Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

999 replies

Mummy195 · 28/07/2020 11:58

@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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
jeffgoldblumlovespenguins · 30/07/2020 13:16

My main irritation is that apparently we can't discuss Harry either,
He's one of our own , he's a white male born of privilege, but no , that's of the table too!

Samcro · 30/07/2020 13:18

@jeffgoldblumlovespenguins

My main irritation is that apparently we can't discuss Harry either, He's one of our own , he's a white male born of privilege, but no , that's of the table too!
why can't we discuss him?
AnneOfQueenSables · 30/07/2020 13:18

The case is interesting for lots of reasons. I'm disappointed with the extracts from the book. It seems poorly written and poorly researched. Writing a biography demands a particular skillset. Of course, the good ones make it look deceptively easy.

My0My · 30/07/2020 13:20

Oh by the way, Meghan wanted the Vladimir Tiara. That has been written about extensively. It has emeralds or pearls that are interchangeable. Meghan suits green and I can see why she maybe liked this tiara with emeralds it but it’s not been worn at weddings. It just seemed such an entitled thing for a new member of the RF to get upset about. Wouldn’t most reasonable people be delighted with anything that was offered? Can you imagine being offered anything so wonderful by The Queen?

Mummy195 · 30/07/2020 13:20

@My0My

Many people have commented on extracts from the recent book serialisation where Angela Kelly is clearly criticised. The word vipers about the staff has also come from this book. We were led to believe HandM sanctioned this book and it was putting their side of the story. They now say they didn’t speak to the authors. But, the authors have a lot of detail. It’s sheer folly for this book to have been published while court cases are underway. AN might not win the copyright case but a lot of Meghan’s complaints have already been dismissed by the judge. We will await the result of this latest hearing but books and legal actions never lead to a quiet private life.
It sounds rather tiresome that ppl keep repeating that this is H&Ms book when they put out a statement that they did not work with the book. But what, its ok to brand them as liars.

And didn't Lady C have details in her book too anyway. Certainly no one accused that book of being written by them. But because this one is not on the lets hate H&M bandwagon, it must come from them.

I think they deny writing the book, so it should be left at that, till otherwise proven.

The same ppl who have been writing vitriol about MM led you to believe they sanctioned the book.

The book is coming out in August, after the trial is due to be finished from my understanding . The extracts do not talk about the trial. Maybe you should question how the AN group is writing and publishing stories about a trial they are directly involved in.

The quiet and private life has been professed by the BM so much, ppl take it as gospel. When they wrote about press invasion - ie. all the vitriol written about them.

OP posts:
TofinoSurf · 30/07/2020 13:24

The trial has not even started never mind nearly finished. They are pre-trial hearings that are taking place.

Serenster · 30/07/2020 13:28

@My0My

We discussed that yesterday callmedoctor. That’s the case I was referring to.

Since when hsve members of the RF openly criticised staff in a book? How would Scobie ever know that Angela Kelly “dragged her feet” over Meghan’s hair and the tiara is he hadn’t been told by someone. There were no friends in the palace leading up to the wedding and very few were aware of the relationship between Angela Kelly and Meghan before the wedding. Yet it’s in this book and the royal household are described as “vipers”. The whole book debacle diminishes them and makes their reasons to leave look very petty.

With the disclaimer that this section of the book has only been reported on, not so far as I know yet released , the gist of their grievance about Angela Kelly, a very senior employee (and one who didn't work for them) is that she was too busy with her own actual job to be able to make Meghan's preference for her hair/tiara trial. I will be interested to read the relevant section when the book is released, because that doesn't sound like the crime of the century. Particularly not given that Angela Kelly has actually been named, which has opened her up to all sorts of unpleasant vilification from Meghan's fans.
My0My · 30/07/2020 13:28

It was widely trailed as putting the record straight a few months ago. It was widely touted that they had collaborated with it. You cannot put that to one side and now just accept what they say. If it’s all lies, where is the court case? The libel action? There isn’t one so whatever you think about the ethics of the book, it appears to be truthful.

No one has ever said they wrote the book. It is being serialised in various magazines and newspapers without litigation so it’s true! Sorry to disappoint you.

TofinoSurf · 30/07/2020 13:29

Maybe you should question how the AN group is writing and publishing stories about a trial they are directly involved in.

Not sure what the problem is with this. They only report on the hearings after they have taken place, like any media outlet does because it's publicly available information.

AnneOfQueenSables · 30/07/2020 13:30

@mummy195 are you not in the UK? I haven't seen anyone in the UK use BM. That may explain why there's sometimes a disconnect on this thread eg your attitude to members of the royal household and the way you are arbitrarily decreeing some media titles good and others bad.

My0My · 30/07/2020 13:31

Yes. These are pre trial hearings. No date for the actual trial yet. People who post here should at least know that!

HarryDaylight · 30/07/2020 13:32

@My0My

Oh by the way, Meghan wanted the Vladimir Tiara. That has been written about extensively. It has emeralds or pearls that are interchangeable. Meghan suits green and I can see why she maybe liked this tiara with emeralds it but it’s not been worn at weddings. It just seemed such an entitled thing for a new member of the RF to get upset about. Wouldn’t most reasonable people be delighted with anything that was offered? Can you imagine being offered anything so wonderful by The Queen?
I thought the tiara thay she wore was perfect, and really suited her dress. The other tiaras all look a bit top heavy.
jeffgoldblumlovespenguins · 30/07/2020 13:34

Can I ask what bm means?
I'm confused!

My0My · 30/07/2020 13:34

I’m!!! Court papers are available to all media outlets. The case here is that AN knows the names of the friends because they were named in court papers in response to their barristers’ questions. Meghan wants to stop them publishing the names. We don’t have secret court hearings unless judges degree they must be so. Usually these are Family Court not Queens Bench or Chancery.

My0My · 30/07/2020 13:36

I agree about the tiara. Why the fuss one wonders?

jeffgoldblumlovespenguins · 30/07/2020 13:38

@My0My

I agree about the tiara. Why the fuss one wonders?
True , I'd be happy with any chucked my way!😄
ButteryPuffin · 30/07/2020 13:43

It was widely trailed as putting the record straight a few months ago. It was widely touted that they had collaborated with it

Yes. I wonder why they did not make the statement that they've had no involvement with the book months ago, when it first emerged, to set the record straight then?

On the tiara point, I also thought the one she actually wore was perfect with the overall look. I don't think a coloured stone tiara (for instance) would have looked as good.

callmeadoctor · 30/07/2020 13:50

The tiara was beautiful, having said that, I thought that Beatrice looked amazing.

meercat23 · 30/07/2020 13:52

And didn't Lady C have details in her book too anyway. Certainly no one accused that book of being written by them. But because this one is not on the lets hate H&M bandwagon, it must come from them.

In my view, from the extracts that have been published so far, this book looks to end up fuelling more criticism than the Colin Campbell one did. That may change when we get to see the whole book but so far the things that have been reported show H&M in quite a negative light. I think the book set out to be supportive and from H&M's perspective but the way that perspective has been presented has come across as unflattering to say the least.

I didn't think the Colin Campbell book was entirely a 'let's hate them' book though. I thought she tried to see where M was coming from at least

Puzzledandpissedoff · 30/07/2020 13:52

I imagine Angela Kelly is resented by a lot of staff etc

I don't suppose a lot of the ex-couturiers are too happy either - it must sting a bit to see her doing the job they were once paid megabucks for

Which is ironic, since IMO the Queen's clothes now look 10x better than they used to

Nanasueathome · 30/07/2020 13:54

My understanding is that H&M asked for the book to be released earlier, around the same time that LCC’s book was released
If they had no knowledge of what was in the book then why would they ask for this
Some of the snippets published from the book could have only come from H&M

mrscampbellblackagain · 30/07/2020 13:56

I am sure if H&M didn't co operate in some way then they will be taking legal action for the gross invasion of their privacy.

jeffgoldblumlovespenguins · 30/07/2020 13:57

I read lccs book , have to say I found it quite complimentary towards m and h in certain places , even the critical parts were measured and fair.

Mummy195 · 30/07/2020 14:05

@ButteryPuffin

It was widely trailed as putting the record straight a few months ago. It was widely touted that they had collaborated with it

Yes. I wonder why they did not make the statement that they've had no involvement with the book months ago, when it first emerged, to set the record straight then?

On the tiara point, I also thought the one she actually wore was perfect with the overall look. I don't think a coloured stone tiara (for instance) would have looked as good.

We had already covered this on this thread. They distanced themselves long ago from the book. Even OS kept retweeting his frustration that ppl thinking this is an H&M autobiography.

Is there any reason for them to sue this book, but none of the other 5 that were written recently?

www.gq.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/did-prince-harry-meghan-markle-really-agree-to-this-tellall-biography/news-story/a3a8e29797f6dcc878acbbbf46e851c7

A positive thread on Harry and Meghan (aka Thread 6)
A positive thread on Harry and Meghan (aka Thread 6)
A positive thread on Harry and Meghan (aka Thread 6)
OP posts:
EthelMayFergus · 30/07/2020 14:11

If there was no collaboration with the book, how did the authors know about AK not having time to spend over M's hair and Tiara? How were they aware of a private conversation with PH and HMQ? How did they know that Kate didn't offer M a lift to the shops?

I can't help but think a lot of the so called 'slights' that Meghan suffered were because of her expectations that everyone is waiting around until she needs them for something. That's the impression I've got from the few extracts, she seems surprised that people aren't making more of an effort for her; protecting her, defending her and making time for her. But why would they? They have their own lives to live.

Swipe left for the next trending thread