Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Yeah, I'm not really buying it, as it still doesn't attack the core of the argument: that there's no actual inconsistency between wanting to tell your own tale (in whatever format) and not have some cunt grubbing through your bins to find out what biscuits you eat, and pretending there's an equivalence is bollocks. To complain about his methodology whilst ignoring exactly how much shit has been leaked and slipped against him and her isn't really cricket, either. Frankly, were it my wife, I'd be on the same path and fuck the lot of them.

I never said there was an equivalence.

The South Park metaphor quite clearly implies it. The argument is the same one the Mail et al have been running with, that if their privacy is so important to them, then why are they doing stuff in the media? Lazy and stupid, and I'm fairly sure you're neither.

What a cushty life.

Poor Princess Kate. Who could have guessed she finds walking so hard?

It's not the walking, it's the walking and chewing gum at the same time.

Chris this sounds just awful.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... ew-netflix

Or, indeed, her viewers, who find themselves at the deflating juncture where we can finally judge to our heart’s content the contemporary curio that is With Love, Meghan. Do we really need to though? Gazillions of words, many of them predictably hateful, have already been spewed on what it is actually about, based on the two-minute trailer alone. Is Meghan the ultimate tradwife? A domestic goddess in the wink-wink Nigella vein (if only!)? A fake flaunting her wealth? Is it a cynical money-making exercise (Netflix reportedly paid the Sussexes £78m for their overall deal)? A right-on sister who genuinely cares about diversity? An estranged royal suffering from an incurable case of earnestness? Or, as the New York Times dubbed her, is she “the millennial Martha Stewart of Montecito”?

Having watched the whole damn thing, I can confirm that I haven’t got the foggiest. But I do know that the duchess loves lemon zesting. And that she keeps flaxseeds, chia seeds and hemp hearts on her counter so she can dust her kids’ pancakes willy-nilly. And that she’s got impressive knife skills. And refers to herself as “Meg’” on the labels she ties around her mason jars, which are filled with whatever surprising moments she happens to be elevating. And that all those years slumming it as a freelance calligrapher have really paid off – her handwriting is lovely.

Netflix reportedly paid the Sussexes £78m for their overall deal

But forgot to ask what it was they could do. Meghan isn’t a bad TV actor and Harry should have stuck with the army as a mid ranking officer in a comms desk role.

Am I supposed to care? I'm not going to like them just because the tabloids hate them, and I'm not going to hate them just because they're doing what thousands of other celebrities would do, given the chance. I can't bring myself to have any interest in this at all.

What I don't get is why the Guardian has wasted time reviewing the show. It is not being shown on mainstream TV over here. It is a niche show aimed at a niche market. If it is not your cup of tea then don't watch it. If somebody asked me to write a review of a show like 'Love Island' it would definitely be a one star review and I would slag the show off because I see such shows as utterly pointless.

Republicans get to sneer at royals. Royalists get to sneer at those ungrateful bastards. Racists and sexists get to sneer at a mixed race woman. Snobs get to sneer at a social climber.

Something for everyone. Besides, journalists stick together at the most basic level. You never know where you might be working next, and whatever your position in the game, they tried to break the game altogether.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 8:03 pm Republicans get to sneer at royals. Royalists get to sneer at those ungrateful bastards. Racists and sexists get to sneer at a mixed race woman. Snobs get to sneer at a social climber.

Then why haven't Channel 4 picked it up?

Little bit puzzled about today’s news that Prince Hazza has lost his action in the Appeal Court against the High Court ruling that removed his state-funded security detail when he withdrew from being a “working royal”.

Presumably, this was a decision in the first instance, taken in 2020 by the government, and upheld by the UK’s independent judiciary. King Chas, Hazza’s dad, supposedly had no say in it. [Aye, right.]

Yet Harry has been bumping his gums today about how hard done by he feels, mostly because he has fallen out with his brother and with his dad, as if it was Chas that is stopping him getting armed protection because he isn’t talking to him, when it’s the government. He’s clearly upset by his continuing estrangement from his family, and worried that his dad might not have much longer to continue coining it from the public purse.

Understandable to some extent, but I’m finding it hard to raise a great deal of sympathy. When you really look into it, the whole edifice of the royal family, with its creaming off of vast profits from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, its royal residences, royal trains and helicopters and yachts, is utterly repugnant. Harry didn’t ask to be born into it, of course, but it’s where he is. If I were him, I’d simply get on with his life in California, and maybe see whether his dad wants to be friends again before he croaks. Get some private security in the USA. he can easily afford it, and they’re allowed guns there.

We really ought to be laying plans to scrap the whole sorry circus when King Chas turns up his toes.

Get some private security in the USA. he can easily afford it, and they’re allowed guns there.

We really ought to be laying plans to scrap the whole sorry circus when King Chas turns up his toes.

Can he easily afford it, what's the shelf life of Harry and Meg's marketable value? They'll have to hustle on QVC like Auntie Fergie.

Harry can have all the armoury he wants in the US, but that is a very different story when he comes back to where he quite rightfully calls home.

Far out-stripping the cost of a few blue lights, his kidnapping will / would redefine the term, "a king's ransom."

I totally agree that if Harry were to be killed or kidnapped whilst in this country it would be a national humiliation. If all this is just down to money Charles could easily put his hand in his pocket and pay for the security. Liz Truss gets security for life even though she was only PM for 7 weeks. Grant Shapp also gets security because he was briefly Home Secretary. If they get security surely Harry should get similar security simply because he is the King's son.

The fact that Charles isn't inclined to step in would suggest that he is quite happy for his son to stay away from the UK.

You can't exactly blame him, though.

The Windsors have always thrown family members to the wolves in order to protect the institution. Greater good, duty and all that.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -interview

Pragmatically, instead of revelling in victimhood, Harry and Meghan might reflect that if they turn up for official events they will get protection. If they turn up privately to stay with friends, the British public will remain blissfully unaware of their presence or even location.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 11:23 pm https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -interview

Pragmatically, instead of revelling in victimhood, Harry and Meghan might reflect that if they turn up for official events they will get protection. If they turn up privately to stay with friends, the British public will remain blissfully unaware of their presence or even location.

I don't think it would be possible for them to be here in total secrecy. Meghan kidnapped by Muslim terrorists would be an interesting Mail Top Trumps, though.