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

Whether or not she has a deep personal interest, she agreed to become patron and she should see that through, as she said she would. She has found time since March to do videos for a number of other organisations so I would hope she could also fit in one for the NT that spoke to the particular troubles they are facing.

I agree. Otherwise, if she didn’t feel she wants to continue, she should consider stepping down as patron.

But Archie doesn't have siblings. And I'm not aware of any friends MM has with a baby of the same age, because a 1 year cant really play with a 3/4 year old.

As for their enormous house, it isnt theirs. I dont know the exact relationship between them and the owner but I dont think it is one of a lifelong friendship, it is probably a bit quid pro quo. So poor Archie doesnt really have a permanent home either.

Dont get me wrong I'm sure he is fed, cuddled, loved. But he is at an age now where the same 4 (or 100!) walls isnt going to be enough to entertain him for much longer. He needs 'normal' experiences. If they're going to raise him as a private citizen he needs to make little friends, feel a sense of belonging to the community.

@Serenster

Using a baby as a stick to beat MM with is quite low tbh.

To be fair Mummy195, you do keep reminding us that this is a parenting site, and parents' decision to keep their toddler hidden away from all external interaction for a lengthy period of time would quite likely get responses no matter who who the parent doing it was.

Totally agree with this!

Might not matter much now but I wonder what their long-term plan is. Especially re education and so on. It's going to be hard to maintain privacy from paps in LA as others have mentioned.

Im not aware that posters are using a baby as a stick!

Mummy195 you seem cross today, have a or a

Maybe It has been very hot though, think its getting to all of us tbh!

And I'm not aware of any friends MM has with a baby of the same age, because a 1 year cant really play with a 3/4 year old

Crumbs, yes they can! That was the age difference with two of mine and they played together. Yes, they scrapped too but that's a learning curve for both.

So poor Archie doesnt really have a permanent home either
Do you honestly think, at 15 months old he will be damaged by that?! What about army families who move regularly? They cope!

I think we're over egging the pudding somewhat on this thread with this. He's in a massive house with grounds with parents and grandmother, and he's only 15 months old. He's probably had ones a similar age visit him. I'm not sure I'd feel much different in their position, given pandemics, paps, online media etc. When I think what a useless neurotic first time mother I was, it puts it into perspective for me given how my PFB has turned out. I'm sure he won't be damaged by anything they're doing.

@Mummy195

You sound very well informed. Do you work for Sunshine Sachs?

tarnishing their reputation so that maybe some charities may not really want to be involved with them.

But even minor members of the Royal Family like Harry and Meghan (by minor, I mean those no longer in the direct line of succession) have many approaches from charities looking for their patronage. However, unlike direct heirs, minor royals also have the freedom to choose which charities they take on. Isn't that why the Duke of Edinburgh advised his daughter to think carefully about the many offers she had and only select the ones that appealed to her?

I wouldn't want anyone to labour under the impression that Harry and Meghan would be foisted on a charity that wanted nothing to do with them. Heaven forfend that anyone should think that such a thing might happen. It's just not the done thing at all.

I think lots of dc who live in LA with ultra famous parents are damaged. Sometimes it really is about not having “normal” friends and being in the goldfish bowl of fame. I do think William and Kate have been able to keep their DCs friends quiet and private and that’s better for everyone.

Children play with older siblings where the older siblings help and invent the play. Children don’t actively seek other children and play cooperatively until they are at least 2 and often older. Archie won’t be vocal enough to lead play but other children can assist in his developmental play. Babies play but not cooperatively hence the not always “playing nicely” comments! They don’t understand sharing toys and joining in with group play. Going to nursery from around 3 promotes this.

No, I was not thinking they would be forced into charities. I just recalled that reputation means something to charities. H&M work for various charities that champion causes like anti-bullying etc. So I had in mind that if she is seen as for example bullying staff and other family members, certain of those charities may feel quite uneasy.

Remember how PA was dropped like a stone.

True but PA is in an entirely different class now. I am not a Meghan fan these days but there's scope for her to show what she can offer still. PA is absolutely toxic and I can't imagine any organisation wanting any link with him ever again.

I think ppl are jumping ahead of themselves with this Archie thing. The pandemic is not finished yet, things only just eased off recently and slowly, no need to foreshadow glum.

Just give them a break.

Well yes but other babies are out and about. Not shut into one large house. Even in Covid times you are allowed out. I think they need to find a way. Plus there’s the photography issue which is never going to abate. So what then? Keep him locked away?

The lawyer statement was in response to the pictures taken, last week I think. I did not read anything that says Archie will never leave the house again. He could be out today or tomorrow for all we know.

H&M work for various charities that champion causes like anti-bullying etc. So I had in mind that if she is seen as for example bullying staff and other family members, certain of those charities may feel quite uneasy.

Well yes, of course, but my post was in response to this:

but have lots of hideous lies published and get criticised on a daily basis for things that others with the RF are praised for.

I understood that to mean reputations tarnished on the basis of double standards - different standards applied to Royals in the line of succession rather than junior ones like Harry and Meghan.

Any member of the RF would be justifiably under fire if they were revealed as bullies but it's quite a leap to say that charities might want to distance themselves from a junior member of the RF for behaviour that senior members are praised for.

Have there been any examples of this?

@MeghanSussex

tarnishing their reputation so that maybe some charities may not really want to be involved with them.

But even minor members of the Royal Family like Harry and Meghan (by minor, I mean those no longer in the direct line of succession) have many approaches from charities looking for their patronage. However, unlike direct heirs, minor royals also have the freedom to choose which charities they take on. Isn't that why the Duke of Edinburgh advised his daughter to think carefully about the many offers she had and only select the ones that appealed to her?

I wouldn't want anyone to labour under the impression that Harry and Meghan would be foisted on a charity that wanted nothing to do with them. Heaven forfend that anyone should think that such a thing might happen. It's just not the done thing at all.

Harry is still in the line of succession, that was made crystal clear in the statement when Harry and Meghan said that the Queen doesn't have authority over the word Royal. It was emphasised that Harry and Archie are still 6th and 7th in the line of succession.

I was referring to the lies being printed.

H&M were senior members of the RF.

Harry is still in the line of succession, that was made crystal clear in the statement when Harry and Meghan said that the Queen doesn't have authority over the word Royal. It was emphasised that Harry and Archie are still 6th and 7th in the line of succession.

Yes, of course, that's why I said "direct line of succession" rather than just "line of succession". Sixth in line is on the outer borders of constitutionally important. If William and Catherine were to have just one more child, Harry wouldn't even have required the monarch's permission to marry. He would be constitutionally irrelevant.

H&M were senior members of the RF.

Thank you for the second extract, which confirms what I said. According to that, Harry no longer meets the definition of senior Royal, by his own volition.

Ah, ok I missed the direct line.

No worries

I read constitutional law at university. It's quite fascinating.

Re: toothpaste on brush.
My mother was a Lady's Maid to an aristocratic, but not royal, Lady in the 1930s. She always put toothpaste on the brush and ran the bath to the correct temperature.

Have to confess she also did it for me at times...

@WurraBurra I was thinking exactly the same. Discussion of the TMZ video and ET- which I guess is Entertainment Tonight. I didn't even know you could access 'ET' in the UK. I have never tried, to be fair, That is quite forensic knowledge of the nuances of royal media coverage particularly for non UK based sites.