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

[Moran]

I only meant that The Duchess of Sussex might not see why The Duke of Cambridge's Children got an HRH at birth before Prince Charles' ascension to the throne and her children do not. It seems obvious when a person studies or lives in a monarchy but she did not grow up with the same mindset. I'm not saying she is or is not correct if she feels that way. Making allowances for cultural and legal misunderstandings might be reasonable.

That's no excuse. This far, she's had three years and a half since her engagement was announced to learn the basics and the reasoning behind them. There can be only one reason and it's unwillingness to know. It's also at odds with her description and self-description as a strong woman, capable of fighting for her own. She saw her child being discriminated against so (in her mind) and she didn't call the perpetrator to account? She just stewed over it quietly for over two years before lashing out in a major media outlet in a tragically misguided way to convey the ills she imagined were done to her child?

I don't think so.

 

[Queen Ester]

Speaking of the "wedding" again I think it's entirely possible that as an American talking to another American with a primary audience of Americans she was relating an event that to her meant more emotionally then her public wedding. She never claimed it was her UK legal marriage. It would have been binding as common law in Cali, (if they haven't changed the marriage laws)

But that's what Meghan does, she throws these things up in the air with no clarification, just to sound romantic, and now COE is involved, and Archbishop has to make a statement. I don't know if she is just chatty or she does it on purpose.

 

[Somebody]

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.

She is certainly entitled to her own beliefs but it is quite self-absorbed to think that a 1000-year old foreign institution that you voluntarily join should act exactly according to YOUR beliefs or else you will make up the most terrible lies (it cannot get much worse than implying that your son didn't receive a title (and security) because they are racist) about them for millions worldwide to hear to advance your own interests.

I've lived in many different countries and one of the most important things to learn is that you have to adapt and be sensitive to context. That doesn't mean that you have to give up your beliefs or culture but you have to do as much as you can to understand them instead of expecting everyone around you to cater to you.

 

[KrissyM]

I am not sure what you are saying , what culture and belief. Who was stripped of what

I apologize for choosing the wrong words. I am not trying to make excuses, support, or disagree with The Sussex's. I'm looking at this like through a prism taking each angle on its own.

One angle is The Duchess is an American, it's part of a cultural makeup to question hierarchy. It's the way it is here for good or ill. Like it or not she's going to automatically balk at the idea that her children are in any way beneath others. I'm not saying that it's a good thing. It's just the way people in the USA think.

She might know that in a monarchy the concept is different, that doesn't make it easier to process when your entire cultural system pre-disposes her to fight that sort of thing.

I think the Firm assumed she'd just shed all that subliminal training, and I'm sorry but they should have realized that it's not like it was when Princesses landed in their new country striped out of every piece of clothing they owned and put on the new clothes of the country they were marrying into and Voila they're now assimilated into that culture's thinking.

Notice I say the Firm and when I say that I do not mean the family. To me they are two different entities.

I don't know her. I don't know what she knew, what she truly understood, and what she thought. I'm just looking at the angles.

 

[Hallo girl]

Harry said at the engagement interview that he had tried to explain everything she wanted to hit the ground running. Nobody stripped her of anything.

 

[Osipi]

I apologize for choosing the wrong words. I am not trying to make excuses, support, or disagree with The Sussex's. I'm looking at this like through a prism taking each angle on its own.

One angle is The Duchess is an American, it's part of a cultural makeup to question hierarchy. It's the way it is here for good or ill. Like it or not she's going to automatically balk at the idea that her children are in any way beneath others. I'm not saying that it's a good thing. It's just the way people in the USA think.

She might know that in a monarchy the concept is different, that doesn't make it easier to process when your entire cultural system pre-disposes her to fight that sort of thing.

I think the Firm assumed she'd just shed all that subliminal training, and I'm sorry but they should have realized that it's not like it was when Princesses landed in their new country striped out of every piece of clothing they owned and put on the new clothes of the country they were marrying into and Voila they're now assimilated into that culture's thinking.

Notice I say the Firm and when I say that I do not mean the family. To me they are two different entities.

I don't know her. I don't know what she knew, what she truly understood, and what she thought. I'm just looking at the angles.

It is normal to have questions about what one doesn't understand. The solution is to ask questions into the whys and wherefores before jumping to a conclusion that shows a lack of questioning.

That was the problem with this interview. So much of what she was relating that was her "truth" could have been set straight if she had asked questions and actually listened to the answers she was given.

 

[Heavs]

It just seems illogical and unbelievable that if she immediately got on so well with Harry that they decided to do the long distance thing for months and then agree very quickly that it was going to end in marriage sooner rather than later, that she wouldn't start researching a lot about the country and "institution" she was marrying in to.

Surely apart from anything else she would want to? I was really excited to investigate when I was offered the chance to study abroad. One of the first things I did was google youtube videos of various things, including national anthem.

You'd also find your way to TRF/Royal Central/Royal Musings/Peerage News etc pretty quickly if you were looking for specific BRF things.

Maybe they should have had a version of the Danish "Princess School" but I think it's fair to suggest that she might have complained about that if she perceived it as trying to control her rather than help her.

She's not the only non European, non white person or non citizen of that country to marry into a royal family and whatever difficulties those men and women faced they've hashed them out privately. And those like Chris O'Neill, who looks faintly bewildered when faced with being a member of the SRF at events sometimes, wisely refused an official role from the start, even though it was offered and somewhat expected. Albeit in different circumstances. And he and Madeleine have caused headlines and changes by relocating permanently to Miami but not done an interview to complain about the press.

On the issue of titles, maybe Harry wrongly assumed that his beloved Granny would of course issue LPs for his children? Even when told no, though he could persuade her? And he told Meghan that so it was a big shock when it turned out, that, no they were going to let things stand as they were and Archie would only become HRH when Charles ascended.

 

[KrissyM]

Again I' like to point out that the interview was not Live and it was edited. Who had editorial control? If anyone knows I think that would be interesting information.

 

[King of the Jungle]

That is a well considered opinion, Somebody.

I always thought that Meghan did not give it much time - time being patient, waiting and listening and learning the culture that was new to her. (While ignoring the press.)
For Harry's sake that could have made a difference to their happiness.
I once read that only children sometimes lack the opportunity to learn empathy.

I also can't understand why Harry didn't have a conversation about the skin colour comment when it occurred. Families do talk freely and he could have done so, asserting his views and dealing with the issue on the spot.

The Oprah interview was damaging to all parties.

 

[Erin9]

The interview was also an unnecessary spectacle for the world. While we're at it.

Exactly. That is my biggest problem right there. This entire spectacle was completely unnecessary.

Not one single thing in that interview needed to be public. It was a 2 hour temper tantrum.

Do I think the BRF is perfect? No. I don’t think their staff is perfect either. No one is. But Harry and Megan trashed family members, staff and the institution in general knowing full well they would not respond point by point.

There is something very wrong with that IMO. They wanted sympathy, to lash out, and make money.

 

[KrissyM]

But is that really "factual?" Possibly there are other ways of seeing both sides of the discussion.

 

[Erin9]

Woah! Okay, first I'm truly sorry if I've offended you. That was not my intention whatsoever. I only meant that The Duchess of Sussex might not see why The Duke of Cambridge's Children got an HRH at birth before Prince Charles' ascension to the throne and her children do not. It seems obvious when a person studies or lives in a monarchy but she did not grow up with the same mindset. I'm not saying she is or is not correct if she feels that way. Making allowances for cultural and legal misunderstandings might be reasonable.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect someone to know basic facts when they’re going on TV before millions of people to complain about how they were mistreated. I really don’t. Oprah didn’t know enough to correct Meghan. So her erroneous version stands and plenty of people will just believe Meghan’s version of events.

You can believe Meghan willfully lied for sympathy knowing most people wouldn’t know the difference, or that it was a mistake. Either way- she didn’t know what she was talking about. And she should have IMO.

 

[KrissyM]

But the point is only someone who knows her can say which is true. I don't know her, and I'm unwilling to brand her as a liar because the interview was edited and we don't know if the Duke and Duchess had editorial approval.

 

[Alison H]

Surely, if you expect your child to have the title of prince and the style of HRH, you are fully accepting the idea of hierarchy and the idea that your children are not on the same level as other people's. I assume she didn't question the fact that she became the Duchess of Sussex, whereas Serena Stanhope, when she married a monarch's grandson, only became Viscountess Linley.


I'm still not getting any of this. They made a big deal about Archie being Master Mountbatten-Windsor rather than the Earl of Dumbarton, and said they didn't want him to have a title. I notice that Oprah never raised that point.

 

[AC21091968]

It looks like it's not just the general public who are not supportive of Harry & Meghan. Some politicians in the Conservative Party are not afraid to weigh in on the issue.

In Business of the House on 11th March (happens on Thursday every week), Sir David Amess (Conservative MP for Southend West) raised a point on the role of the monarchy and criticised Harry & Meghan for airing family in public. The Leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg responded by reciting the first two verses of God Save The Queen. Some may said that he was mocking Meghan on the subject of the National Anthem. Others cynically believed that he made an indirect attack on Harry & Meghan by possibly comparing then as The Queen's "enemies" and deliberately choosing that verse rather than the familiar one starting with "Thy choicest gifts in store" (as often sung in Last Night of the Proms). However, I think these cynics may have been overthinking, because the enemies could have been republicans or those who oppose the monarchy/royal family. Plus there seems to be lots of laughters in the House of Commons chamber.

Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the role of the monarchy? During such a debate, I very much hope that the argument could be made that it is never wise for a family dispute to be aired in public, with everyone getting damaged and hurt by the fallout. Perhaps during such a debate, we can celebrate the fact that we are so blessed to have had our monarch for 70 years, compared with the alternative of having a president as our Head of State, which we very nearly had under Tony Blair.

Mr Rees-Mogg
Were we to have a debate to praise our sovereign lady, it would take up all the legislative time available in the House, so all I will say is:

“God save our gracious Queen!
Long live our noble Queen!
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall:
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix:
God save us all!”

Hansard of the conversation in House of Commons (towards the very end): https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...6A9-449D-92B5-4C4530836EDD/BusinessOfTheHouse

Video of the exchange between Sir David Amess and Jacob Rees-Mogg:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1369983772683345926

Jacob Rees-Mogg has even tweeted out the video of his response including reciting the National Anthem

Jacob Rees-Mogg @Jacob_Rees_Mogg
God Save the Queen.
2:43 AM · Mar 13, 2021·Twitter Web App​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1370400042746544131

Michael Fabricant (Conservative MP for Lichfield) has released multiple tweets criticising Harry & Meghan including retweeting the recent YouGov poll. He also talked negatively about the couple on Times Radio.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1370336498193723393

https://twitter.com/x/status/1369660444814815232

https://twitter.com/x/status/1369636617057689604

https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1369635803819880450
https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1369635041052098565

Zac Goldsmith (Conservative Peer in House of Lords and former MP) perhaps has the strongest reaction

Zac Goldsmith @ZacGoldsmith
Not ‘Buckingham Palace’ - Harry’s family. Harry is blowing up his family.
“What Meghan wants, Meghan gets”.
2:26 AM · Mar 9, 2021·Twitter for iPhone​

https://twitter.com/ZacGoldsmith/status/1368946238188621831

Of course, on the other side of political spectrum, there are Labour and Lib Dem MPs who supports Meghan and advocate for actions for holding the press into account. Holly Lynch (Labour MP of Halifax) is the key figure in pushing changes to stop hounding women in public life.

Meghan: MP behind letter of solidarity calls for action on press bullying
Exclusive: Holly Lynch calls for end to hounding of women in public life after letter praised by Harry
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...han-letter-calls-for-action-on-press-bullying

Meghan interview: MP calls for action over media 'hounding' of women
An MP is calling for Parliament to consider action over the press "hounding" high profile women following the Duchess of Sussex's TV interview.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56347415

 

[BriarRose]

Speaking of the "wedding" again I think it's entirely possible that as an American talking to another American with a primary audience of Americans she was relating an event that to her meant more emotionally then her public wedding. She never claimed it was her UK legal marriage. It would have been binding as common law in Cali, (if they haven't changed the marriage laws)

Not trying to nitpick, but California doesn't have common law marriage. I happened to have written legal articles about marriage in the U.S., and California abolished common law marriage quite some time ago. 1895, I believe. (Though I recall many rural couples continued to assume it was legal for a few decades after, so anyone finding such in their family geneology- don't panic.)

But I do think any onus was squarely on Harry, in the moment of the interview, to clarify that this wasn't a marriage ceremony (which has a very specific meaning in the CofE), as he was raised in the CofE his whole life, and his grandmother is the head of the Church. It's not as though royal marriages & CofE don't already have a history of controversy.

 

[Somebody]

I apologize for choosing the wrong words. I am not trying to make excuses, support, or disagree with The Sussex's. I'm looking at this like through a prism taking each angle on its own.

One angle is The Duchess is an American, it's part of a cultural makeup to question hierarchy. It's the way it is here for good or ill. Like it or not she's going to automatically balk at the idea that her children are in any way beneath others. I'm not saying that it's a good thing. It's just the way people in the USA think.

She might know that in a monarchy the concept is different, that doesn't make it easier to process when your entire cultural system pre-disposes her to fight that sort of thing.

Is she also balking at the idea that she is titled and other Americans are not just because of her marriage? And why is she denying Archie the title that he has (that of Earl of Dumbarton) by making him plain master? All other grandchildren of the queen that are not children of a future king do NOT have that option. Only James's son will be entitled to a subsidiary title like Archie is.

I think the Firm assumed she'd just shed all that subliminal training, and I'm sorry but they should have realized that it's not like it was when Princesses landed in their new country striped out of every piece of clothing they owned and put on the new clothes of the country they were marrying into and Voila they're now assimilated into that culture's thinking.

Notice I say the Firm and when I say that I do not mean the family. To me they are two different entities.

I don't know her. I don't know what she knew, what she truly understood, and what she thought. I'm just looking at the angles.

I don't think the firm assumed all those things. I am quite sure that both Harry and the Firm tried to explain things to her but somehow she wasn't sufficiently interested. They most likely never expected her to publicly go against them by completely misrepresenting their traditions and culture.

There are other Americans before her who married into royalty or nobility and don't seem to have any trouble excepting the reality; so again, it is really Meghan who is making it all about herself and her feelings.

I appreciate you trying to look at it from her angle. However, I am afraid that one of Meghan's problems was that she was also primarily looking at it from her angle and not sufficiently from the angle of the family she married into and said she was willing to represent. We of course don't know how much the family tried to understand her point of view, probably not enough, but I don't think it was reasonable to expect them to change their rules and traditions because she felt differently. They did give her quite some leeway in the activities should could employ (and rightly so), so they might have thought they did a rather good job in making her feel welcome and adapting to her. All in all, it might be hard to adjust but that is no reason to leave with as much fuss as possible and lash out ("what did they expect, that we would remain silent?").

N.B. Will leave it at this to avoid going back and forth.

 

[Prinsara]

But the point is only someone who knows her can say which is true. I don't know her, and I'm unwilling to brand her as a liar because the interview was edited and we don't know if the Duke and Duchess had editorial approval.

But the one thing we do know about Harry and Meghan is that they are highly and fearlessly quick to complain when they feel misrepresented in the media.

As there has not been as much as a peep from them saying Oprah was unfair, we must take that interview as "their truth". They are satisfied with the results.

 

[Erin9]

That's for sure! The confession to the world took the shine off their special, personal moment, didn't it! I don't know why she did that and I bet privacy-conscious Harry wasn't happy about it.

Harry might be over his privacy issues now. He’s now talked about his troubled relationships with Charles and William. He’s talked about one private conversation with a family member that was allegedly racist or disturbing or something. He’s talked about how his father and brother are trapped in the institution and how he’s tried to help them see the light to no avail. And so on.

Or- maybe I should say- he doesn’t mind violating other people’s privacy.

 

[tihkon2]

But the point is only someone who knows her can say which is true. I don't know her, and I'm unwilling to brand her as a liar because the interview was edited and we don't know if the Duke and Duchess had editorial approval.

Right, and that's fine and I for one wouldn't try to talk you out of your view, because it's not my place.

The flip side is, I DO believe she was lying about several things and am fine with branding her (and her husband) a liar.

 

[Erin9]

Surely, if you expect your child to have the title of prince and the style of HRH, you are fully accepting the idea of hierarchy and the idea that your children are not on the same level as other people's. I assume she didn't question the fact that she became the Duchess of Sussex, whereas Serena Stanhope, when she married a monarch's grandson, only became Viscountess Linley.


I'm still not getting any of this. They made a big deal about Archie being Master Mountbatten-Windsor rather than the Earl of Dumbarton, and said they didn't want him to have a title. I notice that Oprah never raised that point.

Oprah didn’t raise a lot of points. Lol Namely anything that might make Harry and Meghan look bad.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Again I' like to point out that the interview was not Live and it was edited. Who had editorial control? If anyone knows I think that would be interesting information.

I hear you but I don't believe it. In one clip, Oprah says something about them saying "explosive" things. "Explosive" revelations are rarely good. Would many people continue watching if she merely described baking cookies with the royal family. Even if the interview was deceptively edited, Harry and Meghan agreed to do it.

Moreover, if the interview were selectively edited, we could reasonably expect Harry and Meghan to issue a statement correcting the record. Instead, they allowed one friend to speak to reporters who said that the royal family should be grateful Harry and Meghan didn't say even more damaging things. There was also the veiled hint about Meghan having emails to prove her allegations.

 

[tommy100]

Wouldn't it be fair to say if H&M thought it has been edited so what they were saying had been changed or edited in a way to make it sound different we would have heard from them by now? To be honest if they weren't 100% happy with it I bet we would have heard from them by now.

They aren't exactly afraid to speak out whenever they want to and indeed have had friends who apparently were watching it with them speaking out on all the main points made - hardly something they would do if they thought it was all edited out of context.

 

[Osipi]

Wouldn't it be fair to say if H&M thought it has been edited so what they were saying had been changed or edited in a way to make it sound different we would have heard from them by now? To be honest if they weren't 100% happy with it I bet we would have heard from them by now.

They aren't exactly afraid to speak out whenever they want to and indeed have had friends who apparently were watching it with them speaking out on all the main points made - hardly something they would do if they thought it was all edited out of context.

This is true. To point out how they'd definitely react to something coming across differently than what they intended, just look how quickly Meghan jumped on the phone to file a complaint in Britain about the comments that Piers Morgan made. That happened in a um... New York minute which is considerably faster than a California minute if I remember right.

 

[Erin9]

I seem to miss out on this email(s) that was in circulation. Can someone please point me to it?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...attacks-Queens-statement-Oprah-interview.html

Here’s a link that talks about it. (There are a ton.) I can’t find the original article Scobie wrote right now. It was incredibly nasty. But this link does discuss the email situation.

 

[soapstar]

But the point is only someone who knows her can say which is true. I don't know her, and I'm unwilling to brand her as a liar because the interview was edited and we don't know if the Duke and Duchess had editorial approval.

Not sure if they had editorial approval or not, but they did have control over how their interview was used by various broadcasters. One of the rules was that the interview had to be played in full and couldn’t be edited in any way.

Secret details of strict instructions have been given to a host of broadcasters around the world about how the Duke and Duchess of Sussex want to be presented in the tell-all Oprah Winfrey interview that first aired in the US today.

The broadcasters were required to agree to a list of four non-negotiable demands which could see them in breach of their contracts if not obeyed, according to a report by The Australian...

The first agreement was that the programme must run in full, and Network Ten and the other broadcasters were not allowed to edit the interview in any way....

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyl...r-oprah-interview/6MPE2YK2OPNF3Q4TD2I6JIQVNI/

I would think that if Meghan and Harry had a problem with how they were portrayed in the interview, they would have made it known by now. Their go to reporter certainly hasn’t written anything about them being unhappy with the way the interview was edited. And Meghan’s friend said she watched it with Meghan, and they were all relieved that she could finally tell their side of the story. So that doesn’t sound like someone who is unhappy with the editing.

 

[Erin9]

But the one thing we do know about Harry and Meghan is that they are highly and fearlessly quick to complain when they feel misrepresented in the media.



As there has not been as much as a peep from them saying Oprah was unfair, we must take that interview as "their truth". They are satisfied with the results.

Indeed. This interview did what it was meant to do. We’d have heard from Harry and Meghan if they were unhappy.

As it is- Harry surely had to know his own grandparents were going to get accused of racism, but he did nothing until after the interview aired and people had hours to speculate. (And the rest of the family remains under a cloud; he just narrowed the field.) I wonder what made him speak out really.

What I really find interesting is that they’re not throwing a fit over the Times bullying article. That’s easily the worst thing that’s been published about them. It’s also very damaging to their brand. But so far....silence. No lawsuits yet.

 

[Moran]

What I really find interesting is that they’re not throwing a fit over the Times bullying article. That’s easily the worst thing that’s been published about them. It’s also very damaging to their brand. But so far....silence. No lawsuits yet.

Possibly because Jason Knauf' supposed leaked email was actually written a few years ago, indicating genuine concern, as opposed to the very last moment and backdated with what I perceive as intention to leave a paper trail.
Just my two cents.

 

[Erin9]

This is true. To point out how they'd definitely react to something coming across differently than what they intended, just look how quickly Meghan jumped on the phone to file a complaint in Britain about the comments that Piers Morgan made. That happened in a um... New York minute which is considerably faster than a California minute if I remember right.

That bothers me a lot. I’m not the biggest fan of Piers Morgan, but I think he had every right to say he didn’t believe her. It’s not like Meghan provided proof of anything- and he already knew she’d lied about certain things, which calls into question the veracity of the entire interview IMO.

It looks like an abuse of power on Meghan’s part IMO.

 

[Mbruno]

I apologize for choosing the wrong words. I am not trying to make excuses, support, or disagree with The Sussex's. I'm looking at this like through a prism taking each angle on its own.

One angle is The Duchess is an American, it's part of a cultural makeup to question hierarchy. It's the way it is here for good or ill. Like it or not she's going to automatically balk at the idea that her children are in any way beneath others. I'm not saying that it's a good thing. It's just the way people in the USA think.

She might know that in a monarchy the concept is different, that doesn't make it easier to process when your entire cultural system pre-disposes her to fight that sort of thing.

I don't think Americans necessarily question hierarchy, but I agree that it is difficult for them to understand hierarchy based on birth order as opposed to merit for example.



Of course, birth order plays a fundamental role in a monarchy and in the peerage, but, whether Meghan accepts it or not, that is not what she was questioning in the Oprah interview. In fact, she never argued that Archie was treated differently (in terms of titles and future security) from George, Charlotte and Louis because William is Charles' firstborn and Harry is the second son. Instead, she insinuated that Archie was treated differently because he is biracial and even tried to make an odd association between the title/security issue and an alleged comment about skin color made by an unnamed member of the Royal Family back when she and Harry were only starting to date. Either she is unbelievably uninformed, or there was malicious intent in the narrative she was trying to make.