonies, and bully their family members. They supposedly help charities but it doesn't involve giving them money so...???? They were so mean and racist I ended up learning how useless they are as well. Oops.
Sorry to my British pals if these people are serving some purpose to you and I am downplaying it!
Well, it avoids us having some Trump-a-like as president, so that's of some nominal value. The Queen is still a source of soft power, precisely for hobnobbing with VIPs - a state visit has its uses. And there's the tourism value, from the "olde englandy" people that just want a picture of Buck Palace and some men in tall furry hats. The royal patronage of charities does help them, in that they get a spokesperson who can get wealthy people in a room and gladhand them for money, and raise their profile.
Is that value outweighed by the harm the racist, sexist, pedophile-protecting rentier-wealth-extracting machine does? I'm increasing inclined to think "burn it all down" - preferably with Andrew still in the building. The British public is more prone to cap-doffing than many think, but I'm not at all convinced the Firm will survive the death of the Queen for long, unless William gets to take over pretty quickly from his mad dad.
And anyone other than us thinks it's a good idea to still have this bunch of chinless wonders anywhere near their government structure should really be having a good think about that, IMO.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 2:53 AM on March 4, 2021 [15 favorites]
When my mother made me a fake ID so that I could get a job at a pizza place that she regularly scammed for free food (I was 12) the mean girls in school didn't believe me and prank called the place relentlessly when they found I was actually working there. That sums up the royal family for me. Disgusting.
posted by lextex at 3:48 AM on March 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by lextex at 3:48 AM on March 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
When I visited Canada a couple years back I noticed that in the office at the checkpoint a photo of the Queen. I had sort of forgotten that she was their head of state. Which kind of hit me--- across the line in a similar office was undoubtedly a photo of the Orange Game Show Host.
I'm not entirely sure which is worse. I guess we only had to suffer Donnie for 4 years vs the near 70 year reign of QE2.
posted by drstrangelove at 4:39 AM on March 4, 2021
I'm not entirely sure which is worse. I guess we only had to suffer Donnie for 4 years vs the near 70 year reign of QE2.
posted by drstrangelove at 4:39 AM on March 4, 2021
I seriously wonder how Britain will react when Chuck becomes their king. While I might be wrong I have gotten the impression that he has never been particularly well-liked. Would he abdicate like one of his uncles so his son can take the throne? I have my doubts about that because surely he would have grown up knowing full well the embarrassment the abdication caused his family.
posted by drstrangelove at 4:42 AM on March 4, 2021
posted by drstrangelove at 4:42 AM on March 4, 2021
On the "does Charles have a chance as king" question, I read this Vanity Fair interview with Clive Irving (author of The Last Queen) recently and found it a fairly cogent and clear-eyed account of some of the major factors in play.
posted by terretu at 4:50 AM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by terretu at 4:50 AM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
"Would he abdicate like one of his uncles so his son can take the throne?"
From everything I've heard, no chance, and not because of any embarrassment to the family. He's probably quite clueless about how unpopular he could be.
posted by edd at 4:55 AM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
From everything I've heard, no chance, and not because of any embarrassment to the family. He's probably quite clueless about how unpopular he could be.
posted by edd at 4:55 AM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
I mean, the whole point of inherited power is you don't have to care if people like you.
I'm actually not sure Britain could ever let go of the monarchy. The love/hate codependency/identity issues seem too strong. It's like a couple who is clearly unhappy and everyone expects them to divorce and they never do.
posted by emjaybee at 5:26 AM on March 4, 2021 [15 favorites]
I'm actually not sure Britain could ever let go of the monarchy. The love/hate codependency/identity issues seem too strong. It's like a couple who is clearly unhappy and everyone expects them to divorce and they never do.
posted by emjaybee at 5:26 AM on March 4, 2021 [15 favorites]
In 2007 prince Charles's favourite cedar tree at Highgrove died, instead of just planting another tree like any normal person, he paid a Garden designer some £45,000 to build this monstrosity because "he wanted something to look at from his window" and didn't want to wait for another tree to grow. The large hole in the roof is for a replacement tree to eventually grow through.
posted by Lanark at 5:39 AM on March 4, 2021 [18 favorites]
posted by Lanark at 5:39 AM on March 4, 2021 [18 favorites]
The repeated tone deafness of the monarchy always makes me wonder about the reckoning that will occur with the death of Elizabeth II. She's reigned for multiple generations at this point, so it feels like her role as monarch is a much a given as tea and foul weather.
I'm doubtful that the UK will abolish the monarchy after Elizabeth's passing, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of the 15 other Commonwealth realms peeled away.
On another note, has anyone in this thread read any of the various books that were written about this (i.e. the Harry/Meghan/palace breakup situation)? My expectations are not very high, but maybe one of them is better than the others...
posted by andrewesque at 6:05 AM on March 4, 2021
I'm doubtful that the UK will abolish the monarchy after Elizabeth's passing, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of the 15 other Commonwealth realms peeled away.
On another note, has anyone in this thread read any of the various books that were written about this (i.e. the Harry/Meghan/palace breakup situation)? My expectations are not very high, but maybe one of them is better than the others...
posted by andrewesque at 6:05 AM on March 4, 2021
I'm actually not sure Britain could ever let go of the monarchy. The love/hate codependency/identity issues seem too strong. It's like a couple who is clearly unhappy and everyone expects them to divorce and they never do.
NPR had a long piece on the House of Lords years back and I remember the guest they interviewed about this said that the British might really like presenting to the world the image of modernity but they still cling to "old stuff." Which was how he explained why they weren't likely to let go of that archaic legislative body any time soon.
posted by drstrangelove at 6:23 AM on March 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
NPR had a long piece on the House of Lords years back and I remember the guest they interviewed about this said that the British might really like presenting to the world the image of modernity but they still cling to "old stuff." Which was how he explained why they weren't likely to let go of that archaic legislative body any time soon.
posted by drstrangelove at 6:23 AM on March 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Commonwealth drifting away and Australia, NZ and Canada deciding it’s time to finally burn their bridges
My understanding is that doing so in Canada would involve amending the Constitution, using section 41 (which allows for changes to the office of the Queen) which requires unanimous consent of both Houses of Parliament and all ten provincial legislatures.
I don't want to say never gonna happen, but...Chuck being on our money seems more palatable than the clusterfuck of craziness that process would create.
posted by nubs at 6:35 AM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
My understanding is that doing so in Canada would involve amending the Constitution, using section 41 (which allows for changes to the office of the Queen) which requires unanimous consent of both Houses of Parliament and all ten provincial legislatures.
I don't want to say never gonna happen, but...Chuck being on our money seems more palatable than the clusterfuck of craziness that process would create.
posted by nubs at 6:35 AM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
those people are awful.
posted by james33 at 6:43 AM on March 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by james33 at 6:43 AM on March 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
On another note, has anyone in this thread read any of the various books that were written about this (i.e. the Harry/Meghan/palace breakup situation)? My expectations are not very high, but maybe one of them is better than the others...
I read Finding Freedom. It's fairly breezy, and there's speculation that Harry and Meghan were involved with it since it's generally a positive account, but I thought it was a decent overview of what has happened if you want to know but don't want to read a lot of British media.
posted by girlmightlive at 7:00 AM on March 4, 2021
I read Finding Freedom. It's fairly breezy, and there's speculation that Harry and Meghan were involved with it since it's generally a positive account, but I thought it was a decent overview of what has happened if you want to know but don't want to read a lot of British media.
posted by girlmightlive at 7:00 AM on March 4, 2021
> And then I feel the teensiest bit bad for them, because they're like a blueberry about to be run over by the steamroller that is Oprah and they don't even know how far out of their league they are.
How significant a media figure is Oprah in Britain, and how much attention is paid to her show there? I'm absolutely clueless about this but I wonder whether most Brits are going to be able to watch this themselves or only know about this as mediated through the tabloids, which themselves are going to opt to either ignore, minify, or spin as necessary.
If the show will only be seen through the eyes of the press, I suspect this will end up a nothingburger in Britain no matter how it's received in the US.
posted by ardgedee at 7:49 AM on March 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
How significant a media figure is Oprah in Britain, and how much attention is paid to her show there? I'm absolutely clueless about this but I wonder whether most Brits are going to be able to watch this themselves or only know about this as mediated through the tabloids, which themselves are going to opt to either ignore, minify, or spin as necessary.
If the show will only be seen through the eyes of the press, I suspect this will end up a nothingburger in Britain no matter how it's received in the US.
posted by ardgedee at 7:49 AM on March 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
I am amazed that there is so much interest in this, especially outside of the UK.
Well, I don't have much else to fill my time these days?
Heh, in seriousness -- yeah, I did not expect to become quite so invested in this future storyline in The Crown, but, well, it's a very easy story to get into. There are clear Good Guys and Bad Guys, and may I say The Firm seems to really be helping with that distinction. (HOW ARE THEY SO BAD AT EVERYTHING OH MY GOD.) I don't mind Brenda so much, she had zero effect on my life those years I lived in the UK, but I was sort of vaguely charmed by this woman who had known Churchill. I enormously enjoyed watching The Queen! I do not care for the rest of her family at all, and this is just...an easy story to fall into and become fascinated by. I can text my sister and we can gossip about this without having to delve too deeply into, well, anything. It's soothing.
Also there is a kinda bonkers amount of love for the Royal Family in the US that I can't explain, but I'm not surprised at all by this, tbh.
posted by kalimac at 7:55 AM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
Well, I don't have much else to fill my time these days?
Heh, in seriousness -- yeah, I did not expect to become quite so invested in this future storyline in The Crown, but, well, it's a very easy story to get into. There are clear Good Guys and Bad Guys, and may I say The Firm seems to really be helping with that distinction. (HOW ARE THEY SO BAD AT EVERYTHING OH MY GOD.) I don't mind Brenda so much, she had zero effect on my life those years I lived in the UK, but I was sort of vaguely charmed by this woman who had known Churchill. I enormously enjoyed watching The Queen! I do not care for the rest of her family at all, and this is just...an easy story to fall into and become fascinated by. I can text my sister and we can gossip about this without having to delve too deeply into, well, anything. It's soothing.
Also there is a kinda bonkers amount of love for the Royal Family in the US that I can't explain, but I'm not surprised at all by this, tbh.
posted by kalimac at 7:55 AM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
I think there's overall interest in getting rid of the monarchy here in Canada -- it isn't a losing proposition for most politicians, especially given the recent scandal with the GG and the discussion of those costs -- but reopening the constitution is a huge giant can of worms that is probably a losing proposition for everyone.
I admit, I too am semi-tempted to watch this interview instead of just reading the summaries the next day.
posted by jeather at 7:55 AM on March 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
I admit, I too am semi-tempted to watch this interview instead of just reading the summaries the next day.
posted by jeather at 7:55 AM on March 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
I have spent many hours of my life from childhood on enthralled by the BRF. When the press was being merciless to Meghan early on about it I wondered why William & Kate didn't come out and say "cut this out." Especially because they're cast as the modern Royals and and because Kate was treated wickedly by the press pretty much until Meghan hit the scene. And the answer is always "that's not how it's done."
Sure. But it's not like Charles, William, and Kate would be fired if they said something. Royals made the unwritten rules, royals can change them. And Meghan pulled most of the press's attention from Kate, who suddenly was cast as England's finest rose, caring Mum, future Queen, etc etc etc. So I speculate that about 20 years from now, we'll be singing...
Who’s been messing up everything?
It’s been William all along
Who’s been pulling every evil string?
It’s been William all along...
posted by kimberussell at 7:55 AM on March 4, 2021 [17 favorites]
Sure. But it's not like Charles, William, and Kate would be fired if they said something. Royals made the unwritten rules, royals can change them. And Meghan pulled most of the press's attention from Kate, who suddenly was cast as England's finest rose, caring Mum, future Queen, etc etc etc. So I speculate that about 20 years from now, we'll be singing...
Who’s been messing up everything?
It’s been William all along
Who’s been pulling every evil string?
It’s been William all along...
posted by kimberussell at 7:55 AM on March 4, 2021 [17 favorites]
"Also there is a kinda bonkers amount of love for the Royal Family in the US that I can't explain,"
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's all the pomp and pageantry of monarchy, in English, that we can enjoy guilt-free -- nay, with a sense of smug superiority -- because our taxes don't pay for it and we even had a revolution to get rid of those jerks.
I mean there are some other European royal families who are ALSO good drama, but they're not nearly as much fun for most American royal-watchers because a) it's not in English and b) we didn't throw a revolution to rebel against the Dutch.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:05 AM on March 4, 2021 [24 favorites]
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's all the pomp and pageantry of monarchy, in English, that we can enjoy guilt-free -- nay, with a sense of smug superiority -- because our taxes don't pay for it and we even had a revolution to get rid of those jerks.
I mean there are some other European royal families who are ALSO good drama, but they're not nearly as much fun for most American royal-watchers because a) it's not in English and b) we didn't throw a revolution to rebel against the Dutch.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:05 AM on March 4, 2021 [24 favorites]
Pardon me for being an ignorant American, but back in the olden days a person was royalty because they were ordained by god. In these modern times, what exactly ordains someone as royalty? Genetics?
posted by njohnson23 at 8:10 AM on March 4, 2021
posted by njohnson23 at 8:10 AM on March 4, 2021
Pardon me for being an ignorant American, but back in the olden days a person was royalty because they were ordained by god. In these modern times, what exactly ordains someone as royalty? Genetics?
I suppose ‘British law’ is the most reductive answer.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 8:13 AM on March 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
I suppose ‘British law’ is the most reductive answer.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 8:13 AM on March 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
How significant a media figure is Oprah in Britain, and how much attention is paid to her show there?
She's a pretty big deal, and this is airing the next night on prime time commercial television.
posted by Optamystic at 8:18 AM on March 4, 2021
She's a pretty big deal, and this is airing the next night on prime time commercial television.
posted by Optamystic at 8:18 AM on March 4, 2021
reopening the constitution is a huge giant can of worms that is probably a losing proposition for everyone
Incidentally, as a British person, this is how I feel about abolishing the monarchy. I hate it—because it’s anachronistic, anti-democratic, anti-meritocratic and generally ridiculous—but I can’t imagine how much political time and energy would be expended on trying to get rid of it and arguing about what should replace it. If I was a newly-elected Prime Minister with a big majority, it would be about 100th on my list of priorities.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 8:20 AM on March 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
Incidentally, as a British person, this is how I feel about abolishing the monarchy. I hate it—because it’s anachronistic, anti-democratic, anti-meritocratic and generally ridiculous—but I can’t imagine how much political time and energy would be expended on trying to get rid of it and arguing about what should replace it. If I was a newly-elected Prime Minister with a big majority, it would be about 100th on my list of priorities.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 8:20 AM on March 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
Why do we care about these people
posted by elkevelvet at 8:23 AM on March 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by elkevelvet at 8:23 AM on March 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Well CBS's new promo for the interview today seems like a super-direct response to the bullying rumors of yesterday.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:26 AM on March 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:26 AM on March 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Pardon me for being an ignorant American, but back in the olden days a person was royalty because they were ordained by god.
It's still God. The Queen is the head of the state church, appointed by God, along the same lines as the Pope, if you are into that sort of thing.
posted by biffa at 8:27 AM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
It's still God. The Queen is the head of the state church, appointed by God, along the same lines as the Pope, if you are into that sort of thing.
posted by biffa at 8:27 AM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
I still dream that post queen death we'll get a rebuilt commonwealth of formerly British colonised republics. Sort of like the adult children of abusive parents slowly banding back together post therapy. We could even invent new traditions like a holiday where we get drunk and ask Britain "seriously WTF?" to replace Queens Birthday.
Also every time I see the words Queen Elizabeth, I hear an old girlfriends voice in my head saying "E-Lizard-Birth!" and then cackling maniacally.
posted by fido~depravo at 8:30 AM on March 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
Also every time I see the words Queen Elizabeth, I hear an old girlfriends voice in my head saying "E-Lizard-Birth!" and then cackling maniacally.
posted by fido~depravo at 8:30 AM on March 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
Why do we care about these people
Because half of what is going on stems from the household of the head of state of our country?
Because this whole thing has played up the power of a supposedly nearly powerless body to:
* drive and influence news agendas in the UK and apparently beyond
* influence politicians
* maintain the status quo of the establishment
posted by biffa at 8:33 AM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
Because half of what is going on stems from the household of the head of state of our country?
Because this whole thing has played up the power of a supposedly nearly powerless body to:
* drive and influence news agendas in the UK and apparently beyond
* influence politicians
* maintain the status quo of the establishment
posted by biffa at 8:33 AM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
I'm not familiar with the regular news coverage of the royals but those headlines are appalling, both in comparison to the ones about Kate and for the content alone. No wonder they gtfo. I can't imagine having so much hatred directed at you just for existing (not to mention the crown being so unsupportive in response). The bump comments are especially gross.
posted by randomnity at 8:50 AM on March 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by randomnity at 8:50 AM on March 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
And that's exactly why I'm still (just about) a monarchist - i.e. having a ceremonial head of state. I would not look forward to the Farage vs Johnson vs Blair "HOW many lies?" campaign to be the president of England and Wales - I'm assuming Scotland and NI will be leaving the Union in the not too distant future.
This always gets mentioned when anyone mentions scrapping the Monarchy. But it's simply misguided. Thanks to the Monarch having no real effective executive power (lobbying aside), the prime minister actually effectively inherits most of the Monarchs powers. The list of constitutional powers rolled up into the person of the prime minister is actually more than a US presidents. After all, in the UK we concentrate our executive and legislature into one place (in fact, a bit of the judiciary too!) Even better, far few people have a direct influence on who holds the role of Prime Minister. We have lived with a shambles of executives selected by a mess of a conservative party plus an electorate (the conservative membership) which is far more right wing than the rest of the country.
I'm not here to claim that the US system is perfect, but the UK system doesn't actually work. It's pretty corrupt in lots of different ways, and we just sort of struggle on because that's what we've always done.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 8:52 AM on March 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
This always gets mentioned when anyone mentions scrapping the Monarchy. But it's simply misguided. Thanks to the Monarch having no real effective executive power (lobbying aside), the prime minister actually effectively inherits most of the Monarchs powers. The list of constitutional powers rolled up into the person of the prime minister is actually more than a US presidents. After all, in the UK we concentrate our executive and legislature into one place (in fact, a bit of the judiciary too!) Even better, far few people have a direct influence on who holds the role of Prime Minister. We have lived with a shambles of executives selected by a mess of a conservative party plus an electorate (the conservative membership) which is far more right wing than the rest of the country.
I'm not here to claim that the US system is perfect, but the UK system doesn't actually work. It's pretty corrupt in lots of different ways, and we just sort of struggle on because that's what we've always done.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 8:52 AM on March 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
I don’t keep up with the British tabloids. But, Harry getting revenge on his family for what they did to his mother is very fucking much my jam.
- @kyalbr, twitter
posted by theora55 at 8:54 AM on March 4, 2021 [21 favorites]
- @kyalbr, twitter
posted by theora55 at 8:54 AM on March 4, 2021 [21 favorites]
Thanks to the Monarch having no real effective executive power...
no longer true now that we know about the queens consent
posted by Lanark at 9:09 AM on March 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
no longer true now that we know about the queens consent
posted by Lanark at 9:09 AM on March 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
And that's exactly why I'm still (just about) a monarchist - i.e. having a ceremonial head of state
It’s also possible to go the Irish route, and have a President who is a ceremonial Head of State with limited power and a separate Head of Government. I’ll admit, Ireland’s had a fair amount of luck with its Presidents, particularly the last three. (Obligatory photos of Michael D. Higgins and his dogs meeting Meghan and Harry.)
In Ireland’s case, the President basically has no political power (they have no veto on laws for example - they can have an act checked if they think it’s unconstitutional, but otherwise it’s sign it or resign.) At the same time it is handy to have someone to do most of the ceremonial stuff (including speeches) while the Taoiseach is governing the country. (Or not governing it, as it sometimes seems.) No political power doesn’t mean no power at all - the President has a lot of soft power.
posted by scorbet at 9:22 AM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
It’s also possible to go the Irish route, and have a President who is a ceremonial Head of State with limited power and a separate Head of Government. I’ll admit, Ireland’s had a fair amount of luck with its Presidents, particularly the last three. (Obligatory photos of Michael D. Higgins and his dogs meeting Meghan and Harry.)
In Ireland’s case, the President basically has no political power (they have no veto on laws for example - they can have an act checked if they think it’s unconstitutional, but otherwise it’s sign it or resign.) At the same time it is handy to have someone to do most of the ceremonial stuff (including speeches) while the Taoiseach is governing the country. (Or not governing it, as it sometimes seems.) No political power doesn’t mean no power at all - the President has a lot of soft power.
posted by scorbet at 9:22 AM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
The royals have always been reality television, long before reality television existed.
Technically speaking, the only likeable ones have been Diana, William (well, not sure these days), Kate, Harry and Meghan. The older generation just doesn't really have any idea how to be people or relate to people, though.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:27 AM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
Technically speaking, the only likeable ones have been Diana, William (well, not sure these days), Kate, Harry and Meghan. The older generation just doesn't really have any idea how to be people or relate to people, though.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:27 AM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
It's like the British version of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:39 AM on March 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:39 AM on March 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
reopening the constitution is a huge giant can of worms that is probably a losing proposition for everyone
As far as I understand it*, getting rid of "The Crown" in the Canadian constitution would be massively complicated, but that role doesn't have to be personified in the current monarch of a distant island and could conceivably be fulfilled by a line of pampered photogenic cats.
*I do not, and cherish the ignorance
posted by figurant at 9:40 AM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
As far as I understand it*, getting rid of "The Crown" in the Canadian constitution would be massively complicated, but that role doesn't have to be personified in the current monarch of a distant island and could conceivably be fulfilled by a line of pampered photogenic cats.
*I do not, and cherish the ignorance
posted by figurant at 9:40 AM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
we didn't throw a revolution to rebel against the Dutch.
Weeellll...
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:44 AM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
Weeellll...
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:44 AM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
Hasn't Canada been doing fine without a Governor General for a few weeks? What if they just... forget to appoint a new one?
posted by BungaDunga at 9:45 AM on March 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 9:45 AM on March 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
anyway, ceremonial heads of state should probably be required to take a vow of poverty, however they're selected. They can have a car and a big house as a treat, but this nonsense about having megawealthy dynastic families who also happen to be hereditary heads of state is bonkers. Vestigial royal families with merely human levels of wealth are probably okay.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:51 AM on March 4, 2021
posted by BungaDunga at 9:51 AM on March 4, 2021
It’s also possible to go the Irish route, and have a President who is a ceremonial Head of State with limited power and a separate Head of Government.
I'm extremely charmed by how little anyone in Ireland seems to care about the position of president, and a little jealous of it. What if we could take all the dumb ceremonial parts of the American presidency and bundle it into another job? We could've made Reagan that president. Heck, it would almost certainly become a job dominated by actors "who are interested in politics," and that sounds great! We might've been able to siphon Trump into the role! Oh God, I'm really very jealous of this.
(It always makes me think of one of my favorite childhood books, Patricia C Wrede's Dealing with Dragons. In the book, a female dragon becomes King of Dragons. Her princess friend asks if that would not make her Queen of dragons, and the dragon corrects her: Queen of Dragons is a different role entirely, not tethered to gender but also not very interesting.)
The only reason current Americans "care" about the monarchy is because of tabloid coverage; basically we "care" about them as celebrities, with a bit of added interest because we've been following the plotline for a while. I truly believe in a trolley scenario we'd damn every last one of them to save Dolly Parton.
posted by grandiloquiet at 9:53 AM on March 4, 2021 [20 favorites]
I'm extremely charmed by how little anyone in Ireland seems to care about the position of president, and a little jealous of it. What if we could take all the dumb ceremonial parts of the American presidency and bundle it into another job? We could've made Reagan that president. Heck, it would almost certainly become a job dominated by actors "who are interested in politics," and that sounds great! We might've been able to siphon Trump into the role! Oh God, I'm really very jealous of this.
(It always makes me think of one of my favorite childhood books, Patricia C Wrede's Dealing with Dragons. In the book, a female dragon becomes King of Dragons. Her princess friend asks if that would not make her Queen of dragons, and the dragon corrects her: Queen of Dragons is a different role entirely, not tethered to gender but also not very interesting.)
The only reason current Americans "care" about the monarchy is because of tabloid coverage; basically we "care" about them as celebrities, with a bit of added interest because we've been following the plotline for a while. I truly believe in a trolley scenario we'd damn every last one of them to save Dolly Parton.
posted by grandiloquiet at 9:53 AM on March 4, 2021 [20 favorites]
Royals = Shameless, without the warmth and love.
posted by Xoebe at 9:56 AM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by Xoebe at 9:56 AM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
grandiloquiet! I have thought of that book many times, in relation to the role of the US President's wife.
ETA: meaning, the person responsible for those hosting roles should be chosen for their ability to execute the role and be compensated.
posted by Emmy Rae at 10:14 AM on March 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
ETA: meaning, the person responsible for those hosting roles should be chosen for their ability to execute the role and be compensated.
posted by Emmy Rae at 10:14 AM on March 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
I also like separating out the ceremonial bits and the political bits, which used to be done here, but Harper and Trudeau both have been trying to wear both hats, in what seems like a copy of how the US does it.
posted by jeather at 10:18 AM on March 4, 2021
posted by jeather at 10:18 AM on March 4, 2021
I'm not sure what you mean, jeather - the PM is the head of their party and is still a part of government; it's the Governor General who is our head of state and should, technically, be the ceremonial role.
posted by sagc at 10:27 AM on March 4, 2021
posted by sagc at 10:27 AM on March 4, 2021
> This short interview with the journalist who wrote the Times piece … is worth a watch.
Valentine Low, who wrote the Times piece, called Markle's child an animal.
posted by PresidentOfDinosaurs at 10:34 AM on March 4, 2021
Valentine Low, who wrote the Times piece, called Markle's child an animal.
posted by PresidentOfDinosaurs at 10:34 AM on March 4, 2021
the only likeable ones have been Diana, William (well, not sure these days), Kate, Harry and Meghan
I'm sure their relative cuteness has nothing to do with that.
posted by amtho at 10:35 AM on March 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
I'm sure their relative cuteness has nothing to do with that.
posted by amtho at 10:35 AM on March 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
the PM is the head of their party and is still a part of government; it's the Governor General who is our head of state and should, technically, be the ceremonial role.
Yes, but since Harper, I find the PM is trying to take the ceremonial role as well (instead of mostly the GG), and Trudeau has happily continued the trend.
posted by jeather at 10:50 AM on March 4, 2021
Yes, but since Harper, I find the PM is trying to take the ceremonial role as well (instead of mostly the GG), and Trudeau has happily continued the trend.
posted by jeather at 10:50 AM on March 4, 2021
Hasn't Canada been doing fine without a Governor General for a few weeks? What if they just... forget to appoint a new one?
The problem with that concept is contained in one sentence in the article, which the author puts in almost off-hand: "Inserting language like this in Canada's constitution..."
Inserting language in our Constitution (or amending it) is not easy. Let's look at the rules:
If the amendment only affects one province, you only need the assent of Parliament and that province's legislature; that has happened 7 times so far.
Other amendments follow a different formula: you need identical resolutions passing in Parliament, the Senate, and more than two-thirds of the provincial legislatures representing 50% of the population (known as the 7+50 formula - 7 legislatures, 50% of the population). This formula applies to the following changes:
(a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d) subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada;
(e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and
(f) the establishment of new provinces.
We've done 4 amendments like that since 1982, and had two failed attempts (Meech Lake & Charlettown Accords)
However, if the matter touches on any of the following:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force;
(c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(e) changing the amendment procedure itself.
The formula is unanimous consent of the House of Commons, the Senate, and all 10 provincial legislatures. So to insert the language doing away with the Office of the Governor General would require negotiations to cover demands from:
-Quebec, up to and including their desire for independence (Quebec has still not formally agreed to the Constitution Act from 1982, and the Meech Lake & Charlettown Accords were aimed at rectifying those issues and neither succeeded under the 7+50 approach);
-The West (by which I really mean Alberta, and maybe Saskatchewan) and their anger over a variety of issues;
-both of the above can likely be lumped into the broader category of the power balance between the federal government & the provinces, and their are also likely issues in Newfoundland & Labrador, the Maritimes, Ontario, and BC, and possibly the territories on this front I'm unaware of;
-Indigenous matters which would be really important to deal with, but would cause all kinds of issues because racism;
-and probably some other structural changes that would make things make more sense for government in the 21st Century.
Because every legislature across the country would need to be in harmony, it would essentially be a never-ending series of hostage negotiations where each province and political party could hold out on an issue.
I mean, I like the idea - I don't see the need for the GG, or anything else, but this is not a simple matter.
posted by nubs at 11:32 AM on March 4, 2021 [9 favorites]
The problem with that concept is contained in one sentence in the article, which the author puts in almost off-hand: "Inserting language like this in Canada's constitution..."
Inserting language in our Constitution (or amending it) is not easy. Let's look at the rules:
If the amendment only affects one province, you only need the assent of Parliament and that province's legislature; that has happened 7 times so far.
Other amendments follow a different formula: you need identical resolutions passing in Parliament, the Senate, and more than two-thirds of the provincial legislatures representing 50% of the population (known as the 7+50 formula - 7 legislatures, 50% of the population). This formula applies to the following changes:
(a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d) subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada;
(e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and
(f) the establishment of new provinces.
We've done 4 amendments like that since 1982, and had two failed attempts (Meech Lake & Charlettown Accords)
However, if the matter touches on any of the following:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force;
(c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(e) changing the amendment procedure itself.
The formula is unanimous consent of the House of Commons, the Senate, and all 10 provincial legislatures. So to insert the language doing away with the Office of the Governor General would require negotiations to cover demands from:
-Quebec, up to and including their desire for independence (Quebec has still not formally agreed to the Constitution Act from 1982, and the Meech Lake & Charlettown Accords were aimed at rectifying those issues and neither succeeded under the 7+50 approach);
-The West (by which I really mean Alberta, and maybe Saskatchewan) and their anger over a variety of issues;
-both of the above can likely be lumped into the broader category of the power balance between the federal government & the provinces, and their are also likely issues in Newfoundland & Labrador, the Maritimes, Ontario, and BC, and possibly the territories on this front I'm unaware of;
-Indigenous matters which would be really important to deal with, but would cause all kinds of issues because racism;
-and probably some other structural changes that would make things make more sense for government in the 21st Century.
Because every legislature across the country would need to be in harmony, it would essentially be a never-ending series of hostage negotiations where each province and political party could hold out on an issue.
I mean, I like the idea - I don't see the need for the GG, or anything else, but this is not a simple matter.
posted by nubs at 11:32 AM on March 4, 2021 [9 favorites]
I'm extremely charmed by how little anyone in Ireland seems to care about the position of president
I wouldn’t say we don’t care about the position, it’s just that it’s a very different position to the executive President that you have in the US or France. It’s much closer to the role of Governor General that you have in Canada/Australia/New Zealand etc. as that’s what it was based on. Most of the time, it’s been elderly politicians (to the point where I should admit I wasn’t even really aware that we had a President until I was about 10 and we both had a mock Presidential election in school, and Mary Robinson got elected by the grownups.)
because Kate was treated wickedly by the press pretty much until Meghan hit the scene
This gets a bit forgotten sometimes. It was nothing compared to the abuse that Meghan got (and gets) but I’m fairly sure most of the "nice" headlines about Kate are from later. The British press attacked Kate until they found a new and better victim - even more of an outsider.
posted by scorbet at 11:50 AM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
I wouldn’t say we don’t care about the position, it’s just that it’s a very different position to the executive President that you have in the US or France. It’s much closer to the role of Governor General that you have in Canada/Australia/New Zealand etc. as that’s what it was based on. Most of the time, it’s been elderly politicians (to the point where I should admit I wasn’t even really aware that we had a President until I was about 10 and we both had a mock Presidential election in school, and Mary Robinson got elected by the grownups.)
because Kate was treated wickedly by the press pretty much until Meghan hit the scene
This gets a bit forgotten sometimes. It was nothing compared to the abuse that Meghan got (and gets) but I’m fairly sure most of the "nice" headlines about Kate are from later. The British press attacked Kate until they found a new and better victim - even more of an outsider.
posted by scorbet at 11:50 AM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
If Charles gets the throne I'm going to fly back to Australia, reestablish residency, get myself back on the electoral roll, and then put all my energy campaigning for and then voting for an Australian Republic. Back in '99 (when I was a scant twelve months from voting) Howard (a staunch monarchist) basically rigged the whole thing. Not only by putting God into the preamble for the Constitution for said Republic but by also by making President a parliamentary appointed thing instead of elected. He even stacked the convention with his cronies and still couldn't get a majority vote against a republic.
It's already difficult to get any referendum passed in Australia requiring both a majority of electors and a majority of states (4 of 6) but Howard guaranteed the yes vote going down in flames. With any luck Australia has a Labor government when Liz carks it we'll get the referendum to not put Charles on the money within the week and the sheer horror of the spectacle will ensure its passing. I know for sure my mum and dad who both voted to retain the monarchy will be eager to rid the country of Charles.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:07 PM on March 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
It's already difficult to get any referendum passed in Australia requiring both a majority of electors and a majority of states (4 of 6) but Howard guaranteed the yes vote going down in flames. With any luck Australia has a Labor government when Liz carks it we'll get the referendum to not put Charles on the money within the week and the sheer horror of the spectacle will ensure its passing. I know for sure my mum and dad who both voted to retain the monarchy will be eager to rid the country of Charles.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:07 PM on March 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
Regardless of whether you believe Markle was a bully (I don't), anyone who has heard a single sentence come out of Prince Philip's sexist, racist, xenophobic, antisemitic mouth cannot entertain for even an instant the idea that the royal staff had never encountered bullying until the Black lady showed up.
posted by tzikeh at 12:26 PM on March 4, 2021 [64 favorites]
posted by tzikeh at 12:26 PM on March 4, 2021 [64 favorites]
I'll say one thing, it's certainly distracting people from Brexit.
posted by Marticus at 1:37 PM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by Marticus at 1:37 PM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
> the only likeable ones have been Diana, William (well, not sure these days), Kate, Harry and Meghan
I'm sure their relative cuteness has nothing to do with that.
Well if that's the criterion, let's just put the corgis in charge.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 1:57 PM on March 4, 2021 [16 favorites]
I'm sure their relative cuteness has nothing to do with that.
Well if that's the criterion, let's just put the corgis in charge.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 1:57 PM on March 4, 2021 [16 favorites]
Hahahahahahahah, I read a book called "Not In Front Of The Corgis" (or some title like that) in which it said that the Queen's corgis were totally untrained brats. I love corgis but uh...wouldn't have wanted to deal with those. That said, seems weird you wouldn't bother to train the dogs to not poop everywhere in the palace, for godsake.
Honestly, sure, those folks are cute, but also they act like human beings, not perpetual Stiff Upper Lips. And the ladies in that bunch at least were raised outside of the Royal Family cult, and I'm sure Diana did the best she could with her kids before she died with regards to dealing with that, making sure they had actual feelings, etc.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:04 PM on March 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
Honestly, sure, those folks are cute, but also they act like human beings, not perpetual Stiff Upper Lips. And the ladies in that bunch at least were raised outside of the Royal Family cult, and I'm sure Diana did the best she could with her kids before she died with regards to dealing with that, making sure they had actual feelings, etc.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:04 PM on March 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
Diana Spencer was a kindergarten aide before she married; she genuinely liked kids, and she deliberately broke royal protocol (choosing hospital births and breastfeeding, having her sons along while doing volunteer work) bringing up her own children.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:56 PM on March 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:56 PM on March 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
Linda Holmes has some thoughts.
"I would expect those people to support and agree with either boy bailing, especially if it was because of what was done to their mom. ... So although the treatment of Meghan has been racist (obviously) and vindictive (of course), I think vilifying her is also self-preservation. Nobody was ever going to expect those ladies I watched the wedding with to hold it against Harry if he wanted out. So the only way not to lose them was to persuade them that he didn’t really *want* out, that he was being manipulated. If it works, it persuades the people who follow the family that you can be on his side and the family’s side at the same time, because the real villain is *her*. Going to war with Meghan is potentially a really insidious way to delegitimize Harry’s choices and not lose people whose only real sympathy or fondness for the monarchy has been about those guys they still see as little kids with their mother."
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:24 PM on March 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
"I would expect those people to support and agree with either boy bailing, especially if it was because of what was done to their mom. ... So although the treatment of Meghan has been racist (obviously) and vindictive (of course), I think vilifying her is also self-preservation. Nobody was ever going to expect those ladies I watched the wedding with to hold it against Harry if he wanted out. So the only way not to lose them was to persuade them that he didn’t really *want* out, that he was being manipulated. If it works, it persuades the people who follow the family that you can be on his side and the family’s side at the same time, because the real villain is *her*. Going to war with Meghan is potentially a really insidious way to delegitimize Harry’s choices and not lose people whose only real sympathy or fondness for the monarchy has been about those guys they still see as little kids with their mother."
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:24 PM on March 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
There is a clip from an interview with Megan Markle in 2019 where she says that her British friends warned her not to have a serious relationship with Prince Harry because the British tabloids would eat her alive. I'm not surprised she didn't really believe it, but the press coverage she received was predictable. It's exactly like the Kate coverage but worse because she's less important (married the spare), American and black. I think mostly the tabloid editors are astounded she didn't hang around to be their punching bag and that's also driving the continued editorial line and coverage here.
The latest stories I've seen are critical of the Oprah Winfrey interview because Prince Philip is currently in hospital. IIRC comments by normal people over here who care tend to be broadly split, there is a sense that they bailed on us, and people don't like the idea of them 'cashing in' but also that they're entitled to have their own lives. We don't think the Royal family are normal exactly but we're accustomed to what they normally do and how they're treated, and part of the package deal with being actual royalty still, is a certain sense of public ownership by many.
My own take is that they wanted both different careers (not just opening buildings) and a life in a place Meghan likes that's away from the British tabloids. These are perfectly reasonable things for people to want and have. Moving continents for your partner is a big thing and marrying an important member of the BRF is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
posted by plonkee at 3:30 PM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
The latest stories I've seen are critical of the Oprah Winfrey interview because Prince Philip is currently in hospital. IIRC comments by normal people over here who care tend to be broadly split, there is a sense that they bailed on us, and people don't like the idea of them 'cashing in' but also that they're entitled to have their own lives. We don't think the Royal family are normal exactly but we're accustomed to what they normally do and how they're treated, and part of the package deal with being actual royalty still, is a certain sense of public ownership by many.
My own take is that they wanted both different careers (not just opening buildings) and a life in a place Meghan likes that's away from the British tabloids. These are perfectly reasonable things for people to want and have. Moving continents for your partner is a big thing and marrying an important member of the BRF is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
posted by plonkee at 3:30 PM on March 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
NYT: In Run-Up to Oprah’s Interview With Harry and Meghan, Royal Accusations Fly
The spectacle of the royal family conducting a human-resources investigation of one of its most famous in-laws left longtime observers of the monarchy slack-jawed. They predicted it would lead to further embarrassing disclosures, since the palace did not act on the complaint at the time, and other people who worked in the palace might take it as an invitation to lodge their own charges of mistreatment.posted by jenfullmoon at 4:03 PM on March 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
“They have opened an unbelievable can of worms,” said Peter Hunt, a former royal correspondent for the BBC. “Are they really going to find her guilty of bullying? Will it be in the form of a #MeToo investigation? It really feels like the anarchists have taken over the institution.”
For Buckingham Palace to be dragged into a dispute like this is exceedingly awkward. That has sown doubts that the queen or Prince Charles are behind efforts to discredit Meghan. They are more likely to be preoccupied by Prince Philip, 99, who is recovering from a heart procedure in a London hospital.
But relations between William and Harry continue to be deeply strained, according to people with ties to the palace. Longtime observers of the royal family said that when disputes like this erupt into the open, it usually suggests that someone — either senior palace officials or a family member — did nothing to stop it.
“This tap could be turned off,” Mr. Hunt said. “The Buckingham Palace bit of it could be turned off in a nanosecond.”
It does irritate me that people are annoyed that they were asked/told to give up their specific royal patronages. Those come with the job that they don't want to do, and and are held on behalf of a country they don't want to live in. They have plenty of other things going on, and causes they support. I also think it's fine for the BRF to decide that working for them in any capacity means giving up certain kinds of commercial opportunities, and for the Sussexes to be asked to choose rather than be able to have both. Not everything that has happened is unreasonable.
posted by plonkee at 4:03 PM on March 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by plonkee at 4:03 PM on March 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
"“They have opened an unbelievable can of worms,” said Peter Hunt, a former royal correspondent for the BBC."
Peter Hunt is a good follow if you like royal drama. He spent years as a royal reporter, with all the access journalism that goes along with it -- you develop your sources in the royal household by printing flattering stories in the hopes of getting dirt at some point. But he's retired from that and has no intention of going back, so now he just explains the inner machinations and makes smart guesses about who's making what decisions and why. (Also sometimes current royal reporters will launder the things they can't print without losing access through him.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:14 PM on March 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
Peter Hunt is a good follow if you like royal drama. He spent years as a royal reporter, with all the access journalism that goes along with it -- you develop your sources in the royal household by printing flattering stories in the hopes of getting dirt at some point. But he's retired from that and has no intention of going back, so now he just explains the inner machinations and makes smart guesses about who's making what decisions and why. (Also sometimes current royal reporters will launder the things they can't print without losing access through him.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:14 PM on March 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
Well, they specifically asked to go part time, as it were. The Queen has refused that offer and said all or nothing, and you said you wanted to go part time, so you get nothing. They still want to do the job, just not on the same amount/level that they were doing. (And it sounds like they want to continue working with those organizations even though they have been thrown out of the official patronages. Especially sucks when Harry's been a founder of at least 1-2 of the organizations--Sentebale and Invictus Games, I believe.) I've had several coworkers ask to go part time over the years, been told no, and quit their jobs when they didn't want to because they couldn't handle full time any more and nobody would make allowances for them.
I still don't understand why the patronages and honorary military titles are such a big deal, though. Like...does one actually DO any kind of job with those honorary military titles? Receive any benefits/paycheck? March in the
front at a parade? Because to an American "honorary military title" sounds like getting an honorary diploma to me in the "sounds nice but doesn't actually mean anything" sort of way and I don't get why it's a huge big deal. It was also confusing to hear all year long "they lost their patronages and military titles" and then NOW it's like oh, they REALLY lost them? I'm a complete research nerd and I have yet to find any explanation for why this is so huge to them or anyone. Anyone got any links?
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:15 PM on March 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
I still don't understand why the patronages and honorary military titles are such a big deal, though. Like...does one actually DO any kind of job with those honorary military titles? Receive any benefits/paycheck? March in the
front at a parade? Because to an American "honorary military title" sounds like getting an honorary diploma to me in the "sounds nice but doesn't actually mean anything" sort of way and I don't get why it's a huge big deal. It was also confusing to hear all year long "they lost their patronages and military titles" and then NOW it's like oh, they REALLY lost them? I'm a complete research nerd and I have yet to find any explanation for why this is so huge to them or anyone. Anyone got any links?
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:15 PM on March 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
have serious doubts that Meghan Markle was any worse than most of the rest of the family.
I think a lot of this likely rests on cultural and generational assumptions about what is and isn’t bullying.
So for the “old guard”:
Phillip being casually racist in front of them? Likely not perceived as bullying
Forgetting the tiny actions of protocol designed to make royal assistants feel important and honored as a lifetime career rather than mere “staff” - probably perceived as bullying
And the issue of directness is not one native to England, really. There’s all those “quietly expressing disapproval or disappointment without outright saying it” expectations that I imagine frank criticism would have broken.
This issue seems difficult because on the one hand there’s a disparity of power in that Markle was a duchess, and in the other there’s a disparity of cultural power in that English culture is literally the most colonial culture the world has ever known and it impacts everything and is (imo) racist as fuck.
posted by corb at 4:20 PM on March 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
I think a lot of this likely rests on cultural and generational assumptions about what is and isn’t bullying.
So for the “old guard”:
Phillip being casually racist in front of them? Likely not perceived as bullying
Forgetting the tiny actions of protocol designed to make royal assistants feel important and honored as a lifetime career rather than mere “staff” - probably perceived as bullying
And the issue of directness is not one native to England, really. There’s all those “quietly expressing disapproval or disappointment without outright saying it” expectations that I imagine frank criticism would have broken.
This issue seems difficult because on the one hand there’s a disparity of power in that Markle was a duchess, and in the other there’s a disparity of cultural power in that English culture is literally the most colonial culture the world has ever known and it impacts everything and is (imo) racist as fuck.
posted by corb at 4:20 PM on March 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
Harry still has Invictus and Sentebale...I believe those are his own initiatives, not royal patronages held from the Queen.
The honorary military titles seem important to Harry because of his prior service. I believe they are similar to patronages - visiting members of the service, doing opening ceremonies, and the like.
Andrew still holds a number of honorary military titles despite being forced to step down as a senior, working member of the royal family.
posted by Preserver at 4:48 PM on March 4, 2021
The honorary military titles seem important to Harry because of his prior service. I believe they are similar to patronages - visiting members of the service, doing opening ceremonies, and the like.
Andrew still holds a number of honorary military titles despite being forced to step down as a senior, working member of the royal family.
posted by Preserver at 4:48 PM on March 4, 2021
If William does have any bad feelings toward Harry, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that they were rooted in wishing he had the same option.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 5:05 PM on March 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 5:05 PM on March 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
My proposal for Australia - we put a lot of effort identifying an "Australian of the Year" - why not give them the Governor General gig for the year? In addition, for all of those state Governor roles - use the state nominees for Australian of the Year to be the Governor.
If the state nominee ends up taking the Governor General role, or someone doesn't want the job, the previous incumbent can stay on for the extra year. The staff are professional enough that they can handle the turnover
I used to think we should make the role second prize in one of the annual lotteries - the little old lady who was hoping to win the big one, misses out, but here is a nice consolation prize, but people seemed to think that was "disrespectful of the august authority of the position"
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 5:46 PM on March 4, 2021
If the state nominee ends up taking the Governor General role, or someone doesn't want the job, the previous incumbent can stay on for the extra year. The staff are professional enough that they can handle the turnover
I used to think we should make the role second prize in one of the annual lotteries - the little old lady who was hoping to win the big one, misses out, but here is a nice consolation prize, but people seemed to think that was "disrespectful of the august authority of the position"
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 5:46 PM on March 4, 2021
"My proposal for Australia - we put a lot of effort identifying an "Australian of the Year" - why not give them the Governor General gig for the year?"
The one good idea I thought Lindsay Graham had was that if elected US president, he would have "rotating First Ladies" and I honestly think that's brilliant. What if every year we declared, "This is the year of US music" and made Beyonce the White House social hostess for the year, with a ton of focus on promoting American musical heritage? And then the next year, "This is the year of education" and chose a prominent teacher or educational theorist? (Or four of them, three months at a time.) You could use the role of "spousal social host" or "ceremonial head of state" (depending on your system) to promote your country's art and culture and natural beauty and economic strengths and national commitments (to children, education, science, health care, technology, whatever).
Of course you get into a lot of questions about who to name and how to pick them. But imagine if you were trying to promote public transit in the United States and suddenly a CTA employee from Chicago is spending three months going to state dinners with President Biden and chatting with the Emperor of Japan about the Shinkansen while the US government ran a legislative and PR campaign of the importance of public transit?
That's one of things that heads of state/social hosts already do in a lot of countries -- Queens, princesses, and First Ladies spend a lot of time showing up in stunning red-carpet looks by their nation's fashion designers; Michelle Obama made a point of wearing up-and-coming young designers, and designers of color. They tour factories and cut ribbons and attend folk music performances. Why not declare a national theme and make the head of state or social host an ambassador for that theme? Oh, our national theme is the importance of exercise in promoting health among children? Welcome Serena Williams, the US's ceremonial social hostess for the next six months.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:11 PM on March 4, 2021 [17 favorites]
The one good idea I thought Lindsay Graham had was that if elected US president, he would have "rotating First Ladies" and I honestly think that's brilliant. What if every year we declared, "This is the year of US music" and made Beyonce the White House social hostess for the year, with a ton of focus on promoting American musical heritage? And then the next year, "This is the year of education" and chose a prominent teacher or educational theorist? (Or four of them, three months at a time.) You could use the role of "spousal social host" or "ceremonial head of state" (depending on your system) to promote your country's art and culture and natural beauty and economic strengths and national commitments (to children, education, science, health care, technology, whatever).
Of course you get into a lot of questions about who to name and how to pick them. But imagine if you were trying to promote public transit in the United States and suddenly a CTA employee from Chicago is spending three months going to state dinners with President Biden and chatting with the Emperor of Japan about the Shinkansen while the US government ran a legislative and PR campaign of the importance of public transit?
That's one of things that heads of state/social hosts already do in a lot of countries -- Queens, princesses, and First Ladies spend a lot of time showing up in stunning red-carpet looks by their nation's fashion designers; Michelle Obama made a point of wearing up-and-coming young designers, and designers of color. They tour factories and cut ribbons and attend folk music performances. Why not declare a national theme and make the head of state or social host an ambassador for that theme? Oh, our national theme is the importance of exercise in promoting health among children? Welcome Serena Williams, the US's ceremonial social hostess for the next six months.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:11 PM on March 4, 2021 [17 favorites]
As far as I understand it*, getting rid of "The Crown" in the Canadian constitution would be massively complicated, but that role doesn't have to be personified in the current monarch of a distant island and could conceivably be fulfilled by a line of pampered photogenic cats.
Or, more simply, anointing Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Canada. The current constitution says we have to have a Crown; there's nowhere saying we have to recognize the British monarch as our Crown.
This would have the dual-barrelled effect of immediately giving Canada its own, much cooler royals and pissing off the line of Windsor. Win-win.
posted by mightygodking at 7:38 PM on March 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
Or, more simply, anointing Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Canada. The current constitution says we have to have a Crown; there's nowhere saying we have to recognize the British monarch as our Crown.
This would have the dual-barrelled effect of immediately giving Canada its own, much cooler royals and pissing off the line of Windsor. Win-win.
posted by mightygodking at 7:38 PM on March 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
British aristocracy isn’t just racist and classist they also love to look down their noses at Americans. They can’t not hate her.
posted by interogative mood at 7:44 PM on March 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 7:44 PM on March 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: SQUISHY SQUISHY LITTLE BLUEBERRY!
This spoke to my sense of Life Right Now so hard that I am getting it on a t-shirt and will wear it, shield-like, in the places where I must intermingle with people horrible and selfish.
Thank you, Eyebrows McGee.
posted by Silvery Fish at 8:02 PM on March 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
This spoke to my sense of Life Right Now so hard that I am getting it on a t-shirt and will wear it, shield-like, in the places where I must intermingle with people horrible and selfish.
Thank you, Eyebrows McGee.
posted by Silvery Fish at 8:02 PM on March 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
As much as it seems that Harry has a better head on his shoulders than much of his family, if we're just making up Royals we can do a lot better.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 8:34 PM on March 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 8:34 PM on March 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Well, they specifically asked to go part time, as it were. The Queen has refused that offer and said all or nothing, and you said you wanted to go part time, so you get nothing. They still want to do the job, just not on the same amount/level that they were doing.
The issue was not cutting back on the amount of work that they wanted to do, but a combination of the commercial opportunities they wanted to pursue alongside it and their desire to live predominantly outside the UK. Rightly or wrongly, the perception is that either of those things are incompatible with the job of being a “senior Royal”, and I think they are at least right that those things would be unpopular with the people footing the bill. It is not that unusual for jobs to come with specific requirements, if you are a civil servant you cannot also be an MP. If you work for NYC you often have to live in the 5 boroughs. The place it’s ended up is very similar to that of Princess Märtha-Louise of Norway.
posted by plonkee at 12:01 AM on March 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
The issue was not cutting back on the amount of work that they wanted to do, but a combination of the commercial opportunities they wanted to pursue alongside it and their desire to live predominantly outside the UK. Rightly or wrongly, the perception is that either of those things are incompatible with the job of being a “senior Royal”, and I think they are at least right that those things would be unpopular with the people footing the bill. It is not that unusual for jobs to come with specific requirements, if you are a civil servant you cannot also be an MP. If you work for NYC you often have to live in the 5 boroughs. The place it’s ended up is very similar to that of Princess Märtha-Louise of Norway.
posted by plonkee at 12:01 AM on March 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
They can’t not hate her.
I got that vibe about Wallis Simpson.
posted by clavdivs at 12:27 AM on March 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
I got that vibe about Wallis Simpson.
posted by clavdivs at 12:27 AM on March 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
>Oh, would that be Jason Knauf, who has been leaking Meghan's private business since 2017, has been named in the press and in court documents as doing so, and who was allegedly a big part of why Harry and Meghan moved to Frogmore Cottage and set up a separate household outside of Kensington Palace? Who was allegedly going to testify on behalf of the Daily Mail before Markle won her case without need for a trial because there was no possible legal way for the Daily Mail to prevail?
Also worth noting is that Jason Knauff has worked closely with Prince William as a trusted advisor for several years, and was in fact promoted by the Cambrides after many of these damaging leaks occurred. There is no scenario in which Prince William is not at least partially responsible, and if nothing else his complete silence in the face of everything is reprehensible as both a brother and a senior royal. It leaves me baffled as to why people think William should quickly replace Charles as King for the betterment of the monarchy. It was William all along, indeed.
I'm looking forward to the interview, not for an airing of family drama, but because I hope Meghan is able to reclaim some of her humanity after years of relentless media caricaturization. I respect a lot of the couple's current initiatives, and I'm rooting for them after all of this insanity.
May this never happen to another royal bride, but it doesn't appear that lessons are being learned.
posted by sundaydriver at 2:27 AM on March 5, 2021 [17 favorites]
Also worth noting is that Jason Knauff has worked closely with Prince William as a trusted advisor for several years, and was in fact promoted by the Cambrides after many of these damaging leaks occurred. There is no scenario in which Prince William is not at least partially responsible, and if nothing else his complete silence in the face of everything is reprehensible as both a brother and a senior royal. It leaves me baffled as to why people think William should quickly replace Charles as King for the betterment of the monarchy. It was William all along, indeed.
I'm looking forward to the interview, not for an airing of family drama, but because I hope Meghan is able to reclaim some of her humanity after years of relentless media caricaturization. I respect a lot of the couple's current initiatives, and I'm rooting for them after all of this insanity.
May this never happen to another royal bride, but it doesn't appear that lessons are being learned.
posted by sundaydriver at 2:27 AM on March 5, 2021 [17 favorites]
At this point I'm not sure why the Royal Family cares about Harry. He's now 6th in line to the throne, by the time William actually gets to be King (in about 20 - 30 years seeing how long Elizabeth is holding on and assuming Charles does similar) he'll probably be down in the 12-15 range once Williams kids start procreating.
At least he isn't desperately clinging onto royalty like the Kents.
posted by PenDevil at 3:23 AM on March 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
At least he isn't desperately clinging onto royalty like the Kents.
posted by PenDevil at 3:23 AM on March 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
Well, if they’re worried about what he and Meghan will say to the press, pre-emptively discrediting them would be a strategy.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 5:49 AM on March 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 5:49 AM on March 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
My proposal for Australia - we put a lot of effort identifying an "Australian of the Year" - why not give them the Governor General gig for the year? In addition, for all of those state Governor roles - use the state nominees for Australian of the Year to be the Governor.
Canada just finished a disastrous experiment for the Governor General office with a not very well vetted famous astronaut.
I don't see what the issue with voting them in is. We manage it in ireland and generally it works out well if you forget De Valera. Ours have a 7 year position, which makes it a long enough term that running the elections is not a regular issue or bone of contention.
Mind you, we had some fecking hideous candidates in the last few elections. Though at least Dana, the Christian singer, provided some mad entertainment in the one 10 or so years ago
posted by lesbiassparrow at 6:34 AM on March 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
Canada just finished a disastrous experiment for the Governor General office with a not very well vetted famous astronaut.
I don't see what the issue with voting them in is. We manage it in ireland and generally it works out well if you forget De Valera. Ours have a 7 year position, which makes it a long enough term that running the elections is not a regular issue or bone of contention.
Mind you, we had some fecking hideous candidates in the last few elections. Though at least Dana, the Christian singer, provided some mad entertainment in the one 10 or so years ago
posted by lesbiassparrow at 6:34 AM on March 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
I keep mentally writing AITA reddit posts on behalf of Harry and Meghan.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:18 AM on March 5, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:18 AM on March 5, 2021 [12 favorites]
Well, if they’re worried about what he and Meghan will say to the press, pre-emptively discrediting them would be a strategy.
Eh. I was looking up a specialty store the other day on a Yelp-style review website. A few people had negative reviews complaining about some thing or other. The store owners responded aggressively and at length to each negative review, trying to discredit the reviewers and explain why complaints were invalid. This ... didn't make the store look like a place I wanted to support.
Something like "We love Meghan and Harry, we're so sorry they found palace life so difficult but we understand, it really is hard to live in such a public way. And we're grateful to them for speaking up, and we want to work with them and William and Kate to make sure the kids will also be able to thrive under today's increasingly bright spotlight, and have we mentioned we love Meghan and Harry and they'll always be part of the family" would also be a strategy, and probably a more successful one if the goal is to be beloved and admired.
But maybe that's not the goal.
posted by trig at 8:40 AM on March 5, 2021 [20 favorites]
Eh. I was looking up a specialty store the other day on a Yelp-style review website. A few people had negative reviews complaining about some thing or other. The store owners responded aggressively and at length to each negative review, trying to discredit the reviewers and explain why complaints were invalid. This ... didn't make the store look like a place I wanted to support.
Something like "We love Meghan and Harry, we're so sorry they found palace life so difficult but we understand, it really is hard to live in such a public way. And we're grateful to them for speaking up, and we want to work with them and William and Kate to make sure the kids will also be able to thrive under today's increasingly bright spotlight, and have we mentioned we love Meghan and Harry and they'll always be part of the family" would also be a strategy, and probably a more successful one if the goal is to be beloved and admired.
But maybe that's not the goal.
posted by trig at 8:40 AM on March 5, 2021 [20 favorites]
128 articles in the main right-wing papers slamming her yesterday.
128.
Yesterday.
With the tacit approval of the palace, apparently, because there would only need to be 3 or 4 phone calls and this shit would be shut down (as it seems to have been for Andrew).
Yes, these newspapers make money from the deep-seated racism, classism, misogyny, and xenophobia of a good chunk of the English people, but 128 articles in one day is beyond trying to make money and express hatred. It's simply insane.
posted by droplet at 9:25 AM on March 5, 2021 [42 favorites]
128.
Yesterday.
With the tacit approval of the palace, apparently, because there would only need to be 3 or 4 phone calls and this shit would be shut down (as it seems to have been for Andrew).
Yes, these newspapers make money from the deep-seated racism, classism, misogyny, and xenophobia of a good chunk of the English people, but 128 articles in one day is beyond trying to make money and express hatred. It's simply insane.
posted by droplet at 9:25 AM on March 5, 2021 [42 favorites]
But maybe that's not the goal.
It really seems like they're just being petty and cruel on purpose; I think popular imagination just assumed they had a character arc like all the movies & tv shows keep telling us they did, and that any minute now they'll come to understand that public perception of them matters and how they behave is subject to the public's approval but actually that's not true, they have no incentive to be good people or treat each other or anyone else fairly.They're just cruel, petty, shitty rich people who get too much attention.
posted by bleep at 9:46 AM on March 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
It really seems like they're just being petty and cruel on purpose; I think popular imagination just assumed they had a character arc like all the movies & tv shows keep telling us they did, and that any minute now they'll come to understand that public perception of them matters and how they behave is subject to the public's approval but actually that's not true, they have no incentive to be good people or treat each other or anyone else fairly.They're just cruel, petty, shitty rich people who get too much attention.
posted by bleep at 9:46 AM on March 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
Wow, Metafilter - the unanimous (except for maybe plonkee), undiluted hatred here surprises me. And disappoints.
posted by mmiddle at 5:38 PM on March 5, 2021
posted by mmiddle at 5:38 PM on March 5, 2021
What obligation do any of us owe the royal family, mmiddle? I'd say there's not much to defend about them, especially given the subject and framing of this thread.
posted by sagc at 5:41 PM on March 5, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by sagc at 5:41 PM on March 5, 2021 [12 favorites]
So, it seems a couple of YouTube people (pranksters?) managed to get four royal commentators to comment on the Oprah interview without having seen the interview: We Proved Royal Experts Lie About Harry and Meghan. Not sure about the relevance or prominence of these particular commentators, though. One of them was the Queen's former press secretary, one is the editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine (not sure if that's a significant thing or not), and one seems to have appeared on CNN as a royal commentator.
posted by mhum at 6:00 PM on March 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by mhum at 6:00 PM on March 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
Kelly Faircloth and "Royal Tea" weigh in on the earrings and whatnot: Points out that the usual people who do enforcing and squash this kinda drama aren't doing it.
"And an unnamed source told the Times in January 2020: “There’s no discipline. Everything leaks and then everyone engages in swearing and shouting and blames each other.”
In short, it sounds like “The Palace” en masse isn’t united enough to order a cheese pizza. Instead, there’s disorder, which leads to factions and even possibly individuals going their own way."
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:56 PM on March 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
"And an unnamed source told the Times in January 2020: “There’s no discipline. Everything leaks and then everyone engages in swearing and shouting and blames each other.”
In short, it sounds like “The Palace” en masse isn’t united enough to order a cheese pizza. Instead, there’s disorder, which leads to factions and even possibly individuals going their own way."
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:56 PM on March 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
Ok but that is hilarious and suddenly this all makes a lot more sense.
posted by bleep at 10:04 PM on March 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by bleep at 10:04 PM on March 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
I love the idea of a Dignity at Work policy where the boss measures the level of snacks to make sure employees aren't eating any.
posted by BibiRose at 7:38 AM on March 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by BibiRose at 7:38 AM on March 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
Wow, Metafilter - the unanimous (except for maybe plonkee), undiluted hatred here surprises me. And disappoints.
I dunno, I’m pretty okay with hating the undiluted products of racist, sexist, imperialist entitlement. Some of us live in former colonies that are still dealing with the continued fallout from their racist, imperialist actions. My mother grew up in a different former colony where she and her family were told daily that they were inferior because of the colour of their skin, and that the white British people in charge were superior.
Why should any of us be grateful to them?
And that doesn’t even get into their current appalling racist treatment of Meghan, and protection of Prince Andrew. Gross.
Me, I’m disappointed (but not surprised) to see someone actually defending the British Royal Family.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:11 PM on March 6, 2021 [46 favorites]
I dunno, I’m pretty okay with hating the undiluted products of racist, sexist, imperialist entitlement. Some of us live in former colonies that are still dealing with the continued fallout from their racist, imperialist actions. My mother grew up in a different former colony where she and her family were told daily that they were inferior because of the colour of their skin, and that the white British people in charge were superior.
Why should any of us be grateful to them?
And that doesn’t even get into their current appalling racist treatment of Meghan, and protection of Prince Andrew. Gross.
Me, I’m disappointed (but not surprised) to see someone actually defending the British Royal Family.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:11 PM on March 6, 2021 [46 favorites]
I love the idea of a Dignity at Work policy where the boss measures the level of snacks to make sure employees aren't eating any.
To be fair, if people were going around my personal home taking my snacks without asking, I'd be miffed too.
posted by amtho at 1:35 PM on March 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
To be fair, if people were going around my personal home taking my snacks without asking, I'd be miffed too.
posted by amtho at 1:35 PM on March 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
if people were going around my personal home taking my snacks without asking, I'd be miffed too.
On the other hand, noblesse oblige.
posted by trig at 2:46 PM on March 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
On the other hand, noblesse oblige.
posted by trig at 2:46 PM on March 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
A YouTuber duo had royal 'experts' comment on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's interview before they'd seen it
"In the interview, to my mind, this was an actress giving one of her great performances," said Seward in the video. "From start to finish, Meghan was acting."
The one time Manners and Pieters felt they pushed it quite far is when they asked the experts how they felt about Markle's passion for Balham Donkey Sanctuary and her decision not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (neither of which are opinions Markle holds, as far as the public is aware).
"It's so unlikely and so unfathomable. It was almost a way of giving them a chance," Manners said. "But I will give you a million pounds if the words 'Balham Donkey Sanctuary' come out of Meghan Markle's mouth."
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:56 PM on March 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
"In the interview, to my mind, this was an actress giving one of her great performances," said Seward in the video. "From start to finish, Meghan was acting."
The one time Manners and Pieters felt they pushed it quite far is when they asked the experts how they felt about Markle's passion for Balham Donkey Sanctuary and her decision not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (neither of which are opinions Markle holds, as far as the public is aware).
"It's so unlikely and so unfathomable. It was almost a way of giving them a chance," Manners said. "But I will give you a million pounds if the words 'Balham Donkey Sanctuary' come out of Meghan Markle's mouth."
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:56 PM on March 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
I bear no hatred for the royal family, diluted or otherwise. You don’t have to hate somebody to point out when you believe they’re doing something wrong.
(And for the record, I think the press is more to blame than the family itself, even on occasions when the family is in the wrong.)
posted by The Underpants Monster at 7:45 PM on March 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
(And for the record, I think the press is more to blame than the family itself, even on occasions when the family is in the wrong.)
posted by The Underpants Monster at 7:45 PM on March 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
if people were going around my personal home taking my snacks without asking, I'd be miffed too.
You do you, but if the people who literally swore an oath to protect me, and whose job description included "jump in front of a bullet for your boss" were eating my salty snack mix, I'd fucking make sure they had as much as they damn well could eat.
The article was pretty clear that it was the Royal Protection Officers (UK equivalent of US Secret Service) who were the main offenders and primary target of the Queen's displeasure.
posted by seasparrow at 10:50 PM on March 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
You do you, but if the people who literally swore an oath to protect me, and whose job description included "jump in front of a bullet for your boss" were eating my salty snack mix, I'd fucking make sure they had as much as they damn well could eat.
The article was pretty clear that it was the Royal Protection Officers (UK equivalent of US Secret Service) who were the main offenders and primary target of the Queen's displeasure.
posted by seasparrow at 10:50 PM on March 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
"Activating the big hand-cranked "Normal country" klaxon in the UK tabloid press today.
- And a reminder that, as well as being pushed around by a meat-headed press office at Buckingham palace, the UK media are choosing to fixate on this story at the expense of a pandemic where we have one of the world's highest per-capita death rates, where senior government figures have been shown to be involved in commissioning illegal contracts for their friends or a situation where we have just cast ourselves adrift from our largest trading partners.
posted by rongorongo at 5:18 AM on March 7, 2021 [12 favorites]
- And a reminder that, as well as being pushed around by a meat-headed press office at Buckingham palace, the UK media are choosing to fixate on this story at the expense of a pandemic where we have one of the world's highest per-capita death rates, where senior government figures have been shown to be involved in commissioning illegal contracts for their friends or a situation where we have just cast ourselves adrift from our largest trading partners.
posted by rongorongo at 5:18 AM on March 7, 2021 [12 favorites]
Or, more simply, anointing Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Canada. The current constitution says we have to have a Crown; there's nowhere saying we have to recognize the British monarch as our Crown.
Seems like a bad idea to appoint Jessica Mulroney's love-hate BFF Queen.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:15 AM on March 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Seems like a bad idea to appoint Jessica Mulroney's love-hate BFF Queen.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:15 AM on March 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
"Harry’s making the same mistake as Diana - and I fear he’ll come to regret it, just like his mother did" writes royal biographer PENNY JUNOR
The Daily Mail is vile.
posted by fullerine at 9:49 AM on March 7, 2021 [9 favorites]
The Daily Mail is vile.
posted by fullerine at 9:49 AM on March 7, 2021 [9 favorites]
WaPo:
During her highly-anticipated primetime interview with Oprah Winfrey on Sunday night, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, said she had suicidal thoughts due to the brutal loneliness and intense scrutiny she felt as being part of the royal family after marrying Harry, Duke of Sussex, in 2018. “I just didn’t want to be alive anymore,” she said.posted by jenfullmoon at 6:22 PM on March 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
Meghan said she told members of the royal family that she needed help, such as possibly going to a hospital. But she didn’t receive any. When she told her husband, he was so concerned that he didn’t want her to stay home alone.
Winfrey said it sounded like, “you were trapped and couldn’t get help, even though you were on the verge of suicide."
“That’s the truth,” Meghan said.
Meghan also revealed when she was pregnant with her now 2-year-old son Archie, there were “concerns and conversations" about how dark his skin would be when he was born — and that race may have played a role in why she and Harry were told why he would not be given the title of prince, nor would the baby be given security after he was born.
Winfrey, upon hearing this, was stunned. “That’s a conversation with you?” she asked. “About how dark your baby is going to be?” When Meghan didn’t respond, she followed up: “You’re not going to tell me who had the conversation?"
“I think that would be very damaging to them,” Meghan said.
We know who raised the "concerns," don't we? It was Philip. Of course it was Philip.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:48 PM on March 7, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by Countess Elena at 6:48 PM on March 7, 2021 [8 favorites]
NYT live updates. This is what happens when I live on the West Coast and have to read what's being said on the Internet.
* Before the official wedding, they had the Archbishop of Canterbury marry them in the backyard.
* Prince Harry says his father stopped taking his calls over his plan to step back from royal life.
* "Meghan and Harry pushed back on the idea that they had “blindsided” the royal family with their decision to step back as senior members, announced in January 2020. Meghan referred to “two years” of conversations “before we finally announced it” — implying that they were at least discussing it prior to their wedding."
* The new baby is a girl.
* "We’re less than halfway through the special and I can’t count the potential publicity crises for the palace. "
* Meghan is turning seemingly every tabloid story on its head — she didn’t make Kate cry, Kate made her cry; it was the palace that decided not to make Archie a prince; they never even asked Meghan and Harry to take a picture leaving the hospital. This interview is setting a new standard for the tell-all.
* Meghan is telling us that the palaces could have knocked down the negative coverage of her in the British press, like the report that she made Kate cry, but did not.... Meghan says the “Meghan-made-Kate-cry” story was a “turning point.” Meghan won't go into details about the whole thing, but said Kate apologized.
* "Referring to being criticized by the British press for eating avocados, Meghan says, “That’s a really loaded piece of toast.” This whole interview is quite the loaded piece of toast so far."
* Harry has been cut off from the family and is living off Diana's money (and presumably those deals).
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:53 PM on March 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
* Before the official wedding, they had the Archbishop of Canterbury marry them in the backyard.
* Prince Harry says his father stopped taking his calls over his plan to step back from royal life.
* "Meghan and Harry pushed back on the idea that they had “blindsided” the royal family with their decision to step back as senior members, announced in January 2020. Meghan referred to “two years” of conversations “before we finally announced it” — implying that they were at least discussing it prior to their wedding."
* The new baby is a girl.
* "We’re less than halfway through the special and I can’t count the potential publicity crises for the palace. "
* Meghan is turning seemingly every tabloid story on its head — she didn’t make Kate cry, Kate made her cry; it was the palace that decided not to make Archie a prince; they never even asked Meghan and Harry to take a picture leaving the hospital. This interview is setting a new standard for the tell-all.
* Meghan is telling us that the palaces could have knocked down the negative coverage of her in the British press, like the report that she made Kate cry, but did not.... Meghan says the “Meghan-made-Kate-cry” story was a “turning point.” Meghan won't go into details about the whole thing, but said Kate apologized.
* "Referring to being criticized by the British press for eating avocados, Meghan says, “That’s a really loaded piece of toast.” This whole interview is quite the loaded piece of toast so far."
* Harry has been cut off from the family and is living off Diana's money (and presumably those deals).
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:53 PM on March 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
* Meghan had surrendered her keys, driver’s license and passport upon joining the family. “I couldn’t, you know, call an Uber to the palace,” she said.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:05 PM on March 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:05 PM on March 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
"Harry’s making the same mistake as Diana - and I fear he’ll come to regret it, just like his mother did" writes royal biographer PENNY JUNOR
Is that a threat? I'm having trouble parsing it any other way.
posted by nubs at 7:07 PM on March 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Is that a threat? I'm having trouble parsing it any other way.
posted by nubs at 7:07 PM on March 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Just finished watching, and I thought that the couple presented themselves very well. They were frank but respectful, insightful and self-aware. Entirely sympathetic if one was open to hearing them out. They did well.
As for the contents of what they said, there’s plenty of juicy stuff to go through, and there’ll be speculation on that for years. But they weren’t gushy or catty about it — if anything, they were quite restrained. I’m glad that they had their chance to simply tell their side, and cut through an amazing amount of bullshit — from both the press and from those who were supposedly on their side.
The framing of this interview will be interesting to see, which was why I wanted to see it for myself.
But surprises? None, really.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:22 PM on March 7, 2021
As for the contents of what they said, there’s plenty of juicy stuff to go through, and there’ll be speculation on that for years. But they weren’t gushy or catty about it — if anything, they were quite restrained. I’m glad that they had their chance to simply tell their side, and cut through an amazing amount of bullshit — from both the press and from those who were supposedly on their side.
The framing of this interview will be interesting to see, which was why I wanted to see it for myself.
But surprises? None, really.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:22 PM on March 7, 2021
We know who raised the "concerns," don't we? It was Philip. Of course it was Philip.
Yeah, I'm absolutely sure it was Philip. I also note a lot of the separation here between 'the queen' and 'the family'. This is no surprise, really - it's always been the women who have been the sharpest of the bunch.
posted by corb at 7:26 PM on March 7, 2021
Yeah, I'm absolutely sure it was Philip. I also note a lot of the separation here between 'the queen' and 'the family'. This is no surprise, really - it's always been the women who have been the sharpest of the bunch.
posted by corb at 7:26 PM on March 7, 2021
There is absolutely no way that the queen is as blameless as she was portrayed on that interview, but it was very smart to play it that way.
posted by jeather at 7:29 PM on March 7, 2021 [27 favorites]
posted by jeather at 7:29 PM on March 7, 2021 [27 favorites]
Just imagine, in a few days these two will be even more dumped on by the press when Philip dies. Whether or not they choose or are even allowed to attend the funeral, it will be a horrible scene and all blamed on them.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:31 PM on March 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by Countess Elena at 7:31 PM on March 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
There is absolutely no way that the queen is as blameless as she was portrayed on that interview, but it was very smart to play it that way.
Oh, absolutely, but I am 100% willing to believe she's smarter than anyone else who's left in that family, and would have been just as racist and awful but not quite so fucking blatant and dumb about it.
posted by kalimac at 7:32 PM on March 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Oh, absolutely, but I am 100% willing to believe she's smarter than anyone else who's left in that family, and would have been just as racist and awful but not quite so fucking blatant and dumb about it.
posted by kalimac at 7:32 PM on March 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
I’m not sure it was Philip. He’s a racist old fuck, and I’m sure he had those ‘concerns’ too.
I’m going with Chuck. Megs and Harry had shock and disappointment and hurt. No-one’s shocked if their racist grandpa says something racist, that’s what he does. But that disappointment points to Chuck, and rejection by a father of his son’s wife. And protecting the speaker, well, Philip doesn’t need protecting as much as the future King.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:34 PM on March 7, 2021 [30 favorites]
I’m going with Chuck. Megs and Harry had shock and disappointment and hurt. No-one’s shocked if their racist grandpa says something racist, that’s what he does. But that disappointment points to Chuck, and rejection by a father of his son’s wife. And protecting the speaker, well, Philip doesn’t need protecting as much as the future King.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:34 PM on March 7, 2021 [30 favorites]
interogative mood: British aristocracy isn’t just racist and classist they also love to look down their noses at Americans. They can’t not hate her.
clavdivs: I got that vibe about Wallis Simpson.
Not for nothing but Meghan isn't a Nazi sympathizer (please hold off on the Hallowe'en party jokes) and also didn't threaten the line of succession.
posted by tzikeh at 7:41 PM on March 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
clavdivs: I got that vibe about Wallis Simpson.
Not for nothing but Meghan isn't a Nazi sympathizer (please hold off on the Hallowe'en party jokes) and also didn't threaten the line of succession.
posted by tzikeh at 7:41 PM on March 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
There is only one thing I wish Oprah would have followed up on - Meghan and Harry both said Meghan does not (and did not) read the press. But she clearly knew and was asking for help. Through what channels was the info getting to her? I know her friends and mom, but I feel like there are other players who were using it to make her life hell.
posted by double bubble at 7:42 PM on March 7, 2021
posted by double bubble at 7:42 PM on March 7, 2021
I’m going with Chuck. Megs and Harry had shock and disappointment and hurt. No-one’s shocked if their racist grandpa says something racist, that’s what he does.
You know what? I'm going with William as the bad guy. Dollars to donuts. I'd bet Meghan thought at the outset, Well, he's young, he'll be cool. Pfft. William was already angry that Harry was more popular than himself even before Harry met Meghan—and then the antipodean tour put Harry and Meghan's charisma in sharp relief to William and Kate, who seem to have no warmth to them whatsoever.
Also, I still remember Beatrice rolling her eyes to Kate as the minister from Chicago gave the homily at the wedding. I daresay if I ever met up with that woman, I'd have some words for that disrespectful, racist little missy. Anyway, I would not be the least bit surprised if it turned out that it was the young people in the family, and the younger people on the BP/KP/CH staffs, who openly made Harry and Meghan's life there hell.
posted by droplet at 8:16 PM on March 7, 2021 [23 favorites]
You know what? I'm going with William as the bad guy. Dollars to donuts. I'd bet Meghan thought at the outset, Well, he's young, he'll be cool. Pfft. William was already angry that Harry was more popular than himself even before Harry met Meghan—and then the antipodean tour put Harry and Meghan's charisma in sharp relief to William and Kate, who seem to have no warmth to them whatsoever.
Also, I still remember Beatrice rolling her eyes to Kate as the minister from Chicago gave the homily at the wedding. I daresay if I ever met up with that woman, I'd have some words for that disrespectful, racist little missy. Anyway, I would not be the least bit surprised if it turned out that it was the young people in the family, and the younger people on the BP/KP/CH staffs, who openly made Harry and Meghan's life there hell.
posted by droplet at 8:16 PM on March 7, 2021 [23 favorites]
You may very well be right, droplet.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:19 PM on March 7, 2021
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:19 PM on March 7, 2021
They pretty much put the lie to the idea that the reason they wanted to step back was to cash in on their royal names, didn’t they?
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:32 PM on March 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:32 PM on March 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
The Crown, it turns out, wasn't nearly nasty enough.
posted by suelac at 8:38 PM on March 7, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by suelac at 8:38 PM on March 7, 2021 [13 favorites]
No royal protection squad security for their son? When the Queen assigned an RPS bodyguard to Beatrice during the princess's Swiss boarding-school education, and the Countess of Wessex Sophie Rhys-Jones has several RPS bodyguards, and was given special protection before her marriage to Prince Edward after fears of media intrusion?!
Meh, I'm also side-eyeing Chuckles: last May, the Daily Fail claimed Prince Charles was gallantly bearing the cost of their Los Angele security detail after they cried poverty and begged him, and the Sussexes quickly begged to differ (via strategic leak): Fearful Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Report Multiple Drone Flybys to LAPD, Will Now Pay for Own Security (The Daily Beast, May 27, 2019) Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are concerned for their family’s safety following multiple incidents at their Hollywood Hills home, where drones have flown as low as 20 feet above their property to snatch photographs of the couple and their young son, Archie. A source has exclusively told The Daily Beast that the couple has been coping with “unimaginable” levels of press intrusion at their temporary new home [...] The source also claimed that reports that Prince Charles is paying for Harry and Meghan’s security are untrue.
At least five drone-related incidents have been reported to the LAPD’s non-emergency line. The Daily Beast has been informed that there have been drone-related incidents at their home on May 9th, 19th, 20th, 21st, and 25th, which were all reported to the authorities. The drones are believed to be operated by paparazzi photographers. However, Harry and Meghan, who have faced repeated racist abuse and trolling, are forced to also treat incoming drones as potential terrorist threats, the source said. “They see these drones coming in at them, and they guess that they are being operated by photographers, but they can’t just assume that. Meghan received racist death threats at the time of her wedding, so the terror threat is very real for them,” the friend said.
Death threats certainly add a fraught layer to a new revelation (one which would otherwise read as, "overwhelmed by media circus, the couple sweetly took a moment for themselves and exchanged vows in a private ceremony days before the public one"): She [Meghan] continued, ""I was thinking about it, you know our wedding—three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that. We called the Archbishop and we just said, look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world. But we want our union between us, so the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury [...]" (Town & Country, March 8, 2021)
If the proceedings had been interrupted on May 19, 2018, they were already safely married.
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:11 PM on March 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
Meh, I'm also side-eyeing Chuckles: last May, the Daily Fail claimed Prince Charles was gallantly bearing the cost of their Los Angele security detail after they cried poverty and begged him, and the Sussexes quickly begged to differ (via strategic leak): Fearful Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Report Multiple Drone Flybys to LAPD, Will Now Pay for Own Security (The Daily Beast, May 27, 2019) Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are concerned for their family’s safety following multiple incidents at their Hollywood Hills home, where drones have flown as low as 20 feet above their property to snatch photographs of the couple and their young son, Archie. A source has exclusively told The Daily Beast that the couple has been coping with “unimaginable” levels of press intrusion at their temporary new home [...] The source also claimed that reports that Prince Charles is paying for Harry and Meghan’s security are untrue.
At least five drone-related incidents have been reported to the LAPD’s non-emergency line. The Daily Beast has been informed that there have been drone-related incidents at their home on May 9th, 19th, 20th, 21st, and 25th, which were all reported to the authorities. The drones are believed to be operated by paparazzi photographers. However, Harry and Meghan, who have faced repeated racist abuse and trolling, are forced to also treat incoming drones as potential terrorist threats, the source said. “They see these drones coming in at them, and they guess that they are being operated by photographers, but they can’t just assume that. Meghan received racist death threats at the time of her wedding, so the terror threat is very real for them,” the friend said.
Death threats certainly add a fraught layer to a new revelation (one which would otherwise read as, "overwhelmed by media circus, the couple sweetly took a moment for themselves and exchanged vows in a private ceremony days before the public one"): She [Meghan] continued, ""I was thinking about it, you know our wedding—three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that. We called the Archbishop and we just said, look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world. But we want our union between us, so the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury [...]" (Town & Country, March 8, 2021)
If the proceedings had been interrupted on May 19, 2018, they were already safely married.
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:11 PM on March 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
It's not every day you get to watch Oprah overthrow a whole monarchy.
The British aristocracy are going to have to take down their bathroom pictures of George Washington and hang pictures of Oprah.
I also felt some evil glee at the horrible palace PR flaks who kept selling Meghan out to the tabloids having to watching this live from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. London time. Imagine watching all your work for the last four years crumble on live television, and it's the middle of the goddamned night. You gamed it out, you had press releases ready, and at 2 a.m. you're trying to frantically take notes as Oprah calmly and incredibly skillfully lights the entire monarchy on fire in an absolute worst-case scenario. Plus you keep having to watch American commercial breaks, prolonging the misery as the hits. just. keep. coming.
When they said, "If you come at the Queen, you'd best not miss," they were actually talking about Oprah.
Also, Putting the lie to British media claims, "So far in March there have been 28,000 articles published about Meghan Markle..28,000 (7 days in) -- When Prince Andrew was suspected of being a paedophile there were 2,400 articles published -- Articles about Prince Andrew on average receive 3x more engagement"
They don't even do it because it makes them money. They do it because they're hateful racists who are cool with pedophiles.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:34 PM on March 7, 2021 [26 favorites]
The British aristocracy are going to have to take down their bathroom pictures of George Washington and hang pictures of Oprah.
I also felt some evil glee at the horrible palace PR flaks who kept selling Meghan out to the tabloids having to watching this live from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. London time. Imagine watching all your work for the last four years crumble on live television, and it's the middle of the goddamned night. You gamed it out, you had press releases ready, and at 2 a.m. you're trying to frantically take notes as Oprah calmly and incredibly skillfully lights the entire monarchy on fire in an absolute worst-case scenario. Plus you keep having to watch American commercial breaks, prolonging the misery as the hits. just. keep. coming.
When they said, "If you come at the Queen, you'd best not miss," they were actually talking about Oprah.
Also, Putting the lie to British media claims, "So far in March there have been 28,000 articles published about Meghan Markle..28,000 (7 days in) -- When Prince Andrew was suspected of being a paedophile there were 2,400 articles published -- Articles about Prince Andrew on average receive 3x more engagement"
They don't even do it because it makes them money. They do it because they're hateful racists who are cool with pedophiles.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:34 PM on March 7, 2021 [26 favorites]
Yeah, Phillip almost seems too obvious.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:39 PM on March 7, 2021
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:39 PM on March 7, 2021
I'd almost wonder if Diana's looking down going "hehhehheh" if it weren't for the fact that one of her sons seems more than willing to twist the knife in the back of the other son.
posted by gtrwolf at 10:36 PM on March 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by gtrwolf at 10:36 PM on March 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Gabrielle Cornish / @gcornish91 tweet: ONCE AGAIN AMERICA WILL DEFEAT THE BRITISH MONARCHY BY SPILLING TEA
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:45 PM on March 7, 2021 [15 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:45 PM on March 7, 2021 [15 favorites]
It not's just that royal family doesn't seem to understand that in the United States and the rest of the non-UK world a mid-level Hollywood personality has more star power than they can ever hope to match. It's that they don't seem to understand the power of of stories. American girl marries into stuffy, racist royal family for love is going to beat she was mean to staff every single time. Have they missed every Hollywood movie made about the British upper class? It's especially odd because the monarchy's only reason for existing is to enact stories that the UK tells itself about itself.
posted by rdr at 11:00 PM on March 7, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by rdr at 11:00 PM on March 7, 2021 [13 favorites]
Beatrice wasn't just rude to a random minister from Chicago, @droplet. She was rude to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. Our equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I didn't watch the interview, but I have to say, I'm disappointed, if not surprised. When I saw Charles stepping up to be nice to Meghan's mother at the wedding and how delighted everyone seemed to be in the pictures when Archie was born, I was hopeful that maybe they'd turned over a new leaf.
I don't know any of these people, obviously, but William seems to look increasingly sour and unhappy himself these days.
posted by dancing_angel at 11:04 PM on March 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
I didn't watch the interview, but I have to say, I'm disappointed, if not surprised. When I saw Charles stepping up to be nice to Meghan's mother at the wedding and how delighted everyone seemed to be in the pictures when Archie was born, I was hopeful that maybe they'd turned over a new leaf.
I don't know any of these people, obviously, but William seems to look increasingly sour and unhappy himself these days.
posted by dancing_angel at 11:04 PM on March 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
The UK Media is the worst, really just a festering pile of sewage. They have no ethics, no morals, but will do what it takes to get a story, including breaking libel laws. It is ok, they make so much money a permanent staff of lawyers is on hand to pay anyone off - its just part of the profit/loss calculations.
I remember a murder investigation in Bristol where a young woman was murdered while hiking. The Daily Mail started their own investigation and decided to hone in on a suspicious neighbor who taught at a local school. They dragged him through the mud, interviewing former students who disliked him and questioning whether he was a sexual deviant. I thought it was horrible since there wasn't much of a case against him. It turned out the killer was a violent, former boyfriend of the woman who did not even live in the area. I'm sure they handed some money to the teacher and then moved on happily, looking for more lives to destroy.
I love Priyamvada Gopal on Twitter. The press loves to attack her since she dares to be a feisty woman at Oxford calling out the UK on its colonial history and hypocrisy. Her pinned tweet is a screenshot of a retraction from the Daily Mail - lost deep in the back pages as they always are:
There is an effort to introduce a Fox style GB news into the UK. And the so-called press regulator, ofCom is about to be run by Paul Dacre. Paul Dacre is the former head of, yes, the Daily Mail. Fox guarding the chicken coop and all that...
posted by vacapinta at 1:07 AM on March 8, 2021 [11 favorites]
I remember a murder investigation in Bristol where a young woman was murdered while hiking. The Daily Mail started their own investigation and decided to hone in on a suspicious neighbor who taught at a local school. They dragged him through the mud, interviewing former students who disliked him and questioning whether he was a sexual deviant. I thought it was horrible since there wasn't much of a case against him. It turned out the killer was a violent, former boyfriend of the woman who did not even live in the area. I'm sure they handed some money to the teacher and then moved on happily, looking for more lives to destroy.
I love Priyamvada Gopal on Twitter. The press loves to attack her since she dares to be a feisty woman at Oxford calling out the UK on its colonial history and hypocrisy. Her pinned tweet is a screenshot of a retraction from the Daily Mail - lost deep in the back pages as they always are:
Our claim that 'Cambridge academic Professor Priyamvada Gopal was attempting to incite an aggressive and potentially violent race war, and that she supports and endorses the subjugation and persecution of white people... was therefore false'.--Daily Mail.As bad as it is now, it is set to be even worse, despite the good work of organizations like Stop Funding Hate.
There is an effort to introduce a Fox style GB news into the UK. And the so-called press regulator, ofCom is about to be run by Paul Dacre. Paul Dacre is the former head of, yes, the Daily Mail. Fox guarding the chicken coop and all that...
posted by vacapinta at 1:07 AM on March 8, 2021 [11 favorites]
CBS This Morning is posting interview clips.
What I want to know here is if the Queen is supposedly nice to them most of the time (except when she invited Harry over and then was "busy"), and it's hinted that Charles and/or William have not been, who is it that decided to cut off ALL their security? I would still assume the Queen made the decision that it was cool to leave all 3 of them open to death threats and kidnapping.
Harry said the racist comments were not out if the queen or Phillip.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:16 AM on March 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
What I want to know here is if the Queen is supposedly nice to them most of the time (except when she invited Harry over and then was "busy"), and it's hinted that Charles and/or William have not been, who is it that decided to cut off ALL their security? I would still assume the Queen made the decision that it was cool to leave all 3 of them open to death threats and kidnapping.
Harry said the racist comments were not out if the queen or Phillip.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:16 AM on March 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
Vacapinta, you have missed one of the most egregious example of the British press - where they helped a child murderer escape justice, by logging into the victim’s phone to pretend she was still alive, to sell more papers.
How those editors did not face charges for aiding and abetting/perverting the course of justice, I really do not understand.
posted by tinkletown at 6:28 AM on March 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
How those editors did not face charges for aiding and abetting/perverting the course of justice, I really do not understand.
posted by tinkletown at 6:28 AM on March 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
I assume it's either Charles and/or William. Doubt any other royals saying that would be as controversial, even if it was Kate or Camilla.
Evidence for Charles: always been kind of a turd for decades, older and more likely, the not taking calls.
Evidence for William: apparently not a fan of Meghan from the getgo, tried to talk Harry out of marrying her, the brothers are no longer speaking At All (I guess Charles is answering the phone again).
Yeah, it's probably William. I hate to say it because he has always seemed nice before and Charles has always been a pill, but....it's William.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:29 AM on March 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
Evidence for Charles: always been kind of a turd for decades, older and more likely, the not taking calls.
Evidence for William: apparently not a fan of Meghan from the getgo, tried to talk Harry out of marrying her, the brothers are no longer speaking At All (I guess Charles is answering the phone again).
Yeah, it's probably William. I hate to say it because he has always seemed nice before and Charles has always been a pill, but....it's William.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:29 AM on March 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
Wow, Metafilter - the unanimous (except for maybe plonkee), undiluted hatred here surprises me. And disappoints.
I dunno, I’m pretty okay with hating the undiluted products of racist, sexist, imperialist entitlement. Some of us live in former colonies that are still dealing with the continued fallout from their racist, imperialist actions. […] Why should any of us be grateful to them?
^ This, exactly. Some of us here on MetaFilter are actual subjects of the British monarchy, whether in the UK or its former colonies, and many of us are morally opposed to it as an institution. Plenty of us also object to our taxes funding our unelected head of state and their family.
posted by Morfil Ffyrnig at 7:08 AM on March 8, 2021 [21 favorites]
I dunno, I’m pretty okay with hating the undiluted products of racist, sexist, imperialist entitlement. Some of us live in former colonies that are still dealing with the continued fallout from their racist, imperialist actions. […] Why should any of us be grateful to them?
^ This, exactly. Some of us here on MetaFilter are actual subjects of the British monarchy, whether in the UK or its former colonies, and many of us are morally opposed to it as an institution. Plenty of us also object to our taxes funding our unelected head of state and their family.
posted by Morfil Ffyrnig at 7:08 AM on March 8, 2021 [21 favorites]
I suppose ‘British law’ is the most reductive answer.
How is that "reductive"? I swear that's just a reflex with a lot of people now.
posted by thelonius at 7:40 AM on March 8, 2021
How is that "reductive"? I swear that's just a reflex with a lot of people now.
posted by thelonius at 7:40 AM on March 8, 2021
The UK Media is the worst, really just a festering pile of sewage. They have no ethics, no morals, but will do what it takes to get a story, including breaking libel laws. It is ok, they make so much money...
So who buys this stuff? Because I'd lump them in with the worst as well. And those readers/consumers are the first ones to go on social media and complain that H&M shouldn't say anything, or say that Meghan is any sort of damnable nasty thing that comes to their minds, or lying about them being paid for this interview.
Anything to not admit that what they all wanted, press, a good chunk of the English public, and Firm alike, was for this woman and her husband and child to stay in the UK, take their abuse, and be silent! It's not so much that I care about the family, but as an abuse survivor and as a mixed-race black woman who's had to push back on
America's version of "Take our racism and like it, damn you!", it's repulsive to see how so many white people yet again demand the compliance of a black woman to taking their shit in silent deference.
posted by droplet at 7:48 AM on March 8, 2021 [10 favorites]
So who buys this stuff? Because I'd lump them in with the worst as well. And those readers/consumers are the first ones to go on social media and complain that H&M shouldn't say anything, or say that Meghan is any sort of damnable nasty thing that comes to their minds, or lying about them being paid for this interview.
Anything to not admit that what they all wanted, press, a good chunk of the English public, and Firm alike, was for this woman and her husband and child to stay in the UK, take their abuse, and be silent! It's not so much that I care about the family, but as an abuse survivor and as a mixed-race black woman who's had to push back on
America's version of "Take our racism and like it, damn you!", it's repulsive to see how so many white people yet again demand the compliance of a black woman to taking their shit in silent deference.
posted by droplet at 7:48 AM on March 8, 2021 [10 favorites]
Good article from Zoe Williams in today's Guardian: Now there’s no doubt Meghan and Harry had to leave. There is a positive thing about this, which is the extent to which it's clear H really had her back.
I'm almost ashamed to be interested enough in royals to be commenting but ... having been born into a proper antagonistic culture clash mixed race family way back when:
1/ it's not by any means inevitable that the old inflexible person who hasn't grasped that what used to be witty banter of the 'superior class of people' isn't ok anymore, will turn out to be, in practical terms, the family's most beastly racist.
and 2/ Philip was supposed to be the only one of them that treated Diana with any kindness. I can't remember where I read this but I don't find the rumour unlikely: he had deep trauma in his childhood and once he was able, looked after his mother, had her at the wedding and had her living near afterwards when from what we've seen the normal Windsor response to her particular circumstances would have been to hide her away and never mention her again. I wonder how much of the leverage he had to do that was because he was the presentable marriage candidate with the least amount of awkward strings attached. But anyway, knowing that story it seemed to me he was probably the only one of them, bar Harry, who hadn't had the human sympathy squashed out of him.
posted by glasseyes at 8:11 AM on March 8, 2021 [6 favorites]
I'm almost ashamed to be interested enough in royals to be commenting but ... having been born into a proper antagonistic culture clash mixed race family way back when:
1/ it's not by any means inevitable that the old inflexible person who hasn't grasped that what used to be witty banter of the 'superior class of people' isn't ok anymore, will turn out to be, in practical terms, the family's most beastly racist.
and 2/ Philip was supposed to be the only one of them that treated Diana with any kindness. I can't remember where I read this but I don't find the rumour unlikely: he had deep trauma in his childhood and once he was able, looked after his mother, had her at the wedding and had her living near afterwards when from what we've seen the normal Windsor response to her particular circumstances would have been to hide her away and never mention her again. I wonder how much of the leverage he had to do that was because he was the presentable marriage candidate with the least amount of awkward strings attached. But anyway, knowing that story it seemed to me he was probably the only one of them, bar Harry, who hadn't had the human sympathy squashed out of him.
posted by glasseyes at 8:11 AM on March 8, 2021 [6 favorites]
So who buys this stuff?
A big chunk of the populace? Although many won't admit to it.
The thing is you don't even have to read it. If you have not lived in the UK you may not be aware that most of the major supermarkets have all these newspapers prominently displayed at the entrance. You cannot avoid seeing the headlines. I had to endure years of weekly shopping with some horrid anti-immigrant headlines greeting me as I walked in.
This photo pretty accurately captures what my local Morrisons entrance looked like when we lived in the countryside.
posted by vacapinta at 8:14 AM on March 8, 2021 [7 favorites]
A big chunk of the populace? Although many won't admit to it.
The thing is you don't even have to read it. If you have not lived in the UK you may not be aware that most of the major supermarkets have all these newspapers prominently displayed at the entrance. You cannot avoid seeing the headlines. I had to endure years of weekly shopping with some horrid anti-immigrant headlines greeting me as I walked in.
This photo pretty accurately captures what my local Morrisons entrance looked like when we lived in the countryside.
posted by vacapinta at 8:14 AM on March 8, 2021 [7 favorites]
Now I'm embarrassed with my royal watching.
you may not be aware that most of the major supermarkets have all these newspapers prominently displayed at the entrance. That's true. They must sell them or they wouldn't stock them but I can count on my fingers the times I've seen them being bought at the till. Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun, Mirror (I'm so disappointed in the Mirror, it used to be the tabloid worth reading.) But then of course you don't need to buy a paper these days in order to read it freely.
It's not unusual at all for British people of any background to roll their eyes at the idea of being interested in anything royal family. So that was me, until the wedding pics were all over buzzfeed. And then it was like, wow! This family of obsolete dinosaurs have decided to rejoin humanity! Lucky them! Well done that lucky young man.
I have a friend who's a marvelous artist, always working, always busy, deeply socially engaged and 150% effective in her life and her impact on others. Megan Markle's mother reminded me of her, her look, her hair, the way she wore her clothes, her general impression, her aura. I was thinking, these aristos don't know how lucky they are to have been introduced to some life, purpose and interest. What a pity they are incapable of knowing that. Anyhow the guy who was doing all the leaking - Knauf is it? seems to be doing very well for himself, so he has some backing from somewhere within the royal fam.
posted by glasseyes at 8:27 AM on March 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
you may not be aware that most of the major supermarkets have all these newspapers prominently displayed at the entrance. That's true. They must sell them or they wouldn't stock them but I can count on my fingers the times I've seen them being bought at the till. Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun, Mirror (I'm so disappointed in the Mirror, it used to be the tabloid worth reading.) But then of course you don't need to buy a paper these days in order to read it freely.
It's not unusual at all for British people of any background to roll their eyes at the idea of being interested in anything royal family. So that was me, until the wedding pics were all over buzzfeed. And then it was like, wow! This family of obsolete dinosaurs have decided to rejoin humanity! Lucky them! Well done that lucky young man.
I have a friend who's a marvelous artist, always working, always busy, deeply socially engaged and 150% effective in her life and her impact on others. Megan Markle's mother reminded me of her, her look, her hair, the way she wore her clothes, her general impression, her aura. I was thinking, these aristos don't know how lucky they are to have been introduced to some life, purpose and interest. What a pity they are incapable of knowing that. Anyhow the guy who was doing all the leaking - Knauf is it? seems to be doing very well for himself, so he has some backing from somewhere within the royal fam.
posted by glasseyes at 8:27 AM on March 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
My money's on William. One of them (still trying to process that interview) said it was at the beginning of the relationship, and I'd bet it was related to William's attempt to get Harry to "slow down." I don't think Harry would have let his father anywhere near Meghan or her mother during the ceremony if it had been Charles.
posted by Preserver at 8:39 AM on March 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by Preserver at 8:39 AM on March 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
I think the interview shows that Harry is the true King and all the royals should now before him.
posted by interogative mood at 8:52 AM on March 8, 2021
posted by interogative mood at 8:52 AM on March 8, 2021
Knauf is now on William's staff and looks to be on fast track promotion. Can't help wondering if some hacker'll go through his emails and find out he's proud of being a boy.
posted by glasseyes at 9:31 AM on March 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by glasseyes at 9:31 AM on March 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
from the Guardian liveblog: A YouGov poll finds that nearly half of people questioned in the UK believe the interview is “inappropriate”.
NEW: UK viewers side with the Palace (though the full interview is yet to be aired here on @ITV). YouGov poll finds:posted by bitteschoen at 12:09 PM on March 8, 2021
- 47% say Harry and Meghan’s interview is inappropriate, 21% say it's appropriate
- Only 29% have sympathy for them, 23% have not very much, 33% have none at all
The son of Meghan and Harry will become a Prince with all attendant privileges, but only after either Charles or William take the throne. Of course, someone could have assured the Sussexes that their son would have full protections regardless of the succession/title rules. But the reason he was not titled at birth is because of royal reforms from the 1920s, not because of his parentage.
posted by chaz at 12:27 PM on March 8, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by chaz at 12:27 PM on March 8, 2021 [4 favorites]
Philip was supposed to be the only one of them that treated Diana with any kindness.
I have also heard this, although I think it was Diana who said he was kind, and described along the lines of being blunt kindness. He had his fair share of run-ins with the 'powers that be' at the Palace, but was by then older, well educated and had spent his formative years in the Royal Navy. Apparently on meeting or finding out about Meghan he told Harry that in his day one had affairs with American actresses rather than marrying them but that could very easily have been said with either affection or disdain.
What I want to know here is if the Queen is supposedly nice to them most of the time (except when she invited Harry over and then was "busy"), and it's hinted that Charles and/or William have not been, who is it that decided to cut off ALL their security?
Honestly? The uproar among the people/taxpayers forced the decision to stop giving them kind of security they had. It would be incredibly expensive to fund security in the sense that it's provided for the BRF in the UK for a couple living elsewhere. They are serving police officers with lives and family in the UK who probably don't want to uproot themselves to live over there. Both the York girls had all the funding for their security cut off several years ago.
Basically, the money that the BRF costs the British taxpayer is a touchy subject, and has been for decades. Public reaction (including anticipated public reaction) is bound to have an impact on some decisions they make. One of the main legitimate reasons why the response in Britain has been different to elsewhere is that we feel we are footing the bill for everyone's weddings, various fancy house renovations and endless security, as well as providing the cash that funds the very privileged lifestyle they all enjoy. Monarchists may feel that this is good value, but they want their pomp and circumstance in return. Republicans mostly do not want either. And, Harry and Meghan are already multi-millionaires in their own right without taking an allowance from either the Duchy of Cornwall or Crown Estate.
posted by plonkee at 12:29 PM on March 8, 2021 [8 favorites]
I have also heard this, although I think it was Diana who said he was kind, and described along the lines of being blunt kindness. He had his fair share of run-ins with the 'powers that be' at the Palace, but was by then older, well educated and had spent his formative years in the Royal Navy. Apparently on meeting or finding out about Meghan he told Harry that in his day one had affairs with American actresses rather than marrying them but that could very easily have been said with either affection or disdain.
What I want to know here is if the Queen is supposedly nice to them most of the time (except when she invited Harry over and then was "busy"), and it's hinted that Charles and/or William have not been, who is it that decided to cut off ALL their security?
Honestly? The uproar among the people/taxpayers forced the decision to stop giving them kind of security they had. It would be incredibly expensive to fund security in the sense that it's provided for the BRF in the UK for a couple living elsewhere. They are serving police officers with lives and family in the UK who probably don't want to uproot themselves to live over there. Both the York girls had all the funding for their security cut off several years ago.
Basically, the money that the BRF costs the British taxpayer is a touchy subject, and has been for decades. Public reaction (including anticipated public reaction) is bound to have an impact on some decisions they make. One of the main legitimate reasons why the response in Britain has been different to elsewhere is that we feel we are footing the bill for everyone's weddings, various fancy house renovations and endless security, as well as providing the cash that funds the very privileged lifestyle they all enjoy. Monarchists may feel that this is good value, but they want their pomp and circumstance in return. Republicans mostly do not want either. And, Harry and Meghan are already multi-millionaires in their own right without taking an allowance from either the Duchy of Cornwall or Crown Estate.
posted by plonkee at 12:29 PM on March 8, 2021 [8 favorites]
To note, while I might feel that they should be able to "eke out an existence" on the millions that they have, I think the emotional impact of being cut off by your family is bound to fall very hard and I actually have some sympathy.
posted by plonkee at 12:49 PM on March 8, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by plonkee at 12:49 PM on March 8, 2021 [10 favorites]
"In my old job we had a union"
i luv u meghan
posted by Laetiporus at 12:51 PM on March 8, 2021 [20 favorites]
i luv u meghan
posted by Laetiporus at 12:51 PM on March 8, 2021 [20 favorites]
This article from the Atlantic, while published before the interview, has some critiques of Harry and Meghan that weren't brought up by Oprah (e.g., the Sussex Royal trademark on consumer goods). It also is very critical of the royal family and of the racism Meghan was subject to. In general, it falls a little more in the middle.
It seemed clear that at the end of that time, something dramatic was going to happen. I assumed it would be an abdication—and who could blame them? The brave little boy who had walked so solemnly behind the casket, wanting only to make his mother proud of him—he should be allowed to live the life he wanted, with his beautiful wife and their baby son in some place far away from the cameras and daily gossip of London. Who would not have wished them well?
Instead, it was … Megxit.
Megxit is the most complicated, self-involved, grandiose, half-assed, high-minded, shortsighted, greedy-graspy, swing-for-the-fences, letter of partial, fingers-crossed resignation in history. When Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, he announced it to the government on December 9, and was on his way to Austria three days later. But Edward didn’t want to do voice-overs for Disney.
The foundation of the plan was sound: They would step back from being “senior” royals, which is a sort of HR designation indicating members of the family who work full-time for the Crown. And they would forfeit all public money and pay back the government for the renovations they had made to their English home, Frogmore Cottage. All of this might have provided them some small protection from the British tabloids. It would free them of the Royal Rota, a pool system for covering the family that includes the tabloids, and also allow them to make a case that they were not the sort of state-funded public figures whose doings were therefore a matter of public significance.
But everything else about the plan was focused on making them more famous than ever—so they hardly planned to lower their public profile. Moreover, they clearly saw their royal status as a value proposition that they could exploit to become independently wealthy. They had filed papers to trademark the term Sussex Royal on more than 100 consumer goods, including pajamas, hoodies, and pencils. Just how long can you be understood as royal when you’re hawking pencils?
posted by FencingGal at 12:54 PM on March 8, 2021 [6 favorites]
It seemed clear that at the end of that time, something dramatic was going to happen. I assumed it would be an abdication—and who could blame them? The brave little boy who had walked so solemnly behind the casket, wanting only to make his mother proud of him—he should be allowed to live the life he wanted, with his beautiful wife and their baby son in some place far away from the cameras and daily gossip of London. Who would not have wished them well?
Instead, it was … Megxit.
Megxit is the most complicated, self-involved, grandiose, half-assed, high-minded, shortsighted, greedy-graspy, swing-for-the-fences, letter of partial, fingers-crossed resignation in history. When Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, he announced it to the government on December 9, and was on his way to Austria three days later. But Edward didn’t want to do voice-overs for Disney.
The foundation of the plan was sound: They would step back from being “senior” royals, which is a sort of HR designation indicating members of the family who work full-time for the Crown. And they would forfeit all public money and pay back the government for the renovations they had made to their English home, Frogmore Cottage. All of this might have provided them some small protection from the British tabloids. It would free them of the Royal Rota, a pool system for covering the family that includes the tabloids, and also allow them to make a case that they were not the sort of state-funded public figures whose doings were therefore a matter of public significance.
But everything else about the plan was focused on making them more famous than ever—so they hardly planned to lower their public profile. Moreover, they clearly saw their royal status as a value proposition that they could exploit to become independently wealthy. They had filed papers to trademark the term Sussex Royal on more than 100 consumer goods, including pajamas, hoodies, and pencils. Just how long can you be understood as royal when you’re hawking pencils?
posted by FencingGal at 12:54 PM on March 8, 2021 [6 favorites]
"Moreover, they clearly saw their royal status as a value proposition that they could exploit to become independently wealthy. They had filed papers to trademark the term Sussex Royal on more than 100 consumer goods, including pajamas, hoodies, and pencils. Just how long can you be understood as royal when you’re hawking pencils?"
Which would be a substantially less bullshit claim if William and Catherine and Prince Charles didn't ALSO form companies and take out trademarks to make money off their brands.
Including, the Atlantic writer will doubtless be pleased to know, Prince Charles hawking branded pencils.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:03 PM on March 8, 2021 [34 favorites]
Which would be a substantially less bullshit claim if William and Catherine and Prince Charles didn't ALSO form companies and take out trademarks to make money off their brands.
Including, the Atlantic writer will doubtless be pleased to know, Prince Charles hawking branded pencils.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:03 PM on March 8, 2021 [34 favorites]
I don't know, FencingGal, that excerpt doesn't really present it as anything other than an attack on Meghan and Harry? Of course they're a brand; I'm not sure why a celebrity *wouldn't* market their name.
posted by sagc at 1:03 PM on March 8, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by sagc at 1:03 PM on March 8, 2021 [11 favorites]
NEW: UK viewers side with the Palace (though the full interview is yet to be aired here on @ITV).
Some of the analysis I've read is that the interview was aimed at American audiences, because that is where Harry and Meghan now live and are setting up their business; they need friends there, not in the UK. Anyways, I thought this was a pretty good overview of the interview from MacLean's:
Some of the analysis I've read is that the interview was aimed at American audiences, because that is where Harry and Meghan now live and are setting up their business; they need friends there, not in the UK. Anyways, I thought this was a pretty good overview of the interview from MacLean's:
There are two successful strategies for entertainment teasers and trailers: either put your best clips and quotes in them, in hope of sucking in viewers to an ultimately boring showbiz event, or say little so as to tantalize viewers into being witnesses to something even more breathtaking. The two-hour Oprah Winfrey interview of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and her husband, Prince Harry, was most definitely the latter...posted by nubs at 1:17 PM on March 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
...For the royal family, its staff and advisers, the interview was an unmitigated disaster, as they face multiple accusations of being racist, callous, uncaring and downright cruel...
...At times, Oprah’s trademark interviewing style, perfected over the decades to appear non-threatening while she extracts jaw-dropping revelations, meant that gaps in their story went either unanswered or unchallenged...
...Sometimes, I desperately wanted Oprah Winfrey to ask just one more follow-up to pin down exactly who was being referenced and to give an example. When talking of the “Kate crying” story, Meghan said, “They would go on the record and negate the most ridiculous story for anyone…things that are super artificial and inconsequential, but the narrative about making Kate cry was a real character assassination and they knew it wasn’t true. And I felt, ‘If they aren’t going to kill things like that, what are they going to do?’” At another time, Meghan cryptically says she came to understand “not only was I not being protected but that they were willing to lie to protect other members of the family but they weren’t willing to tell the truth to protect me and my husband.” I’m curious to know the backstories to these comments...
... While the Queen stated, “I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life,” that acceptance that the couple was free to earn their own way through commercial endorsements and deals, came with one big promise from the young couple: “While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty.”
Those values are duty and loyalty and sacrifice. Now, as the world absorbs the interview Meghan and Harry just gave, the question is asked: did they keep their promise to the monarchy, or irretrievably damage it? Or did they, somehow, spectacularly, do both?
Pretty sure that the privilege is to have the protection of the palace when it comes to tabloids (if you're white) and actual threats - neither of which privileges Meghan and Harry have.
How would you bar them from... having their identities? Profiting off their extremely high status as, indeed, celebrities?
Nobody is angry with pretty much any other celebrity for their branding efforts.
posted by sagc at 1:49 PM on March 8, 2021 [4 favorites]
How would you bar them from... having their identities? Profiting off their extremely high status as, indeed, celebrities?
Nobody is angry with pretty much any other celebrity for their branding efforts.
posted by sagc at 1:49 PM on March 8, 2021 [4 favorites]
I don't know, FencingGal, that excerpt doesn't really present it as anything other than an attack on Meghan and Harry.
Yes, you're right. I didn't include the parts criticizing the royal family because there is a lot of that on this page already. People here mostly seem to be pro-Megan, so I was trying to present a view more in opposition to that as well as the Sussex Royal issues, which Oprah didn't get into.
On an unrelated note, why in God's name does every article I see about this interview specify Oprah's age? Would they do that for Tom Brokaw?
posted by FencingGal at 1:50 PM on March 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
Yes, you're right. I didn't include the parts criticizing the royal family because there is a lot of that on this page already. People here mostly seem to be pro-Megan, so I was trying to present a view more in opposition to that as well as the Sussex Royal issues, which Oprah didn't get into.
On an unrelated note, why in God's name does every article I see about this interview specify Oprah's age? Would they do that for Tom Brokaw?
posted by FencingGal at 1:50 PM on March 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
Dr. Priya Atwal has posted a fascinating Twitter thread about the parallels between Meghan Markle’s current situation and the little known story of Princess Gouramma of Coorg.
Threadreader
posted by MrVisible at 2:00 PM on March 8, 2021 [9 favorites]
Threadreader
posted by MrVisible at 2:00 PM on March 8, 2021 [9 favorites]
Harry and Meghan are rich enough that no one can get too mad at them having to pay for their own security if they were, uh, retiring. (Still not sure it was fair to make them pay back cost of structural renovations for a cottage they don't even own, but maybe at that point $3M was a small price to escape the system.) It sounds like the security was very abruptly pulled back, though. That sounded scary and vindictive, given that they've received so many threats since going public with their relationship. Their millions were not going to be enough to provide a lifetime of expensive security, so that meant they were going to have to start making serious money. So...what did the Palace expect exactly?
The suggestion that Meghan could go back to acting to fund security for a child that was only ever at risk because of his relationship to the Queen sounds absurd to me. No one thought Suits 2 was going to fund Harry and Meghan's new life. Was the Queen (or Charles or whoever) playing hardball in the hopes of forcing them back in line? The default for "person with more fame than money" is taking shady oligarch money for clout. Was that what the Palace expected? Is a Spotify deal considered more disreputable?
Just...that it ended up here is not particularly surprising. The only options were a) force them back to be the royal family's sin eater until they die or someone more hateable comes along b) make Meghan so unhappy with her situation that she leaves Harry c) chase them both into doing weird "Pitch @ Palace" style initiatives with oil billionaires or d) whatever this is. Maybe they were hoping for c), but they can't be too surprised they ended up with d) instead!
posted by grandiloquiet at 2:01 PM on March 8, 2021 [16 favorites]
The suggestion that Meghan could go back to acting to fund security for a child that was only ever at risk because of his relationship to the Queen sounds absurd to me. No one thought Suits 2 was going to fund Harry and Meghan's new life. Was the Queen (or Charles or whoever) playing hardball in the hopes of forcing them back in line? The default for "person with more fame than money" is taking shady oligarch money for clout. Was that what the Palace expected? Is a Spotify deal considered more disreputable?
Just...that it ended up here is not particularly surprising. The only options were a) force them back to be the royal family's sin eater until they die or someone more hateable comes along b) make Meghan so unhappy with her situation that she leaves Harry c) chase them both into doing weird "Pitch @ Palace" style initiatives with oil billionaires or d) whatever this is. Maybe they were hoping for c), but they can't be too surprised they ended up with d) instead!
posted by grandiloquiet at 2:01 PM on March 8, 2021 [16 favorites]
I think there is a lot of valid questions about how much security M&H should expect once they had opted to live outside of the UK, but it seemed from the interview the root of the problem was the communication of how much security Archie would get once he was born and (as per convention) didn’t receive a title. Obviously, if M&H have security then any time he I would be with them so would he. But what about when they are working? Or when he heads to school? This I think was a legitimate beef with the royal institution. Until such time as the press didn’t care about H&M, or the threats subsided, any rational organization (even more so, a family business) would commit to the safety of the children of its adult principals.
posted by double bubble at 2:07 PM on March 8, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by double bubble at 2:07 PM on March 8, 2021 [9 favorites]
*if the business itself was the reason the child needed security in the first place.
posted by double bubble at 2:10 PM on March 8, 2021
posted by double bubble at 2:10 PM on March 8, 2021
Yeah, that's my problem with it. Removing the patronages, positions, and living allowances is not unreasonable, given the wish to step away and the palace's feelings on trying to be half in and half out. But Harry can't stop being the queen's grandson, he can't stop being Diana's kid, and most importantly he can't stop those things for his kids. And 24 hour security eats up even a multi-million inheritance pretty damn quick. So I do think it was an asshole move for his dad/grandmother to not be willing to fund security (which I would agree would have to be private rather than the royal bodyguards) until the kids are adults. By which point Harry will likely be the King's brother who has been living abroad for decades and has like 12 people between him and the throne for the press to fixate on instead.
posted by tavella at 2:23 PM on March 8, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by tavella at 2:23 PM on March 8, 2021 [12 favorites]
I could make an argument in agreement with a decision to remove all security for H&M&A if H&M opted to live outside the UK. It's crappy, but ... consequences of one's decisions and all. BUT, when Meghan was pregnant and in the period right after, H&M were both living in the UK and working royals and they were being told that Archie would receive no security. That is a crappy grandpa move if i ever heard one.
posted by double bubble at 2:32 PM on March 8, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by double bubble at 2:32 PM on March 8, 2021 [9 favorites]
I don’t know, I think that excerpt from the Atlantic article is a fair critique. I thought “Sussex Royal” was strange branding for people who were trying to distance themselves from the royal family.
I don’t blame them at all for walking away but I do wonder how they are actually gonna pull off this sort of halfway private citizen, halfway public celebrity balance they seem to be trying to attempt. I think you have to be a certain type of celebrity to pull that off, and I’m not sure if they are that kind.
posted by girlmightlive at 2:39 PM on March 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
I don’t blame them at all for walking away but I do wonder how they are actually gonna pull off this sort of halfway private citizen, halfway public celebrity balance they seem to be trying to attempt. I think you have to be a certain type of celebrity to pull that off, and I’m not sure if they are that kind.
posted by girlmightlive at 2:39 PM on March 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
"sin eater" was the what I was thinking of, too, grandiloquiet. The House of Windsor members breathed relieved sighs as the tabloids feasted on the new couple instead of reporting on authentic family scandals involving pedophilia, rape, extortion, and so on. (The deluge of spurious stories repeated and expanded upon the same Meghan-as-Machiavelli theme for a driving narrative so successful that a lot of the talking points from them are in this thread.) I can't take that Atlantic piece seriously because a) it's written by Caitlin Flanagan and b) it leans on the racist "Megxit" trope from the jump.
I think the royals were polite-enough to Harry's S.O. in the beginning, figuring that the relationship would be a short romance or brief marriage. But they really were in love, she wasn't at all put off by the level of work involved (making some of the less-enthusiastic members look bad in comparison), and then, the kicker, literally: she was pregnant, at age 37. Meghan had been married before, and had no children; some of the press during the engagement (meaning, some of the royals gabbing with their pet outlets) speculated heavily about likely infertility issues.
The queen was genuinely happy (from the interview: ...in addition to keeping tabs on Philip, who recently underwent a heart procedure, Harry shared he's "spoken more" to his grandmother "in the last year than I have done for many, many years," including "a couple of Zoom calls with Archie." Continued Harry, "My grandmother and I have a really good relationship, and an understanding. And I have a deep respect for her. She's my colonel in chief, right? She always will be."), while others lost what little noodle they still possessed agonizing over the kid-to-be's skin color.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:04 PM on March 8, 2021 [12 favorites]
I think the royals were polite-enough to Harry's S.O. in the beginning, figuring that the relationship would be a short romance or brief marriage. But they really were in love, she wasn't at all put off by the level of work involved (making some of the less-enthusiastic members look bad in comparison), and then, the kicker, literally: she was pregnant, at age 37. Meghan had been married before, and had no children; some of the press during the engagement (meaning, some of the royals gabbing with their pet outlets) speculated heavily about likely infertility issues.
The queen was genuinely happy (from the interview: ...in addition to keeping tabs on Philip, who recently underwent a heart procedure, Harry shared he's "spoken more" to his grandmother "in the last year than I have done for many, many years," including "a couple of Zoom calls with Archie." Continued Harry, "My grandmother and I have a really good relationship, and an understanding. And I have a deep respect for her. She's my colonel in chief, right? She always will be."), while others lost what little noodle they still possessed agonizing over the kid-to-be's skin color.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:04 PM on March 8, 2021 [12 favorites]
The 3 million was paid for by the taxpayers. 3 million to renovate a building that already exists? That's mind blowing.
To do floor, ceiling, electrical, gas, and water work on a historic building? That was already on the list for repairs? I'm not sure why British taxpayers are paying to tend to any of the queen's property, but since they do, then I don't understand the fuss over the house Harry and Meghan were using.
I guess I don't get the resentment? Or rather, I get resentment from Republicans and think they can and should disapprove as much as they want. But why are Royalists giving wealth and privilege to the already wealthy and privileged if they're just going to resent it?
posted by grandiloquiet at 3:27 PM on March 8, 2021 [16 favorites]
To do floor, ceiling, electrical, gas, and water work on a historic building? That was already on the list for repairs? I'm not sure why British taxpayers are paying to tend to any of the queen's property, but since they do, then I don't understand the fuss over the house Harry and Meghan were using.
I guess I don't get the resentment? Or rather, I get resentment from Republicans and think they can and should disapprove as much as they want. But why are Royalists giving wealth and privilege to the already wealthy and privileged if they're just going to resent it?
posted by grandiloquiet at 3:27 PM on March 8, 2021 [16 favorites]
3 million to renovate a building that already exists? That's mind blowing.
Frogmore Cottage was built in 1801; in 2019, Sir Michael Stevens, keeper of the Privy Purse, who is responsible for monarchy’s accounts, said: “The property had not been the subject of work for some years and had already been earmarked for renovation in line with our responsibility to maintain the condition of the occupied royal palaces estate.”
Anmer Hall, a royal possession in Norfolk built in 1802, had a $2 million renovation paid out of the same fund in 2013; Anmer Hall is Prince William's country house. Also: "As revealed in the 2014 Sovereign Grant report, renovations at the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's Apartment 1a home at Kensington Palace cost the taxpayer £4.5million [@6 million USD] over two years."
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:33 PM on March 8, 2021 [7 favorites]
Frogmore Cottage was built in 1801; in 2019, Sir Michael Stevens, keeper of the Privy Purse, who is responsible for monarchy’s accounts, said: “The property had not been the subject of work for some years and had already been earmarked for renovation in line with our responsibility to maintain the condition of the occupied royal palaces estate.”
Anmer Hall, a royal possession in Norfolk built in 1802, had a $2 million renovation paid out of the same fund in 2013; Anmer Hall is Prince William's country house. Also: "As revealed in the 2014 Sovereign Grant report, renovations at the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's Apartment 1a home at Kensington Palace cost the taxpayer £4.5million [@6 million USD] over two years."
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:33 PM on March 8, 2021 [7 favorites]
The British people’s continued desire to spend their tax dollars on the descendants of their former dictators is quite amusing.
posted by interogative mood at 3:59 PM on March 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 3:59 PM on March 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
Versailles’ upkeep budget is c 50 million euros per annum, funded by a combo of French tax payers and ticket sales.
So it’s not the cost of up keeping these buildings, nor even necessarily that the cost is put on the taxpayers. What’s weird is that the descendants still get to live in them. Well, some of the descendants, anyhow.
posted by nat at 4:25 PM on March 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
So it’s not the cost of up keeping these buildings, nor even necessarily that the cost is put on the taxpayers. What’s weird is that the descendants still get to live in them. Well, some of the descendants, anyhow.
posted by nat at 4:25 PM on March 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
Lainey Gossip's got several pieces up, but I took note of this one.
So if it’s not them…who was it? Someone very senior. And then we’re told, by Harry, that his father at some point stopped taking his calls. And cut him off financially. So it wasn’t the Queen who came off looking bad in this interview, it was the future king of England. And it’s not Meghan implying this, it’s HARRY. It’s his own flesh and blood. This is f-cking Shakespearean. Aren’t these the dots we’re supposed to be connecting?posted by jenfullmoon at 5:57 PM on March 8, 2021 [15 favorites]
Harry is subtly, but not exactly indirectly, implying that Charles is in control of the monarchy more than has been made public. Obviously we know that the Queen has already been, gradually, handing sh-t off to her heir. But they always go out of their way to insist that Her Majesty is still the boss, the matriarch of the family, the buck stops with her. And yet… here’s Harry basically telling us that she is surrounded by advisors, that she may not, in fact, be making all the decisions. Where the future of the monarchy is concerned, this is the clip that could be most telling that came out of this interview – and Meghan has nothing to do with it:
This is what I was looking for with Oprah and that she delivered – that follow-up: “Doesn’t the Queen get to do what the Queen gets to do?”
Which opened the door for Harry to be like, nope, she’s surrounded by people who are counseling her: viper courtiers, personal dressers perhaps, and … her oldest son, the Prince of Wales? Harry’s not spelling it out. But somehow plans for him to meet with the Queen were changed. After he had written to his dad who stopped taking his calls. And suddenly the Queen couldn’t see him for that whole week. Who else could have authorised it?
Harry didn’t just reveal then that Charles is in command, he has revealed the innermost workings of the British royal institution, exposing secrets about how the monarchy actually functions to the world. And for an organisation as secretive as the Firm – and he actually calls it the Firm! – that would be terrifying. He’s telling on his family using his family’s language.
And yet… here’s Harry basically telling us that she is surrounded by advisors, that she may not, in fact, be making all the decisions. Where the future of the monarchy is concerned, this is the clip that could be most telling [...] “Doesn’t the Queen get to do what the Queen gets to do?”
It's funny - that was my reaction when I first started watching Korean and Chinese historical dramas. Why didn't all those kings and queens just, I don't know, execute their antagonists, instead of living in constant fear and frustration? How were their antagonists so confident they wouldn't get executed? Isn't a king by definition the ultimate power? And after a year of watching Korean and Chinese historical dramas, I read this now and think "Of course the Queen doesn't get to do what she wants to do. The Queen's power comes from her supporters! What they giveth they can taketh away! Surely a child would know that!"
(I've actually been thinking about that a lot in the context of the Trump presidency and the way the entire political system has reacted to it. Sure, there are norms, popular conceptions, and even laws about what the President and Senate should or shouldn't get to do, and we'd gotten used to thinking of those norms and laws as the ultimate power. But in the end it all depends on the individual humans involved. If you have enough support you can break any norm or law; if you don't have enough support, you won't be able to prevent or punish the most egregious illegality, and to hell with what the system is supposed to be on paper.)
So it's not a surprise if the members of the royal family are surrounded by courtiers and if their behavior is largely informed by, and restricted by, what the courtiers and supporters want, and by the threats they perceive. Their autonomy only really exists on paper, in the fairy-tale version of what a monarchy is.
Whether the threats here really merit the level of fear they inspire is another question. And, of course, the fact that they live in a bubble, and that that bubble is permeated with racism and classism and apparently not permeated with the kind of warmth that would make you overturn worlds to preserve a relationship with your kids, grandkids, siblings, and nephews, would also make it easy to go along with the demands of their awful advisors and the awful tabloid press.
posted by trig at 7:07 PM on March 8, 2021 [11 favorites]
It's funny - that was my reaction when I first started watching Korean and Chinese historical dramas. Why didn't all those kings and queens just, I don't know, execute their antagonists, instead of living in constant fear and frustration? How were their antagonists so confident they wouldn't get executed? Isn't a king by definition the ultimate power? And after a year of watching Korean and Chinese historical dramas, I read this now and think "Of course the Queen doesn't get to do what she wants to do. The Queen's power comes from her supporters! What they giveth they can taketh away! Surely a child would know that!"
(I've actually been thinking about that a lot in the context of the Trump presidency and the way the entire political system has reacted to it. Sure, there are norms, popular conceptions, and even laws about what the President and Senate should or shouldn't get to do, and we'd gotten used to thinking of those norms and laws as the ultimate power. But in the end it all depends on the individual humans involved. If you have enough support you can break any norm or law; if you don't have enough support, you won't be able to prevent or punish the most egregious illegality, and to hell with what the system is supposed to be on paper.)
So it's not a surprise if the members of the royal family are surrounded by courtiers and if their behavior is largely informed by, and restricted by, what the courtiers and supporters want, and by the threats they perceive. Their autonomy only really exists on paper, in the fairy-tale version of what a monarchy is.
Whether the threats here really merit the level of fear they inspire is another question. And, of course, the fact that they live in a bubble, and that that bubble is permeated with racism and classism and apparently not permeated with the kind of warmth that would make you overturn worlds to preserve a relationship with your kids, grandkids, siblings, and nephews, would also make it easy to go along with the demands of their awful advisors and the awful tabloid press.
posted by trig at 7:07 PM on March 8, 2021 [11 favorites]
The son of Meghan and Harry will become a Prince with all attendant privileges, but only after either Charles or William take the throne. Of course, someone could have assured the Sussexes that their son would have full protections regardless of the succession/title rules. But the reason he was not titled at birth is because of royal reforms from the 1920s, not because of his parentage.
That rule was from George V - "The grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of this realm."
So on that basis, William's first son George gets to be Prince (as eldest son of eldest son of Charles), but not his other children until Charles takes the throne. Before George was born, the Queen also made it so that *all* William's children (her great-grandchildren) would have the title of prince/princess, and thus Princess Charlotte & Prince Louis, ahead of time.
Under that protocol, Archie would also become a prince, as a grandson of the sovereign when Charles ascends.
Harry and Meghan say they were told that the rule was going to change when Charles became King, and Archie would never become a Prince and thus get police protection etc, despite being 7th in line to throne ahead of, for example, Prince Andrew (close friend of Jeffrey Epstein) at 8th - and unlike his brother's children.
It's a case of 'oh so sorry, we're changing the rules, nothing personal' - but oddly, only Harry and Meghan's children are affected.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 12:42 AM on March 9, 2021 [21 favorites]
That rule was from George V - "The grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of this realm."
So on that basis, William's first son George gets to be Prince (as eldest son of eldest son of Charles), but not his other children until Charles takes the throne. Before George was born, the Queen also made it so that *all* William's children (her great-grandchildren) would have the title of prince/princess, and thus Princess Charlotte & Prince Louis, ahead of time.
Under that protocol, Archie would also become a prince, as a grandson of the sovereign when Charles ascends.
Harry and Meghan say they were told that the rule was going to change when Charles became King, and Archie would never become a Prince and thus get police protection etc, despite being 7th in line to throne ahead of, for example, Prince Andrew (close friend of Jeffrey Epstein) at 8th - and unlike his brother's children.
It's a case of 'oh so sorry, we're changing the rules, nothing personal' - but oddly, only Harry and Meghan's children are affected.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 12:42 AM on March 9, 2021 [21 favorites]
Thank you for adding that nuance, I didn't watch the interview and the news article I read didn't explain that they were told the rules were going to be changed specifically for them. So Charles would decree new succession rules upon taking the throne?
posted by chaz at 1:23 AM on March 9, 2021
posted by chaz at 1:23 AM on March 9, 2021
The Irish Times, not being particular fans here...
posted by rongorongo at 3:20 AM on March 9, 2021 [35 favorites]
"Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has a house daubed in clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown.(Ireland extricated from the influence of the British Royals itself a while back, the process took about 25 years to complete.)
Beyond this, it’s the stuff of children’s stories. Having a queen as head of state is like having a pirate or a mermaid or Ewok as head of state. What’s the logic? Bees have queens, but the queen bee lays all of the eggs in the hive. The queen of the Britons has laid just four British eggs, and one of those is the sweatless creep Prince Andrew, so it’s hardly deserving of applause."
posted by rongorongo at 3:20 AM on March 9, 2021 [35 favorites]
Three million doesn't sound outrageous to me--- those old buildings are ridiculously expensive to refurbish. My parents used to subscribe to various British architecture magazines and I remember seeing one on the refurbishment of an old, massive estate by some preservation society and it was well into 8-figures and they were still years away from completion.
posted by drstrangelove at 4:22 AM on March 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by drstrangelove at 4:22 AM on March 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
rongorongo, I came in here to post that Patrick Freyne quote. It's absolutely brilliant and accurate.
posted by theora55 at 6:20 AM on March 9, 2021
posted by theora55 at 6:20 AM on March 9, 2021
As Canadians, we might not have had a front-row seat to all this, but we were still pretty close to the stage. For us, it was funny how the interview glossed over who was paying for protection (or at least a portion of it) while the couple was in B.C.
From the National Post: "Over a two-month period from November, 2019 to January, 2020, Canadians paid $56,384 on RCMP protection for Harry and Meghan, according to documents obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. An Angus Reid Institute poll from January, 2020 found that 73 per cent of Canadians objected to paying Harry and Meghan’s security tab. When the couple moved to the United States it prompted a tweet from then-U.S. president Donald Trump that the U.S. “would not pay for their security protection.”
posted by sardonyx at 6:25 AM on March 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
From the National Post: "Over a two-month period from November, 2019 to January, 2020, Canadians paid $56,384 on RCMP protection for Harry and Meghan, according to documents obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. An Angus Reid Institute poll from January, 2020 found that 73 per cent of Canadians objected to paying Harry and Meghan’s security tab. When the couple moved to the United States it prompted a tweet from then-U.S. president Donald Trump that the U.S. “would not pay for their security protection.”
posted by sardonyx at 6:25 AM on March 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
Okay, having read the Irish Times piece I think I am all set on this story. I got the gist, now I have read the piece that had the best turns of phrase and unsparing glances. (Thanks for adding it here, rongorongo.) I'm sure if the queen does something dramatic like cut off diplomatic relations with Oprah, I'll hear about it somehow.
posted by Emmy Rae at 6:28 AM on March 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Emmy Rae at 6:28 AM on March 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
From the Irish Times article (which was wonderful and thanks for posting): He talks about the unspoken deal the royals have struck with the tabloids to give them access in return for favourable coverage.
Is this really any different from what Oprah is doing? Her questions were clearly designed to elicit support for Harry and Megan, to let them tell their side of the story. Any criticism of them she mentioned was there to give them a chance to refute it, and she ignored opportunities to probe further into anything that might make them look like more than completely innocent victims. And it's not like there's any chance a more balanced line of questioning would have resulted in Queen Elizabeth sitting down for an interview with her.
I keep thinking back to the old Barbara Walters interviews, which at the time I thought of as mean (my mom was horrified when she asked Mamie Eisenhower about Ike's affairs).
posted by FencingGal at 6:42 AM on March 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
Is this really any different from what Oprah is doing? Her questions were clearly designed to elicit support for Harry and Megan, to let them tell their side of the story. Any criticism of them she mentioned was there to give them a chance to refute it, and she ignored opportunities to probe further into anything that might make them look like more than completely innocent victims. And it's not like there's any chance a more balanced line of questioning would have resulted in Queen Elizabeth sitting down for an interview with her.
I keep thinking back to the old Barbara Walters interviews, which at the time I thought of as mean (my mom was horrified when she asked Mamie Eisenhower about Ike's affairs).
posted by FencingGal at 6:42 AM on March 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
I think the UK has forgotten just how much damage even a constitutional monarch can cause if they're an idiot. This is just a presentiment of what it's going to be like when Brenda kicks the bucket.
The women of the House of Hanover are immortal Bene Geserit sisters but the men tend to have the kind of issues that mean they can't go out without supervision. A few generations of that should be fun.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 6:43 AM on March 9, 2021 [10 favorites]
The women of the House of Hanover are immortal Bene Geserit sisters but the men tend to have the kind of issues that mean they can't go out without supervision. A few generations of that should be fun.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 6:43 AM on March 9, 2021 [10 favorites]
Some of the commentary I've been seeing on Twitter suggests that Harry speaking out loud about the... er... entangled relationship between the Royals and the tabloid UK media was also a bombshell. This tweet thread is indicative:
posted by mhum at 10:11 AM on March 9, 2021 [5 favorites]
The moment where Harry tells Oprah that his family are scared of the tabloids and know that they *have* to play the game is the one that has most stoked that media rage. You’re not supposed to say out loud how the trick is done.The thing is, sitting on this side of the Atlantic, I was under the impression that this was already conventional wisdom. I guess the part I can't quite gauge is exactly how surprising this revelation is among the general UK public. Or, if this kind of strong reaction is really just coming from the tabloid media themselves from having their blackmail-ish arrangements openly and semi-officially acknowledged.
The tabloids run as a protection racket for the royals as much as other celebrities. You smile for them, you praise their ‘campaigns’, you give them interviews, access and tidbits of information and they deign to give you ‘nice’ coverage.
posted by mhum at 10:11 AM on March 9, 2021 [5 favorites]
Welp, news is in from the Queen (WaPo):
Queen Elizabeth II issued a personal statement Tuesday saying “the whole family was saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan” after the couple gave an explosive interview to Oprah Winfrey charging racism and rejection by the monarchy.posted by jenfullmoon at 10:19 AM on March 9, 2021 [5 favorites]
In remarkable admission, the queen said, “the issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning.” But the queen also suggested the royal family did not fully support the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s assertion of how they were treated or what was said. “While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately,” she said.
She closed, however, by saying, “Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.”
Piers Morgan walks off the set of Good Morning Britain after being called out on air by his own co-host for his vitriol about the Duchess of Sussex.
Dished out vitriol for years but can't handle 30 seconds of criticism of his own actions.
posted by automatronic at 10:45 AM on March 9, 2021 [24 favorites]
Dished out vitriol for years but can't handle 30 seconds of criticism of his own actions.
posted by automatronic at 10:45 AM on March 9, 2021 [24 favorites]
Piers Morgan really is the most odious sort of person.
posted by chaz at 10:58 AM on March 9, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by chaz at 10:58 AM on March 9, 2021 [4 favorites]
Apparently Piers Morgan and Good Morning Britain have parted ways permanently. As an American, my only worry now is that he's now going to somehow end up back on our airwaves.
posted by HiddenInput at 11:02 AM on March 9, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by HiddenInput at 11:02 AM on March 9, 2021 [10 favorites]
And Morgan has walked off the air permanently at ITV.
He's also not taking responses on Twitter well, either.
What a snowflake.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:03 AM on March 9, 2021 [6 favorites]
He's also not taking responses on Twitter well, either.
What a snowflake.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:03 AM on March 9, 2021 [6 favorites]
I expect he's got a job lined up at Andrew Neil's GammonVision News, or the other one. The line-up may well be Piers, Lozza "Not a Real" Fox, Hatey Katie and The Nige, King of all the Gammons.
posted by Grangousier at 11:16 AM on March 9, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by Grangousier at 11:16 AM on March 9, 2021 [5 favorites]
Dished out vitriol for years but can't handle 30 seconds of criticism of his own actions.
If what I am reading on twitter is correct, he also did not like be reminded on national television that Duchess of Sussex did not consider him relationship material. Which means that he spent the last six? years using his platform to publicly harasses a woman who had the nerve to reject him.
(Apologies if this was already known, I had no idea and just learned this today).
posted by theBigRedKittyPurrs at 11:34 AM on March 9, 2021 [14 favorites]
If what I am reading on twitter is correct, he also did not like be reminded on national television that Duchess of Sussex did not consider him relationship material. Which means that he spent the last six? years using his platform to publicly harasses a woman who had the nerve to reject him.
(Apologies if this was already known, I had no idea and just learned this today).
posted by theBigRedKittyPurrs at 11:34 AM on March 9, 2021 [14 favorites]
I love that Piers Morgan just huffed off and quit. Love it.
More WaPo:
More WaPo:
That attitude was on display earlier on Tuesday, when Harry’s father Prince Charles made his first public appearance since the Winfrey interview, when he visited — accompanied by press — a vaccine “pop-up clinic” at the Jesus House church in north London.posted by jenfullmoon at 11:58 AM on March 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
The heir to the throne joked with those getting their covid-19 jabs, but when a reporter from Sky News “asked the royal what he thought about the interview ... he did not reply and was ushered out of the building.”
Which means that he spent the last six? years using his platform to publicly harasses a woman who had the nerve to reject him.
Yup, and the other guy called that out specifically:
posted by trig at 12:29 PM on March 9, 2021 [19 favorites]
Yup, and the other guy called that out specifically:
Beresford said: “I understand that you don’t like Meghan Markle, you’ve made it so clear a number of times on this programme, and I understand you’ve got a personal relationship with Meghan Markle and she cut you off. She’s entitled to cut you off if she wants to. Has she said anything about you since she cut you off? I don’t think she has but yet you continue to trash her …”I enjoyed this bit too. He must have been a joy to work with:
He added: “I’m sorry but Piers spouts off on a regular basis and we all have to sit there and listen, 6.30 to seven o’clock yesterday was incredibly hard to watch"Maybe they could do a segment about the dangers of rejecting men. Just as a point of general interest.
posted by trig at 12:29 PM on March 9, 2021 [19 favorites]
Here’s a short video clip of Piers Morgan telling the story of his encounter with Meghan Markle, if you can stomach watching it, he’s quite revolting even when in a good mood...
Alternatively, here’s another recap and some good commentary, via Grazia UK:
Alternatively, here’s another recap and some good commentary, via Grazia UK:
It’s not just a case of a journalist honing in on one woman, it’s more than that. Piers met Meghan years ago after he followed her on Twitter and she messaged him saying she was a fan of his. The pair developed a virtual friendship before meeting for a drink in London when Meghan visited the UK to watch Serena Williams at Wimbledon.posted by bitteschoen at 1:01 PM on March 9, 2021 [16 favorites]
‘We had two hours in the pub, she had a couple of dirty martinis and pints - we got on brilliantly,’ he said of the meeting during an appearance on the Late Late Show. ‘Then I put her in a cab, and it turns out it was the cab that took her to a party where she met Prince Harry. The next night they had a solo dinner and that was the last I ever heard from Meghan Markle. I never heard from her again - Meghan Markle ghosted me.’
From his retelling of the encounter – from his perspective – where he says she looked ‘a million dollars’ and ‘something special’, it seems as if he was hurt that someone he had developed a friendship with was no longer interested.
Of course, it makes perfect sense from Meghan’s side. You go to London and are set up with Prince Harry, you probably don’t want to divulge everything you’ve been up to to one of the most notorious tabloid reporters in the UK.
We can only imagine Harry’s face when Meghan might’ve told him about her developing friendship with Piers Morgan, given how tabloid-averse he was and the fact the couple clearly wanted to keep their relationship private at first. And yet, it was the fact Meghan distanced herself from Piers after meeting Harry that made him conclude she isn’t a genuine person. ‘I really liked her, this is why it hurts,’ he said. ‘I just think she’s a slight social climber I’m afraid.’
The word ‘slight’ has certainly snowballed in the last few years as Piers continues to grieve the rejection from Markle. That’s what’s concerning about this whole thing, isn’t it? Piers Morgan has a platform of millions to bad-mouth a woman whose criticism came from the fact she ghosted him after meeting a literal Prince. His entire basis of disliking her comes from her unwillingness to entertain a friendship or romantic relationship with him – and it's a phenomenon women know too well. ...
I can understand why he's hurt. Especially if he'd had sexual interest in her. But...dude, she met a prince and you're a tabloid guy, I'm pretty sure you should be able to deduce for yourself why you lost out there.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:05 PM on March 9, 2021
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:05 PM on March 9, 2021
way to hold a grudge, piers...yeesh.
posted by double bubble at 1:36 PM on March 9, 2021
posted by double bubble at 1:36 PM on March 9, 2021
This phrasing is standing out to me from the section bitteschoen excerpted:
‘We had two hours in the pub, she had a couple of dirty martinis and pints - we got on brilliantly,’
And you were virtuously drinking water while she was boozing it up, Piers? Is that what you're implying?
What an ass.
posted by Lexica at 1:57 PM on March 9, 2021 [7 favorites]
‘We had two hours in the pub, she had a couple of dirty martinis and pints - we got on brilliantly,’
And you were virtuously drinking water while she was boozing it up, Piers? Is that what you're implying?
What an ass.
posted by Lexica at 1:57 PM on March 9, 2021 [7 favorites]
and she messaged him saying she was a fan of his
First, ugh; second -- no, sorry, still on ugh.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:00 PM on March 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
First, ugh; second -- no, sorry, still on ugh.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:00 PM on March 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
I've always known Morgan was an odious little arsehole, I should have expected that he's a massive creep in his personal life as well. Ugh.
"Following discussions with ITV, Piers Morgan has decided now is the time to leave Good Morning Britain. ITV has accepted this decision and has nothing further to add."
So the sequence is, he basically calls Meghan a manipulative liar with his 'doubts' about her feeling suicidal; Mind, a leading mental health charity who works closely with ITV slams him hard, his colleague Beresford rips him a new one on-air the next day, which Morgan responds to by storming off, and then comes back and has a go at Beresford on-air for daring to criticise him; and also does an incredibly limp non-apology where he basically doubles down on calling Meghan a liar. ITV admit on an earnings call where they're questioned repeatedly about it that they're going to be having 'talks'.
Oh yes, I'm absolutely 100% sure *he's* the one that decided it was 'time to leave' his well-paid ego-polishing job. Alas, no doubt he'll be floating back up on Murdoch's new Fox News (UK edition) like the unflushable turd he is.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 2:29 PM on March 9, 2021 [13 favorites]
"Following discussions with ITV, Piers Morgan has decided now is the time to leave Good Morning Britain. ITV has accepted this decision and has nothing further to add."
So the sequence is, he basically calls Meghan a manipulative liar with his 'doubts' about her feeling suicidal; Mind, a leading mental health charity who works closely with ITV slams him hard, his colleague Beresford rips him a new one on-air the next day, which Morgan responds to by storming off, and then comes back and has a go at Beresford on-air for daring to criticise him; and also does an incredibly limp non-apology where he basically doubles down on calling Meghan a liar. ITV admit on an earnings call where they're questioned repeatedly about it that they're going to be having 'talks'.
Oh yes, I'm absolutely 100% sure *he's* the one that decided it was 'time to leave' his well-paid ego-polishing job. Alas, no doubt he'll be floating back up on Murdoch's new Fox News (UK edition) like the unflushable turd he is.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 2:29 PM on March 9, 2021 [13 favorites]
Canadian here: what kind of insult is it to call someone a 'social climber'? I'm kind of intrigued because the phrase is meaningless to me. What is it, like a socialite?
posted by kitcat at 3:20 PM on March 9, 2021
posted by kitcat at 3:20 PM on March 9, 2021
"someone who tries to improve his or her social position by being very friendly to people from a higher social class"
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:30 PM on March 9, 2021
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:30 PM on March 9, 2021
Kitcat, he’s basically been accusing her of being ambitiously social, to use people climb higher and higher into the ranks of society and celebrity than the level she had previously existed at. Basically he’s calling her uppity, which of course in itself is quite a dog whistle.
Frankly I think it’s projection, he’s the one who was trying to social climb once it came out the Twitter friend and sort-of television colleague (I mean probably she liked him on America’s Got Talent for some reason?? they have a shared history in working on American game shows?) he had a casual drink with was dating a Prince, and he’s pissed off that she didn’t invite him to the wedding. And he’s been a nakedly, virulently rejected buffoon about it on national news ever since. It’s pathetic.
I hope ITV told him he’s got to can it with his Meghan talk, because it had gone well past the point they could even TRY to call it journalism, and he insisted he wouldn’t, and so they sacked him.
posted by angeline at 3:31 PM on March 9, 2021 [7 favorites]
Frankly I think it’s projection, he’s the one who was trying to social climb once it came out the Twitter friend and sort-of television colleague (I mean probably she liked him on America’s Got Talent for some reason?? they have a shared history in working on American game shows?) he had a casual drink with was dating a Prince, and he’s pissed off that she didn’t invite him to the wedding. And he’s been a nakedly, virulently rejected buffoon about it on national news ever since. It’s pathetic.
I hope ITV told him he’s got to can it with his Meghan talk, because it had gone well past the point they could even TRY to call it journalism, and he insisted he wouldn’t, and so they sacked him.
posted by angeline at 3:31 PM on March 9, 2021 [7 favorites]
Piers Morgan is a bounder, which can also have an implication of social climbing.
posted by chaz at 3:36 PM on March 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by chaz at 3:36 PM on March 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
Oh yes, I'm absolutely 100% sure *he's* the one that decided it was 'time to leave' his well-paid ego-polishing job. Alas, no doubt he'll be floating back up on Murdoch's new Fox News (UK edition) like the unflushable turd he is.
We can only hope that's the limit to how high his star rises. Ladbrokes already has 200/1 on him becoming PM.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:37 PM on March 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
We can only hope that's the limit to how high his star rises. Ladbrokes already has 200/1 on him becoming PM.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:37 PM on March 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
Something about the way Piers Morgan walked off the show seems a bit odd to me. Whatever terrible character defects he might have, he's also a seasoned broadcasting professional (I guess?) and yet he just gets up and walks out on live TV in the middle of a segment. He doesn't wait until the program is over or for a commercial break or even just a break between segments. Either his impulse control and/or emotional regulation is non-existent and he just blew up in the moment or this was an exercise in showboating (or a third thing I haven't thought of). If this was a case of showboating, then I wonder how much was pre-planned and how much was spontaneous. Did he he wake up that morning and know that he was going to walk out of the show that day and was just waiting for the right opportunity? Was he already planning to quit (maybe because of the flood of Ofcom complaints about his tirades from the previous day) but only decided to walk out on live air after his co-host brings up the one date they went on? Or, more cynically, was this whole thing a pre-meditated set-up from the start (e.g.: agreed upon in advance between Morgan, the producers, and the other co-hosts)? I can see all of these scenarios -- including lack of impulse control -- as plausible.
posted by mhum at 6:04 PM on March 9, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by mhum at 6:04 PM on March 9, 2021 [3 favorites]
LaineyGossip on the queen's response:
"These people are cold, man. When Diana said there was barely any humanity there, she wasn’t kidding. And when Harry and Meghan called it a “toxic” environment, they weren’t kidding either. How do they keep showing their asses this way?posted by jenfullmoon at 6:10 PM on March 9, 2021 [17 favorites]
Like saying they’re “saddened” to learn the “full extent of how challenging the last few years” were for Harry and Meghan. First of all, “full extent” is telling on yourself. Because Meghan just revealed on Oprah and to the world that she was in such crisis that she asked for in-patient treatment for her mental health struggles. She said she didn’t “want to be alive”. How is that not FULL EXTENT? How much worse than “she is having suicidal thoughts” do these British royals need for it to be considered an emergency?
Meghan’s out here, as she said, begging for them to find her some professional assistance, while pregnant!, reaching out to senior members of the family and the goddamn human resources department, and now they’re saying they didn’t know the “full extent”? What, then, did they interpret it as? And isn’t that in and of itself alarming?
Will and Kate have been, for years now, advocating for mental health awareness, encouraging people to speak up about it and encouraging others to listen when those in need come forward. Meanwhile, in their own family, one of their own does actually come forward to say that she may self-harm, and they’re like…
Oh, she’s just being dramatic…?
Is that how it went down?
Because if so, it calls into question their entire commitment to mental health and whether or not they’re even paying attention to their own messaging.
They can really just flip the switch from family to business when they don't like the obligations that one or the other presents. "Family, I need help" -> "Actually this is a business & you're not more important than that" -> "My family didn't help me because they said it was a business" -> "Actually this is a family & nobody's business"
At least there will be nobody else marrying into this mess ever again. By the time Archie & his sister grow up hopefully it will be a different world but in a better way.
posted by bleep at 6:24 PM on March 9, 2021 [8 favorites]
At least there will be nobody else marrying into this mess ever again. By the time Archie & his sister grow up hopefully it will be a different world but in a better way.
posted by bleep at 6:24 PM on March 9, 2021 [8 favorites]
I’m pretty sure ‘social climber’ is only a pejorative when you’re a social climber yourself and direct it at some better at it than you are.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:01 PM on March 9, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:01 PM on March 9, 2021 [4 favorites]
She said she didn’t “want to be alive”. How is that not FULL EXTENT? How much worse than “she is having suicidal thoughts” do these British royals need for it to be considered an emergency?
I think - maybe this is just me being immersed in history, but I think it's really hard to understate how much power courtiers have held, historically, for the monarchy, and I wonder how much that still holds true, especially with Harry's comments essentially about how those around QEII may not have as good intentions.
Because which of the courtiers and the professional staff that make their entire lives about catering to royalty wants to tell the Queen, 'Your grandchild's wife is suicidal' when their power and prestige is dependent on her leading a delightfully comfortable life, where all annoyances and troubles are just taken care of quietly off screen? How much do you want to bet that this was translated to "She's feeling sad" by the time it got to that level?
And if for example in fact it was Charles who said that shit about the color of Meghan's baby - you think he's going to own up to the most powerful and influential person in his life that that happened? The woman who can - as Charles supposedly was planning to - alter the succession to cut him right the fuck out of it? The woman whose goodwill he is depending on in order to have the British public forgive him the monstrosity of how he treated Diana? He's going to tell her he was racist? Nope. Never in a million years.
posted by corb at 8:01 PM on March 9, 2021 [13 favorites]
I think - maybe this is just me being immersed in history, but I think it's really hard to understate how much power courtiers have held, historically, for the monarchy, and I wonder how much that still holds true, especially with Harry's comments essentially about how those around QEII may not have as good intentions.
Because which of the courtiers and the professional staff that make their entire lives about catering to royalty wants to tell the Queen, 'Your grandchild's wife is suicidal' when their power and prestige is dependent on her leading a delightfully comfortable life, where all annoyances and troubles are just taken care of quietly off screen? How much do you want to bet that this was translated to "She's feeling sad" by the time it got to that level?
And if for example in fact it was Charles who said that shit about the color of Meghan's baby - you think he's going to own up to the most powerful and influential person in his life that that happened? The woman who can - as Charles supposedly was planning to - alter the succession to cut him right the fuck out of it? The woman whose goodwill he is depending on in order to have the British public forgive him the monstrosity of how he treated Diana? He's going to tell her he was racist? Nope. Never in a million years.
posted by corb at 8:01 PM on March 9, 2021 [13 favorites]
I'm just catching up with the piers morgan angle and it's really breathtaking that it's basically both the royal and bargain bin edition of gamergate.
posted by cendawanita at 8:56 PM on March 9, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 8:56 PM on March 9, 2021 [11 favorites]
"I think - maybe this is just me being immersed in history, but I think it's really hard to understate how much power courtiers have held, historically, for the monarchy, and I wonder how much that still holds true, especially with Harry's comments essentially about how those around QEII may not have as good intentions."
Not only is this still apparently true, but some of the senior Buckingham Palace courtiers consider themselves the keepers of an English (not British) tradition going back to 1066 or 1215, and are rumored to call the Royal family "German upstarts" amongst themselves. Parts of the aristocracy who have English-and-only-English titles going back to the Tudors or the Stuarts are snobs about the Windsors because anyone post-Glorious-Revolution is automatically suspect, and those are some of the people chosen for important ceremonial roles that require titles.
It's well-attested in several biographies and tell-alls that the Buckingham Palace staff routinely, and mockingly, referred to Prince Phillip as "the fruit-basket prince." He was the grandson of the last Greek king, and his family was exiled from Greece when he was a baby. He was carried to the British ship that evacuated them in a fruit crate that was pressed into service as a baby crib. (Apparently they sometimes also call him, "THAT GREEK" when he particularly annoys them.) (Someone commented up thread, but Phillip, though a terrible human being, has a legitimately really interesting life story, not least because he was not at all a man who wanted to come second to his wife, but he's been doing it for SEVENTY-FOUR YEARS with relative grace, as the first prince consort in full and constant view of the worldwide press, and that is fascinating to me.)
I feel like the first couple of seasons of The Crown give a sense of this, particularly when Elizabeth is very young -- how much she is manipulated by her courtiers, and how little she pushes back. Honestly many biographies of Prince Albert, Victoria's husband, talk about this too, how she was just utterly hemmed in by how the palace was run by the courtiers and servants and there were things they just insisted couldn't be changed -- like she couldn't get fires lit because one department was responsible for laying them and a different one for starting them -- and Prince Albert came in and was just HORRIFIED by the staff's stubborn adherence to traditions that did not serve the monarchy or the Royal Family at all, and how little power Victoria had to get them to change, and how reluctant she was to try. It's mentioned in biographies because Albert undertook the reform of the Royal household, with significant -- but mixed -- success. (The Young Victoria -- the one with Emily Blunt -- dramatizes some of this nicely. Although Albert did not get shot, but I find it forgivable historical license because it's a nice dramatic arc.)
Not that any of that excuses them from MANAGING THEIR OWN DAMN HOUSEHOLD, but it is often striking to me how scared they seem of their staff when I read biographies or tell-alls or behind-the-scenes reporting, and how reluctant they are to insist on any changes. Like they know how precarious a monarchy is in the 21st century, and instead of making considered and decisive changes (like, I don't know, leveraging the amazing PR victory of a biracial American marrying Prince Harry and using that to advance diversity narratives the palace badly needs to advance?), they sit perched atop the house of cards, terrified to make a decision because it might be the wrong one.
(On the flip side -- and this is very vulgar and involves sexual assault, and also ableism, so skip this paragraph if you don't want to know -- there are persistent rumors (printed in the Daily Mail, among others) that Prince Charles makes, or used to make, new manservants suck his cock, just to show them who's boss, and I suppose if you piss off the staff, that is the kind of story you risk having come out. On the other hand, PRINCE ANDREW BEING A PEDOPHILE and/or PRINCE ANDREW LITERALLY HIRING SEVEN DWARVES to follow Princess Eugenie around her Snow-White-themed 25th birthday costume party IN 2015 doesn't seem to have made a dent, so.)
-----
Regarding "social climber," it absolutely has hugely racist undertones with Meghan and can't be understood apart from that. At the same time, it is part of a deeply misogynist tradition and that insult has been quite frequently thrown at women marrying in to the Royal Family. Kate and Pippa Middleton, during the Waity Katie years, were dubbed "the Wisteria Sisters" by William's friends (and gleefully picked up by the tabloids), because they were "beautiful, fragrant, and ferocious climbers." The present Queen's mother came in for similar ugliness from the press and from society. (As did, somewhat more complicatedly, Wallis Warfield Simpson, although there was just a whole lot going on there with changing social and religious norms around divorce etc and it's harder to unpick. (Also she was a Nazi supporter so it's hard to feel sorry for her.))
Also Piers Morgan is the grossest and if Oprah, Meghan, and Harry managed to rid our television screens of him forever, God bless them and all their works. Now we just gotta get him off the tweetbox so we can ignore him forever. Yes, I am sadly aware Rupert Murdoch will probably just put him on the payroll and give him a prime-time show being racist and misogynist because he has sad penis feels. But he really is the poster boy for fragile masculinity, isn't he? Literally EVERYTHING is a threat to how good he feels about his penis.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:05 PM on March 9, 2021 [31 favorites]
Not only is this still apparently true, but some of the senior Buckingham Palace courtiers consider themselves the keepers of an English (not British) tradition going back to 1066 or 1215, and are rumored to call the Royal family "German upstarts" amongst themselves. Parts of the aristocracy who have English-and-only-English titles going back to the Tudors or the Stuarts are snobs about the Windsors because anyone post-Glorious-Revolution is automatically suspect, and those are some of the people chosen for important ceremonial roles that require titles.
It's well-attested in several biographies and tell-alls that the Buckingham Palace staff routinely, and mockingly, referred to Prince Phillip as "the fruit-basket prince." He was the grandson of the last Greek king, and his family was exiled from Greece when he was a baby. He was carried to the British ship that evacuated them in a fruit crate that was pressed into service as a baby crib. (Apparently they sometimes also call him, "THAT GREEK" when he particularly annoys them.) (Someone commented up thread, but Phillip, though a terrible human being, has a legitimately really interesting life story, not least because he was not at all a man who wanted to come second to his wife, but he's been doing it for SEVENTY-FOUR YEARS with relative grace, as the first prince consort in full and constant view of the worldwide press, and that is fascinating to me.)
I feel like the first couple of seasons of The Crown give a sense of this, particularly when Elizabeth is very young -- how much she is manipulated by her courtiers, and how little she pushes back. Honestly many biographies of Prince Albert, Victoria's husband, talk about this too, how she was just utterly hemmed in by how the palace was run by the courtiers and servants and there were things they just insisted couldn't be changed -- like she couldn't get fires lit because one department was responsible for laying them and a different one for starting them -- and Prince Albert came in and was just HORRIFIED by the staff's stubborn adherence to traditions that did not serve the monarchy or the Royal Family at all, and how little power Victoria had to get them to change, and how reluctant she was to try. It's mentioned in biographies because Albert undertook the reform of the Royal household, with significant -- but mixed -- success. (The Young Victoria -- the one with Emily Blunt -- dramatizes some of this nicely. Although Albert did not get shot, but I find it forgivable historical license because it's a nice dramatic arc.)
Not that any of that excuses them from MANAGING THEIR OWN DAMN HOUSEHOLD, but it is often striking to me how scared they seem of their staff when I read biographies or tell-alls or behind-the-scenes reporting, and how reluctant they are to insist on any changes. Like they know how precarious a monarchy is in the 21st century, and instead of making considered and decisive changes (like, I don't know, leveraging the amazing PR victory of a biracial American marrying Prince Harry and using that to advance diversity narratives the palace badly needs to advance?), they sit perched atop the house of cards, terrified to make a decision because it might be the wrong one.
(On the flip side -- and this is very vulgar and involves sexual assault, and also ableism, so skip this paragraph if you don't want to know -- there are persistent rumors (printed in the Daily Mail, among others) that Prince Charles makes, or used to make, new manservants suck his cock, just to show them who's boss, and I suppose if you piss off the staff, that is the kind of story you risk having come out. On the other hand, PRINCE ANDREW BEING A PEDOPHILE and/or PRINCE ANDREW LITERALLY HIRING SEVEN DWARVES to follow Princess Eugenie around her Snow-White-themed 25th birthday costume party IN 2015 doesn't seem to have made a dent, so.)
-----
Regarding "social climber," it absolutely has hugely racist undertones with Meghan and can't be understood apart from that. At the same time, it is part of a deeply misogynist tradition and that insult has been quite frequently thrown at women marrying in to the Royal Family. Kate and Pippa Middleton, during the Waity Katie years, were dubbed "the Wisteria Sisters" by William's friends (and gleefully picked up by the tabloids), because they were "beautiful, fragrant, and ferocious climbers." The present Queen's mother came in for similar ugliness from the press and from society. (As did, somewhat more complicatedly, Wallis Warfield Simpson, although there was just a whole lot going on there with changing social and religious norms around divorce etc and it's harder to unpick. (Also she was a Nazi supporter so it's hard to feel sorry for her.))
Also Piers Morgan is the grossest and if Oprah, Meghan, and Harry managed to rid our television screens of him forever, God bless them and all their works. Now we just gotta get him off the tweetbox so we can ignore him forever. Yes, I am sadly aware Rupert Murdoch will probably just put him on the payroll and give him a prime-time show being racist and misogynist because he has sad penis feels. But he really is the poster boy for fragile masculinity, isn't he? Literally EVERYTHING is a threat to how good he feels about his penis.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:05 PM on March 9, 2021 [31 favorites]
mhum: 'The thing is, sitting on this side of the Atlantic, I was under the impression that this' [the UK royals being scared of the tabloids] 'was already conventional wisdom.'
I believe it's conventional wisdom, in the UK, Westminster politicians are in thrall to the press - particularly the Murdoch owned chunk. But not so much with the royal family. This is because any threat the press poses to the palace is neatly marked by the sycophancy of most of the coverage. In truth, I think the relationship is symbiotic: the tabloids get huge amount of content from the royals (the Daily Mail devoted 25 pages of coverage to the Harry and Meghan story yesterday - only slightly less than it devoted to 9/11) - in return the palace gets a prominent platform to fill with their PR. And finally, loyalty to the royal family is a linchpin trait of most tabloid readers - for all their power, the newspapers themselves would risk losing readers to their competitors if they were to diss the queen.
posted by rongorongo at 12:37 AM on March 10, 2021
I believe it's conventional wisdom, in the UK, Westminster politicians are in thrall to the press - particularly the Murdoch owned chunk. But not so much with the royal family. This is because any threat the press poses to the palace is neatly marked by the sycophancy of most of the coverage. In truth, I think the relationship is symbiotic: the tabloids get huge amount of content from the royals (the Daily Mail devoted 25 pages of coverage to the Harry and Meghan story yesterday - only slightly less than it devoted to 9/11) - in return the palace gets a prominent platform to fill with their PR. And finally, loyalty to the royal family is a linchpin trait of most tabloid readers - for all their power, the newspapers themselves would risk losing readers to their competitors if they were to diss the queen.
posted by rongorongo at 12:37 AM on March 10, 2021
You wonder how come the Palace's PR dept. got this so wrong. It's like watching a series of depth charges go off. Anyhow,
Society of Editors in turmoil over its Meghan statement
Some board members ‘deeply angry’ about claim racism was not a factor in coverage of Duchess of Sussex ... The board split came after 168 journalists, writers and broadcasters of colour from across the British media wrote an open letter describing the SoE’s initial statement as “laughable” proof of “an institution and an industry in denial”.
Piers Morgan: end of the road for the man who never knew when to stop
Too many articles to list (Just from the Guardian.) Anyway, here's the links page, Megan, Duchess of Sussex.
posted by glasseyes at 1:06 AM on March 10, 2021
Society of Editors in turmoil over its Meghan statement
Some board members ‘deeply angry’ about claim racism was not a factor in coverage of Duchess of Sussex ... The board split came after 168 journalists, writers and broadcasters of colour from across the British media wrote an open letter describing the SoE’s initial statement as “laughable” proof of “an institution and an industry in denial”.
Piers Morgan: end of the road for the man who never knew when to stop
Too many articles to list (Just from the Guardian.) Anyway, here's the links page, Megan, Duchess of Sussex.
posted by glasseyes at 1:06 AM on March 10, 2021
Recommended: Meghan: MP behind letter of solidarity calls for action on press bullying. Harry told Winfrey that he had felt more solidarity from those MPs than from members of his own family. “I guess one of the most telling parts, and the saddest parts, was over 70 … female members of parliament, both Conservative and Labour, came out and called out the colonial undertones of articles and headlines written about Meghan,” he said. “Yet no one from my family ever said anything over those three years. And that hurts.”
posted by glasseyes at 1:11 AM on March 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by glasseyes at 1:11 AM on March 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
Piers Morgan: end of the road for the man who never knew when to stop
Cultural sidenote: Britain's seaside resorts have long featured music hall venues- which were housed on rickety, wooden and alarmingly combustible structures built above the chilly waters. The resulting pun is thus mandatory. - as somebody put it, his pronouns are now "was/were".
posted by rongorongo at 3:01 AM on March 10, 2021 [7 favorites]
Cultural sidenote: Britain's seaside resorts have long featured music hall venues- which were housed on rickety, wooden and alarmingly combustible structures built above the chilly waters. The resulting pun is thus mandatory. - as somebody put it, his pronouns are now "was/were".
posted by rongorongo at 3:01 AM on March 10, 2021 [7 favorites]
I was sure the pun was going to be ‘end of the Piers show’.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 3:04 AM on March 10, 2021
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 3:04 AM on March 10, 2021
mhum: 'The thing is, sitting on this side of the Atlantic, I was under the impression that this' [the UK royals being scared of the tabloids] 'was already conventional wisdom.'
I believe it's conventional wisdom, in the UK, Westminster politicians are in thrall to the press - particularly the Murdoch owned chunk. But not so much with the royal family.
The press remains a very powerful institution in the UK in its own right. Traditionally there has been an incredibly large market for print tabloid papers compared to other countries, and its one of the best ways of 'reaching the people' . The Mail in particular has turned that into an incredibly effective digital offering. Print/online media also is much less heavily regulated than broadcast media which gives specific types of journalists more power than they might have in other markets. Specifically in relation to the Royals, whilst in the 1930s they didn't run negative stories about them at all, since the 50s and 60s the BRF have had a press experience more similar to other British institutions including a somewhat symbiotic relationship.
Both politicians and the Royal family believe that the press coverage they receive shapes public opinion of them. But politicians merely need to be elected and not be criticised for their decisions or actions so badly they are forced to resign. The Royal family needs to have the support of the public (and the press as proxy for that) while simultaneously doing nothing much and being decorative. This almost inevitably turns them into something of a soap opera. Clearly their press team and their media strategy has traction and they get plenty of positive coverage. But I think it's still the case that as individual people, and as an institution, they are scared of being savaged by the tabloid press and have been since the gloves started coming off post-war. I don't think that's an unreasonable feeling for them to have even if they could get away with more assertiveness.
posted by plonkee at 5:06 AM on March 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
I believe it's conventional wisdom, in the UK, Westminster politicians are in thrall to the press - particularly the Murdoch owned chunk. But not so much with the royal family.
The press remains a very powerful institution in the UK in its own right. Traditionally there has been an incredibly large market for print tabloid papers compared to other countries, and its one of the best ways of 'reaching the people' . The Mail in particular has turned that into an incredibly effective digital offering. Print/online media also is much less heavily regulated than broadcast media which gives specific types of journalists more power than they might have in other markets. Specifically in relation to the Royals, whilst in the 1930s they didn't run negative stories about them at all, since the 50s and 60s the BRF have had a press experience more similar to other British institutions including a somewhat symbiotic relationship.
Both politicians and the Royal family believe that the press coverage they receive shapes public opinion of them. But politicians merely need to be elected and not be criticised for their decisions or actions so badly they are forced to resign. The Royal family needs to have the support of the public (and the press as proxy for that) while simultaneously doing nothing much and being decorative. This almost inevitably turns them into something of a soap opera. Clearly their press team and their media strategy has traction and they get plenty of positive coverage. But I think it's still the case that as individual people, and as an institution, they are scared of being savaged by the tabloid press and have been since the gloves started coming off post-war. I don't think that's an unreasonable feeling for them to have even if they could get away with more assertiveness.
posted by plonkee at 5:06 AM on March 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
I've felt for a while that the purpose of newspapers these days - or until covid, anyway - lay in the front pages. On the way to work every morning I would walk past an array of the latest newspapers, and they usually presented a fairly coherent picture of What the Country Thought, and I had to remind myself that that was based on the prejudices of a very small group of very rich men (yes, the Guardian and the Daily Mirror, but they were fairly drowned out by the other voices).
posted by Grangousier at 5:16 AM on March 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Grangousier at 5:16 AM on March 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
[...] some of the senior Buckingham Palace courtiers consider themselves the keepers of an English (not British) tradition going back to 1066 or 1215, and are rumored to call the Royal family "German upstarts" amongst themselves.
Imagine what the courtiers call Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, amongst themselves.
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:43 AM on March 10, 2021 [12 favorites]
Imagine what the courtiers call Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, amongst themselves.
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:43 AM on March 10, 2021 [12 favorites]
47% say Harry and Meghan’s interview is inappropriate
That YouGov survey was conducted before the interview was aired, so all it gives you is a snapshot of opinion mostly based on the endless negative press.
posted by Lanark at 10:01 AM on March 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
That YouGov survey was conducted before the interview was aired, so all it gives you is a snapshot of opinion mostly based on the endless negative press.
posted by Lanark at 10:01 AM on March 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, made a formal complaint to British broadcaster ITV relating to Piers Morgan's comments about her mental health, CNN has learned.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:00 PM on March 10, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:00 PM on March 10, 2021 [7 favorites]
Well, I guess she’s not ghosting you now, Piersy!
posted by angeline at 1:08 PM on March 10, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by angeline at 1:08 PM on March 10, 2021 [4 favorites]
Piers has clearly pointed out why he deserved ghosting in the first place.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:37 PM on March 10, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:37 PM on March 10, 2021 [12 favorites]
Also, SoE head Murray got proffered the metaphorical sword over his attempt to play the "I am offended at your assertion" card:
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:27 PM on March 10, 2021 [5 favorites]
The executive director of an industry body for the UK press has resigned after a row over its reaction to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's comments about racism in the media.Good riddance. Hopefully his successor will be less concerned with his honor, and more with the massive issues with bigotry in the press.
Ian Murray said he would step down from his role at the Society of Editors so it could "rebuild its reputation".
Prince Harry said some British tabloids were "racist" and "bigoted".
The Society of Editors initially denied that and said such an "attack" was "not acceptable" without providing evidence.
Announcing his resignation on Wednesday, Mr Murray said: "Since the statement was issued the SoE has been heavily criticised.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:27 PM on March 10, 2021 [5 favorites]
I'm not directly linking to DMail, but here's the tweet text from journalist Yashar Ali
Queen will reach out to Prince Harry for peace talks...
Her Majesty will take personal charge of interview fallout and has issued a 'three-line whip' on Palace staff to stay silent
DMail being what they are, continued their reporting with an undermining of this directive by digging for quotes from unnamed sources to rebut the Sussexes.
posted by cendawanita at 1:04 AM on March 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
Queen will reach out to Prince Harry for peace talks...
Her Majesty will take personal charge of interview fallout and has issued a 'three-line whip' on Palace staff to stay silent
DMail being what they are, continued their reporting with an undermining of this directive by digging for quotes from unnamed sources to rebut the Sussexes.
posted by cendawanita at 1:04 AM on March 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
William was quoted today, in response to a question about whether the royal family was racist, as saying they are “very much not a racist family.” In addition, when asked if he'd spoken to Harry he said he hadn't, "but I will do."
posted by HiddenInput at 6:19 AM on March 11, 2021
posted by HiddenInput at 6:19 AM on March 11, 2021
William was quoted today, in response to a question about whether the royal family was racist, as saying they are “very much not a racist family.”
Well I'm glad he cleared that up!
dammit, my eyes have rolled right out of my sockets...
posted by nubs at 7:16 AM on March 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
Well I'm glad he cleared that up!
dammit, my eyes have rolled right out of my sockets...
posted by nubs at 7:16 AM on March 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
William was quoted today, in response to a question about whether the royal family was racist, as saying they are “very much not a racist family.”
I noted that this was trending with "Princess Michael of Kent" on Twitter this morning, so I think his razor-sharp intellectual analysis and rhetoric has gone over well.
posted by kalimac at 7:28 AM on March 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
I noted that this was trending with "Princess Michael of Kent" on Twitter this morning, so I think his razor-sharp intellectual analysis and rhetoric has gone over well.
posted by kalimac at 7:28 AM on March 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
"Prince William said he had not yet spoken to his brother since Harry and Meghan launched their attack on the family and institution in an interview with Oprah Winfrey broadcast in the US on Sunday."
So Wills didn't pick up the phone and say "Hey, what was THAT about?"
Which kinda suggests he knows exactly what that was about. And maybe doesn't want to talk about it for some reason.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:57 AM on March 11, 2021 [14 favorites]
So Wills didn't pick up the phone and say "Hey, what was THAT about?"
Which kinda suggests he knows exactly what that was about. And maybe doesn't want to talk about it for some reason.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:57 AM on March 11, 2021 [14 favorites]
Yeah, I think that sounds quite fishy that he hasn't gotten on the stick about this yet.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:02 AM on March 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:02 AM on March 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
Enjoying LaineyGossip on William. Really, shouldn't he have been prepared to answer that?
It’s been five days since your sister-in-law told the world that she had suicidal thoughts and your brother talked about his hurt. And now you’re telling the world that, nah, I just haven’t gotten around to it yet…? The safest way to answer that question would be to be consistent with what the Queen said in her statement. “Harry and Meghan are loved members of our family, always.” Like I said, I get it that in the spur of the moment, he may not have been prepared – but that’s the POINT.posted by jenfullmoon at 9:44 AM on March 11, 2021 [13 favorites]
Why aren’t you prepared?! These people have everything – including a communications team, allegedly specialists in their field. The job of comms specialists is to walk their clients through everything ahead of time, develop with them a skillset, a toolbox from which to pull when they’re out in public, especially during times of crisis.
Because what they really need is for the temperature to cool. And the temperature isn’t going to cool when William has just given the media a reason to blast out the headline, “WILL AND HARRY STILL AREN’T TALKING!” instead of “WILLIAM SAYS HE STILL LOVES HIS BROTHER”. Right?!
One half of my brain knows that 'three-line whip' is a reference to parliamentary procedure; the other half went: "allegations" of racism, and this is the best phrasing your flunkies can manage? See if the Grimaldis have any spares
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:27 PM on March 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:27 PM on March 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
You don't perch yourself on a padded podium wearing sun-glasses under the straining backs of black men in a photo op, and then declare yourself not racist.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 10:10 PM on March 11, 2021
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 10:10 PM on March 11, 2021
You don't perch yourself on a padded podium wearing sun-glasses under the straining backs of black men in a photo op, and then declare yourself not racist.
Needs pictures
posted by bitteschoen at 2:33 AM on March 12, 2021 [2 favorites]
Needs pictures
posted by bitteschoen at 2:33 AM on March 12, 2021 [2 favorites]
Needs pictures
It’s how one crowd surfs.
posted by rongorongo at 3:15 AM on March 12, 2021 [1 favorite]
It’s how one crowd surfs.
posted by rongorongo at 3:15 AM on March 12, 2021 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I was about to say -- that picture says nothing unless you know who arranged the event. If it was something the bearers were pressured into, then yeah, racist, but if was them participating in what their local hosts wanted, then it was good manners.
posted by tavella at 7:29 AM on March 12, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by tavella at 7:29 AM on March 12, 2021 [1 favorite]
The Kate and William picture is from the Solomon islands, not from Tuvalu.
Not sure what the Queen carried on a boat in Tuvalu in 1982 has to do with this. That is definitely part of a tradition where a VIPs canoe is carried into town.
posted by vacapinta at 8:08 AM on March 12, 2021
Not sure what the Queen carried on a boat in Tuvalu in 1982 has to do with this. That is definitely part of a tradition where a VIPs canoe is carried into town.
posted by vacapinta at 8:08 AM on March 12, 2021
Sorry Megami I was looking at when this photo first appeared in UK newspapers in 2012. For example here in the Telegraph captioned:
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are carried from a boat to the plane in Marau in Guadacanal Province, Solomon Islands, before departing for TuvaluPicture Credit: Mark Large/PA
Perhaps it is also a tradition in Tuvalu but that does not appear to be where the photo is from.
posted by vacapinta at 8:47 AM on March 12, 2021
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are carried from a boat to the plane in Marau in Guadacanal Province, Solomon Islands, before departing for TuvaluPicture Credit: Mark Large/PA
Perhaps it is also a tradition in Tuvalu but that does not appear to be where the photo is from.
posted by vacapinta at 8:47 AM on March 12, 2021
I was just revisiting Canadian radical history posters from the Graphic History Collective, and found this one on Charles Roach:
In 1988, the iconoclastic Charles Roach launched a battle against the Canadian government to remove the oath to the Queen as a condition of Canadian citizenship. In 1992, the Court of Appeal threw his case out, but in 2012 Roach, battling a life threatening illness, launched a similar suit: “I cannot see myself taking the oath to a symbol that is racist.... It is against fundamental freedoms.” Roach’s fight for fundamental freedoms and his moral outrage at the notion of having to pledge allegiance to a British monarch—a figure who for him represented colonization and slavery—typified the life’s work of one of Canada’s most important Civil Rights activists and champions.posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 11:41 AM on March 12, 2021 [8 favorites]
I don't know for sure about Tuvalu, but I get the distinct impression their neighbor Kiribati at least has a certain warm nostalgia for colonial days, and that they didn't gain their independence so much as were gently pushed out of the remnants of the British Empire (Kiribati, unlike most of their decolonized neighbors, didn't even bother to change to a name that reflected their own language, culture, and heritage, but merely adopted as their name the local phonology of their colonial name, the Gilbert Islands, or Gilberts).
posted by jackbishop at 11:28 AM on March 13, 2021
posted by jackbishop at 11:28 AM on March 13, 2021
As England holds France's BdG: Magazine cover showing Queen Elizabeth II kneeling on Meghan's neck sparks outrage (NBC via Yahoo News, March 13, 2021) French magazine Charlie Hebdo caused social media outrage Saturday over its front-page drawing of Queen Elizabeth II kneeling on the neck of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. A caption on the drawing translates to "Why Meghan left Buckingham." A quote bubble near Meghan's head reads, "because I couldn't breathe anymore."
In the photo, shared on the magazine's Twitter account, a menacing-looking Queen Elizabeth II pins Meghan down with her knee.
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:30 PM on March 14, 2021
In the photo, shared on the magazine's Twitter account, a menacing-looking Queen Elizabeth II pins Meghan down with her knee.
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:30 PM on March 14, 2021
Buckingham Palace hires external law firm to investigate bullying claims against Meghan
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:24 AM on March 15, 2021
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:24 AM on March 15, 2021
Well, of course the law firm is most likely been tasked to find a way to make Meghan look guilty, though, haven't they? Otherwise the royal family are going to be very angry about having to pay them anything. It's not like they can make Harry divorce Meghan, so what's the end game? Forcing them to give up all their titles, etc. etc.?
TBH, they should have done that on the day they announced that they were out. There is no advantage to them in being publicly associated with these people any longer, and the racist bastards inside and outside the Firm are going to remain racist and continue to hold whatever ridiculous ideas they want to about black people being low class anyhow, so may as well cut those public ties (though I would gather that privately, Harry would want to try to maintain some sort of connection to his kin if possible).
But ain't this some shit? It didn't have to be this way. All they had to be was kind, but they were too racist and envious of Meghan's popularity to even see sense.
posted by droplet at 11:59 AM on March 15, 2021 [7 favorites]
TBH, they should have done that on the day they announced that they were out. There is no advantage to them in being publicly associated with these people any longer, and the racist bastards inside and outside the Firm are going to remain racist and continue to hold whatever ridiculous ideas they want to about black people being low class anyhow, so may as well cut those public ties (though I would gather that privately, Harry would want to try to maintain some sort of connection to his kin if possible).
But ain't this some shit? It didn't have to be this way. All they had to be was kind, but they were too racist and envious of Meghan's popularity to even see sense.
posted by droplet at 11:59 AM on March 15, 2021 [7 favorites]
Yeah, I finally started watching The Crown after all this and hell hath no fury like a senior royal being outpopulared by another one, apparently. They don't realize that their coldness is what puts people off and Diana and Meghan being warm in public is what people LIKE.
I guess what else they can shoot for is taking away the titles entirely, forcing them out of the line of succession, whatever else with that.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:11 PM on March 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
I guess what else they can shoot for is taking away the titles entirely, forcing them out of the line of succession, whatever else with that.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:11 PM on March 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
I guess what else they can shoot for is taking away the titles entirely, forcing them out of the line of succession, whatever else with that.
That's a can of worms, though...once they open that up, people are going to start looking at Andrew.
posted by Preserver at 12:39 PM on March 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
That's a can of worms, though...once they open that up, people are going to start looking at Andrew.
posted by Preserver at 12:39 PM on March 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
We are already looking at Andrew, they don't care. This is not even people were talking about at this point, it's a zombified cult just staggering around looking for brains to eat.
posted by bleep at 1:46 PM on March 15, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by bleep at 1:46 PM on March 15, 2021 [3 favorites]
It just looks so ridiculous next to their indifference to Andrew. I mean, I can believe that someone who was desperately unhappy and the verge of a mental breakdown might have taken it out on a couple of staffers, but even if they "determine" she was bullying someone, she doesn't work there any more! We aren't talking some kind of crime where there might be legal consequences. Y'know, unlike whatever Andrew has been up to.
posted by tavella at 6:20 PM on March 15, 2021
posted by tavella at 6:20 PM on March 15, 2021
Gayle hears that family relations are not going well.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:36 AM on March 16, 2021
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:36 AM on March 16, 2021
I am pretty late to the conversation, but one interesting thing to come out of the interview is that Go Fug Yourself (GFY), a website that covers celebrity fashion with a dose of cultural commentary, has stopped their Royal Round Up weekly feature. I only got to know much about the BRF through being a casual follower of GFY over the years. I've also read the site authors' two fiction books that are Will and Kate-inspired, an-outsider-marries-the-British-heir-to-the-throne-and-struggles-with-the-press-coverage narratives.
I really, really got interested though when Meghan showed up. Yeah, I am much more inspired by her outfits than Kate's preppy ones, and it was super interesting to see an independent biracial American woman step up and shake some things up. I didn't get up super early to watch the wedding live, but I put the replay on and read the coverage of her dress and the guests and so on on the day of. I followed their first royal tour through the South Pacific. And then I also liked what Meghan was doing with things like her fundraiser cookbook and her British Vogue issue, and now have both on my shelves.
I'm really sad but not at all surprised at what she's gone through. It was also painful to watch the GFY comment section get more and more contentious over the past couple years. Heather and Jessica, the two white women who moderate the site, did their best, but following royals is tricky. Having a breezy conversation about Kate's dress or whatever is hard to do unless you just ignore the centuries of colonialism, imperialism, and racism the whole system is built on. They're totally right to stop covering royals in the same way going forward, especially for the sake of their readers of color, many of whom chimed in to mention that they had stepped away from the site because of it.
I'm still working out my own feelings on all of this. I find celebrity gossip really interesting, and I learned so much about celebrity culture just from following along and also from some really insightful posts from the GFY commentariat. (Also many of you here!) The British royal family is like that, but amplified. But then even giving it clicks and eyeballs also props up the institution. I suppose I'm still rooting for Meghan and Harry to find peace for themselves and their children, and I'll always be subject to some form of celebrity worship from growing up in the US. But I also hope that where the monarchy goes next is also what's best for the people they've exploited and continue to exploit, most of whose names I'll never know.
posted by j.r at 11:48 AM on March 16, 2021 [9 favorites]
I really, really got interested though when Meghan showed up. Yeah, I am much more inspired by her outfits than Kate's preppy ones, and it was super interesting to see an independent biracial American woman step up and shake some things up. I didn't get up super early to watch the wedding live, but I put the replay on and read the coverage of her dress and the guests and so on on the day of. I followed their first royal tour through the South Pacific. And then I also liked what Meghan was doing with things like her fundraiser cookbook and her British Vogue issue, and now have both on my shelves.
I'm really sad but not at all surprised at what she's gone through. It was also painful to watch the GFY comment section get more and more contentious over the past couple years. Heather and Jessica, the two white women who moderate the site, did their best, but following royals is tricky. Having a breezy conversation about Kate's dress or whatever is hard to do unless you just ignore the centuries of colonialism, imperialism, and racism the whole system is built on. They're totally right to stop covering royals in the same way going forward, especially for the sake of their readers of color, many of whom chimed in to mention that they had stepped away from the site because of it.
I'm still working out my own feelings on all of this. I find celebrity gossip really interesting, and I learned so much about celebrity culture just from following along and also from some really insightful posts from the GFY commentariat. (Also many of you here!) The British royal family is like that, but amplified. But then even giving it clicks and eyeballs also props up the institution. I suppose I'm still rooting for Meghan and Harry to find peace for themselves and their children, and I'll always be subject to some form of celebrity worship from growing up in the US. But I also hope that where the monarchy goes next is also what's best for the people they've exploited and continue to exploit, most of whose names I'll never know.
posted by j.r at 11:48 AM on March 16, 2021 [9 favorites]
Prince Charles wanted to do a point by point rebuttal of the interview.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:48 PM on March 16, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:48 PM on March 16, 2021 [4 favorites]
QEII has been the default for all of our lives, but man we are going to get a couple of shitty Kings after her and not sure but seems like that will be a force multiplier on all the other shittiness currently plaguing the UK and anglosphere generally.
posted by Meatbomb at 1:16 AM on March 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by Meatbomb at 1:16 AM on March 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
Surely it is oedipal fury that made Harry do this, rather than the press or racism, as he claims. How else are we to explain their move to America, where there is no racism whatsoever, and to Hollywood in particular, where, as far as I can gather, no journalists or photographers have ever been seen?"Obviously Meghan is lying about encountering racism because they moved to a place that also had racism!"
posted by Lord Chancellor at 1:17 PM on March 17, 2021 [10 favorites]
From a writer who also wrote a piece suggesting Marcus Rashford had suspect motives behind his campaign to keep kids from starving last year, yikes.
posted by grandiloquiet at 2:00 PM on March 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by grandiloquiet at 2:00 PM on March 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
Yes, the only thing wrong about Marcus Rashford is that he doesn't score enough goals for club or country. If someone's writing an article against him then they're the one with the agenda and I'd be wondering about the accuracy of anything else they wrote too.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 3:02 PM on March 17, 2021
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 3:02 PM on March 17, 2021
I’ve been enjoying Amber Ruffin’s coverage of the story, and not only because she and Tarik Davis do the funniest impressions of the Queen and Prince Phillip I’ve ever heard.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 3:39 PM on March 17, 2021
posted by The Underpants Monster at 3:39 PM on March 17, 2021
The Sun Seems to Have Knowingly Used Illegally Obtained Information to Report on Meghan Markle
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:14 PM on March 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:14 PM on March 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
26 Stories That Show How The Palace Press Team Defended Kate Middleton Vs. Meghan Markle In other news, Harry has a new job and has had it for a few months now.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:05 PM on March 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:05 PM on March 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Chief Impact Officer for BetterUp, and it was also announced this week that Harry's part of the Aspen Institute's Commission on Information Disorder [a "six-month study on combating America’s urgent mis- and disinformation challenge alongside high-level government, civil society, and technology experts"].
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:50 PM on March 26, 2021
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:50 PM on March 26, 2021
« Older the first example of memory in an organism with no... | Your vibes are not compliant with festival policy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by pjsky at 3:50 PM on March 3, 2021 [50 favorites]