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

[RandyDrx]

I think at this point the RF should just cut all ties with the Sussexes. They have been married for only 2 years but the drama that they brought rivals that of the "War of the Waleses".

 

[Sun Lion]

No, the Twitter account linked to in post #884 (@scobie) does not say that "the story ... as reported in People" was false. Just the opposite: It says that the story as reported in the Daily Mail's headline was false, but it implicitly endorses the story as reported in People.

First, Mr. Scobie tweeted a screencap of the Daily Mail's headline (which read: "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"), adding his comment: "The book does NOT say this. It actually refutes this played out tale".

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

Following that, he retweeted, without any comment, a link to the following People magazine story:

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

The People story includes the following paragraph:

Several U.K. tabloids had previously reported that the Queen, 94, had rejected Meghan's first choice of tiara. Finding Freedom reports that in fact, there were no disagreements between Meghan and the Queen about her chosen tiara. Rather, the conflict existed between Harry and Kelly. (The hair trial, the book reports, ultimately went forward with no hesitation from the Queen.)​

Thus, Mr. Scobie is not claiming that the entire "conflict" story is false; he is claiming that reports of the Queen's involvement are false.

Sun Lion's post is thus accurately representing Mr. Scobie's claims.

Thank you Tatiana Maria.

Very much appreciate you putting this together.

 

[Osipi]

No, the Twitter account linked to in post #884 (@scobie) does not say that "the story ... as reported in People" was false. Just the opposite: It says that the story as reported in the Daily Mail's headline was false, but it implicitly endorses the story as reported in People.

First, Mr. Scobie tweeted a screencap of the Daily Mail's headline (which read: "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"), adding his comment: "The book does NOT say this. It actually refutes this played out tale".

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

Following that, he retweeted, without any comment, a link to the following People magazine story:

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

The People story includes the following paragraph:

Several U.K. tabloids had previously reported that the Queen, 94, had rejected Meghan's first choice of tiara. Finding Freedom reports that in fact, there were no disagreements between Meghan and the Queen about her chosen tiara. Rather, the conflict existed between Harry and Kelly. (The hair trial, the book reports, ultimately went forward with no hesitation from the Queen.)​

Thus, Mr. Scobie is not claiming that the entire "conflict" story is false; he is claiming that reports of the Queen's involvement are false.

Sun Lion's post is thus accurately representing Mr. Scobie's claims.

Thanks much. I stand corrected here. All this gets confusing when I'm having a day where my attention span is comparable to a gnat's.

Sometimes now, I really wish the Sussexes could have quietly rode off into the sunset with the only comments being "Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya" and that was the end of things. ?

 

[Heavs]

So the tiara story played out with the blame being placed on Angela Kelly, not the Queen. Which I think is basically the story in the DM as well, with a more sensationalist, clickbait headline. I still think that it sounds incredibly petty and quite entitled, even though I'm sure nerves and the desire to make sure everything was ready and perfect was running high. Not to mention other factors like the Markles playing out in the press at the same time.

 

[poppy7]

All kinds of things were going on. Very stressful for everyone.

Still think this incredible mess is a disaster.

 

[ACO]

So Dan Wootton is giving his version of events.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1288944191217840128

So to sum it up — they tried to send Harry and Meghan to Africa. Charles used the Sussexes to stick it to the Cambridges. William and Angela, not HMQ, didn’t want Meghan to wear any jewels and the palace arranged the Christmas message photos to send a message to Harry and Meghan to fall in line but it backfired. But the Sussexes leaving helped heal the big rift with Charles and William.

Wow. Truly fascinating he claiming this.

 

[Sun Lion]

Today’s “Finding Freedom” revelation.

The Sussex couple actually got engaged in 2017 earlier than first thought.

The Prince “popped the question” in August of that year.

The future Duchess’ wearing of the oversized white “Husband” shirt at their appearance together at the Invictus Games in Toronto was a signal apparently.

All these winks to the media ,and the watching public, in the early days of their relationship - jewellery, hugging bananas, dog sweaters, “Kiss Me” candy.

Maybe you had to be in the inner circle of friends, and these signals were more for them.


And something actually positive from the book - the Duchess adored little Princess Charlotte and this won her mother over.

“Finding Freedom” is also saying the Sussexes spent a lot of time - when everyone was living at KP - with the Cambridge’s. They very much took to all three of the little children.

 

[tommy100]

This fact from Dan Wooten of the Sun is interesting:

The couple like to promote the idea that they were somehow ambushed into revealing their plans after we published the world exclusive on January 8.

However, they neglect to mention I had originally put the story to their office ten days earlier and had discussed every aspect of what we eventually published with their officials.

So the couple weren't forced to announce their new life last minute as was claimed, 10 days is a long time to know something then have to rush out and feel u have to say something before the press break it.

 

[Sun Lion]

So the tiara story played out with the blame being placed on Angela Kelly, not the Queen. Which I think is basically the story in the DM as well, with a more sensationalist, clickbait headline. I still think that it sounds incredibly petty and quite entitled, even though I'm sure nerves and the desire to make sure everything was ready and perfect was running high. Not to mention other factors like the Markles playing out in the press at the same time.

After the “highs” of their early courtship days, that wedding week must have been hellish Heavs.

A real dose of cold, hard reality after such a fantasy courtship.

Wish I got to be whisked off to Africa on a third date in my younger days.

 

[Betsypaige]

I think at this point the RF should just cut all ties with the Sussexes. They have been married for only 2 years but the drama that they brought rivals that of the "War of the Waleses".

That’s not happening - Charles is Harry’s father, HM is his grandmother.....I do think that, as far as being working Royals again, that’s over. I don’t think HM, Charles or William will mention this again despite the fact that there is to be a year end review.

 

[Sun Lion]

Thanks much. I stand corrected here. All this gets confusing when I'm having a day where my attention span is comparable to a gnat's.

Sometimes now, I really wish the Sussexes could have quietly rode off into the sunset with the only comments being "Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya" and that was the end of things. ?

Sometimes I’ve thought it would have been better if a lot of this was out of the public eye Osipi, as it’s been very destructive for all involved.

And then I think, we’ll it did all blow up and naturally everyone, media and general public, want to know why.

And Harry and Meghan have certainly put a lot of time, attention, energy, effort and money into letting us know why with leaks from friends to “People” magazine, this “Finding Freedom” book, the court action.

This fact from Dan Wooten of the Sun is interesting:

The couple like to promote the idea that they were somehow ambushed into revealing their plans after we published the world exclusive on January 8.

However, they neglect to mention I had originally put the story to their office ten days earlier and had discussed every aspect of what we eventually published with their officials.

So the couple weren't forced to announce their new life last minute as was claimed, 10 days is a long time to know something then have to rush out and feel u have to say something before the press break it.

Tommy100, it’s like the Sussexes put themselves on the firing range, and then handed out the guns.

The way so many things coming from them are now being shot full of holes.

What were they thinking.

I’m starting to wonder if they are actually more self-destructive than they are self-preserving, self-protecting.

That old saying - “Stand in front of a mirror and see your best friend and worst enemy at one and the same time”.

The big court case is another example of them harming themselves.

No-one is making them do all this.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

So Dan Wootton is giving his version of events.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1288944191217840128

So to sum it up — they tried to send Harry and Meghan to Africa. Charles used the Sussexes to stick it to the Cambridges. William and Angela, not HMQ, didn’t want Meghan to wear any jewels and the palace arranged the Christmas message photos to send a message to Harry and Meghan to fall in line but it backfired. But the Sussexes leaving helped heal the big rift with Charles and William.

Wow. Truly fascinating he claiming this.

Now this reads as fiction. Why would Charles use Harry and Meghan to get William and Kate into line. What exactly did Charles need the Cambridges to do? It's also impossible for me to believe that William cared enough to try to prevent Meghan from borrowing any royal jewelry.

That’s not happening - Charles is Harry’s father, HM is his grandmother.....I do think that, as far as being working Royals again, that’s over. I don’t think HM, Charles or William will mention this again despite the fact that there is to be a year end review.

I think that things will calm down and Harry and Meghan can resume royal duties if they wish - especially after Charles ascends the throne. They will have to work hard and prove their commitment, but their image can be rehabilitated.

This book will not have the same impact that the Morton book did. They are still denying they participated. So far there is nothing new. It's really no worse than many other royal books out there and, let's not forget, that there the whole Andrew/Maxwell, Epstein relationship will continue to make headlines. I don't think that this book will have a long term impact on the royal family.

 

[Curryong]

So Dan Wootton is giving his version of events.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1288944191217840128

So to sum it up — they tried to send Harry and Meghan to Africa. Charles used the Sussexes to stick it to the Cambridges. William and Angela, not HMQ, didn’t want Meghan to wear any jewels and the palace arranged the Christmas message photos to send a message to Harry and Meghan to fall in line but it backfired. But the Sussexes leaving helped heal the big rift with Charles and William.

Wow. Truly fascinating he claiming this.

Why should anyone believe Dan W's version of events, considering he hasn't had a good word to say about Meghan since she came on the scene and is one of the Sussexes most vociferous critics?

If that is true and William/Angela didn't want Meghan to wear any jewels, ie tiaras, petty, petty petty. And Angela is taking a bit on herself isn't she? She might be the Queen's dresser and a big note in the Palace but it's not up to her (or William) to make decisions about what a bride marrying into the RF wears or doesn't on her wedding day or afterwards.

 

[Betsypaige]

This fact from Dan Wooten of the Sun is interesting:

The couple like to promote the idea that they were somehow ambushed into revealing their plans after we published the world exclusive on January 8.

However, they neglect to mention I had originally put the story to their office ten days earlier and had discussed every aspect of what we eventually published with their officials.

So the couple weren't forced to announce their new life last minute as was claimed, 10 days is a long time to know something then have to rush out and feel u have to say something before the press break it.

They probably wanted to announce their "new life" last minute so they could emotionally blackmail HM and Charles into giving them what they wanted. Harry and Meghan assumed that they were more popular than they were and that the BRF was less popular than they thought.

I also find this significant.....but not surprising. IMO, H and M went Hollywood because they wanted to be celebrities more than they cared about doing good work. These Hollywood "yes" spin doctors and publicists have, ironically - but again, not surprisingly - hurt them far more than they've helped them.

While it is correct to say they encouraged the couple to follow more conventional processes in terms of their dealings with other royal households and the Press, the real-life Sussex Squad was doggedly committed to the couple’s principles and goals.

For example, their communications chief Sara Latham — blamed by Meghan for any negative stories in British newspapers — was a highly successful opera- tor who had worked for Hillary Clinton.

She was prepared to pack up her life in London and move to Africa with the couple perman- ently to help achieve their humanitarian goals.

Much official time and energy was put into the South African relocation plan (they could spend up to half a year based out of the Commonwealth country) only for the couple to eventually brand it too difficult.

Instead, Harry and Meghan foolishly began to rely almost entirely on advice provided by a small team of fiercely loyal Hollywood advisers.

I think that things will calm down and Harry and Meghan can resume royal duties if they wish - especially after Charles ascends the throne. They will have to work hard and prove their commitment, but their image can be rehabilitated.

This book will not have the same impact that the Morton book did. They are still denying they participated. So far there is nothing new. It's really no worse than many other royal books out there and, let's not forget, that there the whole Andrew/Maxwell, Epstein relationship will continue to make headlines. I don't think that this book will have a long term impact on the royal family.

I don't know. Maybe Harry, because of course Charles is his father.....with time, because trust has been lost. I don't think Meghan - and I don't think she'd want to be a working Royal, that much is clear. The book doesn't have to be as vicious and damning as the Diana book for it to have an impact, though.....and I don't think anyone in the BRF is naive enough to believe that H and M didn't even tacitly cooperate in some way.

The impact on the BRF will be personal. They've all moved on professionally as it were, doing their things and not letting H and M's absence affect them.

 

[Madame Verseau]

Frankly the press is enjoying beating up everyone in the BRF because the family feud gets clicks. EVERYONE. If there are any Andrew excerpts the Firm will really get messed up.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

..and I don't think anyone in the BRF is naive enough to believe that H and M didn't even tacitly cooperate in some way.

To clarify, I am convinced they collaborated. However, people sometimes forget that Charles openly worked with the Dimbleby book, which was critical of the queen and Prince Philip. It took a few years but the relationship has recovered. Harry and Meghan's intent may have been to gain an advantage over other family members but the revelations are pretty mild. If the nastiest thing he can say about Kate is that she didn't take Meghan shopping - she must be a saint.

 

[Saragli]

I completely think they collaborated somehow on this book..as mentioned before, both of Harry's parents have done the same in the past. But so far these books "revelations" are pretty G-rated. "Big brother told me not to rush into a relationship, my shy reserved sister in law won't stop being reserved, my boss won't give me what I want and is instead asking me to do my job..." It does rather make HnM come off as rather childish and entitled. Time to let the petty stuff go and move on and create the future you want within the restraints of your reality..just as nearly everyone else in the world does.

 

[ACO]

We also need to remember that Harry and Meghan aren't even talking. These various books are coming out now but that is not the same as Harry and Meghan (or whoever) talking now. They have been doing their thing, the same as the family. We (public and media) are the ones fixating -- not the royals.

 

[Betsypaige]

To clarify, I am convinced they collaborated. However, people sometimes forget that Charles openly worked with the Dimbleby book, which was critical of the queen and Prince Philip. It took a few years but the relationship has recovered. Harry and Meghan's intent may have been to gain an advantage over other family members but the revelations are pretty mild. If the nastiest thing he can say about Kate is that she didn't take Meghan shopping - she must be a saint.

Recovered and is better than ever. I agree that the relationships can recover, but I think they must talk...in person, not on Zoom or on the phone. I also don’t think whether Harry and Meghan ever become working Royals again is important; the most important thing is to heal the wounds.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles' relationship with his parents was always rocky - not just after the Dimbleby book but for decades before that.

It is better but it is still the weakest of all of the Queen's children and their parents.

However Charles' relationship with his parents was never as fractured as William's and Harry's appears to be - I am not sure it can be repaired and certainly not in the short term.

I also suspect that Harry has major bridges to now mend with both his father and grandmother and it is possible that those relationships will also never be mended.

This book is, like the Morton book, a real eye-opener to Harry's true thoughts about his family and just as Diana learnt that there was no way back I wouldn't be surprised if Harry is never really welcomed back into the family. They will put on a show for the 10-15 minutes they appear together in public but otherwise they will be totally separate.

 

[Betsypaige]

Charles' relationship with his parents was always rocky - not just after the Dimbleby book but for decades before that.

It is better but it is still the weakest of all of the Queen's children and their parents.

However Charles' relationship with his parents was never as fractured as William's and Harry's appears to be - I am not sure it can be repaired and certainly not in the short term.

I also suspect that Harry has major bridges to now mend with both his father and grandmother and it is possible that those relationships will also never be mended.

This book is, like the Morton book, a real eye-opener to Harry's true thoughts about his family and just as Diana learnt that there was no way back I wouldn't be surprised if Harry is never really welcomed back into the family. They will put on a show for the 10-15 minutes they appear together in public but otherwise they will be totally separate.

Yes, it was rocky before the book, for many reasons. It seems to me that Charles has a very good relationship with his parents now - I've read that in several places. That's all I care about. I don't particularly care to compare it to those of his siblings as it doesn't matter to me.

From afar, it seems to me that Charles and his parents were just never on the same page - and he had built up resentments from believing he wasn't understood, or didn't get enough attention, etc.... (and not without cause). It wasn't like ONE thing that happened which created an unbridgeable gulf - somehow, they've managed to put the past behind them. Obviously they love each other a great deal. William and Harry, I fear, are different. Well personally, I do blame Harry for the most part as the aggressor. Not only did he take his brother's concern for him and twist into something ridiculous, but he's angry and resentful on behalf of his wife over perceived slights, etc... I think it's too pessimistic (I can't believe I'm saying this as I'm a pessimist) to say they can never mend this, but it's going to take a LOT of work.

I agree that Harry has a lot of mending to do, there's no question about it. His father and grandmother love him dearly, but he has hurt them....that's worse than simply just angering them. I don't by any means think they can't be healed......

 

[VictoriaB]

Yes, it was rocky before the book, for many reasons. It seems to me that Charles has a very good relationship with his parents now - I've read that in several places. I don't particularly care to compare it to those of his siblings as it doesn't matter to me.

Where are you getting this notion that Charles as a fractured relationship with his sons? Sure they've been up and down, but he and William are extremely close now....we've had several reports on that and, considering the recent Father's Day photo, I think we can take them as fact. I suppose his relationship with Harry is good, but tenuous, given the book's content, but fractured? I haven't read that at all.

I think she meant the relationship between William and Harry, not the relationship between Charles and his sons. That's how I read it anyway.

 

[Alison H]

Some of this is ridiculous. Why on earth would William care what jewellery Meghan was wearing? And, even if Angela Kelly cared what jewellery Meghan was saying, she wouldn't have said so.

 

[Curryong]

That is what Dan Wootton has alleged. And all of what he has said has been believed here.

 

[Betsypaige]

I think she meant the relationship between William and Harry, not the relationship between Charles and his sons. That's how I read it anyway.

Yeah, I realized that after I wrote that, so I edited it..

 

[muriel]

Some of this is ridiculous. Why on earth would William care what jewellery Meghan was wearing? And, even if Angela Kelly cared what jewellery Meghan was saying, she wouldn't have said so.

I think the point is one of principle. Royal Collection jewellery, which is not personally owned by the BRF, can and should only be used by the Queen, or future Queens. Personally owned jewellery can and has been shared by the Queen with other members of the family over the years.

 

[muriel]

If that is true and William/Angela didn't want Meghan to wear any jewels, ie tiaras, petty, petty petty. And Angela is taking a bit on herself isn't she? She might be the Queen's dresser and a big note in the Palace but it's not up to her (or William) to make decisions about what a bride marrying into the RF wears or doesn't on her wedding day or afterwards.

I am not sure that "William/Angela didn't want Meghan to wear any jewels", I think the reservation was around the use of Royal Collection jewels, as opposed to those owned personally by the Queen.

 

[poppy7]

I am not sure that "William/Angela didn't want Meghan to wear any jewels", I think the reservation was around the use of Royal Collection jewels, as opposed to those owned personally by the Queen.

It sounds ridiculous. They would have given her a tiara. They always do. It is petty. I do think the Queen may have had a question about the veil. I mean she is 94?

I don't think I would necessarily trust Wootten. However, they have sent stories to the royals before they publish so that I am inclined to believe.

 

[Fem]

It sounds ridiculous. They would have given her a tiara. They always do. It is petty. I do think the Queen may have had a question about the veil. I mean she is 94?

I don't think I would necessarily trust Wootten. However, they have sent stories to the royals before they publish so that I am inclined to believe.

Once again, as others I'm suspecting it came to the difference between private collection (owned by HMQ) and the Royal Collection, which is not personally owned and belongs to the Crown. HMQ has a free reign over her personal collection, but there is a theory that pieces from the Royal Collection should only be worn by queens/future queens, and maybe there are officials that think so too. So it's not a question of whether Meghan would get a tiara or not, just a question of from what collection she would get the tiara from. And please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Queen Mary's Bandeau is from HMQ's personal collection.

I'm inclined to believe in two things Wootten stated in that article:
1) That he'd sent the outline of the article, or even the whole thing, earlier to them. It sounds... reasonable and we know the press does that sometimes and also the whole argument "we had to publish it because of a leak" was weak and crumbling from the start.
2) That the Sussexes didn't trust their courtiers and office staff and relied closely on Hollywood "yes" people - which would actually explain a lot of the decissions that seemed more celebrity than BRF based.

 

[Curryong]

So Wootten didn't get a leak from someone in the Royal Households in order to get details for this article he was going to publish in the Sun ?

And what jewellery 'personally owned' by the Queen did we see Meghan wearing on that extensive Australasia/Occeania tour, for example, during which the couple was representing HM?