Megan and Harry again!

Good question NellG, just been thinking about his while I hung the washing out . I expect what I am about to say will ruffle a few feathers but here goes anyway....

There are things posted on here, i.e. Gransnet, that are downright nasty about all kinds of people in the public eye. Sometimes I point it out, sometimes I don't. Sometimes others do. The line between justified criticism and insults or character assassination just seems to be non-distinct for some posters. Remember "Screechy-gate"? . Or the Oscar winning actor who was referred to as having a potato-face on another thread? Now some will say that's just light hearted, I think its unacceptable.

So if someone says there was nothing nasty posted, and the thread is littered with nasty comments, then demonstrating that is a good way of proving the opposite case. I don't expect the original posters will care what I think, but if you see unpleasantness that is then denied, I think you should point it out.

Are they totally unaware of the effect their 'ill timed' and at times badly worded announcements have Annie. If this was a badly timed coincidence which I doubt, why on earth hasn't the broadcasting of the Oprah interview been changed?

If this isn't a example of attempting 'one up man ship' and demonstrating H's complete disregard for his GM, I don't know what is.

Yes it is strange isn't it tickingbird that there are more posts criticising posters who criticise M and or M & H, than there are giving examples to defend them.

Can anyone offer a realistic 'reason' for the unfortunate timing for the broad casting of the Oprah interview?

tickingbird

I haven’t seen any that wish death or serious illness on H &M. It seems that it’s ok to be perfectly vile about some but not others is my point.

I get you, I pointed out that double standard on another thread a few days back - was promptly told not to let the door hit my arse on the way out...

Consequently I have no issue with what people want to say about others, unless it's hate speech.

Alegrias Fair enough. But you must know by now that all it does is create more brouhaha. It may be right to correct things and post people's words, but is it necessary and does it create progress?

Not poking, genuine question because I do it myself and I'm interested in what people, including me, expect to achieve.

I haven’t seen any that wish death or serious illness on H &M. It seems that it’s ok to be perfectly vile about some but not others is my point.

So trisher saying the royal family drove Katharine Kent away
after her illness following the loss of two babies is acceptable ,
no matter I posted Katherine Kent lives in Kensington Palace
and attends family celebrations.

tickingbird you said that you hadn't seen anything really nasty about Meghan on this thread. Those comments are nasty. I copied them as examples.

I imagine what some people find nasty others think are justified complaints. I made no comments on motives in that post, I think you'll notice.

NellG, nice bit of psychoanalysis. I wasn't asking them to stop. I was pointing out that people were being nasty about M when it was being said that there was no nastiness.

Alegrias1 If GN members wish to say they can’t stand Meghan Markle they can. There’s plenty of other people ie politicians/celebrities that receive similar comments so it seems strange that MM brings out such protective instincts in other members. I’m pretty indifferent about her tbh but whenever anyone starts a thread on her or them as a couple, others always pile in and not so much in her/their defence, more attacking poster’s motives. It’s odd. I can’t understand why anyone bothers. You can’t stop it unless the thread gets deleted which is such a snide, schoolgirly tactic much used on here.

Alegrias People are hurt and confused by H&M's actions - you may not be able to relate to that because they don't mean anything to you in the same way. They are using this thread to express anger dismay and yes, expressing more than a few judgments, not with the intent to bully, but in order to express and process some very complex feelings about a subject that very many of us have no idea why we care about so much, but we do.

As I said before, if M's lawyers want to issue a cease and desist request, or a writ for defamation they can. Until then people are free to talk in any way they choose and we don't really have the right to police it, do we?

trisher So it’s ok to post wishing death on someone and being extremely nasty as long as YOU don’t like them?

trisher Ah, I see where you're coming from, thanks for clarifying. Definitely another thread! I see exactly what you're describing on here all the time, it's a fascinating pattern and I don't think people often have a clue that they're in it/doing it etc. I get sucked in often enough to know! Thing is I'm not sure a thread on the concept wouldn't descend into a whole lot of troublesome personal examples and cause more trouble than it's worth? Shame though.

tickingbird

Trisher I suppose it depends how you view the person concerned. I remember threads on various MP’s - Boris and Priti Patel spring to mind - where the comments were disgraceful really. Wishing death on BJ even. This isn’t bullying just because you don’t agree with some of the comments.

I haven’t read anything really nasty about Meghan on this thread and nothing I’d class as bullying.

If you actually read my post I agreed with NellGthat it isn't bullying but the style is so similar. Comments about how she is controlling, how she ddn't behave herself, how she was a second rate actress, how she planned to grab Harry, how she rejected the RF for no reason. It's all speculation and rumour fuelled by the British media.
Even the post about the Queen and the Oprah interview. It seems some have no idea there is a time difference between US and UK.
I just wonder what all these posters get out of it. Maybe it is the same sort of buzz?
I can't stand either of the two people you mention because of their politics and principles which, if I was posting about them, would be the basis of my criticisms.

^ haven’t read anything really nasty about Meghan on this thread and nothing I’d class as bullying^

I guess it depends how far you have to go to be really nasty:

she [the queen] above all people does not need reminding what duty is, by a pair of free-loaders

Understandable, she will be talking about the most important subject to her, herself

At least she makes every other daughter in law look saintly in comparison.

She was a second rate actress on a tv show with a large entourage, who came to the UK on the hunt for a husband

I make no apologies for the fact that I cannot abide Meghan Markle.
If I never see that “pasted on” false smile ever again, it will be too soon.
False false false
 
with M, dressed up as the lemon tree fairy in a £2,000 dress which of course she can now 'borrow'

Trisher I suppose it depends how you view the person concerned. I remember threads on various MP’s - Boris and Priti Patel spring to mind - where the comments were disgraceful really. Wishing death on BJ even. This isn’t bullying just because you don’t agree with some of the comments.

I haven’t read anything really nasty about Meghan on this thread and nothing I’d class as bullying.

trisher I might agree with the bullying if any of the comments here were being posted with knowledge that M&H would be reading them, or with the intent to cause them direct harm. Bullying is always about intent, power and control. The commentary here can be seen as no more than perhaps upsetting? IMO.
NellG I think I meant to comment more on the style of postings which so resemble the awful bullying style girls routinely use on other girls. So
For a bit the girl targeted is praised and welcomed into a group.
Then she does something that is regarded as unacceptable. This can be something so small like wearing her hair differently.
She is separated from the group.
Individuals in the group take the chance to criticise her appearance and actions.
Rest of the group signify approval and add their own criticisms.
I realise bullying itself needs the victim to be aware of what is happening. But I do wonder does the process itself somehow fulfill a need? I've seen this so many times in groups of girls. The victim sometimes varied with a few girls being the victims in turn and one or two others being the controllers. The interesting thing being if you asked all the girls they would claim to be friends. Maybe it's another thread?

Anniebach Will it really? That smacks of outright spite and nastiness. I believe the Queen’s timetable is planned well in advance. As the public like a bit of gossip, no doubt millions will tune in to Oprah, if only to hear what they have to say and hear anything juicy about the RF. It doesn’t indicate popularity. Which channel is it on btw?

their Oprah interview will be televised the same day as the Queen gives a televised address to the Commonwealth

That's interesting nanna every time I see H I think of Edward V111.

I had to chuckle when they had Nicholas Witchell on the news just after this statement was released - he was almost incandescent over this couple's temerity to say this. Think Prince Charles opinion of him was correct!

NellG

For some reason every time I look at Harry I think of King Henry V111

I think the OP was encouraging us too. Meghan and Harry again! I'm blaming her.

Elliane I know what you're referring to. The response of said parties when that happens will be interesting...

Good stuff Nell.
I'm not sure I dare say it, and neither am I being flippant, but I was thinking of the event by that name which has been planned for years and years. Although you might be referring to it anyway.

Oh I give up. Some.