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

[CrownPrincessJava]

I get the impression that the media is trying to paint Meghan as a second Wallis Simpson. Just like they have tried to paint Kate as another Diana. Kate is polar opposite to Diana, just as Meghan is to the late Duchess of Windsor. The only similarity is that Meghan is a American divorcee. And that is where the similarities end.

The media forgets that Meghan has been in/exposed to the entertainment industry since she was a child. Unlike Diana, Meghan is PR savvy and understands the ins-and-outs of the media. She isn't a naive 19 year old. As the the royal courtiers - I fully believe that Harry will do everything to protect Meghan from the "grey men", starting with the move to Frogmore Cottage/House

 

[Pranter]

The raglands weren't invited to her wedding. So there must some issues with them as well.

We don't know if they were invited or not. I don't remember anything being said about them either way.


LaRae

 

[Queen Claude]

If Meghan's family attended Meghan's wedding, they must be pathologically shy people. It wasn't for lack of seats since the Queen's racing manager and one of Diana's flatmates scored seats on the "bride's" side of the aisle.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

Has the full list of wedding guests been released? If it hasn't, then we can't say who was or wasn't at the wedding. Even if invited to the wedding, every guest has their right for their privacy, and it just might be, that the guests respect their own anonymity, and don't want their faces and names trashed on tabloids.

As for Camilla being the perfect countryside wife... We don't know how it would've turned out, had Charles been allowed to marry her earlier on. We don't know if some relatives would've talked. You really don't know that about any family, someone might get offered such a substantial amount of money, that they'd just spill everything they know.

 

[Countessmeout]

I don’t think there are many of them left that even Doria is close to, much less Meghan. Doria’s parents are deceased and her half siblings are older and much, much younger.

Although, there are rumors that Doria’s younger half-brother attended but was seated where he could keep his anonymity

The Raglands were not all tight lipped. Her half Uncle Joseph talked, saying Meghan drew away from the family as she went up the latter. Many of her photos came from him.

Meghan was close to the women on the Ragland side growing up. Her grandmother helped raise her. There are photos of her with her Aunt Sandra and her cousin. She was a flower girl for her Aunt. Doria was also quite close to her stepmother Ava who is alive. Ava divorced Doria's father but remained close to her stepdaughter. Ava and Doria are the same age.


Yes there were rumors that Joffrey (34 at the time) was in the audience.


I was surprised neither Ashleigh or Christopher Hale attended. Unlike their mother, they never spoke and have been said to be close to Meghan. Especially Ashleigh who is a lawyer.

 

[Kataryn]

The raglands weren't invited to her wedding. So there must some issues with them as well.

I thought it is still unclear if some where there? No guest list was published and the British media doesn't know how they look like. But I heard people say they were there but did not sit next to Doria but somehwere the cameras did not catch them, because Meghan wanted to spare them the public attention, but recognized them at the receptions.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

If Meghan's family attended Meghan's wedding, they must be pathologically shy people. It wasn't for lack of seats since the Queen's racing manager and one of Diana's flatmates scored seats on the "bride's" side of the aisle.

Not shy, just not wanting their faces plastered all over the place and being hounded by the press. Not everyone wants the attention others crave.

 

[Osipi]

Charles is the perfect example that the 'perfect marriage on paper' is not so ideal. He has had two marriages, one that was a disaster nearly from the start, and one which has worked out great. It was the perfect marriage on paper which led to years of scandal and issue, before a horrid divorce.

The ideas of what a "perfect marriage on paper" is definitely changing. Some seem to think that a "titled country bride" would have been the best solution harking back to the times where royal married royal and "suitability" depended on "breeding" and ancestry. Should this really be preferable for a suitable marriage for Harry, perhaps he could have followed in his great great great grandmother Victoria's footsteps and married Princess Beatrice of York. Queen Victoria and Prince Consort Albert were first cousins. Or perhaps Lady Gabriella Windsor was the cousin that got away? After all, The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are third cousins by one line and second cousins once removed in another.

Personally, I hope those kind of marriages never rear their heads again and the changes that we've seen with marriages being formed because two people are sincerely in love and want to share the rest of their lives together remain the *sole* reason for a marriage and they throw the paper checklist permanently out the window.

 

[Kataryn]

The ideas of what a "perfect marriage on paper" is definitely changing. Some seem to think that a "titled country bride" would have been the best solution harking back to the times where royal married royal and "suitability" depended on "breeding" and ancestry. Should this really be preferable for a suitable marriage for Harry, perhaps he could have followed in his great great great grandmother Victoria's footsteps and married Princess Beatrice of York. Queen Victoria and Prince Consort Albert were first cousins. Or perhaps Lady Gabriella Windsor was the cousin that got away? After all, The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are third cousins by one line and second cousins once removed in another.

Personally, I hope those kind of marriages never rear their heads again and the changes that we've seen with marriages being formed because two people are sincerely in love and want to share the rest of their lives together remain the *sole* reason for a marriage and they throw the paper checklist permanently out the window.

As if it was about Royal blood back then - a Royal bride needed two things: the personal ability to bear her husband children and politically good connections. Especially the last thing was why those ladies were revered in their new countries: they were symbols of closeness between countries and that normally meant peace. At least for their generation - Maria-Theresia of Austria and Frederick of Prussia's wife Sophe Charlotte of Brunswick were first cousins, their grandfather a close relative to Frederick's mother Sophe Charlotte of Brunswick. It didn't help Silesia,

though.
But why should a wife chosen out of love have any "automatic" meaning for the people of her new country? So I understand that Royal brides nowadays have to "prove their value" for the people who should curtsey to them and why the media is so interested in their characters and their circumstances. But they should be given a real chance and not be critizised because of prejudices.

 

[Osipi]

But why should a wife chosen out of love have any "automatic" meaning for the people of her new country? So I understand that Royal brides nowadays have to "prove their value" for the people who should curtsey to them and why the media is so interested in their characters and their circumstances. But they should be given a real chance and not be critizised because of prejudices.

Perhaps some ingrained tendencies remain in the deep, dark recesses of the brain of how things should be. Tradition is a big part of the monarchy and long standing traditions don't adapt well to changes for the most part.

You've hit the nail on the head though stating Meghan should be given a real chance to prove her value to the royal family rather than purposely digging to find "dirt" and the "black sheep of the family" and every other little tidbit that they've found to hold against the woman Harry married simply because he loves her, she meshes with his royal role as if they were two pieces of a puzzle that fit together and she has the background in her own life that screams experienced with the public and media.

I still believe that Harry caught the brass ring on the marriage-go-round. ?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

The ideas of what a "perfect marriage on paper" is definitely changing. Some seem to think that a "titled country bride" would have been the best solution harking back to the times where royal married royal and "suitability" depended on "breeding" and ancestry. Should this really be preferable for a suitable marriage for Harry, perhaps he could have followed in his great great great grandmother Victoria's footsteps and married Princess Beatrice of York. Queen Victoria and Prince Consort Albert were first cousins. Or perhaps Lady Gabriella Windsor was the cousin that got away? After all, The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are third cousins by one line and second cousins once removed in another.

Personally, I hope those kind of marriages never rear their heads again and the changes that we've seen with marriages being formed because two people are sincerely in love and want to share the rest of their lives together remain the *sole* reason for a marriage and they throw the paper checklist permanently out the window.

I don’t think your two examples are “those kind of marriages” though. Those two couples were “in love.” And Philip was not a lot of people’s choice “on paper” for Elizabeth.
But I do get your point about the old sort of arranged Royal marriages made for dynastic or political reasons. But we are straying off topic from news about Meghan and Harry.

 

[Mbruno]

But why should a wife chosen out of love have any "automatic" meaning for the people of her new country? So I understand that Royal brides nowadays have to "prove their value" for the people who should curtsey to them and why the media is so interested in their characters and their circumstances. But they should be given a real chance and not be critizised because of prejudices.

Máxima and Mary Donaldson allegedly married "for love" and they were both non-royal and foreigners. In fact, they were more foreign to the Netherlands or Denmark than Meghan is to Britain as they didn't even speak the language of their new countries to begin with. Yet, they were quickly embraced by the Dutch and the Danes and are now among the most popular royals in their respective royal families.



Meghan's problem is not so much then that she is American, or non-royal, but with her attitude.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

Meghan's problem is not so much then that she is American, or non-royal, but with her attitude.

What is exactly that attitude?! And how do you know she has any, and what kind of attitude?

 

[Mbruno]

What is exactly that attitude?! And how do you know she has any, and what kind of attitude?

The Palace staff seems to think she has an attitude according to the papers.

 

[Chloep]

The Palace staff seems to think she has an attitude according to the papers.

papers vs tabloid trash from alleged 'sources'

Would love actual examples of her problematic attitude.

 

[Curryong]

I think 'according to the papers' is the significator. Almost all the London tabloids enjoyed themselves printing barbs against Meghan with no valid evidence to back anything up. And it went on for months. That's inexcusable, IMO.

 

[Heavs]

According to some Royal Watchers (and I was guilty of this as well) Harry's wife would have no less an a masters degree from a good University, a great non controversial career but not particularly ambitious have plenty of time to be highly philanthropic, very beautiful and no more than 30 years old.

Also have many non controversial hobbies, an entirely discreet family with no black sheep and they must also be atrisocratic or at least "well bred". And despite all of her many attributes have not had a serious boyfriend or partner for at least 3 years but not be naïve abut life in the BRF and savvy about life in general. And be willing to give that all up for "someone who really isn't that important". Unicorn. Both Wales boys found women they love who embody some of those qualities.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

The Palace staff seems to think she has an attitude according to the papers.

What kind of attitude does she have according to them? She sends 5 texts/emails in a day? She asked for air freshener for her wedding church? She was given free range of tiaras to choose from for her wedding, when she chose one, she was told "But not that one". Oh, and she was stressed out at her bridesmaids/flower girl dress fittings? These are the things I've read and heard repeated tens of times through all media. Which situation suggests, that Meghan has any kind of attitude?

 

[MARG]

. . . . .Those two couples were “in love.” And Philip was not a lot of people’s choice “on paper” for Elizabeth.

The aristocracy and upper class that inhabited Whitehall and the Civil Service wanted to put Philip in his 'place. He was as blue blooded as she yet while Prince Albert kept the title he was born with, Philip was forced to give up his entire heritage and all he got back was the title Duke of Edinburgh. Elizabeth reinstated his princely title years later.

I see the same thing with Meghan, she is not the wife TPTB expected and she is certainly more than many wanted. I believe they hoped to seamlessly cut her down to size. The last thing they expected was a woman with not only a mind of her own, but a vision of her own future that did not gel with theirs.

They forgot they were dealing with an independent career woman and she walked right over their machinations on her stratospheric signature heels. It is not 1947 but 2018 and I think they realised they had a tiger by the tail and were reduced to dripping acid to their media contacts. Worse she doesn't read her own press and is too busy with being pregnant, house renovations, public engagements and being as good a wife as she can be to the husband she adores.

Unfortunately reinforcing just how far down the pecking order the Sussexes are has only succeeded in deeply offending Harry, aware as he is that the weight of destiny won't kick in on George etc. for 25 plus years. Would that not cause a certain frostyness between Harry and William?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Máxima and Mary Donaldson allegedly married "for love" and they were both non-royal and foreigners. In fact, they were more foreign to the Netherlands or Denmark than Meghan is to Britain as they didn't even speak the language of their new countries to begin with. Yet, they were quickly embraced by the Dutch and the Danes and are now among the most popular royals in their respective royal families.



Meghan's problem is not so much then that she is American, or non-royal, but with her attitude.

I don't think Meghan has an "attitude." That's just the latest theme in the barrage of negativity.

I just think Meghan was not at all what most people expected as Harry's wife.

 

[Ista]

I've seen no evidence that Meghan has an attitude or is difficult, but I do think it is entirely possible that her working style may have ruffled some feathers if it was different than what staff was used to. The solution for that, if true, is for either getting used to the way she does things, or getting new staff. That's the way it is whenever a new employer or supervisor comes on. Staff either has to get with the program, or move on. I also think it's possible she may have made some missteps along the way, which would only be human, as she started a new phase in her life, in a role that was unfamiliar, and with a bunch of new rules and norms.

Neither of those things are impossible, and neither of them are character flaws on Meghan's part, they're just part of taking on new roles and responsibilities.

It's also entirely possible for Meghan, or anyone else for that matter, to be charming and warm to friends, family and the general public, and be assertive and a bit demanding to people doing a job for her. People are not one-dimensional. I don't think we have to set Meghan up on a pedestal to admire the work she is doing, or appreciate the limited bits we know about her.

 

[soapstar]

As previously posted in a mod note, comparisons between royals is off-topic, so please stop comparing Meghan to Camilla, Kate, Diana, Philip or any of the other people who have dated, or married into royal families. Any further comments will be deleted.

The debate about 5 am texts, wedding air fresheners, issues with staff, etc. has been endlessly talked about, so let’s not get into another round of that. If you wish to discuss the KP staff, please take it to the Staff of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex thread.

Also just as a reminder, no matter how much you disagree with your fellow member about a topic, please remember to be repspectful to one another.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

It's sad that the situation has had to come to official measures, though in hindsight this was an action that should have been taken a long time ago as there are comments not aimed at just Meghan, but at other members of the RF too, especially the Cambridges (remember the ISIS supporter who threatened to bomb George's school last year on social media?).

The worst thing any one of us can do is judge someone by what’s being said in tabloid gossip.

Since Meghan had a little public life before Harry - she allowed us to see a bit of her personality. She’s a warm, loving, outgoing person that loves food, flowers, friends, her mother, have an appreciation of her father, loves traveling and her rescue pups. She’s also an humanitarian. This is the real Meghan.

Everything else is what the press made up and folks have been listening to her distant and cold half-sister too much, IMO.

Didn't say that I was judging based on tabloid gossip - quite the opposite, in fact ?
We'll never know Meghan's "real personality" since none of us know her personally on a deep and long-term enough level to get a glimpse of her character behind closed doors, though I don't believe a lot of the accusations that she's controlling or overbearing at all because of the sources they've come from - most of the tabloids who write about such topics have gotten their "information" from people such as Samantha and Thomas Markle, who are infamous for spreading negative rumours about Meghan and her relationships with the BRF.

 

[Oona]

...Meghan... meshes with his royal role as if they were two pieces of a puzzle that fit together and she has the background in her own life that screams experienced with the public and media.

I still believe that Harry caught the brass ring on the marriage-go-round. ?

I agree. I think they both did. I think Harry looks better now than ever in his life. He married a woman who is caring, decent, intelligent, articulate and educated. She married a man smart enough to recognize that in her AND is still on his upward trajectory (hasn't peaked yet!) Yeah, there are a lot of other good qualities in him, but I'll look like an obsessive if I list them out here.

 

[Oona]

The Palace staff seems to think she has an attitude according to the papers.

Hi, MBruno. I see you're from the United States. So am I. Because of that, I didn't understand the difference between tabloids and news media in the UK until fairly recently. Maybe you're where I was a few months ago.

Luckily my best friend is from Wiltshire and he explained the different tabloids to me. Some are conservative and border on racist, others are less so. After the long explanation I realized that none of them were much better than the National Enquirer is in the US, so I stopped taking any of them seriously. And I simply won't click on anything that mentions Meghan's father or sister.

I do click on articles that talk about events she's attended, but every time they quote a "palace source" I remind myself that anyone who works with the royal family on any level of intimacy probably has to sign a nondisclosure agreement.

So I tell myself the "palace source" is the guy who mulches the flowerbeds several times a year.

A "palace insider" is the plumber who came to unstop a toilet 20 years ago.

A "source close to the palace" is the guy who clips the hedges right next to the building when the royals are away.

Really. I honestly suspect their "sources" aren't much more reliable than that.

Remember, Deep Throat leaked to the Washington Post, not the National Enquirer.

Edward Snowden was talking to The Guardian, not The Sun.

 

[LauraS3514]

If Meghan's family attended Meghan's wedding, they must be pathologically shy people. It wasn't for lack of seats since the Queen's racing manager and one of Diana's flatmates scored seats on the "bride's" side of the aisle.

True, but "Diana's flatmate" is also Harry's godmother.

 

[Humbugged]

True, but "Diana's flatmate" is also Harry's godmother.

And the Queen's racing manager is the son in law of Porchey ,whose son is friends with Harry and was one of the groomsmen ,plus Harry is the godfather to his grandaughter who also happened to be a bridesmaid .


There wasn't really a brides side anyway - the Royals took up one entire side of the Quire while the other was split between both their sets of friends ,Doria ,Fergie and the Spencers .

 

[O-H Anglophile]

If Meghan's family attended Meghan's wedding, they must be pathologically shy people. It wasn't for lack of seats since the Queen's racing manager and one of Diana's flatmates scored seats on the "bride's" side of the aisle.

True, but "Diana's flatmate" is also Harry's godmother.

And the Queen's racing manager's granddaughter, Zalie, was one of Harry & Meghan's little bridesmaids. Harry is her godfather.

 

[Mirabel]

It's sad that the situation has had to come to official measures, though in hindsight this was an action that should have been taken a long time ago as there are comments not aimed at just Meghan, but at other members of the RF too, especially the Cambridges (remember the ISIS supporter who threatened to bomb George's school last year on social media?).

There may have been negative comments aimed at others in the RF, yet it seems things only got out of hand recently, after Harry and Meghan wed.
That leads me to believe most of the hostility is directed at her.

 

[Curryong]

'The War of Words on Meghan Markle is being fought on Social Media'. The social media war has been tracked and this report has graphs showing where the trolling is originating from, ie 53% of regular anti Meghan comments on social media sites come from American females over 35 years of age, followed statistically by UK, then Canada. This report has graphs.