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
 
  #1741  
Old 08-14-2020, 09:47 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
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.
__________________

  #1742  
Old 08-14-2020, 10:03 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
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.
__________________

  #1743  
Old 08-14-2020, 10:14 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
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…
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyDrx View Post
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%27s_Seat
  #1744  
Old 08-14-2020, 10:23 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
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.
  #1745  
Old 08-14-2020, 10:28 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
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.
__________________
JACK
  #1746  
Old 08-14-2020, 10:53 AM
Helen.CH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Chambery, France
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
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.
  #1747  
Old 08-14-2020, 11:43 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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/wh...l-family-show/
Quote:
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/isaguor/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.
  #1748  
Old 08-14-2020, 11:49 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 3,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helen.CH View Post
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?
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
  #1749  
Old 08-14-2020, 11:59 AM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
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
  #1750  
Old 08-14-2020, 12:17 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
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.
  #1751  
Old 08-14-2020, 12:26 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
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.
  #1752  
Old 08-14-2020, 12:30 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,773
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?
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
  #1753  
Old 08-14-2020, 12:35 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
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.
  #1754  
Old 08-14-2020, 12:41 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
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
  #1755  
Old 08-14-2020, 01:20 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,773
She did and DOES have a lot of baggage! So did Diana and Sarah.

Heck...Harry and William have BAGGAGE.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
  #1756  
Old 08-14-2020, 01:26 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
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
  #1757  
Old 08-14-2020, 01:27 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,773
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".
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
  #1758  
Old 08-14-2020, 01:31 PM
Helen.CH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Chambery, France
Posts: 302
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.
  #1759  
Old 08-14-2020, 01:34 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
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
  #1760  
Old 08-14-2020, 01:47 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
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.
__________________

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 asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing colorblindness coronation doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs king juan carlos liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family sussex suthida unfinished portrait united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:12 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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