[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I feel the same about the press,but it doesn't seem to be them getting the backlash the Royal Family are imo the tabloid fodder press are scum.

I actually agree but would counter that Harry and Meghan also get 50% near enough of that backlash when almost all of it should be on the press. I do feel bad for William as well, I think they're all trapped in what is essentially an abusive relationship with the media, and William doesn't have the options that Harry has (and Charles didn't either, in his younger days when he might have wanted those options) and I also think Harry and William always had a good relationship as brothers and William, when imagining his time as King, probably always imagined Harry being alongside him as support. That's been damaged now possibly irreparably, but the idea that that's Megan's fault is just so obviously false. To believe that you have to completely ignore BUCKET loads of evidence that Harry has been unhappy with the whole thing since several years before he met Meghan. I just don't see him as "controlled" or "manipulated" at all, he's always been crystal clear in his feelings, and if anything the unfavourable press coverage Meghan has endured may well partly be down to Harry not being willing to play into the game the way William has been (or had had to be).

At the very least there's a lot more going on than the public is allowed to know, even from Harry and Megan's interview. They ALL talk about these "nameless figures in the institution" who seem to have some unknown level of influence but none of them will talk about it much. Its weird. Fascinating, but weird.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

SIR – If the Duke of Sussex, in his position of wealth and privilege, was

incapable of getting support for himself and his wife, what kind of ambassador

can he be for the cause of mental health?



A P Lodge

Winchester, Hampshire



Source: DT 12.3.21

this person thinks a figurehead ambassador for mental health can necessarily get access to adequate mental health services for people who are struggling? ACTUAL MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS struggle to get adequate mental health services to many people who are struggling. The naivety is staggering.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by jet

1. I have never said I don't understand why H&M wanted to get away from it, all I have ever said was they stated they wanted more privacy (note, not complete privacy) which isn't true.



2. I don't believe sensational headlines, I read articles from respected people to get nearer to the truth (read my post about this, you seem to have just read the first few lines.)

They do have more privacy. Privacy isn't about being a recluse/not being in the public eye, it's about having agency and control over the line between what's public and what's private. I'd say its fairly evident that they have a LOT more privacy in LA than they did in England, no matter how many interviews they choose to take part in.

As for part 2 we'll just have to agree to disagree - I don't think "respected royal commentators" can be in any way expected to be free from bias. To be totally honest I don't think I've seen ANY substantial writing on this subject that doesn't stray significantly to one side or the other. Royal Commentators of any description have an interest in Royalty (or they would not have the job), as well as a vested professional requirement of the continuation of the monarchy. Expecting impartiality is ... A stretch.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

SIR – If the Duke of Sussex, in his position of wealth and privilege, was
incapable of getting support for himself and his wife, what kind of ambassador
can he be for the cause of mental health?

A P Lodge
Winchester, Hampshire

Source: DT 12.3.21

I was going to post this elsewhere but this is a better place for it

mental health is thrown around like the race card now, it is becoming meaningless, as an American actress she will have had plenty interaction with people who were seeing 'a shrink', to say she had no idea where to turn is ludicrous, given she was able to hop on a plane for a baby shower, why couldn't she have done that to access mental health facilities in the States if her Mental Health Champion husband Harry couldn't help her with a local one

[jet]

Harry said he was ashamed to ask for help for Meghan in the interview.
He himself has told us that he has had mental health therapy though, as has Prince Charles.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They do have more privacy. Privacy isn't about being a recluse/not being in the public eye, it's about having agency and control over the line between what's public and what's private. I'd say its fairly evident that they have a LOT more privacy in LA than they did in England, no matter how many interviews they choose to take part in.

As for part 2 we'll just have to agree to disagree - I don't think "respected royal commentators" can be in any way expected to be free from bias. To be totally honest I don't think I've seen ANY substantial writing on this subject that doesn't stray significantly to one side or the other. Royal Commentators of any description have an interest in Royalty (or they would not have the job), as well as a vested professional requirement of the continuation of the monarchy. Expecting impartiality is ... A stretch.

Nobody expects complete impartiality on either side of the fence in any emotive subject. Fair and non - sensational is as good as it gets.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

SIR – If the Duke of Sussex, in his position of wealth and privilege, was
incapable of getting support for himself and his wife, what kind of ambassador
can he be for the cause of mental health?

A P Lodge
Winchester, Hampshire

Source: DT 12.3.21

A non-famous person has enough difficulty getting adequate mental health support, and that's without their issues being compounded by the tabloids printing story after story ...

The answer to the latter part of this is "don't live in Hollywood and constantly seek attention", but the fact it's even hard for people like Harry and Meghan Windsor to get decent support shows how many improvements need to be made.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by jet

Nobody expects complete impartiality on either side of the fence in any emotive subject. Fair and non - sensational is as good as it gets.

Expects? No. I have very low expectations. I personally would love to see some true impartiality in journalism though... And I'm just not really interested in op-eds from X, Y, Z. If I want to hear random people's largely irrelevant opinions I can come on Tibb, I don't need to pick up a newspaper.

Dreaming the impossible dream, I guess.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

The answer to the latter part of this is "don't live in Hollywood and constantly seek attention", but the fact it's even hard for people like Harry and Meghan Windsor to get decent support shows how many improvements need to be made.

Part of the unfortunate equation here though is, what else can they do at this point? It's true that they need security, Harry & family have a target on them for various groups whether they're "actively" part of the Royal Family or not, and that can be expensive. And it's not like they can just get normal jobs of any description. Literally the only means they have to make money at all is in leveraging their celebrity... They can't move to a 3 bed semi and get 9-5 office jobs. I'm not suggesting they want to, I'm just saying they couldn't even if they did... And they can't just vanish and never be heard from again.

Realistically they're engaging in their best option: trying to raise their individual profile as much as they can and living somewhere where it's more possible to engage with the press "like normal celebrities" rather than Royals.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Part of the unfortunate equation here though is, what else can they do at this point? It's true that they need security, Harry & family have a target on them for various groups whether they're "actively" part of the Royal Family or not, and that can be expensive. And it's not like they can just get normal jobs of any description. Literally the only means they have to make money at all is in leveraging their celebrity... They can't move to a 3 bed semi and get 9-5 office jobs. I'm not suggesting they want to, I'm just saying they couldn't even if they did... And they can't just vanish and never be heard from again.

Realistically they're engaging in their best option: trying to raise their individual profile as much as they can and living somewhere where it's more possible to engage with the press "like normal celebrities" rather than Royals.

They could quite easily sell scented candles from home. Build a wee office, rent some storage and open a shop on eBay. Meghan could be front of shop doing the lisitngs and photographs plus deals with customer enquiries and Harry would be fullfillment, wrapping the orders doing labels and then stock taking. They would be at home so no baby care and they could have soup and a roll for lunch together and watch old Suits eps.

but no

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Expects? No. I have very low expectations. I personally would love to see some true impartiality in journalism though... And I'm just not really interested in op-eds from X, Y, Z. If I want to hear random people's largely irrelevant opinions I can come on Tibb, I don't need to pick up a newspaper.

Dreaming the impossible dream, I guess.

'random people'

It shows why you know so little about Meghan and Harry's past actions and why so many people don't trust or like Meghan in particular. You brush off respected peoples knowledge and experience and Palace connections yet believe everything that H&M say in their quest for sympathy and revenge. Two people who were never challenged in their assertions and are putting themselves in the best light possible to get publicity and up their public profile....and the excuses for them that you come up with, well....

The lovely Camilla Tominey:

Camilla Tominey is Associate Editor for Politics and Royals at The Telegraph in London and is the resident royal expert for ITV’s This Morning and for the American television network NBC News. She was formerly Political Editor, Royal Editor and columnist for the Sunday Express. She also frequently appears on BBC One's Question Time and Radio 4’s Any Questions? in her capacity as a member of the Westminster Lobby.

Camilla first started reporting on the British Royal Family in 2005, when she covered Prince Charles's marriage to Camilla Parker-Bowles at the Windsor Guildhall, watched by millions around the world. Since then she has reported on all the major Royal stories, including Prince William's engagement to Kate Middleton, their subsequent marriage and the births of Prince George and Princess Charlotte. Her world exclusive scoops include breaking the news of Prince Harry’s relationship with Meghan Markle, which was nominated for Scoop of the Year at the 2016 British Press Awards. She also broke the world exclusive news of Prince Andrew being held at gunpoint at Buckingham Palace, a story that was reported around the globe in 2013.

Camilla co-anchored the Royal Wedding for NBC's Today Show alongside the historian Andrew Roberts, contributing to programming across the network that was watched by 55 milllion viewers.

An authority on Royalty, Camilla has spent the past decade shadowing the Royals at home and on tour. A seasoned interviewer, Camilla has been granted exclusive access to interview many members of the Royal Family including Prince Philip, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, Zara Phillips and Sophie Wessex.

An experienced on-screen commentator, Camilla has given her expert analysis on both royals and politics to TV and radio stations around the world and is a regular on the BBC, ITV, Channel 5 and Sky News in Britain.

Internationally, she has worked with CBC, CTV and Global in Canada, Nine Network Australia, Germany's ZDF and ARD, RTL in France and countless more broadcasters. She first started working with NBC News in 2010 and since then has contributed to cutting-edge news programming on all aspects of the Royal Family - as well as covering the Westminster terror attack for the network in 2017.

Camilla lives in Hertfordshire with her husband and three children.

[jet]

Harry and Meghan leave the UK where they were NEVER photographed in their private time out and about, to go to the paparazzi capital where they haven't been snapped yet because they are in lockdown.

[jet]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

They could quite easily sell scented candles from home. Build a wee office, rent some storage and open a shop on eBay. Meghan could be front of shop doing the lisitngs and photographs plus deals with customer enquiries and Harry would be fullfillment, wrapping the orders doing labels and then stock taking. They would be at home so no baby care and they could have soup and a roll for lunch together and watch old Suits eps.

but no

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

They could quite easily sell scented candles from home. Build a wee office, rent some storage and open a shop on eBay. Meghan could be front of shop doing the lisitngs and photographs plus deals with customer enquiries and Harry would be fullfillment, wrapping the orders doing labels and then stock taking. They would be at home so no baby care and they could have soup and a roll for lunch together and watch old Suits eps.

but no

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Playing them at their own game to reframe the narrative. Maybe also Megan's influence? He felt powerless to their whims (just look how frustrated he is in the clips from when he was younger) but now he's older and wiser with a more worldly wise partner to bounce ideas off, and he's learned that you don't have to be a passive participant to these vultures, give them a sniff of what they want and you can sculpt the story to your advantage.

When will the rest of the Royals learn such skills? Stuck in the mid 20th century the poor buggers. I guess that's what happens when you have a 94 year old monarch. Time to either pull the plug, or skip over Charles and allow William and Kate to modernise the institution. He'll welcome Harry back with open arms after dragging The Firm kicking and screaming into the 2020's. A fairytale ending.

The Harry and Meghan skills of going on open topped buses and doing 2 hour interviews airing their dirty family laundry (in their view) to give the tabloids lots of stuff to speculate over for weeks? Such a skillful way to avoid those horrid tabloids.

The 94 yr old monarch releases a dignified, to the point statement which also sent her love to them and doesn't engage in such trashy spectacles and she is a poor bugger.

Really?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by jet

An authority on Royalty, Camilla has spent the past decade shadowing the Royals at home and on tour. A seasoned interviewer, Camilla has been granted exclusive access to interview many members of the Royal Family including Prince Philip, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, Zara Phillips and Sophie Wessex.

You've bolded this as though it represents anything other than a conflict of interests. She has close links to the family spanning many years, has been trusted with intimate access, and (undoubtedly) relies upon her reputation for discretion as a cornerstone of a long and impressive career.

Someone in this position simply cannot be expected to be unbiased. They would never have that sort of access without an understanding - either unspoken or explicit - that they will "be kind" in their reporting of the family.

I'm all but certain that you must actually understand this.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You've bolded this as though it represents anything other than a conflict of interests. She has close links to the family spanning many years, has been trusted with intimate access, and (undoubtedly) relies upon her reputation for discretion as a cornerstone of a long and impressive career.

Someone in this position simply cannot be expected to be unbiased. They would never have that sort of access without an understanding - either unspoken or explicit - that they will "be kind" in their reporting of the family.

I'm all but certain that you must actually understand this.

Unless you have read her articles on the Royals over many years you can't comment on her 'kindness' or otherwise. I have, and she isn't as respected and sought after for her views as she is by being a sycophant to them. You'd be surprised.

The Royals give access to many reporters with different degrees of loyalty to them. They have to as they can't be seen to be totally shielding themselves from scrutiny and accountability.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by jet

Unless you have read her articles on the Royals over many years you can't comment on her 'kindness' or otherwise. I have, and she isn't as respected and sought after for her views as she is by being a sycophant to them. You'd be surprised.

I didn't say a sycophant - I said an unspoken understanding of discretion. Knowing where the optimal line is. That line isn't in being gushing and adoring, it's the line where people will find it realistic and compelling journalism but without going so deep into the dirt that you get cut off from the source. You answered your own point, really.

they can't be seen to be totally shielding themselves from scrutiny and accountability.

They have to be seen to be open to a realistic level of scrutiny and accountability without risking leaks of things that would be significantly damaging. Therefore having "trusted" journalists who they engage with over many years, who they know will paint a picture that is both realistically critical but also who know what to hold back.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I didn't say a sycophant - I said an unspoken understanding of discretion. Knowing where the optimal line is. That line isn't in being gushing and adoring, it's the line where people will find it realistic and compelling journalism but without going so deep into the dirt that you get cut off from the source. You answered your own point, really.



They have to be seen to be open to a realistic level of scrutiny and accountability without risking leaks of things that would be significantly damaging. Therefore having "trusted" journalists who they engage with over many years, who they know will paint a picture that is both realistically critical but also who know what to hold back.

Bingo....and the same goes for all businesses and institutions....the royals aren't unique.
Which means there will be truth in their stories and not a pack of lies as some here continually suggest every Royal reporter and commentator spout....

and sometimes they DO go a lot deeper and the Royals still have to give them access. Camilla herself has on occasion as sometimes I thought 'WOW', that's very telling'!

[Tom4784]

Just the regular reminder that people are losing their **** over Meghan when there's a peado prince being protected but it's okay, because he's out of sight and that means he's out of mind.

[joeysteele]

Sorry, I nearly choked on my coffee, when I read the line the lovely Camilla Tominey.

I can't bear that woman.
She's so patronising and uncompromising.

Whatever she's on, I don't generally watch.
Or read anything so cannot comment on that.

If I don't like someone I just have no interest in what they say or do..
However lovely is the last word I'd use to describe Camilla Tominey.

[jet]

Camilla is a tremendously successful and well liked woman.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jet

Camilla is a tremendously successful and well liked woman.

Not by me for sure.

[Tom4784]

She seems like someone who appeals to people's confirmation bias. As TS said, someone of her position could never truly be unbiased.

[Ammi]

...I’m stunned by Camilla Tominey...apparently she wrote an article for the Daily Telegraph at the end of last year with the headline...’Andrew Accuser was ‘on the game for a year’....this was an underage girl that she was referring to with the headline ....who she was writing an article about a child being sex trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein...?...and this was Camilla Tominey’s ‘slant’ of the story...this was how an American journalist described her ‘journalism style’...

Shockingly irresponsible reporting in the Telegraph by @CamillaTominey
Shameful victim-blaming of @VRSVirginia who deserves so much better.

Spoiler: