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

[Pranter]

Scobie did state that the Sussexes did not talk to him for the book, either on or off-record.

But as other forum members have pointed out, we don't know if they allowed their friends to talk.

Omid said again today on Twitter that the Sussexes did not talk to him or give him interviews etc.



LaRae

 

[ACO]

Everyone had their version including the writers.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1288595551219601408

Anyways we heard Harry and Meghan in their own words talk about the wedding attire.

 

[poppy7]

Omid said again today on Twitter that the Sussexes did not talk to him or give him interviews etc.



LaRae

Diana didn't talk to Andrew Morten either. I mean she didn't. She never met him.

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

Lovely. Well ai am glad about that becuase it made her look really bad. But why moan about this. It's a bit ridiculous. They would have made sure she had it for a trial. It isn't their first rodeo. I mean the got a Kate married too.

 

[Pranter]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1288595551219601408

Omid about this issue

Diana didn't talk to Andrew Morten either. I mean she didn't. She never met him.



Lovely. Well ai am glad about that becuase it made her look really bad. But why moan about this. It's a bit ridiculous. They would have made sure she had it for a trial. It isn't their first rodeo. I mean the got a Kate married too.

First off he's done everything but swear a blood oath they had nothing to do with the book. No in any way shape or form. You can talk to him on Twitter..he does reply.


Also about the dress etc

https://twitter.com/x/status/1288595551219601408

 

[poppy7]

First off he's done everything but swear a blood oath they had nothing to do with the book. No in any way shape or form. You can talk to him on Twitter..he does reply.


Also about the dress etc

https://twitter.com/x/status/1288595551219601408

He said they didn't interview or discuss it. I don't think he is lying but there are other ways.

 

[Pranter]

He said they didn't interview or discuss it. I don't think he is lying but there are other ways.

Yes and you are choosing to think he is lying based on no evidence or anything to support it.


LaRae

 

[Heavs]

Unless they're literally writing fanfiction about Harry and Meghan's first dates, meetings with the Queen and how they felt during all those times then some of the content has to come from them somehow, even if he's absolutely telling "nothing but the truth" that doesn't actually preclude a Diana type arrangement and ways to communicate have grown exponentially since then. They've certainly proved they have no problem with the "friends telling all" approved scenario in general. And this goes for all royals when stories are leaked, not just H&M.

And if they are writing fantasy/sci fi then why aren't Harry and Meghan starting legal proceedings against them?

 

[Sun Lion]

The "People" magazine excerpts article is being reported as being six pages and not the same as the UK.

Plenty more bombs yet to drop then.


I feel it is totally inappropriate to drag staff through this mud-pile of accusation.

They don't have the same power in this situation as family members who may, or may not, choose to give a different version to what "Finding Freedom" puts forth.


"People" also letting us know - from the book - what emoji Prince Harry used when he texted Meghan soon after she returned to her hotel after their first meeting.

Who is spilling these details?

Anyway, if you want to know, apparently the Duke was very fond of the ghost emoji at that time, and so the future Duchess got one.

Same source quoting "People", who are quoting "Finding Freedom" says Ms Markle was phoned by a Kensington Palace aide while in Toronto during the early days of the relationship to "stop encouring interest".

Meghan had posted a photo on her Instagram of a necklace with "H & M" and doggy Guy dressed in a Union Jack sweater.

Apparently this was a signal for Prince Harry to get to Canada.

And apparently - according to "Finding Freedom" - he did. Within 24 hours.

Still can't post links, but all the above coming from "Lainey Gossip" who must have got a copy of the magazine.

 

[poppy7]

Yes and you are choosing to think he is lying based on no evidence or anything to support it.


LaRae

I said he wasn't. But there are other ways.

 

[ACO]

The same reason they haven’t sued any authors of books or articles. They have sued over paparazzi pictures of Archie and copyright. That’s it.

Heck didn’t people write books going on about Kate and William with “personal details” which based on their own words isn’t exactly hard to imagine and write a story. Why not with the Sussexes too! Harry says “I was beautifully surprised” in the engagement interview and that turns into “She was beautiful” in the book.

I mean we could write that.

It’s like these writers (and media in general) don’t get a small detail and exaggerate stories. They do it all the time. They have stuff to sell.

 

[ACO]

I mean of course. People will always believe whatever they want whether it’s true or false. That’s life. And yes it’s just a book. For entertainment or not. Depending on ones point of view. Lol

 

[Tarlita]

I have never believed the story that Meghan made a fuss over a tiara.
The reason being that the Queen offers a tiara for a new bride to wear and there is never a moment that anyone has the chance of a choice.
Most of you may be familiar with Geoffrey Munn the jewellry expert on Antiques roadshow.
I remember him saying a long time ago that only three people have access to the Queens vault, The Queen obviously, her dresser Angela Kelly and the man from Garrards (now Collins I think ) who cleans and maintains the jewels.
Once Meghan saw the tiara and the ladies decided it would suit her hair style etc then it would have been sent away for cleaning. So it would sparkle beautifully on the brides big day.
No one would ever show a potential bride a tiara that was not meant for her.

As to the Emerald tiara, those on other serious jewel web sites were astonished to see this tiara as it has never been seen before. Some were sure of its existence because of the listing of jewels by Mrs Ronnie Greville bequeathed to The Queen Mother in 1942. Queen Elisabeth (the Queen Mother) never wore it I suspect because of it's Russian origins.
It seems obvious now with hindsight that perhaps this Kokoshnik style tiara was promised to Prss Eugenie. Therefore it would hardly be shown to anyone else .

Meghan received a magnificent tiara in the bandeau style with a rich historical provenance and she looked lovely on her big day. I really don't think the Emerald Kokoshnik style would have suited her.
Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands all have an Emerald tiara. And Luxembourg and Greece as well. I am pretty sure Sweden doesn't have one.

 

[Betsypaige]

Seems like the daily mail has a new story every hour about Meghan since they presumably have a copy of book.

Naturally, its another story where the couple don’t come out of it looking good

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

For Meghan, it's always someone else's fault. I'm so glad the Queen "slapped her down" -and put her grandson in his place. H and M can't stand to be told what to do, they can't stand it when they don't get what they want, and they act like spoiled brats.

Yes i think it is basically what they think and how they see things...so in that sense it is accurate. Just as Diana Her True Story was HER version of the breakdown of her marriage..but her version was different to Charles's...I think that they may or may not have had a direct input, but I think that what's in the book fits with what we have heard from them...so it is giving their side of the story...Again Wil and Kate, teh queen and Charles may have a different version.

There's a movie called Rashomon (which I've never seen) which depicts an event from several different perspectives. I suppose that's what's happening here to some degree, although we're talking different incidents and as, or more, importantly, attitudes. From my perspective, HM, Charles, William, Kate - they've been rational and reasonable. It's Harry and Meghan who have been outlandishly over the top. Although this book is supposed to make them look good, it just makes them look spoiled, demanding, entitled and childish.

Americans love the British royal family but I guess conflict sells.

Not really.........yes, there are some who do, but as a whole, no they don't.....and especially now, people have far more important things to worry about then two prima donnas.

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?

Harry and Meghan make Veruca Salt look down to earth:

I want a ball
I want a party
Pink macaroons and a million balloons
And performing baboons and ...
Give it to me
Rrhh rhhh
Now!

I want the world
I want the whole world
I want to lock it all up in my pocket
It's my bar of chocolate
Give it to me
Now!

I want today
I want tomorrow
I want to wear 'em like braids in my hair
And I don't want to share 'em

I want a party with room fulls of laughter
Ten thousand tons of ice cream
And if I don't get the things I am after
I'm going to scream!

I want the works
I want the whole works
Presents and prizes and sweets and surprises
Of all shapes and sizes
And now
Don't care how
I want it now
Don't care how
I want it now

 

[Pranter]

There's ZERO evidence this story about the Queen is true. In fact Omid came out today and said it is NOT true.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1288595551219601408

 

[suztav]

Of course he could deny an interview - on or off the record. He pulled an Andrew Morton. He gave someone questions to someone who agreed to be the intermediary and that person asked the questions of Harry and Meghan.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Yes and you are choosing to think he is lying based on no evidence or anything to support it.


LaRae

I agree that there is no proof either way but based on statements Scobie made a few months ago, there is reason to believe that Harry and Meghan gave friends permission to participate. However, I acknowledge that he could have been exaggerating.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...ie-denies-book-Finding-Freedom-redrafted.html
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertai...bie-on-finding-freedom-for-over-2-years.html/

 

[Gawin]

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.”

Yes, you are correct. I edited my original post to admit my mistake but perhaps you did not see that. I apologize. I've had a rotten day which began with my accidentally putting pain ointment on my toothbrush (nasty horrible taste) and it went downhill from there.

 

[Sun Lion]

There's ZERO evidence this story about the Queen is true. In fact Omid came out today and said it is NOT true.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1288595551219601408

My head is spinning Pranter.



And more details about the 'H & M" necklace phone call that Meghan got from Kensington Palace.

From "People" magazine quoting "Finding Freedom" -

https://people.com/royals/the-necklace-that-got-meghan-markle-in-hot-water-with-palace-aides/

The future Duchess said little herself during the call, but it was a "surreal experience" for her.

She got distraught after it and then called a friend. Details of what was said to the friend are presented.

[...]

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

Not that the Daily Mail will also update...

Thanks for the update ACO.

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

The problem was “between Harry and Kelly”.

Thanks for the update nightsky.

I bet Ms Kelly would still rather not be in the book, even if there was no issue with Ms Markle directly.

 

[Mbruno]

I have never believed the story that Meghan made a fuss over a tiara.
The reason being that the Queen offers a tiara for a new bride to wear and there is never a moment that anyone has the chance of a choice.
Most of you may be familiar with Geoffrey Munn the jewellry expert on Antiques roadshow.
I remember him saying a long time ago that only three people have access to the Queens vault, The Queen obviously, her dresser Angela Kelly and the man from Garrards (now Collins I think ) who cleans and maintains the jewels.
Once Meghan saw the tiara and the ladies decided it would suit her hair style etc then it would have been sent away for cleaning. So it would sparkle beautifully on the brides big day.
No one would ever show a potential bride a tiara that was not meant for her.

As to the Emerald tiara, those on other serious jewel web sites were astonished to see this tiara as it has never been seen before. Some were sure of its existence because of the listing of jewels by Mrs Ronnie Greville bequeathed to The Queen Mother in 1942. Queen Elisabeth (the Queen Mother) never wore it I suspect because of it's Russian origins.
It seems obvious now with hindsight that perhaps this Kokoshnik style tiara was promised to Prss Eugenie. Therefore it would hardly be shown to anyone else .

Meghan received a magnificent tiara in the bandeau style with a rich historical provenance and she looked lovely on her big day. I really don't think the Emerald Kokoshnik style would have suited her.
Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands all have an Emerald tiara. And Luxembourg and Greece as well. I am pretty sure Sweden doesn't have one.

The Norwegian emerald parure is actually of Swedish provenance. Queen Sofia and Princess Ingeborg wore it frequently. Eventually it made its way to CP Märtha (Princess Ingeborg's daughter and the sister of Queen Astrid of Belgium), who took it into the Norwegian RF.



The Bernadottes still own emeralds, including a necklace that Queen Silvia and CP Victoria wear, but it is true that they don't have an emerald tiara currently in the family collection other than Princess Sofia's wedding tiara, which she has worn in different occasions with emeralds, pearls, diamonds and turquoises. I assume Princess Sofia's tiara is privately owned, but I am not sure.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I have never believed the story that Meghan made a fuss over a tiara.
The reason being that the Queen offers a tiara for a new bride to wear and there is never a moment that anyone has the chance of a choice.
Most of you may be familiar with Geoffrey Munn the jewellry expert on Antiques roadshow.
I remember him saying a long time ago that only three people have access to the Queens vault, The Queen obviously, her dresser Angela Kelly and the man from Garrards (now Collins I think ) who cleans and maintains the jewels.
Once Meghan saw the tiara and the ladies decided it would suit her hair style etc then it would have been sent away for cleaning. So it would sparkle beautifully on the brides big day.
No one would ever show a potential bride a tiara that was not meant for her.

As to the Emerald tiara, those on other serious jewel web sites were astonished to see this tiara as it has never been seen before. Some were sure of its existence because of the listing of jewels by Mrs Ronnie Greville bequeathed to The Queen Mother in 1942. Queen Elisabeth (the Queen Mother) never wore it I suspect because of it's Russian origins.
It seems obvious now with hindsight that perhaps this Kokoshnik style tiara was promised to Prss Eugenie. Therefore it would hardly be shown to anyone else .

Meghan received a magnificent tiara in the bandeau style with a rich historical provenance and she looked lovely on her big day. I really don't think the Emerald Kokoshnik style would have suited her.
Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands all have an Emerald tiara. And Luxembourg and Greece as well. I am pretty sure Sweden doesn't have one.

Carl-Philip's wife Sofia wore an emerald tiara. I think it was a gift from the king and queen.

 

[Osipi]

The problem was “between Harry and Kelly”.

Thanks for the update nightsky.

I bet Ms Kelly would still rather not be in the book, even if there was no issue with Ms Markle directly.

The story about the tiara fiasco with the Queen as reported in People and then picked up elsewhere has been said to be false by Scobie. Scobie said on his twitter the statement picked up by the DM and goes on to relate "The book does NOT say this. It actually refutes this played out tale."

But go ahead and believe this tiara "story" is the "truth" if you want to.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

The story about the tiara fiasco with the Queen as reported in People and then picked up elsewhere has been said to be false by Scobie. Scobie said on his twitter the statement picked up by the DM and goes on to relate "The book does NOT say this. It actually refutes this played out tale."

But go ahead and believe this tiara "story" is the "truth" if you want to.

Scobie said the *Daily Mail* story- a completely different one to the one Sun Lion is referring to here- was false. The Daily Mail story and the People story were originally similar, but People changed the story, and Sun Lion was referring to the updated People story. It is a completely different story to the one Scobie denied.

 

[Mirabel]

I have never believed the story that Meghan made a fuss over a tiara.
The reason being that the Queen offers a tiara for a new bride to wear and there is never a moment that anyone has the chance of a choice.

When Kate married William, I recall reading that there were three tiaras displayed for her to choose from; she selected the halo.

So, she did get some choice, even if not from every tiara in the collection.

 

[Lilyflo]

... the Queen offers a tiara for a new bride to wear and there is never a moment that anyone has the chance of a choice.

Perhaps you aren't aware that Harry and Meghan described the occasion in their own words. They said quite clearly that there was a choice and that Meghan chose the tiara that she thought would best suit her dress.

 

[Sun Lion]

Scobie said the *Daily Mail* story- a completely different one to the one Sun Lion is referring to here- was false. The Daily Mail story and the People story were originally similar, but People changed the story, and Sun Lion was referring to the updated People story. It is a completely different story to the one Scobie denied.

Thanks for your words above HighGoalHighDreams - really appreciated.

As I've said in a few places, I personally am neither pro nor anti the Sussexes.

I am interested in what is going on, so am happy to take onboard the whole spectrum of views on "Megxit" that are available via books, media outlets, Royal reporters etc., which I understand some posters are not.

I personally don't like it when authors, reporters, media outlets etc are disparaged though - I am not comfortable with that, it's not my cup of tea.


What I do think, is that we are witnessing something quite historic.

It will take at least a couple of decades before the little Cambridge children become parents themselves.

During that time we will in all probability lose the Queen. Maybe even Charles.

This will bring the Duke of Sussex and his offspring closer to the throne.

The Duke of Sussex may become quite Americanised, and his child/children certainly so, in the coming decades.

Maybe the Cambridge cuties won't have their own kiddies until they are in their thirties, so a long time for this to all play out.


On a lighter note, Gayle King has been able to ask Tyler Perry - on US television - about having the Sussexes to stay at his place.

Guess he didn't want to talk about it, but sounds like he did it in a charming way.

Here's an article. (Maybe a video will turn up on the internet.)

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrit...-lose-connection-after-harry-meghan-question/

 

[ACO]

The video is included in the article.

 

[Sun Lion]

The video is included in the article.

Gosh thanks ACO, I didn’t see that at all ... though my eyes feel like they’re out on stalks from all the reading they’ve been doing these last several days.

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.

I’m wondering if the book includes the Sussex family’s move to California.

Some insights about that would be welcome.

 

[muriel]

I think she wanted the fake emerald tiara\ necklace that Sophie has often worn. But if I am not mistaken that is something that Sophie hires or loans from the jewellery store and not owned by the Queen. Just surmising as it appears to have been a emerald tiara she saw on another royal.

Which "emerald tiara\ necklace that Sophie has often worn" are you referring to?

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.

I do not think it makes HM look bad at all, if she is willing to call a spade a spade!

 

[Betsypaige]

From Newsweek..

It’s plausible if we assume that H and M advised the BRF of what was going to be in the book....Many reports have Harry and William speaking, and we know Harry and his father are as well, so...again, of the Sussexes didn’t blindside the family this time, it makes sense

However, friends of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex say the book was written six months ago and the family has been brought back together since.

Things are still not perfect, but "natural family moments" have helped to repair wounds, a friend told Newsweek.

....

"Also you've had things such as Charles' illness. So there have been moments that will inevitably have created natural family moments. It's very difficult to look at the book as an accurate depiction of what is going on at the moment."

https://www.newsweek.com/how-coronavirus-healed-prince-harry-meghan-markles-rift-royals-1520887

 

[caethi]

In my opinion, if there is any truth at all to the necklace story, it doesn’t reflect well on Meghan. If I were a mature woman and I received a call like that from my fiancé’s advisors, I would give it a moment’s consideration, talk to my fiancé and then decide to either take or ignore the advice (probably ignore). I wouldn’t allow myself to get in any way upset over it. If the incident went down as reported, and Meghan’s reactions were as reported, it shows either a tendency to over- dramatize or a remarkable lack of self-assurance. Don’t get me wrong, I think Meghan has been subjected to terrible treatment by the press, but these anecdotes about her relationships with courtiers (and by default the Queen) are not very flattering.