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

[TLLK]

That’s what I thought as well.

It was an interesting piece. I think many here will be happy to see that the author believes based on interviews that Harry and Meghan’s relationship remains strong and loving. It also notes that this contributes to their problems working with others- that they believe so strongly in the power of their story and relationship that it interferes in their pragmatic decision making skills with regard to their careers.

There were also parts that made me feel genuinely sorry for Harry, namely that he truly doesn’t understand monarchy and his family’s history out of a combination of disinterest on his part and what the author’s source believes is emotional neglect after he turned eight years old. It speculates that this contributes to his real inability to understand the gravity of his book and his show in relation to his family and he continues to feel hurt they won’t reach out to him.

I don’t want to give too much of my own interpretation. It’s a complex article that is worth a read.

Eight years old, that would have been around the time he was enrolled at Ludgrove to begin boarding. IMHO there are times when his words and actions are not that of a 40 year old man.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the article. It's too bad that it's currently hard to access.

 

[Kenya]

I found the VF article fascinating, especially the recounting of their difficulties at Spotify. And not that we needed additional confirmation about how hard it is to work for them after Harry's description of their officer environment in Spare, but the description of the "pattern" in Meghan’s relationships with employees was how I've always suspected. She definitely strikes me as the type of person who is initially warm and effusive, creating the type of team environment she aspires to have. But if you can't satisfy her every demand, she becomes cold and undermining. It's not hard to understand why most of their employees have failed to make it to or past the two-year mark.

Like HRHHermione, I was struck by the anecdote about Harry being genuinely surprised after Spare that his family hadn't reached out to him. How had he never considered the repercussions of what he was saying and writing for public consumption? I'd ask "What was going through Harry's mind?", but after reading the article, I suspect the answer is tumbleweed.

All in all, I found this paragraph to be a pretty great encapsulation of their entire post-monarchy era:

Interest in the couple was unslakable. But it remained to be seen whether they were actually interesting, beyond Harry’s uniquely difficult upbringing and Meghan’s years of defending herself from shoddy treatment and racism, whether in the British press or from members of her husband’s family. As one former Spotify employee put it, “The thing you’re escaping is the reason you’re compelling.”

 

[Hallo girl]

I have not read this article but I have read Courtiers. Without rehashing old stories, Harry did not have the easiest of times as a child. Whatever was going on behind closed doors, plus his parents marriage all over the front pages, as we recall the War of the Wales.
It must have had a lasting effect on him. The lack of privacy, leaked stories, constant cameras. Both his parents were chastised for both sides using the media for their own ends.
I totally understand his desire for privacy for both his children and his personal life, his lack of trust of the media and people around him.
These are the very reasons that I do not understand why he went off and did exactly that to his family.
Revealed private conversations, even displayed text messages, made personal attacks on individuals who he knew would not hit back, Not just family but former employees who respected their position. provided preferred ' journalists' with stories. he stood by while his wife said things on camera that were inaccurate.
All the things he complained about.
So I am afraid I have no sympathy where as if he had left and led the private life he insisted on it would have been different.

 

[HRHHermione]

I don’t agree with this idea of emotional neglect and, in my opinion, it gives away the fact that the sources are pro Sussexes biased.
I remember very well when a set of photos of Diana and the boys were published. Harry was five at the time. (It’s a set shoot by Patrick Demarchelier where all three are in white shirts and blue jeans and the shooting took place in the garden at KP, I think.)
The caption of one of the photos said that Harry requested to be picked up despite his age. And he was still sucking his thumb.
I think Harry had and has unusually high needs of emotional demonstrations. Not that he was neglected.

For what it’s worth, that was only one quoted source. The author used a pretty big variety, both positive and negative, which is why I felt the piece was worth recommending.

 

[Prinsara]

These are the very reasons that I do not understand why he went off and did exactly that to his family.
Revealed private conversations, even displayed text messages, made personal attacks on individuals who he knew would not hit back, Not just family but former employees who respected their position. provided preferred ' journalists' with stories. he stood by while his wife said things on camera that were inaccurate.
All the things he complained about.

Control. Or at least a semblance or illusion of it.

Many things with the Duke and Duchess are about control issues, as has been brought up frequently.

 

[HRHHermione]

It looks like someone has put up an archive version that works:

https://archive.ph/2025.01.17-161858/https://www.vanityfair.com/style/story/prince-harry-meghan-markle-cover-story-2025

 

[Curryong]

The Vanity Fair piece is indeed multi-layered and shows both sides of the coin to a certain extent. What is missing of course is the life the two of them led both behind Palace walls and leading up to the point the couple landed in Montecito, including their time in Canada. That remains to hopefully one day be documented by someone else.

The interviews, btw, recounted with Montecito residents seemed to consist largely of complaints about the quiet and privacy of the place being destroyed by rubber+necking strangers in cars. That is hardly the Sussexes’ fault. And none of them know either Meghan or Harry.

 

[HRHHermione]

The Vanity Fair piece is indeed multi-layered and shows both sides of the coin to a certain extent. What is missing of course is the life the two of them led both behind Palace walls and leading up to the point the couple landed in Montecito, including their time in Canada. That remains to hopefully one day be documented by someone else.

I think that was fairly extensively documented in Finding Freedom (more their perspective) and Courtiers (perspective of those who worked with and for them contextualized in the history of the monarchy). We also got Harry and Meghan’s direct perspective in their interview with Oprah, in “Spare” and in their six part documentary.

I think there’s very little of that story left to tell.

 

[Curryong]

Not everything is known at all. New authors, new perspectives, new information in the next ten to twenty years may well bring other views to bear on what happened at various points, including that last summer as working royals when Harry was vainly trying to get a private meeting with his father, plus later, the Sandringham Summit.

 

[HRHHermione]

Not everything is known at all. New authors, new perspectives, new information in the next ten to twenty years may well bring other views to bear on what happened at various points, including that last summer as working royals when Harry was vainly trying to get a private meeting with his father, plus later, the Sandringham Summit.

New information may well come to light one day. That being said, a first person account from a member of the Royal Family involved in the event is something we almost never get, and I don’t have any real reason to believe that Harry’s detailed retelling of his experiences of it plus those sourced from palace employees left out material information. I think all we are really “missing” is the direct perspective of William and Charles and I don’t expect we will ever really have that.

 

[tommy100]

So much work you did, thanks for that. Not being a lawyer and English not being my native language, I gave up reading and understanding all of it. What a complicated mess! How do other celebrities get protection I wonder? Bodyguards I guess which they have to pay for. It boils down to who Harry is, a no longer working royal or celebrity.
By the way does anybody know if King Edward and Wallis Simpson got protection while living in France

Harry is back in the UK for his case against the Sun newspaper. He has apparently been offered accommodation in Buckingham Palace for the duration but turned it down in favour of a hotel. He is also set to receive some protection from the Met Police as it has been deemed a high risk trip - likely because the media will be all over the court when he arrives and leaves. Its interesting if he is receiving Met protection when he visits as if he is it will cost more to protect him in a hotel then it will if he stayed in BP.

Harry's issue with the protection is he believes he needs armed protection and in the UK only specially trained police are allowed to carry firearms. Most police aren't even armed and private contractors e.g. private bodyguards certainly aren't allowed to be. He also argues that the media chase him and so he needs police outriders and access to their intelligence network to mitigate risks. He says he has even offered to pay for this but in the UK you can't pay for armed protection - you are either deemed to need it in which case it is provided - or you don't in which case it isn't. RAVEC made the decision based on risk that Harry didn't need permanent full time armed protection but that his security would be on a case by case basis after a risk assessment of each visit and event. That decision was upheld in the first case but Harry was granted permission to appeal - though even the judge that granted his right to appeal sounded a note of caution.
It is worth saying that apart from Charles and Camilla and William and Catherine none of the RF - even the King's siblings who are still working royals e.g. Anne and Edward, receive 24/7 armed protection but are instead provided it in a similar way to how Harry's is when he visits.

The Vanity Fair article is interesting, it seems to come from a more pro Sussex place than many but end up with some of the same conclusions in the end.

 

[Hallo girl]

Not everything is known at all. New authors, new perspectives, new information in the next ten to twenty years may well bring other views to bear on what happened at various points, including that last summer as working royals when Harry was vainly trying to get a private meeting with his father, plus later, the Sandringham Summit.

Maybe The Truth will out.

 

[TLLK]

New information may well come to light one day. That being said, a first person account from a member of the Royal Family involved in the event is something we almost never get, and I don’t have any real reason to believe that Harry’s detailed retelling of his experiences of it plus those sourced from palace employees left out material information. I think all we are really “missing” is the direct perspective of William and Charles and I don’t expect we will ever really have that.

I agree that Charles and WI will not address the Sandringham Summit. QEII is gone and doubt thatcwe would have ever had any perspective from her even if she was still here.

Did anyone else read the part about a "divorce book" being discussed? I thought that was an odd subject to bring up.

 

[Somebody]

The story about Meghan's team discussing the possibility of a book about her life after a divorce from Harry -if it would ever happen- with a publishing house is the strangest part of the article... The sociopath podcast that Harry wanted to make and interview world leader for remains 'interesting' as well.

Many other parts seem to paint a familiar picture: a very driven Meghan who wants to be recognized for doing good and a more laidback Harry who wants to please his wife and flourishes when doing charity-related activities on his own.

 

[HRHHermione]

The sociopath podcast that Harry wanted to make and interview world leader for remains 'interesting' as well.

That was the part that I thought was most… well, hmm.

I do not envy the person who had to explain that sociopaths generally do not think of themselves as sociopaths and would probably not consent to come on a podcast to discuss why they are bad and Prince Harry is good even though they are all traumatized.

 

[Erin9]

There is a new Vanity Fair cover story out about the couple. I would love to share but it is behind a paywall that isn’t archiving. I ended up paying for subscription access for the month out of curiosity.

It is very focused on the difficulties the couple have had in establishing themselves successfully in the U.S. and I would recommend it as an interesting and balanced piece to anyone who can access it.

Here is one quote from the piece that closely mirrors experiences we have previously heard about with Meghan’s UK staff:

“The source who worked in media projects says Meghan’s own relationships with employees tended to follow a familiar pattern. She would be warm and effusive at the beginning, engendering an atmosphere of professional camaraderie. When something went poorly, often due to Meghan and Harry’s own demands—such as a teaser for Archetypes being released five months before the show premiered and before there was any tape to promote—Meghan would become cold and withholding toward the person she perceived to be responsible. The source says it was “really, really, really awful. Very painful. Because she’s constantly playing checkers—I’m not even going to say chess—but she’s just very aware of where everybody is on her board. And when you are not in, you are to be thrown to the wolves at any given moment.”

It is interesting article.

Meghan really sounds like she’s, over all, a nightmare, of a boss. No matter what continent she’s on. Some people are described as needing therapy after working for her. Again- nothing is ever her fault. (I think that’s probably a professional and personal issue.)

It sounds like an overall disappointing experience for most people between their treatment and generally poor results in terms of professional output.

I think it’s interesting that the source says she’s playing checkers- but very pointedly says not playing chess. She’s aware of where everyone is on the board- but she’s not a chess player. Interesting.

I get the impression the author wants to give them the benefit of the doubt as much as possible ( more than I would), but some of the facts and interviews are what they are.

For instance- I don’t take it at face value that Meghan was treated poorly by some members of Harry’s family. All we have are Harry and Meghan’s words for that. That’s not good enough for me. But the author seems to accept that. However- I don’t get the impression the author much likes royals (any of them) in general.

 

[Marengo]

That was something I noticed too, the author repeated several times that the Duchess was mistreated by Harry's relatives. Without listing one example or source. And somewhere in the middle she uses the mistreatment as almost an excuse for the Duchess perhaps mistreating her staff:

Is it any surprise that a sense of victimhood and righteousness could continue to exist in a person who had been treated so horribly by the press and her husband’s family?

Which IMO shows rather flexible mental gymnastics.

The term 'emotional truth' -opposed to 'literal truth' made me chuckle... I never read that as a euthemism for a lie.

The article in general is not all negative indeed. It shows the couple in love, Harry as a friendly guy who would be content with his life outside of the lime light, were it not for financial constraints and Meghan energetically trying all sorts of ventures and failing due to self-censorship.

The most interesting part for me was the part describing the sessions with Spotify, how they were busy with many ideas but in the end nearly all was discarded by their team and by themselves. They seem to have ended up with Archetypes because they needed 'something' after such a long time, not because they thought it was good or interesting. I imagine it may have been the same process with Netflix.

An interesting observation by one of those interviewed:

“The person inside the couple’s circle says, “He looks like the kind of guy who would, frankly, happily work for charities for the rest of his life and would be very happy”.

Which for the most part was what he did when he was still a working royal. It would be a friendly explanation as to why he seems to copy this part of his old life now in the US.

 

[FigTree]

Eventually in life evidence mounts up and 'truth' outs. Look I wish Harry nothing but the best but I do have concerns. However, he is an adult and needs to take accountability and it's his life..so any input from anyone needs to have its place.

 

[Leopoldine]

I read that the VF article was two years in the making.

I thought that the VF piece was balanced and that the fact-checking was solid and the quotes from people in their orbit were legitimate.

As I and other posters here have surmised over the last few years, Prince Harry's case with RAVEC is of all-consuming importance to him. He and the Sussex team way well have accentuated the image of photographers chasing them in NYC in order to impress upon the UK justice system that they are always in big danger. Personally, I think he wants the armed police protection and the flashing outrider motorcycle police and local police, all present no matter what country they are in, to show how important they are and to emphasize their exalted positions as all-expenses-paid cultural warriors.

As balanced as the VF article was, the couple come across as sort of mismatched. My opinion. She's driving a disorganized commercial series of ventures, and he is steering lawyers to push his grudges against commercial and government entities.

 

[Hallo girl]

That was something I noticed too, the author repeated several times that the Duchess was mistreated by Harry's relatives. Without listing one example or source. And somewhere in the middle she uses the mistreatment as almost an excuse for the Duchess perhaps mistreating her staff:



Which IMO shows rather flexible mental gymnastics.

The term 'emotional truth' -opposed to 'literal truth' made me chuckle... I never read that as a euthemism for a lie.

The article in general is not all negative indeed. It shows the couple in love, Harry as a friendly guy who would be content with his life outside of the lime light, were it not for financial constraints and Meghan trying all sorts of ventures and failing due to self-censorship.

The most interesting part for me was the part describing the sessions with Spotify, how they were busy with many ideas but in the end nearly all was discarded by their team and by themselves. They seem to have ended up with Archetypes because they needed 'something' after such a long time, not because they thought it was good or interesting. I imagine it may have been the same process with Netflix.

An interesting observation by one of those interviewed:

“The person inside the couple’s circle says, “He looks like the kind of guy who would, frankly, happily work for charities for the rest of his life and would be very happy”.

Which for the most part was what he did when he was still a working royal. It would be a friendly explanation as to why he seems to copy this part of his old life now in the US.

It is a pity they didn’t keep to their own roles from day1.

 

[Then]

The term 'emotional truth' -opposed to 'literal truth' made me chuckle... I never read that as a euthemism for a lie.

That doesn't have to be a lie. For instance my sister is convinced my mother gave preferential treatment to me over her. I never experienced it that way. Facts are probably somewhere in the middle. I would consider her truth an "emotional truth" rather than a "literal truth". Same thing with how anyone was treated in Harry's family.

I don’t agree with this idea of emotional neglect and, in my opinion, it gives away the fact that the sources are pro Sussexes biased.
I remember very well when a set of photos of Diana and the boys were published. Harry was five at the time. (It’s a set shoot by Patrick Demarchelier where all three are in white shirts and blue jeans and the shooting took place in the garden at KP, I think.)
The caption of one of the photos said that Harry requested to be picked up despite his age. And he was still sucking his thumb.
I think Harry had and has unusually high needs of emotional demonstrations. Not that he was neglected.

A five year old wanting to be picked up and sucking his thumb is hardly a sign of "high need of emotional demonstrations". He was 5 not 15.

 

[Marengo]

That doesn't have to be a lie. For instance my sister is convinced my mother gave preferential treatment to me over her. I never experienced it that way. Facts are probably somewhere in the middle. I would consider her truth an "emotional truth" rather than a "literal truth". Same thing with how anyone was treated in Harry's family.

In that sense it can mean emotional truth indeed. But in the article it is used as a euphemism of what the author considers a possible lie, namely the Duchess saying she never googled her husband/the RF - which is juxtaposed with an example of her calling restaurants in advance to know the menu and other things.

In general disagree with the 'truth in the middle' or his/her truth etc. There is an objective truth and there are lies, misconceptions, one sided arguments etc. on the other side.

I read the article took two years to write. Although that may be the case I do wonder why, as the revelations as such are not that shocking IMO. Tidbits on the Spotify cooperation are new, but even here many things are not clear (f.e. did the employee leave due to the Duchess or was she dissatisfied with the production company?). And some parts are indeed far-fetched such as the author talking to random citizens of Montecito who blame the Duchess and Ellen Degeneres for increasing house prices and day-tourists.

 

[tommy100]

I think the time suggests it is probably well sourced and the author has taken time to build up relationships with sources.

What strikes me is that time and time again we hear that Harry isn't as happy in California as Meghan is and that Meghan (mainly) is tricky to work for. At a certain point when you hear so many sourced accounts of Meghan's behaviour towards employees there is clearly a truth to the fact that she can make people feel unhappy - whether that is done on purpose or not. Its interesting that the article puts he emphasis on that happening most "when things go wrong" - Meghan perhaps needs to work on her coping mechanisms to stressful situations, seems she blames others which I guess ties in with her and Harry's approach to many things - they always see it as someone else's fault.

 

[Hallo girl]

In that sense it can mean emotional truth indeed. But in the article it is used as a euphemism of what the author considers a possible lie, namely the Duchess saying she never googled her husband/the RF - which is juxtaposed with an example of her calling restaurants in advance to know the menu and other things.

In general disagree with the 'truth in the middle' or his/her truth etc. There is an objective truth and there are lies, misconceptions, one sided arguments etc. on the other side.

I read the article took two years to write. Although that may be the case I do wonder why, as the revelations as such are not that shocking IMO. Tidbits on the Spotify cooperation are new, but even here many things are not clear (f.e. did the employee leave due to the Duchess or was she dissatisfied with the production company?). And some parts are indeed far-fetched such as the author talking to random citizens of Montecito who blame the Duchess and Ellen Degeneres for increasing house prices and day-tourists.

That is a fair point about why employees
left.
Difficulty with staff does follow them.
Like you I am not impressed by comments made by random unidentified people, in any circumstances.

 

[Ghost]

A five year old wanting to be picked up and sucking his thumb is hardly a sign of "high need of emotional demonstrations". He was 5 not 15.

We probably have different timeframes for emotional development, I think. Which is absolutely fine.

 

[Mirabel]

Eventually in life evidence mounts up and 'truth' outs. Look I wish Harry nothing but the best but I do have concerns. However, he is an adult and needs to take accountability and it's his life..so any input from anyone needs to have its place.

But Harry seems unable to anticipate the consequences of his actions. I really don't think he expected the anger his book would generate among his family.
As for Meghan, her staff seems to use a revolving door; all of them can't be wrong!

 

[Queen Claude]

What is the source that the article took two years to write? I am curious, nevertheless I will go ahead and plunge in with my thoughts based on the two year factoid.

Two years ago would be early 2023. At that time Harry and Meghan's Netflix series aired and received high ratings and Harry's autobiography Spare was a record-breaking bestseller. Also Meghan's podcast had aired, and while to me it looked like at best a modest success, hard-core Sussex fans and other parties hyped it up to be a big success.

My thinking / speculation is that the writer, Anna Peele, assumed that trajectory would continue* and pitched a story with the thesis that Harry and Meghan were well on their way to being moguls with the added sweetener being that they triumphed over the abusive and racist institution from which they escaped.

I think that as she did the interviews and time passed, some inconvenient truths emerged such as the Sussexes and Spotify parting ways, no additional podcasts, ARO website going live and then nothing, trademark issues, no Netflix successes beyond the Harry and Meghan docuseries, et. al. So Spare was the Sussexes last commercial success and furthermore, stories started appearing in the American media that the Sussexes, Meghan in particular, are challenging to work with. So perhaps the story that Anna Peele filed in 2025 is vastly different that what she set out to write in 2023.

* Again, speculation, I will add that she probably heard from credible sources that things were in the pipeline like ARO and a Meghan fronted Netflix show.

 

[Ghost]

On IMDB their docu series has a rating of 5,1/10. I don’t know if it could be called a success. If by success we speak about financial revenue than yes, it might be considered as such. Same for Spare.

 

[Somebody]

Harry not having made any friends in 5 years but solely relying on his love for Meghan is quite concerning as well.

 

[Magnolia471]

I'm more concerned about the passage in which one of their friend implied that Meghan is "re-parenting" Harry. In what sense? Is Harry one of those adults regressed to a childhood age or what? I can't imagine such dynamics in a married couple, especially when they already have children.