The Sussexes ....again

Boz

And all because Harry decided to marry a woman who - in William's words - was difficult, abrasive and rude. Which despite the pretty smiles and clingy behaviour, I can believe.

Thank goodness for difficult women. Unfortunately some men can't cope with them.

Boz

And all because Harry decided to marry a woman who - in William's words - was difficult, abrasive and rude. Which despite the pretty smiles and clingy behaviour, I can believe.

It all started so well .....

Have I just spotted another claim of wide social experience? . . .

And inside information?

Is it usual for difficult women to lie?

Difficult:
(of a person) not easy to please or satisfy; awkward.

There is a happy medium between being compliant and being difficult.

Someone can remain 'their own person' whilst still doing one's duty and remaining pleasant.
It's what we do at work.

Casdon

I don’t follow your logic Glorianny. Are you saying that in addition to what you pereceive as waste of public resources by the royals on PR, that the public purse should also pay for the PR of a multi millionaire member of the royal family who has chosen to walk away?

Am I not correct in thinking they didn’t choose to ‘walk away’, or ‘despised’ the Royal Family? As I remember ( from the media, certainly), they proposed being part-time working royals, and becoming financially independent the remainder of the time, obviously the royal connection being extremely helpful with that. I think they were told ( quite rightly, in my opinion) that that wasn’t on, and they were either in or out, hence the permanent move to the U.S.
I imagine that’s why they need to try to keep appearing relevant to the King.

Callistemon21

Difficult:
(of a person) not easy to please or satisfy; awkward.

There is a happy medium between being compliant and being difficult.

Someone can remain 'their own person' whilst still doing one's duty and remaining pleasant.
It's what we do at work.

Fortunately some women can do their job and be difficult. They, like the Dagenham women, won equal pay for us all.

Did the Dagenham women lie ?

The Dagenham women??
I'm not really seeing any logic here.

Where is the comparison? 🤔

merlotgran

^Some people here act as if they are privy to what actually goes on behind closed doors using bogus newspaper accounts as fact^

So are you saying Harry’s book and Netflix documentary were bogus? 😮

Who needs newspapers?

I was referring to the most recent spate of DM articles that spawned this thread and all the inherent ugliness that comes so soon after such articles are printed. I thought the interview and books were insightful . I don’t think anyone on this thread would survive the scrutiny of public life .

eazybee

There certainly was criticism of Charles and Camilla, me included, but they settled down together, didn't plead for pity, and are working very hard. Beatrice too has undertaken royal duties, again without whingeing about her press.
I don't think there was criticism of Harry's visit until his interview was announced, followed by suggestions from the ubiquitous 'those close to', 'an insider' and 'friends' intimated he had offered to help out the royal family. This has been discredited, so now he can assume his preferred role as victim.
And Syracute, you need to come out with something more original than Gleaning there (sic) so called facts from the tabloids
You have used that comment several times, and the last time I looked the Telegraph was not a tabloid, but a broadsheet, and BBC news and Radio 4 are neither.

The Telegraph is a tabloid when it comes to the royal family . It’s no different than DM.

Syracute

merlotgran

Some people here act as if they are privy to what actually goes on behind closed doors using bogus newspaper accounts as fact

So are you saying Harry’s book and Netflix documentary were bogus? 😮

Who needs newspapers?

I was referring to the most recent spate of DM articles that spawned this thread and all the inherent ugliness that comes so soon after such articles are printed. I thought the interview and books were insightful . I don’t think anyone on this thread would survive the scrutiny of public life .

I thought the interview and books were insightful.
All my negative quotes and information on this thread are taken from THE book of which I have a copy, Syracute. Who then is responsible for their inherent ugliness other than the author himself?
Some people do thrive on being in the limelight, (Meghan in particular), I don't see anything particularly wrong in that, provided they accept the inevitable downsides attached to it too.

Some people do thrive on being in the limelight, (Meghan in particular)

Which is why it seems so odd that concerns about security and guarding their privacy are constant whinges.

Can’t have one without the other.

‘thought the interview and books were insightful’

But criticise the press, !

OMG they make a single short appearance at an Invictus training camp and the whole "publicity hungry" slur is thrown at them again.
Harry does one interview about his father. He was probably deluged with questions after his visit and wanted to give answers.
Otherwise they both seem to be living quietly in the US and raising their kids well away from the publicity machine which follows the firm.
Funny how those who allege they just want M&H to stay quiet are the first to jump on them if they appear anywhere. I think they miss having someone to kick.

The Queen and Prince of Wales made several public appearances without the need to give a tv interview

Joseann

Syracute

merlotgran

Some people here act as if they are privy to what actually goes on behind closed doors using bogus newspaper accounts as fact

So are you saying Harry’s book and Netflix documentary were bogus? 😮

Who needs newspapers?

I was referring to the most recent spate of DM articles that spawned this thread and all the inherent ugliness that comes so soon after such articles are printed. I thought the interview and books were insightful . I don’t think anyone on this thread would survive the scrutiny of public life .

I thought the interview and books were insightful.
All my negative quotes and information on this thread are taken from THE book of which I have a copy, Syracute. Who then is responsible for their inherent ugliness other than the author himself?
Some people do thrive on being in the limelight, (Meghan in particular), I don't see anything particularly wrong in that, provided they accept the inevitable downsides attached to it too.

After Syracute recommended the Daily Mail article, I had a look.

It seemed to stick to the facts and there were some lovely photos of Meghan and Harry.

Perhaps an alternative version of the DM is published in the USA?

Oh. USA, explains much

Calendargirl

^Some people do thrive on being in the limelight, (Meghan in particular)^

Which is why it seems so odd that concerns about security and guarding their privacy are constant whinges.

Can’t have one without the other.

Oh but you can, when you complain you get much more publicity and weave a story around how badly you have been treated.

We forget William had a larger bedroom, so sad

Hi Glorianny, here you go, I've found you these in my lunch break! I think they are £26.99. There are cheaper ones, and some have different coloured fingers. Ideal to wear with your camel cashmere coat, or with your gardening jacket?

Anniebach

We forget William had a larger bedroom, so sad

Love it Annie! Who would think a middle-aged man would still be whining about that?

Sparklefizz

Anniebach

We forget William had a larger bedroom, so sad

Love it Annie! Who would think a middle-aged man would still be whining about that?

Just how large are bedrooms in palaces and castles?

Just be thankful you didn't have to bunk up with siblings, Harry.

And be on the bottom bunk!!!