Duke and Duchess of Sussex, General News 2: December 2018 - February 2019

[Muhler]

And now for a little chuckle.

I have allowed myself to place this here, rather than in the general thread that is temporarily closed in the hope that the mods will eventually move my post. ?

As you know Meghan wrote a letter to her dad and I won't get into details about that, that's besides the point I wish to make here. Which is: Experts and to the amazing extent "experts" are able to analyze absolutely everything. Makes me wonder whether I chose the wrong profession...

Mirror has asked an graphologist, Ruth Myers, to analyze Meghan based on that letter - and there is no end to what she has found out!
Read and enjoy here: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-emotionally-insecure-self-13980578

While I firmly believe a graphologists is able to determine the state of mind of someone writing something - agitated, calm, loving, distracted and the like. And also to a considerable extent about the general traits of a writer - slobby, perfectionist, unused to writing letters, used to writing in the hand and the likes. - And that's about it.
These are things a reputable graphologist with a high degree of certainty can and should be able to deduce from a letter, even if she didn't understand a single word of what was written.
Everything else is pure speculation IMO.

You simply cannot tell from handwriting alone whether a person feels sorry for herself.
And to conclude that Meghan is emotionally unstable... Ding-ding-dingaling! Captain Obvious has struck again. It was a letter to her, to put it mildly, estranged dad! Even Spock from Star Trek would be emotionally unstable writing such a letter.

My conclusion is that the conclusion the "expert" has reached is 80 % blah-blah. ?

 

[MARG]

I fear Ms Meyers was a little heavy-handed with the Eye of Newt and the Toe of Frog must have come from a severely very undersized frog.

 

[gerry]

And now for a little chuckle.

I have allowed myself to place this here, rather than in the general thread that is temporarily closed in the hope that the mods will eventually move my post. ?

As you know Meghan wrote a letter to her dad and I won't get into details about that, that's besides the point I wish to make here. Which is: Experts and to the amazing extent "experts" are able to analyze absolutely everything. Makes me wonder whether I chose the wrong profession...

Mirror has asked an graphologist, Ruth Myers, to analyze Meghan based on that letter - and there is no end to what she has found out!
Read and enjoy here: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-emotionally-insecure-self-13980578

While I firmly believe a graphologists is able to determine the state of mind of someone writing something - agitated, calm, loving, distracted and the like. And also to a considerable extent about the general traits of a writer - slobby, perfectionist, unused to writing letters, used to writing in the hand and the likes. - And that's about it.
These are things a reputable graphologist with a high degree of certainty can and should be able to deduce from a letter, even if she didn't understand a single word of what was written.
Everything else is pure speculation IMO.

You simply cannot tell from handwriting alone whether a person feels sorry for herself.
And to conclude that Meghan is emotionally unstable... Ding-ding-dingaling! Captain Obvious has struck again. It was a letter to her, to put it mildly, estranged dad! Even Spock from Star Trek would be emotionally unstable writing such a letter.

My conclusion is that the conclusion the "expert" has reached is 80 % blah-blah. ?

I would agree with you if you suggested the 'handwriting analyst' was 100% blah blah with an extra blah for good measure! How very unfortunate the Duchess is in her paternal family. Hopefully the Duchess has learned never to write her father again (how sad!) and one trusts that the legal counsel retained by the BRF will put an end to the Markle debacle.

 

[Kataryn]

And now for a little chuckle.

(...)

My conclusion is that the conclusion the "expert" has reached is 80 % blah-blah. ?

The DF needed three "experts" to finally get a negative interpretation... Why can't these people not simply respect Meghan's wish for a private life that is that: private?

 

[King of the Jungle]

I read an article by Arthur Edwards (very experienced at watching royals at work) who stated that Meghan engages brilliantly with people on royal engagements.
That's positive.
He's hoping her future involves working more with British royal correspondants like older royals and less with US media. I predict Meghan's future will involve more and more charitable outings and the regular British press will support her.

 

[Osipi]

I think out of all the royal reporters that I've come to "know" over the years, I think that Arthur Edwards is perhaps one of the most respected ones by the BRF. He's been at it for a very long time.

Right now though, I don't see Meghan catering at all to *any* royal reporter or *any* media be it UK or US. She's doing what she needs to do with style and grace and putting her best foot forward to do her job to the best of her abilities and with *no* thought to the media whatsoever.

 

[Rudolph]

I read an article by Arthur Edwards (very experienced at watching royals at work) who stated that Meghan engages brilliantly with people on royal engagements.
That's positive.
He's hoping her future involves working more with British royal correspondants like older royals and less with US media. I predict Meghan's future will involve more and more charitable outings and the regular British press will support her.

Here’s the entire article

ARTHUR EDWARDS: Meghan Markle, lighten up. You’re not the new Princess Diana and it’s time you and Prince Harry ended this phoney media war

 

[duchessrachel]

I think out of all the royal reporters that I've come to "know" over the years, I think that Arthur Edwards is perhaps one of the most respected ones by the BRF. He's been at it for a very long time.

Right now though, I don't see Meghan catering at all to *any* royal reporter or *any* media be it UK or US. She's doing what she needs to do with style and grace and putting her best foot forward to do her job to the best of her abilities and with *no* thought to the media whatsoever.

I agree with you, Osipi. I read the article in the Sun today by Arthur Edwards, and I just wonder how William feels about him now. A lot of what he said I agree with, but the idea that Meghan should "meet with Britian's royal correspondents " so that "her profile would improve" sounds to me like a veiled threat. To me, it is like he is saying that if she does not give them access, they will continue to malign her in the press. What they should be looking at is the work she is doing and how much she has accomplished in the short time she has been a member of the BRF. That alone should define her "profile."

 

[Osipi]

OK. I read the article. Thanks for posting it Rudolph.

This line jumped out at me, and hits me as the bottom line of truth. "Their PR advisers hope to bypass the traditional media by controlling the photographs and stories they release."

Royal reporters and the media they work for are no longer really necessary to feed the world with what's going on in the royal world. Newspapers and magazines are going the way of the dinosaur and the online versions compete with each other to get a "scoop" that no one else has regardless of the validity or facts of said "scoop".

The way Harry and Meghan are doing things right now works for them and they have some semblance of a private life. Talking and including the British royal reporters aren't going to be on their list of high priorities. Ever.

 

[Ista]

I read the piece by Arthur Edwards, and have mixed feelings about it. There's a fair amount of hyperbole in there, but he does have some good points, including the fact that what Camilla dealt with for years was at least as bad, and possibly worse than Meghan. I also agree that George Clooney's comments have not been helpful, and he really shouldn't have inserted himself into the story.

On the other hand, I'm not sure what he really wants Harry and Meghan to do, other than make themselves more accessible to the press. To Osipi's point, KP's press officers don't have to use the press as intermediaries, so what incentive do they have to do so? But while the press doesn't control the story anymore as they did with Diana and Camilla, they aren't dead and gone yet (see The Daily Mail, and how often it's cited even here, where we know better) so there might be an opportunity to wring a little bit more positive press out of them. I don't blame Harry and Meghan for wanting to circumvent the press, but I'm not actually sure that's possible at this point, and there might be some benefit to forging a slightly more cordial relationship. Maybe.

 

[Terri Terri]

To forge a more cordial relationship works both ways! The actions of SOME sections of the UK media against Meghan and Harry for the past few months isn't going to help forge that relationship. As a matter of fact, seeking that cordial relationship is basically impossible as things stand right now. And when Meghan and Harry move to Windsor, the lack of media access to their family will be even more restricted.

I think that a significant amount of time will have to pass on either side before a cordial relationship can be established.

 

[Ista]

To forge a more cordial relationship works both ways! The actions of SOME sections of the UK media against Meghan and Harry for the past few months isn't going to help forge that relationship. As a matter of fact, seeking that cordial relationship is basically impossible as things stand right now. And when Meghan and Harry move to Windsor, the lack of media access to their family will be even more restricted.

I think that a significant amount of time will have to pass on either side before a cordial relationship can be established.

I wonder if it ever can, really, but suspect you're probably right that at a minimum a significant amount of time would have to pass. I think it's a good thing that Harry and Meghan are going to have their Windsor bolthole, and hopefully that will give both some physical and psychological space for things to cool down.

 

[ACO]

I agree with you, Osipi. I read the article in the Sun today by Arthur Edwards, and I just wonder how William feels about him now. A lot of what he said I agree with, but the idea that Meghan should "meet with Britian's royal correspondents " so that "her profile would improve" sounds to me like a veiled threat. To me, it is like he is saying that if she does not give them access, they will continue to malign her in the press. What they should be looking at is the work she is doing and how much she has accomplished in the short time she has been a member of the BRF. That alone should define her "profile."

Yeah I can’t take him seriously when he can’t spell her name correctly and issues weird threats. So you demand her to meet with you or you support the attacks against her? Well okay. Don’t cover her engagements. Let’s see how that works for you especially since you are STILL whining about the wedding. Talk about contradicting yourself.

I get why some of the royal correspondents and photographers are frustrated but at the same time a few of them just seem bitter that they are being challenged. It’s not all but this piece is definitely an example.

 

[Erin9]

I really didn’t take what he said as a threat- more of a suggestion that he thought would help smooth things over. I have no idea one way or the other if it would or not.

Thing is- regardless of how media and information sharing has changed- there are going to be royal reporters and articles written about royals. It’s not going anywhere.

I think he makes a good point that Camilla dealt with far worse media coverage and Diana certainly had less privacy.

 

[Madame Verseau]

I think this article is a group complaint of the royal reporters losing their influence. They can get older royals to play ball when the royal needs image clean up and they have freedom to write whatever to exploit the never complain never explain policy. Harry and Meghan have the audacity to fight back and the RRs don't like it. They also don't like big names like Clooney painting them as villains. Edwards' article is self serving, fear of losing power and influence. Going forward I think the Sussexes should stay vigilant but pick their battles carefully.

 

[Pranter]

Threats to not cover them at events? LOL There's probably 100 reporters who would take that spot.

Give them bad press (Meghan stories etc) until they cave? Why reward bad behavior?

Frankly I think the media (any of them) are lucky to get anything from the Wales boys. Considering how they treated their mother...Kate, Camilla, Fergi and now Meghan it's a wonder they have any sort of working relationship with them.

I would imagine that Harry is so entrenched right now he's not likely to want to consider agiving them anything. Perhaps a seasoned negotiator is needed here.


LaRae

 

[jacqui24]

I fail to see how Sussexes getting closer to media would mean better media coverage other than he thinks the media is being vindictive. Shouldn't it be about facts? Or is that too much to ask for?

By that way, Arthur is beginning to sound awfully a lot like Thomas Markle. Do this or else. That's what it sounded to me.

As for the issues with George Clooney's comments, obviously he's not talking about the physical chasing. His comment was related to Thomas Markle releasing extracts from Meghan's letter and the insatiable way the media has gone after Meghan since the relationship begin. Anyone beyond the age of elementary school can understand chasing is not just meant in a physical way.

And if being nicer to the media is the point, I'd like to point out that Meghan is perhaps the nicest young royal to the media despite all the whining from them. She isn't as chatty with them as Camilla, but at least she acknowledges them like human beings at engagements and doesn't look away on purpose to make their jobs more difficult. And yet, she's the one that gets abused in the media.

Threats to not cover them at events? LOL There's probably 100 reporters who would take that spot.

Give them bad press (Meghan stories etc) until they cave? Why reward bad behavior?

No kidding. I would happy for Arthur Edwards to follow through on it, but I have a feeling it won't make a difference one way or another. I would be HAPPY for him to sit out the birth of Baby Sussex. Boycott to make a statement. And any other RRs and photographers who wants to can do so. Bottom line is, they don't cover engagements out of goodness of their hearts. It's a livelihood. And they don't cover things just because a royal is nice or not. They cover it because the royal sells. That's what it ultimately is about. So it's high time he stops acting like they are owed something.

I think this article is a group complaint of the royal reporters losing their influence. They can get older royals to play ball when the royal needs image clean up and they have freedom to write whatever to exploit the never complain never explain policy. Harry and Meghan have the audacity to fight back and the RRs don't like it. They also don't like big names like Clooney painting them as villains. Edwards' article is self serving, fear of losing power and influence. Going forward I think the Sussexes should stay vigilant but pick their battles carefully.

THIS. What I've seen from them since before this is a sense of territorial control. Before Meghan's entry, most of the royal coverage is from UK media, but these days, there are more global media getting in on the action. Town and Country and Harper's Bazaar both have regular RRs now based in London, although on a freelance basis. Imagine US publications getting more details on the work that the Sussexes are doing as much as UK press. Their coverage has been more comprehensive than the UK tabloids on the work as well. And these days, technology has it made so that UK media have far less control over royal coverage than they used to.

 

[Osipi]

Its been an ongoing thing with the British royal family for a very long time. I think The Duke of Edinburgh said it all as he addressed a Matron of a Caribbean hospital back in 1966.

“You have mosquitoes. I have the Press.”

 

[Erin9]

Its been an ongoing thing with the British royal family for a very long time. I think The Duke of Edinburgh said it all as he addressed a Matron of a Caribbean hospital back in 1966.



“You have mosquitoes. I have the Press.”

I love that quote. Lol

But they are stuck with them.

 

[duchessrachel]

I really didn’t take what he said as a threat- more of a suggestion that he thought would help smooth things over. I have no idea one way or the other if it would or not.

Thing is- regardless of how media and information sharing has changed- there are going to be royal reporters and articles written about royals. It’s not going anywhere.

I think he makes a good point that Camilla dealt with far worse media coverage and Diana certainly had less privacy.

I get what you are saying, but it seems very entitled of reporters to think that there is something that needs to be smoothed over.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I read Arthur’s article. Some of what he says makes sense, but he is also ignoring or downplaying some facts of some stories in trying to make his case.

And he is seriously behind the times for thinking KP should delete their social media. That isn’t going to happen.

I do agree with him that Meghan and Harry have a pretty private life. We very, very rarely know what they are doing or see photos of them out privately. (And he confirmed what I suspected-some of Diana’s out and about photos were really her photo ops and not paparazzi.)

 

[Pranter]

There's no way either of 'the boys' would of tolerated a wife who sought/seeks the spotlight. Both families are rarely seen out and around ...I think it's great they are able to guard their privacy so well.


LaRae

 

[Countessmeout]

I am sorry I have little respect for Arthur after this article. He is coming off as a petty child throwing a tantrum

He basically sounds like he is blackmailing them...….either tow the line and answer our demands for interviews our way, or we will continue our attack.

I had to laugh at his comment 'the papers could simply stop reporting'. Seriously does he really think he has such power? The 'newspapers' have little to no influence now a days. Majority of people look to social media and the net for their news now a days. And the newspapers on the net will post anything that will get them hits. Hits equal money. So called war with the papers? More headlines, more hits, more advertising dollars.

Harry and Meghan aren't doing anything different then Will and Kate. Other then the one wedding photographer. They very rarely let anyone inside their little compound. the photos released of the kids are almost always done by Kate. The rare family photo taken, by one, not a press conference.


He really doesn't grasp the social media world. Meghan doesn't need to be hunted by actual paps now a days. The joys of social media, and where anything can be on a blog or online in moments. Its much harder 20 years after Diana died, to have any privacy.

The social media of the royals is not going to go away. If anything it will grow stronger. Royals all over the world have seen the power of using social media to promote their charities. The point of being a royal is not to wear tiaras and wave, but to promote charity and trade. And social media is the quickest way to do that now a days.

 

[Terri Terri]

Oh he would just LOVE it if the royals deleted social media ... far less competition for him and his kind AND more power to them in covering the royals.

Meghan scared them launching her first project using social media before the traditional media roll out. The cookbook was a bestseller by then! Social media, yes can be used for bad. But it can definitely be used for good too and communication is within seconds and goes around the world in a flash!

Sorry Arthur..but the days of people buying only newspapers to get the news is over!

 

[ACO]

I also agree that the Sussexes have a private life. We really don't know much about what they do and where they go. I am glad about that despite the reporters pretending to know the details of their lives for clicks.

Tying this into the actually purpose of this thread -- Meghan managed to visit all her patronages multiple times, create a cookbook, and travel to the US all under the radar. Yet I am suppose to believe their random little tidbits? Nope.

Anyways... I get why Arthur is whining. He has stated more than once now that he wished Harry was still the goofy one from the past. He still has fun but the man is now a husband and soon to be father. He has different priorities and they aren't clowning around with you.

And threatening to not cover their engagements hurts you more than them.

 

[Erin9]

Duchess of Sussex: Future Duties, Roles and Responsibilities

Bottom line- someone will cover their engagements. So- yes- threatening not to cover them makes no sense. Someone will. Harry and Meghan sell.

 

[Dalriada]

Very sympathetic piece by Andrew Morton in today’s Daily Telegraph:

“Diana told me that her first year of royal life had been “exhausting”. But Meghan has, in the words of her aides, hit the ground running. She has performed more than 100 engagements, flown the flag of her adopted country abroad, given speeches, helped Harry write his own and contributed to a best-sellling cookbook in aid of the Grenfell Tower victims. She has taken on patronages, looked glamorous, joined in, and always been ready for her close-up. ....
“.. When she was a teenager, Meghan talked about one day being “Diana 2.0”. For now, she is more accurately described as “Meghan 1.0” – but she will have learned a great deal from the tumultuous events of the last few days. And, hanging in the air, there remains a definite feeling that we ain’t seen nothing yet. “

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...princess-diana-playbook-has-backfired-meghan/

 

[Terri Terri]

Andrew Morton is a real snake oil salesman as we say in my part of the world. I don't trust anything that comes out of his mouth.

We all have access to Meghan's speeches, writings, interviews and social media content from the time she was a teenager. When has she ever said that she wanted to be Diana 2.0? As far as I am aware, Andrew Morton coined this phrase to sell his book.

 

[Curryong]

I'll have to look it up but I believe he stated it in his biography of Meghan with reference to her seeing videos of Diana in the coach on her wedding day in her childhood and dreaming of being a 'princess' like her. I think I remember that was the context. Certainly Meghan has never said anything like that on her own account.

On the other hand Morton's Telegraph article does show a happy, enthusiastic and very active woman. So at least that's a change from all the awful Duchess Difficult, Duchess Overbearing articles that proliferated over the last few months.

 

[ACO]

Meghan never uttered Diana’s name in all her various interviews and Tig posts talking about her heros. Lawd knows if she had it would have been plastered everywhere by the press and their desperate ways.

She did list her mother many times. The press conveniently seems to forget that as it doesn’t fit their “Thomas Markle” agenda.

Morton still trying so sell his pathetic book that flopped by inserting him into this this story. His source was Priddy, Samantha and Thomas Jr since he openly admitted he couldn’t get anyone from Meghan past (including neighbors) to talk to him. He needs to stop.