The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -

[Hallo girl]

There appears to be , to onlookers like me that there is a continual reinvention going on.
We have went from UN speaker to Jam maker.

 

[Erin9]

I think in order for Meghan to do work related to her education (I thought it was International Relations) she’d actually have to want to… do work related to her education. I mean, even when she was young and the degree was new she made a choice to pursue acting instead of law school or working at an interest group or NGO or whatever. I assume the Netflix series and jam selling are what she wants to do now. It may be partly related to money but i think Meghan also sees people who used to be her acting contemporaries morphing into influencers and that lifestyle genuinely appeals to her.

I assumed from the start this is the sort of thing they’d be doing. Neither of them really has the education to be able to pivot to the level of “serious” job they’d likely expect, and those jobs also come with an enormous amount of work and responsibility. If they had just done Netflix and cooking and whatnot, and left out all the interviews and the lawsuits I’d have a much more positive impression of them. They wouldn’t be out saving the world, but they’d be supporting themselves in a harmless way. And they’d be showing people they’d truly moved on from the Royal Family and come out better for it. Instead we got something very different.

I assume Meghan is jam selling/trying to become an influencer because everything else she’s tried hasn’t worked out. Netflix is because they’ve produced very little.

If this was what she really wanted, she’d have done it first imo. She had greater aspirations. They aspired to A list level philanthropy and business projects. Didn’t happen.

I see this more as a last resort.

 

[Leopoldine]

The weird cooking-dancing with beige clothes clothing is repulsive.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I did think the interview was very one sided and all about the ongoing grievances of the Duke of Sussex.
Since then the BBC have received a lot of criticism for failing to include responses from the Home Office and Buckingham Palace to allegations made by the duke.
As posted above they have acknowledged a breach of its "usual high editorial standards"
BBC admits lapse in standards around coverage of Prince Harry interview

 

[Ghost]

I did think the interview was very one sided and all about the ongoing grievances of the Duke of Sussex.
Since then the BBC have received a lot of criticism for failing to include responses from the Home Office and Buckingham Palace to allegations made by the duke.
As posted above they have acknowledged a breach of its "usual high editorial standards"
BBC admits lapse in standards around coverage of Prince Harry interview

But did they esit the interview? And the articles? And the interview with that Aitch (what a pun!) person?

 

[shady lady]

I did think the interview was very one sided and all about the ongoing grievances of the Duke of Sussex.
Since then the BBC have received a lot of criticism for failing to include responses from the Home Office and Buckingham Palace to allegations made by the duke.
As posted above they have acknowledged a breach of its "usual high editorial standards"
BBC admits lapse in standards around coverage of Prince Harry interview

And it's telling that the left-wing, anti-monarchy, usually pro-H&M Guardian are headling this. For those of us who enjoy a bit of humour, I recommend Marina Hyde's opinion piece there, too. The references to bingo, the French Revolution and the suggestion that PH needs "unconscious pious" training are particularly amusing!

 

[Elly C]

I did think the interview was very one sided and all about the ongoing grievances of the Duke of Sussex.
Since then the BBC have received a lot of criticism for failing to include responses from the Home Office and Buckingham Palace to allegations made by the duke.
As posted above they have acknowledged a breach of its "usual high editorial standards"
BBC admits lapse in standards around coverage of Prince Harry interview

Yes, it struck me he was pretty much given a free rein to his grievances. It was also very distasteful in terms of the timing so near VE Day as it was bound to dominate the Sunday papers.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Yes, it struck me he was pretty much given a free rein to his grievances. It was also very distasteful in terms of the timing so near VE Day as it was bound to dominate the Sunday papers.

I personally think that the Duke of Sussex has sadly lost all touch with reality.

 

[Alison H]

Yes, it struck me he was pretty much given a free rein to his grievances. It was also very distasteful in terms of the timing so near VE Day as it was bound to dominate the Sunday papers.

I should imagine that both Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch were delighted, as it knocked the local election results off the front of Saturday's papers! But it was very poor by the BBC.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I did think the interview was very one sided and all about the ongoing grievances of the Duke of Sussex.
Since then the BBC have received a lot of criticism for failing to include responses from the Home Office and Buckingham Palace to allegations made by the duke.
As posted above they have acknowledged a breach of its "usual high editorial standards"
BBC admits lapse in standards around coverage of Prince Harry interview

But it is worth noting that the BBC's partial apology (linked to in the article) only applies to their interview with Richard Aitch, a former protection officer who agrees with the Duke of Sussex and who, in his interview, echoed what the Duke said about an "establishment stitch-up".

The BBC has not made any sort of apology regarding the interview with the Duke of Sussex himself.

It seems that according to editorial, they should have challenged the claims when it was Richard Aitch making them, but it was fine not to challenge the claims when it was the Duke of Sussex making them.

 

[hereditarytitles]

Article in the "Daily Mail" about where Archie's birthday picture was taken

UK Home | Daily Mail Online

MailOnline - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from MailOnline, Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[An Ard Ri]

Yes, it struck me he was pretty much given a free rein to his grievances. It was also very distasteful in terms of the timing so near VE Day as it was bound to dominate the Sunday papers.

Well especially to talk about the health of his father the king in public like that and his family relations ,if Harry wants a reconciliation he has a very poor understanding of the word.

Prince Harry criticised for saying 'I don't know how much longer my father has' in TV interview

The Duke of Sussex was in Las Vegas to launch the Diana Award
Prince Harry is all smiles in Las Vegas on Archie's birthday

 

[Erin9]

Yes, it struck me he was pretty much given a free rein to his grievances. It was also very distasteful in terms of the timing so near VE Day as it was bound to dominate the Sunday papers.

It was a typical Harry (and Meghan) interview. No push back. They’re just given the chance to say whatever they want, no matter how ludicrous, contradictory to previous statements- or just wrong it is.

RE- VE Day. I have another take. You have the BRF celebrating VE Day and talking with the veterans…..and Harry continuing to complain about security- claiming conspiracy, collusion, that people want his family to die, blaming his dad (again), talking about his dad’s health. And on and on and on.

And you have Meghan posting her upteenth photo of everyone’s backs, which is being interpreted as a FU by some, given the timing. A literal turning of their backs.

I know who I think comes out looking good in all this. And it’s not the Sussexes.

 

[shady lady]

Article in the "Daily Mail" about where Archie's birthday picture was taken

UK Home | Daily Mail Online

MailOnline - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from MailOnline, Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Just out of curiosity, as I'm no expert on photography or the position of the sun, etc. if you look at the photo of the child, should the shadows not be not be criss-cross to reflect the wall and should he not also be casting a shadow? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

I wonder if Thomas Markle is still living in Mexico?

 

[Erin9]

Just out of curiosity, as I'm no expert on photography or the position of the sun, etc. if you look at the photo of the child, should the shadows not be not be criss-cross to reflect the wall and should he not also be casting a shadow? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

I wonder if Thomas Markle is still living in Mexico?

All I want to know is how many times Archie was told to shift so his head was in the perfect position w/r/t the sun. So Meghan could take her son/sun comment to the next level. Because I don’t think he magically wound up in the absolute perfect spot.

 

[camelot23ca]

All I want to know is how many times Archie was told to shift so his head was in the perfect position w/r/t the sun. So Meghan could take her son/sun comment to the next level. Because I don’t think he magically wound up in the absolute perfect spot.

I know that only showing children’s backs in photos is trendy for celebrities right now, but I find it annoying in general. I understand if someone has concerns surrounding privacy and security but either show their faces or don’t post pictures of them at all. Barring rare exceptions like the Wales family, no one needs to see any sort of picture of a child. The faux artsy gimmicks people then do to attempt to make the back of their child’s head interesting are ridiculous.

 

[Katymcwaity]

I think in order for Meghan to do work related to her education (I thought it was International Relations) she’d actually have to want to… do work related to her education.

Its an oft repeated path, brightish person…a get rich scheme without the effort. Glamorous, not terribly difficult and if you’re savvy enough to avoid the pitfalls which befall z list reality stars, made for life. Obviously, it was bingo and all Meghan’s Christmases at once meeting Harry with added doing good in the world!
They seem to be stuck in a world where whatever they do must be public, must be high profile. They could retrain, they could do something that brings them joy (in addition to raising their children) but I am not hopeful.

 

[taogg]

All I want to know is how many times Archie was told to shift so his head was in the perfect position w/r/t the sun. So Meghan could take her son/sun comment to the next level. Because I don’t think he magically wound up in the absolute perfect spot.

It reminds me of a celebrity couple from my small town who used to sell photos of their kids to magazines every year since the 1980s. Back then, privacy wasn’t really a concern, so the kids' faces were always clearly shown. But as the children grew up, they started to hate being posed — always giving poker faces or turning away. Later, they admitted they did it on purpose. Eventually, the parents stopped sharing their photos publicly.

Makes me wonder how long Archie will go along with all the artistic setups before he starts pushing back too.

 

[PrincessofEurope]

I personally think that the Duke of Sussex has sadly lost all touch with reality.

Well said - both of them are living in their own universe and far removed from the reality.

Each interview or podcast or social media caption/post gets more ridiculous each time the stuff they come out with

 

[Kenya]

I know that only showing children’s backs in photos is trendy for celebrities right now, but I find it annoying in general. I understand if someone has concerns surrounding privacy and security but either show their faces or don’t post pictures of them at all. Barring rare exceptions like the Wales family, no one needs to see any sort of picture of a child. The faux artsy gimmicks people then do to attempt to make the back of their child’s head interesting are ridiculous.

Yeah, there are two married actors I really like, but they always post pictures of their son with an emoji covering his face. I understand why they might not want to show his face (though they are not overwhelmingly famous), but why bother to show him at all? None of us are wondering what this faceless child is up to. None of us feel like we know him and are invested in his life. It all feels pointless, unless the point is only to show them being great parents?

Either you're serious about keeping your kids off of social media or you're not. In Meghan's case, especially, hiding the kids' faces isn't doing a lot to "protect" them. Their hair is so distinctive that anyone who wanted to get at them in Montecito could identify them easily.

 

[Ista]

Since we are now at 125 pages it is time to close this thread and open a new one.

The new Sussex thread can be found here