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

[ashelen]

My husband is British and we live in America. This is my personal experience. Since our daughter born we spoke in the house English with British accent, Spanish and Danish, she also listen French and Italian. My daughter British accent was strong until she started school. In kindergarten we had a terrible problem, the principal of the school sent my daughter home with a video with American accent and phonetic and we were told that our daughter wouldn't pass kindergarten until she spoke English with American accent. We were furious but nothing we could do for that year. Once she finished the year we took her out of the school, I listen after the principal was fired the next year.Today she has american accent, she had been in England a lot but the chool years marked her accent.

[evolvingdoors]

Originally Posted by ashelen

My husband is British and we live in America. This is my personal experience. Since our daughter born we spoke in the house English with British accent, Spanish and Danish, she also listen French and Italian. My daughter British accent was strong until she started school. In kindergarten we had a terrible problem, the principal of the school sent my daughter home with a video with American accent and phonetic and we were told that our daughter wouldn't pass kindergarten until she spoke English with American accent. We were furious but nothing we could do for that year. Once she finished the year we took her out of the school, I listen after the principal was fired the next year.Today she has american accent, she had been in England a lot but the chool years marked her accent.

some people are also able to jump between accents, if you look at someone like actor John Barrowman, he was born and raised for a few years in Scotland but when his family moved to the US he adopted a US accent for the most part, especially in his work, but his Scottish accent does come out when he does interviews with UK based journalists (especially if they are scots themselves), or when you see his blooper reels.

[Durham]

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...e-interviewing

I know selective quoting doesn't always give an accurate impression but I'd say this article is more than a little tongue in cheek:

"As people who were actual royalty until earlier this year, the pair presumably have any guest they could possibly want on speed dial"

"But this isn’t your average interview podcast, mostly because Harry and Meghan don’t actually do any interviewing."

"Meghan is super-slick and NPR-confident, leading the conversation as Harry follows: she starts the sentences with purpose and he finishes them"

"Meghan has that Gwyneth Paltrow-esque knack of saying something with such wide-eyed gravitas that you’re hypnotised into thinking you’ve just heard a meaningful revelation"

"Just as you’ve collected enough inspirational quotes to fill your kitchen wall, the proud parents bring in baby Archie"

Some interesting observations there. To be fair the article does say that the podcast will have a market.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

some people are also able to jump between accents, if you look at someone like actor John Barrowman, he was born and raised for a few years in Scotland but when his family moved to the US he adopted a US accent for the most part, especially in his work, but his Scottish accent does come out when he does interviews with UK based journalists (especially if they are scots themselves), or when you see his blooper reels.

I was convinced that he was an American when I first began watching Torchwood. It was as you pointed out that when I heard him interviewed that I could hear his Scottish accent emerge.


As long as he lives in California, Archie will likely have an American and regional West Coast accent as that's what his mother, maternal grandmother and likely many of their domestic staff use. Later it will be his playmates and teachers who influence his speaking. Or he could have a "hybrid" one like King Abdullah who has an English mother and attended schools in the U.S./Britian has when he is speaking English.



As long as his parents do not refer to his current state of residence as "Cali," I will have no complaint.

[Emme]

Originally Posted by Denville

Why do people want to see him? If he were in the main line like George, yes, there might be a case for having some photos of him ever year. But he's not. He's the son of a second son... who is now not a working royal any more.. H is parents claim that he's a private person.. so why do people want to intrude on his privacy?

I get wanting to see pictures of Archie. Having watched his father grow up, it’s natural, I think, to be curious about what his child looks like.

[AC21091968]

If anyone is interested with more reviews, here are three reviews from three publications. Two of them (The Times & The Telegraph) are behind paywalls

The Independent (Left-leaning, Pro-EU, anti-monarchy newspaper)
Harry and Meghan Podcast Review: Archie's First Public Words, Zoom Jokes And a Very Unroyal Broadcast
As the Sussexes launch their Archewell podcast into the world, is it able to be more than a successful marketing exercise?
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-b1780350.html

The Times (Right-leaning, Pro-Remain, Pro-Monarchy)
Archewell Audio podcast review — ‘Like Goop but without the fun’
James Marriott’s verdict on Harry and Meghan’s new podcast
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...-fun-xg989p0ht

The Telegraph (Right-leaning, Pro-Leave, Pro-Monarchy)
‘Off to a rocky start’: Meghan and Harry’s much-hyped Archewell Audio podcast is a right royal miss
[2/5]
The Sussexes make their Spotify debut with a celebrity-packed show, but there's not enough of the couple themselves
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/radio/wh...audio-podcast/

And then the phrase "Love always wins" was picked up by the Independent's review (top Quote) and a separate Telegraph article (bottom heading). Some have view this as a dig/shade towards the Royal Family which has the principle of "The Crown always wins". This could be debatable, as you can spin it in left, right and centre. It also almost reminiscent to a romanticised narrative that The Duke of Windsor chose love over duty by Abdicating and marrying Wallis Simpson. But then again, I could be just speculating and spin it myself, given that 1930s society is drastically different from 21st Century .

Mind you, if you’re looking for the podcast to be a behind-the-scenes discussion about Meghan’s in-laws, rogue family members and palace Megxit infighting, you will be left disappointed. The only veiled comments come towards the end when discussing George The Poet’s engagement, Meghan says: “And from us I will say no matter what life throws at your guys, trust us, when we say, love wins.” Corroborated by her husband who quickly says: “Love always wins.”

'Love always wins,' Harry and Meghan tell listeners in their first podcast
Half-hour 'holiday special' podcast reflected on the difficulties faced by many during the pandemic — while son Archie's voice is heard for
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...first-podcast/

[REAL COUNTESS]

Why is it so important for you to see a picture of him, little Archie. When he was very little, we all seen him. His face was just a mini me of Harry and his eyes dark as his mothers. Now he is older, he may still looks like his father, or a mix of both parents. Harry is tall, maybe Archie is going his way and will have red hair, or the other way around a bit shorter with dark hair, matching his eyes, like his mother. Harry and his brother never looked like Charles, both I believe looked more like the Spencer's? Children should be left alone.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by AC21091968

If anyone is interested with more reviews, here are three reviews from three publications. Two of them (The Times & The Telegraph) are behind paywalls

The Independent (Left-leaning, Pro-EU, anti-monarchy newspaper)
Harry and Meghan Podcast Review: Archie's First Public Words, Zoom Jokes And a Very Unroyal Broadcast
As the Sussexes launch their Archewell podcast into the world, is it able to be more than a successful marketing exercise?
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-b1780350.html

The Times (Right-leaning, Pro-Remain, Pro-Monarchy)
Archewell Audio podcast review — ‘Like Goop but without the fun’
James Marriott’s verdict on Harry and Meghan’s new podcast
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...-fun-xg989p0ht

The Telegraph (Right-leaning, Pro-Leave, Pro-Monarchy)
‘Off to a rocky start’: Meghan and Harry’s much-hyped Archewell Audio podcast is a right royal miss
[2/5]
The Sussexes make their Spotify debut with a celebrity-packed show, but there's not enough of the couple themselves
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/radio/wh...audio-podcast/

And then the phrase "Love always wins" was picked up by the Independent's review (top Quote) and a separate Telegraph article (bottom heading). Some have view this as a dig/shade towards the Royal Family which has the principle of "The Crown always wins". This could be debatable, as you can spin it in left, right and centre. It also almost reminiscent to a romanticised narrative that The Duke of Windsor chose love over duty by Abdicating and marrying Wallis Simpson. But then again, I could be just speculating and spin it myself, given that 1930s society is drastically different from 21st Century .



'Love always wins,' Harry and Meghan tell listeners in their first podcast
Half-hour 'holiday special' podcast reflected on the difficulties faced by many during the pandemic — while son Archie's voice is heard for
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...first-podcast/

I’m choosing not to take “Love Always Wins” as some sort snide comment meant to throw shade at the BRF...

Well, this podcast isn’t for me, at all. It sounds like harmless fluff, though.

[.....]

[Erin9]

Harry actually looks a lot like Philip imo when you look at both side by side with beards. I forgot where the source was, but I saw pics side by side once. The resemblance was striking.

[caethi]

I take issue with the message "love always wins"; it's just not true. Further, I don't like it when life is framed as a win or lose game. As sincere as the message might be, it is also a little naieve and superficial.

[rominet09]

Originally Posted by caethi

I take issue with the message "love always wins"; it's just not true. Further, I don't like it when life is framed as a win or lose game. As sincere as the message might be, it is also a little naieve and superficial.

You said it perfectly... it is with sentences like this that you see people staying in horrible relationships !

[Curryong]

The podcast was meant to be a lighthearted and fun exercise at the end of a stressful year, albeit with some reflections on the last twelve months from guests. If Harry and Meghan had got stuck in immediately into weighty causes and serious issues, there would have been the inevitable cries from observers about no sense of humour, this is Christmastime for God sake, where's the old Harry gone, why are these 'woke issues' being brought up now while people all around the world are suffering, etc etc etc.

Truly, this couple are damned whatever they do. If they attempt to try something light they're accused of being naive, fluffy and superficial, if they discuss anything of a serious nature it's 'they don't know what they're talking about', 'Harry isn't knowledgable enough', or something else, on and on and on!

Harry and Meghan have gone out to create a new life for themselves and have been given a chance to do new things by companies like Netflix and Spotify. All I can say is, it's a great pity that observers, reviewers and detractors alike don't give them just half a chance.

In the end, if people don't want to listen to them or watch them, they won't.

And newsflash! Nobody is forced to watch or listen to a couple they dislike.

But how about waiting until they have a body of work behind them for about a year before condemning them, for goodness sake!

Originally Posted by rominet09

You said it perfectly... it is with sentences like this that you see people staying in horrible relationships !

Do you really think that people stay in horrible relationships because somebody in a lighthearted podcast says something nice about love winning over all? Or indeed deciding to stay around someone toxic if celebs or anyone in the public eye gives any serious advice about relationships on the Internet?

Because I have to say I've never met anyone who's done so, and I'm a social worker with decades of experience. Maybe Harry and Meghan should have added a caveat 'unless you are in an unhappy relationship of course in which case consult a relationship counsellor...'

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Curryong

The podcast was meant to be a lighthearted and fun exercise at the end of a stressful year, albeit with some reflections on the last twelve months from guests. If Harry and Meghan had got stuck in immediately into weighty causes and serious issues, there would have been the inevitable cries from observers about no sense of humour, this is Christmastime for God sake, where's the old Harry gone, why are these 'woke issues' being brought up now while people all around the world are suffering, etc etc etc.

Truly, this couple are damned whatever they do. If they attempt to try something light they're accused of being naive, fluffy and superficial, if they discuss anything of a serious nature it's 'they don't know what they're talking about', 'Harry isn't knowledgable enough', or something else, on and on and on!

Harry and Meghan have gone out to create a new life for themselves and have been given a chance to do new things by companies like Netflix and Spotify. All I can say is, it's a great pity that observers, reviewers and detractors alike don't give them just half a chance.

In the end, if people don't want to listen to them or watch them, they won't.

And newsflash! Nobody is forced to watch or listen to a couple they dislike.

But how about waiting until they have a body of work behind them for about a year before condemning them, for goodness sake!

Well yeah.

Celebrity and fame has nothing to do with a person...It is either through birth or talent or something else completely meaningless. Now royal enter into the birth and completely meaningless variety except form one thing...DUTY. turning up at hospitals at 7am in the pouring rain. Meghan and Harry are by birth and meaningless. And worse...he gave up the DUTY. That they will ever be anything else but divisive is unlikely. That they will continue to be as famous as they are now is also unlikely because of the lack of the third quality for fame: talent. But let them make their money and help people too. All the best.

[AC21091968]

Originally Posted by RandyDrx

By "featuring" Archie on the podcast, they are guilty of doing exactly what the Sussex Squad on Twitter accused the Cambridges of doing a few weeks ago.


And by having Stacey Abrams on the podcast, they are definitely not being politically neutral.

I'm pretty sure James Corden, Elton John and most celebrities have left-leaning views and practically anti-Trump. If artists in the entertainment industry or even sport (both UK and US) have right-leaning views or publicly performed for right-leaning political figures, they will most likely be put on a blacklist. I'm not surprise at all that Meghan has progressive views and probably a Democrat, given that she grew up and spent a lot of times in California. I would be more shocked if she is a Republican.

Both James Corden and Elton John have publicly made their Pro-Remain/EU views very clear not just in 2016 Referendum, but even now. I think most celebrities were and are pro-Remain. At one point, Meghan posted on instagram on 2nd July 2016 (right after the referendum) of a picture of placard held by a Remain protestor with the words "If EU leave me now, you take away the biggest part of me". She also captioned with "If EU leave me now… #brexit #parliament #referendum #london."
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img...=1554317626250

I also think Meghan (or even Harry) would not want to invite right-leaning politicians. This is due to the possibility of being cancelled by giving them a platform and associating with them, especially in California. I personally think (after inviting Stacey Abrams) Harry & Meghan should invite celebrities and politicians with conservative view if they want to perceived to be politically neutral. This way, they are not just having a guest that agrees them, but also those who held very opposite views.

[Heavs]

Originally Posted by Erin9

Harry actually looks a lot like Philip imo when you look at both side by side with beards. I forgot where the source was, but I saw pics side by side once. The resemblance was striking.

There was a shot of Harry wearing his red beret where he looks very much like Philip. Once you take away the red hair (which erm is happening naturally like his brother) he's very Windsor. That also got remarked on a lot at William's wedding.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by AC21091968

I'm pretty sure James Corden, Elton John and most celebrities have left-leaning views and practically anti-Trump. If artists in the entertainment industry or even sport (both UK and US) have right-leaning views or publicly performed for right-leaning political figures, they will most likely be put on a blacklist. I'm not surprise at all that Meghan has progressive views and probably a Democrat, given that she grew up and spent a lot of times in California. I would be more shocked if she is a Republican.

Both James Corden and Elton John have publicly made their Pro-Remain/EU views very clear not just in 2016 Referendum, but even now. I think most celebrities were and are pro-Remain. At one point, Meghan posted on instagram on 2nd July 2016 (right after the referendum) of a picture of placard held by a Remain protestor with the words "If EU leave me now, you take away the biggest part of me". She also captioned with "If EU leave me now… #brexit #parliament #referendum #london."
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img...=1554317626250

I also think Meghan (or even Harry) would not want to invite right-leaning politicians. This is due to the possibility of being "blacklisted" by giving them a platform and associating with them, especially in California. However, I personally think Harry & Meghan should invite celebrities and politicians with conservative view if they want to perceived to be politically neutral. This way, they are not just having a guest that agrees them, but also those who held very opposite views.

blacklisted|? Hardly. |But I dont know what is the point of these podcasts. If people wnat to make podcasts based on what work they do or their interests that's one thing. But a podcast about other people waffling??

[AC21091968]

Originally Posted by Denville

blacklisted|? Hardly. |But I dont know what is the point of these podcasts. If people wnat to make podcasts based on what work they do or their interests that's one thing. But a podcast about other people waffling??

Perhaps I should have said "cancelled" instead (mostly by people in the entertainment industry and Hollywood). Or better still, Harry & Meghan should not have invited Stacey Abrams in the first place, because I think they have open a can of worms on the accusation of "politically bias".

I have edited my previous post.

[evolvingdoors]

Originally Posted by AC21091968

If anyone is interested with more reviews, here are three reviews from three publications. Two of them (The Times & The Telegraph) are behind paywalls

The Independent (Left-leaning, Pro-EU, anti-monarchy newspaper)
Harry and Meghan Podcast Review: Archie's First Public Words, Zoom Jokes And a Very Unroyal Broadcast
As the Sussexes launch their Archewell podcast into the world, is it able to be more than a successful marketing exercise?
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-b1780350.html

The Times (Right-leaning, Pro-Remain, Pro-Monarchy)
Archewell Audio podcast review — ‘Like Goop but without the fun’
James Marriott’s verdict on Harry and Meghan’s new podcast
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...-fun-xg989p0ht

The Telegraph (Right-leaning, Pro-Leave, Pro-Monarchy)
‘Off to a rocky start’: Meghan and Harry’s much-hyped Archewell Audio podcast is a right royal miss
[2/5]
The Sussexes make their Spotify debut with a celebrity-packed show, but there's not enough of the couple themselves
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/radio/wh...audio-podcast/

And then the phrase "Love always wins" was picked up by the Independent's review (top Quote) and a separate Telegraph article (bottom heading). Some have view this as a dig/shade towards the Royal Family which has the principle of "The Crown always wins". This could be debatable, as you can spin it in left, right and centre. It also almost reminiscent to a romanticised narrative that The Duke of Windsor chose love over duty by Abdicating and marrying Wallis Simpson. But then again, I could be just speculating and spin it myself, given that 1930s society is drastically different from 21st Century .



'Love always wins,' Harry and Meghan tell listeners in their first podcast
Half-hour 'holiday special' podcast reflected on the difficulties faced by many during the pandemic — while son Archie's voice is heard for
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...first-podcast/

I was thinking about the bolded (ie Edward and Wallis) myself. It's does give push to this narrative, when in reality I don't think it is accurate for the couple at all.

Originally Posted by caethi

I take issue with the message "love always wins"; it's just not true. Further, I don't like it when life is framed as a win or lose game. As sincere as the message might be, it is also a little naieve and superficial.

It's something I would expect a teenager, or someone in their very early 20's with no life experience to say.

Love doesn't always win, especially if you're not a super privileged person.



[...]

[Jacknch]

Posts concerning future or potential divorce have been edited/removed.

Posts making references to "fans" "Suffolk squad" etc have also been removed or edited as per the earlier Mod note.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by AC21091968

Perhaps I should have said "cancelled" instead (mostly by people in the entertainment industry and Hollywood). Or better still, Harry & Meghan should not have invited Stacey Abrams in the first place, because I think they have open a can of worms on the accusation of "politically bias".

I have edited my previous post.

but it doesnt matter if they are perceived as politically involved on one side, surely? They are private individuals, they dont have to stick with the convention that as royals they can't be political. And if they are "cancelled" By US liberals or conservatives.. its their problem...