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

[JR76]

It was also reported at the time of her first Christmas at Sandringham that she felt Andrew had ignored her.

So the uncle of her partner ignored her while part of a group of around 20 people? Pardon me for sounding spiteful, but who cares? It's definitely rude behaviour but I'm sure many of us has been through worse when introduced to the family of a partner.
Though given that it's apparently not in the book I doubt it never happened.

 

[ACO]

Well the book said a senior member of the family called her a 'showgirl' and another said she came with 'baggage' and neither remark sounds like it was a compliment. It was also reported at the time of her first Christmas at Sandringham that she felt Andrew had ignored her. If those examples are true then that is direct rudeness whereas the Princess Michael thing was just their own interpretation of what her brooch meant, which she herself vigorously denied.

She was probably called worse but really it is what it is. I mean one of the reporters who said Harry "ditched" his friend also claimed said friends said some "unsavory things" about Meghan. So tell me again why the friendship likely slowly deteriorated?

I actually don't think this family are warm and fuzzy with each other over all but I do think they are a family who are forced to work together and that will always have complications. Overall I think they do very well with it and get on fairly well as long as you fit their mold


So yes I do think it is more in the middle than most would like to admit. Do I think Harry and Meghan could have done things better? Of course. Do I think the family didn't make mistakes and things could have happened to accelerate some things? Sure. We have all heard the drama behind the scenes for YEARS and long before Meghan Markle even existed in their world.

People's view of any situation will be bias. That is just life. And these books are just another reflection of that. But regardless this "divorce" from the royal work life happened and they have all moved on. Now the media and forums are fixated yet another book, but I get it. It is expected.

Though literally nothing new was revealed.

 

[Lilyflo]

As far as I’m concerned, that’s way too much information no matter many words have been devoted to it. It’s also just another way of trying to make Meghan sound sooo perfect and special…

I think it's the case of TMI that gross people out. I mean, why would they put THAT in the book?

I’m sure it’s in the book because it’s a very relevant piece of information for Prince Harry, who loves to go on safaris so of course he’d be pleased that when they’re far from any proper showers or loos, the woman he’s with has no problem using baby wipes instead of washing and taking a “bathroom break” in the woodlands and it shows another instance of Meghan “ticking all the right boxes” for Harry. I honestly don’t understand the problem people have with it. How can you be “grossed out” by knowing someone had to use the woods instead of a lavatory? How do you think the rest of the BRF manage when stalking deer far from a hunting lodge or riding out miles from the nearest loo? It’s most likely something they all have to do occasionally when enjoying outdoor pursuits. The Queen Mother definitely did as I mentioned in a previous post. They probably laugh about it too because like many British people who enjoy lavatory humour, the BRF aren't squeamish about mentioning them. I also don't recall a huge hoo-hah being made about royals and lavatories before. There have been several references to Diana’s lavatorial humour. I've read articles & books that have included snippets about Charles travelling with his own loo seat and Princess Anne buying him a leather one as an amusing Christmas present. We also know there are self-deprecating cartoons of Charles in the guest loos at Highgrove.

The funniest story for me about the BRF and loos is this one, which is in The Queen Mother’s official biography. After an extension was added to Birkhall “it was realised that no provision had been made for a downstairs gentleman’s lavatory” (so after its instalment) “Queen Elizabeth performed an opening ceremony in which the lavatory was filled with flowers from the garden and she declared it open by pulling the chain and saying ‘I name this Arthur’s Seat’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur's_Seat

 

[miss whirley]

Well the book said a senior member of the family called her a 'showgirl' and another said she came with 'baggage' and neither remark sounds like it was a compliment. It was also reported at the time of her first Christmas at Sandringham that she felt Andrew had ignored her. If those examples are true then that is direct rudeness whereas the Princess Michael thing was just their own interpretation of what her brooch meant, which she herself vigorously denied.

I'm pretty sure this is a reference to the famous movie "The Prince and the Showgirl" from 1957. Frankly it's a huge honor for Harry to be compared to Laurence Olivier (he wishes!). Just like someone who was alive in the late '80s might make a reference to "When Harry met Meghan" (When Harry met Sally).

So I took it as a cute cultural reference.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that several posts discussing a theoretical breakdown Harry and Meghan's marriage have been removed or edited.

One again, you MUST stay on the topic of thread, which is the Finding Freedom book and it's contents. Sub-topics not found within the book will continue to be deleted and further action taken if necessary.

 

[Helen.CH]

I'm pretty sure this is a reference to the famous movie "The Prince and the Showgirl" from 1957. Frankly it's a huge honor for Harry to be compared to Laurence Olivier (he wishes!). Just like someone who was alive in the late '80s might make a reference to "When Harry met Meghan" (When Harry met Sally).

So I took it as a cute cultural reference.

That is possible, but honestly if not, every family has it's uncle, grandpa or whoever making comments about others and we all do this sometimes, this is no drama to normal healthy adults but part of a family's routine.
I think LaRae said the book does not reveal anything he/she had not read before in the media, after all maybe the somehow strange choice the authors seem to have made tells a lot more than the "facts" themselves.
Concerning the "peegate" one can only wonder if Harry is really that simple to be impressed and yes, me too do not need more information about this. it's not special at all as we'd all choose to do so if given no alternative. why on earth did they choose to write about it? very sick like the whole thing seemed to turn out.

 

[yukari]

If it all came from Omid's and Durran's imagination, why don't H&M sue them as they do whenever fake news is alleged?

Because they finally learn their lesson and become wiser about picking which legal battle to fight?

I just found this Telegraph article which i think can explain my thought better:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/w...edom-drags-royal-biography-royal-family-show/

Finding Freedom drags the royal biography – and the Royal family – into the show business gutter
This vacuous piece of work degrades one of Britain’s great institutions, and raises suspicions about where the authors’ ‘facts’ came from

(...)
It is a monumental public relations job, and a pretty disastrous one at that. The authors are a pair of American journalists who write about the Royal family for American glossy magazines. For them, the Royal family is a commodity, an institution in which their only interest is how loudly it can make their personal cash registers ring. It is a branch of show business; which is why they were the perfect couple to write a book about the Duchess of Sussex.

Even by the standards of recent royal biographies – most of which, when written about living members of the family, are little more than an extended gossip-column rather than reflecting the serious research normally associated with such a work – this one is an offence against even a moderate standard of intelligence and good taste. It is the perfect present for someone you wish to insult.

Serious biographies do not include effluent such as "the rising sun washed over her makeshift yoga garden, while an exotic flock of birds that looked as if they had just had their tails dipped in pots of colourful paints serenaded her". Nor would they include drivel such as this description of the Duchess meeting Misha Nonoo, a fashion designer: "Meghan was instantly intrigued by Misha’s effortless glamour, and Misha felt similarly about the actress’s fresh-faced interest."

Leaving aside the atrociousness of the prose, which any respectable editor would keep only in a book destined to be read by the vacuous, insights such as these raise the question of whether the Sussexes collaborated: a key point, because one needs to know with any biography how credible the information contained within it is.

To those of us who have written biographies – and even, I don’t doubt, to scores of millions of others who haven’t – it is blindingly obvious that much of the information in this book can have only one of two origins: either it is made up, in which case the book is worthless trash, or it was written after some sort of briefing or assistance from the Sussexes or those they may have instructed to speak for them.
(...)

Honestly, I've never (and avoid to) read biography of a living person (the most recent one is about a politician who died when I was 10) so I'm not sure if maybe the writing style for that kind of biography is to make it sounds like "semi-fiction". Because that's what my impression of the first two chapters (snapshots and screenshot) I found circulating in social media: it does feel like fiction and not "serious biography".

There's a thread in twitter concerning Vladimir tiara. It is said that the book mentioned about Diana wore Vladimir tiara (I haven't seen the excerpt, so whoever has the book please help to confirm whether it's in the book or not?). But basically, it's concluded by those twitter user that perhaps it's coming from one photoshopped picture of Diana wore one while in original photo she's actually wore Lover's Knot tiara.
Here is the link to the said thread:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1294189099428061184

My point is, this Vladimir tiara debacle can be one of the indication of how "trusted" the information (or the sources) in this book can be. Who know if the two authors merely used Google (gathering old online "news" and gossips) and poured their imagination into the mix.

 

[Lee-Z]

That is possible, but honestly if not, every family has it's uncle, grandpa or whoever making comments about others and we all do this sometimes, this is no drama to normal healthy adults but part of a family's routine.
I think LaRae said the book does not reveal anything he/she had not read before in the media, after all maybe the somehow strange choice the authors seem to have made tells a lot more than the "facts" themselves.
.

Agreed on the family thing, you just have to laugh about it and ignore it, no point feeling offended

With regards to 'already read it in the media'...that is just the thing: up until now i still believed the media had exaggerated, pulled quotes out of context or otherwise distorted what was written...
but it's all in there...


one thing i haven't seen yet, and yes, i know i'm on the prying road now: is the DoCornwall mentioned at all?

 

[Eskimo]

The other side might not be greener but sometimes it’s worth the risk to try.

I know around these parts the BRF are perfect and never said or did anything bad toward Meghan or Harry. Not one rude remark or action ever. Anything bad or confrontational that happened was 100% on her. If she was ever offended it was her imagination. Yada yada.

So frankly it was really for the best they left for the sake of everyone...

And per Finding Freedom it is 100% everyone else's fault and Meghan is a living saint

 

[sophie25]

I'm pretty sure this is a reference to the famous movie "The Prince and the Showgirl" from 1957. Frankly it's a huge honor for Harry to be compared to Laurence Olivier (he wishes!). Just like someone who was alive in the late '80s might make a reference to "When Harry met Meghan" (When Harry met Sally).

So I took it as a cute cultural reference.

Well I have to disagree on that one. Don't get me wrong, I am not a big fan of Meghan, not by a long chalk, but that remark does come across as patronising and derogatory and if I had been in her shoes I would have taken it that way too. Also, if one wants to get into the details of the movie, which I doubt was at the forefront of whoever said it's mind, we are not talking about Harry as Olivier but Meghan as Marilyn Monroe.

 

[Lilyflo]

I'm pretty sure this is a reference to the famous movie "The Prince and the Showgirl" from 1957. Frankly it's a huge honor for Harry to be compared to Laurence Olivier (he wishes!). Just like someone who was alive in the late '80s might make a reference to "When Harry met Meghan" (When Harry met Sally).

So I took it as a cute cultural reference.

When a British royal, aristocratic or upper class person refers to an actress as someone's "showgirl", it isn't cute. It's snobbery, it's insulting and no honour is intended to the man in question.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

FWIW...no one in the BRF is alleged to have called Meghan a showgirl. It was said to have been a courtier who referred to her as "Harry's showgirl" and another who suggested that she was untrustworthy.

Other than the ridiculous (imo) Princess Michael, everything I have read points to the family from HMQ and the PoW bending over backwards to welcome Harry's beloved. If they didn't bend far enough to suit Harry that is for another topic.

The tabloids and online comments were mean
So what? Meghan should have asked Sarah how she handled being compared to a horse looks wise and being called lazy and a "bad mum". (Apparently it decimated her already low self esteem).

After William and Kate married in 2011, i saw Beatrice and Eugenie mocked as the Ugly Cinderella Stepsisters in both American AND British tabloids.

Why did Meghan believe she would receive kid glove treatment, if she ever did believe that?

Final question..WHY were Meghan and Harry reading tabloid articles in the first place? Especially when we were assured via her anonymous posse in People magazine that she was tuning out all the "noise" and concentrating on her new life?

 

[sophie25]

FWIW...no one in the BRF is alleged to have called Meghan a showgirl. It was said to have been a courtier who referred to her as "Harry's showgirl" and another who suggested that she was untrustworthy.

Other than the ridiculous (imo) Princess Michael, everything I have read points to the family from HMQ and the PoW bending over backwards to welcome Harry's beloved. If they didn't bend far enough to suit Harry that is for another topic.

The tabloids and online comments were mean
So what? Meghan should have asked Sarah how she handled being compared to a horse looks wise and being called lazy and a "bad mum". (Apparently it decimated her already low self esteem).

After William and Kate married in 2011, i saw Beatrice and Eugenie mocked as the Ugly Cinderella Stepsisters in both American AND British tabloids.

Why did Meghan believe she would receive kid glove treatment, if she ever did believe that?

Final question..WHY were Meghan and Harry reading tabloid articles in the first place? Especially when we were assured via her anonymous posse in People magazines that she was tuning out all the "noise" and concentrating on her new life?

The book said it was senior members of the family who called her a showgirl and said she had a lot of baggage. It was a courtier who said they didn't trust her.

 

[Eskimo]

The book said it was senior members of the family who called her a showgirl and said she had a lot of baggage. It was a courtier who said they didn't trust her.

Given her relationship with her family, there is something in it

 

[Moonmaiden23]

She did and DOES have a lot of baggage! So did Diana and Sarah.

Heck...Harry and William have BAGGAGE.

 

[Pranter]

She did and DOES have a lot of baggage! So did Diana and Sarah.

Heck...Harry and William have BAGGAGE.

EVERYONE has baggage. I'm just glad no one had cameras on me anytime I was outside my home while I was growing up and dealing with baggage.

This goes back to the whole dysfunctional family thing raised while they were dating/engaged. Somehow Meghan was not suitable due to all her baggage. I had to laugh and wonder if those who thought this had ever studied the Windsors.

LaRae

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Meghan was not accustomed to public criticism during her time as a TV actress. Once she was exposed to it on the biggest and most public stage in the world(other than the American presidency) she could not handle it and she folded. Period.

There is no shame in not being able to develop a thicker skin but I do fault them for not giving it more than 18 months.

After all...she and Harry were receiving a great deal of adulation, admiration and support that should have more than offset the "noise".

 

[Helen.CH]

well, as a person who has lived in "closed" group of people I know that all these closed systems have their own language, view outside and sometimes rarely inside, kind of arrogance.... this is not to excuse but c'mon Harry knew this and if Meghan is what she likes to be portrayed a strong independant woman she should know, she wasn't young when she dropped in.
"showgirl" suits perfectly into that structure of special language/vocabulary in a closed group like the RF, I am not surprised and do believe it might have really happened but anyway no reason to get upset, that's life, after all the royals are pure humans and no saints at all. what did the two expect, I think this is maybe up to Harry's problems with himself plus M. attitude of expecting everybody to kneel down when meeting her. I often asked myself if she was much into Gracia /Grace Kelly's story , but if she was totally wrong, Grace was a REAL star and A-list actress when she left Hollywoood for her prince.

 

[Pranter]

Meghan was not accustomed to public criticism during her time as a TV actress. Once she was exposed to it on the biggest and most public stage in the world(other than the American presidency) she could not handle it and she folded. Period.

There is no shame in not being able to develop a thicker skin but I do fault them for not giving it more than 18 months.

After all...she and Harry received a great deal of adulation, admiration and support that should have more than offset the "noise".

Just guessing really as that is all any of us can do...I tend to think it was both of them that just had reached their limit, I don't like the attitude of it's all Meghan's fault when we have Harry, going back years, saying he wanted out.... 18 months (actually longer) may have seemed like a really long time when you are on the receiving end.

I don't agree with how they handled everything nor how they still do some things (what little we have seen). I just don't see the need to turn them into some sort of villains because they wanted out and made mistakes along the way.



LaRae

 

[Somebody]

Well the book said a senior member of the family called her a 'showgirl' and another said she came with 'baggage' and neither remark sounds like it was a compliment. It was also reported at the time of her first Christmas at Sandringham that she felt Andrew had ignored her. If those examples are true then that is direct rudeness whereas the Princess Michael thing was just their own interpretation of what her brooch meant, which she herself vigorously denied.

I believe both comments are attributed to members of staff (being overheard by other members of staff) not by senior members of the family. However, if you have other information from the book (as I haven't read it) please share the quote.

And Meghan 'feeling ignored' doesn't say much honestly given how easily they perceive something as a slight.

 

[Pranter]

I believe both comments are attributed to members of staff (being overheard by other members of staff) not by senior members of the family. However, if you have other information from the book (as I haven't read it) please share the quote.

And Meghan 'feeling ignored' doesn't say much honestly given how easily they perceive something as a slight.

The book said senior royal called her Harry's showgirl.

Senior courtiers said they didn't trust her and that another staffer said Meghan was the squeaky wheel. Plus another staffer said she came with a lot of baggage.



LaRae

 

[Lilyflo]

There's a thread in twitter concerning Vladimir tiara. It is said that the book mentioned about Diana wore Vladimir tiara (I haven't seen the excerpt, so whoever has the book please help to confirm whether it's in the book or not?). But basically, it's concluded by those twitter user that perhaps it's coming from one photoshopped picture of Diana wore one while in original photo she's actually wore Lover's Knot tiara.
Here is the link to the said thread:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1294189099428061184

My point is, this Vladimir tiara debacle can be one of the indication of how "trusted" the information (or the sources) in this book can be. Who know if the two authors merely used Google (gathering old online "news" and gossips) and poured their imagination into the mix.

Yes it's in the book where the authors state that the Vladimir tiara was worn by Diana and HMQ, which I believe is incorrect (judging by all the genuine photos in the public domain). It's possible that Diana wore the Vladimir for a private royal event, which wasn't photographed but if that's true, the authors would have a source for that information that we don't know about. The authors could just be wrong of course. We have some tiara experts on the forum here who might be able to shed more light on this.

 

[Somebody]

The book said senior royal called her Harry's showgirl.

Senior courtiers said they didn't trust her and that another staffer said Meghan was the squeaky wheel. Plus another staffer said she came with a lot of baggage.



LaRae

Thanks; so apparently the words 'show girl' were used by a family member but 'baggage' was not. What was the context of the show girl quote - in which situation was this comment uttered? Could you provide the full quote as that typically helps.

 

[Lilyflo]

I believe both comments are attributed to members of staff (being overheard by other members of staff) not by senior members of the family. However, if you have other information from the book (as I haven't read it) please share the quote.

Here's the quote from the book:

When she first arrived in the prince's life, one senior royal referred to the American actress as "Harry's showgirl". Another told an aide, "She comes with a lot of baggage". And a high-ranking courtier was overheard telling a colleague, "There's just something about her I don't trust."

 

[sophie25]

Here's the quote from the book:

You are correct, the showgirl and baggage comments are attributed to members of the Royal family. I'm surprised that anyone is surprised by this, the very nature of having a royal family means having a group of people who believe they are elevated above the general populace. I distinctly remember it being reported that Prince Edward referred to the tourists at Windsor Castle as 'the grockles'.

 

[poppy7]

Daily update on book.

Description of Christmas at Sandringham. But a large part of that is what they wouldn't have experienced as they were at Amner.

Nothing about their time at Amner so far.

Refuted the gossip that Meghan stopped Harry going on the Boxing day hunt. They returned to London because ofnthr radio show he edited.

A lot on the brother and sister. And their increasing willingness to talk for money. To be honest I do feel for her here. Asking Jason and their team for money as part of her family. They were bemused.

A bit of talk about the communications team asking Meghan for any piece of sort about her life or anyone she thought would talk so they could be one step ahead of them. She obviously didn't.

The childhood friend Pritty was mentioned as selling her story. Someone who obviously sided with Trevor after they split. That is my emphasis.

Lots on clothes, labels, how perfect Meghan is as per usual.

Not much so far about the Dad oy they did support him. Jason was his contact person but he always said things were fine.

Oprah reached out to help Doria. Such a relief to Meghan. To be fair though, I dont remember that much interest in Doria. The book makes it sound like a siege.

When Thomas got rumpled for the set up photographs lots of talk of how Meghan loved him. And, if he was telling the truth and had nothing to do with it, how she would help him no end to sort it.

That is it so far.

Increasingly this is just her refuting everything that was ever said about her and constantly promoting hoe perfect she, and her aspirational life is.

 

[Betsypaige]

at times Im inclined to think that they did not really intend to stick the job out and that they trumped up reasons as to why they felt they couldn't stay.

Possibly.... they gave it less than 18 months before they started planning their departure, so that does speak to a half-hearted attempt to fit in..

 

[Betsypaige]

I’m sure it’s in the book because it’s a very relevant piece of information for Prince Harry, who loves to go on safaris so of course he’d be pleased that when they’re far from any proper showers or loos, the woman he’s with has no problem using baby wipes instead of washing and taking a “bathroom break” in the woodlands and it shows another instance of Meghan “ticking all the right boxes” for Harry. I honestly don’t understand the problem people have with it. How can you be “grossed out” by knowing someone had to use the woods instead of a lavatory? How do you think the rest of the BRF manage when stalking deer far from a hunting lodge or riding out miles from the nearest loo? It’s most likely something they all have to do occasionally when enjoying outdoor pursuits. The Queen Mother definitely did as I mentioned in a previous post. They probably laugh about it too because like many British people who enjoy lavatory humour, the BRF aren't squeamish about mentioning them. I also don't recall a huge hoo-hah being made about royals and lavatories before. There have been several references to Diana’s lavatorial humour. I've read articles & books that have included snippets about Charles travelling with his own loo seat and Princess Anne buying him a leather one as an amusing Christmas present. We also know there are self-deprecating cartoons of Charles in the guest loos at Highgrove.

The funniest story for me about the BRF and loos is this one, which is in The Queen Mother’s official biography. After an extension was added to Birkhall “it was realised that no provision had been made for a downstairs gentleman’s lavatory” (so after its instalment) “Queen Elizabeth performed an opening ceremony in which the lavatory was filled with flowers from the garden and she declared it open by pulling the chain and saying ‘I name this Arthur’s Seat’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur's_Seat

I imagine Meghan wouldn’t have agreed to go on safari if she were “squeamish” about these kinds of conditions..

I’m not grossed out about it at all. I just don’t want to read about it. I’m not sure why you find it so difficult to understand why this is the case...Different strokes for different folks.

 

[camelot23ca]

I have always seen it as her ambition having a different kilt and that in line with her family she agreed to put her eggs in the William basket knowing that having a full career would limit her availability. I always thought the 2007 break was an ultimatum talk: are we going to get married because if we are not I need to start building a life of my own. I always thought that getting back together was contingent on William promising that. She was 25 and probably felt she had given up enough and if it wasn't going to work she needed to get on with her life.

Her parents too legally threatened photographers upon the break. Which was the right way to do it.

Also per the book. I get thr feeling that Meghan may have used the decision to renew Suits for another year as a push for a proposal.

I don't think this is bad on either women. In fact it's what women do. And both women were in the back sit power wise regarding their relationship and what they were sacrificing because of it.

I think both couples met at somewhat inconvenient times in their lives.
I think I’ve posted before about how I wonder if things might have played out differently with Harry and Meghan if they’d met when she was 29 or 30, instead of 35 or 36, whatever it was. Suits was winding down and it was unlikely anything better career wise would come her way. And she wouldn’t be the first woman in her mid 30s who decided the next guy who came around was her soulmate and was married with a child within a year or two. Meghan’s guy just happened to come with a lot of bells and whistles.

As to Kate and William, well, they got together when they were barely out of their teens. I’m around their age and, thinking back, the majority of university couples I knew didn’t last long after graduation. And these were strong couples that I suspect would have wound up happily married if they’d met when they were in their late 20s. But I didn’t know many men or women who were anxious to get married in their early 20s and I can see why William may have been hesitant to settle down so early. Timing can be everything!

 

[Lilyflo]

You are correct, the showgirl and baggage comments are attributed to members of the Royal family. I'm surprised that anyone is surprised by this, the very nature of having a royal family means having a group of people who believe they are elevated above the general populace. I distinctly remember it being reported that Prince Edward referred to the tourists at Windsor Castle as 'the grockles'.

I agree with your post but to be fair, I live in coastal Devon and we call day trippers "grockles" here. Perhaps he picked up the word from his relative & good friend Lord Ivar Mountbatten who has lived in Devon for years. It's not exactly a complimentary word but it's not really associated with social superiority, it's more locals v visitors.