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

[Moran]

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.

I did read your post. I just don't think any of them has any particular "talents", Meghan included. I always prefer speech content to flowery language and while Meghan's speech writer was pretty good, they weren't this superior to others'.

Few people are natural speakers and I'm more drawn to people who clearly struggle but still go there and say it. The RF never did it by being flashy and brilliant, even in their looks, although they're always impeccably groomed at events. (I always get a little surprised when I see Princess Anne all made up. In her youth, she could compete with the best lookers if she put forth an effort but she only bothered when working.) The royals do it by plodding along in heat and rain. As the WW2 song said, "The King is still in London and he will be in London town if London Bridge was falling down". That's them. Not any particular talents. Just more resilience than Meghan (or I, to be honest) could have put forth.

She could have done no worse than anyone else, provided that she accepted some directions. She just didn't want to.

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.

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.

I didn't say it was meant to hurt Catherine. I believe it was just meant to show that she wouldn't have Catherine's flaws.

Meghan might have come into this with whatever perspective. She certainly wasn't left untutored what her part would be. She was certainly prepared for this interview from a British person/people. She was told what was acceptable. If she chose to do it the American way, all right. But it was a choice, not something she didn't know.

I agree she didn't realize that THE First Lady wasn't her future. How could she when she refused to hear about the unpleasant bits of her future life? But Harry said he had prepared her... Then again, he might have seen himself as equal to William in all but formal status. Their inability to make a distinction between the main line and their own children is telling. Someone wasn't aware what lay in store for them.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I didn't say it was meant to hurt Catherine. I believe it was just meant to show that she wouldn't have Catherine's flaws.

Meghan might have come into this with whatever perspective. She certainly wasn't left untutored what her part would be. She was certainly prepared for this interview from a British person/people. She was told what was acceptable. If she chose to do it the American way, all right. But it was a choice, not something she didn't know.

I agree she didn't realize that THE First Lady wasn't her future. How could she when she refused to hear about the unpleasant bits of her future life? But Harry said he had prepared her... Then again, he might have seen himself as equal to William in all but formal status. Their inability to make a distinction between the main line and their own children is telling. Someone wasn't aware what lay in store for them.

I think that you hit the nail on the head. Harry truly thought that he had prepared her, but his preparation was based on the assumption that they would be part of the "Fab Four."

 

[Somebody]

I did read your post. I just don't think any of them has any particular "talents", Meghan included. I always prefer speech content to flowery language and while Meghan's speech writer was pretty good, they weren't this superior to others'.

Few people are natural speakers and I'm more drawn to people who clearly struggle but still go there and say it. The RF never did it by being flashy and brilliant, even in their looks, although they're always impeccably groomed at events. (I always get a little surprised when I see Princess Anne all made up. In her youth, she could compete with the best lookers if she put forth an effort but she only bothered when working.) The royals do it by plodding along in heat and rain. As the WW2 song said, "The King is still in London and he will be in London town if London Bridge was falling down". That's them. Not any particular talents. Just more resilience than Meghan (or I, to be honest) could have put forth.

She could have done no worse than anyone else, provided that she accepted some directions. She just didn't want to.

I see. I guess we define 'talent' differently. I would argue that each and every person has particular, i.e., specific, talents. That includes members of the royal families as well as any of us.

A talent in broidery might not be very helpful in royal duties (although queen Margrethe found a way to live out her various creative talents) but the talent to make small talk (which I recently saw attributed to queen Elizabeth) seems to come in handy. In that same way, I would argue that both Harry and Meghan have specific talents that could have helped them in their work/role but unfortunately were overshadowed by their weaknesses.

Depending on talents and characteristics, some people are more fit for royal duties than others; some overcome their difficulties and others don't. For example, in the Netherlands one of our princesses is surely very happy that she married one of the 'minor' princes as she rather shy and really not at all interested in public life. While her sisters-in-law would most likely have done fine had their husband/prince ended up in a more prominent position within the royal family.

 

[Osipi]

Basically, what it all boils down to is attitude. Meghan could have taken the attitude that she had a prime position on a global scale to make a difference and realized that would take being part and parcel of the "Firm" and being a team player for the greater good. Her attitude though was one that was not conductive to being a team player and she was quick to focus on what was wrong with her position rather than what good she could do with it. This is why it ended up with so many complaints coming out of her mouth of the "big bad institution", the hassles she seemed to have had with staff that were to work *with* her rather than being subservient to her and even finding fault wherever she could with the British royal family themselves. She ended up making it all about herself and how they badly treated "poor little old me".

All of this put Harry as the "monkey in the middle". He loves his wife and perhaps to him, she can do no wrong. He also loves his family and probably realizes that the consequences of their actions resulted in where they are today and that there's no "do overs" that will make things right again. He had to choose a side and wasn't strong enough in his own convictions to to either contradict his wife or stand up for his own family.

In the long run, it's Harry that is really coming across as the victim in this whole, ungodly mess. Right now I think he knows he's not the poster boy for good mental health and is still in the "blame game" stage. This couple is now on their own to sink or swim and they *have* to make it on their own merits. If there are problems going forward and Harry remains in the "blame game" mode he's in, basically all he has left to blame is his wife or himself. Either way, somewhere along the line, Harry will have to face up to responsibility for his own actions (or nonaction) and face reality. Every child that grows into a responsible adult goes through this. Harry is just facing things a lot later in life than most.

I just wish Meghan would have been a bit more sensitive to who Harry is and where he comes from and what was expected of him when she married him. Instead of making things so much about how badly she was treated or how things could go better and change things, I think she could have tried a bit harder to adapt to Harry's lifestyle and responsibilities instead of letting ego get in the way and convincing Harry how much he needed "saving". This is the difference between royal consorts. Catherine adapted to William's life and supported him. Meghan did not. Diana couldn't adapt to being a royal consort whereas Camilla did. Meghan just was not suitable to the role of a royal consort and lasted a New York minute in the role.

 

[Moran]

Osipi, I agree with most of what you say. But what we shouldn't forget is that they didn't know each other all that well. They had a year of a long-distance relationship when they decided to get married and then some eight or nine months before the wedding - much of them filled with wedding preparations.

I don't think Meghan had a clear idea of her future position... or Harry's. Did she really know who he was and where he came from? He claimed he had prepared her and she stated she only relied on him for guidance. As we know, we're all the heroes of our own stories. By the same token, we could say Harry wasn't sensitive to Meghan's situation and didn't adequately prepare her.

It's just sad all around. I don't know how others see them but from the little I've seen from them together and Harry on his own, they don't look happy and thriving to me, no matter what they claim.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

...
This couple is now on their own to sink or swim and they *have* to make it on their own merits. If there are problems going forward and Harry remains in the "blame game" mode he's in, basically all he has left to blame is his wife or himself. Either way, somewhere along the line, Harry will have to face up to responsibility for his own actions (or nonaction) and face reality. Every child that grows into a responsible adult goes through this. Harry is just facing things a lot later in life than most.
...

I can't agree with this. I assume that you don't really think anything they get will be due to their own "merits." Regardless, they can still blame the royal family, the media, and whoever else when something goes wrong. I hope they both learn to take responsibility for their own actions. But their age works against them but also surrounding themselves with people who are reaffirming their actions and the ease in which they have made a lot of money doesn't bode well.

 

[Heavs]

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.

That's very possibly what happened. She realised that all their plans (and money making ventures) were impossible as number 4 when she had assumed things would be very different.

However she wasn't the lead of Suits either and I'd say Sarah Rafferty and Gina Torres played more important female characters. So it's not like it was completely alien to her to play as part of a team or 2nd fiddle. And that would be the same if she joined other productions as a supporting character after Suits ended. Getting leading roles in Hollywood as a woman in your late 30s is extremely difficult even for the hardest working. Joining the BRF as a supporting/team player whilst it has its downsides still have her more of a platform than she could have dreamed of reaching before.

 

[Osipi]

I can't agree with this. I assume that you don't really think anything they get will be due to their own "merits." Regardless, they can still blame the royal family, the media, and whoever else when something goes wrong. I hope they both learn to take responsibility for their own actions. But their age works against them but also surrounding themselves with people who are reaffirming their actions and the ease in which they have made a lot of money doesn't bode well.

Actually, whether or not they sink or swim does depend on themselves, alone. Netflix contracts need to be fulfilled and its up to them to fulfill it. Same with any other position they have. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch or free ride in the US. They can blame anyone they want to but if that's how they're aiming to make a paycheck by going public, it's not something that is sustainable in the long run. 10 years from now, no one is going to care if Harry and Meghan were part of the "Firm" or not.

If they're surrounding themselves with sycophants who only tell them what they want to hear and sing their praises to the moon, that's building a false wall of confidence. The minute the Sussexes can no longer afford the sycophants, the wall comes crumbling down. The minute Netflix is unhappy with something they've produced, Netflix goes away. The more Harry shows that he actually is suffering from some deep, mental unresolved issues, a corporation won't want to place that man in charge of bolstering up their employees to follow his example.

Seriously, who will Meghan and Harry really have in their corner to turn to if things go sour? I can probably point to Charles because Harry is his son but I don't think Charles would in any way, shape or form, let Harry call the shots. Right now, Harry and Meghan are "financially independent" and it's up to them to maintain the lifestyle they've chosen for themselves. Do they really have anything substantial to fall back on if things go bottoms up? What do they really have to offer anyone? What do they actually excel at? To be honest, I can't think of one thing of merit these two people have to offer.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

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.

You know, nor did I, and I think anyone who had suggested that at the time would have been laughed off the stage on these forums. There was just no context to suggest that at all. But now?

Bringing the Waity Katey criticism up in the Oprah interview was just bizarre. There was no need to "build up" her own suffering by attempting to minimize another woman's suffering, especially her sister-in-law's. And for a self-proclaimed feminist, downplaying an insult seeped in ugly misogyny was not a flattering look. But that wasn't the most bizarre part.

The most bizarre part was that Meghan has claimed she didn't Google Harry during their relationship, how much less his family, and Catherine hasn't been referred to this way in any consistent way in many years. Nor does she listen to anything negative about the British press from her friends, she tells us. I believe, but could be mistaken, that she has also claimed she doesn't read what is written about her.

How, then, is she familiar with what insults were thrown at her sister-in-law? Did she Google "what insults did the press call The Duchess of Cambridge" after she was married? Did Harry say "you should hear what they call Kate!"- but we are to believe he is enlightened enough to understand nothing is on the scale that Meghan received, so why would he even bother making the comparison? Methinks contrary to her assertions, Meghan was very familiar with the British press, very familiar with the family and their treatment by the press, and very deliberate in what she has said all along.

 

[ladyjolene]

I can't buy she didn't know who Harry was (or knew very little). There's a picture of her as a teen in front of Buckingham Palace and she had referred to British royals on her old Tig site. A modern woman would not go on a date with a man, without at least doing a little research. I met my hubby at uni and had been friends for awhile so I knew him pretty well (and it was before social media). In the day of easy accessible info there's no way she had no idea. And then when things are turning serious, she does zero research on how succession, protocol, etc works? Not buying it. Yes, she wasn't a naive young bride like Diana, but she could have endeared herself to the UK (and world), but being humble and turning her fumbles into something cute. An, "Aw shucks! I'm just trying to get the hang of things. Be patient while I learn." would have gone a long way.

 

[MARG]

There are screeds of commentary from critics based on very little actual news and even less actual "sightings" to support their learned theses. Every negative statement about the BRF is apparently 'sanctioned' by them while every negative statement by the BRF about the Sussexes is not, although if it is, well, of course, they deserve it.

Arbiter, Lacey, Kaye, Scobie, et.al. are all Royal Reporter and the first and most important person is themselves. This is their reputations they are burnishing and their moral centre is, at best, flexible. As a result, people are continually rehashing everything from the beginning to the end with the Oprah interview. Nobody seems to say, Charles, Andrew and Edward all had appalling public interviews and nobody kicked them out of the kingdom. Just saying.

Bottom line, in the absence of the Sussexes the RR's are posting interviews with lip readers, body language experts and unnamed sources to keep the papers running and their careers afloat. Churning out endless "new" angles.
Doesn't anyone get angry, on principle, of the neverending trial in-absentia?

 

[Hallo girl]

I can't see where the big surprise is that "worried about Harry's mental health" stories are appearing all over. Harry is the one that has specifically demonstrated that he's *not* in a good place mentally and has many issues to work on, resolve and come to grips with. His refusal to take responsibility for anything that has gone wrong is a clear cut example of there being something seriously wrong with the man. I'd be surprised more if there was anyone in Harry's family that *wasn't* worried about him.

He's back home in California now and with being on paternity leave, he has all the time in the world to sort himself out. Nobody else is going to do it for him. I just hope he does it quietly and privately.

I have just watched the documentary this evening where Scobie made the comment but it was edited. He speaks about briefings but there is a short gap. I assume this is where he had referred to mental health or similar.
According to on line reports the TV company were advised it could be defamatory.
For whatever reason Scobies words are clearly edited.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

There are screeds of commentary from armchair critics based on very little actual news and even less actual "sightings" to support their learned theses. Every negative statement about the BRF is apparently 'sanctioned' by them while every negative statement by the BRF about the Sussexes is not, although if it is, well, of course, they deserve it.

Arbiter, Lacey, Kaye, Scobie, et.al. are all Royal Reporter and the first and most important person is themselves. This is their reputations they are burnishing and their moral centre is, at best, flexible. As a result, people are continually rehashing everything from the beginning to the end with the Oprah interview. Nobody seems to say, Charles, Andrew and Edward all had appalling public interviews and nobody kicked them out of the kingdom. Just saying.

Bottom line, in the absence of the Sussexes the RR's are posting interviews with lip readers, body language experts and unnamed sources to keep the papers running and their careers afloat. Churning out endless "new" angles.
Doesn't anyone get angry, on principle, of the neverending trial in-absentia?

Nobody kicked Harry and Meghan out of the kingdom. With respect to the whether Harry and Meghan approved Omid's comments on the documentary, we'll have to agree to disagree. I do not think that Omid would make any comments without Harry and Meghan's approval. Omid wants to sell his updated book but it would have been better for him to appear in a documentary closer to the release date. He also needs to maintain a good relationship with Harry and Meghan and talking out of turn would poison the well. No one here has any proof either way.

If I am right, the question of why Harry and Meghan fanning the flames. is fair game If they want the never ending trial to end, they may want to refrain from taking potshots at his family. If nothing else, they expected the royal family to denounce every negative report about them, so perhaps they should try denouncing every negative report against the royal family.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

There are screeds of commentary from critics based on very little actual news and even less actual "sightings" to support their learned theses. Every negative statement about the BRF is apparently 'sanctioned' by them while every negative statement by the BRF about the Sussexes is not, although if it is, well, of course, they deserve it.

Arbiter, Lacey, Kaye, Scobie, et.al. are all Royal Reporter and the first and most important person is themselves. This is their reputations they are burnishing and their moral centre is, at best, flexible. As a result, people are continually rehashing everything from the beginning to the end with the Oprah interview. Nobody seems to say, Charles, Andrew and Edward all had appalling public interviews and nobody kicked them out of the kingdom. Just saying.

Bottom line, in the absence of the Sussexes the RR's are posting interviews with lip readers, body language experts and unnamed sources to keep the papers running and their careers afloat. Churning out endless "new" angles.
Doesn't anyone get angry, on principle, of the neverending trial in-absentia?

Dear Marg, you have forgotten the Sussexes on the list of people who had appalling interviews and were not kicked out of the kingdom! They packed up their toys and left. Andrew was "kicked out" far more than Meghan and Harry, as he was fired from his post.

As far as the rest, you have been around here just as long as I, so you know the lip readers and body language experts are naught to do with the Sussexes. Those have been around longer than we have been at TRF, for all members of the family. We shouldn't try to make martyrs of the Sussexes by implying these are special instruments of torture to "keep the news running" because the Sussexes aren't appearing in public. These people pop up routinely, whether members of the family appear in public or not, and always have, and will keep doing so even if Harry eventually puts on a daily reality TV show of his life, which I fear will be the next big reveal.

Where you differ, I think, from most of us on this thread is thinking that anyone is being tried in absentia. Harry and Meghan denied cooperating with Scobie once, only to be forced to admit rather spectacularly in court that they had in fact fed him information by anyone's definition but their own. Because of this, there is hardly a soul abounding in these parts who believes for one solitary moment that he says anything not sanctioned by them-- no one in that privileged position of being fed straight from the horse's mouth would risk losing it, and they've lied about it before. So by pretty much anyone's reckoning, the last four or so pages might as well been Meghan and Harry standing in front of a microphone. If you consider Scobie a royal reporter rather than a de facto spokesman, you are, I fear, in the great minority.

 

[Curryong]

In Court documents Meghan stated that she had a friend give information about her letter to father Thomas to Scobie and Durand for their book, because she didn’t want Thomas’s narrative to continue. And that was all. She (and Harry) were adamant that they did not give an interview for the book, or photographs or feed them information otherwise.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/11/meghan-markle-help-finding-freedom

As for Omid being any kind of spokesman for the Sussexes, or Chris Ship for that matter, if I were them and I wanted to impart any information on future plans etc I’d rather choose two media people who were at least a bit sympathetic. In contrast to those on the Royal Rota who appear almost weekly on YouTube royal roundups and on morning TV bagging everything the Sussexes say and do.


How many times do these self-proclaimed ‘royal experts’ appear on TV or penning diatribes against the couple in the tabloids? Almost daily some weeks I’d say, over the last 18 months, nothing nice to say about them except once in a blue moon. On and on and on and on!

 

[ladongas]

There are screeds of commentary from critics based on very little actual news and even less actual "sightings" to support their learned theses. Every negative statement about the BRF is apparently 'sanctioned' by them while every negative statement by the BRF about the Sussexes is not, although if it is, well, of course, they deserve it.

Arbiter, Lacey, Kaye, Scobie, et.al. are all Royal Reporter and the first and most important person is themselves. This is their reputations they are burnishing and their moral centre is, at best, flexible. As a result, people are continually rehashing everything from the beginning to the end with the Oprah interview. Nobody seems to say, Charles, Andrew and Edward all had appalling public interviews and nobody kicked them out of the kingdom. Just saying.

Bottom line, in the absence of the Sussexes the RR's are posting interviews with lip readers, body language experts and unnamed sources to keep the papers running and their careers afloat. Churning out endless "new" angles.
Doesn't anyone get angry, on principle, of the neverending trial in-absentia?

AMEN!! And every ‘story’ gets repeated ad infinitum until it’s part of the canon of unpleasant ‘facts’ about the Sussex family.
Every time I see a sentence beginning with ‘I suspect...’, I then suspect that the next words will have zero facts, merely an opinion that is always unfavorable.

 

[JessRulz]

Following several reported posts, this thread was closed for Review and Cleanup.

The thread is now re-opened. Several posts have been removed as they contained speculation and insults or were written in response to deleted posts.

 

[UglyAmerican]

IIRC, the lawsuit only concerned the publication of Meghan's letter to her father, and only her cooperation with that portion of the book was discussed, because the rest wasn't relevant. Even if she did deny further cooperation, she'd repeatedly denied any cooperation with Scobie before admitting in court that she'd given him information regarding the letter, so that denial shouldn't be taken at face value. She also claimed to have no idea whether any of her KP press team provided information "on her behalf," which sounds to me like she told them to do it and then never followed up as to whether they had or not. If any information given by the press team to Scobie would have been completely unauthorized by Meghan, I don't think it would have been described as "on her behalf."

I'm still working my way through Finding Freedom, but it's fairly obvious from the chunk I've read that much of it is from Meghan's own mouth. Maybe it was through friends, but the bottom line is the same. There's just too much detail about her own feelings and thoughts, and little to none about Harry's or anyone else's. If the authors were just making that stuff up, they would have made up the same level of detail about Harry's feelings and thoughts, but they didn't.

 

[Osipi]

How many times do these self-proclaimed ‘royal experts’ appear on TV or penning diatribes against the couple in the tabloids? Almost daily some weeks I’d say, over the last 18 months, nothing nice to say about them except once in a blue moon. On and on and on and on!

AMEN!! And every ‘story’ gets repeated ad infinitum until it’s part of the canon of unpleasant ‘facts’ about the Sussex family.
Every time I see a sentence beginning with ‘I suspect...’, I then suspect that the next words will have zero facts, merely an opinion that is always unfavorable.

One thing worth looking at is that the Sussexes, themselves, have put out statements and have done things that, in and of themselves, have been controversial, proven to have no basis in fact or even reality and in doing this, they've invited not only the journalists and royal rota to form opinions but also invite the court of public opinion to question anything and everything about them.

Respect and credibility is not a given but earned. It just happens to be that, at this time, there is far more things that are questionable about the Sussexes in their words and their actions than there are positives about them.

This is why I state that a lot of what is reported and perhaps embellished and even fabricated stem from their own words and actions. When you pour gasoline on a fire, it *will* flare up even worse and be harder to put out. You don't continue to add more and more gasoline and then complain why the fire is out of control.

 

[Curryong]

Except, Osipi, that Meghan was receiving a huge amount of criticism and fabricated stories from the British tabloid Press when she was still a working royal.

When she was expecting her first child for instance and after, when Archie was a tiny baby. Cradling her pregnant stomach, holding Archie in the ‘wrong’ way, for example. Really unjustified stuff. She prepared avocados for a friend, which was attacked as being associated with murders in Central America. And it went on and on from the time she and Harry returned from their Oceania tour onwards.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Except, Osipi, that Meghan was receiving a huge amount of criticism and fabricated stories from the British tabloid Press when she was still a working royal.

When she was expecting her first child for instance and after, when Archie was a tiny baby. Cradling her pregnant stomach, holding Archie in the ‘wrong’ way, for example. Really unjustified stuff. She prepared avocados for a friend, which was attacked as being associated with murders in Central America. And it went on and on from the time she and Harry returned from their Oceania tour onwards.

Curryong, we didn’t have the same access in the US to the British tabloid press that those in the UK and Commonwealth do so I’ll take your word about the criticism and made up and unjustified stories. I really was supportive of Meghan then, and had such high hopes for her success in the RF - so I never read that stuff.

My understanding (again, don’t have access except online and then there are paywalls) is that the press was ruthless and cruel to Camilla and horrible and belittling to Catherine. Do you think this is true? As a public figure I would imagine that it would be smart not to read about yourself and to realize that stories are there just to sell papers/magazines and not to take them too seriously. Does this make it right, having the press make up such stories? No, it certainly doesn’t , IMO, but I’m just not convinced that as a group the press was more horrible to Meghan than to others. I’ve heard of a few out of line, even racist remarks which are never ever acceptable that Meghan received that others did not. Absolutely not ok!

I do also remember way way back hearing about the tampon story regarding Charles and Camilla and cannot imagine how embarrassing, humiliating, and hurtful that must have been. I think that paying attention to negative press fuels the flame and gives it more oxygen, as Osipi eloquently described it. If you want it to stop, you ignore it, and you don’t engage.

 

[Osipi]

This is true, Curryong, and perhaps she even received more than any other royal married in has received in royal history. This, however doesn't mean that she had to pay attention to it or let it affect her life and her work and her well being. It's not like there were any kind of mechanisms in place to "control" the media and what they write.

She's decided that she's going to fight back against stories and fabrications and gossips and speculations which, actually, is pouring gasoline on the fire. They know they can push her buttons and the more buttons they push and she reacts, the more stories they have and it becomes a vicious cycle.

There's a reason why the "never complain, never explain" usually has worked in the past. Stories die down and interest goes elsewhere. I do think though that Meghan really was unfairly targeted and some of the stuff in print was just terrible and reflected poorly more on the authors than they reflected on Meghan but once she started taking matters into her own hands in various ways, I believe she just gave them more fuel for their stories.

I don't think I could have handled everything Meghan has had to go through but until I'm in her shoes, I really cannot say how I would react either. I can only base an opinion on what I'm seeing happening to someone else.

 

[Kataryn]

Just wanted to thank the mods for their great but surely endlessly trying work here in this thread. (Yes, it can be deleted, but I hope the thankful positive feeling will stay for a bit!)

 

[muriel]

I think that paying attention to negative press fuels the flame and gives it more oxygen, as Osipi eloquently described it. If you want it to stop, you ignore it, and you don’t engage.

Very well said.

Whilst the behaviour of the press cannot be condoned, ignoring it is probably the best solution. Reacting to it, and more importantly, letting it (ostensibly!) impact your self esteem or mental health is, IMO, ill-advised. More importantly, surely one cannot let the actions of the media set the course of your life's decisions, including your decision to walk away from the life of service to crown and country you so enthusiastically married into some 18 months beforehand.

 

[Heavs]

There's no doubt that she got a roasting from the press, as many female married ins do. Although before and after the wedding it was mainly positive. Their press really started to go down after the Baby Shower, the kerfuffle of Archie's birth and things like Harry taking a private Jet to Google Camp and SA. Along with stories like Tiara-gate - stories that Scobie has confirmed were true but gave his own spin to make them look good. I liked them all the way up until January 2020 despite their personal miss steps and my complete disenchantment came from things they've uttered directly out of their own mouths.

That said, the fact that they needed to fake headlines for the Oprah interview and bring in non British tabloids doesn't help their case that the press was terrible. I think Social media was worse for them but then again they have their ardent defenders there as well.

I think they should have done what they claimed to do and not read the press good or bad. I couldn't believe it when Harry made it clear he was reading the DM comments sections.

If they needed to leave for their mental health that's fine and I have no problem with that. The way they did it was awful though, and they made it clear they wanted to keep the glamourous, fun parts of being a royal. They also made it clear that they still want to control the narrative about themselves, and silence any criticism which is impossible. You can't expect glowing press 100% of the time when you're determined to be a public figure.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

There's no doubt that she got a roasting from the press, as many female married ins do. Although before and after the wedding it was mainly positive. Their press really started to go down after the Baby Shower, the kerfuffle of Archie's birth and things like Harry taking a private Jet to Google Camp. Along with stories like Tiara-gate - stories that Scobie has confirmed were true but gave his own spin to make them look good.

That said, the fact that they needed to fake headlines for the Oprah interview and bring in non British tabloids doesn't help their case that the press was terrible. I think Social media was worse for them but then again they have their ardent defenders there as well.

I think they should have done what they claimed to do and not read the press good or bad. I couldn't believe it when Harry made it clear he was reading the DM comments sections.

If they needed to leave for their mental health that's fine and I have no problem with that. The way they did it was awful though, and they made it clear they wanted to keep the glamourous, fun parts of being a royal. They also made it clear that they still want to control the narrative about themselves, and silence any criticism which is impossible. You can't expect glowing press 100% of the time when you're determined to be a public figure.

Wow, I did not know that Harry read comments from DM! I just don’t understand how anyone can “control the press” in this day and time and IMO, it is a exercise in futility to try.

 

[muriel]

I think they should have done what they claimed to do and not read the press good or bad. I couldn't believe it when Harry made it clear he was reading the DM comments sections.

Did he? When was that?

 

[Heavs]

Did he? When was that?

It was in Finding Freedom:

Scrolling on his iPhone, he sometimes couldn’t stop himself from reading the comments on the articles," reads a new excerpt from the book, published in the Times.

"Harry regretted opening the link," notes the authors. "His stomach tied into the same knot every time he saw these sorts of comment. 'It’s a sick part of the society we live in today, and no one is doing anything about it,' he continued. 'Where’s the positivity? Why is everyone so miserable and angry?'"

Prince Harry's habit of reading coverage about his life, work, and relationships (be it favorable or not) isn't a new one.

Duncan Larcombe, who has also written a biography of Harry, and once served as the royal editor at the Sun, previously told Cosmopolitan UK that the Prince reads about himself "religiously."

"I was always surprised at just how religiously he reads stuff that’s written about him," Larcombe said in a 2017 interview. "I think Prince Charles hasn’t read a newspaper in years but Harry, and to some extent William, they almost read everything that’s written. It’s a sign that probably deep down he is worried about what people think of him."

These accounts also track with an anecdote shared by Daily Mail reporter Rebecca English earlier this year.

"Just wanted to see what you were saying about me," Harry said peering over English's computer, as she was working during a visit to Lesotho in 2006. "I always want to know what people are saying about me."

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/s...comments-press-meghan-markle-finding-freedom/

It cannot be very good for anyone in the public eye. Although in the early days a lot of the comments were actually positive and at the time I was pleasantly surprised.

 

[muriel]

It was in Finding Freedom:

Many thanks.

 

[Queen Claude]

Except, Osipi, that Meghan was receiving a huge amount of criticism and fabricated stories from the British tabloid Press when she was still a working royal.

When she was expecting her first child for instance and after, when Archie was a tiny baby. Cradling her pregnant stomach, holding Archie in the ‘wrong’ way, for example. Really unjustified stuff. She prepared avocados for a friend, which was attacked as being associated with murders in Central America. And it went on and on from the time she and Harry returned from their Oceania tour onwards.

What stands out to me is (my recollection) that these "fabricated" stories, along with the interviews given by Meghan's estranged family members, had nil affect on Meghan's popularity, and yet they were bothersome enough that within 3 months of tiara story breaking, which was the opening salvo of negative media about Meghan, five of her friends felt compelled to give an extensive interview to People Magazine - there's no way that I believe that that happened without Meghan's awareness and consent.

Like others have stated, if I was on the receiving end of this kind of media, I would probably not be completely sanguine about it, but that should have also been countervailed by the fact that these stories were not having traction with royal watchers and the general public, save that niche that hated Meghan from day one. There have been reports that most people do not believe tabloid stories, next day's chip paper and all that.

My observation is that it was Meghan's, and I will throw in Harry's as well, actions that led to them losing popularity points, starting with the New York baby shower, misdirection regarding Archie's birth, godparent secrecy, Harry expressing views about the environment but then taking multiple private plane trips within a short period, but even with these examples, I think that overall the Sussexes remained popular with royal watchers and the general public. The event that caused them to cross the line from popular to unpopular among royal watchers was the South Africa interview and then the announcement via the website that they were stepping back and their "terms".

All that to say, is that while the media has engaged in excesses with Meghan regarding matters about avocados, home decorating and baby bumps, the best course of action would have been to ignore those types of stories. However it is easy to invoke these kinds of stories, even though they had little to no effect on their popularity, and even may have gotten them sympathy points, as illustrations of the media targeting the Sussexes just because, but it should also be acknowledged that there were media stories that were based on verifiable actions by the Sussexes, and again my observation is that these were the stories that actually impacted the general public, and especially royal watchers, views of them.