When is a royal tour, not a royal tour?

They are not expected to live under a rock Syracute ,or expected to defy the late Queen

M is not entirely wrong when she said she's the most trolled woman/person in the entire world- who is trolled more in reality? You'd think she was a mass murderer, paedophile, waging illegal wars or something. Are you completely unaware of the horrendous rape and death threats J K Rowling gets from TRAs? Have you not seen the signs at marches and demonstrations with threats to her? I don't agree with trolling anyone, but I've never seen anyone photographed with a placard calling for Meghan's death.

Just as an aside can anyone explain why virtually every media source refers to Catherine as Kate despite her stated preference for Catherine, and yet all spell Meghan's name correctly never once forgetting the 'h'?

Exactly Lemon jam !
I have lived in 3 different countries aside from my birth country and I know how hard it can be to not only assimilate but to deal with the prejudices people have about me as a person just because of where I was born !
It’s one thing to assimilate and it’s another to have to rearrange your personality to suit how others think you should act,
It’s a difficult balance !
I think H and M have tried to keep mostly a low profile but are they supposed to live under a rock ?
People on this thread apparently think so !

That was to Rosie51! 👍

👍
And the BBC from where I took my inspiration for a thread.
In fact I'm abroad at the moment where foreign newspapers are finding the purpose of the visit rather confusing too!

Un séjour qui ne tient ni du «royal tour», ni du voyage d’affaires et qui a donc emprunté les codes des deux.

I think many news papers have posted articles about H and M's Australia visit- some newspapers are fair and balanced in coverage and others, like the DM are wholly negative, critical and biased. Many posts on this thread amplify the gossip and criticism.

I dont have any great love or positive feelings about M and H and neither any great negative feelings or hate. But it is extraordinary how, in this week international human rights are being trampled by blood thirsty world leading men people get so incensed about M and H and for the life of me I cant understand why M remains one of the most disliked people in the world. Its disproportionate.

H and M really are rather a bland couple, on tour in Australia yet send certain tabloid newspapers into a tailspin with attacking, nasty comments. DM seemingly posting a story every 10 minutes criticising everything from M's outfits to the guest list for that retreat or whatever it was.

M is not entirely wrong when she said she's the most trolled woman/person in the entire world- who is trolled more in reality? You'd think she was a mass murderer, paedophile, waging illegal wars or something.

No I don't read it either Allira, I wouldn't give them the clicks and internet traffic. It's strange how its strongest critics are amongst those giving it traffic.

No other paper was writing about them A quick google showed up links to the Telegraph, Times, Independent, and Guardian having articles about the trip, so not just the Mail. I haven't read any of them.

Allira

Well, I suppose they must have some fans, even on Gransnet!
Do you read the Daily Mail, then Syracute, as you seem to know the content?

I don't.

I think the discussion points are valid ones.

Well, I read it on occasion, as how else would I know where all these strange comments on M and H come from ? You only see these sort of comments on GN when DM writes about them . They do that because they get the clicks every time . What they write are far from facts yet it gets sourced here as if it is. No other paper was writing about them . I don’t consider mean gossip a discussion.

Syracute 14.55 : 'Harry constantly bemoans his childhood and criticises his family Lemsip so when he says he wants his children to have a better childhood than the one he had, it's obvious that it's yet more criticism. If there's any biased perception it's predicated on Harry's behaviour".

That's your view and that's fine. I don't think H 'constantly' bemoans his childhood- we can agree to differ. I didn't perceive that comment to be a direct criticism of his father- more a case about his awful childhood experiences. He didn't mention his father specifically after all. We perceive that differently- and that's fine we can agree to differ.

Well, I suppose they must have some fans, even on Gransnet!
Do you read the Daily Mail, then Syracute, as you seem to know the content?

I don't.

I think the discussion points are valid ones.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Harry constantly bemoans his childhood and criticises his family Lemsip so when he says he wants his children to have a better childhood than the one he had, it's obvious that it's yet more criticism.

If there's any biased perception it's predicated on Harry's behaviour.

Sundown: It’s a shame that Harry, yet again, feels the need to criticise his father by saying he wants to give his children a better childhood than he had. Not a way to build bridges

Smileless2012: 'He doesn't want to build bridges sundowngirl and if I was a member of his family, I wouldn't want to either".

Many people want to give their children a better childhood than they had for many reasons. Perceiving this as unfair criticism of the King is just that- projected criticism based on a biased perception.

The Royal family, like the majority of families world wide, over the ages, experiences relationship ups and downs and a proportion strained relationships and some estrangement. Few children in those families, world wide, over the ages, however have come into the world as a son of a royal heir and have their from birth onwards played out in the world's media. Of the very very few children born into such circumstances few of those were born to an royal heir, in a toxic, warring marriage, also played out in the media, with a mistress in the background, cared for by nannies, sent away to boarding school at a young age and whose mother died in a fatal car crash whilst a child.

Such circumstances would damage many. There is little point or projecting Harry, Meghan, the King or the Royal family as to either role of saints or sinners. Life and relationships are never that simple or black and white.

You don't have to like H and M, you don't have to read about them, you don't need to 'give them a break' and you don't have to fund them.

He doesn't want to build bridges sundowngirl and if I was a member of his family, I wouldn't want to either.

It’s a shame that Harry, yet again, feels the need to criticise his father by saying he wants to give his children a better childhood than he had.
Not a way to build bridges

The Australians haven't exactly been falling over themselves to pay £1500 to spend an evening with her at her Best Life girly night; they're still trying to flog tickets.

😁

I'm so surprised at the normally sceptical, sensible Australian public gushing so much over these celebs.

Now, if it was Hugh Jackman I could understand it.

wow, this thread is still running

Yes, I'm a little surprised it's in the top 10 out of 50 in the News and Politics section!

Yes, it was never intended to be a thread, or column about Andrew, so I've no idea how that came about.

And to the poster who called it a classic case of framing shaping perception, in order to influence belief in your personal opinion, eat your heart out seeing as you started a thread in N & P which had zero posts!

Anyway, it's a wrap. The tour, Royal or celeb is done and dusted. I can't say I would have rushed to attend the girlie afternoon tea party with Meghan for £1,800. I wonder if there were scones and Victoria sandwich on offer, or fruit cake with royal icing?
Have a good weekend! 🍷

Cardamom

^And, how does she know?^

She knows in the same way that she knows that she was secretly married to Harry 3 days before the actual wedding even though the claim was thoroughly denounced by any family members and officials And she knows that a member of the royal family made racist comments about their unborn child even though Harry subsequently retracted the claim And she knows that the royal family took away her passport and wouldn't return it even though she travelled overseas several times during that period But she definitely didn't know that Harry was a Prince when she went on a blind date with him even though she had Googled both him and William And she most definitely didn't know anything whatsoever about the royal family --even though there are photos of her, as a young teenager, standing outside Buckingham Palace with a friend--

Brilliant summation 👍

vegansrock

The title is neither here nor there as far as the media goes. We know they print any old tosh about people the public are nosey about. Why do the Beckhams get so much attention? She hasn’t been a Spice girl nor he kicked a football in years, but they engender oodles of gossip- nothing to do with titles.

David Beckham I believe is an Ambassador for several of the Kings Charities, is designing a garden for Chelsea Flower Show with the King.

Victoria is a successful (after many years) fashion designer and has her own cosmetics range.

I don't give a stuff about either of them

You have to wonder about this need to trash Harry all over the place, insist he is a liar but maintain an absolute silence about little spoiled boy ANDREW. I put his name in caps because if anyone is a liar, he certainly is and his behaviour is astonishingly appalling, why aren't we having a column destroying him and his reputation as a ROYAL?

Erm..... maybe because this is a thread about ROYAL TOURS granatlast007 and as far as I'm aware, ANDREW hasn't so much as stuck his head outside his front door for months, let alone go on a tour of Australia. Feel free to start a "column" about nefarious activities 9f ANDREW but this one isn't it. clue is in the title

Firstly Prince Charles and Diana were divorced when she tragically died. She had been involved with other men. So why was the late queen expected to make so much of the funeral.
Secondly, Harry and Meghan are not very bright. Nevertheless, unless you have lost someone suddenly as Harry has (and I have) you have no idea how you are affected by this. He will never get over losing his mother and the bitterness will never leave him.

The title is neither here nor there as far as the media goes. We know they print any old tosh about people the public are nosey about. Why do the Beckhams get so much attention? She hasn’t been a Spice girl nor he kicked a football in years, but they engender oodles of gossip- nothing to do with titles.

vegansrock

So those people saying he’s only getting attention because of his title - do they think he wouldn’t get a mention without it? Andrew Whatsit gets plenty.

No, he will always get attention because they seek it.

I take your point, though, if he was Captain Henry Markle of Paddington, London, he wouldn't have warranted another mention - unless he'd written a controversial book about his time in the military.