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

[RandyDrx]

The family of the Army officer that was called a racial slur by Harry back in 2009 has spoken up defending the royals.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14337724/harry-slammed-over-racism-claims-after-p-word/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/family-army-officer-called-p-23719408

 

[Alison H]

While she understands the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s upset over questions that were raised about the colour of their unborn children’s skin, she says: ‘I think there’s a big difference between racism and ignorance. I also think there is a big difference between racism and “concerns”.

‘What I remember from my own experiences is a valid concern that people had regarding a future member of our family and how racism would affect them if the child came out more like me — which is a beautiful, deep-brown, cinnamon colour.

‘The questions asked were, “How will they be perceived? How will they be treated? What will people say? How will you protect them from this unfair world we live in?”


That's from the link Yukari posted to the Tatler article about Rose Hulse. I couldn't get the quote box to work, sorry. That's very similar to the remarks William made when asked how he would feel if one of his children were gay.


He said that he would be absolutely fine with that, but that he would have concerns about the prejudices that they might face in an unfair world. His remarks were widely welcomed by the LGBT community. No-one saw his comments about concerns as being negative in any way - they were acknowledging the issues that some people, very unfairly, have to live with, especially high profile people who get a lot of attention anyway.

 

[AC21091968]

While she understands the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s upset over questions that were raised about the colour of their unborn children’s skin, she says: ‘I think there’s a big difference between racism and ignorance. I also think there is a big difference between racism and “concerns”.

‘What I remember from my own experiences is a valid concern that people had regarding a future member of our family and how racism would affect them if the child came out more like me — which is a beautiful, deep-brown, cinnamon colour.

‘The questions asked were, “How will they be perceived? How will they be treated? What will people say? How will you protect them from this unfair world we live in?”


That's from the link Yukari posted to the Tatler article about Rose Hulse. I couldn't get the quote box to work, sorry. That's very similar to the remarks William made when asked how he would feel if one of his children were gay.


He said that he would be absolutely fine with that, but that he would have concerns about the prejudices that they might face in an unfair world. His remarks were widely welcomed by the LGBT community. No-one saw his comments about concerns as being negative in any way - they were acknowledging the issues that some people, very unfairly, have to live with, especially high profile people who get a lot of attention anyway.

I think you raised some very good points on genuine concerns and racism. I found the interview with Rose Hulse very insightful by reading her perspective and experience in an aristocratic family.

Thank you yukari for sharing the article

Without going off topic, for the quote box, the starting prefix is quote in capital letters with square brackets on both ends (e.g.

). The ending is also quote in capital letters with square brackets on both ends, but a forward slash (/) is added between the open square bracket ([) and Q (of QUOTE). For your example, unfortunately, I cannot show you the input of the quote box

‘I think there’s a big difference between racism and ignorance. I also think there is a big difference between racism and “concerns”.

‘What I remember from my own experiences is a valid concern that people had regarding a future member of our family and how racism would affect them if the child came out more like me — which is a beautiful, deep-brown, cinnamon colour.

‘The questions asked were, “How will they be perceived? How will they be treated? What will people say? How will you protect them from this unfair world we live in?”

 

[MaryVirginia]

The Duke of Sussex title is hereditary and therefore Archie will inherent that title when Harry passes. In the meantime, he is entitled to use the secondary title of Earl of Dumbarton, therefore, he isn’t being cheated of a title or being discriminated against due to his ethnicity.

What I find so infuriating and sad is Meghan and Harry are using their son in their war against the BRF. This little boy will grow up believing he was cheated out of his Royal heritage, title and security due to his ethnic DNA just so his parents can get their way. That is inexcusable,

The more you see what the long term affects of what Meghan and Harry have started, the more disturbing it is.

After a week of reflection on this interview, Meghan's treatment of Archie disturbs me the most as well. She claims that she could never hurt her child the way her father hurt her. And yet, she just told the entire world (on record forever) that her son was not loved fully by his father's family.

Children need to know that they are loved by all family no matter the circumstances (this is fundamental in divorces, adoptions, etc.). Even IF what she said was true and IF Archie ever needs to be told differently, it should be behind closed doors with the greatest of care and love.

 

[Mbruno]

The bolded part imo is spot on, and can actually be found on the Archewell website
https://archewell.com/about

"At Archewell, we unleash the power of compassion to drive systemic cultural change."

My feeling is that the intention with the Oprah interview was that M&H were going for systemic cultural change, starting with the BRF and how they were obstructed doing it
(if i'm cynical i might say, that i felt more of the 'unleashing' in the interview than the 'compassion' but that's just imo)

I just wish there was more news about them moving on, and actually showing the 'compassion thing' (my words) in practice.
Even our discussion here would probably have died down by now (or at least gotten less) if there had been one or two new Archewell activities in the last week..

Peggy Noonan, President Reagan's former speechwriter, is giving Meghan and Harry too much credit. At -26 (or something like that) in favorability rating in the UK, I doubt many people in the UK take Meghan seriously or that she and Harry are able to effect any "systemic cultural change".



Besides, the interview is so full of inconsistencies and factual errors (e.g. the "wedding before the wedding", Archie's title and security) that it is now seen as questionable. Their indignation at being cut off when they were in Canada and having to pay for private security also comes across as a sense of entitlement, especially in view of the current hardship many people are suffering with the Covid pandemic.

 

[Denville]

Until Meghan claimed - entirely falsely - that Archie was not given the style of HRH and the title of prince because of his ethnicity, I had not heard even one person come anywhere close to suggesting that that was the case.


?

I dont think it was ever suggested by anyone. THEY said that they didn't want Archie to use any titles so it seemed reasonable to assume that they were fine with his not getting HRH til Charles was king, or perhaps never...and I dont think anhyone else thought of it as a "racial" issue.

 

[Roderick]

not sure how much the QM left him but she did leave him some money, probably a few million. He also had half of Diana's fortune.. so he should have enough to live in comfort...His father also gave him a Large amount to start up life abroad, but it seems that it is not enough for H and he wants Charles to sub him for the rest of his life. It seems according to him, that he ONLY did the Netflix deal to provide money when Charles cut off funds.. so what did he think he'd live on when he moved away? Was he not planning on doing anything to earn a living in the US?

I think Harry got 60% of Diana's money, with William getting the smaller amount because he will one day be King.

 

[Denville]

I think Harry got 60% of Diana's money, with William getting the smaller amount because he will one day be King.

No Diana's will divided her property equally between her 2 sons. They each got 50%

 

[AC21091968]

I'm sure this has been raised before, but I found the Times article that mentions about the bullying allegation, how Meghan reportedly requested evidence from the Palace and an independent inquiry would be conducted. The article also mentioned how ITV was forced to edit parts of the Oprah's interview (more specifically on the headlines)

The Duchess of Sussex has written to Buckingham Palace to request evidence in relation to bullying allegations against her.
The palace has instructed a law firm to handle the inquiry into the claims. The Times reported earlier this month that the duchess faced a bullying complaint from one of her closest advisers during her time at Kensington Palace.

There was the rumour that Meghan requested "documents, emails or text messages". The Palace reportedly said that the Palace will not be providing public commentary whilst the allegation are investigated. One royal source said that the worse incidences are yet to come.

Yesterday The Mail on Sunday reported that Meghan had requested “documents, emails or text messages” relating to the case. A spokesman for the Sussexes declined to comment.

Buckingham Palace has decided the investigation will be handed to “independent” external investigators, instead of the in-house inquiry initially announced. A royal source told The Sunday Times that “the actual worst incidences haven’t come out”.

The palace declined to comment but a source said that it would “not be providing a public commentary” as the circumstances of the allegations are looked into.

There is also the editing of the newspaper headlines and how ITV is going to remove two of them.

ITV was forced to edit part of the Oprah Winfrey interview after it included “misleading” headlines about racist media coverage.

A montage of reports was shown to illustrate allegations about the British press’s treatment of Meghan. The Mail on Sunday said that Associated Newspapers, its publisher, had complained to Viacom CBS, the broadcaster, and told ITV to remove headlines from its catch-up service. ITV said that it would remove two of them.

One example was a story quoting racist remarks made about Meghan, which did not make clear that The Mail on Sunday had described them as a “vile racist attack”.

Let’s see the evidence that I’m a bully, Meghan Markle challenges Buckingham Palace
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...han-markle-buckingham-palace-royals-f2v5lj7wd

Archived link to the full article: https://archive.ph/9SrFN#selection-913.0-941.46

To give a context on how CBS allegedly edited the British newspaper/tabloid (not just the Daily Mail) headlines, here are some examples
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/13/22/40431164-9359197-image-m-22_1615672936957.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/13/22/40431162-9359197-image-a-21_1615672927826.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/13/22/40431166-9359197-image-m-24_1615672987267.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/13/21/40430588-9359197-image-a-7_1615672213024.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/13/21/40430586-9359197-image-a-8_1615672217251.jpg

 

[Heavs]

BP/KP aren't actually technically alleging that Meghan is a bully to The Times. This is an enquiry into allegations that she bullied her staff members and that staff covered it up and how to deal with allegations against a member of the family in the future so it doesn't happen again. Nothing legal is going to happen to Meghan over it. Nor does it look good on The Institution that they don't have a policy of protecting employees from family members.

So it's not technically a case of anyone handing over documents to her (and the press) to "prove" that she's a bully in the court of public opinion.

It would be completely inappropriate to "hand over" anything to Meghan so that she or Janina Gavankar can go on TV and claim employee X is a liar and/or a stooge or couldn't handle Meghan being a powerful, independent woman trying to change things unlike Kate for example.

There's a difference between welcoming an enquiry that will exonerate you and trying to tear your ex employees apart on a global stage because a subsection of your fanbase will believe anything you say.

 

[Fem]

While she understands the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s upset over questions that were raised about the colour of their unborn children’s skin, she says: ‘I think there’s a big difference between racism and ignorance. I also think there is a big difference between racism and “concerns”.

‘What I remember from my own experiences is a valid concern that people had regarding a future member of our family and how racism would affect them if the child came out more like me — which is a beautiful, deep-brown, cinnamon colour.

‘The questions asked were, “How will they be perceived? How will they be treated? What will people say? How will you protect them from this unfair world we live in?”


That's from the link Yukari posted to the Tatler article about Rose Hulse. I couldn't get the quote box to work, sorry. That's very similar to the remarks William made when asked how he would feel if one of his children were gay.


He said that he would be absolutely fine with that, but that he would have concerns about the prejudices that they might face in an unfair world. His remarks were widely welcomed by the LGBT community. No-one saw his comments about concerns as being negative in any way - they were acknowledging the issues that some people, very unfairly, have to live with, especially high profile people who get a lot of attention anyway.

Yes, it is. And from what I saw, LGBTQ community understood his words not as homophobic, but as a worry of his children's future. That's why what was said matters, that's why context matters. Because you can have that full quote of William:

“If your child one day in the future said: ‘Oh I’m gay, oh I’m lesbian,’ whatever, how would you react?”William replied: “I think you don’t really start thinking about that until you are a parent, and I think – obviously, absolutely fine by me.”
The prince, a father of three, added: “The one thing I’d be worried about is how, particularly the roles my children fill, how that is going to be interpreted and seen. So Catherine and I have been doing a lot of talking about it to make sure they were prepared.”
He added: “It worries me not because of them being gay; it worries me how everyone else will react and perceive it and the pressure is then on them.”

“Not because I am worried about them being gay, or anything. It’s more about the fact I’m worried about the pressure – as you all know - they’re going to face and how much harder their life could be.
“I wish we lived in a world where, like you said, it’s really normal and cool. But particularly for my family and the position that we are in, that’s the bit I’m nervous about.
“I fully support whatever decision they make, but it does worry me from a parent point of view how many barriers, hateful words, persecution and discrimination that might come. That’s the bit that really troubles me a little bit.
“That’s for all of us to try and help correct, to put that in the past and not come back to that sort of stuff.”

And boil it down to "Prince William is nervous and worried at the thought of his children being gay". Without the full quote, or without context in which it was said, we can't really say much. And Meghan fully knows this and was vague/(straight up lied) on purpose, to do the most amount of damage possible.

I think the interview with Rose Hulse is very interesting one, especially when she talkes about her husband's family and friends:

‘I didn’t grow up here, they didn’t know me, I didn’t go to their schools and most of my husband’s friends had known each other since they were seven,’ she says. ‘I remember going to Scotland for a weekend and every one of his friends asked me very direct questions to try to get to know me.
‘I wasn’t offended and took it as an opportunity to get to know them, too. I had to adjust to their way of life and their dry English humour, but I have come to appreciate it and embrace differences.’

I think we're sometimes forgetting how closed off this environment is that they live in. Their friends are children of their parents friends and so on. It takes time for this barrier to get down and for a close-knit group of friends to accept an outsider. I remember some sources speculating that the same thing happened with Catherine and she was not welcomed with open arms by William's friends.

The second quote, which very well sums up the situation:

‘I don’t think Meghan was suited for any role as a working royal, as she couldn’t handle the outside pressures and what was expected of her. She’d have had to give up a core part of herself that was proving too difficult. The monarchy has survived more than 1,000 years because they have certain protocols in place to ensure the successful running of the institution. One either steps in line or politely and quietly steps aside. (...)
‘Meghan, too, has a platform and her words are very powerful . . . She needs to use them wisely, for they can unite or create great divide. When life gives you a platform, we should always use it to unite.’

I was somewhat aware of Rose Hulse, as I think I read some coverage about her wedding, but she seems very knowledgeable, experienced, level-headed and kind. She explains the situation knowing both sides of this and doesn't pass any judgement.

(I can't believe that I'm actually impressed with an article from Daily Mail, oh lord ?)

 

[yukari]

(I can't believe that I'm actually impressed with an article from Daily Mail, oh lord ?)

I know right
I almost ignore it when my friend sent me the link because it's Daily Mail. And after finish reading it, I looked outside the window just in case there's pig flying ?

 

[Mirabel]

I'm a bit surprised by Harry's statement that his father and brother are "trapped" and don't get to leave.
Of course they could abdicate if they wished- it's been done before.
Obviously they don't wish to leave; it's just another ridiculous claim by Harry.

 

[Osipi]

Yes, it is. And from what I saw, LGBTQ community understood his words not as homophobic, but as a worry of his children's future. That's why what was said matters, that's why context matters. Because you can have that full quote of William:

And boil it down to "Prince William is nervous and worried at the thought of his children being gay". Without the full quote, or without context in which it was said, we can't really say much. And Meghan fully knows this and was vague/(straight up lied) on purpose, to do the most amount of damage possible.

I think the interview with Rose Hulse is very interesting one, especially when she talkes about her husband's family and friends:
I think we're sometimes forgetting how closed off this environment is that they live in. Their friends are children of their parents friends and so on. It takes time for this barrier to get down and for a close-knit group of friends to accept an outsider. I remember some sources speculating that the same thing happened with Catherine and she was not welcomed with open arms by William's friends.

The second quote, which very well sums up the situation:

I was somewhat aware of Rose Hulse, as I think I read some coverage about her wedding, but she seems very knowledgeable, experienced, level-headed and kind. She explains the situation knowing both sides of this and doesn't pass any judgement.

(I can't believe that I'm actually impressed with an article from Daily Mail, oh lord ?)

I also had to glance up and see if there were any The DM has had a few right on the money articles lately.

Both Meghan and William, in these instances, were talking to the public about discrimination and racism that pertained to their children.

In my eyes, Meghan sounded like she was more into jumping on the BLM movement which is currently very much in our mindsets and very serious in and of itself and Archie was a vehicle where she could blanket the BRF and the monarchy, itself, with accusations of discriminating against her child. There is nothing wrong with this as she was presenting her truth from her perspective.

With William being asked how he'd feel if one of his kids identified as LGBQT in the future, his focus was not on any movement or social construct that are currently issues but rather focused on how he would feel for his child and what he would do to strengthen and support them.

Both parents have situations where they would be challenged to help their child deal with issues that may arise in the future. The most important thing in all of this is the child. Discrimination comes in many different ways and forms and, for a child, very hurtful. I was fortunate to have been discriminated against as a child for several different reasons as I was "different". The best lesson I learned from my parents was that if people had a problem with me, that's *their* problem and not mine. If only Meghan had been able to see that one comment in that vein, she would have been deemed in my eye a stronger woman. But I don't know Meghan or how she thinks and processes things.

 

[Erin9]

I'm a bit surprised by Harry's statement that his father and brother are "trapped" and don't get to leave.
Of course they could abdicate if they wished- it's been done before.
Obviously they don't wish to leave; it's just another ridiculous claim by Harry.

What also caught my attention was him saying how much “compassion” he had for them and their plight. It sounded so condescending.

I imagine that portion of the interview didn’t go over well with William and Charles.

 

[Denville]

What also caught my attention was him saying how much “compassion” he had for them and their plight. It sounded so condescending.

I imagine that portion of the interview didn’t go over well with William and Charles.

Its a bit of a cheek considering that he clearly expected his father to go on supporting him for life...

 

[QueenMathilde]

Mail Online also pointed out that CBS, who Harry just earned millions for, was the same channel (the only one in the US) who showed pictures of a dying Diana. As I recall they revolved a whole show around it.

 

[Osipi]

Mail Online also pointed out that CBS, who Harry just earned millions for, was the same channel (the only one in the US) who showed pictures of a dying Diana. As I recall they revolved a whole show around it.

Now that is an image I didn't need in my mind today. Luckily, I've never seen those pictures but can easily invent a similar picture in my head.

CBS though, as a whole, has been fighting hard to pull in ratings for quite a while now. I, myself, have found myself rarely watching programming from there so it hit home with this interview how low they've sunk to pull in ratings.

 

[Fem]

I also had to glance up and see if there were any The DM has had a few right on the money articles lately.

Both Meghan and William, in these instances, were talking to the public about discrimination and racism that pertained to their children.

In my eyes, Meghan sounded like she was more into jumping on the BLM movement which is currently very much in our mindsets and very serious in and of itself and Archie was a vehicle where she could blanket the BRF and the monarchy, itself, with accusations of discriminating against her child. There is nothing wrong with this as she was presenting her truth from her perspective.

With William being asked how he'd feel if one of his kids identified as LGBQT in the future, his focus was not on any movement or social construct that are currently issues but rather focused on how he would feel for his child and what he would do to strengthen and support them.

Both parents have situations where they would be challenged to help their child deal with issues that may arise in the future. The most important thing in all of this is the child. Discrimination comes in many different ways and forms and, for a child, very hurtful. I was fortunate to have been discriminated against as a child for several different reasons as I was "different". The best lesson I learned from my parents was that if people had a problem with me, that's *their* problem and not mine. If only Meghan had been able to see that one comment in that vein, she would have been deemed in my eye a stronger woman. But I don't know Meghan or how she thinks and processes things.

And here it comes, "her truth" It does aggravates me to hear that. Since we're dealing with "her truth" being different than "Harry's truth", I strongly suspect the "real truth" is actually somewhere else. We don't have enough info to discuss if it was a racist remark or not, but I think the DM article about Rose Hulse very nicely showed it can come from a place of concern rather than racism or discrimination (think "your child will have a tougher time in life due to the colour of the skin", very akin to "your child will have a tougher time in life due to their sexual orientation"), but I doubt we'll ever get the real truth on what was said (and when it was said...).

 

[leene]

I just wonder what the Americans think of Oprah Winfrey. I don't know her to be honest, i heard from her but never saw her on television. Why did Harry and Meghan choose her, Because she is a friend? or the most famous one of all?
I found this a very bad interview ( from Oprah perspective) Not one critical question..not one.
On the long run this can not be good for Harry and Meghan. Is she perceived as a good interviewer or is she more of a showmaster who gave Harry and Meghan the chance to say whatever they wanted?
What does this do to her reputation or is she so big that she is above "the law"
This is bad journalism or am I wrong??

 

[Osipi]

As was stated by CBS, Oprah Winfrey is not a journalist but rather her career is as a radio/TV talk show hostess. I can't assess her as I'm not a big fan of any kind of a talk show with people of interest on them to get their message out. It's just not something in my wheelhouse. The same with reality TV. Oprah, though, has been around and interviewing people of interest for as long as I can remember so that tells me that she isn't a flash in the pan "flavor of the day" personage. She started out on the radio in Chicago many years ago and has built her "brand" up and held onto it. Don't quote me on this but I've also heard that Oprah is very much a humanitarian.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I just wonder what the Americans think of Oprah Winfrey. I don't know her to be honest, i heard from her but never saw her on television. Why did Harry and Meghan choose her, Because she is a friend? or the most famous one of all?
I found this a very bad interview ( from Oprah perspective) Not one critical question..not one.
On the long run this can not be good for Harry and Meghan. Is she perceived as a good interviewer or is she more of a showmaster who gave Harry and Meghan the chance to say whatever they wanted?
What does this do to her reputation or is she so big that she is above "the law"
This is bad journalism or am I wrong??

Oprah is a popular, respected former talk show host. She is not a journalist and is generally sympathetic to the people she interview. I find her very likeable but would never use one of her interviews as a basis to form an opinion.

I assumed she did the interview because she would just allow Meghan and Harry to say what they wanted. She was invited to the wedding but it is hard to believe that she and Meghan were friends while Meghan was a little known actress. They have likely developed a social relationship since Meghan and Harry moved to California.

 

[UglyAmerican]

What also caught my attention was him saying how much “compassion” he had for them and their plight. It sounded so condescending.

I imagine that portion of the interview didn’t go over well with William and Charles.

Interesting how he expressed that compassion by going out of his way to make their lives and their jobs even more difficult than he supposedly thinks they already are.

 

[kathia_sophia]

Great interview with Rose Hulse. She is wise and showed us good insight into her life. Her perspective about the difference between "concerns" and "racism" is a good one, and I believe the member of the royal family who spoke about Archie's skin color was rather "concerned" than actually "racist".

 

[lirienn]

Life went on, Grammys etc. and H&M are still asking for receipts, wanting the UK foundations but people's attention span is short. What can they do know. Ok, appear at Oscars which will probably happen even though Meghan chose such a victim perspective without the girl power message without it that it'd look very strange back to back. Also they are slowly called liars.
Ok, nevermind.
Do you think the Queen and Charles really are mending the relationship behind the scenes or reeling but making the right pr moves?

 

[leene]

Oprah is a popular, respected former talk show host. She is not a journalist and is generally sympathetic to the people she interview. I find her very likeable but would never use one of her interviews as a basis to form an opinion.

I assumed she did the interview because she would just allow Meghan and Harry to say what they wanted. She was invited to the wedding but it is hard to believe that she and Meghan were friends while Meghan was a little known actress. They have likely developed a social relationship since Meghan and Harry moved to California.

Thanks for explaining. I still wonder whether on the long run this was a good idea. I mean an interview without critical questions. There are so many confusions now, and vagueness that a lot of people do not take them seriously. ( but that might be my dutch perspective)

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Do you think the Queen and Charles really are mending the relationship behind the scenes or reeling but making the right pr moves?

I think the Queen, Charles, and William are truly interested in mending the rift because they love Harry, Archie and Meghan. Family is family. Harry and Meghan haven't killed anyone and according to the yougov poll, the family's popularity as a whole is strong. Regardless, it will be hard for anyone in the family to truly trust Harry and Meghan.

 

[Queen Ester]

Life went on, Grammys etc. and H&M are still asking for receipts, wanting the UK foundations but people's attention span is short. What can they do know. Ok, appear at Oscars which will probably happen even though Meghan chose such a victim perspective without the girl power message without it that it'd look very strange back to back. Also they are slowly called liars.
Ok, nevermind.
Do you think the Queen and Charles really are mending the relationship behind the scenes or reeling but making the right pr moves?

I think the Oscars will be virtual this year, I guess they might be asked to be presenters

 

[Prinsara]

I think the Queen, Charles, and William are truly interested in mending the rift because they love Harry, Archie and Meghan. Family is family. Harry and Meghan haven't killed anyone and according to the yougov poll, the family's popularity as a whole is strong. Regardless, it will be hard for anyone in the family to truly trust Harry and Meghan.

Right, they haven't killed anyone but they've damaged trust (and on a global level), which is about the next worst thing you can do. "Love you but don't/can't trust you" is very hard.

 

[amaryllus]

Harry is family to them and the babies are... babies.The senior Royals are not going to blackball them but Meghan is not necessarily going to inspire the same feelings of forgiveness, understanding or welcome back eventually. Harry may love her but no one else in the family is required to want her or around.