Meghan and Harry 7: Recollections May Vary

[louisa05]

7 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

So what do y’all think of the Diana statue? I wasn’t impressed. Doesn’t really look like her, and who are those random kids? Also, kind of a shame that the ceremony wasn’t more than pulling off a tarp.

About the children: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/amp36915243/princess-diana-statue-kensington-palace-who-are-the-children/

I saw another article that had photos of her with children that resembled the ones depicted but can’t find it this morning. 

[just_ordinary]

@louisa05 I find the explanation pretty lacking. Everyone familiar with her work knows that children were not a key focus (even though she got some pretty iconic photos with them in her work) of her charities. Everyone new to her might be confused if they read up on her. 
I think the statue is a very coloured view of how W&H want their mother to be remembered and they kind of lost their way. Everyone is wondering why this particular outfit was picked. The three children have left massive question marks. I kind of her the face. Diana was unbelievable photogenic but she had a pretty distinctive nose for example. that wasn’t exactly prominent from some angles. From the right angle she definitely resembles the statue very much. 
I think they should have put her in a more thinking position, maybe a tiny smile, surrounded with bits symbolising her biggest successes. And maybe placed somewhere different. While you can visit Kensington Gardens you cannot actually set foot into the Sunken Garden but look at it from the Cradle Walk. 

[DalmatianCat]

11 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

They should have postponed it till they could have gone with the original plan, and with both of their wives and children in attendance. It was never planned as an open engagement so quite the controllable environment.

Diana passed over 20 years ago and the magnitude of her legacy is fading for the under 30 crowd. I can see that Harry and William would have been loath to postpone because the longer they wait, the more the interest wanes and they want people to remember their mother. I know they say the unveiling was scaled back due to Covid, but I think even without covid and had the event been open to the public, the majority of the attendees would have been over 60. As it was, it was rather underwhelming.

[Four is Enough]

I completely understand that the BRF would have, or the public would have, told Meghan that she wasnt' one of them. She wasn't.

She's American. She's a divorcee. I can totally see the Wallis Simpson references.

She's not an aristocrat, and hasn't hobnobbed among them.

She has no experiences with/around people like them.

The culture and mores are completely different.

I distinctly remember, when Charles and Diana were engaged, that Diana, an aristocrat herself, who would have and did play with/meet the royal children when she was a child, was taken under the wing of the Queen Mother herself, IIRC, so that she could learn more about the ways of the family.

I maintain that if it was done for Diana, it was done for Meghan as well. At least it was offered. Meghan may have blown it off. If so, phooey on her.. the BRF wasn't going to change for her.. she was going to have to adapt and mold herself into their form, not the other way around. I'm also sure she could have adapted some of her ways and still espoused feminism and female empowerment.

AFA the staff, it sounds like Meghan has simply again gone her own way and tried to impose her structure on what was there. Staff could have smoothed some of her gaffes.. but if she didn't listen and adjust, there would be friction.

I mean come on. The dustup over the wedding tiara, (hell, I'd take what the Queen offered, and with thanks) and the "smelly" wedding chapel kind of show the entitlement issues here.

I don't understand Meghan's intent here.. but I also don't believe most of what comes out of her mouth. I try not to pay attention, but since it's all over.. that's hard.

[tabitha2]

It Maybe she desperately wants the worldwide Adoration and attention Diana got,  She wants to be the 21 century Diana and  Her Ego and entitlement and probably other internal forces/issues push her on no matter what.YMMV. 

[EmCatlyn]

47 minutes ago, DalmatianCat said:

Diana passed over 20 years ago and the magnitude of her legacy is fading for the under 30 crowd. I can see that Harry and William would have been loath to postpone because the longer they wait, the more the interest wanes and they want people to remember their mother. I know they say the unveiling was scaled back due to Covid, but I think even without covid and had the event been open to the public, the majority of the attendees would have been over 60. As it was, it was rather underwhelming.

I never understood all the fuss about Diana.  It shows how the public gets fascinated by a figure and tend to idolize.  She did many good things with her celebrity, and she should be recognized for it, but I don’t think she was so remarkable that a statue of her would be made unless it was by her sons.  And so it was.

The statue is meant largely as a family memorial. It was placed in an area of KP that is not accessible to the public.  And therefore, I see no problem with the scaled-back unveiling, especially since the plan appears to be to hold a bigger celebration in September (with spouses and so forth).  The unveiling had been scheduled for now, the statue was ready.

It really doesn’t matter that to most people under 55 Diana is mostly a story.  It’s a story that has power.  Both Harry and William call upon that power to humanize their roles in the public eye.  William isn’t just another future Windsor monarch.  He is the son of Diana who brought love and caring to the monarchy.  Harry isn’t just another somewhat spoiled “spare.”  He is the son of Diana with her commitment to Doing Good. 

The statue is not a great statue: its symbolism is hackneyed, and I think the figure didn’t capture her grace. (Diana always seemed to stand gracefully.)  However, the point is that two sons got together and memorialized their mother.  

 

[EmCatlyn]

5 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

I completely understand that the BRF would have, or the public would have, told Meghan that she wasnt' one of them. She wasn't.

She's American. She's a divorcee. I can totally see the Wallis Simpson references.

She's not an aristocrat, and hasn't hobnobbed among them.

She has no experiences with/around people like them.

The culture and mores are completely different.

I distinctly remember, when Charles and Diana were engaged, that Diana, an aristocrat herself, who would have and did play with/meet the royal children when she was a child, was taken under the wing of the Queen Mother herself, IIRC, so that she could learn more about the ways of the family.

I maintain that if it was done for Diana, it was done for Meghan as well. At least it was offered. Meghan may have blown it off. If so, phooey on her.. the BRF wasn't going to change for her.. she was going to have to adapt and mold herself into their form, not the other way around. I'm also sure she could have adapted some of her ways and still espoused feminism and female empowerment.

AFA the staff, it sounds like Meghan has simply again gone her own way and tried to impose her structure on what was there. Staff could have smoothed some of her gaffes.. but if she didn't listen and adjust, there would be friction.

I mean come on. The dustup over the wedding tiara, (hell, I'd take what the Queen offered, and with thanks) and the "smelly" wedding chapel kind of show the entitlement issues here.

I don't understand Meghan's intent here.. but I also don't believe most of what comes out of her mouth. I try not to pay attention, but since it's all over.. that's hard.

I don’t think that the Queen Mother did much for Diana after the initial weeks during which Diana was “schooled” in what it would mean to be Queen and her duties as the Princess of Wales and protocol, etc.   She would have probably needed a lot less schooling than Meghan, as you point out, because she already knew how to talk to royalty, when  to curtsy etc.

Meghan was assigned Samantha Cohen, one of the queen’s most trusted advisors (former assistant private secretary) to guide her through her entry to the royal family. She apparently worked with Meghan before the wedding and resigned after 18 months. 

This Harper’s Bazaar article from Dec. 2018 is very clear that Meghan had received and was still getting help with protocol, dealing with the public, etc. from an experienced courtier who was of her own generation and, I would suggest, not exactly inexperienced in the difficulties an “outsider” might encounter.  (She is Australian and although she is not Jewish, she has a Jewish last name and believes she has some Jewish ancestors. Source: Kveller.com.  In short, she is not a WASP, British male.)

She is described by The Daily Mail as a “tough talking mother of three” who was nicknamed “Samantha the Panther.” According to the DM she may be one of the former Sussex staff who is being questioned about the bullying allegations. Source: DM, March 2021

Just why Meghan claims she had no help (except Hapless Harry) is not clear.  Maybe it makes a better story, or maybe she didn’t get the “help” she wanted. (When you come in convinced that you are needed to “fix” what is wrong with the Royal Family and all the “help” you are offered is instructions on how to fit in, you may not appreciate the help.?)

Edited July 3, 2021 by EmCatlyn
Fix wacky parentheses.

[tabitha2]

Maybe Samantha the Panther was not inclined ,prepared to cater or humor very probably dramatics, unwarranted entitlement, refusal to listen and learn, refusal to adapt even a little to how the palace paper pushers work, bullying(?), dishonesty from one or both of the couple and  respectfully tried to tell them so home truths.

They evidently only like to hear what they want and praise and fawning so of course they consider her of no help. 

Fawning Oprah and Gayle=Good

Professional assistants  trying to advise=Canceled!  
 

 

[Xanariel]

I guess it would be helpful if we knew just what kind of help Meghan felt she'd been denied? 

Did she feel she wasn't instructed about protocol sufficiently so she tripped up when it mattered? Was she struggling to head a body of staff with far more experience at working in similar sectors than she had being a Duchess and thought that Kensington Palace could have offered more help? Did she accept an offer of a drinking game with Camilla and had to watch the flyover with a splitting hangover? 

So far, I think the only concrete thing we've been told so far is that they wanted more protection against the press. I am very sympathetic to that, because there was some undeniably racist and vile stuff there about Meghan and her dad was basically emotionally abusing her on a national stage. 

But...I'm not sure what the BRF really could do, short of sending a strongly-worded letter and threatening legal action for libel in severe cases as they already were doing? The Sussexes seemed to be under the impression that the Palace has the power to suppress any story whenever they want, and that just isn't the case (as Charles and his brothers likely lament). In fact, now that the Sussexes are loose, the press seems to just be more gleeful about running negative stories even with them threatening legal action at the drop of a hat. 

[EmCatlyn]

10 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Maybe Samantha the Panther was not inclined ,prepared to cater or humor very probably dramatics, unwarranted entitlement, refusal to listen and learn, refusal to adapt even a little to how the palace paper pushers work, bullying(?), dishonesty from one or both of the couple and  respectfully tried to tell them so home truths.

They evidently only like to hear what they want and praise and fawning so of course they consider her of no help. 

Fawning Oprah and Gayle=Good

Professional assistants  trying to advise=Canceled!  
 

 

Th story about Samantha Cohen is interesting.  And I keep running into different versions of the timeline from different sources.

In fairness to the Sussexes, she started out as an interim and it is not clear that she intended to stay more than 6 months though according to some sources she stayed for 18.  She has never complained publicly of anything, but “private” reports said she found the job stressful.

Again, to be fair to the Sussexes, she started working with Meghan before the wedding because she was asked to stay on with the Royals when after she resigned her position at Buckingham Palace after what seemed to be the forced resignation of Sir Christopher Geidt (now Baron Geidt).  So she may have experienced stress from other sources than Meghan and Harry. ?

[just_ordinary]

@Xanariel I think the whole 2nd rounds of Andrew/Virginia or Queen vetoed Parliament can stand as evidence that their power in killing stories is highly exaggerated. I mean you would kill a story about an affair but not about rape? Or breaking the trust of being apolitical- which could have broken the monarchies back? Yeah, sure Hun. 
 

The Samantha timeline is muddy and there are several very different theories. She brought either out of retirement or delayed retiring from her job with the Queen to work with them. Some stories said she stayed on much longer than agreed. I think she was introduced as an interims press secretary. When she was announced there were two interpretations straight away. The “Queen shows love by appointing her much respect staff” and the “Queen sends professional fire brigade to prevent a mess”. As always I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle. 

[EmCatlyn]

11 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

The Samantha timeline is muddy and there are several very different theories. She brought either out of retirement or delayed retiring from her job with the Queen to work with them. Some stories said she stayed on much longer than agreed. I think she was introduced as an interims press secretary. When she was announced there were two interpretations straight away. The “Queen shows love by appointing her much respect staff” and the “Queen sends professional fire brigade to prevent a mess”. As always I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle. 

I don’t think Samantha Cohen ever “retired.” (She is in her 40s.) She had resigned from her position and was apparently asked if she would work with Meghan and Harry around the time that they were engaged but not yet married. She apparently “signed on” for a six month stint to help Meghan.  Then, after Harry’s long-term secretary resigned, just before the wedding, she took on his position.  The question here is whether she had taken it permanently or until they got settled and she could be replaced. She was with them until shortly after the Australian tour. During the tour it was reported that she would stay until spring. 

I think you are right that she was there both to help Meghan and to try to head off any possible problems.  And it is interesting that the Sussexes started going “off-script” more and more after she left.

It seems possible to me that after the Australian tour Meghan felt confident enough that she felt she didn’t need Samantha the Panther (who in any case was scheduled to leave “in the spring”) and hurried along her replacement.  Alternately, Samantha had had enough and made it clear she wanted to leave before the spring. ??‍♀️ 
 

[sleepygirl1]

On 7/3/2021 at 12:09 AM, QuiverFullofBooks said:

So what do y’all think of the Diana statue? I wasn’t impressed. Doesn’t really look like her, and who are those random kids? Also, kind of a shame that the ceremony wasn’t more than pulling off a tarp.

I hate it! There’s something off about it. The left side of the statue (our right) looks like she has something on her lip that I want to wipe off or really bad wrinkle. 

[EmCatlyn]

There is some stuff out there saying that in the ITV program (which I haven’t seen) “Harry & William: What Went Wrong?," Omid Scobie (who is apparently a good friend of Meghan Markle) claims that William /Kensington Palace deliberately set out to raise questions about the mental health of Harry and Meghan following the Africa trip documentary where Harry said that the relationship between him and William was strained. 

Apparently, Scobie alleges that the rumor that William was “concerned” rather than angry at Harry for what he and Meghan disclosed at the end of the documentary was a deliberate attempt to undermine Harry.   I am baffled.

I have only seen clips of the interview in the Africa documentary, but it seemed to me that both Meghan and Harry were saying that they were not well, that people should worry about them.  Their whole point was that being subjected to the life expected of working senior royals was too stressful and they implied that no one in the Firm really cared.   So how is it wrong for Will to indicate that he is worried about Harry under the circumstances?  If it had been my brother saying those things, I would have been worried.

The BBC article  from Oct. 2019 about William’s alleged worry does not suggest (to me) a put down of Harry but a legitimate response to a close family member saying that he is having a rough time emotionally.  If this is the kind of “bad story” about the Sussexes that they allege William is complicit in spreading, then it sounds to me as if they want to be able to claim that they are emotionally distraught but they see other people’s statements of worry about them as a put down or attack.

Harry and Meghan may (or may not) have legitimate complaints about how Meghan was treated. However, you can’t on the one hand complain that you are suffering emotionally and then get upset because people are reported to be worried about you.  Maybe I am missing something, but this sounds like pure paranoia.

 

[tabitha2]

Takes some talent to make Princess Diana look like  Viggo  Mortensen.

 

 

 

 

[nokidsmom]

On 6/26/2021 at 5:46 PM, EmCatlyn said:

All I know about Doria’s side of the family is Doria herself.  From what I can tell, she has a gift for silence which is especially noteworthy given the way the Markles (and that includes Meghan) are always talking.  It is possible that any aunts and uncles from that side are equally quiet.

That being said, I have to wonder if Doria’s silence and general unobtrusiveness is how she conforms to Meghan’s need to control every aspect of her narrative.  

Just chiming in a bit here.   I was under the impression that Doria's silence was taking the advice to not talk to the press and / or perhaps just generally being a quiet type of person.  But for whatever reasons this silence would make it a lot easier for Meghan to establish her desired narrative.

On 6/26/2021 at 6:08 PM, viii said:

I did think it was odd she had no other family member at her wedding besides her mom. There could be a perfectly good reason for it, but it does seem odd, especially in light of the claims that she uses and drops people. 

I seem to remember reading somewhere (it was a news source) way back around the time of the wedding that there were relatives from the mother's side attending the ceremony, they were among the attendees sitting in the nave, just not front and center along with the mom.  Possible that source was incorrect, or relatives keeping a low profile.

[just_ordinary]

@EmCatlyn I agree. Especially because there was not a massive PR operation going on but just this one blib. The questions about H’s mental state came much later when he was only ever seen grumpy and their reactions to everything got pretty hysterical. He opened up about the pressure, his ongoing mental health struggles and his therapy. No one else brought it up but him.
The reaction to SA was reported by the BBC which cited a palace source. W was said to be “worried” and hoped both “are all right”.  If you remember what both said and how the documentary was made - that’s a pretty weak response and only shows distance if anything else. But that’s not really a smear campaign to make H look mentally unstable?

[MamaJunebug]

20 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Takes some talent to make Princess Diana look like  Viggo  Mortensen.

 

 

 

 

Thank you!  I KNEW it wasn’t just Diana’s face I saw in the statue! 

 

Edited July 5, 2021 by MamaJunebug

[EmCatlyn]

Quote

Kensington Palace is believed to have contacted the producers in relation to a 'number' of details. One of these was a clear rebuttal of Mr Scobie's suggestion that William had expressed a 'concern' about his brother's mental health, which the author had no evidence to support.

William is a dedicated campaigner on mental health issues and would take a dim view of any suggestion that he or his staff would brief about that.

It is understood that after 'carefully considering' the palace's request, ITV chose to remove any reference to mental health from the sequence, although they chose to keep in Mr Scobie's comment about an alleged briefing from Kensington Palace relating to Harry.  
The Daily Mail — July 5, 2021

The Daily Beast reports that the change was from,

“I would say that it was no coincidence that it was shortly after that aired, even the next day, there were source quotes that came from a senior aide at Kensington Palace saying that William was worried about his brother’s mental health.”

“… that came from a senior aide at Kensington Palace saying that William was worried.” 

I don’t agree with the Daily Beast’s characterization of the cut as “dramatic,” but it does appear that Kensington Palace objected to the unsubstantiated claim that comments questioning Harry’s mental health were leaked out by the palace to make Harry looked bad.

[just_ordinary]

I mean, being worried is not the same as questioning someone’s mental health? How does this make H look bad after all they said in the weeks before? And even if, H&M talked at length on that tape about how bad they feel. That they are just surviving and not thriving, that he believes his wife might get hounded (and eventually die as he specifically mentioned his mother) by the press, that they are subject to intense bullying and smear campaigns. She said yes to the question if she is NOT ok. If anyone brought their mental health into question it was them in the first place. 
And it only got worse the longer the story went. Suicidal thoughts? Being trapped? Drugs to cope with childhood trauma? Getting really bad flashbacks through camera lights and clicking? Neglect? Problems with anger? Opening up about needing therapy and even a filmed therapy session? H&M created a narrative that made them the ultimate victims. But at the same time they confirmed they have mental health problems. Like MASSIVE mental health problems. And now, this narrative doesn’t play out in their favour anymore. Because (and I don’t think it’s ok) people mock them, write off their behaviour as mentally unstable. Come up with their mental health as explanation as to why they do certain things. H appearance at the unveiling was discussed under exactly this pretext. And many came to the conclusion (me including) that he overcompensated. Some think he might still be in drugs or medication or not treated successfully at all. That is a direct result from watching, processing and taking into account what we know. Sorry but people questioning their mental health is on them and them alone. And now they need someone to take the blame for their own fuck up.
 

*I do not include the discussion about M being a narcissist or rather having a narcissistic personality disorder. That is classic armchair diagnostic and it seems calling someone a narcissist is the new trend. I think it’s stupid!

Edited July 6, 2021 by just_ordinary

[Xanariel]

I have to admit, I'm rather amused by the idea that Harry can confidently go on national television to speak about himself and his father being scarred by generational trauma and declare his brother feels "trapped" by his role, but a single line from KP about William feeling worried about his brother after that dramatic documentary can only have been to make Harry look bad.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Xanariel

[KnittingOwl]

54 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

I have to admit, I'm rather amused by the idea that Harry can confidently go on national television to speak about himself and his father being scarred by generational trauma and declare his brother feels "trapped" by his role, but a single line from KP about William feeling worried about his brother after that dramatic documentary can only have been to make Harry look bad.

I agree. It’s so confusing. On the one hand, Meghan complains that no one asked if she was ok. On the other hand, they are complaining that William expressed concern about his brother. 
 

It honestly seems like there is no winning with H&M. I have relatives like this, and they are exhausting. 

[EmCatlyn]

8 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

….
Suicidal thoughts? Being trapped? Drugs to cope with childhood trauma? Getting really bad flashbacks through camera lights and clicking? Neglect? Problems with anger? Opening up about needing therapy and even a filmed therapy session? H&M created a narrative that made them the ultimate victims. But at the same time they confirmed they have mental health problems. Like MASSIVE mental health problems. And now, this narrative doesn’t play out in their favour anymore. Because (and I don’t think it’s ok) people mock them, write off their behaviour as mentally unstable. Come up with their mental health as explanation as to why they do certain things.
H appearance at the unveiling was discussed under exactly this pretext. And many came to the conclusion (me including) that he overcompensated. Some think he might still be in drugs or medication or not treated successfully at all. That is a direct result from watching, processing and taking into account what we know. Sorry but people questioning their mental health is on them and them alone. And now they need someone to take the blame for their own fuck up.

My take on the claim that William’s people were promoting the narrative of “mental instability” is that William did express concern about his brother after the African trip documentary, and this is being used by Meghan supporters as proof that other more negative reports about Meghan (a so-called “smear campaign”) also originated with William’s people.  

The whole “they are trying to undermine us by saying we are mentally unstable” narrative is also meant to echo Diana’s complaint that the palace instead of trying to help her during her difficulties with Charles and so forth dismissed her as unstable.

The whole thing is ridiculous.  If you confess to mental health issues (as Diana did and now Harry and Meghan) don’t be surprised that people talk about your mental health.  I agree that it is not right to dismiss people’s problems or to laugh at mental health issues, but it is not “smearing” someone to observe that (by their own account) they may need help.

[EmCatlyn]

This analysis by Guy Martin (Forbes 5/15/21) of what has motivated Harry to make the move away from his life as a royal to a new life as a Hollywood celebrity, seems very good to me. (The whole article is good.)

Quote

The point is that his mother’s death and the monarchy’s handling of it is one of the central feeder-streams of motivation for the prince to fashion his current circumstance. It’s Newtonian. Prince Harry was kicked in the gut at a young age. He’s kicking back, at all whom he believes had a part in it. 

The second great feeder event that has helped create his current circumstance is his courtship and romance with Meghan Markle, about which he also spoke with Dax Shepherd. In this, Harry’s most recent telling, his wife basically told him it was, in psycho-speak, “okay” to not be a British royal. That, in and of itself, is a radical communication and tells us much.

 Martin goes on to say that Meghan, having tried and not liked the role of British royal, was in a good position to open Harry’s eyes to other options that she wanted to pursue.  Martin also has some good points to make about how talking about themselves is the only thing the Sussexes have to market right now, but that they will need to come up with more commercial successes in the future.

One has to wonder how it will turn out.

 

[DalmatianCat]

37 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Martin also has some good points to make about how talking about themselves is the only thing the Sussexes have to market right now, but that they will need to come up with more commercial successes in the future.

One has to wonder how it will turn out.

 

That’s a good point. For all of their grandiose ideas about philanthropy and “everybody can serve” (which is true), neither of them seemed drawn to it as a their main choice of life work.

Harry seemed to fall into charity when he had no better options and the military was no longer working out. While I believe Meghan didn’t mind lending a hand or voice here and there to different organizations before she got married, I think she saw herself as an actress first, possibly an entrepreneur second, and then filled in gaps in her schedule with charitable endeavors as time allowed (no judgment there…not everyone can do charity full-time). 
I don’t think either of them quite know what to do now that “philanthropy/charity” (or whatever Archwell actually is) is supposed to be their main job. Harry was probably used to either showing up and getting his photo taken, or just throwing out an idea and letting others do all the behind the scenes work and he got to show up and cut the ribbon, hand out the award, etc. Getting to that point takes a while and he’s probably still trying to figure out how to connect all the dots that palace staff usually took care of for him.

In the meantime it does seem like their only selling point is “I used to be part of the royal family, but now I’m not. Let me tell you about it.” 
But with a very crowded celebrity scene in Southern California (many of whom already have their own foundations and charities they’re either running or supporting), I don’t think anyone can be surprised that their fallback for attention is their familial ties to the organization they left in huff.