The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 1: September-December 2020


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Obviously I can't speak for the British people (as I am not British), but judging from the comments in the DM, it seems that most people would have been satisfied if any rights that the Sussexes had over Frogmore Cottage had been simply terminated following the reimbursement of the renovation costs.

The backlash comes, I think, from the fact that not only did they apparently keep the lease, even though they have no plans to come back to the UK on a permanent basis, but also are now apparently profiting from it by subletting the property to the Brooksbanks. The rent might cover not only the maintenance costs, but also enable the Sussexes to partiallly recoup over time the money they paid back to the Treasury.
Well that would have made sense, if they paid off the money and said "That's it, we're clear now. We don't owe anything and we're going to move on, settle in California and let Frogmore go.". Then the queen could have passed on the property to whomsoever she chose, like Eugenie.. and it would be occupied again..

This is the original story.

BP seems nonplussed about it, but I find it disrespectful to HM...I’m also rolling my eyes at the idea of a new “Fab Four”.

Code:
An insider said: “Senior royals were initially blindsided by the idea for Harry and Meg to let Eugenie and Jack move in.

“Obviously the Queen was told after the couples had spoken about the plan
.




https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13262972/harry-meghan-frogmore-cottage-deal-secret/

I assume that they discussed the plan and then asked hte queen for permission to go ahead. Im sure she's agreeable to it, but she is the queen, it was her gift, and it would be only right and courteous to ask her even before they went ahead and discussed it....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now that we know Meghan had ties 100 % to Finding Freedom this all sounds like it is from her perspective:

Meghan and Kate would go on to have a civil working relationship—but only that.

As Scobie and Durand wrote, "Meghan was disappointed she didn’t get to meet Kate....But having gotten along so well with Harry’s brother, she didn’t think much more about that."

"Kate had seemingly not shown much interest" in finding out who Harry's girlfriend was. A friend explained to the authors that it was nothing personal toward Meghan: “The Duchess is an extremely guarded person." Kate has a tight friend circle, the authors wrote, and is careful about letting new people in. Her friends now "are for the most part the same ones she had on her wedding day," the authors wrote.

In Finding Freedom, Scobie and Durand reported that Meghan and Kate's relationship outside of work never progressed much. A source told the authors that Kate felt that they didn’t have much in common "other than the fact that they lived at Kensington Palace."

Kate also didn't really give Meghan the level of emotional support Meghan would have liked, the authors wrote, citing one example where Kate sent Meghan flowers for her birthday, which was a nice gesture. But "Meghan would far rather have had Kate check in on her during the most difficult times with the press," according to Scobie and Durand.
 
Kate also didn't really give Meghan the level of emotional support Meghan would have liked, the authors wrote, citing one example where Kate sent Meghan flowers for her birthday, which was a nice gesture. But "Meghan would far rather have had Kate check in on her during the most difficult times with the press," according to Scobie and Durand.

I guess if how you feel is based on what a tabloid writer has to say, I can see why Kate did not want to go beyond a certain stage with Meghan.
 
See most people would say yay nice flowers, but Meghan seemed to want a best friendship kind of thing with Kate, who had her own inner circle. I can't lie though, it does seem that Kate & William wanted little as possible to do with Meghan.

But knowing what know now, it may have been for the best.
 
I think it a pity if William and Kate wanted it that way. I don't think anything like this is a good thing for either couple.
 
I think it a pity if William and Kate wanted it that way. I don't think anything like this is a good thing for either couple.

That's if you believe Meghan's side.

However, it is a pity if true because Meghan is a bi-racial woman, so why would they not like her before they were just getting to know her? If Harry married any of his exes, would it be this way? The Royal family could have racism in its institution for all we know (Not saying all of them) but some of them.

I think Meghan is gorgeous and I am not too particularly fond of everything but this does make me wonder more about Kate & William. It seems Meghan wanted to be besties with Kate but Kate didn't care to be.

This also harms the children. Archie will not be close with his cousins like Harry is with Eugenie for example.
 
It's understandable why William and Kate wanted it that way, William and Kate barely knows her, and considering they are both British who were used to the British social etiquette, they may found Meghan's American approach to be a little bit "direct", so it's a matter of cultural differences. This is just my theory, BTW.
 
That's if you believe Meghan's side.

However, it is a pity if true because Meghan is a bi-racial woman, so why would they not like her before they were just getting to know her? If Harry married any of his exes, would it be this way? The Royal family could have racism in its institution for all we know (Not saying all of them) but some of them.

I think Meghan is gorgeous and I am not too particularly fond of everything but this does make me wonder more about Kate & William. It seems Meghan wanted to be besties with Kate but Kate didn't care to be.

This also harms the children. Archie will not be close with his cousins like Harry is with Eugenie for example.

We also don't know Kate's side of the story and nor are we likely to, it would probably be very different.

Stories like the infamous shopping trip (which appeared in the book) were leaked to Lainey Gossip right after one of Meghan's early trips to London. It's possible Kate who is on the shy side and with a famously tight lipped circle of friends decided she wanted to steer clear until it became serious after that, lest a "besties lunch=engagement" end up in the tabloids. It would be in keeping with FF's "everyone else is a meanie!" goal to gloss over anything that painted Kate and William in a good light. And there were also other stories that said W&K did try their best by inviting her to stay at Amner etc.

It's not like sister in laws in general have to be close and their two different people from different backgrounds who were at very different stages in their lives. Kate also had 2-3 small children and was pregnant during this period whilst Meghan had Suits and then a transatlantic move. To be honest I doubt Meghan truly wanted to be best friends with Kate.

The Middletons have been dealing with outrageous articles on them all for 20 years and the rest of the family longer than that.

Whilst it's sad that Archie probably won't send much time with his cousins I'm certainly not blaming W&K for all of Harry and Meghan's decisions to seek a more lucrative life in LA, it's way bigger than just relationship drama.

Whilst we can't know the thoughts and feelings of individual members, ascribing outright racism to the actions is unfair when their theoretical caution would probably have been the same with anyone, especially in a long distance relationship and the eyes of the world on them. Look at how many massive life changes both of them have made in the 4.5 years they've known each other for one thing.
 
Less than a month after Meghan and Kate's first meeting, a Canadian blogger via a blind item spilled that Kate "snubbed" Meghan by not inviting her on a shopping trip. So basically a negative story about Kate was leaked directly or indirectly by Meghan. me it seems like that incident alone would prevent a close bond from forming between the two women. Perhaps after a significant amount of time passed then maybe they could have gotten past their adverse beginning but it seems like for every step forward there were two steps back, not merely when it comes to Meghan and Kate, but also the setbacks relating to the relationship between their sibling husbands, and the Sussexes relationship with the Firm.
 
That's if you believe Meghan's side.

However, it is a pity if true because Meghan is a bi-racial woman, so why would they not like her before they were just getting to know her? If Harry married any of his exes, would it be this way? The Royal family could have racism in its institution for all we know (Not saying all of them) but some of them.

I think Meghan is gorgeous and I am not too particularly fond of everything but this does make me wonder more about Kate & William. It seems Meghan wanted to be besties with Kate but Kate didn't care to be.

This also harms the children. Archie will not be close with his cousins like Harry is with Eugenie for example.
I don't think there is any ground for assuming that it has anything to do with Meghan being bi-racial. I agree with the others that Meghan's American directness and brazenness, and especially the very early leaks to the press will have made things complicated from the start. So, given that Meghan seemed to be willing to use her (not yet established) relationship with her boyfriend's sister-in-law for publicity purposes, I see how they might have taken things a bit more slowly. Being besties for the sake of a new girlfriend to put herself in the spotlights as 'being in', doesn't seem to be a great motive. Interpreting someone sending you flowers on your birthday as a personal affront doesn't help either.

And yes, I would wish for Archie to be closer to his cousins. However, it seems his parents' behavior has made that rather hard. It is clear that the (second) cousins (the Cambridges, the Phillips family and the Tindalls) do spend time with each other, so it is mainly up to the Sussexes to make sure that Archie is truly part of that bunch.
 
Last edited:
If it turns out that the Sussexes are indeed subletting Frogmore Cottage to partially cover the reimbursement of the renovation costs, then I think there will be a big backlash against them.


Having said that, I find it highly unlikely that Eugenie and Jack would move into a Crown Estate property without the knowledge and consent of the Queen even if the property is now leased to the Sussexes as it has been claimed here (and, I suppose, also in the DM article). I don't think either that H&M would be able to make a deal with E&J to pay rent on the property without consulting the Queen first.

What I assume, and what makes the most sense to me, is that Eugenie and Jack would be taking over the rental and maintenance costs which have been the Sussex's responsibility even since they paid off the renovation costs. That seems fair and shouldn't cause anyone's outrage. No one would be profiting as it's simply a different party assuming the costs. Eugenie seems pretty popular, so it would be a win-win. I can't imagine people want to see the place left empty.
 
Harry's now spent more than 6 months in the US, so there are now potential tax issues, according to reports in today's papers ... I can't remember exactly when they moved to LA, but I'm pretty sure it must be over 6 months ago.


No-one's travelling much at the moment. I know people with timeshares abroad who are paying money for nothing because they can't use them, unless they spend 2 weeks in quarantine at either end. I think Harry would have come back to visit, had it not been for the virus. I don't see that he'd want to stop Prince Charles, the Queen and Prince Philip from seeing Archie.
 
And let's not forget Meghan's interview with Vanity Fair, which got released after Harry issuing a public statement from Buckingham Palace.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/09/meghan-markle-cover-story

At that point, I don't blame William and Catherine for being sceptical and reserved about Meghan.

William and Kate had no say in who Harry married. They don't have to be best buddies but I would hope there can be civility. Harry and Meghan are married now and all of them should make the best of things.
 
The idea that Kate should have done more to ensure she and Meghan became close is pretty sexist. Like they should have been having sleepovers and doing each other’s hair right from the start. If there were two royal sisters no one would expect their husbands to go out of their way to immediately become friends. Or if William had a sister who was getting married no one would think he was obliged to make a big deal out of his new brother in law right from the start.

Kate had her husband, her children, her pregnancy, her royal engagements, her own family and friends and who knows what else going on in her own life - maybe she just didn’t want to go above and beyond for Harry’s new girlfriend? It sounds like she was polite and pleasant - I don’t see why anyone, Meghan included, should have expected more at that stage.
 
Harry's now spent more than 6 months in the US, so there are now potential tax issues, according to reports in today's papers ... I can't remember exactly when they moved to LA, but I'm pretty sure it must be over 6 months ago.


No-one's travelling much at the moment. I know people with timeshares abroad who are paying money for nothing because they can't use them, unless they spend 2 weeks in quarantine at either end. I think Harry would have come back to visit, had it not been for the virus. I don't see that he'd want to stop Prince Charles, the Queen and Prince Philip from seeing Archie.

They flew by private jet (provided by Tyler Perry) from Canada to Los Angeles on March 14.
 
Meghan was the new kid on the block, whereas Kate was already part of a circle of friends and relatives. It's never easy to be the new kid on the block, and I can understand if she was hoping that Kate would get her in with the gang, but Kate wasn't obliged to do that. She and Meghan are very different people, and she was at a different stage in her life - she had 2 children and was expecting a 3rd.


Kate wasn't the only person around. What about Beatrice or Eugenie? Or the wives/girlfriends of some of Harry's friends?
 
The idea that Kate should have done more to ensure she and Meghan became close is pretty sexist. Like they should have been having sleepovers and doing each other’s hair right from the start. If there were two royal sisters no one would expect their husbands to go out of their way to immediately become friends. Or if William had a sister who was getting married no one would think he was obliged to make a big deal out of his new brother in law right from the start.

Kate had her husband, her children, her pregnancy, her royal engagements, her own family and friends and who knows what else going on in her own life - maybe she just didn’t want to go above and beyond for Harry’s new girlfriend? It sounds like she was polite and pleasant - I don’t see why anyone, Meghan included, should have expected more at that stage.

Very good point. It takes two to tango!

Meghan and Kate have very different backgrounds - Kate comes from a typical English country family, whereas Meghan comes from an inner city American family. Whilst that's not a barrier for a lot of people I can imagine for Meghan to get used to new customs and a new way of life was hard for her - at least for Kate, it was just royal life she had to get used to, and not a new country and culture. It's understandable that there would have been clashes from either one of them.
 
And let's not forget Meghan's interview with Vanity Fair, which got released after Harry issuing a public statement from Buckingham Palace.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/09/meghan-markle-cover-story

At that point, I don't blame William and Catherine for being sceptical and reserved about Meghan.

Actually, Harry issued an appeal to the British media to stop harassing Meghan from KP not BP. And William backed that statement.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...rince-harry-meghan-markle-statement/94535924/

Meghan's Vanity Fair interview hardly mentioned Harry. She spoke mainly about Suits.

And IMO the Cambridges welcome for Meghan was not half of what Harry's was for Kate. He really joked with her and made her at ease, in public anyway.
 
I don't think there is any ground for assuming that it has anything to do with Meghan being bi-racial. I agree with the others that Meghan's American directness and brazenness, and especially the very early leaks to the press will have made things complicated from the start. So, given that Meghan seemed to be willing to use her (not yet established) relationship with her boyfriend's sister-in-law for publicity purposes, I see how they might have taken things a bit more slowly. Being besties for the sake of a new girlfriend to put herself in the spotlights as 'being in', doesn't seem to be a great motive. Interpreting someone sending you flowers on your birthday as a personal affront doesn't help either.

And yes, I would wish for Archie to be closer to his cousins. However, it seems his parents' behavior has made that rather hard. It is clear that the (second) cousins (the Cambridges, the Phillips family and the Tindalls) do spend time with each other, so it is mainly up to the Sussexes to make sure that Archie is truly part of that bunch.


I actually think the opposite is true. You can say what you want about the public but I think the Queen saw Meghan's bi-racial ness as a "unifying force" for the UK and tried as hard as she - well, does - to bring Meghan into the fold. It may not have been enough but they're a thousand year old institution stuck in their ways. I don't think that they didn't try.
 
With Thanksgiving just days away, I wonder if the Sussexes have started prepping for the holiday?



https://observer.com/2020/11/prince...at-home-first-in-montecito-california-archie/


It’s been several months since Prince Harry and Meghan Markle stepped down from their official royal roles and moved to the United States, and they’ve now settled into their new home in Montecito with their son, Archie. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are now getting ready to mark a big holiday milestone in their California mansion, as this month, they’ll celebrate their first Thanksgiving together in the States.
Prince Harry, of course, didn’t observe Thanksgiving until recently, but Meghan is a big fan of the holiday, and previously shared her favorite recipes and tips on her now-defunct blog, The Tig, including a snap of the then-actress with a very impressive roasted turkey she personally prepared.
 
And IMO the Cambridges welcome for Meghan was not half of what Harry's was for Kate. He really joked with her and made her at ease, in public anyway.

That may be true, but I don't think you're making enough allowances for different personalities, and different stages in life at those times. Harry's always been more happy-go-lucky, and William more reserved and serious. When William and Kate first married, Harry was a single twenty-something with no kids and no real concerns other than his own rather aimless life. When Harry and Meghan got married, William was a married father of two well into his thirties. And though Kate was British and had been publicly connected to the royal family for longer, Meghan was a professional actress who'd achieved some fame in her own right, and who actively sought publicity in a way Kate never did. I don't remember her ever appearing to need support at public engagements, and I don't think William would have expected her to.
 
William and Kate had no say in who Harry married. They don't have to be best buddies but I would hope there can be civility. Harry and Meghan are married now and all of them should make the best of things.

Actually, Harry issued an appeal to the British media to stop harassing Meghan from KP not BP. And William backed that statement.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...rince-harry-meghan-markle-statement/94535924/

Meghan's Vanity Fair interview hardly mentioned Harry. She spoke mainly about Suits.

And IMO the Cambridges welcome for Meghan was not half of what Harry's was for Kate. He really joked with her and made her at ease, in public anyway.

Perhaps after the Vanity Fair (VF) interview (September 2017), William and Catherine may think that Meghan is unlike other royal girlfriends including Catherine, who is not afraid to speak to the press for publicity. This may have changed their mind on how they think of or even approach Meghan, as oppose to late 2016.

Had Meghan not done the interview or even just said "no comment" on Harry and the Royal Family, things would have been different. While the VF interview predominately mentioned about Suits, the main take out point was about Meghan's relationship with Harry. The front cover featured Meghan with the title "She's just wild about Harry!". It's slightly contradictory that one wants the press to back off whilst going to the press for self-publicity and even revealing the relationship out. This kind of foreshadow some people's opinion that the Sussexes want to control the media narrative, where they only want to contact certain new publications (i.e. Harry and Meghan would not deal with The Sun, Mirror, Mail and Express). These tabloids have published abhorrent/false stories on other members of the Royal Family, but they did not stop co-operating with them, like what Harry & Meghan has done.

Of course, William will publicly backed Harry's statement (November 2016) on press intrusion and privacy, but I will not be surprise if he is not happy about Meghan telling the world about her relationship with his brother.

The Cambridges would definitely make Meghan feel welcome, given that Catherine has been through the stages of fitting into the Royal Family and they genuinely wants to get on well right from the start. I think it's starts to go downhill once the disagreement/differences between the Cambridges and Sussexes become so huge that a compromise could not be achieved. Harry & Meghan leaving as senior working royals did not help healing the divide either.
 
Last edited:
That may be true, but I don't think you're making enough allowances for different personalities, and different stages in life at those times. Harry's always been more happy-go-lucky, and William more reserved and serious. When William and Kate first married, Harry was a single twenty-something with no kids and no real concerns other than his own rather aimless life. When Harry and Meghan got married, William was a married father of two well into his thirties. And though Kate was British and had been publicly connected to the royal family for longer, Meghan was a professional actress who'd achieved some fame in her own right, and who actively sought publicity in a way Kate never did. I don't remember her ever appearing to need support at public engagements, and I don't think William would have expected her to.

As a single person who is in a family of married/children cousins, I really hate when people say things like this.

'Oh you are single, your life is carefree. You have nothing but time and fun'.

A career. Royal patronages. Dating and trying to establish a relationship with someone. These all take time and commitment. Not 'aimless single life'.

Guess what having a spouse and kids doesn't make your time more valuable.


When did Meghan need support at events? I don't recall Harry going around holding her hand for moral support. She did solo events earlier then Kate did, in her marriage. Probably because unlike Kate who spent eight years waiting to marry him, and not really building a life of her own work or charity wise, Meghan had. Meghan knew what it was like to be in the public, to be a spokes person for charity work, to give speeches and so on before she met Harry.


All royals seek the spotlight. Thats the whole point. Their whole role is to bring light to their charities. A royal not looking for spotlight is doing a poor job.
 
As a single person who is in a family of married/children cousins, I really hate when people say things like this.

'Oh you are single, your life is carefree. You have nothing but time and fun'.

A career. Royal patronages. Dating and trying to establish a relationship with someone. These all take time and commitment. Not 'aimless single life'.

Guess what having a spouse and kids doesn't make your time more valuable.


When did Meghan need support at events? I don't recall Harry going around holding her hand for moral support. She did solo events earlier then Kate did, in her marriage. Probably because unlike Kate who spent eight years waiting to marry him, and not really building a life of her own work or charity wise, Meghan had. Meghan knew what it was like to be in the public, to be a spokes person for charity work, to give speeches and so on before she met Harry.


All royals seek the spotlight. Thats the whole point. Their whole role is to bring light to their charities. A royal not looking for spotlight is doing a poor job.

I didn't mean that Harry's life was aimless because he was single. Being single generally has nothing to do with that. I was thinking of things like the Las Vegas incident, which happened not long after William's marriage. One has to have a certain mindset to end up in that situation with complete strangers, and it's not one that could be described as "future-focused and goal-oriented."

At that point, William and Charles were Harry's only immediate relatives, so if he wanted to spend time with family, that mainly meant spending time with William and Kate. But by the time Harry married, William had a family of his own, and him spending time with family meant spending time with Kate and the kids, not Harry and Meghan. And for Harry, it meant spending time with Meghan, not with William and Kate. That changes things. And I did say they had different personalities to begin with.

Meghan chose to take on a more active role earlier than Kate did, and did fine with public appearances. That's not a criticism. If there was no indication that she needed support, I don't see why it was wrong for William to not offer it (assuming that's what happened). It was a long time ago and I might be forgetting, but I don't recall Kate ever seeking the spotlight in her own right. I don't remember any pre-wedding interviews that were all about her, rather than the royal family or some charity. She's done a fine job of getting attention for those things, but she's never really sought it in her own right. I don't think it was wrong for Meghan to do things like the Vanity Fair interview, but the fact that she was comfortable enough in the spotlight to actively seek it just for the sake of being famous does mean that she would have been perceived as needing less help with handling it. If she got less support, that probably played a role.
 
Perhaps after the Vanity Fair (VF) interview (September 2017), William and Catherine may think that Meghan is unlike other royal girlfriends including Catherine, who is not afraid to speak to the press for publicity. This may have changed their mind on how they think of or even approach Meghan, as oppose to late 2016.

Very important point, IMO. Once things started to leak onto Twitter and sites like Lainey very early on in H&Ms relationship, I think it probably made the Cambridge's very cautious of Meghan. And has history has suggested, they were right to be cautious!
 
:previous: Your parents and siblings are not your only family.

Harry has always been extremely close to the York cousins. He vacationed with them, he went on double dates with them and so on. They set him up with several of his girlfriends. It was Eugenie and not William who Harry first introduced Meghan to. It was Eugenie who went on dates with them. It was Eugenie that went on vacation with them.

Yeah Harry went to Vegas and had fun with friends. Bad judgement yes, but does that mean his entire life was a crap shoot? You suggested Harry had more free time to devote to Kate as he was single. He was actively serving in the military. He had numerous patronages. And he was dating. All of which takes time and dedication. Just because he didn't have to go home and relieve his full time nanny, part time babysitter, housekeeper and so on at the end of the day doesnt mean he was not busy as you more then implied.

The implication is William didn't bother to try and get to know Meghan. To help her understand what being a royal was. Not that Meghan needed someone holding her hand walking her through events. But that like any new royal, and new to the UK, she could use some tips. That Harry was there as a supportive brother role to Kate, but William never repaid the favor to Meghan.


Meghan was not out courting interviews about Harry before her marriage. She was Working. She was a working actress with charity work and a lifestyle blog before she got married. Big difference to Kate.

Vanity Fair was post wedding. And yeah Kate would never have the nerve to do something like that :whistling:

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/duchess-of-cambridge-vogue-cover-catherine-centenary-issue


But of the course majestic embodiment of all things royal Catherine's Vogue was 'selfless and all about charity' while Meghan was 'hogging the spotlight'.
 
Kate's Vogue shoot was 5 years after her wedding. The BRF clearly have given interviews about their life and work that includes some personal titbits (Sophie in Good Housekeeping) that's not in question. Mostly it does focus on their work and passion projects though.

But a VF cover that Meghan wouldn't have landed with just being Meghan Markle: Rachel from Suits/owner of The Tig before any engagement had officially happened did raise eye brows on a number of levels. I defended her at the time and I don't necessarily think it was the worst thing ever but it does become another point where they would have been advised against it by royal aides for a number of reasons and another point in the "they definitely don't hate publicity when it's a gushing article" column despite Harry's take down of the press in 2016 and many times since then.

Harry actually successfully moved public perception away from his Vegas jaunt with a lot of "boys will be boys" type attitude in the press. Invictus gaining more and more publicity and other things helped with that. By the time he met Meghan it wasn't in the public consciousness except as "oh hey remember PH naked in Vegas with prostitutes!" way.

It was also after this that he started talking about wanting to find someone and have a family of his own. It's really not surprising that they dynamic was different with just the three of them. There were also a lot of articles saying Kate and Cressida hated each other because she was from an aristocratic background and because of William's interest in her sister Isabella. The dynamic change would have been difficult no matter who Harry married.

There's one quote which I remember from Harry when W&K became engaged which was something like "I'm looking forward to getting to know her now" which shows even though they'd been together for nearly 10 years on and off that Harry hadn't spent that much time with her and it didn't develop into "us three" until after the wedding. Of course one of the reasons is that both brothers were busy and off doing a lot of things in their 20s but Harry wasn't immediately holding "getting to know you" barbeques when William and Kate finished uni and were still together.
 
Last edited:
:previous: Your parents and siblings are not your only family.

Harry has always been extremely close to the York cousins. He vacationed with them, he went on double dates with them and so on. They set him up with several of his girlfriends. It was Eugenie and not William who Harry first introduced Meghan to. It was Eugenie who went on dates with them. It was Eugenie that went on vacation with them.

Yeah Harry went to Vegas and had fun with friends. Bad judgement yes, but does that mean his entire life was a crap shoot? You suggested Harry had more free time to devote to Kate as he was single. He was actively serving in the military. He had numerous patronages. And he was dating. All of which takes time and dedication. Just because he didn't have to go home and relieve his full time nanny, part time babysitter, housekeeper and so on at the end of the day doesnt mean he was not busy as you more then implied.

The implication is William didn't bother to try and get to know Meghan. To help her understand what being a royal was. Not that Meghan needed someone holding her hand walking her through events. But that like any new royal, and new to the UK, she could use some tips. That Harry was there as a supportive brother role to Kate, but William never repaid the favor to Meghan.


Meghan was not out courting interviews about Harry before her marriage. She was Working. She was a working actress with charity work and a lifestyle blog before she got married. Big difference to Kate.

Vanity Fair was post wedding. And yeah Kate would never have the nerve to do something like that :whistling:

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/duchess-of-cambridge-vogue-cover-catherine-centenary-issue


But of the course majestic embodiment of all things royal Catherine's Vogue was 'selfless and all about charity' while Meghan was 'hogging the spotlight'.

I was talking about this Vanity Fair article that was published 6th September 2017, before Harry & Meghan's engagement announcement. Meghan was featured on the front cover of the October 2017 issue.

Meghan Markle, Wild About Harry!
Battered by the tabloids—to the point where her boyfriend, Prince Harry, issued a statement defending her—actress and activist Meghan Markle has largely ignored the media storm. And as Markle tells Vanity Fair about her bi-racial background, her romance, and her hit series, Suits, it seems that this 36-year-old American may be just the woman for Britain’s iconoclastic royal.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/09/meghan-markle-cover-story

Catherine did not speak to Vogue for an interview like Meghan did, she was only featured in photographs. This article was released before her attendance in the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) of whom she is a patron of since 2012. The editor-in-chief of Vogue talked to the NPG director and photographer, who took two pictures of Catherine. It was released in 1st May 2016, five years after William and Catherine's wedding and four years since Catherine became the patron.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16411358

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/duchess-of-cambridge-vogue-cover-catherine-centenary-issue
HRH THE DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE is today unveiled as the cover star for Vogue's centenary issue. Photographed by Josh Olins in the Norfolk countryside, the Duchess appears in a 10-page shoot within the June 2016 issue, the first magazine shoot that she has ever consented to.

"It's a huge honour and incredibly exciting for us to have HRH The Duchess of Cambridge featuring on the cover of British Vogue and as part of our centenary issue," Vogue editor-in-chief Alexandra Shulman said today. "For me personally it has been a wonderful experience to have had the opportunity to work with her on this, and I am immensely proud of what we have produced. This special issue of the magazine is very close to my heart as it had to reflect on 100 years of British Vogue, and so I am hugely grateful that we have been able to continue with our tradition of outstanding royal portraiture with these pictures."

As patron of the National Portrait Gallery, and with a keen personal interest in photography and portraiture, the Duchess has also agreed for two images from the shoot to be installed within the Vogue 100 exhibition at the gallery. She will attend the NPG next week, on Wednesday May 4, to view the portraits in situ. The exhibition will run until May 22 before moving to Manchester, allowing visitors to view the pictures for themselves alongside more than 280 other images from Vogue's historic archive.

These two articles are completely different: One is about her acting career and relationship with Harry. The other is about her royal patronage :whistling:

Kate's Vogue shoot was 5 years after her wedding. The BRF clearly have given interviews about their life and work that includes some personal titbits that's not in question.

But a VF cover that Meghan wouldn't have landed with just being Meghan Markle: Rachel from Suits/owner of The Tig before any engagement had officially happened did raise eye brows. I defended her at the time and I don't necessarily think it was the worst thing ever but it does become another point where they would have been advised against it by royal aides for a number of reasons and another point in the "they definitely don't hate publicity when it's a gushing article" column.

I agree with you. Meghan would not have landed the VF article if she was being Meghan Markle, Rachel for Suits and owner of The Tig. It was her revealed relationship with Harry that got her the front cover. She seems to be acting against the advice by royal aids on speaking to the press prior to engagement. Again, Meghan appeared to be not hating "publicity when it's a gushing column", which implies that she only wants good publicity from the press. Looking in hindsight, this does slight give an impression that Meghan wants to control media narrative, which could possibly explain the Sussexes' appointment of a new PR team rather than relying on palace staff.

Speaking of royals going to the press, I have read that Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (future Queen Mother) got told off by George V for speaking to a magazine after her engagement to The Duke of York (future George VI)
 
Last edited:
:previous:

I’m not saying Harry had nothing else to do. I’m saying that he probably had fewer other things to do than William did by the time the situations were reversed, because William was also a full-time working royal who also had plenty of patronages and all the responsibilities you'd expect, in addition to a family of his own. People have a finite amount of time and emotional energy they can devote to relationships of any kind, and a spouse and kids will consume a large chunk of it, even if childcare isn’t an issue. That doesn’t make their time more valuable than anyone else’s. It does mean, though, that family relationships that used to be of primary importance - siblings, parents, etc. - are now secondary. Harry's relationship with William also appears to be less important to him now than it was before he got married, and that's entirely normal and to be expected.

Vanity Fair was from 2017, several months before Harry and Meghan announced their engagement. Kate spent a much longer time as William’s girlfriend and never did anything similar during that time. That indicates a desire to court and embrace the spotlight that Kate didn’t have when she first joined the family. I don't think that's wrong, and I never criticized her for doing it, but it is a very big difference between them. I don’t know what Kate's 2016 Vogue article was about, because the one you linked only talked about how happy the photographer was to have been chosen for it.

I don’t think William owed it to anyone to make sure he spent as much time coaching Meghan on being a royal as Harry spent doing the same for Kate nearly a decade previously (assuming any of that’s even true). That comparison ignores too many differences between the the individuals involved, and too many things that changed in their lives in between.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom