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

[tihkon2]

Also I forgot, Omid had appalling fact checking.

Diana died in 96. Tiggy left 97. Hard to take it seriously with those mistakes

Diana died August 31, 1997. He said she died in 1996 in the book???

 

[tommy100]

tbf i haven't seen this in my copy

 

[miss whirley]

Diana died August 31, 1997. He said she died in 1996 in the book???

Well, Omid often confuses dates especially his birthday,

 

[TLLK]

I wonder where they found the first nanny - the one who was apparently fired on the spot?

I think members of royal families have a few options for nannies. They can use family, they can use a highly qualified nanny recommended by family or very close friends or they can use a highly qualified nanny from an agency used to placements with high profile families. So I’ll take it for granted the woman was in one of the latter two categories and also that she would have been thoroughly vetted by their security team before she was able to start the job. Given that, it’s hard to imagine what sort of unprofessional or dangerous thing she would do that would warrant her being let go in the middle of the night. Meghan and Harry may not have liked her much or she could have been a poor fit in general but it’s unlikely the caliber of nanny they would be dealing with would make an egregious mistake in the care of an infant.

Yes I would be very curious to know what occurred to compel the couple fire the night nurse/nanny in the middle of the night. Presumably this woman at the very least would have possessed the necessary training, been cleared by security and would have been highly recommended by previous employers.


Was it something dangerous? Did she try to sneak a photo of the newborn or the nursery?

 

[miss whirley]

Yes I would be very curious to know what occurred to compel the couple fire the night nurse/nanny in the middle of the night. Presumably this woman at the very least would have possessed the necessary training, been cleared by security and would have been highly recommended by previous employers.


Was it something dangerous? Did she try to sneak a photo of the newborn or the nursery?

Well, they have a long history of making mountains out of molehills, if we go by FF. So it might have been something relatively minor. Maybe the well meaning nanny suggested using cloth diapers thinking that Harry was a self-proclaimed eco advocate. And the couple might have bristled thinking they were being reprimanded, like with the bevy of private jets. Harry apparently explodes if he thinks anyone is judging him.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I do think Prince Harry will be back[.......] I just don't think they are actually that compatible at all.

Harry's burned too many bridges to go back. Even if he and Meghan break up he needs to stay where he is. Or move to another country.

 

[andrew]

.

I think it is ridiculous that H&M complain about Harry's family being unsupportive. Meghan's close family (except her mother) literally trashed her in front of the whole world! Just listen to interviews given by her siblings and father. Harry's side of the family may had some reserve towards her but it does not compare to the sh*tstorm that Meghan's family brought unto them.
M&H could have carved out a meaningful and dignified role within the Royal family if they had more patience, confidence and wisdom.
It is truly sad that they bolted like two mad peacocks, ruffling their feathers after a year and a half

 

[Denville]

Notice I said “entire family” not “her father side of the family”
We’ve spoken of this already: Meghan has estranged herself from both sides of her family.

I didn't know of her being estranged from her mothers' family,,, she seems close to her mother, so I assume that she's at least on polite terms with the Ragland side..One' isn't necessarily close to cousins and aunts and uncles.. Of course one may not be that close to siblings or parents either...but there's usually a deeper connextion.
I don't think Meg's a very easy person.. but she may just not be that close to her Mothers family, just because.. they are just not that close.. and her dad's family are awful.. I do feel rather sorry for her with the Dad's family, because I don't think it is anything she has done...

 

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-claim-Meghan-Markles-husband-cope-fame.html

No one will ever know why the 1st marriage ended; but interesting to hear from Trevor's uncle.

 

[Lee-Z]

Yes I would be very curious to know what occurred to compel the couple fire the night nurse/nanny in the middle of the night. Presumably this woman at the very least would have possessed the necessary training, been cleared by security and would have been highly recommended by previous employers.


Was it something dangerous? Did she try to sneak a photo of the newborn or the nursery?

To be fair, i could imagine if i was in their position; in the limelight, just had first child, worried about the privacy of my child and eveything about him being new, i was adjusting to the situation, recovering from the delivery, emotional about this miracle that had happened to me...and if i then caught a person i trusted with my child taking a picture of him without asking me first...i probably would have freaked too and immediately asked them to get out of my house...
And if then another person would be coming over to help and i'd see a mobile phone in their purse or pocket...i'd probably want them away as well...

not saying that happened, but if it did, i could totally relate to what happened

(two weeks later when everything was fine and my baby doing well, i'd probably regret it, but when you're in the limelight it probably is all out in the open by that time...)

 

[Denville]

Why would a nanny be taking a picture of the baby? If they hired a nanny from a reputable agency who is accustomed to the problems that Nannies who look after royal children or those of famous people have to face, i.e. safety and security concerns (they DO have Protection officers who would be around as well) concerns about privacy etc. etc... there is no way that they'd be doing anything like this.
Even if there was some minor problem, and they didn't want to keep the nanny, surely it was not likely to be such a big thing that they had to get rid of the woman asap... They could surely have explained what was wrong, said that they thought it wasn't working out, and given her a months notice and hired a new nanny in that time.

 

[Curryong]

Why is this on the Sussexes? This woman, even if she was from a reputable agency, could have behaved in an inappropriate way with other members of staff or the RPOs, could have been constantly warned before about disregarding instructions, or been away from the nursery area somewhere she shouldn't have been for a long period of time.

She could even have turned up for her shift drunk or drug affected. No parent is going to put up with that.

She was a temporary employee anyway, and hasn't complained to the media about her treatment so we can take it that it was probably something very serious. The book hasn't given details on the situation and the Sussexes haven't spoken of it, so we are not likely to know.

 

[Betsypaige]

I haven't seen anybody say that. So nice straw man.....

Thank you! If this is their only defense of Harry and Meghan, it’s not much of one...and that’s bring kind. While some are speculating on what the BRF have said about them, we KNOW what they have said about the BRF. Just some food for thought, lol

 

[Betsypaige]

Great review. Careful Betsy, this may be more than 20% of the article and you may get a ticking off...

Oops, I’ll delete some of it...thank you!

 

[Betsypaige]

Well, they have a long history of making mountains out of molehills, if we go by FF. So it might have been something relatively minor. Maybe the well meaning nanny suggested using cloth diapers thinking that Harry was a self-proclaimed eco advocate. And the couple might have bristled thinking they were being reprimanded, like with the bevy of private jets. Harry apparently explodes if he thinks anyone is judging him.

Sadly, I could believe things like this....I assume the nanny was sleeping in the middle of the night; what could she possibly have done at that moment? Let me guess - Archie was crying, and she hadn’t woken up yet. Apparently they called her unprofessional - did she go to the kitchen for a glass of milk in her bathrobe? I’m surprised we haven’t heard from her...

 

[Curryong]

Archie may well wear cloth nappies.

I read elsewhere that this nurse was a temporary 'monthly' night nurse, hired for the first weeks of a baby's life so that the parents can get some sleep. So she would hardly have been sleeping in a bedroom during her shift or walking around in a dressing gown.

 

[Denville]

So how come they end up with a nanny or even a temporary nurse who is so dreadful at her job that she has to be sacked immediately? Surely a well to do couple, of a reasonable age, with plenty of contacts who could advise them on hiring nannies, is not likely to get someone who is such a disaster...

 

[tommy100]

I think it is ridiculous that H&M complain about Harry's family being unsupportive. Meghan's close family (except her mother) literally trashed her in front of the whole world! Just listen to interviews given by her siblings and father. Harry's side of the family may had some reserve towards her but it does not compare to the sh*tstorm that Meghan's family brought unto them.
M&H could have carved out a meaningful and dignified role within the Royal family if they had more patience, confidence and wisdom.
It is truly sad that they bolted like two mad peacocks, ruffling their feathers after a year and a half

This is something I struggle with massively, they say the RF are unsupportive (though they try an hide that behind meaning royal aides sometimes) but from the book:

The Queen was so supportive, praising Meghan, taking her with her on a trip quicker than any other royal and popping in to see them regularly at Windsor. She invited her to the big BP christmas lunch and the more private family Christmas at Sandirngham while they were still 'only' engaged which, I believe for HM , is a big step/sign.

Charles loves Meghan and her can do attitude and was like a second father to her. He and Camilla attended her private baptism and hosted a private dinner for Meghan after it with all her friends invited, he walked her down the aisle when her father couldn't and they spent some time at the Castle of Mey together. Charles was and still is continuing to still fund them and their lifestlye

Eugenie was wonderful, popping in all the time, double dates with H&M and Jack.

Zara is mentioned as being told about the birth of Archie via whatsapp

Even William is praised for fighting for them to have their own staff rather than just sharing with the rest of the RF and said to have pushed Charles to ensure their office was properly funded. At the start the book specifically says: But she needn’t have worried. As soon as William opened the black double doors to welcome Meghan into his home, he said, “I was looking forward to meeting the girl who has put that silly grin on my brother’s face.”

He and Kate host Meghan and Harry for Christmas in their own private home
At the start (before the book suddenly changes its view and Kate is cold and unkind) she is said to be supportive. Here is the entire quote about their first meeting which took place after William first met Meghan because Kate was still at Anmer at the time with the children (completely fair IMO surely and if anything shows how eager William was to meet Meghan not to wait until Kate was free):
Despite the fact that Harry was a regular guest in her household, Kate had seemingly not shown much interest in finding out who this woman was who had made her brother-in-law so happy. But that indifference wasn’t necessarily directed toward Meghan. “The Duchess is an extremely guarded person,” a friend explained. After she married William, she was careful about letting others in to her social circle. Her friends today—including Lady Laura Meade and Emilia Jardine-Paterson, both of whom married friends of William’s—are for the most part the same ones she had on her wedding day. Like her husband, Kate ran in a tight group.
Meghan brought a present for the duchess, who had celebrated her birthday just a day earlier. The soft leather Smythson notebook helped to break the ice, as did Meghan’s cooing over then twenty-month-old Charlotte. The meeting ended with Kate letting Meghan know that she was always welcome to contact her if she needed anything. Having been through the experience of being a royal girlfriend herself, Kate knew how trying it could be to suddenly have one’s personal life laid bare.

Kate may be cold, a bit distant but other than instantly becoming BFFs like some cheesy teen film I don't know what else she was expected to do. She told Meghan she could contact her with anything so IMO that in a way puts the ball back in Meghans court.


But all of this isn't supportive enough? Especially when you compare it to Meghan's family? I find that quite remarkable to be honest.

 

[Lee-Z]

She was a temporary employee anyway, and hasn't complained to the media about her treatment so we can take it that it was probably something very serious. The book hasn't given details on the situation and the Sussexes haven't spoken of it, so we are not likely to know.

for me the bold part, is one jump too far to a conclusion

if she is somewhat good at her job (and if she wasn't at least somewhat good, it was a bad idea hiring her) she probably knows that a future employer will not appreciate it if she talked about a previous employer, no matter who was right or wrong in the situation.
i've attended jobinterviews where the applicant started to talk about their previous employer and the things that went wrong there, without being asked, and we considered that a bad trait for the person.

i can imagine it's the same with nannies and others jobs where the employee works in the employers private home

 

[Curryong]

So how come they end up with a nanny or even a temporary nurse who is so dreadful at her job that she has to be sacked immediately? Surely a well to do couple, of a reasonable age, with plenty of contacts who could advise them on hiring nannies, is not likely to get someone who is such a disaster...

She was employed from an agency, I read. We don't know the circumstances. Later they employed a fulltime nanny who stayed with them through the last months of their time with the RF and the months in Canada and she wasn't sacked. She left because she was homesick for the UK.

This other woman was a temporary employee who did something that caused her to be sacked in the middle of the night. If I had to guess I would say it was due to her being not there in the nursery area and she couldn't be found for quite a while. Archie was probably crying, alerting the parents.

The thing is, if you are employed to look after a newborn during the night you should be there at all times (apart from toilet breaks of course) to do just that and she obviously was found wanting.

 

[Lilyflo]

So how come they end up with a nanny or even a temporary nurse who is so dreadful at her job that she has to be sacked immediately? Surely a well to do couple, of a reasonable age, with plenty of contacts who could advise them on hiring nannies, is not likely to get someone who is such a disaster...

The nanny might not have been caught doing whatever it was before, so came with good references. The nanny to The Queen's father & Uncle David was brutal to them until she was found out and sacked. The Queen herself sacked Charles' nanny for not carrying out her wishes about his food. It's entirely possible to employ someone in good faith having done all the background checks and then find out something you weren't aware of.

 

[Diotima]

I'm reading this book now, too. Yes, I was too curious although I feel sick to my stomach reading it. I regret buying it already - it's so syrupy about Meghan and written in the most horrible style.

I hoped that this book would make me understand their side better. I wanted so much to like her, and it was so disappointing to be disappointed in her. Maybe the press really mis-represented her/their decisions and actions, and maybe there's a heap of misunderstandings between the oh-so-wonderful couple and the rest of the world.

But this book, as everybody else has said here, does nothing to endear them to me (or anyone else). They sound like two egocentric whining narcissists.

And the worst? They continue to behave in a way that supports the devastating impression readers of the book get. Meghan moans about social media and media but ONLY as it concerns her. She has never shown a shred of interest in any charity or initiative that is not directly connected to herself.

Obviously, Princess Eugenie identifies with scoliosis sufferers etc - it's always an easy first step to connect to problems one knows intimately. But Meghan seems to navel-gaze to a shocking degree, to the exclusion of the rest of the world. And the book replicates this navel-gazing and wants us to agree that this is the right angle to look at the world, the UK, the BRF.

Both Harry and Meghan appear as petty, self-obsessed hypocrites.

The authors pour on the praise with buckets. Everything Meghan ever does or did is simply perfect. And she prides herself on it, why shouldn't she? Even packing her suitcase or peeing behind a bush is an achievement of epic proportions. And she's so beautiful!!!!

And after I just watched the docu about Princess Anne at the occasion of her 70th birthday, it strikes me even more how fame-hungry they are. Princess Anne seeks out the charities and people that others don't see. She's neither young nor glamorous and most of her day-to-day work receives very little coverage. Her life's work has been about others, not herself.

How can Harry who knows a woman like his aunt so well fall for Meghan? How can he fail to understand that the RF needs Anne's work ethic and long-term commitment, and can't cater to the limelight-hungry narcissism?

The press has certainly been printing misogynist, hateful nonsense about the married-in women of the Windsor men. It must have been incredibly hard for all of them to carry on regardless. But they did.

By putting so much emphasis on expensive clothes, sky-high heels and tons of make-up, Meghan has catered exactly to this misogynist angle. She has played the game. I remember the engagement dress - expensive, ugly and never-to-be-seen-again. Didn't make a good impression. Not the way to nail a feminist flag to the pole. Nothing about such choices in the book until now.

Well, I guess I will continue to read until I find the explanation for the flouncing and door-slamming. Was there really no dignified and unhurtful way of removing themselves into private life? Let's see.

But I'm not optimistic. The writers seem to see the BRF as celebrity circus, as mere backdrop for the amaaazing Meghan. I hope neither the Queen nor Prince William nor the Prince of Wales read it. It would hurt them deeply. Not because of the petty gossip but because of the suspicion that Harry has no understanding of the position he was born into, and could convey it neither to his wife nor her ghost writers.

 

[Denville]

The nanny might not have been caught doing whatever it was before, so came with good references. The nanny to The Queen's father & Uncle David was brutal to them until she was found out and sacked. The Queen herself sacked Charles' nanny for not carrying out her wishes about his food. It's entirely possible to employ someone in good faith having done all the background checks and then find out something you weren't aware of.

Ive never heard that the queen sacked a nanny.. and i doubt if she had one leaving in the middle of the night.. As for the nanny to David and Bertie, that was 100 years ago, when royals and upper class people DID leave all the child rearing to Nanny and often didn't notice what was going on in the nursery till something big happened. I can't believe that a concerned mature pair of parents in today's wrold would end up with some nanny who was unkind or seriously bad at the job.. Im sure that Norland Nannies are not the kind who are going to take pictures of their charge or get drunk...

 

[JessRulz]

I spent my day reading the book, and came away thinking it was quite bland - in both the style it was written, and the contents. Nothing really felt 'new' or 'exciting', which may be because of the endless stream of reporting on the Sussexes over the past four years that everything that was 'revealed' was just a rehash of everything already printed, and because all the 'new' tidbits were given out in the published extracts or reviews this week.

The bulk of the book focuses on the couple's courtship, wedding, early marriage - the parts where you would expect the reasoning for their "finding freedom" and split from The Firm amounts to the last three-odd chapters that amount for maybe 50 pages maximum of the book. So IMO I found for a book touting to 'tell their side' and 'explain why they needed to find their freedom', it didn't do much at all to give any reasons apart from a) the press was awful, and b) they felt unsupported. Which, is nothing we didn't already know...

Coupled with the editorial errors (Diana didn't die in 1996, she also never wore the Vladimir Tiara; various gramma and prose mistakes - I found odd the way the authors would use full names for some people every time they were brought up again, but then only first names for others a strange differentiation), it left me feeling "meh" about the book as a whole.

3/10, would not recommend.

 

[Lilyflo]

Ive never heard that the queen sacked a nanny.. and i doubt if she had one leaving in the middle of the night..

The Queen sacked Helen Lightbody and I didn't say she did it in the middle of the night.

I can't believe that a concerned mature pair of parents in today's wrold would end up with some nanny who was unkind or seriously bad at the job..

I can and I know people who have had a similar situation.

Im sure that Norland Nannies are not the kind who are going to take pictures of their charge or get drunk...

Do we know if it was a Norland Nanny or what they did?

 

[JR76]

Do we know if it was a Norland Nanny or what they did?

Weren't there articles about Harry and Meghan not wanting a Norland nanny for Archie?

 

[Lilyflo]

I spent my day reading the book, (...)
3/10, would not recommend.

I agree with your review.

 

[Pranter]

The book isn't anything exciting or new, mostly a compilation of what we already know. I read it because I typically read most of the books out about Royals and I like to see what is actually in the book as opposed to sections posted by the media etc.

If one is interested in reading it I'd wait till it goes on discount or even free Kindle Unlimited book (which I'm sure it will eventually). I would of actually returned it (Kindle) but I want to keep it for reference since I am seeing a number of misquotes etc out there.



LaRae

 

[ACO]

Archie is their child. It doesn’t matter why someone was let go in regard of caring for him. As his parents that is their job to PROTECT their child. So frankly it doesn’t matter your opinion of any of them. You were not there. You have no idea that happened and frankly it seems no one really cares. If a parent doesn’t want you near their child. You won’t be near their child. The end.

Archie’s nanny (who the media tried but failed to doxx) stayed with them until the move to California it seems. That’s when we stopped seeing her. It’s understandable if she wanted to return to the U.K.

 

[Helen.CH]

She was employed from an agency, I read. We don't know the circumstances. Later they employed a fulltime nanny who stayed with them through the last months of their time with the RF and the months in Canada and she wasn't sacked. She left because she was homesick for the UK.

This other woman was a temporary employee who did something that caused her to be sacked in the middle of the night. If I had to guess I would say it was due to her being not there in the nursery area and she couldn't be found for quite a while. Archie was probably crying, alerting the parents.

The thing is, if you are employed to look after a newborn during the night you should be there at all times (apart from toilet breaks of course) to do just that and she obviously was found wanting.

I did not read about the different nannies they employed, but think that your suggestion makes them look even worse.
to hire and fire somebody the first day tells a lot, who on earth and how do they employ their staff and someone so important looking after their only child?
and again the second nanny, she left because she was homesick? seriously?
if they had chosen a Norland-lady none of this had happened but of course H&M can't do like W&K or other experienced royals, they need to do it differently.
I guess even if only half of the book was true everybody gets fed up with those two very quickly, it's nervewracking to deal with them obviously.