Is it okay to put family first? (Response to royal family stuff)

[design_mom]

Question for people who have followed this more than I have. (I don't generally follow UK media, nor US celebrity media (like people or entertainment weekly). I generally only hear about the royal family if they make the national mainstream news.

Today though, I saw a story on social media about how differently Kate and Meghan had been treated "by the institution" so I clicked on it. When M&H were talking about "the institution" I assumed they were talking about the business side of the royal family -- the press office, the Queen (vs Grandma), the Prince of Wales (vs Dad.) -- but the examples given were all about how the newspaper headlines painted Kate vs. Meghan in similar instances.

Examples from the story:
-- Kate was gifted with avocados in an attempt to help her manage her morning sicknesses, but Meghan's avocados are contributing to ruining the environment.
-- Kate's "modest wedding bouquet of fresh seasonal flowers" included lily of the valley but Meghan's decision to use them in her flower girl's headpieces could have put Princess Charlotte in mortal danger. (Because Lily of the Valley is poisonous if eaten.)
-- Kate's wedge sandals "proved them to be the 'it shoe' of the season" while Meghan's wedges "flouted decades of royal tradition."
-- Kate had a "down to earth style" when photographed in a sweater and jeans but Meghan "wasn't looking very royal" when she wore jeans.

Questions:
1) When M&H complained that the institution favors Kate and doesn't support Meghan, were they talking about the newspapers or the royal family?
2) Are these the sort of "racist headlines" that M&H were talking about or were there more overt ones?
3) The headlines definitely favor Kate and aren't very complimentary to Meghan. I would not appreciate being written about like that either. However, didn't Sarah Ferguson get similar press? Again, I have never been a close watcher but it seemed like there was a good princess/bad princess back then, too: Sarah was a fat, money-hungry, slob, while Diana was "the people's princess" with impeccable style and grace. I'm certainly not in a position to state that racism couldn't be part of why Meghan is treated poorly, but at least as far as press coverage goes, I feel like I've heard this story before... except this episode is elegant, demure, doting mother Kate vs. self-centered, social-climbing Meghan.

 

[Karin1984]

Question for people who have followed this more than I have. (I don't generally follow UK media, nor US celebrity media (like people or entertainment weekly). I generally only hear about the royal family if they make the national mainstream news.

Today though, I saw a story on social media about how differently Kate and Meghan had been treated "by the institution" so I clicked on it. When M&H were talking about "the institution" I assumed they were talking about the business side of the royal family -- the press office, the Queen (vs Grandma), the Prince of Wales (vs Dad.) -- but the examples given were all about how the newspaper headlines painted Kate vs. Meghan in similar instances.

Examples from the story:
-- Kate was gifted with avocados in an attempt to help her manage her morning sicknesses, but Meghan's avocados are contributing to ruining the environment.
-- Kate's "modest wedding bouquet of fresh seasonal flowers" included lily of the valley but Meghan's decision to use them in her flower girl's headpieces could have put Princess Charlotte in mortal danger. (Because Lily of the Valley is poisonous if eaten.)
-- Kate's wedge sandals "proved them to be the 'it shoe' of the season" while Meghan's wedges "flouted decades of royal tradition."
-- Kate had a "down to earth style" when photographed in a sweater and jeans but Meghan "wasn't looking very royal" when she wore jeans.

Questions:
1) When M&H complained that the institution favors Kate and doesn't support Meghan, were they talking about the newspapers or the royal family?
2) Are these the sort of "racist headlines" that M&H were talking about or were there more overt ones?
3) The headlines definitely favor Kate and aren't very complimentary to Meghan. I would not appreciate being written about like that either. However, didn't Sarah Ferguson get similar press? Again, I have never been a close watcher but it seemed like there was a good princess/bad princess back then, too: Sarah was a fat, money-hungry, slob, while Diana was "the people's princess" with impeccable style and grace. I'm certainly not in a position to state that racism couldn't be part of why Meghan is treated poorly, but at least as far as press coverage goes, I feel like I've heard this story before... except this episode is elegant, demure, doting mother Kate vs. self-centered, social-climbing Meghan.

1. Both. Meghan's actions made the press like Kate more.. Probably because Kate was around for longer and knew better how to play the game and understood the culture better.
And the royal family / institution will favour Kate over Meghan because she is higher up in the hierarchy. If it is indeed true that the institution didn't want to defend Meghan in the tights-issue, because you do not want to make your future queen look bad and involved in gossip.
2. I cannot give examples for this one, but if there is racism in newspaper articles, this is more subtle. The racist headlines were foreign press interpreting British press.
3. Basically all women marrying into royalty had their share of bad press, Diana, Sarah, Kate, Camilla all had a very hard time. But also the others.
From page 68 in this thread:

• Duchess Catherine (Kate): Waity Katie. Social climber. Lazy. Airhead.
• Duchess of York (Sarah Ferguson): Duchess of Pork. Fat Fergie. Vulgar. Common. Greedy. Promiscuous. "Behead her."
• Princess of Wales (Diana): Dumb. Mentally ill. Manipulative. Ruining the monarchy. Promiscuous. Media published intimate & compromising "Squidgygate" telephone call. Stalked by the media 24/7 until the day she died while fleeing the paparazzi.
• Prince Charles: Cold. Unfaithful. Ruined Diana's life for selfish reasons. Media published intimate and embarrassing "Camillagate" telephone call.
• Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla): The other woman. Homewrecker. Ugly. Selfish.
• Prince Philip: Aloof. Promiscuous & unfaithful. Rude.
• Queen Elizabeth: Cold. Uncaring. Out of touch. Bad mother.

 

[snappy]

I am no expert but I think the answer to your first question might be that M&H’s complaints are that the palace didn’t protect M from the negative and even vicious stories. I believe I have read that the palace went to the mat on several stories and even prevailed on one. However, even though I have not read many of negative articles in the British press on M, agree with you that there were many of them. Maybe H&M wanted them to protect them “more”?

No answer to your second question as I have not read many of the stories with “rascist headlines).

On your third question, Kate was apparently also subjected to a great deal negative press for years. Kate seemed to go up up up in popularity with the public after the births of her children, and the roles she has taken on behalf of the crown. Maybe the press bowed to public opinion and changed their tune on Kate. I think it is not surprising that M would be subjected to negative press too as Kate did and as you pointed out that Sarah Ferguson did. M has the added issue that she is being directly compared in photos with Kate.

And then there is the problem as Pea-n-me alluded to, that in this era, all of the stories and comparisons are so available on web versions of tabloids. I am sure it hurts to have everything about you dissected daily. I think its part of being on the public stage, but that doesn’t make it easy to swallow.

 

[Disneylover99]

3) The headlines definitely favor Kate and aren't very complimentary to Meghan. I would not appreciate being written about like that either. However, didn't Sarah Ferguson get similar press? Again, I have never been a close watcher but it seemed like there was a good princess/bad princess back then, too: Sarah was a fat, money-hungry, slob, while Diana was "the people's princess" with impeccable style and grace. I'm certainly not in a position to state that racism couldn't be part of why Meghan is treated poorly, but at least as far as press coverage goes, I feel like I've heard this story before... except this episode is elegant, demure, doting mother Kate vs. self-centered, social-climbing Meghan.

There is always some kind of rivalries pitted between 2 people.

Di vs. Fergie
William (the rule follower) vs. Harry (the wild child)
And now Kate vs. Meghan

But social media is at a whole new level these days for Kate and Meghan compared to the past.

 

[TippyThomas]

Deep grudges are deep.

 

[Cheburashka]

Questions:
1) When M&H complained that the institution favors Kate and doesn't support Meghan, were they talking about the newspapers or the royal family?
2) Are these the sort of "racist headlines" that M&H were talking about or were there more overt ones?
3) The headlines definitely favor Kate and aren't very complimentary to Meghan. I would not appreciate being written about like that either. However, didn't Sarah Ferguson get similar press? Again, I have never been a close watcher but it seemed like there was a good princess/bad princess back then, too: Sarah was a fat, money-hungry, slob, while Diana was "the people's princess" with impeccable style and grace. I'm certainly not in a position to state that racism couldn't be part of why Meghan is treated poorly, but at least as far as press coverage goes, I feel like I've heard this story before... except this episode is elegant, demure, doting mother Kate vs. self-centered, social-climbing Meghan.

1. They were talking about newspapers. When Markle kept talking about "protection" and "support" in the interview, she was mostly referring to protection and support from negative headlines. She is very sensitive to negative press, as evidenced by her lawsuits & formal complaints against those in the press who are critical of her.

2. The only headline from a British paper that imo can be construed as racist was "Straight Outta Compton" when she & Harry were dating. That was insensitive and bordering on racist imo. That was before Harry sent the message to the press asking them to back off while they were dating (which they did, btw). There has been no other race-tinged coverage in the mainstream British press, however. Many of the headlines that Oprah showed during the interview were actually from American & Australian tabloids, NOT British tabloids (which are more respectable than American tabloids- the British tabloids are kind of like People magazine in terms of editorial quality- nothing like National Enquirer). One British headline in her montage was clipped from "'Meghan's seed will taint our Royal Family': UKIP chief's glamour model lover, 25, is suspended from the party over racist texts" to "Meghan's seed will taint our Royal Family". You see the difference? The newspaper had been reporting on the comment of the racist girlfriend of a politician & the political party's response of suspending that member, and Oprah shortened the headline to appear as if the newspaper was stating that racist text as a headline. There was a talk radio personality who posted a social media picture of their baby as a chimp, and he, too, got cancelled over that. That was widely condemned and was never presented by the mainstream media. So just like in the U.S., the U.K. has individual racist jerks, but that wasn't the mainstream media or general public being racist against her.

3. The comparisons between her & Kate's press were taken out of context. Kate got plenty of harsh press during the long period when she was William's girlfriend (if you watch W & K's engagement interview, you'll notice that the interviewer even mentions it). She was nicknamed "Waity Katy" and criticized for not having a real career and basically just waiting for William to propose, and the press also criticized her as being a social climber, because she was middle class & dating a royal. In addition, if you go back a few decades and look at Diana & Fergie's press, you'll see some really horrific headlines. Upon H & M's engagement, Meghan got ecstatic press coverage. The coverage only began to tilt slightly negative after the kerfuffle with her father right before the wedding, and then later on it became much more critical once the couple began lecturing the British public on how to behave, while not following their own advice (ex: telling people to reduce their carbon footprint, while H & M used private jets multiple times in a week.)


The bottom line with their differing press coverage in the last few years is that they have behaved differently, so they've received different coverage. Kate is very careful about how she dresses and acts, and typically strives to follow royal protocol. Her focus is on supporting her husband, family and the monarchy. She has also maintained close, positive relationships with her family of origin and pre-royal friends. Meghan disregarded a lot of royal protocol during her short stint in the royal family, and it hurt her image: that protocol is actually there to protect the individual royals as much as it is to further the aims of the monarchy. She has cut off most of her family of origin, and many of her pre-royal friends, while inviting celebrities who she had only met once or twice to sit front and center at her wedding. Her focus is on self-fulfillment and making social change, and that isn't how the British public or press expect their royals to act. Hence, critical media coverage.

The British tabloid press is pretty straight up, and is going to call it like they see it. They aren't going to say, one positive story for Kate, so now we have to do a positive story for Meghan. They base their stories on how the royals actually behave.

 

[snappy]

There is that word, again, kerfuffle. Thanks for including it, for some reason I really love that word.

 

[snappy]

1. They were talking about newspapers. When Markle kept talking about "protection" and "support" in the interview, she was mostly referring to protection and support from negative headlines. She is very sensitive to negative press, as evidenced by her lawsuits & formal complaints against those in the press who are critical of her.

2. The only headline from a British paper that imo can be construed as racist was "Straight Outta Compton" when she & Harry were dating. That was insensitive and bordering on racist imo. That was before Harry sent the message to the press asking them to back off while they were dating. There has been no other race-tinged coverage in the mainstream British press, however. Many of the headlines that Oprah showed during the interview were actually from American & Australian tabloids, NOT British tabloids (which are more respectable than American tabloids- the British tabloids are kind of like People magazine in terms of editorial quality- nothing like National Enquirer). One British headline in her montage was clipped from "'Meghan's seed will taint our Royal Family': UKIP chief's glamour model lover, 25, is suspended from the party over racist texts" to "Meghan's seed will taint our Royal Family". You see the difference? The newspaper had been reporting on a racist politician's comment & the response, and Oprah shortened it to appear as if the newspaper was stating that racist text as a headline. There was a talk radio personality who posted a social media picture of their baby as a chimp, and he, too, got cancelled over that. That was widely condemned and was never presented by the mainstream media. So just like in the U.S., the U.K. has individual racist jerks, but that wasn't the mainstream media or general public being racist against her.

3. The comparisons between her & Kate's press were taken out of context. Kate got plenty of harsh press during the long period when she was William's girlfriend (if you watch W & K's engagement interview, you'll notice that the interviewer even mentions it). She was nicknamed "Waity Katy" and criticized for not having a real career and basically just waiting for William to propose, and the press also criticized her as being a social climber, because she was middle class & dating a royal. In addition, if you go back a few decades and look at Diana & Fergie's press, you'll see some really horrific headlines. Aside from that, upon their engagement, Meghan got ecstatic press coverage. The coverage only began to tilt slightly negative after the kerfuffle with her father right before the wedding, and then later on it became much more critical once the couple began lecturing the British public on how to behave, while not following their own advice (ex: telling people to reduce their carbon footprint, while H & M used private jets multiple times in a week.)


The bottom line with their differing press coverage in the last few years is that they have behaved differently, so they've received different coverage. Kate is very careful about how she dresses and acts, and typically strives to follow royal protocol. Her focus is on supporting her husband, family and the monarchy. Meghan disregarded a lot of royal protocol during her short stint in the royal family, and it hurt her image: that protocol is actually there to protect the individual royals as much as it is to further the aims of the monarchy. Her focus is on self-fulfillment and making social change, and that isn't how the British public or press expect their royals to act. Hence, bad media coverage.

The British tabloid press is pretty straight up, and is going to call it like they see it. They aren't going to say, one positive story for Kate, so now we have to do a positive story for Meghan. They base their stories on how the royals actually behave.

I read somewhere that some of the headlines that Oprah displayed during the interviews had been modified. I don’t have a way to verify that myself. If they were, did Oprah think nobody would notice?

 

[Cheburashka]

I read somewhere that some of the headlines that Oprah displayed during the interviews had been modified. I don’t have a way to verify that myself. If they were, did Oprah think nobody would notice?

Yes, of course Oprah knew that most viewers wouldn't notice that they modified the headlines & also showed headlines from non-British sources. This interview was aimed at the U.S. audience, most of whom wouldn't know the difference. See below:
How Oprah used doctored and out-of-context headlines to smear the British press

ITV Forced to Edit Interview Due to Misleading Headlines

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Isnt it most obvious that lucrative headlines “sell papers”, or get clicks, which make $$$? Ethics in many ways has seemed to take a nosedive with the press in recent years. (Decades.)

 

[TLSnell1981]

I read somewhere that some of the headlines that Oprah displayed during the interviews had been modified. I don’t have a way to verify that myself. If they were, did Oprah think nobody would notice?

they don't care. Plant the seed and revise on page 437.

I wonder if she really gets how dirty politics can get. Everything and anything is game for politicians to bring up and air to beat an opponent. Hope she's ready for that kind of scrutiny. Also what does she think she can bring to the people she represents?

She would get favorable press and softball questions like..."or my gosh we love your nail polish and will you bring us coffee next time?"

 

[snappy]

they don't care. Plant the seed and revise on page 437.

She would get favorable press and softball questions like..."or my gosh we love your nail polish and will you bring us coffee next time?"

Or can you share your recipe for organic pancakes?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Many pages back I posted a “statement” from Harry about “responsible media” published in 2019. He wrote about how the press manipulates wording and other things.

Its part of the big irony here since H&M have been doing this very thing themselves now for quite a while.

Maybe this is what Harry means here when he says they “haven’t been willing to play the game” and “There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour”. I think that’s probably exactly what they’re doing now, in the same manner they criticized others for before. In his perception, it’s a game. Obviously he was talking about a lawsuit in 2019, but I think they upped their game using the Queen of Talk (who’s going to argue with her billionaire self?), and hitting on the most contentious issues of today they knew would bring the RF to their knees and cause the most division.

There is no end here.

Their stunt has caused widespread international, family, and other *******.


Statement by His Royal Highness
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
01 OCTOBER 2019

As a couple, we believe in media freedom and objective, truthful reporting. We regard it as a cornerstone of democracy and in the current state of the world – on every level – we have never needed responsible media more.

Unfortunately, my wife has become one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences – a ruthless campaign that has escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son.

There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been. Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.

Up to now, we have been unable to correct the continual misrepresentations - something that these select media outlets have been aware of and have therefore exploited on a daily and sometimes hourly basis.

It is for this reason we are taking legal action, a process that has been many months in the making. The positive coverage of the past week from these same publications exposes the double standards of this specific press pack that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave. She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.

For these select media this is a game, and one that we have been unwilling to play from the start. I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.

This particular legal action hinges on one incident in a long and disturbing pattern of behaviour by British tabloid media. The contents of a private letter were published unlawfully in an intentionally destructive manner to manipulate you, the reader, and further the divisive agenda of the media group in question. In addition to their unlawful publication of this private document, they purposely misled you by strategically omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences, and even singular words to mask the lies they had perpetuated for over a year.

There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.

Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.

We thank you, the public, for your continued support. It is hugely appreciated. Although it may not seem like it, we really need it.

 

[snappy]

Many pages back I posted a “statement” from Harry about “responsible media” published in 2019. He wrote about how the press manipulates wording and other things.

Its part of the big irony here since H&M have been doing this very thing themselves now for quite a while.

Maybe this is what Harry means here when he says they “haven’t been willing to play the game” and “There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour”. I think that’s probably exactly what they’re doing now, in the same manner they criticized others for before. In his perception, it’s a game. Obviously he was talking about a lawsuit in 2019, but I think they upped their game using the Queen of Talk (who’s going to argue with her billionaire self?), and hitting on the most contentious issues of today they knew would bring the RF to their knees and cause the most division.

There is no end here.

Their stunt has caused widespread international, family, and other *******.


Statement by His Royal Highness
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
01 OCTOBER 2019

As a couple, we believe in media freedom and objective, truthful reporting. We regard it as a cornerstone of democracy and in the current state of the world – on every level – we have never needed responsible media more.

Unfortunately, my wife has become one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences – a ruthless campaign that has escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son.

There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been. Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.

Up to now, we have been unable to correct the continual misrepresentations - something that these select media outlets have been aware of and have therefore exploited on a daily and sometimes hourly basis.

It is for this reason we are taking legal action, a process that has been many months in the making. The positive coverage of the past week from these same publications exposes the double standards of this specific press pack that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave. She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.

For these select media this is a game, and one that we have been unwilling to play from the start. I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.

This particular legal action hinges on one incident in a long and disturbing pattern of behaviour by British tabloid media. The contents of a private letter were published unlawfully in an intentionally destructive manner to manipulate you, the reader, and further the divisive agenda of the media group in question. In addition to their unlawful publication of this private document, they purposely misled you by strategically omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences, and even singular words to mask the lies they had perpetuated for over a year.

There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.

Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.

We thank you, the public, for your continued support. It is hugely appreciated. Although it may not seem like it, we really need it.

see the underlined part above from Prince Harry:

As a couple, we believe in media freedom and objective, truthful reporting.

In my view, at this point “as a couple”, they believe in media freedom for them, not others. Objective, truthful reporting constraints don’t need to apply to them.

 

[snappy]

Rescuing chickens is one of THE most serious issues of our time, lol.

 

[Karin1984]

I hope Meghan watches not just the Little Mermaid on Disney Plus. Julie Andrews had wise words to say in Princess Diaries.

 

[snappy]

I like the clothes, castles, country sports, etc., but even more I appreciate the traditional values that they try to live by: duty, courtesy, discretion, tolerance, noblesse oblige, and public service.

the photo with Julie Andrews above reminded me that I also love the tiaras. They really “make” the glamour thing work,

 

[mamamia2005]

the photo with Julie Andrews above reminded me that I also love the tiaras. They really “make” the glamour thing work,

Yes, but are you fussy about which one you get to wear lol

 

[Suger Mag]

Speaking of tiaras... I love tiaras. For those curious.... This is a nice article showcasing the various tiaras associated with the BRF

https://www.marieclaire.com.au/british-royal-tiaras

 

[mamamia2005]

There must be a real knack to keeping those tiara's straight on your head! Don't think I could manage it!