Harry, Meghan and Netflix are go

[CathyorClaire]

The long awaited documentray is hitting the screen on December 8th:

www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/breaking-prince-harry-meghan-markles-28607547

What with the award in a few days and the book in January they're ramping up the game.

Maybe they are going full Tiger King on the Dook and Dookess? I've got more respect for the Tiger King

I am so ill! Have had to cancel everything for rest of week. This would have been brilliant for today’s sofa stint

A literal bombshell - but a few on here would welcome a burn the witch party.

I keep my eyes on Harry. I reckon he may be skint.

I just noticed that.

Full interview with the ex head in charge of Royal Protection and liaison with MI5 - "disgusting and very real threats to Meghan's life on many occasions". If protection was withdrawn at the behest of the RF then that is truly shocking.

www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-meghan-markle-faced-credible-threats-to-her-life-says-former-head-of-counter-terrorism

I take it only the first episode is going to be about the RF.

Surely there’s not going to be 6 hours of them giving ‘their side’. Wasn’t the Oprah interview around 2 hours and then there’s the book.

is the rest going to be other things they have done? Or only touching on the RF in each episode? I am guessing the last one will centre around the Queen’s funeral.

But how much time do they need to give their side?

I also, really struggle to believe they signed a contract with Netflix, that didn’t state all the footage had to be accurate. No editing in fake shots (such as paparazzi at the Harry Potter premier as an example) given they feel so passionately that media manipulation has harmed them so much. And, as Harry’s sees it, partially to blame for his mothers death. then there is the focus on Kate in the trailers. Certain shots used whilst talking about ‘how difficult it is for women to marry into the RF’ then the trailer uses a shot of Kate to imply she was A/the problem.

I would be beyond angry, if I was William, that my brother was using our Mother to make money and use as a manipulation tool to make false comparisons.

Would threats to their lives have been revealed had they still been living in the UK?
I would assume that’s one of those security protocol things that don’t get revealed until some time has passed, or they’re not in danger (or the country) anymore.

How often do royals have threats like these made against them? I would have assumed that it’s quite a lot, but I don’t know.

Not trying to dismiss it by the way, just trying to see how common it is.
Would the King hear this and think ‘Oh gosh’ or would he hear it and think ‘Of course, we have threats daily’.

Also, credible threats to her life may explain the other things she claimed, was this around the time they advised her going out or advised against international travel etc.
So she has took it as controlling her, while they were actually protecting her?

I guess we won’t know, I remember from the terrorist attacks, they came out a few years later saying they had foiled a lot more attacks but obviously don’t want to announce them at the time

If only 1 episode is about the RF what on earth will they talk about for the other 5 ? Neither of them have anything interesting to say !

is the rest going to be other things they have done?

It will be about 5 minutes long if so.

Protection hasn't been withdrawn.

The current position is that security needs will be assessed ahead of each trip, and official security will be provided depending on the threat assessment.

Harry wants full coverage for every trip regardless of itinerary or threat assessment

It is RAVEC who makes these decisions. There is currently a JR under way examining if RAVEC is fit for purpose (inc membership) whether it is properly informed, and whether it's decision making processes are sound

Protection wasn’t just withdrawn overnight though, was it?
I thought they still had protection originally when they went to Canada?
I think the point was that the UK can’t afford to fund their protection overseas.

If they were living in the UK, they would definitively have received it with a credible threat to their lives.

I also thought it was at the behest of the police, not the RF it was removed?

(I’m not 100% sure on these things by the way, but that’s how I understand them, so happy to be corrected!)

It’s important that we understand accurately who was paying for what and where they were living when this all came about.

Saying the RF took away their protection on the say so of Charles while they were receiving death threats seems to be massively emotive and misrepresenting what happened. It’s awfully unfair to the RF to accuse them of this if it was in fact a police decision

There is a detailed and seemingly informed commentary on that here.

twitter.com/magslovelock/status/1558754544196149250

I think the point was that the UK can’t afford to fund their protection overseas.

It's not a question of 'affording', although the costs would indeed run to several million a year.

Rather that when two individuals choose to head off to California as private citizens, the British taxpayer has absolutely no responsibilities towards them.

Ah, RAVEC. (I’m saying that like I’d heard of them before!) I was quite sure it wasn’t the RF decision though.

That’s an actual disgusting allegation to make against them then, that it was at their behest, when it actually had nothing to do with them.
Really, really low

That what confuses me. The rest of the stuff isn’t that interesting. But I can’t figure out how they need this long to give their side of the story….again.

Yes, that too!

It was both costly, and not their responsibility.

People are repeating these claims about security as though it happened while they were living in the UK.

"It’s arbitrary & at the Firm’s prerogative. Prince Andrew has security because the Queen wants him too. Harry doesn’t for the same reason."

Spelling errors aside, do you seriously consider this to be informed comment?

Yes, when they had the absolute elite of British protection officers assigned to them, night and day.

But for certain people, nothing is ever enough.

I have no idea but we are all wildly speculating away based on little actual information here according to out own personal viewpoints I would wager.That said she is firmly on HM's side.

muckrack.com/rs-locke

It’s so disingenuous, acting like the threats were ignored.

I have no doubt they were extremely well protected whilst in the UK. But UK protection surely isn’t expected to go with them around the globe?

Maybe you are wildly speculating, but there are actual facts pertinent to this case. Anyone who thinks that official protection is based solely on what the monarch wants hasn't got a clue what they're talking about.

Truss along with every other PM gets it for life.

PMs are privy to state secrets so protecting them could be a matter of national security. The same is not true for ex working royals turned aspiring reality show stars.

If I've understood the gist of Trailer #2 and the Judicial Review, Harry's contention is that a member of RAVEC was unduly influenced by someone either 'at the Palace' or 'in the family' to remove their security?