The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > Royal Library
Click Here to Login

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #921  
Old 07-30-2020, 09:19 AM
Helen.CH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Chambery, France
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
I think time and again what shows is how unable and/or unwilling Meghan was to adapt to the system. It doesn't matter that it does need modernising. She isn't the one to do it. She either had to learn to be a cog in the wheel or she wasn't going to fit. No one is reay to blame for that except for maybe Meghan herself who refused to even try. But she probably thought that it was killing her.

She didn't know what it is like. She thought she would have the platform she always wanted so people would listen to her. That isn't it. It is public servitude.
I agree very much in what you say.
I think some forget that the RF is a business, too and everybody royal or not who marrying into a business run by family members will tell that the new one has to adapt, accept and slowly grow into what has proofed right for the majority if the family and the business being succesfull. This is the way it works, if you marry a farmer or a prince.
M. gave it no chance, she went too fast, wanted to change too many things and did not get the idea of serving the monarchy/people but putting herself first.
By the way I never saw the often described perfect and undependant frist class actress and humanitarian or fighter for women's rights, I think the media then put it much too positive about Meghan. What I saw was a woman twinkering way to much, unable to walk her heels, sometimes very unsafe but then rushing into her own sort of thing instead of taking advice, waiting and learning from others who do the job successfully.
Maybe she really thought her advanced age, "career" (whatever that means") and Harry's good reputation would push her to the top immediately, of course then not being conscious that this is not the idea of being a working royal.
And excuse me, but her artificial twinkering, looks , running to the frontline for photos and patting and mothering Harry as if he was a little child and not the experienced royal he should be, she thought she had a plan maybe but it went terribly wrong so far.
It is a while mess and will end in a tragedy, don't know which sort if but things like this never end positive.
And to come back to what I wrote about business run by family now they seem still not to have understood anything. Meghan ok, she was not royal and obviously not smart enough to get it, but Harry he should have gotten the basics, he was born into the business and now puts every little spit same level wether it is only business or family matters, but there is a distinction between the two.
nobody mentioned the subtitle : making a modern royal family
I wonder if the book tells how the two wish the future (not theirs, of course as they are out) and if they really think their way could give good example to other royal couples?
And again the point for me to either laugh or shake my head , thise two are really off limits but in a negative way.
__________________

  #922  
Old 07-30-2020, 09:55 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470


Well Harry too, if the book is to believed, doesn't really get the difference between the job and the family. He was upset that the other players in the break left the working out of details to their staff and didn't help them. But it was a work issue and they are definitely the ones to deal with it. To separate the family and the business.
__________________

  #923  
Old 07-30-2020, 10:05 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Southbridge, United States
Posts: 20
We do want to remember that the purpose of the book is to make money for the authors and publisher. The tidbits that have been posted to encourage us to purchase the book is case in point. They are putting out controversial hints as lures. It took me a few minutes to remember this as I was in full anger over what what said about the POW. Nobody is perfect, but he has tried his best to support his children and their families. And that hs been obvious. I know Harry loves his father and appreciates what he has done from things he has said over the years. I'll read the book and then see if it is credible.
  #924  
Old 07-30-2020, 12:10 PM
duchesschicana's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London, United States
Posts: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by caethi View Post
In my opinion, if there is any truth at all to the necklace story, it doesn’t reflect well on Meghan. If I were a mature woman and I received a call like that from my fiancé’s advisors, I would give it a moment’s consideration, talk to my fiancé and then decide to either take or ignore the advice (probably ignore). I wouldn’t allow myself to get in any way upset over it. If the incident went down as reported, and Meghan’s reactions were as reported, it shows either a tendency to over- dramatize or a remarkable lack of self-assurance. Don’t get me wrong, I think Meghan has been subjected to terrible treatment by the press, but these anecdotes about her relationships with courtiers (and by default the Queen) are not very flattering.
The photo journalist that took pics of her and her H+M merchandise has said interesting things about it

here
here
here
and
here
  #925  
Old 07-30-2020, 12:12 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by phss View Post
If the book was done 6 months ago, why does it include events that happened less than 6 months ago? Seems like backtracking PR spin from 'friends of the Duke and Duchess' to me.

Hopefully the hype will stop soon. The book will be released in a couple of weeks, so hopefully will be forgotten about by the end of August as all it seems to be doing is pouring gasoline on the flame. It seems as though H+M ranted to 'friends' about the situation and those friends felt that Scobie and Durrand would tell the world 'the truth' so that H+M would be seen as the victims.

Everyone involved needs to learn to stop ranting about family problems to friends as they seem to leak more than sieve.
I suppose they could have added material (like the Commonwealth service stuff), but that’s a good point.

I’m sure the friends did rant to the authors, but given H and M’s tendency to freeze out anyone for the slightest of “transgressions”, I seriously doubt they did so without having consent to do so...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grousewood View Post
We do want to remember that the purpose of the book is to make money for the authors and publisher. The tidbits that have been posted to encourage us to purchase the book is case in point. They are putting out controversial hints as lures. It took me a few minutes to remember this as I was in full anger over what what said about the POW. Nobody is perfect, but he has tried his best to support his children and their families. And that hs been obvious. I know Harry loves his father and appreciates what he has done from things he has said over the years. I'll read the book and then see if it is credible.
I know the book claims that Harry believes his papa care more about his public image than their relationship, but have there been any excerpts posted about that?

I’m sure that’s true about the sections that are being published, but the other stuff is probably about M and H’s own relationship; I don’t think there will be any fluffy, lovey stuff about his family.

I agree about Charles, and I think he’ll be more hurt than angry.....but I think he and Harry are fine. I hope they get a chance to really talk, in person...hopefully during Christmas

Kataryn

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
As an actress you simply need the paparazzi. Rarely does one become a star without media support. But as a Royal princess you don't need the media. But whatever you do, they'll be there and put their own slant on what you do.
So with the change in status came the change in need of the media.
That’s fair enough ..
  #926  
Old 07-30-2020, 12:25 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Southbridge, United States
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyDrx View Post
From the DM.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...-necklace.html


If this is true, then she was lying when she said that the palace didn't protect or advise her.


If this is true, then she was lying when she said that the palace didn't protect or advise her.[/QUOTE]
Also, if true, it shows that Meghan was not prepared to alter her life to become a royal. Either Harry didn't prepare her, or she thought she knew better what it was all abaout. The fact is, marrying into a royal family means you have to adapt to the royal family, and not vice versa. Perhaps she just wasn't cut out to do that, being an independent, successful woman who was used to living life on her own terms. The sad part about this is that now Harry does not have his family, whom he loves and who lovehim. But on the other hand, he has Meghan, who he seems to be very happy with.
  #927  
Old 07-30-2020, 12:31 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
If Harry indeed beleives his father cares more about his PR image than their relationship Im not sure that he's feeling very kindly towards him at present. So I doubt if they are "fine". Charles may be more hurt than angry but I think he'd be superhuman not to be somewhat angry...
  #928  
Old 07-30-2020, 03:07 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by akina21 View Post
That may be true but this role also gets very tiring if you still have to babysit your adult brother in his mid 30s while you have to parent your actual children .
.
In theory, you are correct. In practice, those who have family members with emotional problems frequently continue to ‘babysit’ (your word, not mine) indefinitely, for reasons which include preventing self harm.

You never give up hoping your family member will become whole and independent; you do what you can in the meantime.

Not suggesting this William/Harry’s situation...
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
  #929  
Old 07-30-2020, 04:34 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cambridge, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
The claim about HM The Queen "slapping down Meghan Markel " , is still online on the Daily Fail , to the surprise of none of us on these Forum's . They may indeed have legal issues with HRH the Duchess , however to attempt to drag HM , and Angela Kelly down with them is appalling IMO .
  #930  
Old 07-30-2020, 05:15 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Lion View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightsky View Post
https://people.com/royals/the-truth-...lizabeth-role/


The Truth About Meghan Markle's Wedding Tiara and Queen Elizabeth's Role
The problem was “between Harry and Kelly”.

Thanks for the update nightsky.

I bet Ms Kelly would still rather not be in the book, even if there was no issue with Ms Markle directly.
The story about the tiara fiasco with the Queen as reported in People and then picked up elsewhere has been said to be false by Scobie. Scobie said on his twitter the statement picked up by the DM and goes on to relate "The book does NOT say this. It actually refutes this played out tale."

But go ahead and believe this tiara "story" is the "truth" if you want to.
No, the Twitter account linked to in post #884 (@scobie) does not say that "the story ... as reported in People" was false. Just the opposite: It says that the story as reported in the Daily Mail's headline was false, but it implicitly endorses the story as reported in People.

First, Mr. Scobie tweeted a screencap of the Daily Mail's headline (which read: "Queen DID slap down Meghan Markle over her choice of wedding day tiara but duchess blames Her Majesty's dresser Angela Kelly for the bust-up, book reveals"), adding his comment: "The book does NOT say this. It actually refutes this played out tale".

https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1288595551219601408

Following that, he retweeted, without any comment, a link to the following People magazine story:

https://people.com/royals/the-truth-...lizabeth-role/

The People story includes the following paragraph:
Several U.K. tabloids had previously reported that the Queen, 94, had rejected Meghan's first choice of tiara. Finding Freedom reports that in fact, there were no disagreements between Meghan and the Queen about her chosen tiara. Rather, the conflict existed between Harry and Kelly. (The hair trial, the book reports, ultimately went forward with no hesitation from the Queen.)
Thus, Mr. Scobie is not claiming that the entire "conflict" story is false; he is claiming that reports of the Queen's involvement are false.

Sun Lion's post is thus accurately representing Mr. Scobie's claims.
  #931  
Old 07-30-2020, 05:27 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 206
I think at this point the RF should just cut all ties with the Sussexes. They have been married for only 2 years but the drama that they brought rivals that of the "War of the Waleses".
  #932  
Old 07-30-2020, 05:35 PM
Sun Lion's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
No, the Twitter account linked to in post #884 (@scobie) does not say that "the story ... as reported in People" was false. Just the opposite: It says that the story as reported in the Daily Mail's headline was false, but it implicitly endorses the story as reported in People.

First, Mr. Scobie tweeted a screencap of the Daily Mail's headline (which read: "Queen DID slap down Meghan Markle over her choice of wedding day tiara but duchess blames Her Majesty's dresser Angela Kelly for the bust-up, book reveals"), adding his comment: "The book does NOT say this. It actually refutes this played out tale".

https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1288595551219601408

Following that, he retweeted, without any comment, a link to the following People magazine story:

https://people.com/royals/the-truth-...lizabeth-role/

The People story includes the following paragraph:
Several U.K. tabloids had previously reported that the Queen, 94, had rejected Meghan's first choice of tiara. Finding Freedom reports that in fact, there were no disagreements between Meghan and the Queen about her chosen tiara. Rather, the conflict existed between Harry and Kelly. (The hair trial, the book reports, ultimately went forward with no hesitation from the Queen.)
Thus, Mr. Scobie is not claiming that the entire "conflict" story is false; he is claiming that reports of the Queen's involvement are false.

Sun Lion's post is thus accurately representing Mr. Scobie's claims.

Thank you Tatiana Maria.

Very much appreciate you putting this together.
  #933  
Old 07-30-2020, 05:40 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
No, the Twitter account linked to in post #884 (@scobie) does not say that "the story ... as reported in People" was false. Just the opposite: It says that the story as reported in the Daily Mail's headline was false, but it implicitly endorses the story as reported in People.

First, Mr. Scobie tweeted a screencap of the Daily Mail's headline (which read: "Queen DID slap down Meghan Markle over her choice of wedding day tiara but duchess blames Her Majesty's dresser Angela Kelly for the bust-up, book reveals"), adding his comment: "The book does NOT say this. It actually refutes this played out tale".

https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1288595551219601408

Following that, he retweeted, without any comment, a link to the following People magazine story:

https://people.com/royals/the-truth-...lizabeth-role/

The People story includes the following paragraph:
Several U.K. tabloids had previously reported that the Queen, 94, had rejected Meghan's first choice of tiara. Finding Freedom reports that in fact, there were no disagreements between Meghan and the Queen about her chosen tiara. Rather, the conflict existed between Harry and Kelly. (The hair trial, the book reports, ultimately went forward with no hesitation from the Queen.)
Thus, Mr. Scobie is not claiming that the entire "conflict" story is false; he is claiming that reports of the Queen's involvement are false.

Sun Lion's post is thus accurately representing Mr. Scobie's claims.

Thanks much. I stand corrected here. All this gets confusing when I'm having a day where my attention span is comparable to a gnat's.

Sometimes now, I really wish the Sussexes could have quietly rode off into the sunset with the only comments being "Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya" and that was the end of things.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #934  
Old 07-30-2020, 05:50 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,837
So the tiara story played out with the blame being placed on Angela Kelly, not the Queen. Which I think is basically the story in the DM as well, with a more sensationalist, clickbait headline. I still think that it sounds incredibly petty and quite entitled, even though I'm sure nerves and the desire to make sure everything was ready and perfect was running high. Not to mention other factors like the Markles playing out in the press at the same time.
  #935  
Old 07-30-2020, 06:05 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
All kinds of things were going on. Very stressful for everyone.

Still think this incredible mess is a disaster.
  #936  
Old 07-30-2020, 06:22 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,769
So Dan Wootton is giving his version of events.

https://twitter.com/danwootton/statu...217840128?s=21

So to sum it up — they tried to send Harry and Meghan to Africa. Charles used the Sussexes to stick it to the Cambridges. William and Angela, not HMQ, didn’t want Meghan to wear any jewels and the palace arranged the Christmas message photos to send a message to Harry and Meghan to fall in line but it backfired. But the Sussexes leaving helped heal the big rift with Charles and William.

Wow. Truly fascinating he claiming this.
  #937  
Old 07-30-2020, 06:32 PM
Sun Lion's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,937
Today’s “Finding Freedom” revelation.

The Sussex couple actually got engaged in 2017 earlier than first thought.

The Prince “popped the question” in August of that year.

The future Duchess’ wearing of the oversized white “Husband” shirt at their appearance together at the Invictus Games in Toronto was a signal apparently.

All these winks to the media ,and the watching public, in the early days of their relationship - jewellery, hugging bananas, dog sweaters, “Kiss Me” candy.

Maybe you had to be in the inner circle of friends, and these signals were more for them.


And something actually positive from the book - the Duchess adored little Princess Charlotte and this won her mother over.

“Finding Freedom” is also saying the Sussexes spent a lot of time - when everyone was living at KP - with the Cambridge’s. They very much took to all three of the little children.
  #938  
Old 07-30-2020, 06:39 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
This fact from Dan Wooten of the Sun is interesting:

The couple like to promote the idea that they were somehow ambushed into revealing their plans after we published the world exclusive on January 8.

However, they neglect to mention I had originally put the story to their office ten days earlier and had discussed every aspect of what we eventually published with their officials.


So the couple weren't forced to announce their new life last minute as was claimed, 10 days is a long time to know something then have to rush out and feel u have to say something before the press break it.
  #939  
Old 07-30-2020, 06:57 PM
Sun Lion's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
So the tiara story played out with the blame being placed on Angela Kelly, not the Queen. Which I think is basically the story in the DM as well, with a more sensationalist, clickbait headline. I still think that it sounds incredibly petty and quite entitled, even though I'm sure nerves and the desire to make sure everything was ready and perfect was running high. Not to mention other factors like the Markles playing out in the press at the same time.

After the “highs” of their early courtship days, that wedding week must have been hellish Heavs.

A real dose of cold, hard reality after such a fantasy courtship.

Wish I got to be whisked off to Africa on a third date in my younger days.
  #940  
Old 07-30-2020, 06:58 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyDrx View Post
I think at this point the RF should just cut all ties with the Sussexes. They have been married for only 2 years but the drama that they brought rivals that of the "War of the Waleses".
That’s not happening - Charles is Harry’s father, HM is his grandmother.....I do think that, as far as being working Royals again, that’s over. I don’t think HM, Charles or William will mention this again despite the fact that there is to be a year end review.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian britain british british royal family camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:33 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×