The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1361  
Old 04-22-2021, 10:46 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
I thought the entire point of holding on to the titles, is that Meghan and Harry do in fact need the Royal Family in their future pursuits
That’s what they thought. They bought into the hype and thought that people were willing to throw millions of dollars at them because they were Harry and Meghan. They’re finding out that with them being on the outs with the RF, these people are no longer as interested. Thus, IMO, the leaks about how they’re still on great terms with TQ.
__________________

  #1362  
Old 04-22-2021, 10:47 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Cute photo of Archie, but I'd like to add that it is illegal to photograph the children of celebrities/ public figures in California without consent. I wouldn't blame Archie's parent if they pursue legal action again. I doubt that his parent(s) gave permission for him to be photographed.
https://www.rcfp.org/law-criminalizi...ed-california/
If the photographers did not stalk or harass Archie, and it was taken in a public place, or with a parent's permission, no law was broken. "Harassment, as outlined in the bill, means willful conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes" the child." (from the link).

Also, the distribution of the photographs themselves is not illegal. From the link: "The bill also states that distribution of a child's image does not violate the law, but rather it is the act of creating it." (However, the U.K. does have it's own rules about publishing photos of minors.)

This is why you still see plenty of celebrity children's photographs in People magazine taken on the beach in Malibu or walking in Brentwood. The photos were taken in public, and the photographers did not stalk or harass the children.

There was a push to prohibit the photographing of minors in public places in committee, but it never made it to the Governor's desk (it's dicey under current Constitutional law). Jennifer Garner spent years lobbying for more protection, and her kids are still constantly papped.

The U.S. is not a great place for children's privacy.

(Also, although Harry and Meghan are always able to sue someone for harassment/stalking, the law cited is criminal law, not civil law. A D.A. would need to bring charges.)
__________________

  #1363  
Old 04-22-2021, 10:54 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC View Post
I’d forgotten about this in CA! A good law - I remember Jennifer Garner supporting this bill. I absolutely agree that this photographer should not have taken this photo.
Blackgrid has been around for a while, so I’d think they know about this law
  #1364  
Old 04-22-2021, 10:59 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarRose View Post
If the photographers did not stalk or harass Archie, and it was taken in a public place, or with a parent's permission, no law was broken. "Harassment, as outlined in the bill, means willful conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes" the child." (from the link).

Also, the distribution of the photographs themselves is not illegal. From the link: "The bill also states that distribution of a child's image does not violate the law, but rather it is the act of creating it." (However, the U.K. does have it's own rules about publishing photos of minors.)

This is why you still see plenty of celebrity children's photographs in People magazine taken on the beach in Malibu or walking in Brentwood. The photos were taken in public, and the photographers did not stalk or harass the children.

There was a push to prohibit the photographing of minors in public places in committee, but it never made it to the Governor's desk (it's dicey under current Constitutional law). Jennifer Garner spent years lobbying for more protection, and her kids are still constantly papped.

The U.S. is not a great place for children's privacy.

(Also, although Harry and Meghan are always able to sue someone for harassment/stalking, the law cited is criminal law, not civil law. A D.A. would need to bring charges.)

Thank you Briar Rose.
  #1365  
Old 04-22-2021, 11:07 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
That must have been so traumatic. The loss of your mother suddenly was not helped by a gawking public and press at all. I'm so sorry to hear that you had to go through all that.

I also feel sympathy (not empathy because I've never experienced what she has) for what Meghan had to endure from the press but I would have hoped that once she moved away from the UK and the royal limelight, that she could put it all behind her and just move on with life. It's not easy to do, I know, but to me, dredging it all up again on international TV expressing how she felt actually gave those that printed this kind of crapola fuel for their fire.
Thanks for the kind words. It was a long time ago.

The Sussex couple's decisions in all things publicity-related seem counter-intuitive to good mental health.
  #1366  
Old 04-22-2021, 11:14 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
I think the opposite. Closing off communication by stop taking Harry's call closed off any possibility of coming up with a solution that benefited all. However, I would be lying if I said I was surprised by the PoW's actions.
That is an interesting point , could I ask why you are not surprised by the actions of the POW's.
  #1367  
Old 04-22-2021, 11:18 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige
...

Your last point is an excellent one, but even so, Harry ought to consider that his father won’t be around forever. I’d have thought Charles getting COVID would have scared him some. ]He shouldn’t wait until his kids are older to reach out; he should have taken the chance his father offered before rushing home to CA.
I thought Charles rushed off to Wales while Harry was still in Windsor.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
  #1368  
Old 04-23-2021, 12:14 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
Meghan's feelings should have been just as valid as anyone else. The story did not die down, in fact it kept on gaining legs and was constantly being rehashed over and over in the press. KP could have killed the story with just 1 line by saying it was not true.
My recollection was that when the story came out that it was a big story because stories where women are pitted against each other tend to get a lot of attention by default but I don't recall it gaining legs, unless you consider that a few months later another story came out claiming to know what exactly was the disagreement between Kate and Meghan. What I also recall was that Meghan was hardly villainized when the story broke, most people attributed Kate's emotions to Kate being post-partum. In fact one of the "insiders" who blabbed about the incident mentions Kate "feeling quite emotional".

Regarding should the palace have stated that it was not true. I don't think that they should have due to there being enough "there there" regarding the story. I am not convinced that the "true" story is that the opposite happened to what was reported and that Kate made Meghan cry. I tend to believe that the story was more incomplete and that both women shed tears, likely after they parted company. So again the palace should not have denied the story because the story was not untrue, secondly, Meghan was not presented as the bad guy in the story, and thirdly the overall reaction to this particular story did not seems all that unfavorable towards Meghan.

Furthermore, I think that the way that the BRF chose to address the matter was to have the Cambridges and the Sussexes walk together when they went to the Christmas service at Sandringham, and then leak a story about how the couples, and particularly the women, spent time together and enjoyed themselves.
  #1369  
Old 04-23-2021, 01:41 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by irish_royalist View Post
While I have huge sympathy for anyone who is having significant mental health problems and actually feeling suicidal, I just cannot accept that Meghan was unable to receive appropriate help.
She is an independently wealthy woman, and her her husband is a very wealthy 36 year old man. They have shown that they can do or say more or less as they please.
If Meghan has been in such difficulty, and in need of help so urgently, why did her husband not arrange this for her? They lived in London, with a huge amount of professional support on their doorstep. I simply cannot accept this grievance.
I agree that Meghan could have sought help with her menatl health if she really needed it. Harry has publicly admitted to seeking help (on William's advice) in the past, it is well documented that Diana sought help with her mental health, and Harry (along with William and Catherine) has ben campaigning to raise awarenss of mental health issues. IMO, tt just seems disingenous to suggest that "The Firm" would have prevented her from seeking help.
  #1370  
Old 04-23-2021, 02:56 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC View Post
The media in the US are like the media everywhere. They want to report the juiciest story so that people will buy their magazine or newspaper. I agree that our media doesn’t know nor probably care about royal rules. Oprah had a really good reputation; in my book she lost tons of credibility. It wasn’t a real interview at all. And even though she is an entertainer, she has done far better interviews.



But Meghan said she wanted to hit the ground running, didn’t she?
yes she did, but there were stories during the year or 2 of their working years of marriage about them possibly going to live in Africa.. and one I think that said that Charles had offered them an estate.. which seems to indicate that while overtly they were doing royal duties and Meghan was keen on the work, that behind the scenes there were perhaps some problems and the RF was trying to find some way of giving them some time off...
So it seems to me that there were straws in the wind that indicated that Meg and harry were complianing and saying they weren't happy with being busy with the Royal work, and that the RF WERE Taking note of their problems and trying to find some way of giving them a break....
  #1371  
Old 04-23-2021, 03:08 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I agree that Meghan could have sought help with her menatl health if she really needed it. Harry has publicly admitted to seeking help (on William's advice) in the past, it is well documented that Diana sought help with her mental health, and Harry (along with William and Catherine) has ben campaigning to raise awarenss of mental health issues. IMO, tt just seems disingenous to suggest that "The Firm" would have prevented her from seeking help.
It doesn't make sense, does it? So much of what was said in and around the time of that Oprah interview doesn't make sense, and I think that is what is making a lot of us doubt the motives and veracity of the Sussexes. It is certainly made me think less of them both because it doesn't make sense. Sure, she might have suffered slights and difficulties and even racism at the hands of those "grey men" and even the RF. And if she did she has every right to take them on, but there are effective and appropriate ways to do that and she didn't pursue those ways, she took a strange course. Why on earth would the Queen's grand-daughter-in-law have consulted the staff HR office instead of asking her husband to help her make arrangements to see a psychologist or doctor? She is not a staff member, she is family, and her husband and his brother and sister-in-law have been very vocal about mental health and their need to get help. The story about this issue alone totally bewilders me.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #1372  
Old 04-23-2021, 03:19 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
It doesn't make sense, does it? So much of what was said in and around the time of that Oprah interview doesn't make sense, a Why on earth would the Queen's grand-daughter-in-law have consulted the staff HR office instead of asking her husband to help her make arrangements to see a psychologist or doctor? She is not a staff member, she is family, and her husband and his brother and sister-in-law have been very vocal about mental health and their need to get help. The story about this issue alone totally bewilders me.
Why didn't she simply consult her doctor? She must have been seeing a doctor and probably nurses/midwives who were looking after her pregnancy, and the doctor could refer her to a psychiatrist .. Why didn't Harry consult whoever worked with him, when he had mental health difficulties and ask that professional to see Meghan?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
That’s what they thought. They bought into the hype and thought that people were willing to throw millions of dollars at them because they were Harry and Meghan. They’re finding out that with them being on the outs with the RF, these people are no longer as interested. Thus, IMO, the leaks about how they’re still on great terms with TQ.
Yes but it is beginning to make them look odd and discordant in what they say. Jus t before the Oprah thing Harry was talking to Corden about how he and Meg were talking to the queen and Philip and how the queen sent Archie a present and it was all as if they were the best of friends. Then they went on Orpah and gave a very different picture that there were tensions and arguments and racisit remarks, and there were difficulties in communicating with his father and the Queen. So which is true?
  #1373  
Old 04-23-2021, 04:13 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,203
William spent some time working as an air ambulance pilot and only doing royal duties part-time ... but that only pays an ordinary sort of salary - I forget whether William actually took the money or whether he donated it to charity - rather than the sort of "professional income" that seems to have been Harry and Meghan's main motivation.
  #1374  
Old 04-23-2021, 04:17 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
William spent some time working as an air ambulance pilot and only doing royal duties part-time ... but that only pays an ordinary sort of salary - I forget whether William actually took the money or whether he donated it to charity - rather than the sort of "professional income" that seems to have been Harry and Meghan's main motivation.
That is correct and received criticism for not doing enough royal duties.
The Queen had given them settling in time, both as newly weds and then parents, I find it hard to believe the Queen would not have allowed Harry and Meghan a similar option.
  #1375  
Old 04-23-2021, 04:32 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 695
.. well it was Meghan who announced in their engagment interview, that they wanted to 'hit the ground running' after the marriage....



which i thought instantly, was a big mistake and very much 'american- california - over-confident way of doing things - as britts and the royal family tend to be very much 'understated' ...
  #1376  
Old 04-23-2021, 04:32 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,510
The Queen did offer it to them - they rejected it. And they were also offered the ability to go live in a Commonwealth country - they rejected these offers. It wasn't to their liking - Meghan wanted to jump right in and well, we really don't know.

I have wondered if the security and financial arrangements made on these offers were not what Meghan and Harry look at and were expecting for the move to LA.
  #1377  
Old 04-23-2021, 04:41 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
The Queen did offer it to them - they rejected it. And they were also offered the ability to go live in a Commonwealth country - they rejected these offers. It wasn't to their liking - Meghan wanted to jump right in and well, we really don't know.

I have wondered if the security and financial arrangements made on these offers were not what Meghan and Harry look at and were expecting for the move to LA.
I think that they simply wanted to be free of too many obligations, to be able to earn more money than an allowance from Charles, and to be free to live in the US. other offers like Africa or an estate In the UK were not what they had in mind.. which was to have the best of both worlds. They wanted to do royal duties but they also wanted to be able to talk about politics, and to shake off any shackles. They needed to do some royal duties to keep up the royal connextion.. which they could then use for their brand.. and I suppose they thought that if they stayed as working royals the tax payer would still pay security costs.. (thoguh they seem to have thought that they'd always have security paid for).
  #1378  
Old 04-23-2021, 04:56 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
It doesn't make sense, does it? So much of what was said in and around the time of that Oprah interview doesn't make sense, and I think that is what is making a lot of us doubt the motives and veracity of the Sussexes. It is certainly made me think less of them both because it doesn't make sense. Sure, she might have suffered slights and difficulties and even racism at the hands of those "grey men" and even the RF. And if she did she has every right to take them on, but there are effective and appropriate ways to do that and she didn't pursue those ways, she took a strange course. Why on earth would the Queen's grand-daughter-in-law have consulted the staff HR office instead of asking her husband to help her make arrangements to see a psychologist or doctor? She is not a staff member, she is family, and her husband and his brother and sister-in-law have been very vocal about mental health and their need to get help. The story about this issue alone totally bewilders me.
It's probably because she does have emails to HR about her struggling and HR saying they couldn't help (because she's not an employee) can "prove" that, like she had an email that proves she brought up the crying thing in January 2020 (but not the response). Of course the BRF can't release private emails to her suggesting that she talk to her OBGYN for a recommendation or that she can get therapy every day at home rather than a mental health facility in the US for example.

Along with Harry, Margaret, Diana, Charles (possibly even HM) and others in the BRF getting therapy, her OBGYN being trained to spot depression in pregnant mothers and and apparently not speaking to her GP, her mother has worked in the mental health field. Even if she doesn't know the UK system she would be able to offer advice on what to do rather than contact HR and nothing else.

Quote:
Yes but it is beginning to make them look odd and discordant in what they say. Jus t before the Oprah thing Harry was talking to Corden about how he and Meg were talking to the queen and Philip and how the queen sent Archie a present and it was all as if they were the best of friends. Then they went on Orpah and gave a very different picture that there were tensions and arguments and racisit remarks, and there were difficulties in communicating with his father and the Queen. So which is true?
It's entirely silly but they're trying to go the "William/Charles =Bad" "Queen=Good" route because they need the glamour and connection of/to the BRF to succeed. That's why they want to keep using their titles, that's a big reason they want two children who are going to grow up out of the "toxic, trapped" environment in progressive California to be HRH Prince/ss.

As if HM wasn't the still active and working head of everything that they trashed but some sweet lady who's completely separate from it and just happens to be the most famous woman in the world who everyone has some respect/affection for. And now suddenly Meghan and Philip were very, very close as well.

Some of the Sussex Squad are confused as anything about the glowing Meghan and Philip stories given his reputation and their previous "tear it down" attitude. So the dissonance is striking and noticed.

IIRC William donated his Air Ambulance salary to charity. It seems from all sides that there were options for Harry and Meghan to take it slowly although the "she'll have to work" comment seems to have been taken badly by Harry. But once they were in and working they couldn't go and make money off their "brand" part time. If they wanted to retrain as doctors or teachers and do the occasional royal duty or go and be organic, vegan farmers in the Cotswolds that would be a different story.
  #1379  
Old 04-23-2021, 05:36 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
I



the "she'll have to work" comment seems to have been taken badly by Harry. But once they were in and working they couldn't go and make money off their "brand" part time. If they wanted to retrain as doctors or teachers and do the occasional royal duty or go and be organic, vegan farmers in the Cotswolds that would be a different story.
yes that's another thing. You would think that Meghan would be glad to be able to go on working, but Harry seems to have taken it as an insult. It seems like there was no context given for that remark, but again it sounds odd to be told something like "ther'es no money to keep her, she'll have to work". Obviously as H's wife, there would be funds available for her upkeep, and she would harldy have to go out working to put food on the table. But If they had said that if she wanted to go on acting, you'd think that Meg would have been pleased to be able to keep up her career and not have to cut ribbons.
  #1380  
Old 04-23-2021, 08:49 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
yes she did, but there were stories during the year or 2 of their working years of marriage about them possibly going to live in Africa.. and one I think that said that Charles had offered them an estate.. which seems to indicate that while overtly they were doing royal duties and Meghan was keen on the work, that behind the scenes there were perhaps some problems and the RF was trying to find some way of giving them some time off...
So it seems to me that there were straws in the wind that indicated that Meg and harry were complianing and saying they weren't happy with being busy with the Royal work, and that the RF WERE Taking note of their problems and trying to find some way of giving them a break....
While the “recollections may vary” part of the RF’s statement was the part that received the most attention, I thought the other part, which said something like, “we were sorry to hear just how unhappy The Sussexes were” was more subtle, but more revealing. At first glance it seems like sympathy, but it also clarified that the BRF didn’t see the tale of endless woe/mental breakdown Harry and Meghan described, either because Harry and Meghan didn’t show them or, just possibly, because there was no actual mental health crisis at the time.

I’d be interested in knowing when Meghan and Harry heard about the possibility of the bullying accusations, and BP’s response to them, being investigated. I wonder if there was an element of getting their cover story in place well before any damaging findings are released, (“she’s not a hypocritical bully, she’s a mentally ill victim of racism”).
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (0 members and 6 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021 Jacknch Current Events Archive 2203 04-06-2021 12:08 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american baby names biography britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker bowles canada carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house cpr dna dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon edward vii elizabeth ii emperor family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hochberg hypothetical monarchs jewellery jewelry kensington palace list of rulers maxima mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal family plantinum jubilee pless prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess ariane princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria resusci anne royal court royal jewels royalty of taiwan russian court dress spain stuart thailand thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:58 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×