Harry: "I want my Father back. I want my brother back"

Baggs

*I think they are pursuing their charitable work in the US with the relevant publicity. It doesn't seem to get coverage in the UK.*

That's good to hear and it would be good to get some coverage in UK press if it's global stuff H&M are doing.

Now you could consider that the Firm who have consistently used the media by leaking and granting access to those in favour might in fact be manipulating the press, but that would be ridiculous wouldn't it???

I haven't detected any leakings and grantings of access (whatever that means – access to what or who?). Perhaps I read the wrong papers.

It's a simple system. The RF supposedly rotate journalists who have access to them (sometimes called Royal correspondents). They are fed stories and information. Should there be negative stories about the RF in the news that journalist will lose their access. Not a far step then to think one of the unacceptable stories might be positive ones about H&M.
The press manipulation by the RF is long standing. Mrs Simpson and Edward were well known about all over the world but it wasn't in the UK media until it became impossible to hide.

Glorianny

Well it's number 20 on The Amazon Best sellers list and it isn't even released yet. Sorry all you sour individuals, doubt if it will be the failure you hope. Can't understand why you would condemn it anyway he's just doing what you all wanted earning his own living (and supporting charities- but I suppose that's wrong as well)

The best seller list is only the number of copies sold , that's why it's already half price before it's even been released. It doesn't matter if it's sold for 1p because that would get it on the best seller list . The media attention generated around it and the spin offs from that, is far more profitable than profit from sales.

Glorianny

Baggs

I think they are pursuing their charitable work in the US with the relevant publicity. It doesn't seem to get coverage in the UK.

That's good to hear and it would be good to get some coverage in UK press if it's global stuff H&M are doing.

Now you could consider that the Firm who have consistently used the media by leaking and granting access to those in favour might in fact be manipulating the press, but that would be ridiculous wouldn't it???

I haven't detected any leakings and grantings of access (whatever that means – access to what or who?). Perhaps I read the wrong papers.

It's a simple system. The RF supposedly rotate journalists who have access to them (sometimes called Royal correspondents). They are fed stories and information. Should there be negative stories about the RF in the news that journalist will lose their access. Not a far step then to think one of the unacceptable stories might be positive ones about H&M.
The press manipulation by the RF is long standing. Mrs Simpson and Edward were well known about all over the world but it wasn't in the UK media until it became impossible to hide.

I see. Thanks, glorianny. This is out of my league.

Some of what we know about them, comes from them M0nica. The Oprah interview, the recent 6 part series from Netflix and the soon to be released book 'The Spare'.

They may well at times have been misrepresented by the media but for me, the most damning view is based on their own words and actions.

Smileless2012

Some of what we know about them, comes from them M0nica. The Oprah interview, the recent 6 part series from Netflix and the soon to be released book 'The Spare'.

They may well at times have been misrepresented by the media but for me, the most damning view is based on their own words and actions.

Exactly!!
I used to like them but their own words and actions changed my mind.

Press manipulation and control?

That doesn’t make sense to anyone that can look at what’s out there with an analytical mind.

Here’s been loads of gossip and negativity about everyone in the RF throughout the years, Charles, Camilla, Catherine, Just everyone.

M0nica
If people dismiss the media as a source of information, then everything they know about this story is wrong, so how can they comment?
Good question.
It’s only a problem when it’s taken as fact, when we all know that we, along with the press, put our own take on things even interpreting the ‘implications’ like in this statement from . . .
I think they are pursuing their charitable work in the US with the relevant publicity. It doesn't seem to get coverage in the UK.
The implication being that UK media are refusing to cover it.

G&T
It's a simple system. The RF supposedly rotate journalists who have access to them (sometimes called Royal correspondents). They are fed stories and information. Should there be negative stories about the RF in the news that journalist will lose their access. Not a far step then to think one of the unacceptable stories might be positive ones about H&M.
🤣🤣🤣
Fantastic! You should write a book! Except it would be plagiarism and you know you wouldn’t like that.

It's a simple system. The RF supposedly rotate journalists who have access to them (sometimes called Royal correspondents). They are fed stories and information. Should there be negative stories about the RF in the news that journalist will lose their access. Not a far step then to think one of the unacceptable stories might be positive ones about H&M

Really? Nicholas Witchell (still royal correspondent)rather gives the lie to that.

" There has never been an apology and why should there be? He was probably quite right. You know, awful bloody man. You could take the view it was the best thing that happened to me, because it showed that it is our job as BBC journalists to report fairly and accurately, but not to seek approval. We're not there to be liked." (2014)

Baggs

Glorianny

Baggs

I think they are pursuing their charitable work in the US with the relevant publicity. It doesn't seem to get coverage in the UK.

That's good to hear and it would be good to get some coverage in UK press if it's global stuff H&M are doing.

Now you could consider that the Firm who have consistently used the media by leaking and granting access to those in favour might in fact be manipulating the press, but that would be ridiculous wouldn't it???

I haven't detected any leakings and grantings of access (whatever that means – access to what or who?). Perhaps I read the wrong papers.

It's a simple system. The RF supposedly rotate journalists who have access to them (sometimes called Royal correspondents). They are fed stories and information. Should there be negative stories about the RF in the news that journalist will lose their access. Not a far step then to think one of the unacceptable stories might be positive ones about H&M.
The press manipulation by the RF is long standing. Mrs Simpson and Edward were well known about all over the world but it wasn't in the UK media until it became impossible to hide.

I see. Thanks, glorianny. This is out of my league.

Interpretations may vary.

However, it is known that some members of the Royal Family are not keen on some Royal correspondents but that hasn't resulted in them losing their jobs.

Of course 'friends' or 'sources' will always leak stories about any known personalities, not just the RF.

Some stories which could impact negatively on the Duchess of Sussex in particular are not being published. Why? Perhaps because the Royal Family don't want to be drawn into a tit for tat situation.

I wouldn't if I were the RF.

Any loving family would want to sort this out in private (and I'm sure they do), but in order for it to stay private, H would have to agree that What Happens at the Palace Stays at the Palace. M would have to respect that and leave them to it. I think there is a general distrust of her because she is estranged from most of her family except her Mum- and being American she doesn't understand what it is to be British or be brought up to have a stiff upper lip.

As much as Megan is possibly a victim, she has also caused embarassment, distress and hardship to members of the RF by not keeping to the rules and by trying to be in control. The spare and his wife were never intended to be in control, but to obey Royal orders for their own protection and to keep royal protocol.

Everyone (well maybe not everyone) anyone with anything resembling a brain - knows that “sources” “friends” etc is just the media’s way of avoiding slander and libel cases.

I’ve just spent 10 mins or so trying to find out about the Sussexes charitable activities using the power of the worldwide web.

It’s very hard to pin it down to actual activity and donations, even using the Archewell website.

The majority of donations are in partnership with other charities/organisations and there is no way of telling what sums of money came from where. Just the total. So you get information like “In partnership with X, charity, the Archewell Foundation donated 1 million dollars…….

Because Archewell has chosen to register in a US State which doesn’t require transparency in Charitable institutions, it’s unlikely that the press/media of any country will be able to accurately report on their charitable activities, not just the British press. They will all have to rely on what Archewell makes available to them.

eazybee

^It's a simple system. The RF supposedly rotate journalists who have access to them (sometimes called Royal correspondents). They are fed stories and information. Should there be negative stories about the RF in the news that journalist will lose their access. Not a far step then to think one of the unacceptable stories might be positive ones about H&M^

Really? Nicholas Witchell (still royal correspondent)rather gives the lie to that.

" There has never been an apology and why should there be? He was probably quite right. You know, awful bloody man. You could take the view it was the best thing that happened to me, because it showed that it is our job as BBC journalists to report fairly and accurately, but not to seek approval. We're not there to be liked." (2014)

Perhaps I wasn't very clear. They don't lose their jobs, they simply move down the ladder and stories are "leaked" to other people. Think of it like the dinner queue at school. Everyone knows which is the best lunch, most people want it. You are in the queue but get sent to the back for misbehaving- you don't get your choice.
The RF is a business. It is organised by professional courtiers. Its publicity is done by professional PR people. They 're not a nice little family just living quietly.
Want to share the awful stories you know are being kept secret Callistemon21?
And if the RF don't influence the media how on earth are those stories being kept from publication?

Even if H & M agreed Onward the rest of the family would have to be able to trust them to keep to their word and I wouldn't be surprised if there's as much distrust of H as is there is of M, maybe even more.

Please can you give reputable sources for the information that you are giving as facts about how the press system works?

What actually happens is that every year the favoured journalists are sent a partridge from the Sandringham Estate and then they know that they will be the first to get a story.

What do you mean I made that up? 😬

Lathyrus

Please can you give reputable sources for the information that you are giving as facts about how the press system works?

What actually happens is that every year the favoured journalists are sent a partridge from the Sandringham Estate and then they know that they will be the first to get a story.

What do you mean I made that up? 😬

Yes, yes, let’s have an answer to your question.
Although actually your suggestion is quite funny and just as likely to be true as the answer we probably won’t get.

Smileless2012

Even if H & M agreed Onward the rest of the family would have to be able to trust them to keep to their word and I wouldn't be surprised if there's as much distrust of H as is there is of M, maybe even more.

Yes, trust is a hard one! I think in their case, the only way would be to sign papers to pay a fine or court case in the instance of a leak- but in that instance the damage would have been done to the RF already.
Estrangement in Megans family probably doesn't help anyone trust her, especially as she so publically rejected her own father. I think that the thinking would be "Well, if she did that to her own father, think what she could do to us!" (I would be thinking that if I was Charles, anyway)

I suppose all anyone can do at this stage is Damage Limitation.

I would also say "It's easy to say you wish you had your father and brother back when your own actions pushed them away and you haven't changed your ways, Harry. In marrying someone who's estranged from their own family and then becoming estranged from your own, what do you expect to happen?"

Lathyrus

Everyone (well maybe not everyone) anyone with anything resembling a brain - knows that “sources” “friends” etc is just the media’s way of avoiding slander and libel cases.

I’ve just spent 10 mins or so trying to find out about the Sussexes charitable activities using the power of the worldwide web.

It’s very hard to pin it down to actual activity and donations, even using the Archewell website.

The majority of donations are in partnership with other charities/organisations and there is no way of telling what sums of money came from where. Just the total. So you get information like “In partnership with X, charity, the Archewell Foundation donated 1 million dollars…….

Because Archewell has chosen to register in a US State which doesn’t require transparency in Charitable institutions, it’s unlikely that the press/media of any country will be able to accurately report on their charitable activities, not just the British press. They will all have to rely on what Archewell makes available to them.

Well it took me two minutes to find they are patrons of several charities including Smart Works and Wellchild both UK charities. A bit longer to find acknowledgements from a charity which builds kitchens.
But there is a list on here with acknowledgements to Archwell from the charities involved www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/prince-harry-and-meghan-markles-charity-work-through-the-years/
So waht are you suggesting about Archewell?

I'm guessing the emphasis in this interview has shifted entirely to Harry now. Meghan played the main part in Oprah and in the Netflix series, but this time it looks like Harry wants to spill all the beans on his family himself. That certainly sends out a more powerfulbitter message. Maybe this is because there is nothing left for Meghan to criticise because she has been out of the RF for longer than she was in it, or maybe Harry has a new found confidence and is ready to take his family down. I don't know, but it all seems a bit contradictory and confusing to his wanting them back.

It seems easy to say you miss your family, but when your actions are damaging them then "Actions Speak Louder than Words".

silly Harry.

Cartoon in today’s Times. 👏👏 Peter Brookes!

Harry has his book to sell.

Mollygo

Lathyrus

Please can you give reputable sources for the information that you are giving as facts about how the press system works?

What actually happens is that every year the favoured journalists are sent a partridge from the Sandringham Estate and then they know that they will be the first to get a story.

What do you mean I made that up? 😬

Yes, yes, let’s have an answer to your question.
Although actually your suggestion is quite funny and just as likely to be true as the answer we probably won’t get.

Is the partridge in a pear tree?

Oh, is I miss my dad and brother (code for "I hope you feel sorry for me and buy my book") ?

As regards Archewell and California law, all charities are required to register annually with the Attorney General's office and have an annual audit. The records are accessible to anyone
a) The register, copies of instruments and the reports filed with the Attorney General, except as provided in subdivision (b) and pursuant to Government Code section 12590, shall be open to public inspection at the Registry of Charitable Trusts in the office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, at such reasonable times as the Attorney General may determine. Such inspection shall at all times be subject to thecontrol and supervision of an employee of the Office of the Attorney General

So the idea that the press cannot find out about Archewell is completely false. Anyone can.