General News about the Sussex Family, Part Two: April-August 2020

[Alison H]

I should think the Queen's very chuffed (pun intended) about featuring in an episode of Thomas the Tank Engine, even in cartoon form .


She appeared as an animated graphic in an ITV documentary about her experiences during the war, last week!

 

[Eskimo]

And article by our beloved Mail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Harry-records-message-Thomas-Tank-Engine.html




This sentence stuck out for me:
"It is not yet clear if the Queen sanctioned her image being used in the cartoon or if she even knew about the episode. Buckingham Palace will not comment on the footage."


Honestly - what a question! As if Harry would do something if the queen wasn't allowing it. (.....)


And this here:
"
It is not clear whether Harry recorded the episode before he and Meghan made the announcement about their move to America, on January 8."

As if they had uninvited Harry after that announcement...




(......)

I am one of the biggest critics of their attention seeking actions but this has nothing to do with the Queen or the RF. For all we know Thomas the Tank Engine is Archie's fav show and Harry wanted to thank them for that

 

[ladongas]

I am one of the biggest critics of their attention seeking actions but this has nothing to do with the Queen or the RF. For all we know Thomas the Tank Engine is Archie's fav show and Harry wanted to thank them for that

Surely a one-year-old baby isn’t yet watching tv!

 

[Kataryn]

Surely a one-year-old baby isn’t yet watching tv!

As he has a nurse and his mommy close by, probably not. Which is a good thing.

 

[Sun Lion]

Australian posters -

Channel 7 is broadcasting the new two hour "People" produced documentary "Harry & Meghan a Royal Rebellion" tonight, Wednesday 29th April, at 9pm.

Also streaming on 7plus.

(There is a promo on the "Sunrise Facebook" account, can't post the link though.)

 

[Curryong]

Thank you, Sun Lion. I've noticed Channel 7 have been promoting it over the last few days.

 

[Countessmeout]

I am one of the biggest critics of their attention seeking actions but this has nothing to do with the Queen or the RF. For all we know Thomas the Tank Engine is Archie's fav show and Harry wanted to thank them for that

I highly doubt an one year old has a favorite tv show.

But he may be fond of the books or the toys as many kids. Though it seems more a connection between Harry and his childhood memories.

The money is being donated to a good cause. Certainly not the first royal to do this type of thing to raise money. Its not 'attention seeking' or trying to make money for themselves.

 

[Kataryn]

And article by our beloved Mail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Harry-records-message-Thomas-Tank-Engine.html

This sentence stuck out for me:
"It is not yet clear if the Queen sanctioned her image being used in the cartoon or if she even knew about the episode. Buckingham Palace will not comment on the footage."

Honestly - what a question! As if Harry would do something if the queen wasn't allowing it. (.....)

And this here:
"
It is not clear whether Harry recorded the episode before he and Meghan made the announcement about their move to America, on January 8."

As if they had uninvited Harry after that announcement...

Buckingham Palace confirmed that the queen (and all the others) have been aware of this. So again a non-story by the Mail, apart from the fact that Harry promoted "Thomas" in aid of his Travelyx (sp?)- project.

 

[muriel]

Buckingham Palace confirmed that the queen (and all the others) have been aware of this. So again a non-story by the Mail, apart from the fact that Harry promoted "Thomas" in aid of his Travelyx (sp?)- project.

There are many an article by the tabloids, and the DM in particular, that I find objectionable, but in this case, is there really much wrong in the DM questioning whether Harry had HMs consent for this?

 

[Countessmeout]

Question is why suggest he needs her consent in the first place. There is nothing about narrating the episode which is 'un-royal'. Certainly not the first royal to do something similar. His brother's Christmas appearance rings a bell to me.

The queen being a character was not Harry's decision. He isn't the one who planned the episode and the content. If the creators felt they needed the ok of the queen to have her as a character, that would be between them and the queen not Harry and her.

 

[BaiSoSo]

I was questioning if that is what they will do.

So far they have pretty much been like the Cambridges and releasing photos.

But he isn't a royal baby and I would question whether it is warranted. He isn't the Cambridge children.

The Cambridges have nothing to do with what decisions the Sussexes make regarding their child so that is a moot point.

There is no matter of warranted- The Sussexes are private citizens now and have many options available to them if they want to distribute their information including a photo of Archie. They no longer bound by the 'Royal Protocol' or having to use the Royal Rota.

There are many an article by the tabloids, and the DM in particular, that I find objectionable, but in this case, is there really much wrong in the DM questioning whether Harry had HMs consent for this?

Why the DM would question whether Harry had the Queen's permission? There is nothing unusual about it as other royals have also done similar work and no one questioned if the Queen permitted it.

 

[poppy7]

The Cambridges have nothing to do with what decisions the Sussexes make regarding their child so that is a moot point.

There is no matter of warranted- The Sussexes are private citizens now and have many options available to them if they want to distribute their information including a photo of Archie. They no longer bound by the 'Royal Protocol' or having to use the Royal Rota.



Why the DM would question whether Harry had the Queen's permission? There is nothing unusual about it as other royals have also done similar work and no one questioned if the Queen permitted it.

That has nothing to do with the royal rota or protocol. Up to this point the exposure of Archie is equivalent to that of his cousins. As I rightly said that should change as he isn't them.

 

[ACO]

That has nothing to do with the royal rota or protocol. Up to this point the exposure of Archie is equivalent to that of his cousins. As I rightly said that should change as he isn't them.

I still don't understand what you mean. What should change? Harry and Meghan can post whatever they want about their child. What papers do or don't do is up to them. Archie is Archie. No one is claiming he is anything more, which is why Harry and Meghan wanted his christening and such done differently.

 

[poppy7]

I still don't understand what you mean. What should change? Harry and Meghan can post whatever they want about their child. What papers do or don't do is up to them. Archie is Archie. No one is claiming he is anything more, which is why Harry and Meghan wanted his christening and such done differently.

The appearing in public during foreign visits (Africa)

The introduction after his birth.

The Christmas cards

The big occasion pictures and appearances.

All very like the Cambridges but he isn't in that world now so yes it will change. They can realise pictures of him when they want. But do other celebrities?

 

[ACO]

They not doing any tours, so this is moot.

As for the rest? They can do as they please. If they want to send a picture to their patronages or whoever then that’s their right. If they want to post to celebrate their anniversary or birthday. Again their right.

Everyday people celebrate these milestones. The Cambridges aren’t the only people on earth with the right to do this.

 

[Denville]

They not doing any tours, so this is moot.

As for the rest? They can do as they please. If they want to send a picture to their patronages or whoever then that’s their right. If they want to post to celebrate their anniversary or birthday. Again their right.

Everyday people celebrate these milestones. The Cambridges aren’t the only people on earth with the right to do this.

The Cambridges are royal. the Sussexes have told us agan and again that they don't want the stress of public life, that their child is a private person and they don't need to release pics of him.. and that they left the UK to protect their prvacy. So why not make a start with just sharing pics of little baby with their family and friends..

 

[Lumutqueen]

Everyday people celebrate these milestones.

Everyday people don't have patronages to send pictures to, everyday people don't communicate with the press about celebrating said milestones, and everyday people don't get the attention that The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do.

I don't personally understand why, when for me they have a quite open and public desire to be private, they want to publish a picture of their son. I am not disagreeing that they can't do this, I'm perplexed as to why they are choosing to when they IMO have screamed for privacy for this child, have the ability to have it and are choosing not to.

 

[BaiSoSo]

Everyday people don't have patronages to send pictures to, everyday people don't communicate with the press about celebrating said milestones, and everyday people don't get the attention that The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do.

I don't personally understand why, when for me personally they have a quite open and public desire to be private, they want to publish a picture of their son. I am not disagreeing that they can't do this, I'm perplexed as to why they are choosing to when they IMO have screamed for privacy for this child, have the ability to have it and are choosing not to.

There are well-known people who aren't royal who have interactions with the media, who release pictures of their children and the actions are based on what the parents want.... not on royal traditions, not people in the public claiming they own the child or that the parents owe them. Archie will still have plenty of privacy outside of a released picture here or there.

 

[ACO]

So the issue is them sharing an image of their son? People bringing up tours that aren’t happening and presenting a baby that doesn’t exist. So I’m failing to understand that. They do have a patronages. Unless they dropping them, then I don’t see the problem.

Public figures of all kinds have spokespeople. They also share their families or whatever tickles their fancy. I can pull up plenty of that now. So again I ask, what’s the issue? If they are not important then them posting a picture shouldn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things.

We have seen how much of Archie? I would say his privacy has been plenty maintained.

 

[Somebody]

The point is, they used this argument as one of the main reasons for leaving the royal family. However, their own actions show that this was not the main reason for them to leave. They still intend to use their son to promote themselves and want to remain world famous people - all based on their royal connection. They mainly wanted more 'control' over the brand and earn a professional income. To me that is a misuse of their royal connection (they are not the only one who have done so but they are the ones making a living of it).

 

[poppy7]

So the issue is them sharing an image of their son? People bringing up tours that aren’t happening and presenting a baby that doesn’t exist. So I’m failing to understand that. They do have a patronages. Unless they dropping them, then I don’t see the problem.

Public figures of all kinds have spokespeople. They also share their families or whatever tickles their fancy. I can pull up plenty of that now. So again I ask, what’s the issue? If they are not important then them posting a picture shouldn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things.

We have seen how much of Archie? I would say his privacy has been plenty maintained.

I very much did talk about a tour that happened. South Africa where they showed him to the world and he was absolutely presented to the media after his birth.

Royals release photos of royal.children. most people do not , no matter how famous they are. Unless of course they are kind of famous and they sell images to Hello or whatever of their house and kids BUT it doesn't really happen anymore.

No we haven't seen much of Archie very much like his royal cousins.

 

[Durham]

They mainly wanted more 'control' over the brand and earn a professional income. To me that is a misuse of their royal connection (they are not the only one who have done so but they are making a living of it).

This is so obvious to so many people. Puzzled as to why there are those who don't see it.

Bottom line - they should do what they want to do as private citizens ie mr & mrs.

 

[Claricecolin]

I have not said anything because we have actually heard very little from Harry and Meghan themselves. I am waiting to see what they will do. It does seem to me that to some people stepping away from royal life should mean one should cease to exist. They are private citizens ( that happen to still be royal even if they are no longer using the hrh) who can do whatever private citizens do as long as it is legal. [...]I am astounded that less than a year ago people were claiming they didn't really matter yet how dare they not show is the baby how we want. We go from they are hiding Archie to why are they going to post a picture. We are all free to make choices so let them live as they see fit.

 

[ACO]

I very much did talk about a tour that happened. South Africa where they showed him to the world and he was absolutely presented to the media after his birth.

Royals release photos of royal.children. most people do not , no matter how famous they are. Unless of course they are kind of famous and they sell images to Hello or whatever of their house and kids BUT it doesn't really happen anymore.

No we haven't seen much of Archie very much like his royal cousins.

You are talking about a tour and pregnancy that happened when they were working royals. Yes they had him there. Did I miss them on tour in the recent months presenting Archie? This is where I am lost. What does that have to do with them now? They not doing the same. Heck they didn't even present it the same then and it cause such a huff from people.

And they never claimed they didn't want a public life. Where is that coming from? They mentioned how they planned to interact with certain aspects of the media. In particular not with the royal rota. That is not the same as not wanting a public life.

Celebrating your child is not is not using him as promotion. If that is the case them the royals must be using their little ones as the ultimate PR, which I guess to some that is their only purpose.

I have not said anything because we have actually heard very little from Harry and Meghan themselves. I am waiting to see what they will do. It does seem to me that to some people stepping away from royal life should mean one should cease to exist. They are private citizens ( that happen to still be royal even if they are no longer using the hrh) who can do whatever private citizens do as long as it is legal. [...] I am astounded that less than a year ago people were claiming they didn't really matter yet how dare they not show is the baby how we want. We go from they are hiding Archie to why are they going to post a picture. We are all free to make choices so let them live as they see fit.

Pretty much this. All this just coming across is "How dare they celebrate their child" and it is bizarre.

 

[BaiSoSo]

Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
They mainly wanted more 'control' over the brand and earn a professional income. To me that is a misuse of their royal connection (they are not the only one who have done so but they are making a living of it).

This is so obvious to so many people. Puzzled as to why there are those who don't see it.

Bottom line - they should do what they want to do as private citizens ie mr & mrs.

Some call it 'brand' I call it their lives. I haven't seen them misuse their royal connections both the Elephant movie and the Thomas Train intro were done when they were still working royals and was similar to work that other BRF family members have done in the past.

Just because they are no longer working royals doesn't mean that people aren't going to know who they are, aren't going to follow/support their work and want work to with them. They have shown many globally that they are interested in the work, willing to do the work and that makes people want to partner with them even if they aren't working royals anymore. It also doesn't mean that the couple isn't going to support their patronages and other charities...the Queen was very clear about that in her statement.

 

[Osipi]

Like all human beings and parents, they have the inherent right to be proud parents as much as they want to be. As we'll never know for sure what their motives are (if there even *are* any), what they do or don't do is their personal choice when it comes to their family. Its our choice also whether or not to pay attention to whatever they do or don't do.

Simple.

 

[Durham]

Just because they are no longer working royals doesn't mean that people aren't going to know who they are, aren't going to follow/support their work and want work to with them. They have shown many globally that they are interested in the work, willing to do the work and that makes people want to partner with them even if they aren't working royals anymore. It also doesn't mean that the couple isn't going to support their patronages and other charities...the Queen was very clear about that in her statement.

That's all great. Good luck to them. [..]

 

[Denville]

I have not said anything because we have actually heard very little from Harry and Meghan themselves. I am waiting to see what they will do. It does seem to me that to some people stepping away from royal life should mean one should cease to exist. They are private citizens ( that happen to still be royal even if they are no longer using the hrh) who can do whatever private citizens do as long as it is legal. [...]I am astounded that less than a year ago people were claiming they didn't really matter yet how dare they not show is the baby how we want. We go from they are hiding Archie to why are they going to post a picture. We are all free to make choices so let them live as they see fit.

They can do what they like provided its legal... and people are free to comment on what they do. They have claimed that they wanted to be private people, that they left the UK to protect tehmselves and Archie.. So why release photos of him? That is something they can definitely do, which will protect his privacy...and they are no longer working royals so there is no obligioatn to share occasional photos.

 

[BaiSoSo]

They can do what they like provided its legal... and people are free to comment on what they do. They have claimed that they wanted to be private people, that they left the UK to protect tehmselves and Archie.. So why release photos of him? That is something they can definitely do, which will protect his privacy...and they are no longer working royals so there is no obligioatn to share occasional photos.

Because they want to, why is any othe reason needed? they have that right and it isn't hurting anyone. Why would someone be so upset at the idea they may release a picture of their child?

Yep they left the UK to protect themselves and their child from bullying that doesn't mean they should have to lock themselves up in a home and never be seen or heard from again. Leaving the UK doesn't mean their left their freedom behind....they still have rights and should be able to live life as they see fit.

 

[poppy7]

You are talking about a tour and pregnancy that happened when they were working royals. Yes they had him there. Did I miss them on tour in the recent months presenting Archie? This is where I am lost. What does that have to do with them now? They not doing the same. Heck they didn't even present it the same then and it cause such a huff from people.

And they never claimed they didn't want a public life. Where is that coming from? They mentioned how they planned to interact with certain aspects of the media. In particular not with the royal rota. That is not the same as not wanting a public life.

Celebrating your child is not is not using him as promotion. If that is the case them the royals must be using their little ones as the ultimate PR, which I guess to some that is their only purpose.



Pretty much this. All this just coming across is "How dare they celebrate their child" and it is bizarre.

Yes but that is the life he has had so far. I was talking about to date.

Royal children are born public figures. It is not at all the same.

There is no more need for them to present their.child for public consumption.

It won't stop paparazzi pics and Archie himself is a private person unlike his cousins and could get away with not having to having any public exposure whatsoever.