The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Library (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f61/)
-   -   Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of A Modern Royal Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f61/finding-freedom-harry-and-meghan-and-the-making-of-a-modern-royal-family-47438.html)

suztav 08-03-2020 05:19 PM

Bottom line: The Crown must always win. And, it does, always win!

Poor Meghan ... she thought that she could overcome 1,000 years of British history. You think she would have learned from her mother-in-law.

As for Harry -- poor soul!

Betsypaige 08-03-2020 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy7 (Post 2331937)
Amen to this. It is so so true. Certain institutions are very conservative and all are bureaucratic. Change happens but it is slow.

Even so, there is only so much change that would happen. Harry and Meghan didnít just want one big change, like getting rid of primogeniture, which fortunately is no more. They donít like the monarchy, they donít like what it represents, and they donít respect it. They wanted to create a revolution from within, I think they would have been a pain in the Royal derriŤre because theyíd always have been dissatisfied with something, and I think they would have needed constant scrutiny.

Denville 08-03-2020 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helen.CH (Post 2331957)
Making money is a point I cannot understand, they have enough money, heritage to come and like the Yorks have shown before, the firm would even pay if things went wrong . So what on earth does motivate them to make more money?
But of course this is in the dephts of human character.
And this rivalry between the brothers, If it's true it's just another proof how far H's opinion is from reality, he had all the chances and what did he do? Working or I say playing a little bit soldier but when not being protected and filmed in Afghanistan he got bored of it. Going out in Naziuniforms or playing strip poker, how old was he then? Instead of creating his own career he played along, has no working experience, no studies done, just nothing and

Of course they dotn have enough money. They were getting £2M a year from Charles adn they probably still are. really don't know what you mean about the Yorks.. or about Harry being bored with Soldiering.. He only got bored when he had to give up active serivce...

Denville 08-03-2020 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2331977)
I think they would have tried to do a lot more, theyíd have tried to push the boundaries, change from within. IMO, they couldnít be trusted. Harry and Meghan wanted to do things their way; they arenít team players, they donít respect the Institution.

I don't really know what they wanted and tend to think that it was just to be free to do whatever they liked.. perhaps fire off the occasional political comment?

duchessrachel 08-03-2020 09:44 PM

The thing that stands out the most to me about Finding Freedom more than likely being factual is that Harry and Meghan have not denied anything in it. They did say they did not participate in the writing of it, but did not take issue with the content. For two people as sue happy as them, I would think there would already be lawsuits pending if they did not agree with the book. However, far from showing that they were mistreated :rolleyes:, as I am sure they hope people will think, it shows them to be unappreciative, spoiled, entitled, and self-centered.

Denville 08-04-2020 04:36 AM

Even if they had nothing to do with it, I agree that they probably hoped it was from a favourable journalist and it would give a picture of them as two free spirits ready to lead a new life in the US and shaking off the shackles of the old fashioned UK Monarchy...
but it seems that they come across as silly, throwing fits about trivial things...

Hallo girl 08-04-2020 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuchessMia (Post 2331673)
Harry & Meghan wanted their lives to matter, but they couldnít overshadow the other members of the family. Harry wanted his wife to be treated fairly and not as some interloper. None of that is wrong or deserving of 3 years of racist, biased, misogynistic lies and stories. What I donít understand is the uproar about this book as compared to others that are written with and without the approval of the BRF. Is it because it pulls the veil back and exposes the machinations of the royal houses?

The Windsors care deeply what the public thinks of them. All the pageantry, nationalism, photo exclusives, tours are meant to further the monarchy beyond Elizabethís death. Hence the 4 generation picture at Christmas. Everything is to ensure the monarchy is strong enough to withstand political upheaval, Brexit, feckless heirs and unpopular heirs. The public must never question their funding of the family. Books like Finding Freedom show this family is no better than your neighbors.They have petty jealousies. They allow their employees to run amok. There are misunderstandings and slights. All the Windsors have are titles and gobs of money they inherited, not earned. Strip all of the pomp & circumstance away and they are simply a dysfunctional family with a creaking, antiquated business run by a CEO, who should step down and allow new blood in. I actually hope things do change so the next generation wonít be stifled in their pursuit of their happiness. That Charlotte, Louisí lives will matter beyond their usefulness to Future King George.

Well to be honest with you she is our CEO and we are quite happy with her.

Meghan had a great deal to offer and could have encouraged change from within , but IMO she believed her own hype and thought she could go in and change a 1000 years of history just by being there. There is more to it.

Denville 08-04-2020 05:25 AM

What did she have to offer exactly? She did some charity work as a kid, so do loads of people. She was an actress and was employed, that's a plus but she was never a brilliant actress or very successful. She was pretty enough to make a living at the job...She had a blog, so do all actors nowadays...
Far as I can see all she had to offer was that she was confident in speaking in public, due to her acting training, and was willing to do the royal job (for a year).

Heavs 08-04-2020 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2332086)
What did she have to offer exactly? She did some charity work as a kid, so do loads of people. She was an actress and was employed, that's a plus but she was never a brilliant actress or very successful. She was pretty enough to make a living at the job...She had a blog, so do all actors nowadays...
Far as I can see all she had to offer was that she was confident in speaking in public, due to her acting training, and was willing to do the royal job (for a year).

Well most of that was seen as a potentially good thing. Not to mention a bi racial woman who had been divorced as a senior royal was seen by some as reflecting the times and how things had moved on from virgin teenaged Earl's daughter in a generation.

The institution itself has adapted and changed over the millennium but you don't make changes by coming in to an old firm and demanding nebulous change right now then leaving as quickly as quickly as you arrived when there's resistance because there a dozens of other people involved. It's taken many of the now successful married ins and born royals in various reigning Houses to find their feet.

It seems a lot of their complaints involve them not being given a free reign to do exactly what they wanted, which is a no go in any business. Or miscalculating that they were so popular and modern that they should be allowed to do what they thought was best. Which again is not the way any sustainable company works.

I still really like things like "Together" that as a very practical and touching project. More of things like that and less of pettiness could have worked and then things could have gradually changed for them, especially when Charles became King.

Denville 08-04-2020 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavs (Post 2332089)
Well most of that was seen as a potentially good thing. Not to mention a bi racial woman who had been divorced as a senior royal was seen by some as reflecting the times and how things had moved on from virgin teenaged Earl's daughter in a generation.

The institution itself has adapted and changed over the millennium but you don't make changes by coming in to an old firm and demanding nebulous change right now then leaving as quickly as quickly as you arrived when there's resistance because there a dozens of other people involved. It's taken many of the now successful married ins and born royals in various reigning Houses to find their feet.

It seems a lot of their complaints involve them not being given a free reign to do exactly what they wanted, which is a no go in any business. Or miscalculating that they were so popular and modern that they should be allowed to do what they thought was best. Which again is not the way any sustainable company works.

I am not so sure she really wanted to change anything per se, except when it impinged on her freedom. OK she seems to have given Harry a tutorial or 2 in "liberal Democratic viewpoint" on politics..
But you can't really change the monarchy into a liberal republican body, it just isn't one.. nd even modest changes take time. Really I don't get the impression she was all that bothered about primogeniture or curtsying to the queen or any of the things that might have bothered some Americans.
Perhaps she didn't really intend to stay that long, so it didn't impinge on her life that much and she was happy to play along with the rituals for a while, as she was aware that becoming a royal duchess would make her famous....
Call me cynical - but i cant help feeling now that the main thing was to secure a way to be half in and half out.. which ultimately they dint get. That way she would have been able to keep up her "royal brand" exposure, have the security of being royal, and also have the freedom to spend time in the US and make their own money.
I think the fact that they went to the US was a sign that that was always their real goal, not leading a life of quiet charity work in Canada with maybe a teeny bit of money making on the side...

Alison H 08-04-2020 05:55 AM

Diana left school without a single O-level, and had no experience of anything very much when she married Prince Charles, but, whatever faults she had, she used the Royal platform to very good effect. The pictures of her shaking hands with people living with HIV did a huge amount to change attitudes, because anything that a senior Royal does makes headlines. There is quite a bit of scope for each individual to focus on causes that are important to them personally - Eugenie with scoliosis, Beatrice with dyslexia, Camilla with osteoporosis, Charles with organic foods. Meghan had a great opportunity.

Tatiana Maria 08-04-2020 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2331979)
Harry and Meghan didnít just want one big change, like getting rid of primogeniture, which fortunately is no more.

The British monarchy continues to practice primogeniture. It is anticipated that the throne and the bulk of the financial inheritance will be passed to the Queen's eldest child (Charles), followed by his eldest child (William), and so forth.

Denville 08-04-2020 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2332092)
Diana left school without a single O-level, and had no experience of anything very much when she married Prince Charles, but, whatever faults she had, she used the Royal platform to very good effect. The pictures of her shaking hands with people living with HIV did a huge amount to change attitudes, because anything that a senior Royal does makes headlines. There is quite a bit of scope for each individual to focus on causes that are important to them personally - Eugenie with scoliosis, Beatrice with dyslexia, Camilla with osteoporosis, Charles with organic foods. Meghan had a great opportunity.

Diana did but I think it took a while for her to get into big scale charity work and to learn a bit about the background of charities. And I think she didn't really approach them from an intellectual point of view, at least at first.
But IMO Meghan wasn't all that into the causes per se... She has the general "liberal Democratic" (in the American party sense) viewpoint on things, but IS her heart really in doing good? or is it more about Meghan and her being seen as a philanthropist?
There's no law that says anyone has to be a charity worker or activist or donor.. but I just am increasingly cynical about her commitment to charities. I Cant help feeling that insofar as they quit the RF it was more to do with having freedom and making money.. tho' I think that part of their preferred self image is to be glitzy global philanthropists like Angelina Jolie or the Clooneys. Its part of the "new royalty".. that you make a lot of money in Hollywood or business and then appear at Red Carpet events for various charities and do a bit of visiting places that aren't so glamourous (with a camera crew).
But I think it isn't really what genuine charity work is about. the people who really do it are little old ladies who work in a shop, or cook Meals on Wheels...or people who visit the old and sick, or who work in war torn countries.. and who DONT get their names in the paper...
Yes if Meg's heart was really in some causes, the RF is as good a place to work for them as any other place.. her visiting them or doing a bit of hands on work, would help a lot... But she didn't want to stick it out with the RF..
Since they left, there have been one or 2 sightings of her doing something.. a couple of Canadian charities got a visit, and they delivered food . Maybe they are doing a lot privately but i feel if they were, it woudl show up on the net at some stage...

Moonmaiden23 08-04-2020 07:46 AM

I always got the feeling that Meghan's commitment to her animal charities like Mayhew was genuine. I am not sure she is a good enough actress to fake what seems to be a real connection to dogs.

As for tutoring Harry in liberal "wokeness"...he didn't need it. He seemed to lean in that direction way long before Meghan entered the picture.He was simply emboldened by having a fellow traveler as his wife:whistling:

Denville 08-04-2020 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 (Post 2332104)
I always got the feeling that Meghan's commitment to her animal charities like Mayhew was genuine. I am not sure she is a good enough actress to fake what seems to be a real connection to dogs.

As for tutoring Harry in liberal "wokeness"...he didn't need it. He seemed to lean in that direction way long before Meghan entered the picture.He was simply emboldened by having a fellow traveler as his wife:whistling:

I don't know of any evidence that harry was a "liberal thinker" before Meg came along. Maybe im mistaken but didn't he say to T Markle to give Donald Trump a chance as President? and as a member of the RF, he would not have spoken about anything political anyway...

ACO 08-04-2020 09:27 AM

Harry was going #HeForShe and talking feminism and the like long before Meghan was in his life. He didn't need her to think those thoughts.

Betsypaige 08-04-2020 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2332092)
Diana left school without a single O-level, and had no experience of anything very much when she married Prince Charles, but, whatever faults she had, she used the Royal platform to very good effect. The pictures of her shaking hands with people living with HIV did a huge amount to change attitudes, because anything that a senior Royal does makes headlines. There is quite a bit of scope for each individual to focus on causes that are important to them personally - Eugenie with scoliosis, Beatrice with dyslexia, Camilla with osteoporosis, Charles with organic foods. Meghan had a great opportunity.

She didnít want that. She wanted to do things her way, she didnít want to adjust to the monarchy. This goes for Harry, too. In words and actions, they have shown how they have no respect for the institution; to them itís archaic and out of touch, and they donít see anything good about it in its current state.

Claire 08-04-2020 10:02 AM

I read in the newspaper , unsure when, that FF was meant to come out last year, but it was held back as they wanted to cover Archie and the visit to Africa. Okay _ if the book was written up for publication in September it would have been the first source for many of the tabloid headlines that hit around September 2019 - January 2020. Of course I think it might be considerable thinner. Will take a look when I read the book.
How long did it take for the book to be written and taken to the publisher before it was pulled. It just looks like Meghan and Harry didn’t have a year marriage before they wanted to have their version put out. Has anyone else looked at the timing of the book compared to the events? Of course you can rewrite a book , but why would they have wanted a book written at that point in time?

Denville 08-04-2020 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2332123)
She didnít want that. She wanted to do things her way, she didnít want to adjust to the monarchy. This goes for Harry, too. In words and actions, they have shown how they have no respect for the institution; to them itís archaic and out of touch, and they donít see anything good about it in its current state.

I dont think they are really all that concerned about in itself. I mean I don't think they burn with indignation at the thought that its a monarchy and therefore not egalitarian.. or that it has all these old fashioned rituals that they think of as "out of touch..."
but they care about how it impinges on THEIR lives. I think that there is a bit of simmering resentment in Harry that because he was born 2 years later, HE wont ever be King or POW..
I don't think that Harry ever really took much interest in politics till he got Meghan. He would hardly have been saying stuff like "Give old Trump a chance" if he were a card carrying liberal...

And I think that Harry and Meg also resent the convention that senior royals can't engage in business, because that put paid to their plans to do exactly this. But I don't think that either of them really is concerned about the inherent conservatism of monarchy...

Helen.CH 08-04-2020 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2332072)
Even if they had nothing to do with it, I agree that they probably hoped it was from a favourable journalist and it would give a picture of them as two free spirits ready to lead a new life in the US and shaking off the shackles of the old fashioned UK Monarchy...
but it seems that they come across as silly, throwing fits about trivial things...

As I said before I wonder if the book offers any or much concerning its subtitle" making a modern royal family". I doubt the two authors are capable to imagine and write about auch a topic, this requests a lot of knowledge beginning with deep knowledge of history..... and their sources do not know better.
but like so many other things ever since H&M are playing along they might have believed two little journalists could do that, unrealistic as its best like always.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises