Duke and Duchess of Sussex, General News 3: February - May 2019

[O-H Anglophile]

I disagree.

I've enjoyed and learned from your previous posts, Countessmeout, and I look forward to doing the same from your future posts.

What do you disagree with?

They may have taken a "babymoon" somewhere fairly recently but I doubt it was last weekend if they were moving into Frogmore. And if I just moved into a new home, the last thing I'd want to do is leave it to stay elsewhere already.

 

[Countessmeout]

I disagree.

I would love to know how you think designers paid tons of money to decorate the home would leave it undone for the couple. Please share

 

[Oona]

Frogmore cottage could have been unready because paints and finishes can take over a month to cure and quit outgassing, and if you're sensitive you can react to what others can't smell. Carpets and underpadding can also outgas for over a month. Sensitive people will also react to that. I know someone who reacts to latex paint for more than a month but isn't bothered by a sink full of Comet with bleach. It doesn't make any sense to me, but it's true.

I don't know if the restrictions to Grade II listed properties only extend to the external appearance of a property, or to the internal as well. It could be that one of the final inspections for anything was delayed unexpectedly, delaying settling in.

And even if furniture isn't new it sometimes has to be at least partially disassembled before moving.

 

[Countessmeout]

Frogmore cottage could have been unready because paints and finishes can take over a month to cure and quit outgassing, and if you're sensitive you can react to what others can't smell. Carpets and underpadding can also outgas for over a month. Sensitive people will also react to that. I know someone who reacts to latex paint for more than a month but isn't bothered by a sink full of Comet with bleach. It doesn't make any sense to me, but it's true.

I don't know if the restrictions to Grade II listed properties only extend to the external appearance of a property, or to the internal as well. It could be that one of the final inspections for anything was delayed unexpectedly, delaying settling in.

And even if furniture isn't new it sometimes has to be at least partially disassembled before moving. You would think that the people involved would have forseen these things, but then you would think that Brexit negotiators would have worked out how financial products companies will pass the data they need to conduct business to and from the UK across an external EU border. But, with the original deadline 5 days behind us, they haven't.

Dumb things happen where you wouldn't think they would.

Yes rennovations take longer, no doubt

If the house wasn't ready, they wouldn't move, plain and simple. Did Nott cottage burn down? Were new renters moving in? Did the queen have the locks changed? No. If they had to wait three days or three weeks to move, they still had a home. There was no need for them to be in a hotel.

What I meant by furniture is they aren't renters. They aren't people who pack up their house and move into a new home. They aren't going to be frantically searching boxes for a coffee mug.

I get the impression you are picturing House hunters, where a couple buys a new house and they accept keys to an empty house. This isn't the case. The house will be not only built, but will be decorated and ready for them. Other then their personal items they have with them in London to bring.

I doubt anything but clothes and some personal items came from London. Nott is going to be their base in London. It will need furnishing.

 

[Oona]

I thought I heard they were going to have an apartment somewhere else in London than NottCott. I assumed that cottage was going to be used by staffers dislocated in the shuffle until other royals move in. In that case I just can't picture Harry telling them to bugger off for a few days. He'd take Meghan to a hotel for the few days necessary and treat her. NottCott is pretty small to have children in, plus your luggage and garment steamers, makeup table, etc., even for a night or two.


I need to get better at emojis. I know this one This is for you. I found it when I couldn't sleep one night. I saw the normal one, but I forgot what it is :dumb:
Edited to add: Guess who has the dumb tonight? Yeah. I do!

Okay. I just read the tweets from the royal reporter who made up the story of the "vacation," and I don't buy it.

Like Meghan, I'm from California. I know what LA's bikini weather is like. My best friend lives in east Wiltshire, less than thirty miles from where Meghan's "vacation" took place. I know what the weather is like there at this time of year. In fact it's been rainy and foggy this last week. For a California girl that's not a vacation. That's a depressing romp through damp, clammy terrain, no matter how fancy the estate is. No matter how expensive the room, the sky looks like a damp, stale dishrag and the fog limps depressingly among dripping trees and muddy cattle. You couldn't pay me to let you haul my heavily pregnant belly over the B roads for that. Better to stay in London and watch the traffic.

I don't believe this story at all. It sounds like something made up by a Brit who doesn't understand California natives.

 

[Oona]

They released a pic of them tagging a bull elephant in Botswana from the summer before the engagement



https://scontent-lht6-1.cdninstagra...n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.cdninstagram.com

Was that trip in January 2017, or the July/August 2017 trip to Botswana and Zambia for her birthday, where he must have given her the diptych, Everybody Needs Somebody To Love?

 

[Osipi]

When it comes to Harry and Meghan and what they do and where they go on their own private time, we're never really going to have the absolute facts unless they deem to share them with us.

Why they went there on a "babymoon" could have a simple explanation such as it has a private in room large sized jacuzzi walk in bathtub where Meghan spent a good amount of time just soaking in those aromatic oils she recently purchased. We just don't know and probably never will know.

 

[Ista]

Agreed. And I'll add that we don't need to know, which is one of the problems when a royal accumulates a dedicated fandom. The lines become very blurred on what is and is not private.

 

[Fijiro]

... or maybe they took this "babymoon" to give the Movers space to move their belongings from Nott Cott to Frogmore Cott.

 

[soapstar]

A number of off-topic comments about politics have been deleted.

If you wish to continue the discussion about Frogmore Cottage, please take it to the Sussex Residences threads.

 

[jacqui24]

The only trips I’m aware of Meghan going to Botswana is in July/August 2017 around her birthday, and summer of 2016 as revealed in their engagement interview.

 

[CTchic]

Harry and Meghan went to Botswana twice. Their first holiday in August 2016 and again July/August 2017 for 3 weeks.The latter was when the elephant trip took place.We were led to believe that it was all luxury but clearly they were doing some work.

 

[ACO]

Well twice that we know of anyways. We keep learning of the trips they took.

 

[Madame Verseau]

Harry and Meghan are breaking records

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...by-brand-sussex-already-breaking-records/amp/

I find it odd Forbes is reporting this given the hit piece it recently did on Meghan but it may be a window as to the negative reporting of Meghan. The Sussexes are blowing up, more than expected for a sixth in line to the throne and his consort, "minor royals" supposedly.

 

[jacqui24]

Harry and Meghan are breaking records

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...by-brand-sussex-already-breaking-records/amp/

I find it odd Forbes is reporting this given the hit piece it recently did on Meghan but it may be a window as to the negative reporting of Meghan. The Sussexes are blowing up, more than expected for a sixth in line to the throne and his consort, "minor royals" supposedly.

I believe they pulled the opinion piece soon after it was published on their web. Although, I don't know how their editorial team to let it publish in the first place give the inaccuracies.

 

[Madame Verseau]

@jacqui24. It sounds like Forbes legal department told the powers that be Forbes could be sued for that story.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

The voice of reason?

"Has the media turned on UK's Prince Harry and wife Meghan?"--from Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ks-prince-harry-and-wife-meghan-idUSKCN1RK0QH

 

[jacqui24]

They think Harry cooled towards them just because of recent coverage? How about try the entire engagement and before. I get that not all coverage is supposed to be positive, but some of the stuff they've written is plain cruel. And really, some of them really lack self awareness if they think it's just online trolls.

 

[Curryong]

I tend to agree with Robert Jobson who's quoted in that article as saying that it's social media that is peddling the really vile and racist stuff rather than the British tabloids, rotten though they often are.

I'm on Twitter a lot and feel very sad and angry about what appears there about Meghan. At least the Press has to worry about being reported or sued. Twitter and Tumblr are like the Wild West by comparison. That's not to excuse the terrible and inaccurate things that have appeared in Press articles, just that I think what's actually driving the hatred for this couple comes from the Internet.

 

[Ista]

The voice of reason?

"Has the media turned on UK's Prince Harry and wife Meghan?"--from Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ks-prince-harry-and-wife-meghan-idUSKCN1RK0QH

I just read this and agree that it seems a fairly balanced account overall. One of the points made in the article that struck me was something I've been noticing, too: a large proportion, if not a majority, of the most negative commentary about Meghan is not actually in the newspapers or print media, it's on IG, Twitter, blogs, comment threads, etc. The coverage I've seen from traditional media sources is very much what every royal gets, but the effect of that is magnified when it's put side by side with the commentary from trolls, hate sites and the like. There's a lot of conflation going on, so any even mildly critical comment is reacted to as though it was a continuation of what's been said by the worst of the worst.

 

[jacqui24]

I just read this and agree that it seems a fairly balanced account overall. One of the points made in the article that struck me was something I've been noticing, too: a large proportion, if not a majority, of the most negative commentary about Meghan is not actually in the newspapers or print media, it's on IG, Twitter, blogs, comment threads, etc. The coverage I've seen from traditional media sources is very much what every royal gets, but the effect of that is magnified when it's put side by side with the commentary from trolls, hate sites and the like. There's a lot of conflation going on, so any even mildly critical comment is reacted to as though it was a continuation of what's been said by the worst of the worst.

I disagree. Especially with the recent front page on DM over her choices of doctors. Or how the piece the Sun just published on the Queen banning Meghan from jewels Diana wore. Or the Tatler piece that was published not so long ago. I could go on, but I think people get the point. It's also not about what the supposed action is, but how it's written as well. Something that would've been positive or neutral for other would be written in a negative way. While outright racism is reserved to online trolls, the mainstream media in UK has had their fair share of double standards. VF had a piece on some of the pile on. Although, I'm not as hopeful as they are about the future and what awaits this baby and Meghan in the press after the birth.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2019/04/meghan-markle-tabloids-racism-sexism?verso=true

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

I disagree. Especially with the recent front page on DM over her choices of doctors. Or how the piece the Sun just published on the Queen banning Meghan from jewels Diana wore. Or the Tatler piece that was published not so long ago. I could go on, but I think people get the point. It's also not about what the supposed action is, but how it's written as well. Something that would've been positive or neutral for other would be written in a negative way. While outright racism is reserved to online trolls, the mainstream media in UK has had their fair share of double standards. VF had a piece on some of the pile on. Although, I'm not as hopeful as they are about the future and what awaits this baby and Meghan in the press after the birth.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2019/04/meghan-markle-tabloids-racism-sexism?verso=true

I agree. The press uses what we call "dog whistle" which riles up the people that already don't like her, and then they take it to social media and it's made 100 times worse there. The press is not blameless, i.e. the breaking tradition with an off the shoulder gown, or the way in which she gives birth. That entire DM article was laughable at best, but it was another way of "othering" Meghan when "others" did the same. So the press gets no pass from me. There is one thing with objective criticism and then there is the ridiculousness that we've been seeing for 3 years now. Some RR are now being called out by their peers and they don't like it. Well to bad.

 

[Ista]

I disagree. Especially with the recent front page on DM over her choices of doctors. Or how the piece the Sun just published on the Queen banning Meghan from jewels Diana wore. Or the Tatler piece that was published not so long ago. I could go on, but I think people get the point. It's also not about what the supposed action is, but how it's written as well. Something that would've been positive or neutral for other would be written in a negative way. While outright racism is reserved to online trolls, the mainstream media in UK has had their fair share of double standards. VF had a piece on some of the pile on. Although, I'm not as hopeful as they are about the future and what awaits this baby and Meghan in the press after the birth.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2019/04/meghan-markle-tabloids-racism-sexism?verso=true

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I'm not claiming that the British press is neutral, or that articles aren't written with a certain amount of veiled innuendo, but it's very much what they have always done with everyone including the Queen, although she has received less of it as she has gotten older. I've been following royals for a very long time, and print media has always specialized in inferences, innuendo, hints, and carefully written articles that push the reader to think something that was never actually stated. It's what they do. IG, Tumblr, Twitter etc just connect the dots for those who wish to do so and magnify the effect.

 

[ACO]

I can't take Robert Jobson seriously when he said Meghan lied about baking banana bread and claimed she had no friends. The same man then said she needed to not have her friends talk to the media. So she has friends or she doesn't? Make up your mind.

I do think the press have dog whistles in a lot of their writing. It is fascinating to read articles from journalist of color vs the very white correspondents who typically cover the royal family. I feel if there were more diversity in that group they would see how some of what they say could be seen as offensive but since they don't see things from that POV they never will understand it.

This also happened watching a debate on a show about Meghan where there was two people of color talking around a table with their white co panelist and who claimed there was little racism tossed at Meghan. The kicker was one of the men actually said something quite offensive "Meghan is exotic" and then was checked by the black male who rightly pointed out this was exactly what he meant. Why is Meghan exotic? Of course the man immediately apologized... but way to prove the point.

Half the time people don't even realize they are doing it. So they get defensive when called out and then the cycle continues. Meghan being a woman of color in a high position was inevitably going to bring this reaction. People are uncomfortable whether they can admit it or not. And you don't have to say the N word to be racist. In fact the other stuff is more dangerous and hurtful.

That said, I agree not all writing is this way. Some of it is just the typical royal story hogwash for clicks with recycled writing they all get. It is just magnified because the way it is presented has drastically changed.

 

[Ista]

That said, I agree not all writing is this way. Some of it is just the typical royal story hogwash for clicks with recycled writing they all get. It is just magnified because the way it is presented has drastically changed.

This is a really good point, and something I'm going to have to remember.

 

[BaiSoSo]

The voice of reason?

"Has the media turned on UK's Prince Harry and wife Meghan?"--from Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ks-prince-harry-and-wife-meghan-idUSKCN1RK0QH

Umm there’s a little reasoning there but also a lot of excuses. It irks me to no end that the media (mostly British media) always seems to get a pass when they instigate much of the negativity in paper AND online. They use words like snub (which is negative) when it really is just a choice. Make claims of how she is breaking tradition by not giving birth at the Lindo wing…when in reality royals before her (Sophie and Fergie) didn’t give birth there either. Even something as simple as eating avocado and there is a write up trying to link Meghan to drought/murder. I have also noticed that when there is a negative article about Meghan the papers (and even KP) leave the comments open and allow for online abuse. The minute there is a negative article about someone they support such as Thomas Markle and the letter or rumors about other KP royals the comments section is locked or posters are blocked. Not to mention the other words they use to ignite negative impressions about Meghan such as vulgar, ghetto and trying to tie her to terrorism.

They (the media) may think it is just an initiation into the royal family but it is much more serious than that…. Harry and Meghan have received death threats over articles that have been written. I would be the first to say if either does something truly wrong then sure media write about it, but this high school mean girls mentality needs to stop.

 

[Lilyflo]

The British tabloids know exactly what they're doing & what the consequences are on social media. Bad news sells, scandal sells, family rifts, drama, pantomime villains & heroes, it's all about generating sales (& these days clickbait). They could write an interesting, factual piece about Meghan & Harry's work but what's that compared to a shock headline about 'breaking protocol' or 'shunning tradition'. They know they can write a 'shock/scandal' article that will be referred to around the world by other news websites & magazines, thereby generating global clicks, which drives their own web hits & therefore their advertising revenue.

In addition to the above, there's a seam of misogyny running through all tabloids (see the latest hit piece on Carole Middleton), which plays against Meghan too because she's successful, independent & articulate but worst of all, she's a woman with an opinion (ask Princess Anne how the press responds to that!).

So yes, the very worst of comments are on social media but most of it is in response to tabloid articles. The only way to counteract it is to refrain from giving the tabloids their clicks (or don't share them) & instead magnify what the BRF publish themselves about what they're doing & also magnify the media that reports events factually without anonymously sourced gossip.

 

[loonytick]

I think the writing about Meghan highlights how awful the behavior of the Royal press has long been. I think there’s a kind of insulting approach to the way they talk about royals, especially female spouses of the royal-born, that shares a lot with dog-whistle racist language, and so it becomes very hard in the case of Meghan to sort out what is business as usual vs. what is full-on prejudice. But in the end, regardless of the motivation, it’s gross. It was gross pointed at Diana and Sarah, it was gross directed towards Kate, and now it takes on extra layers of grossness when the target is Meghan.

 

[Zonk]

At least the Press has to worry about being reported or sued. Twitter and Tumblr are like the Wild West by comparison. T

Truer words were never spoken. I would also add Instagram and the internet in general. Anyone can write a blog, say something on Instagram unchecked and the story just spreads.

It seems like everyday there is a new story about Meghan (cause it drives traffic)....now its the Sussex garden at their new home, the Queen is against Harry and Meghan raising the baby as a vegan, Home birth etc. I can't keep up with the theories on where Meghan is going to have the baby. First the say she won't do Lindo cause Kate did, than they say she will have the baby near the new home, than its Lindo again..it doesn't matter if Kate did it. But wait...she won't use the Queen's doctors..she will pick her own..and now its a home birth so she doesn't have to worry about the hospital. All of this based on what exactly? How do they know this?

In the past they would have said royal sources said they don't even do that anymore. And people take the words as gospel and run with it. And now you have 3K comments!

 

[jacqui24]

Truer words were never spoken. I would also add Instagram and the internet in general. Anyone can write a blog, say something on Instagram unchecked and the story just spreads.

It seems like everyday there is a new story about Meghan (cause it drives traffic)....now its the Sussex garden at their new home, the Queen is against Harry and Meghan raising the baby as a vegan, Home birth etc. I can't keep up with the theories on where Meghan is going to have the baby. First the say she won't do Lindo cause Kate did, than they say she will have the baby near the new home, than its Lindo again..it doesn't matter if Kate did it. But wait...she won't use the Queen's doctors..she will pick her own..and now its a home birth so she doesn't have to worry about the hospital. All of this based on what exactly? How do they know this?

In the past they would have said royal sources said they don't even do that anymore. And people take the words as gospel and run with it. And now you have 3K comments!

Except, everything you just described wasn't from a blog. It is from the papers. And really, what are these "sources" that are telling such different tales of the same event? I'm beginning to doubt if the UK media even has sources with all this contradictions.