The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 1: September-December 2020

[MARG]

^^^^^ Here's hoping. But you know I've been thinking that Meghan's reference to "are you OK?" may very well also refer to she and Harry's lack of visibility, not doing thing's, etc. when she actually had the miscarriage this year. I think we can all agree that a miscarriage is devastating for both the mother and the father and I don't remember anyone cutting them any slack after the arrival of Covid-19 or thereafter.

Casting my mind back, I can only remember caustic remarks about their income and did they expect to live off the taxpayers dime or the royals. All that media carping must have made them feel even worse and ensure that when they were out nobody saw anything but Meghan's smiling face. So, how fake is that?

There there were times when Harry's 'happy mask' failed spectacularly and the speculation over 'unhappy' Harry that must have made everything seem even worse. When people don't see them they wonder what they are doing although snaps of Harry volunteering at a food bank gave us some idea that just because we don't see them doesn't mean they aren't "doing something".

 

[acdc1]

^^^^^ Here's hoping. But you know I've been thinking that Meghan's reference to "are you OK?" may very well also refer to she and Harry's lack of visibility, not doing thing's, etc. when she actually had the miscarriage this year. I think we can all agree that a miscarriage is devastating for both the mother and the father and I don't remember anyone cutting them any slack after the arrival of Covid-19 or thereafter.

Casting my mind back, I can only remember caustic remarks about their income and did they expect to live off the taxpayers dime or the royals. All that media carping must have made them feel even worse and ensure that when they were out nobody saw anything but Meghan's smiling face. So, how fake is that?

There there were times when Harry's 'happy mask' failed spectacularly and the speculation over 'unhappy' Harry that must have made everything seem even worse. When people don't see them they wonder what they are doing although snaps of Harry volunteering at a food bank gave us some idea that just because we don't see them doesn't mean they aren't "doing something".

I think that part of that difficulty about the lack of visibility is that they don’t have an official media platform like they did when they were working members of the royal family or like I’m sure they will once Archewell gets up and running. It’s hard to gauge how someone is doing from a few distant paparazzi snaps, and Harry’s “happy mask slipping” could have been from any number of things, from something as substantial as grieving over the loss of his child to something as insignificant as having a headache, being annoyed about something or someone, or just being captured with an unfortunate-looking expression on his face.

 

[AC21091968]

Meghan was mentioned in the middle of an opinion piece on The Sunday Times written by Camilla Long. It's a scathing article on celebrities (including Coleen Rooney vs. Rebekah Vardy feud) and modern feminism. Camilla Long has been very critical of Harry and Meghan, more so since the beginning of this year.

Can we stop all the woe-is-me over our wombs? We’re women, not victims
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...er-our-wombs-were-women-not-victims-tcghnf2mk

It's behind a paywall, but a twitter user has taken some screenshot. Meghan gets mentioned from the fourth screenshot onwards
Pic 1 | Pic 2 | Pic 3 | Pic 4 | Pic 5 | Pic 6

 

[Alison H]

The "young mothers" thing did annoy me, I have to say. I understand that she didn't want her friends' names splashed all over the international press, but what did the fact that they were "young mothers" have to do with it? Would it have been any less awkward or intrusive for them if they hadn't had children? Is it OK to upset women who haven't got children? It was totally irrelevant.


Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy are really annoying me - it's like some schoolgirl feud over who said nasty things to whom behind whose back!

 

[Katrianna]

Zara and Sophie's pregnancies, were officially announced by BP so when Zara's miscarriage and Sophie's ectopic pregnancy occurred it had to be reported by BP. Meghan's pregnancy was not officially announced by BP. It would have been up to the Sussexes when they would announced Meghan's pregnancy if she had not miscarried, consequently, it was up to the couple to decide when or if Meghan would reveal she had a miscarriage.

 

[Katrianna]

I may have to correct myself, I believe Mike and Zara announced that Zara had miscarried, but the initial announcement was made by BP.

 

[poppy7]

I may have to correct myself, I believe Mike and Zara announced that Zara had miscarried, but the initial announcement was made by BP.

One of Zara's miscarriages was announced because it had something to do with Christmas. She was announced as going to Sandringhsm and then she didn't so I think the family announced it was because she had had a miscarriage or something. She herself then went public sometime later to talk about both her miscarriages.

 

[muriel]

One of Zara's miscarriages was announced because it had something to do with Christmas. She was announced as going to Sandringhsm and then she didn't so I think the family announced it was because she had had a miscarriage or something. She herself then went public sometime later to talk about both her miscarriages.

That is correct. Zara's pregnancy had previously been announced, and she was quite far along when she miscarried, very close to Christmas.

 

[Alison H]

I think it was Christmas Eve. I remember being out for a Christmas meal and it coming up on my phone. But the pregnancy had already been announced, so they had no choice but to say what had happened, or people would have been expecting her to give birth in late spring.


In Sophie's case, I don't think the pregnancy had been announced - ectopic pregnancies rupture early on - but she was rushed to hospital, I think possibly even by air ambulance, so they had to explain what had happened. Kate's first pregnancy was announced at about 6 weeks because she was hospitalised with severe morning sickness, so they had to explain why she was in hospital. It actually says a lot about the discretion of the hospital where Meghan was treated that it didn't make the papers - obviously doctors and nurses wouldn't have said anything, but it's usually quite hard to hide the fact that a famous person's in hospital.

 

[Heavs]

In Sophie's case, I don't think the pregnancy had been announced - ectopic pregnancies rupture early on - but she was rushed to hospital, I think possibly even by air ambulance, so they had to explain what had happened.

Yes that's one reason Sophie is patron of one or two of the Air Ambulance Charities, they saved her life then as well as both her's and Louise's when she was also rushed to hospital again when her placenta separated. Edward wasn't there because she was so early. I don't think they had a choice about their struggles being public at the time, if it hadn't been officially announced there would have been a huge amount of speculation, although Sophie has talked about it in connection with her patronages and campaigns for womens' health since then.

 

[Denville]

The "young mothers" thing did annoy me, I have to say. I understand that she didn't want her friends' names splashed all over the international press, but what did the fact that they were "young mothers" have to do with it? Would it have been any less awkward or intrusive for them if they hadn't had children? Is it OK to upset women who haven't got children? It was totally irrelevant.


Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy are really annoying me - it's like some schoolgirl feud over who said nasty things to whom behind whose back!

Presumably the point of young mothers was that they had small children, so they needed protection.

 

[AC21091968]

Presumably the point of young mothers was that they had small children, so they needed protection.

I think you are right Denville.

In that case alone, "mothers with small children" would make more sense if that is what Meghan meant (by young children needing protection). The reason is that there are mothers, close to their middle-age who have small children and would not be theoretically considered as "young mothers".

 

[Heavs]

Presumably the point of young mothers was that they had small children, so they needed protection.

I think that was part of it as well as making sure the children are protected which is clearly important but the phrase annoyed me because it seemed to be playing into an old fashioned stereotypes that they have said they hate and it's a bit loaded. All IMO.

"Young [-]stay at home[/-] mothers" they're vulnerable people who aren't worldly wise, all they want to do is take their kids to school and playgroup and have coffee together and talk about how awesome their very famous friend is. Never mind that they had the means to contact People in the first place and according to the court documents at least some have been in the public eye before.

And yeah would it be ok if a guy with young children was named in the world's media or a woman with no children? How young is "young?" and does that matter? It pings a lot of buttons for many people.

 

[Denville]

I think that was part of it as well as making sure the children are protected which is clearly important but the phrase annoyed me because it seemed to be playing into an old fashioned stereotypes that they have said they hate and it's a bit loaded. All IMO.

"Young [-]stay at home[/-] mothers" they're vulnerable people who aren't worldly wise, all they want to do is take their kids to school and playgroup and have coffee together and talk about how awesome their very famous friend is. Never mind that they had the means to contact People in the first place and according to the court documents at least some have been in the public eye before.

And yeah would it be ok if a guy with young children was named in the world's media or a woman with no children? How young is "young?" and does that matter? It pings a lot of buttons for many people.

I dont think that it is that young mothers are silly, but that people with children have vulnerable people who are dependent on them.. ie the kids may get teased at school because there's some story about their mother in the press. It can apply to men with children as well....

 

[Heavs]

I dont think that it is that young mothers are silly, but that people with children have vulnerable people who are dependent on them.. ie the kids may get teased at school because there's some story about their mother in the press. It can apply to men with children as well....

Yeah I get that's probably what they were going for but "young mothers" is a loaded phrase that (to me) brings up the sterotypes I just mentioned compared to "they all have young children who need to be protected from any fall out". And as with other things they've said, can end up trying to conflagrate issues that don't always belong together to the point at hand. It also gets a bit murky if some of the young children were already at the wedding and seen by billions of people in connection to this couple. Even though they definitely still deserve to be protected even if that was the case.

And brings up the "so you'd be ok with your childless friends getting dragged through the press?" which riles people up. They certainly wouldn't be and they'd probably use a different tactic if it had been 5 childless friends. Because putting them on the stand would most likely be detrimental to the case.

 

[Alison H]

And brings up the "so you'd be ok with your childless friends getting dragged through the press?" which riles people up.

That was definitely how it came across.

 

[Denville]

That was definitely how it came across.

I'm no great fan of Meghan.. ot put it mildly. but I still don't think that it is fair on kids to have their parents names splattered across the papers in a controversial case.. unless they've done something very wrong.. and they haven't.. they have just been a bit silly.

 

[Claire]

I was, over the weekend, talking to a group of people in the PR and media industry who more then suggested that Meghan is making herself synonymous with the phase "Are you okay" to the point that she might use it for Archwell.
She keeps pressing the phase like a catch phrase that wont catch the public attention she things it deserves. It should be noted that many , many mental health charities especially have used in during Covid.
But when Archwell eventually launches - I would not be surprised if there is a page full screen say - Are you okay? It okay not to be okay.

 

[Claire]

In other news - I really want to start a thread about the collective wisdom of the Sussex Squad - I doubt the moderators will allow me.

My favorite tweet today - is that Meghan deserves more sympathy for her miscarriage as it involved loosing a child, unlike Sophie Wessex who just had a ectopic pregnancy - an unpainful form of endometriosis.

Are we certain the internet is a good thing that promotes learning and understanding?

 

[Denville]

In other news - I really want to start a thread about the collective wisdom of the Sussex Squad - I doubt the moderators will allow me.

My favorite tweet today - is that Meghan deserves more sympathy for her miscarriage as it involved loosing a child, unlike Sophie Wessex who just had a ectopic pregnancy - an unpainful form of endometriosis.

Are we certain the internet is a good thing that promotes learning and understanding?

An ectopic pregnancy is very serious, in that the embryo is growing in the fallopian tupbe and if it burst it can have very serious consequences. Sophie clearly had a bad time with her pregnancy and then when Having Louise, having to be airlifted to hospital to deliver the child..

 

[Osipi]

My favorite tweet today - is that Meghan deserves more sympathy for her miscarriage as it involved loosing a child, unlike Sophie Wessex who just had a ectopic pregnancy - an unpainful form of endometriosis.

This has got to be a statement that is so far from the truth that it seems to come from left field in a galaxy far, far away. It sincerely shows a lack of intelligence and definitely a lack of knowledge.

Another term for a miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion". it's when the body recognizes that the pregnancy isn't as it should be and naturally terminates it. For the most part, a spontaneous abortion happens in the first trimester and is relatively painless although the woman may need a D&C (dilation and curettage) procedure done to remove any remaining tissue resulting from the pregnancy.

An ectopic pregnancy is a life threatening situation. The fertilized egg begins to grow somewhere outside of the woman's uterus and is far from being painless and without medical treatment, can do some very serious harm to a woman's body let alone be fatal.

Both situations involve a child that is expected to come into a couple's life and the loss is real. Each woman that experiences such a loss will find it devastating. Neither should be taken lightly or compared to another.

 

[Ista]

And on that note let's move on from comparing Sophie's ectopic pregnancy loss and Zara's miscarriage to Meghan's miscarriage.

 

[ACO]

In other news - I really want to start a thread about the collective wisdom of the Sussex Squad - I doubt the moderators will allow me.

My favorite tweet today - is that Meghan deserves more sympathy for her miscarriage as it involved loosing a child, unlike Sophie Wessex who just had a ectopic pregnancy - an unpainful form of endometriosis.

Are we certain the internet is a good thing that promotes learning and understanding?

I mean there are ignorant people on all sides. I literally saw someone tweet a royal correspondent that it was great for the royal family that Meghan lost her baby because it was one less connection to her. And that reporter replied how awful it was to say such a thing. Heck a few correspondents commented on how horrible people were about Meghan's miscarriage. Does that represent the overall view of supporters of the royal family?

So yes let's stop being nasty for the sake of being nasty. And stop comparing and downplaying these tragedies. It is really quite pathetic how people bend over backwards to find anything and everything to be critical about just cause you dislike [insert name].

 

[Betsypaige]

In other news - I really want to start a thread about the collective wisdom of the Sussex Squad - I doubt the moderators will allow me.

My favorite tweet today - is that Meghan deserves more sympathy for her miscarriage as it involved loosing a child, unlike Sophie Wessex who just had a ectopic pregnancy - an unpainful form of endometriosis.

Are we certain the internet is a good thing that promotes learning and understanding?

There is nothing wrong with the internet; it’s the people who use it who are often problematic...

Whoever tweeted that is absolutely sick and twisted.

 

[muriel]

So yes let's stop being nasty for the sake of being nasty. And stop comparing and downplaying these tragedies. It is really quite pathetic how people bend over backwards to find anything and everything to be critical about just cause you dislike [insert name].

Well said!

 

[QueenMathilde]

What if every single one of us was a raindrop?


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...fairy-says-beat-climate-change-raindrops.html

 

[Denville]

What if every single one of us was a raindrop?


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...fairy-says-beat-climate-change-raindrops.html

Oh please enough.

 

[Claire]

hmmm - Parched Earth doesn't really absorb water - it runs off and creates further erosion.
And if every single person was a raindrop - only 8 billion of us - 90,921 drops of water in one gallon. Hmmm. Not really certain where this is going - but I feel his speech writer needs better metaphors.

 

[amaryllus]

Bless his heart. Why do I feel Edmond Blackadder would have some choice words for Harry?

 

[muriel]

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt", Abraham Lincoln