Harry and Meghan (15)

[Froq]

No harm in having it ready for the next event/announcement...

Why should H&M go out of their way for 'personal relationships'. Staff at Clarence House and Kensington (perhaps of their own accord) have leaked some faux negative things. They realised things would never get better and that they would not be getting any support. They saw that Archie would receive the same press as Meghan.

How do you know they got no support? It looked to me that there was lots of support. A huge expensive wedding. A house given to them at their request and renovations paid for. Apparently they never lived there.
PC stepping in gracefully to give M away, doing his utmost to make her mother feel at ease.
Including M's mother in official photos of Archie
PC inviting them both to Scotland to stay with him over the summer
PC inviting M to an art exhibition which she pulled out of at the last minute
The Queen asking M to stay at Sandringham at Xmas before they were married - never been done before
An official visit with just M and HM making her feel important and included.

They are their own worst enemy as far as negative press is concerned. They could have turned everything around in SA with that tour but they decided to make it all about their own difficulties instead of focusing on the charities they were there to support.

Constant cat and mouse behaviour 'we want privacy but on our terms'.
The whole fiasco around the birth and photos of Archie.

I find it really hard to have any sympathy for them now.

If she'd said it without the giggle and girly hand over the mouth I'd be more inclined to believe it was genuine and wasn't an attempt to be cute.

I think this is mostly it - coquettish attitude that grates because a) it just doesn't work on Brits, and b) coming from a grown-ass woman it's just sad.

There is also another thing I notice about similar slebs - they always speak slowly, say things with intent and air of profoundness... and it's usually utter tripe or something 15-year old girls post on their social media. Absolutely laughable. Must be something in the LA water.

I've just quickly searched the thread - I could only see one person mention it (Cuttingthegrass?) - were you aiming your comment about it at them?

*annielouise I'm aiming my comment at the criticism itself.

SunsetBoulevard3 excellent list, I'd forgotten most of those but RF did quite a few 'firsts' and exceptions for Meghan.

And now.. after all that they they are described as stuffy and dull by M's 'friends' in the know.

Also, Kate by M's own acknowledgment went out of her way to help and support her before the marriage . I don't see any reason why she would have ceased to support them unless they really upset her.

Sunset's list does show the RF made some effort. Overall though it shows that M&H have upset some posters because they haven't done things as the posters themselves would have done.

This might be due to different generational expectations, different ideas of what's acceptable with regard to the RF, or their own personal reading of the available facts.

Fair enough we can all make suggestions on this thread but the one that particularly amazes me is the advice regarding her dad (no. 8). Why would you tell a woman she has to let her father, who's threatened her on TV, see their child 'x' number of times a year? I think that's entirely up to them.

I find it really hard to have any sympathy for them now.

Yes, that's how I'm feeling. I think Meghan came into it imagining the royal role as a kind of campaigning philanthropic one Like Angelina Jolie or Michelle Obama but with tiaras and titles. But it is not like that. You and your patronages have to represent the Crown, so you have to do it in a way that gets a consensus of the public behind you and you don't upset any diplomatic apple carts.

I can understand why Meghan found it restrictive but anyone could have told her that you can't storm in and politicise royal patronages (even in a worthy, decent way). The monarchy has obligations as well as privileges. And we all know that our horrible tabloid press seizes on any opportunity to be nasty about married-in royals.

It's a shame because they are a charismatic couple with genuine motives to "do good" so far as I can see, and could have been a real addition to the institution if only they'd played a more savvy game.

Sunset I think your plan of action is excellent. Are you available to represent them in LA?

peredito I know what you mean about stepping back and stepping down. There is a difference but it's quite nuanced. Not always easy to see what they actually want.

rocking, I think Sunset's suggestion re TM is intended to be a pragmatic one (correct me if I'm wrong). He says he would like to be reconciled with his daughter, and to speak to Harry in person, and to meet his grandson. If all of those things were offered, perhaps he would stop his ill advised forays into public comment.

rockingchaircandle good point, but wouldn't you say there could have been a better exit? Agreed with your comment re no8

rocking
I agree with what you say about her father, but he’s got to be kept quiet somehow I think. I’m in two minds about it really.

I don’t think it’s a matter of what posters would have done themselves, it’s more what the requirements of their very fortunate and privileged role were.

Oh yes, definitely agree there could have been a better exit! As it all got negotiated in crisis mode, I think it was done badly with mistakes on both sides. The only winners were the press. I really hope, like it's been said before on here, that this is anticipated and planned for, for the next round of royals. The list suggested to me that only a withdrawal from public life will satisfy some but for me, that doesn't seem fair or necessary.

No. 8, even pragmatically, I wouldn't advise 'giving in' to someone who's trying control you in a toxic relationship, but i don't think it was intended in a bad way.

Sorry Sunset cross post re the father- it's hard but the onus shouldn't be on the victims to take action. Pragmatically, ignoring it if there's nothing press watchdogs can do?

Yes you’re right. He won’t give up though and it’s hugely embarrassing.

The list suggested to me that only a withdrawal from public life will satisfy some but for me, that doesn't seem fair or necessary.

They are in the eye of the (media) shitstorm. Low profile is necessary, at least for a while.

"We want privacy but on our terms" - I personally think that's a healthy boundary for anyone, public figure or not. I'm on social media but would be pissed if a neighbor took drone photos of us through our windows and put them on Facebook. I've also always wondered how people feel when they see on the news street shots of our obesity problem (fat bodies walking around with heads out of frame to protect identity) and recognize themselves. I feel uncomfortable with that side of the media even though it's perfectly legal. In fact I had a photojournalist assignment where we had to get right up close to a stranger on the street and take their photo in full view without permission or explanation - legal but uncomfortable, and certainly you could see in their responses that it felt like a violation to them. We are all a mix of private and public personas and it needs to be ok for anyone - no matter what their role whether royal, politician, Prime Minister, private citizen - to draw appropriate boundaries for themselves. Where they are unable to do so I think it is perfectly logical to try find refuge elsewhere. Could this have been done better by H&M? Possibly, but I do understand the need for some sort of privacy and protection of themselves. We all have that need, it is deeply human and I don't think they should be punished for it.

Thing is as royals in the UK, they were not chased by paparazzi. Good luck with that in LA.

I know what you mean about stepping back and stepping down. There is a difference but it's quite nuanced. Not always easy to see what they actually want.

I was thinking about this earlier. The reason why there’s differing views on what they meant and want us because some of us are taking them literally at their word, and some of us are also reading the subtext - what they mean but aren’t saying. Of course we may be reading too much into it, that’s the danger. But it would be naive imo to take their words literally without any attempt at inference or reading between the lines.

It’s human nature for people to not say what they mean. It’s even more so celeb nature, and especially Royal Family nature, to not say what they mean. Of course they have to say things in a diplomatic and political manner.

They’re not going to say that they’ll only fly in for the plum engagements and the high profile RF get-togethers. They’re not going to say that they want and expect global press for the launch of their charity foundation but don’t want the press that criticises their Instagram posts, even if those posts are misleading. They’re not going to say that they’ve had it with the stifling rules of the RF and the ridiculous hierarchy, or having to listen to the views of people who don’t seem to respect then.

Their actions are what are most telling. Harry bringing the press breach complaint and losing, for example. And there no doubt will be ‘positive’ examples too. If they do move to LA, it will imo show that leading a quiet life media-wise was not on the agenda. But I think they do in fact want press interest but on their terms. They don’t want the physical intrusion but they also don’t imo seem to like their actions being held accountable, be that by the RF, the press or public.

(Sorry, there an essay!!)

Of course everyone needs privacy Nerfballs but the rest of the RF manage to keep firm boundaries whilst not seeming precious and attention seeking too.

Do they? Because I seem to recall seeing similar headlines about Kate, Diana & Fergie and there are certainly invasive pap shots of all of them about. Harry has had years and years of stories about his parentage which I think is despicable. One of our local rags here had emblazoned on the cover last week "DNA shock, the real reason they fled" with different photos of Harry looking stern, Meghan tearful with an inset of Archie. 3 guesses as to what the 'story' was (complete with unnamed "insider" source). There seems to be a limit on what photos UK press will publish but no limit on the words or insinuations they use. I remember seeing this right from childhood, and it wasn't all that long ago that Kate was evil - now she can do no wrong - what changed? Nothing except the spin. And that is a heavy weight to carry, not everyone can do it. And the idea that engaging in the press for positive promotion means fair game for abuse is what fuels the red tops and online vultures. It's a horrible culture and I don't think it is acceptable for anyone. Measured and balanced scrutiny and critique, sure. But let's be honest - that's not what sells.

I do agree LA/ Canada may not be better. But at least they can choose their own clothes and have some autonomy. I also wouldn't rule out some difficult family relationships where distance is an attractive thing to pursue. There's a potential rapist HMQ welcome in the family fold for one. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors?

They can choose but it will be easier fo them to put a foot wrong and I don’t doubt the royal family have a team of ‘hushers up’ that they won’t have full access to.

Quite Lordfrontpaw

The RF no doubt hush up a lot. There was discussion on an earlier thread of how they did a clean-up job after his Las Vegas naked balls incident. So Harry no likely benefited from it.

Andres obviously didn’t get the memo or actually believes that nothing they do is ‘bad’.

Andrew not Andres (although there could be a prince Andres and we would never know...)