Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15734
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by Eric the .5b »

dhex wrote: 10 Mar 2021, 13:53So you're right in that it's not very much public involvement (there's plenty of historical disagreement about behind the scenes action, especially in the 80s), but...someone may know, for example, that the confederate flag never shot anyone and still not regard it positively, especially as if it was used by those who were doing violence.
They don't have to. But they wouldn't have to pretend that it was racism radiation from the Confederate battle flag that caused slavery and Jim Crow, either. And they generally don't.

It's like if he talked about the Provos disappearing a neighbor of his because she was rumored to have bought greasepaint. The metaphor for "royals" has twisted and morphed until it's Tatsuya Ishida symbolism.
anyone who could read diana's biography or show her the 1995 bbc interview on tv? any number of historians of the royal family? i mean tv industry, ucla and usc being pretty close by, etc. easy enough to nda it and/or call in a favor. obviously, i don't buy her farcical explanation for even a second, anymore than one should regard the stuff coming out from the other end as anything other than fatuous nonsense from the sclerotic rotting hangnail of empire.
Lord knows people aren't honestly wrong or anything, especially about families they marry into. Or fail to hire an academic team to brief them. Or even just mistakenly think anything could have changed since the heyday of Pearl Jam.

That's the thing that gets me, the insistence that she's being deceptive or sinister. Oh, she had a secret private wedding, the whore! and that. It's a damn weird attitude for a bunch of Americans.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31476
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by thoreau »

Eric the .5b wrote: 10 Mar 2021, 14:42Or even just mistakenly think anything could have changed since the heyday of Pearl Jam.
She should have told Charles "Don't call me daughter."
"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
nicole
Posts: 11125
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by nicole »

Interesting to tie the idea of a lack of credibility with promiscuity.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex
User avatar
dead_elvis
Posts: 2000
Joined: 01 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by dead_elvis »

I'd respect the whole thing more if Harry and Megan would just do things the old fashioned way. Raise a navy and an army, enlist the help of the Americans and the French and storm the country. If you're going to usurp, fucking usurp. Don't try and gossip them to death, put heads on spikes and excocets into frigates.
"Never forget: a war on undocumented immigrants by necessity is a war on all of our freedoms of association and movement."
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31476
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by thoreau »

dead_elvis wrote: 10 Mar 2021, 16:58 I'd respect the whole thing more if Harry and Megan would just do things the old fashioned way. Raise a navy and an army, enlist the help of the Americans and the French and storm the country. If you're going to usurp, fucking usurp. Don't try and gossip them to death, put heads on spikes and excocets into frigates.
Frankly, if Trump were in office I could see him funding an overthrow of a monarch so he could place an American TV star on a throne.

All Meghan would have to do is Tweet that Donald has the strongest, most manly hands of any TV performer she's ever seen, and it's a shame that he never got that Emmy. Next thing you know Britain would be flooded with "military advisors" while US carrier groups linger in international waters and disavow any direct involvement in the uprising.
"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26821
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by Jennifer »

nicole wrote: 10 Mar 2021, 08:12 The maximally cynical case, which no one would ever have any reason to believe, is that she essentially has outmaneuvered them by playing on Harry's childish feelings about the death of his mother and of course having hostages. And this was her intention all along as someone who was always too ambitious to fulfill the role she took on as a royal princess and whose most important early public act in that role we now know was a lie.
I again start with the caveat that I personally didn't watch the interview, or closely follow the H&M story beforehand, and thus my knowledge of the matter has definite holes in it, but -- what "childish feelings" of Harry do these refer to? What I have picked up about the issue is this: Harry considers the media/paparazzi to have played a large role in his mother's death; he knew his mother's marriage was very unhappy and at least some of that unhappiness stemmed not from her and Charles' mutual incompatibility so much as her being part of the royal family; and he said the money he personally inherited from his mother is the money he used to leave said family. Which of these feelings are considered childish -- or is it something else I don't know about?
But I don't know why anyone would ever think anything like that. It definitely seems more believable that she didn't know anything about Harry or the royals or what her job was going to be, and I definitely feel bad for the poor little millionaire celebrity person.
I've never been in a situation even remotely analogous to Markle's -- "There's this guy I love, or at least am super-attracted to [though little do I realize now: once the limerence period ends, we'll have nothing in common], and he wants to marry me, but if I do I'll literally become a princess or some other Old World titled aristocrat with all that entails" -- but even before she met Harry there was little in common with my life vs. hers as a TV actress who maybe wasn't an A-list celeb but at least made a decent living at it.

So of course I'd never "feel bad" for the likes of Harry and Meghan the same way I "feel bad" for, like, some poor kid born to illiterate parents and living in the slums of Mumbai (or even Chicago) -- but I can still think "Even though their financial and career prospects are and forever will be orders of magnitude better than mine ... that said, it does sound like at least some things they've had to deal with genuinely suck." And Meghan might have thought that whatever unpleasant baggage and downsides came with being an English Duchess by marrying a British royal with close to zero chance of ever ascending to the throne probably wasn't much worse than whatever baggage came with her prior status as a basic cable TV star.

I don't officially Care About royalty in general or British royalty in particular (other than to think the entire concept is outdated and ought to be abolished) -- but insofar as I have paid attention to the matter, I don't see why so many people are determined to make Markle out to be some type of villain. [Excluding the racists who freaked out about her forever tainting the purity of the English royal bloodline -- I know exactly what their problem is.]
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b
User avatar
dhex
Posts: 16657
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by dhex »

They don't have to. But they wouldn't have to pretend that it was racism radiation from the Confederate battle flag that caused slavery and Jim Crow, either. And they generally don't.

It's like if he talked about the Provos disappearing a neighbor of his because she was rumored to have bought greasepaint. The metaphor for "royals" has twisted and morphed until it's Tatsuya Ishida symbolism.
radiation is a fairly good metaphor for how negative symbols are viewed by the recipients of those symbols. in this sense, it acts as a proxy for potentially violent action, and certainly for reifying and even celebrating a history of very violent actions. like a royal family, say.

the provos and their protestant counterparts definitely disappeared people for less, usually crimes-against-our-crimes type rules infractions, but also plenty of things like "may have said something to the ruc" or "may have helped hide a prod gunman on the run". lots of bodies showing up the next morning with plier marks and a hole in the head.

it's why belfast is so mural-y, after all.

somewhat related: "say nothing" is a really good book, btw, and moynihan did a good interview with the author a few years back on the fifth column podcast.
Lord knows people aren't honestly wrong or anything, especially about families they marry into. Or fail to hire an academic team to brief them. Or even just mistakenly think anything could have changed since the heyday of Pearl Jam.

That's the thing that gets me, the insistence that she's being deceptive or sinister. Oh, she had a secret private wedding, the whore! and that. It's a damn weird attitude for a bunch of Americans.
sinister? no. it's media play. but deceptive? oh most certainly. i dunno, man, like...i can't buy the whole "too much of a naif to do a google search, yet naifish enough to blunder into an interview with oprah" in any way that doesn't sound like the punchline to a joke. perhaps my heart is too cynical and jaded to accept the possibility, even. but i must confess that it is indeed too jaded, and i'll go one step further.

the royal family being racist and colorist is absolutely easy to believe. these are control freaks bred by a centuries old control freak machine within which they exist/are trapped! 100% plausible - in fact, my priors not only insist it's true, but that worse shit was said that they don't even know about.

but we're watching two competing media spheres try to punch each other. for some reason people are picking "sides" even in countries where this doesn't matter, mostly due to "they did a racism" and the reflexive idiocy of "how dare they say they did a racism". what i'm saying is there is no way this isn't calculated. all of it is calculated! of course it's deceptive.

if you've ever been involved in cable level (or even below) tv, the amount of control over every aspect of what goes into it is staggering. it's a fucking lot, a high wire act of flying in chirons and makeup and procedural control designed to minimize surprises and maximize eyeballs. i think we can all accept this as true.

but oprah is some next level shit. it's supposed to feel "authentic". it is not! it is designed to elicit certain responses in a certain way. like a politician kissing a baby. it's fake as fuck, or af as the kids say.

similarly, i regard the invocation of mental health woes in these contexts with supreme suspicion, and i hope everyone else does as well. it doesn't mean it didn't happen, it doesn't mean that there wasn't and aren't celebrities who suffer from very real mental health issues. but why do we know about it? because it's valuable to their narrative. not because it just happened to drop out of her mouth like some kind of anecdotal scone, with the clotted cream and jam of oprah's ur-motherly radiance creating the safest of (tea) spaces for this kind of "natural" and "free-flowing" conversation.

the entire thing is a show, like reality tv. so yes, deceptive by its very nature. how could it be otherwise?

maybe this feels too cynical to you, i dunno. but it's not an accident that only anecdotes which make them seem more sympathetic and victimized were expressed in their interview.

now to let some of the tension out of the room, i have a really funny joke that i found a good version of online:
One day, an IRA soldier lies on his death bed, dying of cancer. It's spread too far and couldn't be stopped. The doctor gave him his diagnosis, and only three days to live.

"Quick Moira," he says to his loving wife. "Enroll me as a member of the Ulster Volunteer Force."

"But why?" She exclaims. "You've been a good Catholic your whole life, why would you want to join the Protestants?"

He just rolls over, and ignores the question. But, because she loves him, she sends off his details, and awaits the letter confirming that he has joined the UVF.

Then, just as he is getting to the end of his life, the letter arrives. He has been accepted to the UVF.

With a satisfied sigh, he breathes his last, saying:

"Well that's one more fecking Protestant dead."
"i ran over the cat and didnt stop just carried on with tears in my eyes joose driving my way to work." - God
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17882
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by Aresen »

Other that what I've picked up in passing, I am rather oblivious to the Royals in general and this episode in particular.

TBS, I get the impression Oprah is doing for the Royals what Jerry Springer used to do for the trailer trash.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 19574
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by lunchstealer »

dead_elvis wrote: 10 Mar 2021, 16:58 I'd respect the whole thing more if Harry and Megan would just do things the old fashioned way. Raise a navy and an army, enlist the help of the Americans and the French and storm the country. If you're going to usurp, fucking usurp. Don't try and gossip them to death, put heads on spikes and excocets into frigates.
But the brits have an aircraft carrier again. the window of opportunity is closed!
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21194
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Image
User avatar
Rachel
Posts: 2744
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 19:50

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by Rachel »

nicole wrote: 09 Mar 2021, 15:23 Just extremely blowing my mind that people think she has literally any credibility. No clue why anyone would believe any of her claims at all.
Meghan is lying trash. I have never been able to stand her.
No lie I'm fucking tired of glorified false histories-JasonL
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15734
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by Eric the .5b »

nicole wrote: 10 Mar 2021, 16:26 Interesting to tie the idea of a lack of credibility with promiscuity.
Interesting that you can't tell whether an attitude is being advocated or imputed.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15734
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by Eric the .5b »

dhex wrote: 10 Mar 2021, 17:41radiation is a fairly good metaphor for how negative symbols are viewed by the recipients of those symbols. in this sense, it acts as a proxy for potentially violent action, and certainly for reifying and even celebrating a history of very violent actions. like a royal family, say.
Except the "negative symbol" here is literally "a symbol of being British", not of oppressing the Irish. A United Republic would have shat on them just much as the Kingdom did.

(And Brits keep assuring me that despite my doubts, they have free speech, so supposedly a guy can just say he hates the British.)

I mean, if we want to say the man's national trauma just makes him fuck up metaphors, sure.
dhex wrote: 10 Mar 2021, 17:41the provos and their protestant counterparts definitely disappeared people for less
I'm quite aware. That's why I invoked it. You know how people claim they don't have any emotional investment or sympathy in conflicts like Israel v. Palestine, etc.? That sort of business is why I actually do feel a hard lack of give-a-shit toward the British and Northern Irish about the Troubles. Sure, I can feel requisite disgust toward the UK government for their part of it. But I also have no doubt that if those last few counties had gone to the ROI most of a century ago, the Troubles would gone on at least as long, just with far less international interest in the violence.
dhex wrote: 10 Mar 2021, 17:41sinister? no. it's media play. but deceptive? oh most certainly. i dunno, man, like...i can't buy the whole "too much of a naif to do a google search, yet naifish enough to blunder into an interview with oprah" in any way that doesn't sound like the punchline to a joke.
Whereas I can buy "actually knows media workings" and "wildly underestimated what she was getting into" happening to the same person, because I don't assume that competence in media automatically translates to much of anything outside of media, much less joining the royal family. Otherwise, you kinda have to give some consideration to explaining just why this brilliant mastermind seemed to have a bad time as a royal spouse and so manipulated her poor, mindless prince to leave.

I don't think calculation is deceptive unless it's dishonest. Any communication with more effort than blurting out your thoughts when you're three sheets to the wind has calculation, even if it's just the work to get your idea out clearly. And I don't really expect people trying to get out their side of a story to undermine their case by admitting more than the most trivial failings on their part, if that, no matter how much in the right or the wrong they are. Particularly when the media player presenting their case (Oprah) is going to sand off any edges anyway so as to have a neat narrative to sell.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15734
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by Eric the .5b »

I mean, my investment on the side of the royal refugees is nil to the point that I have to look at the thread title to remember the goofy-ass spelling of her name. I'm just thrown by how many Americans get worked up about how horrible she is for what sounds like "she broke royal kayfabe". Particularly when Americans still romanticize the last time a royal and an American got involved and he ended up abandoning royalty over it, even if the timing of the marriage was different.

(See also the "Piers Morgan cancelled again" narrative when the guy walked off the set in a huff and may have well quit under his own power.)
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31476
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by thoreau »

Eric the .5b wrote: 10 Mar 2021, 21:51 Particularly when Americans still romanticize the last time a royal and an American got involved and he ended up abandoning royalty over it, even if the timing of the marriage was different.
We should all be glad that our countrywoman Wallis Simpson got Edward VIII off the throne before WW2.
"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21194
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

thoreau wrote: 10 Mar 2021, 22:31
Eric the .5b wrote: 10 Mar 2021, 21:51 Particularly when Americans still romanticize the last time a royal and an American got involved and he ended up abandoning royalty over it, even if the timing of the marriage was different.
We should all be glad that our countrywoman Wallis Simpson got Edward VIII off the throne before WW2.
Yep.
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by Mo »

dhex wrote:And all the American conservative royalist stans can fuck right off as well. Go drive the sports bar right into a wall you bootlicking idiots
Someone on NR said, “In the UK we don’t care about people’s skin color,” and I almost died of shock. It’s pretty amazing how quickly cons can go from “There’s racism in America, but less than anywhere else” to “Unlike America, the UK doesn’t have racism.”
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21194
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Mo wrote: 10 Mar 2021, 23:50
dhex wrote:And all the American conservative royalist stans can fuck right off as well. Go drive the sports bar right into a wall you bootlicking idiots
Someone on NR said, “In the UK we don’t care about people’s skin color,” and I almost died of shock. It’s pretty amazing how quickly cons can go from “There’s racism in America, but less than anywhere else” to “Unlike America, the UK doesn’t have racism.”
I have contended since I first set foot in Europe and everywhere else in the world I've been that in many ways, whatever our history may be and whatever problems it still presents, the U.S. is far less racist than the average non-U.S. nation. And that's obviously not to be patting ourselves on the back.
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by Mo »

Though the person is right in a sense, Brits discriminate against anyone that’s different. It doesn’t matter if it’s because of their skin color or if it’s because they’re from Eastern Europe.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31049
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by Warren »

Well fuck. I don't give two figs about the royals, and really thought this latest thing would fade away in a couple of days, if not hours given the current pace of the news cycle. But here we are three days later and you guys are still going on about it for three pages.

I've only skimmed the comments so I'm probably getting something very wrong here. But are people really arguing that Meghan is demonstrably stupid for marrying into a family of racists?

For one thing, the historical racism of the British monarchy seems besides the point. I don't know how racist the current crop is, but again I don't bother with the royals. Maybe they're still racist fucks.

Even so, is the accusation that Harry himself is a racist? Because if he isn't, then fuck the rest of the family. And correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that what they did? (i.e. We don't want to be Royals so we're going over here and doing our own thing.) Because my SO is an intelligent, educated, and generous person. But her family are mostly ignorant, narrow-minded, hicks. I don't hold that against her, and I suffer such interactions with her family I'm compelled to attend cheerfully as it's a small price to pay for what she adds to my life.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 19574
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by lunchstealer »

Mo wrote: 11 Mar 2021, 00:13 Though the person is right in a sense, Brits discriminate against anyone that’s different. It doesn’t matter if it’s because of their skin color or if it’s because they’re from Eastern Europe.
The wogs start at Calais.
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
dhex
Posts: 16657
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by dhex »

imma beat this dead horse just cause:

https://news.yahoo.com/marriage-certifi ... 36487.html

woo ha, charlie, gonna marry our fucking brains out
"i ran over the cat and didnt stop just carried on with tears in my eyes joose driving my way to work." - God
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15734
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by Eric the .5b »

What they described as a wedding wasn't a fully official ceremony as constructed under British law, the only possible definition for such things is going to be one of those stupid flashpoints like the color of that dress a million years ago, isn't it?

I mean. my mother hosted a wedding in her backyard for two male friends of hers before that was actually legal in Texas. Or did she lie to me because it wasn't strictly legal?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
dhex
Posts: 16657
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by dhex »

take it from the hibernians - albion is perfidious for a fuckin' reason, bruh.

though they did give us derek jarman. life is complicated.
"i ran over the cat and didnt stop just carried on with tears in my eyes joose driving my way to work." - God
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15734
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Harry and Meghan on Oprah

Post by Eric the .5b »

dhex wrote: 23 Mar 2021, 12:50 take it from the hibernians - albion is perfidious for a fuckin' reason, bruh
Seems like an unwarranted inflation of um ackshully.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
Post Reply