The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Library (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f61/)
-   -   Ingrid Seward - Prince Philip (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f61/ingrid-seward-prince-philip-47955.html)

Nice Nofret 10-24-2020 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandy345 (Post 2350676)
I hope this is not true. Since Mrs Simpson is nothing like Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Harry and Meghan were free to see each other, Wallis had a husband when she was seeing Edward. Also, Harry was never a King who abdicated And above all, Philip should realize that three of his children got divorced and two remarried so there is less "stigma" about divorce than there was in the thirties.




I don't see the 'Wallis Simpson' comparison so litrally, about a divorced woman, but more about a woman who gets her hubby to leave his duties and family behind.

Betsypaige 10-24-2020 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winnie (Post 2350675)
I certainly agree. To just repeat items from other authors or journalists articles is just filling pages to enlarge their books. Not worth people spending money on once again. Now different true facts on prior written articles which were discovered, well worth the writing. JMO

Exactly. It seem to me the point of this book is to inform about Philip, who has had an incredibly long and interesting life, much of which is likely unknown. That’s probably why there’s apparently not a lot about his relationships with his children...

TLLK 10-24-2020 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nice Nofret (Post 2350678)
I don't see the 'Wallis Simpson' comparison so litrally, about a divorced woman, but more about a woman who gets her hubby to leave his duties and family behind.


:previous: I have to agree. The comparison reportedly made by Prince Phillip is that the two were Americans and divorced but that ultimately the royal chose to leave behind their role as a working member of the BRF.

Betsypaige 10-24-2020 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLLK (Post 2350693)
:previous: I have to agree. The comparison reportedly made by Prince Phillip is that the two were Americans and divorced but that ultimately the royal chose to leave behind their role as a working member of the BRF.

Exactly:

Quote:

Earlier this month Ms Steward discussed Prince Philip's overwhelming sense of duty in a piece for the Mail on Sunday.

She said it 'grieves' him that many younger members of the Royal Family 'do not appear to share his values'.

'He has struggled greatly, for example, with what he sees as his grandson Harry’s dereliction of duty, giving up his homeland and everything he cared about for a life of self-centred celebrity in North America,' Ms Steward wrote.

'He has found it hard to understand exactly what it was that made his grandson’s life so unbearable. As far as Philip was concerned, Harry and Meghan had everything going for them: a beautiful home, a healthy son, and a unique opportunity to make a global impact with their charity work.

'For a man whose entire existence has been based on a dedication to doing the right thing, it appeared that his grandson had abdicated his responsibilities for the sake of his marriage to an American divorcee in much the same way as Edward VIII gave up his crown to marry Wallis Simpson in 1937.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...-monarchy.html

AC21091968 11-09-2020 12:49 AM

Ingrid Seward spoke to Fox News around five days ago about her book Prince Philip Revealed: A Man of His Century. The content of her interview were similar to those she gave to previous news publications.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...id-seward-book

The Sunday Mirror has picked up the Fox News interview and decided to focus on Harry & Meghan (article published on 7th November). This is despite Claire mentioned that the book only mentioned Harry's name 4 times

Meghan Markle 'felt Brits didn't understand her' and wasn't 'a great fan of England'
Royal Biographer Ingrid Seward sees in Meghan and Harry's split from The Firm a mirror image with the famous abdication crisis of 1937, when American socialite and divorcee Wallis Simpson 'hated England'
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...didnt-22970513

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire (Post 2350630)
To be blunt - this book has nothing going for it. Nothing. M&H are mentioned 4 times - Phillip was certain to be well enough to walk for Harry's wedding. He came down to see Archie by request of the Queen. The incident at the hunt and finally his disappointed in Harry doing a runner. 4 mentions - which are little more then a paragraph each.
So yes - if this is the books only selling point then well you get my point on the quality of this biography.

I do think the Mirror is certainly trying to have an attention grabbing headline to continue the narrative that Harry & Meghan would not be back in the UK soon and possibly not be part of the Sunday Remembrance Service. The Sunday Times on the next day released an article that Harry was denied to lay a wreath at Cenotaph.

Prince Harry’s plea to lay Cenotaph wreath denied
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...nied-t2wtght2m

Betsypaige 11-09-2020 03:23 AM

Quote:

“He will always support the queen,” she said. “Harry and Meghan had their own agenda really. For Philip, he felt if that’s what they want to do, then that’s what they must do. But they will also have to face the consequences.”
And indeed, something like being denied the ability to lay a Centotaph wreath is one of the consequences of Harry choosing the life he did. He chose to live a more private life (though I think he doesn’t understand the meaning of the word) and to do so in America, which is not the UK and which has its own traditions, etc. As long as they continue to try and get away with living half and half, they are going to continue to have their hands proverbially slapped. Again, consequences...

Quote:

Philip’s greatest legacy is the lessons he’s taught his sons, which were passed on to his grandsons and great-sons… He’s a sort of character who hardly exists anymore because he has this great devotion to duty. However uncomfortable it may be, he feels duty comes first. And I think people don’t have that anymore.”
Of course, Philip comes from a different generation, but he did pass that sense of duty on, and I hope he knows that he is in no way a failure because Harry repudiated this. However wacky he thought Charles was, however worried he was about his being King, I hope he’s well secure in the knowledge that his eldest has a pronounced sense of duty, as does his eldest. I hope Philip is able to enjoy these years..

MaiaMia_53 11-09-2020 05:36 AM

:previous:
As far as I can see, the Sussexes are facing the consequences of their choices just fine, regardless of what Seward or any other book writer, or indeed any royal reporters or royal observers think, imagine and constantly criticize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erin9 (Post 2350490)
If indeed Harry’s relationship with Philip is still in poor shape, that wouldn’t surprise me. What Harry did and how he did it goes against Philip’s entire life...

I don't think royal observers get to decide how Prince Harry lives his life. As far as Harry's personal choices 'going against' his grandfather's life, it makes sense to me that Harry should be able to carve out his own independent life as a full grown man with core family unit responsibilities in the 21st-century. Harry is not a directly in line heir to the British throne. There's no necessity for Harry to relive his grandfather's life from a past century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2350552)
That’s the thing, Harry is completely thoughtless when it comes to other people - it’s all about himself, or Meghan. It’s easy to see why he’s pushed away his old friends...there’s only so much people can tolerate before they’ve had enough.

People grow, mature and move on from particular friendships, as their lives change. That's not unusual. As far as your belief that Harry is thoughtless and selfish, please note that everything Harry has done in his life and how he treats others totally debunks your viewpoints. Among many gentlemanly acts, Harry spoke up in support of both Camilla and Kate when they were objects of unfair press criticism as new members of the BRF.

There are so many instances of Harry treating people with kindness and compassion. Like any human being, he made youthful mistakes and he's not a perfect person. Meeting and falling in love with Meghan and marrying her is undoubtedly something that Harry feels grateful and blessed about. It doesn't behoove any royal reporters nor anyone in the royal firm to continue disparaging M&H for loving each other and for desiring to live an independent life with the ability to make their own decisions and their own income. Harry is currently only 6th in line to the British throne. Despite how hard he and Meghan were working on behalf of the firm, there were conflicts behind-the-scenes that could not be resolved. The continual laying the blame only on Harry and Meghan is off-base.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nice Nofret (Post 2350556)
The more I read about Harry & Megs relationship it seems to resamble to one who one partner tries to separate the other on from all prior bonds to family and friends. That is often the start of an abusive relationship, or one where one partner tries to dominate / manipulate and be in controll of every aspect of ones partners live.

I hope it isn't that way, but by now Harry hasn't got any friends and working family relations left...

There's no indication whatsoever that M&H's relationship involves dominance and abuse. That's apparently a speculative fantasy existing in the heads of British tabloid writers, and swallowed whole by gullible readers and by people who dislike the Sussexes. By the way, Harry has plenty of friends and respected colleagues in the U.K. and around the world. I have no personal knowledge of the current state of his relations with members of the BRF, but I see no reason to believe that Harry isn't regularly in contact with many of his cousins, his father and his grandparents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nice Nofret (Post 2350678)
I don't see the 'Wallis Simpson' comparison so literally, about a divorced woman, but more about a woman who gets her hubby to leave his duties and family behind.

Harry made an unequivocal public statement in January informing us that he made the decision to step down from senior royal duties in order to protect his family. He said that if the public "knew what I know" maybe they would understand why the decision was necessary to protect his family. I believe Harry over Ingrid Seward and other tabloid reporters.

Curryong 11-09-2020 06:37 AM

If Ingrid Seward chose to write a biography of Prince Philip why has she chosen to spend the vast majority of her time when publicising this book in interviews and in print in criticising Meghan and Harry and their actions?

Seward has never been a great fan of Meghan but I would have thought that there would have been plenty of interest to write about in the 99 years of Prince Philip's existence without rehashing Megxit and what she believes about the Sussex relationship.

As far as I know this author has never met either Harry or Meghan, nor has she sat down with Prince Philip for an interview on this or any other subject. So really, what has been printed about the Sussexes and Prince Philip's reaction from her book is all speculation and her own opinion.

Claire 11-09-2020 06:57 AM

Hmmm - Ingrid Seward definitely had inside connections in the 1980's till the early 2010's. Most of her previous books were written with interviews that were approved by the sources. Notably the biography on the Earl of Wessex she interviewed Edward directly and had access to friends and some family. The same with the book on Royals Childhood. However something appears to have happened with her access - don't know what. But she appears no longer have that access or has it significantly less then before. Personally I just think that the royals were more open to interviews at one time - they are no longer so willing.
That been said - this book is terrible. And really all she can sell about this book is Harry and Meghan as that is the gossip wanted at the moment. She would be flogging Andrew and Epstein if that was in vogue. She needs to sell a book - and the market want to hear one song.

Queen Claude 11-09-2020 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 2353689)
If Ingrid Seward chose to write a biography of Prince Philip why has she chosen to spend the vast majority of her time when publicising this book in interviews and in print in criticising Meghan and Harry and their actions?

Seward has never been a great fan of Meghan but I would have thought that there would have been plenty of interest to write about in the 99 years of Prince Philip's existence without rehashing Megxit and what she believes about the Sussex relationship.

As far as I know this author has never met either Harry or Meghan, nor has she sat down with Prince Philip for an interview on this or any other subject. So really, what has been printed about the Sussexes and Prince Philip's reaction from her book is all speculation and her own opinion.

Yeah a lot of Seward's comments in her book and interviews seem to be her projecting her own thoughts onto Prince Philip versus her having well-placed sources who are giving her information, albeit second hand, about Prince Philip.

And by the way, Prince Philip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark and was fairly high up in the line of succession for the Greek throne. Philip renounced his Greek citizenship and place in the line of succession to the Greek throne for ... love... personal happiness... [his or his uncle's] ambition? So all this talk about Prince Philip's sense of duty is related to duty to a country and throne that he is connected to through marriage and not birth.

Denville 11-09-2020 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Claude (Post 2353696)
Yeah a lot of Seward's comments in her book and interviews seem to be her projecting her own thoughts onto Prince Philip versus her having well-placed sources who are giving her information, albeit second hand, about Prince Philip.

And by the way, Prince Philip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark and was fairly high up in the line of succession for the Greek throne. Philip renounced his Greek citizenship and place in the line of succession to the Greek throne for ... love... personal happiness... [his or his uncle's] ambition? So all this talk about Prince Philip's sense of duty is related to duty to a country and throne that he is connected to through marriage and not birth.

Philip became a British citizen because he had lived much of his life in Britian and had become part of her Navy. Teh Greek Monarchy was unstable and he was born in exile. He could harldy devote himself to the Greek monarchy and he chose then to make Britian his home and married the queen. He's been a hard working royal since his marriage and gave up his Naval career which he loved to support the queen.. It wasn't easy for him but he did it and he's gone on working till he was too old and ill to work any more...

Queen Claude 11-09-2020 08:58 AM

:previous:
Yes I am aware of Prince Philip's background. Philip, despite spending most of his life in the UK and fighting for Britain in World War II, did not renounce his Greek titles until the run up to the announcement of his engagement to The Princess Elizabeth, heiress presumptive to the British throne. Yes the Greek monarchy was unstable but that would not have precluded him from devoting himself to the Greek monarchy or the country itself - his mother returned to Greece in the late 1930s.

I don't fault Philip at all for the choice he made, just noting the irony of people like Seward stating that "dutiful" Philip does not understand Harry's actions when Philip's duty has been to a country that he did not become a naturalized citizen of until he was an adult and the impetus to renounce his titles to his birth country was due to his impending marriage to the future monarch of the UK


ETA:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire (Post 2353695)
Hmmm - Ingrid Seward definitely had inside connections in the 1980's till the early 2010's. Most of her previous books were written with interviews that were approved by the sources. Notably the biography on the Earl of Wessex she interviewed Edward directly and had access to friends and some family. The same with the book on Royals Childhood. However something appears to have happened with her access - don't know what. But she appears no longer have that access or has it significantly less then before. Personally I just think that the royals were more open to interviews at one time - they are no longer so willing.
That been said - this book is terrible. And really all she can sell about this book is Harry and Meghan as that is the gossip wanted at the moment. She would be flogging Andrew and Epstein if that was in vogue. She needs to sell a book - and the market want to hear one song.

Interesting comment. As I mentioned in my previous quote, Seward's commentary does seem to be her projecting and theorizing. I also suspected that she no longer has the access that she did previously but you fleshed it out very well. I would go further and state that there are probably other royal reporters and commentators who are perceived as being in the know but may no longer be as inside the loop as they were before, and therefore their commentary may not be as credible as it once, which you also addressed.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises