The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 9: August 2023 - July 2024

[winifred]

I'm scientifically challenged, so can someone with knowledge clarify Meghan's 43% Nigerian DNA. Does it mean 43% of Meghan's black ancestry, which is 50% from Doria, is Nigerian and therefore 57% is other African and yet to be identified? Or is it that 43% of her total DNA is Nigerian, with 7% other African? Or is it not a 50/50 DNA split for a black/white biracial man/woman?

 

[Toledo]

I honestly can't believe that you would think that I would imply that the people of the UK would mistreat the children. Really? I said the media reported Harry being snubbed with glee.
Hopefully this was just a misunderstanding of what I posted because I am actually shocked by your response.
Best wishes to you. I think I need a serious break from this forum.

No one thinks that. From what I read since the Megxit event, I don't think the people in the UK, the USA or anywhere would event say anything negative on the children. I can't speak for others, but we feel they are well loved in both countries and the frustration is more based on the choices their adult-child-like parents seem to make to keep them separated from establishing strong family bonds and relations.

All bad press, negativity and family relations would change in one family reunion moment. But formative months, and now years, go by. Celebrity children in Hollywood has never been a substitute to strong extended family bonds. I get the feeling that we all want the best resolution and I hope, every day, month and year that reasoning will get the top spot on their to-do list and above Netflix and business ventures.

After all, their status is solely based on a family they became distant from to their own accord. Things can change and we all hope for the positive one day.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

I'm scientifically challenged, so can someone with knowledge clarify Meghan's 43% Nigerian DNA. Does it mean 43% of Meghan's black ancestry, which is 50% from Doria, is Nigerian and therefore 57% is other African and yet to be identified? Or is it that 43% of her total DNA is Nigerian, with 7% other African? Or is it not a 50/50 DNA split for a black/white biracial man/woman?

Moderators, I apologize if this is off-topic.

HRH The Duchess of Sussex herself is 43% Nigerian, with the other 57% being from other places. Presumably, all 43% comes from her mother's side of the family, but some of it could also have come from her father's side as well (many White Americans have distant Black ancestors).

HRH The Duchess of Sussex's mother could have 14% of African ancestry from other African countries due to the miscegenation of different African cultures in the Americas, but there's a good chance that she doesn't. I read an article a while back that stated, on average, most African Americans have approximately 70% African DNA, 20% European DNA, and 10% Indigenous DNA. Of course, that's not every African American (I, for example, have over 90% African DNA and no Indigenous DNA), but it's more likely that Mrs. Ragland has some White ancestry than having 100% African ancestry.

 

[shady lady]

OK, back from my walk!

Thank you Toledo for your great post.

I am glad they will be making the trip to Nigeria on the invite of the Nigerian government. Not sure about bringing the children because of amount of time flying and am sure their visit won't be long enough.
As to visiting the family in the UK it would be nice but not if things are still icey between them.

Agreed - no sense in subjecting the kids to that. Maybe someday cooler heads will prevail.

As for it always being Prince Harry has to bring his family to UK to meet his grandparents why don't they fly to California for a few days. I know KC is very ill now but it wasn't always the case. Every time we hear about Harry visiting the UK the media always reports how Harry was snubbed with glee. If that is true I wouldn't want my children subjected to that either.

Maryrose, reading the above posts again, it is clear to me that the suggestion is that the children would be "subjected" to unpleasantness due to the difficult situation between the BRF and H&M. I get that you are saying the media reported "with glee" I misunderstood that, but the above conversation still implies it would be unpleasant for the children to meet the BRF.

And you see, as the BRF represent us, the British people, suggesting the BRF would behave like that, implies we would too, or support them doing it. So yes, it did upset me that people could think we would be capable of doing that, that we're not very nice people; because ever since they quit, that is what H&M have encouraged the world to think of us.

To try and explain, H&M's behaviour has been a betrayal of both the BRF and the UK, to millions of people, and I hold H&M 100% responsible for the division that now exists, not only between the BRF and themselves, but also on social media where so much hate exists, directed in particular to a person who is very sick and has done nothing to deserve it - for allegations made without a shred of evidence. So forgive me if while I disapprove and disagree with the similar attacks on MM, I'm not surprised by them after what she did - what did she expect?

I'm not going to rehash the past, only say that H&M's spiteful attacks on the BRF and the UK by various means, the proven lies such as those told by MM to Oprah, and their selfish behaviour, have caused a lot of hurt here, after we welcomed her to the UK so warmly; it hurt the people, so goodness knows how the BRF felt about it. Worse, for a time, many people believed what she said. It caused so much damage, and time doesn't mean we will ever forget it, or trust either of them ever again.

Imagine being a British person who dares to criticise H&M for behaving badly, only to be told, "you're a racist" because "they" said so; consider how carefully people, especially British people have to say things to try and avoid a similar accusation - I say try, because a couple of times in the past, I've had replies to posts that have suggested I am racist (I am most certainly not racist- and the mods removed them). It impacts away from here, too. I can also state for a fact that I am not the only person who has seen a distinct anti-British agenda in quite few posts on this thread. It's not a nice thing to run the risk of unfair judgment because of the words of a manipulative stranger who doesn't know or care that I exist, that person being MM. That's how millions of British people feel - and we resent it, but we also have the right to defend ourselves, and to challenge it, and H&M's own behaviour. I hope people can appreciate that, and understand now why I found the conversation above upsetting. I did try and address it with humour at first, but we all have our limits, of course.

I hope this post explains everything, it was not my intention to shock you, it was just an honest reaction. I'm tired of all the division and bad feeling H&M have caused. I am considering taking a break myself; if you do take a break, enjoy it and come back soon. All the best to you too.

 

[Anna1519]

I can also state for a fact that I am not the only person who has seen a distinct anti-British agenda in quite few posts on this thread. It's not a nice thing to run the risk of unfair judgment because of the words of a manipulative stranger who doesn't know or care I exist. I hope people can appreciate that, and understand now why the conversation above upset me.

That's quite a remark to make. I'm not entirely sure who is being called manipulative here but I'll respond regardless since I'm quoted. I'm sorry (sincerely) if the conversation listed above upset you but not a single anti-British comment was made from either of us. The conversation was limited to relations between the family members and the media, not how Archie and Lili would be treated by the public. I do not see how any comment made there could be perceived as anti-British. I don't feel negatively about the UK in the slightest, nor did I get that impression from other posters. What I do feel and will stand by my view on is that the whole debate about the kids visiting their paternal family is a moot point right now because of how acrimonious the relations are within the family.

It's unfortunate this will probably be deleted because I do feel like a civil and interesting discussion could be possible here but I will keep this response brief out of respect for the moderators. Happy to chat further via PM if you would like.

 

[shady lady]

That's quite a remark to make. I'm not entirely sure who is being called manipulative here but I'll respond regardless since I'm quoted. I'm sorry (sincerely) if the conversation listed above upset you but not a single anti-British comment was made from either of us. The conversation was limited to relations between the family members and the media, not how Archie and Lili would be treated by the public. I do not see how any comment made there could be perceived as anti-British. I don't feel negatively about the UK in the slightest, nor did I get that impression from other posters. What I do feel and will stand by my view on is that the whole debate about the kids visiting their paternal family is a moot point right now because of how acrimonious the relations are within the family.

It's unfortunate this will probably be deleted because I do feel like a civil and interesting discussion could be possible here but I will keep this response brief out of respect for the moderators. Happy to chat further via PM if you would like.

The manipulative stranger I am referring to is MM, I thought that was clear, but I've amended my post to make this clearer and avoid any more misunderstanding.

Also, I am referring to the anti-British sentiment in "a number of posts", not specifically to that conversation. I still think that is clear, but my apologies if you thought I was referring to you or anyone else in particular.

My post had to be a long one, to explain fully the impact of the last 4-5 years, whilst trying to rehash the past as little as possible. Hopefully the moderators will understand that I don't mean to give them extra work to do, it is certainly a relief to be able to say it.

Thanks for the kind offer, maybe another time. I am tired now, and I have dinner to cook and a cat to feed, and non-Royal Forum stuff to do! But thanks again.

 

[chen bao jun]

I have not posted on this forum for some time, though I've been a member many years. I'm usually a lurker.
I just wanted to point out, Meghan is not 47% 'Nigerian'. There was no such country as Nigeria when her ancestors (from whatever side) were brought to the US (most probably during) the Transatlantic slave trade. 'Nigeria' still is not a place where most citizens would identify themselves as being 'Nigerian' but would identify rather as belonging to some people group such as 'Ibo', 'Fulani' 'Hausa' etc. People belonging to these groups are also found in other nations which formerly supplied the slave trade as well.
So having had a DNA test done that states her DNA matches up with people from Nigeria does not make her Nigerian and it's really not specific enough about what people(s) she's descended from and saying she's Nigerian is not scientific, as has been pointed out. DNA tests are very scientific and accurate for matching you up with relatives (wonderful for adopted people and others), and for crime scenes but not great at sorting out your various ethnicities. This is true for European descent also. Not only have the various borders changed so much but people have always moved from place to place and there are other factors.
The bottom line is that no nation on earth will accept someone as a citizen based on a DNA test and for good reason.
And it is still best and most accurate to use DNA results in tandem with records, family records and historical records, to get a real idea of your ancestry.
So we should be taking the 'Nigerian' ancestry of Meghan with a large pinch of salt, not that she doesn't have a right to make a trip to Nigeria based on whatever she wants and the authorities there don't have a right to play up thus angle and get publicity (and maybe, the Invictus games).
But to speak if this as some heritage her children can now get in touch with is absurd.
It's all very interesting because Prince Harry is one of a very, very small minority of people on the globe who can trace his ancestry back with complete certainty for about 1,000 years with names, portrays, documents etc and so his children of course can too-- but are being cut off (I'm not saying by who)from this unusual heritage. Harry himself has of course shown little interest in this (I was stunned by his historical mistakes about family in 'Spare').
Full disclosure: I'm of mostly African descent myself so do not need to have posts written in answer explaining how African Americans long for more knowledge of their family history and can't get it easily . This fact does not mean we should make history up or even speculate because of wishful thinking.
I'm also one of the many, many colonials of color who was hugely disappointed by how the Harry/Meghan marriage turned out in terms of her fitting into the monarchy, and I don't want to go off topic discussing that other than to say that in my family's personal experience the RF are not racist and we are happy to be part of (the imperfect but who's perfect) Commonwealth.

 

[Ghost]

Nice to meet you, Chen Bao Jun! Great post and so much clearer than what I was trying to say a few pages back.

 

[Alison H]

If Harry and Meghan want to visit Nigeria, or anywhere else, that's their business. It just seems rather ironic that someone who said he hated going on formal visits abroad and couldn't cope with media attention is going on a formal visit abroad and courting media attention. Funny, that ...

 

[Asteria12]

Well said Chen Bao Jun! The DNA perspective is certainly very interesting and anything but clear (clear as mud, as we say hereabouts!), but I certainly do envy those children their clearly traced paternal history. I haven't as yet had a DNA test done, instead relying on old fashioned research. Sometimes I do wish my ancestors weren't just Ag Labs and HD's!

 

[US Royal Watcher]

As for it always being Prince Harry has to bring his family to UK to meet his grandparents why don't they fly to California for a few days. I know KC is very ill now but it wasn't always the case. Every time we hear about Harry visiting the UK the media always reports how Harry was snubbed with glee. If that is true I wouldn't want my children subjected to that either.

Harry and Meghan do not have 9 to 5 office jobs and the children haven't been in school (I guess Archie could be in kindergarten now). They refused the late Queen's invitation to spend time with her in the month before she died. On the other hand, Charles cannot just hop on a plane to fly to California for a few days. He's the head of state. Even before he started his treatment, Charles has been incredibly busy.

 

[MARG]

If Harry and Meghan want to visit Nigeria, or anywhere else, that's their business. It just seems rather ironic that someone who said he hated going on formal visits abroad and couldn't cope with media attention is going on a formal visit abroad and courting media attention. Funny, that ...

You know, after all this time I am at a loss to tell which royal 'supposedly' said what and to whom and, more importantly, which royal commentator wrote what in their column, book, etc or said in their interview, panel, etc. All I really do know is that all of those royal reporters have a financially vested interest in there being absolutely no whiff of possible rapprochement.

In the absence of King Charles and the Princess of Wales, the Sussexes have been used to fill feet of column inches in various magazines detailing in depth the degree to which the Harry's entire family have shunned he and his family in the Amish way. You know, the King is said to love him but there is no room in any establishment for Harry to stay even only overnight. I watched Angela Levine excitedly pontificate on the Royal Rota News all the while trying to stop giggling like a spiteful gossiping schoolgirl.

I thought about it and if it had been an untrue statement, I am sure the palace would have denied it as it was a pretty damning indictment on just how much the King really loves his "Darling Boy" which also seems to jive with the news he is spending the night in a London Hotel this time round as well. Who would want to be publicly humiliated yet again. As to bringing his children? Kids are incredibly sensitive to tension and can act out because they are uncomfortable and don't understand what is going on.

For me, I am just really sad that it seems that even now King Charles is not handing an olive branch and find myself wondering at all those very fine royals at church, shaking hands with all the clergy and yet showing not the slightest inkling of peace, love and understanding within their own family.

 

[FigTree]

Why Harry is staying at a hotel I don't know. He wanted to stay at Windsor last summer and was told no. merely because he hadn't given enough notice. So he stayed in a hotel in Windsor. He does need to give them 28 days notice OR seems always welcome to come stay, with his father certainly, wherever he is. Perhaps Charles isn't staying in London. He does seem to be at Sandringham. And either Harry doesn't want to stay in BH or didn't give enough notice.

Also Charles couldn't really go to California. It 1. Causes immense cost on the American police and 2. He is a King. It would be difficult. Other way round not so much.

 

[Hallo girl]

You know, after all this time I am at a loss to tell which royal 'supposedly' said what and to whom and, more importantly, which royal commentator wrote what in their column, book, etc or said in their interview, panel, etc. All I really do know is that all of those royal reporters have a financially vested interest in there being absolutely no whiff of possible rapprochement.

In the absence of King Charles and the Princess of Wales, the Sussexes have been used to fill feet of column inches in various magazines detailing in depth the degree to which the Harry's entire family have shunned he and his family in the Amish way. You know, the King is said to love him but there is no room in any establishment for Harry to stay even only overnight. I watched Angela Levine excitedly pontificate on the Royal Rota News all the while trying to stop giggling like a spiteful gossiping schoolgirl.

I thought about it and if it had been an untrue statement, I am sure the palace would have denied it as it was a pretty damning indictment on just how much the King really loves his "Darling Boy" which also seems to jive with the news he is spending the night in a London Hotel this time round as well. Who would want to be publicly humiliated yet again. As to bringing his children? Kids are incredibly sensitive to tension and can act out because they are uncomfortable and don't understand what is going on.

For me, I am just really sad that it seems that even now King Charles is not handing an olive branch and find myself wondering at all those very fine royals at church, shaking hands with all the clergy and yet showing not the slightest inkling of peace, love and understanding within their own family.

Without any disrespect to you Marg, you say yourself the media is full of column inches re the Sussex family. We actually have on this forum a list of reliable media sources that we are permitted to quote from, other than Angela Levin I do appreciate you are not identifying anybody in particular but the point is how do we know any of it to be true.
1. Do we know for sure that Harry said to his father I am coming over in May could I stay/ see you.
2. Do we know for sure that Charles said no.
3. Harry has told us in the past re his dislike/ distrust of the institution / family , he maybe doesn't want to stay with them. He has maybe turned away any offers. There is evidence in the past that the couple have passed information over to the media, once again I will avoid examples to prevent breaking the rules re old news, maybe the family do not trust him.
4.Or possibly Harry is playing games, remember the Platinum Jubilee and the Coronation, will they won't they come over.
5. The point I am making is that we do not know for sure, as we know the RF very rarely come out and deny or confirm stories. A policy that IMO has served them well, I personally feel that Harry and Meghan should have followed the same route, but IMO they manipulate the stance.
6. Another point I would like to make and it is a general point not directly as a response to your post but it is not only the British media that print stories about the royals, true or otherwise, sensationalism or facts. Also in the current set up of Social media there is a tendency to believe anything that is on SM. What starts as an opinion by a poster becomes a fact. I do not want to give examples as it rehashes old stories.
Any complaints on here regards media stories re the Sussex family are nearly always directed at British media and experts. I find it hard to believe that none of the USA/ Australian media do not publish stories, accurate or otherwise.
Anyway I have said my piece and like others I might take a break from here , I am so fed up with the lack of conversation and just the British bashing that is going on, not just this thread but others on this forum. I love a debate/ sharing of thoughts, maybe another time.

 

[muriel]

All I really do know is that all of those royal reporters have a financially vested interest in there being absolutely no whiff of possible rapprochement.

Rapprochement of any form is not likely to come from following media stories. The media really has no role to play, IMO. This is about the principals. It is not about what third parties have to say.

Instead, it can only come if time is spent by the principals, behind closed doors, talking "securely" and frankly. There will need to be some real clarity of thought and objective, and a desire to move things forward. Conversations being leaked, or petty PR games being played out are really not going to have any positive impact.

That said, I am not optimistic about any form of meaningful rapprochement for some time. Too much damage has been done, and trust has been destroyed. Water will need to flow for some time before any meaningful progress can be made.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Perhaps the continued distance between TRH The Sussexes and the rest of the BRF is due to the latter's commitment to their constituents.

The things that TRH The Sussexes have said were probably hurtful to the individual family members, but were really hurtful to the people whom they represent. As others have said in this very forum, TRH The Sussexes didn't just insult personal members of their family but Britons/Commonwealth citizens as a whole.

Although HM The King and the rest of the BRF love TRH The Sussexes and would probably love to see them more, their duty is to serve their constituents and put their constituents' feelings above their own. If a large chunk of their people feel insulted by TRH The Sussexes, then it's the BRF's responsibility to honor that.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Although HM The King and the rest of the BRF love TRH The Sussexes and would probably love to see them more, their duty is to serve their constituents and put their constituents' feelings above their own. If a large chunk of their people feel insulted by TRH The Sussexes, then it's the BRF's responsibility to honor that.

If I loved my son and wanted to spend time with him, I wouldn't give two farts what anyone else felt about it. That's my child. So, if the BRF wanted Harry, Meghan, and their children to come to the UK to spend time with them, what other people in the UK might feel about that shouldn't matter. What you're basically advocating is permanent estrangement.

"Sorry, Harry, the UK hates you, so I can't see you or your wife or your children. Toodles!"

If the Sussexes wanted to repair the familial relationship, the other members of the BRF also wanted to repair the relationship, then they should, irrespective of what anyone not in the BRF might have to say about it.

 

[Ghost]

The people in UK - I am not sure they are constituents for the royal family. It’s a unique relationship for which I can’t find a similitude in a republic.


And this brings us to the opinion of the people of UK about the Sussexes. The line between family and role being muggled, it’s difficult to separate the two. In my opinion, HM is navigating it very well, what with being available for Harry when he visits but witholding any privilege Harry might want - Frogmore, accommodation in a crown estate property, and so on.

Let’s see what happens on Wednesday.

 

[Prinsara]

Some sensible and potentially helpful advice for Meghan from the Telegraph and people in British PR: https://archive.is/cYU4J

 

[TLLK]

Some sensible and potentially helpful advice for Meghan from the Telegraph and people in British PR: How to solve a problem like Meghan's appalling public image

There's excellent advice here for Meghan and I hope that she considers it.

 

[shady lady]

Perhaps the continued distance between TRH The Sussexes and the rest of the BRF is due to the latter's commitment to their constituents.

The things that TRH The Sussexes have said were probably hurtful to the individual family members, but were really hurtful to the people whom they represent. As others have said in this very forum, TRH The Sussexes didn't just insult personal members of their family but Britons/Commonwealth citizens as a whole.

Although HM The King and the rest of the BRF love TRH The Sussexes and would probably love to see them more, their duty is to serve their constituents and put their constituents' feelings above their own. If a large chunk of their people feel insulted by TRH The Sussexes, then it's the BRF's responsibility to honor that.

If I loved my son and wanted to spend time with him, I wouldn't give two farts what anyone else felt about it. That's my child. So, if the BRF wanted Harry, Meghan, and their children to come to the UK to spend time with them, what other people in the UK might feel about that shouldn't matter. What you're basically advocating is permanent estrangement.

"Sorry, Harry, the UK hates you, so I can't see you or your wife or your children. Toodles!"

If the Sussexes wanted to repair the familial relationship, the other members of the BRF also wanted to repair the relationship, then they should, irrespective of what anyone not in the BRF might have to say about it.

I wasn't going to post today, there are other things I want to do so I will keep it brief (for me!)

For clarity:
Yes the King needs to respect the UK people's justified feelings about H&M, but nobody expects or wants that to mean that H&M and the children can't visit the UK. Quite the reverse! We would be thrilled for both the king and the children if H&M brought them here. We want them to come and do that, and there is no good reason why they can't visit. The feeling here is that it is long overdue. It doesn't even matter if we don't see the children, what's important is that their 75-year-old poorly grandfather sees them!

To suggest otherwise is to play into H&M's anti-BRF/UK-narrative hands, and enable their "victim" status and "it's not safe in the UK" fantasies. Neither of which are true.

It's H&M putting up the barriers and stopping the children from visiting the UK, not the BRF or the UK people.

H&M operate by causing division, and maintaining that division to make money and boost their celebrity status, and that's not what either the BRF or the UK want or ever wanted. Let us all be very clear on this.

Edit: for info, the people in a country ruled by a King (or Queen) are traditionally known as their "subjects"

 

[Erin9]

All great advice. But from what we hear (be it true or not), Meghan is not very good at following advice.

It was great advice. We’ll see if she listens.

I feel like the last 5 or so years speak for itself. I don’t believe they’ve gotten consistently terrible advice for a good half decade- especially given their staff turnover. So….I’m left with: they don’t take the advice given.

That their reputations are where they are now is honestly rather shocking given where they started.

So- we’ll see what happens. Meghan has been with WME (I think that’s it.) for over a year now. I don’t see much positive effect from that yet.

Out of curiosity: I don’t really understand the point of sending strawberry jam to celeb influencers- and not immediately following that up by….actually selling something. Anything. Maybe I’m missing something.

 

[winifred]

Thank you for the DNA replies. What an absolutely fascinating topic.

 

[chen bao jun]

I wish this family the best, as a family.
Harry is going to have to face, for a while, the fact that 'I love you ' and 'I know I can trust you' are two different things. It's not 18 months since the publication of Spare . It's not even a question of 'you hurt me'. It's a question of: What will you repeat that I said in public next; what will you accuse me of next, in public (for $$); if I let you close to me, where will you stick the knife in this time? It will take a lot of time for people, who are human after all, to be ready to believe he has changed in this very important regard even if he has apologized in some kind of way in private (and we don't know he hasn't, let's hope he has).
In my opinion, you can always find fault on all sides in family rifts, but in this case Harry has to take the responsibility of having just. talked. too. much.
It will take time to build trust back up
I hope they have time.
In the meanwhile, I find it hard to be surprised that the family is being careful about meeting with him and think it very very unfortunate that the Sussex kids are affected. Not trying to figure out where to cast the blame. For whatever reason, they are not with not just one, but TWO very ill grandfathers and this is tragic.

 

[chen bao jun]

I speak as someone who never met either grandfather past babyhood though I was ten years old when they both died

 

[OwlBranch]

It's H&M putting up the barriers and stopping the children from visiting the UK, not the BRF or the UK people.

Do we know this for a fact?

Did Charles ask to see the grandchildren and Harry turned him down? We don't know that. For example, when Harry came over to see Charles after the cancer diagnosis, the newspaper made it seem like the visit was very short, anywhere between 20 to 30mins. Also, since Charles is very busy, it is somewhat inconvenient for Charles to make room in his diary to meet with Harry. The overall tone of the visit, as reported in the newspaper, was not very welcoming, but rather mild tolerance.

Why would Harry bring the children if he is getting a frosty reception each time he visits?

 

[muriel]

It was great advice. We’ll see if she listens.

I feel like the last 5 or so years speak for itself. I don’t believe they’ve gotten consistently terrible advice for a good half decade- especially given their staff turnover. So….I’m left with: they don’t take the advice given.

That their reputations are where they are now is honestly rather shocking given where they started.

So- we’ll see what happens. Meghan has been with WME (I think that’s it.) for over a year now. I don’t see much positive effect from that yet.

Out of curiosity: I don’t really understand the point of sending strawberry jam to celeb influencers- and not immediately following that up by….actually selling something. Anything. Maybe I’m missing something.

You raise a very interesting point. The Sussex "brand", if one could call it that, has taken a very major hit in the last five years. And truth be told, there are only two people responsible for that. It is a pity, for it could all have been very different. Princess Anne or Sophie & Edward could have been great role models for them. But unfortunately, we are where were are. Jam it is!

The overall tone of the visit, as reported in the newspaper, was not very welcoming, but rather mild tolerance.

I wonder why that might be?

 

[chen bao jun]

Some sensible and potentially helpful advice for Meghan from the Telegraph and people in British PR: https://archive.is/cYU4J

It's good advice in general.
I guess she hasn't written the British public off as a possible market for whatever she decides to do/sell (very unclear)since she hired this guy .
But why do you want people to buy things from you if they are so toxic that you can't ever set a foot again in their country?
That's the impression she has given about how she feels about the British and it's not conducive to getting them to buy ARO products.
She has a core group of die hard supporters who would buy, in the US but here she has the problem that she's seen as irrelevant in a lot of quarters at this point. She went from heroine to victim to punchline to makes-me- yawn in record time. There's so much going on here at this point in terms of economy, election, polarization etc that she's really not on the radar very much for many. It's not even dislike. It's, why are you relevant?
Maybe I'm wrong and there will be a big rush to buy her jam and whatever else when she finally prices it and makes it available.

 

[shady lady]

Do we know this for a fact?

Did Charles ask to see the grandchildren and Harry turned him down? We don't know that. For example, when Harry came over to see Charles after the cancer diagnosis, the newspaper made it seem like the visit was very short, anywhere between 20 to 30mins. Also, since Charles is very busy, it is somewhat inconvenient for Charles to make room in his diary to meet with Harry. The overall tone of the visit, as reported in the newspaper, was not very welcoming, but rather mild tolerance.

Why would Harry bring the children if he is getting a frosty reception each time he visits?

To answer your last question first:

Because it's not about PH.

As per, H&M are putting their own interests before anyone else's. From Toledo's excellent post yesterday (I hope he won't mind me quoting it in part here):

"I hope, every day, month and year that reasoning will get the top spot on their to-do list and above Netflix and business ventures."

Amen to that!

I am satisfied on the evidence available that H&M have put up the barriers to the children visiting, and I stand by my previous comment.

They all came over for the jubilee, and H&M even published a picture of the family at Frogmore if I remember correctly (I'm assuming the photo is genuine). Moreover, as per tradition, the King will be enjoying his second annual summer break in August, as HLM the Queen did; indeed spending her last summer there before her sad passing. That's a great time for family visits.

Obviously, there would have to be a lot of careful organising because of the understandable trust issues BRF have with H&M and the hurt they have caused the family, and that is a another barrier H&M themselves put up; but they managed the Jubliee en famille, and if they can come to the noisy, busy, Jubilee, they can definitely manage a quiet trip to Scotland. The public wouldn't expect to see the children, or H&M for that matter - unless of course H&M want to be seen for some reason.

The important question for me is: Why would an elderly man in poor health not want to see his grandchildren? and let's not forget this applies to both grandfathers, not just The King.

The answer to that lies in another question: What is most important to H&M?

On that note, I'm off to sort my tea out and to continue watching Michael Palin's trip to Nigeria on catchup.

All just my own opinion, as always

 

[Hallo girl]

Do we know this for a fact?

Did Charles ask to see the grandchildren and Harry turned him down? We don't know that. For example, when Harry came over to see Charles after the cancer diagnosis, the newspaper made it seem like the visit was very short, anywhere between 20 to 30mins. Also, since Charles is very busy, it is somewhat inconvenient for Charles to make room in his diary to meet with Harry. The overall tone of the visit, as reported in the newspaper, was not very welcoming, but rather mild tolerance.

Why would Harry bring the children if he is getting a frosty reception each time he visits?

I know I said I was taking a timeout but I needed to answer you OwlBranch, why are you accepting without question what the newspapers say when on this very forum, the media are subjected to abuse especially the British media, about how they are rubbish etc etc.
It appears that the media stories are acceptable when it suits the narrative. When it doesn't suit they are all that is bad.
It is factual that Harry was only at the palace for around 30 minutes, what we do not know is how the conversation went.
The King could have been frosty, or he could have been very apologetic that he had to leave early. He could have invited Harry to join him at Sandringham, Harry could have refused in a frosty manner or been disappointed that he couldn't go for other reasons.
Harry possibly already knew that The King could not spend too much time with him, but he loved his father enough that he was prepared to travel all that distance for 30 minutes with him.
What I will say in Harrys favour is that since the visit, he appears to have found restraint with regards commenting on the family. No more ' making sure they are surrounded by the right people', or comments about the staff/ private secretaries etc.
I am not interested in their business plans, as that is a different issue.