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

[Elenath]

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.

I don't believe that's how she said it. She said Americans have an idea in their heads that's based on medieval imagery and films about that period. So when they (and she meant average American, not royal watchers) imagine curtsying or bowing that's how they imagine it happens. She didn't say it was similar to medieval times.

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.

Doesn't seem that weird to me. If you don't care and don't follow this, how would you know? There was an article online here where journalists couldn't imagine people don't know the British anthem. I don't.. I'd recognise it, but I'd have to Google it. I bet most people around me don't know.. In fact I bet they don't know what a walkabout is either. They might know some of the royals by name and face, but that's it.

 

[Hallo girl]

I don't believe that's how she said it. She said Americans have an idea in their heads that's based on medieval imagery and films about that period. So when they (and she meant average American, not royal watchers) imagine curtsying or bowing that's how they imagine it happens. She didn't say it was similar to medieval times.



Doesn't seem that weird to me. If you don't care and don't follow this, how would you know? There was an article online here where journalists couldn't imagine people don't know the British anthem. I don't.. I'd recognise it, but I'd have to Google it. I bet most people around me don't know.. In fact I bet they don't know what a walkabout is either. They might know some of the royals by name and face, but that's it.

My real point is that Harry should have prepared her. He obviously didnt.

 

[andrew]

.

As you can see at the beginning of this footage the Royals are very "rigid" and "stiff" as they greet each other!!
Of course there are curtsies and bows but you can feel the genuine affection there. So how dare Meghan say that they are cold and formal when they are "inside"?!
As for not hugging someone, who you have met for the first time, that's not cold or rigid. It is dare I say NORMAL. If you hug someone from the very first time you have met, what will you do to that person when you have come to know, appreciate and love that person?! French kiss him or sleep with him to show your affection?

 

[CyrilVladisla]

What was said about Catherine and who said it? Thanks!

The engagement announcement was an: Orchestrated reality show? That seems unnecessarily nasty. And, yes, dismissive. What exactly has she been doing for the last few years anyway- including now? Putting on a show.

Can anyone tell why this was broken into 2 parts? Is there some kind of dramatic ending to part 1?

Agreed- “Meghan is just like Diana” is not a narrative people are going to agree with.

Can’t say I’m surprised their story has changed this time regarding their relationship beginnings. Lol Totally expected.

How is "Meghan like Diana"?
First, Diana was born to The Viscount and Viscountess of Althorp. They were of the arisocratic/noble family The Soencers.
Meghan's parents were not of an aristocratic/noble family.
Secondly, when Diana's father became Earl Spencer, Diana became Lady Diana.
Meghan did not have the title of Lady Meghan or Her Ladyship.

 

[Lee-Z]

How is "Meghan like Diana"?
First, Diana was born to The Viscount and Viscountess of Althorp. They were of the arisocratic/noble family The Soencers.
Meghan's parents were not of an aristocratic/noble family.
Secondly, when Diana's father became Earl Spencer, Diana became Lady Diana.
Meghan did not have the title of Lady Meghan or Her Ladyship.

They mean 'as a person', character-wise

The titles of your family don't define you as a person, otherwise Harry and William would be exactly the same person

 

[Mbruno]

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’
H

Mishal Husain, who conducted the BBC engagement interview, denied that it was "orchestrated". But I understand why H&M would want to distance themselves from that interview since what was said then seemingly contradicts many talking points they came up with later and which will, I think, surface again in Part 2 of the Netflix docu-series.

I regret, however, that, to save face, H&M feel like they have to smear the professional reputation of a respected BBC journalist, who also happens to be a British Muslim woman of Pakistani descent, rather than the typical white Christian Anglo man.

 

[intothesea]

The official reviews are in, and are mostly negative. Hollywood Reporter in the US, for example, and The Guardian in the UK. On Rotten Tomatoes, the summary for verified publications reviewing it is negative (46 points for rotten, meaning majority negative).

Obviously, Netflix is making loads of money on it, though.
so, do the negative reviews matter? Will it affect Meghan and Harry’s ability to get additional shows or will is money the only driving factor?

My own personal opinion is money is the only thing that matters, but companies like Netflix will have to figure out if there will still be interest in the subjects or if the general public will tire of them. The negative reviews are important for that reason. It shows a vulnerability in their brand.

 

[yukari]

Mishal Husain, who conducted the BBC engagement interview, denied that it was "orchestrated". But I understand why H&M would want to distance themselves from that interview since what was said then seemingly contradicts many talking points they came up with later and which will, I think, surface again in Part 2 of the Netflix docu-series.

I regret, however, that, to save face, H&M feel like they have to smear the professional reputation of a respected BBC journalist, who also happens to be a British Muslim woman of Pakistani descent, rather than the typical white Christian Anglo man.

Didn't she contradict what she said during Oprah interview as well about not doing online research on Harry and now it's she's going through his (secret) social media account before meeting him? Then again it's her truth.

There's rumour that his book will contradict this docu-series too and after many proven rumours about them, I wonder should I start believing it too? Well, as the late Queen said, "recollection may vary". In the Sussexes' case, perhaps their "truth" vary depends on the day.

(...)

Obviously, Netflix is making loads of money on it, though.
so, do the negative reviews matter? Will it affect Meghan and Harry’s ability to get additional shows or will is money the only driving factor?

(...)

If the rumour about both of them reading comments on DM and social media about themselves is to be believed, I think they care about how people perceive them, they want adulation so public disapproval matter for them. Her podcast is more or less a rebuttal for several negative news about her and doesn't Harry sue DM for a reason that their comment section hurt his feeling?

 

[Mbruno]

The official reviews are in, and are mostly negative. Hollywood Reporter in the US, for example, and The Guardian in the UK. On Rotten Tomatoes, the summary for verified publications reviewing it is negative (46 points for rotten, meaning majority negative).

Obviously, Netflix is making loads of money on it, though.
so, do the negative reviews matter? Will it affect Meghan and Harry’s ability to get additional shows or will is money the only driving factor?

My own personal opinion is money is the only thing that matters, but companies like Netflix will have to figure out if there will still be interest in the subjects or if the general public will tire of them. The negative reviews are important for that reason. It shows a vulnerability in their brand.

I suppose they can still monetize "their story" a little longer. I expect Harry's memoir to do well too financially speaking. In the long run, the general public will tire of them unless they reinvent themselves to remain interesting.

I haven't read the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes (I'll try to do it later when I have time), but much of the negative reaction, at least from people I know who are not royal watchers and could be considered casual viewers, has to do with the timing of the docu-series. I mean, we just came out of a pandemic in which millions of people died worldwide (and the pandemic is making a bit of a comeback now with the Omicron subvariants); inflation is at its highest level since the late 1970s; there is a worldwide recession and a war still going on in Europe; and, economics aside, whether it is crime, gun violence, drugs, climate change, cultural shifts many people don't understand, or something else, large sections of the population in the US, and I believe, other countries too, simply feel insecure and anxious. In face of that, Harry and Meghan's self-victimization seems out of touch, especially in the context of their obviously privileged lives.

 

[Granada]

This docu-series has done NOTHING for The Sussex's, it has, in my opinion cheapened "Their Brand" considerably.

They came off as total lightweights and in some cases, foolish self absorbed nitwits.

Relaying the story in the Series of celebrating their Engagement by everyone wearing "onsies" ? And they choose Penguins because they "mate for life"....... HOW OLD are they ?
Then the series went off in a totally different and contentious direction by diving into Slavery-Colonialism Issues in the UK. Historically to present day. How Schools, according to one historian (left wing ) dont even address it.
AND linking Brexit to racism in the UK. And of course The Royal Family has "unconscious bias" .

Was this really the place or venue to do that ? And of course there is no way for Charles or The Family to respond. What a trap.
I think this ill conceived and executed farce will do them much more harm in the long run.
Their antics last week of dropping the Trailers to purposefully overshadow William and Kate's American visit, was noticed AND did not go down well.

Harry and Meghan want to come across as caring, modern, game changing social and cultural influencers. In sync with the political and media elite in The States.
I see them condescending, hypocritical and haranguing. On everything from green environment issues to the now War with the Windsor Family. To diminish them, and elevate The Sussex's on the World Stage.

I believe these two privileged, entitled and arrogant "pretenders" have seriously miscalculated. And this ridiculous series will be proven to be a big mistake.
I use the word Pretenders, on purpose. In more than one meaning.
As Meghan likes to bring up Medieval Times, The Sussex's remind me of treacherous relatives of Monarchs who watched and waited for opportunities to swoop in and take The Throne. Like MANY of Harry's ancestors did. Henry lV, Edward lV and Henry V11.
All direct line ancestors of Harry.

The Sussex's can't "take" the Throne, but they have certainly declared War.

 

[yukari]

(...)

Relaying the story in the Series of celebrating their Engagement by everyone wearing " onsies" ? And they choose Penguins because they "mate for life"....... HOW OLD are they ?

(...)

Er, not really.
Here's from Penguins International (supposedly they're expert on penguins)

"That said, many individuals will choose a different mate from season to season.*

Across all penguin species, it is believed that, on average, around 60-90% of pairs remain together over successive seasons, though this drops as low as 15% in Emperor Penguins."

https://www.penguinsinternational.org/tag/do-penguins-mate-for-life/

So they're actually not really different from human.

 

[Curbside]

As you can see at the beginning of this footage the Royals are very "rigid" and "stiff" as they greet each other!!
Of course there are curtsies and bows but you can feel the genuine affection there. So how dare Meghan say that they are cold and formal when they are "inside"?!
As for not hugging someone, who you have met for the first time, that's not cold or rigid. It is dare I say NORMAL. If you hug someone from the very first time you have met, what will you do to that person when you have come to know, appreciate and love that person?! French kiss him or sleep with him to show your affection?

When did she say the royals were cold and formal?

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

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

This would be news to the Clooneys, who caused a splash when they told the reporters massed outside the wedding that they had never met Meghan or Harry.

 

[Ghost]

When did she say the royals were cold and formal?

She said that she’s a hugger and that for Brits this is jarring, and she used as an example the first time she met Kate when she and Harry hosted the Cambridges for dinner.

 

[Curbside]

That isn’t the same as calling them cold. Maybe formal with news people, but not hugging isn’t cold.

 

[Mirabel]

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.

I always thought the wedding guest list was strange.

And whatever excuses were given had nothing to do with space in the chapel!

There were approximately 600 guests, and St. George's has a capacity for 800 (Eugenie managed to squeeze in 850) so there was plenty of room to invite anyone they wanted.

 

[assia]

She said that she’s a hugger and that for Brits this is jarring, and she used as an example the first time she met Kate when she and Harry hosted the Cambridges for dinner.

What’s more weird is that she is proud to say that the first time she hosted a dinner for her future brother and sister-in-law she was barefoot with ripped jean. I would have been surprised even if my best friend welcomed me for a dinner barefoot .

 

[andrew]

.

That isn’t the same as calling them cold. Maybe formal with news people, but not hugging isn’t cold.

She did not use the words cold and formal but that is what she meant....

 

[Hallo girl]

That isn’t the same as calling them cold. Maybe formal with news people, but not hugging isn’t cold.

This is part of the problem with Meghan, it might be the edit of course, things are linked or inferred but not really said.

 

[Ghost]

This hugging thing goes with something from their SA tour. She was with a group of mothers and babies (that event where she brought Archie’s used clothes as a present) and she went from sitting on a chair to sitting on the floor. She expected the rest of the mothers to follow, they didn’t, she somehow forced them. “Come on, everyone, sit on the floor” or something along that line.

 

[tommy100]

I agree it has made them look very lightweight. Even if the second set of episodes has more from Invictus, their UN visit etc I don't think it will be enough to change the narrative from how vapid these three episodes have been. Equally i suspect they'll continue with the same editorial style which seems to be to talk about one thing and move on very quickly without depth of focus.

 

[Lilyflo]

What did we learn that we didn't already know? I can't think of anything significant. We already knew that Meghan was surprised at some of the formality behind the scenes but most people probably would be because no average family lives like that. I think she was just messing about for laughs when she did an exaggerated curtsey and of course it doesn't look respectful because she's doing a parody of it. Not very clever of her to do it in front of a film crew though because it's just inviting the "I'm offended" critics to go bananas.

There will always be discrepancies in the retelling of events because people muddle up the order of things and details. That usually shows that what they're saying is broadly true because a false story would be more rehearsed with the same phrases. I don't think Meghan and Harry are lying about anything. They're just saying how things appeared and felt to them, which is why it's not a great idea to be interviewed so much because time and distance can warp how one remembers events, details and emotions, which can come across as 'lying'.

There is definitely a racism problem in our media and parts of life here in the UK, which adversely affected Meghan and was appalling. It's also true that she married a deeply troubled, angry man whose family relationships were already strained. The combination of ugly press coverage, an unstable husband with a new and unfamiliar life would reduce many people to breaking point so I'm not surprised she reached it. Her adoring Harry couldn't protect her or help her build the resilience needed to live with it because he didn't have that resilience himself.

Overall, I think Meghan is so used to documenting her life for public consumption that this is just an extension of that and she'll continue to do it. Personally, I don't see the appeal of sharing my life with strangers but many do - just look at all those celebrities and social media influencers! Fergie is another one who overshares and keeps a spotlight on herself, which is perhaps another reason why she didn't fit in to the more buttoned-up, restrained privacy of the BRF.

I don't see how Harry and Meghan can ever build bridges with his family when they know their every word and action will be recorded and possibly reported in a negative light. As much as I feel sorry for them both in many ways, if they were my relations I'd be keeping my distance.

 

[Toledo]

After reading comments and reactions on one specific moment, the disrespectful way Meghan ridiculed a simple act of greeting Harry's grandmother, I have to add my thoughts in here again.

She can't make up excuses on this one. It was offensive for Meghan, who is constantly using her platforms to use labels like empowering women and feminist every time she opens her mouth to ridicule not just Harry's grandmother but Harry's sister-in-law and best friend then.

Meghan, the empowering women feminist, fails to see that Harry's Grandmother is the highest-ranking woman leader on the planet she lives in. Whose capital is not a faux TV show set nor her hangouts with the party girlfriends shown in the series.

Harry's Grandmother is the Queen of the UK, head of the Commonwealth of nations worldwide, and above all head of the Church of England. As in the world was once The Pope, the Patriarch of Moscow and the King/Queen of England as the top religious leaders in Christianity.

And Meghan mocked her introduction to such a female legend when she met her and when she reenacted it for the cameras. Harry didn't say a word to explain the disgust captured on camera of Meghan mocking his grandmother. Now imagine the opposite, what if it was a male family member, Prince Phillip of Charles being introduced to her first. Would she have mocked them the same way? I doubt it. Or what if Harry, when or if introduced to Meghan's mother Doria mocked her life, her job, etc.?

Mocking Other Women Part II was when she was introduced to Catherine and Meghan brags about her ripped jeans and wearing no shoes in front of Harry's sister-in-law. Meghan could have excused herself for a minute, go into the bedroom and put on pants and shoes instead of mocking Catherine's formality. Was this the first time she was introduced to another woman that was not within her TV set partying and drinking circle? Is this the outfit style she wears in job interviews?

Why did she had to brag on staying on ripped jeans exposing everything but private parts to Harry's brother William and in front of his wife during the first meeting?

The victim mask she wears fell hard here. Meghan uses 'empowering women' and 'feminist' as a word-police badge on her chest but she now admits on camera that in private she had fun mocking the two women closest to Harry's life, his grandmother and his sister-in-law.

 

[suztav]

After reading comments and reactions on one specific moment, the disrespectful way Meghan ridiculed a simple act of greeting Harry's grandmother, I have to add my thoughts in here again.

She can't make up excuses on this one. It was offensive for Meghan, who is constantly using her platforms to use labels like empowering women and feminist every time she opens her mouth to ridicule not just Harry's grandmother but Harry's sister-in-law and best friend then.

Meghan, the empowering women feminist, fails to see that Harry's Grandmother is the highest-ranking woman leader on the planet she lives in. Whose capital is not a faux TV show set nor her hangouts with the party girlfriends shown in the series.

Harry's Grandmother is the Queen of the UK, head of the Commonwealth of nations worldwide, and above all head of the Church of England. As in the world was once The Pope, the Patriarch of Moscow and the King/Queen of England as the top religious leaders in Christianity.

And Meghan mocked her introduction to such a female legend when she met her and when she reenacted it for the cameras. Harry didn't say a word to explain the disgust captured on camera of Meghan mocking his grandmother. Now imagine the opposite, what if it was a male family member, Prince Phillip of Charles being introduced to her first. Would she have mocked them the same way? I doubt it. Or what if Harry, when or if introduced to Meghan's mother Doria mocked her life, her job, etc.?

Mocking Other Women Part II was when she was introduced to Catherine and Meghan brags about her ripped jeans and wearing no shoes in front of Harry's sister-in-law. Meghan could have excused herself for a minute, go into the bedroom and put on pants and shoes instead of mocking Catherine's formality. Was this the first time she was introduced to another woman that was not within her TV set partying and drinking circle? Is this the outfit style she wears in job interviews?

Why did she had to brag on staying on ripped jeans exposing everything but private parts to Harry's brother William and in front of his wife during the first meeting?

The victim mask she wears fell hard here. Meghan uses 'empowering women' and 'feminist' as a word-police badge on her chest but she now admits on camera that in private she had fun mocking the two women closest to Harry's life, his grandmother and his sister-in-law.

I believe self-righteously may be the word you are looking for.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I don't think Meghan intended(consciously) to offend anyone. It's simply that she is not nearly as funny or witty as she aspires to be when she plays to an audience.

Just like her stunt in the parking lot with the baby bottle when she did the "Ellen" show she tried for comedy and it translated as Meghan making a fool of herself.

Not to mention lacking a sense of the innate dignity that would have served her well as a member of the BRF.

 

[Granada]

Lilyflo, I think that is it downright odd that Meghan and Harry have told two entirely different stories regarding the circumstances of how they ACTUALLY got Engaged. I mean the two versions are wildly different. I call that lying or purposely misrepresenting something.

You are a more trusting person to see it as "discrepancy in the retelling of events as people muddle up the order of things and details".
They were interviewed before a global audience a mere 5 years ago, and its all on tape, with a now vastly different sequence of events being told in the docu-series.
This wasn't a boozy night 40 years ago with no documentation. Its on THE internet IN THEIR OWN WORDS.
LOL I actually know friends that got engaged after a " boozy night" years and years ago. Recollections vary, shall we say.

Also you state that Meghan married " a deeply troubled, angry man, whose family relationships were already strained". Maybe, but certainly not broken as Meghans were. It seems they were fine, as it was, till Meghan appeared too. At least workable and functional.

You also call him "unstable". I think that paints HIM as the sole problem, not Meghan. AGAIN she is a victim.

I don't see it that way at all.
I think She is just as guilty as he is. Perhaps, I even see her as more of a catalyst. Does anyone believe this sordid and damaging Soap Opera, a vendetta NOW actually, would have played out with Chelsea Davy or Cressida Bonas ?
I dont.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I want to understand why they put in Afua Hirsch and David Olusoga and discussing the commonwealth and yet Harry and Meghan took up posts relating to the Commonwealth when the Queen was alive?

 

[Alison H]

If the Commonwealth were anything other than a force for good, would South Africa have been so eager to rejoin it as soon as apartheid ended? Would Gabon and Mozambique, which were never even part of the British Empire, have wanted to join it?

The late Queen would have been so hurt by everything that's been said about her beloved Commonwealth in this spiteful series.

As for the rest of it ... who hugs a complete stranger the first time they meet them? And who cares who hugged whom anyway?

 

[SirGyamfi1]

What did we learn that we didn't already know? I can't think of anything significant. We already knew that Meghan was surprised at some of the formality behind the scenes but most people probably would be because no average family lives like that. I think she was just messing about for laughs when she did an exaggerated curtsey and of course it doesn't look respectful because she's doing a parody of it. Not very clever of her to do it in front of a film crew though because it's just inviting the "I'm offended" critics to go bananas.

There will always be discrepancies in the retelling of events because people muddle up the order of things and details. That usually shows that what they're saying is broadly true because a false story would be more rehearsed with the same phrases. I don't think Meghan and Harry are lying about anything. They're just saying how things appeared and felt to them, which is why it's not a great idea to be interviewed so much because time and distance can warp how one remembers events, details and emotions, which can come across as 'lying'.

There is definitely a racism problem in our media and parts of life here in the UK, which adversely affected Meghan and was appalling. It's also true that she married a deeply troubled, angry man whose family relationships were already strained. The combination of ugly press coverage, an unstable husband with a new and unfamiliar life would reduce many people to breaking point so I'm not surprised she reached it. Her adoring Harry couldn't protect her or help her build the resilience needed to live with it because he didn't have that resilience himself.

Overall, I think Meghan is so used to documenting her life for public consumption that this is just an extension of that and she'll continue to do it. Personally, I don't see the appeal of sharing my life with strangers but many do - just look at all those celebrities and social media influencers! Fergie is another one who overshares and keeps a spotlight on herself, which is perhaps another reason why she didn't fit in to the more buttoned-up, restrained privacy of the BRF.

I don't see how Harry and Meghan can ever build bridges with his family when they know their every word and action will be recorded and possibly reported in a negative light. As much as I feel sorry for them both in many ways, if they were my relations I'd be keeping my distance.

Regarding the formality behind closed doors, of course they would be formal because they are obviously not the “average family” and it was just silly to mention this. I’m quite sure other royal families are like this behind the scenes to an extent. Their words and actions are only recorded negatively because a lot of the things they say and do are questionable and puzzling, of course the media isn’t perfect either but that’s what happens when you choose to “tell your truth” and not act consistently.

 

[tommy100]

The part about the Commonwealth being Empire 2.0 just shows how they've made sure the documentary reflects their views and how it - rather like them as a couple IMO - can't take other people's opinions into account or form a considered opinion. The Commonwealth must be bad because its suits their narrative to say it is - despite the fact they've not asked anyone else living in Commonwealth nations about it. The President of Gabon only yesterday highlighted the good the Commonwealth does and why he and his country CHOSE to be part of it (going through 18 months of work to do so) despite it not having links to the British Empire or the British sovereign. It seems to be their way - the RF are cold because it suits them to be that way rather than the bear hugs we see Zara, Mike and Sophie Wessex dishing out to each other all the time. It gets quite boring hearing ill informed people giving their opinion on everything as if its the truth and there can be no other view.