So Harry and family are coming back!

Unfortunately they seem to crave attention. Otherwise they could just live a quiet life but ,no, they like to be in the limelight all the time. Then they turn round and blame the press.

ReturningFromExile
How are we not leaving them alone?
We're talking about them on a forum not physically them!

Usedtobeblonde

Heaven forfend that anything sudden and dreadful happens to the Wales family.
Arise King Harry or Henry to give him his proper name and Queen Meghan or perhaps Rachel which I believe is her first name, followed by King Archie Harrison or possibly Queen Lilibet.

This is quite an interesting hypotheses and one I've played out in my own mind.

Unlikely, but not impossible. The Wales family travel together. The unwritten rule of no two heirs travelling together was put to an end when Diana insisted on taking William, then a small baby, on their tour of Australia.

So if the unthinkable did happen - would Harry, who insists he doesn't want to be a main player - take the throne? And if he didn't would it be likely one of his children would step up to it? And there woud have to be a Regent if they were still under age. If not it then falls to Andrew but I'm absolutely positive that the government would put rapid legislation in place to stop that happening.

So assuming the Sussex family have no desire to be trapped in this institutional bubble (Harry's description, not mine), and Andrew is out - we're on course for Queen Beatrice.

Youngerthanspringtime

Sorry but I still think Harry is the double of James Hewitt
(Who apparently looks after his old mother now so is obviously a nice person!)

Harry also looks like a pea in a pod to his Uncle. There is zero possibility that James Hewitt is Prince Harry's father because Princess Diana did not meet Hewitt until two years after Harry was born but don't let the facts get in the way, Youngerthanspringtime.
No, Smileless2012, I think they were frustrated and unhappy rather than hating the family. Thousands (or more) go through times when they talk about their feelings of frustration with their family to their world, be it friends or other family. The difference is that they have not had it displayed across the press because they are not "important" enough nor have they had their names splashed across the press with dubious stories about them. We all believe we know what we would do under such circumstances but without walking that path, we really don't. I can't imagine what it must be like when any mistakes I have made when I was younger, or my relationships with my very difficult family to be continually harped on about so publicly.
I also think if the Daily Mail wasn't getting information illegally, somebody close to them was giving the press their information so I can understand why they might be paranoid about people briefing against them and wanting to explain that.

I think the difference is that most people who have difficulties with their families don’t make television programmes with other celebrities to air their grievances to the world and make money from them.

Or follow that up with a money spinning book that divulges the most intimate personal details about other people. Actually duscusding his brothers sex organs😱 you don't get more intrusive than that.

Your post sounds as if you are putting over a smokescreen of the publicity came solely from the press. instead of the truth that the Sussexes sought and achieved maximum publicity fir themselves and their own purposes.

Perhaps you believe what you have posted. But the interview and book are out there for everyone to judge.

She was not, and never would have been, Princess Diana.
I do wish people would get it right.
Best referred to as the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

Usedtobeblonde

Heaven forfend that anything sudden and dreadful happens to the Wales family.
Arise King Harry or Henry to give him his proper name and Queen Meghan or perhaps Rachel which I believe is her first name, followed by King Archie Harrison or possibly Queen Lilibet.

Harry has never been taken off the line of succession, which surely must have been discussed behind closed doors at some point?

Lathyrus3, indeed they are. I have stated several times that H&M are not without fault. Of course most people who have grievances with their families don't air them on TV or write books because nobody would watch or buy them.

I have read the book and I have seen the interview in full. There was so much hysteria about it, much of it from people who never read it or watch it in full. They took their view from the headlines, written or verbal. I still think that if people were subjected to the sort of press they were experiencing before and after Megxit, they'd want a right of reply too.

For the most part, there weren't intimate details about the family but I agree that he shouldn't have written about his brother's circumcision. I'm not sure that it justifies the amount of lies, the spin, the clickbait where the story bears no resemblance to the headline, etc, all these years later. This forum has urged me to forgive Charles for his blatant adultery which was visible for the world to see including his children which was no doubt excruciatingly painful for his Harry and William yet it can't see that some of the damage might also be a cause for Harry's resentment or that he might be forgiven for his mistakes which I don't believe were half as far reaching.

I also think the press should take a lot of the blame. They started on Meghan before there was a hint of any problems when they started comparing her to the "English rose" and making her background sound like she had come from the slums. I don't warm to her myself but really don't think she stood a chance. Incidentally, there are already negative stories about William and Kate being churned out so I don't think Harry is alone in the scourge of the press.

Would I have handled things the way H&M did? Probably not but neither can I find it in me excoriate them for every little thing they do.

NotSpaghetti

I don't think people hate them.
I think they don't like what we've seen of their behaviour, feel they haven't behaved very well and that they didn't need to tell the world about everything going on.
Some things are obviously lies and it's all very unnecessary.

Some are maybe exasperated and fed up of the "saga" of it all.

I do not think we are (any of us on here) in a position tohate them!
"Hate" is a very extreme word.

Just my opinion.

Agree - hatred is an extreme emotion which is usually reserved for those who commit terrible offences, like child-abuse, etc.

From what I can gather reading through the comments on here, there are those staunch 'Royalists' who feel almost personally affronted by H&M's behaviour - one such observed that her (assuming the poster is female) previously held respect for Charles would evaporate if she were to learn that he'd been personally involved in encouraging their return. It's not a mind-set I can relate to but can only assume it's one that stems from the belief that a King's first duty is to the Monarchy and the country, and that his feelings as a father are secondary - or should be ignored.

Then there are others (in my opinion of course) who are generally irritated by the airing of 'dirty linen' in public, coupled with, perhaps, a general dislike of celebrities and those 'in the public eye' behaving deceptively and capriciously ... the kind of behaviour that smacks of self-entitlement in the rarefied world that such 'household names' seem to occupy. And I think these posters are the majority.

I believe we Brits are, generally speaking, rather down-to-earth' as a tribe - we can tolerate fickle, impulsive and erratic behaviour in children, but not in responsible adults in the public-eye who should know better. Type of thing.
However, some of the speculation about how they might behave when back home in the UK is a bit OTT I think.

My own opinion is that Harry is self-absorbed and immature and that Meghan gives off an 'air' of a rather 'American' arrogance/superiority. But, I still wish the family well and hope they can find their feet and plant them firmly on the ground... the hostility towards them will die down somewhat as far as the media is concerned as soon as it finds other household names who've got above themselves, although H&M will keep the circulation figures - and thus advertising revenue - quite healthy for a while.

icanhandthemback do you dislike Catherine so much that you refuse to use her name and insist on calling her Kate? You seem to respect the preferred names of the others.

Evidently we should excuse the book and the visible/audible stuff from the horse’s mouth, just because it was picked up and spread by the media including the DM which some read avidly, even if only the headlines.
If you didn’t find the book offensive (didn’t affect you do why would you find it so) or you want to excuse it because there were only a few unwarranted bits, and you thought the interview was totally excusable, then that’s your choice.
It sounds as if others are not entitled to disagree with your choice.

icanhandthemback

Ladyleftfieldlover

Maybe we could have a whole day without someone slagging off H and M?

Consider before you post - is the comment true, necessary or kind?

Whilst I agree with you, it won't happen. I think it says more about how like sheep some people can be that they are led by a press who has an agenda against the couple because they dared to stand up against their scurrilous practises. The press did what they usually do with Royals, Celebrities and the like. They bigged them up, then pulled them down. They thought they'd never get the stories questioned because of the Royals' never explain policy. I wonder how many of us could read lies about us daily in the press and never want to defend ourselves. I know I would find it hard, especially when you know people within the family organisation were behind some of the stories.
H&M certainly aren't entirely innocent in all this but they don't deserve the hatred they get on here.

icanhandthemback:
"I think it says more about how like sheep some people can be that they are led by a press who has an agenda against the couple because they dared to stand up against their scurrilous practises"

From what I've read so far, most Gransnetters seem to be discerning enough to form their own opinions from TV interviews that Meghan and Harry have given, Harry's book, factual reports on TV, without relying on such publications as the DM etc.
The only ones who seem to read the DM are those who profess to be horrified by it which might encourage me to very occasionally take a look, well in fact very rarely.

Didn't Harry lose his case against the scurrilous press?

I don't hate them as I don't know them but do wonder what motivates them to act as they do and say what they do so publicly.

Prince George and Prince William traditionally are expected to travel on separate aircraft since George turned 12. It was the same for Prince William. It's not a strict law as the king can give permission for them all to travel together. In 1937 the Grand Ducal family of Hesse were killed in a plane crash wiping out the whole family, except for an infant daughter who wasn't with them, including an unborn baby. This made the RF nervous!

"Perfidious

Good description, Terribull.
Very Shakespearean.

"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
To have a thankless child!"

Rosie51

icanhandthemback do you dislike Catherine so much that you refuse to use her name and insist on calling her Kate? You seem to respect the preferred names of the others.

I don't dislike Catherine at all. She seems like a genuinely good person and appears to be a great Mum although I have to confess I'm not sure why she is standing by with letting her boy go to Boarding School. That is my own dislike of boarding schools though and I know others feel very differently. For years Catherine was known as Kate and I forget that she wants to be known as Catherine. It is more a memory issue on my part rather than anything else. As someone who runs through all my children's name (and sometimes our pets' too) before I get the right one, names are obviously something I struggle with!

Catherine has always been Catherine ti her family and friends and ifficially.

The only time she has been calked Kate is in the Press.

Have you been “led like a sheep” by the Press in calling her Kate?

🤔

icanhandthemback as Lathyrus says you/we only know Catherine as Kate because that’s what the press chose to call her, including when they labelled her ‘waity Katy’ , a nasty slur. Given nobody forgets the ‘h’ in Meghan when we’d normally spell it without it seems a lack of effort and respect to me.

Surely her family call her Kate!
Why the big deal, anyway?
I doubt she's going to be upset about a group of women on a forum calling her Kate instead of Catherine!

Actually, Rosie51, I have to check the spelling of Meghan every so often as I don't remember the 'h'.

On the grounds that she was introduced to the public as 'Kate' by the press initially, it is indeed why I probably think of her as 'Kate'. Also, I have a very close family member by that name so it probably comes more easily to me; her name is Katherine too but we only call her that when she is in trouble. The association is strong in my mind rather than wanting to insult Princess Katherine. I'm not so petty. Nor is making a mistake or having a poor memory for such things a lack of respect.

I have never enjoyed the 'waity Katy' either. I think the way that the Press label people is horrible. Having seen the way they report on things that I know absolutely about, I also know how they get things wrong. If that is being led by the nose, then I put my hands up. Does it change how I think that x number of years down the line that there should be such vitreolic reporting. No, I don't.

But you were so contemptuous of people being “led like sheep”
by the Press.

So much lesser beings than you who would never be led in that way.

Do you think maybe you owe an apology to us now?

Lathyrus3
🙄

How silly!

Ladyleftfieldlover

Maybe we could have a whole day without someone slagging off H and M?

Consider before you post - is the comment true, necessary or kind?

If only Harry and Meghan had considered what's "true , necessary and kind" they'd attract less attention.

Lathyrus3

Catherine has always been Catherine ti her family and friends and ifficially.

The only time she has been calked Kate is in the Press.

Have you been “led like a sheep” by the Press in calling her Kate?

🤔

I beg to differ. At the time of her engagement to William I was working on with someone whose niece had been at St Andrews with Catherine.
She was known as Kate amongst her friends.

I’ll now to your superior knowledge 🙂

Of someone who knows someone who knows someone who knew some of Catherine’s friends🙄