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

[duchessrachel]

This pretty much sums up how my line of thinking went too. I stated that there was no way they'd go postal on the BRF and institution especially on a major television station in prime time. I had to eat my words. I didn't even tune in for the interview. I've still not watched it and won't. I've heard enough from the clips and the repercussions that followed it.

This is when they totally lost my support. I have no sympathy for people who have so much to be thankful for that complain they've gotten the short end of the stick. As much as I supported their right to leave and follow a path of their own and make their own way in the world, to pave their path with bitterness, anger, complaints and the attitude that they should have and could have and would have expected much more or they wouldn't have had to leave left me stone cold.

The bottom line for me is that these two people had a wonderful and top notch global platform where they could have done so much good and made a difference in this world but through their own personal choices, left it behind to follow their own path and to this day, they're still not happy with the way things are and haven't shown a glimmer of anything of a really positive nature going forward yet IMO. They've made it to be all about what was done to them rather than what they could do for others and its doing things for others with a genuine sense of service that makes a difference in this world.

Attitude is everything when you're in the public eye and its my opinion that both Harry and Meghan fall short in this area. Having an mansion costing a gazillion dollars does not reflect on who they are. People with undesirable notoriety own mansions and islands and private jets. It's what they do and what they say that reflects the most and determines their character. In my eyes, both Harry and Meghan fall short in this area and I'm hoping it hasn't gone so far as to permanently damage their endeavors going into the future.

Osipi, you lasted longer than me. I was done supporting them when they blindsided the Queen by releasing their "manifesto" in Jan 2020. That was such a disappointment to me. They had it made. So what if they were not equal in the royal pecking order to William and Kate. Actually they had it better. They had boundless opportunities for charity work as well as unimaginable luxury (something they obviously value) without having the pressure of Harry being King one day. William will have to do many things as King that he probably won't particularly enjoy, but Harry and Meghan would have had more freedom to pick and choose.

 

[Heavs]

I do personally believe that housing played a role in what transpired. How much, I can't determine. I think, like many things that happened between the Sussexes and Harry's family, things were interpreted very differently than how the royal family intended them.

I remember Megan's makeup artist saying in the media how he had visited Megan at NottCott, and how she wasn't even living in a castle. The way it was stated led me to believe that (1) Meghan complained about her living situation to her friend, and (2) her friend really believed that the rest of us would feel bad that her free housing wasn't grand enough for her. At the time I thought Harry had really skipped over some important facts in preparing Meghan, and it was all part of a general disappointment with royal life.

Then the news came out a bit later that FrogCott was under renovation for Harry & Meghan, and I was a bit dubious as to why they chose that property. I worked in London in my 20's, and Windsor is quite a different feel (and commute!) from Kensington Palace and the London social scene.

I honestly don't know if they were already planning to leave royal life and use FrogCott as a second home. I don't believe they ever viewed it as a forever home.

All in all, I think they wanted a living situation like they now have. And anyone who watches the British royals would have known in advance that Harry was not going to get an estate like his Aunt and Uncles. But I question that the Sussexes understood that or instead felt that they were being snubbed. If they did feel snubbed, I feel bad for them, but also feel that their unfair expectations were not the fault of others.

I personally that Charles would have likely helped them get a second home in the future, but it would have been quite some time. I believe, for a lot of reasons, it would have had to be a cash purchase and something that Charles would have had to save for over a few years in advance, and would be a property that he personally approved of. And from the Oprah interview, it appears that Harry believes he has an immediate right to funding from his father.

It is definitely possible that housing was an issue, along with related issues like not being given their own "court" in Windsor as a sort of alternative to the Cambridges. I remember people joking that they mistook the Queen's offer of "Frogmore" for Frogmore House" or "Windsor" for an apartment in the castle.

I do think it's a bit rich for anyone to complain about NottCott where multiple royals have lived and indeed the Cambridges also used for a while. Whilst it's small it is in the large grounds of a palace and they still have access to it.

Finding Freedom did claim that Meghan herself loved it when she first saw it.

Here's what Sussex Royal says about Frog Cott:

Why did The Duke and Duchess move to Windsor as their Official Residence?
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex chose to move to Windsor for various reasons. Their previous residence of Nottingham Cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace could not accommodate their growing family. The option of Apartment 1 in Kensington Palace was estimated to cost in excess of £4 million for mandated renovations including the removal of asbestos (see details above on the Monarchy’s responsibility for this upkeep). This residence would not have been available for them to occupy until the fourth quarter of 2020. As a result, Her Majesty The Queen offered The Duke and Duchess the use of Frogmore Cottage, which was already undergoing mandated renovations, and would be available to move in before the birth of their son. The refurbishment cost equated to 50 percent of the originally suggested property for their proposed official residence at Kensington Palace. It is for these reasons, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex chose Frogmore Cottage as their Official Residence

I think there was more going on then that but according to their own site it was partly due to timing and renovation costs. I wonder if neither couple wanted to be neighbours at this point.

Charles via The Duchy also still has that estate in Herefordshire, which allegedly he wanted to give to one of the boys as a country retreat. Although I can imagine it wouldn't suit Harry and Meghan and that's fine.

I see no reason to think that Charles wouldn't have helped out with a country estate at some point if they still wanted one in the Cotswolds or elsewhere.

Things happened so quickly with this pair that they barely had time to do any long term planning. They didn't even do it with the ill advised manifesto that was going to determine the rest of their life. Looking at Sussex Royal again, they didn't get much of what they actually wanted.

They were talking with Quibi before Archie was born and barely lived in Frog Cottage. We know they were thinking about possible SA or NZ and likely the US already so who knows? They made a lot of huge changes in a short space of time and barely let any of it settle. I had hoped the year of lockdown and a forced pause on their plans would give them time for reflection and a solid plan but it doesn't seem to have been like that at all.

 

[Leopoldine]

Also keep in mind that other royal newlywed couples started off their married life in humbler circumstances. The Cambridges lived in a very basic cottage on the Bodorgan estate in Wales, and Andrew and Sarah lived in four rooms at BP, then moving to King Hussein's comfortable suburban-style house near Ascot.

 

[Osipi]

[.....]

Other people's bad behavior such as what Meghan experienced doesn't matter as in being bad, worse or horribly awful. What matters is Meghan's *reactions* to what came at her. [.....]
Other people and their behavior is never an excuse for one's own behavior. No matter how bad it was. Meghan chose to listen to and allow the crapola coming at her to affect her. This is a woman that stated before that she never pays attention to the "noise". She not only listened to it, she absorbed it and reacted to it. That's on her.

 

[Curryong]

Few people wouldn’t be affected by negative articles coming out about them daily for over three years, including after marriage and pregnancy as distinct to the occasional negative article by a journalist, and hardly ever having to read any thing of the kind after her marriage.

I know I would certainly be deeply affected by the first while the latter I would be able to cope with. Anybody would IMO so long as the vast majority of reports were favourable.

 

[ACO]

[.....]
And I’m not saying that was the BRF but I bet no one on here can honestly say Meghan never experienced anything racist in that space during the years she occupied it and that’s just something the others will never know. And it’s pretty damn hard to swallow even if you want to ignore it. But also why should you?

None of them are perfect. I think they all did things to hurt each other. Maybe if they all were willing to admit that then things might not have escalated to this point but people can act out when they feel backed into a corner. Right or wrong, but it’s true. It doesn’t excuse actions though.

 

[Leopoldine]

Regarding H & M being second tier Royals and not knowing what to expect:

Charles and Diana had a two week Mediterranean Honeymoon cruise, where they actually visited at least one head of state.

Second son Andrew and his bride had a five day honeymoon cruise around the Azores.

This would have been a hint for Harry and his fiance.

 

[Ista]

Several posts have been deleted or edited since posters ignored moderator Soapstar's directions.

Let's move on from making comparisons, and get back on topic.

 

[Moran]

Regarding H & M being second tier Royals and not knowing what to expect:

Charles and Diana had a two week Mediterranean Honeymoon cruise, where they actually visited at least one head of state.

Second son Andrew and his bride had a five day honeymoon cruise around the Azores.

This would have been a hint for Harry and his fiance.

It might have been but to be fair, William and Harry were never perceived as something quite equal to their counterparts from the past. A good deal of their popularity came from being "Diana's boys" and the BP didn't think it needed or proper to give heavier hints that while Diana, of course, was an important part of their past, their future would be modeled after the RF model. The media was eager to embrace the Diana boys narrative. Andrew was never proclaimed to be less important than Charles because, frankly, there was no need. But the press presented William and Harry as equal for years and the BP never corrected this narrative. I find it rather possible that Harry thought Andrew's situation wasn't *quite* like his own - the fact he was usually included in William and Kate's projects, the speed with which things were spun in action for Meghan, the Fab Four narrative didn't exactly support the Harry as Andrew and Margaret's position in the past thesis.

 

[Curryong]

Regarding H & M being second tier Royals and not knowing what to expect:

Charles and Diana had a two week Mediterranean Honeymoon cruise, where they actually visited at least one head of state.

Second son Andrew and his bride had a five day honeymoon cruise around the Azores.

This would have been a hint for Harry and his fiance.

It has depended in the past on what sort of honeymoon particular royal couples want rather than expectations. The Queen and Prince Philip had a honeymoon at Broadlands estate, where they were pestered by photographers and the public trying to see them. They quickly moved on to Birkhall, Scotland, in January. Quite icy!


Margaret didn’t get any hint, though she wasn’t even the spare when she married. Princess Margaret and husband Tony Armstrong Jones had a six week cruise around the Caribbean on the Royal Yacht Britannia, often stopping on remote islands to swim and visiting larger islands too.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/...and-destinations/princess-margaret-honeymoon/


Diana’s honeymoon wasn’t particularly happy in spite of luxury on the Britannia and her new high status. We don’t know where or when Harry and Meghan honeymooned, but they’ve certainly had very enjoyable holidays together in Africa.

 

[Kataryn]

Does anyone know what went into the choosing of Frogmore Cottage? The public has never been given a good view of the place so I don't know how small or large it is. I never expected them to stay in Nott Cott. NC seems to be the in-between place for young royals before they marry or are newly married. I can't believe there wasn't a spacious apartment at KP that could have been renovated or some other crown owned country house offered. Since they knew they weren't in it for the long haul, they went with FC?

I think they took it because it offered them the use of Frogmore Gardens where the media would not be able to follow them around and get pictures. That had happened in their weekend retreat in the Cotswolds before and probably made them realise they would need either something much bigger or much more protected. Hence the wish for a place at Windsor - not in the Castle, IMHO, but some place around it inside the part of the park that is protected by police. Thus Frogmore. AFAIK noone but the queen uses the famous gardens for anything, but they have stables there, plus a teahouse just over the lawn from Frogmore Cottage. And it was build by a queen as a place just to relax, a bit like the Petit Trianon in Versailles and once it was back in that setting, I can imagine it is wonderful to live there. Eugenie and Jack seem to think so, too (and they even had the place to house Harry recently).

But I think the media discussion about the "taxpayer's money" must have hurt, because Harry surely knows the history of the Crown Estate and he would have been right to follow the "Royal opinion" that it was owned privately by the souvereign till it was "exchanged" for the civil list - and when that was changed, the queen only got the gains of a quarter of it back as the "Souvereign's Grant". So in fact the government forced the queen to accept a bad deal in the spirit of the "Crown Estate belongs to the people, not to the Head that wears the Crown".

Plus it was the duty of the owner to see to it that the house was in a state that it could be rented out/given to the Sussex-family - and in the end the Sussexes felt forced to pay for that to get the media off their back. I guess that's where Charles' lump sum went into. So I hope Eugenie and Jack can keep it, so the queen still gets to see a great-grandchild when she comes to Frogmore Gardens and Beatrice will be able to take over the Royal Lodge one day, just like James Severn will get Bagshot when he's the new Duke of Edinburgh and Earl of Wessex. All very traditional! Let's hope then Lady Louise will find a husband with a big place where she can keep her horses and carriages or move into another house at Windsor Park.

 

[Ghost]

Me too, duchessrachel! I could not believe the arrogance of the HIHO manifesto - it was obvious to me that the Sussex PR folks who wrote it (or whomever did) had no understanding whatsoever of how the RF works. BTW, I’m kinda surprised that site of sussexroyal is still up!

My first sign that it was going to crash was the engagement interview, when H said that they want to help people see the things the “correct way”, or something along those lines. I could not believe he hadn’t understand until well into his thirties that there’s no correct way. People have opinions based on their specific circumstances and, how shall I put it, these circumstances may vary. So a whole range of opinions are “correct” to a whole range of people.
But back to arrogance. Every time they have said/did/made a statement about anything there was a little wake trail of arrogance and division. Archie’s birth wouldn’t have been such a juicy piece of meat for the press if they didn’t put the statement about privacy before the birth. The christening - same thing. The HIHO would have not been outrageous if they didn’t ask for so many perks in the manifesto in such an entitled way.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

It might have been but to be fair, William and Harry were never perceived as something quite equal to their counterparts from the past. A good deal of their popularity came from being "Diana's boys" and the BP didn't think it needed or proper to give heavier hints that while Diana, of course, was an important part of their past, their future would be modeled after the RF model. The media was eager to embrace the Diana boys narrative. Andrew was never proclaimed to be less important than Charles because, frankly, there was no need. But the press presented William and Harry as equal for years and the BP never corrected this narrative. I find it rather possible that Harry thought Andrew's situation wasn't *quite* like his own - the fact he was usually included in William and Kate's projects, the speed with which things were spun in action for Meghan, the Fab Four narrative didn't exactly support the Harry as Andrew and Margaret's position in the past thesis.

Is the Fab Four something the media made up or did that come from BP or KP? I agree that this created huge misperceptions in the public and, it seems, for H and M.

 

[Hallo girl]

Is the Fab Four something the media made up or did that come from BP or KP? I agree that this created huge misperceptions in the public and, it seems, for H and M.

IMO a bit of both. I think I am right in saying it was the media that headlined the fab 4 but I would say that was in response to the 4 being pictured together. The walk to church at Xmas, the four together for the foundation event. It did seem to suggest that the future was a team of 4.
Also the brothers and Kate pictured together previously in what on the surface was a successful venture it seemed the obvious step when Meghan joined the family.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

IMO a bit of both. I think I am right in saying it was the media that headlined the fab 4 but I would say that was in response to the 4 being pictured together. The walk to church at Xmas, the four together for the foundation event. It did seem to suggest that the future was a team of 4.
Also the brothers and Kate pictured together previously in what on the surface was a successful venture it seemed the obvious step when Meghan joined the family.

I really can’t remember the timeline but did the foundation event and Christmas walk occur before or after the email re bullying staff?

 

[Hallo girl]

I really can’t remember the timeline but did the foundation event and Christmas walk occur before or after the email re bullying staff?

Not sure about the email but there were two Xmas walks one before the wedding when they were engaged then the following Xmas. The foundation event I am thinking about was before the wedding as I am sure Kate was pregnant in the photographs.

 

[Ghost]

I really can’t remember the timeline but did the foundation event and Christmas walk occur before or after the email re bullying staff?

One year before. The bullying email was in October 2018, the first Christmas Meghan spent in UK, 2017, and the foundation event was in February 2018, before the wedding. Kate was pregnant with Louis. For the second Christmas, when Meghan was pregnant, there was a very public “nothing is wrong” walk to church.

 

[_Heather_]

So it appears that Meghan may have struck a deal to advertise for alkaline water. I saw it all over social media but I honestly wasn't sure if it was legitimate so I looked up the company myself. The page currently shows that the post has been removed, however, the cached version of the page confirms that they are using her name, image, titles, and a quote. Now, I have no way of knowing if she really is shilling for them or if they're now going to be the subject of a lawsuit for using those things without her knowledge. However, if anyone's interested, here it is (this is the link to the cached page so hopefully you're able to see it). I know nothing about this brand but it does appear that she used to have some sort of a promotion contract with them when she was acting and running her blog.
https://webcache.googleusercontent....an-markle-loves-it/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[Heavs]

I don't know if it was official but they are allowed to advertise things now if they want, I suppose.

The questionable part would be the HRH: Hydration Really Helps wording.

I do think this is a large part of why they were chafing under the rules. Not just that they weren't equal to the Cambridges per se but they weren't allowed to earn extra income from things like this.

 

[_Heather_]

I don't know if it was official but they are allowed to advertise things now if they want, I suppose.

The questionable part would be the HRH: Hydration Really Helps wording.

I do think this is a large part of why they were chafing under the rules. Not just that they weren't equal to the Cambridges per se but they weren't allowed to earn extra income from things like this.

I agree, they can advertise anything they want. It just really struck me that they were using all of her titles which certainly seems as though that would be a no no and then there's the whole paragraph about stepping back to pursue their own goals so they'll need to stay hydrated. The whole thing just seems...tacky.

 

[ACO]

It appears they used an old quote and tried to attach themselves to her currently. Recently another company attempted to do this and removed it. Looks like they already have.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

This is definitely not Meghan endorsing a product. The page is painful to read. I am guessing this company was already the subject of a complaint and has taken the page down.

As ACO points out, it seems Meghan made an endorsing comment when she was "Meghan Markle," which they are now trying to put up on their webpage and make it seem as if she made the comment recently by using her current titles and current events. Very poor form and certainly not legitimate.

 

[Alison H]

Is the Fab Four something the media made up or did that come from BP or KP? I agree that this created huge misperceptions in the public and, it seems, for H and M.

The media made it up. The term "Fab Four" is a long term nickname for The Beatles, and it somehow got attached to the two royal couples. But they were doing a lot of work together in the early days, and they did a joint TV interview which a lot of people saw.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Few people wouldn’t be affected by negative articles coming out about them daily for over three years, including after marriage and pregnancy as distinct to the occasional negative article by a journalist, and hardly ever having to read any thing of the kind after her marriage.

I know I would certainly be deeply affected by the first while the latter I would be able to cope with. Anybody would IMO so long as the vast majority of reports were favourable.

I think Meghan had very positive media at first. Meghan, herself, indicated that the media turned negative after the "she made Kate cry" story, which was first reported in late November 2018 https://cafemom.com/entertainment/216391-meghan-markle-kate-middleton-cry.

I believe that negative reports started after reporters started learning negative things about Meghan's with staff. People are human and palace staff interacts with and around royal reporters all the time, so it is natural that these types of stories would leak out. Moreover, reporters were starting to observe the questionable behavior first hand. Valentine Low saw Meghan reprimanding staff on the Fiji tour (October 2018). Of course, Meghan was pregnant and Fiji gets very hot, so it is understandable if she was a bit abrupt (I also understand why she had to cancel an outside event during that trip).

However, it is never acceptable to consistently bully your staff. If it is true that she threw hot tea at a someone, that is completely over the line - period. I don't care whether there were 100 negative untrue stories about her that day, that type of behavior inexcusable.

Of course, no one on this board knows whether those allegations are true, untrue, or somewhere in the middle. But Meghan and Harry's supporters seem to feel that we should accept their denials at face value, even though Meghan and Harry have made statements that are undeniably not true. On the other hand, I haven't seen any reason why Jason Knauf would send such an email without having sufficient evidence to back it up.

Finally, if Meghan and Harry don't appreciate negative headlines about themselves, perhaps they should refrain from creating negative headlines about their families.

 

[UglyAmerican]

It seems there were a lot of staffers who, rightly or wrongly, really didn't like her. I've wondered for a while how many of those leaks (Kate crying, the tiara drama, etc.) were done by some of those staffers. It wouldn't necessarily have been a larger conspiracy, just individuals who really hated their boss extracting some perceived revenge. Regardless of who's right or wrong in that saga, life's a lot easier when your staff doesn't hate you.

 

[Osipi]

If my memory is still with me today and not off somewhere on vacation, I seem to recall that the very first time I heard any complaint about Meghan with her staff was not for being a bully or being rude or demanding but because she actually was *hugging* the staff and was told that just wasn't done. This was pre wedding and it actually painted a totally different picture of Meghan than what was to follow.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2018051348534/meghan-markle-hugs-kensington-palace-staff/

 

[US Royal Watcher]

If my memory is still with me today and not off somewhere on vacation, I seem to recall that the very first time I heard any complaint about Meghan with her staff was not for being a bully or being rude or demanding but because she actually was *hugging* the staff and was told that just wasn't done. This was pre wedding and it actually painted a totally different picture of Meghan than what was to follow.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2018051348534/meghan-markle-hugs-kensington-palace-staff/

I understand your point but in many areas of the world, it is rude to hug a person who doesn't expect it. I would argue that this is true within the United States as well, and it certainly is inappropriate to hug your employees in a workplace.

 

[Erin9]

I understand your point but in many areas of the world, it is rude to hug a person who doesn't expect it. I would argue that this is true within the United States as well, and it certainly is inappropriate to hug your employees in a workplace.

Agreed.

If Meghan did hug staff- I’m sure it was well intentioned.

But it’s not appropriate workplace behavior imo. To me- that’s not a BRF thing, that’s just common in today’s workplace. At least in America for sure. Unless you are absolutely sure it is welcome, then maybe. Otherwise- you open yourself up to harassment or other issues if the gesture is misinterpreted or unwanted in general.

 

[Osipi]

I definitely agree that hugging is inappropriate as it invades someone's personal space and is not conductive for a good working relationship. I just think that it was strange, in a way, to go from being overly friendly and personal to the employer from hell. There probably is a middle ground here somewhere and perhaps the picture painted of Meghan as the Cruella Deville boss is exaggerated.

 

[Erin9]

I think Meghan had very positive media at first. Meghan, herself, indicated that the media turned negative after the "she made Kate cry" story, which was first reported in late November 2018 https://cafemom.com/entertainment/216391-meghan-markle-kate-middleton-cry.

I believe that negative reports started after reporters started learning negative things about Meghan's with staff. People are human and palace staff interacts with and around royal reporters all the time, so it is natural that these types of stories would leak out. Moreover, reporters were starting to observe the questionable behavior first hand. Valentine Low saw Meghan reprimanding staff on the Fiji tour (October 2018). Of course, Meghan was pregnant and Fiji gets very hot, so it is understandable if she was a bit abrupt (I also understand why she had to cancel an outside event during that trip).

However, it is never acceptable to consistently bully your staff. If it is true that she threw hot tea at a someone, that is completely over the line - period. I don't care whether there were 100 negative untrue stories about her that day, that type of behavior inexcusable.

Of course, no one on this board knows whether those allegations are true, untrue, or somewhere in the middle. But Meghan and Harry's supporters seem to feel that we should accept their denials at face value, even though Meghan and Harry have made statements that are undeniably not true. On the other hand, I haven't seen any reason why Jason Knauf would send such an email without having sufficient evidence to back it up.

Finally, if Meghan and Harry don't appreciate negative headlines about themselves, perhaps they should refrain from creating negative headlines about their families.

I thought Meghan’s over all coverage seemed very positive early on.

Regarding the Jason Knauf email, Lacey’s book mentions him providing (I think) both William and Simon Case with a “dossier” regarding the claims. Take that as you will- but that is believable to me. The email is real, and I don’t believe he’d have written the email without back up evidence. (That, of course, can then be evaluated.)

I do find it a bit strange that a couple who (understandably)disliked negative press coverage about themselves, and took it very much to heart, have created situations where both they and their family have gotten loads of it. Maybe they don’t mind so much because their negative coverage is more UK based, and they no longer live there. But- negative press is still negative press. For themselves and their family.