For fans of the Markle cinematic universe only
December 12, 2022 9:16 PM Subscribe
The early reviews on Netflix's Harry & Meghan are uniformly dismal. Sometimes entertainingly so. The Atlantic says: "In the trailer for this series, Harry complains that his family is a “hierarchy,” which suggests that the whole concept of a monarchy might have eluded him." Inside: more reviews and reactions.
The Atlantic's Helen Lewis thinks the ex-royals "know exactly who their audience is".
The Guardian's Lucy Mangan "almost brought up [her] breakfast".
Frank Langfitt tells NPR that even publications that are critical of the monarchy have panned the show for its poor execution and meager content.
CNN columnist Peggy Drexler muses, "in fact, if "Harry & Meghan" is a ploy to get people truly disinterested in their comings and goings, well, that's the one area where they may have succeeded."
The Atlantic's Helen Lewis thinks the ex-royals "know exactly who their audience is".
The Guardian's Lucy Mangan "almost brought up [her] breakfast".
Frank Langfitt tells NPR that even publications that are critical of the monarchy have panned the show for its poor execution and meager content.
CNN columnist Peggy Drexler muses, "in fact, if "Harry & Meghan" is a ploy to get people truly disinterested in their comings and goings, well, that's the one area where they may have succeeded."
The Palace has done an excellent job of seeding the media with negative reviews. Fuck ‘em.
posted by interogative mood at 9:39 PM on December 12, 2022 [28 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 9:39 PM on December 12, 2022 [28 favorites]
Yeah...the reviews have varied wildly, but I think we can expect that virtually everyone in the British press, who Harry rightfully slams, is going to haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate it and his family is going to haaaaaaaaaaaaaate it. Like if they'd just showed six hours of their babies or just a documentary on Invictus/Sentebale and nothing else, we'd be reading slams about it.
I'm kind of amused by the people who thought it was boring and there wasn't much new in the first three--admittedly, it wasn't the Oprah interview...YET. I suspect round two is going to have the real bombs dropped, because that's covering Sussexit and presumably whoever is getting covered for in the royal family (presumably William's affair with Rose Hanbury) and whoever was racist.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:15 PM on December 12, 2022 [10 favorites]
I'm kind of amused by the people who thought it was boring and there wasn't much new in the first three--admittedly, it wasn't the Oprah interview...YET. I suspect round two is going to have the real bombs dropped, because that's covering Sussexit and presumably whoever is getting covered for in the royal family (presumably William's affair with Rose Hanbury) and whoever was racist.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:15 PM on December 12, 2022 [10 favorites]
The Monarchy needs to privatize. Sell off some of that real estate. Disappear. You're a ship of fools. Go away.
posted by philip-random at 10:33 PM on December 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 10:33 PM on December 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
I don't understand Megan
posted by thegirlwiththehat at 10:36 PM on December 12, 2022
posted by thegirlwiththehat at 10:36 PM on December 12, 2022
I feel like they’ve ceased to be beings unto themselves and now exist as social Rorschach tests.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 10:38 PM on December 12, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by St. Peepsburg at 10:38 PM on December 12, 2022 [9 favorites]
Hell, if Helen Lewis hates it I'm dropping all my plans for the next week to binge it.
posted by ominous_paws at 11:17 PM on December 12, 2022 [16 favorites]
posted by ominous_paws at 11:17 PM on December 12, 2022 [16 favorites]
In the trailer for this series, Harry complains that his family is a “hierarchy,” which suggests that the whole concept of a monarchy might have eluded him.
I haven't seen the show and don't intend to, but WTF kind of bass-ackwards framing is that? Harry is recognizing and acknowledging that his family is a hierarchy in order to criticize it.
posted by The Tensor at 11:20 PM on December 12, 2022 [30 favorites]
I haven't seen the show and don't intend to, but WTF kind of bass-ackwards framing is that? Harry is recognizing and acknowledging that his family is a hierarchy in order to criticize it.
posted by The Tensor at 11:20 PM on December 12, 2022 [30 favorites]
Murdoch has corrupted the entirety of the British press, not just the right.
posted by jamjam at 12:24 AM on December 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by jamjam at 12:24 AM on December 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
H&M are an incredible / awful reminder that power ('oh it's just for the tourists!') is often invisible until you go against it.
posted by litleozy at 2:43 AM on December 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by litleozy at 2:43 AM on December 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
Reminder that Helen Lewis is a TERF who has made a whole thing of stuff like interviewing Jordan Peterson and appearing on a Quillette podcast to chat about false accusations of racism.
posted by joyceanmachine at 3:28 AM on December 13, 2022 [27 favorites]
posted by joyceanmachine at 3:28 AM on December 13, 2022 [27 favorites]
This one tweet review sums up how we should all feel about the ongoing Sussex drama:
I am so bored of the Harry and Meghan shenanigans. In happier times Harry would have raised an army against the King, with William meeting him somewhere in Leicestershire where Harry would have died in battle, his body never found, and Meghan would have ended up in a convent.
posted by fortitude25 at 3:53 AM on December 13, 2022 [12 favorites]
I am so bored of the Harry and Meghan shenanigans. In happier times Harry would have raised an army against the King, with William meeting him somewhere in Leicestershire where Harry would have died in battle, his body never found, and Meghan would have ended up in a convent.
posted by fortitude25 at 3:53 AM on December 13, 2022 [12 favorites]
This one tweet review sums up how we should all feel about the ongoing Sussex drama
Not sure why a tweet from yet another dedicated anti-Meghan nutjob and transphobe is a good choice for telling us all how we should feel about this series.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 5:19 AM on December 13, 2022 [33 favorites]
Not sure why a tweet from yet another dedicated anti-Meghan nutjob and transphobe is a good choice for telling us all how we should feel about this series.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 5:19 AM on December 13, 2022 [33 favorites]
I'm really sorry I included transphobes in this post! Ack.
posted by MiraK at 5:32 AM on December 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by MiraK at 5:32 AM on December 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
I really don't want to care about Harry and Meghan. But I make a point of checking out right-wing news sources, and the intensity and volume of the hate campaign against them in the UK is astonishing. Practically every day for years there have been stories against her in the right wing press.
If any future historians look at our news media without context they will conclude that the most evil, powerful and consequential human beings of this century were Meghan Markle and Hunter Biden.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 5:42 AM on December 13, 2022 [17 favorites]
If any future historians look at our news media without context they will conclude that the most evil, powerful and consequential human beings of this century were Meghan Markle and Hunter Biden.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 5:42 AM on December 13, 2022 [17 favorites]
If the Harry lead an army against his father, Harry would come out on top. No matter how many times Charles dilutes his homeopathic remedies. Harry actually fought in a war and has a global network of vets through his Invictus charity work.
posted by interogative mood at 5:47 AM on December 13, 2022 [11 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 5:47 AM on December 13, 2022 [11 favorites]
I don't understand Megan
That's where I am too. I used to wholeheartedly support Meghan because of the racism inflicted upon her with impunity by British people/the Palace/the British media, but it has gotten a lot harder. It's unfortunate that she often comes across as being so mercenary and attention-seeking. I was particularly struck how during the public events in the aftermath of QEII's death, she seemed to be terrified of doing the tiniest thing that could be interpreted as trying to outshadow Kate. Perhaps some of her past behavior came back (or was brought back) to haunt her.
I just hope she and Harry can settle down and raise their children happily and safely. Even if most of what they're saying is true, they're never going to win the PR battle against the Palace, and in the long run I doubt they're going to be able to support themselves financially by trying to keep the battle going.
posted by fuse theorem at 5:59 AM on December 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
That's where I am too. I used to wholeheartedly support Meghan because of the racism inflicted upon her with impunity by British people/the Palace/the British media, but it has gotten a lot harder. It's unfortunate that she often comes across as being so mercenary and attention-seeking. I was particularly struck how during the public events in the aftermath of QEII's death, she seemed to be terrified of doing the tiniest thing that could be interpreted as trying to outshadow Kate. Perhaps some of her past behavior came back (or was brought back) to haunt her.
I just hope she and Harry can settle down and raise their children happily and safely. Even if most of what they're saying is true, they're never going to win the PR battle against the Palace, and in the long run I doubt they're going to be able to support themselves financially by trying to keep the battle going.
posted by fuse theorem at 5:59 AM on December 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
I dunno... I've been watching it and I think it's pretty good. There's been an awful lot of press ABOUT them. It's nice to get their point of view on what happened. It sounds like it really sucked a lot for Meghan. The footage of the paparazzi and all the racist stuff was pretty compelling.
posted by MythMaker at 6:21 AM on December 13, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by MythMaker at 6:21 AM on December 13, 2022 [9 favorites]
For some less driven-by-hack-journalism discussion of the Netflix special, commentary from Lainey Gossip.
Also, the racist fury whipped up against Meghan Markle by the British press had real-life, terrifying consequences. A couple references here and here:
Also, the racist fury whipped up against Meghan Markle by the British press had real-life, terrifying consequences. A couple references here and here:
Neil Basu, the outgoing assistant commissioner of Metropolitan Police and former head of counterterrorism for the force, said in an interview released Tuesday that the duchess formerly known as Meghan Markle and her husband, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, were specifically targeted by far-right terrorists.posted by joyceanmachine at 6:21 AM on December 13, 2022 [15 favorites]
...
Newman followed up on her question, asking, “There were many serious, credible threats against Meghan Markle emanating from the far right?”
“Absolutely, and if you'd seen the stuff that was written and you were receiving it… the kind of rhetoric that's online, if you don't know what I know, you would feel under threat all of the time,” he said.
“So you were convinced that there was a genuine threat to Meghan’s life on, you know, more than one occasion, on several occasions?” Newman asked.
“Absolutely. We had teams investigating it and people have been prosecuted for those threats,” Basu said.
I'd also like to point out that referring to one's family of origin as a "hierarchy" is also a way of telegraphing that that family is wildly dysfunctional; not that we didn't know that already, given that Harry's dad quite infamously wanted to be with someone besides Harry's mom (specifically, Harry's stepmom) well before he was even born. My more cynical side wonders if this pile-on is meant not only to boost ratings for the series (hatewatching is still watching, after all) but also to distract from the wildly unpopular government by the people actually in power.
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:47 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:47 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
I'm really sorry I included transphobes in this post! Ack.
Honestly, that would be pretty unavoidable in any post about the British press. It is yet another way in which they’re just thoroughly awful.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 7:07 AM on December 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
Honestly, that would be pretty unavoidable in any post about the British press. It is yet another way in which they’re just thoroughly awful.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 7:07 AM on December 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
Biased critics aside, it is a little weird that they would break with the monarchy and leave the country in order to preserve their privacy, and then accept $100 million from Netflix to tell their stories in a three-part documentary.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 7:11 AM on December 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 7:11 AM on December 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
I mainly don't understand how they're going to support themselves financially long term. A lot of what they want to do seems to be things that you do while having an independent income. How much mileage can you continue to get out of an 18 month stint together under a different monarch. But that's kind of separate to whether or not, this is a good series. The general perception here seems to be that it's aimed at an American rather than British audience, at least in sentiment. Except for the possibility that we're intended to hatewatch it.
On the content of the first part...
The BRF have a media strategy that involves bargaining pre-agreed photo calls for minimal pap intrusion, "no comment"-ing the vast majority of the time, and placing stories through 'unnamed sources'. Its objective is to protect the monarchy, and it is effective at doing this - republicanism consistently hovers at just over 20% in the UK. It does not exist to protect lower ranking individuals within it (although it may do that if it so chooses).
The British press, particularly the tabloids are really awful to women who have married in to the BRF. In Meghan's case that was made worse by her being mixed race and American. Of course our press is institutionally racist, and we have a very split-personality response to Americans (we're much more comfortable with Canadians). It is no surprise that it happened and no surprise that she found it horrendous. Perhaps the only surprise is that they were both willing to call it quits and leave the Firm at least in part so that they could use a different strategy with the media. That definitely seems to have take the tabloids by surprise.
posted by plonkee at 7:15 AM on December 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
On the content of the first part...
The BRF have a media strategy that involves bargaining pre-agreed photo calls for minimal pap intrusion, "no comment"-ing the vast majority of the time, and placing stories through 'unnamed sources'. Its objective is to protect the monarchy, and it is effective at doing this - republicanism consistently hovers at just over 20% in the UK. It does not exist to protect lower ranking individuals within it (although it may do that if it so chooses).
The British press, particularly the tabloids are really awful to women who have married in to the BRF. In Meghan's case that was made worse by her being mixed race and American. Of course our press is institutionally racist, and we have a very split-personality response to Americans (we're much more comfortable with Canadians). It is no surprise that it happened and no surprise that she found it horrendous. Perhaps the only surprise is that they were both willing to call it quits and leave the Firm at least in part so that they could use a different strategy with the media. That definitely seems to have take the tabloids by surprise.
posted by plonkee at 7:15 AM on December 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
There is nothing weird about it. You can’t just turn your fame off and on like a light switch. Full time security is very expressive. Furthermore you have a story that everyone wants, you might as well get paid for it. Then at least your version will be told instead of just the version those who want to harm you put out there.
posted by interogative mood at 7:32 AM on December 13, 2022 [24 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 7:32 AM on December 13, 2022 [24 favorites]
I'm really sorry I included transphobes in this post! Ack.
Honestly, that would be pretty unavoidable in any post about the British press. It is yet another way in which they’re just thoroughly awful.
Also, you've outed them as the transphobes that they are for those of us that didn't know this already
posted by NoMich at 7:33 AM on December 13, 2022 [7 favorites]
Honestly, that would be pretty unavoidable in any post about the British press. It is yet another way in which they’re just thoroughly awful.
Also, you've outed them as the transphobes that they are for those of us that didn't know this already
posted by NoMich at 7:33 AM on December 13, 2022 [7 favorites]
The treatment of Megan Markle in the UK press, like the treatment of trans women, seems to be a way of constituting/building fascism. I don't mean "oh, people are awful to her in order to trick others into supporting their fascist agenda, the 'real' thing is some kind of fascism underneath"; I mean that fascism itself is constituted by these baying, bloodthirsty official campaigns against marginalized groups. Like, the bloodthirsty baying about Markle is in itself a fascist thing.
That's not because the royal family is so great - it's not fascist to want to expropriate them and make them work for a living, or to protest them militantly and aggressively, or to kick them out of the country, etc.
It's fascism because the way fascists do fascism is precisely to have these public, "respectable" ultraviolent racist campaigns to build the public's sense of itself as a fascist, racist, violent public. It moves people from "sorta kinda racist in an ignorant way but probably mostly don't think about it" to "baying for blood, self-identifying as racist, firmly believing that it is okay to hate and mock people of color, firmly believing that individual threats of violence to people of color are a normal part of political life". It activates people as fascists.
Similarly, the campaigns against trans people move people from "hardly ever thinking about trans people even if ignorant" to "having an identity as an organized hater of trans people who accepts state violence against them".
Being a person who enjoys and identifies with violent state campaigns against minorities is being a fascist, that's what this is about. It's not to trick people into going along with some other underlying ideology; it's because the fascists in the ruling class want a racist, violent, transphobic society and they create that by making people love fascism.
posted by Frowner at 7:34 AM on December 13, 2022 [35 favorites]
That's not because the royal family is so great - it's not fascist to want to expropriate them and make them work for a living, or to protest them militantly and aggressively, or to kick them out of the country, etc.
It's fascism because the way fascists do fascism is precisely to have these public, "respectable" ultraviolent racist campaigns to build the public's sense of itself as a fascist, racist, violent public. It moves people from "sorta kinda racist in an ignorant way but probably mostly don't think about it" to "baying for blood, self-identifying as racist, firmly believing that it is okay to hate and mock people of color, firmly believing that individual threats of violence to people of color are a normal part of political life". It activates people as fascists.
Similarly, the campaigns against trans people move people from "hardly ever thinking about trans people even if ignorant" to "having an identity as an organized hater of trans people who accepts state violence against them".
Being a person who enjoys and identifies with violent state campaigns against minorities is being a fascist, that's what this is about. It's not to trick people into going along with some other underlying ideology; it's because the fascists in the ruling class want a racist, violent, transphobic society and they create that by making people love fascism.
posted by Frowner at 7:34 AM on December 13, 2022 [35 favorites]
Wow. People seemed to be way too caught up in their accusations of evil intent to step back and think that maybe this show is just objectively stupid. Why wouldn't it be? it's a celebrity reality show.
posted by Liquidwolf at 7:42 AM on December 13, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by Liquidwolf at 7:42 AM on December 13, 2022 [9 favorites]
it can be true that the show is both pointless and stupid and that the british monarchy and british press should be razed to the ground due to their historical awfulness
but like, let's be real here, whether or not the netflix docuseries is bad is besides the point
the monarchy is evil, full stop.
the british press is institutionally transphobic and racist and the shit they did to megan markle is unbelievably awful
harry and megan live in greater comfort than most people on the planet so all i have for them is an eyeroll
posted by i used to be someone else at 7:52 AM on December 13, 2022 [11 favorites]
but like, let's be real here, whether or not the netflix docuseries is bad is besides the point
the monarchy is evil, full stop.
the british press is institutionally transphobic and racist and the shit they did to megan markle is unbelievably awful
harry and megan live in greater comfort than most people on the planet so all i have for them is an eyeroll
posted by i used to be someone else at 7:52 AM on December 13, 2022 [11 favorites]
maybe this show is just objectively stupid
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 7:52 AM on December 13, 2022 [7 favorites]
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 7:52 AM on December 13, 2022 [7 favorites]
The show can be totally stupid! I think it probably is! Most of the clips I've seen have been pretty stupid. But a lot of people aren't just thinking "oh, this is some stupid reality show about minor aristocrats", they're absolutely frothing mad about Megan Markle in an incredibly unglued way and accept fascist, racist treatment of her as completely normal.
The whole thing about a fascist culture is that it seems normal from the inside. Just like in the US it's normal to have school shootings all the time and normal to keep people in prison when we know they are innocent and normal that any woman with a public online persona gets lots and lots of really horrible death threats constantly from a great variety of people. It feels "normal" to us even if we don't like it because we're used to what the US has become, but famously anyone from anywhere else is like "perhaps you could NOT have children murdered at school, we seem to manage".
I mean, I remember when I read about the Windrush scandal and thought "that's really fucked up, but they are obviously, obviously going to prioritize helping those poor people so that they have the right documents, because it would be completely against the spirit of the law and the fact of their tax-paying working lives in the UK not to" and then it was just racism and deportations all the way down, that's what I mean by normalizing stuff. It's not rational and logical to say "well, you have demonstrably lived and worked here since 1960, when you were invited to emigrate to the UK as part of a campaign by the UK government, but if your papers don't match up that's because you are lying about something and should be deported".
posted by Frowner at 7:55 AM on December 13, 2022 [27 favorites]
The whole thing about a fascist culture is that it seems normal from the inside. Just like in the US it's normal to have school shootings all the time and normal to keep people in prison when we know they are innocent and normal that any woman with a public online persona gets lots and lots of really horrible death threats constantly from a great variety of people. It feels "normal" to us even if we don't like it because we're used to what the US has become, but famously anyone from anywhere else is like "perhaps you could NOT have children murdered at school, we seem to manage".
I mean, I remember when I read about the Windrush scandal and thought "that's really fucked up, but they are obviously, obviously going to prioritize helping those poor people so that they have the right documents, because it would be completely against the spirit of the law and the fact of their tax-paying working lives in the UK not to" and then it was just racism and deportations all the way down, that's what I mean by normalizing stuff. It's not rational and logical to say "well, you have demonstrably lived and worked here since 1960, when you were invited to emigrate to the UK as part of a campaign by the UK government, but if your papers don't match up that's because you are lying about something and should be deported".
posted by Frowner at 7:55 AM on December 13, 2022 [27 favorites]
They didn't quit because of privacy--they've stated that a few times and I know there was some press release about that, I just don't have a link. And frankly, those two wouldn't be able to get 100% privacy no matter what even if that was the goal. It's more along the lines of it's one thing to do interviews/press voluntarily especially when it's more or less your job as a born-famous person/actress/activist/charity promoter/whatever, it's quite another to get stalked and death threats and people snooping through your trash checking your used tampons to see if you're pregnant (note: this is a silly example I made up and hope is not real). And being constantly slammed destroys everybody's soul these days.
The particular issues of the British press seem to be what drove them out and I guess it's just not AS bad in America, somehow, especially since there's no royal invisible contract stuff already arranged and going on here. And presumably it didn't help when your own family members won't help or back you up either.
I dunno, if you're not into it, you're not into it and don't watch it. Feel free to ignore, it's not like H&M are preaching racist crap or destroying Twitter or running for public office or otherwise harming people. It's not for everyone.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:56 AM on December 13, 2022 [19 favorites]
The particular issues of the British press seem to be what drove them out and I guess it's just not AS bad in America, somehow, especially since there's no royal invisible contract stuff already arranged and going on here. And presumably it didn't help when your own family members won't help or back you up either.
I dunno, if you're not into it, you're not into it and don't watch it. Feel free to ignore, it's not like H&M are preaching racist crap or destroying Twitter or running for public office or otherwise harming people. It's not for everyone.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:56 AM on December 13, 2022 [19 favorites]
Biased critics aside, it is a little weird that they would break with the monarchy and leave the country in order to preserve their privacy, and then accept $100 million from Netflix to tell their stories in a three-part documentary.
The narrative I’ve seen lately is that they never said they wanted to leave to preserve their privacy, with the implication being that the monarchy has been pushing that very talking point (“they want privacy so they made a Netflix documentary?!”).
That said, I remain unclear on what they did want though I can certainly understand wanting to leave for health and safety reasons, including that Meghan was depressed and suicidal and asked for help and was ignored.
There’s a clip somewhere with Harry talking about how she was pregnant and told him seriously how she’d end her life and he thought, she’s not crazy, no one is helping us, this is like what my mom went through and that’s not acceptable (here’s the story). That stuck with me - the helplessness, hopelessness and desperation that they both must have been feeling in that moment. Would I do everything I could to help my partner in that situation? What kind of partner would I be if I didn’t? Could I live with myself if I didn’t and something happened?
I genuinely hope they’re in a better place now.
posted by kat518 at 7:57 AM on December 13, 2022 [10 favorites]
The narrative I’ve seen lately is that they never said they wanted to leave to preserve their privacy, with the implication being that the monarchy has been pushing that very talking point (“they want privacy so they made a Netflix documentary?!”).
That said, I remain unclear on what they did want though I can certainly understand wanting to leave for health and safety reasons, including that Meghan was depressed and suicidal and asked for help and was ignored.
There’s a clip somewhere with Harry talking about how she was pregnant and told him seriously how she’d end her life and he thought, she’s not crazy, no one is helping us, this is like what my mom went through and that’s not acceptable (here’s the story). That stuck with me - the helplessness, hopelessness and desperation that they both must have been feeling in that moment. Would I do everything I could to help my partner in that situation? What kind of partner would I be if I didn’t? Could I live with myself if I didn’t and something happened?
I genuinely hope they’re in a better place now.
posted by kat518 at 7:57 AM on December 13, 2022 [10 favorites]
I suspect round two is going to have the real bombs dropped
I.e., which royal family member expressed concern about what Archie's skin color was going to be.
I have zero respect for the British monarchy, but Meghan went through completely unjustified hell and I will always back her, insipid documentaries or no. They simply cannot opt out of the system completely, so let them make their money off their situation.
posted by praemunire at 8:10 AM on December 13, 2022 [24 favorites]
I.e., which royal family member expressed concern about what Archie's skin color was going to be.
I have zero respect for the British monarchy, but Meghan went through completely unjustified hell and I will always back her, insipid documentaries or no. They simply cannot opt out of the system completely, so let them make their money off their situation.
posted by praemunire at 8:10 AM on December 13, 2022 [24 favorites]
I am not very into anything re: British Royal Family but I remember seeing this video of Meghan postpartum saying that people rarely ask her how she’s doing. I sent it to a friend and said we should invite her to get brunch with mimosas and let her say whatever she needs to say. That’s a standing offer, if she happens to see this btw.
posted by kat518 at 8:26 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by kat518 at 8:26 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
That said, I remain unclear on what they did want though I can certainly understand wanting to leave for health and safety reasons, including that Meghan was depressed and suicidal and asked for help and was ignored.
IIRC they wanted to not live in the UK, pick and choose which journalists they spoke to, and do commercial as well as public service work.
I think there are a lot of factors influencing why they don't want to live in the UK, with death threats and press intrusion being (unsurprisingly) major parts of that.
posted by plonkee at 8:35 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
IIRC they wanted to not live in the UK, pick and choose which journalists they spoke to, and do commercial as well as public service work.
I think there are a lot of factors influencing why they don't want to live in the UK, with death threats and press intrusion being (unsurprisingly) major parts of that.
posted by plonkee at 8:35 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
I mainly don't understand how they're going to support themselves financially long term. A lot of what they want to do seems to be things that you do while having an independent income.
Harry is currently on the board of some mental health startup; I foresee lots of that sort of thing in their future. I guess things could get bad for them if interest rates stay sky-high for too long, but at the moment, they have access to the sort of gigs someone like Chelsea Clinton would get. (The Davos set might not be popular these days, but there's still loads of global capital out there happy to settle millions on pointless glitz. And there's a nice feedback loop there, where investors get an ESG aura with the Sussexes and the Sussexes get to make money in a way that is promoted as beneficial to humanity which makes them more attractive to other ESG-friendly investments, etc.)
And I wouldn't be surprised if they started paring back on day-to-day security in a couple of years....maybe they have already. The UK tabloids may still froth at the mouth over these people, but I don't think even craziest of Americans have managed to generate any real vitriol for them. They just don't matter that much to us. I won't be watching the show -- I don't really like reality TV -- but I hope they have a nice life here.
posted by grandiloquiet at 8:37 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Harry is currently on the board of some mental health startup; I foresee lots of that sort of thing in their future. I guess things could get bad for them if interest rates stay sky-high for too long, but at the moment, they have access to the sort of gigs someone like Chelsea Clinton would get. (The Davos set might not be popular these days, but there's still loads of global capital out there happy to settle millions on pointless glitz. And there's a nice feedback loop there, where investors get an ESG aura with the Sussexes and the Sussexes get to make money in a way that is promoted as beneficial to humanity which makes them more attractive to other ESG-friendly investments, etc.)
And I wouldn't be surprised if they started paring back on day-to-day security in a couple of years....maybe they have already. The UK tabloids may still froth at the mouth over these people, but I don't think even craziest of Americans have managed to generate any real vitriol for them. They just don't matter that much to us. I won't be watching the show -- I don't really like reality TV -- but I hope they have a nice life here.
posted by grandiloquiet at 8:37 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
The fact is that the British monarchy despite its ceremonial role in day to day politics in various countries remains extremely powerful because of their wealth and soft power. Unlike the Survivor or Big Brother; the reality TV like drama we see played out with the royal family has very real cultural and political impacts on an international scale. It is ridiculous that the world has given these people so much power; but they do and so this subject is worth of discussion and consideration.
posted by interogative mood at 8:55 AM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by interogative mood at 8:55 AM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
This is insightful. On Allison P Davis' interview with Meghan.
What’s tricky about covering the Sussexes, and Meghan in particular, is that the British tabloids and the racists on social media have made it complicated... to provide fair criticism... You don’t want to give them any more fuel for their distortions. And this profile of Meghan was definitely not written by a publicist. Not with all the Bachelor references. Like this:posted by spamandkimchi at 9:15 AM on December 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
“Though she has been media trained and then royal-media trained and sometimes converses like she has a tiny Bachelor producer in her brain directing what she says (at one point in our conversation, instead of answering a question, she will suggest how I might transcribe the noises she’s making: “She’s making these guttural sounds, and I can’t quite articulate what it is she’s feeling in that moment because she has no word for it; she’s just moaning”), at this stage, post-royal, there’s no need for her to hold back.”
There’s the commentary on Meghan’s celebrity without spelling it out. And it’s fair. Celebrities have messaging that they need to hit. Celebrities want to control the messaging. Celebrities are obsessive about their narrative. Celebrities must balance that messaging with “authenticity”. But, as Allison also notes, given how horribly Meghan’s narrative has been misrepresented, how can anyone blame her for over-producing it? Especially now, a few years after she and Harry quit the royal family, and they’re doing the thing that celebrities do most: self-promotion. As Allison describes it:
“She’s flinging open the proverbial doors to her life; as any millennial woman whose feminism was forged in the girlboss era would understand, she has taken a hardship and turned it into content.”
Allison is clear about the sh-tty things that have happened to Meghan that were not her fault. The racism she’s experienced. The lies that have been told about her. Allison is also clear that Meghan and Harry too can be really, really …cringey!
I'm not that familiar with the entire situation to begin with, but last week I was sick so I binged the first 3 episodes all at once. My main takeaway is that they seem like nice people, and also that they were individually trying to deal with and move beyond generational trauma in their families long before they met each other. They seem like a good match for one another.
posted by BlahLaLa at 9:16 AM on December 13, 2022 [10 favorites]
posted by BlahLaLa at 9:16 AM on December 13, 2022 [10 favorites]
The narrative I’ve seen lately is that they never said they wanted to leave to preserve their privacy, with the implication being that the monarchy has been pushing that very talking point (“they want privacy so they made a Netflix documentary?!”). [and other similar comments]
Interesting - looks like I was unwittingly parroting talking points. I withdraw my comment. Thanks.
I admittedly haven't followed this terribly closely, but I thought I had read somewhere that their separation from the monarchy included some kind of financial support to help defray the costs of private security and stuff. Am I wrong about that?
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 10:06 AM on December 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
Interesting - looks like I was unwittingly parroting talking points. I withdraw my comment. Thanks.
I admittedly haven't followed this terribly closely, but I thought I had read somewhere that their separation from the monarchy included some kind of financial support to help defray the costs of private security and stuff. Am I wrong about that?
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 10:06 AM on December 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
I seem to recall that the royals were assholes about the security issue, and Harry and Meghan had to stay with Tyler Perry for a while for safety reasons?
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 10:12 AM on December 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 10:12 AM on December 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
I'm very interested in hearing the security issue stuff in the second set of episodes. It does bring up that weird push-pull of Harry's entire existence -- you're born in to this, you didn't choose it, you're a massive symbol of the British empire, some people are always going to want to kill you for your entire life, no matter where you are or what you do. Also, you're not going to be king, if you stay within the confines of the family hierarchy you won't have a real job, and any spouse and children you have will also face this danger. So it feels weird to say "they're money grubbing out in California" when it seems they legitimately need to earn a lot of money to pay for security, in perpetuity?
posted by BlahLaLa at 10:17 AM on December 13, 2022 [10 favorites]
posted by BlahLaLa at 10:17 AM on December 13, 2022 [10 favorites]
I'm really sorry I included transphobes in this post! Ack.
That's extremely well documented, just ask trans pioneer Caroline Cossey. She was a model who was cast as an extra in the 1981 James Bond film For Your Eyes Only. Shortly after the film's release, the tabloid News of the World came out with a front-page headline that read "James Bond Girl Was a Boy."
First of all, Cossey was an extra, not a top cast member, and secondly, it was wholly unnecessary to out her except to cynically sell newspapers. Naturally, this caused a furor in England and great pain for Cossey herself.
posted by wolpfack at 10:25 AM on December 13, 2022
That's extremely well documented, just ask trans pioneer Caroline Cossey. She was a model who was cast as an extra in the 1981 James Bond film For Your Eyes Only. Shortly after the film's release, the tabloid News of the World came out with a front-page headline that read "James Bond Girl Was a Boy."
First of all, Cossey was an extra, not a top cast member, and secondly, it was wholly unnecessary to out her except to cynically sell newspapers. Naturally, this caused a furor in England and great pain for Cossey herself.
posted by wolpfack at 10:25 AM on December 13, 2022
their separation from the monarchy included some kind of financial support to help defray the costs of private security and stuff. Am I wrong about that?
It absolutely did NOT. Their money/security from the Crown was pulled, their next home in Canada was outed in the media, they were legitimately in danger. Harry said he had to pay for his own private security out of his mother's inheritance, and he's suing in the UK because he can't get access to police reports there and without that access, his private security can only know/do so much.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:51 AM on December 13, 2022 [14 favorites]
It absolutely did NOT. Their money/security from the Crown was pulled, their next home in Canada was outed in the media, they were legitimately in danger. Harry said he had to pay for his own private security out of his mother's inheritance, and he's suing in the UK because he can't get access to police reports there and without that access, his private security can only know/do so much.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:51 AM on December 13, 2022 [14 favorites]
I’m not an expert on this topic but I think Charles helped them out financially for a year. I believe Meghan has the money she had before getting married and Harry had inherited money that his mother received in the divorce.
Re: security concerns, I heard recently that private security in the UK are not allowed to carry firearms so that was a reason Harry was trying to get protection from the royal family for Meghan and the children when they visited. That seems ghoulish to me knowing they’ve received threats but I might be mistaken.
posted by kat518 at 10:54 AM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
Re: security concerns, I heard recently that private security in the UK are not allowed to carry firearms so that was a reason Harry was trying to get protection from the royal family for Meghan and the children when they visited. That seems ghoulish to me knowing they’ve received threats but I might be mistaken.
posted by kat518 at 10:54 AM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
I admittedly haven't followed this terribly closely, but I thought I had read somewhere that their separation from the monarchy included some kind of financial support to help defray the costs of private security and stuff.
When they chose exile, the Sussexes released a nice statement about leaving with a very cringe line about intending to achieve financial independence from Charles -- though to their credit, they signed their media deals and got that straightened out pretty quickly. Vanity Fair (and others) said that the Palace pulled their security without warning, and implied that they pulled the money, too. Charles abruptly cutting off the money seems tough-but-fair, but pulling the security was heartless retribution. That said, I think it's funny that the people who were mad at them being around before are now furious at them for having left.
posted by grandiloquiet at 10:57 AM on December 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
When they chose exile, the Sussexes released a nice statement about leaving with a very cringe line about intending to achieve financial independence from Charles -- though to their credit, they signed their media deals and got that straightened out pretty quickly. Vanity Fair (and others) said that the Palace pulled their security without warning, and implied that they pulled the money, too. Charles abruptly cutting off the money seems tough-but-fair, but pulling the security was heartless retribution. That said, I think it's funny that the people who were mad at them being around before are now furious at them for having left.
posted by grandiloquiet at 10:57 AM on December 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
I watched it, and I continue to be baffled by the Sussex hate. They seem like genuinely decent people who have been unfairly attacked for how they were born - she being mixed-race, and he being a British royal. I don't blame them at all for wanting to have their own story told. Yes, it's a little boring, but that's the point. They are not the evil caricatures the tabloids make them out to be.
posted by caryatid at 10:59 AM on December 13, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by caryatid at 10:59 AM on December 13, 2022 [12 favorites]
They had substantial financial support previously from the Duchy of Cornwall. This was ended sometime between April 2020 and June 2020.
Security is provided separately based on risk rather than status and funded by the taxpayer as part of the police/security budget. They had assumed that they would be entitled to security regardless of where in the world they lived, but that turned out to be an incorrect assumption. Decisions made around their security are currently under judicial review.
It would have been very expensive to provide British security to them if they lived overseas. The Canadian government also declined to fund their security when they were briefly living in Canada.
I heard recently that private security in the UK are not allowed to carry firearms
They have to follow the same laws as everyone else, so no they are not allowed to carry firearms. Only specially trained police can be armed for protection work. Source
posted by plonkee at 11:06 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Security is provided separately based on risk rather than status and funded by the taxpayer as part of the police/security budget. They had assumed that they would be entitled to security regardless of where in the world they lived, but that turned out to be an incorrect assumption. Decisions made around their security are currently under judicial review.
It would have been very expensive to provide British security to them if they lived overseas. The Canadian government also declined to fund their security when they were briefly living in Canada.
I heard recently that private security in the UK are not allowed to carry firearms
They have to follow the same laws as everyone else, so no they are not allowed to carry firearms. Only specially trained police can be armed for protection work. Source
posted by plonkee at 11:06 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Obvs, their previous support was funding their official work. Kate and William had the same kind of support until William inherited the Duchy of Cornwall when his father became King. It was around £5m per year for each couple.
posted by plonkee at 11:09 AM on December 13, 2022
posted by plonkee at 11:09 AM on December 13, 2022
It would have been very expensive to provide British security to them if they lived overseas.
The queen’s anniversary party was estimated to cost more than $30M. If I was her, I’d prioritize the safety of my grandchildren and great grandchildren over a party.
posted by kat518 at 11:16 AM on December 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
The queen’s anniversary party was estimated to cost more than $30M. If I was her, I’d prioritize the safety of my grandchildren and great grandchildren over a party.
posted by kat518 at 11:16 AM on December 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
I prefer the Merkel Cinematic Universe
I prefer the Mandel Cinematic Universe
posted by jokeefe at 11:21 AM on December 13, 2022
I prefer the Mandel Cinematic Universe
posted by jokeefe at 11:21 AM on December 13, 2022
It would have been very expensive to provide British security to them if they lived overseas.
I mean, the U.S. would (by law) do this for a former U.S. president and their spouse, though I don't believe any of have chosen to live overseas. Doesn't seem a ridiculous thing to do for the small handful of children and grandchildren of England.
posted by praemunire at 11:47 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
I mean, the U.S. would (by law) do this for a former U.S. president and their spouse, though I don't believe any of have chosen to live overseas. Doesn't seem a ridiculous thing to do for the small handful of children and grandchildren of England.
posted by praemunire at 11:47 AM on December 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think it's funny that the people who were mad at them being around before are now furious at them for having left.
It's probably more that they want Meghan and the kids gone and Harry single and remarrying a blonde English aristocrat, unfortunately. But yeah, there's snits all the way around.
I'd love to hear (though I doubt it'll be covered in the doc) how even though the Queen herself gave permission for Harry to marry Meghan--which she absolutely could have shut down--the rest of the family reacted less...positively. H&M always said they got on with the Queen fine and Harry seemed to indicate it was the people around her they had issues with.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:59 AM on December 13, 2022 [7 favorites]
It's probably more that they want Meghan and the kids gone and Harry single and remarrying a blonde English aristocrat, unfortunately. But yeah, there's snits all the way around.
I'd love to hear (though I doubt it'll be covered in the doc) how even though the Queen herself gave permission for Harry to marry Meghan--which she absolutely could have shut down--the rest of the family reacted less...positively. H&M always said they got on with the Queen fine and Harry seemed to indicate it was the people around her they had issues with.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:59 AM on December 13, 2022 [7 favorites]
It would have been very expensive to provide British security to them if they lived overseas.
The queen’s anniversary party was estimated to cost more than $30M. If I was her, I’d prioritize the safety of my grandchildren and great grandchildren over a party.
Yes, many things are expensive particularly those associated with heads of state. There was no political (or public) will to fund British police officers to protect them in North America. Perhaps there should have been, but there was not.
posted by plonkee at 12:04 PM on December 13, 2022
The queen’s anniversary party was estimated to cost more than $30M. If I was her, I’d prioritize the safety of my grandchildren and great grandchildren over a party.
Yes, many things are expensive particularly those associated with heads of state. There was no political (or public) will to fund British police officers to protect them in North America. Perhaps there should have been, but there was not.
posted by plonkee at 12:04 PM on December 13, 2022
If it was important to Charles that H+M have the security they need, he would have made it work. He didn’t. But hey, what’s the worst that could happen.
posted by kat518 at 12:16 PM on December 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by kat518 at 12:16 PM on December 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
When Kate does it they call her dignified, reserved and having grace. When Megan does the same thing they want to call her an uppity American black woman; but of course they can’t say that out loud so instead they use more subtle phrasing.
posted by interogative mood at 1:40 PM on December 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 1:40 PM on December 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
>uppity American black woman
Username interogative mood, can you just not? You don't have the range to be ironically racist so it ends up just being fucking gross and actually offensive. There are actual Black people here.
posted by nouvelle-personne at 3:51 PM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
Username interogative mood, can you just not? You don't have the range to be ironically racist so it ends up just being fucking gross and actually offensive. There are actual Black people here.
posted by nouvelle-personne at 3:51 PM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
When Kate does it they call her dignified, reserved and having grace.
Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton That May Show Why She And Prince Harry Left Royal Life
posted by caryatid at 4:34 PM on December 13, 2022 [10 favorites]
Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton That May Show Why She And Prince Harry Left Royal Life
posted by caryatid at 4:34 PM on December 13, 2022 [10 favorites]
There's also the fact that Harry, well-aware of his role as the spare heir, became largely extraneous to the royals as soon as William had a son. Then he goes and marries, yes, a Black American actress. Three strikes. I guess they have to have a villain to sell papers with, and H&M are safe targets.
posted by caryatid at 4:40 PM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by caryatid at 4:40 PM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
Not sure what you mean by ironic racism. The people who describe her thus behind closed doors and the PR people echoing it by saying it in more subtle ways do not intend it to be ironic. Perhaps you have confused me for those whom I’m transcribing.
posted by interogative mood at 7:01 PM on December 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 7:01 PM on December 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
The palace DID brief against Harry and Meghan - what's the point in denying something so obvious?
posted by BlahLaLa at 7:23 PM on December 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by BlahLaLa at 7:23 PM on December 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
Food for thought on this topic from Amanda Foreman: This Royal Saga Has a Surprise Ending
posted by Deodatus at 8:33 PM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Deodatus at 8:33 PM on December 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
And they don't just do it in the tabloids -- Charles gave an interview to Vogue for his 65th or 70th birthday, somewhere thereabouts, in which he frantically briefed against both of his more popular sons. He and Camilla both gave quotes, and it was clearly a feature article where the writer had permission and official blessing from Clarence House. And what the author said in his own voice, not in the quotes from Charles and Camilla, was all about how Charles was the steady, elder statesman guiding willful William and hot-headed Harry to help them stay out of trouble and make good decisions in the interest of the UK.
No, Charles didn't directly say, William isn't ready to be king. But he gave an official birthday interview to an author who repeatedly made that point for him. And the press noticed that the interview spent a lot of time rubbishing William, and trying to make him seem unpopular and very immature. In fact, a lot of the rumors about William's infidelity and his snappish temper dated from not long after the Vogue article, when the UK press correctly picked up on the signal that Prince Charles was tacitly okay with people coming after William if it made, Charles look better, and that the queen would not publicly intervene.
Charles's briefing against his sons was relatively skillful, although everyone knew what he was doing. Williams briefing against Harry has been incredibly clumsy, and involved former personal aides to William clearly planting stories for money in the Daily Mail while on the payroll of various charities William funds.
Part of what's hilarious is that Meghan, who was at best a B-list television actress, was so much god damn better at PR than Buckingham Palace, and Clarence House, and Kensington Palace. She managed to place well-sourced, flattering stories with limited fingerprints in People Magazine and -- oh hey -- Vogue. Meanwhile, William's household is frantically and clumsily briefing against her in the Daily Mail.
Not that the Daily Mail isn't incredibly damaging and doesn't control a lot of media narrative, especially with the Rupert Murdoch industrial complex backing it up! (Yes, I know he actually owns The Sun, but you get my point.) But against all the might of the British Royal Family's PR operation, and all those right-wing tabloids, Harry and Meghan managed to craft a PR narrative in well-chosen, high-quality magazines and other outlets that allowed them to wriggle out from under the British royal family while nearly the entire UK press was attempting to trash them and ruin their lives. And in the process, exposed the British royal family's media operation as ... really very amateurish? Especially compared to a modern Hollywood operation?
Prince William remains extremely popular in the UK, but his press engagements and press coverage have changed a lot in the last 5 years, and he appears solo far less often than he used to. Princess Kate serves as a shield, and the children are getting older so naturally have more press engagement, but are also being deployed more often as a shield. We don't get a whole lot of "Prince William, future king" engagements these days -- we get a lot of "Prince William with his beautiful wife and adorable children" engagements. And that is a page out of the book of any Republican politician who's been caught "hiking the Appalachian Trail" with his mistress -- you keep having the wife and the children appear, to keep the press coverage focused on the wife and the children, and you don't make solo appearances. (Honestly Rod Blagojevich is who I most associate with that gambit, who used his toddlers as literal shields from cameras.) He should be appearing solo more often as he gets closer to the throne, but he can't. His PR machine is too sloppy, and he's lost too much of the narrative.
Anyway, Harry and Meghan are PR creatures that I don't know any real things about. Possibly they're secretly Pokemons. But their PR strategy is a hell of a lot better than William's, and it's inarguable that Kensington Palace is the source of a lot of the animosity and negative press about them. William could literally change the narrative tomorrow, but I don't think he has that much control over his press operation at this point, and they're not very good at their jobs.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:41 PM on December 13, 2022 [21 favorites]
No, Charles didn't directly say, William isn't ready to be king. But he gave an official birthday interview to an author who repeatedly made that point for him. And the press noticed that the interview spent a lot of time rubbishing William, and trying to make him seem unpopular and very immature. In fact, a lot of the rumors about William's infidelity and his snappish temper dated from not long after the Vogue article, when the UK press correctly picked up on the signal that Prince Charles was tacitly okay with people coming after William if it made, Charles look better, and that the queen would not publicly intervene.
Charles's briefing against his sons was relatively skillful, although everyone knew what he was doing. Williams briefing against Harry has been incredibly clumsy, and involved former personal aides to William clearly planting stories for money in the Daily Mail while on the payroll of various charities William funds.
Part of what's hilarious is that Meghan, who was at best a B-list television actress, was so much god damn better at PR than Buckingham Palace, and Clarence House, and Kensington Palace. She managed to place well-sourced, flattering stories with limited fingerprints in People Magazine and -- oh hey -- Vogue. Meanwhile, William's household is frantically and clumsily briefing against her in the Daily Mail.
Not that the Daily Mail isn't incredibly damaging and doesn't control a lot of media narrative, especially with the Rupert Murdoch industrial complex backing it up! (Yes, I know he actually owns The Sun, but you get my point.) But against all the might of the British Royal Family's PR operation, and all those right-wing tabloids, Harry and Meghan managed to craft a PR narrative in well-chosen, high-quality magazines and other outlets that allowed them to wriggle out from under the British royal family while nearly the entire UK press was attempting to trash them and ruin their lives. And in the process, exposed the British royal family's media operation as ... really very amateurish? Especially compared to a modern Hollywood operation?
Prince William remains extremely popular in the UK, but his press engagements and press coverage have changed a lot in the last 5 years, and he appears solo far less often than he used to. Princess Kate serves as a shield, and the children are getting older so naturally have more press engagement, but are also being deployed more often as a shield. We don't get a whole lot of "Prince William, future king" engagements these days -- we get a lot of "Prince William with his beautiful wife and adorable children" engagements. And that is a page out of the book of any Republican politician who's been caught "hiking the Appalachian Trail" with his mistress -- you keep having the wife and the children appear, to keep the press coverage focused on the wife and the children, and you don't make solo appearances. (Honestly Rod Blagojevich is who I most associate with that gambit, who used his toddlers as literal shields from cameras.) He should be appearing solo more often as he gets closer to the throne, but he can't. His PR machine is too sloppy, and he's lost too much of the narrative.
Anyway, Harry and Meghan are PR creatures that I don't know any real things about. Possibly they're secretly Pokemons. But their PR strategy is a hell of a lot better than William's, and it's inarguable that Kensington Palace is the source of a lot of the animosity and negative press about them. William could literally change the narrative tomorrow, but I don't think he has that much control over his press operation at this point, and they're not very good at their jobs.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:41 PM on December 13, 2022 [21 favorites]
But against all the might of the British Royal Family's PR operation, and all those right-wing tabloids, Harry and Meghan managed to craft a PR narrative in well-chosen, high-quality magazines and other outlets that allowed them to wriggle out from under the British royal family while nearly the entire UK press was attempting to trash them and ruin their lives.
This, depends on your perspective. I mean, yes they did do this and it has been effective in eg the USA and elsewhere. And good for them. But it's not getting cut-through in the UK at all. Instead I think over here, their best hope at a positive arc is the legal action they're currently taking against various tabloid newspapers. That's undoubtedly driving a lot of the press reaction to them, but also may well turn out to be a successful PR (as well as legal) strategy. On top of which, unlike the rest of the BRF, they don't have to care about what the British public think any more. So if it doesn't improve the court of public opinion, then it's not as much skin off their nose.
[William] should be appearing solo more often as he gets closer to the throne, but he can't. His PR machine is too sloppy, and he's lost too much of the narrative.
If this is still the case in 10-15 years time, then it will indeed be a problem. But Charles and Camilla had terrible public reputations 20 years ago and these were amply turned around in time for him to take the throne. There's time for William to end up looking like the future King as long as Charles stays reasonably fit and healthy over the next few years. Of course, William may never end up looking like a future King in eg the Caribbean, or North America. But his dutiful engagements and glamorous wife and kids could well tide him over until he can be positioned as Charles' imminent heir in the UK. The Kensington Palace print/online press tactics are clumsy, but they do well on their proactive public stuff, particularly their work with ITV-based programmes. Might need a new Head of News at some point though.
I always feel like in these threads I look like more of a monarchist than I am. I think the BRF are both more important and less important than depicted, and that views inside the UK are more relevant to their actions than views elsewhere (H&M excepted).
posted by plonkee at 4:49 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
This, depends on your perspective. I mean, yes they did do this and it has been effective in eg the USA and elsewhere. And good for them. But it's not getting cut-through in the UK at all. Instead I think over here, their best hope at a positive arc is the legal action they're currently taking against various tabloid newspapers. That's undoubtedly driving a lot of the press reaction to them, but also may well turn out to be a successful PR (as well as legal) strategy. On top of which, unlike the rest of the BRF, they don't have to care about what the British public think any more. So if it doesn't improve the court of public opinion, then it's not as much skin off their nose.
[William] should be appearing solo more often as he gets closer to the throne, but he can't. His PR machine is too sloppy, and he's lost too much of the narrative.
If this is still the case in 10-15 years time, then it will indeed be a problem. But Charles and Camilla had terrible public reputations 20 years ago and these were amply turned around in time for him to take the throne. There's time for William to end up looking like the future King as long as Charles stays reasonably fit and healthy over the next few years. Of course, William may never end up looking like a future King in eg the Caribbean, or North America. But his dutiful engagements and glamorous wife and kids could well tide him over until he can be positioned as Charles' imminent heir in the UK. The Kensington Palace print/online press tactics are clumsy, but they do well on their proactive public stuff, particularly their work with ITV-based programmes. Might need a new Head of News at some point though.
I always feel like in these threads I look like more of a monarchist than I am. I think the BRF are both more important and less important than depicted, and that views inside the UK are more relevant to their actions than views elsewhere (H&M excepted).
posted by plonkee at 4:49 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
Not sure what you mean by ironic racism. The people who describe her thus behind closed doors and the PR people echoing it by saying it in more subtle ways do not intend it to be ironic. Perhaps you have confused me for those whom I’m transcribing.
In the future I think you might want to put the word "uppity" in quotes so that it's more clear you aren't describing her that way but are instead referencing someone else's usage. That description is one of the more loaded words to apply to Black people and I think there are probably limited/close to zero circumstances where non-Black people can use it, ironically or no.
Can someone explain this use of the word "briefing" in a British context? For example, I don't get Charles "briefing against" his sons or William "briefing" against Harry. Does it mean talking yourself up at someone else's expense?
posted by fuse theorem at 6:15 AM on December 14, 2022
In the future I think you might want to put the word "uppity" in quotes so that it's more clear you aren't describing her that way but are instead referencing someone else's usage. That description is one of the more loaded words to apply to Black people and I think there are probably limited/close to zero circumstances where non-Black people can use it, ironically or no.
Can someone explain this use of the word "briefing" in a British context? For example, I don't get Charles "briefing against" his sons or William "briefing" against Harry. Does it mean talking yourself up at someone else's expense?
posted by fuse theorem at 6:15 AM on December 14, 2022
"Briefing" in this conversation means talking to a journalist off the record in order to get a particular message published.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:26 AM on December 14, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:26 AM on December 14, 2022 [7 favorites]
Yes, just means talking to a journalist without expecting to be quoted directly, but with the expectation that the material will be used in a story or influence the journalist's approach. You can brief against an individual or position. Or, less commonly, you can brief in favour of an individual or position.
Mostly it's done by PR people on someone's behalf - so Charles probably wouldn't directly speak to the journalist but someone in his team plausibly would. He or they could also persuade a known friend of Charles to brief on his behalf. A slight remove helps if it all goes pear-shaped.
posted by plonkee at 8:30 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
Mostly it's done by PR people on someone's behalf - so Charles probably wouldn't directly speak to the journalist but someone in his team plausibly would. He or they could also persuade a known friend of Charles to brief on his behalf. A slight remove helps if it all goes pear-shaped.
posted by plonkee at 8:30 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think Megan and Harry realize that the battle for English hearts and minds is a lost cause — at least for now. Perhaps over the long term they can use success in business from their celebrity and through charity work win English hearts and minds over to their their side.
posted by interogative mood at 9:00 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 9:00 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
"Briefing" seems to be English terminology for "leaking to the press."
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:21 AM on December 14, 2022
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:21 AM on December 14, 2022
We leak as well. But that's about providing information that someone didn't intend to get out. For example, the plans for the coronation could be leaked, if they're passed to journalists earlier than they're supposed to be. But briefing a journalist that William needs to pull his socks up wouldn't be a leak.
In reality it's all just private phone or in-person conversations, passing on documents and messaging on WhatsApp with journalists, same as everywhere else I imagine.
posted by plonkee at 10:00 AM on December 14, 2022
In reality it's all just private phone or in-person conversations, passing on documents and messaging on WhatsApp with journalists, same as everywhere else I imagine.
posted by plonkee at 10:00 AM on December 14, 2022
YouTube excerpt from the next one about "briefing" with regards to Meghan.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:12 PM on December 14, 2022
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:12 PM on December 14, 2022
"Briefing" seems to be English terminology for "leaking to the press."
More like "talking on background."
posted by praemunire at 5:51 PM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
More like "talking on background."
posted by praemunire at 5:51 PM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
"Can someone explain this use of the word "briefing" in a British context? For example, I don't get Charles "briefing against" his sons or William "briefing" against Harry. Does it mean talking yourself up at someone else's expense?"
"Leaking" is generally "telling true things to reporters in the hopes they print them" while "briefing" is "giving information that may or may not be true to friendly reporters with the expectation they will be laundered and printed."
Palace "leaks" are generally about Prince Andrew being a pedophile and how Buckingham Palace is trying to cover that up or pay people off. Which the palace responds to by "briefing" against Meghan Markle by explaining how she's trying to kill Princess Charlotte with her wedding bouquet. (Search "flower" here and you can read the same newspaper talking about how Kate was "effortlessly elegant and understated" for using lily-of-the-valley while Meghan was literally attempting to murder children.)
"Leaking" is giving the press stories that are probably true and possibly unflattering, typically because they're of public interest. "Briefing" is deliberately planting unflattering stories, that usually do not matter, and quite often aren't true. The palace had leaks about why in the everliving fuck Andrew agreed to an interview Newsnight interview and who on earth signed off on it. There is literally no such thing as a "leak" about what tiara Meghan wanted to wear to her wedding, how Queen Elizabeth felt about it, whether Eugenie was pissed, and WHICH OF THEM CRIED DURING WHAT ANGRY CONVERSATION. That is nothing but briefing.
Some things are in the middle; accusations of adultery by Charles in the 1980s seem like probably leaking -- it was a different era -- while accusations of adultery by William in 2022 seem like briefing, because who the hell cares anymore? (Except anybody personally affected, of course.) And before Meghan Markle, Princess Kate ("Waity Katie"!) was subjected to ridiculous abuse from the tabloids -- but Buckingham Palace did more to protect her, and the racism piece wasn't there. (There are thoughtful, academic pieces about this at this point, and there are starting to be pieces comparing how Meghan was treated to how Kate was treated, and the answer is, they were both literal Biblical scapegoats and it's amazing how the tabloids manage to retcon their love of Princess Kate.)
It's a semantic point for sure, but it MATTERS, because an actual LEAK from Buckingham Palace (or Clarence House, or Kensington Palace, or Frogmore Cottage) exposes actual important information relevant to the public, such as that the Royal Family has spent two decades covering up for a criminal pedophile, or (less salaciously) how much tax various members of the Royal Family pay and how much money they receive, where it differs from official numbers due to loopholes in the law.
But BRIEFING is two different things -- one of them ugly, and one of them evil. The ugly one is Charles giving an interview to Vogue and advancing his own popularity (/claim to the throne, if you want to be medieval about it) by running down his sons to make them less attractive. It's very gross that the British Royal Family spend so much time attempting to poison the press against each other; I think we can all recognize how poisonous an atmosphere that is for a child to grow up in, and how awful it would be as an adult in crisis to know that your brother or sister or father was planting unflattering stories in the press about you and your crisis to make themselves look better.
But the EVIL part of briefing is exactly how the Royal Family used Meghan Markle to distract the tabloid press from Prince Andrew literally raping a sex-trafficked child. Briefing has, over the last 50 years, become formalized and weaponized, and the courtiers/aides in Buckingham Palace knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they sicced the tabloid press on a mixed-race American woman over and over and over again, for emotive stories with no real substance, every single time a story broke about Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein and sex trafficking and child rape. That wasn't an accident; it was deliberate malice. It was a deliberate weaponization of society's structural sexism and racism against a vulnerable member of the family to protect a white male criminal from press scrutiny. And it wasn't done once, by one asshole; it was done OVER AND OVER, for literally four years, to the point that it made the vulnerable member suicidal. They knew what they were doing, they were called out on it, and they kept doing it.
Every time new piece of information broke about Andrew literally raping a child, a whole bunch of stories about Meghan being an "angry Black woman" appeared in the tabloids. Like fucking clockwork. And even if Meghan literally screamed at Charlotte until Charlotte cried (highly unlikely), WHY is that front-page news, and Andrew literally raping a child is relegated to the inside pages? Why does Meghan gets days of negative front-page press, and Andrew vanishes from the tabloids in a day or two? And why are YOU, dear reader, more pissed off about Meghan Markle allegedly being bitchy on her wedding day than about PRINCE ANDREW LITERALLY RAPING A CHILD and refusing to cooperate with law enforcement in two countries? I don't think Meghan Markle is the problem here, even if the tabloids' worst tales about her are true (they're not). And then it's hella gross that William (in particular) is briefing against Harry and Meghan to distract from HIS salacious stories. This is an abusive, racist, sexist system that is literally being deployed to protect a pedophile, and William's like, "Hey, I should ride this train, it might up my Q score!"
Every time you read an article about Meghan Markle having feelings about a tiara or choosing murder flowers for her wedding bouquet or taking phone calls at 6 am (the horror), ask yourself why, exactly, the British tabloids are going to that well YET AGAIN, instead of publishing a story about Prince Andrew publicly agreeing to cooperate with law enforcement and then completely refusing to do so, while spending millions of pounds on legal representation to hold off lawsuits and criminal charges, which is an ongoing story of actual import about a very serious crime committed against a child. Or publishing a story about why Andrew settled shortly before being forced to give a sworn deposition. Or publishing a story about the mysterious sources of Andrew's 16 million pounds in settlement money, some of which apparently came from corrupt real estate dealings, and some of which apparently came from the Queen, from assets that are deliberately and by law shielded from public scrutiny to prevent "embarrassment" to the Royal Family. LEAKING would tell us shit about Andrew's shenanigans. BRIEFING tells us Meghan had Thoughts about a Tiara.
Nobody fucking cares how Meghan feels about any tiara in the world. Tabloid "reporters" care that they can whip up racist, misogynist hate in the tabloids for readers and clicks. And Buckingham Palace cares (cared?) that they can protect Andrew, and Kensington Palace cares that they can advance William's Q score.
If you think Meghan Markle is somehow the villain here, you are the one with a serious, serious problem.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:05 PM on December 14, 2022 [20 favorites]
"Leaking" is generally "telling true things to reporters in the hopes they print them" while "briefing" is "giving information that may or may not be true to friendly reporters with the expectation they will be laundered and printed."
Palace "leaks" are generally about Prince Andrew being a pedophile and how Buckingham Palace is trying to cover that up or pay people off. Which the palace responds to by "briefing" against Meghan Markle by explaining how she's trying to kill Princess Charlotte with her wedding bouquet. (Search "flower" here and you can read the same newspaper talking about how Kate was "effortlessly elegant and understated" for using lily-of-the-valley while Meghan was literally attempting to murder children.)
"Leaking" is giving the press stories that are probably true and possibly unflattering, typically because they're of public interest. "Briefing" is deliberately planting unflattering stories, that usually do not matter, and quite often aren't true. The palace had leaks about why in the everliving fuck Andrew agreed to an interview Newsnight interview and who on earth signed off on it. There is literally no such thing as a "leak" about what tiara Meghan wanted to wear to her wedding, how Queen Elizabeth felt about it, whether Eugenie was pissed, and WHICH OF THEM CRIED DURING WHAT ANGRY CONVERSATION. That is nothing but briefing.
Some things are in the middle; accusations of adultery by Charles in the 1980s seem like probably leaking -- it was a different era -- while accusations of adultery by William in 2022 seem like briefing, because who the hell cares anymore? (Except anybody personally affected, of course.) And before Meghan Markle, Princess Kate ("Waity Katie"!) was subjected to ridiculous abuse from the tabloids -- but Buckingham Palace did more to protect her, and the racism piece wasn't there. (There are thoughtful, academic pieces about this at this point, and there are starting to be pieces comparing how Meghan was treated to how Kate was treated, and the answer is, they were both literal Biblical scapegoats and it's amazing how the tabloids manage to retcon their love of Princess Kate.)
It's a semantic point for sure, but it MATTERS, because an actual LEAK from Buckingham Palace (or Clarence House, or Kensington Palace, or Frogmore Cottage) exposes actual important information relevant to the public, such as that the Royal Family has spent two decades covering up for a criminal pedophile, or (less salaciously) how much tax various members of the Royal Family pay and how much money they receive, where it differs from official numbers due to loopholes in the law.
But BRIEFING is two different things -- one of them ugly, and one of them evil. The ugly one is Charles giving an interview to Vogue and advancing his own popularity (/claim to the throne, if you want to be medieval about it) by running down his sons to make them less attractive. It's very gross that the British Royal Family spend so much time attempting to poison the press against each other; I think we can all recognize how poisonous an atmosphere that is for a child to grow up in, and how awful it would be as an adult in crisis to know that your brother or sister or father was planting unflattering stories in the press about you and your crisis to make themselves look better.
But the EVIL part of briefing is exactly how the Royal Family used Meghan Markle to distract the tabloid press from Prince Andrew literally raping a sex-trafficked child. Briefing has, over the last 50 years, become formalized and weaponized, and the courtiers/aides in Buckingham Palace knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they sicced the tabloid press on a mixed-race American woman over and over and over again, for emotive stories with no real substance, every single time a story broke about Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein and sex trafficking and child rape. That wasn't an accident; it was deliberate malice. It was a deliberate weaponization of society's structural sexism and racism against a vulnerable member of the family to protect a white male criminal from press scrutiny. And it wasn't done once, by one asshole; it was done OVER AND OVER, for literally four years, to the point that it made the vulnerable member suicidal. They knew what they were doing, they were called out on it, and they kept doing it.
Every time new piece of information broke about Andrew literally raping a child, a whole bunch of stories about Meghan being an "angry Black woman" appeared in the tabloids. Like fucking clockwork. And even if Meghan literally screamed at Charlotte until Charlotte cried (highly unlikely), WHY is that front-page news, and Andrew literally raping a child is relegated to the inside pages? Why does Meghan gets days of negative front-page press, and Andrew vanishes from the tabloids in a day or two? And why are YOU, dear reader, more pissed off about Meghan Markle allegedly being bitchy on her wedding day than about PRINCE ANDREW LITERALLY RAPING A CHILD and refusing to cooperate with law enforcement in two countries? I don't think Meghan Markle is the problem here, even if the tabloids' worst tales about her are true (they're not). And then it's hella gross that William (in particular) is briefing against Harry and Meghan to distract from HIS salacious stories. This is an abusive, racist, sexist system that is literally being deployed to protect a pedophile, and William's like, "Hey, I should ride this train, it might up my Q score!"
Every time you read an article about Meghan Markle having feelings about a tiara or choosing murder flowers for her wedding bouquet or taking phone calls at 6 am (the horror), ask yourself why, exactly, the British tabloids are going to that well YET AGAIN, instead of publishing a story about Prince Andrew publicly agreeing to cooperate with law enforcement and then completely refusing to do so, while spending millions of pounds on legal representation to hold off lawsuits and criminal charges, which is an ongoing story of actual import about a very serious crime committed against a child. Or publishing a story about why Andrew settled shortly before being forced to give a sworn deposition. Or publishing a story about the mysterious sources of Andrew's 16 million pounds in settlement money, some of which apparently came from corrupt real estate dealings, and some of which apparently came from the Queen, from assets that are deliberately and by law shielded from public scrutiny to prevent "embarrassment" to the Royal Family. LEAKING would tell us shit about Andrew's shenanigans. BRIEFING tells us Meghan had Thoughts about a Tiara.
Nobody fucking cares how Meghan feels about any tiara in the world. Tabloid "reporters" care that they can whip up racist, misogynist hate in the tabloids for readers and clicks. And Buckingham Palace cares (cared?) that they can protect Andrew, and Kensington Palace cares that they can advance William's Q score.
If you think Meghan Markle is somehow the villain here, you are the one with a serious, serious problem.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:05 PM on December 14, 2022 [20 favorites]
Fun fact: "Harry and Meghan: Escaping The Palace," the Lifetime movie, is on Hulu and I'm watching it now. Oh dear lord, this movie. The whole "briefing" thing does seem to be in there.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:18 PM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:18 PM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
Also look, I don't think that at this time there's any reasonable possibility of abolition of the British monarchy. And to a large extent, I don't really care -- it's not my tax dollars that pay for it, and as a liturgist I really like all the pomp and circumstance. I like to joke that Americans love the British monarchy because it's all the pomp and circumstance of a monarchy, in a language we speak, with the smug superiority that we had a Revolution to NOT pay taxes about that shit -- it's the best of all worlds!
So I deeply do not care who, if anyone, is king next (William, it's William); and I deeply do not care if younger royal siblings move to America and make deals with Netflix. Seems fine. No objection! Obama did it too!
What is interesting to me is the celebrity PR strategy and the press response. And there are very few more interesting case studies than Harry and Meghan! (Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, for sure, although that is a very high-profile case study in "which US outlets are happy to publish abusive men's happy stories about how they're definitely not abusive." (Page Six and TMZ, it's Page Six and TMZ.))
It's not only the British Royals that I follow in the gossip press. The Dutch Royal Family has largely done an amazing job, after some initial bobbles when Queen Max married in, and her family's background as part of the Argentine dictatorship was messy. The Norwegian Royal Family has an AMAZING fairy tale in Harald and Sonja's marriage that they have completely failed to sell to the world (honestly greatest fairy tale of the modern era), and they massively fucked up Marius Høiby's withdrawal from public life. Crown Princess Victoria of the Swedish Royal Family has clearly had a hell of a time growing up as Crown Princess, but they've done a fantastic job laundering her story for the press and protecting her children. While Queen Margrethe of Denmark has had some NOTABLE PR nightmares in the past few years, Crown Princess Mary (born in Australia) should have been a model for the UK royal family integrating outsiders -- she has done an amazing job, and the Danish Royal Family has done a great job steering her press. But she isn't high-profile enough, so her PR is limited.
(There is a lot of shit going down in Spain, it is too much gossip for translated stories to keep up, also there's arms dealing? I disclaim understanding the Spanish Royal Family in the gossip press, although apparently Queen Letizia and Queen Mother Sofia haaaaaaaate each other, although one assumes the men in their lives who have actual authority probably hold intense opinions about each other, but the gossip press prefers the ladies being pissy.)
Anyway, the interesting part is not The Gossip. The interesting part is how the PR team sells the gossip. The interesting part is how members of these royal families choose to be packaged for consumption, and how well or poorly their PR staff do that packaging. The interesting part is who is selling what stories to newspapers. The interesting part is what stories dominate the news without having any merit.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:08 PM on December 14, 2022 [7 favorites]
So I deeply do not care who, if anyone, is king next (William, it's William); and I deeply do not care if younger royal siblings move to America and make deals with Netflix. Seems fine. No objection! Obama did it too!
What is interesting to me is the celebrity PR strategy and the press response. And there are very few more interesting case studies than Harry and Meghan! (Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, for sure, although that is a very high-profile case study in "which US outlets are happy to publish abusive men's happy stories about how they're definitely not abusive." (Page Six and TMZ, it's Page Six and TMZ.))
It's not only the British Royals that I follow in the gossip press. The Dutch Royal Family has largely done an amazing job, after some initial bobbles when Queen Max married in, and her family's background as part of the Argentine dictatorship was messy. The Norwegian Royal Family has an AMAZING fairy tale in Harald and Sonja's marriage that they have completely failed to sell to the world (honestly greatest fairy tale of the modern era), and they massively fucked up Marius Høiby's withdrawal from public life. Crown Princess Victoria of the Swedish Royal Family has clearly had a hell of a time growing up as Crown Princess, but they've done a fantastic job laundering her story for the press and protecting her children. While Queen Margrethe of Denmark has had some NOTABLE PR nightmares in the past few years, Crown Princess Mary (born in Australia) should have been a model for the UK royal family integrating outsiders -- she has done an amazing job, and the Danish Royal Family has done a great job steering her press. But she isn't high-profile enough, so her PR is limited.
(There is a lot of shit going down in Spain, it is too much gossip for translated stories to keep up, also there's arms dealing? I disclaim understanding the Spanish Royal Family in the gossip press, although apparently Queen Letizia and Queen Mother Sofia haaaaaaaate each other, although one assumes the men in their lives who have actual authority probably hold intense opinions about each other, but the gossip press prefers the ladies being pissy.)
Anyway, the interesting part is not The Gossip. The interesting part is how the PR team sells the gossip. The interesting part is how members of these royal families choose to be packaged for consumption, and how well or poorly their PR staff do that packaging. The interesting part is who is selling what stories to newspapers. The interesting part is what stories dominate the news without having any merit.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:08 PM on December 14, 2022 [7 favorites]
As an aside, the pattern for briefing in this particular way was set in the early 90s, during the "War of the Windsors", when both Charles and Diana used the press very effectively as weapons against each other. And of course, the press were not without agency - for example, it is now known that BBC journalist Martin Bashir seriously mislead Diana in ways that meant she no longer trusted her publicly funded security, in order to get an exclusive broadcast interview with her.
I've said this elsewhere, but the British tabloids are not the same as gossip press elsewhere. They do salaciously cover gossip but also have a major influence on political and cultural life, and operate in the same news ecosystem as the broadsheets. The nearest US equivalent I can think of is papers like the NY Post. Except that our tabloids are national not regional (because we are smaller).
posted by plonkee at 12:30 AM on December 15, 2022 [3 favorites]
I've said this elsewhere, but the British tabloids are not the same as gossip press elsewhere. They do salaciously cover gossip but also have a major influence on political and cultural life, and operate in the same news ecosystem as the broadsheets. The nearest US equivalent I can think of is papers like the NY Post. Except that our tabloids are national not regional (because we are smaller).
posted by plonkee at 12:30 AM on December 15, 2022 [3 favorites]
Well, part 2 is out, and it's pretty explosive.
Harry & Meghan‘ Volume II Most Explosive Claims: Prince William ’Bullied‘ the Couple Out of the Royal Family, King Charles ’Lied’ About Them
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:01 AM on December 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
Harry & Meghan‘ Volume II Most Explosive Claims: Prince William ’Bullied‘ the Couple Out of the Royal Family, King Charles ’Lied’ About Them
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:01 AM on December 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
Part 2, man. I cried. As a person who doesn't usually follow this stuff, I don't think I understood the depths of how shitty the palace and the press were and are to Meghan. Really monstrous.
posted by BlahLaLa at 7:49 AM on January 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by BlahLaLa at 7:49 AM on January 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
« Older .... Cookie Monster. | "Human: Should I kill myself? GPT-3: I think you... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 9:35 PM on December 12, 2022 [45 favorites]