The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June-July 2021

[duchessrachel]

Harry and Meghan have been moved below Edward and Sophie on the official royal website. They were originally listed above them. It is interesting that they are still listed above Princess Alexandra because she is a working royal. Can someone explain the placement?
https://www.royal.uk/royal-family

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June 2021-

I didn’t want to detail the baby thread- but other posters made a good point there that the title of the book isn’t on the spine. Just “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex”. Well- that is THE selling point. It is unusual though.

ETA- let me amend this- apparently the emphasis is on her name, but the title is duly noted.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I didn’t want to detail the baby thread- but other posters made a good point there that the title of the book isn’t on the spine. Just “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex”. Well- that is THE selling point. It is unusual though.

I should have posted this here instead of the baby name thread:

Looking back at the announcement I laughed when I saw they’d released it with the monogram. And the spine of Megan’s book didn’t even include the title. Literally every book I’ve ever seen (with the exception of very old books) has the title of the book written in large font with the author’s name in smaller font. It is blatantly obvious that they care very much about their titles and connection to the RF that they’ve been bashing for months. I guess nobody ever told them “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”

Thanks, Erin9!

 

[Somebody]

Looking back at the announcement I laughed when I saw they’d released it with the monogram. And the spine of Megan’s book didn’t even include the title. Literally every book I’ve ever seen (with the exception of very old books) has the title of the book written in large font with the author’s name in smaller font. It is blatantly obvious that they care very much about their titles and connection to the RF that they’ve been bashing for months. I guess nobody ever told them “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”

I am not sure that is true. The pictures seemed to only include the upper part of the book (which you can decipher if you compare it to the front. You see a little bird in the tree; which is rather high up and not at the bottom; so my guess is the spine does include the title as well.

 

[Moran]

I am not sure that is true. The pictures seemed to only include the upper part of the book (which you can decipher if you compare it to the front. You see a little bird in the tree; which is rather high up and not at the bottom; so my guess is the spine does include the title as well.

It does include the title but it's barely visible. There are methods and tactics to make sure that the accent is on the title and not the author. They weren't employed here. The name of the author is considerably longer than the title, so it should have been made brighter or at least in considerably bigger letters or an interesting, eye-catching font. The title is what should stand out to help you find the book on the bookshelf. I really didn't see it in the beginning - it's short and small enough and to make it worse, it's in a subdued hue. Which just means that someone failed to bring the accent to the title and chose to place it on the name. Such mistakes are never accidental. They're an intentional effect.

The pictures make it clear that there is no room to make the title bigger because Meghan's name is printed in big size and takes up all the "height" in the spine already.

 

[ACO]

I didn’t want to detail the baby thread- but other posters made a good point there that the title of the book isn’t on the spine. Just “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex”. Well- that is THE selling point. It is unusual though.

That is very much a lie. I saw the book yesterday and Meghan, the illustrator and the title are all on the spine. I don't get why people say things very easily disproven.

 

[_Heather_]

That is very much a lie. I saw the book yesterday and Meghan, the illustrator and the title are all on the spine. I don't get why people say things very easily disproven.

That's a good point. Why would anyone say things publicly that are so easily disproven? Maybe we should ask Harry and Meghan?

 

[iceflower]

The Duke of Sussex and the German Minister of Defence Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer revealed today that the Invictus Games 2023 will take place in Düsseldorf, Germany from September 9 - 16, 2023:


** video **

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June 2021-

That is very much a lie. I saw the book yesterday and Meghan, the illustrator and the title are all on the spine. I don't get why people say things very easily disproven.

I fixed my post based on information provided later. What the other poster could see in the photo was just her name. (I think that was the basis for their comment anyway.) Which is what I responded to.

I’m more than willing to amend things as necessary. It wasn’t INTENTIONAL on my part. I wasn’t aware. I haven’t run out to the bookstore to see the book….

 

[ACO]

That's a good point. Why would anyone say things publicly that are so easily disproven? Maybe we should ask Harry and Meghan?

Then ask them but so far I haven't seem people really disprove them. Just counter with their own opinions. Which is why this discussion is still ongoing.

 

[_Heather_]

Then ask them but so far I haven't seem people really disprove them. Just counter with their own opinions. Which is why this discussion is still ongoing.

Except that things like Archie not getting a princely title at birth because of his race was, in fact, an out and out falsehood that was easily disproven but yet spouted publicly by his parents. Things like security being contingent upon having an HRH, again, easily disproven but spouted publicly by them. These things aren't being countered with opinions. They really were just out and out falsehoods publicly stated and easily disproven.

 

[ACO]

Except that things like Archie not getting a princely title at birth because of his race was, in fact, an out and out falsehood that was easily disproven but yet spouted publicly by his parents. Things like security being contingent upon having an HRH, again, easily disproven but spouted publicly by them. These things aren't being countered with opinions. They really were just out and out falsehoods publicly stated and easily disproven.

Meghan stated that there was plans to change it once Charles was King. That hasn't been disproven. Or proven (to be fair) because it was a conversation claimed to be had and the palace hasn't denied it. So time will tell how that unfolds.

 

[_Heather_]

Meghan stated that there was plans to change it once Charles was King. That hasn't been disproven. Or proven (to be fair) because it was a conversation claimed to be had and the palace hasn't denied it. So time will tell how that unfolds.

We'll have to agree to disagree. This couple has certainly mastered the art of double speak and word salad to leave room for doubt or claims that "they didn't really say that" when they did or they strongly implied it. And I'll admit that I will never understand why H and M apologists are so intent on trying to defend every single thing they've done and said no matter how over the top it is. I will say, though, that I certainly agree with your statement that it's safe to say that relations between Harry and Meghan and the palace have hit a new low.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I am not sure that is true. The pictures seemed to only include the upper part of the book (which you can decipher if you compare it to the front. You see a little bird in the tree; which is rather high up and not at the bottom; so my guess is the spine does include the title as well.

Thanks for letting me know- the title must be small.

 

[Heavs]

I was one of the people that commented yesterday that it seemed only her name and title were on the spine and not The Bench because I saw this picture.

https://archive.ph/72A8T

I will happily admit I was wrong on this one. But will say that clearly M, DOS is the main thing they care about with this book to sell copies, although Meghan isn't 'lone in that in the celebrity author market.

 

[ACO]

I mean fair but I think people also have the same thought of the supporters of the palace when we have seen how they also operate. So this is why the conversation will forever be ongoing.

But yes new lows indeed.

Thanks for letting me know- the title must be small.

They are all the same font. I mean I get folk dislike her but my goodness. It is all evenly spaced. Author. Title. Illustrator. So many things to criticize her for but this one is fairly a weak one.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I mean fair but I think people also have the same thought of the supporters of the palace when we have seen how they also operate. So this is why the conversation will forever be ongoing.

But yes new lows indeed.



They are all the same font. I mean I get folk dislike her but my goodness. It is all evenly spaced. Author. Title. Illustrator. So many things to criticize her for but this one is fairly a weak one.

Does someone have a picture with the title on it? Maybe I’m blind as a bat but I just don’t see the title nor illustrator - thanks!

 

[ACO]

I don't have the book. I only saw it in passing yesterday but I found this picture. You can't see the names clearly but you can see how it is a big book and plenty of space for other names.

https://www.asiaone.com/sites/defau...ges/Jun2021/20210609_TheBenchBook_Reuters.jpg

 

[Lori138]

Except that things like Archie not getting a princely title at birth because of his race was, in fact, an out and out falsehood that was easily disproven but yet spouted publicly by his parents. Things like security being contingent upon having an HRH, again, easily disproven but spouted publicly by them. These things aren't being countered with opinions. They really were just out and out falsehoods publicly stated and easily disproven.

And the fact that the wedding did NOT take place three days before the spectacle at St. George's. Proven by the DM getting a copy of the marriage certificate.

 

[Durham]

Except that things like Archie not getting a princely title at birth because of his race was, in fact, an out and out falsehood that was easily disproven but yet spouted publicly by his parents. Things like security being contingent upon having an HRH, again, easily disproven but spouted publicly by them. These things aren't being countered with opinions. They really were just out and out falsehoods publicly stated and easily disproven.

You are entirely correct.

She said:

"They were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or princess, not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol, and that he wasn’t going to receive security.”

We know that's not true. It wasn't different from protocol.

She also said that the conversation around whether her son would have a title & security was in tandem with “concerns and conversations about how dark [Archie’s] skin might be when he’s born”.

Pretty damming stuff. Be nice to get an apology from her one day. Or at least a clarification.

 

[Durham]

And the plot thickens. With everything that has happened over the past couple of months, I swear that someone could turn all this into a weekly cringeworthy soap opera type reality show. I wonder if Edward would allow them to revive his program title "It's A Royal Knockout".

Where's my popcorn? ?

It's certainly getting that way. Maybe that's the plan.

Maybe a musical next.

 

[Kaye1850]

Not pertaining to this thread specifically but anyone else find “HM” confusing?
Her Majesty or Harry & Meghan?

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Does someone have a picture with the title on it? Maybe I’m blind as a bat but I just don’t see the title nor illustrator - thanks!

Ok! Now I see it! It is a really big picture book - my bad! I do see it all due to the picture you sent. Thanks for sending it!

 

[Hallo girl]

The Sun had an amusing headline today "Earache Break for World: Harry to take 5 months orf" which yes it's The Sun but it seems to be the general idea of what they're taking time off from. They may well have projects on the go, and Harry has his Impact officer job but he wasn't full time or anything.

They clearly have the money and desire to spend time concentrating on their growing family and that's really great for them but I think a lot of people are a little bemused by the idea that it's a big deal, which is what some articles are pushing how "Harry and Meghan are leading the way on family focused life." Because the public don't see what might be keeping them professionally busy on a day to day basis except interviews about his family.

Here's the rather scathing Telegraph review of The Bench mentioned above for those who aren't subscribers:

https://archive.ph/Uhgqw

And The Times. That picture from The Times review show that they very, very clearly want you to know the book is written by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, even just by looking at the spine:

https://archive.ph/72A8T

I just love all this talk about the maternity leave, when Archie was born she was out and about and seemingly working very hard behind closed doors, because according to posters on here she was a worker and not lazy. I had made a comment that I thought she should take things easy because at the end of the day it doesn't matter how rich you are how much help you have a woman has physically had a baby. I was slaughtered on here for criticising Meghan for not being lazy.

I am not sure what the rule is about maternity leave in the USA but it does happen here in the UK. All this talk of doing the right thing.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I fixed my post based on information provided later. What the other poster could see in the photo was just her name. (I think that was the basis for their comment anyway.) Which is what I responded to.

I’m more than willing to amend things as necessary. It wasn’t INTENTIONAL on my part. I wasn’t aware. I haven’t run out to the bookstore to see the book….

And I fixed mine as well - my information was based on the picture I saw. I made a mistake and I’m sorry. After I saw the other posted picture I realized my mistake.

 

[Erin9]

And I fixed mine as well - my information was based on the picture I saw. I made a mistake and I’m sorry. After I saw the other posted picture I realized my mistake.

It wasn’t intentional for either of us.
Mistakes happen.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Not pertaining to this thread specifically but anyone else find “HM” confusing?
Her Majesty or Harry & Meghan?

Folks mean Her Majesty by HM, H&M is Harry and Meghan, and RF is the Royal Family. It took me awhile to figure this out too!

 

[duchessrachel]

Honestly, my first thought when I read they’d both be off for a bit is that, they don’t seem to have actually done a lot of work that takes much time- though I realize our view is very limited and COVID impacted them too- - since roughly their last tour....

Maybe I’m not being fair to them. But they don’t seem to have been overly busy for a long time.

They have mostly been busy trashing the royal family. Hopefully that is what they are going to take a break from, but not likely.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

You are entirely correct.

She said:

"They were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or princess, not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol, and that he wasn’t going to receive security.”

We know that's not true. It wasn't different from protocol.

She also said that the conversation around whether her son would have a title & security was in tandem with “concerns and conversations about how dark [Archie’s] skin might be when he’s born”.

Pretty damming stuff. Be nice to get an apology from her one day. Or at least a clarification.

You're correct it's not different from protocol if she meant from birth but why are everyone just assuming that that was what she meant? It seem much more likely that she referred to plans to strip Archie (and Lili) of the titles they, at the moment, automatically are elevated to once Charles succeeds QEII.

We don't know the details of such plans and the thought process behind them and as such we can't categorically deny that Meghan was incorrect that Archie's race had to do with it (nor can we confirm it). Why would she (they) apologise if their claims are true?

 

[Hallo girl]

You're correct it's not different from protocol if she meant from birth but why are everyone just assuming that that was what she meant? It seem much more likely that she referred to plans to strip Archie (and Lili) of the titles they, at the moment, automatically are elevated to once Charles succeeds QEII.

We don't know the details of such plans and the thought process behind them and as such we can't categorically deny that Meghan was incorrect that Archie's race had to do with it (nor can we confirm it). Why would she (they) apologise if their claims are true?

you have hit the nail on the head because we can never be sure what Meghan means as she has her own spin on everything.

I will be excluded for my next remark but I am going to say it anyway I am starting to get really fed up of reading posts from people out with the UK going on about how racist the royal family and the British media are[...]. I think you all need to look at your own back yards[...]