Jump to content
IGNORED

Meghan and Harry 6: Everything about this Is Kind of Cringe


HerNameIsBuffy

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Totally agree that royal finances are confusing and curiously interwoven, which is what makes Harry’s claims of being “cut off” especially weird.

 

 

I do wonder exactly how much Harry actually knew about his financial situation when he left? 

Not in that people were hiding things deliberately from him, but we're talking multimillions, with chunks tied up across different trusts and shrouded in the various schemes the BRF uses to hide its wealth. It would presumably be quite complicated for your average lay-person to try and map out. Charles was obviously supporting him, but was there just a block of cash arriving at certain intervals in his account, or a more formal arrangement?

I presume the BRF has a top-notch team of accountants keeping track of everything, but presumably Harry would have wanted to break away from that, possibly before he left. In which case, did Harry and Meghan have to sit down together at any point to try and work out their financial situation - or at least, turn an American team on it? 

Edited by Xanariel
  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that Charles was funding their working travel, wardrobe, and other "work" expenses.  I expect that was what was cut off when they quit performing royal duties.  It seems that M&H had very unrealistic ideas of what Charles would fund when they decided to quit.  It rather matches their ideas that they should have continued security at government expense.  

I liken it to a cousin of mine who was being provided room and board and a stipend in exchange for doing some, not all, assistance and care for a relative.  Cousin began not doing the shopping, driving to dr appointments, etc. and was utterly shocked when the stipend first was stopped and then he was asked to find a new living situation.  He was "owed" he claimed for all he had done for the relative.  Fortunately there was a written agreement and about a dozen witnesses.  

If indeed, the family understanding was that Charles funded work related expenses or possibly even some or all UK housing related expenses, then surely any continuing support would need to be discussed and arrangements made.  A unilateral quitting results in the situation my cousin put himself in.  The family goes, you quit so you're done.  

Edited by Coconut Flan
  • Upvote 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so why does a baby being delivered in California with a perfectly good doctor in presumably a good hospital, need another doctor in London?

 

Quote

Meghan's care was overseen by Dr. Melissa Drake, with remote support from Dr. Gowri Motha in the U.K., who helped oversee the care during the birth of Archie at London's Portland Hospital. 
https://people.com/royals/inside-meghan-markle-ultra-private-birth-plan/

 

  • Upvote 4
  • WTF 1
  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Okay, so why does a baby being delivered in California with a perfectly good doctor in presumably a good hospital, need another doctor in London?

 

 

I suppose it's possible that Meghan either got on really well with that particular doctor and felt that she wanted the reassurance of their presence, or she had some concern about the birth and wanted the extra input of someone who had overseen her previous delivery? 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

I suppose it's possible that Meghan either got on really well with that particular doctor and felt that she wanted the reassurance of their presence, or she had some concern about the birth and wanted the extra input of someone who had overseen her previous delivery? 

I’m sure that it had to do with Meghan wanting input from this London doctor, and it’s a good thing they can afford it.  (Even if they have health insurance in the US, I doubt it covers a second doctor in the UK.)  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2021 at 6:00 AM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I didn't know anything about these people when Archie was born and I saw shit about his name everywhere and he wasn't named after anyone, unless you count his own father in the Harrison.  Honest to God, they couldn't have named her ANYTHING without people having a million opinions and her birth getting publicity.  There are absolutely people here who would give them shit had they used Elizabeth, or had they not used a family name at all.  Or both names from Meghan's side and that would have been seen as a statement that they've cut Harry's family out.  

It's patently absurd to suggest that there was any name they could have given her that would have been devoid of controversy and publicity.  

If you don't follow this show, you wouldn't know!   When Archie was named there was a to do about it.  Because it wasn't traditional mostly.  It's also really close to Rachel and Harry's son.  All kinds of talk.  Perhaps, because you didn't hear it shows you how little the topic of M&H really comes up.  Unless you are on a chat site and it gets brought up, you probably wouldn't know this one either. ?‍♀️

It's a niche topic that comes in handy to chat, just like talking about fundies is here.  Some are more invested than others.  RF watching has been a pastime for lots of people for a long time.  Longer than fundie watching that's for sure!  I started getting interested during lockdown, cause lockdown and honestly? With tRump in the WH, the fundies got much less fun for me.  This is more relaxing lol   But, FJ really isn't the place for this topic.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, FJ may not be the proper place for this discussion, but we all feel secure here; when I saw what the name was, I flew over here to check on my friends' opinions.  When I saw the Bates baby was doing kind of poorly, I came here to check on him. I can find people here to talk about things that I am interested in.

  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SoSoNosy said:

Well, FJ may not be the proper place for this discussion, but we all feel secure here; when I saw what the name was, I flew over here to check on my friends' opinions.  When I saw the Bates baby was doing kind of poorly, I came here to check on him. I can find people here to talk about things that I am interested in.

The way I figure it, if Curious and the moderators have created a discussion section for the Royals, then the discussion “belongs” on FJ.

Maybe we can call them “honorary fundies” ?.

  • Upvote 6
  • Haha 4
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno. I think it’s okay for a place to grow and expand as it develops. I’ve been here since Yuku times and while I used to visit for fundie chat back then, now I visit for everything. I can talk about my workouts, TV shows, books … and that’s not a bad thing. I don’t think we have to exclusively discuss fundies, as shown by the huge number of different forums here. 

Not to mention, I value the genuine friendships I’ve made here. 

  • Upvote 11
  • I Agree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many non-Fundie related topics on FJ. I feel the royal section is more of an ongoing thread drift. And actually a very small subsection. It just seems bigger because it’s so busy right now. 
 

I don’t get the doctor via zoom thing. I guess the person was more like a remote doula because I don’t see any ethical behaving doctor giving real medical input in that situation. 
 

I am utterly confused about the claims, that HMTQ has „instructed her courtiers to correct any statement which misrepresents her private conversations or those of other senior royals“. I wouldn’t believe it- because you should never believe a quote like that especially from the tabloids. I don’t know where the idiots of the DailyFail got that quote from or if it made up- but the BBC article is still up and as H&M haven’t sued yet, my guess is recollection may have varied ?

If BP will deviate from their no-comment policy, I think it will come back and bite them. But I get why they are running out of patience. Still, freezing H&M out of the professional side and not giving them a public reaction is the only way to put the whole thing to rest in my opinion.

On the other hand, all this gossip is definitely very entertaining.

  • Upvote 4
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2021 at 11:18 PM, tabitha2 said:

I am not going to apologize for my opinions or you reading what you want to read into my posts and see what simply is not there. Your hang up is not my responsibility.  I don’t care for Meghan = I am racist and sexist!1! is beyond  bizarre to me though. 

I never actually said one sentence or even word about her color other than to say she is Bi racial which is true. 

 

Yes. I am dry and non sentimental and my Bull shit and sarcasm meter is finely tuned . Please feel free to ignore if you are offended! 
 

 

But you are allowed to be introspective. If 20 people told me over and over that what I was saying comes off as racist, it would make me analyze my words and actions. You don’t get to excuse yourself by saying you are unsentimental or dry. You do have an obligation to both yourself and those around you to step back and think about the impact of your words. It does not matter what you think you mean if the way you say it is terrible.

I am not fond of Harry, or Diana for that matter. I believe very strongly in playing the hand you are dealt and moving on. I actually think Charles is quite under appreciated because he lacks any glamor, yet his work on both the environment and historical preservation, which were unpopular when I lived in England 20 years ago, was both prescient and appropriate. My personality is closer to keep on and carry on than vomit it out for the world to dissect, and I frankly don’t believe in the narrative Meghan and Harry spin. But I am not going to agree with most of what you post because of the way you say it and the undertones in it. 
 

Introspection is not weakness. Neither is self examination. When most around you tell you something is wrong, it usually is.

  • Upvote 18
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2021 at 10:12 AM, viii said:

You know who could make the topic disappear? THE PALACE. The queen could easily release a statement saying that she was honoured at the name choice and gave her approval prior to the birth and boom - story gone. Instead, the palace is engaging in the “he said she said” game with H&M and they all look like idiots. 

But @viii! The palace doesn’t make statements like that! 

They made statements refuting claims that Kate got Botox so they could easily comment on this and shut it down. Let’s be honest here - both sides are living for the publicity because both sides have fans. UK approval of BRF is going up and US approval of H&M is going up. They’re both winning, in a sense. 

Except she was not pleased with it. The Daily Beast reported on this pretty clearly. The BBC reporter who got the information from the palace is plugged in and is the guy the palace leaks to. 
 

It is for subscribers only so I will copy:

 

 

Spoiler

The birth of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s child, it was hoped by many, would be a moment of reconciliation for the Sussexes and the royals. What a fantastical notion that now seems, after some of the bitterest open fighting this civil war has yet seen.

The latest pitched battle culminated with Meghan and Harry threatening to sue British media for reporting that the queen felt there had been a lack of consultation with her about their use of her nickname, Lilibet, as the child’s first name, and the queen—via her official spokespeople—saying she would not be disputing the BBC story.

Yes, the queen has taken the side of a broadcaster over her grandson. The BBC was apparently so unperturbed by the attempted legal bullying, even from the famously litigious Meghan and Harry, that they left their story and associated tweets up.

Why shouldn’t they? In informal exchanges, senior palace aides have made it clear to The Daily Beast that the “very specific” BBC story is correct as far as they are concerned. It’s simple: the queen felt Harry and Meghandid not consult her on using Lilibet as their new baby’s first name.

As royal messes go, this is a hot one, and it could get a lot worse in the scant three weeks between now and the unveiling of a memorial to Princess Diana in London, which Harry is due to attend.

That was already a potentially awkward moment; it is now likely to be doubly so because the reality on the ground is that Harry and Meghan didn’t just contest the queen’s version of events with a carefully worded statement (even though it begged as many questions as it asked), they got their lawyers involvedDocumentation seen by The Daily Beast shows Meghan and Harry arguing that the claims made to the BBC on behalf of the queen, were “false and defamatory.”

This leaves Harry and Meghan less than half a step away from accusing the queen of being a liar. Clearly the Sussexes are unbelievably angry about the way their daughter’s birth has become tabloid fodder for the feud narrative. Clearly they feel the queen’s spinners have misrepresented their exchanges. This leaves a very real risk they could actually start briefing friendly US media in the next few days and actively escalating hostilities.

To recap: the BBC went live with their summary story at 6:30 a.m. local time (10:30 p.m. in California), which said the BBC had been told Harry and Meghan “did not consult the queen about using her childhood nickname Lilibet for their baby… a Buckingham Palace source says she was never asked about it.”

Harry and Meghan’s response, rushed out at midnight Californian time read: “The Duke spoke with his family in advance of the announcement, in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called. During that conversation, he shared their hope of naming their daughter Lilibet in her honor. Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name.”

Harry and Meghan were clearly trying to suggest that the palace briefing (to BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond) was unreliable gossip that does not reflect the queen’s true feelings.

Their favored mouthpiece, the author Omid Scobie, hinted at this line of attack in a tweet saying: “Those close to Prince Harry confirm that he spoke to close family before the announcement so perhaps this report highlights just how far removed aides within the institution (who learned of the baby news alongside the rest of the world) now are from the Sussexes’ private matters.”

The chutzpah is remarkable: Meghan and Harry’s camp are claiming that Her Majesty’s staff do not speak accurately for her, but they do. Cynics might say they are exploiting the queen’s famous unwillingness to do to much in the way of explaining or complaining.

If Dymond’s story was the product of a chat with a junior groom at Sandringham, Meghan and Harry could have had a point. But the BBC is not in the habit of leading its morning news bulletin with royal items based on what were once dismissively termed “servants’ stories.”

Dymond, as anyone who has any experience of the royal news beat would instantly recognize, was almost certainly the recipient of a carefully strategized and meticulously structured off the record briefing from palace press officers, acting directly on the orders of the queen’s private secretary and chief of staff, Sir Edward Young, who has direct control of the press office.

Harry and Meghan have, since they opened hostilities formally against the royal family with their initial explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey, sought to draw a distinction between the queen, her staff and the institution of monarchy.

It has allowed them to slate the monarchy and the nebulous “institution” as cold, heartless, inconsiderate, cruel—you name it—while simultaneously insisting the queen is a wonderful, warm human being, an inspiration and a person whom they love and respect deeply.

Diana of course, did something similar, speaking often about the “men in gray,” whom she portrayed as managing the day-to-day business of the monarchy, without reference to the queen

The reality is, this distinction is utterly false (although it may provide useful cover for the queen at times). The queen, like the head of any massive multinational but family-owned organization, is responsible for what that massive multinational but family-owned organization actually does. The whole idea that there is some kind of shadowy parallel power structure operating independently of Her Majesty’s will is nonsense, and owes more than a little to the Trumpist idea of the deep state.

There are no civil servants bossing the queen around inside the walls of Buckingham Palace. Maybe there was some of that going on when she inherited the throne aged 25, but that was largely at her own request. Now, 69 years later, there is almost no distinction between the actions of the queen and the actions of the monarchy.

They are one and the same.

Which also means that if you insult one, you insult the other.

It is, of course, absurd that with all the really serious issues facing humanity right now, global news feeds have been dominated by tales of internecine sniping between a bunch of over-privileged and enormously wealthy members of one British family. 

 

Spoiler

The queen: “Never complain, never explain” is no more

The queen has finally had enough of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s royal-related allegations belching forth from California—and the final straw has been the row over baby Lilibet’s name.


In a tortuous saga of claim and counterclaim, Harry and Meghan first said they had sought permission from the queen on the use of her family nickname. Then the palace pushed back, via a palace source briefing the BBC, to say the queen’s permission had not been sought. Harry then threatened the BBC with legal action over their reporting. The couple’s call to the queen was a “telling, not an asking,” the insider told the Mail on Sunday, and the brouhaha has sent the queen “over the edge,” adding: “Friends of the Sussexes appear to have given misleading briefings to journalists about what the queen had said and that took the whole thing over the edge. The Palace couldn’t deny the story that this was a mistruth.”

While living her best life at the G7 in Cornwall (truly, she has been the week’s breakout star), the Mail on Sunday says, “Her Majesty has instructed courtiers to correct any statements which misrepresent her private conversations or those of other senior royals.” 

The royal principle of “never complain, never explain” has been ditched, the paper says. It’s a great phrase, but slightly muddies the line between the queen and senior royals rarely griping in public with the years-old practice of royal aides briefing the media on their behalf. These loyal, nameless voices have never been slow in complaining or explaining

Royal sources told the Mail on Sunday the palace’s pushback against Meghan and Harry will continue as and when the need arises with other breaking stories. “This is about whether or not what is being reported is an accurate version of what actually happened,” the insider told the paper.

The insider also said “no video call” had taken place between the queen and Lilibet, contrary to suggestions otherwise.

Meanwhile, Harry and Meghan reportedly have “no regrets” over the bombshell interviews they have conducted, which have generated so much publicity.

“It’s no secret that the last year Harry and Meghan have been at war with the royals,” another insider told Us Weekly. “All is not forgiven, but after all the backlash regarding their interviews—which, by the way, the pair have no regrets about—they’re trying their utmost to maintain a good relationship with the queen in order to keep the peace.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by nelliebelle1197
  • Thank You 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Xanariel said:

I do wonder exactly how much Harry actually knew about his financial situation when he left? 

I suspect like a lot of lifelong rich people he didn't worry too much and assumed it would all work out as it always has.

It's middle and working class people who would be running numbers and making sure they had enough monthly. I'm sure the man's never made a budget in his life. Probably wouldn't even know where to start. 

Add in that he's kind of dumb and very impulsive, and I really don't think any Excel spreadsheets came into play here. 

  • Upvote 12
  • Haha 1
  • I Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

But you are allowed to be introspective. If 20 people told me over and over that what I was saying comes off as racist, it would make me analyze my words and actions. You don’t get to excuse yourself by saying you are unsentimental or dry. You do have an obligation to both yourself and those around you to step back and think about the impact of your words. It does not matter what you think you mean if the way you say it is terrible.

I am not fond of Harry, or Diana for that matter. I believe very strongly in playing the hand you are dealt and moving on. I actually think Charles is quite under appreciated because he lacks any glamor, yet his work on both the environment and historical preservation, which were unpopular when I lived in England 20 years ago, was both prescient and appropriate. My personality is closer to keep on and carry on than vomit it out for the world to dissect, and I frankly don’t believe in the narrative Meghan and Harry spin. But I am not going to agree with most of what you post because of the way you say it and the undertones in it. 
 

Introspection is not weakness. Neither is self examination. When most around you tell you something is wrong, it usually is.

You are right! So please quote me one thing, just one derogatory thing I have ever said about Meghan Markles or anyone else’s ethnicity on FJ. If you can’t produce that than it’s all  band wagon noise to me. 

Reading what you want into does not count in my book :)  

 

Also I grew up with plenty of people telling me I was stupid, unwanted and in the way so were they right to do that because something  was wrong? I mean lots of people said so! 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Okay, so why does a baby being delivered in California with a perfectly good doctor in presumably a good hospital, need another doctor in London?

My guess is that she had a pregnancy/delivery complication with Archie and wanted somebody who had been there the first time to assist in case it came up again. 

16 hours ago, Beermeet said:

But, FJ really isn't the place for this topic.  

I love that there's a section here for royals because I'm not interested in joining a royal forum to discuss them. There's plenty of different opinions here so I learn lots and I'm able to get my geek on without having to devote a whole other forum to it. 

52 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

You are right! So please quote me one thing, just one derogatory thing I have ever said about Meghan Markles or anyone else’s ethnicity on FJ. If you can’t produce that than it’s all  band wagon noise to me. 

I have said this before but you don't have to remark on someone's skin colour or ethnicity to come across racist. There are plenty of other ways that someone can be racist towards someone and you have had multiple people mention it to you. If you consider that 'band wagon noise', that's your choice, but it's not going to stop people from trying to gently correct you and eventually it's not going to go well for you.

3 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Except she was not pleased with it. The Daily Beast reported on this pretty clearly. The BBC reporter who got the information from the palace is plugged in and is the guy the palace leaks to. 

OMG. Thank you for sharing this - it's an interesting read. 

The plot thickens... ?️‍♂️

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@viiiYou can “correct” That’s your right of course. But as I have said nothing wrong  It’s my right to ignore such things Until the mods see fit to actually and rightly correct me for breaking any Forum rules. Which is fair. What you accuse me of is not justified and not fair OTOH. 

Anyone who genuinely does not like what I post can ignore me anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nausicaa said:

I suspect like a lot of lifelong rich people he didn't worry too much and assumed it would all work out as it always has.

It's middle and working class people who would be running numbers and making sure they had enough monthly. I'm sure the man's never made a budget in his life. Probably wouldn't even know where to start. 

Add in that he's kind of dumb and very impulsive, and I really don't think any Excel spreadsheets came into play here. 

God I love a good clean well done excel spreadsheet

  • Upvote 4
  • Haha 5
  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Yeah You just wish :) 

Yes, I do wish they'd speak to you about your behaviour and the things you say - racism makes me uncomfortable. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Move Along 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

I am not fond of Harry, or Diana for that matter. I believe very strongly in playing the hand you are dealt and moving on. I actually think Charles is quite under appreciated because he lacks any glamor, yet his work on both the environment and historical preservation, which were unpopular when I lived in England 20 years ago, was both prescient and appropriate. My personality is closer to keep on and carry on than vomit it out for the world to dissect, and I frankly don’t believe in the narrative Meghan and Harry spin. 

I am not good at “keep on and carry on,” I am more the sort that leaves and finds something else to do.  (An option poor Charles hasn’t had, but close to what Harry is doing.)  However, I leave quietly.  I would never “vomit it out for the world to dissect” especially if it involves family.  I can sympathize with Harry and Meghan for leaving.  I cannot sympathize with the babbling.  It lacks loyalty and dignity.

Over the years I have become a mild supporter of Charles. Whatever else is wrong or right about him, I think you have to give him credit for trying, for being loyal, for being someone who does his best.  

More recently, I have developed a huge sympathy for him in the wake of Harry’s behavior.  Whatever tensions between father and son, the way Harry has thrown Charles under the bus (apparently because Charles wouldn’t pay for his security when the British government stopped doing so) is just not ok.

As a parent, I feel for Charles.  Some day, when Archie or Lili writes a tell-all, Harry may understand.

In the meantime, I am with you.  “The narrative Meghan and Harry spin” just doesn’t hold.  It is bad enough they are babbling, but their “selective” approach to the truth is a little unreliable.

 

 

  • Upvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I am not good at “keep on and carry on,” I am more the sort that leaves and finds something else to do.  (An option poor Charles hasn’t had, but close to what Harry is doing.)  However, I leave quietly.  I would never “vomit it out for the world to dissect” especially if it involves family.  I can sympathize with Harry and Meghan for leaving.  I cannot sympathize with the babbling.  It lacks loyalty and dignity.

Over the years I have become a mild supporter of Charles. Whatever else is wrong or right about him, I think you have to give him credit for trying, for being loyal, for being someone who does his best.  

More recently, I have developed a huge sympathy for him in the wake of Harry’s behavior.  Whatever tensions between father and son, the way Harry has thrown Charles under the bus (apparently because Charles wouldn’t pay for his security when the British government stopped doing so) is just not ok.

As a parent, I feel for Charles.  Some day, when Archie or Lili writes a tell-all, Harry may understand.

In the meantime, I am with you.  “The narrative Meghan and Harry spin” just doesn’t hold.  It is bad enough they are babbling, but their “selective” approach to the truth is a little unreliable.

 

 

These interviews have been so just CRINGE like the thread title suggests that I just don't know any other way to say it. I do really like Meghan's voice, so I guess that is one positive of the babbling!

  • Upvote 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Except she was not pleased with it. The Daily Beast reported on this pretty clearly. The BBC reporter who got the information from the palace is plugged in and is the guy the palace leaks to. 
 

It is for subscribers only so I will copy:

  Reveal hidden contents

The birth of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s child, it was hoped by many, would be a moment of reconciliation for the Sussexes and the royals. What a fantastical notion that now seems, after some of the bitterest open fighting this civil war has yet seen.

The latest pitched battle culminated with Meghan and Harry threatening to sue British media for reporting that the queen felt there had been a lack of consultation with her about their use of her nickname, Lilibet, as the child’s first name, and the queen—via her official spokespeople—saying she would not be disputing the BBC story.

Yes, the queen has taken the side of a broadcaster over her grandson. The BBC was apparently so unperturbed by the attempted legal bullying, even from the famously litigious Meghan and Harry, that they left their story and associated tweets up.

Why shouldn’t they? In informal exchanges, senior palace aides have made it clear to The Daily Beast that the “very specific” BBC story is correct as far as they are concerned. It’s simple: the queen felt Harry and Meghandid not consult her on using Lilibet as their new baby’s first name.

As royal messes go, this is a hot one, and it could get a lot worse in the scant three weeks between now and the unveiling of a memorial to Princess Diana in London, which Harry is due to attend.

That was already a potentially awkward moment; it is now likely to be doubly so because the reality on the ground is that Harry and Meghan didn’t just contest the queen’s version of events with a carefully worded statement (even though it begged as many questions as it asked), they got their lawyers involvedDocumentation seen by The Daily Beast shows Meghan and Harry arguing that the claims made to the BBC on behalf of the queen, were “false and defamatory.”

This leaves Harry and Meghan less than half a step away from accusing the queen of being a liar. Clearly the Sussexes are unbelievably angry about the way their daughter’s birth has become tabloid fodder for the feud narrative. Clearly they feel the queen’s spinners have misrepresented their exchanges. This leaves a very real risk they could actually start briefing friendly US media in the next few days and actively escalating hostilities.

To recap: the BBC went live with their summary story at 6:30 a.m. local time (10:30 p.m. in California), which said the BBC had been told Harry and Meghan “did not consult the queen about using her childhood nickname Lilibet for their baby… a Buckingham Palace source says she was never asked about it.”

Harry and Meghan’s response, rushed out at midnight Californian time read: “The Duke spoke with his family in advance of the announcement, in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called. During that conversation, he shared their hope of naming their daughter Lilibet in her honor. Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name.”

Harry and Meghan were clearly trying to suggest that the palace briefing (to BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond) was unreliable gossip that does not reflect the queen’s true feelings.

Their favored mouthpiece, the author Omid Scobie, hinted at this line of attack in a tweet saying: “Those close to Prince Harry confirm that he spoke to close family before the announcement so perhaps this report highlights just how far removed aides within the institution (who learned of the baby news alongside the rest of the world) now are from the Sussexes’ private matters.”

The chutzpah is remarkable: Meghan and Harry’s camp are claiming that Her Majesty’s staff do not speak accurately for her, but they do. Cynics might say they are exploiting the queen’s famous unwillingness to do to much in the way of explaining or complaining.

If Dymond’s story was the product of a chat with a junior groom at Sandringham, Meghan and Harry could have had a point. But the BBC is not in the habit of leading its morning news bulletin with royal items based on what were once dismissively termed “servants’ stories.”

Dymond, as anyone who has any experience of the royal news beat would instantly recognize, was almost certainly the recipient of a carefully strategized and meticulously structured off the record briefing from palace press officers, acting directly on the orders of the queen’s private secretary and chief of staff, Sir Edward Young, who has direct control of the press office.

Harry and Meghan have, since they opened hostilities formally against the royal family with their initial explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey, sought to draw a distinction between the queen, her staff and the institution of monarchy.

It has allowed them to slate the monarchy and the nebulous “institution” as cold, heartless, inconsiderate, cruel—you name it—while simultaneously insisting the queen is a wonderful, warm human being, an inspiration and a person whom they love and respect deeply.

Diana of course, did something similar, speaking often about the “men in gray,” whom she portrayed as managing the day-to-day business of the monarchy, without reference to the queen

The reality is, this distinction is utterly false (although it may provide useful cover for the queen at times). The queen, like the head of any massive multinational but family-owned organization, is responsible for what that massive multinational but family-owned organization actually does. The whole idea that there is some kind of shadowy parallel power structure operating independently of Her Majesty’s will is nonsense, and owes more than a little to the Trumpist idea of the deep state.

There are no civil servants bossing the queen around inside the walls of Buckingham Palace. Maybe there was some of that going on when she inherited the throne aged 25, but that was largely at her own request. Now, 69 years later, there is almost no distinction between the actions of the queen and the actions of the monarchy.

They are one and the same.

Which also means that if you insult one, you insult the other.

It is, of course, absurd that with all the really serious issues facing humanity right now, global news feeds have been dominated by tales of internecine sniping between a bunch of over-privileged and enormously wealthy members of one British family. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The queen: “Never complain, never explain” is no more

The queen has finally had enough of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s royal-related allegations belching forth from California—and the final straw has been the row over baby Lilibet’s name.


In a tortuous saga of claim and counterclaim, Harry and Meghan first said they had sought permission from the queen on the use of her family nickname. Then the palace pushed back, via a palace source briefing the BBC, to say the queen’s permission had not been sought. Harry then threatened the BBC with legal action over their reporting. The couple’s call to the queen was a “telling, not an asking,” the insider told the Mail on Sunday, and the brouhaha has sent the queen “over the edge,” adding: “Friends of the Sussexes appear to have given misleading briefings to journalists about what the queen had said and that took the whole thing over the edge. The Palace couldn’t deny the story that this was a mistruth.”

While living her best life at the G7 in Cornwall (truly, she has been the week’s breakout star), the Mail on Sunday says, “Her Majesty has instructed courtiers to correct any statements which misrepresent her private conversations or those of other senior royals.” 

The royal principle of “never complain, never explain” has been ditched, the paper says. It’s a great phrase, but slightly muddies the line between the queen and senior royals rarely griping in public with the years-old practice of royal aides briefing the media on their behalf. These loyal, nameless voices have never been slow in complaining or explaining

Royal sources told the Mail on Sunday the palace’s pushback against Meghan and Harry will continue as and when the need arises with other breaking stories. “This is about whether or not what is being reported is an accurate version of what actually happened,” the insider told the paper.

The insider also said “no video call” had taken place between the queen and Lilibet, contrary to suggestions otherwise.

Meanwhile, Harry and Meghan reportedly have “no regrets” over the bombshell interviews they have conducted, which have generated so much publicity.

“It’s no secret that the last year Harry and Meghan have been at war with the royals,” another insider told Us Weekly. “All is not forgiven, but after all the backlash regarding their interviews—which, by the way, the pair have no regrets about—they’re trying their utmost to maintain a good relationship with the queen in order to keep the peace.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing.  I am not sure how accurate information from The Daily Mail would be, but the identification of the BBC source as the person the palace generally leaks to, and the point the Daily Beast makes about how the distinction between “The Queen” as a person and “The Palace” as an institution is a false one both seem accurate to me.

Further, I will add that the important, factual detail in all this is, “the queen—via her official spokespeople—saying she would not be disputing the BBC story.”

I am willing to give Harry the benefit of the doubt and grant that maybe he thought the naming would be a lovely surprise for Granny.  But the Sussex’s attempts to make it seem as though the Queen was “consulted” in advance of the naming and their threat to sue the BBC over what was, in fact, an accurate report are not so innocent.  

Edited by EmCatlyn
Fix grammar error
  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Further, I will add that the important, factual detail in all this is, “the queen—via her official spokespeople—saying she would not be disputing the BBC story.”

But how do we know that this is factual? How do we know any magazine is 100% trustworthy? 

  • Upvote 1
  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, viii said:

But how do we know that this is factual? How do we know any magazine is 100% trustworthy? 

Because the official spokesperson at the palace issued the statement to certain members of the press. I mean, what more can she do other than go on Oprah and whine?

Edited by nelliebelle1197
  • Upvote 5
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Coconut Flan locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.