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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think another issue William may have had with this relationship was Meghan's close connection to Canadian gossip blogger Lainey via the Mulroneys . She was the one who published a so called Blind Item on her page about somebody smiling , going shopping , not inviting the newcomer along only for the newcomer later finding out that they went to the same shopping place . This story seems to be in this book now . I'd be very wary too if my brother's girlfriend of a few months started leaking info to gossip bloggers .
I also think Lainey is a source for the book . In one of the published sections so far a friend is talking about viper courtiers . Viper courtiers is a pure Laineyism , she always wrote how House Sussex was fighting against viper courtiers .
 
I think another issue William may have had with this relationship was Meghan's close connection to Canadian gossip blogger Lainey via the Mulroneys . She was the one who published a so called Blind Item on her page about somebody smiling , going shopping , not inviting the newcomer along only for the newcomer later finding out that they went to the same shopping place . This story seems to be in this book now . I'd be very wary too if my brother's girlfriend of a few months started leaking info to gossip bloggers .
I also think Lainey is a source for the book . In one of the published sections so far a friend is talking about viper courtiers . Viper courtiers is a pure Laineyism , she always wrote how House Sussex was fighting against viper courtiers .

Really interesting stuff, food for thought there.
 
Lainey not friends with Meghan. She openly admitted she played it up during the whole Jessica scandal. They met once but she liked the attention that picture gave her.

But as for her being a source for Omid? Maybe. This book has been going on for 2 years. That scandal and her admission was very recent.
 
The resounding answer to your question is three simple words. We don't know. Its not our business to know and they're not obliged in any way, shape or form to fill us in.


Most likely they have other sources of income too. Harry for example has the money he inherited from his mother, which must be invested somehow, and may have access to other trust funds set up for him by his family. He also has a pension as a retired Army officer.



I don't know much about the specifics of financial compensation in the entertainment industry, but Meghan's former show is now available on streaming platforms as far as I understand it, so I suppose she must still get paid somehow for the episodes she was in (I am sure others can explain how that works much better than I can).



Having said that, I am pretty sure that the Sussex family still gets frunding from Charles' "private" income, which is actually not so private since it is not money that he earned or inherited from his family, but rather an ex-officio income that is tied to his position as heir to the Crown. I am referring specifically to the Duchy of Cornwall income, which is a controversial topic that I do not want to reopen in this particular thread.
 
Last edited:
Roya Nikkhah, the times royal reporter, who seems to have read the whole book, or certainly more than has been released so far (not a surprise given The Times are serialising it) has put up the following article saying that royal aides tries to persuade H&M to meet with Thomas Markle before the engagement announcement as they knew it had to handled carefully and sensitively:

At the time of the Sussexes’ wedding, a senior royal source told this newspaper: “We repeatedly sat down with Harry and Meghan before the engagement announcement to say this needed to be handled sensitively, but that it had to be handled. We desperately asked them to engage with Thomas, but they wouldn’t. Aides also offered to go personally and see him to try and find a way to protect him. There is genuine disbelief and bemusement in the household at the couple’s approach to him and that Harry has still not met his father-in-law.”
***
Another aide said: “Thomas is troubled, but Harry and Meghan would not engage in the issue of going out to see him and for Harry to meet him. It was raised before their engagement and again constantly in the months afterwards, leading up to the wedding. Everyone knew it would be a huge issue that would explode if they didn’t address it and deal with it.”


***
The Sussexes declined to comment.



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...ffers-to-help-protect-thomas-markle-9ln70lf6j
 
Well I
By saying that Harry doesn't understand his role, I mean that he hasn't grasped (or been sufficiently taught) that it's all about service to HMQ (as defined by her and her advisers), which isn't the same as gaining popularity. He calls her 'the boss' but rebels against being guided or curtailed by her advisers. He doesn't appear to realise that gaining celebrity doesn't alter his status within the BRF so no matter how popular he is, his power to make decisions remains the same. He also doesn't seem to understand that he should not eclipse his brother or father as that's not beneficial to their role. I could elaborate further but in essence what I mean is that although of course he knows his position and what the obvious implications are, it's the less obvious, unclear boundaries that are in question and have caused him the most problems. For that, I hold others largely responsible as they have allowed him too much freedom to define his own boundaries rather than laying them down very clearly a long time ago.
but the fact that he is the second son, that he's known from babyhood that Will would be king and not him etc etc.. surely should mean that he knows he is there as a support act to the more senior royals i.e. the queen, Charles and Will, and that even if he is very popular, it does not mean that he's more important than they are... I dont want to Argue, I just feel that unless he's really stupid (possible) or very willful (also possible) he IS aware of his place in the hierarchy and what it implies.... IMO he knows but doesn't want to abide by it.
Im not sure what Charles was supposed to do to lay down "boundaries"..
What should he have done do you think? IM not being aggressive, just asking.
I think that for example when H got into trouble over the naked party in Vegas, Charles probably said to him that he could not get away with "youthful high jinks" any more, that he was too old for this sort of mullarkey to be smiled at.. and that he had to pull up his socks. And I wouldn't be surprised if Ch added that if he HAD been the elder son, the press might have been more discreet about the story because he would be the heir but as he was second son, he was going to have to watch his step all the more...
 
Last edited:
I think you are right.
H&M's window of opportunity is closing.

They had the months after the break with the BRF to reinvent themselves in USA, while they were still fresh news there. And to exploit that for them to benefit from that.
Corona put an end to that.
And as the Corona epidemic still has a firm hold in USA that's not going to change soon.
And in two months all that is on the Americans minds will be the presidential election and the repercussions of that, no matter who wins.
I see little role for ex-royals in that.
Next year USA will focus on recovering from Corona and while H&M might have a role to play in a Commonwealth country, what role can they play in USA?

It's my impression they are yesterday's news in USA.

And while a book like this will cause a stir in Britain, will it amount to more than a ripple in USA, where there are so many other things on people's minds?


I agree, while Harry and Meghan might be a big deal in the UK simply because they are royals, they are basically a small fish in a big pond in the US, a country that rejects the concept of monarchy and prefers the glamour of celebrity rather than royalty.
 
I agree, while Harry and Meghan might be a big deal in the UK simply because they are royals, they are basically a small fish in a big pond in the US, a country that rejects the concept of monarchy and prefers the glamour of celebrity rather than royalty.

Then they picked a bad place to move to. However I think that they have enough draw to still get stories in the paper, to get photographers trying to snap them.. but I dont think that big companies are going to pay them a lot of money for anything now...
 
Roya Nikkhah, the times royal reporter, who seems to have read the whole book, or certainly more than has been released so far (not a surprise given The Times are serialising it) has put up the following article saying that royal aides tries to persuade H&M to meet with Thomas Markle before the engagement announcement as they knew it had to handled carefully and sensitively:

At the time of the Sussexes’ wedding, a senior royal source told this newspaper: “We repeatedly sat down with Harry and Meghan before the engagement announcement to say this needed to be handled sensitively, but that it had to be handled. We desperately asked them to engage with Thomas, but they wouldn’t. Aides also offered to go personally and see him to try and find a way to protect him. There is genuine disbelief and bemusement in the household at the couple’s approach to him and that Harry has still not met his father-in-law.”
***
Another aide said: “Thomas is troubled, but Harry and Meghan would not engage in the issue of going out to see him and for Harry to meet him. It was raised before their engagement and again constantly in the months afterwards, leading up to the wedding. Everyone knew it would be a huge issue that would explode if they didn’t address it and deal with it.”


***
The Sussexes declined to comment.



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...ffers-to-help-protect-thomas-markle-9ln70lf6j

Meghan vs Mail on Sunday have submitted documents stating the opposite. Heck Thomas has spoken plenty about how he ignored palace aids trying to assist him. So this article full off “allegedly” “it is suggested” “sources claim” is fascinating when we can just look at her very open court files where texts exist that were printed in that very paper.
 
but the fact that he is the second son, that he's known from babyhood that Will would be king and not him etc etc.. surely should mean that he knows he is there as a support act to the more senior royals ie the queen, Charles and Will, and that even if he is very popular, it does not mean that he's more important than they are... I dotnt want to Argue, I just feel that unless he's really stupid (possible) or very willful (also possible) he IS aware of his place in the hierarchy.. IMO he knows but doesn't want to abide by it.
Im not sure what Charles was supposed to do to lay down "boundaries"..
What should he have done do you think? IM not being aggressive, just asking.
I think that for example when H got into trouble over the naked party in Vegas, Charles probably said to him that he could not get away wiht "youthful high jinks" any more, that he was too old for this sort of mullarkey to be smiled at.. and that he had to pull up his socks. And I wouldn't be surprised if Ch added that if he HAD been the elder son, the press might have been more discreet about the story because he would be the heir but as he was second son, he was going to have to watch his step all the more...


Well, Charles' natural way to "discipline" him, as it is case for all wealthy fathers with a rogue son, would be to cut him off or at least curb his funding. But Charles apparently never did that and, again, I don't think he will do it now when there is also a little child involved (his grandson).



I am still baffled by claims that Harry resented the Palace staff for allegedly putting the brakes on his projects not to conflict with his father's or his brother's tours or initiatives. Again, I think it would be natural for Meghan to take that badly as, being an American, she is not used to the concepts of primogeniture or a pecking order based on birthright, but Harry should have a better grasp of how the system works.



To be fair, whereas American culture is basically meritocratic, so is also contemporary British middle-class culture, I mean, outside hereditary institutions like the Royal Family and the peerage. Maybe Harry, having been in the military and belonging to a younger British generation, is also influenced by meritocratic and equal opportunity values (or "republican" values as the French like to say) and that is why he clashed with the Court.
 
Last edited:
Well, Charles' natural way to "discipline" him, as it is case for all wealthy fathers with a rogue son, would be to cut him off or at least curb his funding. But Charles apparently never did that and, again, I don't think he will do it now that there is also a little child involved (his grandson).


influenced by meritocratic and equal opportunity values (or "republican" values as the French like to say) and that is why he clashed with the Court.

I agree that Charles wont cut off funding.. but he may impose conditions on what he gives and how much.. but it is difficult to see what else he could do to "discipline" Harry after a certain stage in his life. I think that he was rather too soft on both boys as teenagers because they had lost their mother, and didn't do much to pull them up over bad behavior in their late teens and early 20s..
 
The 'snub' claim about the photos on HMQ's desk for her Christmas speech is interesting (although a less volatile grandson wouldn't have been bothered). Objectively, it's obvious this was about continuity as the photos included her father, son, grandson & great-grandson but looking at it in hindsight, I think the execution of it was clumsy. For example, the Queen Mother is missing whereas other spouses are included. George's siblings are there but Charles's and William's aren't. If the aim was about succession, then perhaps just having photos of her father, Charles, William and George would have been more effective. As it is, it's a mix of heirs and family, which is a bit messy and given the emotional state of Harry, likely to upset him despite his family's inclusion in the accompanying film.

I don't think the family should have to tip-toe around all kinds of feelings that people might feel underrepresented because they are not the main line. While I thought the pictures facing the camera looked rather clumsy (as normally you wouldn't have pictures facing away from you); the pictures chosen made sense - both Charles and William were depicted with their immediate families (as Harry is a grown-up and started his own family Charles' immediate family in daily life is his wife not his children). It seems the queen generally picks a picture of her father without her mother for these purposes; so nothing strange there either.

In the back we also see a picture of her husband and another one that I'm not sure about...

Meghan vs Mail on Sunday have submitted documents stating the opposite. Heck Thomas has spoken plenty about how he ignored palace aids trying to assist him. So this article full off “allegedly” “it is suggested” “sources claim” is fascinating when we can just look at her very open court files where texts exist that were printed in that very paper.

What I've seen was mainly about the week(s) leading up to the wedding. Not about Harry and Meghan wanting to visit him before the engagement announcement?! What evidence in the court papers are you referring to that indicated that Harry did try to meet Thomas well before the wedding took place? What I've seen points to palace aides arranging transport and a hotel for Thomas while arriving a few days before the wedding - all so he could walk his daughter down the aisle and meeting his son-in-law for the first time in his life only days prior. It's not too hard to imagine how that did not make him feel welcome and unfortunately, it turned out really badly (for all parties involved) with him talking to the media instead of with his daughter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that Charles wont cut off funding.. but he may impose conditions on what he gives and how much.. but it is difficult to see what else he could do to "discipline" Harry after a certain stage in his life. I think that he was rather too soft on both boys as teenagers because they had lost their mother, and didn't do much to pull them up over bad behavior in their late teens and early 20s..

Charles did intervene (reportedly) when Harry had some minor drug issues in his late teens.
I do think it's a bit riche to blame (again) Charles to whatever remotely wrong is happening with Harry. I mean he's a grown man now and responsible for his own decisions, right or wrong.
Charles's role is to be, at certain point, supportive. As far i can see it's still the case.
 
To be honest, I’m not reading what the Cambridge’s did that was so bad. Okay, so Kate May have snubbed the Sussex’s. She’s human. William was only showing concern for Harry by telling him to slow down. I do agree with you on the men in grey, but they’ve always been awful!

She didn’t do anything that was that bad. I’m fine with her snub, because she’s human...and she and her husband had been treated badly by the Sussexes.

I've had it up to here with all this. We are in the middle of the biggest international crisis for 75 years. I do not need to hear Harry and Meghan's whingeing all over the news. I'm so sorry for the Queen and Prince Philip, who really don't need this, and for Archie, who's probably going to grow up not knowing any of his relatives apart from Doria. I'm quite sorry for Doria too: she's behaved with complete dignity throughout all this.

You left out Charles, who has to watch one son leave and a devastating rift between his sons widen, with no hope for reconciliation on the horizon

The Duke of Windsor left the RF and the RF didn't welcome him back, so why should they welcome Harry back, especially after all the things that he had said?





I think it's funny how some people think that anything negative about the Sussex is just gossip and hearsay, but anything negative about other members of the RF MUST be true.

That’s not the same thing at all. David, Edward VIII, created a devastating constitutional crisis by abdicating. He put himself before the people and forced an ill-prepared a Duke of York to take the throne. Fortunately Bertie, George VI, was an eminently decent man and became a great king, but it’s likely that his being King led to his early death.

Harry is a spoiled, whiny, entitled, demanding, immature brat - or, I should say, that’s how he’s ACTED recently. While this is a crisis technically, it’s really only so within the family - at least IMO, because the BRF is doing fine. Of course Megxit is problematic because it leaves the BRF short handed, but it’s workable. It’s completely different from the abdication crisis.

I DO completely agree with your last comment, and it’s the case especially with William and Kate.

I agree. What, please, is nasty about "this girl"?! William obviously didn´t say something like "are you serious..?!" or "are you mad? She will ruin you!" etc.
He just gave a brotherly and very proper (!) advice not to be rushed into things.
Harry expected William the same support he has given him when it was about Catherine? Well, you cannot possibly compare the 2 women... The Dss o Cambridge is a hands-on, down-to-earth person, despite her wealthy background who knows and understands what he job is. She comes out of a stable family. Markle is, like that notorious courtier (if that is true at all) correctly said, a "showgirl".
I was very sceptic when the couple got engaged and talked with my sister about it who was equally sceptic. I had the impression of a starlet with her lover or a fellow actor appearing on the red carpet for a premier or an award show rather than a soon royal-bride-to-be posing for a royal engagement photoshoot.

Although my first impression about a person never fails me, I soon got lulled in I must admit and thought, well, she could be a great breath of fresh air for the RF.
Nowadays I see I was right at the beginning. I don´t claim she is a bad person, but she is not made for Royalty; she has neither the motivation to achieve things for Britain or the Commonwealth nor the endurance to try hard enough. Perhaps if she had married in a deposed royal family, where she could do her own agenda, doing her pet charity, but without real responsibilities, things might have worked out better.
Some here suggest they might return at some point. I can only say, beware! Both Harry and Meghan are a bit like loose canons - but H is especially frail. The next strong wind or any critical remarks would put them off once more and they have not the strength nor the endurance needed to do the job. Unstable people cannot give the monarchy what it needs most: stabiity!

Right, there’s nothing nasty about it. This isn’t even about what Meghan was like, since a William hadn’t met her. It wasn’t personal - what sibling wouldn’t advise another to go slowly when it seems that perhaps the other is rushing into a serious relationship ? I’m sure William only had Harry’s best interests at heart; H had already had two long term relationships end because the women didn’t want to deal with a future as a Royal, so no doubt W hoped his brother would proceed more slowly to be sure Meghan was the “right one”. The situation with Kate was completely different, as you say, though again, this isn’t about the people K and M are. Kate and Harry had met, Kate being British understood far more about Royal life than Meghan would have, and Kate had dated William for years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Charles did intervene (reportedly) when Harry had some minor drug issues in his late teens.
I do think it's a bit riche to blame (again) Charles to whatever remotely wrong is happening with Harry. I mean he's a grown man now and responsible for his own decisions, right or wrong.
Charles's role is to be, at certain point, supportive. As far i can see it's still the case.

I dont blame Charles. Im not sure how well he handled Harrys drug issues as a kid, and his drinking - I get the feeling he was too soft...
but there is a point where H is a grown man and his Father isn't responsible for his actions and faults.. and for a grown man of H's age, to be saying he wants financial independence yet still taking money from his father and blaming his family for all sorts.. is a bit much...
 
Has anyone seen more of the Thomas Markle sections? I can't get the Times link. I ran across a YouTube channel that is claiming Dad and Sam got paid for Pap gate. The papparazzo who took those staged photos alleged got 100000.00 and Dad and Sam got 30% of the take. If true Meghan's dad is looking like a total creep and his credibility is damaged in terms of the lawsuit.
 
I think it's funny how some people think that anything negative about the Sussex is just gossip and hearsay, but anything negative about other members of the RF MUST be true.

I mean sure but that’s the case the other way too. Everything negative written about Harry but especially Meghan is seen as truth around these parts. If people bring up the others is typically smacked down. So really just the different sides of the same coin.
 
Right, there’s nothing nasty about it. This isn’t even about what Meghan was like, since a William hadn’t met her. It wasn’t personal - what sibling wouldn’t advise another to go slowly when it seems that perhaps the other is rushing into a serious relationship ? I’m sure William only had Harry’s best interests at heart; H had already had two long term relationships end because the women didn’t want to deal with a future as a Royal, so no doubt W hoped his brother would proceed more slowly to be sure Meghan was the “right one”. The situation with Kate was completely different, as you say, though again, this isn’t about the people K and M are. Kate and Harry had met, Kate being British understood far more about Royal life than Meghan would have, and Kate had dated William for years.

Sometimes it’s not what you say but how you say it. I’m sure everyone here has been in situation where the words might not be bad but what’s implied is offensive. I know I have.

No one except William and Harry knows how that conversation truly went down. William saying “that girl” could have been interpreted as “that [kind of] girl.” And what did that mean? Is that the situation? We have no idea but people go on about how close these brothers supposedly were. Therefore they know each other and the tones they take.

I, like many, think it’s odd that such a simple question would cause such conflict between brothers but again none of use know the whole story. Harry very well could have overreacted. Or William could have been very snobby. Or a combination of both.

They human.
 
Roya Nikkhah, the times royal reporter, who seems to have read the whole book, or certainly more than has been released so far (not a surprise given The Times are serialising it) has put up the following article saying that royal aides tries to persuade H&M to meet with Thomas Markle before the engagement announcement as they knew it had to handled carefully and sensitively:

At the time of the Sussexes’ wedding, a senior royal source told this newspaper: “We repeatedly sat down with Harry and Meghan before the engagement announcement to say this needed to be handled sensitively, but that it had to be handled. We desperately asked them to engage with Thomas, but they wouldn’t. Aides also offered to go personally and see him to try and find a way to protect him. There is genuine disbelief and bemusement in the household at the couple’s approach to him and that Harry has still not met his father-in-law.”
***
Another aide said: “Thomas is troubled, but Harry and Meghan would not engage in the issue of going out to see him and for Harry to meet him. It was raised before their engagement and again constantly in the months afterwards, leading up to the wedding. Everyone knew it would be a huge issue that would explode if they didn’t address it and deal with it.”


***
The Sussexes declined to comment.



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...ffers-to-help-protect-thomas-markle-9ln70lf6j

Meghan cut her father out of her life and that was IT, like it has been for other people. This account is really sad, and it makes Meghan look like a hypocrite because there are many reports that she encouraged Harry to bond with his father. It also makes Harry look terrible for not encouraging Meghan to bend a little, to try with her father. He didn’t even want to meet him. Sigh.

but the fact that he is the second son, that he's known from babyhood that Will would be king and not him etc etc.. surely should mean that he knows he is there as a support act to the more senior royals i.e. the queen, Charles and Will, and that even if he is very popular, it does not mean that he's more important than they are... I dont want to Argue, I just feel that unless he's really stupid (possible) or very willful (also possible) he IS aware of his place in the hierarchy and what it implies.... IMO he knows but doesn't want to abide by it.
Im not sure what Charles was supposed to do to lay down "boundaries"..
What should he have done do you think? IM not being aggressive, just asking.
I think that for example when H got into trouble over the naked party in Vegas, Charles probably said to him that he could not get away with "youthful high jinks" any more, that he was too old for this sort of mullarkey to be smiled at.. and that he had to pull up his socks. And I wouldn't be surprised if Ch added that if he HAD been the elder son, the press might have been more discreet about the story because he would be the heir but as he was second son, he was going to have to watch his step all the more...

I agree with this. I refuse to blame Charles for the behavior of his 30 something son.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Charles did intervene (reportedly) when Harry had some minor drug issues in his late teens.
I do think it's a bit riche to blame (again) Charles to whatever remotely wrong is happening with Harry. I mean he's a grown man now and responsible for his own decisions, right or wrong.
Charles's role is to be, at certain point, supportive. As far i can see it's still the case.

And he was, as well as other members of the RF.

The Sussex loves to play the victim so much that they have forgotten that Meghan basically got a special treatment from the RF.

- Meghan is the first girlfriend that wasn't dumped after she gave an interview to Vanity Fair.
- Meghan is the first girlfriend to attend Christmas with the RF, normally you don’t get invited unless you’ve already married into the family.
- Meghan got her first official joint engagement with the queen less than a month after the royal wedding, while Kate had to wait a year and Camilla had to wait two years, and they both are future Queens while Meghan is simply wife of the 6th in line to the throne.

But then, acknowledging these stuff won't fit their narrative of being snubbed and victimised by the evil RF wouldn't it?
 
Sometimes it’s not what you say but how you say it. I’m sure everyone here has been in situation where the words might not be bad but what’s implied is offensive. I know I have.

No one except William and Harry knows how that conversation truly went down. William saying “that girl” could have been interpreted as “that [kind of] girl.” And what did that mean? Is that the situation? We have no idea but people go on about how close these brothers supposedly were. Therefore they know each other and the tones they take.

I, like many, think it’s odd that such a simple question would cause such conflict between brothers but again none of use know the whole story. Harry very well could have overreacted. Or William could have been very snobby. Or a combination of both.

They human.
All in all, it remains very unfortunate that while initially they seemed to have mended their relationship somewhat; around the wedding it seemed to have turned rather sour; never to recover (at least until now).

Nonetheless, I do notice the similarities between William supposed 'this girl' and Meghan's supposed 'this family'...

She didn’t do anything that was that bad. I’m fine with her snub, because she’s human...and she and her husband had been treated badly by the Sussexes.

I don't think there is harm in admitting that the Cambridges could have handled that joined engagement better even while understanding while they behaved as they did: they clearly were immensely disappointed in Harry and Meghan and were not willing to play the game of being all smiles - as Meghan who had her game face on. While I thought Meghan was rather over-the-top in trying to pretend all was well (while the whole world knew it was not); the Cambridges could have made a little more of an effort to pretend they were not at war with each other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree, while Harry and Meghan might be a big deal in the UK simply because they are royals, they are basically a small fish in a big pond in the US, a country that rejects the concept of monarchy and prefers the glamour of celebrity rather than royalty.


But Harry and Meghan are celebrities too! They are just one additional celebrity couple in a city like L.A. which is already full of those. In that sense, I agree they don't have the same status there as they would have in the UK or even in another Commonwealth realm like Canada.


Going by the reports that Meghan allegedly told her friends she was looking for a British catch, I honestly think she would have been better off marrying a wealthy (non-royal) duke or earl (or their heirs if any were available). She would have her own "big house" then, which ironically she did not in the RF, could pursue her own charity projects and, at the same time, would still be a socialite and could even live part-time only in the UK without any major strings attached. She completely misunderstood, however, what life in the RF would be like which, despite all the privilege and official status the Family gets, can be surprisingly frugal and restrictive.
 
Sometimes it’s not what you say but how you say it. I’m sure everyone here has been in situation where the words might not be bad but what’s implied is offensive. I know I have.

No one except William and Harry knows how that conversation truly went down. William saying “that girl” could have been interpreted as “that [kind of] girl.” And what did that mean? Is that the situation? We have no idea but people go on about how close these brothers supposedly were. Therefore they know each other and the tones they take.

I, like many, think it’s odd that such a simple question would cause such conflict between brothers but again none of use know the whole story. Harry very well could have overreacted. Or William could have been very snobby. Or a combination of both.

They human.

I agree that someone’s tone of voice is important, but without any reason to suspect that William said “this girl” with a snotty, nasty attitude, I’m proceeding as if he just said it off-handedly. Given Harry’s sensitivity, I find it much likelier that he completely overreacted than that William took an attitude.

I don't think there is harm in admitting that the Cambridges could have handled that joined engagement better even while understanding while they behaved as they did: they clearly were immensely disappointed in Harry and Meghan and were not willing to play the game of being all smiles - as Meghan who had her game face on. While I thought Meghan was rather over-the-top in trying to pretend all was well (while the whole world knew it was not); the Cambridges could have made a little more of an effort to pretend they were not at war with each other.

No, that’s true. I guess what I’m saying is more that I won’t criticize William and Kate for their coolness/snobbery. Could they have put on happy faces and pretend? Yes, but they’re only human, and I think they’d had just about enough of H and M, especially after the fact that they chose not to do the procession as H and M were upset about it.

Roya Nikkhah, the times royal reporter, who seems to have read the whole book, or certainly more than has been released so far (not a surprise given The Times are serialising it) has put up the following article saying that royal aides tries to persuade H&M to meet with Thomas Markle before the engagement announcement as they knew it had to handled carefully and sensitively:

At the time of the Sussexes’ wedding, a senior royal source told this newspaper: “We repeatedly sat down with Harry and Meghan before the engagement announcement to say this needed to be handled sensitively, but that it had to be handled. We desperately asked them to engage with Thomas, but they wouldn’t. Aides also offered to go personally and see him to try and find a way to protect him. There is genuine disbelief and bemusement in the household at the couple’s approach to him and that Harry has still not met his father-in-law.”
***
Another aide said: “Thomas is troubled, but Harry and Meghan would not engage in the issue of going out to see him and for Harry to meet him. It was raised before their engagement and again constantly in the months afterwards, leading up to the wedding. Everyone knew it would be a huge issue that would explode if they didn’t address it and deal with it.”


***
The Sussexes declined to comment.



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...ffers-to-help-protect-thomas-markle-9ln70lf6j


Meghan cut her father out of her life and that was IT, like it has been for other people. This account is really sad, and it makes Meghan look like a hypocrite because there are many reports that she encouraged Harry to bond with his father. It also makes Harry look terrible for not encouraging Meghan to bend a little, to try with her father. He didn’t even want to meet him. Sigh.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, that’s true. I guess what I’m saying is more that I won’t criticize William and Kate for their coolness/snobbery. Could they have put on happy faces and pretend? Yes, but they’re only human, and I think they’d had just about enough of H and M, especially after the fact that they chose not to do the procession as H and M were upset about it.

As they did agree not to do the procession, I think they might have tried a bit harder to smile and be ok.. but it was clear that Harry anyway wasn't happy, even though they HAD agreed to give up the procession. Meghan's smile I'm afraid looked very fake... as if she was worried about the rift in the family looking bad.. so she overdid the smiling...It looked odd when Harry looked cross and upset and Will and Kate looked tense and unhappy...
 
I agree that someone’s tone of voice is important, but without any reason to suspect that William said “this girl” with a snotty, nasty attitude, I’m proceeding as if he just said it off-handedly. Given Harry’s sensitivity, I find it much likelier that he completely overreacted than that William took an attitude.

Maybe. I’m just saying we don’t know but I’m willing to bet it’s a little bit of both.
 
No, that’s true. I guess what I’m saying is more that I won’t criticize William and Kate for their coolness/snobbery. Could they have put on happy faces and pretend? Yes, but they’re only human, and I think they’d had just about enough of H and M, especially after the fact that they chose not to do the procession as H and M were upset about it.


I think William and especially Kate felt genuinely angry about the stunt H&M had pulled with their Sussex Royal statement and the terms therein and with their decision to bail out of the Family. After all, William will one day inherit the Crown and anything that looks bad on the Crown and the Court ultimately hurts him and his immediate family in the long run.

Kate, I think, is very protective of her husband, her children and her own future position as queen consort (for which she has worked very hard; let be honest about it and not ignore that she has her own self-interest in play too). It is a natural human reaction under those circumstances that she would be angry and it is actually positive that she did not try to fake or hide how she felt about it. The Queen Mother also gave the cold shoulder to David and Wallis long after the abdication and never made amends with them.

Having said that, if it were not for this book, I personally would not have noticed a public snub of the Duchess of Sussex by the Duchess of Cambridge in the Commonwealth service. Despite her anger, Kate handled it very discreetly, which is in her nature, I think.
 
Last edited:
I think William and, especially Kate, felt genuinely angry about the stunt H&M had pulled with their Sussex Royal statement and the terms therein and with their decision to bail out on the Family. After all, William will one day inherit the Crown and anything that looks bad on the Crown and the Court ultimately hurts him and his immediate family in the long run.



Kate, I think, is very protective of her husband, her children and her own future position as queen consort (for which she has worked very hard; let be honest about it and not ignore that she has her own self-interest in play too). It is a natural human reaction under those circumstances that she would be angry and it is actually positive that she did not try to fake her reaction. The Queen Mother also gave the cold shoulder to Edward and Wallis long after the abdication and never made amends with them.



Having said that, if it were not for this book, I personally would not have noticed a public snub to the Duchess of Sussex by the Duchess of Cambridge in the Commonwealth service. Despite her anger, Kate handled it very discreetly, which is in her nature, I think.


I agree with all of this. By all reports, William was furious, something I think it’s easier for a brother (and sister-in-law) to be as opposed to a father and grandmother. Oh, I’m sure HM and Charles were angry, too, but that anger would have been mixed with confusion and hurt.

Kate should be protective of her husband, etc...- and it’s good that she’s protective of her future position, of the monarchy in general. That’s how the institution survives - hence why HM didn’t give Harry and Meghan close to anything they really wanted. I’m sure she was also upset for Charles and the Queenl The Sussexes behavior, their disdainful words indicating almost a loathing for the Monarchy, must have been very hurtful...

I didn’t watch the service, just saw highlights, but I don’t think I would have noticed anything if it hadn’t been brought up here or elsewhere as I’m not that observant when it comes to this kind of thing.
 
Maybe. I’m just saying we don’t know but I’m willing to bet it’s a little bit of both.

But if William was really saying these things with a hostile attitude, why did Harry ever think that he and his brother were going to have a relationship in the future? Why did Harry say that the RF were the family that Meg had never had, if he believed that his brother was snobbishly hostile to his girlfriend from the first?

It really doesn't compute, that OTOH Harry's saying that his fiancee has never had a good loving family and that the RF have been warm and welcoming to her.. and On the other hand, he knows that his brother has been snobby and snotty about her from the beginning,...
 
As much as I'm not a Dan Wooten fan he raises a point I came across in all this weekends news and stories:

"Many of the stories now confirmed by Harry and Meghan in the book were denied at the time. Given the author Scobie has lied to The Times about his age this weekend (he’s 39 not 33) I wouldn’t trust a word of this hagiography. The author and the subjects both tell fibs! Hilarious!"


Omid Scoobie lied about his age to The Times in an interview published this weekend, okay no biggie but perhaps worth bearing that in mind when we read what he has written.

The Daily Mail is pointing out that many of the details are so intimate that either H&M tell a wide circle of friends everything they do or the couple have had some input into the book (could be interesting if this has any impact on the legal case between M & DM)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tails-authors-included-come-Meghan-Harry.html

Intimate details laid out in a bombshell royal biography raise questions as to whether the Duke and Duchess of Sussex may have had more involvement than has been admitted - despite the couple insisting they 'did not contribute'.

Particulars of voicemails Meghan sent to her father and tense conversations between Harry and William have been published in Finding Freedom, extracts of which were serialised by the Times and the Sunday Times this weekend.

Authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand say they have spoken to more than 100 sources including 'close friends of Harry and Meghan's, royal aides and palace staff (past and present)', with all the information in the book having 'at least two sources.'

The Duke and Duchess deny giving any interviews or contributing to the book directly, but the intimate nature of some details raises questions over who the sources were - and whether Harry and Megan gave them their blessing before they revealed such closely guarded insights to the couple's private lives.

Extraordinary personal details littered throughout Finding Freedom include particulars of the moment the Meghan confessed she wrote her estranged father Thomas Markle one final message while on FaceTime in a bathtub.

Details which raise these questions include:

Meghan's FaceTime confession from a bathtub that she texted her father once more before her wedding

Details of the 'barrage of voicemails' Meghan left Thomas Markle: 'We're going to get you safely to London'

Conversations between William and Harry, in which the Duke of Cambridge told him not to rush things with 'this girl' Meghan

Descriptions of 'perfect pose' Meghan struck as she stretched after discussing marriage with Harry in Africa

Meghan telling a friend in March: 'I gave up my entire life for this family. I was willing to do whatever it takes. But here we are. It's very sad'

Particulars of the Prince's anguish after reading comments dubbing him a 'disgrace to the royal family'



 
Last edited:
Kate should be protective of her husband, etc...- and it’s good that she’s protective of her future position, of the monarchy in general.


I didn't mean to criticize Kate. I was just being candid about how I see her. She is very discreet (very "professional" if you will in her role), plays by the rules and is apparently a very devoted mother to her children (all the qualities one would identify with a "traditional" royal wife). But she is also in my opinion someone who clearly knew and knows what she wanted/wants and has acted/acts accordingly. Take it as you wish, but, going back to the main point, she had reasons to be frustrated with the Sussexes and even more so after this book has come out as it is mostly an attack on her and her family more so than on any other member of the Firm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom