The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: Aug. 2021- Oct. 2022

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by angieuk

My question is WHY has this happened to a couple who were welcomed with open arms in the UK. If they felt they were being treated unfairly; again why was this unfairness happening?

One of the best things I read in a book recently referred to a civil war within a country. A teenager, raised outside the country, asks her visiting relative why it happened and to tell them everything. The response: I don’t know everything, I know somethings, fragments of the story. Life isn’t a novel.

If I was to use two words I would say: Expectations: Unmet, unrealistic, too high, misunderstood. And also an inability to play the long game. A snowball that continued to grow. But these things are deep and complex. When one thing in life goes wrong, all the buckets start to crumble. Our sanity, our equilibrium, our ability to keep the show moving is a finely balanced and vulnerable thing. I am in a public facing job and recently replaced someone who was much loved by the public they serve (due to internal conflicts), I just had to grin and bare the fact in their eyes I wasn’t them and therefore not good enough. The advice to me was you can only be who you are and you need to play long. You won’t win everyone. Same thing happened to a guy who once replaced me when I moved on. People didn’t like the changes and there was a year or two of not being well received.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by angieuk

The security issue is still a big decision as to whether the whole family come to the UK. I'm not sure when a a decision will be reached by the Home Office? June is only round the corner now.

Sadly, if these family conflicts are not resolved; then Harry's book will be next on the Agenda.

My question is WHY has this happened to a couple who were welcomed with open arms in the UK. If they felt they were being treated unfairly; again why was this unfairness happening?

Whilst Harry's ongoing litigation with the HM's Government may or may not be resolved by June, Harry has to decide if he really wants to be present or not for the Jubilee. He will need to decide if he feels his security requirement will exceed that of reigning and future monarch's. He could easily visit, stay at a royal residence (Windsor?), spend time with family, be driven in royal convoys, attend the Jubilee events he is invited to, and leave quietly. But if he is not interested in spending time with the Queen and his family, he can find many an excuse, which no doubt, he can talk about in media appearances.

[yukari]

Originally Posted by caethi

(...)

Harry's remarks about making sure that the Queen was surrounded by the "right people" could indicate a lot of things, none of them positive. (...)

Could it has something to do with Chancellor of State? Upcoming palace announcement of some change perhaps?

[OwlBranch]

Originally Posted by RandyDrx

I doubt that, judging by how many times that Harry has been name-dropping the Queen compared to how many times the Royals has been name-dropping Harry.

Without Harry, the BRF is still the BRF. Without the BRF, Harry is nothing more than an expat.

Diana lost her HRH when she divorced Charles. She was no longer part of BRF, but her fame did not diminish one single bit. She has been dead for more than 20 years and people are still talking about her.

You can take away Harry's titles, it does not change the fact that his mother was one of the most famous person in the world. For sure, it has been a double edge sword that has caused him great pain, while also gives him power.

Harry, as Diana's son, will remain famous no matter what. He has used that fame to champion things like the Invictus Games, which has been a great success.

People will still watch football or rugby games, even if William is not the teams' patron. There will be no Invictus Games without Harry.

[Alison H]

I think this is now a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If Harry, Meghan and the children are at the Jubilee, and TBH I don't think many people here in the UK want them there because of the anger over the Oprah interview etc, they will be criticised for hypocrisy. If they are not there, they will be criticised for failing to support Harry's 96-year-old grandmother on a unique day in her life and the history of the nation and the Commonwealth.

But any of us could be run over by a bus tomorrow. The Queen is 96, and, sadly, her health does seem to be failing. Thomas Markle is in poor health. If you don't take the chance for reconciliation whilst you can, it may be too late, and then you have to live with that. On the other hand, how far do you drive yourself mad to try to mend a broken relationship?

We don't know what went on between Harry and Prince Philip before Philip's death, but the fact is that Philip died whilst relations between Harry and his father and brother were not very good. I hope for everyone's sake that they can all find some sort of peace.

[Ghost]

Originally Posted by OwlBranch

Diana lost her HRH when she divorced Charles. She was no longer part of BRF, but her fame did not diminish one single bit. She has been dead for more than 20 years and people are still talking about her.

You can take away Harry's titles, it does not change the fact that his mother was one of the most famous person in the world. For sure, it has been a double edge sword that has caused him great pain, while also gives him power.

Harry, as Diana's son, will remain famous no matter what. He has used that fame to champion things like the Invictus Games, which has been a great success.

People will still watch football or rugby games, even if William is not the teams' patron. There will be no Invictus Games without Harry.

I hope that the organization that runs the games is strong enough to exist beyond its founder, no matter how famous and wholeheartedly invested he is.

[RandyDrx]

Originally Posted by OwlBranch

Diana lost her HRH when she divorced Charles. (1) She was no longer part of BRF, but her fame did not diminish one single bit. She has been dead for more than 20 years and people are still talking about her.

You can take away Harry's titles, it does not change the fact that his mother was one of the most famous person in the world. For sure, it has been a double edge sword that has caused him great pain, while also gives him power.

(2) Harry, as Diana's son, will remain famous no matter what. He has used that fame to champion things like the Invictus Games, which has been a great success.

People will still watch football or rugby games, even if William is not the teams' patron. (3) There will be no Invictus Games without Harry.

1. Let's be perfectly honest here, people wouldn't know who Diana was if she wasn't married to the future King of Britain.

2. My point is, the only reason why people notice Harry is simply because he is a member of the BRF. Do you seriously believe that Harry would be interviewed by Oprah if he was simply "Harry Smith"?

3. There will be no Invictus Games without PRINCE Harry. I doubt Invictus Games would have even existed if he wasn't a prince.


These are the reasons why I disagreed with this part of your post:

Originally Posted by OwlBranch

To be clear, the royal family will benefit from him showing up not the other way around.

Without Harry, the BRF seems to be fine in the past couple of years.

[Curryong]

One could say that about all members of the BRF though, and all royals everywhere in fact.Would any journalist be interested in Betty Windsor, housewife, or Philip as an ordinary naval officer?
Charles as a country farmer, Kate as a sales assistant, William as an RAF pilot, and so on?
I think not. It’s their positions in life, a matter of chance of birth or marriage, that makes them at all interesting. Would any of them be patrons of charities if not for their birth?

And that goes for all of them. Even Anne and Zara as Olympians. They might well not have got there if Anne hadn’t been the child of a very wealthy woman with her own stables.

[Roderick]

Originally Posted by muriel

Whilst Harry's ongoing litigation with the HM's Government may or may not be resolved by June, Harry has to decide if he really wants to be present or not for the Jubilee. He will need to decide if he feels his security requirement will exceed that of reigning and future monarch's. He could easily visit, stay at a royal residence (Windsor?), spend time with family, be driven in royal convoys, attend the Jubilee events he is invited to, and leave quietly. But if he is not interested in spending time with the Queen and his family, he can find many an excuse, which no doubt, he can talk about in media appearances.

Have I missed something? How do we know that Harry has even been invited to participate in Platinum Jubilee events?

[Denville]

It is possible that the queen would like him to be there. She wont have many more chances to see him possibly and it is a big Jubillee.

[Ghost]

Originally Posted by Curryong

One could say that about all members of the BRF though, and all royals everywhere in fact.Would any journalist be interested in Betty Windsor, housewife, or Philip as an ordinary naval officer?
Charles as a country farmer, Kate as a sales assistant, William as an RAF pilot, and so on?
I think not. It’s their positions in life, a matter of chance of birth or marriage, that makes them at all interesting. Would any of them be patrons of charities if not for their birth?

And that goes for all of them. Even Anne and Zara as Olympians. They might well not have got there if Anne hadn’t been the child of a very wealthy woman with her own stables.

Or Meghan as a cable actress.

[iceflower]

The Duke of Sussex at the Invictus Games today, April 21:


** gettyimages gallery **

[Curryong]

Originally Posted by Ghost

Or Meghan as a cable actress.

Except that actresses are occasionally interviewed by entertainment media. Housewives, farmers and shop assistants aren’t.

[US Royal Watcher]

What I found most interesting was that Harry's comments sounded like Meghan wasn't at the meeting with the Queen. I tend to agree with Hallo Girl that Harry meant to say that he wanted to see for himself that the Queen was doing well. But I can understand if the Queen's loyal staff and other family members were offended by his use of words like "right people" and "protected."

I found it strange for him to assert that the Queen can only talk with him about certain things. I think it is almost pathetic that Harry feels the need to project that he is the closest person to the Queen and the only person who really cares about her welfare.

Originally Posted by Roderick

Have I missed something? How do we know that Harry has even been invited to participate in Platinum Jubilee events?

I would be shocked if Harry and Meghan haven't been invited to participate in the Jubilee on some level. For the 60th Jubilee, the only people on the balcony were the Queen, Phillip, and Charles immediate family. I suspect that the whole family will be on the balcony this time around to avoid the same awkwardness that would have occurred if certain family members had been allowed to wear uniforms at Phillip's funeral.

[Curryong]

Where in the interview did Harry state that he is ‘the closest person to the Queen’ ‘the only person who cares about her welfare’ and that his grandmother can ‘only speak to him about certain things’?

In fact I can imagine that the Queen and her grandson to have a good chat and giggle about all sorts of things. And even ‘royal commentators’ who loathe Meghan have not inferred that she wasn’t with Harry. In fact he stated clearly at one point ‘Yes We had tea with her (the Queen)’.

[Heavs]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

What I found most interesting was that Harry's comments sounded like Meghan wasn't at the meeting with the Queen. I tend to agree with Hallo Girl that Harry meant to say that he wanted to see for himself that the Queen was doing well. But I can understand if the Queen's loyal staff and other family members were offended by his use of words like "right people" and "protected."

I feel he's making comments about the staff who wouldn't let him see her alone during the Sandringham Summit among other things.

Even if I were feeling generous and allowed that he meant to say that he wanted to see that she was okay - which isn't out of the realm of possibility after Philip's death and COVID - I think it's very ungenerous to put it mildly that he can't even share his mother's ghost with his brother. If the spirit of Diana really is around then clearly she's watching over both her sons and all her grandchildren. The Sussexes seem bent on taking over Diana.

[Alison H]

I'm one of four cousins. We each had our own individual relationship with our late grandparents. That doesn't mean that any one of us was closer to them than the others. I'm sure that the Queen has her own relationship with each of her grandchildren. There will be private jokes between her and Harry, but there will also be private jokes between her and Zara, her and Louise, her and William, etc. I'm sure that Prince Philip talked to Louise about carriage driving, but I don't suppose he talked to, say, Beatrice about carriage driving because it wasn't her thing. And so on and so forth. I'm sure that the Queen talks to Zara about horses, but I don't suppose she talks to, say, William about horses because he doesn't seem that interested in them.

But the comment about making sure that the Queen had the right people around her has riled people a bit, like when anyone who's been absent for a long time waltzes in and starts telling everyone what to do, when they've been doing the work all along. Maybe that's not how he meant it, but that's how it sounded.

[RandyDrx]

Originally Posted by Curryong

One could say that about all members of the BRF though, and all royals everywhere in fact.Would any journalist be interested in Betty Windsor, housewife, or Philip as an ordinary naval officer?
Charles as a country farmer, Kate as a sales assistant, William as an RAF pilot, and so on?
I think not. It’s their positions in life, a matter of chance of birth or marriage, that makes them at all interesting. Would any of them be patrons of charities if not for their birth?

And that goes for all of them. Even Anne and Zara as Olympians. They might well not have got there if Anne hadn’t been the child of a very wealthy woman with her own stables.

Oh yes, I completely agree with everything you've wrote here. But my question is this:

Originally Posted by OwlBranch

To be clear, the royal family will benefit from him showing up not the other way around.

How is it clear that the royal family will benefit from Harry showing up at the Platinum Jubilee and not the other way around? The BRF never name-dropped Harry in the past couple of years while the same can't be said in reverse. Plus, Harry isn't even the most popular British royal judging by the various polls on the internet, so how can people say that the BRF will benefit from Harry attending the Platinum Jubilee? In what way do the royals benefit exactly?

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by RandyDrx

How is it clear that the royal family will benefit from Harry showing up at the Platinum Jubilee and not the other way around? The BRF never name-dropped Harry in the past couple of years while the same can't be said in reverse. Plus, Harry isn't even the most popular British royal judging by the various polls on the internet, so how can people say that the BRF will benefit from Harry attending the Platinum Jubilee? In what way do the royals benefit exactly?

They don’t. I mean it doesn’t matter either way to them only that the media, the loves, will talk about it. The only thing important to the royals is that Andrew is no where near it.

Originally Posted by Curryong

One could say that about all members of the BRF though, and all royals everywhere in fact.Would any journalist be interested in Betty Windsor, housewife, or Philip as an ordinary naval officer?
Charles as a country farmer, Kate as a sales assistant, William as an RAF pilot, and so on?
I think not. It’s their positions in life, a matter of chance of birth or marriage, that makes them at all interesting. Would any of them be patrons of charities if not for their birth?

And that goes for all of them. Even Anne and Zara as Olympians. They might well not have got there if Anne hadn’t been the child of a very wealthy woman with her own stables.

Well…yeah. And no one is more aware of that then the Queen. Certain other members actually think it is them and not their situation. I would count Harry, and to a certain extent Charles, in that group. Margaret definitely. Not Edward (since he gained maturity), Anne or William and certainly not any others.

Now Anne and Zara have talent. But no one gets into a horse career without 1 money or/and two being born into a horse environment. Doesn’t mean they are are any good. Those two are. Particularly Zara. And I mean it’s all available opportunities. You won’t be a champion ice-skater being born in Spain.

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

…

But I can understand if the Queen's loyal staff and other family members were offended by his use of words like "right people" and "protected."

I’m not sure how the Windsor ‘bubble’ was set up to protect the Queen.
But it failed.
Somehow, after nearly two years of the pandemic, the Queen contracted Covid. The protocol for determining who was healthy enough to meet with the Queen was apparently not followed, and she is now in the greatly weakened state that can follow Covid, not uncommon, particularly in the aged.