Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Omid Scobie's new book

1000 replies

boxedandribboned · 04/11/2023 20:38

Heads up, Omid is back on the PR trail...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/harry-meghan-author-omid-scobie-31362434

BTW, can anyone explain why he's Harper's Royal reporter when he only seems to have access to or report on Harry and Meghan? It's a bit strange.

Harry and Meghan's biographer calls King Charles 'unpopular' in scathing jibe

Omid Scobie's new 'explosive' book Endgame will be published on November 28 - and its description on Amazon says the author investigates the current state of the British monarchy

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/harry-meghan-author-omid-scobie-31362434

OP posts:
Thread gallery
34
Roussette · 23/11/2023 12:51

Don't agree but there you go. Smile

I hope they carry on using their titles if that's what they want.

JSMill · 23/11/2023 13:08

Puzzledandpissedoff · 23/11/2023 12:22

Thanks once again, Serenster; I remembered Meghan's "not signing anything" quote, but not where it was from ... nor, for that matter, that it was published mere days from the Queen's death

IIRC it was in an interview from a magazine called the Cut and it was just before the Queen died. A lot of people thought the interviewer was actually taking the piss out of M.

derxa · 23/11/2023 13:09

Roussette · 23/11/2023 12:51

Don't agree but there you go. Smile

I hope they carry on using their titles if that's what they want.

But you despise everything about the RF

AliceOlive · 23/11/2023 13:17

They are plugging the book as full of bombshells.

Is it really such a bombshell that they didn’t want Meghan at Balmoral while the Queen was dying? Harry had already indicated the same thing in Spare.

It seems like both Harry and Scobie think that’s going to shock the masses and make them see how dastardly Harry and Meghan are being treated. But it’s not a surprise, nor a difficult position to understand.

Roussette · 23/11/2023 13:20

derxa · 23/11/2023 13:09

But you despise everything about the RF

I'm not Harry & Meghan. Hmm
And no, I don't despise everything about the RF. You don't speak for me! We're stuck with them whether I like it or not. I think they could do a lot to modernise and change and be transparent and then maybe I'd be more amenable to them....

derxa · 23/11/2023 13:39

I'm not Harry & Meghan. Do they despise everything about the RF?

Roussette · 23/11/2023 13:42

I have no idea. I am not Harry nor Meghan.

Serenster · 23/11/2023 13:46

I hope they carry on using their titles if that's what they want.

So why do you criticise Sarah, Duchess of York for still using her title (the above form is the proper one for a divorced Duchess who has not remarried) when it’s presumably what she wants?

Roussette · 23/11/2023 14:10

Serenster · 23/11/2023 13:46

I hope they carry on using their titles if that's what they want.

So why do you criticise Sarah, Duchess of York for still using her title (the above form is the proper one for a divorced Duchess who has not remarried) when it’s presumably what she wants?

You asked me this before and I answered you... yesterday or day before.

Samcro · 23/11/2023 15:02

so we are back to titles. i almost wish they would give them up, then Harry would just be prince harry and meghan princess Henry. but obviously the press and so on would call her princess Meghan. now that would be funny.

Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar · 23/11/2023 15:21

SF's Cliff Richard interview on This Morning was comedy gold. Him banging on about Elvis's weight, while the former Weight Watcher's ambassador looks mortified and completely out of her depth, Alison Hammond looked like she wants to punch him, and that Dermot fellow in the middle looking like he wanted the sofa to swallow him up.

I do agree, though, SF should have stopped trading off her Duchess title a long time ago, and so should have Diana, as soon as she had made her feelings about the family clear and public and aired all her dirty laundry. Neither of them needed to use them, they were extremely famous, and well known in their own right by the time they had moved on to do other things. SF was colloquially known as (and still is) "Fergie" abroad (I mean, Friends is on loop everywhere - "It's Fergie, baby!"), and DS never shrugged off "Lady Di" in many countries. Everyone knew who they had been married to, there was no need to retain the royal titles.

I suppose the flip side of that is that they decided they earned their titles through what they (objectively or subjectively) had to give up and put up with for their (fairly lengthy) marriages. They both put in a considerable amount of time doing royal duties before their messy divorces. It's the crossroads of feminism and independence and being institutionalised: wanting to throw off the royal shackles and stick two fingers up at the RF that essentially has to eject them, and the harsh reality of being a former royal, and not wanting to let go of the status and trappings of something so rarely bestowed - only once in a lifetime if you are one of the very few extremely lucky.

The other difference is that SF and DS went into this as young and naive women (one a teenager) thinking this was their forever after story. While their marriages and experiences were not good, they respected the institution while they were in it. Many commentators believe that H&M (mature adults) went Into their marriage knowing they were never going to stay and be minor working royals, doing mundane engagements and being secondary to W&K. And they certainly do not respect the RF if their actions and words are to be believed (actual and reported), either when they were in it or now. So it's hard to understand why they cling onto the titles, other than for the fact that it makes them a little bit exotic in Hollywood.

Actually, at the Vanity Fair event the other day, when M went as MM, actor/producer/philanthropist, rather than duchess, I thought she looked more relaxed, happy and beautiful (natural smile, not looking strained) than she has since she first came onto the scene. She looked like she was in her element. I don't think it would do her any harm to quietly drop the DoS title. It would be quite the feminist statement if she did, I think she would be applauded for it. Everyone knows who she married, nothing will change in that regard. She's got the high profile she needs going forward with her projects without carrying the royal baggage around.

MrsLeonFarrell · 23/11/2023 15:32

Going back to the book for a minute. Someone posted an extract and Scobie was re hashing the Charles and Camilla hacked conversation about tampons. He misquoted Charles of course.

I don't believe that Harry, who detests the media and is fighting a case against hacking, would have anything to do with this sort of ancient gossip.

But the extract increased my distaste for Scobie, and convinced me that his sources are cut off and he only had old material to write about.

Roussette · 23/11/2023 15:56

Interesting post and I agree with lots you say. @Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar

I do think Diana and Sarah set the tone for those leaving the royal fold and H&M carried it on. SF has of course bounced back into the fold for monetary reasons no doubt. Maybe she could make a stand and give up her title to set an example? But ex wives can hang on to the title, as she has done and Diana did. H&M are a different case really. Both still married etc.

Roussette · 23/11/2023 15:57

Incidentally.... SF did not have a lengthy marriage... just 6 years. And now 31 years divorced.

Serenster · 23/11/2023 16:08

Sarah, Duchess of York is still the proper title of a divorced Duchess though (according to DeBretts), unless and until she remarries which Sarah obviously has not done. So, as you have said about Harry, it is her name and why shouldn’t she use it?

No- one insists that divorced women have to revert to their maiden name, or pick a third name in any other circumstances. And Angie Bowie, Angie Best and Julia Carling all retained their husband’s names after divorce.

Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar · 23/11/2023 16:09

Well I did say "fairly lengthy" - and by today's standards (at the risk of morphing into a judgy Margot Leadbetter), that's a fairly good innings. I think as little as 10 years can be considered "long" in the family courts. I don't know how long they were together before they got married.

Roussette · 23/11/2023 16:17

Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar · 23/11/2023 16:09

Well I did say "fairly lengthy" - and by today's standards (at the risk of morphing into a judgy Margot Leadbetter), that's a fairly good innings. I think as little as 10 years can be considered "long" in the family courts. I don't know how long they were together before they got married.

My goodness, I find that amazing! Six years to me is barely touching the sides! I had no idea courts would consider 10 years long. But I am coming up decades (lots of them) so I would say that wouldn't I.....

Serenster · 23/11/2023 16:18

A marriage of short duration, legally, is one of less than two years.

Samcro · 23/11/2023 16:24

@Roussette i would give up. unless its Meghan and Harry, everyone is allowed to cash in on their royal connections (mike Tindal !!)
Harry isn't allowed to because they want to bash him to bits.

Roussette · 23/11/2023 16:36

Good grief! Less than two years yikes... there appears to be nothing in between short and long!

Janiie · 23/11/2023 16:36

Samcro · 23/11/2023 16:24

@Roussette i would give up. unless its Meghan and Harry, everyone is allowed to cash in on their royal connections (mike Tindal !!)
Harry isn't allowed to because they want to bash him to bits.

Harry isnt allowed to because he's made a career out of saying how horrid they all are whilst in the next breath milking his royal connections for all its worth. Poor man. He's a writhing mass of contradictions.

MrsDotCotton · 23/11/2023 16:38

Harry is a hypocrite. He moans about a sausage but still wants to be part of it all. The fact that he and M are still married is irrelevant.

MrsDotCotton · 23/11/2023 16:42

@derxa you have made a valid point.

Roussette · 23/11/2023 16:42

I think it depends if it's a butcher sausage or a Richmond sausage. A big difference Grin

Janiie · 23/11/2023 16:43

MrsDotCotton · 23/11/2023 16:38

Harry is a hypocrite. He moans about a sausage but still wants to be part of it all. The fact that he and M are still married is irrelevant.

He does. He wants the adulation, the clicks and the crowds. Prince of Monticeto yayy!

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.