Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Treble's "Fan Wars" Article

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Good morning! We have almost 400 comments on the last post, so I thought I'd pop on here and provide a new post with a slightly different theme to transfer the conversation to a less unwieldy venue.  I think this is a natural progression of the discussion, too. Patricia Treble of MacLean's has written a very interesting and thorough piece on the Meghan/Kate wars and yours truly was quoted among a number of fabulous and familiar names. You can find the article here


The current state of affairs is not a pleasant one, and I think it is unlikely to ease up for a long time. I don't think, however, that it is an insurmountable issue. I think the best way to deal with it is to ignore the angry voices, and to the best of your ability, continue on as usual. As distasteful as it feels, I have found that blocking the primary instigators (those I refer to in Patrica's piece) on Twitter immediately restores some peace. I have also learned to just ignore the tweets that are obviously one-sided and that ignore nuance. That's probably a good life skill to have generally. When I was little, my dad would always repeat to me a saying he learned from his mother (born in the 20s): you have to let these things slide like water off a duck's back. :) That's some good midwestern wisdom there. 

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the article. William and Kate will be out and about tomorrow, so looking forward to "seeing" everyone then! 

162 comments:

  1. Very well said in the article, Jane. Thank you for sharing the link.
    I am enjoying your analysis and pointing out one side and then the other or pointing out that there supposed to be no sides. You almost always write very carefully and with great thoughts. I always enjoy reading other perspectives and discussing a few topics. But unfortunately some people are or get highly emotional in these days about our royal ladies. So it gets very emotional in the discussion. I like a good motivation and spirit but not disrespectful against others.
    Again, brilliant article. Thanks for drawing my attention to this.
    Have a wonderful day all y'all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's never been lost on me that Kate and probably Markle would find the "stans" wars pathetic! I will go ahead and be honest, I think that Markle brought new fans to the RF who find her to be glamorous, exciting, and they also don't realize that she is not anywhere near the 1st European royal of color. I don't comment anywhere much at all, but I've been viciously and obscenely attacked as a racist for saying complementary things about Kate or Eugenie, no mention of Markle. I'm over it. Call me a snob, but I think that a lack of knowledge and appreciation for all that goes into the institution of the RF is partially to blame. And that's ok, we don't need everyone to be interested! But this is what you get from a hoard of people who have been spoon-fed Kardashian style fame and fandom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said I agree with you.

      Delete
    2. It seems like you have been spoon fed Kardashian’s style and fandom.

      Delete
    3. Who is Markle? There is more than one

      Delete
    4. KristenA, I agree with you here as well and echo your sentiment. There is a new kind of "royal fan" on the block and this kind is scary as heck. They have found a place on other blogs and twitter too apparently, having driven reasonable folks out. Anyone who understands nuance and doesn't see the world in Meghan vs. Kate terms is not welcome.

      This comment by Anon 9.34 AM saying "It seems like you have been spoon fed Kardashian’s style and fandom." precisely makes your point, KristenA.

      Delete
    5. KristinA and Rosman, EXACTLY.

      Delete
    6. What's with calling Duchess of Sussex, Markle, though? While making sure to use Kate and Eugenie's first name. Is the knowledge and appreciation for the institution of the RF has its limit?

      Delete
    7. KristenA,Its hard to take your comment seriously with the way you refer to Meghan vs the way you refer to Kate and Eugenie. Because it looks like you are part of the problem.

      Delete
    8. You obviously have no respect for the BRF either, you referring to Meghan as Markle is the antithesis of the jest of your comment.

      Delete
    9. What is up with the Markle reference? If you are referring to Meghan - same way you referred to Eugenie and Catherine by their first names, it helps to be clear. Don't be shy to use her given, legal, married name - Meghan Mountbatten Windsor.

      selongs

      Delete
    10. Actually, I also do want to know KristenA - why refer to Kate with her first name and Meghan with her last? Is this a way to slight one over another? If so, I can see why people would be skeptical of what you say.

      Delete
    11. This is so dull. The history, the fashion, the continuity of the BRF, learning more about Kate the future Queen & her causes - that's what I like to read. This Meghan/Kate stuff is lame. They're family. They really just met each other (and Kate just had a baby). The end.

      Delete
    12. This is Diana and Fergie 2.0. I lived thru all that daily drama, now it’s Kate and Meghan’s turn. The British press put Kate thru hell, waity Katie, wisteria sisters, doors to manual mother, too short skirts, no underwear, lazy Cambridge’s, it’s endless! I do not believe 1% of the crap they put out!!! Kate is being fawned over now because it’s time to rake Meghan over the coals. It’s double for her because of her twisted half sister and father! Kathy from NJ

      Delete
  3. Your quote was fantastic and very well put!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do agree. You spoke very well Jane and highlighted the real issue perfectly.

      Delete
  4. Honestly, I am so sad about all this. Persinally I think "fans" are the only ones creating a rift. I do not believe Kate or Meghan are petty or vain to the extent of fighting or having a rift. I think they are both wise enough to maintain a respectful relationship.
    For my part I can only say that I like both, identifying more with Kate's reserved, more shy and family centered personality, but turning to lively, warm extrovert Meghan for occasional inspiration.
    Ella

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m with you, Ella!

      Delete
    2. Agreed!
      I think I mentioned this on the last post, but it may have been buried in the hundreds of comments there....but it's crazy to turn a simple introvert/extrovert personality difference into some kind of feud!

      Frankly, it would be strange to expect both Will & Harry to marry the same "type" of woman. Cannot believe the sort of "fans" that would expect Harry to marry a carbon-copy of Kate. There's more than one personality type in the world!

      As you say, both women are clearly intelligent and polite people, and will in all likelihood maintain a cordial relationship. And maybe even become closer as the years go by? But certainly never having tabloid-style "catfights"!

      Delete
    3. Agree it was unlikely Harry would have married a copy of Kate. W&H aren't copies of each other--why would their wives be?

      Delete
  5. I'm sure social media has made things worse. Aside from regularly reading this blog & occasional skimming of others I don't actually read much that's out there though. I'm one of those older folks who just doesn't feel the attraction to many forms of social media.

    I would disagree though that there is never the same sort of "competition" if the subjects are men. Men themselves can be quite competitive. And I'm old enough to remember the Beatles and even as kids everyone just had to have a favorite. That favorite was always better than the others for various reasons. (John and Paul were the top two competitors followed by George and then Ringo where I lived.) And we later saw the Paul/John competition play out on the world stage. Because royals--especially younger royals-- do play quasi-celebrity roles today, there will be "fans." If they weren't quasi-celebs, there wouldn't be the need for glamour-type photo-ops and designer clothing budgets for the younger royals would there? And haven't there always been royal rivalries? I guess one difference is whether those are within-court rivalries vs ones involving public opinion. No doubt some ugly opinions have been expressed recently. But regardless, I do think there is likely some behind the scenes friction between the two couples. That doesn't mean they can't or won't work together but I do think there is tension. And I do think making comparisons is what humans do in many situations (including those involving people but not limited to those situations.) It's part of how we make sense of the world. And the tendency to compare ourselves to others (social comparison theory) is well-documented in the social sciences (both upward and downward comparisons.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely agree on social comparison. It is as old as fire. Same with comparing men vs. men. Does everything have to be turned into a boy vs. girl thing? Men get compared ALL the time. We compare William and Harry always - wth. I am a tad tired of the sanctimonious "don't compare" routine that other blogs seem to purport. If you don't want humans to be like humans then don't run a blog !
      I want to say that although I was skeptical of any of the "tension" story, simply the profuse number of articles coming out each and every day has me sitting up. There are two theories I have.
      One : There was a recent article by Katie Nicholl where she says that 2019 will be the year Kate rolls out her campaign and Meghan has been asked to step back but Meghan responded saying she is rolling out her own campaign next year. Perhaps this is a small dose of what follows if Meghan doesn't step back? Something that is a royal smack on the hand?
      Theory Two: Andrew is the one still angry and upset at Meghan and Harry stealing Eugenie's thunder and is the one behind the recent stories. This would completely fit in with his character, I think.

      Either way we can't pretend that this is media as usual - reporters making stories up. Something's up and some royal somewhere is sanctioning this recent spate of stories. There's a new one which has Kate sobbing before Meghan's wedding. I mean, really. It's all super eye-roll worthy at this point.

      Delete
    2. Agree, Rosman. Something does seem to be fueling the state of stories. And both your hypotheses are viable to me. But I still do think there is tension for reasons I listed in response to Jane's previous article. I don't buy everything that's been published recently though. And I do think relationships will survive in spite of the tension. It's natural for things to change and as I've said before, I think some folks are mourning the loss of something that probably never really existed prior to Meghan (e.g., Harry as the fun uncle in and out of the house all the time, a *long-standing* trio relationship between W&K&H)

      Delete
    3. Rosman, I like your comment about some blogs. I think that when nuanced points of view are stifled, people feel that they aren't being heard and frustrations mount. Even though I didn't participate in the previoius FBTB post, I really enjoyed reading all the various comments that enveloped many points of view from a diverse set of readers. I thought the comments were respectful and insightful making me think about a few things in a different way.

      I wasn't putting much stock in the tension stories either but there a pervasive even among respected reporters and outlets, so there may be something to it. Having watched the royals for some years, I've learned that where there is smoke, there is probably that proverbial fire. I like your Andrew theory. I hadn't thought of it but I wouldn't put it past him either.

      Delete
    4. Well, Rosman, if theory number 1 is true I guess/hope Kate’s project can be given the importance, publicity and interest it for sure deserves. If any other big project is presented at the same (or close in) time I would consider it very rude, to say the less. I prefer to think that they are going to permit it (they meaning the people who decide these things...HM?)

      BM

      Delete
    5. Okay following up - I really should be getting back to my paper but instead I went into a rabbit hole of royal news - this is another take and seems quite believable to me. According to this blogger it is Charles' court that is originating the stories. She specifically cites Jebsen's research (which I assume means notes from talking to Charles' courtiers). Going by precedence, why am I not surprised. He pulls this trick all the time and is still a nasty piece of work, 70th birthday PR or no PR. I am not usually a reader of this blog but as I said, I went into a spiral.

      Jane please allow this one time : https://www.laineygossip.com/british-tabloids-report-meghan-markle-made-princess-catherine-cry-before-royal-wedding/51396

      Julia - if you are reading - you were Cassandra here also (if true) - you reminded us of Falstaff - looks like you may be correct.

      Delete
    6. Maybe, Rosman. But I just read that H&M didn't attend Eugenie's evening reception---that Harry stopped by for a drink alone. The article SAYS the info came from a source close to the Yorks and also says Eugenie was upset. I had read H&M didn't go to the "festival" the next day supposedly because of their upcoming flight on Sunday. But if this story is true, a very big IF, I'd not think that it came from Charles's camp, but maybe Andrew???

      Delete
    7. lizzie: I read the article as saying that that one bit of information came from the Yorks. I think that this bit as well as the tiara fiasco came from Andrew. Not sure about the rest (if at all true).
      My view is that there may be some mild "tension" in the same way that all families have - nobody is best friends with their in-laws *all* of the time. But I am not sure it's anything more than that. Both Meghan and Kate strike me as too sane and busy to indulge in any meaningful strife.
      The mild "tension" is probably being promoted as much more than it is by whatever leak/source this is coming from, whether it is Andrew or Charles or anyone else.

      Delete
    8. Interesting read! Thanks for sharing Rosman! I haven’t come across the article and I tend to read (or come across) most of the top royal news. My theory is that everything that goes up must come down. The building up to the wedding was so over the top, the only way the press could sustain interest in Meghan is to bring her down.

      I agree with lizzie, that it could come from Andrew, Fergie, Eugenie or someone in that camp.
      Eugenie and Meghan seem to have some kind of rivalry whether it is fueled by them, their relatives, or the media, time will tell.

      Sept 2016, engagement rumors started when Jack stayed with Eugenie and the Queen in Balmoral.

      Oct 2016, it’s “leaked” that Harry and Meghan were dating. Harry issues his statement to the press in Nov.

      Aug 2017, rumors that Eugenie and Jack plan to get engaged by the end of the year and get married in the Spring of 2018 are spread, which is followed by a spokesperson saying they don’t plan on getting engaged.

      Nov 2017, Harry and Meghan’s engagement is announced.

      Jan 2017, Eugenie and Jack’s engagement is announced.

      May 2018, Harry and Meghan get married. Meghan wears a dramatic, big veil.

      Oct 2018, Eugenie and Jack get married on a Friday. Eugenie decides not to wear a veil and opts to highlight her scoliosis scars instead. Pregnancy rumors start when Meghan wears an oversized coat at Eugenie’s wedding. Meghan’s pregnancy is announced the following Monday. Fergie sends out a flurry of tweets to try to keep Eugenie’s wedding in the spotlight a few minutes after the pregnancy announcement.

      Nov 2018, Rumors are circulated that Meghan wanted to wear Eugenie’s wedding tiara.

      I hope it's not the York's camp that is fueling the negative Meghan rumors but IF IF IF they are and IF IF IF Harry & Meghan made enemies with the Yorks by upstaging them, the Yorks are taking the "revenge is best served cold" approach. At the end of the day, the Yorks and the Sussex's are shooting themselves in the foot by fighting a losing war.

      Delete
    9. Anon from LA-
      Interesting timeline! I’ve felt like there has been some parallel trajectory in Harry and Meghan’s relationship and Eugenie and Jack’s but I’ve never realized just how much. Then again, I didn’t start paying attention to Meghan until the engagement. I just remember all the rumors about Eugenie and Jack getting engaged and then they had to place things on hold until later.
      Based on Andrew having his issues with Beatrice and Eugenie not being able to be full time royals, I wouldn’t be shocked if some of the rumors aren’t coming from someone in his camp. But then again, I may be biased, because even though I enjoy watching and keeping up with most royals, I’ve never really warmed to Andrew.

      Delete
    10. Anon 23- Thank you! :)

      Forgot to mention...

      Sept 2017, Meghan is on the cover of Vanity Fair and publicly discusses her relationship to Harry.

      Delete
    11. The Yorks have a valid reason to be irked at Charles and his visions for the future. But let me throw this out there … if Andrew is behind any of this, how does Sarah's invitation to H&M's wedding fit in?

      Delete
    12. That was then, this is now? And if Andrew is irked it might not be only because of Charles's vision? And when invitations to H&M's wedding were sent out, Eugenie had already announced her engagement?

      Delete
    13. Royalfan I don't agree that the Yorks do have a right to be irked at the vision of the future. This isn't just Charles' vision, but the vision that really, I think when looking at all of the evidence, is the vision of Parliament. That it does, in fact, benefit Charles and his meanness is just the coincidence of birth, and thems the royal breaks. I think it's very naive on anyone's part, particularly Andrews, to think that with the economy and the populous changing for some time, to think the public would continue to support an institution that allowed vast numbers people to cut ribbons and open schools and wear fine jewels and live in what amounts to lavish public housing. It was clear at the dawn of the 90's, when the world was being beaten over the head with Andrew & Sarah and the War of the Wales, that this institution needed to change or die. One thing the Queen has always understood - probably because of her experiences with her uncle, the war, and Philip's family's plight - and Andrew never has, they are there at the mercy of the people. I think Ann had a choice and chose a rationale and reasonable path for her children who would be so distanced from the throne. By the time Edward's children came along, I think that choice was no longer an option due to the changing dynamics in Britain. This ability to change has been the savior of this royal family over almost every other one in Europe and Andrew has resented that from day 1.

      I also don't necessarily agree that Eugenie's engagement was pushed off because of Harry. At the same time her engagement rumors started, her sister Beatrice broke up with her long-time boyfriend, who then very quickly got married. How horrible that must have been and I remember thinking at the time, how horrible it was to circulate rumors of Eugenie getting engaged. And given the caring nature we've seen from Eugenie, I would doubt she wanted to be that tactless for her sister when she and Jack have already waited so long. Now, once it all got rolling, I do think Eugenie and Harry ended up in a bit of a battle, but I guess we will never know.

      Delete
  6. I am not on Twitter or Instagram, and am glad I am not. That being said, I don't think discussing fans is very interesting. I much prefer discussing Kate and the RF! I really liked the conversation on last post, about how Meghan is or is not understanding her role. Also the talk about Kate, how she has navigated hers. And about feminism, Harry, William... There were such a lot of insightful comments.
    I remember thinking it was strange the RF family had downplayed the star power Kate had after the wedding, and I couldn't understand why it took her 5 years to assist a state dinner or ambassadors reception. I still am not sure it was the best way, but the way Meghan is let loose is not better. It is strange and one wonders how the RF works, who decides what.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William and Kate themselves stated multiple times that they wanted to take it slow, and specifically that they wanted Kate to take it slow. I think that Meghan and Kate are on two extremes as Julia said in the last post- Kate is too cautious and Meghan not enough. Kate really does need to do more engagements and start carving out her own identity and perhaps Meghan needs to step back from the relentless self-promotion, which seems to have gotten tedious for everyone.

      Delete
    2. I agree but I still think Kate would have done what was asked of her, and William would have been glad to do more when he left the RAF. IMO, it was made clear to William at that point that he still was a minor royal. I am still puzzled by this hierarchical approach, it would have made sense to make use of their popularity

      Delete
    3. Helen, I think you might be misremembering. William himself said, about being a full-time royal "whatever that means" and that he didn't believe that was a well-defined concept. He himself has gone on and on about how they can't work more because they have children at home (as if other parents don't pull 60 hour weeks).
      He, very specifically and repeatedly, denounced taking on more engagements for one reason after another - being with the RAF, then later being with the rescue folks (forgot what they are called) and then for being a father. It turned out that when he was with the rescue folks he was not working more than 10 hour weeks and when called out on it he said that the hourly regulations were the reason for why he wasn't working more. The rescue folks (East Anglia, was it?) then came out and said that William was mistaken and there were NO such regulations. They issued a public statement contradicting William. After that the head of East Anglia rescue folks was replaced by someone who was part of the inner royal circle and no further mention of William's work hours there.

      I understand that it is easy to glorify Kate and William now that Meghan has made some mistakes, but let's not forget that they have been VERY VERY reluctant to embrace their royal roles. It was not the RF (there is no such centralized decision making body, btw - all of the decisions are decentralized as you can see from all the talk about "courts" and offices - everyone's office and court is separate with no coordination beyond calendar scheduling) that was holding William and Kate back. They themselves did.

      Delete
    4. I don't think W&K were "reluctant" to embrace royal duties; I do believe that Charles feared the popularity of this young couple as he was approaching his 70th birthday and still waiting to be king. And W&K certainly did their best to not eclipse C&C as much as humanly possible. Just consider Kate's wardrobe alone; there's a reason a woman in her position wears so many similar pieces and recycles to this degree. Kate is an intelligent woman and she has done her best to not trigger Diana flashbacks in Charles' mind. Equally, she would not want to put her husband in the line of fire by ignoring the history she is well aware of.




      Delete
    5. With respect to H&M, the PR behind this couple from before the engagement was announced has been amazing and the exact opposite of the cautious "roll out" of W&K. I did think a lot of it had to do with the quick (and long distance) courtship, as well as the objections the Firm may have anticipated regarding Meghan being a divorced American actress. In addition, I have suspected that Charles would not pass on the opportunity to be seen as welcoming a biracial young woman into the Firm given his desire to be seen as a more modern (on an Edwardian level anyway) king in a multicultural society.

      Delete
    6. And, if you are asking isn't there a conflict between the treatment of the two sons and their wives, well, yes there is. And skeptical royalfan wonders if this wouldn't be encouraged to keep both sons in line and seeking his (Charles') approval.

      Delete
    7. No I will never glorify Kate over Meghan

      Delete
    8. Rosman I have written twice an articulated comment to you, twice it has disappeared before I hit publish!
      In a few words. I remember that interview with William. Many people thought he was reluctant, but what he said and how he said it proved he was not given the *royal* duties he expected and was told to expect when leaving the RAF. After a year where he barely had more to do, he decided to join the ambulance. He didn't want to start carving himself a role, making the royal foundation a full time job and spend his entire adult life waiting for a job that might never be his. If you listen to what he says, it seems very clear. Also he didn't want to be seen as pushing out the older members of the RF. My feeling is that those older members, particularly the Queen, and Charles for different reasons are not the sharing kind.

      Delete
    9. Also, compared to what happened to Harry. As soon as he was married there was a role ready for him to take, that of youth ambassador to the common wealth. He didn't make it up, it was created for him. Don't you think something similar could have been done for William? Why was he left to shift for himself? Andrew has a definite role, so has Edward, and Charles of course is prince of Wales. Why not William?

      Delete
    10. Wasn't Will offered The Prince's Trust but said no?

      Delete
    11. Helen, because William is heir and Harry is not. I will check out the video again because I don't recall what you are referring to - I may have missed it. From what I recall he said that he didn't want to be doing ribbon cutting and handshaking while waiting around but I don't remember him saying that he was *expecting* to be given royal duties. I think that William, by being the future Prince of Wales is given the freedom to carve out his role, like Charles was - Charles was always expected to *make* his own role and boy did he ever. Andrew and Edward by contrast were assigned roles by the Queen. Same thing with Harry and William.

      Delete
    12. royalfan: I agree that Kate has been very attentive to not repeating mistakes of the past and not treading on anyone's toes, especially Charles' but I also think that she and William have shown repeatedly that work is not something that comes naturally or compulsively to them. If it was simply a matter of actually *wanting* their royal duties and not getting them I think there would be more indications of that being the case. As of now there are tens of times William and/or Kate has eluded to not wanting to work (and royal role being a burden) and none where they indicate that they want to work and are being held back. Contrast their words/interviews to how Meghan approached her tour and her engagement - you could see her eagerness to be out there (I know you will say that she loves the attention and you may be right - but her being out there is good for people !!). That passion simply has been missing from Kate or William.
      Of course this can change with time, but with the information we have today I can't really agree that Charles has been holding William back. In this case I feel that when it walks and talks like a duck it is a duck - it may reveal itself to be a rabbit later on, as you conjecture but today we don't really see any signs of it being one.

      Delete
    13. Charles expressed a wish to see his children take interest in the Prince Trust. It seems they preferred starting their own foundation. Again, the trust is something Charles built up, and is not related to his official duties, as isn't the royal foundation. That kind of endeavour does not belong to the core business of representing the UK or the Queen.

      Delete
    14. There may be a difference between work in one's foundation and work in core functions, Helen. But certainly no one kept Will from devoting more time and effort to his own foundation. Although begun in 2009, according to its website it wasn't operational until 2011. And Heads Together, purportedly one of its larger initiatives, wasn't rolled out until 2016, 7 years after the Foundation's start date.

      Charles may have kept W&K from doing some of the more "glitzy" royal duties. But I don't think he kept them from working. Personally, I think The Prince's Trust, begun with the POW's military severance pay, is one of Charles's finer achievements. (Within 3 years of its inception, 19  pilot projects had been started.) And certainly it wasn't a slight IMO to offer to involve Will. Of course, he was free to turn it down just as he turned down the offer of Sophie to help mentor Kate re: royal work. As I recall, Will said he'd do that mentoring himself and they planned to take it very slow. Will was free to make those choices but once he did, he can't really then complain that he and Kate weren't given opportunities.

      Delete
    15. William is not the heir but the heir to the heir. Charles does almost all the traveling on his mother behalf, and accompanies her at every official occasion. It was very telling the Cambridge first real institutional engagement, the China State visit happened because Charles couldn't attend.
      I agree that Meghan seems eager to be out there, much more than W&K. I don't think William wants to be out there. But he wants to do something. Preferably something worthwhile. I wouldn't call him lazy or reluctant.
      I think the longevity of the Queen, admirable though she is doesn't help.

      Delete
    16. "Whatever full time royal means..." taken completely out of context. William was not being flippant and the use of similar wording from a phrase Charles has been castigated for..."whatever love is" is a way of injecting negative connections and connotations.

      What happened was the reporter used the term "fulltime royal" in a question for William and William replied that the family did not use that term; senior royal was the term used. He literally meant that it was not a term used other than in the media and that there was no definition--therefore, how could he rationally reply to a term that had no real definition?

      A great deal of the Shamrock ruckus and the air ambulance stories were introduced by two particular royal writers who sometimes write Cambridge friendly articles for their employers' forums and turn around and spin malarkey on their social media accounts. A factoid is expanded and distorted in order to produce a story that will sell or convince. (apparently it works)These reporters can't seem to understand why the royals who are treated this way won't give them exclusives--which leads to further petulance and negative Cambridge stories and remarks. (Meghan said hello to me but other royals don't. The other royals probably don't single out individual police officers to greet, either.)

      I think the recent splitting "courts,"...no, splitting PR staff/offices, ...no, splitting residence...stories were based on a piece of information heard in part and elaborated on. I think Royah (not one of those two reporters), who writes mostly factual, unbiased stuff, introduced the dividing courts story. I wonder if it was based on a true royal source, however. Apparently all sorts of sources are considered "royal sources," including blogs and bloggers and other royal writers. It was too sketchy. Who was leaving, what were they leaving ( "court" office, home) and where were they going instead? As time and KP revealed, the facts, at least for the time being, primarily involved a change of residence for the Sussexes to Frogmore Cottage next year. The who-what-where-when, but not the why. The royal writers were only too happy to pencil in the why.
      Meanwhile, before KP finally stepped in, writers were taking a bit of information and running with it. After the official announcement, they amended their stories, while doing a little back-tracking on the way- some had gone a bit far out on the limb with the KP reno story as well as various HM gifted homes stories. For example, the couple chose FC because the reno was cheaper than KP's, which was presented as if from a knowledgeable H&M source. Thereby verifying the prior KP reno/changed their minds story. The excuses for promoting the KP/Gloucester angle and explanations for the "change of mind" were varied and a little funny. Some reporters refused to let go of the KP for Sussexes story, even when it was illogical.
      I suspect the stimulus for all the speculation was that some brilliant news hound had been going through planning permits for royal residences and discovered the Frogmore Cottage information.

      Agree royalfan. By the way, I have been blocked from the past discussions until everyone else has more or less spoken first. I used to think it was my computer security blocking invasive ads. However, since this appears to be the only comment section I can't easily access and since I Can access it- but usually only hours or days after a post--And since blocking seems to be the way to go these days --I can only assume that my opinions are not entirely welcome here and I will take the rather unkind hint. It has been extremely frustrating to me as I really don't understand why it is preferable to print threats and insults to Meghan than an opinion that logically disagrees with the editor or other commenters-- until the original subject has wound down or been exhausted.

      I'll miss you royalfan, Robin and others. Maybe I'll "see" you elsewhere. anon1

      Delete
    17. Helen - I think you are right about William's role, he has basically been left to sort it out himself.

      Rosman - The sense I get is that he is only going to step up when Charles is king. It's likely that QEII will live for maybe another decade, and then Charles will rule for ~20 years perhaps? So William himself will be 60-70 years old before he becomes King. If you can see all of that ahead of you, wouldn't you focus on your family and doing the tiring international tours first, until you are 40-50 years old? Whatever timeline W&K have planned, you can clearly see what their priority is right now, even if you don't admire them for it.

      The latest Omid Scobie royal podcast pointed out that Meghan has an American work ethic. Apparently there's only 5 weeks maternity leave there, and she seems to have given all indication that she will work as much as possible. So she has been working hard as an actress, and her side blog, and then with Harry and the wedding and the Oceania tour.....if she intends to go straight back to work after childbirth, I'm sure that will only provoke more discussion and amplify these existing queries about W&K's sense of duty.

      Whilst I like Mehgan's energy and drive as well, you can clearly see that tension between traditional vs. modern in the behaviour of both Kate & Meghan, and thus the "fans". In many ways it is unfair to compare - the BRF needs the balance of both modes of being if it is to continue.

      Delete
    18. Helen, thank you for your thoughtful assessment re: William & Kate’s situation. I have had quite similar thoughts and believe William has been unfairly criticized over the years. I have a few additional thoughts but not the time right now to thoughtfully write them.

      Delete
    19. Anon 1, I'm not sure but I don't think Jane can block blog posters from accessing the comment section, and why would she need to- she just would not publish your comments if she didn't want to. I think you are having server problems. In the article, Jane was talking about having to block people on Twitter, IG and FB, not this blog.

      Delete
    20. I can't block people form the comments. I think Anon 1 was saying comments are held and not released until later. Frankly, when I get 400 comments on a post in under 24 hours that is a lot to sift through. I miss things, some stuff is buried amongst spam and I realize I overlooked it (that happened to about ten comments a few days ago--I thought I was at the end of the queue and realized there was a cluster of real comments after four or five spam), and sometimes I am uncertain if the content will be explosive and I choose to think about it. It's not a perfect science and it is a lot of work. And every feels strongly on both sides. So, I do my best. That's all I can.

      Delete
    21. Anon 1. I had kind of a similar experience on the few occasions I tried to peek at the blog while at work. (Our work system was not at all set up to prevent occasional personal browsing-- we are allowed.) I can't remember which browser gave me trouble. I THINK it was IE. I could read the article fine but couldn't access the comments unless I reloaded the page. So I think the problem you've had relates to your system.

      Delete
    22. Thanks for the info everyone. Actually, lizzie, I can go to another blog immediately after trying unsuccessfully to access comments here and have no problems. Browser and server etc. unchanged. This is the only site of any kind that I have trouble with. I have been commenting or at least reading comments here for at least five years and did not have difficulty until the last year or so.
      My only other thought would be I get an Adobe Flash block icon with this site only but I have been able to access despite this---after sometimes 20 tries.

      I am the opposite of techy and tend to cast a leery eye at any machine. I did not have any trouble operating monitors in ICU as a nurse. Otherwise, I consider a phone a machine. Ha!

      I am sure there is a simple explanation somewhere but it is probably time for a hiatus, anyway. :+) anon1

      Delete
    23. If you haven't gone on hiatus yet Anon 1...this was the *only* blog I had trouble with at work too. And then it somehow magically resolved after a few months. Since it was a work system, I don't have any way of knowing what tech changes had been made at the system level but I know there were constant changes made.

      Delete
    24. Rosman, we will have to agree to disagree about W&K's "reluctance". I think there were valid reasons for the way they began royal life as a married couple: William's work commitments, Charles' "preference", and they were given the opportunity to focus on their young family since retirement will not be an option for this couple.

      I wouldn't describe the Queen as "passionate", but she is steadfast in fulfilling her role. I believe W&K have, and will continue to have, the same quiet and steady approach to their royal duties. Besides, passion only impresses me when it is **outward** focused. :-)

      Delete
  7. Wow....great article, and very disheartening. Can't we all just get along???

    ReplyDelete
  8. I find it disappointing that actual racist comments (of which there have been an abundance on social media and in the tabloids), are being positioned as equal to “charges of racism.” The author doesn’t actually address any of these racist comments, and only addresses individuals who have been accused of directing racism towards Meghan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 9:32 - the racist comments that have been directed towards Meghan were not positioned as “equal” to charges of racism. The article discussed a specific technique that certain individuals use to bully reporters in an attempt to control their behavior and censor their reporting. You may be disappointed that the author did not write the article you wish she had written, but then you are free to write that article yourself.

      Delete
  9. Perhaps, I am naive, but I am not buying this rift between Meghan and Kate. Meghan made a point of mentioning how wonderful Kate had been to her during the engagement interview. If there was an issue between the two, I doubt Meghan would have brought up Kate's name in the interview and made a point of how welcoming she had been to her.

    I find the DM articles claiming they are very different people and that Meghan is an acquired taste to be nasty. To have this string of articles is insulting to both royal women.

    Meghan is pregnant and should be enjoying this special time in her marriage. Kate is well aware of her senior role in the royal family. Meghan is aware of the understudy role. I find all this chatter ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meghan's engagement interview comments had one purpose...to promote herself; she wanted to be seen as being accepted by the family, especially by a popular and senior member of the Firm.

      Delete
    2. royalfan--the references to 'Harry's Grandmother and the Aunts...anon1

      Delete
    3. ^^ The above post from 'royalfan' is exhibit A for 'Problematic, Offensive Posts that Make Our Experience Negative.' When comments are flat accusations of negative intentions that have zero basis in fact - and no additional context about why the writer even thinks that to be true - it's lazy, negative, and brings down the enjoyment of everyone. It's also pretty close to the behavior of the anonymous 'stans' out there. Royalfan, please re-think the way you comment.

      Delete
    4. SSM, if you follow this blog then you are well aware of my thoughts and I do explain where I'm coming from as I consistently post as ROYALFAN. Perhaps you could have offered additional context about why you *don't* believe my observation to be true instead of directing a personal and negative comment at me. A thought ....

      Delete
    5. SSM you certainly don’t speak for me so please do not presume you are stating a fact when you say that royalfans comment “brings down the enjoyment of everyone” or that you have the authority to talk about “our” experience.

      Delete
    6. Royalfan - you wrote a negative, offensive thing. The fact that you think you've explained your thinking elsewhere does not make that untrue. Forgive me, I'm not going to go reading the entire comments sections of all blog posts to find out where your negativity comes from. My point is that your comment is bracing and uncomfortable, and it presumes some type of bad intentions that you can never possible prove Meghan is harboring. It is part of the problem. A problem that is more pronounced on this blog than others, where a handful of people seem to think that such negativity is somehow contributing to what should be a polite conversation! If someone made comments like that in real life I don't think they'd get invited to too many tea parties.

      Delete
    7. SSM it is not true that royalfans comment is objectively offensive - you are stating your opinion as if it were fact, which it is not. You claim to have read enough comments on this blog to have formed a strong negative opinion of an undefined group of commenters but apparently have missed royalfans numerous comments which provide ample context for her above comment. If you have a different interpretation of events by all means share it, but your self-righteous combative atttitude is not in and of itself contributing anything.

      Delete
    8. I follow the blog and, in all fairness, I think SSM has a valid point- none of us know Meghan and are able to state with any certainty that Meghan’s engagement interview had one purpose, to promote herself. Was that the purpose of her interview? Who knows. But that is a fairly strong criticism. Everyone is able to interpret Meghan’s (and Kate’s) actions in a negative or positive light, but to comment on either’s motives is highly speculative.

      Delete
    9. Agree Anon 9:31. Like Robin's, I find royalfan's comments to be thoughtful, balanced, & obviously based on many years of watching various members of the BRF. We haven't always agreed (most notably on Charles) but I am easily able to grasp the observations that undergird her opinions.

      Delete
    10. Anon 9.31 and Lizzie, thank you so much for your support. I do appreciate it :-)

      Anon 10.28, I recognize that it was one of my blunter comments. However, it was part of the overall conversation here. It is my opinion... It is my impression... based on what I have observed since this relationship became public. And I thank you for disagreeing with the actual subject matter in a thoughtful and non-confrontational manner.

      Delete
  10. The most salient point in the article itself was that many of these commenters are very young and totally absorbed in the notion that their opinion is of the utmost importance, with little regard for how the tone could be conceived by the larger audience. I think if everyone looked at their own family and their own friendships, they would realize that married brothers rarely (if ever) live next-door to one another, women in their mid-30's with totally different backgrounds and upbringings and life experiences rarely (if ever) become BFF's, and there is no reason to believe that these members of the BRF are any different in this regard from any other family. Let's all relax and enjoy the differences; I, for one, hardly care about my OWN opinion, let alone anyone else's!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Excellent article that, unfortunately, characterizes the current culture on social media and is not specific to the perceived Kate/Meghan wars. I love that you were able to give your point of view, Jane. Definitely, not feeding the beast is the way to go.

    I rarely read the comments under tweets or Instagram posts anymore. Some comments are unbelievable. I think I've heard it all but am shocked all over again each time I venture in. Regarding the Meghan "stans" (new word for me that sums it up really well), I think many of them must be young girls because many don't seem to have an understanding of the BRF or want to discuss anything rationally. They just want to shut down the conversation with a few choice words.

    Frankly, as a mom, this behavior is unsettling. The current climate for intolerance of ideas that do not mirror one's own and, the lack of desire to listen and have an actual discussion can lead to all sorts of negative and dangerous societal implications as far as I'm concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  12. One thing that has always irked me is the "royal fans" label. For me, this exemplifies the problem (as much as a single word can. People that are "fans" are loyal to an artist, athlete etc. They'll go buy every new single or watch every game. To me, the royals aren't like this - they work to bring good PR and opportunities to the nations that they represent. Royal watchers (not fans) can follow this work, including the lighter side such as the relationships, clothes, PDA, and so on. I count myself in this camp and really enjoy it. I adore Kate as much as many - love almost everything she wears, would love to see her in person, etc. I've bought clothes she wore and am planning a trip to London including many places she has been. But I don't have any "loyalty" to her or an obsessive need to her see her discussed in all royal coverage! I actually saw someone on twitter this week say they only trust Omid Scobie (great royal reporter, IMO) because he was "loyal" to Meghan! I'm sure he would agree that is NOT his job - his job is to report royal happenings. (I think this could easily devolve into a broader discussion around the public perception of the media, especially in the US, but I'll abstain from that to keep this my happy place.)

    I think there are MANY new royal watchers because of Meghan, just as there were when Kate & Will got engaged and she became front page news every day. Even though it was only 8 years ago, things have changed so much with social media which amplifies opinions over coverage/news. From what I"ve seen (and at a low level, engaged with) on twitter, many of the new royal watchers don't acknowledge/appreciate that the royal family is all about PR/perception. Its a centuries old institution that evolves slowly and takes more work than we realize to keep standing. We often say after big events that "no one does it like the BRF" - so while change and new players are 100% needed and fun to chat about, some may not realize that they are still a minor part of the firm in whole. Some perspective (historical and cultural) is needed to realize the significance of the roles of both Duchesses.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think the majority of the "pot stirrers" are teen girls who probably did not know or have heard of the BRF until Meghan came along and she was promoted on American talk shows as the new "rags-to-riches Hollywood princess." The bad grammar and "you don't like her outfit, you're racist!" jumping-down-your-throat kind of comments make that obvious. I agree with Jane, the best thing we can do as a community of royal watches is not stoop to their level and ignore them. Once they realize picking fights is not the way to go, they'll move on to the next celebrity that comes along. And then the mature Meghan fans that are interesting in intelligent debate will stay... or at least that's my hope!

    However, I do see that this kind of childish accusations extends past online forums. I have been asked at work (in a professional, people in their 30s workplace) if I like Meghan and when I say no, I'm immediately asked "is it because she's biracial?" My answer is always a joking "hello, I'm a woman of color, why would I dislike her for being like me?"

    This abuse the "stans" claim to be defending Meghan against is the same kind that Kate received when she entered the royal family. Only because people have selective memory or where not old enough to remember do they try to magnify it. Who can forget "waity Katy," "lazy Kate," "Kate Middleclass," "The Wisteria Sisters," Uncle Gary, Kate's nude snaps, and the gazillion other scandals the tabloids invented? The tabloid's job is to sell and the only way they're going to sell is by finding weaknesses in the royals (real or imaginary) and exploiting them to get clicks. In the end, the "stans" are profiting the tabloids and sustaining the negative Meghan news stories by clicking and commenting on them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon from LA: excellent comment, I agree completely and have been through similar to what you've experienced when asked about MM.

      After making a few comments on different social media outlets and being ripped a new ***hole by 'newer fans' I've decided to just take control of what and where I comment, and if any particular words trigger me in any way, a simple block works wonders. I've actually resorted to blocking/muting my own family members for various reasons and wow, 'out of sight, out of mind' is fabulous.

      Delete
    2. "wow, 'out of sight, out of mind' is fabulous"

      Amen! It is truly a form of self-care. I encourage it for everyone.

      Delete
  14. I agree with many of the things reported in the article and with what you say, Jane. We are ‘suffering’ this climate but it is something widespread in the social media. Just check the comments under any sports account and you see nasty comments between fans of one or another sportsman/woman...

    As for the topic we are all interested, I agree with a previous comment and with the article that the majority of people commenting now on blogs/twitter/ig have no idea of what a Monarchy is and what is to be expected from a royal. Besides, if you carefully read what the say and how the say it they seem to be very young and their comments are usually content empty other than praising their new idol/s. I personally don’t care about comments calling Meghan black as an insult because they discredit themselves, it’s the same when people say Kate is aging like a banana, she dresses matronly, William is bald...if the only thing they can say about someone is an insult I really don’t care about their opinion and rather ignore than argue with them.

    What I think is that the fact that Meghan is black comes in handy when someone criticizes anything she does/says/wears. Her defenders just call you racist and that’s it, no matter how well explained your opinion was. We can no longer issue an opinion without being called hater, jealous...

    I personally love ‘discussion’, we can all express different opinions without taking it personally and without having to insult anybody. I like that your blog offers us this space to comment on fashion and also other things ;)

    BM

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have to say Meghan's "fans" are some of the worst I have ever come across,I made a comment about not liking her shoes and was call racist and have noticed the same thing has happened to others.I have never warmed to Meghan but I do think she has a lot to offer to the royal family but after that incident I have stopped following anything about her,her fans are so petty and I hope they realize they are discouraging fans who dont like her to give her a chance and change their minds.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Okay, i have an honest question. Does anyone think this 'war' and all the articles following is just to draw attention away from the potential PR fiasco surrounding the recent terrorist links to the mosque where Meghan's community kitchen group is? I'm not saying the kitchen has anything to do with terrorist, but it still makes the association look bad since the community kitchen uses the same mosque. That book promoting the community kitchen was Meghan's first big charity thing and now has ties to terrorists which would could cause the royal family a big headache. I have to wonder if all these feud articles are to try and cover that up. The community kitchen article came out and quickly disappeared with all these feud articles. It just makes me think all this was done on purpose so no one would notice the bigger issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For myself, I think not. Although Camilla Tominey just wrote an article about that, it has been known for some time. I can't say how I knew, but I definitely knew about the links from the time the book was announced, so the BRF knew, too. That sort of connection was absolutely bound to make headlines at some point, so I assume the royals chose to forge ahead regardless.

      Delete
    2. So is the story true? I thought it was a horrible gossip because I just saw a couple of comments and not big news about it. And it is the type of news that makes big headlines. Everything that is happening is just unbelievable, as Anonymous very well states, such a PR fiasco nobody is talking about...

      BM

      Delete
    3. Oh, wow! Helping women to feed their poor, deprived families does sound different than helping them to feed terrorists, though most terrorists are from poor, deprived families... Goes to show the importance of PR (the spin you put on things), research (the more you dig the less likly it will backfire) and even early life intervention (child raised in good mental health probably won't try to reach their goals by killing others and spreading fear)...

      Delete
    4. Well, to be fair and accurate, even if the mosque has links to terrorists, that doesn't mean the ladies in the kitchen or the families they feed are terrorists. The wisdom of proceeding with that particular mosque is debatable, but not everyone connected to it can have terror ties.

      Delete
    5. No, of course not, i was speaking theoreticly about apearances only.
      Jane, i for years wanted to thank you for your blog! It's amazing!!! The best read on the topic out there, hands down. Thank you so much

      Delete
    6. I suspected as much, but I wanted to jump in and clarify first to forestall upset comments. :)

      Delete
  17. Let me just start this off by saying I’ve been a royal watcher for a long time and I read many royal blogs, but I’m only a fairly new reader of this blog - and a first time commenter. :-)
    Comparison is only natural and can be completely harmless. That being said, the current climate is not of comparison but of bashing by the “stans.” I think it’s perfectly ok for people to have a favorite; many of us over the years have had best friends that we’re closer to or more partial to spending time with for whatever reason. That’s ok. What I don’t like is the current situation of using one duchess to tear the other down. I get the feeling that many of the “Kate stans” don’t even really like Kate all that much, they just hate Meghan for whatever reason and use Kate as some perfect example of what a royal should be. And then you have the Meghan “stans” who want to attack people who say the smallest thing about Meghan or even praising Kate. Neither of these women are perfect. They both have great qualities and things they could improve upon, but you know, that’s all of us really. I agree that many of the new “stans” on either side have no concept of how the royal family really works, and really, many of us are just using years of watching and precedent to gain an idea of the way things work. And the “stans” can’t differentiate “hate” from constructive criticism. I could go on and on but I’m rambling. Lol

    ReplyDelete
  18. It’s interesting how the press tend to enjoy stirring the public with their publications. Examples a rift with Kate & Meghan. These ladies live in a world where everyone is observing & looking for the moment each puts a wrong foot forward. Recent articles regarding Harry Meghan moving out Of Kensington Palace due to a disagreement seems shallow. I do believe the move to Windsor In the long run it will bring regrets by Harry & Meghan. 1. The distance to London (25 miles) is a huge commute with traffic. 2. Their offices are at Kensington Palace. 3. The opportunity to be near William & Kate & their children would be nice for Harry’s future child & for Harry & Meghan just to relax & visit. With both couples having country homes that does provide space. Kate has been helpful to Meghan & living near one another only deepens the closeness. Living @ Kensington Palace already provides security & by moving to Windsor a new set of security detail will need to be established. Not too mention remodeling of the Frogmore Cottage. It all totals up to HUGE expense....which I fear will bring negative feelings from the Bristish people. Something else needs to be observed, Kate was much younger when she wed William. She eased into her position. Meghan is much older & her profession as an actress provides her a different insight....she is an accomplished at speaking & projecting. Where her challenges lie are the rules of being a member of BRF. She is an American from the West Coast where life is much more casual. Her fashion advisor Jessica Mulroney is Canadian & use to styling actresses. So her talent is a super causal style.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you for your post, Jane. I read the Maclean's article last night and was thrilled to see you quoted in it! Great work :) I am a frequent reader of your blog and enjoy it very much.

    I am old enough to remember the media coverage of Diana and Sarah in the 1980's/1990's, as well as the coverage of Charles and Diana during that time period. It seems the media is attacking Kate and Meghan with the same vengeance, which is most unfortunate and actually quite difficult to read. I am too old, however, to be interested in social media platforms such as Twitter and Instagram and am mostly unaware of the comments relative to both Duchesses out there (fortunately - as I understand a lot of it is ugly!).

    Harry and Meghan have every right to relocate to Frogmore Cottage and raise their child in a peaceful, country setting with easy access to their offices in London. Any tension that may exist within the family is likely attributed to normal growing pains and shifting dynamics. I would guess there are very, very few families with members who live for decades in close proximity to one another. This does not mean they have unhealthy or toxic relations; not all brothers and sisters-in-law must be thick as thieves to maintain positive relationships. All of this is ridiculous and overshadows the good work the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Duke and Duchess of Sussex are doing each day.

    Thank goodness for your excellent coverage of Catherine and her family, Jane. I applaud the approach you take to sharing balanced, informative, well-written commentary and will continue to visit this blog regularly since it is always an enjoyable read.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I have always been a huge fan of Kate but that doesn’t have to mean I am anti-Meghan. I hate how women get pitted against each other. Why do we do this?!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Like Anon23 I have been following this blog for the last 7 years and this is my first comment post! I feel a calling to offer a perspective to you all that I have been wondering about for a few months now. Are we seeing dynamics played out in public that illustrate bias and stereotype threat? For starters: Do you remember the article about Theresa May's husband's clothes? https://metro.co.uk/2016/07/13/theresa-mays-husband-steals-the-show-in-sexy-navy-suit-as-he-starts-new-life-as-first-man-6005294/

    I am mindful that I am writing this post in a fashion blog that I have been following passionately for many years, so please bear with me :)

    Both Kate and Meghan are subject to sooo much more scrutiny than their husbands. Isn't that so? If Will's or Harry's socks don't match their shoes or clothes - who cares? Would we write about it? For women, there is a whole other level of scrutiny, awareness, attention to detail that seems expected. (and that frankly, I draw a lot of inspiration from, thank you Jane). But still, the standards are tougher.

    Having just finished Michelle Obama's amazing book her thoughts that 'people of colour have to work that much harder, that much more flawlessly' feel so right and true to me. I see parallels in the harsh criticism (too opinionated, too outspoken, too driven) both women get. While at the same time they both come with clear personal accomplishments already.

    Why do we see someone that has the skill to give inspiring speeches on matters that concern all women in her own words as a weakness? And why is it that she is criticised for brining help, funding and charity to a community in dire need and encourage diversity. Especially if she does that in an environment seemingly at risk of radicalisation.

    The bar for Kate is already incredibly high, the bar for Meghan even more so, in my view. The excellent article asks the question: would the same be happening if both were men? I don't think so!

    Both women do an amazing job representing great causes and showing engagement and bringing light to topics we should be talking about more.

    Why do we feel a need to see a competition? Why does the media think we feed off of stories about their 'broken' relationship. Is this the new level of sabotaging our fellow female's when really we should applaud and support each and everyone of us in spirit and generously for their successes and accomplishments.

    I don't believe the stories in the media about a feud. In fact, I can see several inaccuracies that are reported by media outlets ahead of the move announcements and now. There seems to be much speculation and not much merit. And doesn't the shoe fit the stereotype so many of us are fighting against: Women are bitchy and need to compete for looks? I am certain Kate and Meghan are better than that. And I believe so are we.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I definitely laughed at that article, love some good satire, thanks!

      Delete
  22. Well that's just downright crazy. I had no idea there were diehard fans of one or the other Duchess. I like them both. You get twice the royal watching and they're both so different it's twice the fun. After Diana I stopped royal watching until Kate came along, having Meghan is like a bonus. --J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with you. I find them both beautiful, fashionable in their own ways, and fun to observe. I hope these fan-bots with a zero-sum mindset grow up some day into more thoughtful people.

      Delete
    2. Agree, too!!

      Here’s what I don’t get... I have friends who are different than me in many ways, including politics (FYI- none are for T, that’s a bridge too far). But at the core, we have the same values, we just get there a different way. I think some want a princess who represents only their version of what a princess should be, either like Kate or like Meghan. But I think both ladies do a great job.

      I think they are/will be great moms, too! At the core, I think Meghan and Kate are very much alike, just wrapped in different packages. But I like variety in my friends, so this doesn’t bother me!!

      William and Harry picked good wives. Diana would be proud.

      I also wonder if some of this is just William worried about his younger brother. He’s always looked after Harry since Diana’s death. I am the youngest in my family and even as an adult, older siblings still try to “boss” or in their view “protect” you. This could just be growing pains. I think Meghan is very different than the other women Harry dated. I adore Harry, but in many ways, Meghan can run circles around him. But she also loves/adores him. I think it’s a good sign that Harry’s the spitting image of her first husband. She wasn’t looking to land a prince, Harry is literally her type, to a T! So, I think Willuam can rest easy. He’s just protective and thinks Harry is still 12. They’ll get through this. I think Meghan is warm, kind, loving, just like Kate.

      Delete
    3. I agree about different personalities not being an obstacle to friendship, quite the reverse. But as you say, sharing the same values is very important. I don't think Meghan shares the same values as Kate.

      Delete
  23. My random thoughts:

    A lot of smart, thoughtful readers follow this blog.💙

    I consider myself a royal watcher, not a royal fan.👸

    I began reading royal blogs as a break from (American) politics watching. I'm deep into politics, but it's wearing me out. I needed something different. My politics watching has provided me some interesting comparisons to royal watching.

    In both cases, it seems to be difficult for many people to see in any way except "us" against "them." You're either with us or against us. There is little room for seeing multiple viewpoints, gray vs black and white, or even agreeing to disagree.

    The polarization of American politics seems to be contagious.

    Along with the polarization has come the coarsening of discourse. Conversations, especially online, has devolved into name-calling, insults, and general horrendous behavior. I'm afraid it's the new normal for anonymous conversations.

    I'm grateful that Jane had blocked people that behave ugly. I've cleaned up my Facebook the same way and for the same reason. It's a much nicer place now.

    I'm sure there is tension among the royal. They're human. Tension doesn't mean fighting or not getting along. I believe media is making this Cambridge vs Sussex into more than it is to sell papers or get clicks or whatever turns a profit.

    I'm sure *something* is going on, but I doubt it's relationship- ending.

    I also don't think Charles or Andrew are deliberately creating conflict. Maybe accidentally, but not on purpose.

    I think the media is putting stuff out there and letting readers run with it for profit.

    Of course, I could be dead wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. 😕

    ReplyDelete
  24. The strident manner in which commentators defend their choices is not unique to the duchesses. As a journalist, I follow politics and the 2016 presidential election in the USA brought out the same types of comments. The reality is that zealots are unlikely to change anybody's mind, so all it represents is blowing off steam. There's no need for alarm. This too shall pass.

    Don't believe it? Well, look what happened to Diana. To Fergie. Products of dysfunctional homes, Royal-Lite darlings of the media walking a line between conformity and innovation, until one day they weren't cool any more. The Panorama interview for Diana, poolside pics for Fergie.

    My money is on Kate because she comes from a solid background and seems to know how to pace herself for the long haul. She has "reserves" that will help boost her stamina: husband, Middleton family and three children.

    Enjoy the front-row seat in the current royal family drama, all! Grace

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am once again very thankful that I am not part of the Twitter or Instagram universe. It appears that things are quite nasty there - not that there haven't been nasty things said here. I thought you articulated very well, Jane. I also agree with the article that the most vitriolic comments are made by "stans" (never heard that term before) who comment anonymously because they don't have to be held accountable for what they say. Because of all this I am truly losing interest in following the BRF for the first time since Charles met Diana. Now it's just people being mean to each other and the media capitalizing on it. I have been called more names than I can even list on this blog and because I don't post anonymously I get called out by name by unknown persons. I'm pretty much done with the whole mess and I don't think KP and their lousy way of handling things had it in mind that people would just be sick to death of all of it and thumb their nose at the whole institution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That makes me sad RobinfromCA as I always like your comments and am interested in what you think. I don’t always read each comment from others though. If I had realized you were being picked on I would’ve taken up for you.

      I think these new fans or stans or whatever they are don’t realize that William and Kate and Harry and Meghan are basically going to work until their 90s. I always thought Harry would get Clarance house as a London residence, so it makes sense he wouldn’t take an apartment at Kensington Palace. I wonder who will get 1. One of the York girls? Prince Andrew?

      Delete
    2. Well you were part of the problem by criticizing every small detail about Meghan.

      Delete
    3. I've always enjoyed Robin's comments. I found them to be sincere, balanced, tactful, & interesting. The less interesting comments to me are the ones that gush over everything no matter what (how many times can a fairly plain or ill-fitting outfit be called stunning?) or take offense and attack if someone doesn't gush over everything no matter what. Not everything Kate OR Meghan wears is gorgeous to everybody, not every word/action is brilliant, and not every hairstyle is beautiful.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 11:23 out of curiosity, are you one of those stans I have just heard about?
      If so, I would give you an advice. Don't make it personal. As Jane says so well please be respectful of your fellow readers, even in disagreement. It not only creates a nicer discussion but also people will be more ready to listen to what you have to say. And another thing,directly addressing a poster while remaining anonymous gives the readers the impression of rudeness and cowardice. If you wish to be taken seriously, take that into account.

      Delete
    5. The less interesting comments to me are the ones from people whose comments are almost always negative.

      Delete
  26. Ive been a follower of your blog since not long after it started and some other's as well. I would have to say that I believe what you stated in Treble's article is very true. I have slowly reduced the comments that I used to make as having a difference of opinions solely on clothes have put so-called "stans" hackles up. Then they make it personal either about the subject person or the person writing the comment. This becomes almost childish - if they don't hear the opinion they want, they have a tantrum. Often these people have never even met them. I have been lucky enough to have met both Kate and Meghan face-to-face and both are very personable individuals (they would be, they are working). However, I do not know them and nor do these "stans". If anything, my interest in the RF is waning - sadly mostly down to these so called "stans" being unable to accept another's opinion. Do I like both of them - no, but that's my opinion and my reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Royal watching is not what it once was. I certainly recall some of the negative and nasty coverage of some members of the RF, but the instant gratification and lack of accountability of social media takes it to another level (understatement). I also think that we cannot underestimate the "traditional Kate" vs. "feminist Meghan" part of the equation and the building up and tearing down that comes with this part of the package.

    Having said that, I *still* believe that there's too much smoke for there not be a small fire burning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you are correct, royalfan, that this strife results from a bad combination of social media’s lack of accountability, the social “battle” of traditional v feminist, and to some extent the result of the political correct mentality that seems to be forming—a constant watchfulness for something that can offend me or that will offend me on someone’s behalf. I have seen people who have been hard on Kate (with others either agreeing or letting the issue go) make almost the same comment about Meghan and be ripped apart for it, being accused of all kinds of terrible things and told to just go and follow someone else. It’s concerning to say the least.

      In the “there’s too much smoke for there not to be a small fire” department: I was looking over the Royal Family twitter account, and found that they have made no mention about Harry’s current trip to Africa. They have tweets about activities for the Queen, Andrew, Sophie, and Charles and Camilla. At first I thought they just weren’t retweeting KP, but William and Catherine’s attendance at the Leicester memorial is already on the feed. That seemed strange to me...

      —T

      Delete
    2. T, the Royal Family Instagram has covered Harry’s trip. They always cover the S engagements with several pictures but not all the C events are reported there. It does not make sense to cover something on twitter and not on Instagram and vice Versace in my opinion.

      BM

      Delete
    3. Thanks, BM! I agree—it’s weird. 😁. I didn’t think to check the Instagram account. Thanks for clearing that up.

      —T

      Delete
    4. Thank you, BM! I didn’t think to check the Instagram feed. It is odd they don’t use both to cover big events😁. Thank you for clearing that up!

      Sorry if this is double posted—my first one acted funny, and I wasn’t sure it went through.

      -T

      Delete
  28. Once Harry and Meghan move, things will probably calm down. Meghan will be on maternity leave and not in the press so much. Meghan appears to have overlooked diplomacy with Kate. Her need for adoration from the crowds is just a bit cringeworthy at times. Although I see she is an extrovert, a bit of reserve would not hurt her. One example comes to mind. During one of the last days of her tour with Harry there is a video of her kneeling with a toddler and she actively tries to lift the girls arms so that the child will hug her. Eventually they do hug, but she was forcing the issue. Not sure if anyone else picked this up but it was odd.

    ReplyDelete
  29. A couple of things strike me. Back in the day Diana/ Sarah - one massively popular, the other not so much. There was a lot of nastiness from the press, especially about Sarah’s weight which I thought was awful, dreadful BUT not the vitriol and nastiness that seems to be whipped up these days. The other thing is, back then we had the drip, drip of ‘problems with Charles and Diana’, ‘Charles and Diana leading separate lives’. I didn’t believe a word of it, didn’t want to, but it was all true. So to say the press make things up is not ringing true with me. They certainly may embellish it, sensationalise it, but more often than not there is a grain of truth.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Such an interesting article from Mclains.
    Maybe putting the spotlight where it snargwallader picklegrubel due. On the public ohtside of the Royal Family.
    The out of the ordinary more frightening comments tepoted in the article and by Jane must create a more concerning security issue fir the British government. It’s sad the racism that is real is so vitriolic. I have never seen the Kp twitter or facebook but commenters have expressed they wish Kp would turn comments off. I wonder if they will comment at all tomorrow as they pass the press.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. snargwallader picklegrubel????????
      :) :) :)

      Delete
    2. snargwallader picklegrubel????????
      :) :) :)

      Delete
  31. Thank you Jane for aiming to bring a bit of nuance and 'emotional intelligence' to these kinds of debates!

    It is patently obvious that there will have been 'tension' with Meghan. Not because she is a bad person, not because she is half-black, not because of her family background. But for the very natural reasons of being the newbie/outsider, being from another country, and being expected to meet all of these new expectations that do take time to learn correctly.

    Recall that instance when Kate first had Christmas with the Queen, and made her a pot of chutney. And the Queen later had the chutney placed on the table in a thoughtful way. So I am sure Kate is watching that and I am absolutely sure she tries to behave in the same thoughtful way to Meghan.

    It is a really unfortunate aspect of today's media cycle, that we can see someone's mistakes and be discussing them in seconds after the event occurs. Instead of having time to think about developing an opinion or perspective, people can shout out their instinctive reaction in seconds. I'm sure if anyone really took the time to reflect, their opinions would take on that nuance you have suggested above!

    ReplyDelete
  32. My feeling is if Marie Christine Kent had just kept her mouth shut about the KP apartment of the Gloucester's next to William and Catherine to begin with, the move to Windsor wouldn't seem like such a big deal now. It was she who planted the seed with the press about the Gloucesters moving out of that big house and H & M moving in late last year.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This was posted by Anon 5:18am. I have edited the comment remove reference to a particular Twitter account:

    "I don’t believe that most of the new Meghan stans are young. Believe it or not, most of them are middle aged women who have their own husbands and kids. Take for example the crazy ____________ on twitter who seems to have a deep hatred on Kate and William even without basis. Women who are old enough to know better are the ones who instigate the fights between stans. Seriously. All the criticisms they have on Kate like Carole spending time with the kids is not okay but Doria living under the British taxpayers is okay. It is crazy they changed their narrative once Meghan arrived."


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have noticed on Twitter that a good chunk of the women who stan Meghan actively hate Kate. Like, they will flat out admit that they hate Kate and hate William, which leads to them making nasty comments about Kate, especially, and William.

      I think a big part of the problem causing the "fan wars" is that a good chunk of the Meghan stans do hate Kate and therefore attack anyone who they perceive as not hating Kate - the person doesn't even have to be overly positive on Kate, even neutral on Kate will result in the Meghan stans attacking that person. Because they hate Kate so much, the Meghan stans assume anyone not being always positive of Meghan is a fan of Kate, and therefore attack that person because the Meghan stans hate Kate.

      Their hatred of Kate leads the Meghan stans to become quite hypocritical in three main ways I've noticed: 1) They will praise or defend Meghan for doing the exact same thing they will crucify Kate for doing; 2) They forget that they crucify Kate for everything because whenever anyone criticizes Meghan for something the Meghan stans criticize Kate for, the Meghan stans claim no one criticizes Kate for it; 3) They claim to be feminists and like Meghan because she’s a feminist, yet attack Kate for her looks and for wanting to take maternity leave to be with her new baby.

      Delete
    2. Yes, completely agree. It's not rational. Can I suggest that it might even be rasicm directed toward Kate?

      Delete
    3. Anon 7:16 nope! It’s not racism directed toward Kate.

      Delete
    4. Well then 10:16, what is it?

      Delete
    5. I’d call it sexism or misogyny 10:57. People who want to attack Meghan often default to attacking her on racial terms and people who want to attack Kate attack her centered on what she does as a woman - there can be a very nasty implication to comments that criticize Kate for not being a “modern woman” who lacks a “work ethic.” Each woman is attacked in terms of her perceived weakest point & it’s all very ugly.

      Delete
    6. I won’t wade into the what I think is racism or not towards Kate commentary because I am completely unqualified to judge. For what it’s worth, I’m a white female, so I don’t know if I’m allowed to have a view on what is racist or not because I’ve never been a victim of racism. I say this as someone who wants to learn so I can be sure not to inadvertently offend people. I have seen plenty of appalling racist comments aimed at Meghan. I have also seen comments aimed at Kate that have more to them than just the usual lack of work ethic, etc. I’ve seen comments that said that Kate and all white women age like bananas and Kate should be scared that Meghan will steal her man. I know there is much debate over what is racist vs racial prejudice, so I’m not making any call on that. I don’t know. All I’m saying is that I have seen racial issues thrown at Kate, but in no way am I trying to downplay the awful things that have been hurled at Meghan. I won’t repeat them.

      Delete
    7. I am a white women that travels a lot. I have had the experience of being hated by total strangers because of the colour of my skin, twice I almost came to harm. Racism goes in every direction. It is human after all. We are all equal and no race is superior, but thinking one's own is the best or the other are somehow worse is not the privilege of the white. Why should it be? Think about it, isn't it a token of arrogance to think you cannot be discriminated against because your skin is the right colour? I think the US have an history that makes them see the question from a wrapped point of view. I work in a multinational environment and the last thing we think about is a person's skin. We are all in the same boat.

      Delete
    8. Helen,
      Just to answer a question raised in your post - if it is arrogance to think your race is above discrimination due to the color of your skin - that is kind of one of the big debates about racism. Is racism and discrimination really the same thing? For some, racism implies a superiority and power and ability to repress those seen as “beneath.” If you look at it that way, at least in the US, where I’m from, historically those considered minorities never had that power to repress white people as they were never in a position of power. They were always the repressed. Discrimination or dislike, that’s something different, according to some. That’s why I said I’m no expert and I don’t really know what racism truly is, because it has so many different meanings to different people, all depending on their situations. And in no way do I consider myself above discrimination.

      Delete
    9. Anon23, That's what I understood about the US, that racism is related to power. But I don't know much about it either. I only think that racism can be found everywhere and that it can raise the worst in mankind, even between ethnic groups that are very similar. But as you say, the meaning we give to the word depends on our life experience.

      Delete
  35. I read the article with interest and much unease. I think it is an unpleasant sign of the times. I watch Strictly Come Dancing on TV and used to follow the social media too, but I had to stop following the social media because of a similar thing; personal vitriol being poured on contestants certain fans did not like, and then poured on people trying to balance the bias.

    As has been stated, I think the "wars" bear no relation to what is actually happening between the royal Duchesses, or the work they are doing. Like Jane above stated, something criticised in one is OK in the other and vice versa.

    It's a similar thing with the Diana/Camilla Wars, which some people, who cannot be young, are still carrying on after all these years, in the absence of one of the parties and in the face of the obvious acceptance by the royal family of the other.

    I was brought up in the school of "If you can't think of anything nice to say, don't say anything". I think its a great shame we can't talk objectively about the Royal family without mud slinging.

    ReplyDelete
  36. My two cents: tension was bound to happen. Meghan excelled at everything Kate has been struggling with: public speaking, work ethics, the ”modern independent woman” image, resonating with diverse segments of the public, and she and Harry themselves emphasized these qualities in her. Her being so different from Kate in all these ways, and the success she’s had, must have been a source of friction, especially as Harry openly showed how proud he was of those traits in her.

    Now we see the tables turning, with criticism of Meghan, for example her lack of research into the history of the mosque where the community kitchen was hosted, with its linka to terrorism. This can be used to highlight Kate’s prudence and her history of steering clear of controversies. Meghan’s spontaneity will be turned against her. And if her and Harry’s relationship ever prove to be the least bit shaky, I’m sure Kate’s efforts in building a solid foundation for her family life will be used against her, as well.

    As long as their differences are emphasized this will keep happening. Yes, I am aware I just perpetuated this narrative myself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sooooo fed up of the ‘modern independent woman’ story...I got the feeling that if she wasn’t a (alleged) celebrity she would not be praised as the image of the woman of the 21st century.

      By the way, I am not a fan of how she delivers a speech, I saw the Invictus one and I felt like she was presenting a TV special. The fact that she is more comfortable at public speaking than Kate does not make her a better speaker, simply a less shy speaker. I find William, for example, a really good speaker, he modulates his voice and tone, makes pauses as appropriate, emphasizes when necessary...he just needs to make less use of his notes when speaking to improve his skills even more.

      BM

      Delete
    2. BM,I agree,William's speeches are very good. The last one in Leicester also. Well written and well delivered. I must say Meghan's make me cringe a bit,starting with her famous UN one.

      Delete
    3. The same things have been said about William and Harry. William is the boring one, family-oriented, and his idea of 'letting go' is doing some embarrassing dad-dancing. Harry is the cool one, spontaneous, Vegas-fun, costume partying, secret smoker.

      In reality the boys are brothers and share 50% DNA and are probably a lot more similar than the tabloid angles over the years. I think we should basically extend that same feeling to Catherine and Meghan - similarities, rather than differences. They obviously ARE different people, but it isn't like they are aliens from another planet.

      Delete
    4. BM I 100% disagree with you, I think Megan is a wonderful public speaker and I loved her Invictus games speech. I think Megan should help with Kate public speaking and Kate should help Meghan with being more “British”. And I am soooooo fed up with people who disparage woman who work. I think it’s great that she worked hard and earned her way. I am also fed up with people who think that they have a right to tear somebody down just because they don’t like them or doesn’t narrate their idea of what a woman should be.

      Delete
    5. I thought Meghan's technical skills were fine although I wasn't focused on studying those when I've watched her speak. What I found odd was that she gave a speech at all at the Invictus Games. That has long been Harry's pet project, in part because of his own military service. I wouldn't have thought getting married would make it Meghan's any more than I would have expected Kate to start giving "Conservation in Africa" speeches at organizations Will's been working with for years.

      Delete
    6. If you are including me on the ‘people who disparage woman who work’ you are very wrong. I work, I am better paid than my husband, I have no children BUT I do not disregard women who do not work or choose to work less hours because they want to be with their children. Also, I don’t see as lazy a man who decides to stay at home when becoming a father. Everyone has the right to make his/her personal choice. We are living in 2018, women working are not an exceptional thing, there is no need to depict her as a role model for women.

      I often attend conferences and seminars and I am used to listening to people giving lectures/speeches. A small % of them are good speakers. Being comfortable when speaking in public does not automatically make you a good speaker but, again, this is my opinion and everyone has his/hers.

      BM

      Delete
    7. I don't think Kate has "struggled" with being a modern independent woman. She appears to be quite comfortable in her own skin and stays true to herself. I do, however, believe that some royal watchers have struggled with Kate's values and decisions. And I believe the work ethic concerns have a lot to do with said values and decisions.

      Regarding public speaking … she may not be a natural, but she has improved and she comes across as being sincere and caring. IMO, that what matters most.

      Delete
  37. I believe it is wonderful to have two lovely young royal couples to follow for their fashion and, more importantly, for the wonderful work they do in bringing light to many important causes. Let us not forget that regardless of the daily chatter, these are kind and generous people, members of an important royal family, but family above all. The only contest should be how effective they are as a whole, not the petty perceived grievances some fans imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I'm followong the blog (religiously - love it to bits!) for a long time, since before Kate's wedding, but started commenting only today.
    First of all, Jane, thank you so much for the blog. Your writing is amazing! Please, never stop!
    Second, is it only me, but i bet that Meghan's maternity leave will be super short and all the speculations, that all will calm down then, are, i think, wrong... it will be even more drama with comparison...
    I like both ladies (but of course,i have a favorite ;) ). They are both beautiful and smart and so absolutely different - more interesting for us! Are they best friends? Definatelly not. But maybe just - not yet? Are there issuess? Definatelly - yes, but nothing ground braking and so much different from any other family or work place with new people joining in... Or so i hope

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, her maternity leave will be short. But the fact is that she will probably get pregnant again about a year after her first birth to be sure of having two kids, which is something I think she wants. With two babies in two years she cant really get involved full time until mid 2020, I think. Meanwhile Kate is probably done.

      Delete
    2. If commenter's speculation is true that Meghan is actively trying to not be like Kate, then yes I agree Meghan will take a shorter maternity leave than Kate did. But I really hope Meghan takes however long she needs. Women should not be obligated to take a short maternity leave for whatever reason people come up with; they should be encouraged to take as long as they need and want to heal and bond with their babies. I hate the idea that the people who hate Kate perpetuate (women who are self-proclaimed feminists no less) that a woman is not entitled to time to heal and bond with her baby if she doesn't work outside of the home enough beforehand. That line of thinking is dangerous for all woman.

      Delete
    3. Leslie, I agree with you so much! I stayed for 8 months with my first daughter and plan to stay at least that long the second time too. It was so hard to get back to work, it broke my heart and to this day i believe that was not the best thing for my baby (now 3)... i believe the first years are the most important... But maternity leave is different in different countries, where i live it's 3.5 month paid leave, but were i was born it was a year paid leave. And that makes it norm in given country, so for me 8 months is short for may husband it appeared like very long. In US it's virtually non existant, as far as i know, so i think for Meghan it would be normal to be back soon.
      I think they'll try for another baby soon too, although, you never know. Nothing changes woman like becoming mum, we might be surprised and Meghan might be too ;) i think Kate was.
      I also think Kate is done, you can see she is happy and confident with her familylife and her professional life also. So glad to see that.
      I believe their both are smart to do what's best for them personaly, but press and social media will inevitably compare and tear.

      Delete
  39. I have been "following" the royal family for something like 75 years and there has hardly been a time where newspapers were reporting some supposed quarrel .
    For goodness sake we had two young women---one arranging a royal wedding and the other just recovering from the birth of her third baby---not the end of the world whatever happened. They have probably forgotten it by now.
    I don't for one minute think that is why Harry and Meghan are going to Windsor. Who wouldn't choose that instead of central London, which is highly polluted. There is an excellent school there too.
    Catherine looked lovely today--i think wearing the coat we caught a glimpse of when she was driving to Church with the Queen at Balmoral.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thank you for providing this forum for this important discussion Jane. This kind of respectful analysis gets very little space in today’s social media. It was brave of you to provide it given the environment that surrounds the younger royals.
    I think Meghan is fine. My liking her has more to do, however, with how happy Harry is to have finally found his partner in this very weird life path that was chosen for him, not by him. I’ve always had a soft spot for Harry and if he’s happy, then I’m happy.
    Having said that, I’m a little concerned about Harry and wonder if much of this real or perceived “rift” in the W&H world is his doing. Harry appears (and I use the word “appears” because I couldn’t possibly know for sure) to be very stressed by his new circumstances. I have no doubt that Meghan is a handful (I say that respectfully), she is a grown woman who has earned her way and is strong willed and opinionated (and I don’t mean that in a disparaging way). I worry a little bit that Harry is “relieved” and “grateful” to Meghan for taking him on. There is a lot of proof that Harry worried he would never find someone willing to do that. And I say this having had some experience with a family member who was so grateful to her partner for marrying her and so outraged that not everyone loved him the way she did that she completely alienated her family for 46 years. 46 years!
    Harry is his mother’s son in a way that William isn’t. He wears his heart on his sleeve and tends to be emotional and a little volcanic sometimes. I wonder if, in his insistence that Meghan be completely adored by his family the way he adores her, he isn’t setting her up for failure.
    Just a thought….

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep! That's how I see this too, it's probably initiated by Harry. I think it stems from his insecurity, by thinking he's not good enough: who could deal with being married to him + that he can't be the top royal to give his wife what he thinks she deserves. I think he thinks the world of her and wants her to be treated accordingly. Others are probably trying to put him in his place a little bit.

      Delete
    2. Jane and Dani, I agree with your thoughts. When Harry made the formal plea for privacy, I realized how much he would do to please a girlfriend/fiancée/spouse and that's wonderful assuming the willingness to please isn't abused. And, yes, he does look stressed IMO.

      Delete
  41. I personally love following both of the lovely ladies. I also believe they get along just fine. They are mature, sensitive women loyal to their husbands and perfectly willing to put aside petty differences in order to enjoy their respective families which is of primary importance to the both of them.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I honestly don't see Kate wasting time engaging in a "feud" with Meghan. Like it or not, Kate comes out on top because she's the future Queen consort. All she has to do is smile and be polite and she's already won whatever imaginary battle there is between them. That's just how the Firm works.

    I agree with the lines "where there's smoke there's fire" but I think that smoke may be more of a battle between the egos of William and Harry, perhaps Meghan too, with H&M really realizing his role in the future of the monarchy (I know Harry said no one in his generation wants to be King- but, perhaps the side perks of being King- attention, deference, housing...different story- and his wife may certainly have expected those things to be equal).

    Kate's response regarding Baby Sussex today gave us a glimpse of a polite, but somewhat indifferent, Kate (re Meghan, Harry and their baby). I don't think Kate spends a whole lot of time getting worked up about any of this- her priorities are her family, husband, fashion to an extent, her royal duties to an extent, and staying thin (and I don't mean that negatively- diet, exercise, healthy cooking are genuine priorities). Not too far from what her priorities might have been had she married a very wealthy man and lived in Kensington (a la Pippa). I just don't see enough ego on Kate's for a feud! Don't get me wrong, I don't think they've clicked or hit it off- they are very different and Kate doesn't *need* Meghan as a friend or teammate- so polite but distant it is.

    In close, I'll add a line my husband loves from Mad Men, when an underling accosted Don Draper in an elevator to tell him what "he thinks of him"... Don's response, "I don't really think of you."

    Jane- thanks for the lovely blog as always! I appreciate that this blog allows for constructive dialogue without delving into bashing or slurs. I hope you enjoy moderating as much as we enjoy participating!

    ReplyDelete
  43. I cannot relate to picking a side or hating one and loving the other. I absolutely adore and enjoy BOTH of them and the opportunities to follow their styles and lives! For so long it was just Kate, but now we have TWO royal "princesses"! I appreciate each for what they contribute to the style/fashion conversation and royal circle. How fun that they are so different that we as royalists/fans/supporters get to see so many sides of a "princess"! I am a physician, and reading about Kate and Meghan is one way that I escape into a world outside my own. At a time where extremism seems to have seeped into all parts of life, must we really allow it to dominate the space that we go to get away?

    ReplyDelete
  44. In today's political climate it makes good sense for the households to have some distance between them. One carefully executed attack could wipe out KP and all the residents. If that happened, we could eventually have Queen Beatrice. (I like the York girls so do not take that as a slur.) As for a "family feud," what family doesn't have them from time-to-time? It's juicy Internet fodder but I don't believe all of it. I respect my sisters-in-law but I don't hang out with them. There's no acrimony, just a different life trajectory, and I think that's what we see with Kate and Meghan.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This is Claire's comment from 7:40pm. I have edited out the names of other bloggers, which I prefer to avoid in this space.

    I find all of this really disheartening because I admire both of these women. I was so excited when Meghan and Harry got engaged and she has done nothing but impress me since. I’ve been following Kate since her engagement and have just been more impressed with her decisions and actions as the years have passed. I think it’s great that the BRF has two very different women with different interests and strengths, and it really had never occurred to me to weigh the two of them like products competing for purchase.

    That being said, I also think that the vitriol directed against Meghan has really been more intense and nasty than anything I’ve read about Kate over the years. I think W&K have gotten a lot of unfair criticism, particularly about the work thing (which I never bought into because I think they have always been operating with the knowledge that as they near the age when other people might start thinking of retiring, they’ll be taking on even more). But the level and volume of nastiness I’ve seen just in the last few weeks about Meghan has really shocked and saddened me. And some of it is definitely couched in terms of race and class. I think it’s important to recognize that being accused of racial insensitivity is not an “equal to” experience with being a victim of racism. I have no doubt that responsible bloggers like Jane, or [other bloggers], are struggling with hypersensitive knee-jerk reactions to any measured criticism of Meghan. But that doesn’t upset me nearly as much as seeing a comment about “going from Compton to Kensington” (which I saw on the last post here before Jane thankfully deleted it).

    On a positive note, I am glad that the community here and at some of my other favorite Kate blogs seems much more into not tearing women down, even when they make questionable fashion choices. I think it’s a lot saner here than on gossip sites or Instagram, and I credit some of that to the realistic and measured tone that Jane takes in writing about Kate and the Firm. So kudos for that!

    ReplyDelete
  47. ANON1, I don't believe you're being blocked. I get a site not trustworthy message depending on the device I use and I believe it has to do with the particular security settings on it. Try clicking on the post link rather than the comments link within the post.

    Off to work now, will respond to other comments later. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  48. I wrote this in the original post, just today, but I think it belongs here: ok, SO LATE on the comments, but one thing I noticed that I don't think anyone pointed out. To me it seems this tension is put out by Harry and his insecurity. I think he loves Meghan so much, and wants to give her the world, but feels almost embarrassed that she has to be second (or 6th) best in the BRF. So I think he tries to push as much as he can for her to have what she wants. And of course, she wants to do the most she can in terms of engagements, because I think she truly cares about making a difference. This of course would drive anyone nuts, especially William. I think W&K also want to make a difference, but they are much more cautious, as they have to be. Stakes are much higher for W&K than H&M, and I think we see that in everything they do. I think Kate taking time off to build her family is not being work-shy, but more because 1) it's something she wants to do; and 2) it's a sense of duty. It really is on her and William to raise the best future monarch they can. I would be terrified by this responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Let she who has zero tension with her sister in law cast the first stone!

    But, to be honest, much of this feels like a very negative portrayal of a changing family dynamic. Harry had been a single “third wheel” to W&K for many years, now he is establishing a new role for himself. And reflecting on his past, a very different one. It is pretty normal for H&M to be feeling their way in trying to establish themselves as a couole and find their niche. This changes the natural order and people are just adjusting.

    I adore Kate and while having not been familiar with Meghan, she seems to be a genuine, articulate and passionate person. Their backgrounds, interests, tastes and experiences in the BRF seem so different, they don’t have to be best friends to still respect each other.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jane, what are your thoughts regarding Buckingham Palace addressing a single specific rumor, but not the others or making a general statement? Pwincess Bwuttercup

    ReplyDelete
  51. On a similar note as Anonymous’s above, Jane, what are your thoughts about all these leaks starting after that staff membet Melissa quit abruptly?

    ReplyDelete

Due to a number of factors, I no longer host a comment section.