General News about the Sussex Family, Part Two: April-August 2020

[QueenMathilde]

I think they would have done better to try to cooperate with the media than to fight with them and freeze them out. Now the four papers they are arguing with will continue to print negative articles - they can't stop them from doing that.

 

[Missjersey]

[...]

Sitting on the bench and playing second string, IMO, has always been a big big factor on why they left (I’m leaving my thoughts on the money part out).

I rolled my eyes too at the birthday greeting. It reeks of their obsessive need for media attention, again, jmo.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Imagine if the UK press refused to cover any of their events etc. The charities depend on the publicity. Oh dear. Not good.

It shows how hopelessly outdated the British media is. As if the ink on Fleet Street still rules the country. Internet and social media are at all sides engulfing traditional media. The Duke and Duchess have more direct followers than all paid subscriptions of all British media together.

The couple knows that. The media knows that, but old reflexes are still alive at Fleet Street (which is not even a newspaper street anymore, another illustration of the seismic changes in the media landscape).

That editor of The Telegraph still thinks he is in the 1990's. Wrong assessment of his own more and more irrelevant position.

 

[Claire]

A Telegraph editor apparently printed a letter asking to be put on the same list as the tabloids as he doesn't like his privileged position of being allowed to cover their activities while a pandemic is going on but rather would be on the 'zero engagement' list as well.

I had a feeling many of the broadsheets would go this way - leaving only the glossies with access.

 

[Kataryn]

I don't think this has been posted previously. From the Society of Editors, a reputable & respected body:

https://www.societyofeditors.org/so...mounts-to-censorship-says-society-of-editors/

The actions of the Sussexes make editors uncomfortable: on the one hand they cannot condone what H&M did because it hurts their very core as editors. On the other hand though they understand them after they all know what they went through.

That makes for this strange article, where the quoted executive member of the society says: "a clear attempt to undermine certain sections of the UK media who often ask uncomfortable questions." But then he says: "They may have been stung by some of the coverage they have not liked, they may disagree strongly with some elements of that coverage and can of course take action to answer any criticism they consider unfair or inaccurate through several channels." - His answer is that they cannot just shun these publications with their millions of readers, for they "give succour to the rich and powerful everywhere to use their example as an excuse to attack the media when it suits them."


So the article says that the Sussexes should not stop having media relations to publications that hurt them because otherwise they give the "rich and powerful" ideas to do that as well? Hello???? Can it be that "the media" have internal and yes, written rules and codexes of behaviour but the tabloids don't work according to them?



Btw - did anyone here ever read the novella "The lost honour of Katarina Blum" by German noble prize for literature-winner Heinrich Böll? Makes for a fascinating read about life according to reality and tabloids.

BP said last week that any calls from family for the Queen’s birthday would be kept private, so I do find it a bit odd that Meghan and Harry announced that they called her. Don't think it was at all necessary.

At least now the Mail cannot "wonder if Harry forgot his grandmother on her birthday" because we all were told: no he did not!

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Yes, I agree. Why did the BBC take so long to distribute the profits? Good that its gone to a useful cause but it seems like it sat around for a logn time

I don't think the profits exactly 'sat around.' The profits were most likely accumulating over time from sales of the BBC wedding video. And an agreement was already in place for a portion of the profits designated for the Sussexes to go to a charity of the Sussexes' choice. The money was being set aside for the Sussexes and thus it could have gone directly to them, but it was their wish for it to go to a charity affiliated with the Archbishop. It was not a requirement for the Sussexes to give the money to charity.

It's nice that the money is available for it to now benefit the people in need served by this charity. The money was already being set aside and earmarked, as it was still accumulating.

 

[Hallo girl]

It shows how hopelessly outdated the British media is. As if the ink on Fleet Street still rules the country. Internet and social media are at all sides engulfing traditional media. The Duke and Duchess have more direct followers than all paid subscriptions of all British media together.

The couple knows that. The media knows that, but old reflexes are still alive at Fleet Street (which is not even a newspaper street anymore, another illustration of the seismic changes in the media landscape).

That editor of The Telegraph still thinks he is in the 1990's. Wrong assessment of his own more and more irrelevant position.

That is correct internet and social media is up there, but lets not forget social media is uncontrolled, you just have to look at some of the things posted about Thomas Markle on this forum to see that.
The 'monkey' photograph was social media not print, yes they reported on the person losing his job etc etc.
A great deal of the really vile, threatening remarks have been on social media.
I was called names on this forum that if it had appeared in print media I could have sued.

I am not going to rehash old stories on here, but when you look back at some of the stories printed they were fairly accurate.

A great deal of the stories did have valid points, ok with spin added, I will not deny that. There were some other headlines that did cross the line, I will not deny that either.
They are not perfect by any means.
Lets not forget either that Harry and Meghan are using the press to get their version of a story out, they are playing the game.

The point I am making is that social media is a very dangerous place.
Posters on here lump the social media comments with the printed press/ online newspapers and say how terrible the media is.

Be careful what you wish for with regards the printed press.

I have seen more vile things posted on social media than ever appeared in the newspapers.

You can sue newspapers you have difficulty suing faceless people behind nom de plumes on social media.

 

[yukari]

That is correct internet and social media is up there, but lets not forget social media is uncontrolled, you just have to look at some of the things posted about Thomas Markle on this forum to see that.
.
.
The point I am making is that social media is a very dangerous place.
Posters on here lump the social media comments with the printed press/ online newspapers and say how terrible the media is.

Be careful what you wish for with regards the printed press.

I have seen more vile things posted on social media than ever appeared in the newspapers.

You can sue newspapers you have difficulty suing faceless people behind nom de plumes on social media.

Not to mention that it's a well known fact that there's a lot "fake" accounts out there. Especially for well known public figure or celebrity, it's an open secret that amongs their social media followers, there's significant amount of internet trolls and bot accounts (some stans even openly declare to encourage their fellow to create as many account as possible to "support" their star).

 

[Hallo girl]

Not to mention that it's a well known fact that there's a lot "fake" accounts out there. Especially for well known public figure or celebrity, it's an open secret that amongs their social media followers, there's significant amount of internet trolls and bot accounts (some stans even openly declare to encourage their fellow to create as many account as possible to "support" their star).

That is also true I hadn't really thought of that.

 

[Denville]

I don't think the profits exactly 'sat around.' The profits were most likely accumulating over time from sales of the BBC wedding video. And an agreement was already in place for a portion of the profits designated for the Sussexes to go to a charity of the Sussexes' choice. The money was being set aside for the Sussexes and thus it could have gone directly to them, but it was their wish for it to go to a charity affiliated with the Archbishop. It was not a requirement for the Sussexes to give the money to charity.

It's nice that the money is available for it to now benefit the people in need served by this charity. The money was already being set aside and earmarked, as it was still accumulating.

er the Sussexes did not "give the money to charity". The BBC did, and its public money... All the Sussexes did was suggest a charity to donate to.

Not to mention that it's a well known fact that there's a lot "fake" accounts out there. Especially for well known public figure or celebrity, it's an open secret that amongs their social media followers, there's significant amount of internet trolls and bot accounts (some stans even openly declare to encourage their fellow to create as many account as possible to "support" their star).

I think they are foolish to rely on social media. The press is still influential, and to cheese them off was not a good idea. (if the press wasn't influential why were they so bothered by negative press?)
From what I've seen the really nasty remarks about them have been from commentators on the internet and they are pretty vicious, some being from the UK and others from the US. If they don't want to hear nasty comments, don't read stuff on the Net about yourself.. because it is completely uncontrolled and uncensored.

 

[Denville]

Great post but I seriously doubt that obscurity is what they actually want..

They have done nothing to prove that they want to get less attention. In fact, most commentators believe that a major reason for their exit from the RF was that they were not getting as much attention as William and Kate.

Their biggest failure is in not realizing that "all publicity is not good publicity" for the rarefied strata that they wish to occupy. As a C-list actress, all publicity was good publicity because it got Meghan noticed and acting roles but she is now A-list and the same publicity rules do not apply.

I agree. [...] I think they do want attention but they can't/wont admit it. So they have for ages being doing the dance of "We're private people blah blah" but continually doing things that get them more attention than if they had just "let the press take the picture" and moved on...

 

[Kataryn]

I think they are foolish to rely on social media. The press is still influential, and to cheese them off was not a good idea. (if the press wasn't influential why were they so bothered by negative press?)
From what I've seen the really nasty remarks about them have been from commentators on the internet and they are pretty vicious, some being from the UK and others from the US. If they don't want to hear nasty comments, don't read stuff on the Net about yourself.. because it is completely uncontrolled and uncensored.

They'd only have to read Piers Morgan to read someone uncontrolled and uncensored in his nastiness! As if eg. the Daily Mail would force one of their commentators to e nicer. LOL. What an idea! And commentators on the net, most of them anonymous, are not followed and elieved like the official paper correspondents are. So let them be nasty, no one really cares apart from other trolls. It's the bias and the lies of the tabloids that make me angry. Like it happened with The queen and Princess Margaret or Diana and Fergie, the tabloids want "stories", not truth. And for their stories they have certain "roles", With William the future PoW and Catherine his princess, they simply needed a bad prince and that's what Harry is. Only Harry and Meghan now live in California and don't want to play that game.

 

[Denville]

They'd only have to read Piers Morgan to read someone uncontrolled and uncensored in his nastiness! As if eg. the Daily Mail would force one of their commentators to e nicer. LOL. What an idea! And commentators on the net, most of them anonymous, are not followed and elieved like the official paper correspondents are. So let them be nasty, no one really cares apart from other trolls. It's the bias and the lies of the tabloids that make me angry. Like it happened with The queen and Princess Margaret or Diana and Fergie, the tabloids want "stories", not truth. And for their stories they have certain "roles", With William the future PoW and Catherine his princess, they simply needed a bad prince and that's what Harry is. Only Harry and Meghan now live in California and don't want to play that game.

if they "don't want to play that game" why move to LA where there is a pretty big set of paparazzi, and why continue to lead a public life? They could live privately, as ordinary people, work quietly in some hands on way In charities (when the crisis is over) and not engage in disputes with the press, or any public stuff like social media. There's no need. As royals it was their duty to do charity engagmenets but they gave up on that. Now they can lead the private life they claim to want, and after a while the press will lose interest and wont compare them to "good Will and Kate"...

 

[muriel]

To me, one of the advantages of Harry’s change in status would be the fact that he can now just call his grandmother to wish her a happy birthday without the need to ensure the public has been kept in the loop via social media.

I’ve posted before about how I think there are many advantages to being the junior royal/non royal grandchildren of the monarch, in any royal family, not just the UK. People like the York princesses and Peter and Zara Phillips enjoy many of the same social privileges as William and Harry but are able to do so privately and without (much) scrutiny.

Harry’s situation is unique because he was expected to be a full time working royal. But he could become much more like his cousins fairly quickly if he stopped doing things like randomly announcing a birthday video call to his grandmother.

If he’s as traumatized as he claims by the media coverage of him and his family then a good first step is to make himself and his family less conspicuous. Step away from the social media. Make no comments to the press about your personal or working life. Ask your father to help find you a reasonably well paying job that’s less attention catching than globetrotting celebrity fundraiser. And then step back and enjoy the best of both worlds - mostly free of public attention and media coverage while remaining one of the best connected people in the world.

Great post, clearly articulates what many are thinking.

[...]

Their biggest failure is in not realizing that "all publicity is not good publicity" for the rarefied strata that they wish to occupy. As a C-list actress, all publicity was good publicity because it got Meghan noticed and acting roles but she is now A-list and the same publicity rules do not apply.

I think the speed with which the relationship progressed probably did not give Meghan the time to fully appreciate how things would be different, and as you say, the time to adapt to A-list rules.

 

[TLLK]

Prince Harry, Archie and possible some of their security/staff may have experienced their first earthquake early this morning. For Meghan and any staff who were long time California residents, this was not the strongest earthquake they would have experienced in their lifetimes.


The epicenter of the 3.7 magnitude quake was in unincorporated View Park/Windsor Hills where Doria Ragland owns a home.



I don't live too far from that area, so I'd describe it more as a "window rattler" which would get your attention, but not cause any major damage/injuries.

INGLEWOOD — An earthquake with a magnitude of 3.7 rattled parts of Southern California on Wednesday morning, but there were no immediate reports of damage or injuries.
The quake, centered near the unincorporated View Park-Windsor Hills area, near Inglewood, struck at 12:03 a.m. at a depth of just over 7 miles, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It was initially reported as a magnitude 3.8 by the USGS.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti tweeted about 12:25 a.m., “Our Los Angeles Fire Department has activated to conduct its routine survey of the city to assess for any damages. City teams will continue to monitor.”
The quake was felt at Los Angeles International Airport, but there were no reports of damage or injuries. A check of airport facilities was underway, but operations were not impacted, an airport official said.

 

[Eskimo]

[...]




I think the speed with which the relationship progressed probably did not give Meghan the time to fully appreciate how things would be different, and as you say, the time to adapt to A-list rules.

I agree to a point. I think a part of her realizes (although she would never admit it) that she is going to be a curiosity on a "real housewife" level and not on the Oprah, Beyonce, Jay-Z and Clooney level. So, I think they are now trying to do whatever they can to stay in the public eye and relevant because neither of them have anything of value besides their "brand" to achieve the financial independence they crave.

 

[Jacknch]

Please be reminded that this thread is about General News -as in newly received information concerning recent events. As such we don't need to go over things we discussed (and at great length) over and over again.
Harry & Meghan have now been married almost two years - there is no merit in debating again why they got married and how quickly they got married.Thank you.

 

[acdc1]

Prince Harry, Archie and possible some of their security/staff may have experienced their first earthquake early this morning. For Meghan and any staff who were long time California residents, this was not the strongest earthquake they would have experienced in their lifetimes.


The epicenter of the 3.7 magnitude quake was in unincorporated View Park/Windsor Hills where Doria Ragland owns a home.



I don't live too far from that area, so I'd describe it more as a "window rattler" which would get your attention, but not cause any major damage/injuries.

I lived in Northern California for about a year, and you never forget your first earthquake! Mine was early in the morning as I was getting ready for work, and it almost sounded like a train was coming closer and closer to you, and then you felt the shaking. It was not powerful but a mirror in our house did break. All of my native Californian colleagues slept right through it!

 

[TLLK]

While I've lived in SoCal my entire life, one of the strongest quakes that I ever experienced was in 2000 at my parents' then A-frame home which featured literally walls of windows in Napa,CA. I'd never been so close to the epicenter (Yountville) and it was a hard, slamming jolt. Adding to the experience, my parents' glassware and dishes were sliding out of the cabinets and crashing onto the floor. Fortunately everyone including my then 8 month old daughter were fine. However for some of our guests, this was their first earthquake.


Fortunately for anyone in the Sussex's home, this was a relatively minor quake, so it was an easy "introduction" to seismic activity IMO.

 

[BaiSoSo]

I agree to a point. I think a part of her realizes (although she would never admit it) that she is going to be a curiosity on a "real housewife" level and not on the Oprah, Beyonce, Jay-Z and Clooney level. So, I think they are now trying to do whatever they can to stay in the public eye and relevant because neither of them have anything of value besides their "brand" to achieve the financial independence they crave.

What is any of that theory based on? Most likely both will be known for their philanthropy work as that is what is currently being covered by most of the media within the US. What do Oprah, Beyonce, or Clooney have to do with anything? Both have shown in the past and even now they aren't afraid of the actual work so I would say they have a lot more to offer than just a brand.

 

[Kataryn]

if they "don't want to play that game" why move to LA where there is a pretty big set of paparazzi, and why continue to lead a public life? They could live privately, as ordinary people, work quietly in some hands on way In charities (when the crisis is over) and not engage in disputes with the press, or any public stuff like social media. There's no need. As royals it was their duty to do charity engagmenets but they gave up on that. Now they can lead the private life they claim to want, and after a while the press will lose interest and wont compare them to "good Will and Kate"...

What did they do but volounteer to a charity and walk their dogs? And LA is where Meghan comes from and her mother lives. Even though "Hollywood" is part of it. We have no idea where they live, could be they moved in a friend's house with Doria? Coud not be... They talked to their "old" charities on giving them ideas how to help - yes, they could have left them, but why not giving ideas, even from over the pond? We haven't seen anything from them apart from that bank event speech since they went to Canada (and don't know what happened to the money Harry got from it) but I follow quite some "stars" who are at home now in LA and there is so much more coverage from everyday life at the moment, so it's not as if the paps are sleeping.
And as I said before: telling the world they called the queen ended all articles that wondered "why Harry isn't calling the queen".. And don't tell me you believe this wouldn't have happened if they didn't make their call public! And that you believe that they are working now together with this TZM (?) who bought her father to make their wedding uncomfortable??? For I would have to laugh out loud about , well, you can imagine!

 

[MaiaMia_53]

er the Sussexes did not "give the money to charity". The BBC did, and its public money... All the Sussexes did was suggest a charity to donate to...

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celeb...nce-harry-meghan-markle-coronavirus-donation/

There's no indication in anything I've read that this is 'public money.' Reportedly, the BBC and Meghan & Harry discussed in advance what to do with any excess profits generated from coverage of their wedding. I believe that includes sales of the BBC video. So apparently, after the BBC was recompensed for their expenditures and after they received sufficient profits, the 'excess profits' were to go to the couple. But in the lead-up to their wedding, Harry & Meghan arranged with the BBC that any 'excess profits' held in their name would be earmarked for a charity of their choosing.

Yes, it may seem misleading in some headlines that the money came directly from the personal bank account of Meghan & Harry. But reading the articles carefully, it's unequivocally straightforward that the Sussexes were notified of the current amount of the 'excess profits' recently, and that they chose for the money to go to the Archbishop's charity, Feeding Britain. It's definitely an opportune time for this to happen, so it's a positive development. And the profits may still be accumulating (once again, likely in part from sales of the BBC video).

Again, while it's not coming directly out-of-pocket, I don't see any reason to negate that Harry & Meghan are responsible for why these funds exist, and for how and to whom these funds are being distributed, in cooperation with the BBC.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

BP said last week that any calls from family for the Queen’s birthday would be kept private, so I do find it a bit odd that Meghan and Harry announced that they called her. Don't think it was at all necessary.

I agree that does seem a bit odd. Meghan and Harry should appreciate privacy more than anybody, so it does seem strange they would make this public.

 

[Somebody]

I'd say the one thing they have been consistent in is their inconsistency.

 

[Ista]

Several posts that engaged in repetitive arguments about the Sussexes, and the responses to those posts have been removed. You have been reminded to stick to General News about the Sussexes, and not to engage in endless rehashing of arguments that have been exhaustively discussed in the past on this and other threads.

Further posts along those lines will be deleted without notice.

 

[LadyGlendower]

I continue to be astonished at just how little I care about them these days. I wish them well, but they are just not that interesting.

At some point it became difficult to identify with all the things that made them unhappy. I have my own struggles, and none of them are very interesting either.

I think I'm over the fairy tale.

It's like they've become some sort of stale reality show. The mood toward the Duchess and Harry in the US has definitely soured in the public's mind. People are weary of all celebrity thirstiness on parade right now, H & M included. Harry was wildly popular here at one time and the change is dramatic.

 

[BaiSoSo]

It's like they've become some sort of stale reality show. The mood toward the Duchess and Harry in the US has definitely soured in the public's mind. People are weary of all celebrity thirstiness on parade right now, H & M included. Harry was wildly popular here at one time and the change is dramatic.

I live in the States and I haven't seen any souring by the public on them or their popularity. Most of the focus has been on Stay in Place orders, our "President" and Covid-19.

Personally I think the Sussexes are still very interesting...I have been made aware of some wonderful and worthy charities thanks to following the couple and their work.

 

[Claire]

Personally - without creating WWIII here - I think the palace said that to prevent the press asking for clips of the royal family singing Happy Birthday on Zoom with all their little heads on various windows. But it does sounds ridiculous to announce it like an announcement .

 

[Durham]

With regard to the recent Sussex announcement on tabloids this article in The Guardian attempts to take a reasoned look at the decision.

For clarity:

The Guardian is a left wing/liberal publication (republican leaning).
The author would self identify as a progressive most likely with much the same world view as the duchess.
The Guardian does not like (despises really) tabloid newspapers.

Always helpful to understand context.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/23/harry-meghan-tabloids-sussexes-newspapers

 

[Kataryn]

With regard to the recent Sussex announcement on tabloids this article in The Guardian attempts to take a reasoned look at the decision.

For clarity:

The Guardian is a left wing/liberal publication (republican leaning).
The author would self identify as a progressive most likely with much the same world view as the duchess.
The Guardian does not like (despises really) tabloid newspapers.

Always helpful to understand context.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/23/harry-meghan-tabloids-sussexes-newspapers

The Guardian may despise the tabloids but they allow their commentators a lot of leeway when it comes to the other things they despise: loud celebs claiming to have a right to be better than others. This comment is against both, with the author putting Harry & Meghan firmly in the celeb place.

And when it comes to attacks against the media, once they are from the outside, I feel they all feel threatened.



I'm a journalist from Germany who learned her job 35 years back and back then, we as "real journos" were shocked about how the German tabloids (Bild, Express, Super-Illu and the like) treated people and have been thinking that this is simply not done. But nowadays it is done and not many journalists think it is not okay, while the readers have no idea at all that what they read is not "news" but bias.

So yes, maybe I am old-fashioned but my bad feelings about the tabloids don't goi away, even when I think that Harry & Meghan had let their hand being forced by leaks from inside the palace. It doesn't make right what happened and it doesn't give a good idea about what will happen in the future. Harry & Meghan lived in Harry's hometown and were not happy, now they are in her birthtown and we'll have to see what will come out of it.But I honour their fight and hope that on fighting the tabloids they can win a more dignified life for themselves!