Is there another couple in the world like The Sussexes?

[veraswaistcoat]

I was musing last night about this aspect - they had the world at their feet. Despite what Sussex Supporters like to suggest most people in the UK nodded their heads " yes it was lovely Harry was getting married finally" . I had never heard of the bride myself as I don't watch American tv shows of that ilk. She was black or biracial? It didn't even enter my head what colour she was initially and then as coverage started it didn't make one iota of difference one way or the other. I recall the day of the wedding - it was sunny and the pubs were full of royal cheer broadcasting the wedding.

And then it all started to where we are today.

Are there any other couples in the world who have gone through such a downfall? Is this a feature of the social media arena today?
We see P Diddy and Blake Lively and others exposed now through SM.
You can't count the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in this category as they were always unpopular.

Can you think of any examples of people who have fallen so spectacularly?

I know people say " they live in California, they have money blah blah" but their reputation is one that most people would not want.

Is it purely because of their seeming complaining and sense of entitlement ? I mean you don't see the real philanthropists in this way - in fact you rarely hear about them and what they do.

What they are often reduced to? Why don't you tell me since I have no idea what you are meaning here?

Yes @NotaRealHousewife , and yes let's keep on topic , all this sniping and fighting between posters that have nothing to do with it , is really tiresome.

Agreed esp since I didn't even start this.

The poster has already said she will not respond to you again, she was responding to another poster who rode to your defence.
Let's just keep on topic.

William and Harry have been through the most awful situation in public so hopefully they will be able to support and guide their children

Yes I think each will be deciding what's right for their children based on their experiences. It's not about being more moral than the other.

Yes we can all agree on that @NotaRealHousewife ! Both William and Harry did have trauma as children, hopefully their children will be better protected.

It's also down to the parents to decide the level of privacy their children have. Just like most.parents do regarding access to tech, pics posted on socials etc.

William will have to consider their roles and when they need to be exposed.

Harry will need to consider whilst a non working royal he is still famous aka a celebrity, there will always be interest in celebrities children so he will need to decide how to handle that too.

I'm pretty sure Harry said the RF would read the newspapers (including the tabloids) at the breakfast table and were aware of what's being said about them. Most big celebrities will be aware, they have publicists and agents watching their press and their celebrity cache rise and fall as a result of the public's opinion of them, and trying to run interference on negative stories about them. It's the price of putting yourself into the public sphere.

Unfortunately, in the digital age, there is no such thing as "yesterday's news is today's chip paper" anymore. So everything that is said will be there for the children to read, including the things their own parents have said on film and in print about them. I'm not sure there's any point trying to shield them from what other kids might show them, the internet is the Wild West, and most parents can't get a grip on it, let alone ones who are themselves in the news/media all the time and need or want to be there. Rather, it's better to get the kids prepared for what they may end up seeing and let them know they can ask questions if they need reassurance.

It's horrible being a parent of regular children and worrying about what they are seeing, but if you put yourself in the public eye and it is you they are seeing, then they have a responsibility to arm them.

@FromTheOfficeOfJammyTodger Agreed, as a parent I would rather tell them about some of the more er challenging family history than them find out from the internet

There is an amputee charity on X giving a good insight into Invictus Games participation. I checked the charity webpage and it seems to be a valid charity, so it doesn't appear to be a made up rumour.

Most shocking is the athletes have to sign a non disparaging clause and an NDA to allow them to participate. . Are those required because of Harry and Meghan I wonder, or is that the norm for most charitable events?

Non disparagement? NDA ? @Thedom

I'm sure more knowledgeable posters will know better but to me that sounds like a gag !
Not allowed to say anything negative, not allowed to discuss anything!
Quite shocking 😮

I just googled it, it's common in sporting events, I would never have guessed.

Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) are an oft-cited reason why abusers in sport seem to operate with impunity.

Many athletes have NDA-type clauses built into agreements with their respective sporting associations that prevent them from disparaging the organizations. Often athletes must sign such agreements in order to be eligible for funding and to compete — as was the case with the Canadian Olympic bobsleigh and boxing teams’ athlete agreements in 2022-2023. Critics of these types of NDAs argue that athletes fear coming forward with claims of harassment and abuse due to the possibility of reprisals and/or penalties for breaching their contracts.

The Canadian government, along with various sports organizations, have recently sought to address these concerns by introducing new codes of conduct, as well as providing templated athlete agreements (without NDA clauses) for national sport associations to adopt. It will be interesting to see in the coming years how these changes affect, and hopefully improve, some of the issues relating to abuse in sport at all levels.

So maybe not for Vancouver Invictus then.

Oh come on, you are a Sussex fan - you defend every single action they take. It's your choice. Just own it!

I think it would be reprehensible if they were to suddenly do a u-turn and wheel their children out at this point after steadfastly refusing to have them in the public eye at all.

It would speak volumes about their motivation!

I don't think @FromTheOfficeOfJammyTodger's posts are rude in tone at all.

I do think Harry is right to protect his children. William doesn't have the luxury f choice that Harry does. I believe he and Catherine are doing the right thing in controlling their exposure and letting them learn the ropes gradually. They are going to be in the public eye for all of their lives because of who they are. Harry's kids will not.

I'm inclined to go with the expertise of RAVEC on this.

I am quite sure nothing that is said here has the slightest effect on Meghan and Harry.

If Meghan and Harry don't want negative comment, then maybe they should look at how they behave...

Has there been anything from PH and MM suggesting they might take the children to Whistler? Genuine question as I’m not plugged into all the sm platforms (or indeed any of them!)

What actions have I defended? Every single one? Really? All because I won't criticise them on baseless rumours or unnamed sources which is 90% of what's commented about.

Because I don't want to be negative towards a woman wearing 100% linen and getting creases in her clothes..like duh of course linen will crease. Big deal. Or want to join in the numerous posts just bitching about what she wears or how she wore it or whether it suits her, whether its appropriate or not. Honestly I don't care too much about those things to want to comment about it alot.

Because I won't join in continually making comments about stuff they did over 5yrs ago and bringing it up. I dont care, they did what they did and it doesn't affect me enough to need to keep caring about it.

I've said a few times I find this board quote amusing in its double standards, so vocal abojt how it's all about facts and criticism of their actions and yet when I point out the contradictions it turns into your a Sussex supporter.

Ok @Thedom , just the norm , still sounds off though!
What about the non disparagement?
Did you see that mentioned?

@jeffgoldblum If they use NDA and Non Disparagement clauses for school kids I suppose it would be surprising if they didn't for other things they are involved in, it really is distasteful though, especially for charitable causes.

You're not wrong @Thedom , I think it's about time a rethink about NDAs and how they are used happens .
Personally I think only for government and military settings ( i.e sensitive information that could result in damage to the country etc ) .

We've all read your posts.

And it affects you enough to keep talking about them.

This has been an interesting read. I don't think that people criticizing the actions of H& M should be interpreted as a threat to their well-being. People, especially in California, have a right to criticize their visit to the Altadena site. People have a right to ask questions about the structure and finances of Invictus and Archewell. Asking questions and expressing an opinion should not immediately be viewed as a physical threat to H & M. The First Amendment still exists in the US.

Both Sussex kids are under six. They would have to spend several days in the extreme cold in a strange country. The Wales kids go to events close to home and go home in the evening. I also think the focus would change from the athletes to the Sussex family. Invictus should be for the benefit of the athletes, not the Sussexes.

Here have a gold star 🌟 well done.