[quote Serenster]The Telegraph doesn't treat the book any more kindly (which they might have hoped for?), calling it a massive moanathon – a one-sided, highly biased, self-pitying account of the relationship.
Like so many rich and famous people used to getting their way, they’re astonished when they don’t. Harry tells a friend, “I’m tired of people covering engagements and then going off to write some rubbish about what someone is wearing.”
In their pampered bubble – sashimi is delivered to their cottage at Soho Farmhouse; they sit by an open fire tended by a butler at Babington House, Somerset – they can’t bring themselves to defer to the royal system that delivers those privileges.
At their crucial Sandringham meeting with the Queen, “Harry felt as though he and Meghan had long been sidelined by the institution and were not a fundamental part of its future.” That was reflected, he thought, in the pictures on the Queen’s desk in her Christmas message: the Cambridges and their children, Charles and Camilla, Philip and George VI, but nothing of the Sussexes or their baby son.
They wanted a future as semi-working royals – having their cake, eating it and not accepting the diminishing returns you get the further you get from the throne. The Queen made it clear it wouldn’t work.
archive.ph/Jy8Iw#selection-229.8-229.96[/quote]
Well summed up to me in this sentence here But if you’re looking for offence, you’ll always find it.