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
 
  #1821  
Old 08-15-2020, 06:52 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
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...
The nanny might not have been caught doing whatever it was before, so came with good references. The nanny to The Queen's father & Uncle David was brutal to them until she was found out and sacked. The Queen herself sacked Charles' nanny for not carrying out her wishes about his food. It's entirely possible to employ someone in good faith having done all the background checks and then find out something you weren't aware of.
__________________

  #1822  
Old 08-15-2020, 06:57 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bonn, Germany
Posts: 19
I'm reading this book now, too. Yes, I was too curious although I feel sick to my stomach reading it. I regret buying it already - it's so syrupy about Meghan and written in the most horrible style.

I hoped that this book would make me understand their side better. I wanted so much to like her, and it was so disappointing to be disappointed in her. Maybe the press really mis-represented her/their decisions and actions, and maybe there's a heap of misunderstandings between the oh-so-wonderful couple and the rest of the world.

But this book, as everybody else has said here, does nothing to endear them to me (or anyone else). They sound like two egocentric whining narcissists.

And the worst? They continue to behave in a way that supports the devastating impression readers of the book get. Meghan moans about social media and media but ONLY as it concerns her. She has never shown a shred of interest in any charity or initiative that is not directly connected to herself.

Obviously, Princess Eugenie identifies with scoliosis sufferers etc - it's always an easy first step to connect to problems one knows intimately. But Meghan seems to navel-gaze to a shocking degree, to the exclusion of the rest of the world. And the book replicates this navel-gazing and wants us to agree that this is the right angle to look at the world, the UK, the BRF.

Both Harry and Meghan appear as petty, self-obsessed hypocrites.

The authors pour on the praise with buckets. Everything Meghan ever does or did is simply perfect. And she prides herself on it, why shouldn't she? Even packing her suitcase or peeing behind a bush is an achievement of epic proportions. And she's so beautiful!!!!

And after I just watched the docu about Princess Anne at the occasion of her 70th birthday, it strikes me even more how fame-hungry they are. Princess Anne seeks out the charities and people that others don't see. She's neither young nor glamorous and most of her day-to-day work receives very little coverage. Her life's work has been about others, not herself.

How can Harry who knows a woman like his aunt so well fall for Meghan? How can he fail to understand that the RF needs Anne's work ethic and long-term commitment, and can't cater to the limelight-hungry narcissism?

The press has certainly been printing misogynist, hateful nonsense about the married-in women of the Windsor men. It must have been incredibly hard for all of them to carry on regardless. But they did.

By putting so much emphasis on expensive clothes, sky-high heels and tons of make-up, Meghan has catered exactly to this misogynist angle. She has played the game. I remember the engagement dress - expensive, ugly and never-to-be-seen-again. Didn't make a good impression. Not the way to nail a feminist flag to the pole. Nothing about such choices in the book until now.

Well, I guess I will continue to read until I find the explanation for the flouncing and door-slamming. Was there really no dignified and unhurtful way of removing themselves into private life? Let's see.

But I'm not optimistic. The writers seem to see the BRF as celebrity circus, as mere backdrop for the amaaazing Meghan. I hope neither the Queen nor Prince William nor the Prince of Wales read it. It would hurt them deeply. Not because of the petty gossip but because of the suspicion that Harry has no understanding of the position he was born into, and could convey it neither to his wife nor her ghost writers.
__________________

  #1823  
Old 08-15-2020, 07:52 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
The nanny might not have been caught doing whatever it was before, so came with good references. The nanny to The Queen's father & Uncle David was brutal to them until she was found out and sacked. The Queen herself sacked Charles' nanny for not carrying out her wishes about his food. It's entirely possible to employ someone in good faith having done all the background checks and then find out something you weren't aware of.
Ive never heard that the queen sacked a nanny.. and i doubt if she had one leaving in the middle of the night.. As for the nanny to David and Bertie, that was 100 years ago, when royals and upper class people DID leave all the child rearing to Nanny and often didn't notice what was going on in the nursery till something big happened. I can't believe that a concerned mature pair of parents in today's wrold would end up with some nanny who was unkind or seriously bad at the job.. Im sure that Norland Nannies are not the kind who are going to take pictures of their charge or get drunk...
  #1824  
Old 08-15-2020, 08:23 AM
JessRulz's Avatar
Administrator
Blog Editor
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,689
I spent my day reading the book, and came away thinking it was quite bland - in both the style it was written, and the contents. Nothing really felt 'new' or 'exciting', which may be because of the endless stream of reporting on the Sussexes over the past four years that everything that was 'revealed' was just a rehash of everything already printed, and because all the 'new' tidbits were given out in the published extracts or reviews this week.

The bulk of the book focuses on the couple's courtship, wedding, early marriage - the parts where you would expect the reasoning for their "finding freedom" and split from The Firm amounts to the last three-odd chapters that amount for maybe 50 pages maximum of the book. So IMO I found for a book touting to 'tell their side' and 'explain why they needed to find their freedom', it didn't do much at all to give any reasons apart from a) the press was awful, and b) they felt unsupported. Which, is nothing we didn't already know...

Coupled with the editorial errors (Diana didn't die in 1996, she also never wore the Vladimir Tiara; various gramma and prose mistakes - I found odd the way the authors would use full names for some people every time they were brought up again, but then only first names for others a strange differentiation), it left me feeling "meh" about the book as a whole.

3/10, would not recommend.
__________________
**TRF Rules and FAQ**
  #1825  
Old 08-15-2020, 08:27 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Ive never heard that the queen sacked a nanny.. and i doubt if she had one leaving in the middle of the night..
The Queen sacked Helen Lightbody and I didn't say she did it in the middle of the night.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I can't believe that a concerned mature pair of parents in today's wrold would end up with some nanny who was unkind or seriously bad at the job..
I can and I know people who have had a similar situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Im sure that Norland Nannies are not the kind who are going to take pictures of their charge or get drunk...
Do we know if it was a Norland Nanny or what they did?
  #1826  
Old 08-15-2020, 08:30 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
Do we know if it was a Norland Nanny or what they did?
Weren't there articles about Harry and Meghan not wanting a Norland nanny for Archie?
  #1827  
Old 08-15-2020, 08:32 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by JessRulz View Post
I spent my day reading the book, (...)
3/10, would not recommend.
I agree with your review.
  #1828  
Old 08-15-2020, 08:38 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
The book isn't anything exciting or new, mostly a compilation of what we already know. I read it because I typically read most of the books out about Royals and I like to see what is actually in the book as opposed to sections posted by the media etc.

If one is interested in reading it I'd wait till it goes on discount or even free Kindle Unlimited book (which I'm sure it will eventually). I would of actually returned it (Kindle) but I want to keep it for reference since I am seeing a number of misquotes etc out there.



LaRae
  #1829  
Old 08-15-2020, 09:10 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,769
Archie is their child. It doesn’t matter why someone was let go in regard of caring for him. As his parents that is their job to PROTECT their child. So frankly it doesn’t matter your opinion of any of them. You were not there. You have no idea that happened and frankly it seems no one really cares. If a parent doesn’t want you near their child. You won’t be near their child. The end.

Archie’s nanny (who the media tried but failed to doxx) stayed with them until the move to California it seems. That’s when we stopped seeing her. It’s understandable if she wanted to return to the U.K.
  #1830  
Old 08-15-2020, 09:13 AM
Helen.CH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Chambery, France
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
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.
I did not read about the different nannies they employed, but think that your suggestion makes them look even worse.
to hire and fire somebody the first day tells a lot, who on earth and how do they employ their staff and someone so important looking after their only child?
and again the second nanny, she left because she was homesick? seriously?
if they had chosen a Norland-lady none of this had happened but of course H&M can't do like W&K or other experienced royals, they need to do it differently.
I guess even if only half of the book was true everybody gets fed up with those two very quickly, it's nervewracking to deal with them obviously.
  #1831  
Old 08-15-2020, 09:21 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Archie is their child. It doesn’t matter why someone was let go in regard of caring for him. As his parents that is their job to PROTECT their child. So frankly it doesn’t matter your opinion of any of them. You were not there. You have no idea that happened and frankly it seems no one really cares. It’s just the fact this person was no longer employed that has you fixated. If a parent doesn’t want you near their child. You won’t be near their child. The end.
Exactly. None of us were there. We don't know what happened. To then take this approach of The Sussexes were somehow in the wrong to fire a nanny (or two or six) makes no sense to me. Why assume they are somehow at fault? We see this over and over no matter what the topic is...the Sussexes are portrayed in a negative manner.



LaRae
  #1832  
Old 08-15-2020, 10:38 AM
Helen.CH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Chambery, France
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Exactly. None of us were there. We don't know what happened. To then take this approach of The Sussexes were somehow in the wrong to fire a nanny (or two or six) makes no sense to me. Why assume they are somehow at fault? We see this over and over no matter what the topic is...the Sussexes are portrayed in a negative manner.



LaRae
Well this is a forum to discuss the Royals, most of us have not been with them,
so what?
  #1833  
Old 08-15-2020, 10:48 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
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.
Charles did not follow up on his kindnesses. What I found particularly egregious was no comment from Charles of protest when Archie was likened to a chimp by someone in the media. Charles also as the father should have not let the feud between his sons continue to deteriorate and called regular meetings to resolve their differences. I think that some intervention may have helped matters.

I would have hoped Charles would have been seen on appearances with Meghan, Harry, and Camilla. There was that one appearance early on at a Garden Party but nothing else.

I think there should have been more than funding, Charles should have been more proactive. IMO.
  #1834  
Old 08-15-2020, 10:54 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helen.CH View Post
Well this is a forum to discuss the Royals, most of us have not been with them,
so what?
Yes however even the rules of the forum are largely ignored and folks just post whatever rumor/speculation and treat it as fact.



LaRae
  #1835  
Old 08-15-2020, 11:16 AM
Helen.CH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Chambery, France
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Yes however even the rules of the forum are largely ignored and folks just post whatever rumor/speculation and treat it as fact.



LaRae
I can't see this largely happening rules being ognored... and if I am capable to ignore, ask for sources and most important make up my own mind about things.
And the fact that here many opinions about the Sussexes seem negative,
must not show the majority is against them but maybe this is a result of their actions&behaviour or those members of the forum who think the Sussex couple has acted all right do not speak out here, both is possible.
I am totally relaxed about any royal topic here as I do not live in a reigning house, but think it is nice to have a view outside and see what others think, how the public opinion develops aso.
  #1836  
Old 08-15-2020, 11:18 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy345 View Post
Charles did not follow up on his kindnesses. What I found particularly egregious was no comment from Charles of protest when Archie was likened to a chimp by someone in the media. Charles also as the father should have not let the feud between his sons continue to deteriorate and called regular meetings to resolve their differences. I think that some intervention may have helped matters.

I would have hoped Charles would have been seen on appearances with Meghan, Harry, and Camilla. There was that one appearance early on at a Garden Party but nothing else.

I think there should have been more than funding, Charles should have been more proactive. IMO.
The Royal Family have learnt the hard way that giving these disgusting comments, that go mainly on social media, airtime only gives those behind them power. I don't really know what people expect him to do, jump in his car and track the people down himself? Did anyone ask him what he thought of such comments? Not that I'm aware of, I'm sure if they did he would have condemned it in the way it deserved to be.

We don't know what engagements may have been planned in the future together, royal diaries are booked up years in advance so they well have planned more in over time. Its also worth noting that the RF seeks to do as many duties for as many people as possible, having 4 senior royals turn up at the same event is simply not an appropriate use of their time or funds. Should the RF have looked beyond that, maybe? But then again that would have been putting H&M in a different, special position above the other royals.

At the end of the day, rightly or wrongly, Charles devoted the majority of his time to his duties. You may think that unfair but his sons are well into their 30s so I think most parents wouldn't expect to have to take time out their work to mediate between their grown up children.
  #1837  
Old 08-15-2020, 11:34 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helen.CH View Post
I can't see this largely happening rules being ognored... and if I am capable to ignore, ask for sources and most important make up my own mind about things.
And the fact that here many opinions about the Sussexes seem negative,
must not show the majority is against them but maybe this is a result of their actions&behaviour or those members of the forum who think the Sussex couple has acted all right do not speak out here, both is possible.
I am totally relaxed about any royal topic here as I do not live in a reigning house, but think it is nice to have a view outside and see what others think, how the public opinion develops aso.
Likely because a lot of posts are deleted before you see them. You can go thru the threads and see the warnings and notice of posts being deleted.

It's one thing to comment negatively about something they have actually said or done. It's another to build up a whole narrative about something that is based on rumor/speculation.

LaRae
  #1838  
Old 08-15-2020, 12:30 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,952
tommy100, post 3109 = excellent post and last paragraph hit nail on the head. JMO
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
  #1839  
Old 08-15-2020, 12:44 PM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 3,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
At the end of the day, rightly or wrongly, Charles devoted the majority of his time to his duties. You may think that unfair but his sons are well into their 30s so I think most parents wouldn't expect to have to take time out their work to mediate between their grown up children.
That's it isn't it: royals, especially royals in a country that's still a monarchy, are there for duty, service to their country, and all the people in that country.
There are many priviliges that come with it, but the main thing is this.

If H&M weren't comfortable with the idea of that being their future, it was a good plan to step out of it.
In the end it seems that it is better for both parties they did.
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
  #1840  
Old 08-15-2020, 12:54 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy345 View Post
Charles did not follow up on his kindnesses. What I found particularly egregious was no comment from Charles of protest when Archie was likened to a chimp by someone in the media. Charles also as the father should have not let the feud between his sons continue to deteriorate and called regular meetings to resolve their differences. I think that some intervention may have helped matters.

I would have hoped Charles would have been seen on appearances with Meghan, Harry, and Camilla. There was that one appearance early on at a Garden Party but nothing else.

I think there should have been more than funding, Charles should have been more proactive. IMO.
We cannot possibly know what went on behind the scenes, do you know for a fact that Charles did not meet up with his sons for meetings, do you know for a fact that they did not have phone calls to discuss, no you dont. Neither do I or anybody else on this forum. Just because Charles does not post on social media what he has done in support of his sons and their families it does not mean that nothing has been done. WE just don't know.
As for supporting them at events maybe that was a compliment to Meghan that they had complete confidence in her abilities. I do not know.
__________________

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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs 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 meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia names pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria 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 01:09 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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