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

[Iluvbertie]

Charles can't strip the peerage titles.

That will take an Act of Parliament and the only reason that a peer has ever been stripped of his title was treason.

Sorry their words do no constitute treason under the actual treason act which has specified actions e.g. has Harry slept with Camilla or Catherine (but only since 8th September, 2022 when she became the wife of the heir to the throne)? has he joined an army at war with Britain? has he actually advocated overthrowing Charles or preventing William or George from succeeding to the throne? has he killed specific officers of the crown such as the Lord Chamberlain?

If he hasn't done any of the above then he hasn't committed treason. As treason is the only reason a peer has ever been stripped of their title then he hasn't done anything that warrants having his titles removed.

Even if the proposed bill to return to Charles the power to strip peerage titles (which will have its second reading on the 24th March - was supposed to be 9th December but they run out of time so it was put off until then does become law there is no guarantee that Charles would follow through anyway. As this bill doesn't have the support of the government, or the King, it probably won't pass anyway. Private Member's bills rarely become law. Most don't get past the second reading state, if they even get that far.

 

[sophie25]

Charles can't strip the peerage titles.

That will take an Act of Parliament and the only reason that a peer has ever been stripped of his title was treason.

Sorry their words do no constitute treason under the actual treason act which has specified actions e.g. has Harry slept with Camilla or Catherine (but only since 8th September, 2022 when she became the wife of the heir to the throne)? has he joined an army at war with Britain? has he actually advocated overthrowing Charles or preventing William or George from succeeding to the throne? has he killed specific officers of the crown such as the Lord Chamberlain?

If he hasn't done any of the above then he hasn't committed treason. As treason is the only reason a peer has ever been stripped of their title then he hasn't done anything that warrants having his titles removed.

Even if the proposed bill to return to Charles the power to strip peerage titles (which will have its second reading on the 24th March - was supposed to be 9th December but they run out of time so it was put off until then does become law there is no guarantee that Charles would follow through anyway. As this bill doesn't have the support of the government, or the King, it probably won't pass anyway. Private Member's bills rarely become law. Most don't get past the second reading state, if they even get that far.

I didn't say treason I said they have grossly insulted a large part of the British public so we now look to our King to do something about them, it's as simple as that.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I didn't say treason I said they have grossly insulted a large part of the British public so we now look to our King to do something about them, it's as simple as that.

You said if Charles doesn't strip them of their titles IMMEDIATELY

I replied, explaining why he can't 'strip them of their titles'.

a) he doesn't have the power - only parliament can strip a peerage title

b) the only reason parliament has ever stripped a peer of their peerage title has been for treason.

As Harry hasn't committed treason there is no reason for parliament to waste time on a bill to strip them of their titles.

Bad mouthing a country isn't a good enough reason, as it isn't treason, to remove titles from anyone.

Stripping them would only feed into their 'victim' narrative anyway.

Charles also has a lot of precedence on how to handle things.

1936 George VI made it clear that Edward VIII, after the abdication, was still the son of a Sovereign and so was always going to be HRH The Prince Edward. That would mean that, unless Charles III wants to say his grandfather was wrong, Harry, if stripped of a peerage title by parliament, would still be HRH The Prince Henry and Meghan HRH The Princess Henry (imagine how quickly she would turn that into HRH The Princess Meghan, especially amongst the non-royal followers who don't understand how these titles actually work.)

 

[assia]

You said if Charles doesn't strip them of their titles IMMEDIATELY



I replied, explaining why he can't 'strip them of their titles'.



a) he doesn't have the power - only parliament can strip a peerage title



b) the only reason parliament has ever stripped a peer of their peerage title has been for treason.



As Harry hasn't committed treason there is no reason for parliament to waste time on a bill to strip them of their titles.



Bad mouthing a country isn't a good enough reason, as it isn't treason, to remove titles from anyone.



Stripping them would only feed into their 'victim' narrative anyway.



Charles also has a lot of precedence on how to handle things.



1936 George VI made it clear that Edward VIII, after the abdication, was still the son of a Sovereign and so was always going to be HRH The Prince Edward. That would mean that, unless Charles III wants to say his grandfather was wrong, Harry, if stripped of a peerage title by parliament, would still be HRH The Prince Henry and Meghan HRH The Princess Henry (imagine how quickly she would turn that into HRH The Princess Meghan, especially amongst the non-royal followers who don't understand how these titles actually work.)

I have watched the 2 first parts so far , it’s long and long and boring and the dramatic music doesn’t help. I still can’t understand how 2 persons supposedly so fiercely attached to their privacy can sit down and share so personal information about themselves. This is weird. I was just so happy when they got married and now so sad how it has turned. The Royal Family must be mortified.

 

[Leopoldine]

They insulted Americans too, with Meghan describing her first encounter with The Queen and the subsequent luncheon at Royal Lodge:

"Americans will understand his, we have Medieval Times and Tournament. It was like that."

Most Americans would surmise that a brief meeting with the late HMQ and the following luncheon might be a venue in which one should wear shoes and refrain from hugging, not knights jousting and the York ladies adjusting their hennins.

It seems to me that Meghan went into this marriage to monetize a Hollywood classic storyline, the "fish out of water".

Sassy feminist American with a voice, who is also soft and playful ... and particular, meets A Prince, he of a tradition-bound Royal family. Fireworks!

 

[Leopoldine]

Charles can't strip the peerage titles.

That will take an Act of Parliament and the only reason that a peer has ever been stripped of his title was treason.

Sorry their words do no constitute treason under the actual treason act which has specified actions e.g. has Harry slept with Camilla or Catherine (but only since 8th September, 2022 when she became the wife of the heir to the throne)? has he joined an army at war with Britain? has he actually advocated overthrowing Charles or preventing William or George from succeeding to the throne? has he killed specific officers of the crown such as the Lord Chamberlain?

If he hasn't done any of the above then he hasn't committed treason. As treason is the only reason a peer has ever been stripped of their title then he hasn't done anything that warrants having his titles removed.

Even if the proposed bill to return to Charles the power to strip peerage titles (which will have its second reading on the 24th March - was supposed to be 9th December but they run out of time so it was put off until then does become law there is no guarantee that Charles would follow through anyway. As this bill doesn't have the support of the government, or the King, it probably won't pass anyway. Private Member's bills rarely become law. Most don't get past the second reading state, if they even get that far.

Bob Seely MP seems to have started the title-stripping in the House of Commons. He's not on the Treasury Bench, but no one is fighting back.

 

[Leopoldine]

The Wall Street Journal isn't buying their nonsense ...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harry-...markle-duke-duchess-sussex-royals-11670541039

WSJ is owned by the Murdochs.

Owners of The Sun as well.

And the Times in the UK. and the NY Post.


To discount stories from the Sun and the NY Post yet view the Times and the WSJ as august purveyors of non-gossipy facts is silly.

 

[Curbside]

I'm just here. I can't believe they actually brought Princess Michael into this directly. How dare they accuse her of racism because of a brooch. Princess Margaret was proudly photographed with 2 Blackamoor statues in her drawing room at KP over the years too so was she racist or was she just standing with some works of art?

The blackamoor brooch and the examples of enslaved people depicted in servile situations were all racist. When you depict a people as caricatures that is racist.

 

[Curbside]

Lots is odd including putting shades on in the car when you aren’t driving and are in back seat. I mean you don’t need them.

Totally pretentious.

I’ve read that celebrities often wear sunglasses to keep people from staring into their eyes.

 

[Curbside]

I doubt they did.

She didn’t say the palace tried to control their guest list. I think they were advised not to invite Ashleigh and she decided to pick their battles.

 

[Heavs]

I simply don't believe that she wasn't allowed to invite her niece. It's even commented on in several books how uncomfortable palace officials were with just Doria (and Thomas was supposed to be there) when they knew she had other family.

It is possible that there is a kernel of truth there, that one person briefly wondered how to explain Ashleigh's presence in light of her mother's anti Meghan stance but that would have ended up being a win "hey look, she's still close to her niece despite her sister!"

More likely it's just as everything else, that it was something the Sussexes were criticised for (Meghan having no family apart from her mother but lots of celebrities they hadn't even met) that they've justified into someone else did us wrong.

Even in their own words there were many times that they were "advised" not to do something but did it anyway.

Nothing is ever their fault. Or even 50% their fault.

 

[Erin9]

WSJ is owned by the Murdochs.



Owners of The Sun as well.



And the Times in the UK. and the NY Post.





To discount stories from the Sun and the NY Post yet view the Times and the WSJ as august purveyors of non-gossipy facts is silly.

The WSJ is a very different publication, regardless of the owner. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[hel]

I feel bad for poor Chelsey and Cressida, being thrown under the bus by Harry.

"They were surprised a ginger could land such a beautiful woman and such an intelligent woman,"

All the evidence suggests that Chelsey and Cressida are both bright, beautiful women who've been nothing but loyal and discreet after their relationships ended. Given that he managed to "land" them both, suggesting that anyone would be surprised when H&M first got together that Harry could "land such a beautiful intelligent" woman" is a pretty obvious slap in the face to both of them, carrying as it does the implication that they're neither intelligent nor attractive.

 

[Curbside]

The WSJ is a very different publication, regardless of the owner. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

The WSJ is a reactionary kind of publication, especially the opinion pages.

 

[Curbside]

I feel bad for poor Chelsey and Cressida, being thrown under the bus by Harry.

"They were surprised a ginger could land such a beautiful woman and such an intelligent woman,"

All the evidence suggests that Chelsey and Cressida are both bright, beautiful women who've been nothing but loyal and discreet after their relationships ended. Given that he managed to "land" them both, suggesting that anyone would be surprised when they first got together that Harry could "land such a beautiful intelligent" woman" is a pretty obvious slap in the face to both of them, carrying as it does the implication that they're neither intelligent nor attractive.

This is a stretch. I think he meant the comment as self-deprecating.

 

[Curbside]

Did anyone else think it was so hilarious when Harry was needing out over the hummingbirds, while Archie blew him off in order to complain about dirt on his foot?

 

[Erin9]

She didn’t say the palace tried to control their guest list. I think they were advised not to invite Ashleigh and she decided to pick their battles.

I don’t believe the story as Meghan told it. She’s really not known for her veracity. There may be a bit of truth there, but that’s it. I mean- she can’t even tell one version of her own engagement. That she filmed.

I’ll buy into the idea that her niece was a talking point- simply because inviting her, but not her bio mom would have a story for the press. That’s the reality.

However- so was Doria being the only known family member of Meghan’s at the wedding. So were all the celebs who came that had never met either one of them; Meghan got what she wanted there. William himself said he got plenty of control over his guest list.

And I don’t think Meghan was picking her battles- that doesn’t seem to be her thing imo.
If it had been a real priority for Meghan for her niece to be there, I think she would have.

 

[Curbside]

I don’t believe the story as Meghan told it. She’s really not known for her veracity. There may be a bit of truth there, but that’s it. I mean- she can’t even tell one version of her own engagement. That she filmed.

I’ll buy into the idea that her niece was a talking point- simply because inviting her, but not her bio mom would have a story for the press. That’s the reality.

However- so was Doria being the only known family member of Meghan’s. So were all the celebs who came that had never met either one of them; Meghan got what she wanted. William himself said he got plenty of control over his guest list.

And I don’t think Meghan was picking her battles- that doesn’t seem to be her thing imo.
If it had been a real priority for Meghan for her niece to be there, I think she would have.

Which celebrities did she invite but had never met? I see this discussed here in the forum but have no idea which celebrities in particular.

 

[Erin9]

Which celebrities did she invite but had never met? I see this discussed here in the forum but have no idea which celebrities in particular.

Off hand- the Oprah and the Clooney’s. There may have been others.

I think she invited Reese Witherspoon who stated she declined because she didn’t know them.

It was a bit odd imo. Harry didn’t invite a chunk of his extended family, Meghan invited almost none of hers it appears, but they invited famous people they didn’t know. I guess the wedding was part of a networking opportunity or something. Certainly Oprah came in handy for them.

Anyway- I just don’t buy what Meghan’s selling about her niece. They pretty obviously did what they wanted for the rest of the list.

 

[TLLK]

They insulted Americans too, with Meghan describing her first encounter with The Queen and the subsequent luncheon at Royal Lodge:

"Americans will understand his, we have Medieval Times and Tournament. It was like that."

Most Americans would surmise that a brief meeting with the late HMQ and the following luncheon might be a venue in which one should wear shoes and refrain from hugging, not knights jousting and the York ladies adjusting their hennins.

It seems to me that Meghan went into this marriage to monetize a Hollywood classic storyline, the "fish out of water".

Sassy feminist American with a voice, who is also soft and playful ... and particular, meets A Prince, he of a tradition-bound Royal family. Fireworks!

Meghan really described unch with the Queen to be similar to the Medieval Times dinner show and tournament? The same one with serving wenches, pitchers of root beer and1 paper crowns and a joust?

 

[Curbside]

I know the Clooneys befriended her when she moved to the UK.

 

[yukari]

The Telegraph:
Netflix didn't get BBC permission to use Diana Panorama interview in Harry and Meghan documentary

Archive

Press Gazette
Harry and Meghan versus UK media: BBC interview jibe ‘simply untrue’
Harry and Meghan Netflix documentary makes questionable claims against UK news media.

(...)

As with the Oprah Winfrey interview conducted with Harry and Meghan in March 2021, newspaper headlines have been misleadingly used to prove allegations of racism.

At one point a newspaper front-page with the headline “Demons” appears which in fact relates to a 2016 Liverpool Echo story about the Hillsborough tragedy. Elsewhere, headlines from US titles are used to apparently illustrate UK media racism.

A US headline containing the words “Princess in crisis” appears on screen at one point. It is taken from an untrue US story about Kate Middleton.

Historian David Olusoga tells the documentary: “The British tabloid press exists as a mentality and it’s toxic. We have to recognise that this a white industry. Black people are 3.5% of the population and they are 0.2% of the journalists.”

This figure comes from a survey by City University in 2015 that found 94% of journalists are white, 0.2% are black, 2.3% mixed race and 2.5% Asian.

More recent figures published this year from NCTJ analysis of UK Government figures found that 13% of journalists came from non-white backgrounds, matching the ratio found in the overall workforce.

In April 2021 Press Gazette conducted a major survey of our readers to better understand some of the issues Prince Harry had raised around race and the media.

Some 10,000 subscribers were sent a questionnaire, and 721 journalists responded.

This was a self-selecting sample so needs to be treated with some caution. But it found that two-thirds of respondents felt the UK media was bigoted or racist in some way and half felt that coverage of Meghan was racist.

Press Gazette commissioned outspoken tabloid critic Liz Gerard to investigate coverage of Meghan for racism. She cited three stories which are quoted in the documentary as evidence of media racism.

While she found much to criticise about the media’s negative portryal of Meghan, she said: “It’s hard to prove that coverage, while cruel, was racist. Three examples stick out: Rachel Johnson’s column about her ‘dreadlocked mother’ and ‘exotic blood’, the Star’s ‘Harry to marry gangster royalty?’ and the Mail Online’s ‘Straight outta Compton’, highlighting a drugs-and-gangs neighbourhood near her mother’s Los Angeles home.

“The Mail may not have suggested that Meghan was part of some black gangster culture – as the Star did – but nor does it make clear the affluence of the Windsor Hills area where she was brought up. ‘Improving’ doesn’t quite cut it.”

Gerard added: “Meghan comes from a different culture – in that she is American, not in that she is mixed race – and made her own fortune through forging her own career. She was never going to fit into the English rose stereotype of a beautiful princess who has babies, cuts ribbons and keeps her mouth shut.

“It is possible to argue that the stories just paint a picture of her background, as the papers did – and still do – with the Middletons. We’re always interested in where anyone with royal connections comes from, and there is always more appetite for the unsavoury, a more enthusiastic search for skeletons than apple pie.”

(...)

Or maybe just like the HP premiere footage, we should not take it literally?

M&H do have some valid points in this docu-series, sadly by adding unnecessary materials that has nothing to do with those points (other than for shock effect or alising it), they end up undermining those valid points.

 

[Leopoldine]

Meghan really described unch with the Queen to be similar to the Medieval Times dinner show and tournament? The same one with serving wenches, pitchers of root beer and1 paper crowns and a joust?

She described the experience at Royal Lodge as being similar to Medieval Times. The Queen was there at Royal Lodge for part of this, most probably a pre-luncheon drink. HMQ's habit was to pop in to RL for a drink after church and then go back to Windsor for lunch, where there were most probably invited guests.

 

[Purrs]

Meghan really described lunch with the Queen to be similar to the Medieval Times dinner show and tournament? The same one with serving wenches, pitchers of root beer and1 paper crowns and a joust?

Yes unfortunately she did. (We have Medieval Times here in Canada too, for those who don't know it's a cheesy dinner theatre with an inauthentic medieval theme.)

I'm personally not a monarchist or a royalist but I think this comment (and her mock courtesy) were extremely disrespectful and rude to the British head of state and its people.

Even though her stay in the UK didn't work out, these comments are snarky and unbecoming. She shouldn't be ridiculing the customs and institutions of the UK, the crown (its head of state) and her own husband's grandmother (who has devoted her life to service for her people.) I'm sure as an American, she would not appreciate someone mocking her own country's government, institutions and customs. That the fact the Queen is also her husband's grandmother indicates to me how insensitive, crass and rude she is.

Harry did not speak up in response, evidently he's fine with his wife trashing an institution to which his family have dedicated their whole lives. How do either expect to set foot in the UK ever again? Neither of them have any manners or consideration. Her flippant comments are shameful and show the type of people they've become.

 

[assia]

Yes unfortunately she did. (We have Medieval Times here in Canada too, for those who don't know it's a cheesy dinner theatre with an inauthentic medieval theme.)

I'm personally not a monarchist or a royalist but I think this comment (and her mock courtesy) were extremely disrespectful and rude to the British head of state and its people.

Even though her stay in the UK didn't work out, these comments are snarky and unbecoming. She shouldn't be ridiculing the customs and institutions of the UK, the crown (its head of state) and her own husband's grandmother (who has devoted her life to service for her people.) I'm sure as an American, she would not appreciate someone mocking her own country's government, institutions and customs. That the fact the Queen is also her husband's grandmother indicates to me how insensitive, crass and rude she is.

Harry did not speak up in response, evidently he's fine with his wife trashing an institution to which his family have dedicated their whole lives. How do either expect to set foot in the UK ever again? Neither of them have any manners or consideration. Her flippant comments are shameful and show the type of people they've become.

Completely agree with you. Also I am wondering why she keeps speaking of Fergie for Sarah Ferguson. This is not respectful for the mother of the princesses Eugenie and Beatrice .

 

[HRHHermione]

Completely agree with you. Also I am wondering why she keeps speaking of Fergie for Sarah Ferguson. This is not respectful for the mother of the princesses Eugenie and Beatrice .

She’s been called Fergie by friends most of her life, so I doubt she’d find it offensive to be referred to as that. It’s probably how she was introduced to Meghan.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Is Meghan now saying that nobody taught her how to curtsey? In the Oprah interview she said that Fergie taught her how to curtsey before the Queen came for lunch at Royal Lodge.

We may assume a professional actress knows what a curtsey is.

 

[wbenson]

The way she described it was unnecessarily flippant, but I think it's entirely reasonable for someone from so far outside of the royal bubble to be unaware of the extent to which the primacy of the monarch is observed in private, or the exact manner of the obeisance a lady is expected to make in such a situation.

 

[Lee-Z]

To be fair, they very likely weren't the ones who chose the images to illustrate their story (i could imagine this is what Meghan meant a while back when she said something like somebody else (the director) telling their story (am paraphrasing, don't remember the exact quote))

the curtsey and the 'that a ginger got a beautiful and intelligent woman' imo were meant to be more selfdepreceating than aimed at others (not thinking about the 'other side' as that doesn't seem to be their strong point).

however, they very likely did see the endresult, they did lend themselves and their story to have this as a result (very likely thinking they can control it) and they seem to lack empathy to put themselves in someone else's shoes and imagine how their story comes across and who it affects.

And mainly, i don't think we are supposed to remember anything they said in previous interviews, because they change and occassionally contradict themselves, but don't bother about that, so don't expect anyone else to either.

More than racist, i think their story is an ultimate cultureclash between traditional England/Britain and modern USA; but what lacks is the 'fun' or 'light' note needed for that.

I wouldn't be surprised if the ultimate goal is a Hollywood movie based on their lifestory and these are all try-outs to get to the right screenplay

PS I think the media going crazy over the series are grasping at straws, they probably thought much more damaging stuff would be in it.
And i don't think there will be anything very spectacular in the remaining 3 episodes...if there was, Netflix would get many more views and much more publicity if they showed them 1 per week, to build up people's interest.
It is all about the views and the publicity, so apparently they feel that two 'drops' will maximize what they can get out of it.

 

[Hallo girl]

The way she described it was unnecessarily flippant, but I think it's entirely reasonable for someone from so far outside of the royal bubble to be unaware of the extent to which the primacy of the monarch is observed in private, or the exact manner of the obeisance a lady is expected to make in such a situation.

These are things that Harry should have prepared her for, and he didn't.

When you look back at video/ photographs when the family are together you do see that Meghan appears uncomfortable. IMO she is out of her comfort zone and is not quite sure what she should be doing.

I do not believe she was never offered help.
She claims that she didn't know what a walkabout was.

One hand we have this educated woman who gave a speech at the UN did charity work in Africa, but she didn't know how to greet a monarch , had never seen anything about them on the TV with regards meeting people out in the street.
Nothing adds up.

The whole leaving the UK and all that went with it was about control, they wanted to control the media and any photographs of their family. Fair Enough. Now they are saying they didn't have control over how their story was presented in the programme.

Once again the story is turned on its head by Meghan to get herself out of a situation.