Duke and Duchess of Sussex, General News 3: February - May 2019

[Lilyflo]

"The focus today will rightly be on some lovely royal baby pictures but later Harry and Meghan may have to reflect on how they are alienating many of the British taxpayers who help to pay for them. I’ve written a short analysis piece in today’s Daily Express."

Via Richard Palmer Twitter

Fake news - no evidence to support it.

 

[muriel]

With all of that's been said, I'm the angry one? Ok I'm not the one saying anyone snubbed me left and right. I just like facts.

Look, like most decisions, it's not going to please everyone. Hell, not everyone wants the monarchy in UK from my understanding. However, if we are going to talk about the public in general, I think an official poll showing an overwhelming majority (75%) support versus a small minority (12 or 13%) dissent with about the same minority not having any opinion tells a lot more than what an RR thinks without any official data. And of course, if any journalist felt like they've been snubbed, that's fine, they are free to say they personally feel snubbed by the couple. But the anger on behalf of a non-angry public?

Official poll? Official for whom?

 

[jacqui24]

Official poll? Official for whom?

If you prefer, widely recognized polling organization.

 

[muriel]

If you prefer, widely recognized polling organization.

Thank you!

 

[Fem]

With all of that's been said, I'm the angry one? Ok I'm not the one saying anyone snubbed me left and right. I just like facts.

Look, like most decisions, it's not going to please everyone. Hell, not everyone wants the monarchy in UK from my understanding. However, if we are going to talk about the public in general, I think an official poll showing an overwhelming majority (75%) support versus a small minority (12 or 13%) dissent with about the same minority not having any opinion tells a lot more than what an RR thinks without any official data. And of course, if any journalist felt like they've been snubbed, that's fine, they are free to say they personally feel snubbed by the couple. But the anger on behalf of a non-angry public?

Maybe not angry, but definitely agitated. Like, I get wanting to defend the Sussexes but as you yourself noticed, he doesn't seem to have any basis in facts for his theories. So, you know, be happy for them and baby Sussex!

 

[loonytick]

Here's a piece where Harry and Meghan are suppose to quit the royal life

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ex...y-Sussex-Duke-Duchess-Royal-Family-latest/amp

Seems more like the press wants the Sussexes quit the royal life because it's too hard for the media to cover them. The press doesn't like the scrutiny it's getting for the its coverage; apparently the media's is not use to it.

This reads to me like a frustrated reporter's fever dream. They don't even try to pretend it's anything real. First it says people are "speculating," then the commentator puts out the possibility of them quitting royal life a decade from now and then backpedals with a statement of, basically, "I've not heard Harry...or anybody...say this, but I just know."

OK, dude, whatever.

 

[Zaira]

I am posting it here since its not about Archie himself, but I dont believe this has been posted. From the Telegraph coverage about little Archie:

And in other royal baby news...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...or-royal-baby-latest-news-live-meghan-markle/

In slightly offbeat royal baby news, The Duke of Sussex has reached a settlement with a news agency which took pictures of his Cotswolds home from a helicopter, the High Court has heard.

Lawyers for the Duke told a judge in London on Wednesday that there had been a "settlement of privacy and data protection complaints" made against Splash News and Picture Agency over photographs which showed "the living area, dining area and bedroom" of the property.

The court heard that the photographs "very seriously undermined the safety and security of the Duke" and his wife Meghan, who "felt they were no longer able to live at the property".

His barrister Ian Helme said the Duke was applying for permission to have a statement announcing the terms of the settlement read in open court.

The agency does not oppose the making of a statement in open court, Mr Helme added, but had raised "quibbles" about its wording.

Mr Helme said Splash objected to the part of the statement which, the court heard, says the Sussexes moved out of the property because of the photographs, arguing that The Sun and Daily Mail had already published similar photographs and that it would be "unfair to pin this all on Splash".

However, granting permission for a "unilateral statement" made on Harry's behalf to be read in open court, Senior Master Barbara Fontaine ruled that "the evidence supports the position" that the photographs in question "did undermine in a serious way the safety and security of the applicant and his wife".

The statement in open court will be heard on a date to be fixed.

I did not know how intrusive the pics were. Terrible and good on the Sussexes for taking it to court.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Well, there are always disgruntled takes, because there are always going to be disgruntled people.

I recall something Harry said in a documentary (Harry in Africa) about the time he spent in Botswana working on behalf of the charity he founded with Prince Seeiso:

"It's so easy to become caught up in all the negativity that exists in this world. I would encourage everyone to do good, because then you can go to bed at night feeling good about yourself..."

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

I am posting it here since its not about Archie himself, but I dont believe this has been posted. From the Telegraph coverage about little Archie:

And in other royal baby news...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...or-royal-baby-latest-news-live-meghan-markle/


I did not know how intrusive the pics were. Terrible and good on the Sussexes for taking it to court.

WOW!!! Things that we didn't know. Good on Harry and Meghan.

 

[soapstar]

A few posts have been deleted. Please remember this rule when discussing royal reporters.

• Any posts that feature insulting comments directed towards the royals, other posters, the Markles or members of the media, will be removed by a member of the moderating team.

 

[jacqui24]

I am posting it here since its not about Archie himself, but I dont believe this has been posted. From the Telegraph coverage about little Archie:

And in other royal baby news...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...or-royal-baby-latest-news-live-meghan-markle/


I did not know how intrusive the pics were. Terrible and good on the Sussexes for taking it to court.

I remember seeing it. It was pretty close to the house. We can even see where the police car was parked.

 

[ACO]

Good on Harry! I remember when those pictures were posted and felt they were very intrusive. I couldn't really believe they had basically posted their address in the paper. I knew at that moment they were leaving and they did. These papers don't care whatsoever.

 

[Osipi]

For one, I admire that the fact that this whole thing was never played out in the media and Harry and Meghan just went about with the court case and took care of business.

Secondly, this tells me just how adamant this couple is about their privacy. As I think I've said earlier, they've drawn a red line in the sand with a permanent marker, fortified it with tungsten steel and topped with barbed wire.

Makes the decision to move to Frogmore Cottage at Windsor Home Park all the more sensible of a choice.

 

[Ista]

When those photos were published I thought it was a dangerous and outrageous invasion of privacy, and I'm glad the court is seeing it the same way. I was shocked that the photos were published at all, because I think this outcome was completely foreseeable. I would have moved out, too.

 

[jacqui24]

Secondly, this tells me just how adamant this couple is about their privacy. As I think I've said earlier, they've drawn a red line in the sand with a permanent marker, fortified it with tungsten steel and topped with barbed wire.

I think privacy is one thing, but what's more is this involves security. As with high profile royals, they all deal with crazies. But we've also seen stories about white powder and public call to execute Harry because they are an interracial couple. Who knows what other crazy scenarios we don't know about.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Good for them to proceute when possible. Caroline of Monaco has always prosecuted when possible. However, the image of the people are more protected in Europe

 

[Cocoasneeze]

Good for Harry. It seems to me, that sone tabloids are crossing heavy legal lines, and it's positive to read, that these instances are dealt with, behind the scenes, and the results are favoring Harry and Meghan.

 

[ACO]

Meghan recorded a message for Camfed's Gala tonight.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1126659998916984832

 

[Rudolph]

Meghan's Instagram plug for friend's £3,600 retreat

One Royal expert warned last night that endorsing a friend’s commercial venture so publicly put the couple on ‘dangerous ground’.

Author and broadcaster Penny Junor, who has written several royal biographies, said it was simply ‘wrong’ adding: ‘The Royal Family must be cleaner than clean.’

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...nds-3-600-retreat-mental-health-campaign.html

 

[tommy100]

Hmm certainly seems like they did do wrong on this one imo, promoting a fitness and retreat business is hardly the same as promoting charities and not for profits. On things like this they had always best be above reproach as possible.

 

[Ista]

Hmmm indeed. If that is true, then it was a definite misstep, and hopefully one that won't be repeated.

 

[MARG]

Silly me! I thought there was only the Sussex Instagram and only follow that.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I'm tired of all these 'royal experts' trying to warn the Sussexes of every little thing under the sun. A whole lot of people need to back-up and relax. The Sussexes are being examined with a microscope 24/7, and so many people want to be all up in their business. Why can't people just be happy for them?

The negativity directed at the Duchess of Sussex throughout her pregnancy was beyond the bounds. Meghan weathered that with such grace and calm, largely without reading any of the OTT nonsense. She is focused on taking care of her life and the many projects and humanitarian endeavors in front of her. And now, as a new mother, she will be leading a very busy life. But I think Meghan thrives with having a lot on her plate.

I truly admire Meghan for her courage in even walking into this family. Sure, there are a lot of perks (and she and Harry are deeply in love) but the royal lifestyle and prestige also comes with a huge price, involving overdone scrutiny and outrageous criticism. For Meghan, the criticism has been practically nonstop! And it definitely needs to STOP!

Meghan should instead be praised for the way she has handled everything that has come her way over the past three years with such courage, aplomb and dedication. She has accomplished a great deal, while managing numerous life changes that can be very daunting, particularly with all of the public scrutiny and the extreme nonsense that has been written about her.

I thank Meghan and Harry for sharing as much as they have with us of their private joy. And I pray people will have the human decency to back-off. A return to constant criticism and poking serves no one well. The Sussexes do not deserve this petty negativity. They are human and they have a right to make their own choices regarding setting private boundaries and making choices that spread positive information about positive people. This overdone scrutiny is surely a big reason why the Sussexes have maintained a cautionary boundary around their private lives.

The way the Daily Fail previously scrutinized Meghan's former website, The Tig, is a huge reason why she shut it down. And there were a lot of very enlightening and informative articles on that website regarding living a healthy and a happy life. Fortunately, some of those features are being brought back periodically on the Meghan's Mirror site. Here's an example:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160714223454/http://thetig.com/6-daily-poses-rejuvenation/


It's petty to attack either of the Sussexes for seeking to promote other venues and endeavors (both charitable and commercial), being offered by people who are intent upon using their expertise to give back in a positive way. Taking care of one's physical health and well-being is a key component of managing good mental health. I personally see nothing wrong with the Sussexes highlighting websites that provide healthful services for people from all walks of life. The Sussexes have followers from all walks of life.

I think it's instructive to realize that being positive and associating oneself with positive people who have something worthwhile to contribute to the world is a good thing, not a bad thing. The negative people who trolled the accounts and websites posted by the Sussexes clearly only had a nasty, negative intent in mind. Meanwhile, the Sussexes offered this information for positive purposes -- to benefit people who are looking to improve their mental and physical well-being.

It's the negative instigators and woeful Sussex criticizers who should be ashamed of themselves for searching so hard to find something to criticize via trolling the Sussexes' Instagram account, and then digging into the background of one of the individuals whose website was cited, in order to portray that person in a negative fashion. How petty and low will portions of the media continue to stoop?

I completely disagree with Penny Junor's comments. I've personally learned a lot from the Duchess of Sussex through the way she's carried herself in life, and through all the good and helpful information she has shared both before and after she became a member of the British royal family.

 

[Curryong]

That article itself states that it takes four clicks before you get to details of the retreat on this woman's website!

 

[Madame Verseau]

I went to sussexroyal to see the page. Where is the reference to this friend? The rep to this business said the Sussexes' support is appreciated but I don't see the support.

 

[JessRulz]

I went to sussexroyal to see the page. Where is the reference to this friend? The rep to this business said the Sussexes' support is appreciated but I don't see the support.

In the 'May = Mental Health Awareness Month' post on the SussexRoyal Instagram page, one of the organisations tagged in the photo is The Class (tagged in the bottom left square), which is fitness / mental health program business founded and run by Taryn Toomey, one of Meghan's friends.

Not a good idea to link that IMO, along with the tag of a program on the OWN Network, if they don't want people thinking they are favouring their friends' businesses.
Imagine the uproar if Kensington Palace linked anything to Party Pieces? It was bad enough when Party Pieces was accused of 'cashing in' on any royal-related event since Kate married in, when such a company would always have options for princes / princesses / jubilees.

 

[jacqui24]

Do we hold places like Anxiety UK and such to the same standard then? It sells therapy services on their website. Bottom line is they highlighted accounts that offer advice and support on mental health and fitness related issues.

 

[Ista]

Do we hold places like Anxiety UK and such to the same standard then? It sells therapy services on their website. Bottom line is they highlighted accounts that offer advice and support on mental health and fitness related issues.

Is the owner of Anxiety UK a personal friend of one of the Sussexes? I think that's the issue, and that goes for any of the royals. They cannot be perceived to be shilling for a personal friend. It's not the fact that services are being sold, or that the services might be good ones, it's the close personal connection that's the issue. It doesn't matter who the royal is, it applies to all.

 

[Hallo girl]

Do we hold places like Anxiety UK and such to the same standard then? It sells therapy services on their website. Bottom line is they highlighted accounts that offer advice and support on mental health and fitness related issues.

The problem is that Meghan is being perceived as promoting her friends business,which in effect is endorsing it. I personally think that is different from a charity advertising other services that are available whether chargeable or not.

Kates family were criticised for selling party items for 'little prince and princesses' which is probably what the business would have been doing whether Kate was married into the royal family or not.

 

[JessRulz]

Is the owner of Anxiety UK a personal friend of one of the Sussexes? I think that's the issue, and that goes for any of the royals. They cannot be perceived to be shilling for a personal friend. It's not the fact that services are being sold, or that the services might be good ones, it's the close personal connection that's the issue. It doesn't matter who the royal is, it applies to all.

That was exactly my point - and the point of the article. It's not that these organisations make money / profits off of services, but that these organisations were founded / are run by individuals who are personal friends with the royals.

No royal, across the board, should promote for their friends in money-making aspects. I side-eye when royals in other countries do it (Danes and LEGO, for instance), so I'll side-eye now too.