[ SECRET POST #4944 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4944 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.

























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 38 secrets from Secret Submission Post #708.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

One, I think I would like the Lebowski version of almost any character. Two, as I recall wasn't people's primary issue with that version of Thor that they felt it was fat-shamey? Which I think is a slightly separate thing

Three, I had to laugh at "They don't act like royalty, they're bratty and entitled." That actually seems pretty correct to me!

[(Anonymous)]

Three, I had to laugh at "They don't act like royalty, they're bratty and entitled." That actually seems pretty correct to me!

And why does that seem correct to you?

[(Anonymous)]

I think children of royalty are entitled more or less by definition, and the way that young members of the royalty and aristocracy act, through history and in the present day, seems like 'bratty' is a pretty reasonable word.

[(Anonymous)]

Some do. Some try to live up to the duty they're born into. Edward VIII and King George are perfect examples of polar opposites, despite being brothers.

[(Anonymous)]

OK. But OP presents it as though young royals acting that way is unrealistic, as though in acting the way they do, they're not acting like royals and that they would only be acting like royals if they used their privilege for the sake of their people. Whereas in fact, the descriptions they give are not really unreasonable or uncommon for royals to act, especially young royals, and might even be more common and more realistic.

And I found that funny.

[(Anonymous)]

All of the characters OP listed are ones who are portrayed as respected by their people as leaders. That doesn't really vibe with privileged brats.

[(Anonymous)]

OK. I think that's a very different kind of dissonance - that's more along the lines of an informed attribute problem, where the actions of other characters in the setting tell us something about these characters which their own actions don't bear out.

What I found funny, and what I still think is funny, is that OP said that it was inconsistent with them being royalty.

[(Anonymous)]

Also Meghan Markle and Catherine Duchess of Cambridge. One took it seriously, took time out to decide if the relationship was worth the pressure of constant media intrusion. The other wanted the fairytale and then couldn't hack it. Both now live immensely priveleged lives, but whereas Kate M has taken the role seriously, MM fled back to California to live off her rich friends and try and scab off her title.

[(Anonymous)]

Didn't Kate Middleton specifically choose her university with the goal of meeting and marrying Prince William?

But no, go ahead, she's perfect and flawless and Meghan Markle is the evil witch. Reality is usually that simple.

[(Anonymous)]

I think everyone in my generation who went to uni at the same time as William made that joke quite frankly. I even remember there being a lighthearted segment on the news interviewing Americans who were going to St Andrews specifically because he was and with the half-joking hope of marrying him. It's hardly a crime for all those girls, Kate included to have entertained that thought.

Of course she's not flawless, and of course Meghan Markle isn't evil. They have both proved their mettle with their own actions though.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Wow. That's a completely inaccurate portrayal of what happened. But okay.

[(Anonymous)]

Not really.

[(Anonymous)]

Except that Harry was as much to do with why they left as she was. He saw what the press did to his mother and what they were trying to do to his wife (and the added racism of the attacks against Meghan) and wasn't going to stand for it. It appears as if he was the one particularly who wanted out of royal life to protect his wife. This article says it was his decision and that he'd been unhappy even before he married- https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a32837503/meghan-harry-discussed-leaving-royal-family-before-wedding/

Also, please don't pretend the level of attacks on Kate vs. Meghan were the same. Kate was relatively liked by the press and British public compared to Meghan. Meghan was viciously attacked in ways that frequently veered into racism. So it is disingenuous to compare their reactions.

[(Anonymous)]

You're kidding right? The British public was keyed up to love her. There were thousands upon thousands of people lining tge streets for her wedding. I don’t deny the press were shit but they're shit to everyone. And MM didn't help by being a fucking diva having foot stamping tantrums at people just doing their jobs.

Everything about her and Harry scream privileged whiny Hollywood arseholes now. Every message dripping with insincerity and as if they are somehow in the trenches with us. They're nothing more than jokes.

William and Kate M are not exactly saving the world but at least they're not making whiny documentaries about how hard done by they are.

[(Anonymous)]

If you acknowledge the press are shit, why did you get all your views on Meghan Markle from the press

[(Anonymous)]

As opposed with the serious take of living off your rich inlaws and scabbing off the taxpaying public? Even if your take is entirely correct, which seems dubious, good for Meghan. At least her friends are supporting her by choice and because they're her friends, instead of because she's good breeding stock and the government's making them pay her way.

[(Anonymous)]

MM expected to live off tax payers money without fulfilling the public duties that come with it, so no not really. She's scum.

[(Anonymous)]

See, this is what I don't understand.

MM is exploiting taxpayers! How dare she!

*MM and PH decide to leave and make their own money*

HOW DARE THEY LEAVE! HOW CAN SHE BE SO ENTITLED AS TO WANT TO MAKE HER OWN WAY IN THE WORLD THE WAY SHE KNOWS HOW TO!?

She cannot win. I know very little about the public duties she was expected to fulfill, but from what I saw, she seemed to be doing them as much as Kate? In fact, on of the first criticisms I saw of MM is that she liked to get up early and get to work right away and that it didn't align with how the rest of the royal staff worked. They hated her American work ethic.

From the little I've seen of her, she seems nice enough. I just don't know where the venom comes from (besides the racism).

[(Anonymous)]

NA

I am not really for or against Meghan Markel but I think she's made a number of gaffes along the way that just prove she's not really that special, she's just a Hollywood social climber. That doesn't make her inherently evil but it does expose her for being very self centered and making PR moves solely to benefit her.

The issues with Meghan imo get muddled because people get too exercised about her "betraying" the royals or whatever. I'll try to write down the ones I remember and provide some links:

1) Moving to Canada - Canada is part of the commonwealth, aka a group of nations that were colonized by the UK in the past. They and the other nations in the commonwealth are legally independent but they are still heavily tied legally to the royal family. Technically Queen Elizabeth II is still their head of state.

When Meghan and Harry tried to move to Canada after "cutting ties" with the royal family, they would have been drawing on Canada's legal obligation to provide them with taxpayer funded 24/7 security. At this point Meghan and Harry had made a huge stink about how they didn't want to be part of the royal family anymore and how suffocated they felt in the UK.

Therefore when they floated the idea of moving to Canada and forcing the Canadian taxpayer to recognize their royal status after they went through a public row to disconnect from the royal family, it seemed incredibly gauche at best and narcissistic at worse. It also inflamed political tensions in Canada: it turns out a lot of Canadians are actually very angry that Elizabeth II is their head of state and when Meghan and Harry showed up there was a very loud group of people yelling that they shouldn't have to protect a royal family from a country that legally recognized Canada's independence a long time ago: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/05/prince-harry-meghan-markle-canada-royal-family/

God bless the Québécois and their pointed little heads.

2) Not a loyal friend - Meghan recently threw a long time friend of hers under the bus for having "white privilege" and getting into an argument with a blogger where she threatened to make a complaint about the blogger (an influence based in Toronto) to the companies she worked with Again, this move is seen as gauche especially since Jessie's kids were given large parts in Meghan's 2018 wedding. https://pagesix.com/2020/06/17/meghan-markles-friendship-with-jessica-mulroney-was-over-before-white-privilege-controversy/

https://www.monstersandcritics.com/celebrity/heres-what-jessica-mulroney-said-to-sasha-exeter-that-got-her-fired/

3) Acting against the interests of her husband's family and institution - She did the same thing Princess Diana did and gave a very frank interview to the British press. Personally I don't think this is a big deal but obviously the royal family is very PR obsessed and they want to manage all messages going out. Meghan doing this sort of thing is directly in opposition to the interests of the family she married into: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/10/31/behind-scenes-meghan-markle-duchess-tells-bryony-gordon-vulnerability/

4) Using a charity as a pro-Meghan propaganda machine - Meghan complained about how being in the public eye all the time is incredibly hard and that she's being unfairly targeted by the press. All of this while she was supposed to be on a charity mission to South Africa. Again, shades of Princess Diana who was also a self serving person who used charity events to get in front of a camera, direct attention away from the people the charity is supposed to be helping, and on to her. I think this is typical self centered Hollywood narcissism to bring along jouranlists to tape you while you pretend to do charity stuff but it appears that for the UK and the Commonwealth they expect a higher standard of behavior from their royals: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meghan-markle-stiff-upper-lip-harry-and-meghan-an-african-journey-2019-10-21/

5) Meghan Used to be a Yacht Girl - There's a trend in the international film industry that women can become "yacht girls" where they prostitute themselves to celebrities during parties or film festivals like at Cannes. Their goal is stated to become a prized mistress to or even snag a husband from this supposed pool of celebrities. There have been rumors for years that Meghan worked as a yacht girl and that the UK had the info scrubbed after she got engaged to Prince Harry. I don't think there's anything wrong with sex work and I don't begrudge her taking on the oldest job in the world but to some people it looks gauche to troll for a husband while fucking other guys.

6) Meghan doesn't like her son - When looking at photos of Meghan out on a walk with Archie she holds him very carelessly and seems more interested in making sure that she's son out with a royal grandson.

That's just what I remember off the top of my head. IMO Meghan Markle is a very selfish creature that does things exclusively for PR and that she treats her husband and son as tools to get rich off them. However I don't hate her and if Harry is okay with this arrangement where he and Archie are only props to Meghan, well, that's his prerogative and he is an adult after all.

Meghan still isn't on Diana's level though. Princess Di confessed that she once threw herself down a flight of stairs while pregnant with Willian because she felt like Charles wasn't paying attention to her: https://www.cheatsheet.com/health-fitness/why-princess-diana-threw-herself-down-stairs-while-pregnant.html/

Throwing yourself down a flight of stairs while you are pregnant and intend to keep the baby is remarkably evil. You can say a lot of bad things about Meghan but she never did that.

[tree_and_leaf]

American work ethic

I completely agree that MM can't win, but I think that one might be more a culture clash than work ethic per se. Americans tend to have a very different sense of when an average working day should begin and end, and when normal waking up times and bed times should be. That said, it should be up to her staff to fit round her, and if they weren't willing to, you have to ask why....

[(Anonymous)]

all royals are shit my dude.

[(Anonymous)]

I've always found people with this level of fixation on royals who make serious moral judgments of someone they've never met based on tabloid reporting just... both unreal and sad. What kind of life do you live?

[(Anonymous)]

To be fair, I knew most of this just from occasionally browsing headlines. I rarely read news stories about the royals. Plus I think if it's your own taxes paying for them you probably do care a bit more.

[(Anonymous)]

if it was my own taxes paying for them, I'd care less about their personal lives and more about getting their bum asses out of there so they weren't getting paid for out of my tax money

[(Anonymous)]

Am a UK taxpayer and do not give a shit about their personal lives. Or the fact that there's this attempt by people who fawn over certain royals (and not others) to paint it as though they're more noble because reasons.

They're all over-privileged fucking parasites to me.