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

[Betsypaige]

They talk and write about them a lot. They often write quite sympathic articles.

Hadley Freeman has a podcast about the royals on the website at the moment.

Oh really? Ok, I stand corrected..I’ll make a point to read their articles...their reference to the Sussexes as the Windsors was so beautifully subtle, lol. They’ve earned a shot from me!

Yeah they have a real mental health concern about it. They need to block it out.

They don’t even have to go that far - just avoid it. The only way they’d see this stuff is if they seek it out. I get upset easily, so what I try to do - not always successfully, lol - is to avoid anything I know that would upset me. Ignorance is bliss - that saying is the truth. What you don’t know can’t hurt you. They won’t do this, though, because they want to read the GOOD things about them

 

[QueenMathilde]

I don’t read them because they’re Republican, and so obviously anti-BRF

Actually back in the day I used to read their "royalty" site (around 2004) and they had a link to a royal forums site called "The Royal Archives" where you could post that was very pro-British monarchy. They had a lot of young girls who loved William and Harry who used to post a lot and I remember being up late working on a paper and following William's 21st birthday celebration party on it. Can't remember if Kate was there or not. But I don't remember the Guardian being anti-monarchy at the time.


At the time the BBC was pretty anti-monarchy. Later so was Huffington Post. It surprises me that now they're so pro monarchy that they have William and Harry writing articles for them.



As far as social media is concerned I remember they said that the rest of the royal family didn't read tabloids about themselves. This was back in the 90's. Diana however would get really upset reading the articles about herself. That's not so dissimilar as to the social media sites. Just don't read it.

 

[Heavs]

Well I wouldn't exactly say their "pro monarchy" either. Whenever there's a big royal event like a jubilee they often deliberately have some other news on the front page and offer online readers "a royalty free" version. There are some journalists who pop up there who are active members of Republic and write like it or take joy in whining about Trooping or whatever but obviously not all of them by a long shot.

 

[poppy7]

Oh really? Ok, I stand corrected..I’ll make a point to read their articles...their reference to the Sussexes as the Windsors was so beautifully subtle, lol. They’ve earned a shot from me!



They don’t even have to go that far - just avoid it. The only way they’d see this stuff is if they seek it out. I get upset easily, so what I try to do - not always successfully, lol - is to avoid anything I know that would upset me. Ignorance is bliss - that saying is the truth. What you don’t know can’t hurt you. They won’t do this, though, because they want to read the GOOD things about them

She comes from a celebrity background where they think they control their own media. Now I know that isn't a British celebs. But it must be the way it is in America: copy approval on articles, list of non mentionables etc. She probably thought it was the same and now he thinks that is the way life should be.

Well I wouldn't exactly say their "pro monarchy" either. Whenever there's a big royal event like a jubilee they often deliberately have some other news on the front page and offer online readers "a royalty free" version. There are some journalists who pop up there who are active members of Republic and write like it or take joy in whining about Trooping or whatever but obviously not all of them by a long shot.

No but they are not involved in the to royal rota so are not involved in reporting on them persae.

And why not offer a bit of royal free coverage. Not everyone likes the royals. People should have options.

The only thing you can say about the Guardian is that it's left wing.

The sheer amount of online content is vast and diverse.

 

[Curryong]

Article in the Telegraph on Harry's article. It also points out here how the article links in with several of Harry and Meghan's recent endeavours, notably mental health. Also, the recent campaign against Facebook has been having an effect over the last few months with several large companies withdrawing support from Facebook.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/07/prince-harry-says-social-media-stoking-crisis-hate/

 

[Betsypaige]

She comes from a celebrity background where they think they control their own media. Now I know that isn't a British celebs. But it must be the way it is in America: copy approval on articles, list of non mentionables etc. She probably thought it was the same and now he thinks that is the way life should be.

That may be true about the media - I’m not sure because I don’t follow celebrities- but if it is, it wouldn’t have applied to Meghan because she barely qualified as a celebrity. In fact, I would say she wasn’t, she was just a limited actress. Therefore, even if she had anything written about her, she didn’t have the power to control that...

 

[Heavs]

No but they are not involved in the to royal rota so are not involved in reporting on them persae.

And why not offer a bit of royal free coverage. Not everyone likes the royals. People should have options.

The only thing you can say about the Guardian is that it's left wing.

The sheer amount of online content is vast and diverse.

I don't really mind them doing any of that, just pointing out that a lot of their content is deliberately catering to those who don't want any coverage of royal events and/or would support a republic instead, although as others said they do also write neutral to positive articles on actual members of the family.

 

[QueenMathilde]

That may be true about the media - I’m not sure because I don’t follow celebrities- but if it is, it wouldn’t have applied to Meghan because she barely qualified as a celebrity. In fact, I would say she wasn’t, she was just a limited actress. Therefore, even if she had anything written about her, she didn’t have the power to control that...

A lot of tabloid people are saying that Meghan was similar to Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton - she would call them and tell them where she was going to be and then pose for the cameras. That works if you're a Hollywood celebrity but it's completely different for royalty.


My main gripe is with Harry who does know better. But Meghan didn't even give it a chance - she and Harry ran off after only being there for about two years.


Though I suppose Harry would have ran off with Chelsy Davy to Zimbabwe or somewhere else in Africa. The difference is he wouldn't have wanted it both ways - he would have lived his life in private and not been complicit in tell-all books about the queen.

 

[poppy7]

That may be true about the media - I’m not sure because I don’t follow celebrities- but if it is, it wouldn’t have applied to Meghan because she barely qualified as a celebrity. In fact, I would say she wasn’t, she was just a limited actress. Therefore, even if she had anything written about her, she didn’t have the power to control that...

But the big ones do. She saw that and probably thought, who is bigger than the royals.

I don't follow them either but there is a huge difference between British and American coverage.

A lot of tabloid people are saying that Meghan was similar to Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton - she would call them and tell them where she was going to be and then pose for the cameras. That works if you're a Hollywood celebrity but it's completely different for royalty.


My main gripe is with Harry who does know better. But Meghan didn't even give it a chance - she and Harry ran off after only being there for about two years.


Though I suppose Harry would have ran off with Chelsy Davy to Zimbabwe or somewhere else in Africa. The difference is he wouldn't have wanted it both ways - he would have lived his life in private and not been complicit in tell-all books about the queen.

Worked for Diana.

Chelsea works for one of the biggest law firms in London. Her eye was on success but not on getting it through marriage. Know someone who went to u Iver sort either her. Sweet. Academically Intelligent. Ditsy with absolutely no common sense and a bit dumb.

 

[Osipi]

At the end of the day, I'm starting to believe that Harry and Meghan are finding themselves comparable to a vision on a Christmas morning. In the panorama of it all, they remain lumps of coal. As British working royals, they were the pieces of coal that would be found in bright colored stockings that draw the eye immediately and bring chuckles because "Santa left them a lump of coal". Without the royal packaging (the bright stocking that draws the eye), they're still the same lump of coal but find themselves in the coal bin next to the furnace with other lumps of coal.

Even with having the "connection" with the BRF of being The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, the "glitter and glamour" of that association is going wear off quickly like gold plating on a cheap ring wears off and the copper turns the finger green.

The gravitas that shone for Harry and Meghan the most was being part of the institution of the British monarchy and the Royal Family. Jumping on the latest "trend" in what is popular to "stand up for" this week on just their names alone isn't going to cut much mustard. They're just another face in the crowd of many other people vying for attention.

Its sad but its a rude awakening. I do think a lot of it was totally unexpected as no one could have predicated a global pandemic to shut down anythng and everything and turn "normal" life upside down. It may have sounded great when the Sussexes decided to go solo on their own and seemed to work on paper for them but its just not working out as they had planned things to be.

I wish them luck whatever they do going into the future but I don't ever see their gravitas being as it once was.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Fem]

The good old "do as I say, not as I do" attitude comes back here full swing.

Find a sustainable way to travel that's better for the environment, while we'll be taking one private flight after another. Remember that social media is evil, even though we've used it extensively while we wanted to stick one to the british press.

I don't understand why they're not seeing how things like that are making them look, the complete hypocrisy of it all simply baffles me. Don't they have advisors, PR company, that would tell them not to do it, or are they surrounding themselves with "yes people" all the time?

 

[Osipi]

I see it more as jumping on the bandwagon of whatever "cause" is "trendy" at the given moment rather than sticking to something that they have actually sunken their teeth into and believe in such as Harry's dedication to sick, wounded and disabled veterans.

There's a difference between being on the bandwagon spouting platitudes for the latest trends in "being woke" and it reeks of the "flavor of the day" to spout off about rather than something one honestly, truly and altruistically believes in and is passionate about.

That is what makes a huge difference for me at least. The Sussexes just aren't coming across as being altruistic at all. The definition of altruism is "The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value." This is the duty the British Royal Family exudes in buckets with their engagements, causes and incentives they put themselves to highlighting. The Queen is iconic because of her sense of duty to her people.

This is what I believe is missing these days with Harry and Meghan. Striving to make a path for themselves, establish a brand and remain in the forefront of people's mind to actually want to listen to them is not being altruistic in the pure sense of the word. They're more focused on making a path for themselves than actually coming across as seriously believing that they actually really care about what they're doing.

Again, just my opinion.

 

[Mirabel]

Worked for Diana.

Chelsea works for one of the biggest law firms in London. Her eye was on success but not on getting it through marriage. Know someone who went to u Iver sort either her. Sweet. Academically Intelligent. Ditsy with absolutely no common sense and a bit dumb.

She worked there very briefly. Apparently she didn't like practicing law at all.
Then she took up jewelry design.
I'm not sure if she still does that, or if she's given it up by now.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I see it more as jumping on the bandwagon of whatever "cause" is "trendy" at the given moment rather than sticking to something that they have actually sunken their teeth into and believe in such as Harry's dedication to sick, wounded and disabled veterans.

There's a difference between being on the bandwagon spouting platitudes for the latest trends in "being woke" and it reeks of the "flavor of the day" to spout off about rather than something one honestly, truly and altruistically believes in and is passionate about.

That is what makes a huge difference for me at least. The Sussexes just aren't coming across as being altruistic at all. The definition of altruism is "The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value." This is the duty the British Royal Family exudes in buckets with their engagements, causes and incentives they put themselves to highlighting. The Queen is iconic because of her sense of duty to her people.

This is what I believe is missing these days with Harry and Meghan. Striving to make a path for themselves, establish a brand and remain in the forefront of people's mind to actually want to listen to them is not being altruistic in the pure sense of the word. They're more focused on making a path for themselves than actually coming across as seriously believing that they actually really care about what they're doing.

Again, just my opinion.

I would agree with this. I don't want to dislike them but they make it hard for me to have empathy with them. They also have to pick a topic where they don't hate certain groups of people.

 

[Osipi]

Actually, what the Sussexes are experiencing now is the way life goes for most all of us as we head out into the world to stand on our own two feet and make our way in our world. Trial and error and baby steps and failures and foibles and things that go bump in the night that serve as lessons on what *not* to do.

If Harry and Meghan honestly believed they could just walk away from the life they had with the perks and the admiration and the chutzpah they held as working senior royals into a solo life where all of these things followed right behind them, it stands to reason that there'd be disillusionment, unexpected barriers (the pandemic) and sheer disappointment that it didn't go as smoothly as they had hoped it would.

From trial and error though comes growth. It'll be a personal struggle but only they can sink or swim from here on out. Nothing "royal" to fall back on is left.

 

[poppy7]

She worked there very briefly. Apparently she didn't like practicing law at all.
Then she took up jewelry design.
I'm not sure if she still does that, or if she's given it up by now.

Well working there didn't seem a fit for her personality.

 

[Curryong]

Harry has been involved in causes to do with mental health since Heads Together was established, especially in veterans affairs. When has working for mental health and the physical and mental wellbeing of vets for years involved 'hating various groups'.

And Meghan was involved in causes involving women and girls in the US and overseas. Has she ever said she hates males, or anyone else for that matter?

 

[QueenMathilde]

Harry has been involved in causes to do with mental health since Heads Together was established, especially in veterans affairs. When has working for mental health and the physical and mental wellbeing of vets for years involved 'hating various groups'.

And Meghan was involved in causes involving women and girls in the US and overseas. Has she ever said she hates males, or anyone else for that matter?

They've come out in favor of groups that hate other ethnic groups.

 

[Osipi]

Harry has been involved in causes to do with mental health since Heads Together was established, especially in veterans affairs. When has working for mental health and the physical and mental wellbeing of vets for years involved 'hating various groups'.

And Meghan was involved in causes involving women and girls in the US and overseas. Has she ever said she hates males, or anyone else for that matter?

These are the things I believe they should stick with. Its part and parcel of who they are and they're believable when they speak out about these things. Ecologically friendly travel and Facebook/social media are the causes that I think they're just jumping on the bandwagon about.

Its wise to stick with what you know rather than take on a bunch of other little things that are half baked and they come off as not too well informed or give the allusion of being hypocritical about.

ETA: should have quoted Curryong as its her I was responding to. Fixing the problem now.

 

[Missjersey]

These are the things I believe they should stick with. Its part and parcel of who they are and they're believable when they speak out about these things. Ecologically friendly travel and Facebook/social media are the causes that I think they're just jumping on the bandwagon about.

Its wise to stick with what you know rather than take on a bunch of other little things that are half baked and they come off as not too well informed or give the allusion of being hypocritical about.

Not disagreeing...any bandwagon will do it seems for their incessant need for attention. It reeks.

 

[Curryong]

'Incessant need for attention'? How many times have Harry and Meghan been online for various causes or seen out helping distribute food etc, since leaving for Canada the last time. Must be all of a dozen times. My, what publicity hogs!

 

[Missjersey]

No disrespect Curryong...but I would say definite publicity hogs, IMO, that’s one of the reasons they left. They seem, to me, to want to be front and center.

We just have different opinions that’s all.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Time will tell. We'll see what they do from here on out. I think they're better off outside the royal family not using their titles. But I don't like them bashing the royal family who I think treated them pretty well - they're a weird family and they went out of their way to be nice to Meghan.

 

[Leopoldine]

Word Salad was the term I was searching for, thank you. Yes, many royals would be in the same boat without their titles to open doors.

Word Salad is right. Throw in a big handful of "compassions", two mentions of "experts", a "thrive", a brace of "inclusiveness", and a liberal sprinkling of "community". Top it off with a big "trust" cherry tomato.

 

[Mbruno]

The Guardian called them Meghan and Harry Windsor in their article. Made me laugh.

The Guardian is a republican paper, so no real surprise here.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Could be worse. They could have called them Harry and Meghan Markle. I remember William and Kate being called Kate and Billy Middleton in an article awhile back. The readers of the Daily Mail call them that in the comments so I think that's where it came from.

 

[yukari]

These are the things I believe they should stick with. Its part and parcel of who they are and they're believable when they speak out about these things. Ecologically friendly travel and Facebook/social media are the causes that I think they're just jumping on the bandwagon about.

Its wise to stick with what you know rather than take on a bunch of other little things that are half baked and they come off as not too well informed or give the allusion of being hypocritical about.

But that's what many of public figures often do, right? Even royals "traditionally" (in the past) do their "charity" in that certain way. I mean, cutting ribbon in a new hospital without the needs to be involved in the building process nor the future development, or attenting premier of a film without being part of the production. It's in the name of "bringing spotlight to the said cause(s)". It doesn't differ that much from how they (or their IG account) followed different charity organisations every months. Harry basically just does what he knows from his royal life, so let's just say he's still learning or finding his footing.

But then again, just like when you sorting through a pile of CVs of applicants, you'll find two types of candidates: ones who built up their career from bottom to top by dedicating their work in one company, and the others are ones who climb the position by jumping from one company to the other.

I've been volunteering in a non-profit organisation for awhile and honestly, I'm more impressed with someone who's worked at one organisation for 5 years than one who were at 20 different organisations in 5 years for not more than few months each. Because I think for charity or non-profit, it's about continuity instead one time spotlight and gone.

 

[Betsypaige]

A lot of tabloid people are saying that Meghan was similar to Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton - she would call them and tell them where she was going to be and then pose for the cameras. That works if you're a Hollywood celebrity but it's completely different for royalty.


My main gripe is with Harry who does know better. But Meghan didn't even give it a chance - she and Harry ran off after only being there for about two years.


Though I suppose Harry would have ran off with Chelsy Davy to Zimbabwe or somewhere else in Africa. The difference is he wouldn't have wanted it both ways - he would have lived his life in private and not been complicit in tell-all books about the queen.

Good lord, the woman was a second rate actress on a nothing show that few people followed; I wonder how many paparazzi would actually have been interested in her?

Harry and Meghan gave it less than a year and a half as they clearly started plotting their leave before January. They are both ridiculous for different and the same reasons. I wonder if he deliberately didn’t prepare her properly because he didn’t want to scare her off (his other long term relationships ended because the women ultimately didn’t want to live that life).

About your last point....but he didn’t, and I assume he didn’t bring it up to Chelsy since obviously she broke it off. If H was so despairing if this lifestyle, why didn’t he just quit when he was single?

 

[Betsypaige]

The good old "do as I say, not as I do" attitude comes back here full swing.

Find a sustainable way to travel that's better for the environment, while we'll be taking one private flight after another. Remember that social media is evil, even though we've used it extensively while we wanted to stick one to the british press.

I don't understand why they're not seeing how things like that are making them look, the complete hypocrisy of it all simply baffles me. Don't they have advisors, PR company, that would tell them not to do it, or are they surrounding themselves with "yes people" all the time?

You answered your own question; they don’t like to be told “no”, they don’t want to hear from anyone who has even an iota of concern for them and their actions. They surround themselves with YES people who tell them how great they are and who do whatever they want. H and M live in their own version of reality, so no, they don’t see how they look.

Osipi:

This is what I believe is missing these days with Harry and Meghan. Striving to make a path for themselves, establish a brand and remain in the forefront of people's mind to actually want to listen to them is not being altruistic in the pure sense of the word. They're more focused on making a path for themselves than actually coming across as seriously believing that they actually really care about what they're doing.

I couldn’t agree more. They want to market themselves - Sussex Royal, which is now defunct of course. They wanted their brand on stationary, towels, etc... - on items that people would bring into their homes. They are producers, with their names on some sort of film in conjunction with Oprah. Harry and Meghan are business people, and while it’s cynical of me to say this, I’m sure some of the reason for their outspokenness on the topic du jour is so they look good. Well, they look like fools.

 

[Osipi]

But that's what many of public figures often do, right? Even royals "traditionally" (in the past) do their "charity" in that certain way. I mean, cutting ribbon in a new hospital without the needs to be involved in the building process nor the future development, or attenting premier of a film without being part of the production. It's in the name of "bringing spotlight to the said cause(s)". It doesn't differ that much from how they (or their IG account) followed different charity organisations every months. Harry basically just does what he knows from his royal life, so let's just say he's still learning or finding his footing.

That's just it. The royal engagements and duties are to highlight specific causes and incentives and specifically, focusing the attention on what that specific organization is about and how they serve the people. The royals are "highlighting" and "calling attention" to these incentives but they rarely (if ever) stand up and make a public speech that includes their own opinions and points of view. As a royal, Harry could stand up and be a voice for veteran's services that deal in mental health issues they face but he couldn't specifically say one way or the other just how it would be done. It is up to the organization that he's patronizing to do that.

Speaking out about getting CEOs to boycott Facebook because of a specific issue is giving his opinion on what should be done to reform social media. In this case, Facebook. He's inserting himself personally on one side of an issue instead of just raising awareness that there's a problem with Facebook/social media. The same thing with standing up and proselytizing about ecological and protective travel on one hand and on the other hand, be shown to *not* be practicing what he preaches kind of blows the whole thing totally out of the water and he's not taken too seriously at all. Harry and Meghan going out on their own to aid and support causes getting supplies and help for people in need because of the pandemic is a good aspect of what they're doing. They're just providing a service to others and not standing up there telling everybody else how to get out there and do it.

Actions speak louder than words a lot of times. There's been a lot of words with not a lot of action to back them up. Consistency is the name of the game if you want to be taken seriously.