How is Megan doing so far?

[simmo 21,932]

1 hour ago, HappyHeart said:

Ah I see you've answered my previous question. How do you suppose Meg has manipulated him? 

 

 

[InnerVoice 1,231]

11 hours ago, HappyHeart said:

Ah I see you've answered my previous question. How do you suppose Meg has manipulated him? 

The polite answer is with her feminine guile, although a fair few other things spring to mind.

Strong, assertive, successful women meets sad, lost puppy - there's no doubt who's wearing the trousers in that relationship.

[InnerVoice 1,231]

On 19/05/2023 at 14:40, simmo said:

As for ignoring them. Why? They have no respect for others privacy.  He sold every private moment and conversation with his brother and father for profit, he regularly goes on late night shows to tell the world "his truth" about the royal family knowing that they won't respond.  He's probably working on his next exposè right now.

Is there anything left to expose?? It's over 3 years since they first announced they were pulling the plug on royal life, and in that time we've seen more dirty laundry than the Sheraton. It's not like they're ever going to be in a position to get any new material.

Mrs Merton's classic one-liner  “So what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?”, springs to mind whenever I see Megan. Maybe she does love Harry - they've been on quite a journey together - but I can't imagine her ever being interested in him if he hadn't been a prince of the realm. It will be interesting to see what happens when his celebrity status starts to dwindle, as it does with all the lower-tier royals as they age. Their marriage seems to have a similar dynamic to Andrew and Fergie, so one wonders if it will last.

[HappyHeart 14,366]

48 minutes ago, InnerVoice said:

The polite answer is with her feminine guile, although a fair few other things spring to mind.

Strong, assertive, successful women meets sad, lost puppy - there's no doubt who's wearing the trousers in that relationship.

It's sad but not totally unexpected that those misogynistic ideas still prevail. A tad insulting to the man and to the woman involved in such alliances. 

[InnerVoice 1,231]

6 minutes ago, HappyHeart said:

It's sad but not totally unexpected that those misogynistic ideas still prevail. A tad insulting to the man and to the woman involved in such alliances. 

Sad, but true.

[HappyHeart 14,366]

3 minutes ago, InnerVoice said:

Sad, but true.

True that the ideology that brings people to that conclusion is misogynistic. It's very deeply ingrained. Harry must be a victim of a manipulative woman, he hasn't ideas of his own, he's being peer pressured...it's ridiculous really. The man is extremely powerful in his own right...and happens to be with a woman unafraid to use her voice (shades of his mother-Freud anyone). His own trauma/grief is weaponised against him to engineer some sort of image that pleases the easily influenced. Did somebody say manipulation? Jeez. 

[Toots 12,284]

5 minutes ago, HappyHeart said:

True that the ideology that brings people to that conclusion is misogynistic. It's very deeply ingrained. Harry must be a victim of a manipulative woman, he hasn't ideas of his own, he's being peer pressured...it's ridiculous really. The man is extremely powerful in his own right...and happens to be with a woman unafraid to use her voice (shades of his mother-Freud anyone). His own trauma/grief is weaponised against him to engineer some sort of image that pleases the easily influenced. Did somebody say manipulation? Jeez. 

I admire that you see the good side of people @HappyHeart.  I can tell that you are a people person.  Unfortunately I'm not.  I'm not terribly fond of my fellow human beings.   Not much patience for a lot of them.  Poor old Harry and Meghan as far as I'm concerned are a couple of narcissistic grifters.  I look forward to them proving me wrong.  

[Parley 7,908]

Donald Trump said he's been pussy whipped which is an interesting way to term it.

[InnerVoice 1,231]

17 minutes ago, Parley said:

Donald Trump said he's been pussy whipped which is an interesting way to term it.

@Parley this is the Megan and Harry thread. The Donald Trump thread is on the floor below!

[Parley 7,908]

6 minutes ago, InnerVoice said:

@Parley this is the Megan and Harry thread. The Donald Trump thread is on the floor below!

Donald Trump said it about Harry.

It was in the Piers Morgan interview from last year. He didn't actually say pussy whipped. Piers asked Trump what he thought about Harry and Meghan. He said he likes Harry but not Meghan. To quote him he said there is a 2 word phrase that sums up Harry. The 2nd word is whipped you can work out the first word.

Edited May 23 by Parley

[InnerVoice 1,231]

6 minutes ago, Parley said:

Donald Trump said it about Harry.

I thought you meant Donald Trump was saying about himself, which would've been logical given the lawsuit he's just lost - he certainly took a good whipping there!

[Parley 7,908]

2 hours ago, InnerVoice said:

Is there anything left to expose?? It's over 3 years since they first announced they were pulling the plug on royal life, and in that time we've seen more dirty laundry than the Sheraton. It's not like they're ever going to be in a position to get any new material.

Mrs Merton's classic one-liner  “So what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?”, springs to mind whenever I see Megan. Maybe she does love Harry - they've been on quite a journey together - but I can't imagine her ever being interested in him if he hadn't been a prince of the realm. It will be interesting to see what happens when his celebrity status starts to dwindle, as it does with all the lower-tier royals as they age. Their marriage seems to have a similar dynamic to Andrew and Fergie, so one wonders if it will last.

True. Although as the son (and later brother) of the monarch, I don't think he will ever be considered a lower tier royal.

I think he will stay in the limelight for the rest of his life.

[HappyHeart 14,366]

18 minutes ago, InnerVoice said:

I thought you meant Donald Trump was saying about himself, which would've been logical given the lawsuit he's just lost - he certainly took a good whipping there!

He has a knack of losing lawsuits and being proven guilty. Don’t forget though- it’s the biggest witch-hunt in history! 

[InnerVoice 1,231]

1 hour ago, Parley said:

True. Although as the son (and later brother) of the monarch, I don't think he will ever be considered a lower tier royal.

I think he will stay in the limelight for the rest of his life.

Maybe. I guess it depends what he does with the rest of his life, and how newsworthy it is.

You never see much about Anne and Edward in the news these days, do you? - and the only reason Andrew has been in the limelight is for all the wrong reasons.

They'll just be superseded by the next generation, making all their mistakes!

[Ken 1,739]

2 hours ago, Parley said:

True. Although as the son (and later brother) of the monarch, I don't think he will ever be considered a lower tier royal.

I think he will stay in the limelight for the rest of his life.

Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester was the brother of both King Edward VIII and King George VI. By the time he died in 1974 he was very much a lower tier royal.

[Parley 7,908]

4 minutes ago, Ken said:

Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester was the brother of both King Edward VIII and King George VI. By the time he died in 1974 he was very much a lower tier royal.

Times have changed a lot though.

Remember how Elizabeth prevented Margaret from marrying the man of her choice Peter Townsend who was a divorcee and deemed therefore unsuitable.

Harry was allowed to marry Meghan, a divorcee. 

So times have changed a lot and i doubt there was a lot of paparazzi back then in the 30s and 40s. True though that the new generation of royals will be the focus when George, Charlotte and Louis are running amok in their 20s.

Time will tell.

[Bobj 10,329]

2 hours ago, Parley said:

True. Although as the son (and later brother) of the monarch, I don't think he will ever be considered a lower tier royal.

I think he will stay in the limelight for the rest of his life.

If meggsie has her way, he will.

 Cheers, Bobj.

[InnerVoice 1,231]

4 hours ago, HappyHeart said:

True that the ideology that brings people to that conclusion is misogynistic. It's very deeply ingrained. Harry must be a victim of a manipulative woman, he hasn't ideas of his own, he's being peer pressured...it's ridiculous really. The man is extremely powerful in his own right...and happens to be with a woman unafraid to use her voice (shades of his mother-Freud anyone). His own trauma/grief is weaponised against him to engineer some sort of image that pleases the easily influenced. Did somebody say manipulation? Jeez. 

It's been discussed at great length in our mostly-female staffroom and the consensus of opinion is that Harry has been manipulated by Megan to some extent, so does that make all them misogynists too? According to the lady sat next to me, he needs to grow a pair.

[HappyHeart 14,366]

28 minutes ago, InnerVoice said:

It's been discussed at great length in our mostly-female staffroom and the consensus of opinion is that Harry has been manipulated by Megan to some extent, so does that make all them misogynists too? According to the lady sat next to me, he needs to grow a pair.

It's representative of misogyny as a concept infiltrating everyday life. We are conditioned to think in certain ways. Ask yourself this, why do we not paint Meghan as the 'sad little puppy' and Harry as the strong powerful one? They have similar backgrounds in terms of growing up with divorced parents. What is it that puts Meghan in that place, what (real) evidence do we have that she is a manipulative woman and that Harry is weak and vulnerable? 

My take is that they are both scarred in some way by past experience, both have a clear vision for how they feel the world ought to look, both have similar values and goals, together they embolden and validate each other. I certainly don't see one as the puppet master and one as the puppet. That's just my take. I appreciate every one sees it differently. 

Oh...as for women being misogynistic (sounds like it couldn't be a thing but is) just check out the Amber Heard case. No doubt plenty have very stronf opioons on that too. As do I. There is diversity in women's thoughts just as there is in men's. Men can be feminists or misogynistic attitudes. 

[Parley 7,908]

7 minutes ago, HappyHeart said:

It's representative of misogyny as a concept infiltrating everyday life. We are conditioned to think in certain ways. Ask yourself this, why do we not paint Meghan as the 'sad little puppy' and Harry as the strong powerful one? They have similar backgrounds in terms of growing up with divorced parents. What is it that puts Meghan in that place, what (real) evidence do we have that she is a manipulative woman and that Harry is weak and vulnerable? 

My take is that they are both scarred in some way by past experience, both have a clear vision for how they feel the world ought to look, both have similar values and goals, together they embolden and validate each other. I certainly don't see one as the puppet master and one as the puppet. That's just my take. I appreciate every one sees it differently. 

Oh...as for women being misogynistic (sounds like it couldn't be a thing but is) just check out the Amber Heard case. No doubt plenty have very stronf opioons on that too. As do I. There is diversity in women's thoughts just as there is in men's. Men can be feminists or misogynistic attitudes. 

Is it still misogyny if it is true and the woman is actually  a controlling manipulative so and so?

[HappyHeart 14,366]

25 minutes ago, Parley said:

Is it still misogyny if it is true and the woman is actually  a controlling manipulative so and so?

Obviously not. The 2 are not mutually exclusive concepts. We must be more thoughtful in casting wild aspersions based on the way somebody makes us feel though and the narrative we are fed. It’s very, very harmful. 
They’ve been absolutely vilified in the press and they have fought back. Unfortunately they have done so in such a way as to fuel the vilifications and provide more ammo. I’m not saying I agree with how they’ve gone about it but I do think I understand some of their motivations. It’s like they say though- don’t waste your time explaining yourself to somebody committed to misunderstanding you. We all see things through own own perspectives. The late Queens default of never complain never explain served her well. The less people know the less rocks there are to hurl. 

[simmo 21,932]

7 hours ago, HappyHeart said:

True that the ideology that brings people to that conclusion is misogynistic. It's very deeply ingrained. Harry must be a victim of a manipulative woman, he hasn't ideas of his own, he's being peer pressured...it's ridiculous really. The man is extremely powerful in his own right...and happens to be with a woman unafraid to use her voice (shades of his mother-Freud anyone). His own trauma/grief is weaponised against him to engineer some sort of image that pleases the easily influenced. Did somebody say manipulation? Jeez. 

The man has serious mental health issues.

[Skani 5,407]

1 hour ago, Parley said:

Is it still misogyny if it is true and the woman is actually  a controlling manipulative so and so?

No.  Misogyny is a dislike of women in general.   Disliking a particular individual because they are a deeply unpleasant person - and happen to be a woman - is different.

[simmo 21,932]

Misogyny is the new "race card"

[InnerVoice 1,231]

Misogyny - dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

Misandry - dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men.

Both are equally damaging, although most are unfamiliar with the second term.