Staff of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Family news for the Sussexes- they have a new nanny with a NDA

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eto...s-126864%3famp

Frankly I don't see why other royal family members don't have their staff sign NDAs. There may be the prestige of working in a royal household but from what I hear the pay is not that great. Plenty of incentive to run to the tabloids or strike a book deal. Paul Burrell is airing Diana's laundry long after she has passed. It's probably why the Sussexes don't have staff - they are taking their time vetting potential employees.

VERY unreliable source. Katie Nicholl.

[LauraS3514]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Family news for the Sussexes- they have a new nanny with a NDA

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eto...s-126864%3famp

Frankly I don't see why other royal family members don't have their staff sign NDAs. There may be the prestige of working in a royal household but from what I hear the pay is not that great. Plenty of incentive to run to the tabloids or strike a book deal. Paul Burrell is airing Diana's laundry long after she has passed. It's probably why the Sussexes don't have staff - they are taking their time vetting potential employees.

I seem to recall that since the whole "Crawfie" episode in the 50s that staff DO sign NDAs. As these are only enforcible in the UK (or maybe just in England as Scotland has different rules?) many of those who talk do so to the foreign media and the rest just don't care.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

VERY unreliable source. Katie Nicholl.

While its not the best source, there is likely some semblance of truth.

The fact is Archie was not with them at Trooping. And unlike Kate who had her mother close with George, Meghan's mother is back home in the US. Someone was taking care of the baby. And its not like hiring some baby-sitter for the day. Not that many parents would do that with a newborn.

I have a feeling more they have a baby nurse helping them right now, while they settle on a future nanny. Kate didn't need one, before Nanny Webb joined them in September, but Meghan and Harry are in another boat.

Pretty sure NDA are likely in any employee signing packages for years now. Always ways around them.

[MaiaMia_53]

https://www.etonline.com/inside-megh...ng-ndas-126864

Snippets of details about a new nanny, but nothing has been confirmed obviously. Some posters in other Sussex threads think it's possible that a baby nurse looked after Archie while H&M were at TTC, which would be they are still scouting for a long term nanny.

[jacqui24]

Oh, I don't doubt they have some kind of help one way or another. It's just that her "sources" seems to be more like guesses, and more often than not wrong. So I don't buy the details she offered until I see some more credible reporting.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Family news for the Sussexes- they have a new nanny with a NDA

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eto...s-126864%3famp

Frankly I don't see why other royal family members don't have their staff sign NDAs. There may be the prestige of working in a royal household but from what I hear the pay is not that great. Plenty of incentive to run to the tabloids or strike a book deal. Paul Burrell is airing Diana's laundry long after she has passed. It's probably why the Sussexes don't have staff - they are taking their time vetting potential employees.

Originally Posted by LauraS3514

I seem to recall that since the whole "Crawfie" episode in the 50s that staff DO sign NDAs. As these are only enforcible in the UK (or maybe just in England as Scotland has different rules?) many of those who talk do so to the foreign media and the rest just don't care.

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Pretty sure NDA are likely in any employee signing packages for years now. Always ways around them.

I would expect employee contracts for the Royal Household to have pretty watertight confidentiality obligations.

[O-H Anglophile]

Hello Magazine is reporting that the Sussexes have hired a nanny, Supposedly she doesn't work weekends. Not sure how that's going to work since there are engagements on the weekends.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalt...notificaciones

[muriel]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

Hello Magazine is reporting that the Sussexes have hired a nanny, Supposedly she doesn't work weekends. Not sure how that's going to work since there are engagements on the weekends.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalt...notificaciones

Cover on Saturday night is key, IMO. I presume other staff members can cover.

[TLLK]

My guess would be that if this information is true that at some point the couple would 1. Change the contract to cover the weekend when needed and give the nanny two weekdays off. 2. Hire someone else who can watch the baby. 3. The couple will not always appear together at a weekend event.

[jacqui24]

We don't know if that's the just the practice right now, or if that's actually in the terms of the contract since we don't know the source.

If it's just what is happening right now, it could very well be because Meghan is on maternity leave, and so the nanny works normal working hours.

[ACO]

They probably starting slow. Meghan still on leave so the nanny doesn't need to be there all the time. She likely still wants to be the primary one handling the baby but she also understands she will eventually need the assistance. Trooping is a prime example and I am sure later in the summer we likely will see Meghan pop up here and there. Eventually those hours will be expanded especially once Meghan is back full time.

[Hallo girl]

I see there are reports that Harry and Meghan intend employing a social media person, which is interesting considering Harrys' previous comments with regards over use of social media. Would be interested in your views.

[tommy100]

It seems quite odd after Harry said social media was more addictive than drugs to then go and hire somebody with role of basically trying to get more followers on social media.

I have no issue with them having a social media person at all, but the two events contract each other massively and it seems somewhat hypocritical, its certainly not very clever IMO

[Curryong]

That report comes straight from the Fail and their columnist Richard Eden. I think I'll wait for a more credible source before believing it.

Actually, Sara Latham has already been hired by the Sussexes (in May.) She is supposedly beginning her position now and some of the job description was dealing with social media.

[ACO]

I don’t see the issue. Harry warns that social media can be problematic and addictive. Is he lying? He criticized games like Fortnite and then experts came out and agreed with his comments. It’s all about moderation. He has made that clear over and over again.

This reminds me of people who tried to call William a hypocrite for wanting to protect wildlife while showing pictures of him hunting. Or The Queen expressing concerned for people’s welfare while sitting in her castle in front a gold piano. It’s like let’s not try to reach so hard over the obvious.

The royals are extremely public people. They are ALL represented on social media. It is wise for them to have someone oversee it. Not sure how that’s hypocritical. It’s a fairly common job in today’s society.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Curryong

She is supposedly beginning her position now and some of the job description was dealing with social media.

At this juncture, I presume you are merely speculating on what Sara's job description could possibly cover.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by tommy100

It seems quite odd after Harry said social media was more addictive than drugs to then go and hire somebody with role of basically trying to get more followers on social media.

I have no issue with them having a social media person at all, but the two events contract each other massively and it seems somewhat hypocritical, its certainly not very clever IMO

That’s actually an inaccurate description of what a social media coordinator does. It’s a communication strategy rather than “basically trying to get more followers”.

Harry’s comment was completely taken out of context. If you read his full remarks, he did acknowledge the benefits of social media, but took issue with the lack of restrictions and emphasized on the importance of maintaining human interactions.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by muriel

Cover on Saturday night is key, IMO. I presume other staff members can cover.

I suppose there is another nanny who ccan cover for weekends...

[Pranter]

I had read the nanny will not be needed for mornings or weekends. I assumed that for now they would handle things during those times...they may have it worked where they both cover baby duty when the other is working (after she goes back to work) and use a nanny to fill in the gaps.


LaRae

[O-H Anglophile]

But what about engagements where both of them are required to be there on a Saturday (or Sunday) such as the recent Trooping? They will have to have someone else in addition to the weekday nanny.