Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of A Family in Tumult

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Somebody

It seems that's exactly why he interprets it as he does. A major happening within the family that year was 'the birth of her 8th great-grandchild'; yet, Archie was completely missing from the desk. Unlike the previous year where the major family events, i.e., the weddings of Harry & Meghan and Eugenie & Jack and Charles' 70th birthday, were highlighted.

I though that the queen mentioned Archie's birth in her broadcast

[tommy100]

Indeed she did, she said "Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our 8th great grandchild into our family" during which the photo of Archie with H&M, Philip and HM and Doria was shown. So no photo on the desk but a photo and mention during the broadcast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgvZnxNAThM

[Denville]

Originally Posted by tommy100

Indeed she did, she said "Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our 8th great grandchild into our family" during which the photo of Archie with H&M, Philip and HM and Doria was shown. So no photo on the desk but a photo and mention during the broadcast.

What is the beef then? The photographs were about teh continuity of the monarchy, and Archie was mentioned

[Queen Claude]

Lacey is entitled to his opinion but IMO he is over-egging the "diss" of Archie not being pictured on the desk.

He minimizes that as The Queen verbally mentions birth of Archie, the photo taken a few days after Archie's birth featuring The Queen, Prince Philip, Meghan's mother Doria, Harry, Meghan and Archie flashed on the screen.

He states:
"It was unheard of for the royal Christmas desk not to feature a cosy image of the latest royal [emphasis mine] grandchild or great-grandchild. "

This is an incorrect statement as Archie is not a royal great-grandchild. Now if there were pictures of the all of Peter and Zara's children on the Christmas desk the years of their births then he would have a point. The thing is that he states that it is "unheard of" but there is not really a precedent to match Archie's circumstances, which is a great-grandchild who was born non-royal and may become royal at a later time.

Lacey goes on to itemize some actions by the Sussexes that were relevant but he couches it as the Sussexes were "non-personed" due to The Queen's "displeasure" with them. And while it would be naive to think that she was not displeased with the Sussexes in December 2019, IMO it is not an unreasonable course of action to not include a photo of a non-royal grandchild whose birth was shrouded in misinformation, whose parents refused to give out the names of his godparents and whose parents reportedly want to raise as a private citizen. But it should be again noted that Archie's arrival was mentioned during the broadcast accopanied by a picture.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Denville

I though that the queen mentioned Archie's birth in her broadcast

Yes, she did. However, we were discussing how the pictures in her speech represent the important family events: and Archie was not featured on one of the pictures. She 'only' mentioned the birth of an 8th great-grandchild (without using his name but that might be her common practice? Haven't checked it).

I wouldn't say the pictures represented the 'continuity', I'd say they mainly focused on the 'core of the royal family'. If it was all about showing the continuity (which I'd say was the picture of the 4 of them that was released later), a more logical way to do so, would be to present either pictures of the heirs only; OR present them all with their spouses. Now we had: King George (on his own), queen - not pictured but her husband in the back on his own, Charles with his wife, William with his wife and his three children (not just George). And the picture behind Philip included the queen's other children if I'm not mistaken?!

So yes, I could see why Harry would be somewhat disappointed with this set-up - but as someone rightly claimed they got a full 'picture flash' during the speech.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Yes, she did. However, we were discussing how the pictures in her speech represent the important family events: and Archie was not featured on one of the pictures. She 'only' mentioned the birth of an 8th great-grandchild (without using his name but that might be her common practice? Haven't checked it).

Common practice and the children's pictures to not always appear and never the Tindell or Phillip's girls and I don't really think G, C or L either to be honest.

[Heavs]

Lena Tindall wasn't featured on the desk, and she was a much longed for addition to Zara and Mike's family. Neither she nor Louis were mentioned by name in 2018.

Charlotte and Louis are never in the photos designed to show the continuity of the succession.

Also this couple said they wanted Archie to be as normal and "non public" as possible, attempting to tightly control everything surrounding his birth and photographs of him, apparently going so far as to refuse an Australian firefighting plane to be named after him all of which is their prerogative.

However they're making it seem like the fact that he wasn't being used as a public prop was one of the big straws that broke the camel's back - via first FF and now this is coming up again with Lacey. As well as it was such a big snub to them personally when they were already wanting out of the whole thing anyway. It's strange.

[AC21091968]

Originally Posted by Heavs

Lena Tindall wasn't featured on the desk, and she was a much longed for addition to Zara and Mike's family. Neither she nor Louis were mentioned by name in 2018.

Charlotte and Louis are never in the photos designed to show the continuity of the succession.

Also this couple said they wanted Archie to be as normal and "non public" as possible, attempting to tightly control everything surrounding his birth and photographs of him, apparently going so far as to refuse an Australian firefighting plane to be named after him all of which is their prerogative.

However they're making it seem like the fact that he wasn't being used as a public prop was one of the big straws that broke the camel's back - via first FF and now this is coming up again with Lacey. As well as it was such a big snub to them personally when they were already wanting out of the whole thing anyway. It's strange.

I may be speculating here. For next year's broadcast (2021), the Queen would highly likely said "absolute joy in welcoming the birth of our 9th great-grandchildren", but not mentioning the name of Baby Brooksbank, like the way Lena and Louis did. There could be a picture of Baby Brooksbank with his/her family appear on the screen (but not on the Queen's desk) like Archie's if luck would have it.

I wonder if the picture of "Baby Brooksbank with his/her family" is place on the Queen's desk, what would the media/royal reporter interpreted as? Or even actually mentioned by name? I know this is highly unlikely, but if it actually happens, there will be "accusation" of "favouritism" or "soft spots", given that Baby Brooksbank will not be in the direct line of succession.

[Claire]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

Lacey is entitled to his opinion but IMO he is over-egging the "diss" of Archie not being pictured on the desk.

He minimizes that as The Queen verbally mentions birth of Archie, the photo taken a few days after Archie's birth featuring The Queen, Prince Philip, Meghan's mother Doria, Harry, Meghan and Archie flashed on the screen.

He states:
"It was unheard of for the royal Christmas desk not to feature a cosy image of the latest royal [emphasis mine] grandchild or great-grandchild. "

This is an incorrect statement as Archie is not a royal great-grandchild. Now if there were pictures of the all of Peter and Zara's children on the Christmas desk the years of their births then he would have a point. The thing is that he states that it is "unheard of" but there is not really a precedent to match Archie's circumstances, which is a great-grandchild who was born non-royal and may become royal at a later time.

Lacey goes on to itemize some actions by the Sussexes that were relevant but he couches it as the Sussexes were "non-personed" due to The Queen's "displeasure" with them. And while it would be naive to think that she was not displeased with the Sussexes in December 2019, IMO it is not an unreasonable course of action to not include a photo of a non-royal grandchild whose birth was shrouded in misinformation, whose parents refused to give out the names of his godparents and whose parents reportedly want to raise as a private citizen. But it should be again noted that Archie's arrival was mentioned during the broadcast accompanied by a picture.

I really don't think that is true - as if you look at previous Christmas messages - she rarely sits at a desk . Several of them were voice overs, some she sits at a chair with no desk for photo collections. So the desk with photos is a recent addition. I scanned many online this morning. The Princess Royal appears once - wedding pic in background. (might have misidentified) Edward and Sophie appear no where , not in 1999 when they got married and none of their children are mentioned or appear in pics in Christmas speeches. Louise only appears at 1 in the accompanying video. Various grandchidren scattering appear, Andrew occasionally and always Charles, William and Harry.
So if there was any truth in this I would say the Queen hates Edward and Anne the most.

[moby]

Originally Posted by Claire

I really don't think that is true - as if you look at previous Christmas messages - she rarely sits at a desk . Several of them were voice overs, some she sits at a chair with no desk for photo collections. So the desk with photos is a recent addition. I scanned many online this morning. The Princess Royal appears once - wedding pic in background. (might have misidentified) Edward and Sophie appear no where , not in 1999 when they got married and none of their children are mentioned or appear in pics in Christmas speeches. Louise only appears at 1 in the accompanying video. Various grandchidren scattering appear, Andrew occasionally and always Charles, William and Harry.
So if there was any truth in this I would say the Queen hates Edward and Anne the most.

So if I were Harry, the first time I'm out of the picture (literally) is the year I started going rogue and being disobedient with my newish wife... I probably would start wondering too.

[Betsypaige]

But nothing I have read suggest he says the royal dealt badly but rather the staff.

We must be seeing different things then as I’ve definitely read those about the Royals. Aside from Lacey’s criticisms, he’s making snide comments like the one about how Charles finally made time to speak to Harry, even though it’s Charles has literally just returned from an engagement overseas. That bothers me.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by tommy100

Indeed she did, she said "Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our 8th great grandchild into our family" during which the photo of Archie with H&M, Philip and HM and Doria was shown. So no photo on the desk but a photo and mention during the broadcast.

And Lacey decided to get his knickers in a twist by saying that because HM didn’t mention Archie by name, just as her “eighth great grandchild”, that she was sending a message. He’s allowed his opinions, but I don’t expect them or his judgments to be all over a book of non-fiction.

[tommy100]

I would ask this though, is it Lacey or if he truly has been speaking to those inside the RF and Household - was it them 'getting their knickers in a twist'? Certainly this is the second time we are hearing the set up at the Christmas message was seen as a diss towards H&M - apparently even by H&M themselves.

[Osipi]

To me, so far, it sounds like this book is an interpretation of events of an inner circle from someone not even close to that inner circle. I'll give it a miss.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by tommy100

I would ask this though, is it Lacey or if he truly has been speaking to those inside the RF and Household - was it them 'getting their knickers in a twist'? Certainly this is the second time we are hearing the set up at the Christmas message was seen as a diss towards H&M - apparently even by H&M themselves.

He’s very reputable, and I have no doubt he spoke to insiders...which is why I said in a previous post :

I wonder if the sources led Lacey to believe that HM was punishing Harry because she was angry at him; given that the sources themselves were probably angry at H and M, I could buy that. Of course that doesn’t mean he has to believe it - that has never been the Queen’s way.

That said, IF it’s true that the sources were giving their interpretation of events as an “antidote” (the book has been described as an “antidote” to FF), then Lacey needed to understand that. That said, I do believe it’s (also) his opinion because I’ve read articles from months ago where he criticized the BRF for how the handled H and M, etc..

Osipi:

To me, so far, it sounds like this book is an interpretation of events of an inner circle from someone not even close to that inner circle. I'll give it a miss.

That’s what it sounds like to me.....as well as a Chicken Little type hyperbole about “OMG, what will the Monarchy do without H and M”. They’ll do just fine.

Can I also say how ludicrous it is that Lacey, at some point, uses Meghan’s Suits character’s relationship with her father as a template for how she handled real life?

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

We must be seeing different things then as I’ve definitely read those about the Royals. Aside from Lacey’s criticisms, he’s making snide comments like the one about how Charles finally made time to speak to Harry, even though it’s Charles has literally just returned from an engagement overseas. That bothers me.

Happens all the time. We have no money...until.a disaster and then it appears. I am busy until the worst happens and then you have time. It isn't a criticism. Its life.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

He’s very reputable, and I have no doubt he spoke to insiders...which is why I said in a previous post :



That said, IF it’s true that the sources were giving their interpretation of events as an “antidote” (the book has been described as an “antidote” to FF), then Lacey needed to understand that. That said, I do believe it’s (also) his opinion because I’ve read articles from months ago where he criticized the BRF for how the handled H and M, etc..

Osipi:



That’s what it sounds like to me.....as well as a Chicken Little type hyperbole about “OMG, what will the Monarchy do without H and M”. They’ll do just fine.

Can I also say how ludicrous it is that Lacey, at some point, uses Meghan’s Suits character’s relationship with her father as a template for how she handled real life?

Why not she is an actress and they have identity issues, to show the least. She may well have taken hints.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by poppy7

Happens all the time. We have no money...until.a disaster and then it appears. I am busy until the worst happens and then you have time. It isn't a criticism. Its life.

It is a criticism, and an unfair one given that Charles had just returned from overseas. Lacey is making it sound like Charles - and HM - avoided Harry on purpose to punish him, to put him in his place. I don’t believe that at all, especially of Charles. It’s one thing for him to be upset at his son’s behavior, another to act on that in a way that’s guaranteed to makes things difficult between them personally.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by poppy7

Why not she is an actress and they have identity issues, to show the least. She may well have taken hints.

Actors have identity issues? Because they enjoy being other people? I’m not going that far, certainly not making a blanket statement to that effect. I think it’s a reach to suggest Meghan did that, and complete speculation.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

Actors have identity issues? Because they enjoy being other people? I’m not going that far, certainly not making a blanket statement to that effect. I think it’s a reach to suggest Meghan did that, and complete speculation.

I think so too. I seem to recall another person that thoroughly reveled in being on stage and performing once upon a time in the past and to this day, still enjoys the performing arts immensely. That person would be The Prince of Wales.