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

[Curryong]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

I love and admire how you wish to defend her, but the UK is finished with her, she didn't want anything to do with us, despite us all opening our hearts to her she threw it back in our face,

The British Press, especially the Tabloids, didn’t open their hearts to Meghan. In fact she wasn’t given the usual Press ‘honeymoon’. The criticism began before the engagement, reached a peak during her pregnancy and after Archie was born, and has scarcely stopped since.


And sorry, there was plenty of criticism of Meghan on social media from British people as well as foreigners from the time Camilla Tominey announced that Harry was dating her in October 2016.


Some of the crowds around Britain weren’t terribly enthusiastic either. I saw people in the crowd at Sandringham that first Christmas refusing to give her flowers. I am not implying anything racist by that, just that a portion of the British population wasn’t accepting of Meghan from the beginning, perhaps believing that the many made-up stories in the tabloids, that were there from the time she and Harry were dating, were accurate.

[tommy100]

I think that is unfair about the crowds refusing to give her flowers, especially if anyone was trying to implying that its racist. It is well known a number of royal fans go and have certain members of the family they want to give flowers to, just because they wanted to give flowers to one member of the royal family over another doesn't mean anything more than they like one royal more than the other or have a specific reason to give one royal flowers more than the other. I mean the Queen gets more than anyone else - no one is having a meltdown about that.

[KrissyM]

Originally Posted by BriarRose

I'm really not trying to hurt your feelings, but, California does not have common law marriage, and hasn't for over 100 years. (Sonny & Cher's infamous "informal vows" were done in Mexico, a separate country from the U.S.A. Why in Mexico? Because their resident state, California, did not have common law marriage. And anyone can file joint taxes. It's only illegal if the person is escaping tax liability through the status. In the few states that do authorize the creation of common-law marriage (not California), you must jointly file your taxes for the status, and continue to do so for the life of the marriage. Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, California and all other states will recognize a common-law marriage that was legally formed in a state that authorizes common-law marriage. But of course, that's true for all marriages, or every time you moved states you would have to re-marry your spouse.)

Oh goodness, you didn't hurt my feelings! The Sonny and Cher remarks and the bit about my Great Aunt, (who is no longer living) was my sick sense of humor.

My great Aunt would find a companion she liked buy two cheap wedding rings and boom Husband # (insert number here) she lived in the Cali desert and everyone just accepted it. They'd file taxes until she got sick of "Husband" #... Then she'd kick the guy out, toss the rings, until she found the next guy. It sounds awful, but she was a great Lady.

As for Sonny and Cher I watched a couple of bios out of boredom and it said she preformed a shaman ritual in their bathroom. That's what the biographies said.

Honestly if the Archbishop of Canterbury had no problem with whatever happened in the backyard, and it made them feel good, then no big deal.

[BriarRose]

Originally Posted by tommy100

I think that is unfair about the crowds refusing to give her flowers, especially if anyone was trying to implying that its racist. It is well known a number of royal fans go and have certain members of the family they want to give flowers to [....]

I agree. When people bring flowers/gifts to a walkabout, they often are there to try and exchange a word with a particular royal. They don't hate the others. It's like meeting your favorite band member after a concert.

(Also, as you get to know royals over time, you can figure out how to catch their attention better, and newer royals are harder to target. I told a friend a few years ago that wanted to meet a certain Spanish royal to just hold up her baby dressed in a cute outfit, and it worked like a charm.)

I mean, this isn't Tudor times. The palace staff doesn't bribe the crowds to scream adulation as the royals walk past (or punish them if they don't).

[Curryong]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

I love and admire how you wish to defend her, but the UK is finished with her, she didn't want anything to do with us, despite us all opening our hearts to her she threw it back in our face,

Yes I saw the clip of Harry and Meghan at the concert for Sentebale at the Albert Hall in London in January 2019. There were boos from the audience for them when they first appeared on the balcony, they were there for a charity Harry had begun as a teenager. And I’m sure the pregnant Meghan, married only about eight months at that time, appreciated the British crowd opening their hearts to her in that way.

https://www.ibtimes.com/meghan-markl...blamed-2754574

[kathia_sophia]

Watching the interview again made me realize that Meghan wasn't suited for Royal life. Celebrities are often too opinionated, but in a "loud" way if you know what I mean. Meghan was someone who always expressed her opinion over society, politics, feminism, among others, so it would be obviously hard for her to switch from her old life to a royal life where she would have to be neutral about several topics.


She clearly said in the interview that she now feels liberated. But I do wonder if she really knows that monarchies survive because of their neutrality and immaculate service (without any sort of political power nor expressing feelings or opinions in a very loud and unnecessary way)...


Harry should have explained it better to her. Because it looks like she doesn't know what a Monarchy is, and doesn't know how a Royal Family should behave...

[yukari]

Valentine Low did a podcast discussing the Sussexes. He mentioned his assertion Meghan wanted to be rejected because she was obsessed with that narrative from day one (he wrote it on his article about bullying).
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...=1000512336555

And here’s reader letters to the Telegraph.
Letters: Did the Sussexes consider the mental health of those they vilified?

SIR – In their interview with Oprah Winfrey, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex expressed concerns regarding their mental health. Did it not cross their minds to consider the mental health of those they were vilifying, two of whom are over 90 years old?

We are led to believe that nobody is more aware than they are when it comes to mental health, but I wonder.

-Sheila Hale
Hitchin, Hertfordshire

SIR – The Duchess of Sussex has a pack of cards stored for use against our monarchy and press. If anyone says they don’t believe her stories, she takes out a card and plays it. Piers Morgan came under fire in just this way.

However, as someone who has had mental health issues and has known other sufferers, I can say that I was not affected by Piers Morgan’s comment. He was giving his opinion on the whole interview, not just one part of it.

Patricia Roberts
Nairn

(...)

SIR – If the Duke of Sussex, in his position of wealth and privilege, was incapable of getting support for himself and his wife, what kind of ambassador can he be for the cause of mental health?

A P Lodge
Winchester, Hampshire

(...)

Another one:
Harry and Meghan on Oprah: Telegraph readers have their say

@Linda Alexander:

"I wholeheartedly believe Harry and Meghan’s version of events. It is sad that they had to tell their truth in the media, but I believe they had a right to speak up.

"All this is unnecessary though and could be resolved responsively, with empathy."

@Eileen McGlone:

"I’m trying very hard to see both sides of this because to be honest I am not a particular fan of the monarchy despite growing up with a strong acceptance of it.

"Their rituals between pecking orders beggars belief in this day and age so I personally felt a good deal of concern when I heard that an American actress would be marrying into such an arrangement.

"I asked myself many times how on earth someone who had led such an independent life and lived in a country that had fought so heavily for their independence could even consider taking on her new role.

"I am not surprised by what she has said, however, I am not sure that she is doing either herself or anyone else a favour with this interview."
(...)

The “letter” story is a big deal for Meghan because it gave unwanted portrayal to her character, so do the “no-contact to Royal Marine” for Harry which he claimed would damage his reputation for his work in Mental Health.
Wouldn’t those Times’s story and their interview bring bigger damage to them? Would they sue? (because I’m sure the interview went through editing to make it more “dramatic”) Or is this what Meghan claimed with “they’ve already lost everything”? But don’t they still have Archewell, Netflix, and Spotify future programmes to consider? Or are they really just that short-sighted and impulsive? Or they’re really that naïve?

I’m questioning their “adviser” and “friends”. A true friend will say “no, don’t do it” instead of blindly “supporting” them when they’re being rash/stupid. Oprah is not “friend”, it was business for her. And it seems she won’t be the only one. I see a case fish who has lived in an aquarium for their whole life being thrown to sea full of sharks.

I’m not a fan of Piers Morgan (why anyone let him talk on national tv I’ll never understand). I don't know if it's true or not, but seems like the complaint has backfired.

Piers Morgan to stay at ITV after quitting GMB: the inside story of rows with Meghan Markle and Alex Beresford

Sources at ITV say the broadcaster, 55, will continue to make programmes for the channel, including his popular celebrity interviews programme, Life Stories, which has been on air since 2009.

The news comes after the channel saw almost £200m wiped off its share prices following his unplanned exit from GMB.

(...)

According to sources, the chaotic scenes unfolded in front of programming boss Kevin Lygo, and Emma Gormley, head of daytime for ITV, who had both turned up to Television Centre, in west London, to oversee the intended de-escalation of the situation.

As soon as the cameras stopped rolling Morgan was seen being taken into a meeting with bosses, before being put in a car home, and did not attend the usual post-show debriefing.

After a long conversation, in which Lygo and Gormley are said to have pressured the presenter to issue a full apology for his comments about Meghan’s mental health, Morgan refused and opted to end his multi-million pound contract nine months early.

However, in a twist that has raised eyebrows among staff, it was later reported Meghan had personally contacted the channel to complain about the presenter’s refusal to believe her, saying she was concerned by how the remarks would affect other people facing mental health challenges.

Sources on the show told i the team was never told of the royal complainant, with even Morgan himself in the dark, it is alleged, as the show’s future lay in the balance.

It is unclear when Meghan lodged her formal complaint, but one senior figure at the company said it raises serious questions about whether the editorial decision-making process was influenced by pressure to be on good terms with the royal couple.

There’s a saying “keep your friend close, but your enemy closer”.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by KrissyM

I do not wish to defend or to tear down anyone. I don't know anyone in the BRF. I have no wish to play Judge and Jury to anyone. I haven't said anything against the Family at all. I've never even intimated that The Sussex's were mistreated.

That said I don't believe that this interview has done catastrophic damage to either the monarchy or the Queen. Other family members have done and said far worse.

I appreciate that you want to give people the benefit of the doubt. Absent proof to the contrary, if there is there are two explanations for someone's actions, I always try to accept the most innocuous explanation. In this case, I can't.

For example, the implication that the rules were going to be changed because of Archie's heritage. Meghan alluded to being told that the rules would be changed for Archie. That is dishonest - and Harry and Meghan know it.

For more than 10 years, there have been rumors that Charles wants to reduce the number of British royals. The so-called "slimmed down monarch" has a been a major topic of discussion on these forums for a long time. My understanding is that many people in the UK approve of this plan.

There has never been a formal announcement but before Harry met Meghan (even before George was born) most people have been assuming that when Charles ascends, William, Harry and their wives would be the working royals. His siblings would be grandfathered in, but none of his nieces and nephews would become working royals.

At the proper time, we assumed that Charles would issue a new Letter Patent that would limit royal titles to William's children, because William is heir to the throne. Harry's children, although they will automatically become prince and princess when Charles becomes king, would either be the last children of the "spare" to have the titles or would have their titles removed. I believe this is the change affecting Archie's title Meghan referred to, although it was really hard to follow her explanations.

Again, this change has been rumored before Harry met Meghan and has nothing to do with race. Under the anticipated letter patent, George's children would get royal titles because George is the heir, while Charlotte and Louis's children would not get royal titles, even though Charlotte and Louis are both white.

I felt that Meghan and Harry dishonestly presented the question of titles for their children in a way that made Charles look bad. There is no way that Harry did not know that this was going to happen - although he may have been ok with it in theory but decided he was against it when his children became a reality.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Yes I saw the clip of Harry and Meghan at the concert for Sentebale at the Albert Hall in London in January 2019. There were boos from the audience for them when they first appeared on the balcony, they were there for a charity Harry had begun as a teenager. And I’m sure the pregnant Meghan, married only about eight months at that time, appreciated the British crowd opening their hearts to her in that way.

https://www.ibtimes.com/meghan-markl...blamed-2754574

It was extremely rude for anyone to jeer at Meghan but you can't allege that a country of 70 million are all racists because of the actions of a few jerks.

[KrissyM]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

For example, the implication that the rules were going to be changed because of Archie's heritage. Meghan alluded to being told that the rules would be changed for Archie. That is dishonest - and Harry and Meghan know it.

I felt that Meghan and Harry dishonestly presented the question of titles for their children in a way that made Charles look bad. There is no way that Harry did not know that this was going to happen - although he may have been ok with it in theory but decided he was against it when his children became a reality.

I am not trying to say that people who disapprove of the interview are incorrect. I just think that what was said in the interview and how people are filling in-between the lines isn't necessarily accurate. You feel that The Duke and Duchess deliberately and maliciously misrepresented why their son wasn't granted an HRH before Prince Charles becomes King. That's fine. It might be exactly what they intended.

However, it may not be what they intended. The point is that unless we get a telepath to time travel and read their minds. Nobody can say for sure what they intended.

Do I think that the Sussex's are trying to destroy the Monarchy and hate their family? No. Do I think they have huge problems with the way things are done when it comes to the press? Yes. Do I think that everything they said was wise? No. Do I think it was the most catastrophic, disrespectful, interview ever given by a royal? No. That dishonor belongs to another member of the family.

Will this interview damage the institution beyond repair? No.

[Sunnystar]

I've come to the conclusion, over the past several days, that it's pretty clear why Meghan, with her degree in International Relations, never pursued a career in diplomacy... She 1) doesn't want to respect other cultures, 2) she doesn't want to have to be stifled by any niceties like not pissing off people from another culture.

[KrissyM]

That's quite an accusation.

[AC21091968]

Originally Posted by Sunnystar

I've come to the conclusion, over the past several days, that it's pretty clear why Meghan, with her degree in International Relations, never pursued a career in diplomacy... She 1) doesn't want to respect other cultures, 2) she doesn't want to have to be stifled by any niceties like not pissing off people from another culture.

At one point in the forum, I read some posts that say theoretically, given Meghan' experience in the media and university degree in International Relations, she should have been one of the most prepared. I understand that the culture and the press are different between US and UK, but she would in theory find it easier to adopt to a different environment compared to those who don't have the experience. There are members who did not attend university (let alone a degree in the Arts field), previously private citizen or even have to learn the new languages and culture

Royal Life is not for everyone, especially those who are strong-will and like to frequently change things around in comparison to those who like to adhere to instructions and doesn't mind consistency or repetitiveness.

Prince Philip himself struggled initially in royal life, not just because of public images, but also receiving snobbery from the royal household and even to some extent royal family members, despite the fact he was the Prince of Greece and Denmark (until he renounce it). He was also upset when things don't go his way, but at the same continued to serve the country and support The Queen well into his 90s.

[Sunnystar]

Originally Posted by AC21091968

At one point in the forum, I read some posts that say theoretically, given Meghan' experience in the media and university degree in International Relations, she should have been one of the most prepared. I understand that the culture and the press are different between US and UK, but she would in theory find it easier to adopt to a different environment compared to those who don't have the experience. There are members who did not attend university (let alone a degree in the Arts field), previously private citizen or even have to learn the new languages and culture

Royal Life is not for everyone, especially those who are strong-will and like to frequently change things around in comparison to those who like to adhere to instructions and doesn't mind consistency or repetitiveness.

Prince Philip himself struggled initially in royal life, not just because of public images, but also receiving snobbery from the royal household and even to some extent royal family members, despite the fact he was the Prince of Greece and Denmark (until he renounce it). He was also upset when things don't go his way, but at the same continued to serve the country and support The Queen well into his 90s.

Oh, I was definitely one of those people who thought that her degree in IR and even the short stint she did at the US embassy in Buenos Aires would have well-prepared her for her role as a member of the BRF. But, part of being a royal is being the ultimate diplomat and diplomacy often means stifling your own opinions, and it very much means learning about new cultures and accepting that societal norms are going to differ country to country.

Meghan had/has all the skills necessary to be a successful diplomat or royal. She has chosen to not use those skills, and it's a real shame, IMO. She had so much potential to rise above the sheer vengeance and pettiness into which she has descended.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by KrissyM

Yes, she married into the family. However, even a Royal family doesn't have the right to strip it's members of their culture and beliefs. I am not saying they owe others any changes. However, having been in the business of dealing with people from all over the world and all walks of life since Victoria and onward they shouldn't be shocked that conflicts can and do happen.

IMHO Harry is right when he complains how "trapped" the Royals are in their institution. But at least Charles as the next king could change things but he grew up within the institution and probably don't see the need.



I mean, the media obviously is able to write up to 50 (!) articles a day about one Royal couple! So why are still so many people in the institution arranging diaries so noone gets more coverage than the others? I think that was one basic reason for Meghan's unhappiness: she wanted to move forward and actually do things and then was told she can't do it because the internally higher ranked ladies could be outshone. I mean, if the media behaved as they should, anything the queen does should be the first to be reported. But the others IMHO could do whatever they wished and it should be reported as the media is willing do it, without any in-fights of the Royals about their coverage.



See The princess Royal - she works and works and rarely get more than a little mention in the national papers. But for the people she creates highlights of their experiences! That isn't fair to her. When the British people want the Royal family to do service for them, the media should be required to write about it, not just print the Court Circular, add a little 5 line info and that's that. But up to 50 (!) articles a day about Harry & Meghan's interview!! Pages over pages about scandals and things to critizise the family for, but not much praise for their everyday work. And when they turn on you like the did on Meghan, I can understand her frustration and even hatred against an institution (and the family who doesn't change anything).


That mentioning of "overexposure" when she hadn't been actally been seen in public for months and then the advice (maybe even command) to stay at home, she still wants to see her friends and they visit her and she serves avocado-toast... (because someone must have bought her the avocados, and who told the media??) - that was really unfair and show how the institution with their fear of negative media actually pressurize the Royals into adapting their lives to what works for the media , but don't protect them from negative headlines. I can understand that for a vivid woman with pride in her "voice" this wasn't impressive - and it isn't.



Meghan had luck that her husband at least saw the things like her (with all the problems that brought her!).



With William and Harry both married and the Cambridges at the end of their planning for kids, it should have been a time for changes in the institution. Why not focus on the souverain/the heir and let all other "working Royals" do what they want to do and when they want to do it? If they are really a family, they can work it out without all those advisors who base their advice on the superiority of some members. That is frustrating to the others and leads to boredom of the media (see princess Anne!) with the actual serice that is done. IMHO, of course.


(And no, Meghan and Harry should not have given this interview and use the way they did. Even when I think that was the prize they had to pay for the lending of the villa and security in Hollywood, as the guy who helped is said to be a close friend of Oprah.)

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by Curryong

The British Press, especially the Tabloids, didn’t open their hearts to Meghan. In fact she wasn’t given the usual Press ‘honeymoon’. The criticism began before the engagement, reached a peak during her pregnancy and after Archie was born, and has scarcely stopped since.


And sorry, there was plenty of criticism of Meghan on social media from British people as well as foreigners from the time Camilla Tominey announced that Harry was dating her in October 2016.


Some of the crowds around Britain weren’t terribly enthusiastic either. I saw people in the crowd at Sandringham that first Christmas refusing to give her flowers. I am not implying anything racist by that, just that a portion of the British population wasn’t accepting of Meghan from the beginning, perhaps believing that the many made-up stories in the tabloids, that were there from the time she and Harry were dating, were accurate.

I saw nothing but glowing love for her in the beginning but if she wasn't as popular with crowds I would put that down to being American as much as anything else.

[Claire]

I have been in the crowd for many royal engagements - small ones as well as important ones. And there is usually someone in the crown booing or yelling anti- monarchy sentiment. That is not special to Meghan. All royals get it. You can actually google it - it is often used by anti - monarchy groups to 'prove' that the UK doesn't want the monarchy - interesting that it is now been used to prove racism as well.

Meghan was not selected for the Diplomatic core as she failed to be selected - that is the fact. We cannot speculate more. It should be noted that the top five things needed as a diplomat is 1. following orders, secrecy, team work, diplomacy and following of protocol.
I think it is safe to assume that it wouldn't have been a snug fit of career path.

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by Curryong

The British Press, especially the Tabloids, didn’t open their hearts to Meghan. In fact she wasn’t given the usual Press ‘honeymoon’. The criticism began before the engagement, reached a peak during her pregnancy and after Archie was born, and has scarcely stopped since.


And sorry, there was plenty of criticism of Meghan on social media from British people as well as foreigners from the time Camilla Tominey announced that Harry was dating her in October 2016.


Some of the crowds around Britain weren’t terribly enthusiastic either. I saw people in the crowd at Sandringham that first Christmas refusing to give her flowers. I am not implying anything racist by that, just that a portion of the British population wasn’t accepting of Meghan from the beginning, perhaps believing that the many made-up stories in the tabloids, that were there from the time she and Harry were dating, were accurate.

I think we all agree that the media, esp. certain parts of the media, have had a fieldday with coming up with articles about H&M (as they do about all royals, but let's not get into that repeat)
The public: if you are a high profile person, there are always people who love you and fawn over you, and people who dislike/hate you for whatever reason they can come up with, so i'm sure there were people who weren't into H&M

But why did they stick it to the royal family and/or the royal institution in this interview?
Do they think the Queen or the royal household should stiffle every media publication that is not gushing? That they would tell the public to back off everytime someone on social media makes a derogatory comment?

and even if they think that:
Why drag the personal, onesided and vague anecdotes about interpersonal relationships with his relatives into the interview?

I think if they had done the interview criticizing the media and social media for an hour, and then talk about their plans for the future, their foundation, their kids, the interview could have been just as heartfelt and tailored for the US audience, without receiving the criticism from others around the world...

I still don't understand that choice...

PS. i was always on the pro-side of H&M, without gushing (not my thing), but i liked their vibe, being a bit more modern than the average royal, a bit more outgoing, and i always dismissed all the media articles like 'there was a quable over bridesmaids dresses', 'Meghan and Kate dont get along', 'tiara gate' as stupid media concoctions that weren't even worth reading (and i don't as a rule read daily mail, sun etc).
What this interview has done is made me reconsider, that where i always thought the media were writing total cr*p, i now think they may have had a point...

[AC21091968]

Originally Posted by Curryong

The British Press, especially the Tabloids, didn’t open their hearts to Meghan. In fact she wasn’t given the usual Press ‘honeymoon’. The criticism began before the engagement, reached a peak during her pregnancy and after Archie was born, and has scarcely stopped since.


And sorry, there was plenty of criticism of Meghan on social media from British people as well as foreigners from the time Camilla Tominey announced that Harry was dating her in October 2016.


Some of the crowds around Britain weren’t terribly enthusiastic either. I saw people in the crowd at Sandringham that first Christmas refusing to give her flowers. I am not implying anything racist by that, just that a portion of the British population wasn’t accepting of Meghan from the beginning, perhaps believing that the many made-up stories in the tabloids, that were there from the time she and Harry were dating, were accurate.

I think the press were initially very positive on the engagement of Harry & Meghan and celebrated the fact that the first ethnic minority is marrying a senior working royal (Strictly speaking, Gary Lewis of Māori descent is the first one marrying into the British Royal Family). It was royal fever amongst the press during their wedding with stories of Royal Family moving into the 21st Century.

In terms of the press, things started to go negative after the staff of the Sussexes started leaving at the end of 2018. The baby shower at the beginning of 2019 was another catalyst. The British public did have some sympathy for Meghan on the negative coverage from the press and were happy on the arrival of Archie. But I think public opinions start to change dramatically after the "climate change and private jet hypocrisy" in 2019. And the Southern Africa documentary did not help either, despite there was outpour of support with #WeloveyouMeghan trending on twitter. Their method of announcing their departure as senior working royal, Finding Freedom and then most importantly, the Oprah's interview kind of seal the deal by almost turning the British public against them.

Originally Posted by Curryong

Yes I saw the clip of Harry and Meghan at the concert for Sentebale at the Albert Hall in London in January 2019. There were boos from the audience for them when they first appeared on the balcony, they were there for a charity Harry had begun as a teenager. And I’m sure the pregnant Meghan, married only about eight months at that time, appreciated the British crowd opening their hearts to her in that way.

https://www.ibtimes.com/meghan-markl...blamed-2754574

Other members of the Royal Family have also physically face-to-face negative experience with the general public. Some incidents they faced are even worse than just booing and heckling from the crowd. Most of the times, they just kept calm and carried on with their engagements as usual.

Camilla herself was faced with some booing and heckling even at her wedding in 2007.

By 10 there were still only a handful of people, and with the ceremony at 12:30, I began to wonder whether the public’s overwhelming reaction might be indifference. Half an hour later it was a very different story. The street was suddenly a seething mass of humanity, chattering in excitement. There were a few boos to be heard when the royal car drove up, but the vast majority of spectators were there because they were delighted that Charles was finally marrying the woman they knew he had loved for over 30 years.

Camilla was now his wife, and technically the Princess of Wales, but for obvious reasons it had been made clear that she would be known as H.R.H. the Duchess of Cornwall—and, as such, she went back to the castle with her husband for the religious ceremony in the chapel. The crowds booed in disappointment when they realized the couple were leaving without coming across and speaking to them, but she needed time to change her outfit.

How Camilla Won Over the Queen and Became the Duchess of Cornwall
Painted as an interloper in the wake of Prince Charles and Diana’s divorce, Camilla Parker Bowles underwent an image overhaul before her 2005 wedding. In an adaptation from her book The Duchess, Penny Junor documents Parker Bowles’s road to the aisle.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/201...ss-of-cornwall

Of course, there was the student protest when Charles and Camilla were heading to the Royal Variety Performance. The protestors attack the royal car with doused paint and Camilla herself was "poked in the ribs with a stick", whilst there were at Regent Street. They were protesting about university tuition fee, which has more to do with the UK government and nothing to do with Charles and Camilla.

Charles and Camilla attack footage released
Police believe members of the public will be able to recognise those shown striking the royal car during tuition fees protests
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/...otage-released

Prince William was faced with boos and heckles (i.e. "Shame on you") when he attended a service in Westminster Abbey to mark 50 years of the Royal Navy's nuclear submarines on Friday.

Prince William booed and heckled at service to mark 50 years of Royal Navy's nuclear submarines
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...rrent-service/

The Queen has faced many assassination attempts. The most prominent being a young adult firing six blank shot at The Queen at Trooping of the Colour in 2018. There was also the kidnapping attempt on Princess Anne.
https://www.biography.com/news/queen...ation-attempts
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...ess-180950202/

[andrew]

Is there a link where I could watch the whole interview? I have signed up to itv hub but I still can't view the videos. I live in Romania, maybe that is the reason I cannot access these videos?
Thank you.