The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April-June 2021

[Denville]

I think the title is very ominious anyway.....

 

[Betsypaige]

I think the title is very ominious anyway.....

Yeah, it does fill me with dread, lol

Obviously I can guess what the deeply personal episode is....I’m sure one of his “truth bombs” will go off there...

 

[The Crown]

It's so incredibly sad. It's like he's gone mad.


But hopefully the more he says the sooner he'll be done with it.

 

[Blog Real]

It is true. The title is very strange. Why did Harry choose this title?

I'm afraid of what he can count on in this new mental health series with Oprah Winfrey.

 

[Denville]

It is true. The title is very strange. Why did Harry choose this title?

I'm afraid of what he might get on this new mental health series with Oprah Winfrey.

well they can discuss how he diddn't get help for his wife when she was very depressed....

 

[rominet09]

How low can he go ?

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April 2021 -

I think the title is very ominious anyway.....

Indeed.

I can’t say I really want to see more of the real Harry at this point. The more of the “me you can’t (or haven’t until now) see” that he’s let out- the less I liked. Same for Meghan. My diminished opinion of them both has been solely based on their own words and behavior.

Besides hurting his family and further damaging relationships, I’m not sure it’s that wise for people whose future earnings depend on the public liking them to reveal too much. People might not like who they really are. And these 2 are basically entirely dependent on the public’s interest and goodwill. Their name is what they bring to the table for the most part.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

If they calculate that the profit garnered by the names will be greater than the expenses paid to Meghan and Harry, they will.


I work in an industry where names aren't everything but a few names are revered. The people in question are media's darlings. Before I started working in this field, I thought they were the best of the best. It turned out that they are pretty good but what distinguishes them from most of the others are their names. The companies with solid names will always work with them if some people with solid knowledge but not so famous names are ready to pick up the slack. It's win-win: the final product looks professional and it has the prestige of the famous name. If the not so famous name says, "No way, I have no time/I'm not cleaning up after them", the big names are out. If the final product cannot be delivered, they're out. But if the product is good, it doesn't matter who actually did it. The prestige matters.


I imagine it's the same with Netflix and Proctor and Gamble. If they think it's financially good for them, they will do it, if not, they won't.

Exactly. It is not just about ratings for whatever they produce, it is prestige of having a real member of the royal family associated with them. It is also whatever publicity Harry and Meghan bring. I also imagine that these companies will want Harry and Meghan at a lot of events, which the companies will use to lure in investors, talent, etc.

 

[Osipi]

Yeah, it does fill me with dread, lol

Obviously I can guess what the deeply personal episode is....I’m sure one of his “truth bombs” will go off there...

Truth bombs. Is this a term they're using in the media to describe this series and what's expected from Harry? It's one thing to tell one's story of what's happened to a person and what they've gone through but if there isn't anything to support it that points to a healing solution, all we get is a play for sympathy and the right to wear a "victim" badge.

I've yet to see either Harry or Meghan relate just how they've dealt with problems they've faced other than to run away to somewhere far, far away.

 

[Betsypaige]

Truth bombs. Is this a term they're using in the media to describe this series and what's expected from Harry? It's one thing to tell one's story of what's happened to a person and what they've gone through but if there isn't anything to support it that points to a healing solution, all we get is a play for sympathy and the right to wear a "victim" badge.

I've yet to see either Harry or Meghan relate just how they've dealt with problems they've faced other than to run away to somewhere far, far away.

I wouldn’t be surprised if either Harry or Meghan described their revelations as “truth bombs”. To me, it’s their version of the truth, not the actual truth. I’ve heard enough of their interviews to know that they have agenda, and they’re not above twisting the facts to suit their purposes. I’m sure a Twitter will be a cesspool after the Diana stuff...

 

[Eskimo]

I wouldn’t be surprised if either Harry or Meghan described their revelations as “truth bombs”. To me, it’s their version of the truth, not the actual truth. I’ve heard enough of their interviews to know that they have agenda, and they’re not above twisting the facts to suit their purposes. I’m sure a Twitter will be a cesspool after the Diana stuff...

Well let’s hope they kept a cheat-sheet of all the “truth bombs” they’ve dropped so far so that these new “truth bombs” don’t contradict them

 

[ladongas]

Most kids in the UK are off school for 13 weeks a year. For private schools, it can be 15 or 16 weeks. Many people only get 4 weeks a year off work. You can't just clear your schedule. OK, it's not as if Prince Charles is an employee of an unsympathetic company, but he's still got many responsibilities.

I remember having school plays and school Sports Days and so on, and it being disappointing for those children whose parents weren't able to come, but, as you say, that's the way the world works. Harry doesn't seem to get that.

Charles found time for Camilla- perhaps that’s part of what Harry resents.

 

[Betsypaige]

Well let’s hope they kept a cheat-sheet of all the “truth bombs” they’ve dropped so far so that these new “truth bombs” don’t contradict them

????? it’s hilarious, but sadly that’s a good point.

The Diana stuff, where he talks about his mum, will be emotional, I’m sure. I don’t want to make light of his genuine suffering...but, if he drops
“truth bombs” to make a splash, I think he’s going to diminish any impact he hopes to have. I do fear him making further accusations against his father and family - I hope I’m wrong.

 

[AC21091968]

I'm sure this post may get moved to a different thread. Channel 4 has produced a documentary called A Very Royal Baby: From Cradle To Crown, which focus on the birth of Archie and history of royal birth. This documentary was released on 19th May, 3rd wedding anniversary of Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Here is channel 4's introduction on its website

A Very Royal Baby: From Cradle to Crown
About the programme
What does it mean to be born royal? This insight into the arrival of Harry and Meghan's second child looks at the pressures faced by royal mums-to-be and how attitudes to pregnancy have changed.

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/a-very-royal-baby-from-cradle-to-crown

The reviews for this documentary is not great at all to say the least.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...your-harry-and-meghan-fix-today-yet-1.4569757
https://inews.co.uk/culture/televis...l-4-review-prince-harry-meghan-markle-1009724
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2021...e-crown-review-crowded-field-worst-royal-doc/​

Omid Scobie was one of the contributor, along with Ingrid Seward and Paul Burrell.

“If you look at the few things that unify a country, it’s royal weddings and royal births,” adds Omid Scobie, author of Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...your-harry-and-meghan-fix-today-yet-1.4569757

Ingrid Seward of Majesty magazine was furious that Harry and Meghan didn’t release the names of Archie’s godparents. Truly, who cares? Omid Scobie, Meghan’s favourite biographer, speculated that the Sussex children might have careers in Hollywood or politics, despite the fact that one of these children hasn’t been born yet.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2021...e-crown-review-crowded-field-worst-royal-doc/

Buckingham Palace aides 'rolled their eyes' when they discussed Meghan Markle's 'common' $500,000 baby shower with royal correspondents, the author of Finding Freedom has claimed.

The Duchess of Sussex, 39, celebrated the impending birth of her firstborn son with Prince Harry, 36, by flying to the Big Apple by private jet in 2019, provoking outcry with the five-day baby shower celebration. Around 20 friends attended, including Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.

Speaking in the Channel 4 documentary A Very Royal Baby: From Cradle to Crown, which airs tonight, Omid Scobie claimed: 'I remember speaking to a palace aide at the time who rolled their eyes, they were horrified that something so common was happening within the House of Windsor.'

(...)

Scobie admitted the idea of a baby shower was 'as far from British tradition as you can get'.

'We had never seen someone throw this very lavish affair to celebrate the impending arrival of a baby.'

Scobie said there’s been 'a lot of speculation' about where Harry and Meghan’s second child might be born, adding Los Angeles-based hospital Cedars-Sinai has some of the 'finest maternity suits in the country.’

(...)

He previously claimed aides were 'spitting' over the baby shower, writing in Finding Freedom: 'While the trip had been a hit with Meghan, senior courtiers back in the UK were spitting out their morning tea when they saw her lavish baby shower thrown by friends turn into a media circus with what looked like carefully stage-managed paparazzi walks of the duchess in big black sunglasses from her hotel to her car and a laundry list of insider party details reported by US press.

'It's fair to say that the optics of the somewhat flashy shower did not go down well with certain individuals at the Palace,' a senior aide revealed.

It continues: 'Meghan was often criticized for being too Hollywood, meaning too flashy. Especially for the reserved aesthetic of the monarchy.'

A source told the authors: 'I think a few people that had defended her over the months felt a little disappointed. But sometimes in this role you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

'Ultimately, the trip was just Meghan's friends celebrating a really exciting moment in her life.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...eghan-Markle-common-baby-shower-New-York.html

 

[muriel]

Oh Harry! I am afraid that what Harry has revealed of himself in the last 18 months is not very nice, and we would all have been very happy not to have seen it. I can only hope, for Harry's sake, that "The me you can't see" does not add to the bits of Harry we have not seen before!

 

[muriel]

YOu know the court of public opinion is not on your side when articles like this start to appear in the media!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1395311125227581445

 

[Curryong]

Depends on how credible and salutary as sources of criticism one regards a gossip columnist for The Sun tabloid newspaper, I suppose.

 

[Betsypaige]

YOu know the court of public opinion is not on your side when articles like this start to appear in the media!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1395311125227581445

The thing is, American newspapers don’t even cover Harry and Meghan unless Harry dumps on his family - and even then, it’s only a few, and hardly front page news. I’ve said this all along - in a population of almost 330 million people, 99.9 % just don’t care about H, M or the Royals. Don’t be fooled by gossip or celeb magazines putting them on their covers. Don’t be fooled by loud Sussex stans on Twitter ...

 

[Denville]

yes but what is a bit worrying is that Harry's story/Meg's story does seem to have been beleived by a lot of Americans... who will probalby go around for life thinking that the RF are a bunch of heartless racists.... However his latest outburst against the First Amendment may make Americans think a bit differently and be more cautious in beleving him. However I have to say that a year or so ago, when they first left, there was a lot of criticism of him on Twitter/newspaper outlets.. but about half the nasty comments came from UK people and half from Americans.

 

[muriel]

yes but what is a bit worrying is that Harry's story/Meg's story does seem to have been beleived by a lot of Americans... who will probalby go around for life thinking that the RF are a bunch of heartless racists.... However his latest outburst against the First Amendment may make Americans think a bit differently and be more cautious in beleving him. However I have to say that a year or so ago, when they first left, there was a lot of criticism of him on Twitter/newspaper outlets.. but about half the nasty comments came from UK people and half from Americans.

As of now, IMO, Harry's biggest enemy is himself. Lets see where the next few years take him. I do hope he gets to the stage where he realises that little good will come to him out of being disrespectful to his family and the institution of the monarchy.

 

[Betsypaige]

yes but what is a bit worrying is that Harry's story/Meg's story does seem to have been beleived by a lot of Americans... who will probalby go around for life thinking that the RF are a bunch of heartless racists.... However his latest outburst against the First Amendment may make Americans think a bit differently and be more cautious in beleving him. However I have to say that a year or so ago, when they first left, there was a lot of criticism of him on Twitter/newspaper outlets.. but about half the nasty comments came from UK people and half from Americans.

You only know the loud ones on Twitter, not the ones who aren’t on-line or on Twitter. 330 million people is a LOT of people, and the number of those who believe H and M is a micro-fraction of that number. The people on Twitter who don’t ordinarily pay attention to Royals, good or bad, and who believed H and M in the Oprah interview were very loud, but even their number have gone back to doing their own thing. They didn’t react at all to the podcast - they probably don’t even know Harry did one; they only paid any attention to the interview because it was Oprah and they tuned in out of curiosity, not real interest. The only reaction on Twitter came from Royal watchers ..

 

[Alison H]

Depends on how credible and salutary as sources of criticism one regards a gossip columnist for The Sun tabloid newspaper, I suppose.

Are the opinions of people who write for or read tabloid newspapers invalid? Is the Sun any less entitled to criticise someone than any other newspaper is? Do people who read tabloid newspapers not count?

I can only assume that Harry's trying to get attention and keep his name in the headlines, because I've got no idea what else he hopes to achieve by constantly abusing his family in public. No, Prince Charles isn't perfect. No, the Royal Family isn't perfect. But who is?

I didn't watch the Channel 4 royal baby documentary, just because there've been a million and one royal documentaries on lately and most of them are just showing the same footage over and over again. I appreciate that filming new stuff has been difficult due to Covid restrictions, but there are only so many times you can watch Charles and Diana's kiss on the balcony!

 

[Denville]

As of now, IMO, Harry's biggest enemy is himself. Lets see where the next few years take him. I do hope he gets to the stage where he realises that little good will come to him out of being disrespectful to his family and the institution of the monarchy.

i wouldn't put money on it. What else has he got to talk about? He coudl have given bland talks about the RF which praised them, but that would not have had the impact of saying (in essence) "I know what its like there in hte RF behind the curtain and they're not nice people at all, they're horrible."
And if he were to go back to a more friendly portrayal of the RF now, it wouldn't be very credible.

 

[Denville]

Are the opinions of people who write for or read tabloid newspapers invalid? Is the Sun any less entitled to criticise someone than any other newspaper is? Do people who read tabloid newspapers not count?

I can only assume that Harry's trying to get attention and keep his name in the headlines, because I've got no idea what else he hopes to achieve by constantly abusing his family in public. No, Prince Charles isn't perfect. No, the Royal Family isn't perfect. But who is?

!

In fact, its the tabloid readers who follow royals more than hte broadsheet readers. So once a royal has really lost favour in the tabloid press, it isn't good for him/ her..

 

[Betsypaige]

As of now, IMO, Harry's biggest enemy is himself. Lets see where the next few years take him. I do hope he gets to the stage where he realises that little good will come to him out of being disrespectful to his family and the institution of the monarchy.

Even if that happens, it would be too little, too late; the damage has been done. Even if his relationship with his family improves, they can never forget what Harry has said...

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April 2021 -

i wouldn't put money on it. What else has he got to talk about? .

Well I guess he could find other things to criticize about America that he doesn’t understand.

The First Amendment being “bonkers” worked out great. (I suspect most Americans have no idea he said that. But, those who did, well- he didn’t come off good IMO. I sure haven’t read praise for the comment. Maybe it’s out there, but I haven’t seen it.)

 

[Heavs]

In fact, its the tabloid readers who follow royals more than hte broadsheet readers. So once a royal has really lost favour in the tabloid press, it isn't good for him/ her..

True, and they're the ones who used to push the "cheeky Harry" and "boys will be boys" narrative a lot with him, even as they were also the ones publishing Naked in Vegas etc.

I mean the same day Harry is being called a "dimbo" for trashing the 1st Amendment by a Sun columnist they also have a picture saying "check out William's guns as he gets vaccine" and "Bab-bea joy" etc. It's not difficult to get decent coverage if you don't make yourself a target by sounding off on things you admit you don't understand.

 

[Denville]

True, and they're the ones who used to push the "cheeky Harry" and "boys will be boys" narrative a lot with him, even as they were also the ones publishing Naked in Vegas etc.

I mean the same day Harry is being called a "dimbo" for trashing the 1st Amendment by a Sun columnist they also have a picture saying "check out William's guns as he gets vaccine" and "Bab-bea joy" etc. It's not difficult to get decent coverage if you don't make yourself a target by sounding off on things you admit you don't understand.

The tabloids are there to make money, and they dont really pledge allegiance to any royal.. except maybe the queen. They will write stories that sell, sometimes the royal will be bashed, esp if they've done something stupid, other times he'll be gushingly praised. but by and larger its the tabloid readers (some of them) who like to read about the royals and like them.. so if a royal gets on the wrong side of tabloid editors and reporters, they will get bashed and may never recover from the unfavourable coverage.....And H and Meg have IMO done their damnedest to really cheese off the tabloids so they will probably never be liked or favourably written about... again.

 

[camelot23ca]

Are the opinions of people who write for or read tabloid newspapers invalid? Is the Sun any less entitled to criticise someone than any other newspaper is? Do people who read tabloid newspapers not count?

I can only assume that Harry's trying to get attention and keep his name in the headlines, because I've got no idea what else he hopes to achieve by constantly abusing his family in public. No, Prince Charles isn't perfect. No, the Royal Family isn't perfect. But who is?

Tabloid readership counts for a lot; the tabloids are influential and are read widely, including by people who would swear up and down they only read The Guardian. Just as Harry has found that the most profitable way of talking about his family is to criticize them, the tabloids have always known that the most profitable way to cover the BRF is to criticize the easiest target - in this case someone who is giving them plenty of ammunition. At this point the tabloids aren’t even in their usual position of having to make things up - with The Sussexes the stories just write themselves.

Harry’s criticism of the tabloids in the UK is a bit much considering he’s essentially adopted their strategy.

 

[_Heather_]

The thing is, American newspapers don’t even cover Harry and Meghan unless Harry dumps on his family - and even then, it’s only a few, and hardly front page news. I’ve said this all along - in a population of almost 330 million people, 99.9 % just don’t care about H, M or the Royals. Don’t be fooled by gossip or celeb magazines putting them on their covers. Don’t be fooled by loud Sussex stans on Twitter ...

I think this is very true but I also think it's worth pointing out that while the vast majority of Americans are totally indifferent or uninterested in The Harry and Meghan Show, the whining, the poor us routine, the "big, bad, meanies in the RF" narrative, etc., a great many of those indifferent and uninterested Americans were aghast and more than a little irritated at the uneducated trashing of the First Amendment. Americans take those Amendments and the Constitution very seriously and that bit raised a lot of eyebrows and did these two absolutely no favors. So while having a large majority of the population be uninterested in you or indifferent to you may not have really been what they wanted, I suspect it might have been preferable to now having a whole lot of Americans throwing some serious side-eye your way after you ran your mouth publicly about something as "sacred" as the First Amendment.