The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-

[Hendrik-Jan77]

Originally Posted by AC21091968

More information on the Sunday Times, written by Roya Nikkhah. This time on the conflict between Sussexes and Palace staff before the wedding. The idea that Meghan was unsuited to the role as senior working royals was touched on and how the Palace staff bend over backwards for her. Despite a lot of briefing from staff, Meghan still "allegedly" don't understand her role as well as the monarchy.



How Meghan became the unmerry wife of Windsor

The honeymoon was over for Meghan even before the wedding according to royal watchers who looked on aghast as the duchess’s dreams met reality at the palace

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...dsor-q0td0js6m



Here is the archive link that has the full article:

https://archive.vn/voXkU#selection-1109.0-1127.65

A very good article.[.....]

[ACO]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I don't think I implied that. I am saying that if they are willing to publicly discuss their private life, they can't later claim that reporting about their private life is off limits.

For example, Meghan's friends disclosed the existence of the letter in an effort to make Thomas Markle look bad. The paper didn't have a right to publish the letter, but that doesn't mean that Meghan can insist they don't write about the letter because Meghan is the leaked the letter in the first place. In other words, if tomorrow they talk about a private matter, then reporting on that is fair game, even if the reporting isn't sympathetic to Meghan and Harry.

But she didn't say the paper couldn't talk about it. She hasn't sued over interviews. I mean her paternal side of the family have talked about her endlessly. What she did sue was a breach of copyright because a tabloid printed her letter almost in full across their papers without her consent and paparazzi agencies being on private property. There is a big difference here.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by ACO

But she didn't say the paper couldn't talk about it. She hasn't sued over interviews. I mean her paternal side of the family have talked about her endlessly. What she did sue was a breach of copyright because a tabloid printed her letter almost in full across their papers without her consent and paparazzi agencies being on private property. There is a big difference here.

That was an example, but apparently not a good one - although I really thought they claimed violation of privacy. The point is that any topic that Harry and Meghan discuss tomorrow becomes fair game. If the media starts rooting around to get the other side, Meghan and Harry can't stop it. Once you go down this path, it is very hard to get off it.

[Blog Real]

I feel sorry for Archie. Archie cannot be with great-grandparents (Queen and Prince Philip), grandfather (Prince Charles), uncles (Dukes of Cambridge) and cousins (George, Charlotte and Louis).
It is possible that he is with his grandmother Dória several times, but he does not know the other family members.
I'm sorry that the Queen and Prince Philip can't be with Archie. They are old and do not know their great-grandchild.

[Alison H]

In Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet starts to change her mind about Mr Darcy when she hears praise heaped on him by his housekeeper, because no-one is better placed to judge someone than "an intelligent servant" (this being the language of over 200 years ago). The modern equivalent would be a PA/aide.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

That was an example, but apparently not a good one - although I really thought they claimed violation of privacy. The point is that any topic that Harry and Meghan discuss tomorrow becomes fair game. If the media starts rooting around to get the other side, Meghan and Harry can't stop it. Once you go down this path, it is very hard to get off it.

They did win on privacy because they published almost in full. Mentioning the letter and the contents is very different than printing it word for word. I actually think the MoS would have had case had they not did that. The Judge almost said so. But they couldn't help themselves.

I agree what you put in the public domain will be just that. But they aren't suing over that kind of stuff anyways...

Originally Posted by Blog Real

I feel sorry for Archie. Archie cannot be with great-grandparents (Queen and Prince Philip), grandfather (Prince Charles), uncles (Dukes of Cambridge) and cousins (George, Charlotte and Louis).
It is possible that he is with his grandmother Dória several times, but he does not know the other family members.
I'm sorry that the Queen and Prince Philip can't be with Archie. They are old and do not know their great-grandchild. :triste:

I mean no one is really with anyone these days. Whether Archie was in the UK or not, he likely would have the same interaction with everyone. We are all in a zoom world these days. Many people are separated from loved ones.

[tommy100]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I don't think I implied that. I am saying that if they are willing to publicly discuss their private life, they can't later claim that reporting about their private life is off limits.

For example, Meghan's friends disclosed the existence of the letter in an effort to make Thomas Markle look bad. The paper didn't have a right to publish the letter, but that doesn't mean that Meghan can insist they don't write about the letter because Meghan is the leaked the letter in the first place. In other words, if tomorrow they talk about a private matter, then reporting on that matter is fair game, even if the reporting isn't sympathetic to Meghan and Harry.

I understood the point you are making (I think) - basically they sue for privacy reasons but also are happy to put themselves out there in public - Corden show, Oprah interview - talking about private things when it suits them. If they moved to America and didn't do these sot of interviews it would be easier to claim (at least in public opinion if not court) the desire for privacy.

Where H&M have gone wrong IMO, is making it seem they want privacy when it suits them but are happy to spill when it suits their needs and narrative - e.g. what you say breaches our privacy but when we speak out it is ok because it is our side of the story. That is how the media make it seem anway- what would be interesting is how H&M were to react if HM,Charles, W/K etc did a similar interview to Oprah, only then would we be able to see their reaction to someone doing the same as them.

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by Durham

But is this for real or some sort of joke by the supposed interviewers? It looks suspiciously like old interviews. Have the makers just come up with new questions that fit in with old footage & then blended it all together?

Donkey sanctuaries? Covid vaccines? Really? Who's fooling who here?

It all stretches credulity. I'd like to see these alleged interviews. If it is not what it purports to be then these two have only succeeded in riling up people as the comments on you tube & twitter show. Talk about feeding into peoples' confirmation bias.

...if these boys are deliberately falsifying what they have presented, then their ‘brilliant’ careers will be over before it’s begun. But if the royal observers have been carelessly commenting on things they’ve been duped into believing (donkey sanctuary? Covid vaccine refusal?)....then their credibility will be severely damaged.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by ladongas

...if these boys are deliberately falsifying what they have presented, then their ‘brilliant’ careers will be over before it’s begun. But if the royal observers have been carelessly commenting on things they’ve been duped into believing (donkey sanctuary? Covid vaccine refusal?)....then their credibility will be severely damaged.

Yes I agree. Absolutely. According to this link the "experts" did indeed respond but at least one of them claims he's been misrepresented by editing.


Dickie added to Metro.co.uk: ‘The approach from Beneath The Fold (note correct name) alleged to be a legitimate invitation for a fast turnaround, pre-recorded interview commissioned by a UK network, to be aired on Monday 8th March 2021. ‘This was deliberately misleading and a “scam”. I commented only on clips already in global circulation, but my interview was edited so as to imply I was speculating on the full programme interview. I was not speculating. I do not speculate.’


Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/06/josh-...4/?ito=cbshare

So these you tubers are displaying a little sleight of hand so to speak. It would be interesting to see the full interviews.

[RandyDrx]

Originally Posted by ladongas

...if these boys are deliberately falsifying what they have presented, then their ‘brilliant’ careers will be over before it’s begun. But if the royal observers have been carelessly commenting on things they’ve been duped into believing (donkey sanctuary? Covid vaccine refusal?)....then their credibility will be severely damaged.

To be fair, the royal reporters aren't the only ones who got pranked by these Youtubers. Let's not forget how just a year ago Harry was duped into thinking that he was speaking to Greta Thunberg and thought that penguins live in the north pole and that Chunga-Changa is a real place.

[lirienn]

[...]
I have no sympathy for Harry. He is complicit at least. Also it's his family and it seems like he burnt the bridges. William is Harry's brother, Charles a father, Queen a grandmother (which he likes to talk about "casually"). Royals are not Meghan's family so it's all on Harry.
Do you think there is coming back for Harry now? Like he crossed a line he shouldn't have.

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by RandyDrx

To be fair, the royal reporters aren't the only ones who got pranked by these Youtubers. Let's not forget how just a year ago Harry was duped into thinking that he was speaking to Greta Thunberg and thought that penguins live in the north pole and that Chunga-Changa is a real place.

Yes, I love the spunk of young filmmakers?/comedians? getting one over on the establishment. It seems harmless enough, but the royal correspondents may find their opinions a little harder to sell from now on. You would think that there would have been recording devices on both ends of the ‘zoomline’ in order to protect the correspondents.

[Sandy345]

Early morning emails do not require answers. Sometimes a boss gets up in the middle of the night and goes to the computer and dashes off an email but it does not mean that he or she expects an immediate answer.

[tommy100]

I think if late night e-mails were the extent of it this wouldn't be an issue.

[Fem]

Originally Posted by Sandy345

Early morning emails do not require answers. Sometimes a boss gets up in the middle of the night and goes to the computer and dashes off an email but it does not mean that he or she expects an immediate answer.

Or maybe, the person in the position of power (as an "employer" or "supervisor") could just set the email to be send at a specific time, within the working ours of employees? Which, I checked, doesn't take more than 5 s.

Also, I don't think the issue here is the 5 am emails. These people are hard working professionals, who knew what the job comes with. A lot of work, tight deadlines, dealing with press... A few early morning emails wouldn't leave them traumatized or shaking from fear (allegedly).

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Fem

Or maybe, the person in the position of power (as an "employer" or "supervisor") could just set the email to be send at a specific time, within the working ours of employees? Which, I checked, doesn't take more than 5 s.

Also, I don't think the issue here is the 5 am emails. These people are hard working professionals, who knew what the job comes with. A lot of work, tight deadlines, dealing with press... A few early morning emails wouldn't leave them traumatized or shaking from fear (allegedly).

Meghan 'going mental' at her PA (that later quit) as the article states over her PA arranging personally embroidered blankets but apparently not exactly in the right shade of red soon after their engagement seems an indication of misguided priorities and would ensure that everyone is walking on egg shells around her.

[Fem]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Meghan 'going mental' at her PA (that later quit) as the article states over her PA arranging personally embroidered blankets but apparently not exactly in the right shade of red soon after their engagement seems an indication of misguided priorities and would ensure that everyone is walking on egg shells around her.

Yes, I've read the article. I was responding to - once again - someone bringing up the issue of early morning emails.

But honestly, IF that story is indeed true, that is the weirdest, most random thing to be angry about. And I'm including being stressed about meeting your SO's friends from a different country and completely different social circles.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Fem

Or maybe, the person in the position of power (as an "employer" or "supervisor") could just set the email to be send at a specific time, within the working ours of employees? Which, I checked, doesn't take more than 5 s.

Also, I don't think the issue here is the 5 am emails. These people are hard working professionals, who knew what the job comes with. A lot of work, tight deadlines, dealing with press... A few early morning emails wouldn't leave them traumatized or shaking from fear (allegedly).

Emails are not text messages. Its not like they are going to wake you up.

I could send my boss an email at 4am in the morning or 11 at night. It wouldn't matter. They wouldnt get the email until they opened their computer to start the day. Does anyone actually read the time stamp on an email?


Sorry it speaks worse of the employee. OMG I had an email waiting for me when I started work this morning. Seriously you are getting paid to handle that. Its not like Meghan called them at 4 am and woke them up.


It screams an employee 'I didn't get enough gold stars for showing up to work today'.

[Zonk]

I know emotions are high but we need to rein the discussion in a bit.

Posts about abusive marriages, divorce, etc are will be deleted without notice.

Let's not look into the future, there's enough going on now we don't need to talk about WHAT could happen.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by tommy100

I think if late night e-mails were the extent of it this wouldn't be an issue.

I agree. The allegations appear to be far more serious than receiving emails at an early hour.