The British Royal Family - news, views, clothes & shoes! #14

[Gardenista]

In the statement I read, the titles were still there, it just used the given names in addition to the titles.

I think the informal "Harry and Meghan" was just to say that these are individual members of the Queen's family, not just a Duke and a Duchess. Later on, the statement used their title of "Sussex" to describe them.

So I don't think that counts as excluding their titles, I think it's more like saying, "this is my grandson, Harry, and his wife, Meghan" and together they are "the Sussexes".

In the broadcast the Queen did after the death of Diana, she called her "Diana"...it seemed a strong message of seeing someone as an individual who has a personal name, and not just a title. I think this is the same.

Published 13 January 2020
Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.

These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.

ENDS

A statement from Her Majesty The Queen

 

[dixiegirl1035]

And boom.... speed lightening deals already. No time wasted there.... JMO

https://pagesix.com/2020/01/13/megh...ing-up-deals-with-fashion-brands-post-megxit/

Huh? I personally disagree that "boom...speed lightening deals already". I personally see 180 than this opinion...well, I don't even have an opinion as the article says NOTHING imho about it lol.

Perhaps read this like we do at WS when a defense atty speaks. The body of the article does NOT support the headline MOO. Nothing about deals already, but MOO as many here interpret stuff differently. I say that ALL of the body is a mere speculation/bait click article, e.g.


is reportedly already working with

lot of major labels who would like to partner with her

have already been active discussions

these deals could be

the Sussexes trademarked their “Sussex Royal” brand for more than 100 items (e.d. that list is a "check mark" of all those categories when doing a trademark)

would be chomping at the bit

You may agree, others may agree... but reading this article with critical eyes as we do with cases, pfffffff, it's all fluff and not ONE thing to back up the headline of clickbait to get readers. I hate that I added to it to merely respond to this post. MOO

 

[Oregonmama]

DailyMail.com can reveal that her team has discreetly moved the Duchess' company Frim Fram Inc from California to notoriously secretive state Delaware

How Meghan Markle kept her Hollywood power lawyer and agent despite joining the royal family | Daily Mail Online

 

[oviedo]

Has anyone here tracked the changes since this website first came out and can give a heads up if so? I would be interested in any changes to any of their pages since they first posted.

I screen shot all of the pages the day of but haven’t compared them to what’s out there now

 

[makayla]

I think Markle keeps score.

I think Catherine does not

As someone else here at WS said the other day, MM is an “injustice collector” ... I agree with that statement....JMHO

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I screen shot all of the pages the day of but haven’t compared them to what’s out there now

Well, when you've got a spare several hours with nothing more interesting to do....

 

[Intermezzo]

In the statement I read, the titles were still there, it just used the given names in addition to the titles.

I think the informal "Harry and Meghan" was just to say that these are individual members of the Queen's family, not just a Duke and a Duchess. Later on, the statement used their title of "Sussex" to describe them.

So I don't think that counts as excluding their titles, I think it's more like saying, "this is my grandson, Harry, and his wife, Meghan" and together they are "the Sussexes".

In the broadcast the Queen did after the death of Diana, she called her "Diana"...it seemed a strong message of seeing someone as an individual who has a personal name, and not just a title. I think this is the same.

I agree
the tabloids fixated on the omissions of their titles, what did I notice? I noticed the repeated use of the word family specifically "my family"
My family, his family, my grandson

IMO I think that sends a stronger message..her family, Harry's family

 

[Amonet]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton

Over the years, Meghan has been shamed for the same things for which her sister-in-law, Kate, has been praised.

Here is a look at 20 stories from these outlets that appear to show a double standard between press coverage of Meghan and Kate. BuzzFeed News has reached out to all of the outlets featured below for comment.

OMG! The avocado! The lily of the valley! The bump cradling! Look how they're presented so differently by the same outlet, and even the same author, depending on whether it's about Kate or Meghan!

It's right there in black and white! I thought I was losing my mind when I had recollections of some pretty negative stories about Meghan and I kept seeing comments saying all the media had been extremely positive!

I'm sorry, but I do think the differences in presentation have something to do with how each of these women is thought of by the public at large who read these articles! How could anyone not be influenced by it? It's like a classic propaganda campaign.

 

[Keine Engel]

What have I done now?

Ooops - I got distracted by the flipping 'Statement" = "Go Away NOW -MET-bobbies bored + not very liking us much rite-now = Let 'em Loose - LuLz 4 Us U not-so-much"

The Simplest Plan of All​

Get rid of Burley - Win : Everyone.

Give job 2 Meg - Win : Pretty much

Got 1000+% TV experience
Absolutely more visually asethic
Absolutely more bearable
I'm sure she can manage repeat formula easy enuff - Maybe we'd actually some more actual info ...even possibly some NEWS?
Gets to meet people
TV celeb but for respectably acceptable Boring but Safe MSM NEWS group as works as a 'reporter'
Fluffy, celeb perks gets 2 books, TV interviews, fashion, cooking stuff let her do her charities, raise awareness in whatever + Good promo free + all round

What can possibly be any worse than Kay anyway

Sky News - BIGGEST winner of all
She goes off script too far - Mic. Cut / Fake bad aerial image/Sat. Failure filter- lost connection, Soz viewers

EVERYBODY - Her Maj & Charlie - Very Happy Again

Can get back 2 cracking-on with Monarch-like things

Winsors Whinings from rest of The Firm nipped in the bud

Harry - Will love us all again!
Saves us from all 'Sad Harry' stuff 4 next couple years

Palace happy

MET happy
Can keep playing Bodie & Doyle again instead of Spot the Moose

Taxpayers - happy (coz they don't want that £155,000 p/a anyways )

Parliament - who cares

Canadians - Happy- won't come out & say that coz there always dead nice to us about having to stuffer Royal Crisis even thou they have nowt to do with it but Ha Ha Ha UR our Commonwealth Cuz'

Aussies - Ditto - Cuz' but even further away from the Hot-Mess-Head of States home & care even less
Ecstatic - sick to death of it & can now get back 2 BB's, Beer & surfing

MOST IMPORTANTLY!
Obviously, All of US - All Hail to some Hippie-like peace & quiet as forcasted SituationSussex averted & can get back to the issues we're really all here for...
Tiaras!

Trying to translate & comprehend what/who/why/WUT?? about Titles, Line of Succession, Get the feelz when we find something from history & think we're really smart learning educationally type things.
Digging up ( & sharing ) ALL Things Fab Queen Mary, tattle about tit-bits no-one has a clue about & end up obsessed 4 couple weeks about.
Trisha/Silly Billy/Other MODs unlucky enuff to end up here - Over the Moon they don't have to deal wasting their time tidying up this hysterical hot mess up
Saves them many hours from Warnings, time-outs & ...
Banning us all coz we keep behaviour like spoilt little nasty children & turn into rabid, poisonous trolls likes of Twitz & FantasyBook etc.


Stability is restored (once again)
The British Monarchy
is at peace

'The Royal House Windsor'

All over this kind of ridiculous, nonsense

So....
What do y'll think?​

 

[Amonet]

I think it's a very selective list. I recall many headlines about Kate that were critical about her clothing, her family, her work, her weight. Remember how they used to criticize her when William would spend holidays, etc. with her parents at their home? Remember when the media would sneak around to try and get photos of her and PW when they were still in school? All the accusations that she "stalked PW, etc.?

Inside the Early Days of Prince William and Kate Middleton's Romance

MM knows this, too and she probably also knows Kate won't lower herself to respond.

MOO

Of course it doesn't cover *every* headline, and yes, most of the Royals have had some negative press in the mix, and some of it imho has gone way too far.

But look how these examples have been selected? Kate has an avocado and this is wonderful. Meghan has an avocado and she's taking water from the mouths of babies living in drought regions. Kate has lily of the valley in her bouquet and it's such a beautiful flower! Meghan has lily of the valley in her bouquet and she's trying to murder Princess Charlotte with it.

I think the selection is perfect, in a very disturbing way.

 

[Amonet]

Huh? I personally disagree that "boom...speed lightening deals already". I personally see 180 than this opinion...well, I don't even have an opinion as the article says NOTHING imho about it lol.

Perhaps read this like we do at WS when a defense atty speaks. The body of the article does NOT support the headline MOO. Nothing about deals already, but MOO as many here interpret stuff differently. I say that ALL of the body is a mere speculation/bait click article, e.g.


is reportedly already working with

lot of major labels who would like to partner with her

have already been active discussions

these deals could be

the Sussexes trademarked their “Sussex Royal” brand for more than 100 items (e.d. that list is a "check mark" of all those categories when doing a trademark)

would be chomping at the bit

You may agree, others may agree... but reading this article with critical eyes as we do with cases, pfffffff, it's all fluff and not ONE thing to back up the headline of clickbait to get readers. I hate that I added to it to merely respond to this post. MOO

Totally clickbaity and yellow headline. Their 'source' is The Sun!

 

[HongKongPhooey]

OMG! The avocado! The lily of the valley! The bump cradling! Look how they're presented so differently by the same outlet, and even the same author, depending on whether it's about Kate or Meghan!

It's right there in black and white! I thought I was losing my mind when I had recollections of some pretty negative stories about Meghan and I kept seeing comments saying all the media had been extremely positive!

I'm sorry, but I do think the differences in presentation have something to do with how each of these women is thought of by the public at large who read these articles! How could anyone not be influenced by it? It's like a classic propaganda campaign.

I totally agree. Most people only read what the press put out there, which is what sells - sensation, drama, gossip. It isn't a rounded or even true picture. What kind of friends and close family sells stories to tabloids? JMO

 

[Amonet]

As someone else here at WS said the other day, MM is an “injustice collector” ... I agree with that statement....JMHO

I think Buzzfeed did a simple and excellent job of showing evidence of the 'injustice'. You don't have to be an 'injustice collector' as a human being for enough 'injustices' to wear you down.

 

[Trudie]

She has several months, and I believe plenty of funds, to get herself together.

If I was her personal assistant, I would start with a cute, smart hair cut. A short bob? Something. She needs to get rid of the hair. That would be a huge improvement.

Then, personal training, yoga, and diet. Every day, Fergie could look great, if she started. I am not "fat shaming", it is just time to cut out the alcohol, and get a bit fitter, yoga would make Fergie look much better.

I think she just might surprise us.

 

[Bampot]

I think this below is an example of why the British press favour Kate over Megan. There are traditions and responsibilities she should be adhering to but Megan just doesn't play ball.
Meghan ‘WON'T pose with baby on hospital steps’ as she’s a feminist

 

[Trudie]

Maybe MM got caught up in the royal trappings, the splendor of it all, expecting the world would fall madly in love with her, praising her endlessly for doing nothing but marrying well. When she found out she couldn’t call the shots, she no longer wished to be a part of it.
Kate is beautiful, MM has to be jealous, imo. Not only of her beauty but her poise, popularity & status. Moo

 

[Keine Engel]

What do you mean? What divorce? Who?

We should just use this as our sig's

 

[Trudie]

I think this below is an example of why the British press favour Kate over Megan. There are traditions and responsibilities she should be adhering to but Megan just doesn't play ball.
Meghan ‘WON'T pose with baby on hospital steps’ as she’s a feminist

one example of many.

 

[Amonet]

I think this below is an example of why the British press favour Kate over Megan. There are traditions and responsibilities she should be adhering to but Megan just doesn't play ball.
Meghan ‘WON'T pose with baby on hospital steps’ as she’s a feminist

I would say it's an example of how headlines can be worded to sway public opinion.

It alleges the reason for not wanting to go out on the steps within a few hours of the birth was due to not wanting that pressure of looking perfect within a few hours of giving birth. I've never given birth, but I imagine she has a point.

But for feeling that way, she's labeled "feminist", with the word clearly being used in a negative way in which it gets associated with being an irrational, crazy, man-hating parody of a 'lady'.

Meghan and Harry's child wasn't going to be a top heir to the throne, his parents decided not to use a title for him, even though there was one available that he was legitimately entitled to use. Harry did a really lovely little announcement to some gathered media where he seemed so natural and overjoyed, and I felt that, and the baby photos following a few days later, was even better than the 'traditional' posing on the steps of the Lindo Wing...I at least felt it gave something 'equal but different'.

But many photographers have a job where they're used to doing that camping out outside the Lindo for days on end waiting for the official announcement of labour, birth, and then "that" appearance on the steps with the baby. So Harry and Meghan's decision to do things differently naturally garnered a lot of negative headlines. It's the tail wagging the dog.

 

[Gardenista]

To me, MM really has PH by the you know whats. He does as she says, or she and her woke minions make up a bunch of BS about the RF thereby doing incredible harm to them.