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

[Marengo]

Would it not be rather reckless to invite them though? All the stories will be sold to the highest bidder afterwards, at least if the present actions are something to go by.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Wrong, cousin Freddie married an English actress, her name is Sophie Winkleman

Thank you for the correction. I always forget that Sophie is not American!

But as beautiful and discreet as she is, as a Jewish actress she put the lie to Harry's allegation that Windsor males have to marry to suit "the Institution".

Harry and Meghan have gorgeous children, from what little I have seen of them. Archie has perfect manners from what I have read.

But that is really the only positive and non destructive thing that has come out of this series OR relationship imo. I don't see a way back for Harry at this point, and saddest thing of all is that I don't believe he even cares.

 

[Blog Real]

As for whether Harry and Meghan go to the coronation, I believe it will depend on the relationship they currently have with the royal family.
I believe that they will not be present at the coronation, because the relationship with King Charles III and the Prince of Wales must be very bad at the moment.

 

[Alisa]

Lord Freddie is not senior member of the royal family. He doesn't count.

I think the couple will be invited to the Coronation. Perhaps Charles can enforce a NDA so that it doesn't become an ABC or Netflix special.

 

[Hallo girl]

Lord Freddie is not senior member of the royal family. He doesn't count.

I think the couple will be invited to the Coronation. Perhaps Charles can enforce a NDA so that it doesn't become an ABC or Netflix special.

What an embarrassment, you have to put an NDA on your son and his wife.

The British public do not want them, they have treated us like mugs.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Lord Frederick counts in context imo. He is a male Windsor. He is the great grandson of a British king, the son of a HRH prince in the male line of kings.


Harry didn't qualify his ridiculous comments by claiming that only senior Royal men needed to marry an image.

 

[duchessrachel]

I would particularly like to ask the people on this forum who are from the UK what your feelings are about the danger of Harry and Meghan to the Monarchy, particularly with their claims made in this docuseries? Do you think King Charles needs to take a hard line with them? See the article below. It is from the Daily Mail, and I understand the DM is to be taken with a grain of salt, but some of the claims in it got me to thinking. I am an American so I don't know what the feeling in the UK is, which is why I asked, but I honestly don't see H & M being a danger to the Monarchy. They are revealing themselves to be untruthful with their ever changing stories about particular events. They are also revealing themselves to be petty, out for revenge (for what I don't know--maybe not getting their way), and a number of other unflattering adjectives. What I find most telling is that they are saying all these bad things about an Institution that they wanted to work half-time for. If they really thought it was that bad, why did they want to work for the Monarchy at all? I think it is because they don't truly think it is bad. They are just pitching a public temper tantrum because the Queen said no to their half in, half out plan. So, if the Monarchy won't work like they won't it to, then they don't want it to work at all. I wonder if they have stopped to think that if they were to destroy the Monarchy (not happening), those titles they cling to and the ones they want for their children would have no meaning.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...iers-hope-king-takes-aggressive-approach.html

 

[Hallo girl]

Lord Frederick counts in context imo. He is a male Windsor. He is the great grandson of a British king, the son of a HRH prince in the male line of kings.


Harry didn't qualify his ridiculous comments by claiming that only senior Royal men needed to marry an image.

Harry doesn’t qualify any statement he makes he just opens his mouth and let’s his belly rumble.

 

[Somebody]

Exactly.

Once again it's unspecified "they"s who are to blame. Such a cowardly thing to do.

And his comments about being aboard a "freedom flight" are nonsensical. He wasn't a hostage. If he wanted to leave all along why didn't he just say so. All the money the taxpayer would have saved!

Apparently, it has now been clarified in an adjusted trailer indicating that 'they' were the British media (and not the Palace). It doesn't make much sense... And if only their version of the so-called truth had to be reported according to Harry, then I can see why the media wasn't as willing as they hoped - as their version doesn't necessarily represent reality.

I assume the 'freedom flight' is the one Harry took in January after they announced their stepping back as senior members of the royal family (to put it mildly).

 

[Claire]

The only thing I can see you is the height of Harry's paranoia.
HE seems to see threats around every corner - so your personal security is pulled - you still live in a security controlled area. I assure you Windsor Great park is more secure when most of the UK. When it was pulled in Canada - did he think his enemies would fly there to kill him.
He does place a lot of resources on these people. He does seem to think himself very important as well.
I wonder how much of this is his drop in popularity. I was told that was always mentioning that to other royals - how popular he is. And I think that he expected that is continue or increase with Meghan at his side - when it didn't it must be a smear campaign.
Now I will not lie to you - the palace itself is a hot bed of gossip and yes - it was gossiped for years that Charles office would plant stories of his siblings to put a negative light on them. Whether this was just office gossip or press teams at odd - I will never know.

 

[camelot23ca]

Would it not be rather reckless to invite them though? All the stories will be sold to the highest bidder afterwards, at least if the present actions are something to go by.

I guess that’s the question - when does offering family support and understanding become reckless? The King’s children should be at the Coronation. And Charles, as a father, would probably like both sons to be there. But what happens when the person who holds a position that seems to make his attendance a no brainer is the same person who continues to attempt to damage his father, his brother, and the institution they represent?

A lot depends on what happens with the next three episodes and what Harry says in his book but at this point I still think they should be invited. They shouldn’t have any special part to play and they shouldn’t be given the opportunity to be seen interacting publicly with the King or the PoW. They obviously shouldn’t take part in any official parties or receptions surrounding the event (imagine them at a reception for members of the Commonwealth)! Private interaction with Charles and William should also be limited and as soon as possible off they go.

But they may not even want to go to the Coronation. If they stand by everything that they and others have said on their Netflix series they definitely shouldn’t want to go to a ceremony that represents everything they disdain, and that revolves around a family that has treated them so poorly… right?

 

[Spheno]

I guess that’s the question - when does offering family support and understanding become reckless? The King’s children should be at the Coronation. And Charles, as a father, would probably like both sons to be there. But what happens when the person who holds a position that seems to make his attendance a no brainer is the same person who continues to attempt to damage his father, his brother, and the institution they represent?

A lot depends on what happens with the next three episodes and what Harry says in his book but at this point I still think they should be invited. They shouldn’t have any special part to play and they shouldn’t be given the opportunity to be seen interacting publicly with the King or the PoW. They obviously shouldn’t take part in any official parties or receptions surrounding the event (imagine them at a reception for members of the Commonwealth)! Private interaction with Charles and William should also be limited and as soon as possible off they go.

But they may not even want to go to the Coronation. If they stand by everything that they and others have said on their Netflix series they definitely shouldn’t want to go to a ceremony that represents everything they disdain, and that revolves around a family that has treated them so poorly… right?

It seems, that nobody in UK needs them at the Coronation.

 

[tommy100]

I think its hard to invite someone to the most important occasion in a reign when the people you are inviting have done their hardest to pull down everything monarchy stands for. Camelot makes a good point - how would H&M be able to interact with Commonwealth leaders, of which we can assume there will be lots, after their series compared it to an Empire. It is no longer a case of just being awkward for the RF in private as it once was but very much a case of making everyone who is part of events they are at feel awkward. I wonder how the rest of the RF feel about the series - it may well be that they are as upset as Charles and William are likely to be which would add further doubt to H&M being invited.

If they do go I'd see it as the biggest hypocrisy imaginable - it would clearly just be about raising their profile and market value than from any desire to actually be there for Charles or even just for the sake of the monarchy.

 

[Sionevar]

But they may not even want to go to the Coronation. If they stand by everything that they and others have said on their Netflix series they definitely shouldn’t want to go to a ceremony that represents everything they disdain, and that revolves around a family that has treated them so poorly… right?

This is the part that gets me. Why would they want to associate and be associated with an institution that, according to their various interviews, has neglected and mistreated them, and caused them nothing but pain and harm?

 

[Hallo girl]

Because they need the association. The Netflix film goes up to August 2022.
There will be something following on regarding the Queens death and funeral.

 

[Lilyflo]

I would particularly like to ask the people on this forum who are from the UK what your feelings are about the danger of Harry and Meghan to the Monarchy, particularly with their claims made in this docuseries?

There will be some public sympathy for H & M's treatment in the UK press, which I believe has been unprecedented in the amount of vitriolic and often untrue coverage Meghan has received. The physical threats from racists have been real and probably very frightening so many people will also sympathise with that. However, these issues have become overshadowed by their continuous whining about the royal household, the 'institution' and the obvious rift between Harry & his family.

I don't think Harry & Meghan or this docuseries pose any threat to the monarchy. If anything, it highlights the dignified behaviour of Catherine & William, who just get on with the traditional and formal work, while also involving themselves in progressive issues eg Earthshot and mental health. The monarchy has survived battles, regicide, civil war and abdication. It isn't going to collapse from the emotional outpourings of two disgruntled ex-working royals who don't even live here.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The only thing I can see you is the height of Harry's paranoia.
HE seems to see threats around every corner - so your personal security is pulled - you still live in a security controlled area. I assure you Windsor Great park is more secure when most of the UK. When it was pulled in Canada - did he think his enemies would fly there to kill him.
He does place a lot of resources on these people. He does seem to think himself very important as well.
I wonder how much of this is his drop in popularity. I was told that was always mentioning that to other royals - how popular he is. And I think that he expected that is continue or increase with Meghan at his side - when it didn't it must be a smear campaign.
Now I will not lie to you - the palace itself is a hot bed of gossip and yes - it was gossiped for years that Charles office would plant stories of his siblings to put a negative light on them. Whether this was just office gossip or press teams at odd - I will never know.

I have heard of what you are speaking about in regards to Charles allegedly planting stories, but in the case Harry I think not, Harry might have been more popular than Charles but succession wise he would fade out and be irrelevant overtime so I doubt Charles would do that with Harry. But I get what you say.
I believe it’s a mixture of paranoia, entitlement and plain childish ignorance on Harry’s part about security, to me he is someone who never really took royal life seriously and took the privileges for granted.

There will be some public sympathy for H & M's treatment in the UK press, which I believe has been unprecedented in the amount of vitriolic and often untrue coverage Meghan has received. The physical threats from racists have been real and probably very frightening so many people will also sympathise with that. However, these issues have become overshadowed by their continuous whining about the royal household, the 'institution' and the obvious rift between Harry & his family.

I don't think Harry & Meghan or this docuseries pose any threat to the monarchy. If anything, it highlights the dignified behaviour of Catherine & William, who just get on with the traditional and formal work, while also involving themselves in progressive issues eg Earthshot and mental health. The monarchy has survived battles, regicide, civil war and abdication. It isn't going to collapse from the emotional outpourings of two disgruntled ex-working royals who don't even live here.

Which UK press will have sympathy for those two? Even the Republican Guardian isn’t really on their side so which press will have sympathy for them? The only namely people I will say have sympathy for them will be Afua Hirsch and David Olusoga and a few others.

I think its hard to invite someone to the most important occasion in a reign when the people you are inviting have done their hardest to pull down everything monarchy stands for. Camelot makes a good point - how would H&M be able to interact with Commonwealth leaders, of which we can assume there will be lots, after their series compared it to an Empire. It is no longer a case of just being awkward for the RF in private as it once was but very much a case of making everyone who is part of events they are at feel awkward. I wonder how the rest of the RF feel about the series - it may well be that they are as upset as Charles and William are likely to be which would add further doubt to H&M being invited.

If they do go I'd see it as the biggest hypocrisy imaginable - it would clearly just be about raising their profile and market value than from any desire to actually be there for Charles or even just for the sake of the monarchy.

One of the Commonwealth countries has commented on the documentary calling it patronizing, the country is Gabon so there you have it.

 

[tommy100]

The UK media and, IMO at least, the people of the UK have always had very little time for royals who moan. That is why the late Queen was so popular - you rarely heard her speak never mind complain. After all there's a reason one of her mottos (and that of her mother) was "never complain, never explain". The fall back from the media and "regular" people is yes life as a royal may be tricky at times but it also means huge wealth and privilege. I think that is the case even more so at the moment with the UK in a recession, people worrying about paying their bills and even about putting the heating on - there is no real appetite to hear two rich royals moan from their multimillion pound California mansion about not getting hugs.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I guess that’s the question - when does offering family support and understanding become reckless? The King’s children should be at the Coronation. And Charles, as a father, would probably like both sons to be there. But what happens when the person who holds a position that seems to make his attendance a no brainer is the same person who continues to attempt to damage his father, his brother, and the institution they represent?

A lot depends on what happens with the next three episodes and what Harry says in his book but at this point I still think they should be invited. They shouldn’t have any special part to play and they shouldn’t be given the opportunity to be seen interacting publicly with the King or the PoW. They obviously shouldn’t take part in any official parties or receptions surrounding the event (imagine them at a reception for members of the Commonwealth)! Private interaction with Charles and William should also be limited and as soon as possible off they go.

But they may not even want to go to the Coronation. If they stand by everything that they and others have said on their Netflix series they definitely shouldn’t want to go to a ceremony that represents everything they disdain, and that revolves around a family that has treated them so poorly… right?

Inviting those two would still be giving them a front row seat to the monarchy just because Harry is his son, Harry has pretty much thrown a lot of goodwill away so why should he be invited? I’m sure he will invite them anyways but they will probably not come there IMO. The attempt of them being given access is more than enough.

 

[wonderland31]

...Now I will not lie to you - the palace itself is a hot bed of gossip and yes - it was gossiped for years that Charles office would plant stories of his siblings to put a negative light on them. Whether this was just office gossip or press teams at odd - I will never know.

A few years ago the BBC's Panorama program produced a two-part series called Reinventing the Royals which covers some of this. Charles' former press secretary Sandy Henney and biographer Penny Junor are both in it.

 

[Alisa]

Lord Frederick counts in context imo. He is a male Windsor. He is the great grandson of a British king, the son of a HRH prince in the male line of kings.


Harry didn't qualify his ridiculous comments by claiming that only senior Royal men needed to marry an image.

Actually he doesn't. Lord Frederick is not even a member of the royal family. He has no role so when Harry was talking about male members marrying women who fit the mold/role. I don't think anyone thought of relatives like Lord Frederick.

 

[Mbruno]

.

I don't think Harry & Meghan or this docuseries pose any threat to the monarchy. If anything, it highlights the dignified behaviour of Catherine & William, who just get on with the traditional and formal work, while also involving themselves in progressive issues eg Earthshot and mental health. The monarchy has survived battles, regicide, civil war and abdication. It isn't going to collapse from the emotional outpourings of two disgruntled ex-working royals who don't even live here.

We have to wait for Volume 2 to be released to fully understand the context of the line heard in the trailer, but it will be quite serious in my opinion if Harry claims that lies have been told to protect William, but does not elaborate on who told such lies, what they were lying about, or what William was being protected from. There will be speculation that William has something to hide which is so serious that it requires someone lying to protect him. And there are already articles in the tabloids (see today's Daily Express) where "experts" suggest that the King should hold back from taking any action against Harry because he may have "compromising evidence" against the Royal Family.

Taken out of context, Harry's line about William does sound indeed like a veiled threat, indicating a possible future attempt at blackmailing the Family.

Or maybe the whole thing has just been blown out of proportion and Harry's claim will prove to be innocuos in context. As I said, we will have to wait and see.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Exactly.

Once again it's unspecified "they"s who are to blame. Such a cowardly thing to do.

And his comments about being aboard a "freedom flight" are nonsensical. He wasn't a hostage. If he wanted to leave all along why didn't he just say so. All the money the taxpayer would have saved!

He didn’t leave years ago because he simply didn’t have the guts to leave, but to a large extent he enjoyed the privileges (private jets, not worrying about housing and bills, allowances and expenses catered for) and wasn’t going to give that up just yet until he met Megsy who could “give him a better life outside the palace”. He has always wanted out, but enjoyed the privileges he could get. He always took it for granted.

 

[Alisa]

I believe it’s a mixture of paranoia, entitlement and plain childish ignorance on Harry’s part about security, to me he is someone who never really took royal life seriously and took the privileges for granted.

I beg to differ there. Security is the one issue that is non-negotiable. From the very beginning the paparazzi showed there was no limit to how far they would go get access. They did everything from setting up camera's in Meghan's neighbors homes, jumping the set gates, and to the (in)famous corroborating with Meghan's father. Add to all of that the death threats (some racial) the couple received in letters and social media.

Security is not to be taken lightly. Not when lives are at stake.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I beg to differ there. Security is the one issue that is non-negotiable. From the very beginning the paparazzi showed there was no limit to how far they would go get access. They did everything from setting up camera's in Meghan's neighbors homes, jumping the set gates, and to the (in)famous corroborating with Meghan's father. Add to all of that the death threats (some racial) the couple received in letters and social media.

Security is not to be taken lightly. Not when lives are at stake.

Security shouldn't be taken lightly and I doubt if it was. I know that a security expert recently stated that there were credible threats against Harry and Meghan, but there was no context - did they get more than other members of the family. Didn't the IRA have a plan to kill or kidnap Charles and Diana A man with a crossbow who wanted to kill the Queen got onto the grounds of Windsor (I think it was Windsor) while the Queen was there. Of course, there was the kidnap attempt on Anne, when her bodyguard was shot.

It will be interesting to hear the context of the remarks that their security was about to be pulled, but i feel confident that they were referring to Canada's decision not to offer free security.

 

[Mbruno]

I beg to differ there. Security is the one issue that is non-negotiable. From the very beginning the paparazzi showed there was no limit to how far they would go get access. They did everything from setting up camera's in Meghan's neighbors homes, jumping the set gates, and to the (in)famous corroborating with Meghan's father. Add to all of that the death threats (some racial) the couple received in letters and social media.

Security is not to be taken lightly. Not when lives are at stake.

Harry never suffered from lack of security when he was a working member of the Royal Family living in the UK. He and his family were protected 24/7.

Harry, however, gave up his protection when he decided to leave the UK and live in California. Unless he lived full-time in a UK embassy for example, one cannot reasonably expect the British Police or any other British law enforcement agency to protect the Sussexes 24/7 in a foreign country where they have no jurisdiction. Harry should now take his complaints about his protection "being pulled" to the State of California, or to the US federal government, which are the only sovereign entities that can offer him state protection in the jurisdiction where he now lives.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Would it not be rather reckless to invite them though? All the stories will be sold to the highest bidder afterwards, at least if the present actions are something to go by.

I agree. The other issue is that a lot of the media attention would be diverted from the coronation to the drama surrounding Harry and Meghan. Look at what happened at the Queen's funeral. For the first time in 70 years. the Privy Council proclaimed a new monarch. Most of the media covered the walkabout with William and Catherine.

 

[HRHHermione]

I beg to differ there. Security is the one issue that is non-negotiable. From the very beginning the paparazzi showed there was no limit to how far they would go get access. They did everything from setting up camera's in Meghan's neighbors homes, jumping the set gates, and to the (in)famous corroborating with Meghan's father. Add to all of that the death threats (some racial) the couple received in letters and social media.

Security is not to be taken lightly. Not when lives are at stake.

And Meghan received security almost immediately, first from NBC right after their relationship became public and then she was assigned her own police protection officer even before they were engaged. This security continued until they stepped down from the royal family, and even then they were given six to eight weeks notice so they could arrange for private security. I think what others are pointing out is that Harry seemed to think he could announce he wanted to be a private citizen and yet maintain the perks of being in public life, such as taxpayer funded security. That would never have been acceptable to the British public.

 

[TLLK]

Actually he doesn't. Lord Frederick is not even a member of the royal family. He has no role so when Harry was talking about male members marrying women who fit the mold/role. I don't think anyone thought of relatives like Lord Frederick.

Alisa-Lord Frederick Windsor is most definitely a member of the British Royal Family. He might not be a senior working royal, however he is still considered to be a part of the family just like his parents and sister.

As to his marriage to Sophie Winkleman in 2009, he like other member of the British Royal Family was required by the Royal Marriages Act 1772, to seek the consent of the late Queen Elizabeth II.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I have heard of what you are speaking about in regards to Charles allegedly planting stories, but in the case Harry I think not, Harry might have been more popular than Charles but succession wise he would fade out and be irrelevant overtime so I doubt Charles would do that with Harry. But I get what you say.
I believe it’s a mixture of paranoia, entitlement and plain childish ignorance on Harry’s part about security, to me he is someone who never really took royal life seriously and took the privileges for granted.

Why would Charles and his staff try to sabotage other members of the RF? Towards what purpose?

Charles's position as Heir to the Throne was never going to change. Unless he simply wanted to even the score for all the nasty attention his own private life attracted...