General News about the Sussex Family, Part One: May 2019 - March 2020


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The bolded is SOP for the British tabloid press, and has been for at least the last 30 years or so. It's--for lack of a better word--gross, but it's also directed at anyone who comes into their sights, and not a special technique hatched for Meghan and Harry. They're just the (un)lucky targets right now.

With all due respect, after almost 3 years of abuse for anything and everything, it's hardly target of the moment anymore. I have no doubt misogyny isn't anything new, but to be so bold and open about it in this day and age with the social changes that have happened, it's shocking. And the I don't want to be there because you don't want me to be, but you should invite me over for lunch? Really? Did I read that right? :lol:

And one consistent theme seems to be demanding more access. Especially to Archie. Being that he's 7 weeks old, how much more access do they want? The Sussexes have actually been pretty generous with sharing photos with us.
 
Last edited:
..... after almost 3 years of abuse for anything and everything, it's hardly target of the moment anymore. I have no doubt misogyny isn't anything new, but to be so bold and open about it in this day and age with the social changes that have happened, it's shocking.

And one consistent theme seems to be demanding more access. Especially to Archie. Being that he's 7 weeks old, how much more access do they want? The Sussexes have actually been pretty generous with sharing photos with us.

Who said anything about target of the moment? Sadly, the record shows that the only thing that gets a subject out of the tabloid press sights is another, juicier target, or ennui. Charles, Catherine, Camilla were all subjected to years of screamingly overinflated criticism. That's what makes the British tabloid press so awful and so unfair: they are relentless and they aren't going away. Like it or not, no matter how many Instagram and Twitter accounts the Sussexes maintain, at some level they are still going to have to deal with the press, because the British public still looks at the headlines. Hopefully the upcoming fall tour will push things in a more positive direction.

And while I agree that the misogyny is horrifying, we are surrounded by evidence in our own country that it is enjoying a resurgence everywhere, so on reflection, that's probably the least shocking aspect of the situation.
 
All this because they got a home well within norms in the royal family. In fact, the argument that they shouldn’t be given this because of their position is complete ludicrous as there are plenty of people below them on the totem pole that have bigger homes. And just to be clear, I’m not trying to say they should’ve been given a bigger home as I believe they got exactly the home they wanted. But it’s the idea that giving them one home of this size is so outrageous or that HM is indulging them that I take issue with.

As a son of the future King, it is understandable that the Duke of Sussex should get a royal residence. There is a broader issue though, which Charles will have to address following his accession, on who in the Royal Family is entitled to.a royal residence and who is not.

Queen Elizabeth II, apparently has been very generous during her reign providing zero or low cost housing not only for her children, but also for her adult grandchildren and her cousins. I don’t see a situation like that lasting into the future as royal expenses are subject to increasing scrutiny and the Royal Family is slimmed down.
 
As a son of the future King, it is understandable that the Duke of Sussex should get a royal residence. There is a broader issue though, which Charles will have to address following his accession, on who in the Royal Family is entitled to.a royal residence and who is not.

Queen Elizabeth II, apparently has been very generous during her reign providing zero or low cost housing not only for her children, but also for her adult grandchildren and her cousins. I don’t see a situation like that lasting into the future as royal expenses are subject to increasing scrutiny and the Royal Family is slimmed down.



Charles has already made it clear that there will be a reduced working royal family. The children of the Kents and the Gloucesters are all out on their own. Anne's children live on her estate.

Beatrice and Eugenie may be housed in the cottages at KP.

Edwards children still a bit young.
 
Charles has already made it clear that there will be a reduced working royal family..



Has he? Could you provide a source for this?


Also, we’re still talking about Frogmore Cottage in the wrong thread...
 
All the press has been doing the last 3 years is reinforcing Harry's natural dislike and distrust of them and bringing up old memories that are surely uncomfortable/painful. He had a pretty good stretch with reporters ..he was willing to give/take ...but they have treated Meghan so terribly and with all the death threats and craziness that has gone on..he's drawing a very hard line and he doesn't care who doesn't like it.

The press have only themselves to blame.


LaRae
 
All the press has been doing the last 3 years is reinforcing Harry's natural dislike and distrust of them and bringing up old memories that are surely uncomfortable/painful. He had a pretty good stretch with reporters ..he was willing to give/take ...but they have treated Meghan so terribly and with all the death threats and craziness that has gone on..he's drawing a very hard line and he doesn't care who doesn't like it.

The press have only themselves to blame.


LaRae

A very good and true comment, Pranter. The British press played a bad hand with the Sussexes. Although KP officials isn’t innocent either. The way they’ve handled some things wasn’t for the best, IMO. Although I understand things got tough because of the way the royal couple was being treated by the press.
 
Last edited:
The press has treated Meghan terribly unfairly.
However, that is the nature of the press. Catherine, Camilla, Letizia, and Mary all had their fair share of criticism from the press.
There is no pleasing them. One minute you are the media darling and the next minute the press turns on you for the sake of selling papers.
 
A very good and true comment, Pranter. The British press played a bad hand with the Sussexes. Although KP officials isn’t innocent either. The way they’ve handled some things wasn’t for the best, IMO. Although I understand things got tough because of the way the royal couple was being treated by the press.


Anyone who thinks Harry is not in charge of contact with the media is deluding themselves, he's been openly protective of Meghan since day one, watch him at their various engagements/walk abouts. He's been seen at least twice I can recall telling the press off (nicely) for not being considerate etc.

KP has made errors, all press offices make errors in how they handle things...but ultimately regardless what KP does or doesn't do ..Harry (and Meghan) are gonna decide how they deal with the press. I don't see any member of the family pressuring him to do otherwise either.

The media would be wise to step back and rethink how they approach this situation. The more pressure they put on them, I think the more they will dig in heels. They do allow some press (baby introduction, engagement interview etc) that they trust it seems. They are generally friendly to press at these public engagements as well. Meghan has been criticized for it (of course).


LaRae
 
The press has treated Meghan terribly unfairly.
However, that is the nature of the press. Catherine, Camilla, Letizia, and Mary all had their fair share of criticism from the press.
There is no pleasing them. One minute you are the media darling and the next minute the press turns on you for the sake of selling papers.

That’s true, but it’s been different with, Meghan. Of course, I know why, but I hope the press will learn to put those feelings to aside and give, Meghan, the time and space to carve her own path within “The Firm.” She deserves that fairness.
 
The press has treated Meghan terribly unfairly.
However, that is the nature of the press. Catherine, Camilla, Letizia, and Mary all had their fair share of criticism from the press.
There is no pleasing them. One minute you are the media darling and the next minute the press turns on you for the sake of selling papers.

The problem is that Meghan was never the media darling. They pounced on her from the start and it has only gotten worse since. Not even pregnancy or the birth of her first child has come with any reprieve.
 
The problem is that Meghan was never the media darling. They pounced on her from the start and it has only gotten worse since. Not even pregnancy or the birth of her first child has come with any reprieve.

That's also the nature of the beast. Catherine didn't get any respite until sometime after Charlotte was born, and Letizia still serves as a frequent target for the Spanish press. It's what gets the clicks. Time will tell how this all plays out with Meghan.
 
That's also the nature of the beast. Catherine didn't get any respite until sometime after Charlotte was born, and Letizia still serves as a frequent target for the Spanish press. It's what gets the clicks. Time will tell how this all plays out with Meghan.
Beatrice and Eugenie have been targets for most of their adult lives as have Märtha-Louise, Madeleine, Caroline, Stephanie etc... Peel away the racism, classism, ageism and we get to what's really at the centre of it all - misogyny.
 
Last edited:
That's also the nature of the beast. Catherine didn't get any respite until sometime after Charlotte was born, and Letizia still serves as a frequent target for the Spanish press. It's what gets the clicks. Time will tell how this all plays out with Meghan.

I can't agree. That the focus and criticism remains primarily on Meghan during maternity leave, especially when William and Catherine are out and about, speaks to another level of vitriol, imo.
 
That's also the nature of the beast. Catherine didn't get any respite until sometime after Charlotte was born, and Letizia still serves as a frequent target for the Spanish press. It's what gets the clicks. Time will tell how this all plays out with Meghan.

Yes you have a good point. Although, I reckon that British press is really more keen with Meghan compared to all that's mentioned. But yes, time will only tell. It's still her 1st year though. Hoping for the best.
 
The press was fairly chill with Kate during her pregnancies. I can’t recall the over the top attacks like they do with Meghan. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I think that’s what surprised me the most. The nastiness during her pregnancy and now maternity leave. And then they have the gall to act surprised the Sussexes keep their distance.

I know negativity sells but Archie wasn’t even a week old before he experienced his first taste of nastiness directed at him. I guess this is just their future. At least they know now more than ever. So they will do what’s needed to protect their family. Who can blame them?
 
Personally, I think it’s fine that Harry and Meghan are criticized by the press, especially when it comes to how much money they spend, and how they run their patronages. And there’s a difference between the press being critical and a blogger being mean.
 
Personally, I think it’s fine that Harry and Meghan are criticized by the press, especially when it comes to how much money they spend, and how they run their patronages. And there’s a difference between the press being critical and a blogger being mean.

There is a difference between criticism and omitting, twisting, or making up factual information to push a narrative.

There seems to be an insatiable thirst for more at this point. So I don't know if just sitting down for a luncheon is enough or help rather.
 
Personally, I think it’s fine that Harry and Meghan are criticized by the press, especially when it comes to how much money they spend, and how they run their patronages. And there’s a difference between the press being critical and a blogger being mean.



Sorry but
A; What’s it got to do with us how much money they spend? Charles pays for Meghan and Henry’s clothes, doesn’t come via the taxpayer in anyway so..
B; How they run their patronages? You do understand that they don’t run most of their patronages right. Even Sentebale and The Royal Foundation aren’t run on a day to day basis by the HRHs. So again why the criticism for something they don’t control?

Tabloid madness.
 
Personally, I think it’s fine that Harry and Meghan are criticized by the press, especially when it comes to how much money they spend, and how they run their patronages. And there’s a difference between the press being critical and a blogger being mean.

They don't "run" their patronages. So now even sure what you are talking about and as for money... I think that has been covered plenty. :ermm:
 
The press was fairly chill with Kate during her pregnancies. I can’t recall the over the top attacks like they do with Meghan. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I think that’s what surprised me the most. The nastiness during her pregnancy and now maternity leave. And then they have the gall to act surprised the Sussexes keep their distance.

I know negativity sells but Archie wasn’t even a week old before he experienced his first taste of nastiness directed at him. I guess this is just their future. At least they know now more than ever. So they will do what’s needed to protect their family. Who can blame them?

I think it depends how you define "chill." There were the endless implications that her hyperemesis gravidum was made up, and a lot of the same kind nastiness that was directed at Meghan, that she wasn't working enough, and so on.

I absolutely do not blame Harry and Meghan for setting boundaries and trying to protect their family. Who wouldn't do that? But they are also not completely unique, as JR76 points out.
 
Ack... blame my “mom brain “. It makes me stupid, apparently....

I know they don’t run their patronages. They work on behalf of them. I still think it’s ok to criticize them if it’s warranted.
 
During the Australian tour Harry and Meghan surprised the press by going to the back of the charter to thank them before they landed in Tonga. I remember Jobson speaking of it on one of the shows at the time.

So they will interact when they feel it is appropriate. Edwards has complained of the lack of access to Meghan before, so this isn't really surprising he bringing it up again.

With all due respect, after almost 3 years of abuse for anything and everything, it's hardly target of the moment anymore. I have no doubt misogyny isn't anything new, but to be so bold and open about it in this day and age with the social changes that have happened, it's shocking. And the I don't want to be there because you don't want me to be, but you should invite me over for lunch? Really? Did I read that right? :lol:

And one consistent theme seems to be demanding more access. Especially to Archie. Being that he's 7 weeks old, how much more access do they want? The Sussexes have actually been pretty generous with sharing photos with us.

Indeed. I think there are a number of factors going on. Even the Cambridges had the chance to be very private and away from the press for awhile after they married.

As both brothers reached early adulthood, they often granted press interviews. Plus Harry was very accessible to the press on tours. He often hung out with certain members of the press. But there were times when he displayed irritation with press intrusiveness, such as the time when he was involved in military service abroad. A deal was struck with certain media outlets to cover Harry secretly and to release the footage at a later date for security reasons. It was crucial to protect the operation he was involved with as well as his fellow soldiers.

The members of the press who were used to having close access to Harry when he was a bachelor seem incensed (Arthur Edwards, Duncan Larcombe, et al) at no longer having that kind of access. But as other posters have already indicated, the media of all stripes have only themselves to blame for the OTT and over-critical way they have too often written about Meghan. In addition, in the age of social media and the Internet, the print media and royal reporters have become less important and thus less powerful. That's a good development IMO.

Harry (and William too) understandably wish to protect their families, in ways they were unable to protect their mother. Harry is especially adamant about protecting Meghan, in view of the nastiness that ensued as soon as information about her background was publicly revealed. Not all media outlets have been egregious, but there has been an overabundance of criticism, and too much gossip and making things up in the absence of information about Meghan post-wedding. There are entirely too many stories every single day being spread all over the Internet, and the vast majority are speculative, trivial, fictional and perpetuate OTT, often ridiculous narratives.

If the press had calmed down and acted with more professionalism, Harry might be a bit forthcoming now. At this point, however, I don't think there's any hope that Harry will want to be too open about their lives. They will give a little, but not a lot. Much of the press have proved themselves to be untrustworthy.

Meanwhile, Meghan is simply following what is expected of her as a royal, and adhering to what Harry wants in regard to privacy. However, I believe Meghan will be adamant about using her voice in a positive way to promote the causes she is passionate about, and to support Harry and the royal firm. Meghan is used to being active, busy, and outspoken on important issues. She will never be a passive wallflower. As a royal, she's made necessary adjustments, but I think she will continue to be hands-on and outspoken in ways she can with all of her patronages, and in the work she and Harry do together for their various charities.

It seems to me that for the foreseeable future, the media will never get enough of the Sussexes as long as the public interest in them remains at such a high. The frenzy has increased rather than subsided since their marriage, and since the recent birth of Archie a year after the royal wedding.
 
Last edited:
You state it is better now that in the age of social media and internet the press is less important which you think is a good thing, but you then go on to say that there are too many speculative stories all over the internet.
Never more speculative than on these forums,

The internet and social media is not controlled as the press are,which allows all sort of rubbish to be written.

By the way the embargo re Harrys first bout of service in Afghanistan was broken by an Australian publication, the British publications adhered to it.

Another consideration is that William was known for dropping little titbits of information to see if it reached the press, he then knew whom he could trust. Could some of this mis information printed by the press be the result of titbits being dropped to establish trust.
 
You state it is better now that in the age of social media and internet the press is less important which you think is a good thing, but you then go on to say that there are too many speculative stories all over the internet.
Never more speculative than on these forums,

The internet and social media is not controlled as the press are,which allows all sort of rubbish to be written.

By the way the embargo re Harrys first bout of service in Afghanistan was broken by an Australian publication, the British publications adhered to it.

Another consideration is that William was known for dropping little titbits of information to see if it reached the press, he then knew whom he could trust. Could some of this mis information printed by the press be the result of titbits being dropped to establish trust.

As with most things there are positives and negatives. The internet and social media can be an asset to getting important messages to a large group of people. Unfortunately that same tool can be used to send harmful, demeaning messages, it usually depends on the user's intentions.
 
If the press had calmed down and acted with more professionalism, Harry might be a bit forthcoming now. At this point, however, I don't think there's any hope that Harry will want to be too open about their lives. They will give a little, but not a lot. Much of the press have proved themselves to be untrustworthy.

A few thoughts:

> The UK Press is not one amorphous individual or organisation, but a disparate bunch of individuals and organisations. Every publication has their own editorial view, and one that evolves over time.

> Given the goodwill still around the couple, what H&M appear to have done with great skill is unite the whole press pack against them. It is rare to see such a united view across the media. Even loyal regulars like Arthur Edwards who have known Harry since he was a child appear to be quite disenchanted with the way things are being run. Each of us can have our views that caused this, but I for one do not believe it is driven by racism, that Meghan is American or divorced.

> I appreciate the importance of social media and the internet in communications, but members of the BRF need to carry the local media with them. It is a symbiotic, two way relationship, and one that we have seen work well over the years. After the disastrous 1990s, the BRF, IMO, did a highly skilled job of engaging directly with the media, and re-establishing a new order that allowed individual members the privacy they needed in their private lives and, at the same time, provided the Press with the information needed to do their jobs. This arrangement appears to have been skillfully evolved over time, and appears to be broadly still in place, other than for H&M.

> This is not an us vs them game. IMO, if H&M are sensible, they will need to get around to engaging with the media to reestablish the relationship, and work from there. It is not the first time the BRF have done this, and they will be well advised to get guidance from Charles and Camilla who did an excellent job of this.
 
Given the goodwill still around the couple, what H&M appear to have done with great skill is unite the whole press pack against them. It is rare to see such a united view across the media. Even loyal regulars like Arthur Edwards who have known Harry since he was a child appear to be quite disenchanted with the way things are being run. Each of us can have our views that caused this, but I for one do not believe it is driven by racism, that Meghan is American or divorced.

Edwards and others are complaining that Harry isn't a party guy any more willing to have drinks with them. Well when you get married you have to grow up and prioritize your wife/family over journalists/photographers. And when said journalists/photographers go out of their way to say harmful (usually untrue) things about your wife then you cut them off...not go begging to them. As for why they do it. I think it is mostly about money but there are racial undertones especially when they use words like ghetto, vulgar, angry....terms used in the past to other or dismiss people of color, especially blacks ...those that haven't experienced it may not see it but it doesn't mean it isn't there

I appreciate the importance of social media and the internet in communications, but members of the BRF need to carry the local media with them. It is a symbiotic, two way relationship, and one that we have seen work well over the years. After the disastrous 1990s, the BRF, IMO, did a highly skilled job of engaging directly with the media, and re-establishing a new order that allowed individual members the privacy they needed in their private lives and, at the same time, provided the Press with the information needed to do their jobs. This arrangement appears to have been skillfully evolved over time, and appears to be broadly still in place, other than for H&M.

However, the current media doesn't see it has a two way relationship, it's give me what I demand or I will write mean things about you. Edwards pretty much said that.

This is not an us vs them game. IMO, if H&M are sensible, they will need to get around to engaging with the media to reestablish the relationship, and work from there. It is not the first time the BRF have done this, and they will be well advised to get guidance from Charles and Camilla who did an excellent job of this.

Times are different. C&C are from a different generation and had to rely on the media to reach the audience they related to. H&M relate more to the younger generations who don't rely on print media for their news, especially when they can get the information straight from the source and it is proven that the written media is not giving factual information. It would also be well advised if the media could change with the times as well
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edwards and others are complaining that Harry isn't a party guy any more willing to have drinks with them. Well when you get married you have to grow up and prioritize your wife/family over journalists/photographers. And when said journalists/photographers go out of their way to say harmful (usually untrue) things about your wife then you cut them off...not go begging to them. As for why they do it. I think it is mostly about money but there are racial undertones especially when they use words like ghetto, vulgar, angry....terms used in the past to other or dismiss people of color, especially blacks ...those that haven't experienced it may not see it but it doesn't mean it isn't there

However, the current media doesn't see it has a two way relationship, it's give me what I demand or I will write mean things about you. Edwards pretty much said that.

Times are different. C&C are from a different generation and had to rely on the media to reach the audience they related to. H&M relate more to the younger generations who don't rely on print media for their news, especially when they can get the information straight from the source and it is proven that the written media is not giving factual information. It would also be well advised if the media could change with the times as well


I thought Murials post was a considered review of the situation, but you have used words on here that she never used.

Arther Edwards was not talking about going partying he was talking about an off the record reception that allowed the press to build up relationships with the royals.
Do you really think the internet is giving factual information.

Like me, Murial, it would appears remembers the War of the |Wales when the media was used by both parties, it was destructive.

You have inferred on your post that M & H are going down the road of providing information to chosen outlets/ reporters or whatever you want to call them. If that is the case they need to take care.

As Murial said it is a 2 way street between the public and the Royals.

My fear is that M & H are trying to go down the road of playing hard to get to up the interest when they do appear in public or give some titbit to the favoured media outlet. It will back fire.

A few thoughts:

> The UK Press is not one amorphous individual or organisation, but a disparate bunch of individuals and organisations. Every publication has their own editorial view, and one that evolves over time.

> Given the goodwill still around the couple, what H&M appear to have done with great skill is unite the whole press pack against them. It is rare to see such a united view across the media. Even loyal regulars like Arthur Edwards who have known Harry since he was a child appear to be quite disenchanted with the way things are being run. Each of us can have our views that caused this, but I for one do not believe it is driven by racism, that Meghan is American or divorced.

> I appreciate the importance of social media and the internet in communications, but members of the BRF need to carry the local media with them. It is a symbiotic, two way relationship, and one that we have seen work well over the years. After the disastrous 1990s, the BRF, IMO, did a highly skilled job of engaging directly with the media, and re-establishing a new order that allowed individual members the privacy they needed in their private lives and, at the same time, provided the Press with the information needed to do their jobs. This arrangement appears to have been skillfully evolved over time, and appears to be broadly still in place, other than for H&M.

> This is not an us vs them game. IMO, if H&M are sensible, they will need to get around to engaging with the media to reestablish the relationship, and work from there. It is not the first time the BRF have done this, and they will be well advised to get guidance from Charles and Camilla who did an excellent job of this.

Great post, considered, thoughtful, showing understanding of the situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Someone mentioned the goodwill towards them. What goodwill? From the people, sure I believe that. From the media? They have been sour since the relationship came to light in October 2016. After they were called out by Harry’s letter, they were all up in arms about it, but some of the blatant racist headlines did subdue a bit.

One thing we shouldn’t forget the the reputation of the British press themselves. Some of them have already been playing defensive because they’ve been called out by others for their behavior. It’s long been known, long before Meghan came into the picture, the nastiness that is British press. So I’m not sure they are so necessary in the age of social media and globalization.

Until they all calm down a bit, I just don’t see how is a mutually beneficial relationship possible. Because at this moment, they just keep wanting more access. Especially to Archie. But that is unreasonable given what the Sussexes have already shared, which is very reasonable amount. Meghan and Harry have the right to protect their son and should be able to do so without unethical attacks from reporters. And yes, I used the word unethical because that’s exactly what reporters are when they use the tactic give me as much access I want or I will write hit pieces not based on facts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought Murials post was a considered review of the situation, but you have used words on here that she never used.

Arther Edwards was not talking about going partying he was talking about an off the record reception that allowed the press to build up relationships with the royals.
Do you really think the internet is giving factual information.

Like me, Murial, it would appears remembers the War of the |Wales when the media was used by both parties, it was destructive.

You have inferred on your post that M & H are going down the road of providing information to chosen outlets/ reporters or whatever you want to call them. If that is the case they need to take care.

As Murial said it is a 2 way street between the public and the Royals.

My fear is that M & H are trying to go down the road of playing hard to get to up the interest when they do appear in public or give some titbit to the favoured media outlet. It will back fire.


Arthur Edwards has written at least three pieces now where he has basically blamed Meghan for the change in Harry. In one of them he very specifically used language in where he all but said "Unless you give us what we want we will write horrible things about you." We all debated that piece and he is back at it again only was tamer in his words.

There is no argument that the royals needs the press and the press need the royals. It is a partnership in a lot of ways but times have changed and the royals are seeing there are other forms of press to be head as well. Their reach is beyond just the British royal beat and I do think that makes that group very nervous. And it should.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom