Fake News?

HAYSIE

HAYSIE

HAYSIE

Harry and Meghan's Netflix show 'will go to war with the public' as well as royals and media - amid claims Duke told friends after Megxit Brits 'need a lesson': Palace aides say 'constant criticism' leaves Charles and Camilla 'weary' and William 'appalled'




Meghan and Harry's upcoming Netflix documentary (centre) is expected to criticise the Royal family (right)- but even the public may come under fire over the way the couple feel they have been treated. The series is reportedly due for release on Thursday and royal sources have already claimed they expect the show would be 'Oprah with more crying.' But a hint of what viewers may get to experience also emerged this morning in details of a conversation Harry had with a friend before the sit-down with the chat show Queen. Senior sources said he had expected the Royal Family (left) to find the interview 'quite shocking', and that 'those Brits need to learn a lesson.' In the interview, which drew 17.1mn viewers, Harry and Meghan said the royals had asked questions about 'how dark' their son would be and had ignored her pleas for mental health support. Buckingham Palace sources last night said there is mounting frustration and exhaustion at the barrage of complaints that Harry and Meghan relentlessly and publicly make about their treatment by the rest of the Royal Family.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11499543/Harry-Meghans-bombshell-Netflix-documentary-war-public.html

rabdeniro

He just bitter because Charlies not his father he needs to man/woman up and get on with it and stop moaning like a biatch.

HAYSIE

Snap! Photo in Harry and Meghan's Netflix trailer used to illustrate paparazzi hounding them actually showed invited photographers taking pictures at a Harry Potter film premiere in 2011… five years before the couple had even met




The image shows a large number of photographers purportedly fighting for space to snap sought after pictures of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. However, the photographers were actually alongside the red carpet at the premiere for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two in central London - the final film of JK Rowling's franchise. The author was joined by the film's three main stars Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint for the premiere in July 2011. That is five years before Harry and Meghan were first introduced to each other in 2016.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11501735/Photo-trailer-showing-Sussexes-pursued-press-actually-taken-film-premiere.html

HAYSIE

Photo of Prince Harry covering his face from paparazzi in bombshell Netflix trailer is of Duke with his ex Chelsy Davy - but producers have cropped her out



Last week, the streaming platform released a 60-second clip promoting Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's new £88m docu-series , which debuts later this week. Along with unseen photos from the couple's early relationship , the dramatic trailer also included several images from Harry's childhood. The montage culminates in a photo of the Prince (left) dressed casually in a baseball cap and jacket trying to dodge paparazzi. Ahead of the documentary's premiere on Thursday, royal fans have now identified the paparazzi photo of the Duke - which was taken when he was still dating his ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy in September 2007. The picture was taken moments after Prince Harry - who was 22 years old at the time - met his ex-girlfriend at Heathrow Airport following her 11-hour flight from Johannesburg, which landed at 6:20am. While Harry holds his hand up to try and stop photographers capturing their reunion, Chelsy keeps her eyes lowered as she rolls her suitcase behind her (right).



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11503253/Photo-Prince-Harry-Netflix-trailer-actually-taken-Duke-dating-Chelsy-Davy.html

HAYSIE

HAYSIE

VespaPX

lucy4

HAYSIE

HAYSIE

HAYSIE

Essexphil

My favourite bit of what I have read (I have no intention of watching this self-indulgent tosh) is Harry's claim that the Royal Family is "Hierarchical".

Of course it is. That's what a monarchy is. You'd think a person who has lived his whole life as part of the Royal Family might have noticed.

For example, that means if you happen to be the 2nd son of the King, you get to be called a Prince, and the Duke of Sussex. And can (if you so choose) have a cushy life promoting the Royal Family.

A life of enormous privilege. But, of course, in the hierarchy, there is an heir and a spare. And the heir is rather more important-particularly once the heir has kids, when the spare's role reduces.

Seems like a lot of spares can't cope with this, Andrew tried-and largely failed. Margaret opted out-and it should be remembered that she received far more outrage over potential partners than Harry.

I suppose lots of us want what we haven't got. But when it is someone with enormous advantages to start with, my sympathy just isn't there.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

My favourite bit of what I have read (I have no intention of watching this self-indulgent tosh) is Harry's claim that the Royal Family is "Hierarchical".

Of course it is. That's what a monarchy is. You'd think a person who has lived his whole life as part of the Royal Family might have noticed.

For example, that means if you happen to be the 2nd son of the King, you get to be called a Prince, and the Duke of Sussex. And can (if you so choose) have a cushy life promoting the Royal Family.

A life of enormous privilege. But, of course, in the hierarchy, there is an heir and a spare. And the heir is rather more important-particularly once the heir has kids, when the spare's role reduces.

Seems like a lot of spares can't cope with this, Andrew tried-and largely failed. Margaret opted out-and it should be remembered that she received far more outrage over potential partners than Harry.

I suppose lots of us want what we haven't got. But when it is someone with enormous advantages to start with, my sympathy just isn't there.

It seems their bridges are completely burnt.

MISTY4ME

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

My favourite bit of what I have read (I have no intention of watching this self-indulgent tosh) is Harry's claim that the Royal Family is "Hierarchical".

Of course it is. That's what a monarchy is. You'd think a person who has lived his whole life as part of the Royal Family might have noticed.

For example, that means if you happen to be the 2nd son of the King, you get to be called a Prince, and the Duke of Sussex. And can (if you so choose) have a cushy life promoting the Royal Family.

A life of enormous privilege. But, of course, in the hierarchy, there is an heir and a spare. And the heir is rather more important-particularly once the heir has kids, when the spare's role reduces.

Seems like a lot of spares can't cope with this, Andrew tried-and largely failed. Margaret opted out-and it should be remembered that she received far more outrage over potential partners than Harry.

I suppose lots of us want what we haven't got. But when it is someone with enormous advantages to start with, my sympathy just isn't there.

It seems their bridges are completely burnt.

....and with the Press against them, the British Public will also turn against them (......well, they already don't like Meghan anyway). They will probably start to get booed at events they attend in this Country

HAYSIE

MISTY4ME said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

My favourite bit of what I have read (I have no intention of watching this self-indulgent tosh) is Harry's claim that the Royal Family is "Hierarchical".

Of course it is. That's what a monarchy is. You'd think a person who has lived his whole life as part of the Royal Family might have noticed.

For example, that means if you happen to be the 2nd son of the King, you get to be called a Prince, and the Duke of Sussex. And can (if you so choose) have a cushy life promoting the Royal Family.

A life of enormous privilege. But, of course, in the hierarchy, there is an heir and a spare. And the heir is rather more important-particularly once the heir has kids, when the spare's role reduces.

Seems like a lot of spares can't cope with this, Andrew tried-and largely failed. Margaret opted out-and it should be remembered that she received far more outrage over potential partners than Harry.

I suppose lots of us want what we haven't got. But when it is someone with enormous advantages to start with, my sympathy just isn't there.

It seems their bridges are completely burnt.

....and with the Press against them, the British Public will also turn against them (......well, they already don't like Meghan anyway). They will probably start to get booed at events they attend in this Country

Yet another not very well thought out plan.

tai-gar

HAYSIE said:

MISTY4ME said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

My favourite bit of what I have read (I have no intention of watching this self-indulgent tosh) is Harry's claim that the Royal Family is "Hierarchical".

Of course it is. That's what a monarchy is. You'd think a person who has lived his whole life as part of the Royal Family might have noticed.

For example, that means if you happen to be the 2nd son of the King, you get to be called a Prince, and the Duke of Sussex. And can (if you so choose) have a cushy life promoting the Royal Family.

A life of enormous privilege. But, of course, in the hierarchy, there is an heir and a spare. And the heir is rather more important-particularly once the heir has kids, when the spare's role reduces.

Seems like a lot of spares can't cope with this, Andrew tried-and largely failed. Margaret opted out-and it should be remembered that she received far more outrage over potential partners than Harry.

I suppose lots of us want what we haven't got. But when it is someone with enormous advantages to start with, my sympathy just isn't there.

It seems their bridges are completely burnt.

....and with the Press against them, the British Public will also turn against them (......well, they already don't like Meghan anyway). They will probably start to get booed at events they attend in this Country

Yet another not very well thought out plan.

You say that but look what has happened to Camilla

HAYSIE

tai-gar said:

HAYSIE said:

MISTY4ME said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

My favourite bit of what I have read (I have no intention of watching this self-indulgent tosh) is Harry's claim that the Royal Family is "Hierarchical".

Of course it is. That's what a monarchy is. You'd think a person who has lived his whole life as part of the Royal Family might have noticed.

For example, that means if you happen to be the 2nd son of the King, you get to be called a Prince, and the Duke of Sussex. And can (if you so choose) have a cushy life promoting the Royal Family.

A life of enormous privilege. But, of course, in the hierarchy, there is an heir and a spare. And the heir is rather more important-particularly once the heir has kids, when the spare's role reduces.

Seems like a lot of spares can't cope with this, Andrew tried-and largely failed. Margaret opted out-and it should be remembered that she received far more outrage over potential partners than Harry.

I suppose lots of us want what we haven't got. But when it is someone with enormous advantages to start with, my sympathy just isn't there.

It seems their bridges are completely burnt.

....and with the Press against them, the British Public will also turn against them (......well, they already don't like Meghan anyway). They will probably start to get booed at events they attend in this Country

Yet another not very well thought out plan.

You say that but look what has happened to Camilla

She never slagged off the firm.

tai-gar

Maybe not "slagged" but s?agged.

She did not however have a lot of the British Public on her side against Diana.

HAYSIE

tai-gar said:

Maybe not "slagged" but s?agged.

She did not however have a lot of the British Public on her side against Diana.

True.