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

[poppy7]

The book was planned for earlier in thisbuesr. According to Emily Andrew's who knows Omid. It got pushed back with all the rest that kicked off.

 

[akina21]

I admit that going to the media is probably one of the worst things that Harry could have done - which is why Harry did it (unfortunately), but William has been Harry's protector all their lives. I think he often dealt with the upheaval of the divorce and Diana's death by directing his love to and taking care of, Harry. William obviously felt that Harry needed him because Harry was younger and more vulnerable - and it is easier to forgive someone you perceive as more vulnerable.

That may be true but this role also gets very tiring if you still have to babysit your adult brother in his mid 30s while you have to parent your actual children .

probably its through intermediaries..
Omids thing is that he is a supporter of the Sussexes.. If he writes a book on them it is a sympathetic work and is meant to show their POV. and it does gibe with what they themselves have said.. Harry being resentful that he "had to go" from royal life.. Meg feeling the Palace did not protect her, Harry feeling that Will was being snobbish about Meghan...

It shows their POV , it just that Harry and Meghan have developed a siege mentality of "us against the evil world" and filter everything through that mindset . And they both are into feelings as facts . They feel mistreated , so they've been mistreated .

 

[poppy7]

However, in Robert Jobson's biography of Charles, which is where this tiara row story originated, Meghan was refused an emerald tiara because it had an unknown provenance which the Press might have seized on.

That does not apply to the tiara Eugenie wore, which was originally Russian from the Imperial Family and was part of the Greville bequest to the QM. Whereas, if there was an emerald tiara in the vaults which had a doubtful history, it wouldn't have been regarded as suitable from the beginning and wouldn't have been offered.

However, we don't know how much of Jobson's story is the truth, as it would have been extremely peculiar for Angela Kelly to have offered, on the Queen's behalf, (a) a tiara earmarked for a favourite engaged granddaughter of HM, or (b) something dodgy that hadn't been worn for decades, with a debatable provenance.

She probably did her research and wanted an emerald one. They said no. These are the ones available.

At any one time the tiaras available.will be different. Depending what is on loan and being worn by others.

 

[Gawin]

ETA: I was wrong. The interviewer did ask a question about off-the-record talks (which Scobie answered by saying there were no off-the-record interviews), followed by another about off-the-record discussions (to which Scobie answered "no"), so a distinction between the two words was made.

@Somebody is correct, Scobie did not state there were no off-the-record talks. I apologize for my mistake.

He does NOT say that he didn't talk to them off-the record. There was no off-the-record discussion; not sure what the difference is - but apparently, to him it makes a difference.

How do you know talk and discussion make a difference to Scobie? It's not a distinction many others make. For example, in the United States when we say "discussion" we mean "to talk about a specific topic." If you didn't have a discussion about it, you didn't talk about it.

I should also point out that the interviewer didn't follow up by asking if there had been any off-the-record talks.

If he had felt comfortable saying that he didn't talk to them, he would have said so but he didn't.

No, you can't assume that. He may have believed he addressed that when asked if there had been any off-the-record discussions.

 

[poppy7]

How do you know talk and discussion make a difference to Scobie? It's not a distinction many others make. For example, in the United States when we say "discussion" we mean "to talk about a specific topic." If you didn't have a discussion about it, you didn't talk about it.

I should also point out that the interviewer didn't follow up by asking if there had been any off-the-record talks.

No, you can't assume that. He may have believed he addressed that when asked if there had been any off-the-record discussions.

I think this is a matter of semantics and what he did say.

 

[Sun Lion]

Maybe the US is getting different excerpts from “Finding Freedom” to those already released by “The Times/The Sunday Times” - via People magazine.

There are snippets from the book about the wedding tiara drama from now coming out in the UK media from the magazine.

 

[poppy7]

Maybe the US is getting different excerpts from “Finding Freedom” - via People magazine.

There are snippets from the book about the wedding tiara drama from the book now coming out in the UK media from the magazine.

Thee tiara drama. I seriously thought that was made up to be mean. It seemed so stupid and mean spirited.against her.

 

[Sun Lion]

Thee tiara drama. I seriously thought that was made up to be mean. It seemed so stupid and mean spirited.against her.

The Queen’s dresser Angela Kelly gets to be today’s bad guy.

Ms Kelly “deliberately dragged her feet” in assisting the bride you know.

Can’t link the articles, I’m on the wrong tablet here at the moment.

 

[nightsky]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...le-choice-wedding-day-tiara-book-reveals.html

Queen DID slap down Meghan Markle over her choice of wedding day tiara but duchess blames Her Majesty's dresser Angela Kelly for the bust-up, book reveals

 

[poppy7]

The Queen’s dresser Angela Kelly gets to be today’s bad guy.

Can’t link the articles, I’m on the wrong tablet here at the moment.

I read it. Dragging her feet. Makes no sense. How would that affect anything. They really do come across as a nightmare. But the thing is book seems to mention over and over again how people at the palace thought that. As if that was why they didn't get their way.

I mean I may have to read this book and I already have a list a mile long after an excited binge after my first trip to a bookshop today.

I actually feel bad for them. When all is said and done, I do not want to see a Diana situation and any bad come to them but they are the exact opposite of emotional health.

 

[Sun Lion]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...le-choice-wedding-day-tiara-book-reveals.html

Queen DID slap down Meghan Markle over her choice of wedding day tiara but duchess blames Her Majesty's dresser Angela Kelly for the bust-up, book reveals

Thanks for posting nightsky.

Poor Angela.

Another employee, just a working person doing their job, being dragged under in this tsunami of complaint.

 

[Curryong]

Id rather wait and see what the book actually says, when it is published, rather than what the Fail states that it says, about this and a ton of other stories.

 

[poppy7]

Thanks for posting nightsky.

Poor Angela.

Another employee, just a working person doing their job, being dragged under in this tsunami of complaint.

As if Angela would drag her feet. Not at all the reputation of the lady.

Id rather wait and see what the book actually says, when it is published, rather than what the Fail states that it says, about this and a ton of other stories.

This is People magazine reporting this.

 

[Sun Lion]

I read it. Dragging her feet. Makes no sense. How would that affect anything. They really do come across as a nightmare. But the thing is book seems to mention over and over again how people at the palace thought that. As if that was why they didn't get their way.

I mean I may have to read this book and I already have a list a mile long after an excited binge after my first trip to a bookshop today.

I actually feel bad for them. When all is said and done, I do not want to see a Diana situation and any bad come to them but they are the exact opposite of emotional health.

I have to agree with all your points poppy7.

No winners here.

And what else is still to come forth, not only with this book but also with the court case.

As if Angela would drag her feet. Not at all the reputation of the lady.

Another arrow for Her Majesty to bear.

This is People magazine reporting this.

Yes poppy7 - UK media are quoting “Finding Freedom” from the American excerpts in People magazine that have just come out.

 

[Madame Verseau]

This book is making everybody look bad. The Queen SLAPPED DOWN Meghan? This makes the queen look petty and dispatched her dresser as a minion to do the dirty work. This is DM hyperbole for clicks. It's driving sales. I want to see how it's really worded in the book because it's not credited as an excerpt from the Times.

Katie McNicoll stated the book is the sanitized version of events.

 

[Somebody]

How do you know talk and discussion make a difference to Scobie? It's not a distinction many others make. For example, in the United States when we say "discussion" we mean "to talk about a specific topic." If you didn't have a discussion about it, you didn't talk about it.

I should also point out that the interviewer didn't follow up by asking if there had been any off-the-record talks.

No, you can't assume that. He may have believed he addressed that when asked if there had been any off-the-record discussions.

You don't need to follow up with a question if you just asked exactly that same question... (the one I highlighted in my previous post).

After questions on whether he 'said down with them' OR 'had interviews', he was asked:
Was there, perhaps, an off-the-record talk?

Which he answered with:
“You’ve read the book. There’s no on-the-record interviews with the couple.”

So, he did NOT deny they talked but just with the 'sit-down' or 'interviews' only stated that he had no 'on-the-record interview', so apparently they did talk, or he could have easily denied it.

They followed up with:
Was there an off-the-record discussion with them?

At that point he said: “No, and I think that you can tell from the reporting, my time around the couple is enough for me to know my subjects.”

 

[Alison H]

If the story about a dispute over a tiara's true, it can only come from Meghan. I can't imagine for one second that Angela Kelly's been blabbing about it, and I'm most certainly sure that the Queen hasn't.


It's not just the Mail. The same story's in other papers.


This is ridiculous. Next we'll be hearing that there was a big falling out because the Queen wanted chocolate digestives with a cup of tea but Harry and Meghan wanted custard creams, and that it was all the fault of the person who put the kettle on. Have they gone into every little petty story?

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

But they don't live in England anymore - they can't even be bothered to go to Balmoral to see the queen. So why should they care if the country they continue to criticize thinks poorly of them? Find a country they do like and make a living there. Stop depending on the British taxpayers about whom they have nothing positive to say.

... that wasn't the point of my original post - I was responding to a poster who had suggested that Meghan and Harry could have just "ignored" the British media. Nothing to do with their relevance to the country now.

 

[Mirabel]

She probably did her research and wanted an emerald one. They said no. These are the ones available.

At any one time the tiaras available.will be different. Depending what is on loan and being worn by others.

Until Eugenie, British royal brides didn't wear colored stones. So maybe the emerald tiara wasn't offered for that reason?

 

[nightsky]

This book is making everybody look bad. The Queen SLAPPED DOWN Meghan? This makes the queen look petty and dispatched her dresser as a minion to do the dirty work. This is DM hyperbole for clicks. It's driving sales. I want to see how it's really worded in the book because it's not credited as an excerpt from the Times.
.

The are the Queens tiaras. She gets a major say on who wear which one.

 

[poppy7]

This book is making everybody look bad. The Queen SLAPPED DOWN Meghan? This makes the queen look petty and dispatched her dresser as a minion to do the dirty work. This is DM hyperbole for clicks. It's driving sales. I want to see how it's really worded in the book because it's not credited as an excerpt from the Times.

Katie McNicoll stated the book is the sanitized version of events.

Well actually I think if the Queen questioned the veil it just shows her age really. I mean she is 94. Of course her staff did the work for her. Do you think she rang up the royal jewellers herself to arrange it? Meghan has talked about going in to see the ones, on offer, with the Queen. Obviously what happened then is that Meghan wanted another one and she was set right. But I can't see that bring done in anything but English politeness. They probably blame Angela becuase she was responsible for arranging the ones to be brought and she didn't bring the right one. But Angela would have made a decision based on what the Queen said and probably she had seen the dress pattern too and decided based on that. I mean the tiara was exquisite and matched the outfit amazingly. I cannot imagine another one. All of their tiaras have been perfect for the dresses and veils. Angela knows her job.

Who is katie McNicoll?

 

[TLLK]

Agreed. From what I recall from viewing years of royal wedding unless the bride has her own family tiara (ie Lady Diana Spencer, Stephanie Lanoy) then the fiance is likely borrowing one from her future in-laws who do have a say in which ones would be available.

 

[nightsky]

Well actually I think if the Queen questioned the veil it just shows her age really. I mean she is 94. Of course her staff did the work for her. Do you think she rang up the royal jewellers herself to arrange it? Meghan has talked about going in to see the ones, on offer, with the Queen. Obviously what happened then is that Meghan wanted another one and she was set right. But I can't see that bring done in anything but English politeness. They probably blame Angela becuase she was responsible for arranging the ones to be brought and she didn't bring the right one. But Angela would have made a decision based on what the Queen said and probably she had seen the dress pattern too and decided based on that. I mean the tiara was exquisite and matched the outfit amazingly. I cannot imagine another one. All of their tiaras have been perfect for the dresses and veils. Angela knows her job.

Who is katie McNicoll?

Is possible that the Queen knew Eugenie wanted to wear the emerald one?

 

[poppy7]

Agreed. From what I recall from viewing years of royal wedding unless the bride has her own family tiara (ie Lady Diana Spencer, Stephanie Lanoy) then the fiance is likely borrowing one from her future in-laws who do have a say in which ones would be available.

They are all borrowing. The Queen has leant four in recent years. To Kate, Meghan, Beatrice and Eugenie. Zara and Autumn from the Princess Royal.

All have been amazing and all were chosen with the dresses, veils and brides in mine. Meghan is the only one to moan and I think hers was extradinary but she obviously went looking online at tiaras and didn't get offered the one she wanted.

Is possible that the Queen knew Eugenie wanted to wear the emerald one?

Maybe...at that stage likely. But even then if that tiara was on long term loan to Kate for example, Eugenie couldn't have had it. The Queen loves her grandchildren and it is absolutely right that Eugenie would take precedence in a tug for the tiara.

 

[Heavs]

If there was a mix up with a tiara of unknown provenance brought up when it shouldn't have been or Meghan having seen one online or in a collection book that turned out to be unknown then that's unfortunate but wise. Can you imagine the row that would have broken out if it had turned out to have made its way to the vaults under murky conditions or of outright unethical or illegal origins? That could have caused an international incident or conspiracy. Or even just another story coming out about Queen Mary "admiring" it on someone else decades ago and the family recounting it could have been embarrassing if it wasn't one ever seen before.

Regarding Angela Kelly dragging her feet, well that's just the worst possible interpretation rather than anything else. She has 1001 things to do I'm sure.

There's also the possibility that Eugenie's preference for an emerald tiara were already known and hers took priority as a granddaughter.

At the end of the day they are the Queen's personal tiaras to lend as she sees fit so it seems incredibly petty to be so "OMG! I didn't get the one I really wanted! Everyone was against me!" Where her diamond slippers too tight as well? And the one Meghan actually wore suited her perfectly and fit very well as a "beginner tiara" with long royal association. Which is why I was so skeptical of these stories last Summer. It seemed silly to think it mattered so much.

As for the veil I guess that's just the Queen thinking in her day divorced people didn't do the white dress and virginal veil. But it seems to have been more of a passing remark than a shaming statement or order.

 

[tommy100]

If Eugenie wanted the tiara wouldn't this have been the reason given (assuming any of these stories are true) to Meghan and Harry? More likely IMO there is an unseen tiara (the reports suggest emerald) in the vaults which has come into royal possession via means unknown or means that the RF and Palace would not like to be made public, maybe it was a gift from a no longer PC world leader e.g. Saudi Arabia or simply no one is 100% sure. The Palace wouldn't want a tiara with unknown or slightly less than perfect provenance making such a big appearance. It could well be that the provenance issues only came about after Meghan expressed an interest which is regrettable but understandable IMO.

What gets me is that in any of this let's not forget on thing - HM was lending Meghan a tiara from her own collection for Meghan to wear as a favour, so even if Angela Kelly was dragging her feet quite frankly (probably for good reason - better to be safe than sorry) its still not polite to go about saying anything or demanding anything. You are being lent a priceless heirloom so to me its only polite to just sit back and wait to be given the tiara at whatever pace that takes. The People article even says:

Scobie and Durand write that Harry felt Kelly was dragging her feet in helping Meghan obtain access to her chosen tiara for a hair trial in advance of the big day on May 19, 2018.


If its taking too long for your liking you can always go your own route - flowers in the hair, Harry could dip into his own fortune, go without completely. The "obtain access to her chosen tiara" sits really uncomfortably with me and I hope thats just People's awkward way of writing because if its in the book like that and IF that is how Meghan's friends who may have spoken to the authors see the issue it shows a clear lack in understanding what was happening. The Queen was lending Meghan a tiara to wear for her big day - to be honest its good of HM to give them a choice and not just say its this one or find your own. It just seems like bad manners to me as if its her right to wear HM's tiara not a gift.

 

[ACO]

People Magazine changed their article. I guess they misquoted the book and corrected whatever was written.

Not that the Daily Mail will also update...

 

[Pranter]

Harry said in an interview months ago that the situation with the tiara was not true.



LaRae

 

[poppy7]

People Magazine changed their article. I guess they misquoted the book and corrected whatever was written.

Not that the Daily Mail will also update...

What are they saying then?

 

[nightsky]

https://people.com/royals/the-truth...ara-for-her-wedding-day-queen-elizabeth-role/


The Truth About Meghan Markle's Wedding Tiara and Queen Elizabeth's Role