Is it okay to put family first? (Response to royal family stuff)

[Maggie Gallagher]

The situation is in no way similar.

He/she said with absolute conviction.

I don't know, I thought it was similar in that Prince Edward fell in love with an American non-royal. Issues ensued. Prince Edward gave up his royal duties. Should I make a ven diagram?

 

[RedAngie]

This situation reminds me of Wallis Simpson and King Edward VIII:

Wallis Simpson (born Bessie Wallis Warfield; 19 June 1896 – 24 April 1986), later known as the Duchess of Windsor, was an American socialite divorcée whose intended marriage to the British king Edward VIII caused a constitutional crisis that led to Edward's abdication. Wallis grew up in Baltimore, Maryland.

He chose love over the royal family.

And what was this "constitutional crisis"? Elizabeth's uncle wanted to marry someone "unsuitable." He was denied permission and so he quit. The long established lines of succession for such a situation were followed.

Today, as then, it appears the press and many people are makings things to be much more serious than they really are.

 

[mi*vida*loca]

For a couple that thinks the RF is unwelcoming, uncaring, out of touch, racist, sexist, boring, etc., it's ok for them to take money from them.

I think I'd have to decline on principle alone!

H&M have said all that about the RF?

 

[cabanafrau]

It doesn't matter who calls or arranges things, fact is that he is present with the members of the RF in order to capture their most precious moments photographically, and therefore he gets to experience life with them that few do, X40 yrs, so he does have amazing insight. What I got from that interview is that he loves Harry very much. It looked like he was about to cry a few times. Much of what he said is what I also see reflected in many of the Comments I've read from the people of the UK. Harry, and Meghan, were much loved, and people were pulling for their happiness and excited to be a part of it.

I agree that a lot of people were pulling for their happiness. I also recognize that sometimes that kind of feeling can be fleeting and I'm aware that there was plenty of nastiness directed at them as well. I don't know how well they have or haven't coped with that or how much support they have gotten inside the palace and/or inside the family. I do assume the family has attempted to be supportive and I truly hope that the real issues aren't familial.

As far as the gatekeeping aspect of things not being important, I disagree. That has the potential to have a lot of power with the potential to use it for good or ill (which also can depend on the lens it's being viewed from). It's not like palace intrigue and maneuvering has never affected how things have played out historically or even under the reign of the current queen there haven't been questions from time to time about just how much the tail may or may not be wagging the dog.

 

[ronandannette]

I have no idea how it works, but the fact that she went to Canada as part of the cast of a TV series might have made her eligible for the status to work there at that time. I'm not sure if it granted her the ability to remain once that production ended and decide to open a restaurant and stay as the proprietor. In order to apply to live and work there she might be required to prove that she already has a job waiting.

With Harry a born member of the British Royal Family and fully a British citizen I have no idea what privileges that would bring in regard to living and working in Canada. For that matter I don't know if Megan's marriage or her lack of British citizenship would allow her any privileges or be a barrier to her that wouldn't apply in Harry's case.

The way it generally works is that Suits would have been produced (at least ostensibly) by a Canadian production company. That company would have had to obtain permission to hire foreigners and then held the "work papers" for whomever was employed. Typically, employees like this don't have any formal immigration status of their own and are required to depart Canada within short time after the specified Work Permit expires or is passed to another individual (like if she had been fired from Suits and another actress hired).

There are no fast-tracks for anyone to immigrate into Canada except through business development (capital investment) or as a refugee. Neither Brits, Americans or any other nationals have any advantage and it's a long, tedious process. At this time most of our immigration quotas are fulfilled through admitting refugees and regardless of how the Sussexes may bemoan their lots in life, I don't think they quite qualify.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

That was me.

I got the gist of what you were saying, and I'm sure your husband has followed your traditions too and that you developed new traditions together. Also, I'm guessing that you loved Diana for her humanity, not because she gave up everything for the RF.

Good for you showing restraint when someone came for you. If someone took that attitude with me, I don't know if I would have had the self-control to "let it go."

That was me. And I don’t believe I came for her. She started a post with “seriously?”. I answered. No I do not believe the poster gave up everything about herself for hubby. I actually believe everything you said (in this post) and am having trouble understanding why MM can’t do the same.

 

[Searc]

That was me.


That was me. And I don’t believe I came for her. She started a post with “seriously?”. I answered. No I do not believe the poster gave up everything about herself for hubby. I actually believe everything you said and am having trouble understanding why MM can’t do the same.

Now, you know MM should be falling on her knees every night in gratitude because a Prince lowered himself to marry her. As an American, she should know exactly what the RF deals with on a daily basis and how they live their lives under a microscope. *

*Per some opinions expressed throughout this thread

 

[cabanafrau]

The way it generally works is that Suits would have been produced (at least ostensibly) by a Canadian production company. That company would have had to obtain permission to hire foreigners and then held the "work papers" for whomever was employed. Typically, employees like this don't have any formal immigration status of their own and are required to depart Canada within short time after the specified Work Permit expires or is passed to another individual (like if she had been fired from Suits and another actress hired).

There are no fast-tracks for anyone to immigrate into Canada except through business development (capital investment) or as a refugee. Neither Brits, Americans or any other nationals have any advantage and it's a long, tedious process. At this time most of our immigration quotas are fulfilled through admitting refugees and regardless of how the Sussexes may bemoan their lots in life, I don't think they quite qualify.

That is somewhat what I would have guessed regarding living and working there as part of the TV show, as far as having parameters and expiration timelines.

As far as no fast tracks, I would believe you're technically accurate. As far as how it may play out in this particular situation I don't know how much technicalities will or won't come into play, or how much of a public uproar might be stirred up if they're granted special privileges. Aspects like that just might be the type of things being worked out and why the palace didn't simply say they defer to Harry and Megan's decisions and why the jumping the gun with the announcement may have been a bit of cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Getting back to this. I posted it last night but didn't have a lot of time then to talk about its contents, in case people glossed it over, and in light of the discussion yesterday about the relationship between Meghan and her father.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...star-witness-against-High-Court-showdown.html
So Meghan herself filed a lawsuit against the Mail for publishing parts of private electronic communication between her and her Dad, Thomas Markel, in 2018 just before her wedding.

The case is coming up to the High Court in London.

At the time, Meghan apparently allowed five of her friends to discuss a letter's contents with People Magazine, and essentially, as the communication trail has shown and will show, they lied.

Thomas Markel was hurt and wished to defend himself, so he provided communication to the Mail himself to show the truth.

It is all right there for the whole world to see how she and Harry treated him while he was in medical crisis, as well as how he responded to her.

It will be hard to deny the facts here.

"The devastating breakdown in Meghan Markle's relationship with her father was laid bare yesterday in a series of messages between the pair detailed by court papers.

He has handed over previously unseen messages and letters which set out how he made desperate attempts to mend their relationship after heart surgery forced him to miss her wedding.

In one message he accused Prince Harry of treating his heart attack as an 'inconvenience', adding: 'I've done nothing to hurt you, Meghan or anyone else.'

In another, he said that Meghan had effectively 'written me off'. The exchanges between Mr Markle and his daughter were detailed in documents filed to the High Court in London yesterday.

He has handed over his own medical records and his correspondence with Meghan, which reveals how their relationship broke down in the final fortnight before her wedding.

According to the messages detailed in the defence papers yesterday, Thomas Markle initially sent touching messages to his daughter, which spoke of his excitement about her upcoming wedding – before he told of his devastation when a heart attack forced him to abandon plans to walk her down the aisle. In the messages, he repeatedly told Meghan that he loved her.

In documents lodged at the High Court, defence lawyers said Meghan had shown a disregard for her father's wellbeing. They said that even after he explained his cardiac condition and that doctors said he couldn't fly, he was on the receiving end of an admonishment from Harry.

According to the defence papers, Mr Markle texted his daughter to say he had dropped off some flowers at her mother's house for Mother's Day. In a touching message, he told Meghan he was excited about trying on some shoes she had bought for him to wear to her wedding. She had also bought him a new suit.

He ended the text with a poignant message that it was 'past her bedtime' because of the time difference, adding: 'I love you.' He wrote: 'I look forward to trying on my shoes and see how we look thank you for getting it ready for me its [sic] probably past your bedtime so have a good night I love you Dad.'

The news is about to break that Mr Markle had secretly agreed with a photographer to stage a series of paparazzi-style pictures – despite pleas from Prince Harry for the media to leave his future father-in-law alone. At the time, it was reported that CCTV had caught him posing in an internet café for photographs which showed him looking at a news story about his daughter's romance with the prince.

Kensington Palace had previously issued a warning to publishers to respect his privacy, saying he had been 'harassed' by paparazzi. A letter by Prince Harry's communications secretary Jason Knauf said he had been followed and urged editors not to publish pictures of him. But the Mail on Sunday revealed a series of photographs had been taken with his co-operation in March. Mr Markle, Meghan and Harry spoke on the phone before the story broke.

Kensington Palace issued a statement in which it confirmed that Mr Markle would not attend the wedding. It said: 'This is a deeply personal moment for Ms Markle in the days before her wedding. She and Prince Harry ask again for understanding and respect to be extended to Mr Markle in this difficult situation.'

The defence papers say that on that day, Mr Markle wrote to his daughter to apologise for the furore over the posed photographs, and offered to make a public apology to both Meghan and Prince Harry. He said he loved her but would not go to her wedding as he wanted to spare her from any further embarrassment.

Prince Harry sent him a message in response, saying he did not need to apologise, and that he should call them. Later that day, Mr Markle suffered chest pains and shortness of breath and was taken to hospital and diagnosed with suspected congestive heart failure.

Mr Markle had an emergency operation – an angioplasty to unblock two arteries to his heart.

The defence papers say that on that day, he texted Meghan to tell her about the surgery and said he could not attend the wedding because his doctors would not allow him to fly. He apologised for missing the wedding and said he loved her, and wished her the best, saying he had had surgery.

According to the defence papers, he sent a later message, asking who would walk her down the aisle to give her away, and said he would come if she really needed him. He apologised again for not being there. He told Meghan he loved her and wishes her the best.

In response, he received a text message which he believed was from Prince Harry, which he described as hurtful.

According to the legal documents lodged at the High Court yesterday, it was signed 'Love M and H' but did not ask about his emergency heart surgery, or even ask him how he felt. Instead, it accused him of ignoring some 20 phone calls from Meghan.

The court papers said of Thomas Markle: 'He received a text response signed 'Love M and H', but which read as if it was from Prince Harry, (amongst other things) admonishing Mr Markle for talking to the Press and telling him to stop and accusing Mr Markle of causing hurt to his daughter.

'The text did not ask how the surgical procedure had gone or how Mr Markle was or send him good wishes.' Mr Markle was said to be 'deeply hurt' by the tone of the message, and replied curtly.

According to the defence papers, he said: 'I've done nothing to hurt you Meghan or anyone else I know nothing about 20 phone calls. I'm sorry my heart attack is … any inconvenience for you.' The court papers allege he received no reply and that his daughter did not speak to him again in the final days before her wedding.

Kensington Palace issued a statement from Meghan, saying: 'Sadly, my father will not be attending our wedding.

'I have always cared for my father and I hope he can be given the space he needs to focus on his health. I would like to thank everyone who has offered generous messages of support. Please know how much Harry and I look forward to sharing our special day with you on Saturday.'

In a statement the following day, Kensington Palace said Meghan had asked Prince Charles to walk her down the aisle at her wedding. It made no reference to her father or his hospital treatment.

Meghan Markle married Prince Harry and formally became part of the Royal Family.

Her mother Doria was at her side and Prince Charles walked her down the aisle.

The defence papers lodged yesterday, said that Mr Markle had insisted he made multiple attempts to contact his daughter by phone call and by text message, but received no response.

When he tried to call, he said his calls were blocked and that he believed she had changed her number without telling him.

Mr Markle said he had no communication from Meghan at all until her letter in August, three months later. Apart from that single letter, the defence papers said he had not heard from his daughter since he told her he was too ill to attend her wedding. He had never been introduced to her husband Prince Harry, nor met his eight-month-old grandson Archie.

He continued to try to make contact, and texted her in November 2018, according to the defence papers. The message read: 'I want to reach out to you or try to reach out to you one more time.

'You apparently have just written me off and now it's telling me I guess for the rest of my life?' He has received no response, the legal papers said.

Thomas Markle released a letter from his daughter Meghan to the world to show it was not the 'loving' plea her friends had been making out, court documents said yesterday.

He kept her handwritten note private for months, and only revealed it to expose 'false' claims that the duchess had been trying to repair their relationship.

The letter – from August 2018 in the wake of her wedding to Prince Harry – was an 'attack' on Mr Markle and signalled the 'end of the relationship' between father and daughter, the court papers said.

According to defence papers filed at the High Court yesterday on behalf of The Mail on Sunday, the Duchess of Sussex's estranged father only decided to release extracts of the letter to the Press after she had allowed her friends to talk about it first.

The newspaper's documents stated that Meghan 'knowingly' allowed her friends to leak details of the letter to the media. She 'caused or permitted' five close friends to speak anonymously to the US magazine People to attack Thomas Markle, the court papers said.

The result was a bombshell interview published on February 6, 2019, in the celebrity weekly headlined: 'Her best friends break their silence' and 'The truth about Meghan'.

It quoted the Duchess of Sussex's friends saying she had written an impassioned plea to her estranged father to stop 'victimising' her in the media. They said she had been so upset by his repeated public attacks on her and Prince Harry that she had sent the letter begging him to sort out their differences privately.

The People interview said Meghan had written to Mr Markle: 'Dad, I'm so heartbroken, I love you, I have one father. Please stop victimising me through the media so we can repair our relationship'.

But this article gave a 'one-sided' and 'false' account of the situation and of her letter, yesterday's defence papers said.

Far from being 'a loving letter aimed at repairing their relationship… her letter was an attack on Mr Markle. Amongst other things, she accused him of breaking her heart, manufacturing pain, being paranoid, being ridiculed, fabricating stories, of attacking Prince Harry and continually lying'.

Among the false claims, it was wrongly said that Mr Markle had refused to get in the airport car to attend the royal wedding, according to the court papers.

The People interview also said that Mr Markle had 'never called... never texted', and that he had falsely claimed that he could not reach his daughter. This was, according to the Mail on Sunday's defence, untrue.

Following the wedding, Mr Markle had tried to contact Meghan by phone and text, but had received no response until the letter, it was said.

'Except for the receipt of the letter, Mr Markle had not heard from his daughter since he wrote to tell her he was too ill to attend her wedding, nor has he ever been introduced to or met Prince Harry or their son, his grandson,' the defence document said.

Mr Markle was therefore entitled to set the record straight by allowing the British newspaper to publish extracts of the letter four days later, said the defence document, which added that he released it 'in direct response to the publication of the People interview'. It said: 'Thomas Markle had a weighty right to tell his version of what had happened between himself and his daughter including the contents of the letter. She did not suggest that they try to repair their relationship.

'On the contrary, the final words of the letter, 'I ask for nothing other than peace, and I wish the same for you' suggested that their relationship was at an end, and Mr Markle understood those words to signal the end of the relationship.'

The court filing insisted the Duchess of Sussex had never denied that she gave her consent to People magazine's five sources, described by the weekly – which has 40million readers in the US alone – as an 'intensely loyal circle of close friends'. The defence document said that Meghan 'knowingly caused or permitted information' about her relationship with her father and a description of the letter's contents to enter the public domain.

The meaning and effect of the 'one-sided and/or misleading' account in the People 'was to suggest Mr Markle had made false claims about his dealings with his daughter'.

The Mail on Sunday's defence also said: 'The People interview stated that Mr Markle had responded to the letter with a letter of his own in which he asked for a 'photo op' with [Meghan], with the implicit suggestion that he was seeking to make money from a photograph of him with [her]. This was false.

'Mr Markle had in fact written, 'I wish we could get together and take a photo for the whole world to see. If you and Harry don't like me? Fake it for one photo and maybe some of the Press will finally shut up!'. None of Mr Markle's account of events or feelings about those events was mentioned in the People interview.'

The defence lawyers said it was apparent from Meghan's neat handwriting and immaculate presentation of the letter that she anticipated it being read by others or possibly disclosed to the media.

One of Meghan's best friends once intervened to try to fix a 'favourable' press article for the Duchess of Sussex, it has been claimed.

Canadian fashion stylist Jessica Mulroney tried to 'influence' an interview that former Meghan adviser Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne had granted the Mail on Sunday.

The claim is part of the newspaper's case that the duchess was well versed in the art of attempting to manipulate what was written about her.

She has complained about her father allowing parts of a letter she wrote to him to be published in the Mail on Sunday.

But the paper says Thomas Markle only did so after Meghan had colluded in an article with People magazine. Mrs Mulroney's intervention was given as an example of Meghan using friends to influence what was written about her.

The duchess and her style guru are said to have been in touch after Kensington Palace was informed by the Mail on Sunday about its interview with Mrs Nelthorpe-Cowne, a former friend and adviser.

The court papers say Meghan 'caused or permitted a close friend to seek to influence what is published about her in the media'. They said Mrs Mulroney tried to intervene in relation to the interview.

A Mail on Sunday journalist had notified the Palace about the contents of the story. The paper's lawyers suggest Meghan then passed this message on to Mrs Mulroney 'with a request that she intervene to try to ensure that a more favourable article was published'.

Later that day – April 7, 2018 – Mrs Mulroney wrote to Mrs Nelthorpe-Cowne 'putting pressure on her to withdraw or change statements', it was claimed.

Defence lawyers stated they would seek 'disclosure' of all of Meghan's communications relating to this intervention and any other occasions in which she had permitted her friends to provide information to the media to influence what is published about her.

Mrs Mulroney, the daughter-in-law of former Canadian PM Brian Mulroney, met Meghan while working on the TV drama Suits. Known as 'Toronto's answer to Gwyneth Paltrow', she is a social media star and is married to a friend of Canadian PM Justin Trudeau.

That letter is at the heart of a court case in which the Duchess of Sussex has accused the Mail on Sunday of breaching both her privacy and her copyright after it published extracts.

The newspaper, which is the sister paper of the Daily Mail, was given the letter by Thomas Markle after five close friends of the Duchess gave anonymous interviews to a U.S. celebrity magazine attacking him and which he said were false and had left him 'devastated'.

The new details are contained in the defence document, lodged with the court by the Mail on Sunday, which paints a vivid and disturbing picture of the deterioration and breakdown of the relationship between Meghan and her father, a retired Hollywood lighting director.

For the Royal Family, this is another unwelcome move which looks certain to lead to the extraordinary spectacle of Thomas Markle giving evidence in the Queen's court against Her Majesty's granddaughter-in-law.

These are uncharted waters for the royals, who have for generations avoided courtroom dramas. No wonder informed sources say other family members, while sympathetic to Harry and Meghan's predicament, are 'queasy' about the developments.

They were surprised when the Duke and Duchess decided to move the case from the usual royal lawyers to another more aggressive firm. It not only raised eyebrows at the time, but also suggested the couple were set on their path.

Not since the Old Bailey case against Princess Diana's former butler Paul Burrell, which collapsed so dramatically 17 years ago and in which there was a real threat that members of the Royal Family would be forced to give evidence, has a royal been so close to a legal showdown as Meghan is now.

In 44 pages, the Mail on Sunday sets out its case and the background to Thomas Markle's absence from his daughter's wedding. He reveals how he fully intended to travel to Britain for the nuptials, giving the date of his departure for London from his home in Mexico as May 16, 2018.

The tragedy of this family breakdown has haunted the royals ever since. To some, Mr Markle seemed an unpredictable, possibly vulnerable, figure. To others, he was a victim who had been ruthlessly driven out of Meghan's life because she was now a royal duchess.

To compound the difficulties, in February last year People magazine published a story in which it claimed to 'put the record straight' over the Duchess's relationship with her father and criticism of her style as a royal.

It was based on interviews with five friends — at least one of whom was thought to be one of the Duchess's co-stars in Suits, the TV legal drama in which she starred for six years.

The article painted Meghan in a glowing light, while insisting the negative stories about her were lies, and, crucially, referred to the private letter she had sent him the previous August.

The magazine also claimed that Mr Markle's response to the letter had been to ask for a 'photo-op' with his daughter. The court papers say this was false.

In fact, Mr Markle suggested a photo only to take the media heat off the three of them by suggesting a harmonious relationship.

There is one other twist. The Mail on Sunday documents reveal how Meghan 'caused or permitted' one of her close circle, the Canadian Jessica Mulroney, to put pressure on Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne — a former business associate of the Duchess — to change an interview she had given to ensure a more favourable impression was conveyed. It is a sign of the sophistication of Meghan's circle where media management is concerned.

The next step could well be the High Court in London and the unbelievable prospect of the wife of the Queen's grandson battling with her own father over truth and lies, like an unedifying scene from a soap opera."

 

[ronandannette]

That is somewhat what I would have guessed regarding living and working there as part of the TV show, as far as having parameters and expiration timelines.

As far as no fast tracks, I would believe you're technically accurate. As far as how it may play out in this particular situation I don't know how much technicalities will or won't come into play, or how much of a public uproar might be stirred up if they're granted special privileges. Aspects like that just might be the type of things being worked out and why the palace didn't simply say they defer to Harry and Megan's decisions and why the jumping the gun with the announcement may have been a bit of cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Well, I would assume they will not be spending all their time in Canada. Citizens of the Commonwealth (among many others, Americans included) can "visit" Canada for 6 months (180 days per year) with no formalities; no visa is required. It is possible they plan to be away enough not to exceed this limit. Working in Canada would be another issue but they don't need to work in Canada - they would be able to earn money from other sources with no restrictions, other than whatever the tax implications may be.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

And this goes back to some of the discussions about security in "post-title" life, as in when Diana lost her HRH title after her divorce. Pretty telling. I don't know if either this can happen in today's world given the threats to their lives and well-being, or if this is really the type of life that H&M actually want. I guess time will tell.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...iana-proved-serve-Queen-trade-royal-name.html
"While ‘respecting’ the wish of Harry and Meghan ‘to live a more independent life’, Her Majesty will not have forgotten what happened the last time something similar was attempted. That was in 1996 during that tragically short period between the Princess of Wales’s divorce and her death the following year.

‘HRH The Princess of Wales’ had just become ‘Diana, Princess of Wales’ and was seeking to develop a new career for herself, one with an enhanced focus on particular charitable causes.

Though she might just have lost her royal status — it was not an act of spite; the style of ‘HRH’ which she acquired on marriage was duly removed when that marriage came to an end — the Princess had clearly lost none of her royal stardust as she flew to open a heart hospital in Sydney.

However, everyone involved in the visit had received a panic-stricken memo from the organisers explaining that the royal visitor was no longer actually royal.

‘Under no circumstances is she to be referred to or called Princess Diana,’ it explained, adding: ‘There is no requirement to curtsy.’

I was reporting on that visit and well remember that the international media contingent was so large that the local police chief had to book a theatre to announce press arrangements.

I have gone on to examine that four-day tour in detail for my book, Queen Of The World, since it was a sincere attempt by the Princess to structure a new non-royal international modus operandi for the mother of the future King. There are a number of striking parallels with some of the issues on the agenda at Sandringham yesterday.

British and Australian government officials were clearly beside themselves about issues of protocol, hence the memo from the organising charity.

In the event, the public couldn’t give two hoots and did exactly what they had done on all previous occasions. They bowed, they curtsied, they called her ‘Lady Di’, ‘Princess Di’, ‘Your Royal Highness’ or plain ‘Diana’ as they saw fit and they were obsessed with every detail of the visit.

The Sydney Daily Telegraph assigned one reporter to monitor her every mouthful at the A$1,000-a-head gala dinner. ‘She ate one of three pieces of seared tuna, one half of roasted tomato, ignoring the squid ink-black noodles,’ ran a gushing report the following day.

In other words, very little had changed since the Princess’s transition to that ‘more independent life’. Except that everything had changed.

Though she still had police protection, she no longer had access to all the back-up support which had been part of the royal package.

On arrival, there was no official car to ferry her around Sydney — although there was still a smart motorcade waiting for her on the tarmac. This, it transpired, turned out to have been sponsored by a local Toyota dealership which proceeded to carry advertisements for itself throughout the visit.

Nor, in the absence of a private secretary or equerry, was there anyone capable of quietly but firmly retaining an appropriate level of dignity at some of the more public engagements.

When the Princess attended a fundraising lunch, a local public relations company had organised a closely choreographed walkabout through the Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre afterwards — complete with allocated times for particular sponsors."

 

[TipsyTraveler]

Didn't watch it all, but it was interesting. My take was that this reporter was sincere and genuinely believes what he's saying. I also recognize that it's entirely normal that he may not recognize his own biases, or be aware that a good deal of what he sincerely believes is an accurate viewpoint is in fact shaped by his sources, who may have biases and agendas of their own of which he is entirely oblivious. He seems to be overlooking the reality that a lot of his insight into the royals isn't as direct from them as he's interpreting it to be. His job is to cover a story. When he's used to getting friendly cooperation from palace staff channels and the information turns out to be on the money as far as accuracy goes for many years it's natural that he would believe that all of what they share is absolutely true. I'm sure sometimes he's made inquiries and gets crickets back, but he understands that to be because they're supposed to keep quiet about something.

How easy would it be for a palace staff who is feeling uneasy about an American, or someone with virtually no idea about how aristocracy works on a day to day level, or a woman of color, or someone from Hollywood, or someone who's beyond the years of being an impressionable girl ready to accept their instructions without question to receive media requests to interview the Duchess either to not pass along the request to her, or advise her that media interviews are really not done by the family except under extraordinary circumstances to get her to decline the request herself, and then tell the press the Duchess declines?

If a refusal is expressed to the media in a way that's different from the normal refusals it's only natural for the press to read something into the differences and assign them to what they know to be the obvious difference. The same thing could be said about changes in Harry since marrying. On the outside it may look that Megan is the cause or in fact dictating the changes. If negative comments and press about his wife and/or child are like waving a cape in front of a bull when it comes to Harry it's entirely possible that the changes are in fact led by Harry. If that's the case and Harry feels he's only reacting to nastiness towards Megan and he sees her being blamed for changes it may only make him feel he is absolutely right to pull in tighter and withdraw, closing the loop on a vicious cycle.

Maybe this reporter is right on the money and this whole mess is led by a very calculating woman who's tearing apart this family unit and doing tremendous damage to the monarchy for unknown reasons. I'm merely suggesting that the reporter may be sharing what he's genuinely hearing and seeing, but may not understand how and why his vantage point is compromised.

Your assessment of this guy is much more thoughtful than mine. I was going to say he sounds like a bitter old woman who can’t accept her little boy is growing up.

“He used to be so sweet and we always did everything together. And then SHE came along. Now he spends all his time with her and I’m lucky to get one phone call a week. They had the audacity to spend Christmas with HER family this year even though they’ve always spent it here with me in the past. They don’t listen to my outdated parenting advice and can you believe I wasn’t even invited to be in the delivery room when that baby was born? He’s my baby too! He’s making his own career decisions without my input and now they’re talking about moving! I know this is all because of her. My precious widdle baby boy would never choose to hurt his dear old mom this way. He’s just changed so much since she came along — he’s nothing like he was when he was 8 years old anymore. Wahhhhh!”

Particulary cringe-y was when he made the comments about how “ridiculous” it was that Meghan was in labor a few hours before notifying anyone, or that they dared to wait a bit before serving their newborn infant up for public consumption. As if anyone (and certainly not some random employee or the public at large) has the right to know details about Meghan’s private medical info or is entitled to their baby in any way. Mr Photog and his inflated sense of self-importance seem to have forgotten their role — he’s an employee, much like the drivers, secretaries, and maids and if he wants it to stay that way, he might want to restrict himself to snapping pictures and keeping his mouth shut. What a blowhard.

No wonder Harry and Meghan want to get away from this zoo.

 

[Searc]

The Daily Mail is a right-wing UK tabloid that has as much credibility as the Enquirer or other rags in the US.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Often an "old" or "outdated" theme in some of these responses.

The people of the UK love and respect their traditions in a way that we don't here. (Maybe we would if we had a monarchy, too.) It may be hard for us to understand but the fact is that many there continue to emphatically embrace the ways of the RF. Is William to be criticized if he holds true to tradition? Or are he and Harry just different people with different foci?

Remember, too, that we're all going to be "old" someday. Are we just to completely give up our ways of thinking and being? May be easier said than done, for all of us, including those who aren't there yet.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Often an "old" or "outdated" theme in some of these responses.

The people of the UK love and respect their traditions in a way that we don't here. (Maybe we would if we had a monarchy, too.) It may be hard for us to understand but the fact is that many there continue to emphatically embrace the ways of the RF. Is William to be criticized if he holds true to tradition? Or are he and Harry just different people with different foci?

Remember, too, that we're all going to be "old" someday. Are we just to completely give up our ways of thinking and being? May be easier said than done, for all of us, including those who aren't there yet.

There's something to be said for tradition and respect. Something that is ridiculed and discarded by some today.

 

[cabanafrau]

Your assessment of this guy is much more thoughtful than mine. I was going to say he sounds like a bitter old woman who can’t accept her little boy is growing up.

“He used to be so sweet and we always did everything together. And then SHE came along. Now he spends all his time with her and I’m lucky to get one phone call a week. They had the audacity to spend Christmas with HER family this year even though they’ve always spent it here with me in the past. They don’t listen to my outdated parenting advice and can you believe I wasn’t even invited to be in the delivery room when that baby was born? He’s my baby too! He’s making his own career decisions without my input and now they’re talking about moving! I know this is all because of her. My precious widdle baby boy would never choose to hurt his dear old mom this way. He’s just changed so much since she came along — he’s nothing like he was when he was 8 years old anymore. Wahhhhh!”

Particulary cringe-y was when he made the comments about how “ridiculous” it was that Meghan was in labor a few hours before notifying anyone, or that they dared to wait a bit before serving their newborn infant up for public consumption. As if anyone (and certainly not some random employee or the public at large) has the right to know details about Meghan’s private medical info or is entitled to their baby in any way. Mr Photog and his inflated sense of self-importance seem to have forgotten their role — he’s an employee, much like the drivers, secretaries, and maids and if he wants it to stay that way, he might want to restrict himself to snapping pictures and keeping his mouth shut. What a blowhard.

No wonder Harry and Meghan want to get away from this zoo.

I certainly don't fault Megan for not doing the post childbirth appearance on the hospital steps. I also won't make any digs at Kate for following the precedent set by Diana in making that post childbirth appearance on the hospital steps with her babies in tow. I'd hope both sister-in-laws were graciously supportive of each other's decision about how they both handled it, if it even came up, which I doubt.

It's normal for someone in the media to be a bit letdown that Megan didn't follow through with a hoped for appearance with the baby. If reporting on it is your job and you know there's going to be tremendous interest in any pictures and comments, disappointment that it didn't happen is expected. Doesn't mean the press has the right to feel entitled that it should happen or judge why the decision was made not to do it that way or say something negative about the mother or the parents.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Sorry, yes I totally misspoke about Meghans age.
Even goes further to make my point when I am corrected!

And,
“He used to be so sweet and we always did everything together. And then SHE came along. Now he spends all his time with her and I’m lucky to get one phone call a week. They had the audacity to spend Christmas with HER family this year even though they’ve always spent it here with me in the past. They don’t listen to my outdated parenting advice and can you believe I wasn’t even invited to be in the delivery room when that baby was born? He’s my baby too! He’s making his own career decisions without my input and now they’re talking about moving! I know this is all because of her. My precious widdle baby boy would never choose to hurt his dear old mom this way. He’s just changed so much since she came along — he’s nothing like he was when he was 8 years old anymore. Wahhhhh!”

Ohhhh, I love this one!!!!!
BTDT

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I certainly don't fault Megan for not doing the post childbirth appearance on the hospital steps. I also won't make any digs at Kate for following the precedent set by Diana in making that post childbirth appearance on the hospital steps with her babies in tow. I'd hope both sister-in-laws were graciously supportive of each other's decision about how they both handled it, if it even came up, which I doubt.

It's normal for someone in the media to be a bit letdown that Megan didn't follow through with a hoped for appearance with the baby. If reporting on it is your job and you know there's going to be tremendous interest in any pictures and comments, disappointment that it didn't happen is expected. Doesn't mean the press has the right to feel entitled that it should happen or judge why the decision was made not to do it that way or say something negative about the mother or the parents.

It was certainly their right to do it their way. And they did. But millions of adoring fans were waiting to hear and rejoice in the birth of their child. They weren't expecting such a deviation from tradition, and they felt disappointed. They'd been there from the beginning with seeming support from H&M. They were perplexed about why they did things so non-traditionally when much up to that point had been traditional. It wasn't just that there wasn't a picture taken on the step outside the hospital with the newborn baby for the public to get a glimpse of him. It was the deception about a lot of things related to the baby and the birth, along with the $500,000 baby shower thrown by A list celebrities in NYC that caused some head scratching, and later, distrust.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I think heck would freeze over before my personal and medical well being and privacy were compromised, for absolute strangers.
But, that baby shower. Yep, that is a HUGE cake to have and eat the icing too.
That was just indicative of what has now come to fruition.
They want it BOTH ways.
And, to me, nope, that is not okay.
I think this is a proposition that ends with "Choose ONE".

 

[TipsyTraveler]

Often an "old" or "outdated" theme in some of these responses.

The people of the UK love and respect their traditions in a way that we don't here. (Maybe we would if we had a monarchy, too.) It may be hard for us to understand but the fact is that many there continue to emphatically embrace the ways of the RF. Is William to be criticized if he holds true to tradition? Or are he and Harry just different people with different foci?

Remember, too, that we're all going to be "old" someday. Are we just to completely give up our ways of thinking and being? May be easier said than done, for all of us, including those who aren't there yet.

People are free to have whatever old, new, conservative, progressive, mainstream, alternative, etc. beliefs they want. They are also free to practice, or let go of, whatever traditions they want. The problem is when they expect others should be forced to do things a certain way whether that other person wants to or not. Joe Public loves watching the pageantry and traditions of the Royal Family? Cool. He can do that to his heart’s content. Where he crosses a line is in expecting Harry needs to live his life according to royal traditions just because that’s what Joe Public wants to see.

William, of course, should also be free to make his own choices. He seems happy to partake in the monarchy so I really don’t get what all the fuss is about — the Royal Watchers still have someone to watch.