“Except the conversation won’t be opened because the conversation is NEVER about the charity or cause.”
Not true. The BBC Sunday papers edition on the news channel had a section on this story - this is how I learnt about Meghan’s involvement. One of the panellists said it was nice that she was using her platform for important issues like these & raising awareness. But he also said the RF and political causes are a minefield - something to that effect. IMO, that shouldn’t stop Meghan from highlighting these issues - she just has to be careful. The fact that is was on the front page of the Times, opened up the conversation. Social media conversations are aplenty on this campaign. Meghan bought this campaign some well needed publicity. I’m not doubting the academic from SOAS, and the work she has done with this campaign, but if it wasn’t for the ‘Duchess’ title & Meghan voicing her support, I’m not sure if the campaign would have been on the front page of the Times. Earlier this week the academic was also on a popular BBC radio show for an interview. She has a lot of support, so this looks like a coordinated roll out of publicity - with the Duchess lending her support, telling people to open up the conversation. This is similar to William & Harry urging people to open up about their mental health. Yes.. I know this is political but the UK mental health crisis is also political.
The comments/thoughts on this were Very overblown, imo. People read the headline and ran with it….. Not a good thing to do. This is like non-Kate fans reading the big parts and missing the rest. Kate puts in behind the scenes work and many professionals have talked about her involvement.. yet the anti- Kate’s still think she is doing absolutely nothing. Read things through, research these causes/campaigns a little before taking headlines at face value.
“This is being presented as a political statement by the tabloids/newspapers.” Exactly - by the tabloids aka DM/Mirror, not the Times. The DM knows its target audience, it wasn’t surprising to see that many of the comments didn’t even realise what the campaign is for. Hint - no it is not about replacing allllllll the white academics and white historical figures/authors with PoC.
“I literally thought she was going to start campaigning from the way headline was written which I think is unfair.“ Sorry, paraphrasing.
Royal reporters/journalists have unfairly done this to Meghan before. Linking terrorists to "Meghan’s Mosque” and the innocent women from the Grenfell community. I wondered why Camilla Tominey didn’t link Prince Charles, Prince Harry & Prince William to the mosque, even though all 3 visited the mosque (Charles opened it) and participated in helping the Grenfell community.
One thing to note, the Times is not a tabloid, it is an establishment paper. I don’t think it was wrong for them to highlight the “male, pale and stale” phrase which originally comes from the decolonise movement at Oxford university. It has been widely used to describe the image of our curricula. Anything that comes from the Times goes through legal, and is approved by the ‘higher ups’ in the RF chain - royals/courtiers. That is why I was really surprised when the Tiara story came out in the Times. The Tiara article also mentioned the problems between Meghan and Kate’s staff issues.
I know there are many people in this fandom, many aren’t British, so they don’t understand things from a UK perspective - and I don’t mean the DailyMail UK perspective Lol.
Just a different view point coming your way. Have a nice day!
…………………………………………..
I am publishing this because this is a balanced, and polite submission. And I somewhat agree.
Just going to point out that this submission mostly quotes an ask I got, so it responds to that ask rather than my own opinion on the matter. My own opinion is only quoted in this line:
“This is being presented as a political statement by the tabloids/newspapers.”
“I literally thought she was going to start campaigning from the way headline was written which I think is unfair.”
The anon which this submission is referencing. Note I responded to it with a “.” which is something I do when I either have gone over it before and I don’t need to respond, or I don’t completely agree, but am publishing the other person’s opinion for the readers to sound off.
My own opinion that I posted, after watching the video of the interaction:
This is my response to another ask:
And this is an ask that discusses part of the issue with a royal opining on the “decolonising academia”, which I agree with.
This is about royals and how they should navigate political issues.
Royal reporters/journalists have unfairly done this to Meghan before. Linking terrorists to "Meghan’s Mosque” and the innocent women from the Grenfell community. I wondered why Camilla Tominey didn’t link Prince Charles, Prince Harry & Prince William to the mosque, even though all 3 visited the mosque (Charles opened it) and participated in helping the Grenfell community
^^ This is a point I have made several times on my blog, with links of William, Harry, and Charles’ visit. Trying to find that post, but it’s from November or December so I’m having trouble locating it.
“This is being presented as a political statement by the tabloids/newspapers.” Exactly - by the tabloids aka DM/Mirror, not the Times.
Yes, I was talking about The Mirror headline: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1088407/meghan-markle-news-campaign-charity-work-university-education
The Times article said “takes aim” which is fine. The Mirror headline makes it sound like this is a new project.
“This is similar to William & Harry urging people to open up about their mental health. Yes.. I know this is political but the UK mental health crisis is also political.”
I don’t think the two are comparible. The royals are not taking aim specifically at government systems, and also the subject is not one where a particular identity feels criticised with identity markers like “male, pale, stale”.
