Netflix Docu-Series of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (2022)

[tommy100]

The fact that Meghan appears to have been, as you said, documenting everything since she first met Harry, is actually what now to me raises suspicions about what her intentions have been all along. Especially against the background that she said as a teen, per her own Netflix documentary, that she wanted to "be rich and famous and tell her story" to the world.

Maybe it is just her Southern California, Hollywood culture and I would not go as far as saying that she had an "evil plan" from the beginning to use the Royal Family to power up her status as a celebrity, especially in North America, and monetize her fame, but I am increasingly arriving at a conclusion that she had some misguided expectations about what being a princess would be like, and, when she realized that the reality was different from what she had anticipated, she came up with a Plan B, which was the "half-in, half-out" model. When the RF didn't go along with the latter, she then got out to rebuild her life in California, which seems to have worked out very well for her, but maybe not so much for Harry.

Of course that is not the official version of how her story will be told on Netflix and elsewhere. Instead she will present it as an issue of racism, mental health, and not feeling safe in general, which are matters to be taken seriously (if true) , but which do not square well with the original "half-in, half-out" plan. I still want to hear her case further in Part 2 of the Netflix docu-series though before I reach a final verdict.

This bolded part is the biggest red flag of all to me and I imagine it was to the RF as well. That she seems to record every vaguely important moment in her life on her camera, through pictures etc will have caused alarm I imagine. Especially as she was still relatively unknown by most members of the RF.

Even trying to be charitable there is no way those video recordings they made during "Megxit" of their own phones were ever going to be just for them and their personal memories years from now.

 

[Curryong]

David Alusoga speaks about his role as ‘talking head’ in the Documentary.

From The Guardian

What was quietly and purposefully revelatory about the documentary went largely uncommented upon. The more open-minded of the 2.4 million people who clicked through to the first episode experienced a simple but central revelation: they heard the voices of a young woman of colour and her husband, who have been subjected of an unprecedented campaign of abuse and vilification, telling us what that all felt like.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ry-has-hit-the-raw-nerve-of-tabloid-prejudice


As I appear as one of its talking-head interviewees, I have found the past few days revelatory in a different way. Being caught in the series’ blowback is to be shown – in bleak and granular detail – how a six-year campaign of tabloid abuse has left huge numbers of otherwise reasonable people both obsessed with and contemptuous towards a young couple they have never met.
My Twitter feed is rarely pretty, but recent days have been particularly unappealing; a primordial soup of defensiveness, racism, misogyny, jingoism and whataboutery, garnished yesterday with an antisemitic conspiracy theory, as the documentary’s producer comes from a Jewish family.

 

[soapstar]

A review of the docuseries

Indeed, what we learn from “Harry & Meghan” is that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are less interested in staying out of the spotlight than in staying in complete control of how that spotlight makes them look. But, well, that’s just not how celebrity works.

Which is just one reason “Harry & Meghan” is a royal disappointment. The couple quit the family because they didn’t want the attention. But, very clearly, what they didn’t want was the negative attention, or any criticism whatsoever — a very primitive (and, ironically, very royal) attitude. In life — in real life — there is no good without the bad. The production, then, is an effort not to be revealing in an honest and genuine way, to reveal “the full truth” that “no one knows” — as Harry says in the film’s opening few minutes — but to drum up sympathy for themselves. Indeed, when asked why she wanted to make this documentary, Meghan answers, “When you feel like people haven’t gotten any sense of who you are for so long, it’s really nice to just be able to have the opportunity to let people have a bit more of a glimpse into what’s happened and also who we are.”

But who’s to say that people haven’t gotten a glimpse of who they are? What makes their version — a heavily produced, edited and controlled version — more honest than any version of their lives that’s come before?

Source: CNN

Roya Nikkhah from The Times discussed some of the inconsistencies in the first 3 episodes.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1601936560026398720

 

[Erin9]

David Alusoga speaks about his role as ‘talking head’ in the Documentary.

From The Guardian

What was quietly and purposefully revelatory about the documentary went largely uncommented upon. The more open-minded of the 2.4 million people who clicked through to the first episode experienced a simple but central revelation: they heard the voices of a young woman of colour and her husband, who have been subjected of an unprecedented campaign of abuse and vilification, telling us what that all felt like.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ry-has-hit-the-raw-nerve-of-tabloid-prejudice


As I appear as one of its talking-head interviewees, I have found the past few days revelatory in a different way. Being caught in the series’ blowback is to be shown – in bleak and granular detail – how a six-year campaign of tabloid abuse has left huge numbers of otherwise reasonable people both obsessed with and contemptuous towards a young couple they have never met.
My Twitter feed is rarely pretty, but recent days have been particularly unappealing; a primordial soup of defensiveness, racism, misogyny, jingoism and whataboutery, garnished yesterday with an antisemitic conspiracy theory, as the documentary’s producer comes from a Jewish family.

I find his tone condescending.

Open minded people will see the Sussexes the way he does, the way the Sussexes want me to see them, the way this obviously biased whatever-this- is wants me to see then. No other opinion is viable.

Here’s a thought: if the Sussexes want to avoid some criticism, it might help to stop talking and re- telling and changing their story over and over. Move forward instead of backwards. It’s been 3 years.

It’s like they think if they tell it enough times in just the “right” way everyone will agree that they are 100% the victims, they never made a mistake, told a lie, embellished a story, said anything unkind….

Though, in this case, I’m sure the money factored into their desire to tell their story- in more detail- again.

 

[camelot23ca]

The Times had a very good article today which explored this (amongst other things). It revealed that actually Meghan was given lots of information and sign posted to people to help her.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/what-the-palace-made-of-harry-and-meghans-truth-bnxb0pmrl

Harry says he “could talk her through as much as I knew, but the piece I really didn’t know about was the style, how a woman needed to dress”. He says the lack of support was “ridiculous”.

It’s “a total lie,” said a well-placed royal source. “There was prep for everything, walkabouts — even though she was engaged to someone who’d done hundreds of them — clothes, everything. The level of support was intense.”

It can also be revealed that six months before the couple married in May 2018, Harry’s then private secretary, Ed Lane Fox, known as “Elf”, presented Meghan with a 30-point dossier, studiously researched, brimming with information and contacts for the life she was taking on. It covered fashion, the royal family and the constitution, the institution’s heads of department, ladies-in-waiting, arts in the UK, the Charity Commission and public life. Each section suggested an expert who could help Meghan.

“It was huge, the amount of work Elf put into getting her access to anyone, and he gave her books on the stuff,” a source said. It is understood that Meghan took up just two meetings with the suggested experts, one with Sir Christopher Geidt [now Lord Geidt], the late Queen’s private secretary, and another with a “very well-connected, trusted fashion person” for advice on clothes.

We also know the Queen suggested Sophie Wessex as a mentor for Meghan but this offer was rejected. HM also sent her Equerry at the time (who was also a man of colour) Lieutenant Colonel Nana Kofi Twumasi-Ankrah to help and her most senior lady in waiting Lady Susan Hussey (I'm not getting into that debate at all here) but again, both were asked very little or used in any way.

All the signs indicated Meghan didn't take the very many different forms of help offered but now they are saying she wasn't given any.

I've always found the idea that Meghan was left without help absurd. OF COURSE help would have been offered at every step of the way, with experts on every conceivable area of interest to her in her new role ready and willing to share their knowledge with her. There was no resource in the UK she couldn't have accessed, and she wouldn't have had to lift a finger to set anything up because she had a team of experienced professionals who could do that for her. She just had to show up.
The Royal Family expected Meghan to be a full time working royal as well as the eventual daughter in law of the King. Any obvious gaps in her knowledge, or signs of unhappiness would reflect poorly on the BRF and their staff. They weren't going to let her stumble for that reason alone.

 

[Curryong]

Meghan didn’t say ‘I was never given any assistance or advice’ in the documentary. She just stated that there is no school there to tell you what to do. She was a foreigner in a new country and everything, Harry’s family, the surroundings, the Court, the way of life, was all new.

Diana was English and aristocratic but also later complained that she was not given help and advice. So they both felt isolated. And sometimes it’s the way advice is offered not the advice itself that can be off-putting.

Maybe a military officer, even one of colour, and an elderly English aristocrat like Lady Susan Hussey wasn’t the right choice to ‘help’ a new youngish family member. A similar quite elderly aristocrat was chosen to assist Diana and that didn’t work.

Meghan did strike a chord with Sir Christopher and did speak to the fashion expert so she was willing to learn. It’s just that perhaps some of the teachers were remote or, God Forbid, not particularly welcoming to her.

 

[Heavs]

The thing about the Sussexes is that they have never, ever admitted any kind of fault. Not even "we could have handled that better."

 

[Curryong]

The thing about the Sussexes is that they have never, ever admitted any kind of fault. Not even "we could have handled that better."

And the courtiers, aides etc at Buckingham and Kensington Palaces have admitted that on their part they could have done better where Meghan, or even where Diana was concerned?

I’ve never read of any named courtier who has come out and actually said so in the last four decades or so.

 

[Ghost]

And the courtiers, aides etc at Buckingham and Kensington Palaces have admitted that on their part they could have done better where Meghan, or even where Diana was concerned?

I’ve never read of any named courtier who has come out and actually said so in the last four decades or so.

Those people never accused anyone that a mistake was the fault of any of the principals. Actually, on many occasions they take the blame for their principals.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, they do. And on other occasions stories come out in the Press about the principals’ temper, flakiness, unreasonable and entitled behaviour, which may or may not be true, and just might be part of courtiers’ agenda.

All I’m saying is that Courtiers and or aides aren’t perfect people, completely unsnobbish, and incapable of lying or self-justifying and vindictive behaviour at any time. We don’t know the truth of all or any these situations as we haven’t worked at any of the Palaces and seen it for ourselves.

 

[FigTree]

Yes, they do. And on other occasions stories come out in the Press about the principals’ temper, flakiness, unreasonable and entitled behaviour, which may or may not be true, and just might be part of courtiers’ agenda.

All I’m saying is that Courtiers and or aides aren’t perfect people, completely unsnobbish, and incapable of lying or self-justifying and vindictive behaviour at any time. We don’t know the truth of all or any these situations as we haven’t worked at any of the Palaces and seen it for ourselves.

They are just people with a job. I don’t think this is some agenda driven vendetta. In any case, so far, they haven’t come in for much criticism apart from the passive aggressive idea that they were a ‘small’ team and basically unprepared and unable to cope with the Meghan family issues. Which was what was said about Nottingham Cottage - way too small and pokey.

Nothing about this differs from the overall impression Meghan gives of the royal world being underwhelming, under rich, smaller. She had buyers remorse. It wasn’t what she thought.

In any case they don’t seem to be able to keep staff now and are running things themselves. How’s that for small.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Meghan didn’t say ‘I was never given any assistance or advice’ in the documentary. She just stated that there is no school there to tell you what to do. She was a foreigner in a new country and everything, Harry’s family, the surroundings, the Court, the way of life, was all new.

Diana was English and aristocratic but also later complained that she was not given help and advice. So they both felt isolated. And sometimes it’s the way advice is offered not the advice itself that can be off-putting.

Maybe a military officer, even one of colour, and an elderly English aristocrat like Lady Susan Hussey wasn’t the right choice to ‘help’ a new youngish family member. A similar quite elderly aristocrat was chosen to assist Diana and that didn’t work.

Meghan did strike a chord with Sir Christopher and did speak to the fashion expert so she was willing to learn. It’s just that perhaps some of the teachers were remote or, God Forbid, not particularly welcoming to her.

Obviously there’s no such thing as Princess school, the closest thing to that would be a finishing school and that wouldn’t have been necessary. The best way to get guidance was to get it from staff who worked in the palace, people like Melissa Toubaiti and Samantha Cohen where there to help her. Both Diana and Meghan are adults, at the end of the day, you can only advise someone and hope you take your advice, if they don’t heed it, it’s on them for not listening.

How was Lady Susan Hussey not a good mentor to Meghan or Diana? If they got sensible advice and didn’t take it, that’s on them for not following.

 

[victor1319]

Here’s a thought: if the Sussexes want to avoid some criticism, it might help to stop talking and re- telling and changing their story over and over. Move forward instead of backwards. It’s been 3 years.

Yeah! But of course I wonder. what they could tell other than about their short adventure, they had together in the UK...

To shift the gears here: So, I am binge watching "Game of Thrones" right now. Is it worth to interrupt this, to watch "Harry & Meghan"? I mean, Jaime Lannister just has lost his right hand... So, I am asking myself, if I am missing something, if I just read the commentaries here in the Royal Forums.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Yes, they do. And on other occasions stories come out in the Press about the principals’ temper, flakiness, unreasonable and entitled behaviour, which may or may not be true, and just might be part of courtiers’ agenda.

All I’m saying is that Courtiers and or aides aren’t perfect people, completely unsnobbish, and incapable of lying or self-justifying and vindictive behaviour at any time. We don’t know the truth of all or any these situations as we haven’t worked at any of the Palaces and seen it for ourselves.

No one believes courtiers are perfect, but that doesn’t exempt the Sussexes from all their silly mistakes they have made since they were working royals and life post-royal duties in USA. If journalists witness these things about royals being rude to staff, then the issue is the principal not the staff, courtiers don’t need an agenda when journalists are privy to the rude behavior so you trying to give the Sussexes a pass doesn’t justify anything. Deflecting that courtiers have made mistakes or been troublesome wont justify or exempt the Sussexes messiness and questionable behavior.

 

[JR76]

A similar quite elderly aristocrat was chosen to assist Diana and that didn’t work.

That "quite elderly" aristocrat was the 42 year old Susan Hussey. To quote an interview the Mountbatten sisters did with Vanity fair in 2013:- “She made everybody believe she’d been thrown to the wolves. Such nonsense! She was given the Queen’s favorite lady-in-waiting, Sue Hussey, to help her, to teach her. But she didn’t want to be told anything. ‘That’s boring, Sue,’ she’d say. Instead, she wanted to listen to her music and go disco-ing or to some jive concert. She didn’t try. She had no need to try because she saw the people admired her, then they admired her more. She reckoned she was the star."


https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2013/09/princess-diana-discoing-mountbatten-memoir

 

[FigTree]

That "quite elderly" aristocrat was the 42 year old Susan Hussey. To quote an interview the Mountbatten sisters did with Vanity fair in 2013:- “She made everybody believe she’d been thrown to the wolves. Such nonsense! She was given the Queen’s favorite lady-in-waiting, Sue Hussey, to help her, to teach her. But she didn’t want to be told anything. ‘That’s boring, Sue,’ she’d say. Instead, she wanted to listen to her music and go disco-ing or to some jive concert. She didn’t try. She had no need to try because she saw the people admired her, then they admired her more. She reckoned she was the star."


https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2013/09/princess-diana-discoing-mountbatten-memoir

She was 19. Of course she wanted to do those things. What's Meghan's excuse? Unless we do believe they didn't offer one bit of help.

 

[Curryong]

That "quite elderly" aristocrat was the 42 year old Susan Hussey. To quote an interview the Mountbatten sisters did with Vanity fair in 2013:- “She made everybody believe she’d been thrown to the wolves. Such nonsense! She was given the Queen’s favorite lady-in-waiting, Sue Hussey, to help her, to teach her. But she didn’t want to be told anything. ‘That’s boring, Sue,’ she’d say. Instead, she wanted to listen to her music and go disco-ing or to some jive concert. She didn’t try. She had no need to try because she saw the people admired her, then they admired her more. She reckoned she was the star."


https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2013/09/princess-diana-discoing-mountbatten-memoir

Yes but didn’t the Mountbatten sisters give quite a spikey interview about when Charles took Diana to visit them and, according to them, she ordered Charles to grab her handbag for her so she could show them her ring which was inside the bag?
I remember a similar interview they gave on TV which was quite disapproving of her ‘bossiness on that occasion’.

Plus, when did Diana ever go to discos or ‘jive concerts’ (whatever they are) during her engagement, or afterwards? So Diana may well not have met with their approval anyway.

And my memory may be failing me here but I thought there was another senior Lady in Waiting also sent by the Queen to teach Diana Court protocol, an older person. I’ll have to look it up.

 

[Moran]

Meghan is the queen of saying "Poor little defenseless me, poor little lamb, no one wanted to teach me, I was left unprotected, unwelcome, unloved because they all hate me" without literally saying it. She kept reiterating how unprepared she was, how no one prepared her how to sing the national anthem, how no one taught her how to curtsey and how there was no princess school. At this point, her loyal husband chimes in, claiming that the RF was envious of her unparallelled success. The implication is clear: they all wanted her to fail, they failed her deliberately. It doesn't matter if she didn't say she wasn't given the options to learn in other ways but a princess school, it's that she never mentioned such options existed. It was clearly calculated, intended to make her look the poor victim again. Claiming anything else is splitting hairs. Just like Harry's financial year clarification when he was caught red-handed in his claim that Charles left his poor little four, err, forty-year-old without any money to buy milk.

 

[JR76]

Yes but didn’t the Mountbatten sisters give quite a spikey interview about when Charles took Diana to visit them and, according to them, she ordered Charles to grab her handbag for her so she could show them her ring which was inside the bag?
I remember a similar interview they gave on TV which was quite disapproving of her ‘bossiness on that occasion’.

Plus, when did Diana ever go to discos or ‘jive concerts’ (whatever they are) during her engagement, or afterwards? So Diana may well not have met with their approval anyway.

And my memory may be failing me here but I thought there was another senior Lady in Waiting also sent by the Queen to teach Diana Court protocol, an older person. I’ll have to look it up.

The Mountbatten sisters aren't the most unbiased source of information about the royal family, but I don't see them as making things up. That said, they were of a generation where you did your duty without complaining so a future queen complaining about her life wouldn't have gone down well with them.

Diana did go to concerts and nightclubs. Both in her official role, but also unofficially. Classical concerts and "jive" concerts. (Can you not laugh when reading that expression?!) There are for instance the time she was dressed up as a man by Freddie Mercury and his friends and went with them to the Royal Victoria Tavern and managed to stay for quite a while before people started recognising her.

Edit - Royal Vauxhall Tavern not Royal Victoria Tavern.

 

[Denville]

The Mountbatten sisters aren't the most unbiased source of information about the royal family, but I don't see them as making things up. That said, they were of a generation where you did your duty without complaining so a future queen complaining about her life wouldn't have gone down well with them.

Diana did go to concerts and nightclubs. Both in her official role, but also unofficially. Classical concerts and "jive" concerts. (Can you not laugh when reading that expression?!) There are for instance the time she was dressed up as a man by Freddie Mercury and his friends and went with them to the Royal Victoria Tavern and managed to stay for quite a while before people started recognising her.

I dont think that the story about Fred Mercury is true. And I dobut if Diana went out much during her engagement time, but I can see the Mountbatten sisters thinking that she "wanted to go to jive concerts rather than to learn how to be a princess".. the very word shows the age gap.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Another thing that many people haven’t realized is that a person in the documentary by the name of Christopher Bouzy has been saying nasty things about Kate and William on Twitter. How these two have fans still is beyond ne

 

[Denville]

Yes but didn’t the Mountbatten sisters give quite a spikey interview about when Charles took Diana to visit them and, according to them, she ordered Charles to grab her handbag for her so she could show them her ring which was inside the bag?
I remember a similar interview they gave on TV which was quite disapproving of her ‘bossiness on that occasion’.

Plus, when did Diana ever go to discos or ‘jive concerts’ (whatever they are) during her engagement, or afterwards? So Diana may well not have met with their approval anyway.

And my memory may be failing me here but I thought there was another senior Lady in Waiting also sent by the Queen to teach Diana Court protocol, an older person. I’ll have to look it up.

She might not have gone out that much during her engagement, but she certianly did go to discoes and clubs later on. She also went to pop concerts with and without Charles.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Meghan is the queen of saying "Poor little defenseless me, poor little lamb, no one wanted to teach me, I was left unprotected, unwelcome, unloved because they all hate me" without literally saying it. She kept reiterating how unprepared she was, how no one prepared her how to sing the national anthem, how no one taught her how to curtsey and how there was no princess school. At this point, her loyal husband chimes in, claiming that the RF was envious of her unparallelled success. The implication is clear: they all wanted her to fail, they failed her deliberately. It doesn't matter if she didn't say she wasn't given the options to learn in other ways but a princess school, it's that she never mentioned such options existed. It was clearly calculated, intended to make her look the poor victim again. Claiming anything else is splitting hairs. Just like Harry's financial year clarification when he was caught red-handed in his claim that Charles left his poor little four, err, forty-year-old without any money to buy milk.

they always do this, try to play innocent and people forget that Harry said he was embarrassed or ashamed to help her in a previous interview. These two like creating so much revisionist history, it’s funny to see them peddling something else.

 

[Queen Claude]

Both Diana and Meghan were desperate to become part of the British Royal Family IMO, and in Meghan's case, Harry was desperate to marry her.

If multiple people were assigned the assist Diana and Meghan, and both of them found that most of "the help" they were given did not fit their values and way of doing things, should that not be an indicator of the institution that they were so desperate to attach themselves to?

In Meghan's case, she was attaching herself to an institution that was over 1000 years old, in a foreign land, and moreover was headed by a woman in her 90s. And on top of that you have the British media and social media to contend with.

Of course The Queen could not control the British media and social media, but she is the one for whom the culture and norms are centered around, so if the environment was too formal, stale or whatever, that is the reason why, and that was not going to change until she passed away and the next guy in line was in his 70s. My point is that if this multi-point dossier was put together and most if not all the people noted in the dossier were inadequate in some way, that was more of a reflection of the incompatibility of the institution Meghan was marrying into.

If Meghan's desperation to marry Harry and become a working royal, and my understanding is that she had the option of not becoming a working royal, then so be it. But if that was the case, then she should have been willing to work within the existing environment, or alternatively, if she, along with Harry, thought that they could forge their own path, then they should have had the self-awareness to know that taking that approach often is not easy and that tensions, if not outright, clashes with institutional stalwarts are inevitable.

To me it is a misrepresentation to claim you did not get help when assistance was offered but rejected or not even pursued.

P.S.
It should also be noted that at the time of her engagement and wedding, that Meghan was part of the Kensington Palace organization which has been labeled as much less formal than Buckingham Palace and Clarence House. Interestingly, it seems like when Edward Lane Fox, who was part of KP, put together the dossier, he was able to offer up Buckingham Palace resources which suggests to me that the Queen was tapped into since her most senior lady in waiting, her equerry and her former private secretary were offered as resources.

 

[JR76]

I dont think that the story about Fred Mercury is true. And I dobut if Diana went out much during her engagement time, but I can see the Mountbatten sisters thinking that she "wanted to go to jive concerts rather than to learn how to be a princess".. the very word shows the age gap.

I know people (through social media) that work at the RVT and say that it was quite obvious to the staff who she was, but that for the short while the group were there she went unnoticed by the other guests.

Edit - it's the Royal Vauxhall Tavern not the Royal Victoria Tavern that I wrote in my previous post.

 

[Denville]

I know people (through social media) that work at the RVT and say that it was quite obvious to the staff who she was, but that for the short while the group were there she went unnoticed by the other guests.

Edit - it's the Royal Vauxhall Tavern not the Royal Victoria Tavern that I wrote in my previous post.

I read somewhere recnetly (Sorry I cant remember where) that the story wasnt true, that Freddy had met her at some charity do but they did not go out together. Diana did go to Ronnie Scotts, with Hasnat Khan. And she certainly enjoyed going out with her friends to clubs and concerts, when she was a little older. However I dont think she was going out much during her engagement nor in the first year or 2 of marriage.

 

[JR76]

I read somewhere recnetly (Sorry I cant remember where) that the story wasnt true, that Freddy had met her at some charity do but they did not go out together. Diana did go to Ronnie Scotts, with Hasnat Khan.

Was Ronnie Scotts also a night club?

 

[AC21091968]

Another thing that many people haven’t realized is that a person in the documentary by the name of Christopher Bouzy has been saying nasty things about Kate and William on Twitter. How these two have fans still is beyond ne

The hypocrisy of Christopher Bouzy being the founder and CEO of Bot Sentinel that "combat disinformation and harassment online" is both astounding and unsurprising. Some of the tweets towards The Prince and Princess of Wales were absolute crass, vile and ironically dragging race into it. Bouzy himself is sued by Youtuber lawyer, Nate the Lawyer, for defamation. Bot Sentinel is also involved in Amber Heard's defence team.

Who is Christopher Bouzy in the Harry and Meghan Netflix trailer?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...he-harry-and-meghan-netflix-trailer-8cwqvljmw
Archive link: https://archive.vn/GdUWV

Does THIS Key Player Give Us The Biggest Clue About What Part 2 Will Discuss?
https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/in-t...-bouzy-harry-and-meghan-defender-documentary/

 

[Marengo]

I suppose the problem is not the jive concerts. Most people of 19 are studying long hours and most of them manage to spend a lot of hours on their study and also a lot of hours on going to 'jive concerts' (delightful term indeed).

I don't understand why an older educator is per definition a problem. Aren't most educators older than their students?

The argument about lack of support gets a bit undermined if the main example is that you had to google the lyrics of the national anthem yourself. It is something that can be done within a few seconds. The struggle with learning the lyrics seems rather curious as the Duchess is an intelligent person & an actress who is used to learning lines. These anthems tend to be simple and short. For me it was not one of the more relatable parts of this documentary or of the Oprah interview.

We have read in various articles and books that a lot of support was offered. We have read that Meghan declined much of the support. It will be interesting to see if in the next episodes the couple will elaborate and reflect on the validity of these reports and the reasons for the Duchess' supposed hesitations with the help that was offered. For now we have not heard anything on that.

 

[Denville]

Was Ronnie Scotts also a night club?

it is a very famous jazz club. Khan took Diana there.