The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April-June 2021

[UglyAmerican]

If the publishers felt that Meghan was a rotten writer, the book had no potential and would not sell, then it wouldn’t matter what title she had; whether a Queen or Empress, the publishers wouldn’t have signed her up. No publisher is going to shell out money on a book they feel won’t sell. A ‘name’ can only carry a product so far.

Poetry isn't really my thing, so I'm not expressing an opinion on the quality of the writing. But quality and profitability aren't inextricably linked, especially when the writer is someone famous. Plenty of people who love Meghan will buy the book because she wrote it, and plenty more will buy it to see what all the media fuss is about. Children's books have a pretty limited market, and those factors mean this one will sell more copies than most regardless of its quality.

I do think it's strange that someone too concerned with her son's privacy to release a real photo of him is willing to publish something she says is based on the emotional relationship between Harry and Archie. That's a very intimate thing to be putting out there for mass consumption. Assuming her concerns about privacy are sincere, I think it's likely that she at least considered publishing this under a pseudonym. Why that didn't happen is entirely speculation, but a publisher considering that question may have come to the same conclusions I did about the profitability of her name and title.

 

[Alison H]

If this is an example of Meghan's writing, then I don't think Anne of Green Gables has anything to worry about ?

Is that what the book's like? It reads like the sort of thing a kid of Prince George's age would write!

 

[sophie25]

If the publishers felt that Meghan was a rotten writer, the book had no potential and would not sell, then it wouldn’t matter what title she had; whether a Queen or Empress, the publishers wouldn’t have signed her up. No publisher is going to shell out money on a book they feel won’t sell. A ‘name’ can only carry a product so far.

No I have to disagree with that, I'm not saying it's bad but she is being published because of who she's married to.

 

[Denville]

No I have to disagree with that, I'm not saying it's bad but she is being published because of who she's married to.

So are lots of people, their books may sell Ok for a bit because of who they are, but they wont last long.
And as she and Harry explicitly walked out of hte RF, and "doing things the royal way", it seems a bit iffy to use her family title to sell a book like this.

 

[Claire]

So are lots of people, their books may sell Ok for a bit because of who they are, but they wont last long.
And as she and Harry explicitly walked out of hte RF, and "doing things the royal way", it seems a bit iffy to use her family title to sell a book like this.

Yep - it is a side swipe to complain about the institution and then not break way from the completely in regard to your name. And it is perhaps the simplest thing to do.

That been said - I have in my book shelf books written by HRH The Prince of Wales and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. I also have a book by The Duchess of York (no HRH) and a book by HRH Princess Michael. And then Edward Windsor. So if there was a protocol here - it is all over the place. does it depend if the book is for charity ect I have no idea. So I really cant say Meghan did anything underhanded here.

 

[Denville]

its not underhanded, it is hypocritical., None of the people you mention have vey publicly criticised the RF and then continued to use the titles that they got as members of the RF.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

If they want to hide him, why even bother posting his photo ? Either they want Archie to have complete privacy or they don’t...but if they do, then why write a book about him (in part) ? If they want to release a photo for their fans, it just seems odd that it (they, since they never show his face) is always with his back to the camera so no one can ever see him. If releasing a photo isn’t for their fans, why not just wish Archie a happy birthday with no photo ?

It's virtually no different than what Eugenie and Jack have been doing so far with August.

 

[Osipi]

When it comes to the birthday photo on Archewell, all I saw was a artistic rendering of a boy and balloons that signify a birthday. I don't really see any ulterior motive behind it or that they're "hiding" Archie. It kind of reminded me of their wedding photo where we see the backs of the couple as they gaze at fireworks. So not a really big deal as I see it.

As far as the Queen taking steps now to limit the HRH Prince/ss titles, I think she's going to leave it up to Charles to do when his time comes. Whether or not Archie and his sister get the HRH or Prince/ss when Charles becomes king really shouldn't be a sticking point for the Sussexes. They were the ones that decided they no longer wanted to be involved in the "Firm" or the monarchy of the UK and they've moved to the USA. Their children will be raised as private citizens and I can't see the necessity of them having any kind of titles "just because" of who they are. If Charles decides to change things up, it won't have any kind of ulterior motives against the Sussexes but rather because of changes he deems necessary for the good of the "Firm" and the monarchy.

 

[Alison H]

its not underhanded, it is hypocritical., None of the people you mention have vey publicly criticised the RF and then continued to use the titles that they got as members of the RF.

Yes, that's the problem. I don't see anything wrong with Princess Michael publishing a book as HRH Princess of Michael of Kent, for example. OK, her books - whilst they are actually very good - would probably not sell as well if they were written by Marie-Christine Bloggs, but you can say that about a lot of books. The difference between her and Meghan is that she has not publicly criticised the Royal Family, saying many things which were blatant lies designed purely to damage the Royal Family's reputation.

Olympic gold medallist Jessica Ennis Hill, Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, comedian David Walliams, actor Channing Tatum and footballer Marcus Rashford, to name but a few, have all written children's books. Would the books have been published if they'd been written by Joe Bloggs? Almost certainly not. I haven't got a problem with Meghan doing the same, but I do object to her using her royal title after everything she's said about the Royal Family.

 

[Lee-Z]

No I have to disagree with that, I'm not saying it's bad but she is being published because of who she's married to.

Yep, but like it or not, that is the reality of celebs nowadays, they get attention, people want to hear about them, people buy their stuff and sponsor what they sponsor, just because they are famous faces.. otherwise we wouldn't have tv shows like 'housewives of xxx' or cookbooks written by tv presentors etc etc.

Celebrity sells.

So are lots of people, their books may sell Ok for a bit because of who they are, but they wont last long.
And as she and Harry explicitly walked out of hte RF, and "doing things the royal way", it seems a bit iffy to use her family title to sell a book like this.

That is how several of us view it (i do too), but i'm pretty sure that H&M's 'Unique selling point' (USP) is that of 'Royals who do good and want to modernise the world, but are thwarted by the grey suits'.

That is what their celebrity is based on, so they are going to use it.
And no commercial organisation will say no to that.

It would take some serious level of crime before commerce ditches a celeb.

 

[valeas]

I don't think they are hiding his hair. I think overall they just shielding his image as a whole as much as they can. Also they know how nasty people can be. All you have to do is read comments on any of the royal social media pages that posted birthday wishes to him today. Oy. I wouldn't be too thrilled to have his image dissected by the public either.

Anyways there have been private pictures of him seen. He has reddish brown hair. Not that it really matters.

it looked dark brown or black and curly in the video.

 

[AC21091968]

Judging by the recent image of Archie with balloons, I think Archie's hair colour is more likely to be brown or even auburn rather than red hair (like Harry and Beatrice whose hair were lighter when they were children). But then the colour changes over time as he gets older.

 

[Mbruno]

I see. ?

It is worth adding that there is a difference between retroactive law and a law which takes effect for existing persons. For instance, if at some point after the accession of King Charles, he were to issue Letters Patent specifying that from the date of the Letters Patent, Archie would no longer be entitled to use the HRH, there would be no retroactivity. On the other hand, if King Charles were to issue Letters Patent declaring that Archie had never been entitled to use the HRH at any point in the past, such Letters Patent would be retroactive.

I don't see Charles issuing LPs that apply only to specific individuals, e.g. Archie. Any change to the existing rules will be of general application to a class of people probably.


If LPs were issued now limiting HRH to children of the heir as opposed to children of sons of a sovereign of the United Kingdom, would current HRHs who are in the latter category, but not in the former (for example Beatrice, Eugenie, the Duke of Gloucester, and the Queen's 3 Kent cousins) also lose their titles? Or would the LPs only apply to persons who became children of sons of a sovereign, but not of the heir, after the LPs were issued?

 

[Betsypaige]

If the publishers felt that Meghan was a rotten writer, the book had no potential and would not sell, then it wouldn’t matter what title she had; whether a Queen or Empress, the publishers wouldn’t have signed her up. No publisher is going to shell out money on a book they feel won’t sell. A ‘name’ can only carry a product so far.

Mediocre to badly written books sell all the time. From what I can tell, Meghan is not a good writer at all, and her publisher is absolutely counting on her name to sell this book....

 

[valeas]

Mediocre to badly written books sell all the time. From what I can tell, Meghan is not a good writer at all, and her publisher is absolutely counting on her name to sell this book....

Didn't another poster (maybe Claire, sorry if not you)) say the book has been offered to various publishers until being accepted?
This can mean the book is bad or Meghan did not want the deal, more money or... .


I don't know if its Charles wish or strategy but think it is wrong HM does not do something about the titles/HRH, should be done years ago and now there will be trouble ahead with H&M it's unfair to leave it to your heir to deal with it in his reign, but I've read a lot here and elsewhere saying HM puts her harmony above all instead of finding solutions.

By the way, IF the decision that no uniforms are to be worn for the funeral was to please Harry, c'mon how far will this go to happen? Harry must accept the consequences and if he was the only one to wear a suit it's due to his decisions, no one forced him to let duty go.
What's next Trooping the Colour without uniforms ? LOL I don't think Harry will be invited.

 

[Hallo girl]

As another poster so eloquently put , much better than me, if nothing is to change then there is no need to do anything.

If Charles wants to make changes for the future generations then he will.

 

[ACO]

As for the title? We will just have to wait and see about Archie and his sister. My guess is nothing at the moment is in the works to change but obviously no one knows the future. I just think they need to be smart about it. There is really no need to wait if the long term plan is to remove it.

 

[Fijiro]

Didn't another poster (maybe Claire, sorry if not you)) say the book has been offered to various publishers until being accepted?
This can mean the book is bad or Meghan did not want the deal, more money or... .


I don't know if its Charles wish or strategy but think it is wrong HM does not do something about the titles/HRH, should be done years ago and now there will be trouble ahead with H&M it's unfair to leave it to your heir to deal with it in his reign, but I've read a lot here and elsewhere saying HM puts her harmony above all instead of finding solutions.

By the way, IF the decision that no uniforms are to be worn for the funeral was to please Harry, c'mon how far will this go to happen? Harry must accept the consequences and if he was the only one to wear a suit it's due to his decisions, no one forced him to let duty go.
What's next Trooping the Colour without uniforms ? LOL I don't think Harry will be invited.

From what I saw in the papers, it was Prince Andrew who wanted to dress as an Admiral. But all these are rumours because they were not announced or confirmed by the Palace.

 

[Erin9]

Is that what the book's like? It reads like the sort of thing a kid of Prince George's age would write!

That’s what I’m wondering. Is this reflective of the book as a whole?

Admittedly, poetry is not my favorite genre. But, if this is the quality of the poetry, I can’t say I’m impressed. It’s definitely not Shel Silverstein IMO, whose work is a classic.

Also- I thought this was a children’s book. That was my impression of how it seems to be marketed. If this is a sample of how the book reads as a whole - I don’t see this being a book a child would enjoy. It seems like a book for parents to me.

 

[Biset]

Meghan doesn’t have a title. Harry was given one by his grandmother the Queen on his wedding day. By custom all wives married in the British Isles take their husbands styling and rank (if they want, and most do.)


Therefore the Duchess of Sussex is her legal name. Meghan Markle isn’t. It was the professional name she used as an actress. She hasn’t used it since she married. Nor would Meghan Mountbatten Windsor be strictly correct for a Duchess.


Meghan has every right to use her styling. If the couple using their titles in any of their endeavours was unacceptable to the Queen then she would have asked them not to (as she did with the HRHs) or moved to remove Harry’s Dukedom, difficult though that might be. She hasn’t.

Oh,i'm sorry. Let me try again. I'm sure she will make very good money off of her styling. And yes she could use her professional name after she thrashed the instituion and her husband's family. Family that got her worldwide fame and allowed her to publish this book. But Meghan Markle doesn't have the same power as Duchess of Sussex, does it?

 

[Fijiro]

Meghan doesn’t have a title. Harry was given one by his grandmother the Queen on his wedding day. By custom all wives married in the British Isles take their husbands styling and rank (if they want, and most do.)


Therefore the Duchess of Sussex is her legal name. Meghan Markle isn’t. It was the professional name she used as an actress. She hasn’t used it since she married. Nor would Meghan Mountbatten Windsor be strictly correct for a Duchess.


Meghan has every right to use her styling. If the couple using their titles in any of their endeavours was unacceptable to the Queen then she would have asked them not to (as she did with the HRHs) or moved to remove Harry’s Dukedom, difficult though that might be. She hasn’t.

I agree; Duchess of Sussex has every right to use the styling of her husband.

 

[Moran]

When you publish a book, fiction, especially, you're allowed a pen name. Like George R.R. Martin whose real name I can't even imagine. When you submit to various outlets, there is usually a line reserved for your pen name and some outlets only ask for your legal one when they have liked your work and want to sign a contract with you.



I don't know if The Duchess of Sussex is Meghan's legal name now but I know for sure that she was by no means obliged to use it. It was her choice, not her restrictive circumstances.She might be entitled to it but to me, the use of this title, name or whatever it is only points at awareness that should she decline to use it, if she chose plain Meghan Markle, Meghan Sussex or, heavens forbid, a pen name unrelated to her real life, the sales might not be what she would like. And yes, in my eyes it doesn't speal well of her to cling to The Duchess of Sussex for dear life after all her efforts to thrash the family, the institution, the Firm that gave it to her.


Or perhaps it was the editors' insistence to have the title splashed on the cover. The people they have worked with this far have been mostly insistent to showcase the royal connection.

 

[Fijiro]

When you publish a book, fiction, especially, you're allowed a pen name. Like George R.R. Martin whose real name I can't even imagine. When you submit to various outlets, there is usually a line reserved for your pen name and some outlets only ask for your legal one when they have liked your work and want to sign a contract with you.



I don't know if The Duchess of Sussex is Meghan's legal name now but I know for sure that she was by no means obliged to use it. It was her choice, not her restrictive circumstances.She might be entitled to it but to me, the use of this title, name or whatever it is only points at awareness that should she decline to use it, if she chose plain Meghan Markle, Meghan Sussex or, heavens forbid, a pen name unrelated to her real life, the sales might not be what she would like. And yes, in my eyes it doesn't speal well of her to cling to The Duchess of Sussex for dear life after all her efforts to thrash the family, the institution, the Firm that gave it to her.


Or perhaps it was the editors' insistence to have the title splashed on the cover. The people they have worked with this far have been mostly insistent to showcase the royal connection.

She has every right to use it and she did.

 

[Heavs]

Or perhaps it was the editors' insistence to have the title splashed on the cover. The people they have worked with this far have been mostly insistent to showcase the royal connection.

I think all parties involved want to use the titles. Harry didn't need to have PH,DOS splashed across his Chief Impact Officer info page on the website 7 times if he didn't want to. Once would have made it clear who he was. Likewise the announcement about Netflix and Spotify both used the titles as much as possible. We know that the Sussexes were upset that they couldn't use the word "royal" from their own mouths so *they* know where their value or interest actually lies so all parties want to use it as much as possible.

 

[Moran]

She has every right to use it and she did.

Who said she doesn't have the right? I'm only saying it was exercizing of a right that didn't make her look good in my eyes and not a legality that she was forced to follow.


It was either her choice or the publishing house's. I know a thing or three about publishing and I'm stating with full conviction that people go for what sells within the legal boundaries.



Clearly someone thought that Meghan Markle wouldn't sell and a pen name even less, so they used the title given to her by the despicable RF. Once again, she was entitled to use the title. She isn't entitled to get only positive opinions from people for using the title.

 

[Jacknch]

This thread will be re-opened after a clean-up and a well-needed break.

It is disappointing that some members seem incapable of being respectful towards one another when opinions differ.

It is a further disappointment that some members are unable to make references to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex without resorting to attacking them with inflammatory and often spiteful remarks and comments.

Such posts are not only unnecessary for a discussion or debate, but also an unreasonable way to react to the topic of the thread.

 

[AC21091968]

After listening to Harry's guest appearance on the Armchair Expert Podcast, I have to admit this is worse than the Oprah's interview. It's not just because of the timing (not long after Prince Philip's death), but also the content, where Harry appeared to be attacking Charles and The Queen's parenting skills. I'm not saying that royal family members are perfect parent, but I just think criticising their parenting skills in public is a terrible idea, given that they have tried to provide what is best for their children. Harry seem to not have learn from Charles's mistake on publicly criticising The Queen and Prince Philip's parenting skills, which impacted family relationship, especially between Philip and Charles.

It was very difficult for me to take Harry's word by word when he mentioned about compassion, given that he just recently throw his family under the bus in the Oprah's interview and just then the podcast. The same could be said about mental health, where he appeared to be unaware about the impact of "airing family's dirty laundry" on their mental well-being, especially not long after Prince Philip's passing.

For me, the revelation that Harry wanted to leave as working royals in his 20s just added more questions or even confusion. Yes, I know this has been touched on before, but I think it's interesting that Harry openly said it by himself in hindsight. If Harry really wanted to leave (as working royal) even after strong persuasion from his family, would he had a lavish public wedding? Would he received The Duke of Sussex title upon marriage? Would he still remain in the UK? Would Meghan be allow to continue her acting career? Would the changes to Archie and his sister's future title or even just Letter Patent happen earlier (rather than "up in the air" as of now)?

There are so many things in that podcast that I have issues with, but I'm afraid that I cannot expressed them articulately and concisely. Here is the link to the Armchair Expert podcast:

Prince Harry
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, is a member of the British royal family. Prince Harry joins the Armchair Expert to discuss how to approach mental health issues, growing up with privilege, and how healing it is to perform a service for someone. Harry discusses how much like the Truman Show his life is, unconscious bias, and how people can change their mindset once they acknowledge it. Harry talks about his time in the military service, how it opened his eyes to the trauma people face around the world, and how much more important mental health is than physical health.
https://armchairexpertpod.com/pods/prince-harry

 

[Betsypaige]

AC, I could agree more. I got blowback on Twitter from Sussex stans who said that Harry never called Charles a bad parent. Even respected historian Marlene Koenig states this. He didn’t have to say those exact words. “Break the cycle of genetic pain and suffering”? Making sure that what happened to him doesn’t happen to his children? That Charles treated him as he’d been treated? Feeling like he had to escape ? No time ever would have been good, but while his father is still deeply mourning his own father? While his grandmother is grieving for the man she loved for 70 plus years? It’s the height of cruelty.

Reports are that Harry was rather happy by the response to this interview (from American fans, I suppose). Well, buckle up because aside from the updated Finding Freedom, Angela Levin claims that Harry and Meghan are making a tell-all documentary that even includes videotaped conversations. If this is true, I don’t see any way back, ever.....At some point, H is going to go too far - and this goes beyond his family’s reactions. I have to believe that at some point people are going to wonder when public therapy becomes bitter revenge.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are in the process of making a new tell-all documentary, according to the Duke of Sussex's own biographer. Angela Levin told talkRADIO that there was "a lot more to come" in terms of disclosures from the couple about royal life. She said that there was "another documentary in the making" where the couple "go into detail about how terrible certain things were".

....

She continued: "I think there is another documentary in the making where they will have taken films of various rooms and maybe even of various conversations.

"They can then go detail by detail about how terrible certain things were. I'm waiting for that one.

I think it will be yet another nail in the coffin of his relationship to his father and his brother. They can't trust him anymore."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...tflix-documentary-Royal-Family-latest-news-vn

 

[Osipi]

Wax on, Wax off

Nope. It's not the Karate Kid here. Harry and Meghan have relocated. Their wax figures have been moved to Madame Tussauds' 'party zone'.

"In 2020, the pair's statues were moved away from Queen Elizabeth and the rest of Britain's royal family following their decision to step down from official duties. Now, more than a year later, the museum has announced that they have a glitzier permanent home: the "Awards Party" zone."

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/meghan-markle-prince-harry-waxworks-madame-tussauds/index.html

As far as the recent podcast, the words "Armchair Experts" tells me everything I need to know and that was that it was something I couldn't wrap my head around.

 

[COESpiral]

I get it when people feel they have to get completely away from their toxic families due to abuse, and I don't know what Harry's life was like inside palace walls, but I have a hard time believing things were so bad it warrants this level of vitriol.

I mean, this is a burn all the bridges, salt the earth, crossing the Rubicon level of rage. And once it's done, will it be enough? Will his anger be resolved? It won't make his mother come back, it won't solve the problems he faced as a child, and it won't make his life perfect now.

Harry and Meghan really, REALLY need to rethink this.