Harry and Meghan #286 Haznohope and Sparrowlegs - that's all

[Who’sYerDaddy]

Better late than never!!

 

[LadyMuck]

Bookworm

 

[I'm not actually here]

She shouldn’t be using her royal titles though because the Royal Family are supposed to be politically neutral. As plain Meghan Markle she can say whatever she wants about politics in her own country but not using her title.

I know what you say is true regarding the rift and most people will be aware that she's not representing the monarchy, but there are always some that might think she does.

I don't think she will ever really go into politics though because she can't stand the scrutiny. She's only interested in turning up to make a speech wearing some expensive clothes and talking endlessly about herself.

Idiocracy IRL.

 

[Libitina]

Idiocracy IRL.

I love that film! It’s scarily accurate and becoming more so every day.

 

[Yorkie99]

To give a contrasting view, the difficulty is that the US and its president aren't the same as any other country and its head of state. From WWII on through the cold war, the US president became known as the 'leader of the free world'. That notion persists, as does the phrase 'when America sneezes Britain catches a cold'. For that reason, I think it's fair game for us to express our views on US presidents & politics.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties have an organised network outside the US: Republicans Overseas and Democrats Abroad. Both have UK groups and both aim to encourage US citizens to vote in US elections. Fair enough. The number 1 listed objective of Republicans Overseas though is to
'Be a voice for Republican Americans in the UK.' Their former spokesperson, Kate Andrews, has been heard regularly on the BBC for years and her roles, particularly as a lobbyist for private healthcare, rarely disclosed. That kind of covert influencing of policy and public opinion is far worse to my mind than comments and posts on social media.

Sorry, I tried to put this behind a spoiler as its off topic but it doesn't seem to have worked.

 

[LuluBanks]

Do you have kids? I wouldn’t put a fucking tub pic of my toddler on my barely followed private Insta let alone a fucking Netflix doc… and I haven’t made some big massive deal about privacy or not ‘serving my kid up on a platter’ - they will serve their naked child up on a platter for Netflix $$$$$$ - they are hideous people.

Clearly we see this differently.

Back to the attention freaks, Meghan and Harry. I’m really curious if the Royal Family is concerned about Meghan’s flirting with American politics. They should have stayed in Canada where they have a bit more insulation from the partisan nature of everything in the US. I see 2023 as being a huge mess because the only way they are going to get attention in the USA is to shed negative light on the monarchy and/or touch on some partisan issues in the US.

As far as I know, Meghan is still a US citizen. As is Lilibet.

 

[LuluBanks]

The picture shows his whole face and bare torso. Showing your child in a bathtub, unclothed whether recent or not is so irresponsible. There is no reason or excuse for parents to do this especially famous parents and especially on a streaming platform.

There are websites where predators actually store pictures of children like that for their own use. It's disgusting.

I hate to insinuate this but given Elton John and Oprah's track records - That picture really made me sad for Archie and Lilibet. That they were willing to sell that to Netflix is very unsettling.

It’s a little boy and you only see his chest up. There are weirdos yes, but there is nothing salacious about a picture of a little boy and the upper part of his chest. There is nothing more irresponsible about this photo than any other photo of a little boy. Yes there are inappropriate bathtub shots but this one, in my opinion, isn’t inappropriate. I guess it could be too casual for the royal family that dresses their little boys in shorts and knee socks when in public. And it’s an old photo. Kids faces change so security issues with this photo are different.

 

[Scarlett O' Hara]

That’s an awful lot of hardware that Queen Margrethe is wearing - it must add at least 10 pounds to her dress. CP Mary looks fantastic, as usual. LOL at the huge distance between her and Princess Marie. I’m sure it was super awkward having them all together for a photo, given Joachim’s alleged crush on his sister-in-law. I feel like they have a lot in common with the Waleses and Sussexes.

Images like these are so unnecessary. They look like they are acting from a play set more than a hundred years ago.

They can live their lives of unearned wealth and privilege without these public ostentatious displays.

I appreciate I will most probably alone in my thinking, but in these austere times, it doesn't sit well with me.

 

[LuluBanks]

What did she actually mean by that?? I did some googling and this is what it told me - An example of race is brown, white, or black skin (all from various parts of the world), while an example of ethnicity is German or Spanish ancestry (regardless of race) or Han Chinese. Your race is determined by how you look while your ethnicity is determined based on the social and cultural groups you belong to. You can have more than one ethnicities but you are said to have one race, even if it's "mixed race".
I don't understand what she is trying to say since race is about your colour, she knows its about colour because she is the one that keeps on talking about being mixed race, so of course she knows race is about colour.

Blackness is not about color in the USA. It’s a mix of family lineage and social construct and power relationships. But I’m happy to explain what I meant earlier. Meghan has always known she’s half black but because of where she grew up and being white passing, she wasn’t experiencing the world as a black American woman. It was about family. She wasn’t treated by the world as a black woman. Then when she got with Harry and suddenly being half black became a well known thing. And how she was treated by the world changed. People began speaking about her in charged language and targeted by microagressions all too familiar to black women. In other words, her relationship to blackness, became intimate on a valence wholly different from just family history. Maybe it’s all about skin tone in the UK but that’s absolutely not the experience in the USA.

 

[Hoohumm]

Ha.so he met Mary,his brothers wife,fell in love with her and tried to replicate her.classy.

Joachim never had a thing for Mary.... he was in the Slip Inn that fateful night

 

[LuluBanks]

It has been mentioned before. In an interview they said he was named after Archehole.

I thought he was named after a commander of Harry’s in Afghanistan. It’s not to my liking. It makes me think of Archie Bunker, Archie the comic and orange tabby cats. Why isn’t he Lord Archie as his father is a Duke?

 

[LuluBanks]

I’ll play. A modern era one I suggest is Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown. What a sad love story they had if you can call it love. It was a very toxic relationship and ended in terrible tragedy affecting a beautiful daughter. I often think of them when I think of the Harkles as their so called love story is built similarly on toxic waste. I just hope their daughter’s life doesnt resemble that of Whitney and Brown’s daughter.



SPOILER
How do you do a bloody spoiler? Re their daughter.

Anyway Whitney Houston drowned in a bath tub, overdosed, suicide??? Tragically her daughter was found in similar circumstances in a bathtub, was in a coma for 6 months but sadly eventually died. Their daughter was always paraded in the public eye and even took place in the Bobbie Brown reality show. I do believe that Whitney and Bobbie did love her dearly but with their toxic relationship and using their daughter for publicity it did play havoc on her, she was only 22 when she died. So tragic. But can you see the similarities to the Harkles?? I can and it scares me for Lili.

As Whitney said in 2002, “crack is whack.” Unless Haz and Meg take up drug addiction, I don’t think they are likely to follow in the path of Whitney and Bobby Brown.

 

[Who’sYerDaddy]

 

[LuluBanks]

I wonder if the royal family has told Meg and Harry to stay out of controversial American political issues like guns and gun violence. The whole Uvalde photoshoot is such filth that it makes me wonder if the British government asked them to stay out of partisan American politics. I can see a world where instead of talking about the racist royal family, large swathes of Americans could be saying the Royal family supports gun violence because they aren’t joining the fray condemning or supporting the inevitable partisan backlash Meg and Harry would receive. The racism stuff is kids play next to gun policy.

It's bollocks.

Race is an American thing, not a British thing.

Meghan is American. She’s on Netflix speaking to an American audience as an American.

 

[margaretrose]

We mention St George's Day me Partners Birthday

Sorry I was answering Cinnamon Girl

 

[LuluBanks]

I think she has always been aware of her blackness and hated it, sought to eradicate physical evidence of it and associate with white people from family to friends and partners throughout her life… until it suited her to ’discover’ her blackness and cry racism for various reasons (to pressure Harry girlfriend announcement, to force through wedding, to justify leaving RF when really about megabucks deals, to spite the RF when didn’t get her way on half in half out). There’s so much evidence for it but bless you I guess for trying to see the positive. Unfortunately she’s a manipulative, exploitative cunt. Sorry to disappoint.

I think differently. I’m not from the UK and can’t pretend to know how things work there but I am a black American woman and can only speak about my experience as a black woman who grew up in predominantly white spaces. I’m not light skinned but my sister was. As are many members of my immediate family. While I’m not biracial, I can relate to Meghan’s experience of knowing you are black and then having experiences where knowing becomes knowing in a broader context.

 

[LuluBanks]

Why are all the photos of their backs?

It’s what celebs do to “protect” their kids online privacy. Think Gigi Hadid. I get it- there’s enough lobbed at them about their kids appearance. As a parent, that has to hurt.

 

[LuluBanks]

It is and nobody questions it.

But then, why the bath tub pic of Archie? If they were consistent about it I'd be less critical. They seem to only want to protect their kids when they're not getting paid to show them.

I guess it’s an older pic. If their worry also involves security, I can understand their desire to recognize the public demand to see their kids and at the same time protect their children’s privacy by showing old pictures and pictures that do not full on show their faces. Seems wise to me.

 

[LuluBanks]

It is wise (I wholeheartedly agree with keeping celeb kids out of the public eye) but this photo was published in the recent documentary (along with other more recent footage). If they really wanted their kids to be out of the public eye they absolutely could (and for the most part, before the doco, they did). It is interesting that the children are only seen when it is of use to the parents (either for $$$ or to divert attention from the RF)

Bath tubs pics in general online are a no-no even for plebs like me. It should never have been published at all.

Is this type of picture of a baby similarly a no-no? This image comes from parenting .com. The baby’s unclothed chest is exposed.

 

[LuluBanks]

And white kids being excluded from black only events too. It's going backwards.

Like school? Obviously nobody should be discriminated based on race! But that’s not exactly what’s going on with the hair situation in schools. I don’t thinks it’s a widespread issue but it does happen.