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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Her past marriage was hardly mentioned? It was literally referenced in every article about her. "Divorced Meg" was basically her name. They made sure we always knew she was an older, mixed raced, divorced actress from LA. I don't think a day went by without that being said.

Nonetheless, these important life events (marriage & divorce) were excluded from her official biography on the royal.gov-website.
 
Nonetheless, these important life events (marriage & divorce) were excluded from her official biography on the royal.gov-website.

It probably would have not been in Camilla's either had she not had children with her ex. The same had Meghan and her ex had a child he would have been referenced.
 
Exactly. Most biographers and observers agree that Charles was neither forbidden from marrying Camilla nor forced to marry Diana. It was Charles' own indecision and Camilla's decision to marry Andrew Parker Bowles that set them apart.

I admit I'm not up on the C/C timeline, so then.......was it after Camilla and Andrew's divorce that Charles got tangled up with her again?

It's possible that part of the article was poorly worded. I mean, from everything I've read, Charles WAS under pressure to marry, and Diana had been almost picked for him. Maybe the alternative wasn't to marry Camilla , but maybe what the reporter was trying to point out was that Charles was pressured to marry a woman much younger than he was and whom he didn't really know (in which case, the part about not marrying Camilla could have been left out). Either way, marrying Diana caused he (and she) decades of pain.

Here's that part of the article again

But while the Prince of Wales was forced by tradition to marry Diana in 1981 instead of his true love, Camilla, causing him two decades of pain and anguish, Harry was able to seize on changing times to break free and run off to America with Meghan.

It is that brutal shared experience — and the death of the Princess of Wales — which perhaps means Charles has more understanding than any member of the Royal Family of Harry’s decision to walk away from Queen and country.

The reporter is deliberately pointing out that Harry did not have any such issues. Even so, Charles and Camilla were obviously in touch during the Wars of the Wales, and he did refuse to give her up when his mother wanted him to, so from that perspective, I can see why he would have a special empathy for his son. It's not that anyone insisted that Harry couldn't see Meghan, it just feels like both father and son felt restricted by the Institution at the time. That's a huge part of why Harry left. I don't think it's a perfect comparison, but I think the overall point of the article, about father and son, remains.
 
This could go in the Relationships thread, but I think it's relevant here as we've been discussing Harry and Meghan's relationships with his family vis a vis the book.

I think this is a very good point..... Charles didn't walk away, of course, but he pretty much defied his mother as she wanted him to end things with Camilla.




So, ultimately, Charles's love for his son is more important to him than his anger or hurt over the book. There have been multiple reports saying that he and Harry have been in regular contact, so I tend to think this article is stating the facts. It doesn't come as any surprise that Charles always has an open door for H and M because he would never turn his son away. I've always thought that their relationship would be fine - the real problems are between H/M and William and Kate.



https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12346243/prince-harry-charles-unbreakable-bond-royal-return/

Charles can love his son all he wants and support him and Meghan with his bank account. The door for them to come back as senior royals is based on the British public's opinion- - Charles is not all that popular with the public and cannot risk alienating them further but playing forgiving father when it comes to royal duties and the public purse
 
I think H&M are having a bit of a "brand identity" crisis.

They need to work out which road to take:

A) the jump on most current issue mode, where the couple have a comment on most issues as they come about. This gives them good media coverage as you are effectively jumping on existing PR and media coverage to give them more coverage and profile. The problem with this is you aren't talking about issues close to you just issues that come about so your message and "brand" is devalued as over time people get bored by it. A bit like the Primark of brands - ride the wave of current trends but be seen as a "lesser" brand.

or

B) focus on a few (one each maybe) messages and seek out ways to focus on these. Do a lot of behind scenes work so your knowledge of it is strong and you have met many of the key players. Seek out limited but strong outlets for your message at key points in the year. Be consistent with your messaging and where possible live up to the message your are "promoting" e.g travel as greenly as possibly (if eco travel is your message) so people are inspired by your actions to change their way of living /thinking because you are in part showing them it is possible. This would get you less media coverage as you are not jumping on every "trend" and current issue so don't get the free PR that brings but your message is stronger as its not devalued by the high number of issues you are talking about or the frequency with what you are talking about.

The sad thing is by leaving the RF the couple could have done option B much more easily as they could have made sure all their work was focussed around their chosen issues much more than is possible when in the RF as the RF are expected to cover a wide range of social issues and undertake foreign tours etc. I don't know how much they are paying Sunshine Sachs, and I'm not saying I'm an expert at all, but I think whatever they are paying them its too much for this rather cheap, reality tv start style PR programme they have put in place for a royal couple.

That is the problem- they have made it clear as day that it is A. Just in the last couple of months they have tried to jump on the "cause du Jour" without much thought and research put into their involvement. Their public pronouncements have been nothing but buzzword salads intended to get them positive PR.

With or without their involvement Finding Freedom was touted as getting their point of view across and from the serialization so far it is nothing more than an attempt to portray them as victims of everyone and anyone who did not agree with what they wanted.

In simple words- everything they do seems hollow with the sole purpose being getting them the media attention that they claim they do not want
 
Yes, I do believe that the BRF keep their fingers on the pulse of public opinion but the inner workings of the "Firm" are decided and implemented by the "Firm" itself. Should Charles feel that it serves in the best interest for Harry and Meghan to return to the "Firm" once again, that will be a decision that the "Firm" will have to agree on. Especially the very top CEO called Her Majesty, The Queen. The public or the public opinion does not dictate how the "Firm" works.

As for the "public purse", the only thing the public pays for directly out of their taxes is the security for the members of the working BRF. Other financing comes from either the Sovereign Grant, The Duchy of Lancaster (the Queen's Privy Purse) or the Duchy of Cornwall (Charles' private income). The civil list was abolished in 2011 and replaced with the Sovereign Grant.
 
Charles can love his son all he wants and support him and Meghan with his bank account. The door for them to come back as senior royals is based on the British public's opinion- - Charles is not all that popular with the public and cannot risk alienating them further but playing forgiving father when it comes to royal duties and the public purse

I wouldn’t trust Harry and Meghan either, but I have no problem with Charles saying this to his son. It doesn’t mean there would be no conditions on his return or that he could just waltz back in with no ramifications...

I would also add, since nothing Charles does is good enough for the public, and since he’s going to be unpopular no matter what good things he does, there’s no reason why he shouldn’t welcome Harry back.....and this isn’t even taking into account that HM has her arms open for a return as well.
 
Last edited:
Harry

Charles can love his son all he wants and support him and Meghan with his bank account. The door for them to come back as senior royals is based on the British public's opinion- - Charles is not all that popular with the public and cannot risk alienating them further but playing forgiving father when it comes to royal duties and the public purse

I don't really care to hear their opinions, not interesting. I think it sad, the poor judgement, treatment of the family taking Archie from his family except her mother(which at least he has a Gma). The air in LA is toxic so much for good health.
I wouldn't trust those two ever again, forgive yes; forget no.
 
As for the "public purse", the only thing the public pays for directly out of their taxes is the security for the members of the working BRF. Other financing comes from either the Sovereign Grant, The Duchy of Lancaster (the Queen's Privy Purse) or the Duchy of Cornwall (Charles' private income). The civil list was abolished in 2011 and replaced with the Sovereign Grant.

You're right about taxes Osipi but all of the monarchy's income does derive from the state. All Crown Land (ie the Crown Estate & the two duchies) belongs to the state. If we were a republic those proceeds would go else where such as the NHS or whatever.
 
I admit I'm not up on the C/C timeline, so then.......was it after Camilla and Andrew's divorce that Charles got tangled up with her again?

No, it was long before that. Camilla and Andrew seem to've had old-style type upper-crust marriage. Rupert Campbell Black, the womanising showjumper in the Jilly Cooper books, was allegedly based on Andrew Parker Bowles ?. Camilla and Charles were seeing each other again in the late '70s, then it stopped when Charles married Diana, but started up again when that marriage crumbled fairly early on. Andrew, by all accounts, had affairs with umpteen different women, most of them within their own social circle - it really does sound like a Jilly Cooper book! - so wasn't too bothered about Camilla was getting up to with Charles. It would have worked fine in the 1880s, just not in the 1980s.
 
Charles can love his son all he wants and support him and Meghan with his bank account. The door for them to come back as senior royals is based on the British public's opinion- - Charles is not all that popular with the public and cannot risk alienating them further but playing forgiving father when it comes to royal duties and the public purse

I actually think that this article (assuming it's based on any sort of reality from his staff) is an attempt to somewhat gain favour by showing that Charles *does* love his son and isn't abandoning him due to this book and that it's too insignificant to tear things apart.

And to put his side of the story across that he does indeed support them as opposed to accusations that he and the rest of the family were unwelcoming and unsupportive/snobbish/racist etc and basically forced them to flee the family. No cold, cruel royals against poor, vulnerable Di again.

Awkwardly trying to draw parallels between their situations and say he understands it is also tied in with that as well.

Of course going hard on the fact that he's heavily supporting his son and his family financially won't be sustainable forever from a public or royal perspective I imagine.

In the event of a republic I don't expect the Duchies money to go to the NHS anymore than when the same claims were made with certain recent political events. Having a president isn't cheap.

Rupert Campbell Black, the womanising showjumper in the Jilly Cooper books, was allegedly based on Andrew Parker Bowles .

I remember that. Everyone went :eek::confused: when she announced it.
 
Her past marriage was hardly mentioned? It was literally referenced in every article about her. "Divorced Meg" was basically her name. They made sure we always knew she was an older, mixed raced, divorced actress from LA. I don't think a day went by without that being said.

I hardly heard anything about it....
 
I wouldn’t trust Harry and Meghan either, but I have no problem with Charles saying this to his son. It doesn’t mean there would be no conditions on his return or that he could just waltz back in with no ramifications...

I would also add, since nothing Charles does is good enough for the public, and since he’s going to be unpopular no matter what good things he does, there’s no reason why he shouldn’t welcome Harry back.....and this isn’t even taking into account that HM has her arms open for a return as well.

Does she? She may wish that they hadn't left, she may hope that they'll return on a personal level but I cant imagine that she's very sanguine... that if they come back, they will be any more reliable than they were at first. At least I hope she has enough sense not to be. I suspect she may think that if they were let go quietly, their new life wont be what they expect and they will be back thoroughly chastened in a year. And from the POV of the working RF, they may feel that they didn't want to lose 2 younger workers.
 
I’ve never heard of those books, but I know exactly the kind of marriage you’re referring to, lol. Thanks !
Um, the whole divorce and war of the Waleses was prompted by the fact that Charles was involved with Camilla certainly from the mid 1980s.
That was why Andrew PB and Camilla got divorced because Charles outed the affair...
 
I actually think that this article (assuming it's based on any sort of reality from his staff) is an attempt to somewhat gain favour by showing that Charles *does* love his son and isn't abandoning him due to this book and that it's too insignificant to tear things apart.

And to put his side of the story across that he does indeed support them as opposed to accusations that he and the rest of the family were unwelcoming and unsupportive/snobbish/racist etc and basically forced them to flee the family. No cold, cruel royals against poor, vulnerable Di again.

Awkwardly trying to draw parallels between their situations and say he understands it is also tied in with that as well.

Of course going hard on the fact that he's heavily supporting his son and his family financially won't be sustainable forever from a public or royal perspective I imagine.

I


I remember that. Everyone went :eek::confused: when she announced it.
I think that Charles can continue to support his son, financially but the question si should he? if H really wants financial independence beter he gets started with it now. And Charles may well feel in these hard times, he loves his son, but he does not want to shell out large sums of money for a non working Royal who is able bodied and not elderly
Im sure that he does still care about Harry, but he can't be too happy about the situation where his son has walked out on the job but is still drawing an allowance from him...I would say he can't understand why Harry did this, or why he is now living in LA IN a borrowed house and popping up every now and again with some cliches about social media.. and If I were him, i wouldn't count on Harry being more reliable if he comes home, with or wihtout Meghan. Charles may well feel that H has been unhappy, and been influenced by her into the walk out.. and that if he doesn't make it in LA he may come back, ratehr tail between legs and be a royal worker again...
 
Um, the whole divorce and war of the Waleses was prompted by the fact that Charles was involved with Camilla certainly from the mid 1980s.
That was why Andrew PB and Camilla got divorced because Charles outed the affair...

What’s your point? Your response has nothing to do with my comment
 
What’s your point? Your response has nothing to do with my comment

"I admit I'm not up on the C/C timeline, so then.......was it after Camilla and Andrew's divorce that Charles got tangled up with her again?"

Betsy, you posted this? Am I correct? I was just pointing out that Camilla was "tangled up" with Charles well before her divorce from Andrew PB, and that it was in fact the outing of that affair that led to APB wanting a divorce.
 
"I admit I'm not up on the C/C timeline, so then.......was it after Camilla and Andrew's divorce that Charles got tangled up with her again?"

Betsy, you posted this? Am I correct? I was just pointing out that Camilla was "tangled up" with Charles well before her divorce from Andrew PB, and that it was in fact the outing of that affair that led to APB wanting a divorce.

You responded to my post where I was talking about books I’ve never heard of instead of the one you quoted here, so that’s why I was confused.

Thanks for the explanation !
 
You responded to my post where I was talking about books I’ve never heard of instead of the one you quoted here, so that’s why I was confused.

Thanks for the explanation !

Sorry I'm not great at getting a reply under a post, and the other post was quite long.. so I didn't want to reply directly as it would be so big.
but yes the Charles and Camilla affair goes back to the 1970s. I can't see that there is much comparison between it and Harry's love life and relationship with Meghan. I think that Charles may a bit resent that his 2 sons were able to conduct their love life in a different atmosphere, where they could get to know their serious love interests well, and were not expected to "marry a well bred Protestant virgin" after a fairly short old fashioned courtship.......(of course he's a reasonably sensible man and may not do so... ).
 
Last edited:
I think we’ve gone way off topic

I’m guessing with the release of the book this week, we’ll see a lot of promotional interviews with the authors where the subject of collaboration might come up
 
I think we’ve gone way off topic

I’m guessing with the release of the book this week, we’ll see a lot of promotional interviews with the authors where the subject of collaboration might come up

There's a programme on tonight about the book,
 
Does she? She may wish that they hadn't left, she may hope that they'll return on a personal level but I cant imagine that she's very sanguine... that if they come back, they will be any more reliable than they were at first. At least I hope she has enough sense not to be. I suspect she may think that if they were let go quietly, their new life wont be what they expect and they will be back thoroughly chastened in a year. And from the POV of the working RF, they may feel that they didn't want to lose 2 younger workers.
It seems to me that they have burned their bridges and can't come back. They have become outwardly political and have now spoken out about the family. They may be welcome as family members, always loved and always forgiven, but forget their returning to royal work.
 
I think we’ve gone way off topic

I’m guessing with the release of the book this week, we’ll see a lot of promotional interviews with the authors where the subject of collaboration might come up

I'm sure they'll find a million different ways to say that Harry and Meghan didn't have anything to do with the book......and I won't believe any of them, lol
 
I'm sure they'll find a million different ways to say that Harry and Meghan didn't have anything to do with the book......and I won't believe any of them, lol

I'm starting to think that this is the PR ploy instigated primarily to float interest in the book to be released.

Did they or didn't they *really* relate the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?? Read the book and determine for yourself if they did or didn't and stay tuned to this channel for the next new exciting episode of The Sussexes in LA. Will they or will they not sink or swim??" Film whenever something new is to be released. Inquiring minds *need* to know!"

A bit goofy but possible. :D
 
I'm starting to think that this is the PR ploy instigated primarily to float interest in the book to be released.

Did they or didn't they *really* relate the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?? Read the book and determine for yourself if they did or didn't and stay tuned to this channel for the next new exciting episode of The Sussexes in LA. Will they or will they not sink or swim??" Film whenever something new is to be released. Inquiring minds *need* to know!"

A bit goofy but possible. :D

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sounds like a combination of the 1960's tv show Batman and a soap opera!
 
:previous: Harry and Meghan DID live together before "doing anything else". I hardly see why Harry would have taken offense at such advice from a friend.:ermm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom