Omid Scobie Endgame PART 5

[Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar]

A continuing civilised and enjoyable discussion of all things relating to Endgame. Please keep posts on topic - I do not want to have to invoke Ross Gellar again!

Previous thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4957618-omid-scobie-endgame-part-4?page=1

Clothes not really interesting to me on this thread either, and so I am invoking Ross.

Do we think the paperback print run of Endgame will be scrapped?

Do you think it would have done any better if the Dutch debacle hadn't happened. Or are people just not interested.

My view is no paperback, and I think it would have done a little better without the mishap, but not by much. I don't think most people really care too much what OS thinks about anything. Either fervent royalists or supporters of the Sussexes for that matter, never mind neutrals.

I agree with you.

I think a lot of people are just royalled out at this stage.

Finding Freedom sold quite well, but that was 3 years ago. There was a lot of interest in the Sussexes then. But post Oprah, Spare, Netflix, numerous interviews and so on, it's all old news at this point. Plus there has been a spate of books about the royals over the same time period. Valentine Low, Tina Brown and Tom Bower, to name but three. People just aren't that interested anymore, especially as Scobie is perceived as a mouthpiece for the Sussexes, and as mentioned above, we've heard more than enough from them by now. People will read the 'juicy' bits on social media or in the papers, but they won't part with cash for the book. Like I say, it's old news.

I agree @IcedPurple plus since they've effectively been frozen out of the Royal fold, there's no new gossip or tattle for them to share, so it all really is old news.

I think it probably sold more because of the Dutch Debacle. Agree unlikely to have a paperback run.

I think in general people are interested in the royal family more than the actual individuals, so with nothing new there is nothing to be amused/aggrieved by.

I am sure it will have a paperback run. It might not have sold as many as they hoped but it will still be a lot more than many books.
People are bored at the moment but sooner or later someone will do something dramatic and stir things up again, not to the same degree but newspapers do keep coming back to the royals over and over again.

Well they need to keep their profile up, keep in the public eye, so it's important that they do things that get into newspapers.

I would try to make my departure personalised to those I know celebrate Xmas then would do the "have a good xmas" Though if unsure would say "enjoy the break " or another generic term. Happy holidays just sets my teeth on edge would never send a card with this on it, and (happy to be corrected) but if I had a friend relative who celebrated Ramadan I would find a card that said that at best.

Meghan was last year’s 2022 cover for the Variety , ‘the power of women’ event - she couldn’t attend last year because of the Queen’s death. This year there are photos of her sitting with people and talking with people. And standing on the carpet and other area designated for photos.

The gossip is so easily corrected. If people choose to believe it without questioning it then it says something about the people, nothing about Meghan.

Even the Daily Mail didn’t question Meghan’s attendance at the event, but lead with it. It did call her ‘shrewd’ though which is, imo, used as an insult when applied to women, but used as praise when applied to men. Double standards.

An awful lot has changed for MM since her Variety “award” (not sure how to frame it) in 2022. I don’t particularly think her presence this year was anything controversial (as you point out, she was a winner last year but unable to attend), but there’s not a chance she’d be getting that award this year if all the events of this past year had happened.

What was that award for?

It was awarded for things that turned out to be not so great in the end.

https://variety.com/2022/digital/features/meghan-markle-grieving-queen-elizabeth-working-harry-1235407176/amp/

Is Mike T being used as an alternative to Scobie?

I’d forgotten that article. I find it toe curling. I suppose that isn’t intentional like the other one but it’s not good!

What do you mean?

Goodness that article didn’t age well.

My hope for “Archetypes” is that people come out thinking, “Oh! She’s a real person! She laughs and asks questions and approaches things with curiosity.

instead what came out was she didn’t do the interviews herself, apart from the big 3, let someone else do them all, then recorded her voice saying the same thing to be dubbed in and pretended she did.

people came out thinking she was a disingenious, lazy, only interested in the famous, and a grifter.

@Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar I didn’t point out she was a winner last year, but thanks (you know more about her than I do lol) . I said she was the cover. She wasn’t the cover this year obviously, but there were heaps of images of her at the Power of Women event. Why? Because people want to see her and Variety knows that, the Daily Mail knows that. They all know that. I was pointing out she would have been invited, that she was not some ring-in as a pp is saying. No one challenged the veracity of that post. I picked just one point and found it not to be correct. I haven’t looked at the veracity of the rest of that post.

But the narrative on these particular threads must be negative about Meghan. So carry on.

I’ve never felt compelled to find so much fault with a woman as the Meghan haters do on here.

People want to see all sorts of things. It's not necessarily for positive reasons. Personally, I thought she looked lovely at this event and at home - smiling naturally and looking relaxed. But let's not pretend she is there on her own merits. She's there because of her association with the RF and subsequent attempt to trash it, and people are looking with interest for precisely those reasons - she's a controversial figure who will always be analysed on that basis.

Linking the interview back to the Scobie book, I notice Meghan didn’t name either HMQ or Harry once instead opting for ‘his grandmother’ and ‘my husband’, ‘my husband’, ‘my husband’…

Yes it's weird, isn't it.

It feels as though it puts the person using the references at the centre of everything and the others on the periphery. It also removes hierarchy from a very hierarchical institution/ family. I know we do it on here eg dh, dd, dm etc. But that’s only because we choose not to name people to remain anonymous.

I think it also emphasises the family connection. "The Queen" is what we plebs call her. To me it says DON'T FORGET HE'S THE QUEEN'S GRANDSON.

How does Harry refer to Meghan? Does he tend to say her name, or call her 'my wife'?

I'm now also wondering how Kate and William refer to each other & other royals. I suppose they don't usually do these sorts of interviews where they're talking about themselves?

Yes, it's very strange.