She asks for privacy then reveals to the world she had a miscarriage. 
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Did she ask for privacy, or did both her and Harry ask to be private individuals, not working Royals and therefore and not be hounded by the press for every little thing? Journalists are private individuals but sometimes they write about their lives for money. Meghan and Harry wanted to be financially i independent so are doing things so that they can be financially independent.She asks for privacy then reveals to the world she had a miscarriage.
There is such a huge difference between wanting privacy and releasing things you want to release. The problem with the media is they think they own you. We all tell people what we do and don’t want them to know. I see no difference
They're private individuals who demand privacy and threaten legal action if they're not given it. They want their cake and to eat it. If they're so private, why would you tell the NY Times, of all publications, that you've suffered a miscarriage? Something so personal? Don't get me wrong, I feel for her, I genuinely do. No woman should have to have their child taken away from them like that. But it's a very personal thing and she's hardly highlighted anything by telling the world what's happened to her. Her article barely suggests how traumatising she actually found it.
Compare her to Chrissy Teigen who actually showed the pain she went through. Why not invest your time and work with a charity for miscarriage sufferers. She's "written" an article and discussed things that are completely irrelevant. She's so desperate to stay relevant. Notice she always seems to release something after someone else in the family. Kate and Wills dog died, out comes Meghan with another story.
Compare her to Chrissy Teigen who actually showed the pain she went through. Why not invest your time and work with a charity for miscarriage sufferers. She's "written" an article and discussed things that are completely irrelevant. She's so desperate to stay relevant. Notice she always seems to release something after someone else in the family. Kate and Wills dog died, out comes Meghan with another story.
Doubt it. Not the first time she’s made big announcements that coincide with other events. Such as Eugenies wedding > announced she was pregnant
But the NYT surely doesn’t allow her unlimited flexbility but has its editorial content planned out
Her PR team know what they're doing. She's an (ex) Royal. What she says, goes. If she says release it NOW they will, whether scheduled for now, next week or next year. I stand by it, she always releases things to the press after other members of the BRF to try and steal their limelight.
Obviously revealing the pregnancy at the wedding was wrong. Other than that the Royal family always have something to announce so it's bound to clash with something. If she did it earlier this week people would probably moan she's trying to overshadow the death of Will & Kate's dog!
Christina Perri has announced the heartbreaking news today that her child was stillborn.
The difference in the reactions to Meghan's miscarriage news and Christina's stillbirth news are astounding. Both are horrific events for a person to go through. I am not Meghan's biggest fan but the level of hate towards her is just astounding. At this point she could bring about world peace and still be vilified for it. I feel as though she can't win whatever she does!
The difference in the reactions to Meghan's miscarriage news and Christina's stillbirth news are astounding. Both are horrific events for a person to go through. I am not Meghan's biggest fan but the level of hate towards her is just astounding. At this point she could bring about world peace and still be vilified for it. I feel as though she can't win whatever she does!
I have a few clients who write for the Times and the Telegraph, which I assume would have similar schedules - I'll often get an email from them that says 'Can you do this for Tuesday morning, they want to print it on Saturday'. This is for feature interviews with a high-profile person, so something you'd think would be planned well in advance, but it can be surprisingly short notice.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing.
Would these papers also print something on request from a celebrity (or similar) at the preferred date of this celebrity? Just asking out of interest as I can only look at it from the outside
Newspapers are NEWSpapers, so of course there are stories that are pushed forward or put back depending on what's going on and for paper editions the word count is very strict, as it's a matter of space.
Reputable papers do collaborations, however, no sleb can dictate a schedule. That would cheapen esp a reputable paper. They work out an approximate publishing date, but no guarantees.
You can't cough up a piece and have it published two days later, esp when it's print and esp as outsider (like M, she isn't employed by the Times).
I agree that this piece has been in the works for a while and the topic is the headline "The Losses We Share", it's about loss in whatever form. It's entirely possible that the miscarriage wasn't supposed to feature, but evolved into the piece with drafts she wrote.
I do dislike the Ssexes, but there's no reason to spin everything into a negative narrative with ulterior negative motives, regardless what and when they do something.
The way some pick apart every word she wrote and spinning it into a "lie" is quite something.
What is more interesting is that the court date has been pushed back, what? 9 or 10 months? I could imagine she's pregnant again.
It was pushed back very recently and for quite a long time by the Ssexes, so something's going on and the only logical conclusion is to me pregnancy.
We shall see.
Reputable papers do collaborations, however, no sleb can dictate a schedule. That would cheapen esp a reputable paper. They work out an approximate publishing date, but no guarantees.
You can't cough up a piece and have it published two days later, esp when it's print and esp as outsider (like M, she isn't employed by the Times).
I agree that this piece has been in the works for a while and the topic is the headline "The Losses We Share", it's about loss in whatever form. It's entirely possible that the miscarriage wasn't supposed to feature, but evolved into the piece with drafts she wrote.
I do dislike the Ssexes, but there's no reason to spin everything into a negative narrative with ulterior negative motives, regardless what and when they do something.
The way some pick apart every word she wrote and spinning it into a "lie" is quite something.
What is more interesting is that the court date has been pushed back, what? 9 or 10 months? I could imagine she's pregnant again.
It was pushed back very recently and for quite a long time by the Ssexes, so something's going on and the only logical conclusion is to me pregnancy.
We shall see.
I wouldn't say I'm pro M&H, I'm pretty indifferent about the whole RF as they all seem spoilt and unbearable. I don't know a big deal about how M&H left and what they did wrong, but from what I do know about the RF I am not surprised they wanted out.
The level of hatred for M&H is quite baffling though. People are even speculating that she's lying about the miscarriage. Of course no way to tell but I imagine the response would be very different had Kate been in the same situation of a miscarriage and writing an article about it.
The level of hatred for M&H is quite baffling though. People are even speculating that she's lying about the miscarriage. Of course no way to tell but I imagine the response would be very different had Kate been in the same situation of a miscarriage and writing an article about it.
I can tell you that if it had been Kate before Meghan entered the scene, you'd have the same vitriol spewed at her plus a nice "the three fakes born by a surrogate" bs that I saw. I read a forum where people were just as vitriolic towards K as many are now towards M and the comments section in the dm was similarly negative towards K then, though not quite as toxic as it's towards M.
If it were an article by K today, K would be "so brave, I really feel for her..." etc etc..
(If it were the same article, word for word in both scenarios)
I always say M is the best thing to have happened to K, really spruced up her image and K didn't need to lift a finger.
But I digress.
The headline of how M is "breaking down stigma and shame" is utter bs imo. Didn't know there was stigma and shame around miscarriages these days?? I know there was, but I do feel like we've come a far way in the past few years in terms of talking about it and working on women not feeling guilty about it (you know the insane and illogical self-guilt you throw at yourself "had I drank water 5 times a day and spun in a circle three times a day this wouldn't have happened!"). Oh well.
That's interesting to hear about Kate, I've never seen any hatred to her anywhere near the scale of for Meghan. Not saying you're wrong I believe it's true just haven't come across it before.I can tell you that if it had been Kate before Meghan entered the scene, you'd have the same vitriol spewed at her plus a nice "the three fakes born by a surrogate" bs that I saw. I read a forum where people were just as vitriolic towards K as many are now towards M and the comments section in the dm was similarly negative towards K then, though not quite as toxic as it's towards M.
If it were an article by K today, K would be "so brave, I really feel for her..." etc etc..
(If it were the same article, word for word in both scenarios)
I always say M is the best thing to have happened to K, really spruced up her image and K didn't need to lift a finger.
But I digress.
The headline of how M is "breaking down stigma and shame" is utter bs imo. Didn't know there was stigma and shame around miscarriages these days?? I know there was, but I do feel like we've come a far way in the past few years in terms of talking about it and working on women not feeling guilty about it (you know the insane and illogical self-guilt you throw at yourself "had I drank water 5 times a day and spun in a circle three times a day this wouldn't have happened!"). Oh well.
You couldn't pay me enough money to marry into the RF. Not that I would ever have the option to but still.
Critisims with Kate before Megan appeared on the scene were justified - workshy, only doing fun engagements like Wimbledon and some of her outfit choices. She had YEARS to get used to what it would be like in the Royal Family whereas Megan was thrown into the deep end - I think Harry is the blame for some of that, trying to protect her.That's interesting to hear about Kate, I've never seen any hatred to her anywhere near the scale of for Meghan. Not saying you're wrong I believe it's true just haven't come across it before.
You couldn't pay me enough money to marry into the RF. Not that I would ever have the option to but still.
Oh God, I remember all the Waity Katy crap that was spewed. Not saying she’s perfect but she’s got to be a tough cookie to put up with all that rubbish.
The British press can be brutal.
I've had an interest in Diana (as I suppose most who slither into "royal watching", particularly when it comes to the Windsors) and have followed the Cambridges quite a bit since their engagement.That's interesting to hear about Kate, I've never seen any hatred to her anywhere near the scale of for Meghan. Not saying you're wrong I believe it's true just haven't come across it before.
You couldn't pay me enough money to marry into the RF. Not that I would ever have the option to but still.
The hatred to M is a whole other scale, that's for sure. The dm comments were never as bad towards K as they are towards M, but they were at times very negative. There were several forums dedicated to royals and some were crazier than others, but the one thing they all had in common was a blind hatred for K. Often the sections had to be closed for members to "cool down" and similar. The craziest and most hateful place could be properly nutty. That changed somewhat when M entered the scene and the sheer hatred was aimed at a new person. Some still hated K, but some began to become fans even though K hadn't changed much at that point. K stepped it up since M married in and it's still rather little, but her confidence is better.
The Middletons were always blamed for something and disparaged for appearing at Wimbledon, at the Xmas walk etc etc. "gatecrashers", "users", "publicity seekers" etc etc...
Comments aimed at James and Pippa were also... wow.
The stuff I've read....
Much of the criticism was fair though, like K not dressing well enough (several flashgates incl articles saying Liz is less than impressed and wanted K to weigh her hems and K flashed again still after that), ignoring dress codes set by the Malaysian king on their Asia tour, workshy, appearing only for fun engagements, criticism when she did not appear at the Irish guards ceremony (breaking a 100 year tradition and the KP statement literally said she didn't want people to expect her to appear every year!!!!) etc etc (all Reraciara mentioned above).
Even a small media war between Charles and the Cambs as he complained to the papers that he never saw the Camb kids, but they spent extensive time with the Midds and the Cambs fired back they couldn't always accomodate C's schedule or when K let publicly slip a few times that Will wasn't around all that much when G was born (for his first 8 months! Where in the F was Will??) or when Will missed Charlotte's first Easter because he attended his ex's wedding in Africa (like he skipped his own cousin's wedding in favour of said ex's brother's wedding in Africa and that time K met Liz for the first time and H had to make the introduction (Peter's wedding)).
Many many missteps by K (and W!), this is getting long, wasn't my intention, but I'm just remembering so many things.
Like much of the criticism aimed at the Ssexes is warranted, too, but the way some go about it and spin and take apart every detail is just too much.
Of all the things the Ssexes did (all the missteps, transgressions, idiocy), this article neither scratches the surface nor warrants such a dissection. I'd say the article is the most honest, real and down to earth piece M has done since marrying in.
The article isn't about miscarriages or female issues, it's about loss and I'd imagine she glossed her very personal story a little over. That's fine. It's deeply personal and pieces like this article are meant to move the reader and not be a brutal account of X.
And just to quickly add that rules in publishing differ between print and digital. Print is a lot tougher and stricter. You work with set publishing dates (the paper isn't in print whenever, but every day/week/month at exactly the same time), a set amount of pages and a set amount of words that can fit onto these pages. Digital you can publish whenever and the piece can be however long.
The article was print, therefore alone it was in the works for a bit.
I know, marrying into that family is nuttery.
Pippa has it infinitely better. All the riches and connections, none of the shyttery.
There's a lot of back and forth negotiation between journalists and PR people. A lot of the time when celebs agree to be interviewed it's in exchange for promoting a product or a cause. For example, you'll see Liam Neeson a bit more than usual at the moment, becuase he's been working on the It's A Penalty human trafficking short film that's being shown on all airlines now, so he's doing the interview circuit to promote awareness.
For a newspaper to rearrange their schedule at a celeb demand it would have to be something that was more valuable to them than the piece originally laid out for that page. This might well have qualified, given the coverage it's getting today, but only the NYT and the Duchess will know for sure.
- Status