The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Andrew, the wessexes and Anne have flatlets in BP for London engagements, Queen Claude. But, as has been pointed out, all three have large, grand properties, with extensive grounds on Crown estates or in the countryside. Harry and Meghan had FC and that was it.

To be fair Curryong of all the things the couple raised in the interview, the cottage was not one of them as far as I remember unless it is on the cutting room floor.
I think the word cottage is giving the wrong impression of the property, it is substantial while still ideal for a family who had already stated their aim to be part time in the uk.

You obviously have strong views on this but your comparisons are not on a level playing field.

We have no way of knowing what plans for accommodation would have been running in the background for the future.

[fabaunty]

Barnwell Manor has not been the home of the Gloucester's since 1995 , although they still own it , it has been available for rent since then . Their only home is in KP . Prince Andrew pays a reduced rent , on a long lease {75 years I believe }, on the Royal Lodge because he paid for its updates & refurbishment's . The Wessex's again ,have a long term lease , at market rate on Bagshott Park . Only the Princess Royal outright owns her own home .The Cambridge's do not personally own any property .

[MaryVirginia]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

Article about Meghan (and Diana) from The Atlantic, a well respected magazine



https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ent=edit-promo

Actually, the tone of the article does not surprise me even in the US. I have learned over the years that, if one wants a realistic assessment of popular opinion, consult people who work with people all day. With this in mind, I asked my hair stylist last Saturday what she thought of the interview. She said that people sitting in her chair had discussed it all week and "100 percent of them thought it was awful and they should not have done it."

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

Article about Meghan (and Diana) from The Atlantic, a well respected magazine

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ent=edit-promo

The article is full of disdain and it is a very negatively slanted opinion piece, not factual-based journalism.

Originally Posted by MaryVirginia

Actually, the tone of the article does not surprise me even in the US. I have learned over the years that, if one wants a realistic assessment of popular opinion, consult people who work with people all day. With this in mind, I asked my hair stylist last Saturday what she thought of the interview. She said that people sitting in her chair had discussed it all week and "100 percent of them thought it was awful and they should not have done it."

I'm sure there are a wide variety of opinions in the U.S. on the subject of the British monarchy and the Sussexes. Some of those opinions are held by people who don't follow the royals at all and thus don't know very much, or who may be basing some of their views on having watched some episodes of The Crown. LOL

There are surely varying viewpoints regarding the Sussexes across the United States among people with varying actual knowledge about the specific details of M&H's relationship and their tenure as senior working royals. In general, the Sussexes are perceived in the U.S. with greater respect than in the U.K., and they have a larger base of support here. In part, a portion of the negativity in the U.K. and in the U.S. likely has to do with the non-stop negative tabloid coverage across the pond. In addition, there is clearly a significant base of support that the Sussexes hold among a number of Commonwealth countries.

[Queen Claude]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Andrew, the wessexes and Anne have flatlets in BP for London engagements, Queen Claude. But, as has been pointed out, all three have large, grand properties, with extensive grounds on Crown estates or in the countryside. Harry and Meghan had FC and that was it.

In an earlier post I made the comparison between Frogmore Cottage and the large country estates occupied by The Queen's non-heir children but then gave it additional thought and actually it is not an apples to apples comparison.

The Sussexes could have had a 21 room apartment at Kensington Palace, instead they chose to be based at Windsor, so Frogmore Cottage is more comparable to the London flatlets that The Queen's non-heir children have than their "large, grand properties, with extensive grounds on Crown estates or in the countryside".

My understanding is that the London residences of The Queen's non-heir children are rather modest, more like crash pads. So the KP apartment and even Frogmore Cottage options the Sussexes had are more substantial than the London residences of The Queen's non-heir children.

As I stated before, I would think that it would fall to Charles to gift the Sussexes with a large, grand property but that would not have been a prudent thing neither in hindsight or in foresight given that Meghan was new to the UK. So it did not make sense for Charles to give the Sussexes a large, grand property as a wedding gift. And I will note again, the Sussexes did have a countryside getaway but it was a rental that they eventually moved out of due to a security breach by a media organization.

[Marengo]

Posts about 'The Sun' have been moved here.

[Moran]

I have to admit I quite wondered about Meghan's attitude to her royal duties from the very beginning. It just looked extremely off-putting, disrespectful and rude (to the functions and the people who had turned up) to watch her infantilizing Harry, rubbing his back and hand and generally being Mommy Meghan who was encouraging her little boy to be brave or rewarding him for being so good. It was extremely unprofessional and while in my personal life I would never stand for a partner treating me as this good but silly girl who cannot possibly move one foot in front of the other without their physical encouragement, that's for each individual to decide. However, on official functions it just grossed me out. People came to see the royals in their official role and it looked like Meghan didn't give a whit. At some point, I came to wonder how he has ever been able to do this before without her "gentle persuasion and reward". Extremely troubling image for a royal whose job was "public service".


It was in tune with the "spectacle for the world" wedding, though. Meghan seems to think she was much more important than she was and her royal duties were something to be taken lightly and without an ounce of serious air... and that's putting it mildly and civilly.

[Claire]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

In an earlier post I made the comparison between Frogmore Cottage and the large country estates occupied by The Queen's non-heir children but then gave it additional thought and actually it is not an apples to apples comparison.

The Sussexes could have had a 21 room apartment at Kensington Palace, instead they chose to be based at Windsor, so Frogmore Cottage is more comparable to the London flatlets that The Queen's non-heir children have than their "large, grand properties, with extensive grounds on Crown estates or in the countryside".

My understanding is that the London residences of The Queen's non-heir children are rather modest, more like crash pads. So the KP apartment and even Frogmore Cottage options the Sussexes had are more substantial than the London residences of The Queen's non-heir children.

As I stated before, I would think that it would fall to Charles to gift the Sussexes with a large, grand property but that would not have been a prudent thing neither in hindsight or in foresight given that Meghan was new to the UK. So it did not make sense for Charles to give the Sussexes a large, grand property as a wedding gift. And I will note again, the Sussexes did have a countryside getaway but it was a rental that they eventually moved out of due to a security breach by a media organization.

Yep - Andrew, Anne and Edward had offices in BP before they started renovating it - they now have office St James. They are working offices. If there is bed rooms for them to overnight I don't know. Charles uses Clarence House for the same reason, although it is larger for the larger staff. The only difference in William and Kate. Kensington is more a house then an office. In that way they are both.
Harry and Meghan were offered a number of houses on the royal estates, they visited all of them. They did select the one they prefer with advice from the Queen. There was larger, older more grander houses on that list. So either it was recommended that they take Frogmore or that is what they selected. We might never know. Yes - security and cost of improvement is looked at when they do this.
It should be noted that all of these houses have very little opportunity in the housing market. I am always perplexed by people that do not know that normal people cannot live in these houses - they are blocked for either royal occupation, military or civil use. Usually the military and civil groups do not want the problems of these houses, so we have more estate houses sitting empty then we have people to occupy them. As they are often in security and protected areas ie - Windsor Great Park what are we to do it it except place royals in it. I personally would rather have the house in use and pay the expense to upkeep it for the future, then leave it empty and falling into disuse - which is what is happening to a number of them.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by AC21091968

Thank you Eskimo for sharing the link to The Atlantic article

It was very insightful and provided a great context/background in both Diana's and Meghan's situation. Despite the long article, I enjoyed reading it. It's also very interesting to read from a more left-leaning and US perspective in criticising Harry & Meghan. On most occasion, it was usually the right-leaning media that are critical of Meghan.

Well, the author is described by "Publishers Weekly" as "more a polemicist than journalist" and that's how I really read the article. A lot of polemic, ironic comment mixed in with descriptions of the past that I do and don't share, but in the end a piece of writing that shows exactly how I feel: misguided about the past but curious of the future. And her observations about the Commonwealth are very valid! If the queen and the Prince of Wales hadn't been such extraordinarily careful, correct and unbiased personalities I doubt they both would still be on the Head of the Commonwealth to lead the organisation and all of its member states into the future. To call them racist because of the past of the family is not something to really think about. Even though sometimes someones personality brings out the worst in us.

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by Moran

... to watch her infantilizing Harry, rubbing his back and hand and generally being Mommy Meghan who was encouraging her little boy to be brave or rewarding him for being so good. It was extremely unprofessional and while in my personal life I would never stand for a partner treating me as this good but silly girl who cannot possibly move one foot in front of the other without their physical encouragement, that's for each individual to decide. However, on official functions it just grossed me out...

I would characterize Meghan's and Harry's PDA (public displays of affection) as supportive, loving, encouraging and a sign of mutual respect, admiration and true love. The latter is rare and those who find it in my opinion, are blessed, particularly when they cherish and nurture what they have found in each other.

I have come across many people around the world who view the love that Meghan and Harry clearly share as equal and deeply devoted partners, with uplift and inspiration as opposed to jealousy.

[Moran]

There is a PDA and there is what Meghan was doing. IMO, it came across as clear demonstration that she was the domineering partner. To me, it showed condescention and mothering which was highly inappropriate for the work they were at. Repeatedly. I didn't see equality for a moment and I thought it extremely distasteful for them to demonstrate that work was such a burden for poor little Harry that he couldn't possibly cope without his big, strong, amazing wife. Zero equality there, IMO. And I'm not even including the blatant rushing in front of him to be greeted first which is another breach of any etiquette - again, part of the job.

[MaiaMia_53]

I'm not certain which events and which PDA by Meghan you are referencing @Moran. Both Harry and Meghan noticeably hold each other's hands, touch, caress and rub each other in public (on the shoulder, knee, back, arm, ear, head, or hand). There is plenty of video evidence available. Everyone obviously can view these tactile displays of love and affection whichever way that strikes them. Harry has often spoken of how much his mother Diana would grab and hug him and his brother lovingly, and how much he misses her presence. It seems to me that Harry is overjoyed to have found a loving, beautiful, supportive and accomplished partner in Meghan. He has said as much in words and actions.

I don't see M&H's connection as one of mother and son. It is clearly a soul mate relationship that has changed both of their lives on an intimate and personal growth level for the better. If only the rest of the world would view them in a reasonable manner and stop hating and/or obsessing over who they are, over everything they do, and over what they have found in each other.

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Well, the author is described by "Publishers Weekly" as "more a polemicist than journalist" and that's how I really read the article. A lot of polemic, ironic comment mixed in with descriptions of the past that I do and don't share, but in the end a piece of writing that shows exactly how I feel: misguided about the past but curious of the future. And her observations about the Commonwealth are very valid! If the queen and the Prince of Wales hadn't been such extraordinarily careful, correct and unbiased personalities I doubt they both would still be on the Head of the Commonwealth to lead the organisation and all of its member states into the future. To call them racist because of the past of the family is not something to really think about. Even though sometimes someones personality brings out the worst in us.

I don't personally feel that the Queen and Prince Charles are specifically 'racist.' They may hold some unconscious biases as a result of being insulated, indoctrinated and often the subjects of chatter and over-protection for all of their lives in the insular 'gilded cage' bubble.

Certainly, the institution of monarchy and the British culture has a documented history of racism and classicism. The experiences that M&H have revealed are sparking needed conversations in Britain and elsewhere. We all need to lead with understanding and compassion, rather than with antagonism.

[_Heather_]

Originally Posted by Moran

There is a PDA and there is what Meghan was doing. IMO, it came across as clear demonstration that she was the domineering partner. To me, it showed condescention and mothering which was highly inappropriate for the work they were at. Repeatedly. I didn't see equality for a moment and I thought it extremely distasteful for them to demonstrate that work was such a burden for poor little Harry that he couldn't possibly cope without his big, strong, amazing wife. Zero equality there, IMO. And I'm not even including the blatant rushing in front of him to be greeted first which is another breach of any etiquette - again, part of the job.

I fully agree. The behavior was unprofessional and, like it or not, this was their job, their employment, their meal-ticket. In any of our jobs this conduct would be deemed unprofessional and we would be ordered to stop this behavior immediately.

[Moran]

Originally Posted by _Heather_

I fully agree. The behavior was unprofessional and, like it or not, this was their job, their employment, their meal-ticket. In any of our jobs this conduct would be deemed unprofessional and we would be ordered to stop this behavior immediately.

Even if it was simply PDA, there is PDA and there is mistaking official events for date nights. In my work life, I've learned to stay well away from people who claim, "Oh, it isn't work, I'm enjoying myself and get paid for it!" because chances are, they won't be able to keep professional neutrality and mistakes will be made.


But as I said already, this particular kind of conduct went well over what can be considered mere expressions of love and gave us an unwelcome look to their attitude to their work.

[_Heather_]

Originally Posted by Moran

Even if it was simply PDA, there is PDA and there is mistaking official events for date nights. In my working life, I've learned to stay well away from people who claim, "Oh, it isn't work, I'm enjoying myself and get paid for it!" because chances are, they won't be able to keep professional neutrality and mistakes will be made.


But as I said already, this particular kind of conduct went well over what can be considered mere expressions of love and gave us an unwelcome look to their attitude to their work.

I agree. On occasion I accompany my husband, or he accompanies me, on work events. During those occasions, even though they involve a lot of socializing, we're still "working" and still expected to behave professionally. Now, if he's accompanying me and I smile at him will my boss be angry with me? Absolutely not. If I'm accompanying him and he places a hand on my lower back to guide me through a crowd or point me in the right direction will his boss be angry with him? Not at all. However, if we behaved as Harry and Meghan did, yes, we'd both be in trouble with our employers.

[Queen Ester]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

Article about Meghan (and Diana) from The Atlantic, a well respected magazine

I am sorry but this passage made me laugh '. Before he met Meghan, he was a prince of Europe—almost a crown prince—a young man whose life was part of a continuation from Excalibur to Afghanistan, where he fought with valor in the manner of Prince Hal finding within himself Henry V."

I know Harrry was in Afganistan, but as far as I read he was never on the front lines and the comparison to Prince Hal is just

Originally Posted by Osipi

I could only read a short ways into it and had to close it out. I don't believe it was a fair article to either women. But that's just me. Usually I like things I've seen in The Atlantic.

Especially Prince Hal comparison

[Fem]

Originally Posted by Moran

There is a PDA and there is what Meghan was doing. IMO, it came across as clear demonstration that she was the domineering partner. To me, it showed condescention and mothering which was highly inappropriate for the work they were at. Repeatedly. I didn't see equality for a moment and I thought it extremely distasteful for them to demonstrate that work was such a burden for poor little Harry that he couldn't possibly cope without his big, strong, amazing wife. Zero equality there, IMO. And I'm not even including the blatant rushing in front of him to be greeted first which is another breach of any etiquette - again, part of the job.

There has been a lot of analysis of their body language - from the experts, not me! - that pointed out Meghan is the dominating partner in the relationship. I agree to that, to a certain extent.

One thing I would like to point out - while "rushing in front of him" was a very low moment, both Harry and William (and even Prince Charles!) often let the wives first. Through the doors, while meeting people, there's always a gesture or an unspoken agreement for the wife to go first. So when it's all agreed upon, I don't have an issue with that, but yeah, uhm, I don't think that was the case that one time

Originally Posted by Moran

Even if it was simply PDA, there is PDA and there is mistaking official events for date nights. In my work life, I've learned to stay well away from people who claim, "Oh, it isn't work, I'm enjoying myself and get paid for it!" because chances are, they won't be able to keep professional neutrality and mistakes will be made.


But as I said already, this particular kind of conduct went well over what can be considered mere expressions of love and gave us an unwelcome look to their attitude to their work.

Oh, I so much agree with everything you wrote here. I don't mind the most common, "official PDA" - hand on back or on the knee, smiling at each other, some playful things like that, when the occasion suits it.

I would not bat an eye at any kind of PDA at polo, because that's a private event and as far as I'm concerned, everything goes there (but, interestingly, polo is the occasion when we got the least amount of PDA from the Sussexes). But as soon as you're stepping out to represent the Queen and country, calm down, find something to do with your hands and behave appropriately. I think Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall have it down - they are often more affectionate with each other than the Cambridges, showing their love with a great sense of decorum.

[Queen Ester]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

To be fair Curryong of all the things the couple raised in the interview, the cottage was not one of them as far as I remember unless it is on the cutting room floor.
I think the word cottage is giving the wrong impression of the property, it is substantial while still ideal for a family who had already stated their aim to be part time in the uk.

You obviously have strong views on this but your comparisons are not on a level playing field.

We have no way of knowing what plans for accommodation would have been running in the background for the future.

Meghan continously referred to FC "as our
small cottage " which gave the impression of a little shack

[texankitcat]

Originally Posted by rominet09

So right and impressive !

After that article I can’t get the vision out of my head of “rescued” Harry sitting with the “rescued” chickens in the chicken coop. Bluk, bluk, bluk bluk!

[Alison H]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

Certainly, the institution of monarchy and the British culture has a documented history of racism and classicism. The experiences that M&H have revealed are sparking needed conversations in Britain and elsewhere. We all need to lead with understanding and compassion, rather than with antagonism.

I assume you mean "classism" - "classicism" would suggest an interest in Latin and Greek.

I don't really take your point about the institution of monarchy having a "documented history" of racism. Yes, for example, it's known that Edward VII behaved badly towards Abdul Karim, Queen Victoria's Indian attendant - although it's equally well-known that Queen Victoria was very close to him. But would it be appropriate for me to walk out into the street and accuse my neighbour of being a racist, on the grounds of something that his great-great-grandfather might have said or done 120 years ago?