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
 
  #1801  
Old 08-14-2020, 10:28 PM
tihkon2's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Stafford, United States
Posts: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
Also I forgot, Omid had appalling fact checking.

Diana died in 96. Tiggy left 97. Hard to take it seriously with those mistakes
Diana died August 31, 1997. He said she died in 1996 in the book???
__________________

  #1802  
Old 08-14-2020, 10:34 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
tbf i haven't seen this in my copy
__________________

  #1803  
Old 08-14-2020, 10:39 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by tihkon2 View Post
Diana died August 31, 1997. He said she died in 1996 in the book???
Well, Omid often confuses dates especially his birthday,
  #1804  
Old 08-14-2020, 10:54 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
I wonder where they found the first nanny - the one who was apparently fired on the spot?

I think members of royal families have a few options for nannies. They can use family, they can use a highly qualified nanny recommended by family or very close friends or they can use a highly qualified nanny from an agency used to placements with high profile families. So I’ll take it for granted the woman was in one of the latter two categories and also that she would have been thoroughly vetted by their security team before she was able to start the job. Given that, it’s hard to imagine what sort of unprofessional or dangerous thing she would do that would warrant her being let go in the middle of the night. Meghan and Harry may not have liked her much or she could have been a poor fit in general but it’s unlikely the caliber of nanny they would be dealing with would make an egregious mistake in the care of an infant.

Yes I would be very curious to know what occurred to compel the couple fire the night nurse/nanny in the middle of the night. Presumably this woman at the very least would have possessed the necessary training, been cleared by security and would have been highly recommended by previous employers.


Was it something dangerous? Did she try to sneak a photo of the newborn or the nursery?
  #1805  
Old 08-14-2020, 11:06 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Yes I would be very curious to know what occurred to compel the couple fire the night nurse/nanny in the middle of the night. Presumably this woman at the very least would have possessed the necessary training, been cleared by security and would have been highly recommended by previous employers.


Was it something dangerous? Did she try to sneak a photo of the newborn or the nursery?
Well, they have a long history of making mountains out of molehills, if we go by FF. So it might have been something relatively minor. Maybe the well meaning nanny suggested using cloth diapers thinking that Harry was a self-proclaimed eco advocate. And the couple might have bristled thinking they were being reprimanded, like with the bevy of private jets. Harry apparently explodes if he thinks anyone is judging him.
  #1806  
Old 08-15-2020, 12:38 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess_Watcher View Post
I do think Prince Harry will be back[.......] I just don't think they are actually that compatible at all.

Harry's burned too many bridges to go back. Even if he and Meghan break up he needs to stay where he is. Or move to another country.
  #1807  
Old 08-15-2020, 03:59 AM
andrew's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arad, Romania
Posts: 257
.

I think it is ridiculous that H&M complain about Harry's family being unsupportive. Meghan's close family (except her mother) literally trashed her in front of the whole world! Just listen to interviews given by her siblings and father. Harry's side of the family may had some reserve towards her but it does not compare to the sh*tstorm that Meghan's family brought unto them.
M&H could have carved out a meaningful and dignified role within the Royal family if they had more patience, confidence and wisdom.
It is truly sad that they bolted like two mad peacocks, ruffling their feathers after a year and a half
  #1808  
Old 08-15-2020, 04:13 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolvingdoors View Post
Notice I said “entire family” not “her father side of the family”
We’ve spoken of this already: Meghan has estranged herself from both sides of her family.
I didn't know of her being estranged from her mothers' family,,, she seems close to her mother, so I assume that she's at least on polite terms with the Ragland side..One' isn't necessarily close to cousins and aunts and uncles.. Of course one may not be that close to siblings or parents either...but there's usually a deeper connextion.
I don't think Meg's a very easy person.. but she may just not be that close to her Mothers family, just because.. they are just not that close.. and her dad's family are awful.. I do feel rather sorry for her with the Dad's family, because I don't think it is anything she has done...
  #1809  
Old 08-15-2020, 04:14 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LONDON, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,070
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cope-fame.html

No one will ever know why the 1st marriage ended; but interesting to hear from Trevor's uncle.
  #1810  
Old 08-15-2020, 04:41 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 3,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Yes I would be very curious to know what occurred to compel the couple fire the night nurse/nanny in the middle of the night. Presumably this woman at the very least would have possessed the necessary training, been cleared by security and would have been highly recommended by previous employers.


Was it something dangerous? Did she try to sneak a photo of the newborn or the nursery?
To be fair, i could imagine if i was in their position; in the limelight, just had first child, worried about the privacy of my child and eveything about him being new, i was adjusting to the situation, recovering from the delivery, emotional about this miracle that had happened to me...and if i then caught a person i trusted with my child taking a picture of him without asking me first...i probably would have freaked too and immediately asked them to get out of my house...
And if then another person would be coming over to help and i'd see a mobile phone in their purse or pocket...i'd probably want them away as well...

not saying that happened, but if it did, i could totally relate to what happened

(two weeks later when everything was fine and my baby doing well, i'd probably regret it, but when you're in the limelight it probably is all out in the open by that time...)
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
  #1811  
Old 08-15-2020, 04:46 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Why would a nanny be taking a picture of the baby? If they hired a nanny from a reputable agency who is accustomed to the problems that Nannies who look after royal children or those of famous people have to face, i.e. safety and security concerns (they DO have Protection officers who would be around as well) concerns about privacy etc. etc... there is no way that they'd be doing anything like this.
Even if there was some minor problem, and they didn't want to keep the nanny, surely it was not likely to be such a big thing that they had to get rid of the woman asap... They could surely have explained what was wrong, said that they thought it wasn't working out, and given her a months notice and hired a new nanny in that time.
  #1812  
Old 08-15-2020, 05:14 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,385
Why is this on the Sussexes? This woman, even if she was from a reputable agency, could have behaved in an inappropriate way with other members of staff or the RPOs, could have been constantly warned before about disregarding instructions, or been away from the nursery area somewhere she shouldn't have been for a long period of time.

She could even have turned up for her shift drunk or drug affected. No parent is going to put up with that.

She was a temporary employee anyway, and hasn't complained to the media about her treatment so we can take it that it was probably something very serious. The book hasn't given details on the situation and the Sussexes haven't spoken of it, so we are not likely to know.
  #1813  
Old 08-15-2020, 05:15 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by tihkon2 View Post
I haven't seen anybody say that. So nice straw man.....
Thank you! If this is their only defense of Harry and Meghan, it’s not much of one...and that’s bring kind. While some are speculating on what the BRF have said about them, we KNOW what they have said about the BRF. Just some food for thought, lol
  #1814  
Old 08-15-2020, 05:16 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Great review. Careful Betsy, this may be more than 20% of the article and you may get a ticking off...
Oops, I’ll delete some of it...thank you!
  #1815  
Old 08-15-2020, 05:21 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
Well, they have a long history of making mountains out of molehills, if we go by FF. So it might have been something relatively minor. Maybe the well meaning nanny suggested using cloth diapers thinking that Harry was a self-proclaimed eco advocate. And the couple might have bristled thinking they were being reprimanded, like with the bevy of private jets. Harry apparently explodes if he thinks anyone is judging him.
Sadly, I could believe things like this....I assume the nanny was sleeping in the middle of the night; what could she possibly have done at that moment? Let me guess - Archie was crying, and she hadn’t woken up yet. Apparently they called her unprofessional - did she go to the kitchen for a glass of milk in her bathrobe? I’m surprised we haven’t heard from her...
  #1816  
Old 08-15-2020, 05:30 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,385
Archie may well wear cloth nappies.

I read elsewhere that this nurse was a temporary 'monthly' night nurse, hired for the first weeks of a baby's life so that the parents can get some sleep. So she would hardly have been sleeping in a bedroom during her shift or walking around in a dressing gown.
  #1817  
Old 08-15-2020, 05:38 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
So how come they end up with a nanny or even a temporary nurse who is so dreadful at her job that she has to be sacked immediately? Surely a well to do couple, of a reasonable age, with plenty of contacts who could advise them on hiring nannies, is not likely to get someone who is such a disaster...
  #1818  
Old 08-15-2020, 05:55 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew View Post
I think it is ridiculous that H&M complain about Harry's family being unsupportive. Meghan's close family (except her mother) literally trashed her in front of the whole world! Just listen to interviews given by her siblings and father. Harry's side of the family may had some reserve towards her but it does not compare to the sh*tstorm that Meghan's family brought unto them.
M&H could have carved out a meaningful and dignified role within the Royal family if they had more patience, confidence and wisdom.
It is truly sad that they bolted like two mad peacocks, ruffling their feathers after a year and a half

This is something I struggle with massively, they say the RF are unsupportive (though they try an hide that behind meaning royal aides sometimes) but from the book:

The Queen was so supportive, praising Meghan, taking her with her on a trip quicker than any other royal and popping in to see them regularly at Windsor. She invited her to the big BP christmas lunch and the more private family Christmas at Sandirngham while they were still 'only' engaged which, I believe for HM , is a big step/sign.

Charles loves Meghan and her can do attitude and was like a second father to her. He and Camilla attended her private baptism and hosted a private dinner for Meghan after it with all her friends invited, he walked her down the aisle when her father couldn't and they spent some time at the Castle of Mey together. Charles was and still is continuing to still fund them and their lifestlye

Eugenie was wonderful, popping in all the time, double dates with H&M and Jack.

Zara is mentioned as being told about the birth of Archie via whatsapp

Even William is praised for fighting for them to have their own staff rather than just sharing with the rest of the RF and said to have pushed Charles to ensure their office was properly funded. At the start the book specifically says: But she needn’t have worried. As soon as William opened the black double doors to welcome Meghan into his home, he said, “I was looking forward to meeting the girl who has put that silly grin on my brother’s face.”

He and Kate host Meghan and Harry for Christmas in their own private home
At the start (before the book suddenly changes its view and Kate is cold and unkind) she is said to be supportive. Here is the entire quote about their first meeting which took place after William first met Meghan because Kate was still at Anmer at the time with the children (completely fair IMO surely and if anything shows how eager William was to meet Meghan not to wait until Kate was free):
Despite the fact that Harry was a regular guest in her household, Kate had seemingly not shown much interest in finding out who this woman was who had made her brother-in-law so happy. But that indifference wasn’t necessarily directed toward Meghan. “The Duchess is an extremely guarded person,” a friend explained. After she married William, she was careful about letting others in to her social circle. Her friends today—including Lady Laura Meade and Emilia Jardine-Paterson, both of whom married friends of William’s—are for the most part the same ones she had on her wedding day. Like her husband, Kate ran in a tight group.
Meghan brought a present for the duchess, who had celebrated her birthday just a day earlier. The soft leather Smythson notebook helped to break the ice, as did Meghan’s cooing over then twenty-month-old Charlotte. The meeting ended with Kate letting Meghan know that she was always welcome to contact her if she needed anything. Having been through the experience of being a royal girlfriend herself, Kate knew how trying it could be to suddenly have one’s personal life laid bare.


Kate may be cold, a bit distant but other than instantly becoming BFFs like some cheesy teen film I don't know what else she was expected to do. She told Meghan she could contact her with anything so IMO that in a way puts the ball back in Meghans court.


But all of this isn't supportive enough? Especially when you compare it to Meghan's family? I find that quite remarkable to be honest.
  #1819  
Old 08-15-2020, 06:07 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 3,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
She was a temporary employee anyway, and hasn't complained to the media about her treatment so we can take it that it was probably something very serious. The book hasn't given details on the situation and the Sussexes haven't spoken of it, so we are not likely to know.
for me the bold part, is one jump too far to a conclusion

if she is somewhat good at her job (and if she wasn't at least somewhat good, it was a bad idea hiring her) she probably knows that a future employer will not appreciate it if she talked about a previous employer, no matter who was right or wrong in the situation.
i've attended jobinterviews where the applicant started to talk about their previous employer and the things that went wrong there, without being asked, and we considered that a bad trait for the person.

i can imagine it's the same with nannies and others jobs where the employee works in the employers private home
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
  #1820  
Old 08-15-2020, 06:19 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
So how come they end up with a nanny or even a temporary nurse who is so dreadful at her job that she has to be sacked immediately? Surely a well to do couple, of a reasonable age, with plenty of contacts who could advise them on hiring nannies, is not likely to get someone who is such a disaster...
She was employed from an agency, I read. We don't know the circumstances. Later they employed a fulltime nanny who stayed with them through the last months of their time with the RF and the months in Canada and she wasn't sacked. She left because she was homesick for the UK.

This other woman was a temporary employee who did something that caused her to be sacked in the middle of the night. If I had to guess I would say it was due to her being not there in the nursery area and she couldn't be found for quite a while. Archie was probably crying, alerting the parents.

The thing is, if you are employed to look after a newborn during the night you should be there at all times (apart from toilet breaks of course) to do just that and she obviously was found wanting.
__________________

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 archie mountbatten-windsor asian baby names baptism britannia british british royal family british royals camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hereditary grand duchess stéphanie highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan history kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers luxembourg meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan st edward suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:18 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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