The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 - Apr. 2023

[Lee-Z]

well, the comments he made were despicable, and he of all people should know that once you've put something online, you can retract it all you want, but it'll be somewhere forever..

but at least he actually apologised, which isn't evident nowadays when people make mistakes (i have a feeling often apologies aren't made at all anymore, people just keep talking and talking to proove they were right somewhere down the line), so that's one tiny point in his favor.
I understand from other articles that the Sussexes don't accept his apology, that is their right, i'm sure with their sue-happy history, they will sue him if they deem this necessary.

 

[Ghost]

well, the comments he made were despicable, and he of all people should know that once you've put something online, you can retract it all you want, but it'll be somewhere forever..

but at least he actually apologised, which isn't evident nowadays when people make mistakes (i have a feeling often apologies aren't made at all anymore, people just keep talking and talking to proove they were right somewhere down the line), so that's one tiny point in his favor.
I understand from other articles that the Sussexes don't accept his apology, that is their right, i'm sure with their sue-happy history, they will sue him if they deem this necessary.

I don’t understand why the Sussexes want an apology towards themselves. The article was for the readers and he apologized to the readers. He never adressed to the Sussexes.
(The article WAS despicable. We still live in a world where people are free to be despicable.)

 

[TLLK]

Oh dear. I’ve rather put my foot in it. In a column I wrote about Meghan, I made a clumsy reference to a scene in Game of Thrones and this has gone down badly with a great many people. I’m horrified to have caused so much hurt and I shall be more careful in future.

Hmm.."put my foot in it." I'd say that was more than your foot Mr. Clarkson.

 

[FigTree]

Bit of a none story. Journalist known for being offensive to absolutely everyone writes column being offensive to high profile, controversial couple. People get offended. Journalist apologises. Article removed. High profile couple refer to apology as PR stunt. Result: no one really cares.

 

[muriel]

Bit of a none story. Journalist known for being offensive to absolutely everyone writes column being offensive to high profile, controversial couple. People get offended. Journalist apologises. Article removed. High profile couple refer to apology as PR stunt. Result: no one really cares.

Funnily, I am sure that the high profile couple would love to have the large following the journalist has, and no doubt the money that he has made in his career. And that money was made through toil and hard work, not through monetising their "grief" in their privileged life, or trying to undo the lifetime of service of a global icon.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

The funny (not really) thing about Clarkson's Game of Thrones analogy is that it either misses the point of the entire scene, or it's Clarkson accidentally saying the quiet part out loud.

Queen Cersei has done a lot of atrocities in Game of Thrones, but she's not being punished for any of them during her Walk of Shame. She's being punished for committing adultery against a dead man whose own whoremongering was legendary, but because she lives in a patriarchal society, her infidelity is treated as a more severe crime. On top of this, the High Sparrow, who demanded the Walk in the first place, wants her power and influence for himself, and understands that much of that comes from her physical beauty; robbing her of the tools that conceal that Cersei's a normal, middle-age mother of three kids robs her of her mystique, and therefore her power and influence.

So, it would be easy to dismiss Clarkson as a blowhard and provocateur, but I think the lesson we can take from the metaphor is that HRH The Duchess of Sussex has a lot more power and influence than many other people are comfortable with, and they crave more than anything to take that power away.

 

[Alison H]

I very much doubt that he thought about it that deeply, or intended anyone actually to compare Meghan to the character concerned. As Fig Tree said, it's a non story.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Funnily, I am sure that the high profile couple would love to have the large following the journalist has, and no doubt the money that he has made in his career. And that money was made through toil and hard work, not through monetising their "grief" in their privileged life, or trying to undo the lifetime of service of a global icon.

How right you are. Sure there is plenty to come with more book deals and shows to be peddled. Have to monetize while you still can

 

[Queen Claude]

I am not a Sussex stan but what Jeremy Clarkson wrote went beyond the pale to me. This was not someone stringing together cheeky phrases. He stated that he hates Meghan on a cellular level.

What bothered me about the Game of Thrones reference is that he couches it in lying in bed dreaming that Meghan will be paraded in every town in Britain. It is disturbing that what he wrote, and furthermore, it is disturbing that it was published in yes a tabloid, but the Sun is also an internationally recognized publication.

ETA:
Here is what he wrote, excerpted from the BBC article above.

At night, I'm unable to sleep as I lie there, grinding my teeth and dreaming of the day when she [Meghan] is made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain while the crowds chant 'Shame!' and throw lumps of excrement at her.

Everyone who's my age thinks the same way.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The funny (not really) thing about Clarkson's Game of Thrones analogy is that it either misses the point of the entire scene, or it's Clarkson accidentally saying the quiet part out loud.

Queen Cersei has done a lot of atrocities in Game of Thrones, but she's not being punished for any of them during her Walk of Shame. She's being punished for committing adultery against a dead man whose own whoremongering was legendary, but because she lives in a patriarchal society, her infidelity is treated as a more severe crime. On top of this, the High Sparrow, who demanded the Walk in the first place, wants her power and influence for himself, and understands that much of that comes from her physical beauty; robbing her of the tools that conceal that Cersei's a normal, middle-age mother of three kids robs her of her mystique, and therefore her power and influence.

So, it would be easy to dismiss Clarkson as a blowhard and provocateur, but I think the lesson we can take from the metaphor is that HRH The Duchess of Sussex has a lot more power and influence than many other people are comfortable with, and they crave more than anything to take that power away.

What power does she have on her own? Her marriage is the only thing thing that gives her any real notice along with the commercial ventures that came her way via the marriage because Meghan Markle the actress didn’t have influence vs Meghan Markle the Duchess (via marriage) still has no influence, but here she is married to someone who is much more well-known with more money than herself and that gives her access to things that she couldn’t get as an actress. Jeremy Clarkson is more well-known than she is so I don’t see what influence he lacks that he would try to take from Meghan.

well, the comments he made were despicable, and he of all people should know that once you've put something online, you can retract it all you want, but it'll be somewhere forever..

but at least he actually apologised, which isn't evident nowadays when people make mistakes (i have a feeling often apologies aren't made at all anymore, people just keep talking and talking to proove they were right somewhere down the line), so that's one tiny point in his favor.
I understand from other articles that the Sussexes don't accept his apology, that is their right, i'm sure with their sue-happy history, they will sue him if they deem this necessary.

I’m sure he doesn’t care whether they accept or not. The comment wasn’t nice, but like everyone famous or not, he has an opinion even if it is nasty.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

What power does she have on her own? Her marriage is the only thing thing that gives her any real notice along with the commercial ventures that came her way via the marriage because Meghan Markle the actress didn’t have influence vs Meghan Markle the Duchess (via marriage) still has no influence, but here she is married to someone who is much more well-known with more money than herself and that gives her access to things that she couldn’t get as an actress. Jeremy Clarkson is more well-known than she is so I don’t see what influence he lacks that he would try to take from Meghan.

And yet, for all of HRH The Duchess of Sussex's lack of influence as you say, the more well-known Jeremy Clarkson felt the need to write an op-ed about how she disgusts him on a cellular level and how he dreams about her being paraded naked while the citizens of the United Kingdom threw feces at her. It spite of his storied career compared to HRH The Duchess of Sussex's, she annoys him so much that she occupies his dreams.

It's funny how a common refrain is that TRH The Sussexes, especially HRH The Duchess of Sussex, don't have any influence, are not important, are nobodies now, and yet the British press in general and men like Clarkson specifically feel the need to talk about whenever they do anything. Why not focus on people who are "more important?" Why let these "nobodies" get under their skin at all, especially if nothing they do is relevant to them?

 

[FigTree]

And yet, for all of HRH The Duchess of Sussex's lack of influence as you say, the more well-known Jeremy Clarkson felt the need to write an op-ed about how she disgusts him on a cellular level and how he dreams about her being paraded naked while the citizens of the United Kingdom threw feces at her. It spite of his storied career compared to HRH The Duchess of Sussex's, she annoys him so much that she occupies his dreams.

It's funny how a common refrain is that TRH The Sussexes, especially HRH The Duchess of Sussex, don't have any influence, are not important, are nobodies now, and yet the British press in general and men like Clarkson specifically feel the need to talk about whenever they do anything. Why not focus on people who are "more important?" Why let these "nobodies" get under their skin at all, especially if nothing they do is relevant to them?

Clarkson was commissioned by the editor to write that piece. Because they sell. People stop reading, they stop writing. The machine only operates while we feed it. Hopefully with all these they will just stop writing articles.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

And yet, for all of HRH The Duchess of Sussex's lack of influence as you say, the more well-known Jeremy Clarkson felt the need to write an op-ed about how she disgusts him on a cellular level and how he dreams about her being paraded naked while the citizens of the United Kingdom threw feces at her. It spite of his storied career compared to HRH The Duchess of Sussex's, she annoys him so much that she occupies his dreams.

It's funny how a common refrain is that TRH The Sussexes, especially HRH The Duchess of Sussex, don't have any influence, are not important, are nobodies now, and yet the British press in general and men like Clarkson specifically feel the need to talk about whenever they do anything. Why not focus on people who are "more important?" Why let these "nobodies" get under their skin at all, especially if nothing they do is relevant to them?

Well, in all honesty the truth is they have nothing to peddle about themselves apart from their connections to the royal family and bad-mouthing and talking about their short stint as former working royals. If not for those titles and Harry being born into the BRF, no one would even bat an eyelid and the commercial ventures they have now wouldn’t come their way. It’s not an insult or an opinion, it’s a fact. Many people are tired of the Sussexes whining and putting out the same stories about the BRF. The British press talks about lots of people, important and unimportant. The Sussexes get attention for some of the questionable things they do and say which is largely self-inflicted. The tabloid industry won’t end or be on a standstill if the Sussexes stop being controversial because there are other topics on more famous figures to cover and they cover them alongside unknowns. Not to mention the Sussexes constantly making veiled digs and jabs at the media, justified or unjustified along with the lawsuits. The Sussexes are talked about only because of their controversy and connection to the BRF and attention-seeking, otherwise what do they have that sets them apart from anyone? It’s only been a week or less since Clarkson’s article and most people have moved on from it apart from a few people rightfully saying what he said wasn’t appropriate, Clarkson isn’t going to lose his job or be blacklisted.

 

[Curryong]

Clarkson’s ‘Oh dear, I’m afraid I’ve put my foot in it,,,,’ was hardly an apology. In fact it was more of a ‘So what?’

And the newspaper in which Clarkson spouted his disgraceful comments still gets away with printing constant digs and negative comments about the Sussexes as they have for years now.

The tabloid did have to apologise in the end (though of course not to the woman Clarkson abused in his column, that would be too much to ask) simply because IPSO had received 20,000 complaints about it and rising, the highest number of complaints for one article ever recorded, not because the editors were ashamed. And their ‘apology’ ended with proud boasts of the charities the rag supposedly helps. Hardly relevant to say the least.

 

[muriel]

And yet, for all of HRH The Duchess of Sussex's lack of influence as you say, the more well-known Jeremy Clarkson felt the need to write an op-ed about how she disgusts him on a cellular level and how he dreams about her being paraded naked while the citizens of the United Kingdom threw feces at her. It spite of his storied career compared to HRH The Duchess of Sussex's, she annoys him so much that she occupies his dreams.

I often find rather than reacting to the specific words used, it is useful to try and think about the point the writer may be trying to make. Whilst he does not articulate it as such, I suspect his thought process probably was driven by some of the following factors.

> Choosing commercial gain over a life of service is the very antithesis of what the royal family stands for. Consistently monetising her all too brief royal career cannot sit well with the great British public.

> Meghan's royal career lasted all of 18 months. It could be argued that the length of her royal career hardly represents perseverance in any way.

> The monetisation has largely involved being critical of the royal family and trying to undermine the institution of the monarchy, usually without any compelling evidence being offered.

> All of this is perhaps more galling as it was set in the run up to the death of the longest serving and much loved monarch and consort.

If viewed in this framework, a lot of people have strong feelings about how Meghan has behaved. They may not articulate it as such, but they are entitled to their views.

 

[Lee-Z]

It's funny how a common refrain is that TRH The Sussexes, especially HRH The Duchess of Sussex, don't have any influence, are not important, are nobodies now, and yet the British press in general and men like Clarkson specifically feel the need to talk about whenever they do anything. Why not focus on people who are "more important?" Why let these "nobodies" get under their skin at all, especially if nothing they do is relevant to them?

i guess it's the same as with other reality tv, i read a quote today from a mediapsychologist on "why do people watch reality tv, even if it annoys them":
Emotion.
either:
- you feel sympathy
- you feel 'schadenfreude' (is there a english phrase for that?)
- you feel superior to the people shown on tv in a "well at least i'm not doing *that*" kind of way

Harry and Meghan and especially the people they work with are imo indeed very skilled in playing our emotional strings.

 

[Alisa]

I was absolutely appalled that such an article like this was allowed to be published.
It is one thing to dislike The Duchess of Sussex because of her actions and her views and another thing to "hate her on a cellular level".
Clarkson's comments are vile and disgusting. His half-hearted apology is pathetic and weak.

It's interesting to note that the Queen Consort had lunch with Jeremy Clarkson AND Piers Morgan a few days before this article was released. I was hoping that she would release a statement condemning the article and Clarkson's comments but alas the silence is deafening.
If the Queen Consort really wants to be taken seriously in her efforts to stop misogyny and violence against women she ought to stop associating with men like Clarkson.

 

[Hallo girl]

I was absolutely appalled that such an article like this was allowed to be published.
It is one thing to dislike The Duchess of Sussex because of her actions and her views and another thing to "hate her on a cellular level".
Clarkson's comments are vile and disgusting. His half-hearted apology is pathetic and weak.

It's interesting to note that the Queen Consort had lunch with Jeremy Clarkson AND Piers Morgan a few days before this article was released. I was hoping that she would release a statement condemning the article and Clarkson's comments but alas the silence is deafening.
If the Queen Consort really wants to be taken seriously in her efforts to stop misogyny and violence against women she ought to stop associating with men like Clarkson.

Just to clarify they were guests at the same event. There were a large number of guests from media, the arts etc. not just Clarkson and Morgan. We do not know if they even spoke to each other at the event.

 

[TLLK]

Just to clarify they were guests at the same event. There were a large number of guests from media, the arts etc. not just Clarkson and Morgan. We do not know if they even spoke to each other at the event.

Thank you for sharing this information. The articles about Queen Camilla having lunch with Clarkson and Piers led me to believe that there was a smaller number of guests present.

 

[ladongas]

Just as a matter of curiosity, has Clarkson ever written such a vulgar and debasing comment about any other well-known woman? Or is the DofS the only woman he has lascivious dreams about? His comments say far more about the kind of person he is than they do about Meghan Markle. SHAME ON THAT DIRTY OLD MAN!

 

[muriel]

It's interesting to note that the Queen Consort had lunch with Jeremy Clarkson AND Piers Morgan a few days before this article was released. I was hoping that she would release a statement condemning the article and Clarkson's comments but alas the silence is deafening.

Just to clarify they were guests at the same event. There were a large number of guests from media, the arts etc. not just Clarkson and Morgan. We do not know if they even spoke to each other at the event.

@Hallo girl is correct, the Queen attended a lunch for a large number of guests from the media, arts and journalism. It was certainly not a lunch only attended by Camilla, Piers & Jeremy.

That said, I see no harm in Camilla meeting with Piers and Jeremy, if that is her choice. Jeremy is a highly regarded motoring journalist, who also writes a few columns. Camilla does not have to agree with every thing either Jeremy or Piers have to say, though in relation to Meghan's behaviour, their views may be aligned.

 

[Alisa]

@Hallo girl is correct, the Queen attended a lunch for a large number of guests from the media, arts and journalism. It was certainly not a lunch only attended by Camilla, Piers & Jeremy.



That said, I see no harm in Camilla meeting with Piers and Jeremy, if that is her choice. Jeremy is a highly regarded motoring journalist, who also writes a few columns. Camilla does not have to agree with every thing either Jeremy or Piers have to say, though in relation to Meghan's behaviour, their views may be aligned.

I never said that the Queen Consort dined solely with Jeremy Clarkson and Piers Morgan. I apologize if my post gave that impression. In fact, QC was the reportedly the guest of honor of host of the small and intimate lunch.

That being said, should Camilla continue to champion women's rights, and publicly denounce violence against women she ought to refrain from being in the company of people who publicly encourage violence against women.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I was absolutely appalled that such an article like this was allowed to be published.
It is one thing to dislike The Duchess of Sussex because of her actions and her views and another thing to "hate her on a cellular level".
Clarkson's comments are vile and disgusting. His half-hearted apology is pathetic and weak.

It's interesting to note that the Queen Consort had lunch with Jeremy Clarkson AND Piers Morgan a few days before this article was released. I was hoping that she would release a statement condemning the article and Clarkson's comments but alas the silence is deafening.
If the Queen Consort really wants to be taken seriously in her efforts to stop misogyny and violence against women she ought to stop associating with men like Clarkson.

I don’t believe he actually meant the apology and someone posted that it was rather for readers not the Sussexes. Secondly, what does the Queen consort have to do with this? There were other people like Judy Dench and some celebrities present at the lunch, so it is not like she was just hanging out with Piers and Jeremy and she’s not a personal friend or family to Jeremy Clarkson so I don’t see how this will affect her talking about violence against women. Just because she was there with them, doesn’t mean she spoke to them. Plus the Sussexes can speak for themselves.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

I often find rather than reacting to the specific words used, it is useful to try and think about the point the writer may be trying to make. Whilst he does not articulate it as such, I suspect his thought process probably was driven by some of the following factors.

> Choosing commercial gain over a life of service is the very antithesis of what the royal family stands for. Consistently monetising her all too brief royal career cannot sit well with the great British public.

> Meghan's royal career lasted all of 18 months. It could be argued that the length of her royal career hardly represents perseverance in any way.

> The monetisation has largely involved being critical of the royal family and trying to undermine the institution of the monarchy, usually without any compelling evidence being offered.

> All of this is perhaps more galling as it was set in the run up to the death of the longest serving and much loved monarch and consort.

If viewed in this framework, a lot of people have strong feelings about how Meghan has behaved. They may not articulate it as such, but they are entitled to their views.

For the longest, I could never understand why HRH The Duchess of Sussex got so much vitriol compared to any other public figure but now I'm beginning to.

As an American, the British Royal Family are a cross between celebrities and glorified ambassadors to me. I have no personal fealty to them. To the British people, however, they're a patriotic symbol that ultimately represents them as a people. So when TRH The Sussexes criticize members of the British Royal Family, especially in their roles as servants to the United Kingdom as a whole and its people in particular, many of those people feel that their culture and they themselves are being attacked.

Now, I haven't read the full article, nor do I plan to, but I suspect that Clarkson isn't anywhere near as critical towards HRH The Duke of Sussex, the one who has been a lot more vocal about his criticisms about his own family. Even if Clarkson was as critical, I doubt he expressed a desire to see him punished in a highly sexualized way.

As you say, everyone is entitled to their views, no matter how crass they are, but many people, some in this very forum, have been able to express criticisms about HRH The Duchess of Sussex without stooping to Clarkson's level. There's a reason why a major paper like The Sun would personally choose Jeremy Clarkson, a man known for vulgarity, to write an op-ed about HRH The Duchess of Sussex. There's a reason why Clarkson used the metaphor of Cersei's Walk of Punishment as an appropriate punishment for HRH The Duchess of Sussex: it's a dog whistle to every reader who irrationally loathes her. The United Kingdom may be different, but violent rhetoric from both political leaders and popular press in the United States have led to a lot of violent actions recently.

I'm just happy to see that over 20,000 British readers felt the op-ed went to far and forced The Sun to take it down.

 

[TLLK]

I never said that the Queen Consort dined solely with Jeremy Clarkson and Piers Morgan. I apologize if my post gave that impression. In fact, QC was the reportedly the guest of honor of host of the small and intimate lunch.

That being said, should Camilla continue to champion women's rights, and publicly denounce violence against women she ought to refrain from being in the company of people who publicly encourage violence against women.

There appears to be a great deal of misinformation being spread through social media about the private luncheon that the QC was invited to that day. The QC was one of the guests of the host as was Dame Judi Dench, Dame Maggie Smith, Hugh Bonneville, Tess Daly, Claudia Winkleman etc. Also the luncheon was held three days prior to Clarkson's article being published, so at this point few people knew what awful things he was about to state in the article.


https://www.newsweek.com/queen-camilla-lunch-meghan-markle-critic-jeremy-clarkson-explained-1768050


The "Palace" rarely makes any comments regarding the individual members especially if they are adults with their own communications team. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have already issued a statement regarding their thoughts on Clarkson's apology and for now it appears that they don't plan to release another one. Also there was enormous and well- deserved public backlash against The Sun and in particular Clarkson. IMHO that has a far greater impact than anything the "Palace" could ever do.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

For the longest, I could never understand why HRH The Duchess of Sussex got so much vitriol compared to any other public figure but now I'm beginning to.

As an American, the British Royal Family are a cross between celebrities and glorified ambassadors to me. I have no personal fealty to them. To the British people, however, they're a patriotic symbol that ultimately represents them as a people. So when TRH The Sussexes criticize members of the British Royal Family, especially in their roles as servants to the United Kingdom as a whole and its people in particular, many of those people feel that their culture and they themselves are being attacked.

Now, I haven't read the full article, nor do I plan to, but I suspect that Clarkson isn't anywhere near as critical towards HRH The Duke of Sussex, the one who has been a lot more vocal about his criticisms about his own family. Even if Clarkson was as critical, I doubt he expressed a desire to see him punished in a highly sexualized way.

As you say, everyone is entitled to their views, no matter how crass they are, but many people, some in this very forum, have been able to express criticisms about HRH The Duchess of Sussex without stooping to Clarkson's level. There's a reason why a major paper like The Sun would personally choose Jeremy Clarkson, a man known for vulgarity, to write an op-ed about HRH The Duchess of Sussex. There's a reason why Clarkson used the metaphor of Cersei's Walk of Punishment as an appropriate punishment for HRH The Duchess of Sussex: it's a dog whistle to every reader who irrationally loathes her. The United Kingdom may be different, but violent rhetoric from both political leaders and popular press in the United States have led to a lot of violent actions recently.

I'm just happy to see that over 20,000 British readers felt the op-ed went to far and forced The Sun to take it down.

If you didn’t know why the Sussexes aren’t that high rated, watch the Oprah interview, the Netflix docu-series and read the threads on the forums about the docu-series and the interview as well as Tom Bowers book and the Valentine Low’s book, you will get a much fuller picture.

The reason why no one says the kind of things that Jeremy Clarkson on these forums is because there are clear rules on this platform and people who go against them will either be blocked for some days or have their account removed, even people who have just been critical or doubtful have been admonished by moderators or have left the forums.

 

[Denville]

well yes and no. I hope that people can be critical of a royal without resorting to the vicious and vulgar attacks made by Clarkson

 

[Elenath]

If you didn’t know why the Sussexes aren’t that high rated, watch the Oprah interview, the Netflix docu-series and read the threads on the forums about the docu-series and the interview as well as Tom Bowers book and the Valentine Low’s book, you will get a much fuller picture.

The reason why no one says the kind of things that Jeremy Clarkson on these forums is because there are clear rules on this platform and people who go against them will either be blocked for some days or have their account removed, even people who have just been critical or doubtful have been admonished by moderators or have left the forums.

You don't get a full picture here at all. From the very beginning the opinion here about Meghan has been mostly negative. It's one of the reasons I am rarely here. I'll get flack for this, but there's a massive double standard here. People have been complaining for years about the BRF and how it's so damn dysfunctional. And all of a sudden people act like it's the most loving family in the UK. The things Harry and Meghan talked about in their docu have al been said before. None of this is new. People here have said the palaces brief and leak stories about each other and now, all of a sudden, it's new? Diana, Sarah and Philip complained about the "men in grey suits". The gossip press has never been considered reliable on this forum, but from the beginning they have been treated as such if the articles were about Meghan.

You will never hear me say H&M are perfect or that I agree with everything they've done, but if you want a complete picture, this forum has never been it.

 

[Toledo]

I have to say I'm exhausted with the Sussex duo and their adventures, but regardless of my disappointment with them, that Jeremy Clarkson's article was beyond repugnant and so are all the people involved from the moment he submitted it for review to the one who choose the headlines.

One thing I give credit to the Montecito couple, and Prince William and Princess Catherine before them, is that we can all agree the tabloids need disgusting articles as click baits for attention.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

You don't get a full picture here at all. From the very beginning the opinion here about Meghan has been mostly negative. It's one of the reasons I am rarely here. I'll get flack for this, but there's a massive double standard here. People have been complaining for years about the BRF and how it's so damn dysfunctional. And all of a sudden people act like it's the most loving family in the UK. The things Harry and Meghan talked about in their docu have al been said before. None of this is new. People here have said the palaces brief and leak stories about each other and now, all of a sudden, it's new? Diana, Sarah and Philip complained about the "men in grey suits". The gossip press has never been considered reliable on this forum, but from the beginning they have been treated as such if the articles were about Meghan.

You will never hear me say H&M are perfect or that I agree with everything they've done, but if you want a complete picture, this forum has never been it.

Lots of people were happy for Harry finding someone, the people who weren’t approving were admonished and some even left the forums. No one ever said they are most loving family ever or implies that because no family is completely like that including other royal families. Did Diana, Philip and Sarah get paid 100s of millions of dollars for book deals and docuseries? No. That is one major difference between those people and the Sussexes. The issue with the Sussexes wasn’t the so-called grey men, but their communications staff and secretaries who actually tried their best to help them but were rudely treated by them. Which gossip press has been considered reliable on the forums? Not all the articles put on the forums are from tabloids and not everyone here believes what they read. Well, it’s a shame (not) that you think the forums aren’t fair or balanced . Not a single person you listed complained about the residences they lived in, make inaccurate comments about the Commonwealth, no one attacked the marriages of other family members, accused a family member of being r****. You are entitled to your views.