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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. ;)
 
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. ;)

That’s right ! I do think many actors were shy as kids, and went into acting because it allowed them to be other people, but I haven’t heard any actor discuss having identity issues...

I love that Charles is into the arts and is passing that love to his grandchildren !
 
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.

Course they do. Studies have shown, through brain imagery, that they completely loose the connection of who they actually are when they are working. But so may we all to a certain extent. We are the never the same person at work.

And Charles isn't perfect. And he certainly was not the perfect father. None of them is perfect.
 
Last edited:
Megxit is not a really great or accurate name for it. It did involve both Harry and Meghan as a couple. Just my take on it. I have a sense that this situation was just allowed to get worse, with Harry and William not getting along. I think some interventions should have taken place to prevent something so extreme happening.The QM and Charles are the first and second in command, respectively.
 
Course they do. Studies have shown, through brain imagery, that they completely loose the connection of who they actually are when they are working. But so may we all to a certain extent. We are the never the same person at work.

And Charles isn't perfect. And he certainly was not the perfect father. None of them is perfect.

Where did I ever say Charles was perfect ? Or a perfect father? But he sure had done the best he can under difficult circumstances, and I admire that he didn’t take the same tack with his boys that his father took with him. What’s your point?
 
Where did I ever say Charles was perfect ? Or a perfect father? But he sure had done the best he can under difficult circumstances, and I admire that he didn’t take the same tack with his boys that his father took with him. What’s your point?

He probably got some of this wrong. They all did
 
He probably got some of this wrong. They all did

Every parent does things wrong. I strongly advocate for a "how to" manual that guarantees perfect parenthood. It ain't been written yet that I know of. My kids made it to adulthood and that, in and of itself, takes a load off my mind. :D
 
Why not she is an actress and they have identity issues, to show the least. She may well have taken hints.
That's a bit of a wild statement, that actors (i presume you mean both male and female actors) have identity issues. I don't know of any scientific studies that state this...
 
Last edited:
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.

Its possible that Charles was hoping that whatever problems Harry was having, he would give his royal life with Meghan some time, and see if things improved and that things would settle down. He is a busy man and possilby hoped that Harry's problems were not so major that they needed immediate attention and that the possiblity that Harry and Meghan might decide to walk out never occured to him
 
Its possible that Charles was hoping that whatever problems Harry was having, he would give his royal life with Meghan some time, and see if things improved and that things would settle down. He is a busy man and possilby hoped that Harry's problems were not so major that they needed immediate attention and that the possiblity that Harry and Meghan might decide to walk out never occured to him

Then, on the opposite side of the coin, with the closeness Charles has had with his second son, he could have sensed that Harry had has for a long time been in doubt about his "birth duty and responsibility" and from his own relationship growing up with the father he had, understood Harry's doubts and fears and discomfort with the way his life was. Charles could have instinctively known how his son felt and when Meghan came into the picture, it *seemed* like she would embrace his life of duty and responsibility to Crown and country and felt that all would be well.

If there is anyone that really *knew* Harry and his feelings and emotional state of mind, it would be Charles. He'd remember all the times he didn't agree with how *his* father wanted his life to be and saw the signs of Harry's discontent long before he met Meghan. Actually, I think right now, Charles is probably the strongest ally in Harry's corner. ?
 
I dont know what you mean by Charles' closeness to his son. I dont know of his having any especial closeness to Harry and I doubt if he knew "Instinctively" how Harry was feeling. I dont think he's a very intuitive man. If he did "know" of Harrys' concerns I wonder then that he didn't talk to him sooner. And given that Harry was marrying somoene outside the usual run of Royal wives, from a different country and culture and who had had a much more independent life than many royal brides, why would Charles be so sure that Meghan was going to embrace royal life and settle Harry down?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom