Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of A Modern Royal Family


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I made the point in another post that most info about the RF comes from the "gossipy press" rather than "heavy serious journalists. " Royals dont usually rate a serious biography until they are older...
I made the point that its not the press who made Charles into a soap opera but C himself and Diana... and that much of the stuff that was in the papers about them in the early days, about staff being pushed out, about rows and eventually about Affairs, was essentially true and not "made up".
But information does come from various sources indeed. Sometimes its leaks from royal staff, sometimes its from the royals' friends, occasionally it is directly from the Royals themselves. There are some "made up" stories but they are usually short fillers in a newspaper...
but this is a book written by someone who's followed Harry and is a supporter of his...
Omid has followed H and Meghan for a time. Perhaps he is guessing about how tehy felt about each other emotionally but is he likely to make up something about what the queen nd H were saying when they tucked into roast beef together?


Unless Scobie was there and *saw* and *heard* the Queen and Harry over roast beef, its hearsay. That's why I say 98.5% of everything from books, to media, to our posts and opinions here is hearsay, maybe could be that, gossip, innuendo and pure speculation.

Its what happens when outsiders pretend to see inside when there's no windows to look through. :lol:
 
Sure there's room for discussion. Of the book. What is presented in the book and what you think about what is written.

I agree that none of us are on the inside and know the principals. We are all making assumptions based on what we have read and heard about the family and our observations of their limited public appearances. But I am not sure how we can discuss what we think about what is written, unless we can discuss our perceptions of the people the book is written about.
 
No but when people of colour from French, german British etc colonies came to live in France, Germany UK etc (mainly I think from the 1950s) there was tension, racism, and occasionally violence...

Oh horrendous. Small Island. Brilliant book.

But I meant more the evolutionary history is different.

You just have to scratch the surface and a load come tumbling out.

But this isn't about racism.

Meghan is whatever she chooses to identify with.

As for other people talking about this being rumour.

Its final confirmation that everything we heard, from their point of view, is true. They were and are so leaky it is terminal.

Problem is no one likes them better as we can see that there are reasons these things happened.

Meghan just didn't understand what she was getting into.
 
I agree that William seems able to hold a grudge, but his relationship with Harry is different than his relationship with either Fergie or his uncle. I admit that going to the media is probably one of the worst things that Harry could have done - which is why Harry did it (unfortunately), but William has been Harry's protector all their lives. I think he often dealt with the upheaval of the divorce and Diana's death by directing his love to and taking care of, Harry. William obviously felt that Harry needed him because Harry was younger and more vulnerable - and it is easier to forgive someone you perceive as more vulnerable.


Fairly or not, William and the rest of the royal family are probably blaming Meghan more than Harry and I agree that William will probably never completely forgive or trust Meghan again. The couples will probably avoid each other as much as possible for a while but I believe that William and Harry (and likely Kate) will probably be able to repair their relationship.

Imake amends.

hmmmm, I would like to think that about Harry, but I can't help thinking he is not that sensitive.. unless he improves over time as he gets older. I suspect that at present he is still in an angry upset frame of mind and feels that he and Meg were "forced out" and that Will wasn't nice to him and that he and M should have been allowed to - well essentially to do what they wanted.. i.e. go half and half, do some royal work and spend time in the US making a living..
I dont think he's gotten out of that frame of mind as yet.
I think that yes William can be a tough guy, if his trust is abused, if he feels someone has not played fair with him or his loved ones, he will keep his distance.. and he probably felt that about Sarah F, that she had upset his mother, who held a grudge against her till her death..
I don't know about Charles S, but he may have issues with him over CS's speech at the funeral etc and felt it wasn't appropriate.
However Harry IS his brother. They love each other, and I think he will forgive him.. but he may not be there yet. And Yes I think that he may come to understand why Harry walked out and seems to be attacking him..but he will probably feel that Megh is more to blame. She's not his beloved blood relation she's someone he hardly knows so he is likely to feel that she is to blame for Harry getting all aggressive...
Maybe in time, he'll tolerate her.. esp if they DO come back to the UK.. but I dont think he'll ever quite trust her..
 
Unless Scobie was there and *saw* and *heard* the Queen and Harry over roast beef, its hearsay. That's why I say 98.5% of everything from books, to media, to our posts and opinions here is hearsay, maybe could be that, gossip, innuendo and pure speculation.

Its what happens when outsiders pretend to see inside when there's no windows to look through. :lol:

Well they told him. This is classic Andrew Morten- Diana territory.
 
I dnt believe that Omid would make stuff up about the queen without some hint or insinuation as to what was said...

And I can remember people attacking Morton and saying he was making everything up and that he was totall wrong.. etc etc.. then it emerged that it was Diana who was his main source.
 
Perspectives of how one perceives the principles of the book is what discussion is all about. For example. Author writes "Meghan seems to prefer emeralds" and we relate how we think she does or she doesn't from what we know about her from following her fashion choices.

Presuming to know the mental state of the principles or their "inner motives" for doing this or that in relation to something the author writes is character assassination. We have *no* clue what their mental states are or their motives. Harry's been branded with all sorts of character flaws stemming from a conversation he supposedly had with his Granny. The conversation is "hearsay" and most likely never happened. If anything, it was a private conversation not for the public domain. It makes for good reading and brings in lotsa green dollars. But then again, the Daily Mail does too. ;)
 
I think Charles turned himself into a "bloody soap opera". He and Diana both revealed a lot of stuff about their stormy and messy marriage, so they can hardly complain if the tabloid press made money out of it and exaggerated some details...
If the information in this book and others is just dismissed as "gossip" and "made up" and not accurate, then what's the point?


You appear as if both Charles and Diana were never talked and written about before they felt they had to present "their" side. Which is laughable!
And even as they talked and others wrote it down, all readers knew they would both not tell an absolute truth but their own side. Which left a lot of things open to interpretation.


If Harry and Meghan had a hand in this book, I hope they are content now. If not, they should think about how they made the book possibleor not and eventually sue the author.
We all should know that there is no real truth to be found, that Scobie and his co-author interpreted what was told to them by whoever and that even the people portrayed normally have no objective look at themselves.


Because there is nothing objective about the life and action of people when told by anyone, including themselves. And we should all be well aware of this before we go out and claim to have the right to judge people we never met nor will meet according to articles written in the media or books.

I dnt believe that Omid would make stuff up about the queen without some hint or insinuation as to what was said...

And I can remember people attacking Morton and saying he was making everything up and that he was totall wrong.. etc etc.. then it emerged that it was Diana who was his main source.


Yes. So he wrote Diana's book. Doesn't make it objective information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well they told him. This is classic Andrew Morten- Diana territory.

Who told him? Which third party was actually there and witnessed this "conversation"? A footman standing guard around the table? Did the Queen call Scobie with the "scoop" in revenge for her sassy mouthed grandson spouting off of her? (the nerve!!).

Or maybe, just maybe there really *is* a fly on the wall that is sentient. :lol:
 
Yes. So he wrote Diana's book. Doesn't make it objective information.

No but it was sourced. It was DIANAs True story.. It may not have been accurate because it was waht she saw as the truth.. but it was from the Horses' mouth
 
I Googled, and couldn’t find this quote, so....

I've never read it myself but possible Charles or Philip did say it... However Charles at least has been guilty of fighting his marital wars in teh papers.. so he can hardly complain too much....

Who told him? Which third party was actually there and witnessed this "conversation"? A footman standing guard around the table? Did the Queen call Scobie with the "scoop" in revenge for her sassy mouthed grandson spouting off of her? (the nerve!!).

Or maybe, just maybe there really *is* a fly on the wall that is sentient. :lol:

There are possibilities as to who told him... and he is well known to be a Harry supporter in the media...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've never read it myself but possible Charles or Philip did say it... However Charles at least has been guilty of fighting his marital wars in teh papers.. so he can hardly complain too much....

It doesn’t sound like Charles to me, it sounds more like Philip...but I’m wondering if it’s a fake quote from The Crown.
 
No but it was sourced. It was DIANAs True story.. It may not have been accurate because it was waht she saw as the truth.. but it was from the Horses' mouth


Yes, but why do you care? Interest in history is about what really happened. And historians are trying to figure it out as close as they can get. But if you just accept the opinion of one person who was there to form the whole picture, you are not interested in history, you are interested in gossip to feed your own gut feeling. IMHO, of course.


Just wanted to add that when I write "you", it's not about you personally, it's about a general group. Sorry if it sounded unpolite.
 
Last edited:
Well according to Harry and Meghan they did not cooperate on this book. However if it's meant to be "their side of the story" from what I've read it makes Meghan and Harry look worse, not more sympathetic. So it was a mistake.

It seems to gibe with what they have said publicly in the past months.. or with earlier stories.. the one about Harry getting resentful because William suggested he take some time to get to know Meghan has been around for some time..
And Harry did sound resentful in January when he made that speech about how he had wanted to combine serving and stepping back form royal life.. and hadn't been allowed to...
Even if they didn't collaborate, it seems clear that this book is MEANT to be sympathetic and to show their point of view that they had been unfairly treated... (There's also Meg's stuff in her lawsuit about how the Palace did not protect her... which is I presume directly from her..)

Yes, but why do you care? Interest in history is about what really happened. And historians are trying to figure it out as close as they can get. But if you just accept the opinion of one person who was there to form the whole picture, you are not interested in history, you are interested in gossip to feed your own gut feeling. IMHO, of course.

Why do I care? Because the truth is that while people attacked Morton and said that he was making the whole thing up and so on, the truth was, that he had had the story from Diana's lips. She was a primary source. of course her views were biased but it was the truth as she saw it and it WAS given by her directly to Andrew Morton.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who told him? Which third party was actually there and witnessed this "conversation"? A footman standing guard around the table? Did the Queen call Scobie with the "scoop" in revenge for her sassy mouthed grandson spouting off of her? (the nerve!!).

Or maybe, just maybe there really *is* a fly on the wall that is sentient. :lol:

Osipi, I honestly don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that the authors manufactured this particular encounter between the Queen and Harry. It is certainly plausible if you choose to believe that. I think there have been a lot of outright falsehoods written about the royal family in the past.

If it was manufactured, the royal family would be aware of that because the Queen and Harry would be able to tell Charles, William, and Kate that it didn't happen. The royal family generally doesn't issue denials and they rarely sue (Harry and Meghan have brought invasion of privacy type suits rather than libel suits).

On the other hand, if the story is truth (or close to it) it is also reasonable to believe that the source was Harry or someone close to him - no fly or footman needed. If it was a close friend, the question is whether or not Harry authorized the release of information.

No one here knows one way or another (if someone here does know for sure, I would love to know who), so I think everyone's opinion is valid and I find it very interesting to read other poster's thoughts.
 
Last edited:
No one here knows one way or another (if someone here does know for sure, I would love to know who), so I think everyone's opinion is valid and I find it very interesting to read other poster's thoughts.

The thing is, we don't know for a *fact* that anything that is out about the inner relationships workings of any of the BRF.

Its a whole lot of 4+2=42 and we all know 42 is the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything. There's 2+2=4 facts woven in. We just have to discriminate between what is fact and what is assumed to be. ?
 
Last edited:
Osipi, I honestly don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that the authors manufactured this particular encounter between the Queen and Harry. It is certainly plausible if you choose to believe that. I think there have been a lot of outright falsehoods written about the royal family in the past.

If it was manufactured, the royal family would be aware of that because the Queen and Harry would be able to tell Charles, William, and Kate that it didn't happen. The royal family generally doesn't issue denials and they rarely sue (Harry and Meghan have brought invasion of privacy type suits rather than libel suits).

On the other hand, if the story is truth (or close to it) it is also reasonable to believe that the source was Harry or someone close to him - no fly or footman needed. If it was a close friend, the question is whether or not Harry authorized the release of information.

No one here knows one way or another (if someone here does know for sure, I would love to know who), so I think everyone's opinion is valid and I find it very interesting to read other poster's thoughts.

The most likely explanation is the simplest: Harry and Meghan told the authors this. It’s the most believable and reasonable explanation as far as I’m concerned. I don’t care about H and M’s denials - I believe they absolutely gave their consent to the book and certainly spoke to Omid directly. He’s their friend, so of course they’ve told him things that only they would know; they’ve been doing this all along. If they weren’t, then why would Scooby keep emphasizing in his articles that he has his info directly from the sources? It’s the one thing that sets him apart from other media, at least as he sees it.
 
No problem with alternative history - I just find it a bit strange to use real people in it.
 
The most likely explanation is the simplest: Harry and Meghan told the authors this. It’s the most believable and reasonable explanation as far as I’m concerned. I don’t care about H and M’s denials - I believe they absolutely gave their consent to the book and certainly spoke to Omid directly. He’s their friend, so of course they’ve told him things that only they would know; they’ve been doing this all along. If they weren’t, then why would Scooby keep emphasizing in his articles that he has his info directly from the sources? It’s the one thing that sets him apart from other media, at least as he sees it.

probably its through intermediaries..
Omids thing is that he is a supporter of the Sussexes.. If he writes a book on them it is a sympathetic work and is meant to show their POV. and it does gibe with what they themselves have said.. Harry being resentful that he "had to go" from royal life.. Meg feeling the Palace did not protect her, Harry feeling that Will was being snobbish about Meghan...

No problem with alternative history - I just find it a bit strange to use real people in it.

But alternative history IS about real people.. its history. It is a way of analyzing history by wondering "what would happen if..."
Would Britain have won the war if Say Winston Churchill had died in 1940? If Germany had invaded would Britain have gone on fighting or collaborated...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing is, we don't know for a *fact* that anything that is out about the inner relationships workings of any of the BRF.

Its a whole lot of 4+2=42 and we all know 42 is the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything. There's 2+2=4 facts woven in. We just have to discriminate between what is fact and what is assumed to be. ?


You are so right to bring in the 42 thing here. As in Basic, the first programme language really widely used (and yes, I know about Pascal), the "42" is the sign of the asterisk: meaning "whatever you want me to be". Here, everyone has a slightly different idea what 42 is... Truth? Doesn't matter much, me thinks... :D
 
Well according to Harry and Meghan they did not cooperate on this book. However if it's meant to be "their side of the story" from what I've read it makes Meghan and Harry look worse, not more sympathetic. So it was a mistake.

They may not have "cooperated with this book" but they did cooperate and talk to at least one of the authors previously. Omid was even invited to some special Buckingham Palace event that others were not on Meghan's last full day in the UK. In addition, when questioned he kept repeating that he didn't have a formal interview for the book... He never negated that they talked. Which imho can be taken as a confirmation that they very much did talk. He apparently didn't need a formal interview for the book as he already had received lots of information from the couple and probably also from others close to them.
 
They may not have "cooperated with this book" but they did cooperate and talk to at least one of the authors previously. Omid was even invited to some special Buckingham Palace event that others were not on Meghan's last full day in the UK. In addition, when questioned he kept repeating that he didn't have a formal interview for the book... He never negated that they talked. Which imho can be taken as a confirmation that they very much did talk. He apparently didn't need a formal interview for the book as he already had received lots of information from the couple and probably also from others close to them.

That was my impression that they got on with him and that even though they had refused to cooperated with other newspapers he was one of the ones that they felt was sympathetic and on their side..
So is this guy whom they see as one of their friendly journalists, one of the good guys who hasn't been negative towards them.. Well is this good guy going to write a book that is all made up and has no solid basis of evidence? Are we to say "Omid is one of the journoes that they like and feel comfortable with, who has followed them for some time.. but he's written this pile of nonsense which is all made up and fantasy?"
What would that say about him? or about them for getting on wiht him?
 
You appear as if both Charles and Diana were never talked and written about before they felt they had to present "their" side. Which is laughable!
And even as they talked and others wrote it down, all readers knew they would both not tell an absolute truth but their own side. Which left a lot of things open to interpretation.


If Harry and Meghan had a hand in this book, I hope they are content now. If not, they should think about how they made the book possibleor not and eventually sue the author.
We all should know that there is no real truth to be found, that Scobie and his co-author interpreted what was told to them by whoever and that even the people portrayed normally have no objective look at themselves.


Because there is nothing objective about the life and action of people when told by anyone, including themselves. And we should all be well aware of this before we go out and claim to have the right to judge people we never met nor will meet according to articles written in the media or books.




Yes. So he wrote Diana's book. Doesn't make it objective information.

Noting is objective. Ever.

The thing is, we don't know for a *fact* that anything that is out about the inner relationships workings of any of the BRF.

Its a whole lot of 4+2=42 and we all know 42 is the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything. There's 2+2=4 facts woven in. We just have to discriminate between what is fact and what is assumed to be. ?

No we don't. You need to be real. This was leaked and everyone said. ' It can't be right. You are being to cruel to them'. They quite obviously communicated with the writers in some way. This is their truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thank you! I think I couldn’t find it because there was no “bloody” in the actual quote..

They may not have "cooperated with this book" but they did cooperate and talk to at least one of the authors previously. Omid was even invited to some special Buckingham Palace event that others were not on Meghan's last full day in the UK. In addition, when questioned he kept repeating that he didn't have a formal interview for the book... He never negated that they talked. Which imho can be taken as a confirmation that they very much did talk. He apparently didn't need a formal interview for the book as he already had received lots of information from the couple and probably also from others close to them.

Cooperation can mean different things. Did Harry and Meghan sit down for interviews specifically for the book ? I don’t think so. Did they give their consent for the authors to use their personal knowledge (that Omid especially would have) for the book? I think they did.

This idea that only the former instance can mean that H and M knew about and approved what was in the book reminds me of the episode of the Brady Bunch. In it, Mike and Carol forbid Greg from driving their car for a week, so he uses a friend’s car instead to buy tickets to a concert. When his parents punish him for disobeying, Greg claims that their “exact words” were that he couldn’t drive THEIR car, not that he couldn’t drive any car. He wiggles out of the punishment by agreeing that he has to abide by “exact words” from now on, which proves to be impossible. For me, H and M saying they didn’t “cooperate with the book” is like Greg using the “exact words” argument with his parents. Carol and Mike said “you knew exactly what we meant when we said you couldn’t drive our car”, and that’s what I would say to H and M. When people talk about cooperating with the book, it encompasses many things, not just sit down interviews. It includes simply approving the inclusion of stories, etc...that pretty much only close associates of H and M would have access to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They may not have "cooperated with this book" but they did cooperate and talk to at least one of the authors previously. Omid was even invited to some special Buckingham Palace event that others were not on Meghan's last full day in the UK. In addition, when questioned he kept repeating that he didn't have a formal interview for the book... He never negated that they talked. Which imho can be taken as a confirmation that they very much did talk. He apparently didn't need a formal interview for the book as he already had received lots of information from the couple and probably also from others close to them.

Scobie did state that the Sussexes did not talk to him for the book, either on or off-record.

But as other forum members have pointed out, we don't know if they allowed their friends to talk.

See the following extract from "She is a biracial woman from the US that was always going to ruffle feathers," The Times, 25 July 2020, p. 10, col. 1 & 2:

"So did Omid and Carolyn have a sit-down with Harry and Meghan? “The book doesn’t claim to have any interviews with Harry and Meghan. And nor do we,” Scobie says. But did they have them? “I don’t claim to have interviews with them.”
But did he have them? “There are no interviews with Harry and Meghan.”
Was there, perhaps, an off-the-record talk? “You’ve read the book. There’s no on-the-record interviews with the couple.”
Was there an off-the-record discussion with them? “No,” he says more quietly, “and I think that you can tell from the reporting, my time around the couple is enough for me to know my subjects.”"
 
Scobie did state that the Sussexes did not talk to him for the book, either on or off-record.

But as other forum members have pointed out, we don't know if they allowed their friends to talk.

See the following extract from "She is a biracial woman from the US that was always going to ruffle feathers," The Times, 25 July 2020, p. 10, col. 1 & 2:

"So did Omid and Carolyn have a sit-down with Harry and Meghan? “The book doesn’t claim to have any interviews with Harry and Meghan. And nor do we,” Scobie says. But did they have them? “I don’t claim to have interviews with them.”
But did he have them? “There are no interviews with Harry and Meghan.”
Was there, perhaps, an off-the-record talk? “You’ve read the book. There’s no on-the-record interviews with the couple.”
Was there an off-the-record discussion with them? “No,” he says more quietly, “and I think that you can tell from the reporting, my time around the couple is enough for me to know my subjects.”"

He does NOT say that he didn't talk to them off-the record. There was no off-the-record discussion; not sure what the difference is - but apparently, to him it makes a difference. If he had felt comfortable saying that he didn't talk to them, he would have said so but he didn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom