The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -

HenRach Dominion said:

I was responding to an earlier poster who stated that Harry and Meghan should be cognizant of how their actions may reflect on the BRF in spite not being supported by the taxpayers. But this conversation has established a couple of things:
[...]
7. In spite of all of the above, there is the expectation among some people that Harry and Meghan follow the same rules they were under when they were working royals (e.g. no politics, no speaking with foreign dignitaries outside of British interest/public philanthropic efforts) without the benefits from it (tax-funded security).

You're right. Harry and Meghan chose to leave as working royals, and therefore cannot expect to receive the benefits that working royals get. But as private individuals, they have the right to put their own interests first with regards to what they say and what they do, even if some uninformed people may accidentally attribute their actions to the greater BRF. If the BRF, the British government, and the British people have no obligation towards the Sussexes, then the Sussexes have no obligation towards them.

Click to expand...

To be clear, while I don't agree with the premise that "the British people have no obligation towards the Sussexes" and that they are "private persons", and indeed believe the Sussexes (and others in their position) should stay out of domestic and foreign politics, it is not because "their actions may reflect on the BRF". Unfortunately, I do not have time at the moment to write a proper response, but I appreciate your thoughtful posts and the thoughtful posts made by Somebody and other posters who have responded to you.

Somebody said:

There has been a significant effort to remove the need to call upon Harry as a Counsellor of State: both Anne and Edward were added to the pool of potential Counsellors. It was clear that Harry’s behavior has been such that he can no longer in good faith be asked to take on that role if necessary. It shows that Charles concluded that Harry and Meghan had/have no intent to take the responsibilities Harry still had seriously.

Click to expand...

Removing Harry from the line of succession would be, however, exceedingly more complicated because, as discussed many times before in different forums, it would require legislation in multiple countries. In fact, as long as the UK continues to share the line of succession to the Crown with (currently) 14 other countries, and there is a requirement to maintain symmetry in the succession in all those countries, any change to the succession law will be time-consuming. As you may recall, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 took approximately 2 years to come into force, mostly because it was held up in Australia where both each of the six Australian states and the federal Parliament had to pass legislation to give effect to the new succession rules, see the complete legislative timeline in the Wikipedia article on the Perth Agreement.

The solution found in the case of the Counsellors of State was, in my opinion, a pragmatic one. Neither Prince Harry nor Prince Andrew lost their eligibility to be appointed Counsellors of State, but the pool of eligible individuals was enlarged (by adding Prince Edward and Princess Anne) so that, in practice, Harry and Andrew would never have to be appointed. That was possible, in this case, because the King does not apparently have to follow the order of succession when he appoints Counsellors of State, as long as the appointed Counsellors are eligible. That would not be the case, however, if a Regent were to be appointed, or in the case of a Demise of the Crown itself.

Tatiana Maria said:

To be clear, while I don't agree with the premise that "the British people have no obligation towards the Sussexes" and that they are "private persons", and indeed believe the Sussexes (and others in their position) should stay out of domestic and foreign politics, it is not because "their actions may reflect on the BRF". Unfortunately, I do not have time at the moment to write a proper response, but I appreciate your thoughtful posts and the thoughtful posts made by Somebody and other posters who have responded to you.

Click to expand...

And I thank you, Tatiana Maria, as well as other posters, for your thoughtful responses as well. This conversation has been very interesting and engaging.

I can understand the argument that both the Sussexes and the different British institutions have obligations towards each other, therefore the Sussexes do have to keep those British institutions in mind because the latter are fulfilling their end of the bargain (although I would ask for examples of such). I can understand the argument that neither the Sussexes nor those British institutions owe each other anything and therefore the Sussexes can operate without keeping those institutions in mind in their future endeavors while said institutions continue moving forward and paying no mind to the Sussexes.

I am trying to understand the argument that the Sussexes have obligations to different British institutions and should take that into account in their private endeavors, but said institutions have implicitly or explicitly shown that they have no such obligations towards the Sussexes.

You and others have pointed out that Harry and his children's positions as 5th, 6th, and 7th in the Line of Succession means that they are one tragedy away from inheriting the throne/being required to possibly act as regent, so Harry should care about what he gets involved in with that in mind. For people who believe this but don't believe the British institutions owe the Sussexes anything, if their positions are that significant, shouldn't they be treated like high-ranking members of the BRF then?

Others have pointed out the Harry and Meghan willingly gave up their positions in the BRF to live independent lives, so the different British institutions are no longer responsible for them anymore, and that leaving everything means everything. No half-in, half-out. Well, leaving everything means leaving the ban on politics, large commercial endeavors, interacting with foreign dignitaries that may or may not be friendly with Great Britain, etc. Many will draw the line there and expect the Sussexes to follow the party line on these issues in spite adamantly refusing to support the Sussexes getting anything they gave up when they left. So it's no half-in, half-out when it benefits the Sussexes, but is so when it doesn't?

Many have argued that the Sussexes' actions have had no effect on any of these British institutions, and the latter have move on with their lives. Others have argued that the Sussexes' actions have led to a decrease in trust and amicability towards said institutions. If it's the former, then why should those British institutions care about anything the Sussexes do in their private lives? If it's the latter, why should the Sussexes?

At the end of the day, Harry is the King’s son. No matter the state of their - Sussexes and the BRF - relationship, implications will exist. Who and how much consideration should give to this is complicated, but he will always be Charles’ son.

Curryong said:

Much of this article seems to be repeating British media gossip from about 2018/2019. The ‘Duchess Difficult’ moniker was alleged by ‘Palace sources’ to have been used in those years, as were allegations that Meghan emailed people out of hours.

It’s hard to believe imo that US. Staff would be recreating nicknames used by British tabloids up to five years ago. And I don’t believe personally that there are 5AM emails to her employees any more.

Click to expand...

The Co-Editor in Chief of the Hollywood Reporter (Maer Roshan) was interviewed about the story. He mentioned how the reporter talked to about a dozen staff members (both recent and past). He also touched on the “Duchess Difficult” moniker.

“Duchess Difficult is a nickname that’s trailed Meghan Markle for quite a few years. What is new is this notion that coming to America, that a lot of those rumors were manufactured by the Palace. And the reporting we did suggests that probably isn’t true. There is still this undercurrent of fear.”

So the actual nickname probably isn’t being used by the US staff, but the sentiments about her behavior remains the same on both sides of the pond. Some of the people the Sussexes employ think she is difficult to work for. Which might explain why they can’t seem to keep staff.

soapstar said:

The Co-Editor in Chief of the Hollywood Reporter (Maer Roshan) was interviewed about the story. He mentioned how the reporter talked to about a dozen staff members (both recent and past). He also touched on the “Duchess Difficult” moniker.

“Duchess Difficult is a nickname that’s trailed Meghan Markle for quite a few years. What is new is this notion that coming to America, that a lot of those rumors were manufactured by the Palace. And the reporting we did suggests that probably isn’t true. There is still this undercurrent of fear.”

So the actual nickname probably isn’t being used by the US staff, but the sentiments about her behavior remains the same on both sides of the pond. Some of the people the Sussexes employ think she is difficult to work for. Which might explain why they can’t seem to keep staff.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing this information about the background for the Hollywood Reporter story. It appears that there were multiple former staff members who were willing to discuss their own experience of working for the couple.

soapstar said:

The Co-Editor in Chief of the Hollywood Reporter (Maer Roshan) was interviewed about the story. He mentioned how the reporter talked to about a dozen staff members (both recent and past). He also touched on the “Duchess Difficult” moniker.

Click to expand...

This is very interesting to me, that he spoke about this. I thought it might be to other members so I went and found the video of the editor speaking about it:

It seems like this kicked up again because of Josh Kettler either leaving or being fired, depending on perspective, and that the specific claim they were investigating is whether those rumors about Meghan being horrible to work for were true, and the reporter does believe they were true and that Meghan is the problem, and Harry merely enables her bad behavior to employees.

The Hollywood Reporter is pretty appreciated as a trade magazine, and this serves as a pretty big warning against working for her for those who might consider it, which makes their path forward on commercial ventures even trickier.

HenRach Dominion said:

And I thank you, Tatiana Maria, as well as other posters, for your thoughtful responses as well. This conversation has been very interesting and engaging.

I can understand the argument that both the Sussexes and the different British institutions have obligations towards each other, therefore the Sussexes do have to keep those British institutions in mind because the latter are fulfilling their end of the bargain (although I would ask for examples of such). I can understand the argument that neither the Sussexes nor those British institutions owe each other anything and therefore the Sussexes can operate without keeping those institutions in mind in their future endeavors while said institutions continue moving forward and paying no mind to the Sussexes.

I am trying to understand the argument that the Sussexes have obligations to different British institutions and should take that into account in their private endeavors, but said institutions have implicitly or explicitly shown that they have no such obligations towards the Sussexes.

You and others have pointed out that Harry and his children's positions as 5th, 6th, and 7th in the Line of Succession means that they are one tragedy away from inheriting the throne/being required to possibly act as regent, so Harry should care about what he gets involved in with that in mind. For people who believe this but don't believe the British institutions owe the Sussexes anything, if their positions are that significant, shouldn't they be treated like high-ranking members of the BRF then?

Click to expand...

I suppose that succeeding to the Crown (as the 5th line) is most likely a remote possibility. The concerns about Harry becoming a Regent are slightly more serious, especially after King Charles III was diagnosed with a potentially life-threatening disease, which raised the possibility (God forbid!) that Prince William might become king while Prince George is still a minor.

I am pretty sure, however, that, in the hypothetical scenario where William became King before George had turned 18, Parliament would amend the Regency Acts to designate a prospective alternate Regent to replace Harry if a Regent were ever needed. It was done when Charles was a minor in the early years of Queen Elizabeth II's reign, when the Duke of Edinburgh was designated the prospective regent replacing Princess Margaret, and it could be done again.

HenRach Dominion said:

And I thank you, Tatiana Maria, as well as other posters, for your thoughtful responses as well. This conversation has been very interesting and engaging.

I can understand the argument that both the Sussexes and the different British institutions have obligations towards each other, therefore the Sussexes do have to keep those British institutions in mind because the latter are fulfilling their end of the bargain (although I would ask for examples of such). I can understand the argument that neither the Sussexes nor those British institutions owe each other anything and therefore the Sussexes can operate without keeping those institutions in mind in their future endeavors while said institutions continue moving forward and paying no mind to the Sussexes.

I am trying to understand the argument that the Sussexes have obligations to different British institutions and should take that into account in their private endeavors, but said institutions have implicitly or explicitly shown that they have no such obligations towards the Sussexes.

You and others have pointed out that Harry and his children's positions as 5th, 6th, and 7th in the Line of Succession means that they are one tragedy away from inheriting the throne/being required to possibly act as regent, so Harry should care about what he gets involved in with that in mind. For people who believe this but don't believe the British institutions owe the Sussexes anything, if their positions are that significant, shouldn't they be treated like high-ranking members of the BRF then?

Others have pointed out the Harry and Meghan willingly gave up their positions in the BRF to live independent lives, so the different British institutions are no longer responsible for them anymore, and that leaving everything means everything. No half-in, half-out. Well, leaving everything means leaving the ban on politics, large commercial endeavors, interacting with foreign dignitaries that may or may not be friendly with Great Britain, etc. Many will draw the line there and expect the Sussexes to follow the party line on these issues in spite adamantly refusing to support the Sussexes getting anything they gave up when they left. So it's no half-in, half-out when it benefits the Sussexes, but is so when it doesn't?

Many have argued that the Sussexes' actions have had no effect on any of these British institutions, and the latter have move on with their lives. Others have argued that the Sussexes' actions have led to a decrease in trust and amicability towards said institutions. If it's the former, then why should those British institutions care about anything the Sussexes do in their private lives? If it's the latter, why should the Sussexes?

Click to expand...

I hear what you’re saying above about the half in half out and leaving everything. IMHO if the Sussexes truly want to leave everything to do their own thing, Harry should renounce his and his children’s place in the line of succession. As discussed upthread, having Parliament etc go through the process would take way too long. Why on earth does he want to be in the LOS as he’s made it very clear how he feels he was mistreated by his family - and he lives in the US, for Pete’s sake ?

I think he would gain some real respect from both the BRF and the British people (and me- lol) by doing this.

And surely he knows that after all that has happened (Oprah, Netflix, Spare, etc), there is no way the public would stand for H & M to be on the throne should a terrible tragedy occur. So truly, it’s just symbolic.

I’m not suggesting he give up his title - no matter what, he will always be the son of the king and the brother of one.

Just my two cents

Whatever was done or not done to employees, Harry's own words in Spare are damning.

"In such a climate there was no such thing as constructive criticism. All feedback was seen as an affront, an insult.

"More than once a staff member slumped across their desk and wept. For all this, every bit of it, Willy blamed one person. Meg. He told me so several times and he got cross when I told him he was out of line. He was just repeating the press narrative, spouting fake stories he'd read or been told."

Surely Harry and Meghan must have realised that this was not normal behaviour and that changes had to be made by them, as employers. It wasn't William or the Press reporting that their staff was being reduced to tears by their employers' demands. It happened and Harry admits it.

I find it telling that reports of difficult behaviour have followed then for some time and in different settings.
Initially it was said to be a culture clash between American Meghan and stuffy British courtiers, now its Hollywood execs and the like so there can be no real culture clash there.
Whilst I still think bullying is perhaps not the way to best describe it- the consistent message is of someone who doesn’t work well with others nor who takes direction well.

I feel sympathy towards Harry in this situation. He is obviously in love with a wife who is determined to have her way with everything in her commercial and business life. There dont appear to be the same complaints about rudeness and bullying from staff about him, but it appears to be a no win situation for Harry.

I just find that no examples of her behavior are ever cited odd. It is just that she is difficult and makes people cry.

Curryong said:

I feel sympathy towards Harry in this situation. He is obviously in love with a wife who is determined to have her way with everything in her commercial and business life. There dont appear to be the same complaints about rudeness and bullying from staff about him, but it appears to be a no win situation for Harry.

Click to expand...

I agree. He’s in a tough spot with it.

Maryrose said:

I just find that no examples of her behavior are ever cited odd. It is just that she is difficult and makes people cry.

Click to expand...

I don’t want to rehash old events, but I strongly recommend Valentine Low’s “Courtiers” as a good read about the situation as it was in the UK.

I also vividly remember Low tweeting on his Twitter Page that he had been told by Palace staff that Meghan was in a ‘very bad place’ during her late pregnancy with Archie. Something he chose not to impart in his book, which I purchased by the way. So courtiers, staff and others knew she was struggling and very unhappy.

Maryrose said:

I just find that no examples of her behavior are ever cited odd. It is just that she is difficult and makes people cry.

Click to expand...

If you can get a hold of Valentine Low's "Courtiers" he cites various examples of the bullying behavior that took place in the UK and during their 2018 tour of Australia, Fiji, and New Zealand. He also noted a few of the witnesses. Low also noted that Harry was also involved in at least one of the bullying incidents in the UK.
As I recall Tom Bower's book had some examples as well such as when Meghan participated in a photoshoot for Reitman's Department store.

Curryong said:

I also vividly remember Low tweeting on his Twitter Page that he had been told by Palace staff that Meghan was in a ‘very bad place’ during her late pregnancy. Something he chose not to impart in his book, which I purchased by the way. So courtiers, staff and others knew she was struggling and very unhappy.

Click to expand...

But we can all hope that is no longer true, so it would not be a mitigating factor in current staffing issues like those reported in The Hollywood Reporter.

No, I’m not saying that. However, Low’s book did not mention how struggling and miserable (perhaps to the point of suicidal thoughts) Meghan was during those months, though he apparently knew very well how she was feeling at that time from the comments by Palace staff.

Curryong said:

No, I’m not saying that. However, Low’s book did not mention how struggling and miserable (perhaps to the point of suicidal thoughts) Meghan was during those months, though he apparently knew very well how she was feeling at that time from the comments by Palace staff.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I just recently reread "Courtiers" and he does bring up the incident when Meghan contacted BP HR when she was struggling with her mental health.

The Royal House published a congratulatory message on social media on the Duke of Sussex's 40th birthday:

For what it's worth, I could not sleep at night if my behaviour caused others such distress that they had to give up their jobs and/or suffered symptoms of PTSD - probably because I myself have been a target in the past. If anything I find I am over considerate and overthink all of my interactions with people, which probably explains why I prefer my own company.

IMO it needs a person with certain personality traits to be capable of causing so much misery without any sign of repentance or regret, only with denial and defiance.

It would also take a very (over)confident person with the skin of a rhinoceros hide who relishes a challenge to even consider working for such a person in the first place and particularly in view of H&M's history of losing so many employees. Perhaps that was the case with some of their actual employees; they thought they would be the one to "crack it" so to speak - before they too called it quits.

I doubt if MM will ever admit to wrongdoing. IMO she is the sort of person who will never concede she is in the wrong, even when confronted with mounting evidence. She will remain in denial about all of this, unless one day she is presented with an opportunity to "confess" and blame her "uncharacteristic" behaviour on someone else; likely that has already been carefully planned.

The problem with that is, from research and historical information available, it is clear that her treatment of other people has been unacceptable for a very long time; ergo it cannot be blamed on something or someone else or some kind of "temporary" issue.

winifred said:

"More than once a staff member slumped across their desk and wept.

Click to expand...

That's not the result of "constructive criticism". IMO it's the result of bullying and abuse. In my working life I saw it happen to others and then the time came when it was my turn. Long story short: I reached a point where for the sake of my sanity I had to get up and walk away. It cost me dearly not least financially, but it was the right thing to do. That said, never underestimate the impact workplace bullying has long term on a person's mental health and self confidence, even years after the actual bullying has stopped.

The Invictus Games Foundation also sent Harry their best wishes on his 40th birthday in a nice video.

The accounts on X and instagram for the Prince and Princess of Wales published a congratulatory message for Harry.

Ghost said:

The accounts on X and instagram for the Prince and Princess of Wales published a congratulatory message for Harry.

Click to expand...

I am so glad to hear that. Marvellous!

Oh, they shared TRF’s post and added a text - wishing a happy 40th birthday to the duke of Sussex.

Yes, ‘Happy Birthday’ greetings, which is what these internet messages from royals to each other usually contain. These don’t gush as a general rule. But it is on their X and IG so is imo a start, a hopeful sign of some thawing.

We don’t know what private messages were sent either. From the York princesses, for instance.

TLLK said:

I disagree. I just recently reread "Courtiers" and he does bring up the incident when Meghan contacted BP HR when she was struggling with her mental health.

Click to expand...

I could never understand why Meghan went to HR to discuss her situation. It made me wonder if she was fully prepared or understood the institution or the family she had married in to. Aside from that, she was far away from home, late stages of pregnancy, she appears to have viewed the refusal to do things her way as a rejection /slight on her rather than following protocol being a mainstay of the institution. I could understand her struggling in these circumstances.
The problem is the stories are following her , residing in her home State, a lovely home of their own not crown estate , children, no culture clash, appear to have a very comfortable life style. So why are the stories continuing. ?

Hallo girl said:

I could never understand why Meghan went to HR to discuss her situation. It made me wonder if she was fully prepared or understood the institution or the family she had married in to. Aside from that, she was far away from home, late stages of pregnancy, she appears to have viewed the refusal to do things her way as a rejection /slight on her rather than following protocol being a mainstay of the institution. I could understand her struggling in these circumstances.
The problem is the stories are following her , residing in her home State, a lovely home of their own not crown estate , children, no culture clash, appear to have a very comfortable life style. So why are the stories continuing. ?

Click to expand...

IMO, I think her meeting with HR had to do with her issues with staff because the reports about staff being upset and all were being reported during that time.

SirGyamfi1 said:

IMO, I think her meeting with HR had to do with her issues with staff because the reports about staff being upset and all were being reported during that time.

Click to expand...

That is a possibility , but trying to avoid rehashing of old stories, it is not how Meghan presented it.

I wondered if it was a case of knowing staff were possibly going to HR so going to them herself to get her points and views across. I had summer job doing admin for a HR dept and it was telling how many people in once they had heard rumours someone had been in about them.