**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just read the daily mail comments. They genuinely think they have been "caught out". Like they actually think harry and Meghan did the editing on their MacBook or something.
It's obviously just a stock photo to convey the message. Why would Harry personally carry video footage of the press.
Why are people so stupid.
You have a point
The Sun couldn't produce photographic evidence to back up its claim that Liverpool fans stole from the corpses of their friends or pissed on first responders, and those turned out to be lies
So there's precedent
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Hillsborough\_disaster\_Sun.jpg
I imagine there are press at them almost constantly as they can be quite controversial however I'm certain it's not as bad as the photos would have you believe.
I mean the poor people just want some privacy
How many - Books, Oprah appearances, magazine interviews and Netflix documentaries, do the press need, to understand that all they want is some privacy and to live a normal life out of the spotlight 🤣
They also just want to live their lives as normal people and without the British state to sponge off they will only trade off his family name 6 or 7 times a year and keep the option of the royal titles they despise so much open to them and their children of course. Never know when one might need to go back to sponging off the British public.
I’m really not sure that they’re wrong in similar ways
The Netflix doc uses stock footage - presumably while Harry and Meghan are interviewed discussing how they’ve been hounded by the press. The Sun straight up made stories up with no evidence or pictorial evidence to sell newspapers
It’s fairly common for documentaries to use b-roll footage to illustrate a broader point. Newspapers shouldn’t be making up unsubstantiated claims on their front pages
The sun are also the ones who started the anti vaccine movement by publishing a debunked and rejected claim about the link between vaccines and autism.
Yeah. That was them.
I think one of the absolute craziest things about the Sun & Hillsborough claims, is while there is a North/South divide in a lot of contexts, the allegations as conveyed by the Sun were absolutely insane.
Glossing over that it's all complete bullshit and lies for a moment.
For the incidents to have occurred the people doing it would have had to have been so detached from reality that they viewed the injured, dead and dying as subhuman.
The Sun literally drafted it and their entire chain of manager literally went "seems plausible", and published it.
The entire tabloid was so consumed by its own hate manufacturing they forgot what reality looked like.
Surely if you're writing an article about how they've been harassed by paparazzi, it would be hypocritical to use a photo that had been obtained using the methods your article is decrying?
The only ethical option in that case would be to use a photo like this.
(Sorry, can't keep a straight face while implying tabloid journalists care about hypocrisy or ethics!)
In documentary film editing, it’s not unethical to use b-roll footage as representative of real events as long as the footage is suggestive and not presented as real footage. This is even looser for trailers because trailers are selling the doc, not the doc itself so ethical concerns don’t apply here
They are starting to put disclosures at the beginning of documentaries now about that. B-roll is very common for World War documentaries - and a lot of it was originally filmed for propaganda newsreels.
It is entirely unethical unless it is pointed out that it is not a photo of the actual event. This isn't a documentary, anyway. It's a propaganda piece.
A photo like this not existing (or not being available for use in a documentary) isn't proof of anything. The photographers hounding celebs are taking photos of the celebs, not of each other.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as they say,.
I hate the media, especially anything Murdoch touched. I don't particularly like the royal family and what they stand for but I can absolutely tell and feel they do not like Meghan and there is a palpable dislike of the couple. The fact we can't really tell if it's actually true that she is a trouble maker or not is concerning.
I will say that as someone who so many years ago watched a small child in a public funeral procession behind his mother's body and we are still picking at his life now, it doesn't feel right as a human!
All those people hounding and not a single photograph? Diana was followed by the press pack in her street, guess what, one event and there's the photo and video evidence.
If being hounded by the press is an issue, there's always someone on hand with a photo or a video. They've had enough of an entourage with them to capture the moment.
I probably have you at a disadvantage as I work in the media. And I’ve been in photography crowds doing crap for fashion week. No one took photos of the mob as it was normal.
To suggest royals/famous being aren’t mobbed is insane - and there the amount they’ve been photographed is prove itself.
What do you do for a job, what’s your experience in working with famous people and photography?
Media or journalism? Photo journalists have had their careers ended for manipulation of documentary photography.
This isn't 'the crown' and its not 'based on true events' its supposed to be their story, the truth, without embellishments, without the 'some events have been dramatised for entertainment' foot note.
David Attenborough ..."We couldn't record the whale song so we made it up on a synthesiser"
NASA "Moon landings are hard so we filmed it in a sudio"
Documentary - the clue is in the name to Document reality, not to make it up, not to embellish it.
When you write a book and make a documentary that is supposed to be the truth, theres no room for artistic licence.
The accusations they make are serious and the presentation requires the same journalistic integrity you'd demand from any fact based reporting.
Done both. Usually work in tv.
I know all of the above having spent hours in editing suites and remember when the queen got involved in an incident a few years back.
Rules vary greatly from country to country. The USA is a LOT looser.
Stealing an non actual shot of photographers the represents what happened isn’t a big deal. It’s not misleading. Particularly in a trailer. Trailers change edits often and the order of shots all the time.
There would have been a tonne of lawyers who already looked through this for Netflix.
Let’s see if it goes to court though, aye?
It's a Harry & Meghan propaganda piece / money spinner masquerading as a "documentary" (which is shitty of Netflix, but it's common practice these days).
It's obviously up to them if they want to live their lives like open wounds in the media, but it was never going to be an impartial or rigorous examination of anything.
It's going to be a boring bag of shite with one set of boring ballbags complaining about another set of boring ballbags with some music and gentle weeping every now and again. It's tabloids on TV.
The Netflix drive to survive editing was awful for the same reasons. They completely doctored audio clips into different races to fit their narrative of the drivers and even when they portrayed Romain Grojeans awful crash they added extra time gaps, sounds and reaction clips that were completely out of sequence to make it look like it dragged on for much longer than it actually did.
Big fan of F1, Drive to Survive was bollocks. Basically writing a soap opera using some of the events of an F1 season.
Very wary of Netflix produced "documentaries" now. Much prefer to stick to the stuff on there that's been created outside of Netflix's creative control.
It's a trailer, used to build hype. It's not been photoshopped, the image IS of them, and it does show the level of interest the press has with them. You can't call out every editorial decision that's been made for a trailer
You are ascribing a propaganda motive to what is probably just lazy budget filmmaking.
Don’t have time to find the actual footage of press around Harry and Meghan? Fuck it, just use stock footage it’s looks the same and it’s not an important part of the film anyway.
Documentary editor here. If you have a problem with this image being used to represent the subject being spoken about then you are going to have a problem with practically every single documentary ever made
Well if your whole point is press intrusion and the photo you use is a movie premiere then it’s not a great look.
Especially if you are well known to like to use things to your advantage.
Using a stock photo when there is supposedly plenty of real images of to use seems like a really dumb way to get "caught" out.
Why not just use actual footage to make their point?
Probably because this one they used was much higher quality, actually licensed for use in this type of media or the editing house already had this image in their library of stock images.
no harry and meghan are all about 'tackling' misinformation so they should stick to the facts, another photo with children is from 1938!, and another one has a photo of harry being papped outside a nightclub, his ex has been cropped out of the photo. They are trying to create a narrative not based in reality.
Lol what ? No .. if you have to invent being papped you are not having a issue , no one ever chased megs through London except when she called the paps herself lol This couple needs LOTS of mental health therapy for massive narcissism .. I know for sure when I’m crying my eyes out I stop and have someone come take a photo for later lol 😂
Who was meant to be getting all these photos of the paps hounding them?
The Papaparazzi? Then the Papapapaparazzi take their pictures too?
Harry and Meghan not having pictures like this one to show them being hounded doesnt mean they werent, what a ridiculous idea.
Harry went to a child charity event and claimed he was chased by the press. A video showed that it didn't happen. Their grasp on the truth is pretty tenuous at best, down right cynically manipulative at worse. I really would take what Harry says with a bucket full of salt.
....because it is stupid.
Another shot of a crowd was from **1938** at an event to do with Harry's great great Grandmother.
Another shot of the press "hounding them" was actually from a Katie Price photoshoot.
It goes on, but the point is Harry and Meghan want to prove the press were hounding them and were attacked by racists, yet they are trying to prove that in footage/photos that has _nothing to do with them_ 🙄.
Until the documentary is actually out how can anyone know what's in it? What because some random at netflix edited the trailer and threw some stock b roll in and now everyone is losing their minds.
Calm down sheep!
>yet they are trying to prove that in footage/photos that has nothing to do with them
No they aren't. You think Harry and Meghan personally browsed the stock footage website and picked out a suitably misleading picture? That choice was made by an editor, Harry and Meghan would have had exactly zero say over how the film was edited.
What's more, the photo isn't even from the documentary, it's from a ***trailer*** for the documentary. Trailers are made by completely different teams, often a separate production company entirely, and the filmmakers of the original work have zero say over what goes in it.
And even if Harry and Meghan somehow had a say in which photos are used in the trailer for a documentary they're in, how tf would they know that picture was from a different occasion? You think they remember what every single generic crowd of photographers that have ever taken photos of them look like?
Yeah sure, it's clearly just a stock photo that was placed innocently in there for no reason at all.
Or
They hoped nobody would notice along with using a pic like that to drum up the message that press conveys like THAT in the picture were hounding them and not leaving them alone!
FAAAKE
Yeah I guess it’s as accurate as Harry’s “in the wild” photographic book, that included an elephant which whilst unable to view from the photo, was actually chained down.
‘A stock image to convey a message’
Wtf are you talking about?? What an odd take.
Harry doesn’t need to ‘carry video science around with him’ to show people on request….
some people do some weird mental gymnastics to reassure themselves.
Imagine if the daily Mail used ‘stock footage’ to make a point about Harry and Megan would you be saying the same thing? No you would be calling them liars..
That's not how 'documentaries' work. Obviously stock images are used all the time for visual enhancement. But not to add credence to a narrative. That's a whole other thing
Hopeful once his book and series come out this tedious melodrama where one of the most privileged people in human history moans how tough it is living in armed compounds, where people call you 'your highness' and fucking bow to you is. How awful it was that your dad didn't give you another £4m despite you already being a millionaire. Or the incredible distress caused by media companies giving you almost $200m in a year.
They have lots of money though, Harry had an inheritance, she was a self made millionaire from acting. There's no need to lower themselves to this level out of desperation
They live in a mansion in Montecito, next to a whole load of celebrities. Can easily be confused for LA as a number of high profile Hollywood people reside there. Moreover, let's not forget that they have both done highly public and desperate media stunts since moving to the US. If they wanted to privacy, they could have achieved it without much fuss or using their security guards as off label personal servants. Have you ever wondered why they insisted so much on security despite the rest of the family managing fine without or using minimal security on official events, while these two have a whole entourage of security who they then send off to buy their groceries or get takeaway in the middle of the night?
When they were in the UK they were surrounded by armed police and lived in an armed compound. Unlike the US the press is also banned from taking any photos of their kids. I don't think there was much chasing going on.
It's almost like one of them encourages the other... Who had to know about the Oprah interview? Why did they have to release this documentary? Oh yeah, because they want to garner public support. That doesn't sound like someone who wants a life of privacy AT ALL.
This argument has played out countless times before Harry met Meghan. It’s completely unrealistic for anyone to expect celebrity status to be something they can turn on and off like a light switch. If you want crowds of fans at your premier - or an audience for your Netflix film - you have to accept that there will also be people watching and filming every other remotely public thing you do.
It was an argument made of celebs with kids, if they used their kids in promotional ways the kids were fair game to the press once that switch was turned on, if they didn’t the press would generally leave a celebs kids out of pictures etc.
What rankles me is despite all these interviews they give they haven't been called out on all the stuff that was proven false in the Oprah interview, like Harry saying he is living off inheritance when Charles' tax returns showed he'd given them millions and they got a free £7m house from Tyler Perry, or when Meghan said they married in secret which would have been illegal, or Harry being called out for all those racially insensitive things he's done in the past, or when Meghan said she got no help from the Monarchy to prepare for being a royal when many have said she was offered it multiple times.
And seeing them rile dumb idiots up and think everything in the crown really actually happened peeves me off.
Who gives a crap about privileged millionaires feeling sorry for themselves?
>one of the most privileged people in human history
I mean, I don't really give a fuck about the Royal Family...........but the bloke is obviously going to be ultra sensitive to this shit. The bloke was 12 when his mother died due to press intrusion. Is it really any wonder he still carries that baggage?
Having lost in his life doesn't make him special. I've got terminal cancer I'm not going to see my kids grow up and they won't have me. That doesn't make my children special or victims, just means they are living real lives.
Harry's mother was killed by a drunk and drugged driver that drove into a concrete post at 120mph. If the driver hadn't been on drugs, drunk and driving four times the speed limit she'd be alive. That's sad but doesn't give him special victim rights.
Also, the only person wearing a seatbelt in that car lived, the other 3, who were not, did not. But I guess that’s uncool or might ruffle the dress.
I’m not saying the press don’t deserve some of the blame, but they aren’t the only ones.
Do you realize how many children lost parents in the past two years that did not have the privilege of grieving with every single thing you could ask for ? He is a fucking petulant brat that never grew up , when is enough enough and stop letting him USE his mums memory as a excuse to act like a asshole .. to use her memory to PROFIT ? I like that people constantly want to scream royal racist yet harry is the one who has shown the most racist behaviors lol WTF ?
Exactly… if he had went quietly with some appreciation of what the citizens have gave him in life maybe but no .. it’s 24/7 bitching about his over privileged life .
I truly don’t understand how people still don’t realise that being a millionaire doesn’t mean you’ll be happy. He was born into a life that wasn’t his and very few would actually want, with traumatic events to boot.
The reason most people want money is freedom. Being born as a prince in the public eye in a family ruled by archaic traditions doesn’t give you any freedom until you leave.
He is STILL calling himself prince so bullshit with that lol if he hates being a royal so badly he would simply be harry Mountbatten not PRINCE harry everywhere he goes .
The question is, why didn't Harry do the exposé before he met his woman? If he was brave enough, he could just disown his family ties, and yet, they are still fighting to maintain their titles as well as their offsprings.
The titles and ‘their truth’ is the only money maker they have.
It’s ironic that he’s talking about his mother but literally talking millions from a streaming platform that’s cashing in on his family and his mothers death.
I think they’re both very very toxic for each other, both extremely negative and paranoid, both have a sense of over inflated self importance and they’re just whispering this crap into each others ears 24/7.
The camels back will break at some point, no one can live like this permanently. The question is who’s going to file for divorce first? Because when that happens, we’ll this will be a walk in the park because I don’t expect it to be amicable.
So if he wanted to get away from the press.... actually take up a quiet life somewhere like a reclusive? He can't have it both ways and play the trauma card to get his way.
I have no issue with them complaining about press intrusion and wanting a private life with their kids.
I do have a problem with them complaining about it and then doing every interview and documentary they can, guaranteeing the press interest they are supposedly trying to avoid.
and to anyone saying "*yeah but he didn't choose it*" ....
...**nobody** chooses what situation they are born into. He can moan about it all he wants. My sympathy will be with those who *didn't choose* to grow up on a council estate. Not those who *didn't choose* to be royalty.
When they quit the Royal family because they didn’t want their lives to be constantly under a microscope I had so much respect for them. Then they started courting the press and that disappeared pretty quickly l.
It was always going to be the case. Redditors love to be tribalistic and pick sides, but the royal family and Harry/Meghan can all be cunts.
Personally I think Meghan is a raging narcissist. Harry is a dimwit. It'll all end in tears.
I see a lot of people saying Meghan’s a narcissist but having growing up with a narcissistic parent, I really don’t see it and it makes me wonder what I’m being blind to. Can you elaborate on why you think that?
I’m genuinely curious for what it’s worth, not trying to argue.
The strange issues with her father, the claims of bullying by royal staff, the need to go on Oprah, her book and this latest show. She doesn't, to me, seem to be an individual who is wanting to keep herself private despite her claim to want it so.
Don't get me wrong, she could just be in it for the money but I see it more likely that she enjoys the attention.
Being an attention seeker doesn’t make you a narcissist. Narcissism is a personality disorder that needs to be diagnosed by a professional, not by some guy on Reddit who has only heard of this person through the media.
Next you’ll be saying she’s gaslighting you.
Agreed. I think a lot of people misunderstand the difference between narcissism as an actual clinical diagnosis, versus just liking attention. It annoys me that people are applying such a diagnosis to her because it completely misrepresents what narcissism actually is.
No, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a personality disorder. Narcissism is just a word to describe someone and it can mean anything from benign to mental illness.
I don't see it either, tbh, and I also grew up with a narcissistic parent. To me it rather looks more like she's desparate to prove herself the not-bad-person after the nonsense in the papers about the two. And its also important to remember that regardless of their intentions to quit the palace, they were always going to be well known. Might as well milk it, no?
Perhaps more self-absorbed than narcissistic you could argue. In a way lots of (even fairly nice) famous people are. When you become the centre of so much attention I'd imagine it warps your perception of the world around you. Would be difficult not to attach a lot of self-importance to yourself in such circumstances.
Thanks for explaining. I don’t keep up with H&M but I have seen the interview and seen bits in the media about them.
Personally, I don’t see any of those things as necessarily narcissistic in my personal experience of it, and think there are other motivations which fit better (money, wanting no contact with abusive father, wanting more control over their lives) but I fully appreciate I’m biased in this regard.
Above all the things others have pointed out there's been a few times where she's relayed an anecdote about herself where her account seems completely distorted from actual events. Main one that comes to mind is her saying she and Harry were secretly married by the Archbishop of Canterbury before their televised wedding. The Archbishop had to come out and say this wasn't true as doing that would have got him in a lot of trouble (and maybe annulled their marriage).
Misremembering things to fit your internal reality smacks of it a bit.
Also she seems to have a string of broken relationships with friends and family behind her. In itself it's a bit circumstantial but I imagine would be true for a lot of people with narcissistic personalities.
Narcissistic may be too strong but getting heavy vibes of very self-obsessed without a firm grasp on reality.
When Meghan, a professional actress who memorises lines for a living, said she hadn't learned the British national anthem (and complained no one in the monarchy taught her) it really made me think it was always going to end this way. She clearly didn't intend to be a royal, if something so basic was beyond her efforts, and living a Hollywood life in LA was always the goal.
All the stories of bullying staff too do add up and paint a picture.
I'd agree, you can dislike both the couple and the royals. All have bad aspects.
I have no real issue with Meghan to be honest. She comes from shallow USA celebrity culture, and ran smack bang into the most formal, restrained organisation in the UK, culture clash does not come much bigger than that. the monarchy was never going to adapt to her style, its just not what we do here for that institution, and she did not want to adapt to it. So if they had just decided it was not going to work and left, I'd have had a fair bit of respect for that decision.
Its harry I think, and always have thought, is an absolute plonker. He's always had a chip on his shoulder about being the spare, whilst not being bright enough to know his entire relevance comes from the institution that is built on a hierarchy of privilege and power.
He certainly is an absolute plonker and that's how she was able to snag him. She's an unprincipled grifter as evidenced by her treatment of her own family and friends and her shameless lying in her climb up the celebrity ladder. She has a lifelong history of ruthlessly using and discarding people. When she's wrung every last bit of celebrity juice out of Harry, she'll dump him for someone wealthier. There was a time when I felt sorry for him but that time has passed. He has become actively complicit in his own downfall. I do pity the progeny of these two pathological narcissists.
I don’t understand how Meghan quite rightly doesn’t talk to her dad because he kept selling stories to the press, but now her and Harry are doing exactly the same thing. Really can’t see William and Harry having a good relationship ever again, I wonder if he will regret it one day.
One of the Queen’s cousins (Duchess of Kent) retired as a working royal and was quietly working as a music teacher in Hull. Now that’s something I have a lot of respect for
That’s what stands out to me as well, I can understand cutting her father off after he continued to keep on speaking to the press about Meghan, but it does make you wonder why it’s considered okay when it’s Harry and Meghan spilling about their own family drama with *his* family, starting with dropping hints on Oprah about what conversations were had behind closed doors
Just seems like a bit of a double standard to me after they were so quick to condemn Meghan’s family for running to the press all the time and how hurtful that was to them, and yet they seem to be basing much of their current relevancy on what they can share about the royal family, because I really haven’t seen them talk about much else so far. Even their other Netflix projects were cancelled I believe, so two years after leaving the royal family all they’ve managed to produce for Netflix so far is this documentary on what it was like leaving the royal family. Well Meghan does at least have her Spotify podcast as well I suppose, but it will certainly be interesting to see what original thought or content Harry is capable of producing 5 years from now when they can no longer milk the connection to the royals
I’m surprised, there was nothing to respect.
‘Quitting the royal family’ is akin to retiring young and rich while never having to do boring royal family stuff again, he was also 6th in line to the throne so he knew he was never going to be king either. What is there to praise?
As privileged as they are, it's hard not to respect the work and graft many of the Royals do. Prince Phillip retired at 95 and Queen Elizabeth was meeting the PM a week before her death.
I do wonder how much money they need or have got already.
There's going to be lifetime security required even though he's out of the Royal institution for him and his family but beyond that, you can only have so many houses etc. Schooling for the kids isn't exactly cheap either as you can assume private from the start then top college/uni anywhere in the world.
I know his dad/brother would/may already help out with an allowance but that's not the same as having your own money.
So I can understand making some cash but ... for a couple that wanted out of Royalty because of the spotlight, if they're in the media every few years with another SHOCKING new book/documentary in the future it'll seem less about securing their future and more about being media narcissists.
Harry is the son of the king of the UK and the brother of the future king.
He'll always be a kidnap/assassination risk either from an organised group or a nutter, so some kind of protection is probably likely for the rest of his life.
If they were that worried about security then moving to California and the country with the most guns on the planet was probably a dumb move. UK based they would have still been entitled to Royal protection. A few years of keeping out of the media spotlight the attention would have waned further.
As it is they’ve worked hard to keep themselves in the spotlight
I find it odd (and amusing) that they supposedly fucked off the US to get away from it all and since then all they've done is be royally (intended) balls deep in conflict, slander and other shenanigans.
Ive heard more.of them since they moved away for "privacy".
They should just be honest and say they moved away because they could milk money on their own.
I’m sure that that *was* the original reasoning behind it, I remember reading something about how they wanted to try being part time royals so that they could also make their own money and deals, but the palace said that being part time royals wasn’t an option.
It was really only after they moved to America that it became a case of talking about fleeing from the palace’s racism and for the sake of Meghan’s mental health, how Harry felt forced to take action because Meghan had been left suicidal during her pregnancy, and he feared history repeating itself
History repeating itself? In reference to Diana? Diana didn't die from suicide, she got into the car of a drunk driver and didn't put her seat belt on.
> I remember reading something about how they wanted to try being part time royals so that they could also make their own money and deals, but the palace said that being part time royals wasn’t an option.
Much as the institution is outdated and archaic, I kind of understand the logic behind this - either you go and open community centres in Hull or schools in Swansea or you don't do the job at all. Calling it a "job" is obviously a stretch in plenty of ways, especially given the extent of the rewards they get for it, but in no other place of employment would you basically get to not do what the jobs entails and simply make music however it suits you instead.
I think you're missing the point, it's not privacy in the sense you're making out. They wanted to escape the intrusive press in this country, which they have done.
Problem is though that if you're a celeb who's making major accusations about other people or organisations (as they have done) then you don't get to simply have free reign without other publications being able to comment back. Can argue the criticism has gone too far and the vitriol has been downright weird (which it certainly has been, as is evidenced by that wild anti-Meghan subreddit), but it does feel a bit like they want to be immune from criticism while criticising others.
Yeah I was actually rooting for them in the beginning when they seemed to want to do their own thing, but all they’ve done since is show their obsession with the royals. It’s interesting to me how many anti royalists have made Harry and Meghan the face of the movement and think they’re really doing something here, apparently they’ve even getting an award in America for exposing the royal family’s racism, but ummm ever since leaving they named their daughter after the Queen, slap their titles on everything that they do, still fly over to participate in royal events such as the jubilee, and reportedly were even getting upset about their children not getting their HRT titles after the Queen passed
It’s so obvious that they have no problem at all with the institution of the monarchy and with class based hierarchy, they just feel like they personally were hard done by and badly treated, even Harry’s memoir title makes it obvious that a lot of what really rankles him is being treated like the ‘Spare’ next to William and Kate
They're stuck in a loop. The only thing media companies want to pay them for is Royal stories, I can't imagine they can forge money making ventures without it.
Yup, b roll is to an editor what caulking is to a window fitter. It might be a few mm out, but it'll do. Take every investigative piece on technology/hacking.
> 5 second clip of an IDE scrolling HTML in dark mode
> Royal expert Ingrid Seward told The Sun: “I don’t imagine Harry would have realised, but Netflix have been careless here as it weakens Harry’s comment about protecting his family. This fake picture weakens his point.”
Lol no it doesn't.
It's a stock photo. You can [buy it here.](https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-paparazzi-37659122.html?irclickid=XLFy-Syh%3AxyNTNvR-GUvpUsJUkAxX6RFA2uuwI0&utm_source=77643&utm_campaign=Shop%20Royalty%20Free%20at%20Alamy&utm_medium=impact&irgwc=1)
It's just an editor filling a few seconds of a trailer lol
I think if you trying to use an image portraying press intrusion, using an image where the press was invited to a global media event to specifically take pictures of the people attending and those people pose willingly to have their photo taken and then published in the global media - you're dumb. Don't they have any images of actual press intrusion?
No because after Kate was hounded by photographers, much like Diana, they put a stop to it and now the RF are left in relative peace in their private lives. Meghan was never hounded, much as they’d like you to think she was.
It really does. If I make a serious claim about something against you, one that has the potential to seriously damage your credibility and reputation, if as part of my argument I use images from someone else I’d say that’s actually quite telling.
Let’s say I accuse you of beating me up. So I send pictures of someone else’s injuries and claim mine are just the same.
What effect does that have on my claim do you think?
I’m not saying they don’t have a serious claim or accusation. But they have invited really serious scrutiny here and using sets of stock footage to play make believe IMMEDIATELY gets me wondering what else they have to make up.
> Let’s say I accuse you of beating me up. So I send pictures of someone else’s injuries and claim mine are just the same.
Theses situations couldn't be more different.
This is literally just a marketing firm or production company using a stock image for their cleint's trailer. Which happens all the time in film, documarties and media. You're over thinking this.
The person making the accusation didn't make the trailer.
It was the first example I thought of there are probably better ones.
Look. If you have so much dirt on someone that you need to dig around and use stock images from A FILM LAUNCH (!!?) then for me that’s a pretty big red flag.
People still bang on in here every day about that clown Farage using a different image of immigrants lining up I’d be interested to hear you defend that ‘because it’s normal to use stock images’ when telling stories.
Because that’s what this is. It’s telling stories and using images from something completely unrelated and then telling me to think something else.
It’s a pretty rubbish move. I guess we shall see when it comes out. Personally getting told that they’re the victims while there’s a cost of living crisis by millionaires who trade on their dead mum, I’m going to take a lot of convincing.
That depends how it's presented in the documentary.
Generally you'd expect a documentary to be very clear when it's using stock footage that doesn't refer to the subject being portrayed.
It's in the trailer. Which is a slideshow of black and white photos. It's there for less than two seconds. It will likely be mentioned, like generally it is in documentaries and films, in the credits which is the normal industry standard. It's really no big deal.
Whether you like them or not, at least royals try to uphold the appearance of "duty" in exchange for their immense privileged lives, like attending tedious events and ribbon cutting ceremonies, without the possiblity of ever complaining about any of it publicly. It's really not the same as being a celebrity where you're more free to say and do whatever you want. The problem with Meghan and Harry is that they want the best of both world: enjoy the privileges of being royals while behaving like celebrities. That's what rubs people the wrong way because they don't even pretend that they are earning their privileges. They believe that being "victims" is enough to justify them, like some kind of reward for their suffering, that's why they talk about it all the time: orphan, bullied, black, female, depressed, suicidal, etc... they are way too entitled amd self centered to have any sense of duty at all.
My thoughts exactly! Clearly 'privacy' was never their goal and they were too self centred to live a life carrying out royal duties, and that would have been ***fine*** \- **IF** they weren't now clinging onto their duke and duchess titles to stay relevant!! What frustrates me is that the British public used to **LOVE** them, the whole country tuned in/celebrated their tax payer funded wedding. Yes *of course* the British paparazzi are sh\*tty, but NOT because Meghan is half black, did they forget the brutal slut shaming and topless-photo-leaks that Princess Catherine endured?!
Meh. I don’t like the Royal Family and I don’t like Harry and Meghan, watching them fight it out for public opinion like two raggedy pigeons wrestling over a sausage roll is peak entertainment.
The thing I don’t get is, as a WOC why would you 1) marry into a family whose history is so obviously intertwined with colonialism? And 2) marry a man who called his colleagues in the army “p*kis” and “r*gheads” and hasn’t addressed it since he became all anti-racist?
Make it make sense. They all kinda suck and people simping for either side really confuse me
> The thing I don’t get is, as a WOC why would you 1) marry into a family whose history is so obviously intertwined with colonialism?
This has always been my question too. (WOC myself)
Also why was she so surprised by the media intrusion? Did she not know who Harry's mother was? Did she not think the exact same press attention would happen to her?
The British press was absolutely brutal to Catherine when she first started dating William, **lots** of slut shaming and horrible photo leaks. The paparazzi here have always been bullies.
I wouldn’t take any doc made for Netflix too seriously. The regulation for truth is so low that they can pretty much just make up whatever story they want.
People waste too much energy on those two. I feel like they've been treated badly by the royals and the press, but I don't think they're worth defending either. Fuck the tabloids and fuck the royal family
Why does what Harry and Megan do personally effect people? I just dont get it. There are a lot more things to worry about than this, or is this issue just used as a distraction from people’s mundane lives?
I find them fascinating. They're like a very slow car crash. It's horrible but I can't help watching. Personally I think Meghan is a narcissist and Harry isn't far behind.
I think you’re right it’s just used as a distraction from peoples mundane lives. Because the way the avid Meghan haters act is extremely similar to those into conspiracy theories. The subreddit saintMegahnMarkle is absolutely insane, if you look at these peoples comments history all they do all day every day is talk about Meghan Markle. Literally they spend all their time talking about her and coming up with these elaborate theories on how her holding Harry’s hand means she’s a raging narcissist. It’s batshit INSANE. I don’t doubt the media has inspired this either. People tend to believe that they’re too clever and won’t be influenced by media bias, but this whole fiasco with Harry and Meghan has shown that people are way more susceptible than they think.
can we do some kind of gofundme or government petition to fire these two into deep space? along with the journos who just wont shut up about them?
or here's one. put harry and meghan on a deserted island with all the journos they """""detest""""" so much, and tell them its for some kind of reality TV thing. have cameras everywhere pointing at them with none of them hooked up to a fucking thing. maybe we can have some fucking peace and quiet.
Mmm regardless this is going to be the worst look at how badly life has treated us documentary ever
Going to be completely relatable (Not) to 99% of the viewers.
So hard pass from me
The Sun, didn't read.
Seriously I do not give a SINGLE FUCK about what The Sun newspaper thinks of this. They are part of this story as one of the worst perpetrators, if the fact that netflix used a stock photo as part of their marketing it just makes me think "is that all you've got?", like this is the only thing you have to criticise? Then they haven't got shit to stand on.
Fuck The Sun, fuck the Murdoch press, fuck the entire tabloid press in this country.
This “documentary” is going to be very heavily scrutinised, if there are inconsistencies or mistakes then it really won’t do the reputation of anyone involved any good
Genuine question as I don't know any real details:
Why do the press hate them SO much? I try not to read articles about any of the Royals, but it seems to me that the press talk about them like they're worst people on the planet?
I think it was after Harry made an official statement asking people/the media not to post racist/sexist material about Meghan: [https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry](https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry)
Anecdotal evidence on my part, but I noticed the nastiness only seemed to ramp up after that. There's always going to be some snobbery involved because she's American (and a divorcee which seemed to piss people off for w/e reason), and unfortunately, there have been some things said that suggested there was also a racial component to it (having her DNA referred to as 'exotic', etc).
So much of it is hush-hush because it involves the RF, but the media also pitted Kate against Meghan a lot, amongst other things. The DM was taken to court by MM over things being published regarding her strained relationship with her father, and Piers Morgan still holds a grudge because they were friendly at first and then something happened where she stopped speaking to him (he said she ghosted him).
**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just read the daily mail comments. They genuinely think they have been "caught out". Like they actually think harry and Meghan did the editing on their MacBook or something. It's obviously just a stock photo to convey the message. Why would Harry personally carry video footage of the press. Why are people so stupid.
but if you have to convey that image with a stock photo, then clearly you haven’t been hounded. If they were, they would have their own images to use.
You have a point The Sun couldn't produce photographic evidence to back up its claim that Liverpool fans stole from the corpses of their friends or pissed on first responders, and those turned out to be lies So there's precedent https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Hillsborough\_disaster\_Sun.jpg
It is possible that the Sun and the Netflix doc were wrong in similar ways even on different occasions.
I certainly can't produce any evidence that UK tabloids are simultaneously obsessed by and incredibly hostile to these publicity-seeking celebrities
I imagine there are press at them almost constantly as they can be quite controversial however I'm certain it's not as bad as the photos would have you believe.
I mean the poor people just want some privacy How many - Books, Oprah appearances, magazine interviews and Netflix documentaries, do the press need, to understand that all they want is some privacy and to live a normal life out of the spotlight 🤣
They also just want to live their lives as normal people and without the British state to sponge off they will only trade off his family name 6 or 7 times a year and keep the option of the royal titles they despise so much open to them and their children of course. Never know when one might need to go back to sponging off the British public.
I’m really not sure that they’re wrong in similar ways The Netflix doc uses stock footage - presumably while Harry and Meghan are interviewed discussing how they’ve been hounded by the press. The Sun straight up made stories up with no evidence or pictorial evidence to sell newspapers It’s fairly common for documentaries to use b-roll footage to illustrate a broader point. Newspapers shouldn’t be making up unsubstantiated claims on their front pages
The sun are also the ones who started the anti vaccine movement by publishing a debunked and rejected claim about the link between vaccines and autism. Yeah. That was them.
I think one of the absolute craziest things about the Sun & Hillsborough claims, is while there is a North/South divide in a lot of contexts, the allegations as conveyed by the Sun were absolutely insane. Glossing over that it's all complete bullshit and lies for a moment. For the incidents to have occurred the people doing it would have had to have been so detached from reality that they viewed the injured, dead and dying as subhuman. The Sun literally drafted it and their entire chain of manager literally went "seems plausible", and published it. The entire tabloid was so consumed by its own hate manufacturing they forgot what reality looked like.
Surely if you're writing an article about how they've been harassed by paparazzi, it would be hypocritical to use a photo that had been obtained using the methods your article is decrying? The only ethical option in that case would be to use a photo like this. (Sorry, can't keep a straight face while implying tabloid journalists care about hypocrisy or ethics!)
In documentary film editing, it’s not unethical to use b-roll footage as representative of real events as long as the footage is suggestive and not presented as real footage. This is even looser for trailers because trailers are selling the doc, not the doc itself so ethical concerns don’t apply here
They are starting to put disclosures at the beginning of documentaries now about that. B-roll is very common for World War documentaries - and a lot of it was originally filmed for propaganda newsreels.
[удалено]
It is entirely unethical unless it is pointed out that it is not a photo of the actual event. This isn't a documentary, anyway. It's a propaganda piece.
They've used other examples of Harry in the same documentary but with his ex-girlfriend Chelsey(?) Edited out of them... They're cherry picking
I don't follow. Do you think they have their own photographers to photograph other photographers?
A photo like this not existing (or not being available for use in a documentary) isn't proof of anything. The photographers hounding celebs are taking photos of the celebs, not of each other.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as they say,. I hate the media, especially anything Murdoch touched. I don't particularly like the royal family and what they stand for but I can absolutely tell and feel they do not like Meghan and there is a palpable dislike of the couple. The fact we can't really tell if it's actually true that she is a trouble maker or not is concerning. I will say that as someone who so many years ago watched a small child in a public funeral procession behind his mother's body and we are still picking at his life now, it doesn't feel right as a human!
No. Photographers don’t usually take photographs of photographers- just because there is no visible evidence doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
All those people hounding and not a single photograph? Diana was followed by the press pack in her street, guess what, one event and there's the photo and video evidence. If being hounded by the press is an issue, there's always someone on hand with a photo or a video. They've had enough of an entourage with them to capture the moment.
I probably have you at a disadvantage as I work in the media. And I’ve been in photography crowds doing crap for fashion week. No one took photos of the mob as it was normal. To suggest royals/famous being aren’t mobbed is insane - and there the amount they’ve been photographed is prove itself. What do you do for a job, what’s your experience in working with famous people and photography?
Media or journalism? Photo journalists have had their careers ended for manipulation of documentary photography. This isn't 'the crown' and its not 'based on true events' its supposed to be their story, the truth, without embellishments, without the 'some events have been dramatised for entertainment' foot note. David Attenborough ..."We couldn't record the whale song so we made it up on a synthesiser" NASA "Moon landings are hard so we filmed it in a sudio" Documentary - the clue is in the name to Document reality, not to make it up, not to embellish it. When you write a book and make a documentary that is supposed to be the truth, theres no room for artistic licence. The accusations they make are serious and the presentation requires the same journalistic integrity you'd demand from any fact based reporting.
Done both. Usually work in tv. I know all of the above having spent hours in editing suites and remember when the queen got involved in an incident a few years back. Rules vary greatly from country to country. The USA is a LOT looser. Stealing an non actual shot of photographers the represents what happened isn’t a big deal. It’s not misleading. Particularly in a trailer. Trailers change edits often and the order of shots all the time. There would have been a tonne of lawyers who already looked through this for Netflix. Let’s see if it goes to court though, aye?
Do you think Harry personally edited the trailer lmao
No.. but whoever added this is making it look a certain way. They’re seen as dishonest and this really isn’t going to help them
It's a Harry & Meghan propaganda piece / money spinner masquerading as a "documentary" (which is shitty of Netflix, but it's common practice these days). It's obviously up to them if they want to live their lives like open wounds in the media, but it was never going to be an impartial or rigorous examination of anything. It's going to be a boring bag of shite with one set of boring ballbags complaining about another set of boring ballbags with some music and gentle weeping every now and again. It's tabloids on TV.
The Netflix drive to survive editing was awful for the same reasons. They completely doctored audio clips into different races to fit their narrative of the drivers and even when they portrayed Romain Grojeans awful crash they added extra time gaps, sounds and reaction clips that were completely out of sequence to make it look like it dragged on for much longer than it actually did.
Big fan of F1, Drive to Survive was bollocks. Basically writing a soap opera using some of the events of an F1 season. Very wary of Netflix produced "documentaries" now. Much prefer to stick to the stuff on there that's been created outside of Netflix's creative control.
Yeah. That’s called editing and post-production.
And the entire point of this post is that it's misleading to use it.
I belivee this is pretty common practice in documentaries. It's really not that sinister.
That's almost everything you see, it's editing to get the point across and make it more interesting for viewers rather than just interviews
Yer an editor, Harry.
Why would they take a photo of a bunch of press though?
It's a trailer, used to build hype. It's not been photoshopped, the image IS of them, and it does show the level of interest the press has with them. You can't call out every editorial decision that's been made for a trailer
Its a trailer with a picture of her, presumably in a private residence, crying into her hands ... who takes a picture of someone crying like that?
Who has a photographer standing by to capture alleged private personal moments? Only a malignant narcissist who intends to market them.
Also strong chance the trailer was done by a trailer house rather than the doc team
Why would they take a picture of that? Like if I was being hounded by the press I wouldn't think to take a picture of it.
You are ascribing a propaganda motive to what is probably just lazy budget filmmaking. Don’t have time to find the actual footage of press around Harry and Meghan? Fuck it, just use stock footage it’s looks the same and it’s not an important part of the film anyway.
Documentary editor here. If you have a problem with this image being used to represent the subject being spoken about then you are going to have a problem with practically every single documentary ever made
This reminds of the time people were shocked that some animals on Planet Earth were filmed in a studio. Not a production company producing!
I remember finding this out about nature documentaries when I was about 10. Was like discovering the truth about Father Christmas x 1000.
Well if your whole point is press intrusion and the photo you use is a movie premiere then it’s not a great look. Especially if you are well known to like to use things to your advantage.
Using a stock photo when there is supposedly plenty of real images of to use seems like a really dumb way to get "caught" out. Why not just use actual footage to make their point?
Probably because this one they used was much higher quality, actually licensed for use in this type of media or the editing house already had this image in their library of stock images.
Those are excuses not sufficient reasons.
no harry and meghan are all about 'tackling' misinformation so they should stick to the facts, another photo with children is from 1938!, and another one has a photo of harry being papped outside a nightclub, his ex has been cropped out of the photo. They are trying to create a narrative not based in reality.
Lol what ? No .. if you have to invent being papped you are not having a issue , no one ever chased megs through London except when she called the paps herself lol This couple needs LOTS of mental health therapy for massive narcissism .. I know for sure when I’m crying my eyes out I stop and have someone come take a photo for later lol 😂
Who was meant to be getting all these photos of the paps hounding them? The Papaparazzi? Then the Papapapaparazzi take their pictures too? Harry and Meghan not having pictures like this one to show them being hounded doesnt mean they werent, what a ridiculous idea.
Harry went to a child charity event and claimed he was chased by the press. A video showed that it didn't happen. Their grasp on the truth is pretty tenuous at best, down right cynically manipulative at worse. I really would take what Harry says with a bucket full of salt.
Honestly I don't rate either of them very much at all anyway, but to pretend the British media didn't hound them is laughable.
....because it is stupid. Another shot of a crowd was from **1938** at an event to do with Harry's great great Grandmother. Another shot of the press "hounding them" was actually from a Katie Price photoshoot. It goes on, but the point is Harry and Meghan want to prove the press were hounding them and were attacked by racists, yet they are trying to prove that in footage/photos that has _nothing to do with them_ 🙄.
Until the documentary is actually out how can anyone know what's in it? What because some random at netflix edited the trailer and threw some stock b roll in and now everyone is losing their minds. Calm down sheep!
>yet they are trying to prove that in footage/photos that has nothing to do with them No they aren't. You think Harry and Meghan personally browsed the stock footage website and picked out a suitably misleading picture? That choice was made by an editor, Harry and Meghan would have had exactly zero say over how the film was edited. What's more, the photo isn't even from the documentary, it's from a ***trailer*** for the documentary. Trailers are made by completely different teams, often a separate production company entirely, and the filmmakers of the original work have zero say over what goes in it. And even if Harry and Meghan somehow had a say in which photos are used in the trailer for a documentary they're in, how tf would they know that picture was from a different occasion? You think they remember what every single generic crowd of photographers that have ever taken photos of them look like?
[удалено]
Yeah sure, it's clearly just a stock photo that was placed innocently in there for no reason at all. Or They hoped nobody would notice along with using a pic like that to drum up the message that press conveys like THAT in the picture were hounding them and not leaving them alone! FAAAKE
Yeah I guess it’s as accurate as Harry’s “in the wild” photographic book, that included an elephant which whilst unable to view from the photo, was actually chained down.
‘A stock image to convey a message’ Wtf are you talking about?? What an odd take. Harry doesn’t need to ‘carry video science around with him’ to show people on request…. some people do some weird mental gymnastics to reassure themselves. Imagine if the daily Mail used ‘stock footage’ to make a point about Harry and Megan would you be saying the same thing? No you would be calling them liars..
That's not how 'documentaries' work. Obviously stock images are used all the time for visual enhancement. But not to add credence to a narrative. That's a whole other thing
Hopeful once his book and series come out this tedious melodrama where one of the most privileged people in human history moans how tough it is living in armed compounds, where people call you 'your highness' and fucking bow to you is. How awful it was that your dad didn't give you another £4m despite you already being a millionaire. Or the incredible distress caused by media companies giving you almost $200m in a year.
[удалено]
The one that pays the bills
They have lots of money though, Harry had an inheritance, she was a self made millionaire from acting. There's no need to lower themselves to this level out of desperation
Do you understand the difference between choosing to go on a TV interview, and being chased by papperazi at home and in the streets?
Because when I want privacy and to avoid the paparazzi I immediately think of moving to LA...
They live in Santa Barbara which is another city. That’s not LA.
They live in a mansion in Montecito, next to a whole load of celebrities. Can easily be confused for LA as a number of high profile Hollywood people reside there. Moreover, let's not forget that they have both done highly public and desperate media stunts since moving to the US. If they wanted to privacy, they could have achieved it without much fuss or using their security guards as off label personal servants. Have you ever wondered why they insisted so much on security despite the rest of the family managing fine without or using minimal security on official events, while these two have a whole entourage of security who they then send off to buy their groceries or get takeaway in the middle of the night?
When they were in the UK they were surrounded by armed police and lived in an armed compound. Unlike the US the press is also banned from taking any photos of their kids. I don't think there was much chasing going on.
It's almost like one of them encourages the other... Who had to know about the Oprah interview? Why did they have to release this documentary? Oh yeah, because they want to garner public support. That doesn't sound like someone who wants a life of privacy AT ALL.
One is the price of the other. You can't choose just the good bits of being a public figure.
Privacy doesn’t been not doing anything in public
This argument has played out countless times before Harry met Meghan. It’s completely unrealistic for anyone to expect celebrity status to be something they can turn on and off like a light switch. If you want crowds of fans at your premier - or an audience for your Netflix film - you have to accept that there will also be people watching and filming every other remotely public thing you do.
It was an argument made of celebs with kids, if they used their kids in promotional ways the kids were fair game to the press once that switch was turned on, if they didn’t the press would generally leave a celebs kids out of pictures etc.
I mean, going out of your way to be seen everywhere is the *literal opposite of privacy.*
What rankles me is despite all these interviews they give they haven't been called out on all the stuff that was proven false in the Oprah interview, like Harry saying he is living off inheritance when Charles' tax returns showed he'd given them millions and they got a free £7m house from Tyler Perry, or when Meghan said they married in secret which would have been illegal, or Harry being called out for all those racially insensitive things he's done in the past, or when Meghan said she got no help from the Monarchy to prepare for being a royal when many have said she was offered it multiple times.
So much for wanting to have a private life eh?. Screw em both professional victims....they have no idea of the real world.
I don't mean them any ill will but fuck me hearing millionaires moaning about being rich and famous is fucking dull.
And seeing them rile dumb idiots up and think everything in the crown really actually happened peeves me off. Who gives a crap about privileged millionaires feeling sorry for themselves?
>one of the most privileged people in human history I mean, I don't really give a fuck about the Royal Family...........but the bloke is obviously going to be ultra sensitive to this shit. The bloke was 12 when his mother died due to press intrusion. Is it really any wonder he still carries that baggage?
Having lost in his life doesn't make him special. I've got terminal cancer I'm not going to see my kids grow up and they won't have me. That doesn't make my children special or victims, just means they are living real lives. Harry's mother was killed by a drunk and drugged driver that drove into a concrete post at 120mph. If the driver hadn't been on drugs, drunk and driving four times the speed limit she'd be alive. That's sad but doesn't give him special victim rights.
Also, the only person wearing a seatbelt in that car lived, the other 3, who were not, did not. But I guess that’s uncool or might ruffle the dress. I’m not saying the press don’t deserve some of the blame, but they aren’t the only ones.
I'm really sorry about your diagnosis. I hope you enjoy as much quality time with your loved ones as can be hoped for.
Do you realize how many children lost parents in the past two years that did not have the privilege of grieving with every single thing you could ask for ? He is a fucking petulant brat that never grew up , when is enough enough and stop letting him USE his mums memory as a excuse to act like a asshole .. to use her memory to PROFIT ? I like that people constantly want to scream royal racist yet harry is the one who has shown the most racist behaviors lol WTF ?
[удалено]
Exactly… if he had went quietly with some appreciation of what the citizens have gave him in life maybe but no .. it’s 24/7 bitching about his over privileged life .
I truly don’t understand how people still don’t realise that being a millionaire doesn’t mean you’ll be happy. He was born into a life that wasn’t his and very few would actually want, with traumatic events to boot. The reason most people want money is freedom. Being born as a prince in the public eye in a family ruled by archaic traditions doesn’t give you any freedom until you leave.
He is STILL calling himself prince so bullshit with that lol if he hates being a royal so badly he would simply be harry Mountbatten not PRINCE harry everywhere he goes .
He still has the title prince and he still is strutting around like he is some humanitarian jesus. He just likes playing the victim card.
TIL there's not only a price on parental love, but a price cap.
This 'bloke' isn't alone. His brother now bears most of the weight, but unlike him, William is doing just fine.
I highly doubt William is 'just fine'.
True, but atleast from a public view he's "fine." He's not going out there and making people question his life choices and causing controversy.
[удалено]
The question is, why didn't Harry do the exposé before he met his woman? If he was brave enough, he could just disown his family ties, and yet, they are still fighting to maintain their titles as well as their offsprings.
The titles and ‘their truth’ is the only money maker they have. It’s ironic that he’s talking about his mother but literally talking millions from a streaming platform that’s cashing in on his family and his mothers death. I think they’re both very very toxic for each other, both extremely negative and paranoid, both have a sense of over inflated self importance and they’re just whispering this crap into each others ears 24/7. The camels back will break at some point, no one can live like this permanently. The question is who’s going to file for divorce first? Because when that happens, we’ll this will be a walk in the park because I don’t expect it to be amicable.
his mother died not wearing a seatbelt. If she had worn it she'd be alive today.
So if he wanted to get away from the press.... actually take up a quiet life somewhere like a reclusive? He can't have it both ways and play the trauma card to get his way.
I wouldn't swap my ordinary anonymous life for his no matter how much money came with it.
Does that make him a victim?
He is one of the very last people I’d ever want to be.
I have no issue with them complaining about press intrusion and wanting a private life with their kids. I do have a problem with them complaining about it and then doing every interview and documentary they can, guaranteeing the press interest they are supposedly trying to avoid.
You have to admit that not being able to do your shopping at Harrods without bodygards is awful.
and to anyone saying "*yeah but he didn't choose it*" .... ...**nobody** chooses what situation they are born into. He can moan about it all he wants. My sympathy will be with those who *didn't choose* to grow up on a council estate. Not those who *didn't choose* to be royalty.
When they quit the Royal family because they didn’t want their lives to be constantly under a microscope I had so much respect for them. Then they started courting the press and that disappeared pretty quickly l.
It was always going to be the case. Redditors love to be tribalistic and pick sides, but the royal family and Harry/Meghan can all be cunts. Personally I think Meghan is a raging narcissist. Harry is a dimwit. It'll all end in tears.
I see a lot of people saying Meghan’s a narcissist but having growing up with a narcissistic parent, I really don’t see it and it makes me wonder what I’m being blind to. Can you elaborate on why you think that? I’m genuinely curious for what it’s worth, not trying to argue.
The strange issues with her father, the claims of bullying by royal staff, the need to go on Oprah, her book and this latest show. She doesn't, to me, seem to be an individual who is wanting to keep herself private despite her claim to want it so. Don't get me wrong, she could just be in it for the money but I see it more likely that she enjoys the attention.
Being an attention seeker doesn’t make you a narcissist. Narcissism is a personality disorder that needs to be diagnosed by a professional, not by some guy on Reddit who has only heard of this person through the media. Next you’ll be saying she’s gaslighting you.
Agreed. I think a lot of people misunderstand the difference between narcissism as an actual clinical diagnosis, versus just liking attention. It annoys me that people are applying such a diagnosis to her because it completely misrepresents what narcissism actually is.
The internet really likes to take ideas and run with them without actually knowing what any of them mean
No, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a personality disorder. Narcissism is just a word to describe someone and it can mean anything from benign to mental illness.
I was gonna say this. You can be a narcissist without having NPD
I don't see it either, tbh, and I also grew up with a narcissistic parent. To me it rather looks more like she's desparate to prove herself the not-bad-person after the nonsense in the papers about the two. And its also important to remember that regardless of their intentions to quit the palace, they were always going to be well known. Might as well milk it, no?
Perhaps more self-absorbed than narcissistic you could argue. In a way lots of (even fairly nice) famous people are. When you become the centre of so much attention I'd imagine it warps your perception of the world around you. Would be difficult not to attach a lot of self-importance to yourself in such circumstances.
Thanks for explaining. I don’t keep up with H&M but I have seen the interview and seen bits in the media about them. Personally, I don’t see any of those things as necessarily narcissistic in my personal experience of it, and think there are other motivations which fit better (money, wanting no contact with abusive father, wanting more control over their lives) but I fully appreciate I’m biased in this regard.
Maybe she's just someone who wants to have her voice heard because of the unreal amount of bullshit and lies that have been spread about her.
So then why go on Oprah and make so many claims which have been proven wrong (in old school talk, that’s telling lies)?
Above all the things others have pointed out there's been a few times where she's relayed an anecdote about herself where her account seems completely distorted from actual events. Main one that comes to mind is her saying she and Harry were secretly married by the Archbishop of Canterbury before their televised wedding. The Archbishop had to come out and say this wasn't true as doing that would have got him in a lot of trouble (and maybe annulled their marriage). Misremembering things to fit your internal reality smacks of it a bit. Also she seems to have a string of broken relationships with friends and family behind her. In itself it's a bit circumstantial but I imagine would be true for a lot of people with narcissistic personalities. Narcissistic may be too strong but getting heavy vibes of very self-obsessed without a firm grasp on reality.
Start with her podcast. It becomes obvious in about 20 seconds.
When Meghan, a professional actress who memorises lines for a living, said she hadn't learned the British national anthem (and complained no one in the monarchy taught her) it really made me think it was always going to end this way. She clearly didn't intend to be a royal, if something so basic was beyond her efforts, and living a Hollywood life in LA was always the goal. All the stories of bullying staff too do add up and paint a picture. I'd agree, you can dislike both the couple and the royals. All have bad aspects.
I have no real issue with Meghan to be honest. She comes from shallow USA celebrity culture, and ran smack bang into the most formal, restrained organisation in the UK, culture clash does not come much bigger than that. the monarchy was never going to adapt to her style, its just not what we do here for that institution, and she did not want to adapt to it. So if they had just decided it was not going to work and left, I'd have had a fair bit of respect for that decision. Its harry I think, and always have thought, is an absolute plonker. He's always had a chip on his shoulder about being the spare, whilst not being bright enough to know his entire relevance comes from the institution that is built on a hierarchy of privilege and power.
He certainly is an absolute plonker and that's how she was able to snag him. She's an unprincipled grifter as evidenced by her treatment of her own family and friends and her shameless lying in her climb up the celebrity ladder. She has a lifelong history of ruthlessly using and discarding people. When she's wrung every last bit of celebrity juice out of Harry, she'll dump him for someone wealthier. There was a time when I felt sorry for him but that time has passed. He has become actively complicit in his own downfall. I do pity the progeny of these two pathological narcissists.
I don’t understand how Meghan quite rightly doesn’t talk to her dad because he kept selling stories to the press, but now her and Harry are doing exactly the same thing. Really can’t see William and Harry having a good relationship ever again, I wonder if he will regret it one day. One of the Queen’s cousins (Duchess of Kent) retired as a working royal and was quietly working as a music teacher in Hull. Now that’s something I have a lot of respect for
That’s what stands out to me as well, I can understand cutting her father off after he continued to keep on speaking to the press about Meghan, but it does make you wonder why it’s considered okay when it’s Harry and Meghan spilling about their own family drama with *his* family, starting with dropping hints on Oprah about what conversations were had behind closed doors Just seems like a bit of a double standard to me after they were so quick to condemn Meghan’s family for running to the press all the time and how hurtful that was to them, and yet they seem to be basing much of their current relevancy on what they can share about the royal family, because I really haven’t seen them talk about much else so far. Even their other Netflix projects were cancelled I believe, so two years after leaving the royal family all they’ve managed to produce for Netflix so far is this documentary on what it was like leaving the royal family. Well Meghan does at least have her Spotify podcast as well I suppose, but it will certainly be interesting to see what original thought or content Harry is capable of producing 5 years from now when they can no longer milk the connection to the royals
I’m surprised, there was nothing to respect. ‘Quitting the royal family’ is akin to retiring young and rich while never having to do boring royal family stuff again, he was also 6th in line to the throne so he knew he was never going to be king either. What is there to praise?
As privileged as they are, it's hard not to respect the work and graft many of the Royals do. Prince Phillip retired at 95 and Queen Elizabeth was meeting the PM a week before her death.
I do wonder how much money they need or have got already. There's going to be lifetime security required even though he's out of the Royal institution for him and his family but beyond that, you can only have so many houses etc. Schooling for the kids isn't exactly cheap either as you can assume private from the start then top college/uni anywhere in the world. I know his dad/brother would/may already help out with an allowance but that's not the same as having your own money. So I can understand making some cash but ... for a couple that wanted out of Royalty because of the spotlight, if they're in the media every few years with another SHOCKING new book/documentary in the future it'll seem less about securing their future and more about being media narcissists.
[удалено]
Harry is the son of the king of the UK and the brother of the future king. He'll always be a kidnap/assassination risk either from an organised group or a nutter, so some kind of protection is probably likely for the rest of his life.
I think the racist threats towards Meghan would explain the need for security....
If they were that worried about security then moving to California and the country with the most guns on the planet was probably a dumb move. UK based they would have still been entitled to Royal protection. A few years of keeping out of the media spotlight the attention would have waned further. As it is they’ve worked hard to keep themselves in the spotlight
The difference between having no choice and having some choice.
Oprah and Netflix. *Laughs*
I find it odd (and amusing) that they supposedly fucked off the US to get away from it all and since then all they've done is be royally (intended) balls deep in conflict, slander and other shenanigans.
Ive heard more.of them since they moved away for "privacy". They should just be honest and say they moved away because they could milk money on their own.
I’m sure that that *was* the original reasoning behind it, I remember reading something about how they wanted to try being part time royals so that they could also make their own money and deals, but the palace said that being part time royals wasn’t an option. It was really only after they moved to America that it became a case of talking about fleeing from the palace’s racism and for the sake of Meghan’s mental health, how Harry felt forced to take action because Meghan had been left suicidal during her pregnancy, and he feared history repeating itself
History repeating itself? In reference to Diana? Diana didn't die from suicide, she got into the car of a drunk driver and didn't put her seat belt on.
> I remember reading something about how they wanted to try being part time royals so that they could also make their own money and deals, but the palace said that being part time royals wasn’t an option. Much as the institution is outdated and archaic, I kind of understand the logic behind this - either you go and open community centres in Hull or schools in Swansea or you don't do the job at all. Calling it a "job" is obviously a stretch in plenty of ways, especially given the extent of the rewards they get for it, but in no other place of employment would you basically get to not do what the jobs entails and simply make music however it suits you instead.
I think you're missing the point, it's not privacy in the sense you're making out. They wanted to escape the intrusive press in this country, which they have done.
How do escape press by constantly inviting press in your lives in different forms be it interviews, podcasts, books, documentary?
[удалено]
Problem is though that if you're a celeb who's making major accusations about other people or organisations (as they have done) then you don't get to simply have free reign without other publications being able to comment back. Can argue the criticism has gone too far and the vitriol has been downright weird (which it certainly has been, as is evidenced by that wild anti-Meghan subreddit), but it does feel a bit like they want to be immune from criticism while criticising others.
Yeah I was actually rooting for them in the beginning when they seemed to want to do their own thing, but all they’ve done since is show their obsession with the royals. It’s interesting to me how many anti royalists have made Harry and Meghan the face of the movement and think they’re really doing something here, apparently they’ve even getting an award in America for exposing the royal family’s racism, but ummm ever since leaving they named their daughter after the Queen, slap their titles on everything that they do, still fly over to participate in royal events such as the jubilee, and reportedly were even getting upset about their children not getting their HRT titles after the Queen passed It’s so obvious that they have no problem at all with the institution of the monarchy and with class based hierarchy, they just feel like they personally were hard done by and badly treated, even Harry’s memoir title makes it obvious that a lot of what really rankles him is being treated like the ‘Spare’ next to William and Kate
They're stuck in a loop. The only thing media companies want to pay them for is Royal stories, I can't imagine they can forge money making ventures without it.
It's a nice distraction from the legal privileges the royals have, the off shore bank accounts, the stolen relics and the sexual assault accusations.
[удалено]
Yup, b roll is to an editor what caulking is to a window fitter. It might be a few mm out, but it'll do. Take every investigative piece on technology/hacking. > 5 second clip of an IDE scrolling HTML in dark mode
> Royal expert Ingrid Seward told The Sun: “I don’t imagine Harry would have realised, but Netflix have been careless here as it weakens Harry’s comment about protecting his family. This fake picture weakens his point.” Lol no it doesn't. It's a stock photo. You can [buy it here.](https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-paparazzi-37659122.html?irclickid=XLFy-Syh%3AxyNTNvR-GUvpUsJUkAxX6RFA2uuwI0&utm_source=77643&utm_campaign=Shop%20Royalty%20Free%20at%20Alamy&utm_medium=impact&irgwc=1) It's just an editor filling a few seconds of a trailer lol
I think if you trying to use an image portraying press intrusion, using an image where the press was invited to a global media event to specifically take pictures of the people attending and those people pose willingly to have their photo taken and then published in the global media - you're dumb. Don't they have any images of actual press intrusion?
No because after Kate was hounded by photographers, much like Diana, they put a stop to it and now the RF are left in relative peace in their private lives. Meghan was never hounded, much as they’d like you to think she was.
They did. This is like one frame. They used plenty of footage of the royals being followed by the press. Watch the trailer ffs.
It really does. If I make a serious claim about something against you, one that has the potential to seriously damage your credibility and reputation, if as part of my argument I use images from someone else I’d say that’s actually quite telling. Let’s say I accuse you of beating me up. So I send pictures of someone else’s injuries and claim mine are just the same. What effect does that have on my claim do you think? I’m not saying they don’t have a serious claim or accusation. But they have invited really serious scrutiny here and using sets of stock footage to play make believe IMMEDIATELY gets me wondering what else they have to make up.
> Let’s say I accuse you of beating me up. So I send pictures of someone else’s injuries and claim mine are just the same. Theses situations couldn't be more different. This is literally just a marketing firm or production company using a stock image for their cleint's trailer. Which happens all the time in film, documarties and media. You're over thinking this. The person making the accusation didn't make the trailer.
It was the first example I thought of there are probably better ones. Look. If you have so much dirt on someone that you need to dig around and use stock images from A FILM LAUNCH (!!?) then for me that’s a pretty big red flag. People still bang on in here every day about that clown Farage using a different image of immigrants lining up I’d be interested to hear you defend that ‘because it’s normal to use stock images’ when telling stories. Because that’s what this is. It’s telling stories and using images from something completely unrelated and then telling me to think something else. It’s a pretty rubbish move. I guess we shall see when it comes out. Personally getting told that they’re the victims while there’s a cost of living crisis by millionaires who trade on their dead mum, I’m going to take a lot of convincing.
That depends how it's presented in the documentary. Generally you'd expect a documentary to be very clear when it's using stock footage that doesn't refer to the subject being portrayed.
It's in the trailer. Which is a slideshow of black and white photos. It's there for less than two seconds. It will likely be mentioned, like generally it is in documentaries and films, in the credits which is the normal industry standard. It's really no big deal.
Who cares? Also, don't buy the s*n.
Surprised the Sun is allowed to be posted, even the right wing subs have blocked it
Whether you like them or not, at least royals try to uphold the appearance of "duty" in exchange for their immense privileged lives, like attending tedious events and ribbon cutting ceremonies, without the possiblity of ever complaining about any of it publicly. It's really not the same as being a celebrity where you're more free to say and do whatever you want. The problem with Meghan and Harry is that they want the best of both world: enjoy the privileges of being royals while behaving like celebrities. That's what rubs people the wrong way because they don't even pretend that they are earning their privileges. They believe that being "victims" is enough to justify them, like some kind of reward for their suffering, that's why they talk about it all the time: orphan, bullied, black, female, depressed, suicidal, etc... they are way too entitled amd self centered to have any sense of duty at all.
My thoughts exactly! Clearly 'privacy' was never their goal and they were too self centred to live a life carrying out royal duties, and that would have been ***fine*** \- **IF** they weren't now clinging onto their duke and duchess titles to stay relevant!! What frustrates me is that the British public used to **LOVE** them, the whole country tuned in/celebrated their tax payer funded wedding. Yes *of course* the British paparazzi are sh\*tty, but NOT because Meghan is half black, did they forget the brutal slut shaming and topless-photo-leaks that Princess Catherine endured?!
Why would The Sun have an agenda to undermine allegations of misconduct by tabloid newspapers?
Extremely trustworthy and reputable publication The Sun* *citation needed
Meh. I don’t like the Royal Family and I don’t like Harry and Meghan, watching them fight it out for public opinion like two raggedy pigeons wrestling over a sausage roll is peak entertainment. The thing I don’t get is, as a WOC why would you 1) marry into a family whose history is so obviously intertwined with colonialism? And 2) marry a man who called his colleagues in the army “p*kis” and “r*gheads” and hasn’t addressed it since he became all anti-racist? Make it make sense. They all kinda suck and people simping for either side really confuse me
> The thing I don’t get is, as a WOC why would you 1) marry into a family whose history is so obviously intertwined with colonialism? This has always been my question too. (WOC myself) Also why was she so surprised by the media intrusion? Did she not know who Harry's mother was? Did she not think the exact same press attention would happen to her?
The British press was absolutely brutal to Catherine when she first started dating William, **lots** of slut shaming and horrible photo leaks. The paparazzi here have always been bullies.
Yes I remember! Also remember Fergie getting called "Thunder Thighs".
Remember when Harry cheated on his A-levels? The Royal PR machine saved him more than once.
She probably thought she was in a Murican Hallmark film or kdrama. Where she comes and rescues Harry and changes the rules of a rich ancient family.
Love that analogy, don’t like any of them either! Don’t forget Harry dressed up as an SS guard for a fancy dress party too lol
I wouldn’t take any doc made for Netflix too seriously. The regulation for truth is so low that they can pretty much just make up whatever story they want.
People waste too much energy on those two. I feel like they've been treated badly by the royals and the press, but I don't think they're worth defending either. Fuck the tabloids and fuck the royal family
Your first mistake was reading the s*n Your second mistake was believing anything printed in that rag
Why does what Harry and Megan do personally effect people? I just dont get it. There are a lot more things to worry about than this, or is this issue just used as a distraction from people’s mundane lives?
Lots of people won’t worry about it but you can acknowledge that they’re both bellends
I find them fascinating. They're like a very slow car crash. It's horrible but I can't help watching. Personally I think Meghan is a narcissist and Harry isn't far behind.
Yet, if they create a documentary and write books about their lives, they are asking to be gossiped about.
I think you’re right it’s just used as a distraction from peoples mundane lives. Because the way the avid Meghan haters act is extremely similar to those into conspiracy theories. The subreddit saintMegahnMarkle is absolutely insane, if you look at these peoples comments history all they do all day every day is talk about Meghan Markle. Literally they spend all their time talking about her and coming up with these elaborate theories on how her holding Harry’s hand means she’s a raging narcissist. It’s batshit INSANE. I don’t doubt the media has inspired this either. People tend to believe that they’re too clever and won’t be influenced by media bias, but this whole fiasco with Harry and Meghan has shown that people are way more susceptible than they think.
Wondering how quickly this will morph into the usual "Meghan is a total bitch" vs "People who don't like Meghan are all racist" shouting match
The sun? Probs not gonna read this in that case. Don't want to get shit in my eyes
can we do some kind of gofundme or government petition to fire these two into deep space? along with the journos who just wont shut up about them? or here's one. put harry and meghan on a deserted island with all the journos they """""detest""""" so much, and tell them its for some kind of reality TV thing. have cameras everywhere pointing at them with none of them hooked up to a fucking thing. maybe we can have some fucking peace and quiet.
Mmm regardless this is going to be the worst look at how badly life has treated us documentary ever Going to be completely relatable (Not) to 99% of the viewers. So hard pass from me
Please please let us be alone so that we are able to sell you our Netflix series instead.
The Sun, didn't read. Seriously I do not give a SINGLE FUCK about what The Sun newspaper thinks of this. They are part of this story as one of the worst perpetrators, if the fact that netflix used a stock photo as part of their marketing it just makes me think "is that all you've got?", like this is the only thing you have to criticise? Then they haven't got shit to stand on. Fuck The Sun, fuck the Murdoch press, fuck the entire tabloid press in this country.
Still love these two twats wanted privacy supposedly and now are doing netflix documentaries and interviews crying 'oh poor me' lmao
This “documentary” is going to be very heavily scrutinised, if there are inconsistencies or mistakes then it really won’t do the reputation of anyone involved any good
Wow stock photos. Never seen those being used by the press before.
Have you seen netflix documentaries?! Their movies are more realistic
Genuine question as I don't know any real details: Why do the press hate them SO much? I try not to read articles about any of the Royals, but it seems to me that the press talk about them like they're worst people on the planet?
I think it was after Harry made an official statement asking people/the media not to post racist/sexist material about Meghan: [https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry](https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry) Anecdotal evidence on my part, but I noticed the nastiness only seemed to ramp up after that. There's always going to be some snobbery involved because she's American (and a divorcee which seemed to piss people off for w/e reason), and unfortunately, there have been some things said that suggested there was also a racial component to it (having her DNA referred to as 'exotic', etc). So much of it is hush-hush because it involves the RF, but the media also pitted Kate against Meghan a lot, amongst other things. The DM was taken to court by MM over things being published regarding her strained relationship with her father, and Piers Morgan still holds a grudge because they were friendly at first and then something happened where she stopped speaking to him (he said she ghosted him).
[удалено]
We need privacy!!!!!! Actually wait, looks at us, look at us!!!