Stepping down

[swill453]

But you must have some facts that you can objectively prove are untrue, right? Which facts are those?

No. As I read the articles the racist tone is obvious to me. If any of the alleged facts are true or untrue that's beyond my pay grade.

Scott.

[Leothebear]

Are we now in a court of law?

[nimnarb]

.

I sincerely hope the couple find some respite further down their chosen path. Nobody deserves this.

It's Harry's own fault and as pipsmum has said he must have known what the likely outcome would be to his rudeness and lack of respect for the rest of the Royal family.

There are ways of doing these things and Harry's way is not the sensible or dignified one.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Obviously we don't know what goes on behind closed doors, but I see lots of people taking offence on behalf of the Queen and the royal family, and nothing from them themselves.

It's just possible H+M are doing pretty much what the "establishment" had planned for them anyway, but felt the process needed a bit of a kickstart to get going.

Scott.

There might be something in what you say here Scot. Check this article out which appears to have been written in April last year. There is likely far more going on that we really don't know all the facts.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/p ... rseas-feud

[Dod101]

It is very likely that there is more going on behind the scenes than we know about but that does not excuse Harry for behaving the way he has. The public can only judge on what they know and clearly he does not/did not care what they thought. There were much better ways of handling the situation. End of.

Dod

[swill453]

The public can only judge on what they know

Of course.

and clearly he does not/did not care what they thought.

You "know" this for a fact?

Scott.

[Arborbridge]

OK. You assert these are racist. The Mail doubtless stands by its reporting of the facts. Without an adjudication how do we know which is true?

You asked for some exmaples, and some were given. Now your asking only for examples which have been proved in a court of law. I call that moving the goal posts - and actually whole unreasonable.
If we see, read or hear examples of unpleasant innuendos or racism (actually, didn't I write at various times "pseudo" and "semi" racism) one knows what name to put on it - one does not usually resort to law to prove it.
Newspapers are very good at staying just the right side of the line, so for me or anyone else to pull up an example which you would accept as racist is, from a year or two of drip-drip innuendo is asking too much.

If you haven't seen examples of innuendo and semi-racism yourself, then you haven't been paying attention, or have rose tinted glasses. It's your failure, your loss, not mine and you are probably distinctly in the minority.

At any rate, the Sussexes certain belive they have actionable complaints, so these stand as proxy for "examples" strong enough to bring to court. That's is easily good enough to stand in a discussion on a message board, in my view, though clearly not in yours. Am I bothered? No, neither is Swill, I suspect.

[kiloran]

OK. You assert these are racist. The Mail doubtless stands by its reporting of the facts. Without an adjudication how do we know which is true?

Are you serious? It's The Mail. therefore a load of £$%^&
Don't need a court of law to determine that

--kiloran (only slightly tongue-in-cheek)

[Arborbridge]

It is very likely that there is more going on behind the scenes than we know about but that does not excuse Harry for behaving the way he has. The public can only judge on what they know and clearly he does not/did not care what they thought. There were much better ways of handling the situation. End of.

Dod

I would say that Harry cares very much what the public think. He's always been popular, and I would bet that he is mortified about the way the press have portrayed his wife, thus damaging his image.
This seems a badly thought out move as regards PR, I'll grant you that, but because we don't know how we arrived at this position, we simply cannot say whether Harry is to "blame" as you put it.

I would say that what went on in the background caused him to come to this conclusion and act as he has- so his action is the result of events he couldn't necessarily control. I do not believe we can conclude he is "to blame". We simply don't know enough, and everything we do "know" has a spin put on it.

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

OK. You assert these are racist. The Mail doubtless stands by its reporting of the facts. Without an adjudication how do we know which is true?

Are you serious? It's The Mail. therefore a load of £$%^&
Don't need a court of law to determine that

--kiloran (only slightly tongue-in-cheek)

The DM is the sort of hateful paper which I am constantly surprised anyone would want to read. What does it tell us about the readership, if they like hoovering up this bellicose nonsense? It's the sort of paper one might glance at at the barbers, and shudder at its opinions. Fed this daily drip of hate, people have to become slightly reduced as human beings.

Unfortunately, much of the press is on the same spectrum of misinformation and muck raking - just slightly different places along it.

Arb.

[JoyofBricks8]

But you must have some facts that you can objectively prove are untrue, right? Which facts are those?

No. As I read the articles the racist tone is obvious to me. If any of the alleged facts are true or untrue that's beyond my pay grade.

Scott.

So you are not (yet) in a position to prove or disprove the facts as presented, but you find the article objectionable on grounds of its alleged "racist tone".

Are you saying those responsible for the tone, the author and publisher.... are you alleging they are behaving as racists?

[XFool]

The trolling of Meghan

https://news.sky.com/story/trolling-of-meghan-how-duchess-is-abused-over-race-and-pregnancy-11696606

[AsleepInYorkshire]

AiYn'U

I agree with what you say but he still behaved very badly towards his relatives and to HM herself. No amount of depression if that is what it is should excuse that.

I do not blame him or his wife if they want to go off and do there own thing in Canada or anywhere else for that matte. That is not my point. It is the matter of their leave taking that I think was totally wrong, and he must have been told this before they went public.

Dod

Hi Dod,
Yes I completely concur. Prima fascia, Harry, with the support of his wife Meghan, has probably not "stepped down" in an acceptable way. And indeed I would imagine his Grandmother the Queen will be hurt. However, my point, which I completely accept was probably a little to ambiguous, is that clinical depression can have an impact on the sufferers judgement. As many are aware I've first hand knowledge of this and I would very humbly suggest depression "could" explain his behaviour. I hasten to add I have no idea if he has depression. He could just, like many of us, have made a judgement call, which, at some point in the future he may not look back on with pride. In all of this we are all no more than human.

My original post involved some speculation and wasn't a criticism of anyone else's opinion or point or view. My apologies if my words weren't chosen with more care and accuracy.

The intense scrutiny with which our press hound any member of the Royal Family is, in my humble opinion, nothing short of cruel. The Royal Family is "just that". A family. All families have issues. Not all families have their every breath analysed by the British gutter press.

I'd like to think that Harry's Grandmother will bring her wisdom to the situation, rising above any hurt she may feel and perhaps find a way for Harry & Meghan to move forward constructively. There have been occasions in the past when our Queen has had to work through family issues, whilst maintaining the dignity and composure that "we" expect of her position. Whilst Harry may be a "minor" Royal he is still part of a family.

AiYn'U

[JoyofBricks8]

Are you serious? It's The Mail. therefore a load of £$%^&
Don't need a court of law to determine that

--kiloran (only slightly tongue-in-cheek)

Well thats the exactly kind of attitude that we deplore in our criminal investigators: Dismissal of a story just because it is from a particular group. One really can't complain about one kind of prejudice and then display a different prejudice as if it were an argument or evidence...

I dare say the majority of the journalists in the newspapers are doing the best they can under their circumstances, just like the rest of us. It is possible that the Sussexes are doing as well as they can too, and still failing to meet the expectations the public had. The difference is I can quit paying for the Daily Mail should it disappoint. It remains to be seen if the same is true for Sussex royals.

[JoyofBricks8]

OK. You assert these are racist. The Mail doubtless stands by its reporting of the facts. Without an adjudication how do we know which is true?

You asked for some exmaples, and some were given. Now your asking only for examples which have been proved in a court of law. I call that moving the goal posts - and actually whole unreasonable.
If we see, read or hear examples of unpleasant innuendos or racism (actually, didn't I write at various times "pseudo" and "semi" racism) one knows what name to put on it - one does not usually resort to law to prove it.
Newspapers are very good at staying just the right side of the line, so for me or anyone else to pull up an example which you would accept as racist is, from a year or two of drip-drip innuendo is asking too much.

If you haven't seen examples of innuendo and semi-racism yourself, then you haven't been paying attention, or have rose tinted glasses. It's your failure, your loss, not mine and you are probably distinctly in the minority.

At any rate, the Sussexes certain belive they have actionable complaints, so these stand as proxy for "examples" strong enough to bring to court. That's is easily good enough to stand in a discussion on a message board, in my view, though clearly not in yours. Am I bothered? No, neither is Swill, I suspect.

Well, claims require some evidence or proof if they are to be more than assertions. You talk of unpleasant innuendo about the Sussexes, but what about the unpleasant innuendo about journalists? Here we have a large newspaper traduced as "hateful" and two of its authors accused on these very boards of producing articles with a "racist tone".

I am definitely in the camp that suggests circumspection when making such serious accusations: I am asking for some proof that these claims have merit. Do you disagree?

And you say

for me or anyone else to pull up an example which you would accept as racist is, from a year or two of drip-drip innuendo is asking too much.

"

It really isnt too much to ask for an example, as you are calling people racists, and you know it.

[swill453]

So you are not (yet) in a position to prove or disprove the facts as presented, but you find the article objectionable on grounds of its alleged "racist tone".

Are you saying those responsible for the tone, the author and publisher.... are you alleging they are behaving as racists?

Yes, absolutely.

The alleged facts could be entirely true or false, makes no difference to my conclusion.

Scott.

[GoSeigen]

I see lots of people taking offence on behalf of the Queen and the royal family, and nothing from them themselves.

[My bold]

Like who? Please name names. This is such a lame way to dismiss peoples' opinion.

GS

[Leothebear]

Facts:

Popular rags - Mail, Sun, Express are full of anti Meghan nonsense.

There are serious racism issues in social media and elsewhere - the press are careful to avoid obvious racism but are always on the lookout to criticise Meghan.

Probabilities:
Meghan hasn't been fully accepted by the Royal family.
She hasn't been accepted by the royal household staff.

An additional fact is that H was pissed off with W when he told him to think twice about Meghan.

Why should she suffer the same miseries that Harry's mother did?

I'd not let the woman I loved suffer this BS. Nor should he. And he hasn't - good for him.

All this waffle about proving racism is a side show.

[simsqu]

Frankly I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

If I was Emperor, I would keep the Queen and her immediate Heir for the tourist trade, and sell off the rest of the bunch for medical experiments

[swill453]

I see lots of people taking offence on behalf of the Queen and the royal family, and nothing from them themselves.

[My bold]

Like who? Please name names. This is such a lame way to dismiss peoples' opinion.

You don't have to look very hard. From this thread where brightncheerful claims the Queen is upset about the way the D&D have gone about announcing their decision, to tweets from Piers Morgan saying Meghan has insulted the Queen https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/ ... 9234810880

All without any verification from the horse's mouth.

Scott.

[GoSeigen]

I see lots of people taking offence on behalf of the Queen and the royal family, and nothing from them themselves.

[My bold]

Like who? Please name names. This is such a lame way to dismiss peoples' opinion.

You don't have to look very hard. From this thread where brightncheerful claims the Queen is upset about the way the D&D have gone about announcing their decision, to tweets from Piers Morgan saying Meghan has insulted the Queen https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/ ... 9234810880

All without any verification from the horse's mouth.

Scott.

Okay so you're only questioning people's right to claim something is the case: you are rowing back from the silly idea that those people are "taking offence on behalf" of someone else? Would be interested to hear directly from the accused BnC ...


If you really want to know what the queen and other royals think why don't you write to them or otherwise enter their confidence? In the meantime, I'd say we have to make do with other people's opinions about them.

GS