Harry and Meghan, more news!

[callmeadoctor]

New thread following on old one: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_royal_family/3932323-Harry-and-Meghan-news?msgid=97617755

Thanks Llama. I appreciate you posting to say so.

@Oldbutstillgotit

The new book Royals at War is a bit of a hatchet job judging by the bits I have read online .

Yes, I agree. It also seems that we are in for a few months of new books about the royals. Presumably when lots of books are written on the same subject enthusiasm must dwindle over time, so I can see why there were reports about Finding Freedom being pushed for an earlier release date. After lots of early ascertains that Harry and Meghan cooperated with the contents, I’ve since seen them distancing themselves so I wonder if that if from fear of a backlash.

Nothing more seems to have been said about their court case for a while. Does anyone know when the next hearing or stage will be held?

Court case not till next year think. No date set. I bet it will be dropped.

In the LCC book she very clearly thinks that aspects of Harry's character were formed by Diana over-indulging him; making sure he didn't feel second best.

She feels that the Harry and Meghan relationship is driven by each of them winding each other up, maybe as both had them had a parent who offered them unquestioning support, and perhaps little guidance.

So far the court case has given many indications that it won’t be a favourable outcome for Harry and Meghan. Considering all that has happened, the letter to Thomas Markle would probably have been all but forgotten if the court case wasn’t there to bring it up. Plus the prospect of them wasting so much money on it (even if they win on a technicality, they will lose in the eyes of many of the public). I would imagine they will be strongly advised to drop it but who knows.

I don’t think Meghan will or has ended her friendship with Jessica M but if she has, and there is the prospect of her being called to testify, that might also make them think twice.

In many ways I do agree with not wanting your second born to feel second best but whilst Harry is where he is now purely through an accident of birth, so is William. From an outsider perspective, I think the so-called-spare must be the far better position to be born into as you can have so many advantages whilst avoiding so many restrictions.

Princess Margaret had a few issues with being the spare according to biographies. Though she wasn't the spare as such in the same way. As nobody expected George VI to be King. Elizabeth was given different tutors and taught different things and Margaret got told she didn't need to know any of that. So even if Harry had issues about bring second he wasn't the first. Henry VIII also was a spare. Quite interesting royal history.

@Viviennemary

Princess Margaret had a few issues with being the spare according to biographies. Though she wasn't the spare as such in the same way. As nobody expected George VI to be King. Elizabeth was given different tutors and taught different things and Margaret got told she didn't need to know any of that. So even if Harry had issues about bring second he wasn't the first. Henry VIII also was a spare. Quite interesting royal history.

Elizabeth was in line to rule from birth though, although I imagine the expectation was that her uncle would go on to have children and knock her down the succession.

Henry VIII wasn’t although arguably being the eldest son of the king was no means to ruling back then. After all, Henry VII wasn’t born expecting to rule (nor was Richard III who he defeated for the crown) and there was a high childhood mortality as well as many adults not living long in those days.

It does make the decisions of HM and PP and Kate and William to have more than two children very sensible - there will never be just one 'spare' sibling.

Curiosity got the better of me and I downloaded Royals At War. The writing is atrocious and clearly for a non uk audience. Piers Morgan is a ‘former CNN anchor’ and phrases such as ‘council house’ and ‘Sloane’ are explained (badly). It says the Eugenie’s wedding was 6 weeks after Harry’s when it was around 5 months later so fact checking obviously wasn’t a priority!

@Blueroses99

Curiosity got the better of me and I downloaded Royals At War. The writing is atrocious and clearly for a non uk audience. Piers Morgan is a ‘former CNN anchor’ and phrases such as ‘council house’ and ‘Sloane’ are explained (badly). It says the Eugenie’s wedding was 6 weeks after Harry’s when it was around 5 months later so fact checking obviously wasn’t a priority!

I didn’t realise it was released yet.

It doesn’t sound as though this book will provide much but please do update once you have finished.

The speed with which these books are coming out suggests to me HaM's time in the sun is coming to an end. Publishers are pushing quickly, while there's still interest in them. Or perhaps, they want to cash in on COVID shut ins.

@SunbathingDragon Released already on Kindle. The hard book is available from next month.

The writing is atrocious and fact checking obviously wasn’t a priority!

Neither of the above will matter (or even be noticed) by the intended audience of these so called 'royal books'.

Whilst I would be interested to read a book or two on royal families from a bygone era, to help maybe give an understanding or insight of historical events,Queen Victoria is about as recent as I would be interested in! I wouldn't be reading any books about living royals. It just reminds me of Andrew Morton who, for me, started it all of with his book about Diana.

I remember his original book, but then when he re-released it with added bits after she died, I thought it was one step too far, and unfair on W&H who were in their formative years. Put me off, especially as he could say more or less what he wanted after she'd gone as she wasn't around to dispute it.

Penny Junor's another one... she wrote a book about Camilla's affair.

Just not my thing, but I understand that some people will buy every book going.

Roussette

Just not my thing, but I understand that some people will buy every book going.

Lots of books and genres "aren't my thing" but I don't assume that people who read something that wouldn't interest me will "buy" and, presumably read, "every book going".
I read the Andrew Morton book but not the Penny Junor one.
I still think I have some discrimination in both my buying (after all, books aren't cheap these days) and reading.
Full disclosure: the AM book was from the library. I might have bought it in a charity shop though

I'm reminded of my mother who thought any fiction was a waste of time and prided herself in only reading biographies and autobiographies.
I think she based this on the fact that a friend of hers read back to back Mills and Boon. I could point out decent fiction until I was blue in the face, but she'd have none of it. Only things that she deemed "worthy" were okay.

I must admit I thoroughly enjoyed Craig Brown's book about Princess Margaret - "Ma'am, darling" - but maybe that passes the "Rousette test" because she was dead when it was published?

As a by the by, was it yesterday you met up with your DC? Hope you had a lovely day if so.

LaM
I forgot to add the middle category!

Some people will buy some of the books
Should have said that one, how remiss of me!
(along with some will buy every book going, some will buy none, think that covers everyone now!)

No Roussette test going on 'ere, just my personal preference, we all have them! Perhaps it's that I would only be slightly interested in reading about Royals that weren't alive when I was, hence my Queen Victoria and previous Royal books comment. Apart from 'royal' books, I read all manner of books, unlike your Mother lol. We're a huge book family.

Thanks for asking about DC... one is staying, and another one joining at the end of the week, after such a long time of not seeing them, plans cancelled in March etc, it's lovely

clearedfortakeoff

Their 'time in the sun's was when they were Royals.
They've now been downgraded to Californian 'c'lebs', is that a future lifestyle? Sounds like a lot of hustling to me.

Surely the Royal option would have been easier?

This is kind of what I have been saying for ages ! I still think H and M could have been powerful , popular members of the RF but that ship has well and truly sailed .

Roussette

LaM
I forgot to add the middle category!
Some people will buy some of the books grin
Should have said that one, how remiss of me!
(along with some will buy every book going, some will buy none, think that covers everyone now!)

Not quite. You forgot that "some might have books thrust upon them"

You did come across (to me, anyway) a bit judgey-pants, but I'm sure it wasn't your intention.

Thanks for asking about DC... one is staying, and another one joining at the end of the week, after such a long time of not seeing them, plans cancelled in March etc, it's lovely smile

Soooo jealous! Still haven't been in physical contact with mine for ages
All sorts of reasons: jobs, distance, me catching CV in hospital (no worries - I'm fine), DH in risky category...
The silly thing is I'm not that bothered about "hugs" which people keep talking about. Even at age 20 odd, the DDs tend to wriggle out of hugs after about 30 seconds.
It's being able to cook for them or have non-Zoom-style conversations where you can sip your coffee, nibble a biscuit and stare into the garden for a couple of minutes then resume chatting. If the conversation dips on a face-to-face phone call, everyone starts wondering if they should log off

oh hugs....I miss them. sitting what seems a mile away from dd who is severely disabled is beyond hard. we normally sit so close. now she is unwell and I can't even go in to see her.
sorry for me rail.

I think people just like what they like. dh only likes Biographies. I am more old lady fiction. I don't judge people for what they read.
but I do judge people who write some of these "royal" books.

LaM I did not mean to be judgey at all. That is why I rephrased it from people 'lapping up the books' as I had once said. I thought carefully about my phrasing actually, believe it or not

Totally agree with you on the adult children and what we miss. One has been in strict lockdown, the other has just been tested so we feel we're seeing them at the right time.
Agree on the cooking, and the conversations you can just dip in and out of that don't involve an electronic device!

Do hope you get to see yours in the not too distant future.

Samcro that is really hard. You think 2metres, that can't be too difficult, but as you say I am sure it seems so so far when you are used to your closeness. I do hope your DD gets better soon.

There is an overlap on a small genre of books that both me & DH like. Then he goes off piste with his off the wall sci fi books or James Joyce

Do hope you get to see yours in the not too distant future. smile

Thank you.

And I'm glad (as well as jealous ) that you're enjoying seeing yours.
I keep counting what I perceive as my blessings (and they're jolly good blessings), but sometimes arithmetic is cold comfort

Anyway. Sorry! Enough derailing from me!

I probably won't buy the current books about HaM but will read any extracts from them because I'm interested in them and the repercussions of their choices.
Wouldn't be posting on this thread if I wasn't, I suppose.

Doesn't mean I'll suspend all critical faculties I may have and will utterly disbelieve/believe everything I read.

Sorry for everyone missing their adult children and losing out on hugs, it must be really tough .

I will pretty much read anything, but even I would have to draw the line at Royals at War. From what I've heard of it it's just absolute nonsense. No judgement of anyone else reading it though, there are plenty of reasons to read; some books are so bad that they're funny or are read purely out of curiosity without being believed. I even read a David Icke book once just to see what everyone was talking about.

To anyone thinking of getting/reading Royals at War it is just a rehash of old stories from previous books or the usual suspect sources. A real hatchet job on Diana. Horrible stuff.