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

[Moran]

I've watched George VI accepting homage. The Archbishop of Canterbury went first and the King's brothers next, by the order of precedence - first the Duke of Gloucester (as the First Prince of the Blood Royal, the commenter said) and then the Duke of Kent, followed by someone "on behalf of all peers".

I see no reason for Charles to change this. His peer sons would be included. As the things stand now, I see this as a potential problem unless something changes, and soon. Whatever the change is, it needs time to be accepted and not discussed in a way to overshadow the ceremony itself.

 

[Osipi]

The conundrum will be if that there isn't any change in relationships, Harry paying homage and swearing the oath of fealty will be seen to be lip service and superficial.

Luckily, the Queen seems to be in pretty good health so perhaps there is time for things to cool down and be worked out within the family fold. Even with all the detrimental things Harry has stated recently, I do believe that he does and always will love his father.

Basically what is happening right now is that within the family fold, Harry is at the point where his family do still love him but because of his words and actions, they don't like him too much right now. It's a pitfall of familial and close relationships.

 

[kalnel]

I've watched George VI accepting homage. The Archbishop of Canterbury went first and the King's brothers next, by the order of precedence - first the Duke of Gloucester (as the First Prince of the Blood Royal, the commenter said) and then the Duke of Kent, followed by someone "on behalf of all peers".

I see no reason for Charles to change this. His peer sons would be included. As the things stand now, I see this as a potential problem unless something changes, and soon. Whatever the change is, it needs time to be accepted and not discussed in a way to overshadow the ceremony itself.

I wonder if Charles could shorten this by having only William pay homage and then someone else go on behalf of all other peers. That way, he'd avoid the awkwardness of Harry, Andrew, Michael of Kent, etc. being in the ceremony. And, it would be in keeping with his supposed interest in reducing the size of the royal house.

 

[Erin9]

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

Exactly correct! And what I put in bold was the problem. When you marry into the Royal Family, you acclimate to them---not them to you. The fact that Harry did not educate her on that is beyond me. , but he seems to not understand it himself.

Yeah. Scobie defends the Sussexes, but I found this to be a poor and rather bizarre defense of her approach to work in the BRF. All he did was explain exactly why it didn’t work- and I don’t think it reflected well on her. (Whether his POV reflects the Sussexes, IDK, but IMO it is poor nonetheless.)

In short- Meghan wasn’t going to change for anyone, Meghan had lots of experience, Meghan knew what she was doing, Meghan could explain the hierarchy to everyone….

When you join any organization- not just the BRF- you acclimate to it- not them to you. (That doesn’t mean changes can’t be implemented, but there’s a time and a place for that. And a way to go about it.)

That’s why interviews also try to assess if both parties think you joining will indeed be a good fit before hiring. Do you fit the company culture? And there’s also generally a trial period: to see if YOU FIT in reality. Obviously- this doesn’t exist for people marrying into the family business….

It comes across to me as: Meghan’s way or the highway.

 

[Heavs]

Yeah. Scobie defends the Sussexes, but I found this to be a poor and rather bizarre defense of her approach to work in the BRF. All he did was explain exactly why it didn’t work- and I don’t think it reflected well on her. (Whether his POV reflects the Sussexes, IDK, but IMO it is poor nonetheless.)

In short- Meghan wasn’t going to change for anyone, Meghan had lots of experience, Meghan knew what she was doing, Meghan could explain the hierarchy to everyone….

When you join any organization- not just the BRF- you acclimate to it- not them to you. (That doesn’t mean changes can’t be implemented, but there’s a time and a place for that. And a way to go about it.)

That’s why interviews also try to assess if both parties think you joining will indeed be a good fit before hiring. Do you fit the company culture? And there’s also generally a trial period: to see if YOU FIT in reality. Obviously- this doesn’t exist for people marrying into the family business….

It comes across to me as: Meghan’s way or the highway. Period. And we see how that ended….

The thing is, whilst Scobie's account is consistent with how her (and she) portrayed her in FF: she's worked hard all her life, she's incredibly knowledgeable, she's always prepared, she likes to do a lot of research and everyone love her! It's not consistent with what Meghan herself was trying to portray in the Oprah interview, that she never so much as Googled Harry or his family and knew nothing of the BRF or how it works.

In both circumstances you can say that anyone bar a Princess from a reigning house would have no real idea of what to expect and *should* ask for and receive all the help she can get. A US actress with a lifestyle website wouldn't have any idea, even if she was amazing at those things. Even a PR business owner like Sophie struggled at first. Even if you're a Princess already you still have culture shock and no one is going to be perfect at a new type of job from day 1.

But Meghan can't possibly be both of what she's trying to portray. She can't be this Wonder Woman who everyone should have listened to and who's staff just didn't appreciate her enough, because she was perfect whilst also being a naive girl in love who was absolutely gobsmacked about everything to do with the BRF and never, ever even watched a documentary about them.

In my opinion I do believe she struggled and had a lot of culture shock. I believe they had a lot of ideas that they wanted to implement and were shocked when they were told no. Valentine Low talked in a podcast about how there was a paragraph suggesting that one of the reasons she was so terrible to staff was because she was finding it all too much but was told but The Times' solicitors to take it out because it was too speculative.

 

[duchessrachel]

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.

Camilla and Catherine did have horrible press. As far as Catherine is concerned, a French magazine published topless pictures of Catherine from when she and William were on vacation at a private villa, a place where they had an expectation of privacy. I can't imagine anything much more horrible than that. So, in the Oprah interview, for Meghan to say that her suffering due to the press was worse than Catherine's because being called "Waity Katie" was not as bad is disingeniuous. I know Meghan had a hard time with the press, but Catherine and Camilla had it just as hard.

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.

This is so correct! Hate is not the opposite of love...indifference is. If she and Harry had just been indifferent to the press, it would have eventually settled down. Fighting back the way they did and trying to ban certain press only fuels the fire. Camilla, who brought a lot of the bad press she got on herself, now gets mostly positive press and the press features her work. If Camilla can overcome negative press, Meghan most certainly could have.

I guess that reading what is printed about you is something hard to resist. I really thought that Meghan would be able to handle the tabloid press when she stated in the Vanity Fair article "Wild About Harry" that she doesn't pay attention to the "noise". Obviously the both of them did.

Exactly. I keep thinking about them saying in their engagement interview that they ignored the things said in the press about them and, yet, one of the reasons they give for leaving is their treatment by the press.

The conundrum will be if that there isn't any change in relationships, Harry paying homage and swearing the oath of fealty will be seen to be lip service and superficial.

Luckily, the Queen seems to be in pretty good health so perhaps there is time for things to cool down and be worked out within the family fold. Even with all the detrimental things Harry has stated recently, I do believe that he does and always will love his father.

Basically what is happening right now is that within the family fold, Harry is at the point where his family do still love him but because of his words and actions, they don't like him too much right now. It's a pitfall of familial and close relationships.

Yes, it would cheapen the whole ceremony. I hope the Queen lives to be at least 110.

 

[Sandy345]

duchessrachel, Camilla has PR people and has had them (e.g. Bolland) before she even got engaged to Prince Charles. They worked with her on her image and promoted her good press. How the public feels about her is subject to speculation. Some are indifferent. Meghan was nowhere near the same situation that Camilla was in. She was not married when she and Harry got involved. And he was not married either, both were free to see each other publicly. Camilla and Charles' situation was a whole lot more complex. Both were married with children when they were involved. Different ball game.

 

[Sandy345]

I don't think it will be a problem. Charles overcame his (then) controversial revelations about how he did not like how he was brought up by his parents (to Dimbleby and to Bedell Smith). ANd he's set to be King.

 

[duchessrachel]

duchessrachel, Camilla has PR people and has had them (e.g. Bolland) before she even got engaged to Prince Charles. They worked with her on her image and promoted her good press. How the public feels about her is subject to speculation. Some are indifferent. Meghan was nowhere near the same situation that Camilla was in. She was not married when she and Harry got involved. And he was not married either, both were free to see each other publicly. Camilla and Charles' situation was a whole lot more complex. Both were married with children when they were involved. Different ball game.

Yes, I agree. I know the situations are different, but it stands to reason (at least to me) that it would be easier for Meghan to eventually begin getting positive press than it would have Camilla.

 

[Alison H]

Beatrice and Eugenie were accused of being lazy, Princess Anne was accused of being rude, and Sophie was accused of exploiting her royal status to promote her business. They just ignored it - maybe they were upset in private, but they ignored it in public - and no-one ever says a word against any of them now. Anne and Sophie get nothing but praise.

 

[Erin9]

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

The thing is, whilst Scobie's account is consistent with how her (and she) portrayed her in FF: she's worked hard all her life, she's incredibly knowledgeable, she's always prepared, she likes to do a lot of research and everyone love her! It's not consistent with what Meghan herself was trying to portray in the Oprah interview, that she never so much as Googled Harry or his family and knew nothing of the BRF or how it works.



In both circumstances you can say that anyone bar a Princess from a reigning house would have no real idea of what to expect and *should* ask for and receive all the help she can get. A US actress with a lifestyle website wouldn't have any idea, even if she was amazing at those things. Even a PR business owner like Sophie struggled at first. Even if you're a Princess already you still have culture shock and no one is going to be perfect at a new type of job from day 1.



But Meghan can't possibly be both of what she's trying to portray. She can't be this Wonder Woman who everyone should have listened to and who's staff just didn't appreciate her enough, because she was perfect whilst also being a naive girl in love who was absolutely gobsmacked about everything to do with the BRF and never, ever even watched a documentary about them.



In my opinion I do believe she struggled and had a lot of culture shock. I believe they had a lot of ideas that they wanted to implement and were shocked when they were told no. Valentine Low talked in a podcast about how there was a paragraph suggesting that one of the reasons she was so terrible to staff was because she was finding it all too much but was told but The Times' solicitors to take it out because it was too speculative.

Good point. Meghan can’t be both how she portrayed herself on Oprah AND how Scobie described her. (And how some RR describe her too. They actually rather match imo - though Scobie means it in a more positive way, though it doesn’t read that way to me.)

I do agree- I’m not really sure how Meghan’s experiences in acting or running a website was any kind of preparation for this. A corporate job would have likely helped- to a point. She had some media, speech giving, and charity experience, but joining the BRF would be a totally different thing.

I think Meghan had a lot of ideas, that’s probably true. She seemed to- ie the cookbook. Perhaps she had certain expectations and when those weren’t met- rather than really trying to adapt- she just pushed back. Kinda fits what another RR said- she and Harry (but especially her) didn’t WANT to make it work. IOW- it’s not necessarily that she couldn’t adapt- it’s that she simply didn’t want to. Which happens in a number of jobs. It just wasn’t what she was looking for or wanted.

 

[TLLK]

Yes, I agree. I know the situations are different, but it stands to reason (at least to me) that it would be easier for Meghan to eventually begin getting positive press than it would have Camilla.

I agree that considering the circumstances in which Camilla entered into the BRF that it should have been much easier for Meghan.



Camilla has steadily worked to quietly work for her patronages and charities and IMO that along with a very warm and friendly personality is how she's won over the British press.

In my opinion I do believe she struggled and had a lot of culture shock. I believe they had a lot of ideas that they wanted to implement and were shocked when they were told no. Valentine Low talked in a podcast about how there was a paragraph suggesting that one of the reasons she was so terrible to staff was because she was finding it all too much but was told but The Times' solicitors to take it out because it was too speculative.

I agree Heavs and that both found it shocking when they were either told "No" or that their plans would take longer than they'd expected to be implemented. Also I do believe that she struggled with the fact that as an official representative of the British monarchy and the government, that she would have tighter boundaries to what she could say and do.


It's a shame as together the Sussexes have shown that they can be wonderful representatives for the UK. I'm sorry that it didn't work out.

 

[Somebody]

I wonder if Charles could shorten this by having only William pay homage and then someone else go on behalf of all other peers. That way, he'd avoid the awkwardness of Harry, Andrew, Michael of Kent, etc. being in the ceremony. And, it would be in keeping with his supposed interest in reducing the size of the royal house.

Michael of Kent isn't a peer, so there is no need for him to join in unless they expect all royal highnesses to participate (but if so, why only the men and not the women?).

 

[Roslyn]

I think that's ultimately what most of us would hope for this family. But the truth is, I'm not at all sure that they haven't already crossed into territory that there's no coming back from. Even if there are drastic changes in the situation in the next couple of years, I have a very, very hard time believing that the family, and they are a family for all the public aspects that make them unique, could or would welcome them, or even just Harry, back with open arms, sweep it all under the rug, pretend it was just a blip on the radar or never happened at all, etc. It's going to take a tremendous amount of hard work and dedication to ever place him in a position of trust again and frankly, after what he's proven himself capable of, I'm just not sure he can ever get there. I do think that with that hard work and dedication it's possible to improve the situation and the relationships from where they are now but then again, you can't get much lower than the rock bottom they appear to be sitting on. I do, though, think that the next year or two are going to be very, very interesting to watch, notice that I said interesting not pleasant, and that the soap opera that is Harry and Meghan will not be settling down anytime soon.

I think too much has been said and done to backtrack now. I cannot identify the particular point at which they crossed the Rubicon but I think they are well and truly over that bridge now.

I used to think that Harry had failed to inform Meghan about the burdens she would be taking on by marrying him and becoming part of his family. The alternative was that he did not know what it meant but I dismissed that notion quickly because though he is not the brightest bulb he is not a simpleton; he grew up in that family and has functioning eyes and ears and must have known what was expected, and he also saw the damage those expectations could inflict. I am now of the mind that he knew well enough what they expected but has long resented those expectations and did not want to impose them on his wife, so it was a conscious decision. They wanted to contribute to royal life in a certain way but not totally, but what they wanted was not acceptable to the institution so they left. I actually admire them for leaving. There is a lot about what they have done - and not done - since they left that I do not admire, but that is another matter.

For Harry to get back within the Windsor family fold would require a lot of hard work on his part, and would also require him to take back those things he has said, either personally or through his wife, or at the very least to say that he had misunderstood all the various situations he spoke about and that he now has a different opinion about those matters, and he would have to apologise for what he has done. I don't think that option is available now. I think they have both said too much about too many things to take it all back, and if they do they would lose all credibility.

I don't think Harry can ever be a trusted member of the inner circle of the British Royal Family again, and I would prefer to see him not try. He's taken a stand and when a grown man of his age with a wife and family does what he has done they should understand the gravity of their actions and be prepared to accept the consequences, and not do a turnabout of the sort you could expect and forgive from a youth, or if he had made a controversial statement about one issue only.

I do not think Harry will, or can, ever be close to William again. He certainly cannot ever be his confidante. And I cannot see him at Charles' or William's coronations swearing fealty to them, either, and that is likely to cause Charles a lot of grief.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

In the end, I'm not sure if it matters whether other royal in-laws have also received bad media. Camilla, Catherine, and Sophie all had bad press and it apparently didn't bother them enough to quit. It bothered Meghan enough to quit, which is fine. There are many things that bother me but other people don't care about them. Everyone is different and Meghan is entitled to her feelings.

My problem is Meghan's insistence that she had it worse than everyone else and in the process, minimized Catherine's experience. She acknowledged that Catherine was called "Waity, Katy" but as others have noted, she failed to acknowledge the more serious media intrusions regarding Catherine. I think it is because she doesn't want to admit, even to herself, that she couldn't take this particular heat.

Again, there is nothing wrong with that, everyone has make decisions about whether the upside is worth the downside. Meghan obviously decided that the perks of being a member of the royal family was not worth living through the negative media. My problem is that Meghan and many of her supporters, insist on minimizing the problems others have had. The fact that Camilla, Catherine and Sophie haven't walked away doesn't make them better people. However, the fact that they haven't made unrealistic demands that the family somehow control the media or publicly attacked their family makes them better people.

 

[ladyjolene]

In the end, I'm not sure if it matters whether other royal in-laws have also received bad media. Camilla, Catherine, and Sophie all had bad press and it apparently didn't bother them enough to quit. It bothered Meghan enough to quit, which is fine. There are many things that bother me but other people don't care about them. Everyone is different and Meghan is entitled to her feelings.

My problem is Meghan's insistence that she had it worse than everyone else and in the process, minimized Catherine's experience. She acknowledged that Catherine was called "Waity, Katy" but as others have noted, she failed to acknowledge the more serious media intrusions regarding Catherine. I think it is because she doesn't want to admit, even to herself, that she couldn't take this particular heat.

Again, there is nothing wrong with that, everyone has make decisions about whether the upside is worth the downside. Meghan obviously decided that the perks of being a member of the royal family was not worth living through the negative media. My problem is that Meghan and many of her supporters, insist on minimizing the problems others have had. The fact that Camilla, Catherine and Sophie haven't walked away doesn't make them better people. However, the fact that they haven't made unrealistic demands that the family somehow control the media or publicly attacked their family makes them better people.

Catherine had her phone hacked. That's totally horrible. It's not just a Waity Katy thing. Then on holiday, while assuming complete privacy, a camera got her sunbathing topless. If it's just you and your husband and assume no one is around, why not? Sophie had a picture taken of her and at the last minute a 'friend' pulled up her top. But poor poor Meghan. I was initially excited to see an American marry in, but then saw the red flags in the interview full of word salad and celeb code talk. She kept saying the proposal was authentic. As opposed to what? No, my fiance fake proposed? LOL

 

[Curryong]

Yes, other royal females did get bad press sometimes and on some occasions. That is very true. However their bad press did not go on for years at a time in the tabloids, with thrice daily negative speculations.

And, with Camilla a spin doctor Mark Bolland was brought in by Charles to help improve her reputation.


Anne and Sophie got very little publicity, even for engagements. over the last few years. They have been brought more to the fore since Covid, and the Sussexes departure as the Royal Rota has been covering them more.


I take a look at the online British tabloids and what they are saying every day, and have done since Harry became engaged. I am not exaggerating when I say that in the past three and a half years there has rarely been a day when a negative story has not appeared online about Meghan in each of the four main tabloids. Sometimes they copy each other, sometimes they make up their own.

And when she was pregnant with Archie that was up to three negative stories a day. I know because I have taken note of them. In addition some of the stories about Meghan (and Harry) have been rehashed months later in other guises and still appear today, as well as some trawled from social media.

That sort of coverage would IMO be almost impossible to ignore, especially during pregnancy and when recovering from childbirth.

 

[soapstar]

Let’s keep the discussion on Harry and Meghan and not get into comparing royal spouses.

 

[UglyAmerican]

I cannot identify the particular point at which they crossed the Rubicon but I think they are well and truly over that bridge now.

If I were in William's place, it would have been when Meghan threw Kate under the bus to make a self-serving point about the media on Oprah. If someone did that to my husband, that would be the end of me having any kind of familial relationship with them. If it were true, or even if I thought my husband had been in the wrong in the original incident, that wouldn't change my position. Kate herself may be more willing to forgive, but I think that was a red line for William. Now, Harry's not the one who said it, and he may not have known Meghan was going to say it or been happy about Meghan saying it. But I don't think there will be any forgiveness from William so long as he appears to support Meghan saying it.

As for Charles, it's harder to say. I imagine he's less angry and more worried, but it seems they don't want to talk to each other right now.

 

[Moran]

The conundrum will be if that there isn't any change in relationships, Harry paying homage and swearing the oath of fealty will be seen to be lip service and superficial.

Basically what is happening right now is that within the family fold, Harry is at the point where his family do still love him but because of his words and actions, they don't like him too much right now. It's a pitfall of familial and close relationships.

Both things are true and that's the problem. What's happening now is a pitfall of familial and close relationships but a coronation isn't the time or place for family. It isn't about Harry giving voice yet again to his disappointment of his family or Charles wanting to retaliate or take him back. It's literally about ceremony and meaning that overwhelms their personal relationship. The very thing that makes them special. If they don't respect it, I don't see why anyone else would.

Harry might be eager to defend his right to be called HRH because that was the style he was born to but he didn't do anything to deserve it. None of the family did. It was just an accident of birth and they can't have Harry insult both his family and the British as being racist and hurtful to him in one breath and swear fealty in the next. That would undermine the whole institution and the perks none of them won by merits.

 

[Marengo]

Let's stop creating hypothetical mis-en-scènes about possible behavior and possible reactions during a possible coronation at an unknown date in time and return to the topic of this thread, which is News and Events of the duke and duchess of Sussex and their family.

Posters who want to fantasize and create a telenovela about the duke and duchess or about other royals are free to create a fan-fiction thread in the Members Corner of this forum.

 

[A-Bik]

If I were in William's place, it would have been when Meghan threw Kate under the bus to make a self-serving point about the media on Oprah..

If I were Meghan, I would resent Kate/William too.

They dined out on the story - apparently a falsehood - that Meghan made her cry and happily let it be repeated in articles, TV shows et al for years runnung.
The infamous Tatler article that the Cambridges struck back at and threatened lawsuits against until changes were edited, STILL made a point to let in the narrative that Meghan made her cry.

It all happily fed the narrative of aggressive, angry, American, threatens the genteel, delicate, English Rose.

I won't belabour the point, cause I believe this forum goes round in circles repeating the same thing.
But, IMO all parties would be smart to keep their distance from each other for good. (And children too).

Be civil, but no more.

Anyway, in-laws often have issues, famous or not, see Spanish RF, and in many cases that's fine. That's life.

 

[Moran]

Meghan definitely has certain double standards. For herself, she shed tears of self-pity during the South Africa interview that no one ever asked her if she was OK while being a new mother. For Kate, her being heavily pregnant or newly postpartum didn't even warrant a mentioning because Meghan's problems with her father and pre-wedding jitters were so vast and important. And we still don't know which story is true, who cried or if both women cried. But the double standards are obvious.

In William's place, there would be no room for Meghan in my life - and Harry, too, as long as he kept supporting this kind of behavior.

 

[Leopoldine]

Interesting and indeed seems in line with their path ahead for Archewell and Archewell Audio, due to parental leave i wouldn't expect H&M to be there themselves, but maybe a video message to the participants like Harry did a few in recent times?

I think H & M's presence at such a gathering would be about two things- their value as trophy guests (people are curious about them), and to hear their thoughts about censorship/content editing/free speech as pertains to the big media platforms. I know that this is an area that will be discussed at the conference. H&M have an interest in this. It's not really the right kind of group for a taped speech about compassion. Anyway, there is still time for them to show up!

King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein of Jordan is giving the keynote address today. I don't know what his topic will be.

 

[Lee-Z]

little bit OT (because no H&M mention)

but in case anyone is interested, here's a description of the Sun Valley conference
https://www.businessinsider.com/sun...ncelation-2021-6?international=true&r=US&IR=T

 

[ladongas]

In my own extended family, and in others, I have been amazed to see how quickly family feuds can blow over.

Most people are usually willing to forgive and forget, because you don’t want to lose that relationship.

Would William’s or Harry’s lives really be better if they never regained what they once had? Life is long, and neither of them will ever have another sibling. How forlorn HM was when she no longer had her sister, despite the hurt feelings and quarrels they may have once had.

A certain amount of pride may need to be swallowed on both sides, but the alternative is to lose the comfort of shared memories, and the intimate knowledge each has of the other.

I don’t have much respect for people who give up on their families for rather petty things. Feelings get hurt? Get over it, just like you do in other areas of your life. It’s not worth it to be too stiff-necked.

Please, no yeah, buts...

 

[The Crown]

But in the end the RF can't rely any longer on H & M. They never know if H & M talk about what happened or about what they said in the next interview. That's the big difference to a normal private problem within a private family. H & M want to make money with the differences and due to this they give interviews and let write books.

 

[muriel]

But in the end the RF can't rely any longer on H & M. They never know if H & M talk about what happened or about what they said in the next interview. That's the big difference to a normal private problem within a private family. H & M want to make money with the differences and due to this they give interviews and let write books.

That is correct. It will be difficult to restore that trust, come what may.

 

[Heavs]

If I were Meghan, I would resent Kate/William too.

They dined out on the story - apparently a falsehood - that Meghan made her cry and happily let it be repeated in articles, TV shows et al for years runnung.
The infamous Tatler article that the Cambridges struck back at and threatened lawsuits against until changes were edited, STILL made a point to let in the narrative that Meghan made her cry.

It all happily fed the narrative of aggressive, angry, American, threatens the genteel, delicate, English Rose.

I won't belabour the point, cause I believe this forum goes round in circles repeating the same thing.
But, IMO all parties would be smart to keep their distance from each other for good. (And children too).

Be civil, but no more.

Anyway, in-laws often have issues, famous or not, see Spanish RF, and in many cases that's fine. That's life.

The crying story was a petty, trivial story that would have been forgotten about long ago if Meghan didn't keep bringing it up. Besides that, considering all the other falsehoods in that interview I'm not sure we can trust her word about that. Camilla Tominey is still saying her sources are standing by the original article. Kate was either heavily pregnant or had literally given birth days ago, I can see why she might have cried, Meghan was having a difficult time with her family, I can see why she might have cried as well. Maybe they both did.

The Cambridges don't strike back at 95% of what's written about them, including some very nasty stuff, neither do most of the BRF they just let it go. Most of Harry and Meghan's attempts to sue or "set the record straight" have backfired on them.

In laws do indeed have issues, I'm sure a lot of royal families do. But in this instance it was the Sussexes who have made their arguments with the in laws/family, not just public but a huge part of their money making brand. And that is going to be very hard to negotiate because it's the thing that most people are now interested in them for: What will they spill? Which in turn is potentially driving away other collaborators who are worried about being on the receiving end of their accusations in a couple of years time. And the rest of the family will be constantly concerned lest their privacy be violated.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I quite agree. All families have spats. We've all said or done the wrong thing sometimes. But publicly accusing your family of being racist, not caring that someone is suicidal and being bad parents, and making comments (Archie's title, financial support from Prince Charles) which are outright lies is rather drastic by anyone's standards.

Yes, all families have spats - absolutely! But healthy adults don’t triangulate with Oprah (or Maury Povich/Dr Phil et al.). They arrange conversations with those family members privately.
We’ve talked about this ad nauseum but think back to what was their purpose really in broadcasting personal family business on TV? In hindsight I think it has elements of revenge towards the RF, but mostly as a sensational way to keep their names in the public arena and to keep up their victim narrative to appeal to US viewers.
Would we be having this discussion if they’d gone on Oprah happily and enthusiastically sharing their future plans with Netflix and Spotify? Perhaps showing moving clips of the Invictus Games as a teaser? Or showing Meghan speaking (which she does so well) passionately about a cause related to women? No, we certainly would not be having this conversation.
Where to go from here? I would suggest that M and H need to go radio silent during their 5 months (really?) maternity leave and at the same time reach out privately to the RF to begin the process of reconciliation. Honestly, in situations such as these, they will need a trained mediator to make any headway. Especially if it is true that both William and Harry have such short tempers.?

Exactly correct! And what I put in bold was the problem. When you marry into the Royal Family, you acclimate to them---not them to you. The fact that Harry did not educate her on that is beyond me. , but he seems to not understand it himself.

And this is true for any “firm” or company. When you are the new employee/kid on the block you don’t call the shots. Bottom line: Harry saw himself as equal to William (and in the family of course he is but NOT in the Firm) and he failed to help make Meghan understand this.