Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of A Modern Royal Family

[Lilyflo]

As quite a vocal feminist myself, I'm still fuming about Omid Scobie's interview about his awful book. https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/omid-scobie-finding-freedom-interview

Firstly, here's an extract I want to address:

"Omid goes so far as to say that the royal family has a problem with newcomers, particularly women. He cites Diana, Wallis Simpson, even Sarah Ferguson, as royal wives who have been destroyed in the process.

I will concede that Diana should have been better supported as an unworldly 19yr old marrying The Prince of Wales (whose heart was with another woman). However, it's arguable how much of that marriage's failings and Diana's declining mental health was due to the actions of the royal family and the institution (an expanded discussion could be had on a more appropriate thread). The BRF as a family and a firm were never going to welcome or support Wallis Simpson - does Omid honestly consider that a failing? I don't and I doubt many British people do either. Sarah Ferguson wasn't 'destroyed' by the BRF (I could also have an exasperated rant about that story).

Secondly, here's another extract to add to Omid's claim that "The Royal institution doesn’t know how to handle strong, independent women":

“I think if Meghan had come in and was the subservient wife and did everything that she was supposed to, at all times and didn't question anything, it may have been different. But Meghan just wasn't ever going to fit that sort of cookie-cutter Duchess role.”

Of course it's tough marrying into the BRF with its hierarchies, traditions and protocols. It would be daunting for anyone to navigate a route through the layers of officials and power bases whilst dodging the snarks of the snobs, the malicious gossips and the press. Sophie had some bumps in the road and both Camilla and Catherine had a very rough time in the press but to what extent has the BRF (family and/or firm) failed them, let alone 'destroyed' them? All three women have shown enormous strength and independence in how they've tackled the challenges, created their individual roles and introduced ground-breaking ideas and activities into the BRF's work. They didn't do that by just being subservient wives and not questioning anything because you can't make progress within any institution unless you push the boundaries and they've all done that. None of them are 'cookie-cutter' Duchesses (or Countesses): they don't just traipse around after their husbands collecting flowers with benevolent smiles and vacuous comments. They engage in their own work, which includes social justice eg openly and vocally supporting women who are victims/survivors of domestic violence. They 'stand up and speak up' with confidence and they initiate and lead innovative mental health projects. These are strong, independent women who are showing how it's possible to work within all those hierarchies, traditions and protocols whilst progressing their roles beyond those of previous generations. That's how to be a modern royal woman and if Omid Scobie weren't so blinded by his own prejudices, he'd be able to see that.

 

[Somebody]

I agree with most poster here that the book Finding Freedom portrays Harry and Meghan in a negative light as self-centred individuals. From looking at multiple exerts, I think most of Harry and Meghan's anger and frustration were mainly directed at William and Catherine, followed by Palace staffs/courtiers (including Angela Kelly).

I also think that the FF book is the second catalyst that causes people (British public, royal watchers around the world and possibly royal reporters) to have less sympathy for them. The first one is probably how H&M exit as senior working member of the royal family. The link below kind of summarise how the British public feel about H&M stepping back from royal duties.

Based on how people on TRF seem to have shifted, I'd say there are three catalysts so far:
1. Their interview/documentary in Southern Africa that concentrated on how hard their lives were instead of their causes - whose people's lives were far more difficult.
2. Their exit - especially the way they handled it.
3. This book that is supposed to portray them positively - but the most positive spin makes things worse instead of better...

 

[muriel]

Based on how people on TRF seemed to have shifted, I'd say there are three catalysts so far:
1. Their interview/documentary in Southern Africa that concentrated on how hard their lives were instead of their causes - whose people's life were far more difficult.
2. Their exit - especially the way they handled it.
3. This book that is supposed to portray them positively - but the most positive spin makes things worse instead of better...

I have to agree with you. Those seem to be the three distinct steps that have helped shape a lot of people's perceptions of H&M in the last year or so.

 

[Helen.CH]

As quite a vocal feminist myself, I'm still fuming about Omid Scobie's interview about his awful book. https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/omid-scobie-finding-freedom-interview

Firstly, here's an extract I want to address:


I will concede that Diana should have been better supported as an unworldly 19yr old marrying The Prince of Wales (whose heart was with another woman). However, it's arguable how much of that marriage's failings and Diana's declining mental health was due to the actions of the royal family and the institution (an expanded discussion could be had on a more appropriate thread). The BRF as a family and a firm were never going to welcome or support Wallis Simpson - does Omid honestly consider that a failing? I don't and I doubt many British people do either. Sarah Ferguson wasn't 'destroyed' by the BRF (I could also have an exasperated rant about that story).

Secondly, here's another extract to add to Omid's claim that "The Royal institution doesn’t know how to handle strong, independent women":


Of course it's tough marrying into the BRF with its hierarchies, traditions and protocols. It would be daunting for anyone to navigate a route through the layers of officials and power bases whilst dodging the snarks of the snobs, the malicious gossips and the press. Sophie had some bumps in the road and both Camilla and Catherine had a very rough time in the press but to what extent has the BRF (family and/or firm) failed them, let alone 'destroyed' them? All three women have shown enormous strength and independence in how they've tackled the challenges, created their individual roles and introduced ground-breaking ideas and activities into the BRF's work. They didn't do that by just being subservient wives and not questioning anything because you can't make progress within any institution unless you push the boundaries and they've all done that. None of them are 'cookie-cutter' Duchesses (or Countesses): they don't just traipse around after their husbands collecting flowers with benevolent smiles and vacuous comments. They engage in their own work, which includes social justice eg openly and vocally supporting women who are victims/survivors of domestic violence. They 'stand up and speak up' with confidence and they initiate and lead innovative mental health projects. These are strong, independent women who are showing how it's possible to work within all those hierarchies, traditions and protocols whilst progressing their roles beyond those of previous generations. That's how to be a modern royal woman and if Omid Scobie weren't so blinded by his own prejudices, he'd be able to see that.

But this is how his business works, don't you get that? Im sure you do, he wants his book to be in the headlines, discussions and media, because then it sells better. If K&M had developed a deep friendship, Omid would turn his anger against somebody else who tried to tear them apart or invent other tales, just to be able to tell something. As the media coverage of the book is not that big, as far as I can see, maybe except the UK?, he has to provoke new interest and he does by telling stories, spinning thoughts, provoking with comments and it works more and more people think, well I want to read this myself and pling another copy sold, he is not their solicitor, he wants to sell his product and maybe now because the book turned out to be rather negative for the Sussex, he might try to do his sources a favour and maybe publish another book one day with more stories.....

 

[TLLK]

Based on how people on TRF seemed to have shifted, I'd say there are three catalysts so far:
1. Their interview/documentary in Southern Africa that concentrated on how hard their lives were instead of their causes - whose people's lives were far more difficult.
2. Their exit - especially the way they handled it.
3. This book that is supposed to portray them positively - but the most positive spin makes things worse instead of better...

I can saw with all honesty these are the top three that have unfortunately shifted my view of the Sussexes and it started with the interview in South Africa.




I wish the Sussexes all the best but I'm saddened by their actions in the last nine months.

 

[moby]

As quite a vocal feminist myself, I'm still fuming about Omid Scobie's interview about his awful book. https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/omid-scobie-finding-freedom-interview

Firstly, here's an extract I want to address:


I will concede that Diana should have been better supported as an unworldly 19yr old marrying The Prince of Wales (whose heart was with another woman). However, it's arguable how much of that marriage's failings and Diana's declining mental health was due to the actions of the royal family and the institution (an expanded discussion could be had on a more appropriate thread). The BRF as a family and a firm were never going to welcome or support Wallis Simpson - does Omid honestly consider that a failing? I don't and I doubt many British people do either. Sarah Ferguson wasn't 'destroyed' by the BRF (I could also have an exasperated rant about that story).

Secondly, here's another extract to add to Omid's claim that "The Royal institution doesn’t know how to handle strong, independent women":


Of course it's tough marrying into the BRF with its hierarchies, traditions and protocols. It would be daunting for anyone to navigate a route through the layers of officials and power bases whilst dodging the snarks of the snobs, the malicious gossips and the press. Sophie had some bumps in the road and both Camilla and Catherine had a very rough time in the press but to what extent has the BRF (family and/or firm) failed them, let alone 'destroyed' them? All three women have shown enormous strength and independence in how they've tackled the challenges, created their individual roles and introduced ground-breaking ideas and activities into the BRF's work. They didn't do that by just being subservient wives and not questioning anything because you can't make progress within any institution unless you push the boundaries and they've all done that. None of them are 'cookie-cutter' Duchesses (or Countesses): they don't just traipse around after their husbands collecting flowers with benevolent smiles and vacuous comments. They engage in their own work, which includes social justice eg openly and vocally supporting women who are victims/survivors of domestic violence. They 'stand up and speak up' with confidence and they initiate and lead innovative mental health projects. These are strong, independent women who are showing how it's possible to work within all those hierarchies, traditions and protocols whilst progressing their roles beyond those of previous generations. That's how to be a modern royal woman and if Omid Scobie weren't so blinded by his own prejudices, he'd be able to see that.

Yeesh. I have no respect for self professed feminists who end up pushing one, narrow idea of what a woman should be (strong, independent often meaning assertive and can't be told what to do). Strength comes in many forms, and for more successful royal women, that means being a team player and having appreciation and respect for the institution. For a lot of women, strength means putting others' needs before oneself.

This Omid individual sounds sillier by the day. Reminds me of an old saying my mother liked to repeat to me in my teenage years--"Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are..."

 

[duchessrachel]

I think one of the biggest issues here IMO is that the assumption that people want a "progressive monarchy." I think that more than likely the public want what they see from the Queen quietly doing their duty and what they see from Will and Kate.

Frankly also if you want privacy why are you airing out your family issues in the public? There's nothing from Harry's immediate family that deserves this treatment.

I am American so I have no idea what the average citizen of the UK thinks, but I agree with you. The very idea of Monarchy is not progressive. I say if it isn't broken, there is no need to fix it. The Monarchy has slowly made changes over the years without losing its primary focus of quiet service and has been extremely successful.

And did Meghan deserve what she got from the British tabloid media from the day it was known that she was dating Harry? Urged on by disgusting social media Tumblr and Twitter sites, the constant criticism day after day, week after week, month after month?

I counted (because I took note) an average of three critical articles for every 24 hour news cycle in the online British tabloids from October 2018 until the day the couple left.

Opinion pieces about Meghan hugging people too much, as well as criticisms of her tights, dresses, hair, shoes, nail polish, not behaving like a British person, being 'too American', her attitude to staff, holding her stomach when pregnant, being too keen, lies about interior decorations and fittings in her Frogmore Cottage home, etc, etc,etc.

And this all occurred during her first pregnancy and in the first months after her first child's birth, in a foreign country.

Yes, other Royal women got criticisms in the past but nothing like that deluge, not to mention that social media wasn't around as much pre 2011, or not at all in Diana and Fergie's time.



The average sales numbers for non fiction books are around the 5,000 mark for each edition. So 31,000 is exceptional.

We don't know what the people who purchased this book think of Harry and Meghan after reading it. Just because journalists and so called royal experts don't like it means nothing. The vast majority of them would give their eye teeth to write a bestseller.
It may be that people who like the Sussexes will have their opinions reinforced. Those that have never liked them will feel the same. Those that are merely curious may have their opinions on the couple change. IMO it certainly doesn't follow that everybody who reads FF will end up loathing the couple.

No, she did not deserve it. Camilla was treated just as badly, in my opinion, but Camilla brought it on herself. However, Camilla has never complained and has quietly and patiently done her duty over the years. Slowly, the press has left her alone and now many times recognizes the good things she does. Even I have gone from being able to barely tolerate Camilla to really liking her. The problem with Harry and Meghan is that they are not patient. If Camilla, who brought in on herself, can overcome it, so could have Meghan.

 

[acdc1]

And did Meghan deserve what she got from the British tabloid media from the day it was known that she was dating Harry? Urged on by disgusting social media Tumblr and Twitter sites, the constant criticism day after day, week after week, month after month?

I counted (because I took note) an average of three critical articles for every 24 hour news cycle in the online British tabloids from October 2018 until the day the couple left.

Opinion pieces about Meghan hugging people too much, as well as criticisms of her tights, dresses, hair, shoes, nail polish, not behaving like a British person, being 'too American', her attitude to staff, holding her stomach when pregnant, being too keen, lies about interior decorations and fittings in her Frogmore Cottage home, etc, etc,etc.

And this all occurred during her first pregnancy and in the first months after her first child's birth, in a foreign country.

Yes, other Royal women got criticisms in the past but nothing like that deluge, not to mention that social media wasn't around as much pre 2011, or not at all in Diana and Fergie's time.



The average sales numbers for non fiction books are around the 5,000 mark for each edition. So 31,000 is exceptional.

We don't know what the people who purchased this book think of Harry and Meghan after reading it. Just because journalists and so called royal experts don't like it means nothing. The vast majority of them would give their eye teeth to write a bestseller.
It may be that people who like the Sussexes will have their opinions reinforced. Those that have never liked them will feel the same. Those that are merely curious may have their opinions on the couple change. IMO it certainly doesn't follow that everybody who reads FF will end up loathing the couple.

No, she did not deserve it. Much of it was ugly, unfair, and exaggerated or untrue. But unfortunately, negative media coverage is part and parcel of being in the limelight. Every single woman who has married into the royal family has faced it to some degree, some more than others. I’m sure it’s not easy for any of them to read. It’s understandable to be frustrated or angry by it.

Where she went wrong was the constant battles with the press, which only brought MORE negative coverage to her. Do people like William and Kate or Charles and Camilla adore the press? NO! In fact Charles has been caught making snide comments about them! But what they understand that I don’t think Meghan grasps is that the press can be your best friend or your worst enemy, and sometimes you have to make concessions to them. You ignore press coverage that you know is untrue, but sometimes you have to engage with them in a positive way, too. You have to give a little to get a little.
.

 

[Erin9]

Based on how people on TRF seem to have shifted, I'd say there are three catalysts so far:
1. Their interview/documentary in Southern Africa that concentrated on how hard their lives were instead of their causes - whose people's lives were far more difficult.
2. Their exit - especially the way they handled it.
3. This book that is supposed to portray them positively - but the most positive spin makes things worse instead of better...

Totally agree. My opinion on them started shifting down with the interview- and it has just continued from there due to #2 and #3.

 

[Lori138]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...arry-latest-finding-freedom-royal-book-amazon


The Sussex Squad had to ask people to put good reviews on Amazon, it shows how fanatical and insecure the Sussex Squad really is.

All I can say to this is "Wow". There are some seriously paranoid people out there.

 

[Erin9]

All I can say to this is "Wow". There are some seriously paranoid people out there.

Some people have too much time on their hands as well imo.

 

[duchessrachel]

I finished this unbearable book - and immediately followed it up with Royals at War.

I don't believe any more Meghan is truly interested in anything but her own precious person. She just picked an agenda that would ingratiate her with a certain crowd. After I saw how she upstaged Camilla on the day of her speech about domestic abuse, just a petty personal revenge for whatever went on before, after that I can't believe she really cares about anyone.

The book is full of hypocrisy. Social media are damned to the lowest part of hell - two pages on, Meghan is lauded like a genius for her social media brilliance. What does it mean? Everything is being judged whether it's "good for Meghan" or "bad for Meghan". If it makes her smile, it's great. If it makes her frown, oh no, it's horrible. Social media, Great Britain, the Royal Family - it all switches from one page to the other.

I have come to the conclusion that the book reflects the narcissicist world view of either black or white. There are no compromises, no maybe, no self doubt, nothing. People are either painted black or white.

And all that Scobie talk about Kate is ludicrous. All the married-ins had tough, tough times, at least those who married close to the throne (Serena and Autumn were less under the magnfiying glass). Kate was laughed about and I don't know how she survived it. There must have been times when she didn't want to face the crowds and media again. To turn her into a cookie-cutter duchess is ridiculous, there is no such thing. She found her own way, without drama and without scandals. Yes, she looked uncomfortable and sometimes her smile didn't reach her eyes, who could blame her for that?

I'm confident we'll see her grow and grow in stature and importance. Slowly but surely, without upsetting the hierarchy.

If feminism is all about personal choices, why is a woman vilified who puts family first? Kate and William raise children with happy smiles and giggles. I love seeing that. They have a great childhood. Bringing up a future king who has a solid foundation of unconditional love, stabiity and security is important. I can't think of any British king who had that kind of childhood, even loving mothers like Alexandra couldn't do so well.

Why pitch one woman against the other anyway?

I personally prefer the less ambitious types, and Meghan was driven on by ambition every step on her way. If we have to compare (oh Scobie, why compare at all???), then I'm firmly on team Kate, team Anne, team anyone-but-Meghan. Anyone who got in her way was simply frozen out, thrown away.

She's a narcissist, at least Finding Freedom presents a narcissist's world view in the clearest light possible. I pity poor Archie who didn't choose any of this mess.

What did Meghan do? I missed that one.

Based on how people on TRF seem to have shifted, I'd say there are three catalysts so far:
1. Their interview/documentary in Southern Africa that concentrated on how hard their lives were instead of their causes - whose people's lives were far more difficult.
2. Their exit - especially the way they handled it.
3. This book that is supposed to portray them positively - but the most positive spin makes things worse instead of better...

This was mostly the progression for me, too. At first, I was so excited when Harry and Meghan were dating and overjoyed when they got married. I looked forward to their outings and interaction with the public. I always enjoyed what I called a "double duchess" week when both Kate and Meghan were out and about. Then, on H&M Africa tour, Harry was rude to Rhiannon Mills when she asked him a question. That was the first thing that caused be to be taken aback. A member of the BRF should not be rude a reporter, especially in public when it can be caught on camera. I know Charles has been caught in the past on camera saying something negative about the press, but you would think Harry would have learned from that. Then there was the "woe is me" interview in Africa. The way they badly handled the exit from being working royals showed complete disrespect to the Queen, and now this book. Are they enjoying destroying any credibility they could possibly have? I have gone from loving them to wishing they would just shut up! I don't know what they are thinking. Apparently they are not thinking. As far as Meghan being a narcissist, I believe it. There is some interesting reading and analysis of her narcissistic behavior that can be found by just googling "a royal narcissist."

No, she did not deserve it. Much of it was ugly, unfair, and exaggerated or untrue. But unfortunately, negative media coverage is part and parcel of being in the limelight. Every single woman who has married into the royal family has faced it to some degree, some more than others. I’m sure it’s not easy for any of them to read. It’s understandable to be frustrated or angry by it.

Where she went wrong was the constant battles with the press, which only brought MORE negative coverage to her. Do people like William and Kate or Charles and Camilla adore the press? NO! In fact Charles has been caught making snide comments about them! But what they understand that I don’t think Meghan grasps is that the press can be your best friend or your worst enemy, and sometimes you have to make concessions to them. ou ignore press coverage that you know is untrue, but sometimes you have to engage with them in a positive way, too. You have to give a little to get a little.
.

Yes, this makes me think of William and Kate's last tour. It is well known how William has hated the press, but when W & K plane had to turn around and go back, I read that William made sure that the press had somewhere to stay that night. Also, I read that he was joking with them on the plane that the reason for the bumpy ride was that he was piloting it. A little bit of humor and being nice goes along way. As my mother used to say, "you catch a lot more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."

 

[ladongas]

Some people have too much time on their hands as well imo.

Like most of us on these boards? I agree, and I confess.

 

[Eskimo]

Based on how people on TRF seem to have shifted, I'd say there are three catalysts so far:
1. Their interview/documentary in Southern Africa that concentrated on how hard their lives were instead of their causes - whose people's lives were far more difficult.
2. Their exit - especially the way they handled it.
3. This book that is supposed to portray them positively - but the most positive spin makes things worse instead of better...

Very True.

I was done with them after #1. Infact, I was so disgusted that I am glad they left.

 

[Erin9]

Like most of us on these boards? I agree, and I confess.

Lol I thought about that myself!! [emoji3]

But- really- asking people to post positive reviews.....You’d think this was truly important.....

 

[QueenMathilde]

The interview in South Africa was what got me. They stood there surrounded by people who were poor and suffering and talked about how hard life was - for THEM.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Yes, this makes me think of William and Kate's last tour. It is well known how William has hated the press, but when W & K plane had to turn around and go back, I read that William made sure that the press had somewhere to stay that night. Also, I read that he was joking with them on the plane that the reason for the bumpy ride was that he was piloting it. A little bit of humor and being nice goes along way. As my mother used to say, "you catch a lot more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."

This is interesting and reassuring to read re: William's attitude toward the media. I know that he was just as resentful as his younger brother was in the fallout/years after the death of their mother. But William seems to be able to take a more pragmatic attitude than his brother. Now that William is an adult maybe he is able to understand the fatal love/hate games Diana played with the press and how she helped turn into herself into the most pursued person on the planet.

She was not a 100% innocent target.

Harry does not seem to be able to have come to this healthier, more realistic view of things. Maybe because he was only 12/13 when she died.

 

[evolvingdoors]

Based on how people on TRF seem to have shifted, I'd say there are three catalysts so far:
1. Their interview/documentary in Southern Africa that concentrated on how hard their lives were instead of their causes - whose people's lives were far more difficult.
2. Their exit - especially the way they handled it.
3. This book that is supposed to portray them positively - but the most positive spin makes things worse instead of better...

Well, it’s no secret I soured off Meghan very quickly.
So for me personally these three events (plus others before) have only strengthened my increasingly weary and negative view of Meghan and her behavior (which started when my instincts started saying something was off way back at the engagement announcement and interview and grew big time right before the wedding with her weird ass statement about her dad), these events did help shift my view of Harry, to a degree. I still reserve judgment about him, since I fully believe Meghan is a narcissist so I feel that colors my view of Harry.


It’s really reassuring having my gut instincts, which I spend a while in my life ignoring for various reasons, get revalidated.
So I guess thank you Meghan for that.

ETA: to anyone wanting to learn more about narcissism please don’t just go on by some random blogs or social media. I recommend Dr. Ramani channel on YouTube, she specializes in Narcissism personality disorder. Watch her videos.
The picture will become clear, hopefully..


As for Omid, his tweets and this books show him as the epitome of a “flying monkey”.

 

[poppy7]

This is interesting and reassuring to read re: William's attitude toward the media. I know that he was just as resentful as his younger brother was in the fallout/years after the death of their mother. But William seems to be able to take a more pragmatic attitude than his brother. Now that William is an adult maybe he is able to understand the fatal love/hate games Diana played with the press and how she helped turn into herself into the most pursued person on the planet.

She was not a 100% innocent target.

Harry does not seem to be able to have come to this healthier, more realistic view of things. Maybe because he was only 12/13 when she died.

I think William understands very well. And I think, had she lived, his relationship with Diana may have been fractured.

 

[Osipi]

I think for me, its not putting any kind of character analysis on either Meghan or Harry or even revisiting and breaking down and analyzing every little event and word uttered that may point to this or that but after eight months after dropping the X-bomb, the way things have been done or not done is starting to color my views on the both of them.

They rejected the decision made by the "Firm" that there'd be no half in, half out and opted to just leave. That's fine. They have the right to decide how they want their lives to go and how they want their lives to be. They eventually decided to settle down in the Santa Barbara area in a home they liked. That's fine too and I wish them well with it. The pandemic has made moving forward in any plans they may have made impossible so basically, all they can go is lay low and wait it out and then see what can be done.

What turns me off is that this couple could have gone and done all of this and done it all in a quiet manner. They left and they very well could have just left all the "bad" baggage behind them and started with a fresh slate. They really didn't have a need to hire a PR firm at this time for any reason at all. They very well could have asked Scobie and Durand to scrap the "tell all book" because that was all part and parcel of a life they've left behind. Instead of jumping on whatever bandwagon happened to be going down the street at the time, they could have left them pass by and focus on what they really wanted to focus on once the path became clearer for them to do so and the "fire and furor" of scandal and gossip and rumor and speculation have died down and the public masses directed their attention elsewhere.

Its the choices made that are obvious to everyone of this and that and whatever that is keeping them in the forefront of attention is what tells me that this couple actually have no real clue about what they're doing or even if they're actually sincere about anything. They're floundering and when high profile people flounder like fish out of water, its hard to ever take them seriously again. It makes them seem like they're two empty people with titles to their name living in a grand home but there's no real substance to make them believable anymore. Its like they've decided to be "known" rather than be renowned for anything substantial worth listening to.

Sure, Harry may go and do a virtual video to be broadcast worldwide and go into detail his feelings about his "faux pas" and insensitivity in past behavior but without anything "substantial" to attach to it such as stating that the foundation they'll open up will be partially dedicated in its work to address and raise awareness to inform and educate and actively be there for victims of the Holocaust or children bullied because of these kind of actions that Harry once took, he's just spouting empty words on film because it keeps *him* in the foreground of people's minds. Its a stage show then to appease and pacify people that, like many people here in these threads, felt offended by.

This all may change and they'll end up being a wonderful force for good and making a difference but the route they're going right now is going to leave a huge stain on them ever being taken as seriously as they hope people are going to take them. They may forever have a million "stans" that hang on their every word but fame is fleeting and stans tend to have a short attention span if their idols tend to get "boring" and "work" and there's nothing sensational going on about their lives.

Harry and Meghan may want themselves to be seen in the future as staid and responsible and making a difference and worth being listened to but I'm afraid that they're going to look back in the future and see how William and Catherine have just gone about doing what they have to do within the framework of the "Firm" and also being passionate about their personal incentives and have secured a happy, safe life for their children and realize that they've really missed the boat all because of a flight of fancy that their way would be better and the grass was greener on the other side of the pond.

 

[stunking]

I concur Osipi, I hope the best for them and Archie.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I think William understands very well. And I think, had she lived, his relationship with Diana may have been fractured.

William's relationship with his mother was indeed showing signs of strain as William entered adolescence. Even so, I have always believed that Charles and especially William would have taken on the roles of Diana's caregivers had she survived Paris.

Harry has never moved past the idealized version of his mother. Maybe he sees Meghan and Archie as his chance to fight ferociously for a loved one...in a way that he wasn't able to do with Diana.

 

[poppy7]

William's relationship with his mother was indeed showing signs of strain as William entered adolescence. Even so, I have always believed that Charles and especially William would have taken on the roles of Diana's caregivers had she survived Paris.

Harry has never moved past the idealized version of his mother. Maybe he sees Meghan and Archie as his chance to fight ferociously for a loved one...in a way that he wasn't able to do with Diana.

Sad thing is his mother's actions, decisions and fate had nothing to do with him. He has nothing to regret. At all. And you don't really fight ferociously for a loved one, unless you are trying to get help for them, it makes you codependent. The media were dealt with badly. He is damaged and I hope he finds some inner piece. The book certainly gives no insight into what he is like.

 

[Missjersey]

You all know I’m not such a big Harry fan, (although at one time I was) but think less of him since Meghan...

The husband shirt bothered me for some reason..was she trying to hard...then I thought of the Inskip wedding where I came to think she was setting her course back then. All the lovie touchy feely to me was/is an act. The clincher that really made me question her motives was The Lion King Premier. Harry passed up a Royal Marine Memorial (if I remember right) to go and pitch a job for the Mrs., I believe this was a big loyalty test.

Sitting in the second row with her Prince would never be good enough for Madam. Yes, I think he’s immature and emotionally fragile.. it’s like watching a train wreck and she’s the conductor. I truly never thought he’d leave the RF in the way he did. I think she’s chipped away at him little by little. For me, he’s living out her life now as she wants it. Fame and attention seems the only goal.

Nope, I do not believe she loves him.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Sad thing is his mother's actions, decisions and fate had nothing to do with him. He has nothing to regret. At all. And you don't really fight ferociously for a loved one, unless you are trying to get help for them, it makes you codependent. The media were dealt with badly. He is damaged and I hope he finds some inner piece. The book certainly gives no insight into what he is like.

My understanding is the book is mainly about her.

 

[Eskimo]

I think William understands very well. And I think, had she lived, his relationship with Diana may have been fractured.

I think this is a big reason why William and Harry remember Diana differently. As much as he loved her, I think part of William will always resent her for using him as her “emotional crutch” in his adolescence. That was too much to put on a preteen/teen.

I think part of Harry’s massive sense of entitlement (as evidenced by how he talked to the Queen about Angela Kelley) comes from William having protected Harry from their mother’s worst impulses/emotions. I think Harry was coddled by all involved even before Diana’s death. Thus, he views her as this perfect person who was wronged by a lot of people and is trying to “settle the score” on her behalf.

 

[duchessrachel]

I think this is a big reason why William and Harry remember Diana differently. As much as he loved her, I think part of William will always resent her for using him as her “emotional crutch” in his adolescence. That was too much to put on a preteen/teen.

I think part of Harry’s massive sense of entitlement (as evidenced by how he talked to the Queen about Angela Kelley) comes from William having protected Harry from their mother’s worst impulses/emotions. I think Harry was coddled by all involved even before Diana’s death. Thus, he views her as this perfect person who was wronged by a lot of people and is trying to “settle the score” on her behalf.

I have often wondered if William's interest and work in the area of mental health is due to a knowledge that his mother had mental health issues.

 

[Missjersey]

I have often wondered if his interest and work in the area of mental health is due to his mother.

I have always thought that.

 

[Curryong]

Well, Harry has had an interest in mental health since the Heads Together days, which he was very much a part of. In fact took part in a very influential podcast about his own mental health issues which was widely praised and caused a spike in phone calls to clinics dealing with mental health. He has advocated for several years for mental health facilities for vets. That seems to be forgotten.

 

[Missjersey]

Well, Harry has had an interest in mental health since the Heads Together days, which he was very much a part of. In fact took part in a very influential podcast about his own mental health issues which was widely praised and caused a spike in phone calls to clinics dealing with mental health. He has advocated for several years for mental health facilities for vets. That seems to be forgotten.

I haven’t forgotten Curryong, not at all.