Duke and Duchess of Sussex documentaries on ITV

[Curryong]

Oh, for heaven's sake, burn Meghan at the stake! They'll be insinuating next that she is a mixture of a female Chairman Mao, Che Guevera, and Fidel Castro! Plus a touch of Lady Macbeth. And some parts of that editorial are clearly written tongue in cheek! 'Star-spangled dagger aimed at the soft underbelly of the British monarchy'. Oh, pleeeeze!

[Princess Cassandra]

If she is indeed trying to be a political activist she will alienate the Queen; working members of the firm do not get political, because they are symbolic of GB and must not represent one particular group.
Double post auto-merged: November 02, 2019, 10:20:19 PM

Oh, for heaven's sake, burn Meghan at the stake! They'll be insinuating next that she is a mixture of a female Chairman Mao, Che Guevera, and Fidel Castro! Plus a touch of Lady Macbeth. And some parts of that editorial are clearly written tongue in cheek! 'Star-spangled dagger aimed at the soft underbelly of the British monarchy'. Oh, pleeeeze!

FYI, the American media and press are now extremely biased and make no bones about being so. 

[Blue Clover]

Yes, Royals are supposed to remain neutral politically.

[wannable]

Yes! and

Disclaimer, the WSJ is behind a pay per view, as a RIF contributor, I am making sure to give the copyrights credit to the originator.  Likewise to all previous comments as of late, be it the Sussex alleged case or ITV documentary. 
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2019, 12:44:30 AM

The problem IS the 'other half' is basically divided between the Labour, Lib democrat, Brexit, and Green Party.

These are strange times.

[Curryong]

Non participation in the political process is by custom not through any official prohibition, except for the monarch. Various Royal Dukes were members of the House of Lords until the Blair reforms of that House, and in fact voted on measures on several occasions.

Perhaps the POW should have been handed that supposed memo about Royals being completely neutral, as between the 1980s and the last couple of years he was very politically active. Of all members of the Royal Family Charles delved into the political arena both covertly behind the scenes and in certain pronouncements about foreign governments, and their leaders.

And in fact the Queen reportedly made comments about Brexit at a private dinner at which politicians were present on one occasion.

[wannable]

I'll go ahead and say it, the problem is because 67 government workers identified fully with the labour party, a political party, and a majority are factually in danger of losing their PM jobs, the timing, 1 week before standing down 'decided' to support the duchess, when their boss is anti monarchist. Ipsos Mori in the UK is not to shite upon, they and YouGov are the best poll makers.

I really hate this, but inevitably, with or no cause from Meghan herself, it has turned political. I SUPPOSE after the general elections we will get to know, the political side with the Sussex, as well as many other intricacies that have to do with are the BRF worried or not, etc. due to their ITV documentary that really initiated this debacle. I find it quite intriguing. 

[Curryong]

Initiated what debacle? The General Election? Or Palmer pontificating on members of the Royal Household that agree with him that Meghan is such a troublemaker!

Not all those 67 MPs will be 'losing their jobs' and if they do it will be almost certainly because of how the voters in their electorates feel about Corbyn and Brexit and the shenanigans in Parliament regarding it over the past months.

As well as opinions about the Labour Party policies on health, employment, education, law and order, immigration and a dozen other issues. I can almost guarantee that 99.9% of the voters in those electorates hitherto held by the 72 MPs won't be going into the booth on Election Day thinking 'That woman signed the letter of support to Meghan. Right, that's it! I'm voting for another party then!'

And Corbyn being anti monarchist is neither here nor there. There are reputedly hundreds of MPs in the Commons who are republicans. The issue of the monarchy is never debated in British Parliament, however. The female MPs are not bound by Corbyn's views, anyway. Republicanism is barely spoken of in general elections.

And if all 72 of those women are republicans, and I suspect they probably are, as are many people in public life in Britain today, then that makes their support of Meghan and sympathy for her even more remarkable as IMO it was done from sincere motives, especially with regard to the tabloid media.

[wannable]

67/72 is very clear.  As I said I hate that this has turned political; one half according to polls is half the UK/is the conservative party, the other half is 4 factions, the ones I mentioned in previous Ipsos Mori intention of vote; 41 Tories...everything else in the pie between the antis. Its the same going on everywhere.  If you read a article inclining to conservative or labour you will probably feel good for a moment but the neutral polls...

If one doesn't read or check the constituencies of these ladies, and see the YouGov/Ipsos Mori intention of vote. IT does say a story...a desperate one because of the difference (a large one, because their boss decided to be undemocratic against a clear vote of the people, he is also well known to be anti monarchist)  of points. As SG said, another time I'd also agree with them, but now immediately before elections yikes.

Let's wait then until 12th Dec. and see what happens.  BUT historically both poll Co. aren't wrong.

[Princess Cassandra]

Meghan is in her late 30s I think they did not want to wait and he and Meghan said they wanted two children. So I expect that the second one will be born about two years after Archie.

Yes, sometimes the biological clock must be heard. I was happy she conceived so fast. I was hoping she would, as she is really into healthy eating and good exercise. And what a beautiful baby he is. I just wish she had relaxed, as I have posted a few times. I hope she has good luck conceiving again. 
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2019, 03:56:53 AM

Non participation in the political process is by custom not through any official prohibition, except for the monarch. Various Royal Dukes were members of the House of Lords until the Blair reforms of that House, and in fact voted on measures on several occasions.

Perhaps the POW should have been handed that supposed memo about Royals being completely neutral, as between the 1980s and the last couple of years he was very politically active. Of all members of the Royal Family Charles delved into the political arena both covertly behind the scenes and in certain pronouncements about foreign governments, and their leaders.

And in fact the Queen reportedly made comments about Brexit at a private dinner at which politicians were present on one occasion.

I never mentioned a memo, but I am convinced she will alienate the Queen if she sees herself as a political activist.  You are right about Charles, and he received a lot of well-earned criticism for it.

[Curryong]

'I (he) didn't get the memo'! is just a saying here for a person not acting with the majority. And causes Charles espoused, politicised, if you like. thirty years ago, like the environment and alternative farming techniques, have now come very much into the mainstream. So times change, and so do people's views on some things.

And other members of the BRF do go their own way sometimes. For instance the present Duke of Gloucester, Richard, is Patron and President of the Richard III Society, (the White Boars), who advocate on behalf of Richard against the Queen's direct ancestors, the Tudors, calling Henry VII and his  mother probable murderers of the young Princes in the Tower. That could also certainly be regarded as controversial in some quarters!

And receiving a letter of support from a large number of female Labour MPs does not make Meghan a political activist. It would be different if she had trawled Labour ranks, or approached Corbyn or any of these women previously and begged or persuaded the MPs to send her a letter of support. It's clear that it was as much a surprise to her as to the media and everyone else.

As for why the women did it, I will agree to disagree. I don't believe they sent it to make a statement about Press freedoms or any plans to restrict them, nor do I believe it had anything to do with republican ranks in the Labour Party or issues to do with the forthcoming election. It was support for a woman in public life who's suffered a vicious campaign waged by British tabloids for a year, support pure and simple.

[Blue Clover]

These are strange times.

Yes, indeed!  :thumbsup:

[Princess Cassandra]

'I (he) didn't get the memo'! is just a saying here for a person not acting with the majority. And causes Charles espoused, politicised, if you like. thirty years ago, like the environment and alternative farming techniques, have now come very much into the mainstream. So times change, and so do people's views on some things.

And other members of the BRF do go their own way sometimes. For instance the present Duke of Gloucester, Richard, is Patron and President of the Richard III Society, (the White Boars), who advocate on behalf of Richard against the Queen's direct ancestors, the Tudors, calling Henry VII and his  mother probable murderers of the young Princes in the Tower. That could also certainly be regarded as controversial in some quarters!

And receiving a letter of support from a large number of female Labour MPs does not make Meghan a political activist. It would be different if she had trawled Labour ranks, or approached Corbyn or any of these women previously and begged or persuaded the MPs to send her a letter of support. It's clear that it was as much a surprise to her as to the media and everyone else.

As for why the women did it, I will agree to disagree. I don't believe they sent it to make a statement about Press freedoms or any plans to restrict them, nor do I believe it had anything to do with republican ranks in the Labour Party or issues to do with the forthcoming election. It was support for a woman in public life who's suffered a vicious campaign waged by British tabloids for a year, support pure and simple.

Actually, I don't know enough about British politics to have an opinion about the support from female MP's, though I think it must be a very welcome source of support for her. Therefore, I must remain neutral on that issue. I'm just afraid she will turn into a political activist - that, I am sure, will earn her no praise from the Queen and will render her vulnerable to lots more criticism. I'm not sure she understands how much good she can do just by being a working member of the firm, supporting her charities and being a member of the royal family. And surely that does and will afford her many opportunities to do wonderful things that support her convictions, without being political. I'm not even saying she is a political activist now, but just responding to a comment on this thread that many are afraid that is what she aspires to be.

[wannable]

Tom was interviewed today, he doesn't sound well, his words, sounds like he regrets doing the documentary and says he tried to teach Meghan about the monarchy and failed. 

[Curryong]

In the interview Tom states that he talked about Britain and the Royal Family to Meghan years ago, when she wasn't even living in Britain. And why would how Tom feels have anything to do with the Sussexes or the documentary, which sold all over the world btw? It's known that Bradby himself has suffered from depression for years, he may be having a bout of it now, and who knows, he probably also feels bad about how the media and others were unsympathetic to Harry and Meghan's comments in it.

[wannable]

ITV's Tom Bradby reveals he tried to teach Meghan Markle about Britain's close ties with the monarchy when she first met Prince Harry - and admits his friendship with the royals is 'complex'
Tom Bradby, 52, revealed he taught Meghan Markle importance of the monarchy
ITN News At Ten host is journalist behind documentary on their tour of Africa
He was speaking out on the BBC 4 podcast 'Fortunately...with Fi and Jane

ITV's Tom Bradby tried to explain to Meghan Markle Britain's close relationship with the monarchy | Daily Mail Online

He seems to have been ghosted by the Royal Family.

'Sometimes you try and explain to people not from this country our relationship with the monarchy ? I remember trying to explain it to Meghan a long time ago,' he said.
'It was one of the first times I met her. I remember thinking, "good luck with that one."'

He failed

Tom also added he wouldn't make a documentary like 'Harry and Meghan: An African Journey'
'I needed to go and have a long lie down after it because the psychological complexities is a bit tricky.'

He's regretting it

[sandy]

I don't get the assumption that he's ghosted. If he makes negative remarks about royals or any of them, he should not be surprised if he's not asked to do more projects.
Double post auto-merged: December 11, 2019, 02:40:50 PM

Tom was interviewed today, he doesn't sound well, his words, sounds like he regrets doing the documentary and says he tried to teach Meghan about the monarchy and failed. 

How exactly is tom in any position to educate anybody about the monarchy. He's not in the monarchy or part of it. So it seems rather odd that he's say something like that IMO.

[amabel]

Why does he wish he hadn't made the programme? Because it went down so badly?

[sandy]

With the latest scandal, it is probably a mere footnote now. IMO

[amabel]

With the latest scandal, it is probably a mere footnote now. IMO

Andy's story is now gone  a bit quiet..