A positive thread on Harry and Meghan (aka Thread 6)

[Mummy195]

@rousette

I'm sure you won't mind that your excellent link gets 'pinned'.

Some of the things MM did before marrying H.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282990766097301504.html

I think people like to paint public figures as good or bad (pantomime figures, often) and aren't prepared to consider most people are just humans, with good points and bad points, strengths and weaknesses. I am interested in the story of Meghan and Harry because I think it contains a lot of fascinating conflicts.

At heart I've often thought a large part of the difficulty Meghan faced was cultural - she just didn't get how different things would be, and seems to have viewed advice as opposition, which made her annoyed. As an example of this I offer what's just been published as yet another extract from Finding Freedom in People - pap shots of her taken in December 2016, a month or so after the news of her and Harry's relationship broke. She was carrying a bunch of colourful flowers and wearing a necklace with an "H" and "M" on it, smiling broadly at the camera. The photographer who took the shots is on twitter and has confirmed the photos were arranged, she was very accommodating to ensure the shots were good, and the necklace was from one of her friend's jewellery brand, who made a lot of money from the publicity. In other words, this was exactly what Meghan had wanted - she was directly raising her profile off the back of the relationship. Then, as the book reports, she was contacted by the palace who obviously assumed the photos were unwanted, and advised her that wearing eye-catching jewellery like that would only encourage attention, which she found frustrating and upsetting.

I mean, it's a storm in a teacup really, but shows how she and the palace staff were clearly not not the same page at all in relation to their expectations right from the get go. Better communication on all sides would clearly have helped, but given what happened subsequently I don't think she wanted to toe the line, or be told what to do. Which is, fine, and her choice, but...why on earth would you take on the job? And if she is making it clear to the staff that she is not interested in listening to them, it's not difficult to understand that they found her difficult.

Anne's reading matter: Horse and Hound, Farmer's Weekly and The Scottish Farmer

Tofino I remember James Whitaker saying in This Morning that William was very spoilt. I don’t think he had much time for him.

I read the Andrew Morton book and was aghast that I had heard the stories before and they WERE true and the book confirmed them. The saddest story I heard was from a friend who was at school with James Gilbey (squidgygate) who said that Diana spent her engagement party crying in the loo as Charles spent the entire time with Camilla. I was told this in May 1981, just weeks before the wedding, so rumours were abounding before the poor girl had even wed.

Johnny Spencer reminds me of the Boleyn family in that he would do anything and sacrifice his daughters just to be closer to the Monarch.

Interesting story on the necklace/pic Serenster.

I just can't imagine being so stifled and agree it is a cultural thing

Ahhh yes... Johnny Spencer . And then there was Raine Spencer or Acid Rain as Diana called her

I always think back to the press junket scenes in Notting Hill at the mention of Horse & Hound

@myrtleWilson

I always think back to the press junket scenes in Notting Hill at the mention of Horse & Hound

That was hilarious 😂

And that's part of what I find frustrating about all of this, Rousette. You've fallen in love, been seduced by the glamour, tried and and decided it's really not for you. Fine, do a Princess Martha-Louise and just step away quietly. But railing furiously and publicly against the institution and the people who work there because they expected you to abide by the rules, and didn't recognise how special you were is beyond me.

OK, there was a book written by Prince Charles' former butler very early on in their relationship and I think it is the origin of the story that Charles brought loads of books on the honeymoon by Laurens van der Post on the holiday and thought they could sit around chatting about them together. As you do.

Had Diana been familiar with the Mumsnet expression "My foof slammed shut" I suspect she might have been tempted to deploy.

Proved to be quite an interesting chap if this article is to be believed:

www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/04/uk.vanessathorpe

Apparently MM has agreed to pay £67,000 towards legal costs having list first round of case against MoS . Ouch.

Lost

Agree 100% there are BIG cultural clashes at play here with MM - have said this on other (now deleted) threads.

Wurra wow, what a story. She must have felt like a lamb to slaughter, literally. And totally agree on the characterisation of Jonny Spencer - anything to get near the crown and also if you underrate your daughter you think whatever crumbs PC might toss her are fine.

I suspect most people put way more blame for the current situation on Harry than Meghan. He comes across as a very spoilt over indulged man. Honestly, I wish Meghan all the best with him as I doubt it will be much fun.

I agree.

Apparently MM’s barrister said the surname of one of her friends in court. 🤦🏻‍♀️

Serenster I promise I'm not being deliberately provocative because I get what you say. But... I think the RF needs a bit of a shake up. I'm looking at it from the other side of the coin.

To be expected to abide 'by the rules' to me means that some rules need revision AFAIC. All the women having to wear one shade of nail varnish for instance. I mean.... hello 1950s!
Just discussing. Not disagreeing, just throwing my opinion into the pot.

@Roussette

Serenster I promise I'm not being deliberately provocative because I get what you say. But... I think the RF needs a bit of a shake up. I'm looking at it from the other side of the coin. To be expected to abide 'by the rules' to me means that some rules need revision AFAIC. All the women having to wear one shade of nail varnish for instance. I mean.... hello 1950s! Just discussing. Not disagreeing, just throwing my opinion into the pot.

I don't disagree at all about the rules but those rules, no strong nail colours, tights, etc etc are HMQ's rules. They have been her rules since the 1950s.

No doubt those very same rules will be revised to at least some extent when PC or PW take over but to push for change or simply ignore the rules overlooks the fact that it HMQ's preferences that are being ignored. Given the fact of the hierarchy that was always going to end badly.

Long winded way of saying that maybe there is a moment to push for change but perhaps that moment is not yet.

I think they've played it wrong at times, but to my mind they don't deserve the incessant vitriol they are subjected to both here and elsewhere. Sick of saying the same thing... but there is nothing they could do that would please some people. Zilch. Nada. Nowt. If you go down the route of pages of posts about how she wears a coat, or a babysling, that is fact.
Her personality is attacked ad infinitum.
Horrible.

This a thousand times.

I’m so glad that MN are now moderating and limiting the number of threads about one woman. The threads can be under whatever heading they like but let’s face it - they all end up spewing hatred at MM.

I don’t care if she contributed towards the book or not. I don’t believe it was due to anything but loyalty to Harry and a need to set the record straight.

But those are not actual rules, Roussette. Much is made of them by "Royal Experts" but they just don't stand up to scrutiny. The Queen herself wore a lot of open-toes shoes and off-the-shoulder dresses. Diana often had dark red nails and toes. Kate mostly, but not always wears tights, but so do most of the women I work with in a professional office. Articles that trumpet "breach of royal protocol" articles are just clickbait - and as likely to be from oversea publications as British tabloids.

Finding Freedom has been a disaster for MM and H.

It is now acknowledged that the tiara story is true.

Is the tiara she wanted named? This is the kind of thing I will be able to look out for when actually reading the whole book. Which I still plan to do. Then there's no issue with wondering what the papers' serialisation left out.

Worse, the book specifically names Angela Kelly, the Queen's hugely trusted employee, as one of the people who delayed Meghan getting access tot he Queen/the tiara she wanted. I am completely side-eyeing a palace employee being identified (you don't want to know what the Sussex squad is already posting on twitter about her) but to reveal this on the same day that Meghan is in court arguing that her 5 female friends should not be publicly named, because although they spoke about her to a magazine without her consent, they did not deserve the exposure...is extraordinary. What are they thinking??

(and if you don't want to annoy the Queen, don't come for her loyal dresser, I imagine, also!)

You just don’t mess with Angela Kelly. The Queen refers to her as her second sister and approved her book The Other Side of the Coin.

I'm half watching the Princess Anne programme. All I'm gonna say is... I am totally gobsmacked at how, at early 20s, how much Zara looks like her.

So much so, it's uncanny.

Serenster I only picked the nail varnish thing as an example. There will be a lot of other fairly pointless rules no doubt. Hopefully change will come.

I'm sure there will be changes, once we have a new monarch. But in the meantime Rousette, how do you think you'd get on if you joined a bank, and considered that their compliance rules were outdated and pointless? Or became a flight attendant and thought their dress rules were stupidly restrictive?

Those are comparisons that are hard to liken to what we're talking about. On the uniform, I would be proactive in doing something if I felt my job was impacted by a uniform that prevented me doing my duties properly.

On the RF change takes years or decades, maybe this is just the start of it.