The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-March 2021

[evolvingdoors]

@Curryong - sorry not sorry for Charles and Thomas being left out of Archwell opening of the website. Both fathers have hurt their children by different means but still publicly so why should Harry and Meghan owe filial loyalty to them? The Dads can stay mad. Besides in certain courts of public opinion Charles and Thomas are not getting Father of the Year awards. Both men have negative opinions placed on them and that's due to their voluntary actions.

Well, in a 2017 interview Harry made it clear how much he valued and loved his father for all he has done for him. He has essentially raised him and William alone! since their mother died! Maybe Harry (and Meghan too) need to than take their heads out of their A$$ and grow up!

 

[Hallo girl]

What evidence do we have that Charles did not at least try to do these things. I feel he is being attacked on here with no real evidence. We cannot possibly know what went on behind closed doors. Not every parent can be there 100% of the time.

They have got us talking though, the couple always manage that, good marketing strategy.

 

[Lee-Z]

I'm kicking myself for again taking their bait, but i just don't see why it couldn't have been:

i am my parent's child
I am my child's parent

that would have been lovely and compassionate..
but i guess i'm not their target audience anyway, so i wish them succes in their endeavours and i'm happy for them that the website is launched and they took another step on the path in life they envision for themselves

 

[amaryllus]

When people behave, speak and present themselves a certain way long enough time know what their basic character is. Just As an example it’s not opinion When a person Cusses, hits and dismisses others Constant as less That person is bully Or when someone is speaks gently and Has a habit of reassurance and bring up people they a nurturer.

So people see how the This couple behave, speak and act and see a pattern. It’s not opinion BTW That the phrase “What Meghan wants Meghan gets“ has been said of her by people who know her quite well and she has a history of broken relationships.

 

[Jacknch]

Time to move on from discussing Charles' parental skills and his and Harry's relationship. Thank you.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

For me it's very simple: there are two people that draw interest to the Sussex' agenda, one is Archie (what happened to his privacy, of course featuring in a podcast is a different matter), the other one is Diana.

Whenever they need attention, one of the two has to come out of the closet (even in a 'design' that does not show the poor kid's face to make it even more interesting) to get people talking.

It's so predictable it's almost boring.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

I'm confused, how on earth is propping up mothers a slap in the face of fathers?

How do you read criticism of Charles into "I am my mother's son" when the following line is "I am our son's mother"? Following that logic, are you insinuating that they're downplaying Harry's importance in Archie's life since they didn't write "we are our son's parents"?


Their emphasis is clearly on compassion. Their example of compassion is motherhood. Hardly surprising since one has recently become a mother and experienced firsthand how motherhood changes you on both an emotional and conscious level. And the other lost his mother at the age of 12. Was Diana perfect? Far from it but I have no doubt that for both William and Harry, she stands back as the very image of strength, comfort and, whoop here it is, compassion.
...

 

[evolvingdoors]

I'm confused, how on earth is propping up mothers a slap in the face of fathers?

How do you read criticism of Charles into "I am my mother's son" when the following line is "I am our son's mother"? Following that logic, are you insinuating that they're downplaying Harry's importance in Archie's life since they didn't write "we are our son's parents"?


Their emphasis is clearly on compassion. Their example of compassion is motherhood. Hardly surprising since one has recently become a mother and experienced firsthand how motherhood changes you on both an emotional and conscious level. And the other lost his mother at the age of 12. Was Diana perfect? Far from it but I have no doubt that for both William and Harry, she stands back as the very image of strength, comfort and, whoop here it is, compassion.
...

Judging by Harry's reaction after the birth, I would becoming a father has been an emotional and conscious level change for him. so yes the emphasis on motherhood is odd, why not choose: parents instead? (last I checked both their parents were hands on active parents)
...

 

[JessRulz]

Several posts have been removed, as their contents went way beyond the scope of this thread.

At TRF, we do not encourage arm-chair psychological diagnoses/speculation - it is highly inappropriate, considering the 'subjects' are people 99.95% of us have never even met, let alone had proper discussions with. We have removed posts like this in the past, and we will continue to do so in the future. Members who continue along this discussion path may find themselves suspended from posting for a period of time.

Additionally, in line with our standard TRF policy, posts comparing royals / reactions to royals have been edited and/or removed.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Judging by Harry's reaction after the birth, I would becoming a father has been an emotional and conscious level change for him. so yes the emphasis on motherhood is odd, why not choose: parents instead? (last I checked both their parents were hands on active parents)
...

I don't understand why the rest of us must to be taken captive in your inability to believe that they value fatherhood as much as motherhood unless they explicitly state it? Emphasising motherhood doesn't negate fatherhood. Just like saying "I love raspberries" doesn't mean I must then hate strawberries

 

[UglyAmerican]

I'm confused, how on earth is propping up mothers a slap in the face of fathers?

How do you read criticism of Charles into "I am my mother's son" when the following line is "I am our son's mother"? Following that logic, are you insinuating that they're downplaying Harry's importance in Archie's life since they didn't write "we are our son's parents"?


Their emphasis is clearly on compassion. Their example of compassion is motherhood. Hardly surprising since one has recently become a mother and experienced firsthand how motherhood changes you on both an emotional and conscious level. And the other lost his mother at the age of 12. Was Diana perfect? Far from it but I have no doubt that for both William and Harry, she stands back as the very image of strength, comfort and, whoop here it is, compassion.
...

Because he isn’t just his mother’s son. He’s also his father’s son, and his son’s father. Since his mother died when he was a child, his father must have had a larger role in his upbringing. I’m not sure why they felt the need to include anything about their family relationships, but if they had, “We’re our parents’ children and our child’s parents” would have worked fine.

Equating motherhood - but not fatherhood - with compassion is strange for someone who had a good relationship with both parents growing up. We know Harry did, and even for Meghan, it seems like her relationship with her father was fine until the past few years. Motherhood may have been transformative for her, but I don’t think fatherhood was any less so for Harry. Is he less compassionate than Meghan is towards their son? I doubt it. The notion that women have a monopoly on certain traits like nurturing and compassion is the sort of sexist rhetoric that these two - and Meghan in particular - rail against the rest of the time, and rightly so.

Meghan is portrayed as both the recipient of compassion from her mother, and the bestower of compassion upon her son. Harry is portrayed only as the recipient of compassion from his long-dead mother (with no mention of his father), but not as the bestower of compassion upon his son... even though he presumably does that as much and as well as Meghan.

 

[AC21091968]

Because he isn’t just his mother’s son. He’s also his father’s son, and his son’s father. Since his mother died when he was a child, his father must have had a larger role in his upbringing. I’m not sure why they felt the need to include anything about their family relationships, but if they had, “We’re our parents’ children and our child’s parents” would have worked fine.

Equating motherhood - but not fatherhood - with compassion is strange for someone who had a good relationship with both parents growing up. We know Harry did, and even for Meghan, it seems like her relationship with her father was fine until the past few years. Motherhood may have been transformative for her, but I don’t think fatherhood was any less so for Harry. Is he less compassionate than Meghan is towards their son? I doubt it. The notion that women have a monopoly on certain traits like nurturing and compassion is the sort of sexist rhetoric that these two - and Meghan in particular - rail against the rest of the time, and rightly so.

Meghan is portrayed as both the recipient of compassion from her mother, and the bestower of compassion upon her son. Harry is portrayed only as the recipient of compassion from his long-dead mother (with no mention of his father), but not as the bestower of compassion upon his son... even though he presumably does that as much and as well as Meghan.

I know most posters in this forum dislike Richard Palmer (Royal Reporter of the Daily Express, where Camilla Tominey previously worked). However, since motherhood and fatherhood (in general) have been mentioned, I think his tweet showed similar observation from some posters here (myself included). He also attached the Express article.

Richard Palmer @Royalreporter
A focus on mothers and not fathers at first glance.
3:08 AM · Jan 1, 2021·Twitter for iPhone​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1344676814459953152

I probably should have posted this earlier, given that this tweet reflected Richard Palmer's first glance on the Archewell foundation website.

 

[Betsypaige]

I know most posters in this forum dislike Richard Palmer (Royal Reporter of the Daily Express, where Camilla Tominey previously worked). However, since motherhood and fatherhood (in general) have been mentioned, I think his tweet showed similar observation from some posters here (myself included). He also attached the Express article.

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter
A focus on mothers and not fathers at first glance.
3:08 AM · Jan 1, 2021·Twitter for iPhone​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1344676814459953152

I probably should have posted this earlier, given that this tweet reflected Richard Palmer's first glance on the Archewell foundation website.

I saw that yesterday, and noted it ...I’m glad Richard did as well, since it seems none outside of Piers Morgan did (and he had the same issues as I)

 

[Denville]

But what is this all about?? yes compassion is good. We know this, Do we need a website from Harry to tell us

 

[Pranter]

But what is this all about?? yes compassion is good. We know this, Do we need a website from Harry to tell us

I rather think that is for them to determine and whatever audience is receptive of it. If a person has no interest in what the site provides then they need not bother with it.


LaRae

 

[Denville]

I can't understand the whole point of it, or who wants to read or listen to it. Are tehy now going to make a living by "promoting compassion"?

 

[Heavs]

It seems pretty on brand for them, their two biggest money makers outside of their royal titles Diana and Archie along with a huge dose of word salad, vague feel good things. People have made money from just that so we'll see how it goes.

I do think having the same name for their for - profit and not for profit is going to muddy the waters and might come back to bite them in the arse.

 

[UglyAmerican]

I'm still trying to figure out what they're actually doing. They've "partnered" with an odd smattering of organizations, but what does that mean? Are they donating money? Working on specific projects? Raising awareness by linking to them on their website and talking about them at media appearances?

 

[Denville]

I'm still trying to figure out what they're actually doing. They've "partnered" with an odd smattering of organizations, but what does that mean? Are they donating money? Working on specific projects? Raising awareness by linking to them on their website and talking about them at media appearances?

Im puzzled as well, just as I'm puzzled what they are doing with this Netflix contract. Are they making money for themselves or to donate to charities? What ARE they doing to make money? I don't see what money is going to be raised from some vague "promotion of compassion" from mothers and other strangers on a website.. or podcast....And I'm not sure what they intend to do iwht the Netflix thing. Are they making movies? Commercially successful ones or more charity oriented or what? Honestly wouldnt it be more straightforward to set up an olnline business and sell toasters or something?

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Because he isn’t just his mother’s son. He’s also his father’s son, and his son’s father. Since his mother died when he was a child, his father must have had a larger role in his upbringing. I’m not sure why they felt the need to include anything about their family relationships, but if they had, “We’re our parents’ children and our child’s parents” would have worked fine.

Equating motherhood - but not fatherhood - with compassion is strange for someone who had a good relationship with both parents growing up. We know Harry did, and even for Meghan, it seems like her relationship with her father was fine until the past few years. Motherhood may have been transformative for her, but I don’t think fatherhood was any less so for Harry. Is he less compassionate than Meghan is towards their son? I doubt it. The notion that women have a monopoly on certain traits like nurturing and compassion is the sort of sexist rhetoric that these two - and Meghan in particular - rail against the rest of the time, and rightly so.

Meghan is portrayed as both the recipient of compassion from her mother, and the bestower of compassion upon her son. Harry is portrayed only as the recipient of compassion from his long-dead mother (with no mention of his father), but not as the bestower of compassion upon his son... even though he presumably does that as much and as well as Meghan.

I think I'm just gonna repeat myself:

I don't understand why the rest of us must to be taken captive in your inability to believe that they value fatherhood as much as motherhood unless they explicitly state it? Emphasising motherhood doesn't negate fatherhood. Just like saying "I love raspberries" doesn't mean I must then hate strawberries

How do you get to the conclusion that using motherhood as an example of compassion negates the importance of fatherhood? ? At no point do they say they don't equate fatherhood with compassion. That's just not the example they've decided to use.

I'm guessing they chose motherhood as a representation for compassion because it holds a special meaning to both of them. I don't doubt Charles is immensely important to Harry but I also think it's only logical that someone who had their mother ripped away from them at 12 years old is gonna have deep feelings about motherhood specifically. I think it's very far-fetched to twist this into a sexist narrative.

"Is he less compassionate than Meghan is towards their son?" I don't know, you tell me You're the one that argues their message indicates that fatherhood is somehow less important than motherhood, not me or the Sussexes.

And unless Meghan doesn't identify as a woman anymore, she isn't portrayed as the recipient as the text explicitly says "I am my mother's son". So following your logic, is it also offensive to Doria that it doesn't say "We are our mothers' children"?

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

I am the one who made the original slap in the face comment. I can't speak for others who have agreed since, but several comments have since asked, "how is empowering mothers or highlighting the role of mothers" a slap in the face to fathers, or to Charles specifically?

I never said it was. The comment I made (something like "well Charles has just been slapped in the face") was the very first comment after the link to the new website was posted, and was referring to the entire website as a whole. I think the entire thing is a slap in the face to Charles, and I stand by that. I have explained why in my lengthy post since, now a couple pages back. Specifically going out of your way to state that compassion was modeled for you "by your mother and strangers" when you are the son of one of the world's foremost servant-leaders, known by millions for his compassion modeled through public service for some seven decades now, is absolutely a slap in the face.

I hope we can drop the narrative that anyone here has suggested that as a general matter, empowering the role of mothers is a slap in the face to fathers, because it was never said, it is not helpful to the conversation, and it is insulting to both mothers and fathers.

 

[Heavs]

Im puzzled as well, just as I'm puzzled what they are doing with this Netflix contract. Are they making money for themselves or to donate to charities? What ARE they doing to make money? I don't see what money is going to be raised from some vague "promotion of compassion" from mothers and other strangers on a website.. or podcast....And I'm not sure what they intend to do iwht the Netflix thing. Are they making movies? Commercially successful ones or more charity oriented or what? Honestly wouldnt it be more straightforward to set up an olnline business and sell toasters or something?

I imagine it will be something along the lines of what they've already been doing. The SA documentary, show casing some charities that are doing important work, talking to others about social/political causes, maybe part GOOP Lab aspirational lifestyle stuff ala the coffee Oprah was shilling for them.

If they aren't personally showcased in the way Michelle Obama's Becoming/SA doc/William's docs are then an interview or voiceover with them ala the podcast talking some nice word salad. With just enough of a touch to remind us they're really royalty and different from everyone else who does similar things on Netflix/Amazon etc.

They'll make the money from the Netflix deal itself but might also wear brands or use the products they've invested in on screen. Maybe they'll be a link to "ethical, socially responsible, woman lead brands" people can support to feel good about themselves which entirely co incidentally they have invested heavily in.

That's why I wonder if the commercial arm and the charity arm are going to get complicated and murky.

 

[UglyAmerican]

I think I'm just gonna repeat myself:
How do you get to the conclusion that using motherhood as an example of compassion negates the importance of fatherhood? ? At no point do they say they don't equate fatherhood with compassion. That's just not the example they've decided to use.

I'm guessing they chose motherhood as a representation for compassion because it holds a special meaning to both of them. I don't doubt Charles is immensely important to Harry but I also think it's only logical that someone who had their mother ripped away from them at 12 years old is gonna have deep feelings about motherhood specifically. I think it's very far-fetched to twist this into a sexist narrative.

Because we're looking at two people who are a mother and a father to the same child. The mother talks about how important motherhood is to her, and includes a picture of herself with her own mother. That's fine... a strange theme for the site, but fine. The logical corollary to that would be for her husband, the child's father, to talk about fatherhood. He doesn't. He just talks about being his mother's son (and not his father's). The focus is solely on mothers and motherhood. That would make sense (sort of) if Meghan was doing this by herself, but it's presented as a joint project done by both of them. To completely ignore Harry's half of the parenting equation, while over-emphasizing Meghan's half, is just ... strange. Add in the exclusion of Charles while Diana and Doria are both included, and it really looks like the point is to elevate motherhood above fatherhood. Mothers are wellsprings of love and compassion, but fathers and fatherhood aren't worth mentioning, even though Harry is one. If they'd done the opposite and emphasized Harry being both a son and a father, with no mention of either's mother or of Meghan being a mother, they'd be getting the same criticism, except a lot more of it.

"Is he less compassionate than Meghan is towards their son?" I don't know, you tell me You're the one that argues their message indicates that fatherhood is somehow less important than motherhood, not me or the Sussexes.

And unless Meghan doesn't identify as a woman anymore, she isn't portrayed as the recipient as the text explicitly says "I am my mother's son". So following your logic, is it also offensive to Doria that it doesn't say "We are our mothers' children"?

I would assume not, though of course we don't know. For all we know, he spends all day playing video games and yells "Meghan! Make him shut up!" every time Archie starts crying. I doubt it, though - everything either of them has said or done publicly indicates that Harry is a very involved and caring father. As a woman, if my husband publicly praised himself to the high heavens for doing something that I did half the work for, while omitting any mention of my role, I'd be pretty annoyed. That works in reverse, too.

Meghan included a picture of herself as a child with her mother, so I'm counting that as portraying herself as both a daughter and a mother. The picture of Harry only reemphasizes that he's his mother's son, which he already said, and is probably the point of the whole thing. It's all about mothers and motherhood, and the extent of Harry's involvement is that he had a mother. Does he feel like fatherhood has made him more compassionate? Has he experienced compassion from his father? We don't know, because they only address the link between compassion and motherhood.

 

[Claire]

I would like to note that the Sussex's are not the first people to - lets say- place greater emphasis on Diana as Harry's mother and Meghan's relationship with her mom and Archie. It is PR that has been used through out Harry's working royal life from the palace, as many have pointed out. Similarly what other family connections of Meghan's can they use.

Archewell still hasn't been correctly defined yet - I wonder if it will ever be. Does it have it status as NPO yet- the original paperwork was thrown out. I do not think that everything has been easy sailing for them. The Spotify deal took way to long to be wrangled out - so there was lots of negotiations there. I would like to know that was the sticky points.
I recently saw on a different chat room - that someone mentioned that they wonder how long before the people start moving away from the Sussex's. Of all the people that Meghan has surrounded themselves with I kind of feel that the one that will see the problems and then possibility talk to those in their circle - aka Oprah, Serena, Taylor Perry, will be Michelle Obama. Essentially if Meghan and Harry world is essentially a House of Cards, it will start eroded,

 

[Betsypaige]

I am the one who made the original slap in the face comment. I can't speak for others who have agreed since, but several comments have since asked, "how is empowering mothers or highlighting the role of mothers" a slap in the face to fathers, or to Charles specifically?

I never said it was. The comment I made (something like "well Charles has just been slapped in the face") was the very first comment after the link to the new website was posted, and was referring to the entire website as a whole. I think the entire thing is a slap in the face to Charles, and I stand by that. I have explained why in my lengthy post since, now a couple pages back. Specifically going out of your way to state that compassion was modeled for you "by your mother and strangers" when you are the son of one of the world's foremost servant-leaders, known by millions for his compassion modeled through public service for some seven decades now, is absolutely a slap in the face.

I hope we can drop the narrative that anyone here has suggested that as a general matter, empowering the role of mothers is a slap in the face to fathers, because it was never said, it is not helpful to the conversation, and it is insulting to both mothers and fathers.

Yes, because I’ll also repeat what I said earlier - this was an awkward way of putting it, and it’s clear they deliberately went out of their way to avoid any reference to fathers.

Ugly American:

ignore Harry's half of the parenting equation, while over-emphasizing Meghan's half, is just ... strange. Add in the exclusion of Charles while Diana and Doria are both included, and it really looks like the point is to elevate motherhood above fatherhood. Mothers are wellsprings of love and compassion, but fathers and fatherhood aren't worth mentioning, even though Harry is one. If they'd done the opposite and emphasized Harry being both a son and a father, with no mention of either's mother or of Meghan being a mother, they'd be getting the same criticism, except a lot more of it.

Agreed. I don’t think it’s helpful to people at all to pretend that mothers have the patent on compassion and that fathers are absent when it comes to influencing their children. Make no mistake, that is the not-so-subtle message they are sending. Ironically, Harry and Meghan have a son. Fathers are the first and primary influence in boys’ lives; they are the ones sons will look to as to what sort of man they want to be. H and M claim they are modern in outlook, yet they still hold to the traditional notion that mothers alone are nurturing, loving parents. Hmmm.

 

[Sandy345]

They are earning money now. I think he will do a lot for Veterans and once it is safe again to have large gatherings, he will be a key player for invictus. Harry was born famous, no matter what he won't fade away and disappear no matter what. And now he has a family who will be heard of to say the least as well.

 

[Katymcwaity]

If they aren't personally showcased in the way Michelle Obama's Becoming/SA doc/William's docs are then an interview or voiceover with them ala the podcast talking some nice word salad. With just enough of a touch to remind us they're really royalty and different from everyone else who does similar things on Netflix/Amazon etc.

I finally had a look at the website and really what going to attract people to this when there is SO much about kindness etc out there other than the royal angle? Literally so many podcasts and sites that other celebs are doing about the same topic. I am personally tired of it, I don’t need reminders to be kind or compassionate.

 

[caethi]

Im puzzled as well, just as I'm puzzled what they are doing with this Netflix contract. Are they making money for themselves or to donate to charities? What ARE they doing to make money? I don't see what money is going to be raised from some vague "promotion of compassion" from mothers and other strangers on a website.. or podcast....And I'm not sure what they intend to do iwht the Netflix thing. Are they making movies? Commercially successful ones or more charity oriented or what? Honestly wouldnt it be more straightforward to set up an olnline business and sell toasters or something?

I am not too familiar with how charitable foundations work. For example, the not for profit WE Charity is related to the for profit WE Day events, and in Canada, the WE Charity was embroiled in a bit of a scandal when it was revealed that WE had paid members of the PM's family to speak at events and WE was awarded a government contract (conflict of interest, etc.). So it seems to be very important to keep for-profit and not-for-profit very separate. (Note: I am not suggesting any current issues with Archewell).



I assume the general idea of the Archewell Foundation is that they use their name/brand to raise funds, which are then used to fund/partner with projects. It seems that Archewell Audio and Archewell Productions are the "for-profit" arms.



I assume that they have good people who are giving them excellent advice on keeping it all separate. It will be really important to do so.



I like the website, but it is clearly in the early stages of development. The invitation to share stories of compassion is interesting--give us your information and we will use it however we want to. (Note: Most of us don't thoroughly read terms and conditions of any website, and many of us would be shocked if we did.)


They are trying to make a difference I remain cynical about the chances of major success for their venture, as it seems somewhat grandiose and naieve, but heaven knows, we need more compassion in the world. I hope they are able to make it work.

 

[Betsypaige]

I finally had a look at the website and really what going to attract people to this when there is SO much about kindness etc out there other than the royal angle? Literally so many podcasts and sites that other celebs are doing about the same topic. I am personally tired of it, I don’t need reminders to be kind or compassionate.

IMO their website will attract their fans, but few others...and maybe that’s enough for them. It had better be.

 

[Pranter]

I remember when the interview came out with Harry and William about their mother a couple years or so ago. Some folks got the vapors about how they spoke about Diana not having support etc. ppl here talked about how it was awful for them to have said these things because it was going to make Charles and other members of the family look bad, how it was disrespectful to Charles etc.

It is what it is. Only the boys and their father know where they stand on the issue of Diana. The idea that if Harry does not specifically say (and dad was great) when he mentions his mother in a positive way, that if he doesn't mention Charles, this somehow is a deliberate negative towards Charles is ridiculous.


LaRae.