The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-March 2021

[Claricecolin]

Isn't that the one where they were paid to comment on the interview that none of them has seen yet but they pretended they had? The tricksters who played this prank also mentioned donkeys and other things, which they got the RRs to respond to. It'd be hilarious if it weren't so shocking.

Yes that's the one, I just watched it. You are right in that it would be hilarious if not so shocking and I would add sad. These are real people not commodities. I was disturbed by them commenting on something they haven't seen pretending they had.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

It might have been this article, which is a report in The Sun from Lady Colin Campbell.

https://www.the-sun.com/lifestyle/1042668/meghan-markle-rude-total-opportunist-lady-colin-campbell/

I have trouble believing this. Lady Colin Campbell is not the most reliable of sources.

 

[Sionevar]

I have trouble believing htis. Lady Colin Campbell is not the most reliable of sources.

Oh, absolutely not, no And neither is The Sun, so a double credibility whammy

 

[Lilyflo]

Yes that's the one, I just watched it. You are right in that it would be hilarious if not so shocking and I would add sad. These are real people not commodities. I was disturbed by them commenting on something they haven't seen pretending they had.

It's a huge story I think - people making their living from royal reportage caught red-handed pretending to have access to a reliable source ie the interview and then commenting on it. It calls into question how widespread the practice is and how rigorously they check the validity of their sources (in this case, not at all).

 

[Claire]

yep - and it is not just the Sussex reporting - all the nonsense that the royal experts have throwing about - on everyone. Its like vultures. And include Meghan's favorites in this as well. The youtubers however also didn't tell you about the experts that rejected their offer. However I am more likely to forgive Youtubers then journalists.


Also they are just talking about what we have seen in the teasers, which is exactly what we are doing. So unless Meghan has a come to God moment in the interview - the justs of the interview has also been spilled.

 

[Durham]

It's a huge story I think - people making their living from royal reportage caught red-handed pretending to have access to a reliable source ie the interview and then commenting on it. It calls into question how widespread the practice is and how rigorously they check the validity of their sources (in this case, not at all).

But is this for real or some sort of joke by the supposed interviewers? It looks suspiciously like old interviews. Have the makers just come up with new questions that fit in with old footage & then blended it all together?

Donkey sanctuaries? Covid vaccines? Really? Who's fooling who here?

It all stretches credulity. I'd like to see these alleged interviews. If it is not what it purports to be then these two have only succeeded in riling up people as the comments on you tube & twitter show. Talk about feeding into peoples' confirmation bias.

 

[carlota]

something i don't understand is that when they stepped down last year they did so because they said they wanted privacy and they also spoke about the media and how unfair they were to them. those were the key reasons cited.

now, it turns out that part of the problem according to them was that the palace leaked 'falsehoods' against them. was this always the case, they just didn't want to say it as such when they made the decision to leave but now are comfortable doing so? did they come to the 'realisation' (whether true or not) that this was happening after they stepped down, and they thought the media was inventing the 'falsehoods' but then realised it was the palace? (i'm not a believer in a smear campaign i must say, so i am portraying this as it would be felt by H&M)

it is all most odd. i really don't think the 'firm' would engage in such low techniques to discredit them - they are after all family and according to the latest press releases 'much loved members'. why would they do this against them but then the queen calls them to ask what archie wants for xmas? it really doesn't make any sense.

 

[ACO]

Except they never claimed it was for privacy. That is what the media has pushed. They wanted to control who they gave access to in their private and professional life. That is why they said they no longer wanted to work with the royal rota.

They were never going to be hermits and never claimed that. They except that their privacy is respected and frankly who doesn't? No one wants people looking into their windows and have drones flying over their yards. But they have no issue talking to the media to support their causes.

 

[tommy100]

TBF I don't think they said they wanted privacy - they wanted to build their own relationships with the media in a way that wasn't compatible with the RF's open media policy.

They wanted to work with certain media and exclude others while the RF as a public institution works with all media.

the wish of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to live a more independent life as a family, by removing the supposed ‘public interest’ justification for media intrusion into their lives. from sussexroyal.com

 

[US Royal Watcher]

TBF I don't think they said they wanted privacy - they wanted to build their own relationships with the media in a way that wasn't compatible with the RF's open media policy.

They wanted to work with certain media and exclude others while the RF as a public institution works with all media.

the wish of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to live a more independent life as a family, by removing the supposed ‘public interest’ justification for media intrusion into their lives. from sussexroyal.com

I honestly can't remember if they said they wanted privacy at that time, but they have filed several lawsuits alleging invasion of privacy.

 

[AC21091968]

More information on the Sunday Times, written by Roya Nikkhah. This time on the conflict between Sussexes and Palace staff before the wedding. The idea that Meghan was unsuited to the role as senior working royals was touched on and how the Palace staff bend over backwards for her. Despite a lot of briefing from staff, Meghan still "allegedly" don't understand her role as well as the monarchy.

How Meghan became the unmerry wife of Windsor
The honeymoon was over for Meghan even before the wedding according to royal watchers who looked on aghast as the duchess’s dreams met reality at the palace
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-meghan-became-the-unmerry-wife-of-windsor-q0td0js6m

Here is the archive link that has the full article:
https://archive.vn/voXkU#selection-1109.0-1127.65

 

[lirienn]

Oh yeah ego. Egos at war. There might be no innocent but what Patrick wrote about the monarchy is horrendous! It's not classy, it's just like a rant. Also it shows a belief Meghan was better than the Firm which is a terrible look. Jessica M. - a known bully Meghan probably had to cut off.
I hate the WOKE comments who hate Kate for being a doormat and Meghan as a genius. Tigi were very basic and Meghan was no Grace Kelly. Meghan as a president - I saw headlines like this.
Doria stayed silent. I just feel like in a perverse way they want to be humiliated because they had to know they were firing shots, co-writing Finding Freedom or they're stupid and their PR team isn't the strongest. They want to find good PR, money, be surrounded by celebrities and politics. All they can talk about and all anyone cares about is their royal status. I wonder what happens when the Oprah is done and bullets are used. Also I believe her co-stars, not hairdressers etc posts are approved by Meghan and co-stars want a bit of fame and future connections.
Also can anyone else see that some portals are vary of taking sides and supporting Meghan? After all they want to be on good terms with the palace since we'll see the new king(s), Cambridges' kids when Sussex are in the shadows.
My last point - why is Katherine blamed for not caring for Meghan? For a feminist she throws shade at women. Harry I believe isn't blameless and honestly he, living all his life in this, made a terrible choices.
Ok this is the last. The firm will protect you but you have to be willing to be in the shadows for a bit and step down for your wrongdoings. Which makes sense. Don't make headlines and the case goes away. Not the best way but here we have a war. Casualties only.

 

[ACO]

I honestly can't remember if they said they wanted privacy at that time, but they have filed several lawsuits alleging invasion of privacy.

Yes against people flying drones over their private property and taking pictures of them, again, on private property. That is not the same as never wanting a public life. If your privacy was violated then you would be likely pursue that as well. They won those suits for a reason. Laws were broken.

More information on the Sunday Times, written by Roya Nikkhah. This time on the conflict between Sussexes and Palace staff before the wedding. The idea that Meghan was unsuited to the role as senior working royals was touched on and how the Palace staff bend over backwards for her. Despite a lot of briefing from staff, Meghan still "allegedly" don't understand her role as well as the monarchy.

How Meghan became the unmerry wife of Windsor
The honeymoon was over for Meghan even before the wedding according to royal watchers who looked on aghast as the duchess’s dreams met reality at the palace
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-meghan-became-the-unmerry-wife-of-windsor-q0td0js6m

Considering she calls Meghan an "interloper" who wants to be Beyonce, states she didn't have friends at her wedding, and claims she hosted a shooting party (after endless articles about how she banned him from them). I'll pass on it.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Yes against people flying drones over their private property and taking pictures of them, again, on private property. That is not the same as never wanting a public life. If your privacy was violated then you would be likely pursue that as well. They won those suits for a reason. Laws were broken.

To clarify, I am not faulting them for all the lawsuits but didn't they claim invasion of privacy, in addition to copyright violation with the letter publication. My feeling is that if they willingly reveal information about their personal lives and relationships with their families, they shouldn't complain about privacy being violated.

Obviously, Archie should have complete privacy protection and as long as they are not in a public place, they should be able to relax without worrying about photographers.

 

[ACO]

To clarify, I am not faulting them for all the lawsuits but didn't they claim invasion of privacy, in addition to copyright violation with the letter publication. My feeling is that if they willingly reveal information about their personal lives and relationships with their families, they shouldn't complain about privacy being violated.

Obviously, Archie should have complete privacy protection and as long as they are not in a public place, they should be able to relax without worrying about photographers.

That doesn't even make sense. Just because I walk down the street and say hello to you doesn't mean you get to break into my home and ask for tea. Everyone has a right to privacy.

Consent is a thing and it is important.

 

[Mbruno]

More information on the Sunday Times, written by Roya Nikkhah. This time on the conflict between Sussexes and Palace staff before the wedding. The idea that Meghan was unsuited to the role as senior working royals was touched on and how the Palace staff bend over backwards for her. Despite a lot of briefing from staff, Meghan still "allegedly" don't understand her role as well as the monarchy.

How Meghan became the unmerry wife of Windsor
The honeymoon was over for Meghan even before the wedding according to royal watchers who looked on aghast as the duchess’s dreams met reality at the palace
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-meghan-became-the-unmerry-wife-of-windsor-q0td0js6m

Here is the archive link that has the full article:
https://archive.vn/voXkU#selection-1109.0-1127.65

I couldn't read the article behind the paywall, but, if the honeymoon was over even before the wedding. why didn't she call it off?

 

[Durham]

Have you tried the second link - the archive?

 

[US Royal Watcher]

That doesn't even make sense. Just because I walk down the street and say hello to you doesn't mean you get to break into my home and ask for tea. Everyone has a right to privacy.

Consent is a thing and it is important.

I don't think I implied that. I am saying that if they are willing to publicly discuss their private life, they can't later claim that reporting about their private life is off limits.

For example, Meghan's friends disclosed the existence of the letter in an effort to make Thomas Markle look bad. The paper didn't have a right to publish the letter, but that doesn't mean that Meghan can insist they don't write about the letter because Meghan is the leaked the letter in the first place. In other words, if tomorrow they talk about a private matter, then reporting on that matter is fair game, even if the reporting isn't sympathetic to Meghan and Harry.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-

More information on the Sunday Times, written by Roya Nikkhah. This time on the conflict between Sussexes and Palace staff before the wedding. The idea that Meghan was unsuited to the role as senior working royals was touched on and how the Palace staff bend over backwards for her. Despite a lot of briefing from staff, Meghan still "allegedly" don't understand her role as well as the monarchy.



How Meghan became the unmerry wife of Windsor

The honeymoon was over for Meghan even before the wedding according to royal watchers who looked on aghast as the duchess’s dreams met reality at the palace

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-meghan-became-the-unmerry-wife-of-windsor-q0td0js6m



Here is the archive link that has the full article:

https://archive.vn/voXkU#selection-1109.0-1127.65

Ouch. The author didn’t get it right that Meghan had no friends at the wedding. Maybe she meant family- since Doria is the only known family member to attend.

But- one thing that I do buy into- the aide that said it was “drama, drama,drama” with them- and it wasn’t a good working environment. I bet. Meghan was unhappy, wasn’t the right fit for the job. She didn’t want to do the job she’d signed up for. Harry would then be unhappy. Plus- all I’ve seen from these two is drama. Loads of public drama. I can only imagine behind the scenes.

I am not saying the behavior rose to the level of bullying. I don’t know. But I can well believe it wasn’t a pleasant experience for a lot of the staff. Working for 2 miserable people who don’t have a tight reign on their emotions must have been awful.

 

[Blog Real]

It might have been this article, which is a report in The Sun from Lady Colin Campbell.

https://www.the-sun.com/lifestyle/1042668/meghan-markle-rude-total-opportunist-lady-colin-campbell/

I don't believe in this article much. I do not believe that Meghan wants to run for president of the United States of America. It is true that no news about Meghan amazes me.
I also disagree with the author when she says that Harry is weak to one day be able to leave Meghan. Harry has already shown that he is capable of doing what he wants.

 

[Hendrik-Jan77]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-

More information on the Sunday Times, written by Roya Nikkhah. This time on the conflict between Sussexes and Palace staff before the wedding. The idea that Meghan was unsuited to the role as senior working royals was touched on and how the Palace staff bend over backwards for her. Despite a lot of briefing from staff, Meghan still "allegedly" don't understand her role as well as the monarchy.



How Meghan became the unmerry wife of Windsor

The honeymoon was over for Meghan even before the wedding according to royal watchers who looked on aghast as the duchess’s dreams met reality at the palace

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-meghan-became-the-unmerry-wife-of-windsor-q0td0js6m



Here is the archive link that has the full article:

https://archive.vn/voXkU#selection-1109.0-1127.65

A very good article.[.....]

 

[ACO]

I don't think I implied that. I am saying that if they are willing to publicly discuss their private life, they can't later claim that reporting about their private life is off limits.

For example, Meghan's friends disclosed the existence of the letter in an effort to make Thomas Markle look bad. The paper didn't have a right to publish the letter, but that doesn't mean that Meghan can insist they don't write about the letter because Meghan is the leaked the letter in the first place. In other words, if tomorrow they talk about a private matter, then reporting on that is fair game, even if the reporting isn't sympathetic to Meghan and Harry.

But she didn't say the paper couldn't talk about it. She hasn't sued over interviews. I mean her paternal side of the family have talked about her endlessly. What she did sue was a breach of copyright because a tabloid printed her letter almost in full across their papers without her consent and paparazzi agencies being on private property. There is a big difference here.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

But she didn't say the paper couldn't talk about it. She hasn't sued over interviews. I mean her paternal side of the family have talked about her endlessly. What she did sue was a breach of copyright because a tabloid printed her letter almost in full across their papers without her consent and paparazzi agencies being on private property. There is a big difference here.

That was an example, but apparently not a good one - although I really thought they claimed violation of privacy. The point is that any topic that Harry and Meghan discuss tomorrow becomes fair game. If the media starts rooting around to get the other side, Meghan and Harry can't stop it. Once you go down this path, it is very hard to get off it.

 

[Blog Real]

I feel sorry for Archie. Archie cannot be with great-grandparents (Queen and Prince Philip), grandfather (Prince Charles), uncles (Dukes of Cambridge) and cousins (George, Charlotte and Louis).
It is possible that he is with his grandmother Dória several times, but he does not know the other family members.
I'm sorry that the Queen and Prince Philip can't be with Archie. They are old and do not know their great-grandchild.

 

[Alison H]

In Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet starts to change her mind about Mr Darcy when she hears praise heaped on him by his housekeeper, because no-one is better placed to judge someone than "an intelligent servant" (this being the language of over 200 years ago). The modern equivalent would be a PA/aide.

 

[ACO]

That was an example, but apparently not a good one - although I really thought they claimed violation of privacy. The point is that any topic that Harry and Meghan discuss tomorrow becomes fair game. If the media starts rooting around to get the other side, Meghan and Harry can't stop it. Once you go down this path, it is very hard to get off it.

They did win on privacy because they published almost in full. Mentioning the letter and the contents is very different than printing it word for word. I actually think the MoS would have had case had they not did that. The Judge almost said so. But they couldn't help themselves.

I agree what you put in the public domain will be just that. But they aren't suing over that kind of stuff anyways...

I feel sorry for Archie. Archie cannot be with great-grandparents (Queen and Prince Philip), grandfather (Prince Charles), uncles (Dukes of Cambridge) and cousins (George, Charlotte and Louis).
It is possible that he is with his grandmother Dória several times, but he does not know the other family members.
I'm sorry that the Queen and Prince Philip can't be with Archie. They are old and do not know their great-grandchild. :triste:

I mean no one is really with anyone these days. Whether Archie was in the UK or not, he likely would have the same interaction with everyone. We are all in a zoom world these days. Many people are separated from loved ones.

 

[tommy100]

I don't think I implied that. I am saying that if they are willing to publicly discuss their private life, they can't later claim that reporting about their private life is off limits.

For example, Meghan's friends disclosed the existence of the letter in an effort to make Thomas Markle look bad. The paper didn't have a right to publish the letter, but that doesn't mean that Meghan can insist they don't write about the letter because Meghan is the leaked the letter in the first place. In other words, if tomorrow they talk about a private matter, then reporting on that matter is fair game, even if the reporting isn't sympathetic to Meghan and Harry.

I understood the point you are making (I think) - basically they sue for privacy reasons but also are happy to put themselves out there in public - Corden show, Oprah interview - talking about private things when it suits them. If they moved to America and didn't do these sot of interviews it would be easier to claim (at least in public opinion if not court) the desire for privacy.

Where H&M have gone wrong IMO, is making it seem they want privacy when it suits them but are happy to spill when it suits their needs and narrative - e.g. what you say breaches our privacy but when we speak out it is ok because it is our side of the story. That is how the media make it seem anway- what would be interesting is how H&M were to react if HM,Charles, W/K etc did a similar interview to Oprah, only then would we be able to see their reaction to someone doing the same as them.

 

[ladongas]

Of course we can’t be sure, but...

But is this for real or some sort of joke by the supposed interviewers? It looks suspiciously like old interviews. Have the makers just come up with new questions that fit in with old footage & then blended it all together?

Donkey sanctuaries? Covid vaccines? Really? Who's fooling who here?

It all stretches credulity. I'd like to see these alleged interviews. If it is not what it purports to be then these two have only succeeded in riling up people as the comments on you tube & twitter show. Talk about feeding into peoples' confirmation bias.

...if these boys are deliberately falsifying what they have presented, then their ‘brilliant’ careers will be over before it’s begun. But if the royal observers have been carelessly commenting on things they’ve been duped into believing (donkey sanctuary? Covid vaccine refusal?)....then their credibility will be severely damaged.

 

[Durham]

...if these boys are deliberately falsifying what they have presented, then their ‘brilliant’ careers will be over before it’s begun. But if the royal observers have been carelessly commenting on things they’ve been duped into believing (donkey sanctuary? Covid vaccine refusal?)....then their credibility will be severely damaged.

Yes I agree. Absolutely. According to this link the "experts" did indeed respond but at least one of them claims he's been misrepresented by editing.


Dickie added to Metro.co.uk: ‘The approach from Beneath The Fold (note correct name) alleged to be a legitimate invitation for a fast turnaround, pre-recorded interview commissioned by a UK network, to be aired on Monday 8th March 2021. ‘This was deliberately misleading and a “scam”. I commented only on clips already in global circulation, but my interview was edited so as to imply I was speculating on the full programme interview. I was not speculating. I do not speculate.’


Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/06/josh...-about-harry-and-meghan-14199844/?ito=cbshare

So these you tubers are displaying a little sleight of hand so to speak. It would be interesting to see the full interviews.

 

[RandyDrx]

...if these boys are deliberately falsifying what they have presented, then their ‘brilliant’ careers will be over before it’s begun. But if the royal observers have been carelessly commenting on things they’ve been duped into believing (donkey sanctuary? Covid vaccine refusal?)....then their credibility will be severely damaged.

To be fair, the royal reporters aren't the only ones who got pranked by these Youtubers. Let's not forget how just a year ago Harry was duped into thinking that he was speaking to Greta Thunberg and thought that penguins live in the north pole and that Chunga-Changa is a real place.