The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June-July 2021

[UglyAmerican]

Scobie does them no favours with comments like this: ‘Meghan came in driven and ready to work and that immediately ruffled feathers. She’s a woman well into her 30s: I think she’s proven to herself and the people she’s worked with up until that point that she knows what she’s doing.‘ She was certainly not someone who was going to change herself just to please the people around her."

? As though "a woman well into her 30s" can't ever be incompetent, demanding, manipulative, psychologically unstable, or otherwise difficult to work for! I am one, and I've worked with and for plenty of others. They're no more or less likely to be those things than any other demographic, and I've witnessed several behave in exactly the way Meghan is accused of. Some of the people complaining about her were probably "women well into their 30s," too, or even older. If no one ever publicly complained about any of them before, does that automatically mean they're right and Meghan's wrong? Assuming not, then I don't think the fact that no one was willing to attach their name to a public complaint about Meghan means the opposite. That whole line of reasoning is just idiotic.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Personally, I thought that Omid's most interesting statement about the relationship between Meghan and her staff was:

She [Meghan] was certainly not someone who was going to change herself just to please the people around her. I felt they also had to be reminded: “You’re not the stars of the show here. There is a hierarchy and you don’t come very high in it.”

Too bad Meghan didn't understand that she wasn't at the top of the hierarchy or the star of the show. He's effectively admitting that she was heavy handed and not a team player. When one of her supporters makes an admission like this, I have to think that the truth is even worse than I thought.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June 2021-

Personally, I thought that Omid's most interesting statement about the relationship between Meghan and her staff was:



Too bad Meghan didn't understand that she wasn't at the top of the hierarchy or the star of the show. He's effectively admitting that she was heavy handed and not a team player. When one of her supporters makes an admission like this, I have to think that the truth is even worse than I thought.

I was pretty stunned that a source friendly to Harry and Meghan said all of this. Is this really what they want people to hear? Is this truly how Harry and Meghan want her to come across? Really?

This does not IMO speak highly of Meghan at all. It’s exactly like what you said- she comes across as heavy handed, not a team player, and based on what else he said about her, unwilling to compromise, listen or learn….because she knew everything. This is not a positive view. Scobie says it like it is- but it’s not IMO.

And- yes- the truth might be worse if this is what a friendly source says about her. I mean- if I didn’t know he was a friendly source- I’d say he was purposefully giving credence to the bullying allegations.

 

[UglyAmerican]

They can't ever seem to hang onto friends for very long. And ultimately, Scobie's goal is his own career and his own book royalties. The Sussexes are useful to him only insofar as they further those goals. It's possible he's gotten both personally and professionally tired of them.

 

[Moran]

They can't ever seem to hang onto friends for very long. And ultimately, Scobie's goal is his own career and his own book royalties. The Sussexes are useful to him only insofar as they further those goals. It's possible he's gotten both personally and professionally tired of them.

That might well be the case but to me, it reads like Finding Freedom, aka Scobie being legitimately convinced that they were both stellar and hard done by. Everyone should have just appreciated and obeyed their stellar orbit and if they acted in a certain way, it was surely someone else's fault for not doing it their way.

 

[RandyDrx]

It appears that when it comes to H&M, everything is always somebody else's fault and never theirs, which is why I'm not surprised that so many people on the internet labelled them as a pair of narcissists.

 

[Denville]

Personally, I thought that Omid's most interesting statement about the relationship between Meghan and her staff was:



Too bad Meghan didn't understand that she wasn't at the top of the hierarchy or the star of the show. He's effectively admitting that she was heavy handed and not a team player. When one of her supporters makes an admission like this, I have to think that the truth is even worse than I thought.

What?? There is a hierachy? what happened to all that egalitarianism Meghan?

 

[UglyAmerican]

I think the hierarchy bit goes back to Meghan's fundamental misunderstanding of her position and its obligations. I'm not saying class privilege has been eliminated in the US - far from it! - but for the most part, people in higher-ranking managerial positions are there because they did something to earn it. That's usually some combination of relevant skills, qualifications, and experience, and it usually involves convincing HR or some other higher-up that they're the best choice out of all the other applicants. That doesn't necessarily mean they really were the best choice, and it certainly doesn't mean that they should be horrible to their staff, but it does mean that if a subordinate wants to give them advice about some aspect of their job, they shouldn't necessarily defer to the subordinate's judgment over their own. The same was true for Meghan in previous jobs. She got her acting roles because (presumably) she did well enough at the audition to convince those in charge that she was the best person for it. She's not going to let the coffee-fetcher tell her how to be a better actress, because what does the coffee-fetcher know about acting? Maybe that's not the best attitude to have, but it's understandable and very common in that situation.

The problem is that she failed to recognize that being a working royal was different. She got that job for one reason, and one reason only: she married a prince. If Harry hadn't wanted to marry her, she might have been the best Duchess the world has ever seen, and it wouldn't have mattered. If she'd been terrible at it, he'd probably have married her anyway, and she'd still have gotten the job. But she seemed to view that fact that she was a Duchess as proof that she knew more about the job than her staff ever could. That's not really a workable mindset for jobs one gets due to family ties rather than any kind of merit-based process, especially when it's someone new to the role ignoring the advice of support staff who've been doing this exact thing for decades.

I think this is part of where the concept of "noblesse oblige" comes from. A fair-minded person who knows that they're where they are entirely due to an accident of birth isn't going to feel like their inherited position gives them any fundamental superiority over their staff members. Positional and supervisory authority, yes, but not superiority of knowledge, skills, or judgment. Approaching that type of position with the mindset that you know better than the staff because they work for you rather than vice versa is a recipe for disaster, because you're probably wrong. The rest of the royals know that, perhaps because they were raised with it being normal. But either no one tried to explain it to Meghan, or she just didn't want to hear it.

 

[Lee-Z]

I think the hierarchy bit goes back to Meghan's fundamental misunderstanding of her position and its obligations. I'm not saying class privilege has been eliminated in the US - far from it! - but for the most part, people in higher-ranking managerial positions are there because they did something to earn it. That's usually some combination of relevant skills, qualifications, and experience, and it usually involves convincing HR or some other higher-up that they're the best choice out of all the other applicants. That doesn't necessarily mean they really were the best choice, and it certainly doesn't mean that they should be horrible to their staff, but it does mean that if a subordinate wants to give them advice about some aspect of their job, they shouldn't necessarily defer to the subordinate's judgment over their own. The same was true for Meghan in previous jobs. She got her acting roles because (presumably) she did well enough at the audition to convince those in charge that she was the best person for it. She's not going to let the coffee-fetcher tell her how to be a better actress, because what does the coffee-fetcher know about acting? Maybe that's not the best attitude to have, but it's understandable and very common in that situation.

The problem is that she failed to recognize that being a working royal was different. She got that job for one reason, and one reason only: she married a prince. If Harry hadn't wanted to marry her, she might have been the best Duchess the world has ever seen, and it wouldn't have mattered. If she'd been terrible at it, he'd probably have married her anyway, and she'd still have gotten the job. But she seemed to view that fact that she was a Duchess as proof that she knew more about the job than her staff ever could. That's not really a workable mindset for jobs one gets due to family ties rather than any kind of merit-based process, especially when it's someone new to the role ignoring the advice of support staff who've been doing this exact thing for decades.

I think this is part of where the concept of "noblesse oblige" comes from. A fair-minded person who knows that they're where they are entirely due to an accident of birth isn't going to feel like their inherited position gives them any fundamental superiority over their staff members. Positional and supervisory authority, yes, but not superiority of knowledge, skills, or judgment. Approaching that type of position with the mindset that you know better than the staff because they work for you rather than vice versa is a recipe for disaster, because you're probably wrong. The rest of the royals know that, perhaps because they were raised with it being normal. But either no one tried to explain it to Meghan, or she just didn't want to hear it.

Would never have believed it 2 years ago, but with all the blurbs they put out themselves or via mouthpieces you'd almost think this is indeed the case, but it's still mindboggling:
- why did Harry not explain it to her until she understood? or did he not see the extent of misunderstanding Meghan had about royal life? either way it's an epic omission on his part
- on a filmset maybe Meghan wouldn't listen to the people from catering, but i bet as an actress you have to listen to loads of people: director, writer, camerapeople (i bet if the camera person says 'please turn a bit, the light is all off like that' you do that as an actress and don't say 'this light is good for me'), soundpeople, producers and who knows how many more..
- the royal also has *responsibility* to their staff, like in a decent company, if something goes wrong, don't *publicly* blame the operators/workers etc, say "*we* made a mistake, *we* could have handled it better" in public and sort things out in private

Again, i never believe the stories in the brirish media by default and dismiss them as loads of b.., but H&M keep proving the media articles indeed are based in reality...

why? do they not see that? is there no self reflection at all?

 

[Lee-Z]

also i'm conflicted about if it would be a good idea for Harry and HM to meet face2face.. if he is uncapable of taking any responsibilty for anything that happened himself, then i would think it very frustrating for HM to talk to him.

On the other hand, if he has to tell his narrative face2face to her, it might hit home a lot more that he is actually talking about his own family... to just put your story out to friendly faces who sympathize with you (Scobie, Oprah) it's a lot more neutral and you only have to think about your side of the story and how *you* feel...

 

[Heavs]

The problem is that she failed to recognize that being a working royal was different. She got that job for one reason, and one reason only: she married a prince. If Harry hadn't wanted to marry her, she might have been the best Duchess the world has ever seen, and it wouldn't have mattered. If she'd been terrible at it, he'd probably have married her anyway, and she'd still have gotten the job. But she seemed to view that fact that she was a Duchess as proof that she knew more about the job than her staff ever could. That's not really a workable mindset for jobs one gets due to family ties rather than any kind of merit-based process, especially when it's someone new to the role ignoring the advice of support staff who've been doing this exact thing for decades.

I think this is part of where the concept of "noblesse oblige" comes from. A fair-minded person who knows that they're where they are entirely due to an accident of birth isn't going to feel like their inherited position gives them any fundamental superiority over their staff members. Positional and supervisory authority, yes, but not superiority of knowledge, skills, or judgment. Approaching that type of position with the mindset that you know better than the staff because they work for you rather than vice versa is a recipe for disaster, because you're probably wrong. The rest of the royals know that, perhaps because they were raised with it being normal. But either no one tried to explain it to Meghan, or she just didn't want to hear it.

The BIB is a key factor for me. She wasn't interviewed and hired for a role to "modernise the monarchy" or any of their plans. She got the job because she married someone and married them after a whirlwind romance. She didn't beat out other applicants and come in with a specific brief. She and Harry seemed to believe their press and appoint themselves as head of a progressive new monarchy but from everything they've said themselves and Scobie has said for them, every time they encountered opposition to their plans they blamed racism, jealousy and lack of work ethic, nothing has ever been their fault or they could have handled things better. Never mind that they were one part of a Firm and they couldn't do whatever they liked and that others had more experience than they did. Even the the business world you listen to your advisors and it's not good form to blame those working for you for your mistakes.

Also whilst she obviously had a lot of acting and auditioning work experience and networking and a lot of determination, she didn't have much corporate executive experience for lack of a better analogy. Many of those working for her actually did. So it's a little rich to blame them for not being good enough when she herself was moving in to a completely new type of job, in a new country and expect that all her ideas for the 1000 year old company are going to be amazing and people should jump to implement them.

I think people did try to explain it to her, it even says that in Finding Freedom but Scobie says Meghan didn't want to listen because basically she shouldn't have to listen to the men in grey because she's Meghan.

That said, I don't think she knew what she was getting into and assumed a lot of things that didn't prove to be true. But I do think she pushed away a lot of help. We know Samantha Cohen was specifically asked to tutor her in protocol, that Sophie (an ex business woman) was drafted in to offer advice and that there was an effort to introduce her to Americans who knew the firm and UK culture and could be a conduit of understanding and explanations.

That might well be the case but to me, it reads like Finding Freedom, aka Scobie being legitimately convinced that they were both stellar and hard done by. Everyone should have just appreciated and obeyed their stellar orbit and if they acted in a certain way, it was surely someone else's fault for not doing it their way.

This is a little like FF where Scobie went out of his way to confirm all the petty, stupid rumours but in such a way that Meghan was never at fault but everyone else just couldn't see her brilliance or were wrong for not doing whatever she suggested. All he's doing here is confirming that both of them were indeed very difficult to work for.

And they *were* being given their own piece of the pie. There's a lot of evidence that they were being groomed to become the Commonwealth couple and Meghan was given several important patronages to that effect and other ones that suited her the the National Theatre. They just couldn't do *everything* they wanted. Which is standard in any company.

 

[Moran]

I never believed the "It's not my job to coddle people" quote. I'm reconsidering this now. Scobie presents an image of Meghan's that sounds just about this line, even if he won't give the quotation. It's the attitude.

She wasn't going to change just to please the people around her but everyone else should have been doing pirouettes just to please her, it seems. No one else mattered.

Scobie all but confirmed what I said: these two didn't hate the old, pale, stale monarchy and hierarchy. They simply hated the fact that they didn't get the top places. If they had gotten them, there would have never been a peep out of them and the idea of modernisation would have never crossed their minds.

 

[Kataryn]

I

I think this is part of where the concept of "noblesse oblige" comes from. A fair-minded person who knows that they're where they are entirely due to an accident of birth isn't going to feel like their inherited position gives them any fundamental superiority over their staff members. Positional and supervisory authority, yes, but not superiority of knowledge, skills, or judgment. Approaching that type of position with the mindset that you know better than the staff because they work for you rather than vice versa is a recipe for disaster, because you're probably wrong.

I believe you have some valuable points here. But I don't see Maghan as such an arrogant "principal" - rather one that had to learn from early on that not all of the Royal staff is loyal to her (think of the stories that were told pre-wedding) and not all advice is sound and good (think of that early visit with the queen when she had obviously not been informed about how to enter the car), while the events she organized (like the cookbook) worked just fine.



Harry did no help much (like telling her about the racist remarks) and when she fell ill with depression in her pregnacy, she didn't get any helpful advice (at least that's what she thought). So I can imagine how she became the "principal from hell", trusting noone always trying to do things her way and that with force (there is a bit of angry childlike behaviour here at play, I think). And then when they tried to find a solution staying on as help for the queen halfway and doing what they could imagine they could do without the firm the other half, they were forced out of the firm and out of the country.



Yes, I know that this was a paththey needn't have taken but with two such headstrong people (and one so convinced there will always be an active place for the son of the future king and Diana) they ended up in California. Where they felt forced to give interviews and then explain even more in the aftermatch, while now the Royals are united against them.



Not a good place! But I can see how it lead to that place and it's not because Meghan was not willing in the beginning.She isn't such a born diplomat like Catherine or Camilla, she is rather an actress who longs for center stage and in that environment, it just wasn't working.


As for Charles: IMHO he hopes that the time in California will help them to find fulfillment. And who knows what happens later?

 

[Moran]

I think her desire to modernise the monarchy didn't align with what we consider modernising at all. Most European monarchies have taken steps towards gender equality and/or slimming the monarchy down in some way, so it isn't seen as an anachronism meant to subsidize the privileged life of an increasing number of people. Meghan threw a fit about styles, not recognizing that her son had an edge over other family members just because of the virtue of being born to a royal parent who was male. Like Harry, she still lives in the times where "blood royal" constituted an inherent privilege of royalty by itself while in more modern times, the efforts have been aimed towards limiting it to the "useful", aka working and very royally visible members of the RFs. Instead, she treated "royal" like a last name. That's the epithome of privilege at a time where those born in royalty are making some (rather ridiculous) efforts to convince us just how much like us they are. But these people read the room somewhat. Meghan doesn't.

Her "modernising" the monarchy very clearly didn't include giving up any of her own, rather recent, privileges...

And it's a ridiculous concept anyway. There has been no time in the history of any monarchy when modernisation has ever been carried out by the sixth in line. They've always been done by the monarch or with the monarch's approval.

Re: not entering the car before the Queen? That seems rather far-fetched to me. It's good manners not to 1) rush to enter anywhere ahead of a very old lady; 2) rush to enter before someone already standing at the door; 3) push yourself in a car in a way that requires you to slide on the seats. That's why there are 2 doors. You just go around and enter from the door next to your seat. It has nothing with palace etiquette, it's just good upbringing. That's why the awwing and cooing over Doria who is perceived as so dignified amuse me. She didn't teach her kid basic manners. Neither did Thomas, of course, but he isn't the one admired for being all this dignified.

Palace aides were there to teach Meghan etiquette, not fill in the gaps her parents let form at the time they should have taught her basic courtesy. And BTW, the aides clearly showed Meghan to go around the car but being Meghan, she had to ask the Queen who goes first. As a woman of manners, HM said it was Meghan, of course.

The pre-wedding stories were leaked but they were not false - even Scobie makes this clear, although he tries to dress it as everyone else's fault. And IMO, in each of these stories the Sussex risk got evaluated and deemed to be rising steeply.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Have you ever heard the saying that someone was born on third base but thinks they hit a triple? It describes someone who ends up in a place of privilege by an accident of birth or luck, including by marriage, but acts like they slogged their way up (see Meghan's constant crowing that she "worked her whole life"- don't think that isn't meant to imply there is some sort of connection to where she ended up). Then they use that to lecture people about their position, as if they ended up there by anything but happenstance. That pretty much sums up Meghan's behavior as described by her mouthpiece, Scobie.

Suffice it to say that if you yourself (again, assuming Scobie isn't saying anything not from the horse's mouth here) are describing your own behavior as reminding other people of their place in the grand scheme of it all, the reality must have been an absolute nightmare.

I have observed on these forums, well before any allegations of bullying surfaced, that the Royal Family has a bit of an upside-down approach when it comes to the relationship between senior staff and family members. In many respects, some senior members of staff are "above" the family members in the pecking order. What do I mean by this? Think of Harry's recent comments, suggesting that The Queen's wish to see him was overridden by the demands of senior staff. The most senior staff members are considered so well-versed in what they do that they serve as a "check" on the whims and impulses of the family. (Now, I don't believe this particular scenario, but his willingness to believe it demonstrates the way the family and staff hierarchy works.)

Clearly no one explained this to "place in the hierarchy" Meghan who, again, found herself on third base and acted as though she hit a triple when in fact she was "born" there- or, more accurately, married there, but in any case, did nothing to earn it. It's becoming clear- actually, it was just said explicitly- that Meghan thought that because she found herself in this position, she would get to "remind others" that they were not in this privileged position, that she had "worked her whole life" and try to create some sort of false connection between that and where she ended up. But we are learning that the royal household takes a dim view of this.

Again, what a nightmare. Good riddance to the pair leaving.

 

[Denville]

Its always something said about the King/queen... that he/she is a good monarch but has been kept out of the loop by evil advisers..
so I'm not surprised that Harry's insinuating that his grandma would be fine with him doing antything he likes but that her advisers have interfered and kept him from seeing her or the like.

 

[camelot23ca]

Have you ever heard the saying that someone was born on third base but thinks they hit a triple? It describes someone who ends up in a place of privilege by an accident of birth or luck, including by marriage, but acts like they slogged their way up (see Meghan's constant crowing that she "worked her whole life"- don't think that isn't meant to imply there is some sort of connection to where she ended up). Then they use that to lecture people about their position, as if they ended up there by anything but happenstance. That pretty much sums up Meghan's behavior as described by her mouthpiece, Scobie.

Suffice it to say that if you yourself (again, assuming Scobie isn't saying anything not from the horse's mouth here) are describing your own behavior as reminding other people of their place in the grand scheme of it all, the reality must have been an absolute nightmare.

I have observed on these forums, well before any allegations of bullying surfaced, that the Royal Family has a bit of an upside-down approach when it comes to the relationship between senior staff and family members. In many respects, some senior members of staff are "above" the family members in the pecking order. What do I mean by this? Think of Harry's recent comments, suggesting that The Queen's wish to see him was overridden by the demands of senior staff. The most senior staff members are considered so well-versed in what they do that they serve as a "check" on the whims and impulses of the family. (Now, I don't believe this particular scenario, but his willingness to believe it demonstrates the way the family and staff hierarchy works.)

Clearly no one explained this to "place in the hierarchy" Meghan who, again, found herself on third base and acted as though she hit a triple when in fact she was "born" there- or, more accurately, married there, but in any case, did nothing to earn it. It's becoming clear- actually, it was just said explicitly- that Meghan thought that because she found herself in this position, she would get to "remind others" that they were not in this privileged position, that she had "worked her whole life" and try to create some sort of false connection between that and where she ended up. But we are learning that the royal household takes a dim view of this.

Again, what a nightmare. Good riddance to the pair leaving.

Your point about the staff is a good one. From listening to various family members talk about family dynamics over the years, it seems there is a very clear demarcation between private family time and official British Royal Family business. I think I posted something like this with regard to the wedding tiara/Angela Kelly debacle, suggesting that someone like Angela Kelly likely had a very clear idea of what issues the Queen would want to get involved in, and that part of her job may well have been to deflect these issues away from QEII, even (or especially) when family members were involved.

I don’t think it’s so much that senior staff are above the family members, but I do think the most experienced staff members believe it’s their job to protect the institution, not to cater to family members even when they’re acting in ways that could potentially harm The Firm. Obviously they would know, for example, that when Harry and Meghan decided to leave, Harry would eventually be able to speak with his grandmother. But I think the staff would have been able to see how emotional and possibly even out of control the Sussexes were at the time and, based on that, would have given the Queen their opinion that a productive conversation wouldn’t be possible.

I don’t for a minute believe that the Queen is a feeble old lady who can’t figure out that she’s getting bad advice from her staff members, the way Harry has suggested.

 

[Heavs]

Basically, she had to juggle purse strings vs. principles and the place in a monarchy. Surely she knew that should she refuse to behave like a royal daughter and granddaughter in-law, she'd be relegated to the backburner faster than she could learn the national anthem. All 30 words of it ?

She didn't dislike the inequalities and rituals. As I've often said, she never indicated she realized that everyone lower than Harry in the hierarchy had to take place behind her, she only saw the backs of those ahead of her. And she was rather quick last year at the Commonwealth service to take the place alotted to her due to her having married a prince...

She may have found the rituals strange and meaningless but I don't think they were a big concern.

There's a quote from a book series I've read which I think sums the situation up: "Egalitarians adjust to aristocracies just fine, as long as they get to be the aristocrats".

From what they've said and done it seems they have no problem coming higher in the hierarchy than those who've been serving HM for their whole lives like her cousins and it's been in their best interests to ignore things like the fact that the Wessex children don't have/use HRH titles but their cousins born 15 years earlier do among other things. Because it weakens their argument.

Nor do they appear to think about how other members of the family don't have full time security despite being HRH.

Even the original Megxit statement on Sussex Royal makes it very clear they were aware of the perks that they wanted to keep that others don't have.

They complain about the things they did get that weren't good enough and they complain about the things they didn't get because they weren't high enough to get but don't ever seem to appreciate what they did have that others in the family don't.

Its always something said about the King/queen... that he/she is a good monarch but has been kept out of the loop by evil advisers..
so I'm not surprised that Harry's insinuating that his grandma would be fine with him doing antything he likes but that her advisers have interfered and kept him from seeing her or the like.

This is apparently one of the things that was of growing concern to HM and her staff over the BBC/Lilibet issue. That they were trying to portray her as a slightly dotty elderly lady kept prisoner in a nursing home type situation being controlled by evil courtiers whilst she was 100% on their side and sneaking in secret phone calls to H&M.

I think there's plenty of evidence in the last few weeks that HM is in control of all her faculties.

Not to mention it is completely disingenuous to say "The Firm is evil and toxic and everyone is a terrible person who never asked how we were and everyone is trapped and doesn't know it, but Granny who's BEEN the firm for the last 70 years is perfect and agrees with everything we do". That's just no a plausible sentence and the double speak is clearly showing when they try and do it.

 

[Denville]

Ygrandmother. But I think the staff would have been able to see how emotional and possibly even out of control the Sussexes were at the time and, based on that, would have given the Queen their opinion that a productive conversation wouldn’t be possible.

I don’t for a minute believe that the Queen is a feeble old lady who can’t figure out that she’s getting bad advice from her staff members, the way Harry has suggested.

I think the queen handled dealing with Harry pretty well in January, when they had the big discussion. I suspect she firmly laid it on the line ot him that he couldn't be Half in and half out, etc etc... I wonder if he got angry. But I do agree that perhaps some of the senior staff DID try to keep some distance between them not because the queen is a daffy old lady who might give in to him but just because they knew that what he was looking for was impossible... if he was increasingly honest with her and the staff.. So perhaps they did advise that he go away and think things over and told him that the Queen would see him in due course...
I think they were trying to spare her awkward conversations in hopes that Harry would modify his demands...

Ssoner in a nursing home type situation being controlled by evil courtiers whilst she was 100% on their side and sneaking in secret phone calls to H&M.

I think there's plenty of evidence in the last few weeks that HM is in control of all her faculties.

That's why I dont really believe the stories of Philip endearingly closing the zoom conversations by turning off his computer. I dont think that Phil had lost his marbles but I think that he kept his mind off worries and so on in the last few months. He was too tired out and unwell to do otherwise... so I think he knew that if he let himself dwell on Har and Meghan he would explode so it was best not to think of them... so I doubt if he had chat with them.. mabye a quick hello....

 

[US Royal Watcher]

The Queen is obviously able to make hard decisions and handle difficult conversations, but I can understand her staff wanting to shield her as much as possible - she was 93 when Harry and Meghan decided to step back. It's natural for her staff to be protective.

On another topic, I don't think Meghan had any problem curtsying to Charles. By all accounts, even Omid's she and Charles got along well and I don't think it was because of money. I think Charles really tried and he and Meghan connected because they share many of the same views on issues. If she's upset with Charles now, it is because of the money and in support of Harry.

I think she resented William and, especially, Catherine's precedence in the royal family. They are in the same generation and Meghan would (accurately) consider herself their intellectual equal. The issue, as others have pointed out, is that the royal family is not based on meritocracy. According to Omid, she resented being told that William and Catherine's projects took precedence over Harry and hers. Meghan, herself, has admitted that she was upset when she felt staff was more concerned about Catherine's image than hers.

 

[camelot23ca]

On another topic, I don't think Meghan had any problem curtsying to Charles. By all accounts, even Omid's she and Charles got along well and I don't think it was because of money. I think Charles really tried and he and Meghan connected because they share many of the same views on issues. If she's upset with Charles now, it is because of the money and in support of Harry.

I think she resented William and, especially, Catherine's precedence in the royal family. They are in the same generation and Meghan would (accurately) consider herself their intellectual equal. The issue, as others have pointed out, is that the royal family is not based on meritocracy. According to Omid, she resented being told that William and Catherine's projects took precedence over Harry and hers. Meghan, herself, has admitted that she was upset when she felt staff was more concerned about Catherine's image than hers.

I think Meghan’s view of TRF wasn’t completely off the mark. I don’t believe she thought she was marrying into a meritocracy and she probably got the basic concept of the Queen at the top, followed by the PoW. So far, so good. But I agree with you that there seemed to be resentment of William, and especially Catherine. I suspect she thought that the third level of the RF was composed of four people of equal importance - William, Catherine, Harry and herself. And if she’d married Harry even five years earlier that may well have been true for awhile, but meghan joined the family at around the time when William and Catherine were steadily increasing their public profile, individually and as a couple.
If I had to guess, I’d say what Meghan really couldn’t wrap her head around was that, yes, the staff and advisors surrounding the BRF did have more invested in William than Harry, and they would most certainly devote more of their resources and energy to Kate than they would Meghan. And that, not only was nobody apologetic about this, but the gap would only grow with time. I don’t think that suited her at all, and the problem was made even worse by the fact that it really didn’t suit Harry, either.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I think Meghan’s view of TRF wasn’t completely off the mark. I don’t believe she thought she was marrying into a meritocracy and she probably got the basic concept of the Queen at the top, followed by the PoW. So far, so good. But I agree with you that there seemed to be resentment of William, and especially Catherine. I suspect she thought that the third level of the RF was composed of four people of equal importance - William, Catherine, Harry and herself. And if she’d married Harry even five years earlier that may well have been true for awhile, but meghan joined the family at around the time when William and Catherine were steadily increasing their public profile, individually and as a couple.
If I had to guess, I’d say what Meghan really couldn’t wrap her head around was that, yes, the staff and advisors surrounding the BRF did have more invested in William than Harry, and they would most certainly devote more of their resources and energy to Kate than they would Meghan. And that, not only was nobody apologetic about this, but the gap would only grow with time. I don’t think that suited her at all, and the problem was made even worse by the fact that it really didn’t suit Harry, either.

That is a great point. If Meghan and Harry had married earlier, it would have been easier to allow more leeway. It also didn't help that William and Catherine, for whatever reason, didn't really like her.

 

[Moran]

To be fair, I can totally see Meghan thinking that she was marrying "the spare", although he was, technically, the 5th in line (6th at the time of their wedding). That was the narrative journalists and even historians like Lacey pushed - that Harry was the spare. Meghan might have well thought that they would be equal in popularity to the Cambridges - and why not even better liked? Notice the way she presented herself as vastly different (read superior) to Catherine by the way of the flaws the Duchess of Cambridge had been criticised for years (and still was, at the time of Meghan's wedding): Waity Katy, work-shy. "I don't want to be a lady who lunches" - those were Meghan's exact words, although I didn't read much into them at the time. But to be honest, I didn't read the yellow press on either woman and I had no idea just how much of a stone in Catherine's garden this was.

Diana wanted to be "the queen of hearts" and this was a stone in HM's garden as well. But at the time, Diana was far from stable. Rather embittered. Still, if you are the queen of hearts, where does this leave the actual queen in the times of a constitutional monarchy? The same holds true for Meghan and Catherine, although I'm not sure Meghan realized that it wasn't acceptable. Her frame of reference seemed to the Americanized, filmed fairytales.

And still, for a time they might have been as popular as the Cambridges, just like Princess Margaret and the Queen's cousins were when younger. But after this, they would meet these people's fate - to fade into the background, more or less, and play the supporting cast... again. I doubt Meghan realized it at the time and when she did, she didn't like it.

 

[Alison H]

She was the 4th lady in the land, behind the Queen, Camilla and Kate. There are about 67 million people in the UK. Then there's the rest of the Commonwealth. And the British royal family has a high profile in some other countries too. To be part of the 4th couple out of that many people wasn't too shabby. Look at everything that Princess Anne's achieved, despite being overshadowed by Charles and Diana, and even by Andrew and Sarah.

 

[Heavs]

"Fading into the back ground" also means you can do what you want unless it's something completely stupid or criminal. You get to keep many of the perks but not as much criticism that comes with being covered in the press every week. No one really cares that Edward and Sophie go on holiday with billionaire friends in their private jets or their private life in general. Of course they've also struggled to get the press and public to care about their royal work as well but that's the trade off. You can't get adulation and positive attention all the time and also expect people to give you privacy the second you want it and not criticise some of your personal trips as well, especially if they're contrary to what you say in public.

They seemed to want the good publicly and to control the narrative and to have people shut up and stop criticising them AND other people to pay for everything at the same time, which isn't possible.

And whilst the "breath of fresh air" stories are there for every married in and have a short shelf life, they were given important jobs and would be highly visible for at least the next 15 years.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

That's a pretty damning picture and attitude indeed. Unfortunately, it seems she mainly saw her marriage and the royal family as a way to serve herself and not as a way to serve a nation.

Also a very unhealthy view on 'hierarchy' and work relations in my view; much more can be achieved if people work together than when one person is not open to others' opinions but expects blind obedience of those working for/with her.

And I think most of us can agree that Meghan had talents that could have been used to carve a meaningful role for her within the BRF if she had been open to advice and if her pitfalls/weaknesses (including being self-absorbed and thinking to highly of herself imho) hadn't made it impossible for her to function within a team that emphasizes duty and serving the greater good.

I agree with most of your post and collaboration is the generally the best way to manage staff. But sometimes staff has to accept that the boss has the final word. In this case, Meghan didn't understand that she wasn't the boss. She had staff, but they didn't work for her. In this case it was more than everyone works for the Queen, the staff at Kensington Palace work for William.

William brought Harry in when, as second in line, William established his own office. Because the brothers were so close, Harry was treated as a partner rather than someone lower in the hierarchy. Given that, I understand why Meghan felt that she and Catherine were equals even though she knew intellectually that Catherine would one day be Queen. Unfortunately for Meghan and Harry, they weren't equals, never were and never would be. When disagreements arose, Harry and Meghan got a rude awakening when the Queen refused to let them set up their own independent office.

Frankly, they would have been much better off asking to join Charles's office. At that point, Charles was still having trouble saying no to Harry.

 

[Osipi]

Frankly, they would have been much better off asking to join Charles's office. At that point, Charles was still having trouble saying no to Harry.

This would have been very impractical. With the Queen being 95 years old, we're seeing a lot of things transition between the Queen and her heir. Moving Harry's office to BP was actually in preparation for when the time comes and Charles is King. William then will have the Duke of Cornwall income and take care of his own family while Charles, being King, would still be responsible for Harry. No matter where Harry's offices were, he still sent his bills to Charles.

The Duchy of Cornwall income is for the the Duke and his family. All others are under the jurisdiction of the Queen.

 

[Moran]

It seems you at least acknowledge that she was good at public speaking. In addition, it seems that she was able to connect to a demographic that other members of the royal family didn't (unfortunately, to the detriment of the BRF as she has now set them up against the monarchy). I also think her initiative with the Glenfield women was an example of how she could bring people together and promote their cause.

I disagree that she was good at public speaking. To me, she just looked confident and inspiring while speaking. But once you heard what she was saying, it was same old, same old. She was confident and winning while saying anything but it didn't change the fact that she wasn't saying anything of substance.

Her ability to connect to a demographic that other members of the royal family didn't wasn't due to some particular talents of her but an accident of birth, much like pretty much everyone in the RF was born with the chance to represent UK.

Now, the initiative you talk about was impressive but it wasn't anything this unique. She might have been a good fit for the RF but she wasn't this irreplaceable.

Honestly, the thing that irked me most about her during her time as a royal was that she never gave me the vibe of anything being a cause of her or even the cause of the people she was working with. It was always a platform to talk about herself or demonstrate how in love she and Harry were. These were things that could have been overcome pretty fast if she had had the wish... but as Scobie said, why should she change? Let's change the monarchy instead!

 

[Somebody]

I agree with most of your post and collaboration is the generally the best way to manage staff. But sometimes staff has to accept that the boss has the final word. In this case, Meghan didn't understand that she wasn't the boss. She had staff, but they didn't work for her. In this case it was more than everyone works for the Queen, the staff at Kensington Palace work for William. (...)

I fully agree. The boss has the final word but to dismiss the people you work with because 'they aren't important and should be put in their place', is not a healthy way of being someone's boss. And indeed, while she had people 'detached' to them, ultimately, they answered to William's secretary who answered both to William and the queen's secretary.

I disagree that she was good at public speaking. To me, she just looked confident and inspiring while speaking. But once you heard what she was saying, it was same old, same old. She was confident and winning while saying anything but it didn't change the fact that she wasn't saying anything of substance.

Her ability to connect to a demographic that other members of the royal family didn't wasn't due to some particular talents of her but an accident of birth, much like pretty much everyone in the RF was born with the chance to represent UK.

Now, the initiative you talk about was impressive but it wasn't anything this unique. She might have been a good fit for the RF but she wasn't this irreplaceable.

Honestly, the thing that irked me most about her during her time as a royal was that she never gave me the vibe of anything being a cause of her or even the cause of the people she was working with. It was always a platform to talk about herself or demonstrate how in love she and Harry were. These were things that could have been overcome pretty fast if she had had the wish... but as Scobie said, why should she change? Let's change the monarchy instead!

Did you read my original post? I haven't suggested in any way that she was irreplaceable. Just that she, like other people, had talents that could have been used within the BRF IF she had been willing to (which she clearly wasn't). I don't think that is too much to acknowledge.

So, it seems we are mostly in agreement. Did she have 'unique' talents? Probably not, did she have some talents that could have benefitted her and the BRF. Yes, which is probably why her experience in for example public speaking (appearance matters much (a great speech content will be dull if not presented properly); you can hire a speech writer if you are looking for better content - and I don't think hers was worse than others in that respect; she was a bit more engaging and especially 'flowery') and being in the limelight was seen by some/many as an asset, while especially the latter turned out to be her liability as well; as she clearly craved it.

 

[Sunnystar]

To be fair, I can totally see Meghan thinking that she was marrying "the spare", although he was, technically, the 5th in line (6th at the time of their wedding). That was the narrative journalists and even historians like Lacey pushed - that Harry was the spare. Meghan might have well thought that they would be equal in popularity to the Cambridges - and why not even better liked? Notice the way she presented herself as vastly different (read superior) to Catherine by the way of the flaws the Duchess of Cambridge had been criticised for years (and still was, at the time of Meghan's wedding): Waity Katy, work-shy. "I don't want to be a lady who lunches" - those were Meghan's exact words, although I didn't read much into them at the time. But to be honest, I didn't read the yellow press on either woman and I had no idea just how much of a stone in Catherine's garden this was.

I didn't interpret this, at the time, as a direct dig at Catherine. Realize that Meghan is coming at her new role from a U.S./North American perspective. The closest comparable role, I think, for her would have been First Lady or wife of the Canadian Prime Minister, whose roles are largely ceremonial and they take on some charity work/have a social platform during their spouse's term of office. I suspect Meghan aspired to be more of a HRC than a Melania Trump, who was roundly criticized in liberal circles for "doing nothing" as First Lady. And, if she couldn't be as directly involved in politics as HRC was both as First Lady of Arkansas and then the US, then Michelle Obama was going to be her role model. And, I can see how Jessica Mulroney and the others in her Canadian circle, might have nodded their heads and said "yes, being a royal is similar to being First Lady of the US/Canada" in the public service/platform to draw attention to issues way.

What I don't think Meghan realized is that she wasn't going to be THE First Lady. She wasn't even going to be the Second Lady. For all the popularity and attention she and Harry received, she was only ever going to be, at the highest, Second Lady of the Land (and that's assuming that Prince George wasn't married or that Princess Charlotte wasn't a working royal before William ascended the throne). Ultimately, it just didn't compute to her, that, no matter what she did or didn't do she was never ever going to have the First Lady profile.