The Royal Soap Opera (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

With the Royals being back in the news, Who do you 'support' in this soap opera..

  • I back the Royals in this one...

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • I back Harry and Meghan in this one...

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • Both share blame in this fiasco...

    Votes: 5 45.5%

  • Total voters
    11

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
1,013
Age
46
Location
Mobile
Online
I have never done a poll, so here we go

I made only 2 responses. If you want a response of 'I don't care' then don't vote, that will show it.

Just a basic question, who do you support in this soap opera? Do you think the Royal family and new media are the transgressors or do you think Harry and Meghan are on the spoiled side?

I know there are other thoughts and options, but for poll, lets just stick to these too because I have my thoughts on how this will turn out.
 
Last edited:

RobF

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
466
Reaction score
1,548
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
You can support both if you recognise that one of the major problems exposed here is the British press.

Not that I do support both. God save the Queen, we mean it, man...
 

Saint by the Bay

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2019
Messages
966
Reaction score
3,319
Age
48
Location
Houston, TX
Offline
My vote is obvious since I asked for the option. :)

I think you have a family that has a centuries long tradition of exclusion. Not just based on race. I mean, these people were so opposed to outsiders they only married within the family until the last hundred years or so. You saw some of it with Diana as well.

On the other hand, you had someone who knew exactly what they were marrying into, and it seems like she came in looking for a fight. There is this confrontational aura I picked up in her and Harry. It's like they knew there was going to be an issue and had predetermined how it was going to go.

As someone who has a father-in-law that has nothing to do with us because I'm black and that is unforgivable to him, I get it. I've held my wife while she cried herself to sleep over her Dad more times than I can count. My gut impulse is to side with Harry and Meghan, and I certainly relate to them more. However, when I see clips of the interview they just rub me wrong. They seem a little too smug about it all, like they are itching to scream "I told you so". So I think the royal family may have created the problem, but Harry and Meghan likely didn't do anything to try and bridge the gap and bring them together. As someone who tried for 20 years to unify the family before giving up, I have a pretty good nose for the difference.
 

Xeno

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
390
Reaction score
1,001
Location
Lafayette
Offline
You can support both if you recognise that one of the major problems exposed here is the British press.

Not that I do support both. God save the Queen, we mean it, man...
It's hard to argue that the royal family and tabloid media don't work hand in glove with each other.

With that said, I have no doubt there's racism within the family, the media and the nation at large. The other side of that is if Harry and Meghan wanted privacy and didn't feel comfortable with the family to the point that they've left then I find it completely ridiculous that they'd turn around and do an interview with Oprah about the whole thing. You wanted out? Okay, you're out. Enjoy your wealth and children and stay out.
 

GrandAdmiral

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
1,739
Reaction score
2,222
Location
Center of the Universe
Online
My vote is obvious since I asked for the option. :)

I think you have a family that has a centuries long tradition of exclusion. Not just based on race. I mean, these people were so opposed to outsiders they only married within the family until the last hundred years or so. You saw some of it with Diana as well.

On the other hand, you had someone who knew exactly what they were marrying into, and it seems like she came in looking for a fight. There is this confrontational aura I picked up in her and Harry. It's like they knew there was going to be an issue and had predetermined how it was going to go.

As someone who has a father-in-law that has nothing to do with us because I'm black and that is unforgivable to him, I get it. I've held my wife while she cried herself to sleep over her Dad more times than I can count. My gut impulse is to side with Harry and Meghan, and I certainly relate to them more. However, when I see clips of the interview they just rub me wrong. They seem a little too smug about it all, like they are itching to scream "I told you so". So I think the royal family may have created the problem, but Harry and Meghan likely didn't do anything to try and bridge the gap and bring them together. As someone who tried for 20 years to unify the family before giving up, I have a pretty good nose for the difference.
It's hard to argue that the royal family and tabloid media don't work hand in glove with each other.

With that said, I have no doubt there's racism within the family, the media and the nation at large. The other side of that is if Harry and Meghan wanted privacy and didn't feel comfortable with the family to the point that they've left then I find it completely ridiculous that they'd turn around and do an interview with Oprah about the whole thing. You wanted out? Okay, you're out. Enjoy your wealth and children and stay out.
Agree with these completely.

I foresaw this happening soon as realized those two were dating. It had drama and disaster written all over it. Harry always seemed the outsider of the family. Pairing him with Meghan made him worse.
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
2,512
Location
Virginia
Offline
Can someone give me a quick synopsis of this? I mean I know who Harry and Meghan are, sort of. And I know they recently left the royal family - but I'm not sure what exactly that means, b/c obviously they are still related. I gather that it has to do with the way the tabloids treated Meghan because of race?

I obviously don't know enough about this to have an opinion. I am kind of fascinated by America's fascination with the British royals though.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
7,190
Location
Midwest
Offline
Well, the tabloids treated Meghan badly, but they are also saying that the Firm also treated them badly. And the Firm is some sort of indication of the entire Royal Family infrastructure.

Two things I remember being surprised to learn was they changed some sort of rule so that Archie (their son) would not be a prince. And that someone at the Palace was concerned about how dark Archie’s skin color might be before he was born.

Rob may have to fill in, or correct me, because I haven’t watched the interview. I have seen some clips on TV. I feel similar to SBTB, in that I’m sure the Royal Family has been less than welcoming to Meghan and it probably was at least partly because she is mixed race. But I also see Meghan as overly dramatic, which only makes sense since she is an actress I think.
 

RobF

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
466
Reaction score
1,548
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
Well, the tabloids treated Meghan badly, but they are also saying that the Firm also treated them badly. And the Firm is some sort of indication of the entire Royal Family infrastructure.

Two things I remember being surprised to learn was they changed some sort of rule so that Archie (their son) would not be a prince. And that someone at the Palace was concerned about how dark Archie’s skin color might be before he was born.

Rob may have to fill in, or correct me, because I haven’t watched the interview. I have seen some clips on TV. I feel similar to SBTB, in that I’m sure the Royal Family has been less than welcoming to Meghan and it probably was at least partly because she is mixed race. But I also see Meghan as overly dramatic, which only makes sense since she is an actress I think.
There are Americans who know way more than I do. I genuinely don't especially care about the Royal Family, any more or less than I do some other random family. They're just people.

I do care, though, about what they represent, in terms of unearned inherited wealth and status and essentially arbitrary privilege, and I do care about how people are treated both by the media and all of us collectively, whether they're wealthy, privileged, or not; if a wealthy person is treated unfairly on the basis of their ancestry, that continues to drive that treatment for everyone, regardless of wealth. If a person talking about serious mental health issues is treated with dismissal, that drives that harmful approach for everyone. And being wealthy, or famous, or an actress, doesn't give people the ability to switch off human feeling, ignore racism, or just not have mental health problems.

So what I do know about, and have taken an interest in, is not the coverage, but the coverage of the coverage. The media and the Royal Family have an inevitably and inherently unhealthy, dysfunctional, relationship. The Royal Family is an anachronism. If it didn't exist, and someone proposed creating it, they'd be laughed at. As an institution, it depends inherently on favourable coverage to sustain support for its continued existence.

The Royal Family is also a big seller for the media. There are people who's actual job is to be royal correspondents. It's a real-life soap opera. It's the Truman Show, if the producers got the entire country to all agree to make Truman an actual King.

But if all Truman did was sit there, open the odd supermarket, and occasionally wave at people, that wouldn't drive much in the way of sales, clicks, and eyeballs for advertising.

So you have this symbiotic relationship that fundamentally depends on continually portraying drama. It's not news, it's a story-driven narrative. There's an inevitable tension. The media wants cooperation from the Royal Family to keep the stories coming, but they also want as much drama as possible. The Royal Family naturally wants less drama, but also needs the favourable stories cooperation with the media can bring. But neither wants the monarchy to be abolished or even diminished, so there's also a limit.

Consequently a major function of the structure around the Royal Family - the Firm - is focused on handling the media. Picking which stories to push, and which stories to repress. Inevitably that leads to the people with relative power, favour, and a willingness to play along being treated differently to those who don't. And in a world where bigotry and prejudice are still very much factors, some stories will tend towards being framed differently to others without deliberate pushback.

And so in that environment, you have wildly different framing of the same events. A case in point has been the different coverage of the same events in the lives of Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle. Here's an article that highlights just some of that:

You also have national media publishing private letters that clearly goes far beyond public interest (and being sued for doing so accordingly).

Even at this point, you can look at the coverage of this interview and see it, for example, being described as 'the worst royal crisis in 85 years'. Which should tell you something, considering, you know, all the other things:

Note how it's framed on that front page: 'One insider said: "Harry and Meghan's decisions will have monumental consequences for ever."' Not 'these events', not "how they've been treated", but their decisions, as if their decisions have occurred in a vacuum where no-one else has done anything of consequence. It's another example of the false framing that "talking about being treated badly is worse than treating someone badly".

There is no justification for the nature of that coverage, and it is plainly apparent the effects that would have on anyone. Consequently I don't see it as at all relevant that Meghan Markle is an actress. Just as if you see an actor being punched in the face, the blood is real, so if you see an actor being treated this way, incessantly, for years, the mental effects will also be real.

As for Harry and Meghan Markle choosing to do an interview with Oprah, there is a world of difference between choosing to engage in public life on your own terms with your own consent, and being subject to continuous, inaccurate, and harmful coverage of both your public and your private life against your wishes. It's also clearly natural that someone in that position might wish to do the former to counter the latter. It's a false framing that says they either have to remain within the Royal Family and just lump everything that comes with it, or vanish from public life altogether.

So in conclusion, abolish the monarchy (or perhaps defund the monarchy would be appropriate here), reform the media, treat people better, and I wish Harry and Meghan Markle well.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #15
OP
Farb

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
1,013
Age
46
Location
Mobile
Online
Why is this thread on this board?
Fair question. Simple answer, I am not exactly sure why I started this thread because I have zero care about the royals. I was curious more than anything since in the last couple days I have seen both sides presented on this and it made me think that the way one perceives this mess is based on their political leanings.
I am the only backing the Royals in this. Several are backing the underdogs/vicitms and a few moderates are presenting both sides (hats off Moderates...I think you are correct on this one @Saint by the Bay and @RobF ).

I guess in my simple brain, it boils down to either 'tear everything down and destroy history to create a new utopia' or 'everything is fine as is'. Granted this is very simplistic version of a very nuanced conversation.
 

Maxp

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
344
Reaction score
532
Offline
Nothing in history is static. Civilizations are always under constant renewal or deterioration. Monarchies in my opinion, have zero place in modern society. They should be plowed under because they are stagnant relics of feudalism.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #17
OP
Farb

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,621
Reaction score
1,013
Age
46
Location
Mobile
Online
Nothing in history is static. Civilizations are always under constant renewal or deterioration. Monarchies in my opinion, have zero place in modern society. They should be plowed under because they are stagnant relics of feudalism.
You were born in the right country then.
 

Brandon13

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
1,742
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
I was surprised at the level of self-awareness from Harry... My sense is that he was never particularly comfortable living the Royal life anyway and he seems to hold both levels of contempt and pity for his family... which I think is understandable if most of what they said in the Oprah interview is true.

The Royal Family mostly seems to be an unnecessary relic of the past consisting of butt crevasses who only get to believe they're this important as a result of their fortune in winning the sperm and egg lottery.

The most correct answer is probably screw all of them (could definitely see Meghan being.. difficult) but if you're going to make me pick then I say fork the Royals.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom