Before I began journalism school, many years ago, I went to the campus bookstore with a list of required books to buy.
Some were classics of the journalistic format - one was John Hersey's searing "Hiroshima", an onsite interview with survivors of the first nuclear bombing of a civilian population, a book that still haunts me.
Another was Darrell Huff's "How to Lie with Statistics," which came to mind earlier today, when I read that a Tatler survey found "more than half the country believes the Duchess of Sussex has been good for the Royal Family."
For example, the sample with the built-in bias. Huff refers to a famous 1936 home telephone poll, which showed that US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt would definitely be defeated by his Republican challenger.
Unfortunately, at the time wealthy people were far more likely to have home telephones, and they were also more likely to be Republicans. When the actual election day came along, millions of people without telephones turned up and elected FDR to a second term.
Some were classics of the journalistic format - one was John Hersey's searing "Hiroshima", an onsite interview with survivors of the first nuclear bombing of a civilian population, a book that still haunts me.
Another was Darrell Huff's "How to Lie with Statistics," which came to mind earlier today, when I read that a Tatler survey found "more than half the country believes the Duchess of Sussex has been good for the Royal Family."
The sample with built-in bias
Huff's book is 65 years old, but it's still a light and easy read (with cartoons!) and many of the methods it describes are still in use today.For example, the sample with the built-in bias. Huff refers to a famous 1936 home telephone poll, which showed that US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt would definitely be defeated by his Republican challenger.
Unfortunately, at the time wealthy people were far more likely to have home telephones, and they were also more likely to be Republicans. When the actual election day came along, millions of people without telephones turned up and elected FDR to a second term.
People who like to answer questionnaires
Huff also points out that all questionnaire answers come, by definition, from people who are willing to answer questionnaires.
What about people who aren't? Or, these days, what about the people who don't take voice calls? (A lot of people under 30, in my experience)
Or those who hang up when the nice question-and-answer lady calls - because they are annoyed, busy, ill, or don't feel safe sharing their opinions with a complete stranger?
In particular, they may be less likely to answer if their opinions could be considered unacceptable by the nice question-and-answer lady - if, say, they are in favor of Donald Trump or Brexit.
Or if they don't think the new (slightly) Black duchess who has recently joined the Royal Family is all that great.
The Meghan poll
According to the poll, as quoted in the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, 55 percent of adults think Meghan has been "good for the monarchy" while 45 percent disagree.
But only 54 percent of respondents were willing to answer the question.
Would the 46 percent who did not respond also have called Meghan "good for the monarchy" at a 55-45 ratio?
My guess is no. Perhaps these quiet folk subscribe to the dictim "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
Or they might have a very real fear of being called a racist if they express a dislike of Meghan.
Timing is everything
In addition, the poll of 2,016 adults was conducted on September 6 and 8, well after Meg and Harry had made fools of themselves by lecturing people on the environment then flying about in private jets, but long before they had made fools of themselves by overshadowing their expensive South Africa trip with a quixotic lawsuit against the media.
The effects of this week's weepy, sympathetic documentary about how no one asks about Meg or her problems was also not included.
But the press was sure to run the very latest images with the article, giving it an up-to-date feel.
I wonder why it took Tatler and its partner, ComRes, nearly two months to pull the results together.
It seems like something that could be done overnight with some basic statistical software.
Part of the PR campaign
My guess is that the release of the poll was timed strategically as part of yet another Meghan PR initiative, this one including groanworthy articles like Meghan means business: Why the Duchess of Sussex is dipping into her on-screen Suits style.
Is the media being paid for these pieces, or is it running them in an effort to show it is not biased against the US-born Duchess, as Prince Harry charged in his (second) angry letter directed at the press?
If only we could know what the reporters and editors are really thinking.
But they are precisely the kind of people who would be unlikely to answer a poll.
Comments
I think they will be there, or at least Harry will. Meghan may be 'feeding Archie' but I'd expect her to turn up too. Even for the Harkles, to miss the most solemn day in the royal calendar might be a bit much... though you never know with these two.
I expect the 'family time' will start mid-November and I doubt we'll see tham at the Xmas walk in Sandringham. In fact, I'm genuinely wondering if we're going to see Meghan as a 'working' member of the royal family again at all. I think the plans to move back to Los Angeles may already be in motion, and the 'family time' will be a private business trip for scouting out home locations and merching opportunities. Harry is basically a side-kick at this stage.
can anyone tell me specifics of just how the monarchy has been or tried to be modernized by M or M&H?
That's a very good question. I can only surmise that she thinks that with her being a WOC, that that alone has somehow modernized the royal family.
I think MM intends to return nearly full time to the US CA sunshine and celebrity, and H will try to do a part time US / part time UK thing until it just doesn’t work.
"I think MM intends to return nearly full time to the US CA sunshine and celebrity, and H will try to do a part time US / part time UK thing until it just doesn’t work."
Yes I agree. But it will not and cannot work. You can't be a part-time 'working' royal. Well, we know they're all part-time in the sense that they only work a few days a month, but you have to fully committed to the 'job' and to living in Britain. Of course, they could renounce the status of 'working' royal - I believe this would be unprecedented - but that would involve also giving up taxpayer funding and their RPOs. I doubt Meghan would mind giving up the 'working' status as she'd probably be able to leverage her 'royal' status to make bank in Los Angeles, at least in the short term. Harry though? He'd be lost. All he has to offer is the fact that he's a prince, and if he's living in LA as an adjunct to his wife, that's going to get boring quite quickly.
Dumb Harry really make a catastrophic error in marrying Meghan. Should have listened to Wills.
Im not aware that she’s done anything really original to her. Instagram maybe but I think the others were already there before her? Maybe the “clothing line?” Other royals have guest edited magazines before so that’s nothing new. Megsy just generally says things to make them true like she’s a young and fresh breath of air etc fortettinc that she’s W, K, and H’s senior 😂😂😂
can anyone tell me specifics of just how the monarchy has been or tried to be modernized by M or M&H?
- Not having to wear pearls anymore.
- Abolished primogeniture and just vote in your favorite and most relatable to be King via SMS or Tweets, Ã la American Idol or Eurovision Song Contest (King can also refer to women now, so don't worry, Meghan's in the running still)
- In lieu of boring royal duties like unveiling plaques and petting the first-place goat at an agricultural fair, instagramming woke inspirational quotes counts as well.
- Gold toilet in Blenheim Palace has met its match in Meghan's copper bathtub at Toad Hall. A copper bathtub can be used for a mega large Mint Julep or Moscow Mule, hence its modernisation over a gold crapper, which is sooo 18th century French royal.
- The British Monarchy has gone global again. Meghan is helping to win over the hearts and support of the former colonies, like the States, one Instagram like or retweet at a time.
- Royals suddenly are experts on everything and will pontificate and enlighten the plebs. They know everything because status equals knowledge.
This started as a joke, but actually H&M in a way are kind of dragging the monarchy back to the dark ages, where the monarchs lived lives of opulence and hypocrisy but thought themselves innately superior to the plebs from whom they took their monies and tried to conquer countries outside their own. This would explain the similar anti-royalist rage bubbling up. QEII spent her life trying to make the monarchy less of this imperialistic entity and more of one who serves the common people with sacrifice. All very strange.
That's actually a very good point.
And with Justin Welby now spouting things in their defense, they've got the Church voicing its support that monarchs are subject to no earthly authority, particularly the nasty, buggery press. The Divine Right of Kings has now become the Divine Right of Whinge haha :D Please remind me what century we're in!
produced, directed and starring Meghan Markle!
Her face, body and race doesn't bother me one bit but what DID bother me was that she didn't act, dress or appear to want to fit into this new life of hers. I just never got the feeling that she cared anything for the UK or it's people and her lack for following protocol when in public was so disrespectful of the Queen and the BRF.
Something clicked this past summer, maybe just fed up with the two that I started reading more and more and what an eye opener it was for me.
So here's what I don't get and maybe those of you from the UK can give me more of an insight into this. After their whinomentary came out, how can anyone defend these two? I get that no matter how much money is in your bank account you can still be unhappy and have problems, but to have them on film, speaking to the people of the UK, saying they are just surviving and not thriving in their positions where they have more in one day than most will ever have in a lifetime is mindboggling. Just for that alone it's a wonder that people don't have pitchforks driving them out of the UK. But then knowing that a Prince of the Realm doesn't want to live in his realm? Get out, get out, ya flea bitten mutt!!! I live in the Commonwealth of Canada, is it just me, that I have an unrealistic sense of what the monarchy, the duty of the Queen and the British Royal Family are suppose to be as oppose to the reality?
As for them possibly moving to the US for part of the time, I would vote no on that if they are funded in anyway and still retain their titles. Why should these two be allowed to be part time royals and part time celebs? Either they give up their titles and any funding OR they should be made stay in the UK on a very tight leash, give up all their American personel and PR for the Royal courtiers and PR, who know what they are doing, do only charity, events and openings in the UK and conform to what's expected of working royals in duty to Her Majesty. After a few years maybe then they can do the appropriate work further afield like in Africa.
Just to add to the conversation on royal titles. When Charles ascends the throne, William will become Duke of Cornwall as he is the heir apparent, and will then be entitled to the income that the Duchy generates. He will retain the Cambridge title as well. William will not automatically become Prince of Wales. That honor is bestowed by the monarch at the monarch’s discretion. It is not an inherited title. While there is no reason to believe that Charles will not grant the honor to William, it is the monarch’s prerogative.
As for Archie, he will be a prince of the United Kingdom when/if Charles becomes King; the letters patent issued by George V in 1917 are still in force as it relates to male-line grandchildren of the monarch. How he is “styled” is perhaps another matter. For instance, the children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex, Louise and James, while male-line grandchildren, are not styled as Princess and Prince. Instead, they are styled as the children of an Earl; it is understood that this was at the request of Edward and Sophie. The Queen did not issue letters patent to this effect, but instead, let her “will be known,” which is good enough when you’re The Queen.
While some believe that when the Duke of Edinburgh passes on that the title will be given to Prince Edward (which is why it is believed that, unlike his brother Andrew or nephews William and Harry, he was not given a dukedom on marriage, but instead would wait until the Edinburgh title was available). However, the Edinburgh title is hereditary to “heirs male of the body,” which means that Charles inherits the title as the oldest son. If Charles predeceases his father before becoming monarch, the title passes to his eldest son, William. One way for Edward to get the title would be for Charles to inherit it from his father and be monarch, at which point the title merges with the crown and is available to be recreated, most likely for Edward.
As for the poll in Tatler, I agree with you Nutty. Back when I was conducting research we used to say that respondents were either “maniacs or missionaries.” This Tatler poll was a social experiment designed to create buzz and has zero validity.
"Maniacs or Missionaries" is hilarious and so very true.
That Tattler Poll is ridiculous. I hate polls and surveys with a passion. Ever since college when we had to take the required statistics classes I've been a stats hater. Ugh! And why, you might ask, do I have so much loathing for stats and such? Because if you look at all of the surveys, few if any are non biased, lack enough operational definitions, are skewed beyond belief and are never ever parsimonious enough to reflect any facts. And yet, in this case with Megs and her PR and flying monkeys, of course they will take results from ridiculous polls like this one and run with it for miles and miles to prop up their vacuous arguments. ISH!
Looks like the editor had a change of plans before it went to print?!
It's funny but I was dead serious because I kept reading that she had done this or that she had tried but I couldn't find anything specific. I thought maybe I had missed something or that somehow she thought walking in front of him (getting rid of status by rank) maybe? but it baffled me that more than one writer was just copying the highlights of some press release but not questioning for a missing paragraph or page of specifics.
Marie, you make a very good point highlighting this a possible source of the unrest as well as the pointed difference in work/attitude/vision of why I'm here with the Queen.
Thank you people.
https://the-best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com/post/188657971431/truly-bad-people
The media have just exposed what was out there for public viewing anyway. Rather than being nasty and mean to her, I think they have confused the public with hyped up hyperbole about her (e.g calling her a global style icon when she obviously looks a mess).
Yes I've been thinking this since I read about the complaints to Polk County police about Samantha Markle and the true beginning was that obscenely extravagant baby shower. Having studied the French Revolution for my degree, it takes me right back to the decades leading up to that. A moribund court with an ineffective monarch. An economy failing the bulk of the people. Resentment about taxation. An elite who had no compunction about rubbing the people's noses in their wealth. Wealth that was just thrown away on trifles while people died. And as I said before, people have died and are dying because of Austerity in the UK. And now the possibility that she is using the law to muzzle her critics.
If a second base in the US is more than testing the waters by MM, they had better not expect the UK to pay for flights and US security. Pre-engagement they got away with seeing each other every two weeks with the Atlantic between them. Maybe that has bred false complacency. But Harry was under the radar then. Now, the whole country is watching them.
https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/prince-harry-meghan-markle-documentary-victoria-arbiter/9241ffe1-86ff-4c82-b59e-81406fa80417
That’s mighty odd, and at odds with an article the DM had by Victoria only a few day’s ago.
Here’s the link to it again. The one you’ve posted is from Australia I believe.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7600911/amp/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-renounce-royal-privileges-South-Africa-move.html
Megs has it all the wrong way around. A royal is supposed think the fame, publicity, etc. is just a means to an end, supporting the monarchy, & by extension, Great Britain. She thinks the monarchy is a means to all the fame, publicity, merching, etc.
@Marie, like so many on this blog, you're a talented writer, & funny!
@d.c., Your comment was kind & astute. Sometimes even the most well meaning advice misses the mark, & unasked for advice is always a bad idea!
Apologies again to the UK,for Megs. Sadly, there are more people like her here in my beloved country than is good for us.
That's the great mystery. Many of us are trying to figure it out.
It would be the taxpayers of the city she decides to decamp to. Likely candidates are Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Malibu, Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles includes Bel Air, Brentwood, and Holmby Hills. I just don't see the City of Los Angeles forking over the kind of money to pay for 24/7 security. Maybe for special events, bu not day to day.
Unknown no more.
Personally I think that was just juvenile attention seeking more suited to 20 year Olds but maybe MM considers it "modernizing the RF?
RR, thankyou for the best laugh of delicious glee I've had in a while. I have a feeling that this was no last minute editorial decision. Magazine cover shoots are done weeks or months in advance. This was part of subtle strategy by the Rothschild family more like.
Nicki Hilton-Rothschild and Sabine Getty? Together? Wow. That is one strong message sent to those it was aimed at. (If I am correct here.)
To elucidate: Not long after Princess Diana's death, the Queen told Diana's former butler, "There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge."
I don't know what they were discussing at the time. However, "the powers at work in this country" that the Queen was (presumably) referring to was the Rothschild banking dynasty.
The Rothschild family is not just owner of NM Rothschild & Sons banking institution, it also controls the Bank of England, the London Stock Exchange, and Fleet Street (all the media): all institutions located in the internationally incorporated sovereign state of the City of London, where even the Queen plays second fiddle and must ask permission to enter.
Rothschild's controls Britain, the economy, industry, the Royal Family, and much much more globally. This is not "conspiracy theory" but well-known fact to those in the international finance and banking sectors.
I am of the belief that Meghan Markle is backed by a group of people with the goal of eroding public support for the monarchy. Powerful men and women have been conspiring against others since humans began walking the earth. Par for the course in human history. No need for tin hats.
What appears to be happening is a media power play between two groups, Meghan's backers attempting to go for a power grab and usurp more traditional, entrenched power in England and elsewhere.
That last group has just sent a message to its opponents via a Tatler magazine cover.
"We are here and have been for centuries. We intend to remain here. We have the ultimate power. Remember that."
Nicki Hilton Rothschild and Sabine Getty together? No coincidence for me.
Some of the greatest British dynasties have endured throughout the ages, though, from the Spencers to the Gettys, the Rothschilds to the Goldsmiths. Sabine Getty and Nicky Hilton Rothschild are two such examples, starring in a high glamour couture shoot inspired by 1980s classic Dynasty, and appearing on our special subscribers' cover.
So presumably there's a newstand version more populist in appeal? Does this happen every month?
For readers who are interested, here is a background on the origins of the Rothchild conspiracy theory:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/03/19/the-rothschilds-a-pamphlet-by-satan-and-conspiracy-theories-tied-to-a-battle-200-years-ago/
"The Rothschilds’ supposed control of the weather is a long-running conspiracy theory most recently leveled by D.C. Council member Trayon White Sr. (D-Ward 8), who tried to make amends this week with a special tour at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. (He left early.)
Controlling the weather is just one of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of unproved, bizarre and anti-Semitic allegations that have been leveled against the Rothschilds for centuries.
The list of their supposed atrocities, spread by militant pastors, fringe political candidates, and garden-variety nut jobs, includes controlling the world economy, bankrolling Adolf Hitler, plotting to kill Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, founding Israel, funding the Islamic State, inflicting financial distress on Asians and, most recently, messing with the weather."
And now, according to poster Unknown @ 1:40 AM, the Rothchilds are also responsible for Meghan Markle.
I could have read it wrong, though.
And regardless of the politically incorrect nature of the statement, the statement is just filled with plain actually incorrect things. The theory pretty much is a spin of Illuminati and Masonic conspiracies, just with the Rothschilds substituted as the secret organization. If Unknown were just saying that the Rothschilds are incredibly influential and command a lot of respect automatically from other powerful people, that is true.
But there's a lot of misinformation in the comment to make the Rothschild influence look more controlling, darker, and nefarious. For example, the City of London is -NOT- a sovereign state, like the Vatican, although it does have an unusual incorporated governance structure. The word "The City of London Corporation" is the name, but the word "Corporation" is a red herring. And a number of Rothschilds have sat on the Bank's Court of Directors, but the poster exaggerates their influence to actually controlling the Bank of England. IF they owned the London Exchange, which they do not, then why would it be under talks to sell to Hong Kong's Stock Exchange? (For the record, HKG dropped its bid).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7621853/Narcissists-mentally-tough-study-claims.html
Am writing another blog post I hope to post later today.
Will look forward to it.
@ Louise:
Unknown @ 1:40 AM here.
Where in my comment do I express "anti-semitism" towards anyone or other such silly nonsense?
As for the Washington Post and its weird stories......are you kidding?
The Rothschild's are a family that I hold deep respect for, not least because I may have married into a family close to it had I wanted to years ago.
I would have been the girl-from-nowhere who married high European aristocracy had I wanted to: which is why Meghan Markle's story fascinates me so. She stalked her victim Prince. I ran from mine after the proposal because I had no wish to live as an aristocrat with the media chasing after me. Meghan Markle and I are complete opposites.
However, if you read my comment VERY CAREFULLY and with no hysteria, you will notice that I specify international finance and banking in my argument as the Rothschild family's area of influence. This is indisputable anywhere in the world by anyone in the banking and finance field. A sector in which I have experience and qualifications. My argument is well-researched across years from the best available sources. (Not from the Washington Post.)
You would be laughed out of the international finance field if you screeched "anti-semitism" every time the Rothschild name was mentioned.
As for the Rothschild's being the backers for Meghan Markle? May I ask if English is your first language because you appear to have misunderstood everything I wrote.
Indeed, the gist of the argument was that the Rothschild's (and the Getty's) "were making a statement AGAINST Markle's backers." (Thank you, Jen.)
The Tatler website appears to confirm some of what I wrote.
Thank you.
Looking at Tatler's website and at the edition in question it also claims:
"Sabine Getty and Nicky Hilton Rothschild are two such examples, starring in a high glamour couture shoot inspired by 1980s classic Dynasty, and appearing on our special subscribers' cover."
So it appears that only the 'special subscribers' get this cover and lucky joe public get Meghan?
Tatler publishes a special "subscribers' edition" and a "pleb edition" for the same issue?!
That is absolutely HILARIOUS. I'm completely deaded. ⚰
Keeping it snotty, Tatty?
I've never heard of any publication do such a thing. (and I'm Javanese! We actually have 3 languages *within* the Javanese language separating 3 social classes with strict rules on which to speak to who[m?]. And even we don't pull this BS on our people! This is some epic media f*ckery! 😂🤣🤣😂😂)
It just gets better and better doesn't it! ☕
So fetch.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=umcywYVQk9k
Indeed! :-)
Like Scandi Sanskrit has implied... how weirdly funny!!
"The December issue is on newsstands on 31st October."
So not long to wait.
https://www.tatler.com/article/310-years-december-cover
"The theory pretty much is a spin of Illuminati and Masonic conspiracies, just with the Rothschilds substituted as the secret organization."
Oh, dear.
Were my comment to be read how I intended (the internet is not good at intentions), you would find it was actually a defence of the traditional power structure in Europe.
The Rothschilds, together with the Getty's, the Royal Family et.al ARE that traditional structure. Despite all it many faults and power plays if offers continuity in an age sadly lacking.
If I feel that a powerful dynasty that just happens to be Jewish is defending-via-media against the onslaught of Meghan Markle Mediocristan World is that to be labelled "anti-semitic"? So be it.
"But there's a lot of misinformation in the comment to make the Rothschild influence look more controlling, darker, and nefarious. For example, the City of London is NOT a sovereign state."
Correction noted, Marie. I was taught that the City was sovereign state similar to the Vatican. After reading your comment I checked. It is, in fact, both a county and a "sui generis". Apologies.
For the record, my use of "control" with regard to a corporate entity or other does not necessarily imply full ownership or ownership of premises.
There are cross-ownerships and entanglements which are dizzyingly complex.
Finally, Nutty Flavor, I apologise for this discord. Being the cause of it was never my intention.
Doubling down on the “racist” claims and “unfair reporting” with a “colonial nature” to many of the stories. What exactly has been unfair about the reporting? No one has exactly listed any untruths yet!!
Thanks very much for the youtube documentary link. Fascinating viewing especially in light of what's happening now! He's great at polo, skiing, fox hunting. Loves the attention and has no pressure. Likes a drink and going out and has 'bad habits.' What a reminder of his privilege, especially in light of being able to attend the hugely important World Cup final this weekend which many of us would LOVE to go to. Oh, and he was in Oz watching the game when we won it in 2003. I don't think he complains about all that does he?
For all the people writing stuff about the Rothschilds and whether there are darker forces at work:
I believe Nutty has asked people not to delve into conspiracy theories and that you're welcome to do it on other sites. Let's face it there are lots of comments on here already, if we go down the Rothschilds/hidden forces rabbit hole then things are going to go off on quite a tangent. Let alone people arguing about anti-semitism and all that. Obviously this isn't my blog and Nutty will let me know if I've got it totally wrong:)
https://the-best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com/post/188680531251/5-am-at-frogmore-cottage
and think it is hilarious (reminds me of Spitting Image British humour):
5 AM at Frogmore Cottage…
Meghan: (Crying) H, wake up!
Harry: Zaney, it’s in the middle of the night. Calm down and tell me what’s wrong.
Meghan: I went on Tumblr to read up on several practices of rescuing your inner child that flounders and withers when subjected to “the stiff upper lip” environment that confusingly is all over this country.
Harry: Eh okay. I got: “I went on Tumblr.”
Meghan: People there, somebody, said, and I…this is exactly what my task force will do, they will stop it overflowing like sewage water, and then it just kept coming in ugly unkind waves, churning out constant bowls full of salad and lettuce and making fun of me, and then all because I have an eager mind.
Harry: Salad? What salad? I love salad. I’m vegan. I absolutely do not skulk over to sit on Wallis’ grave and gnaw on spare ribs. Cough.
Meghan: …it hurts so much when people don’t love me the way I love me, and I deserve that as a strong independent woman and when they say, because if I’m not smart, who is? You see, H? Why do they do that? Why don’t they honor me as their better?
Harry: Eh, what was the first question again?
Meghan: …radishes and cucumbers and rolling out carpets to spread in many, many countries who will work together to stitch together cloths of love, and and and, because in fact it happens daily, but because we have to work together as a community inside a community, I feel so deeply from my heart as a mother and a woman and and and…setting your inner bird nestled at your heart free and feeling the wind beneath your wings and then on top of that, but they are jealous of my superior grasp of the English tongue!
Harry: Tongue? Are we finally having sex again?
Meghan: …and I shield my battered butterfly soul from the harshness of tabloids and then the gateways of wisdom opens in my soul, just talking about our communities, and I feel so much. If feelings were money, no child would be starving because of me, but people don't want my wisdom, Harry!
Harry: Is it “Harry” again? Are we having sex?
Meghan: And I, I, I, I, (flailing, waving hands) It’s so harsh, I can’t breathe because, and then they are all racist, and I need scented candles to keep away negativity, and I’m pretty, but then you can’t be pretty and smart, but I’m smart Harry, I’m smart! But I’m pretty too and it’s just a symptom of a white patriarchal society that I can’t be seen as a smart and pretty mixed race - Oh!
Harry: I was listening. Just closing my eyes for a second.
Meghan: I know who our foundation will focus on helping in all the Commonwealth countries! It just came to me. Listen to this: pretty, very light skinned mixed race African American girls who are bullied because they are smart! Oprah will love it! We will even have our own foundation hashtag. Let’s call it Mixed Ethnicity To Overcome Obstacles! #MeToo!
Harry: You are a genius. The greatest brain in Frogmore Cottage. So are we having sex now?
To your point, I doubt there's actual evidence that the Rothschilds are involved in some media take-down of Meghan. If that were true, it would validate Meghan's complaints that the media is attacking her beyond what is fair and purposefully trying to turn public opinion against her, rather than our interpretation that Meghan is the creator of her own bad press.
If you don't think the Washington Post is serious journalism, then perhaps an article from The Times', co-authored by the Investigations Editor Dominic Kennedy?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rothschild-family-runs-the-world-an-age-old-conspiracy-theory-mbl6n0cfh
Prince Charles seemed, in that documentary, to be something of an absence. Maybe part of Harry's acting up was seeking attention. Unfortunately, Charles is famous for having staff for everything, even coping with his son. I don't mean to sound harsh though. He had a dreadful prolonged ending to his first marriage, and is said to be a workaholic. He also didn't seem to have much time with his own parents, again for understandable reasons. What a mixed-up family.
Still, Harry's an adult now. He needs to sort himself out. Maybe pay attention to his brother and spend time with his niece and nephews. That documentary reminded me how good he used to be with kids.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7627241/MPs-including-Jess-Phillips-sign-open-leader-backing-Meghan-Markle.html
72 women MPs supporting Meghan's stand against the media. Just as Meghan did, it refers to 'misleading' coverage without specific references and also brings in 'colonial undertones'. I am fairly left-leaning myself, but this does not stop me from seeing Meghan with clear eyes, using this kind of thing as a weapon and only when it suits her. (But we must avoid getting into race apart from brief references. It can lead to yet more discord, here among friends. She's causing enough problems already. At least we know this will cut no ice with the general public.)
Really? Yes, Kate is all about family, keeping the peace, being polite and cheerful and doing the right thing.* But, Meghan (or her supporters) has often planted stories that have had no foundation in the truth (Kate organising a baby shower for her, the Queen organising a birthday party for her, dinner dates with Eugenie and Jack ...). A person who is going to use SL and SS to promote themselves does not baulk at getting lies published.
* Remember that (plus the fact that Wills and Kate love Harry and loved him for many years before he was ensnared by Megs) when the media goes overdrive for the 'apologies to Meg and Harry as Wills and Kate embrace them' at Remembrance Day events.
Yep. Writing such a letter in the context of the political turmoil and other problems in the UK, sending it to Clarence House (why send a letter addressed to Meghan to Clarence House?), and bleating on about colonial undertones (Meghan is an American, being a black African and a black American are COMPLETELY different, not all colonised countries were in Africa and not all people harmed by colonialism were black, Meghan is mixed-race, pass as white, not black ...) is eye-rolling ridiculous, but also is particularly foolish and tone deaf on the eve of another general election for the UK.
If Edward had been made Royal Patron, he would be attending opening nights and take along his wife and children!
Sorry for the whinge, but really Meghan, were you not taught basic good manners in your upbringing?
Sunshine Sachs may have kindly suggested to female MPs the idea to back MM (this could be seen as a good deal for the tarnished reputation of the Labour Party).
Besides, female MPs may have wanted to show female solidarity as their fellow US congresswomen.
To sump up : sign the manifesto or this means that you're racist/not a feminist unlike US congresswomen/you keep your upper lip stiff and you're heartless, or you back the Tabloids).
https://hackinginquiry.org/women-mps-support-meghan-markle/
Former Labour MP John Mann, who is not Jewish but who has since resigned from the Labour party because of antisemitsm, made a powerful speech in Parliament in 2018:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-mps-wife-threatened-rape-12380812
Before charging others with racism, the Labour party would do well to clean up their own house.
-Again, we hear about "misleading stories", without one single example.
-"On occasion,...stories have sought to cast aspersions on your character, without any good reason as far as we can see" Are they blind?
- colonial overtones?? A Duchess living in a $3million plus home is a "colonial"?
-They expect the media to report only stories in the "national interest"? What about sports? Entertainment? All to be banned?
-Why was the letter addressed to Smarkle at Clarence House? She doesn't live there.
I guess that the good news is that this was signed only by 19 of the total 191 female MP currently in the British Parliament. But Smarkle will only be emboldened by the minority who back her.
They have just had a celebrity one on tonight and it showed the audience reaction to ITV's documentary on the Sussexes and everyone, geom the celebs to the normal people, did not buy it at all and had the same things to say as on here (albeit a bit more toned down!).
Their cause won't have been helped as this was a Stand up to Cancer special tv program. Either immediately after the segment on the Sussexes complaining, or about 5 mins later (can't remember exactly) they had a heartbreaking story of a married couple who had 2 kids. The husband then contracted cancer and died just as his third child was born and etcetc it was heartbreaking stuff.
The point is, you had the Sussexes complaining about their lives just before this segment. It was a vivid illustration of their privilege and how their hardships amount to absolutely zero in comparison to what normal people go through.
Also chatted to my fiance tonight in an offhand manner about PH flying to Japan to wstch the rugby world cup final. No sitting on the fence this time, just a straight up comment on the hypocrisy of flying whilst also having the privilege to go and watch an event that millions would love to go and see.
Not exactly a far reaching poll but I think the disgruntlement is gradually building amongst people who are normally not involved at all.
I followed large parts of the Leveson Inquiry live and YES the press did many things that were unpalatable, such as hacking a dead girl's phone and multiple other wrongs - but they were taken to task for this and they now have to follow a much stricter code of practise. I agree there should be a right to privacy for those in public service but we should also be told if they misbehave. Without a free press we would never have known about the parliamentary expenses scandal and what a bloody scandal that was!!
Also, if I'm honest, I'm irked by people like Max Mosley and Hugh Grant who have murky pasts and are on the hacked off bandwagon for their own benefit.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7627909/Meghan-Markles-half-brother-Thomas-Jr-appeals-Duchess-end-bitter-family-feud.html
Of course, there has to be a code of practice, but as I said earlier, Smarkles behaviour has always been to put herself into the limelight, so it is disingenuous for her to request privacy.
Smarkle claims to have modernized the RF, and part of modernization is having everyone's laundry hanging out on social media. She can't play it both ways.
100% agree with you.
2. The PDA is not unique to M&H; William and Kate also display PDA occasionally. With the former, it is so over the top and persistent that it seems odd and increasingly M uses it to control and direct. With the latter, it seems natural and never interferes with professionalism.
Re: Harry and Meghan’s PDA from a psychological viewpoint:
Constant performative PDA like you see with Harry and Meghan is a sign of insecurity, possessiveness, and a need for approval. Performative PDA is not genuine affection. It can be a sign of defensive possessiveness by an insecure partner to mark their territory. It can also be an effort to convince others that a weak or troubled relationship is stable. When PDA is unbalanced, one partner is often trying to stimulate or reinforce an uncertain relationship.
While some of it initially came soon after the wedding from Harry, the greater part is initiated by Meghan, and it is often rebuffed by Harry.
Witness the video of them meeting fans lined up outside of the entrance to The Lion King premiere. Harry is moving along the line, shaking hands and making chit chat with people, and several times Meghan attempts to grab onto his hand as he’s using them both to grasp the outstretched hands of the public. You can clearly see he doesn’t want to hold hands. He is essentially working, but she is quite insistent. She’s very possessive and controlling and he didn’t seem receptive.
Much of their PDA is straight from a pair of 15 year-old high school sophomores. It s not cute or endearing, especially for people who realize she is likely a profound narcissist. Meghan constantly attempts to maintain control and mark her territory, hence the putting her hand on his back all the time, especially when they are walking away from the cameras.Hi
Identity politics does obscure people's views.
I even make a point of using gender-neutral terms like "a-hole" and "jerk" when calling out women just so I can get people to focus on the actual BEHAVIOUR.
This is why I've decided to be part of the "apolitical spiritualist" movement (not to be confused with 'political apathy', because we do vote and it's not like we encourage people to remain politically-passive, it's just that we see through everyone's BS—left and right).
But all these identity politics and lifestyle choices just divide people (it's like they'll talk about "inclusivity"; but then what they really do is label people, organise them by category, and get them worked-up about their very core being—what makes them who they are). Notice how these divisive things (the identity politics and lifestyle choices) all cater to the ego, we're getting spiritually stunted by identity politics.
None of this stuff matters at the soul level. And again, it's all ego-based. It's about me, me, me, me, me.
Not to mention oppressive.
I mean obviously we should all be decent human beings toward one another and stop scrap behaviour like racial profiling/police brutality, but a public servant who's a member of the royal family? Really? Aren't they like the ultimate welfare queens?
"Ethical" lifestyles aren't really about omission of a particular food group out of people's diets, it's about merching pricey alternatives. (Don't get me started about the time I had to listen to a Londoner talk babble about her £17 "ethical" shampoo while I was in Bali.) It's all just a new form of classism.
And it is a cruel form of classism because back in the day, the status symbols would be things like inherited land, the village squire's house, the Jaguar/antique Rolls Royce, or whatever. And people would look at that and hopelessly think all that is "unattainable" and that *hopeless* lack of social mobility used to be the "evil" of society. Now if you can't afford "ethical" products (the new status symbols), not only are you poor, you're also a terrible human being for not spending that extra £17.
But that's not all: the new status symbols *appear* affordable. So if you have 300 quid in your bank, you feel like you *technically* can afford a £17 shampoo because you *technically* have the money (even if a reasonable budget would dictate you can't spend that much on toiletries), but you buy it anyway and then end up in endless debt. Whereas nobody would be stupid enough to do the same for the traditional status symbols due to their hopeless unattainability. It's a new type of elitism and classism, but it looks "modern" so people just eat it up.
These people don't care about the working class. LOL. And of course the idea of "Meghan Markle" appeals to them. Doh?
The "woke" are not awake.
And it concerns me when Indonesians start mimicking this kind of PC-ness (as a former European colony we have a bit of a "colonial-hangover" where we look to emulate western cultures, from beauty standards to activism style, because we've been programmed to believe it's superior—it's not).
PS: I'm also the type of person who covers her webcams/front cameras with washi tape, so it's not like I'm turning a blind eye on the privacy/surveillance issue (FTR).
Re: "a motley mixed company of strange bedfellows."
I love that phrase. Poetic. It sounds like bedlam. Which indeed it is.
However, seriously, I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately, I am not American and follow US mainstream media almost never. I have little understanding of what sets Americans aflame with indignation.
I refer to myself - tongue in cheek and with no disrespect- as a "wog with English better than yours because I worked hard at it. Nevertheless I don't understand anything of your weird Anglo ways so forget it. Get used to me.....you may learn something."
It doesn't help having spent the best and most instructive years of my life mixing with European nobles. I have lost all sense of class distinction and see no mystique in royalty. So-called "commoners" and "royalty" are alike to me: to be treated with the same amount of respect. Highest.
Years ago, as already stated because I was forced to,I was proposed to by a European prince with lineage and bloodline that made my hair stand up on end when he told me. He had kept it secret until then.
I refused the marriage proposal for a number of reasons, although today I still regret not saying "Yes" to the beautiful Vivaldi choir I would have had singing to me in a Venetian church of my choice.
My other regret is that by holding a Princess title, I could have actually used it for something worthwhile. Meghan Markle pretends to be a humanitarian.
The "Goody Two Shoes" that I was does not pretend. A princess title is otherwise a "useless anachronism in a modern age" as I once told my prince.
Why does Meghan Markle offend me? The above.
This.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=umcywYVQk9k
reposting for others
It's not too difficult or complicated to understand what sets Americans on both sides of the aisle aflame with indignation, if you read American news or spend any time with Americans. Understanding something or following the rationale doesn't necessarily mean agreement or acceptance. As translated from Aristotle's Metaphysics, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
@bootsy @Veena This type of conspiracy theory is really like a Mad-Libs. [Secret organisation / fabulously rich family dynasty] controls [Federal Reserve/Treasury/Bank of England/Banque de France]. They are working with [another rich family dynasty] to take down [country/government/public institution]. They are using [wealthy individual] to take the blame. They are responsible for the death of [another wealthy individual]. They were in cahoots with [country/government] to fake or bankroll [historical event]. They broadcast their messages and thrown down challenges to their opponents on [relatively obscure media source].
I'm supposed to be on social media hiatus & once politicians/parliamentarians get thrown into the debacle, it drains all my energy away. I caaaaant.
Take care everyone. 💜
It’s not a straightforward yes or no., SA left in the 1960s, and (parts?) were invited to rejoin in the early 1990’s. One maybe two are permanently suspended.
********
@Maggie, ‘Some of the greatest British dynasties have endured throughout the ages, though, from the Spencers to the Gettys, the Rothschilds to the Goldsmiths. Sabine Getty and Nicky Hilton Rothschild are two such examples, starring in a high glamour couture shoot inspired by 1980s classic Dynasty, and appearing on our special subscribers' cover.
So presumably there's a newstand version more populist in appeal? Does this happen every month?
The top paragraph that you quote doesn’t appear either on the front or inside of the printed version I have, so no idea whether subscribers have a different version from the ones on sale in the shops. I don’t think I’ve seen it happen before, so no not every month if at all before.
********
@Miggy, ‘Looking at Tatler's website and at the edition in question it also claims:
"Sabine Getty and Nicky Hilton Rothschild are two such examples, starring in a high glamour couture shoot inspired by 1980s classic Dynasty, and appearing on our special subscribers' cover."
So it appears that only the 'special subscribers' get this cover and lucky joe public get Meghan?’
I have no idea about a special over, but it appears to be the case, you’ve answered my question to Maggie, about it stating it was a special etc. Poor Joe Public! Lol
@ Happy Days (5:19 pm) re PDA and the Sussexes (especially MM)
@ Scandi Sanskrit (5:23 pm) re identity politics and lifestyle choices
All very well said. Thank you!
So very true! ".... just has the Jackie Kennedy redecorates the White House documentary in her mind." Hilarious!!!
@ Happy Days (5:19 pm) re PDA and the Sussexes (especially MM)
@ Scandi Sanskrit (5:23 pm) re identity politics and lifestyle choices
All very well said. Thank you!
Does anyone here actually think that she will be given the same treatment as a pleb, or will she get it fast tracked if that is what is desired?