The Times

[Rushingfool]

Anyone else think The Times should not be printing extracts from this new book about Royal Courtiers at this time? Incredibly stupid given that H&M are trying to mend fences? I feel really quite cross for everyone involved - William's efforts to build bridges etc, all going to be in vain now. Very naughty.

Did not work for me.

I didn’t “well know” @Roussette about you using the word dredging, I am on my phone and couldn’t scroll back, but was sure it had been used on this thread and thought it may have been by you.

Searching shows you did in fact use the word dredging on this very thread, on this very day. Albeit not about the Oprah interview.

I read that thread you posted at the time it happened in 2020. (You are not correct @notanotheroneagain that it wasn’t linked on here at the time, it definitely was. A lot of Royal Family threads were deleted though).

I think it is very interesting and illuminating, and a little shocking in places. I don’t think a few of the comparisons stack up as the author presents, but I think many do. I have never doubted that Meghan received press that was deliberately slanted to be negative. I have never doubted there was a racial element to some. But I also think the press response is more complex than that and is partly because of how Harry and Meghan showed their contempt for the press from the get-go more or less.

So from “true” to “we will never know” which takes us back to “seriously.”

When people’s social position suddenly jumps it takes a while for them to learn who is and isn’t trustable with their new status.

Hugh Grant calls it “leaky friends”. Even the most seasoned of fame veterans can be surprised. It’s not necessarily intentional, some people are just more gossipy than others.

There were about 30 examples and you read 1. Okaaayyyy....

I’d be interested to read the thread if it can be linked.

Searching shows you did in fact use the word dredging on this very thread, on this very day. Albeit not about the Oprah interview

Exactly.

Not part of our conversation

I can imagine she may have been blindsided that it was shared.

But the outcome is the same whether it was purposely shared, a lack of discretion or a complete betrayal by a close friend.

And now that H&M have been caught using the media so many different ways (leaking letters via friends, briefing Scobie for his book, lining up interviews with Oprah, the Cut, etc) it makes you wonder if it was done purposely.

Well said.

But I also think the press response is more complex than that and is partly because of how Harry and Meghan showed their contempt for the press from the get-go more or less.

The press is there to report without 'fear or favour'. As it should be.
They are not there to take anything personally. I like reading press that will tell us what took place, usually at the front, somewhere in the middle they will have 'an opinion', these are usually side by side from different views -pro and anti. This is fine by me.

The DM and other rags do nothing of the sort. And lately, it seems disappointingly the Times and Torygraph have taken clear sides (remember the story criticising KM taken down by the TG, then a Carry Johnson story also taken now because the editor is buddies with BoJo, all just recently).

What a shame.

I've lurked on these threads but never posted as I'm a supporter of the RF and a supporter of MM despite thinking she's made some dubious decisions but the one point that continues to baffle me is why there is not more anger directed towards PH. I might be being spectacularly dim but I cannot understand why anyone thinks he's been a decent husband to MM. Someone unthread commented on MM being thrown under the bus and it appears to me that the majority of negative press articles around her are either down to him or his fault. He keeps chucking her under the bus.All of the comments in the OW interview could and should have been explained by him. He cannot be so stupid not to realise that by MM actually making the comments that all the negative press would therefore be directed at her. Tiaragate was him allegedly shouting and swearing at a member of staff not her and at the very least he would have understood that some of the recent decisions around HMQ's funeral were military protocol not RF protocol. Likewise all of the protocol issues raised again and again re curtsying and hats would have been known and should have been explained by him. And don't even get me started on the fact that he did not get her mental health help when needed and allowed her to go out that night. I'm no particular fan of MM and I do dislike some of her more pass agg comments in interviews and articles but I cannot believe that it's so simplistic that the RF didn't want her and constantly briefed against her. I personally think that her husband is the architect of all of these issues and if I was a friend of hers I'd be pointing out the red flags and telling her to run for the hills. Maybe I'm completely wrong but I'd be interested in other's opinions

Harry and Meghan: ‘They felt cornered, misunderstood, deeply unhappy’

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/54c6b920-3b4f-11ed-84dd-c16384999350?shareToken=c01e3b2b2731ea00c4d76fd56ed9502e

This is so petty. You previously said "And as you well know I have not used the word 'dredging". The poster is saying yes you did .

Well that latest instalment is pretty sympathetic to Meghan, I thought the last para was pretty strong and actually may get nearer to the truth than many care to accept.

The king and the short of it is that it’s complex, mixing business and family ( I work with family businesses) is never easy amd fundamentally that’s what this is .

Long and short of it

But strangely bullying m on line is fine

Did you not read the bit where the poster said it was nothing to do with the interview, and that means not part of our conversation.

Criticise me by all means, but because I used a word somewhere else, that type of criticism is pretty pathetic.

You are the one quite obviously being petty.

p.s. If I use the word petty elsewhere in another conversation with someone else, just bear in mind I am not talking about you

There are two paragraphs in the latest instalment that really ring true to me. The last one.
And the paragraph three above that.

'One former palace insider believes the way the developing crisis was handled was “incompetent beyond belief”. They said: “I think Meghan thought she was going to be the Beyoncé of the UK. Being part of the royal family would give her that kudos. Whereas what she discovered was that there were so many rules that were so ridiculous that she couldn’t even do the things that she could do as a private individual, which is tough . . . It just required the decision-makers to sit around a table and say, ‘OK, what are we going to do about this? What do you need to feel better? And what can we give?’ ”

This one rings true for me.

Thank you for the share token Myrtle

Her incompatibility for the role resurfaces time and again. She has a lack of respect/tolerance for our cultural values and institutions (not the first American in my experience). She did not want to learn or to 'get it'.

She wanted the Prince and the lifestyle of the super wealthy lifestyle. Her own money has been vastly, vastly exaggerated. Her wealth came from her first divorce settlement and limited success on a few daytime tv shows. She was living in a rental in Toronto with her biological clock ticking loudly. She did not care about the conditions attached to Harry and all of the downsides. It was her last, big chance to get the Hollywood prize. She never had the liberty to be picky like his previous girlfriends.

ah, you're welcome @adriftabroad - sorry it took a while for me to figure out that I could only do it from the app

Re: Twitter and exhibit 5.

The “Spanish” nanny article and the article about H&M are again not parallel at all.

The H&M speculating based on on being briefed they might break with tradition and perhaps hire an American, maybe even a man. Also that they wanted someone who would feel like part of the family rather than staff.

Some might think these ideas are terrible or that H&M were being criticized. I don’t find the tone critical at all. But then I’m American and see nothing wrong with an H&M hiring an American to care for her children.

This was extensively reported with similar headlines including by US media not at all critical of the Sussexes.

I am not going through 30 twitter posts to counter them. That would make me insane and I am sure some are valid. Obviously from these two alone there is confirmation bias at play. The headlines may “prove” a point and but were just pulled together without respect to content.

She has a lack of respect/tolerance for our cultural values and institutions (not the first American in my experience). She did not want to learn or to 'get it'.

Which cultural values and institutions are these?

Ugh, sorry for typos.

Her wealth came from her first divorce settlement and limited success on a few daytime tv shows

A few? Over a hundred episodes actually and made £2million doing them.