More than $32,000. That’s how much Harry and Megan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex, have to stump up every month for Frogmore Cottage, their five-bedroom home in Windsor Great Park, a sum that represents both a commercial rent component and a repayment on the home’s controversial $4.3 million renovation.
As far as a symbol of the Sussexes’ royal life go, Frogmore could not be more apt: lovingly and expensively created only to now sit empty, a permanent reminder of what was and what could have been, all in perceptual readiness for the globe trotting couples’ return.
Quite when that return will be is just one of the many unknowns after Harry and Meghan sensationally ditched full time working royal life in January this year after months of simmering resentment and frustration.
But, after the events of the last 48 hours, their reappearance in the near future to the UK (COVID-related travel issues notwithstanding) seems even more unlikely.
RELATED: Two words that sparked Harry, Wills feud
Over the weekend, British newspapers The Times and Sunday Times serialised a number of extracts from Finding Freedom, the much hyped biography of the Sussexes from Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, two royal writers who are viewed as sympathetic towards the embattled couple.
From the moment the book was first announced in May, the most obvious comparison was to Andrew Morton’s Diana: Her True Story. That too was serialised in The Times, a nice bit of royal history repeating itself.
The headline read “Diana driven to five suicide bids by ‘uncaring’ Charles’” with the subhead: “Marriage Collapse Led to Illness; Princess Says She Will Not Be Queen”. Morton’s biography of the Princess of Wales offered up a series of revelations, including her suicide attempts and battle with an eating disorder, portraying her suffering standing in direct contrast to an apparently unfeeling cabal of Windsors.
The tome’s release in 1992 rocked the very foundations of the royal family, precipitating an existential crisis of sorts for the monarchy.
Finding Freedom could also end up having a seismic impact with the potential for the Sussexes to face similar dire repercussions as Diana did for Harry’s mother.
In the wake of the 1992 release of Morton’s book, Diana faced teary showdowns (hers) with the Queen, Prince Philip and Charles, and the entire sorry situation proved to be a mortal wound in terms of her relationship with “Mama” (as the princess sometimes called the Queen) and the wider house of Windsor.
Another royal biographer Tina Brown wrote that for Diana, working with Morton and finally being able to make the world see her pain and anguish, she was able to experience “psychic relief,” however that blessed respite came at a steep cost – her relationship with the royal family.
Only a week later after the serialisation ran in The Times, duty required that Diana attend Ascot with the royal family. “The atmosphere was dreadful,” a guest later told royal biographer Robert Lacey. “Absolutely no one in the family was speaking to Diana. They were blanking her completely. She curled up at the back of the royal box in floods of tears.”
RELATED: Meghan dilemma Harry can’t escape
The question is, will Harry and Meghan face a similar miserable fate?
It is important to keep in mind here that while both Harry and Meghan and the authors have stressed that the couple did not sit for interviews (unlike Diana who was Morton’s primary source), the authors say they have spoken to more than 100 sources including close friends, palace staff and royal aides.
Here’s the rub: Would any of the Sussexes’ circle of trusted confidants break the royal omerta? Would any royal besties sit down gabbing with the authors without the Sussex okay?
In May, the Sussexes’ spokesman told The Times they were “relaxed” about Scobie and Durand’s access to people “close to them”.
The royal family, however, might be less “relaxed” about their portrayal and it is hard to see how the feelings of those left behind in London could not be hurt.
William is branded a “snob”; Kate is portrayed as failing to reach out to Meghan; and that Harry was left “frustrated” with his father who, the Duke felt, valued his image over their bond. Even Her Majesty is not spared, with the Daily Mail reporting that “the Queen … is rebuked for apparent slights towards the couple”.
The Times’ royal correspondent Roya Nikkhah writes that “over 24 chapters of score-settling and swipes at the royal family, the institution of monarchy, royal aides and the media, (the Sussexes’) admirable charitable endeavours are swamped by bitter recriminations.”
From what has been splashed across the pages of The Times so far, Harry and Meghan are depicted as growing increasingly frustrated with having to play second and third fiddle to William and Charles despite the fact their ballooning popularity and youthful verve were doing the heavy lifting to vivify and modernise the royal brand globally.
Egos are bruised and frustrations fester while courtiers snipe and leak to the press.
To face such a sour opus of sorts must be something of a bitter pill to swallow for the Queen. In February she bade her grandson and granddaughter-in-law farewell with an unusually personal statement in February saying, “Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family” and that it was the entire Windsor clan’s “hope” that they would now build “a happy and peaceful new life”.
It is hard to see how this latest messy chapter, not only the personal hurts caused but the embarrassment of such an airing of dirty laundry in public, will do anything but damage the Sussexes’ relationship with the royal family.
When the couple negotiated their exit from frontline royal duties in January this year, the deal included a 12-month review, a decision that seemed eminently sensible at the time.
Maybe after time away from the UK the Sussexes’ wounds would heal; maybe months in the Californian sunshine would see cooler heads prevail or maybe they would simply miss warm beer, drizzle and family.
Likewise, while Harry was forced to give up his military appointments and stop using various military titles, The Times reported that the palace was in no rush to replace him in those roles, again leaving the door open to the Sussexes’ returning to the royal fold.
Finding Freedom could well have now put paid to them ever resuming any sort of official role.
A royal household source has told the Daily Mail: “The door will always be open to them as much-loved members of the family. But it’s hard to see how they can now salvage the new role they wanted as ‘hybrid’ royals, running commercial careers alongside royal duties from the US.”
The same report also quotes another source saying: “The review period has not yet been discussed but it doesn’t seem if there is any way of going back now. Some very private family matters have now been aired in public, seemingly with their blessing. That will be hurtful.”
The story that Finding Freedom tells, it would seem, is one stuffed with family hurts, anger and simmering dissatisfaction. As the fallout from the book continues, I think we can safely say that now there are grievances and hurts being keenly felt on both sides of the Atlantic.
Daniela Elser is a royal expert and writer with more than 15 years experience working with a number of Australia’s leading media titles.
https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMingFodHRwczovL3d3dy5uZXdzLmNvbS5hdS9lbnRlcnRhaW5tZW50L2NlbGVicml0eS1saWZlL3JveWFscy9tZWdoYW4taGFycnktYm9vay1jb3VsZC1zdG9wLXRoZWlyLXJveWFsLWZhbWlseS1yZXR1cm4vbmV3cy1zdG9yeS85MzU0OGNlOTU4NDA2MTk3MDVjNjEzNzIxMzJhNzI2ZdIBngFodHRwczovL2FtcC5uZXdzLmNvbS5hdS9lbnRlcnRhaW5tZW50L2NlbGVicml0eS1saWZlL3JveWFscy9tZWdoYW4taGFycnktYm9vay1jb3VsZC1zdG9wLXRoZWlyLXJveWFsLWZhbWlseS1yZXR1cm4vbmV3cy1zdG9yeS85MzU0OGNlOTU4NDA2MTk3MDVjNjEzNzIxMzJhNzI2ZQ?oc=5
2020-07-27 07:39:11Z
52780946135322
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar