Netflix Docu-Series of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (2022)

[Curbside]

If you know, then tell us.

I already told you who I think gave the dude the tip. If not someone in the King’s office, then someone connected. The “tip” didn’t just come out of the ether.

 

[Curbside]

You do not feed the beast. Because it would have been another excuse to write another story then look for something juicier to write.

This is my point. Better to let Meghan draw all the fire than let the attention be directed to others.

 

[tihkon2]

But apparently, they DO find ways to leak private e-mail to the press.

Haven't seen the Royal family release actual details of private conversations with these two to the press or have Netflix series filmed.

There is NO comparison whatsoever to the ENORMOUS invasion of privacy Harry and Meghan have inflicted on his family. None. Whatsoever. None.

 

[FigTree]

BM is I believe British media. Not all of it was trivial. The bridesmaids dress fittings the ‘making Kate cry’ thing when nobody from the Press was present but reporters took inferences of what happened from Palace onlookers etc (or made it up.) And reading stories like that did change people’s perceptions of Meghan.

Harry has come out on many instances to defend his wife, as has William his. The broader institution has never said anything. And at the moment that is what they say they want. Also allegedly they weren’t given a nice enough room in Amner for Christmas 2018…well I can imagine that no it wasn’t full of product placement and embossed towels.

Dan Wooten also said that through their PR, when he approached them for comment on article, that they told him the four generations picture made them see they had no place in the royal family.

Basically a picture slowly emerges from a variety of places of never being happy with anything and yes gaslighting.

 

[TLLK]

British media.

They could impress on the BM that a couple supporting the Queen’s work should be treated with more respect.

The BRF has known for decades that this type of reaction doesn't guarantee that things will change. The Queen tried it with Diana, Princess of Wales shortly after her wedding in 1981 and honestly it didn't work.



While it's an unpleasant experience, the best solution always seems to be to just get on with your work and prove yourself to be an asset.



The Countess of Wessex had a disastrous debut as a royal with the "Fake Sheikh" interview. However she preserved through the negative press and is now a well respected member of the BRF.



The Queen Consort and the Princess of Wales faced years of negative articles and while they still face criticism from time to time, they've largely managed to change the narrative from the press. (Though I'm sure they'd prefer not to receive so much coverage on their clothing.)



The Sussexes have chosen to take another route and IMO it hasn't really been the path that's earned them respect in the UK and abroad.

 

[Curbside]

BM is I believe British media. Not all of it was trivial. The bridesmaids dress fittings the ‘making Kate cry’ thing when nobody from the Press was present but reporters took inferences of what happened from Palace onlookers etc (or made it up.) And reading stories like that did change people’s perceptions of Meghan.

Totally. There are also journalists who admit that their editors told them they could write whatever they liked about Meghan, as long as they didn’t do it to other senior royals.

The truth is, it benefits the RF and the BM to have consistent villains that aren’t them. The BM makes money hand over fist by writing about a couple who aren’t even working royals any more.

 

[TLLK]

Clarkson's comments were appalling and it is just right that he should be sanctioned for what he said.

Yes I agree his words were appalling and I'm pleased to see that he's in for a real drumming at home and abroad.


At this point it's time for me to step out of this circular conversation. Enjoy your evening all.

 

[Hallo girl]

This is my point. Better to let Meghan draw all the fire than let the attention be directed to others.

I am going to withdraw from the conversation , not because I agree with you but I am fed up going round in circles.

I love to chat about the royals but at the end of the day we do not know, we are second guessing, and all of us need to be honest enough to admit that.

We are sharing our opinions not facts.

Night Night God Bless Everyone , Merry Xmas.

 

[FigTree]

Totally. There are also journalists who admit that their editors told them they could write whatever they liked about Meghan, as long as they didn’t do it to other senior royals.

The truth is, it benefits the RF and the BM to have consistent villains that aren’t them. The BM makes money hand over fist by writing about a couple who aren’t even working royals any more.

Who are these journalists? Like to know their names.

 

[Curryong]

Harry has come out on many instances to defend his wife, as has William his. The broader institution has never said anything. And at the moment that is what they say they want. Also allegedly they weren’t given a nice enough room in Amner for Christmas 2018…well I can imagine that no it wasn’t full of product placement and embossed towels.

Dan Wooten also said that through their PR, when he approached them for comment on article, that they told him the four generations picture made them see they had no place in the royal family.

Basically a picture slowly emerges from a variety of places of never being happy with anything and yes gaslighting.

Have the Sussexes ever stated publicly to anyone that they disliked their Anmer room let alone that they wanted embossed towels etc? Because you can bet that if they had said it then the tabloids of the time would have been highly delighted to have printed that.

And I cannot imagine in any universe members of the Sussex PR team confiding in Dan Wootton about anything at all. I can imagine him making such things up though, like the story about the staff car park at Frogmore Cottage that he was forced to issue a public apology in The Sun for lying about.

 

[kimebear]

However there were countless articles comparing the two Duchesses in many tabloids, with Kate being always favourably viewed, holding pregnancy bumps, murder and avocados etc, and that was shown in the Netflix documentary.

You must be too young to remember the Diana/Fergie years. What the media put Sarah Duchess of York through, compared to how favorably they covered Diana was nastier than anything said about Meghan and it went on for far longer. The stress of unrelenting bad press coverage was a large contributing factor to that marriage breaking down as Andrew was at sea most of the time and not around to defend his wife.

 

[FigTree]

Have the Sussexes ever stated publicly to anyone that they disliked their Anmer room let alone that they wanted embossed towels etc? Because you can bet that if they had said it then the tabloids of the time would have been highly delighted to have printed that.

And I cannot imagine in any universe members of the Sussex PR team confiding in Dan Wootton about anything at all. I can imagine him making such things up though, like the story about the staff car park at Frogmore Cottage that he was forced to issue a public apology in The Sun for lying about.

The word would be allegedly, but Meghan did get embossed towels for an event she hosted. Given this was evidence in bullying complaint it is on the record.

You get how it works? He rings the team, tells them he is writing article and would they like say anything. Apparently this is what was said back. It was reported in the article. I thought it was bogus because it was so petty.

 

[Curryong]

At over seventy years of age I remember everything from the time Diana first came into the family. And I agree Sarah got awful coverage. I dispute however that it was worse than Meghan has received. I doubt that Sarah was ever accused of being an ex stripper or appearing in porn films as Meghan was by the Sun, which was forced to apologise.

However, two wrongs do not make a right. And the fact that Sarah suffered in that way should have made the RF more determined that it wouldn’t happen to anyone else.

 

[Curryong]

Who are these journalists? Like to know their names.

Well one of them was a man called Norman Baker, an ex Minister in the Cameron Govt who used to write articles for the Fail, the Sun and the Evening Standard after he retired. I’m not going to link what he said about the editors’ directions, as per instructions here, but it’s there if you Google it.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

What was the source for this story? Let’s say the Sussexes want to have this summit. Who would have known about this request and how do you suppose The Times would get this info? Wouldn’t it have to have been leaked?

I honestly don’t know what you are asking about re the “source” for the story. I was responding to another poster who linked an article.

My other comment was information about rating Netflix offerings - you can choose to rate thumbs up or thumbs down for each offering on their site.

Hope you are having a good day

 

[FigTree]

Well one of them was a man called Norman Baker, an ex Minister in the Cameron Govt who used to write articles for the Fail, the Sun and the Evening Standard after he retired. I’m not going to link what he said about the editors’ directions, as per instructions here, but it’s there if you Google it.

Right. Norman Baker hates the royals and is anti monarchist and he is also highly unlikely to write a salacious piece about any of them. Critical, and rightly so, sure. I see no issue with being told to hold off criticism of W and K but could the Sussexes. Could be readers, sensitivities - maybe William is very bullish behind the scenes. Harry could have been too. There could be a variety of reasons. And he was never going to slate them unfairly anyway.

Anyone else. I would be looking particularly at tabloid journalists or royal,rota member. Not a politician who dabbles occasionally.

 

[FigTree]

I honestly don’t know what you are asking about re the “source” for the story. I was responding to another poster who linked an article.

My other comment was information about rating Netflix offerings - you can choose to rate thumbs up or thumbs down for each offering on their site.

Hope you are having a good day

The Sussexes leaked to the times themselves. The times basically said so in line three do the latest update.

 

[yukari]

Not even the courtiers? Because somebody leaked the story and not that many people knew about the communication.

How about this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1570416906401910785

Hi again Kaiser ���� Always enjoy your opinions but I can tell you as a FACT, that it wasn’t William or William’s people who spoke to Robert for his book and gave him those quotes. It was someone from within Camp Sussex… who found working for them so damn hard… So stop blaming W!

The Sussexes also had their own staff, right? And they could leak to the media, not under Sussexes' order but it often happens where disgruntled employees badmouthing their employer in a pub and was heard by someone or intentionally talk to reporters because they're angry (similar as the Sussexes' "talk" to Netflix in this docu-series).

 

[Queen Claude]

Not even the courtiers? Because somebody leaked the story and not that many people knew about the communication.

As soon as the story came out the Sussexes released their revamped website where they announced that they were seeking to “carve out a progressive new role" within the monarchy. That website had considerable content and I am willing to bet that there were numerous people who were aware who worked directly and/or were contracted by the Sussexes.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

I've only seen the first three episodes of the documentary, but it does paint a scary picture of the British press. One of the main arguments I see about the lack of response in regards to the abuse that HRH The Duchess of Sussex received is that every royal bride goes through it (HRH The Duke of Sussex even said that a family member told him exactly that). Well, my response to that is why is that acceptable treatment for any woman marrying into the British Royal Family? It wasn't right when it happened to HM The Queen Consort. It wasn't right when it happened to Diana, Princess of Wales. It wasn't right when it happened to Sarah, Duchess of York. It wasn't right when it happened to HRH The Countess of Wessex. It wasn't right when it happened to HRH The Princess of Wales. And It's wasn't right that it happened to HRH The Duchess of Sussex. Choosing to endure it until the British press found another target may have been the best course of action for all of the former, but I certainly do not begrudge HRH The Duchess of Sussex choosing to remove herself from their access instead. I worry for any romantic partner the Wales children get when their older.

 

[FigTree]

As soon as the story came out the Sussexes released their revamped website where they announced that they were seeking to “carve out a progressive new role" within the monarchy. That website had considerable content and I am willing to bet that there were numerous people who were aware who worked directly and/or were contracted by the Sussexes.

It was the same company that made TheTig. Who I bet were up to doing a bit of unscheduled work over the holidays.

 

[FigTree]

I've only seen the first three episodes of the documentary, but it does paint a scary picture of the British press. One of the main arguments I see about the lack of response in regards to the abuse that HRH The Duchess of Sussex received is that every royal bride goes through it (HRH The Duke of Sussex even said that a family member told him exactly that). Well, my response to that is why is that acceptable treatment for any woman marrying into the British Royal Family? It wasn't right when it happened to HM The Queen Consort. It wasn't right when it happened to Diana, Princess of Wales. It wasn't right when it happened to Sarah, Duchess of York. It wasn't right when it happened to HRH The Countess of Wessex. It wasn't right when it happened to HRH The Princess of Wales. And It's wasn't right that it happened to HRH The Duchess of Sussex. Choosing to endure it until the British press found another target may have been the best course of action for all of the former, but I certainly do not begrudge HRH The Duchess of Sussex choosing to remove herself from their access instead. I worry for any romantic partner the Wales children get when their older.

Absolutely it is vile and unacceptable. But who buys it…majority women. It is the worst of all of us but to put it on the fourth estate is to remove the part we all play in this type of reporting existing. And by doing that we can not tackle it. Articles like this should not be read or tolerated and by doing that they will fail to write them.

 

[Curryong]

Members of the royal rota (like Emily Andrews) are hardly likely to say that they received tips or plants from any of the current royal Households or that they get instructions from their immediate bosses on how to slant their articles if needed. They know which side their bread is buttered on. And the same goes for journalists.

Whereas a person like Baker who is independent (even if anti-monarchist) is more likely to be truthful on such matters. And what an indictment on a profession (even those employed by rags like the Fail) to say ‘ he’s hardly likely to write salacious articles’.

 

[Curryong]

Absolutely it is vile and unacceptable. But who buys it…majority women. It is the worst of all of us but to put it on the fourth estate is to remove the part we all play in this type of reporting existing. And by doing that we can not tackle it. Articles like this should not be read or tolerated and by doing that they will fail to write them.

I disagree that it’s mostly women who buy or read tabloid nonsense. I think it may have been true thirty years ago when females regularly bought magazines and absorbed every word in them. Clarkson is hardly a woman. Nor are many commentators or self proclaimed ‘royal experts’ that regularly pop up on ‘let’s bash Meghan some more’ programmes on YouTube.

 

[FigTree]

Members of the royal rota (like Emily Andrews) are hardly likely to say that they received tips or plants from any of the current royal Households or that they receive instructions on how to slant their articles if needed. They know which side their bread is buttered on. And the same goes for journalists.

Whereas a person like Baker who is independent (even if anti-monarchist) is more likely to be truthful. And what an indictment on a profession (even those employed by rags like the Fail to say ‘ he’s hardly likely to write salacious articles’.

Well you said some articles on Meghan were, I never read them because I wouldn’t even dream of indicating even online that I condone that awful behaviour .

I read what he said, nothing that he says makes the point. It is very vague and mentions don’t criticise W and K for whatever reason. Could simply be it isn’t selling at the moment and they only print what sells ; he isn’t a journalist. I’d need something more concrete.

 

[FigTree]

I disagree that it’s mostly women who buy or read tabloid nonsense. I think it may have been true thirty years ago when females regularly bought magazines and absorbed every word in them. Clarkson is hardly a woman. Nor are many commentators or self proclaimed ‘royal experts’ that regularly pop up on ‘let’s bash Meghan some more’ programmes on YouTube.

Nobody buys it anymore…clicks. And yes I would put my house on all those clicks coming from women. No man I know, beyond those who make their money from this world, gives a damn.

Jeremy Clarkson! Much as I get a kick out of him. He has to be one of the most offensive people out there.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

BM is I believe British media. Not all of it was trivial. The bridesmaids dress fittings the ‘making Kate cry’ thing when nobody from the Press was present but reporters took inferences of what happened from Palace onlookers etc (or made it up.) And reading stories like that did change people’s perceptions of Meghan.

No one pelted tomatoes at Meghan for that and most people forgot about that during the week of the wedding and very few people remembered that incident until Meghan brought it up in the Oprah interview. The dress fittings issue were trivial because this happens in most wedding fittings whether to a royal or commoner so I don’t see what responding what help to say who actually made who cry.

 

[Curbside]

Who are these journalists? Like to know their names.

I’ve been looking for a compilation of video clips but can’t find it at the moment. Frustrating because I seem to remember seeing it multiple times on SM. When I find it, I’ll post it.

 

[yukari]

Members of the royal rota (like Emily Andrews) are hardly likely to say that they received tips or plants from any of the current royal Households or that they get instructions from their immediate bosses on how to slant their articles if needed. They know which side their bread is buttered on. And the same goes for journalists.

Whereas a person like Baker who is independent (even if anti-monarchist) is more likely to be truthful on such matters. And what an indictment on a profession (even those employed by rags like the Fail) to say ‘ he’s hardly likely to write salacious articles’.

Well, I think we can be sure that several Sussexes (former) staff have talked to Valentine Low and it's not to praise their employers. Who know if Low is the only one or if it's the first time or if the bullying story was the only thing they've shared.

Speaking from experience, I know for a fact, during a mass layoff in my last workplace (it's a big multinational company and we made headlines for couple of weeks in several countries), despite NDA and email warning us not to talk to the media, several of my coworkers blabbed and since it's anonymous, they got away with it. After all, loyalty is earned.

Btw, if you ever watch Top Gear when it was hosted by Clarkson, Hammond, and May, you'll know that Clarkson doesn't have filter. He'd make one offensive remark after another particularly when visiting other country. He's vile person, but his vileness is not exclusive to Meghan.

 

[Queen Claude]

No one said she did. The BM did and apparently none of the royal powers that be saw any reason to do anything about it.

No, and Meghan didn’t write the Tatler article either. However, I think it’s blindingly obvious that practically from the beginning Meghan was treated differently and the Press were not only taking sides but encouraging the British public to do so as well.

But did the British public take sides? To be sure, Meghan has had detractors from day one, as has other married in royals. But overall Meghan remained very popular amongst royal followers and got nothing but sympathy when her sister and then her father gave interviews trashing her.

The opening salvo in it becoming open season on Meghan in the British media was the tiara story and I remember very clearly that the prevailing opinion in the traditional and social media I read was that the story was fabricated, even to the point of there being comments along the lines of, "if you believe this story, I have oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you". I think that I was one of the few people who thought that there was some truth to the story and I did not have a problem with anger being expressed over a tiara switcheroo, which as it turned out, there was some kind of tiara drama but different than the original report.

The now infamous Meghan made Kate cry story was either not believed, or many attributed the tears to Kate being overwhelmed and/or hormonal. Meghan was not portrayed as the bad guy outside the usual suspects who were against her going back to the spooning bananas Instagram post.

Yes it was open season on Meghan in the British media and it was intense. I think that part of the challenge that the communications staff faced was that some stories were too silly to address and the ones that were not that silly had some truth to them.

Other pieces were that there were tensions between the Sussexes and their staffers, and also Meghan's friends went to People Magazine, which even though that was not sanctioned by royal staff, it was a counterbalance to the stories. Also somewhere in this was the cooperation with the Scobie / Durand book, so supportive action was taking place.

My recollection is that the first real hit Meghan took in terms of her favorability was the New York baby shower, and even then, I think there was disapproval of it, not a massive shift in the overall favorable view of Meghan.

I understand not letting the British media off the hook regarding their excesses towards Meghan, however if there is a belief that there was some kind of smear campaign to take down Meghan and Harry, it was not working, other than it taking a toll on Meghan's psyche, which is not inconsequential. The negative stories that cause Harry and Meghan to lose points with the British public IMO were the ones that reported on actual actions on their part - misinformation about Archie's birth, multiple private plane trips while advocating environmental causes, clearing a section at a tennis match, the South Africa interview, the revamped Sussex website, etc.