Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Omid Scobie writing tell all book

1000 replies

CosmosQueen · 29/06/2023 07:23

The biographer of the Duke and Duchess of Sussexwarned that his next book will reveal moments that the Royal family should be “ashamed of”.
Omid Scobie claimed he was one of few journalists writing about the Royal family whose work was impartial and “spin-free”

As such, he said his forthcoming book, provocatively titled Endgame: Inside the Royal Family and the Monarchy’s Fight for Survival, would focus on the negative as much as the positive and would shine a light on “unsolved mysteries”
“Endgame not only looks at the successes of our Royal family but also the failures; the things to be proud of and those they should be ashamed of,” he wrote in the I newspaper

Just when will this end? I feel so sorry for their poor children who will have to live with the knowledge that their parents and his obnoxious individual were prepared to do anything to make money.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
skullbabe · 04/07/2023 12:24

she’s a lying skank

But why would the less politic statement also be misogynistic- rather belies your position doesn’t it? Also interesting again as to the focus only being on her and not them.

Howsimplywonderful · 04/07/2023 12:24

smilesy · 04/07/2023 12:23

Was it any more horrid than “service is universal”?

Now, that was sniping !

skullbabe · 04/07/2023 12:26

The statement was pointed but not untrue. Service is not the sole provenance of the British Royal family.

Oblahbla · 04/07/2023 12:38

skullbabe · 04/07/2023 12:26

The statement was pointed but not untrue. Service is not the sole provenance of the British Royal family.

So Meghan's statement was pointed but not untrue but the palace statement was horrid, snide, slippery. Hmm Grin

skullbabe · 04/07/2023 12:47

I personally don't think it was - it was just as pointed.

Iwantcakeeveryday · 04/07/2023 12:49

skullbabe · 04/07/2023 12:26

The statement was pointed but not untrue. Service is not the sole provenance of the British Royal family.

exactly. In fact it was the original statement that was snippy and rude. How arrogant to think the only, or best way to be 'of service;' is if you are a british royal and are paid an enormous amount of money for it and have exemptions from laws everyone else is subject to. Now that is truly horrid.

upinaballoon · 04/07/2023 12:50

Iwantcakeeveryday · 04/07/2023 10:11

The phrase has indeed become a classic. Its a different way of saying... that didn't happen. Its not a new thing either, people often deny they've been racist, sexist, homophobic.. whatever offensive prejudice thing they've been accused of. We've all been there. Its happened to me since I was young. 'I didn't say it like that', 'she's lying, I'm not a racist', 'well... I remember it different', 'you're being overly sensitive'

Its just a slightly fancier way of saying the above things which have been said to poc since forever....

The statement wasn't just about pocs and the possible colours of any childrens' skins. It was about all the vague things said in that interview.

Novella4 · 04/07/2023 13:01

Mylovelygreendress · 04/07/2023 11:40

It never fails to amaze me how many posters who clearly dislike the Royal Family ( apart from the sainted M and H) spend so much time on the RF board .
I am not keen on horses ( apologies to horse lovers) so I don’t get involved on that board . Maybe I should go on and post how much I dislike horses ?

I have had to point this out many times:

This is a discussion board.
It is not a fan club
There is very much to criticise re the Windsors and the harm they do to this country

WinnieTheW0rm · 04/07/2023 13:14

tigger2022 · 04/07/2023 11:32

Also tbh Harry’s suggestion that the Queen was a confused old lady who needed his protection against her own staff that she had hired and that she couldn’t judge who and what was in her own best interests was ageist, sexist, patronising, and delusional.

I just don't see how she could be characterised as "confused" as, despite her outings being curtailed, she was still having plenty of meetings and some in-person events.

The "recollections may vary" statement was in March 2021, about 18 months before her death, and before hospitalisation of the October that year (which was the time when, on doctors' orders, she began to scale back)

Roussette · 04/07/2023 14:01

Iwantcakeeveryday · 04/07/2023 12:49

exactly. In fact it was the original statement that was snippy and rude. How arrogant to think the only, or best way to be 'of service;' is if you are a british royal and are paid an enormous amount of money for it and have exemptions from laws everyone else is subject to. Now that is truly horrid.

Oh my goodness, yes.

When H&M said that, I thought yesss! at least someone recognises this. Think of the millions of volunteers all over the UK toiling away helping others, food banks, children's helplines, voluntary MH services, unsung heroes like carers and foster parents... Service is not the sole occupation of the privileged RF, who, let's face it just have to turn up smile, look interested and walk away, not thinking of their next voluntary shift
What they do is not at the hard end of service exactly is it...

Whatshallabee · 04/07/2023 14:16

What did Sussex Royal say? The Queen does not own the word “Royal”?

WinnieTheW0rm · 04/07/2023 14:25

Whatshallabee · 04/07/2023 14:16

What did Sussex Royal say? The Queen does not own the word “Royal”?

Yes. Which of course is literally true - not least because of the many other monarchies in the world.

But it's not the whole truth - that use of the term "royal" in certain circumstances in Britain is very much controlled by the monarch, and those circumstances immediate family members and branding

Oblahbla · 04/07/2023 14:28

Could someone point me in the direction of where QE said only she lived a life of service, no-one else?

Samcro · 04/07/2023 14:45

there is an assumption that because the palace said relocations may vary, that H&M were lying or wrong.
but that same thing could be said by them. maybe the palace were lying or wrong.

tigger2022 · 04/07/2023 14:46

I think the issue was that they were issuing a lecture on service to someone who, no matter your POV, can be said to have served for a very long time… when they’re not actually doing any sort of service whatsoever. Service isn’t universal, because not everyone is doing it.

WinnieTheW0rm · 04/07/2023 14:46

Oblahbla · 04/07/2023 14:28

Could someone point me in the direction of where QE said only she lived a life of service, no-one else?

She didn't.

The "Service is universal" was included in the Sussex reply to a Buckingham Palace statement in February 2021:

"The Queen has written confirming that in stepping away from the work of the Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service"

Harry and Meghan not returning as working members of Royal Family - BBC News

Ohpleeeease · 04/07/2023 14:58

I notice one poster has liberally quoted anecdotes from Spare as though they were fact. They aren’t. They are remembered stories and impressions from someone who has freely admitted his memory may at times be faulty.

It would be helpful for people to say they are relying on Harry’s memoir for their information, also to correctly retell the stories without adding their own embellishments. Just so we can all be clear how reliable it is.

Samcro · 04/07/2023 16:16

yet people take as fact things from books where the author had never met H&M

Ohpleeeease · 04/07/2023 16:27

Nothing’s fact unless it’s supported by hard evidence. Much of what’s posted on these threads is supposition, as long as people are clear about that, no problem.

DollyTheFluffyOne · 04/07/2023 16:51

Ohpleeeease · 04/07/2023 16:27

Nothing’s fact unless it’s supported by hard evidence. Much of what’s posted on these threads is supposition, as long as people are clear about that, no problem.

That's very true.

Samcro · 04/07/2023 17:27

Ohpleeeease · 04/07/2023 16:27

Nothing’s fact unless it’s supported by hard evidence. Much of what’s posted on these threads is supposition, as long as people are clear about that, no problem.

True

MrsLeonFarrell · 04/07/2023 17:35

WinnieTheW0rm · 04/07/2023 14:46

She didn't.

The "Service is universal" was included in the Sussex reply to a Buckingham Palace statement in February 2021:

"The Queen has written confirming that in stepping away from the work of the Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service"

Harry and Meghan not returning as working members of Royal Family - BBC News

I always felt that this statement and the response were talking at cross purposes. The Queen was talking about the very specific public service duties and responsibilities that come with being a senior royal (I'm not saying all senior royals necessarily fulfill those responsibilities btw). The Sussexes were saying that anyone can live a life of service to others.

I think they were both right. You can't do half in and half out as a senior royal because sooner or later you'll get caught in a conflict of interests like Sophie did in the early years. But neither is living to serve others limited to a specific family role. We can all do that. Maybe the key to the difference is in the word "public"?

Novella4 · 04/07/2023 18:28

The ‘public service’ lie is the biggest con the ‘royals’ attempt.

They had to double down on it.

Its an insult to anyone who does a real days work

ILikeDinosaurs · 04/07/2023 19:59

Mylovelygreendress · 04/07/2023 11:40

It never fails to amaze me how many posters who clearly dislike the Royal Family ( apart from the sainted M and H) spend so much time on the RF board .
I am not keen on horses ( apologies to horse lovers) so I don’t get involved on that board . Maybe I should go on and post how much I dislike horses ?

Most of those posting obsessively about Harry & Meghan are massive supporters of the royal family. It seems it's far more addictive to bitch about people (especially a woman) than it is to praise or show an interest in what the rest of the family are doing.

Milcar · 04/07/2023 20:26

Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me.

If posters are 'massive supporters of the RF' why aren't they praising and showing an interest in what the rest of the family are doing? Surely they would be criticising Meghan AND praising the the rest of the family?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.