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

[Denville]

T

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.





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.

I think that the very fact that their departure happened and that it sparked off this rash of books where M and Harry came across as very critical of just about everyone in the RF, the press, the royal circle, the Royal staff, is a good enough reason for the RF to say "no more" and to be very reluctant to have them back as working royals.
Their walk out proved they were not reliable and the books even if only half true have given a picture of people who were NOT on the same page as the RF and their way of doing things.. and who again, could not be relied upon. Possibly they did not collaborate, but I think its very possible that they did.. and that in any case the picture painted is of 2 people who seemed alienated from the RF and determined to go their own way..
Charles is likely to be both hurt and angry, the queen also.. but I think they will both always keep the door open on a personal level. However I don't think they'll really expect the sort of commitment and pulling together that they need in long term royal workers. However I suspect that Charles DOES hope that maybe something can be salvaged as he has lost 3 of his helpers in the past few months.. pretty much at the same time.

He wants to keep the RF slim but he lost 2 key workers, in H and Meg and maybe he will hope "if I can get them on side again, I could use the help"... But how can he really trust them? if they come back, I think it will be on M's part for financial reasons, and that's not good.

Harry may begin to miss England and be more willing to return but he wont want to come without his wife.. and I think he has shown himself to be very unreliable and mitght come back but walk out again.

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.

I dont know if it is that Harry's relationship with his father is fractured so much as that Harry has revealed a very odd mindset.. He doesn't seem to be happy with anyone in his family...(or i suspect anyone in his past life)
and not sure that Will's relationship with Charles is bad.. I think that in the past they did have problems, due to the Diana issue and I think also both boys saw C as an old fuddy duddy. But I think that Will has long since matured past that.
I agree that if this whole book is even half true, it is going to make difficulties between H and the rest of the family, esp his father..but he is blood, unlike Diana, so I dont think the rift will be complete as hers was...

 

[poppy7]

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?

Well he and his team are not mind readers.

I don't think we saw any but we never do except for tiaras. And I don't believe Meghan had been leant any for her use. Not yet anyway. But they are only worn on State occasions and she was on maternity at the only one she could have gone to. Trumps visit. They are never really leant anything else except maybe the maple leaf brooch whileno Canada. That type of thing.

 

[Queen Claude]

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 ?

Yes and I don't rule out that the leak came from the Sussex Household. I recall reading that the Sussexes (understandably) shared their plans for stepping back with their own staff.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

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 ?

Possibly. It could also have been leaked by someone from Harry and Meghan's staff. Harry and Meghan's staff would seem to have more motivation because they were about to lose their positions and had less reason to be loyal.

Regardless, Wooten is alleging that Harry and Meghan knew for at least 10 days that the Sun had the story. If so, that is not consistent with their explanation of why they made the surprise public announcement without giving the Queen and Charles much notice.

I personally doubt Wooten's version because I do not believe that William cared that much about which tiara Meghan was loaned. I believe that William would leave that decision to the Queen. William is famously less likely to hide his true feelings in public. I can't remember anytime before the wedding that William behaved as if he was anything less than happy for Harry, even if he had a few private doubts.

 

[Hallo girl]

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.

I agree Curryong that Dan Wooten is not the most reliable, that is why I question everything he writes, and not just bits , for that reason I also question his comments 're Angela Kelly and William 're the tiaras.

 

[Mirabel]

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.

I agree.
Even if everyone reconciled, Harry will no longer be considered trustworthy, so I don't believe he'd be able to just slip back into the BRF and resume his patronages, even if he wished to.

But I think a familial relationship is still possible in time.

 

[SLV]

She picks a few and thr bride chooses. But more likely Angela Kelly gets the dress pattern, the veil pattern and asks what the brides would like. Sorts out about 3 she thinks are suitable and okays that with the Queen. Then the bride comes to see them. Sent for cleaning, and they get it for a trial and the ceremony.

If that is the case, then the whole story about Meghan making a fuss about the tiara is nonsense. She wouldn't have even known about an obscure emerald tiara.

 

[poppy7]

If that is the case, then the whole story about Meghan making a fuss about the tiara is nonsense. She wouldn't have even known about an obscure emerald tiara.

It always sounded like nonsense. I mean really. That and making Kate cry. Just meanness.

 

[muriel]

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?

None. Royal ladies very rarely do, as royal tours these days rarely involve state events that require major jewellery.

I will add that for the reception in Tonga, Meghan did wear a pair of diamond pendant earrings that were meant to be borrowed, source unknown. At the time, there was speculation that they may have been lent by Camilla, though this was never confirmed. When Meghan wore the same earrings again for Charles' 70th birthday party, that rumour gained more legs.

Also, it was reported at the time that the Cartier bracelet worn to her wedding to Harry and the earrings to the evening event were a git from Charles.

But given that Meghan's royal career was not exactly long, it could hardly be suggested that the BRF did not provide her with jewellery.

 

[fabaunty]

Well he and his team are not mind readers.

I don't think we saw any but we never do except for tiaras. And I don't believe Meghan had been leant any for her use. Not yet anyway. But they are only worn on State occasions and she was on maternity at the only one she could have gone to. Trumps visit. They are never really leant anything else except maybe the maple leaf brooch whileno Canada. That type of thing.

HM has lent significant historic pieces on several occasions to the D of C , generally for state dinners , apart from her diamond wedding bracelet which the D of C has worn several times on "gala " occasions . IMO the D of S wedding tiara perfectly suited her pared back style , as well as being historically significant , [the personal tiara worn frequently by HM Queen Mary]. Very little else in the royal collections would seem to suit her style . I would have loved to see her at a state dinner , we might have seen some more unused gems

 

[muriel]

HM has lent significant historic pieces on several occasions to the D of C , generally for state dinners , apart from her diamond wedding bracelet which the D of C has worn several times on "gala " occasions . IMO the D of S wedding tiara perfectly suited her pared back style , as well as being historically significant , [the personal tiara worn frequently by HM Queen Mary]. Very little else in the royal collections would seem to suit her style . I would have loved to see her at a state dinner , we might have seen some more unused gems

I have no doubt that, in time, Meghan would have been provided enough jewellery so that she is suitably adorned for the role. However, these things take time, and the vaults are gradually opened up.

 

[TLLK]

I believe that Meghan would have worn her wedding tiara for future gala occasions. IMHO it was likely selected with the idea that it would be lifetime loan for State Dinners and any other tiara event. It was substantial and it suited her very well IMHO.


https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a19494580/meghan-markle-royal-wedding-tiara/

 

[Denville]

Or seh might have been offered a different tiara for different occasions?

 

[poppy7]

I believe that Meghan would have worn her wedding tiara for future gala occasions. IMHO it was likely selected with the idea that it would be lifetime loan for State Dinners and any other tiara event. It was substantial and it suited her very well IMHO.


https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a19494580/meghan-markle-royal-wedding-tiara/

None of the wedding tiaras have ever been worn by the ladies again. It was a gift on the day. She would have, in time, been long term been loaned some others. Kate has the Cambridge which was Diana's and the Lotus Flower one which was Margaret's and actually worn by Serena on her wedding day.

 

[Mbruno]

None of the wedding tiaras have ever been worn by the ladies again. It was a gift on the day. She would have, in time, been long term been loaned some others. Kate has the Cambridge which was Diana's and the Lotus Flower one which was Margaret's and actually worn by Serena on her wedding day.

Sophie’s wedding tiara was worn again many times, wasn’t it ?

 

[muriel]

None of the wedding tiaras have ever been worn by the ladies again. It was a gift on the day. She would have, in time, been long term been loaned some others. Kate has the Cambridge which was Diana's and the Lotus Flower one which was Margaret's and actually worn by Serena on her wedding day.

Elizabeth, Margaret, Diana, Sarah and Sophie all wore their wedding tiaras again on many occassions, whilst Anne and Catherine appear not to have so far.

 

[Heavs]

Yes Sophie's much made fun of wedding tiara has seen a lot of use at overseas royal weddings and other events and probably other occasions where no photographs are released.

I believe *something* went down about tiara choices, but goodness knows if any of the versions we've heard are the truth.

 

[TLLK]

None of the wedding tiaras have ever been worn by the ladies again. It was a gift on the day. She would have, in time, been long term been loaned some others. Kate has the Cambridge which was Diana's and the Lotus Flower one which was Margaret's and actually worn by Serena on her wedding day.

Actually Sarah, Duchess of York wore her tiara that the Queen/DoE gifted to her throughout her marriage to Prince Andrew.

 

[TLLK]

Sophie’s wedding tiara was worn again many times, wasn’t it ?

Yes it was worn for years after her wedding. The Wessexes attended most of the Continental royal weddings which typically featured at least one gala event. Sophie wore her wedding tiara many times.

 

[poppy7]

Elizabeth, Margaret, Diana, Sarah and Sophie all wore their wedding tiaras again on many occassions, whilst Anne and Catherine appear not to have so far.

Sarah's was a gift to her. Diana didn't I don't think. That was her families tiara. Margaret did she personally owned it. Sophie's was made for her and a gift and the Queens was a gift.

None of the loans ever reappeared.

Recently they have all been leant as gifts on the day.

 

[Nico]

Sarah's was a gift to her. Diana didn't I don't think. That was her families tiara. Margaret did she personally owned it. Sophie's was made for her and a gift and the Queens was a gift.

None of the loans ever reappeared.

Recently they have all been leant as gifts on the day.

Well to be honnest, Meghan and Eugénie didn't have the opportunity to wear a tiara again.
As fot Kate, the Halo Tiara was for some time part of a touring Cartier exhibition, so she had to find some alternatives.
Anyway it's a bit slim to draw generalizations about loaned wedding tiaras.

 

[Jacknch]

We've digressed quite far from the issue of Meghan's wedding tiara, let's get back on the topic of the thread, which is about the book. We can discuss royal tiara's in the jewellery sub-forum. Thank you.

 

[tommy100]

No one should take anything most journalists say as 100% the truth, in most cases they have either put their own spin on it or the spin has been put on it by the person telling them the information. That said it makes me chuckle that sometimes Dan Wooten is a close friend of Jason Knauf and all his information comes form him and yet at the same time he is dismissed as knowing nothing. (I'm not his biggest fan tbh but I do think he is well connected)

I will wait and see to [ass judgment - if H&M denounce the book or start legal action I my believe they had nothing to do with it. Otherwise, sorry, for a couple who are ready to sue over anything the lack of comment is telling IMO and the lack of legal action or condemnation tells me this book is their side of events as they wanted told.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Very interesting dynamic on this thread where when people question the assertion that the Sussexes did not contribute to this book, they are shot down because "Omid said so!!!!!!"

But when people believe something Dan Wootten says, they are shot down because "it's just Dan himself who said so." ?

Methinks this is not so much an objective evaluation of the trustworthiness of these reporters- Dan has been proven right time after time with his inside stories about this couple despite people on this board refusing to believe him- as shifting standards about what "straight from the horse's mouth" is worth based on what individual posters want to believe.

 

[Claire]

Can someone please explain something to me ? If Omid is too believed he got most of his info from friends and staff, by extension then Megan and Harry were very vocal about personal things to their staff. Which also according to the press, Meghan was treating badly which would have provoke more incentive for them to talk to the press. Some of these staff members are currently working for other members of the royal family when the Sussex’s closed their offices. For people that are so concerned about their privacy and about information been leaked out of Clarence House _ why are they giving their life stories to staff?
I would think the Omid wishes to continue as Meghan’s blue eyes reporter, and considering that Harpers Bazaar is still phoning up Team Sussex as he calls it they are still happy with this book. This is the book that they wanted published, regardless of if they actively encouraged it or provided input. I don’t see how this book is going to help them _ I wonder if there is more to it then what has been published? How can they spin this for positive outcome?

 

[tommy100]

I think they hope the book will help them in places like America where there is less knowledge about the monarchy and its workings so their views and "side" of the argument is given more weight.

Sorry but I have to believe, at present, H&M contributed in some way to the book- whether that was directly (though sit down interviews have been denied maybe emails, texts or even voice recording a la Diana and Morton) or by directly allowing or subtly indicating to friends that speaking out would be accepted by the couple.

The problem IMO is that the book doesn't do the many favours, I'm sure their most ardent "fans" will love it but otherwise for most it just makes everyone look bad but given it so clearly seems to be H&M's version of the truth it makes them look bitter. Its a sad sad situation.

 

[Kataryn]

No one should take anything most journalists say as 100% the truth, in most cases they have either put their own spin on it or the spin has been put on it by the person telling them the information. That said it makes me chuckle that sometimes Dan Wooten is a close friend of Jason Knauf and all his information comes form him and yet at the same time he is dismissed as knowing nothing. (I'm not his biggest fan tbh but I do think he is well connected)

I will wait and see to [ass judgment - if H&M denounce the book or start legal action I my believe they had nothing to do with it. Otherwise, sorry, for a couple who are ready to sue over anything the lack of comment is telling IMO and the lack of legal action or condemnation tells me this book is their side of events as they wanted told.

IMHO you should have read the whole book and then talk to your lawyer about the points that you think are wrong and can be proven wrong and then, maybe, you sue.

It's definately difficult to do so because how to prove the truth is not in the book?? Or letting a court of justice decide what is the truth and what not?



In fact, as with all things Harry and Meghan, you believe it or not. It's definately not one of the few big, well researched biographies we have had about Charles or Diana, rather a "take of the moment"-piece, so I thionk it's not fair to base an opinion on that.

 

[Betsypaige]

Can someone please explain something to me ? If Omid is too believed he got most of his info from friends and staff, by extension then Megan and Harry were very vocal about personal things to their staff. Which also according to the press, Meghan was treating badly which would have provoke more incentive for them to talk to the press. Some of these staff members are currently working for other members of the royal family when the Sussex’s closed their offices. For people that are so concerned about their privacy and about information been leaked out of Clarence House _ why are they giving their life stories to staff?
I would think the Omid wishes to continue as Meghan’s blue eyes reporter, and considering that Harpers Bazaar is still phoning up Team Sussex as he calls it they are still happy with this book. This is the book that they wanted published, regardless of if they actively encouraged it or provided input. I don’t see how this book is going to help them _ I wonder if there is more to it then what has been published? How can they spin this for positive outcome?

What do you mean by referencing Clarence House? How does Charles have anything to do with this?

I really doubt that Harry and Meghan opened up to staff; IF any staff contributed (and frankly I take anything Omid says with a huge shaker of salt), it's probably more along the lines of things they heard off-hand as opposed to directly from the horses' mouths.

This book is not going to help them. Omid and Durand may have intended one thing, but they're getting another. This book was supposed to be H and M's spin, lol.......that's the pathetic thing. You can not make a silk's purse from a sow's ear.

Tommy:

I think they hope the book will help them in places like America where there is less knowledge about the monarchy and its workings so their views and "side" of the argument is given more weight.

Most of America doesn't really care about the Monarchy and couldn't care less about Harry and Meghan. Now, in the middle of a devastating pandemic that is ruining lives and livelihoods......in the middle of racial and police crises[......] Now they think the book will help them? I'm sure they will have their fans (those who love Harry because of Diana and love Meghan because of Harry; let's face it, M was not exactly a household name before she dated him)........but most of America doesn't give a fig about them, and if they do read the book, will probably end up rolling their eyes.

 

[Mbruno]

[...]

I think they hope the book will help them in places like America where there is less knowledge about the monarchy and its workings so their views and "side" of the argument is given more weight.

If that is their goal, I agree it might actually work. For most people who follow the Royals and especially in the UK and other Commonwealth countries, I don't think the book helps H&M's cause. On the contrary, they come across as entitled, self-centered and not committed to the institution. However, the broader general audience in America who will read the book mght buy into Omid's narrative that the couple was a victim of Palace "vipers" and snobbish in-laws who despised Meghan based on class and race.

 

[Lee-Z]

[...]
If that is their goal, I agree it might actually work. For most people who follow the Royals and especially in the UK and other Commonwealth countries, I don't think the book helps H&M's cause. On the contrary, they come across as entitled, self-centered and not committed to the institution. However, the broader general audience in America who will read the book mght buy into Omid's narrative that the couple was a victim of Palace "vipers" and snobbish in-laws who despised Meghan based on class and race.

it does sound a bit like the plot of a new tv series doesn't it... it might indeed be more pallatable if you don't know this is about actual people..