The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -

[TLLK]

The issue was mostly about providing false information: telling that Meghan was about to give birth when Archie had already been born.


I don't think there is much of a difference. They were in line to the throne and they still are. It is not because their parents are working or non-working members of the royal family that they are relevant to the public; they are relevant because they are in line to the throne (and pretty high up: 6th and 7th currently; potentially 5th and 6th when William ascends the throne. If by the time Archie and Lilibet want to get married, their uncle is king and their cousins don't have children of their own, both of them would require permission to get married from their uncle (something that is nowadays only required of the first 6 in line)!

Yes as I recall this was the main complaint from the press regarding Archie's birth.

 

[Leopoldine]

The fake seemingly AI-generated social media nonsense about Harry and Meghan is reaching new depths. Some of it is so silly that it makes one wonder if Sussex allies are putting it out there to also discredit anything marginally believable.

I hope the moderators give me a bit of leeway here.

Apparently, according to some social media source, Meghan went to the Tucson, AZ ComiCon. (ComiCon is a big convention of fantasy artists, science fiction fans, lots of Star Wars/Star Trek costumes and activities.)

The ludicrous social media post "reported" that Meghan showed up at the Tucson ComiCon dressed as Batman and the elderly actor John Ratzenberger, (Americans may remember him as Cliffie Claven the mailman on sitcom Cheers) punched Batman Meghan and yelled, "Get her out of here!"

Other accounts place her in Venice at some film festival at the same time getting shoved off the red carpet by famous male stars. And, apparently at the same time, Meghan was getting slapped by Ellen Degeneres back in California.

It all might thankfully end. California has some legislation now about AI fake news. I am not an expert in this field, but I am looking forward to how this will work.

 

[Curryong]

I have seen this for months, stating the same sort of false news you’ve reported. Every week some celebrity, Elton John has been another one, has supposedly been escorting Meghan (and sometimes Harry) to the exit of some venue or other, shouting at them and banning them, as inevitably they have come in uninvited!

I don’t know who is behind these ridiculous websites but it’s certainly amazing that they have remained up and allowed to garner credulous supporters.

 

[GondorHasNoPants]

I personally think we should be very cautious about mentioning these stories, even when we do so with good intentions to point out how awful they are. Discussing them adds to search engine hits, which keeps them alive and circulating. Let's leave them to die in the dark instead.

 

[Hallo girl]

I personally think we should be very cautious about mentioning these stories, even when we do so with good intentions to point out how awful they are. Discussing them adds to search engine hits, which keeps them alive and circulating. Let's leave them to die in the dark instead.

I agree do not give them oxygen, it happens to a great deal of public figures. just lets ignore them.

 

[Alison H]

The fake seemingly AI-generated social media nonsense about Harry and Meghan is reaching new depths. Some of it is so silly that it makes one wonder if Sussex allies are putting it out there to also discredit anything marginally believable.

I hope the moderators give me a bit of leeway here.

Apparently, according to some social media source, Meghan went to the Tucson, AZ ComiCon. (ComiCon is a big convention of fantasy artists, science fiction fans, lots of Star Wars/Star Trek costumes and activities.)

The ludicrous social media post "reported" that Meghan showed up at the Tucson ComiCon dressed as Batman and the elderly actor John Ratzenberger, (Americans may remember him as Cliffie Claven the mailman on sitcom Cheers) punched Batman Meghan and yelled, "Get her out of here!"

I know it's a load of rubbish, but the idea of Meghan turning up dressed as Batman really made me laugh!

 

[Hallo girl]

I have seen this for months, stating the same sort of false news you’ve reported. Every week some celebrity, Elton John has been another one, has supposedly been escorting Meghan (and sometimes Harry) to the exit of some venue or other, shouting at them and banning them, as inevitably they have come in uninvited!

I don’t know who is behind these ridiculous websites but it’s certainly amazing that they have remained up and allowed to garner credulous supporters.

As long as people click on and read them they will survive.

 

[Curryong]

As long as people click on and read them they will survive.

Well, those ‘people’ don’t include me! These websites are placed near a favourite British site I follow, and they include a short précis so you really don’t need to click.

They are all similar, such as ‘Katy Perry throws Meghan out of her show’. They all run the same story, only the names of the celebrity change. It’s absolutely disgraceful and the fact that Tik Tok and YouTube allow it says a lot about them!

 

[Hallo girl]

Well, those ‘people’ don’t include me! These websites are placed near a favourite British site I follow, and they include a short précis so you really don’t need to click.

They are all similar, such as ‘Katy Perry throws Meghan out of her show’. They all run the same story, only the names of the celebrity change. It’s absolutely disgraceful and the fact that Tik Tok and YouTube allow it says a lot about them!

I did not intend to infer that you did. All I was saying was that is how they keep going. Yes it is disgraceful that they are allowed to continue with lies, but as we have seen before it seems to be permitted on social media to make up stories about people with absolutely no evidence to back it up. We need to call it out for what it is.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

To (hopefully) stop the thread from getting closed again by discussing other royals, I'll bring it back to Harry again.

Harry and Beatrice (though Harry moreso since Beatrice occasionally does represent the crown), along with the other cousins, are private citizens, and therefore can, unless criminal, support or not support, attend or not attend, anything or anyone they want without regard to how their actions would reflect on any political entity or constituency.

If other family members don't want to delve into politics or sell photos, they have the right to do, but that doesn't mean Harry has to follow their lead.

If Harry and Meghan can't expect to have the trappings of royalty without doing the work for them, then it also cant' be expected that Harry and Meghan follow royal protocol when it's been explicitly made clear that they're not royals anymore.

As stated before, they can't be half-in and half-out.

I would agree with you if they were indeed "not royals" anymore in any manner, but individuals who are in line to be head of state (especially, but not limited to, close heirs like the Sussexes for whom reaching the throne remains a realistic though not expected outcome) and for other public offices (such as regency), carry royal titles, and are given royal-level treatment by many official entities, are still (in my view) more than "royal" enough to have a duty of care towards the country and the institution from which they derive these privileges, even though they are "out" in regards to taxpayer funding and official duties.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It was already reported years ago that many employees or former employees have alleged that the Duchess of Sussex engaged in workplace harassment and abuses of power, but it seems to be a new development that such allegations from former employees are now mentioned in an American entertainment industry publication (although only in a gossip column), and explicitly in reference to her employees in the United States (since many have dismissed prior allegations by attributing them to British or royal culture).

The article refers to several former Archewell employees and one former Sunshine Sachs partner by name, but the quoted sources are anonymous.

[...]
Why’d they all leave? What explains the churn? “Everyone’s terrified of Meghan,” claims a source close to the couple. “She belittles people, she doesn’t take advice. They’re both poor decision-makers, they change their minds frequently. Harry is a very, very charming person — no airs at all — but he’s very much an enabler. And she’s just terrible.”

In 2018 Markle’s treatment of two royal aides prompted Buckingham Palace to investigate the then-princess for “bullying behavior.” Though the results of the inquiry were never released, Markle denounced the effort as a “calculated smear campaign.” But some of the couple’s stateside staff-members also reserve special bile for Markle, whose reported penchant for noisy tantrums and angry 5 a.m. emails has earned her the in-house moniker ‘Duchess Difficult.’ “She’s absolutely relentless,” says one source. “She marches around like a dictator in high heels, fuming and barking orders. I’ve watched her reduce grown men to tears.”
[...]​

Why Hollywood Keeps Quitting on Harry and Meghan

Plus, how an Echo glitch turned Alexa into a “commie operative” and Dimitri, the million-dollar maitre ‘d, rides off into the Sunset (Tower).

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Curryong]

Much of this article seems to be repeating British media gossip from about 2018/2019. The ‘Duchess Difficult’ moniker was alleged by ‘Palace sources’ to have been used in those years, as were allegations that Meghan emailed people out of hours.

It’s hard to believe imo that US. Staff would be recreating nicknames used by British tabloids up to five years ago. And I don’t believe personally that there are 5AM emails to her employees any more.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It’s hard to believe imo that US. Staff would be recreating nicknames used by British tabloids up to five years ago. And I don’t believe personally that there are 5AM emails any more.

I'm not sure the article is alleging that the U.S. staff were also using the "Duchess Difficult" moniker or being emailed at 5 a.m. The sentence you refer to reads:

"But some of the couple’s stateside staff-members also reserve special bile for Markle, whose reported penchant for noisy tantrums and angry 5 a.m. emails has earned her the in-house moniker ‘Duchess Difficult.’"​

I think the second clause is meant to qualify the "Markle", not the "special bile" – analogous to "But some of the couple’s stateside staff-members also reserve special bile for Markle, whose title is Duchess of Sussex". So that clause could indeed be referring to the British employees' allegations.

But the article could have phrased it with more clarity (and it could have done with some checking into British royal names and titles as well).

ETA: To the best of my recollection, the "Duchess Difficult" nickname was not used by British tabloids, but (reportedly) by employees of the Duchess in Britain.

 

[TLLK]

It was already reported years ago that many employees or former employees have alleged that the Duchess of Sussex engaged in workplace harassment and abuses of power, but it seems to be a new development that such allegations from former employees are now mentioned in an American entertainment industry publication (although only in a gossip column), and explicitly in reference to her employees in the United States (since many have dismissed prior allegations by attributing them to British or royal culture).

The article refers to several former Archewell employees and one former Sunshine Sachs partner by name, but the quoted sources are anonymous.

[...]​

Why’d they all leave? What explains the churn? “Everyone’s terrified of Meghan,” claims a source close to the couple. “She belittles people, she doesn’t take advice. They’re both poor decision-makers, they change their minds frequently. Harry is a very, very charming person — no airs at all — but he’s very much an enabler. And she’s just terrible.”​

​

In 2018 Markle’s treatment of two royal aides prompted Buckingham Palace to investigate the then-princess for “bullying behavior.” Though the results of the inquiry were never released, Markle denounced the effort as a “calculated smear campaign.” But some of the couple’s stateside staff-members also reserve special bile for Markle, whose reported penchant for noisy tantrums and angry 5 a.m. emails has earned her the in-house moniker ‘Duchess Difficult.’ “She’s absolutely relentless,” says one source. “She marches around like a dictator in high heels, fuming and barking orders. I’ve watched her reduce grown men to tears.”​

[...]​

Why Hollywood Keeps Quitting on Harry and Meghan

Plus, how an Echo glitch turned Alexa into a “commie operative” and Dimitri, the million-dollar maitre ‘d, rides off into the Sunset (Tower).

www.hollywoodreporter.com

This appears to be the reason that the couple have had such a high turnover in staff and why it's taken so long for projects to be launched.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

I would agree with you if they were indeed "not royals" anymore in any manner, but individuals who are in line to be head of state (especially, but not limited to, close heirs like the Sussexes for whom reaching the throne remains a realistic though not expected outcome) and for other public offices (such as regency), carry royal titles, and are given royal-level treatment by many official entities, are still (in my view) more than "royal" enough to have a duty of care towards the country and the institution from which they derive these privileges, even though they are "out" in regards to taxpayer funding and official duties.

If either the palace or the British government felt that the Sussexes' likelihood of being called up to the throne or public British offices was significant enough to manage their private behavior, there would have been significant efforts to remove those aspects from them. So far, there hasn't been.

Even if those removals were pushed and successful, Mr. Henry Mountbatten-Windsor with no succession rights is still the son of Charles III of the United Kingdom. Many official entities would still give him royal treatment as long as he's still the son of a king.

In exchange for their duty towards the British people, the working royals receive taxpayer money, police protection, and the privilege to live on incredibly wealthy lands that were granted to their ancestors in agreement with older British governments.

Why is it fair to ask the Sussexes to consider the drawbacks their actions' may cause to the BRF, the British government, and the British people when it has been emphasized over and over again that said BRF, British government, and the British people have no more obligation to them because they're no longer working royals?

 

[Somebody]

There has been a significant effort to remove the need to call upon Harry as a Counsellor of State: both Anne and Edward were added to the pool of potential Counsellors. It was clear that Harry’s behavior has been such that he can no longer in good faith be asked to take on that role if necessary. It shows that Charles concluded that Harry and Meghan had/have no intent to take the responsibilities Harry still had seriously.

 

[muriel]

There has been a significant effort to remove the need to call upon Harry as a Councilor of State: both Anne and Edward were added to the pool of potential Councilors. It was clear that Harry’s behavior has been such that he can no longer in good faith be asked to take on that role if necessary. It shows that Charles concluded that Harry and Meghan had/have no intent to take the responsibilities Harry still had seriously.

I think it goes further than that. I don't think the British public would want to see either Harry act as Counsellor of State, or in any form of royal role. That boat has well and truly sailed.

 

[Somebody]

I think it goes further than that. I don't think the British public would want to see either Harry act as Counsellor of State, or in any form of royal role. That boat has well and truly sailed.

What other official measures have been taken since they decided to step away and the queen made very clear that there is no part-time role available next to their commercial endeavors? As far as I am aware, he and his children are still in line to the throne...

 

[HenRach Dominion]

There has been a significant effort to remove the need to call upon Harry as a Councilor of State: both Anne and Edward were added to the pool of potential Councilors. It was clear that Harry’s behavior has been such that he can no longer in good faith be asked to take on that role if necessary. It shows that Charles concluded that Harry and Meghan had/have no intent to take the responsibilities Harry still had seriously.

I think it goes further than that. I don't think the British public would want to see either Harry act as Counsellor of State, or in any form of royal role. That boat has well and truly sailed.

Which emphasizes my main point. If the BRF, British government, and British people are adamant about the fact that the Sussexes do not represent them or their interests in any way, shape, or form and never will, then none of these entities can expect the Sussexes to take them into account in present or future endeavors. It's essentially "Hey, we want nothing to do with you, but don't you dare do xyz because it might make us look bad. No, we don't want you back and won't do anything for you even if you don't do xyz, but you shouldn't do it anyway."

 

[Somebody]

I'd say it is the other way around. He is still in line to the throne (first adult after the heir) and is still eligible as Counsellor of State - unfortunately, because of how badly he behaved, they have come to the reluctant conclusion that he will not live up to very basic expectations, so they had to find a work-around to the official royal role he still has.

To a child that is naughty/constantly breaking the rules or norms you won't say, well, there are no longer any expectations because we know that you do not intend to keep them anyway. Instead you will try to ensure minimal damage - while still insisting on basic expectations - because it's the right thing to do.

 

[muriel]

Which emphasizes my main point. If the BRF, British government, and British people are adamant about the fact that the Sussexes do not represent them or their interests in any way, shape, or form and never will, then none of these entities can expect the Sussexes to take them into account in present or future endeavors. It's essentially "Hey, we want nothing to do with you, but don't you dare do xyz because it might make us look bad. No, we don't want you back and won't do anything for you even if you don't do xyz, but you shouldn't do it anyway."

Harry does not represent either Britain or the monarchy. That was made clear in the press release Harry put out in January 2020, effectively walking away from his responsibility as a Prince of the UK. His choice.

But not representing the country and the RF does not give him the right to air his laundry in public, or allow a false narrative around his family develop. I will avoid getting into the specifics as we are all aware of what has been said by Harry & Meghan and the people close to them, including Omid Scobie. In the long term, this activities may have generated some cash for Harry & Meghan, but it has also severely damaged their own Sussex brand. Few of these allegations have, IMO, stuck to the RF in any meaningful way.

And I am not sure what you mean by "..... but don't you dare do xyz because it might make us look bad"?

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Harry does not represent either Britain or the monarchy. That was made clear in the press release Harry put out in January 2020, effectively walking away from his responsibility as a Prince of the UK. His choice.

But not representing the country and the RF does not give him the right to air his laundry in public, or allow a false narrative around his family develop. I will avoid getting into the specifics as we are all aware of what has been said by Harry & Meghan and the people close to them, including Omid Scobie. In the long term, this activities may have generated some cash for Harry & Meghan, but it has also severely damaged their own Sussex brand. Few of these allegations have, IMO, stuck to the RF in any meaningful way.

And I am not sure what you mean by "..... but don't you dare do xyz because it might make us look bad"?

I was responding to an earlier poster who stated that Harry and Meghan should be cognizant of how their actions may reflect on the BRF in spite not being supported by the taxpayers. But this conversation has established a couple of things:
1. Harry and Meghan no longer represent the BRF, British government, or British people
2. Harry and Meghan don't want to represent them
3. Those entities don't want Harry and Meghan representing them either
4. Harry and Meghan currently receive no support from any of these entities
5. Harry and Meghan, as private individuals, have been public about their own experiences
6. Sharing those experiences have garnered multitude of different opinions about Harry and Meghan themselves, but have had no real affect on the listed entities
7. In spite of all of the above, there is the expectation among some people that Harry and Meghan follow the same rules they were under when they were working royals (e.g. no politics, no speaking with foreign dignitaries outside of British interest/public philanthropic efforts) without the benefits from it (tax-funded security).

You're right. Harry and Meghan chose to leave as working royals, and therefore cannot expect to receive the benefits that working royals get. But as private individuals, they have the right to put their own interests first with regards to what they say and what they do, even if some uninformed people may accidentally attribute their actions to the greater BRF. If the BRF, the British government, and the British people have no obligation towards the Sussexes, then the Sussexes have no obligation towards them.

 

[Hallo girl]

It is not that straightforward, Harry is in the line of succession as are his children. Meghan wanted the titles for her children, making allegations as to why they didn’t have them . While that remains the status quo they will always be linked to the UK. As I say not that straightforward.

 

[Alison H]

If they want to call themselves Mr and Mrs Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor, and ask the authorities of countries they're visiting not to play God Save The King when they attend events (as happened in Nigeria), they can do what they like.

 

[Hallo girl]

If they want to call themselves Mr and Mrs Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor, and ask the authorities of countries they're visiting not to play God Save The King when they attend events (as happened in Nigeria), they can do what they like.

Exactly, nobody has an issue with them leading a private /different life.
They are the ones who still use the titles, and as long as they use them….

 

[Ghost]

Exactly, nobody has an issue with them leading a private /different life.
They are the ones who still use the titles, and as long as they use them….

Exactly that. It’s not the BRF hanging on the Sussexes, it’s the Sussexes hanging on the RF.

 

[SiameseLover]

I personally believe that it's a combination of obtaining footage for future documentaries while doing some charity related visits. They tend to mimic the royal/British Goverment tours because that's the plan that they (primarily Harry) are accustomed to.

The only "tour" MM went on - prior to meeting Harry - was a USO tour.

 

[Ghost]

Harry has given a statement to the BBC on the occassion of his birthday:

Prince Harry: I was anxious about 30, I'm excited about 40

The Duke of Sussex tells the BBC his mission is to continue "doing good in the world", as he turns 40.

www.bbc.com

 

[Alison H]

When I was a history student at university, I had to read John Locke's book about social contracts. (Do not read it - it is extremely boring.) So we have got the idea, going back to the 18th century, that there is a "contract" between a monarch and their people, and that a bad monarch can be removed because they've broken it - which has been used to justify both the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. And presumably that would also apply to other senior royals. So that idea's been around for three and a half centuries ... but I very much doubt that anyone would want to bring it up again. If Harry were to be removed from the line of succession, then people would want Andrew removed as well ... and, once you start, it can be difficult to stop.

 

[Ista]

A number of posts and responses to those posts have been removed as they introduced a discussion that was against Sussex thread rules. Debates about the stripping of titles have been prohibited on this thread for a very long time, and that has not changed. Please review the current rules before posting.