The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Current Events Archive (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/)
-   -   General News about the Sussex Family, Part One: May 2019 - March 2020 (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/general-news-about-the-sussex-family-part-one-may-2019-march-2020-a-46407.html)

Ista 06-27-2019 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO (Post 2234748)
The press was fairly chill with Kate during her pregnancies. I canít recall the over the top attacks like they do with Meghan. Please correct me if Iím wrong. I think thatís what surprised me the most. The nastiness during her pregnancy and now maternity leave. And then they have the gall to act surprised the Sussexes keep their distance.

I know negativity sells but Archie wasnít even a week old before he experienced his first taste of nastiness directed at him. I guess this is just their future. At least they know now more than ever. So they will do whatís needed to protect their family. Who can blame them?

I think it depends how you define "chill." There were the endless implications that her hyperemesis gravidum was made up, and a lot of the same kind nastiness that was directed at Meghan, that she wasn't working enough, and so on.

I absolutely do not blame Harry and Meghan for setting boundaries and trying to protect their family. Who wouldn't do that? But they are also not completely unique, as JR76 points out.

Lothwen 06-27-2019 07:27 PM

Ack... blame my “mom brain “. It makes me stupid, apparently....

I know they don’t run their patronages. They work on behalf of them. I still think it’s ok to criticize them if it’s warranted.

MaiaMia_53 06-30-2019 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO (Post 2234485)
During the Australian tour Harry and Meghan surprised the press by going to the back of the charter to thank them before they landed in Tonga. I remember Jobson speaking of it on one of the shows at the time.

So they will interact when they feel it is appropriate. Edwards has complained of the lack of access to Meghan before, so this isn't really surprising he bringing it up again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqui24 (Post 2234489)
With all due respect, after almost 3 years of abuse for anything and everything, it's hardly target of the moment anymore. I have no doubt misogyny isn't anything new, but to be so bold and open about it in this day and age with the social changes that have happened, it's shocking. And the I don't want to be there because you don't want me to be, but you should invite me over for lunch? Really? Did I read that right? :lol:

And one consistent theme seems to be demanding more access. Especially to Archie. Being that he's 7 weeks old, how much more access do they want? The Sussexes have actually been pretty generous with sharing photos with us.

Indeed. I think there are a number of factors going on. Even the Cambridges had the chance to be very private and away from the press for awhile after they married.

As both brothers reached early adulthood, they often granted press interviews. Plus Harry was very accessible to the press on tours. He often hung out with certain members of the press. But there were times when he displayed irritation with press intrusiveness, such as the time when he was involved in military service abroad. A deal was struck with certain media outlets to cover Harry secretly and to release the footage at a later date for security reasons. It was crucial to protect the operation he was involved with as well as his fellow soldiers.

The members of the press who were used to having close access to Harry when he was a bachelor seem incensed (Arthur Edwards, Duncan Larcombe, et al) at no longer having that kind of access. But as other posters have already indicated, the media of all stripes have only themselves to blame for the OTT and over-critical way they have too often written about Meghan. In addition, in the age of social media and the Internet, the print media and royal reporters have become less important and thus less powerful. That's a good development IMO.

Harry (and William too) understandably wish to protect their families, in ways they were unable to protect their mother. Harry is especially adamant about protecting Meghan, in view of the nastiness that ensued as soon as information about her background was publicly revealed. Not all media outlets have been egregious, but there has been an overabundance of criticism, and too much gossip and making things up in the absence of information about Meghan post-wedding. There are entirely too many stories every single day being spread all over the Internet, and the vast majority are speculative, trivial, fictional and perpetuate OTT, often ridiculous narratives.

If the press had calmed down and acted with more professionalism, Harry might be a bit forthcoming now. At this point, however, I don't think there's any hope that Harry will want to be too open about their lives. They will give a little, but not a lot. Much of the press have proved themselves to be untrustworthy.

Meanwhile, Meghan is simply following what is expected of her as a royal, and adhering to what Harry wants in regard to privacy. However, I believe Meghan will be adamant about using her voice in a positive way to promote the causes she is passionate about, and to support Harry and the royal firm. Meghan is used to being active, busy, and outspoken on important issues. She will never be a passive wallflower. As a royal, she's made necessary adjustments, but I think she will continue to be hands-on and outspoken in ways she can with all of her patronages, and in the work she and Harry do together for their various charities.

It seems to me that for the foreseeable future, the media will never get enough of the Sussexes as long as the public interest in them remains at such a high. The frenzy has increased rather than subsided since their marriage, and since the recent birth of Archie a year after the royal wedding.

Hallo girl 06-30-2019 06:55 AM

You state it is better now that in the age of social media and internet the press is less important which you think is a good thing, but you then go on to say that there are too many speculative stories all over the internet.
Never more speculative than on these forums,

The internet and social media is not controlled as the press are,which allows all sort of rubbish to be written.

By the way the embargo re Harrys first bout of service in Afghanistan was broken by an Australian publication, the British publications adhered to it.

Another consideration is that William was known for dropping little titbits of information to see if it reached the press, he then knew whom he could trust. Could some of this mis information printed by the press be the result of titbits being dropped to establish trust.

BaiSoSo 06-30-2019 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallo girl (Post 2235479)
You state it is better now that in the age of social media and internet the press is less important which you think is a good thing, but you then go on to say that there are too many speculative stories all over the internet.
Never more speculative than on these forums,

The internet and social media is not controlled as the press are,which allows all sort of rubbish to be written.

By the way the embargo re Harrys first bout of service in Afghanistan was broken by an Australian publication, the British publications adhered to it.

Another consideration is that William was known for dropping little titbits of information to see if it reached the press, he then knew whom he could trust. Could some of this mis information printed by the press be the result of titbits being dropped to establish trust.

As with most things there are positives and negatives. The internet and social media can be an asset to getting important messages to a large group of people. Unfortunately that same tool can be used to send harmful, demeaning messages, it usually depends on the user's intentions.

muriel 06-30-2019 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 (Post 2235437)

If the press had calmed down and acted with more professionalism, Harry might be a bit forthcoming now. At this point, however, I don't think there's any hope that Harry will want to be too open about their lives. They will give a little, but not a lot. Much of the press have proved themselves to be untrustworthy.

A few thoughts:

> The UK Press is not one amorphous individual or organisation, but a disparate bunch of individuals and organisations. Every publication has their own editorial view, and one that evolves over time.

> Given the goodwill still around the couple, what H&M appear to have done with great skill is unite the whole press pack against them. It is rare to see such a united view across the media. Even loyal regulars like Arthur Edwards who have known Harry since he was a child appear to be quite disenchanted with the way things are being run. Each of us can have our views that caused this, but I for one do not believe it is driven by racism, that Meghan is American or divorced.

> I appreciate the importance of social media and the internet in communications, but members of the BRF need to carry the local media with them. It is a symbiotic, two way relationship, and one that we have seen work well over the years. After the disastrous 1990s, the BRF, IMO, did a highly skilled job of engaging directly with the media, and re-establishing a new order that allowed individual members the privacy they needed in their private lives and, at the same time, provided the Press with the information needed to do their jobs. This arrangement appears to have been skillfully evolved over time, and appears to be broadly still in place, other than for H&M.

> This is not an us vs them game. IMO, if H&M are sensible, they will need to get around to engaging with the media to reestablish the relationship, and work from there. It is not the first time the BRF have done this, and they will be well advised to get guidance from Charles and Camilla who did an excellent job of this.

BaiSoSo 06-30-2019 08:16 AM

Quote:

Given the goodwill still around the couple, what H&M appear to have done with great skill is unite the whole press pack against them. It is rare to see such a united view across the media. Even loyal regulars like Arthur Edwards who have known Harry since he was a child appear to be quite disenchanted with the way things are being run. Each of us can have our views that caused this, but I for one do not believe it is driven by racism, that Meghan is American or divorced.
Edwards and others are complaining that Harry isn't a party guy any more willing to have drinks with them. Well when you get married you have to grow up and prioritize your wife/family over journalists/photographers. And when said journalists/photographers go out of their way to say harmful (usually untrue) things about your wife then you cut them off...not go begging to them. As for why they do it. I think it is mostly about money but there are racial undertones especially when they use words like ghetto, vulgar, angry....terms used in the past to other or dismiss people of color, especially blacks ...those that haven't experienced it may not see it but it doesn't mean it isn't there

Quote:

I appreciate the importance of social media and the internet in communications, but members of the BRF need to carry the local media with them. It is a symbiotic, two way relationship, and one that we have seen work well over the years. After the disastrous 1990s, the BRF, IMO, did a highly skilled job of engaging directly with the media, and re-establishing a new order that allowed individual members the privacy they needed in their private lives and, at the same time, provided the Press with the information needed to do their jobs. This arrangement appears to have been skillfully evolved over time, and appears to be broadly still in place, other than for H&M.
However, the current media doesn't see it has a two way relationship, it's give me what I demand or I will write mean things about you. Edwards pretty much said that.

Quote:

This is not an us vs them game. IMO, if H&M are sensible, they will need to get around to engaging with the media to reestablish the relationship, and work from there. It is not the first time the BRF have done this, and they will be well advised to get guidance from Charles and Camilla who did an excellent job of this.
Times are different. C&C are from a different generation and had to rely on the media to reach the audience they related to. H&M relate more to the younger generations who don't rely on print media for their news, especially when they can get the information straight from the source and it is proven that the written media is not giving factual information. It would also be well advised if the media could change with the times as well

Hallo girl 06-30-2019 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaiSoSo (Post 2235497)
Edwards and others are complaining that Harry isn't a party guy any more willing to have drinks with them. Well when you get married you have to grow up and prioritize your wife/family over journalists/photographers. And when said journalists/photographers go out of their way to say harmful (usually untrue) things about your wife then you cut them off...not go begging to them. As for why they do it. I think it is mostly about money but there are racial undertones especially when they use words like ghetto, vulgar, angry....terms used in the past to other or dismiss people of color, especially blacks ...those that haven't experienced it may not see it but it doesn't mean it isn't there

However, the current media doesn't see it has a two way relationship, it's give me what I demand or I will write mean things about you. Edwards pretty much said that.

Times are different. C&C are from a different generation and had to rely on the media to reach the audience they related to. H&M relate more to the younger generations who don't rely on print media for their news, especially when they can get the information straight from the source and it is proven that the written media is not giving factual information. It would also be well advised if the media could change with the times as well


I thought Murials post was a considered review of the situation, but you have used words on here that she never used.

Arther Edwards was not talking about going partying he was talking about an off the record reception that allowed the press to build up relationships with the royals.
Do you really think the internet is giving factual information.

Like me, Murial, it would appears remembers the War of the |Wales when the media was used by both parties, it was destructive.

You have inferred on your post that M & H are going down the road of providing information to chosen outlets/ reporters or whatever you want to call them. If that is the case they need to take care.

As Murial said it is a 2 way street between the public and the Royals.

My fear is that M & H are trying to go down the road of playing hard to get to up the interest when they do appear in public or give some titbit to the favoured media outlet. It will back fire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 2235487)
A few thoughts:

> The UK Press is not one amorphous individual or organisation, but a disparate bunch of individuals and organisations. Every publication has their own editorial view, and one that evolves over time.

> Given the goodwill still around the couple, what H&M appear to have done with great skill is unite the whole press pack against them. It is rare to see such a united view across the media. Even loyal regulars like Arthur Edwards who have known Harry since he was a child appear to be quite disenchanted with the way things are being run. Each of us can have our views that caused this, but I for one do not believe it is driven by racism, that Meghan is American or divorced.

> I appreciate the importance of social media and the internet in communications, but members of the BRF need to carry the local media with them. It is a symbiotic, two way relationship, and one that we have seen work well over the years. After the disastrous 1990s, the BRF, IMO, did a highly skilled job of engaging directly with the media, and re-establishing a new order that allowed individual members the privacy they needed in their private lives and, at the same time, provided the Press with the information needed to do their jobs. This arrangement appears to have been skillfully evolved over time, and appears to be broadly still in place, other than for H&M.

> This is not an us vs them game. IMO, if H&M are sensible, they will need to get around to engaging with the media to reestablish the relationship, and work from there. It is not the first time the BRF have done this, and they will be well advised to get guidance from Charles and Camilla who did an excellent job of this.

Great post, considered, thoughtful, showing understanding of the situation.

jacqui24 06-30-2019 11:07 AM

Someone mentioned the goodwill towards them. What goodwill? From the people, sure I believe that. From the media? They have been sour since the relationship came to light in October 2016. After they were called out by Harry’s letter, they were all up in arms about it, but some of the blatant racist headlines did subdue a bit.

One thing we shouldn’t forget the the reputation of the British press themselves. Some of them have already been playing defensive because they’ve been called out by others for their behavior. It’s long been known, long before Meghan came into the picture, the nastiness that is British press. So I’m not sure they are so necessary in the age of social media and globalization.

Until they all calm down a bit, I just don’t see how is a mutually beneficial relationship possible. Because at this moment, they just keep wanting more access. Especially to Archie. But that is unreasonable given what the Sussexes have already shared, which is very reasonable amount. Meghan and Harry have the right to protect their son and should be able to do so without unethical attacks from reporters. And yes, I used the word unethical because that’s exactly what reporters are when they use the tactic give me as much access I want or I will write hit pieces not based on facts.

ACO 06-30-2019 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallo girl (Post 2235500)
I thought Murials post was a considered review of the situation, but you have used words on here that she never used.

Arther Edwards was not talking about going partying he was talking about an off the record reception that allowed the press to build up relationships with the royals.
Do you really think the internet is giving factual information.

Like me, Murial, it would appears remembers the War of the |Wales when the media was used by both parties, it was destructive.

You have inferred on your post that M & H are going down the road of providing information to chosen outlets/ reporters or whatever you want to call them. If that is the case they need to take care.

As Murial said it is a 2 way street between the public and the Royals.

My fear is that M & H are trying to go down the road of playing hard to get to up the interest when they do appear in public or give some titbit to the favoured media outlet. It will back fire.


Arthur Edwards has written at least three pieces now where he has basically blamed Meghan for the change in Harry. In one of them he very specifically used language in where he all but said "Unless you give us what we want we will write horrible things about you." We all debated that piece and he is back at it again only was tamer in his words.

There is no argument that the royals needs the press and the press need the royals. It is a partnership in a lot of ways but times have changed and the royals are seeing there are other forms of press to be head as well. Their reach is beyond just the British royal beat and I do think that makes that group very nervous. And it should.

BaiSoSo 06-30-2019 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallo girl (Post 2235500)
I thought Murials post was a considered review of the situation, but you have used words on here that she never used.

Arther Edwards was not talking about going partying he was talking about an off the record reception that allowed the press to build up relationships with the royals.
Do you really think the internet is giving factual information.

Like me, Murial, it would appears remembers the War of the |Wales when the media was used by both parties, it was destructive.

You have inferred on your post that M & H are going down the road of providing information to chosen outlets/ reporters or whatever you want to call them. If that is the case they need to take care.

As Murial said it is a 2 way street between the public and the Royals.

My fear is that M & H are trying to go down the road of playing hard to get to up the interest when they do appear in public or give some titbit to the favoured media outlet. It will back fire.

I didn't say it wasn't, I just offered another point of view. Edwards has said that Harry used to go out for drinks with them and has referred to Harry's 'fun times' Muriel said it should be a two way relationship and I pointed out the British media don't see it that way...they wanted H&M to do things their way or else they will present a negative story about them.

H&M are trying to protect their family and find a balance between public and personal. As Harry has said this isn't a game it is their lives. Also why wouldn't they provide their information to those that treat them with respect, especially when reports from some groups have lead to threats against them. That's how most humans will respond.

Osipi 06-30-2019 02:06 PM

Sometimes I think the press generates more discussions on these threads than the actual royals do. :lol:

Perhaps that's the problem. We're giving the media more credence and bandwidth then they really deserve in the first place.

theroyalfly 06-30-2019 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2235640)
Sometimes I think the press generates more discussions on these threads than the actual royals do. :lol:

Perhaps that's the problem. We're giving the media more credence and bandwidth then they really deserve in the first place.

Indeed.:biggrin:

Ista 06-30-2019 02:45 PM

I keep saying it: the press isn't going away, Harry and Meghan are going to have to deal with them, and they need to figure out a professional way to set boundaries, but at the same time acknowledge that the press serve a purpose, and develop a plan to make that work for them. No one has had worse press over the years than Charles and Camilla, and no matter their personal feelings, they somehow have managed to make the relationship with the press functional and mostly polite if not friendly.

jacqui24 06-30-2019 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ista (Post 2235676)
I keep saying it: the press isn't going away, Harry and Meghan are going to have to deal with them, and they need to figure out a professional way to set boundaries, but at the same time acknowledge that the press serve a purpose, and develop a plan to make that work for them. No one has had worse press over the years than Charles and Camilla, and no matter their personal feelings, they somehow have managed to make the relationship with the press functional and mostly polite if not friendly.


As for Charles and Camilla, they aren’t faced with the difficult decision of how much to expose their children to the media and haven’t in years. The press isn’t so interested in their private life. Many comment on them being polite with press on engagements, but Meghan does so as well. I do think there is something to be said about the packaging from CH though.

ACO 06-30-2019 03:05 PM

And I do agree the royals have to work with the press but they press also need to respect their privacy. They can’t have it both ways. Harry and Meghan do their job. Archie is not the same (as the press will even point out) so they should not expect the same. He is the 7th in line.

The press has been negative toward them since day one. They took a pause for the wedding but have been back with a vengeance since. So it really does not matter what they do as we have plenty examples they make the biggest issue out of nothing.

jacqui24 06-30-2019 03:19 PM

Ultimately, the press is upset because they have an insatiable appetite for Sussexes’ Private life that is not being satisfied.

I think if the press could stop themselves with the constant reporting and speculation on the Sussexes a bit, that relationship can improve.

Madame Verseau 06-30-2019 03:38 PM

I also think this is about power for the British press. It thinks it can control the BRF with its tactics. These reporters are upset the Sussexes are actively resisting them; that even weaponizing Meghan's family is not working. They are not entitled to their lives or their baby.

Ista 06-30-2019 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqui24 (Post 2235690)
Ultimately, the press is upset because they have an insatiable appetite for Sussexes’ Private life that is not being satisfied.

I think if the press could stop themselves with the constant reporting and speculation on the Sussexes a bit, that relationship can improve.


H&M really can't afford to make it all a personal vendetta. As I said, draw the boundaries, and don't get drawn into any kind of power struggle with the press.

ACO 06-30-2019 03:43 PM

I agree that Charles and Camilla have managed to work well with the press over the years but let’s be real here... they treat them differently than the Cambridges and Sussexes. They expect different things. That’s just how it is with the “younger” generation in general.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises