Or it makes Harry look like the poor beleaguered victim in the story!
Moral - don’t believe everything you read in the press about the royals, any of them! You can see how this was Charles’ honorary position, passed fo William, the “working Royal” back in August. Yet the internet spins a different story and then spins more stories off that story. And outrage is stoked and division is fostered.
The issue with the Nigerian trip is that H & M are not heads of state or elected officials, yet their trip has been set up in that fashion. They are not in Nigeria as representatives of the United Kingdom or certainly the US. It really feels like an episode of VEEP. The aura of self-importance is breathtaking.
This seems like a strange take to me. They’re clearly welcome, their charity supports a local school, Harry is the founder of Invictus which Nigeria is participating in, and they’re down there raising awareness and supporting multiple good causes.
Lots of individuals not associated with a government organization are able to go out and do good. Would you prefer they not travel to support mental health, women’s causes, girls affected by war, and wounded soldiers, and instead just stay home?
If their trip brings a smile to a wounded soldier or even one child affected by war, then I’m all for it. Nigeria’s armed forces seem to agree.
The Sussexes are visiting the country as it’s now a “part of the Invictus community” Air Vice-Marshal Abidemi Marquis, director of sports for the Nigerian Defence Headquarters, said during a media briefing Thursday.
Lovely photos/videos of Harry and Meghan in Nigeria.
Obviously, no one has issues with the Invictus games or the other causes, but if you read the article linked above, you can see that there are some problems with the visit from the perspective of foreign relations.
The visit has the appearance of an official state visit, yet they are not working members of the Royal Family.
Would their visit be like when a celebrity (Angelina Jolie for instance) visits a war torn country as an UNICEF representative? Princess Diana was a former member of the royal family when she visited AIDS patients and did awareness for land mines. Covered very similarly to the Sussex’s.
Former presidents, former members of Congress make visits as personal citizens. The Sussex’s are former members of the royal family.
I guess I’m not interested in debating this issue. Because I don’t care in what capacity they are visiting, but it sounds like they are welcome and bringing awareness to their cause. They are celebrities, if no one wanted to cover them, they wouldn’t.
At least they aren’t visiting a facist dictator like a former relative did. And supposedly tried to overthrow the royal family. At least I don’t think they are.
Exactly. Maybe we evaluate this by the good act being done not the rigamarole around it.
In life, we would be better off evaluating the actions, not looking to pin good or bad on the humans behind it or their personal or business motivations. What is most important is the people behind the good work. Or poor work. They are the victims or victors.
This just goes to show that no matter what the Sussexes do, haters are going hate. Can’t see how this visit could possible invite criticism but it apparently can.
I read the op-ed Twoin18 posted. It’s hard to take the authors’ security concerns seriously with statements like:
“Harry did not make time to see his ailing father …”
“ Meghan’s decision to shun King Charles once again is par for the course — essentially declaring herself persona non grata in the United Kingdom. So too, in effect, at least from a public perception standpoint, is Meghan’s preventing the king from seeing her children, in effect weaponizing them against the king.”
Harry and Megan are “spreading darkness on the global stage.”
“Instead of arriving in Abuja as the beloved daughter-in-law of the UK’s reigning monarch, who is also the head of the 56-member Commonwealth of Nations, Meghan chose to travel alone to Nigeria — and, in effect, to play the role of the aggrieved royal outcast bearing the self-proclaimed scars of modern-day British racism,”
I think the free-lance opinion writers of the linked article have a grievance and a bias against the couple, not a real concern for foreign relations and world security.
I guess the bigger question is why do they get such bad press? I don’t know if “haters” is the right word, that seems strong, but substitute “dislike” and still the question exists.
Many women who married into the royal family had a hard time of it for years - Diana, Fergie, Sophie, Kate and more than anyone, Camilla. I also remember when Anne was young she received loads of bad press.
What several of those women did (Sophie and Camilla are two good examples), was put her head down and work hard for country and crown. The end result was the begrudging respect of the British people and good press.
I believe Meghan could have done the same thing, worked hard as a royal for X number of years and earned the respect of the people.
One component different in Meghan’s era vs. the Diana/Fergie years, is social media. Imagine if Diana had the ability to tweet/text/instagram or whatever else during those difficult years? What additional damage could/would have been done with social media thirty five years ago?
I do believe H&M could have been beloved members of the Royal Family, but they made some pretty harsh choices, and due to those choices, the British people may not ever allow them back into the fold.
I believe H and M could have been beloved members of the Royal Family but the Royal Family made some pretty harsh choices and manipulated the British press to spread their hatred of H and M and they had no other choice but to leave to escape the abuse.
See, there are different ways to view the situation and we have no idea what goes on behind closed doors.
My statement was based on historically what other females who married into the royal family did to eventually gain favor with the people and press.
Hopefully, Queen Elizabeth and now King Charles did not “manipulate the British press to spread their hatred of H & M.” If that did happen on either of their watches, then that would be tragic.
I do think Charles, in his vision of a slimmed-down monarchy, had both his sons as part of the working royal family.
As in most cases, there is likely fault on both sides. Practicing family law for 30 years has schooled me in taking most accounts with a grain of salt.
I think H and M leaving the royal family as they did was part of the problem. The interview that Meghan and Harry gave when they were “on tour” before the exit probably started it all. I do think the Queen tried to bring M into the fold… but it is a glaring life and clearly one that Harry had not prepared her for.
Perhaps if they had gone out quietly and not burned the bridges, things would be different. I think the RF, especially the Queen, understood the whys of their leaving.
We think things but none of us know.
I think British class system makes it very hard to “swallow” Meagan. Her being American makes things so much worse.
Americans tend to like the British, but I wouldn’t say the feeling is reciprocated. And that’s putting it mildly.
I also think they had to feed somebody to the wolves to protect the chosen, so they fed Harry and Meagan to the press for entertainment to keep their beloved William and his wife being portrayed as saints.
I don’t have much in common, I don’t think, with H&M politics and worldview, but boy am I glad to see them run from that toxic family.
What does this even mean? What a terrible statement to women and about the treatment of women! No mention of men having to put their heads down and work hard to earn respect?! Bunch of baloney - if true every women should walk their selves out of the Royal castle and leave with no regret. Man, I could respect THAT.
King ‘offered Harry a royal residence for his visit’
The Duke of Sussex did not see Charles during a trip to London this week, but there are different versions of who asked — or did not ask — to see whom
The King agreed to a request from the Duke of Sussex to stay in a royal residence for last week’s trip to London, mindful that his younger son no longer has an official UK residence, friends of the monarch say.
In the event, however, Harry is thought to have chosen to stay in a hotel during his three-day visit.
The friends point out that staying in a royal residence would have made visiting his father logistically easier, given the competing pressures on Charles’s diary.
It is the latest twist in another awkward week for father and son, who have different versions of who asked — or did not ask — to see whom.
Those close to Harry, 39, who was visiting London from his home in California to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Invictus Games, insist he put in a request to see his father well in advance of the visit, which was “long on the radar”.
…
Friends of the King, 75, who has cancer, continue to stress that, to the best of their understanding, Harry neither requested to see his father nor invited him to attend the service at St Paul’s last Tuesday to celebrate the Invictus anniversary.
…
I understand what you’re saying here. It may not always appear to be favorable to women in the RF but it’s what has existed for eons. Some members seem to have a better understanding of what it means to participate in the RF, maybe because they are British and were raised watching the Queen and her sons and are familiar with the pomp & circumstance that are required. The ones who show up to work and don’t cause controversy are often left alone by the press. Camilla & Fergie are poster children of what happens when one is involved in controversy and the years it took each of them to even partially recover.
Meghan never seemed to embrace the idea of blending into the RF and honoring their traditions. From insisting on certain changes for her wedding to giving birth in a different hospital and refusing to do the photo op post birth (yes, I wholeheartedly agree, making the royal moms get dressed hours after their births and come outside, with baby, for a photo op IS barbaric - but it is a royal tradition), seemingly choosing to wear the wrong colors and outfits for public appearances, etc… You could see the British public (and the press) start to turn - especially given that Kate appears to be the perfect royal spouse.
It’s possible that Meghan never intended to be a quiet, behind-the-scenes worker in the RF - or when she realized the tides were turning with the public & the press, she chose to cut and run (and it wasn’t hard to convince Harry, since he’s had his share of bad press in his adult years). Maybe she could have done more to endear herself to the British people (by doing less to alter their long-standing traditions) but in the end that life wasn’t for her - being told where to be, how to act, etc., that’s gotta be a tough transition. Although I have a hard time believing that even though she is American, that she had no idea what this life would be like - given what we all know about Diana’s experience.
People seem to forget Sophie’s missteps early on and how she didn’t “put her head down and work hard for country and crown.” Early in their marriage, she and Edward attempted to have it both ways - job and royal family, with less-than-stellar results. Like H&M, they eventually were told “in or out.” Unlike H&M, they chose in.
As I read your post the word loyalty jumped out at me…maybe because it’s being discussed so much in the news lately.
Anyway I started to think about loyalty and how it applies to Harry. You mentioned “the royal family in many ways is a business”. Following that train of thought I considered what it must’ve been like for Harry and Meghan. The Royal family demands complete, unwavering loyalty, but feels no obligation to reciprocate. Frankly it reminds me of a certain US family business receiving a lot of attention in NY…control through intimidation and certain media outlets are their tools.
I thought to myself, when does the demand for loyalty become toxic? Harry wasn’t asked to break any laws, but he was being asked to go along with false narratives and accept his role of “sacrificial lamb”. He was tasked with the unenviable position of the spare. Harry was relegated to not only being the stand-in, but worse than that imo he was commanded by the institution to not outshine the heir.
In order to accomplish this, it appears that the Firm and UK tabloids chose to target Harry and Meghan. Some speculate that the questionable stories coincided with unflattering royal family revelations, or to assist the popularity/rehabilitation of certain members of the monarchy, or simply just to keep H&M from outshining William and Kate. It could be a combination of all three.
*Note, I highlighted the parts of CollegeNerd67’s post that I feel the Firm gets wrong. It seems to value “doing less” and compliance…which in a strange way, kinda discourages “doing more” and hinders growth and vitality.
There was a snippet in the opinion piece above (from The Hill) that struck me… “Unfortunately, Harry and Meghan remain self-servingly lost”. They seem to be doing fine. They seem happy in their freedom from the constraints of the monarchy. The criticism of being ‘self-serving’ while serving to promote the Invictus Games for wounded service men and women and mental health awareness is a tough sell imo.
As for the “lost” part they seem to be finding and making their way just fine. I fully expect them to make mistakes, but their hearts seem to be in the right place and they have shown remarkable resilience to abusive criticism thus far.