Harry And Meghan Not Returning As Working Members Of The Royal Family …

[naomi24]

…and will return their honorary military appointments and Royal patronages.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56127673

I wonder if they will have to relinquish the Sussex title too? I hope so.

[Ellipsis]

> No I don’t mean critics like those

Oh dear. So when you wrote "Ironic really that those complaining and trying to silence the critics are far more vitriolic than the critics themselves", you didn't mean those critics! You must have meant the critics who weren't being vitriolic. Well sorry I'm not a mind-reader, but that's a bit of a self-serving argument you're using there.

[naomi24]

No I didn’t ... as I said. If you’re still confused - which you appear to be - reading it all again.

[Spungle]

I wish the Sussexes well in the future lives. However, courting the media whilst blaming the media for 'instrusion' does little to bolster their reputation at home or abroad.

[andy-hughes]

Spungle - // I wish the Sussexes well in the future lives. However, courting the media whilst blaming the media for 'instrusion' does little to bolster their reputation at home or abroad. //

I don't know how many times I have to point this out, but here we go again.

There are some people in the world who attract fame, either as a result of what they do, or simply who they are - this makes the media interested in them, and they can, if they choose, speak to the media about aspects of their lives that they are happy to share with others.

But that does not mean that their right to a private life, and to keep things to themselves that they wish to remain secret to them, is forfeit because of their interaction with the media.

That is a fundamental difference that you clearly do not understand - interacting with the media is a choice, having your life invaded by strangers for the titivation of other strangers is not a choice.

If you won the lottery tomorrow, and chose to give an interview to the Daily Mail about your future life, that is your choice, and that is interaction with the media.

If the next day, the Mail published that you were a bully at school and made other children cry, that is invasion of privacy, and because you chose one option does not make you fair game to have your life bisected by strangers for other strangers to point and laugh at you.

Hopefully that explains the difference.

[Spungle]

Interesting opinion, Andy. Good luck with being a public and private figure at once.

[New Judge]

Another fundamental difference which you overlooked, Andy, is that people who crave privacy (whether they attract fame for who they are or for what they do) do not arrange to appear on the Oprah Winfrey show.

[andy-hughes]

Spungle - // Interesting opinion, Andy. Good luck with being a public and private figure at once. //

I'm not saying that it is possible to be a public and a private figure at once, I am saying that it ought to be possible because privacy is a right to everyone, famous or not.

That means that the Duke and Duchess have every right to go on Oprah Winfrey if they choose, and every right to sue papers for invasion of privacy for revealing something they did not choose to share.

And in my belief, they should enjoy the support of a public who appreciates that fundamental difference.

But since it is that same public that drives this peculiar obsession with the private lives of famous people, and funds media profits doing do, I am not holding my breath.

[andy-hughes]

NewJudge - // Another fundamental difference which you overlooked, Andy, is that people who crave privacy (whether they attract fame for who they are or for what they do) do not arrange to appear on the Oprah Winfrey show. //

I refer you to my post at 18.18.

[New Judge]

Quite frankly, Andy, if you go on the Oprah Winfrey show to talk about the things that you choose to discuss, you cannot be surprised if some people dig into things that you do not want to talk about.

There is no earthly reason why the Duke & Duchess of Suffolk should appear on a US chat show. Their choosing to do so indicates to me that the UK is somewhat better off without them.

[andy-hughes]

New Judge - // Quite frankly, Andy, if you go on the Oprah Winfrey show to talk about the things that you choose to discuss, you cannot be surprised if some people dig into things that you do not want to talk about. //

I am genuinely surprised by your response.

Not that you confirm that by going on something Oprah Winfrey will let strangers feel that they have the right to pry into your private life and expose it to strangers for money - that is a simple fact.

What surprises me is that you don't condemn it with the regularity and sense of complete injustice that I do.

[Peter Pedant]

// Not that you confirm that by going on something Oprah Winfrey will let strangers feel that they have the right to pry into your private life and expose it to strangers for money - that is a simple fact //

complex sentence that their Lordships echoed er more simply directly and clearly

The Royal couple had a right to privacy now no matter what their future intentions. End of as TTT likes saying

[andy-hughes]

Peter - // The Royal couple had a right to privacy now no matter what their future intentions. //

They do because every famous person does, no matter what may cause their fame in the first place.

Being famous does not make you public property, and its a sad indictment on our modern society that such a belief is taken as read.

It should be challenged at every opportunity, and I constantly applaud each and every famous person who sues and wins against a rapacious media that perpetuates such a vile attitude to people whose only crime is to be known to a large number of other people.

[andy-hughes]

Perhaps I feel more strongly about this than most on here because my professional writing career brings me into regular contact with exactly the sort of famous people who have their privacy routinely trashed for profit by strangers, and when I discuss it with them, the genuine confusion and anguish caused is dreadful to witness.

Most accept it as being part and parcel of enjoying their success, but I can only repeat, that should not be the case - success should never lessen the basic rights of privacy and anonymity enjoyed by the journalists who thrive on such dreadful actions, and the public who facilitate it by buying papers and magazines that peddle such titillating pap on a daily basis.

[New Judge]

//Being famous does not make you public property,...//

I quite agree Andy. But it's a sad fact of life that some people are hounded by the media. Whether they like it or not, the Sussexes are among them. I cannot imagine why anybody should be in the least bit interested in them or their affairs, especially as they have effectively turned their back on the public life that was in store for them in the UK. But they are. The best the Sussexes could do to mitigate their anguish at being hung on the clothes line for all to see

[New Judge]

...would be to keep themselves to themselves and not subject themselves to a grilling by Ms Winfrey. It's their shout, but they must be prepared for the consequences. People in their position cannot pick and choose when to court publicity and when to bleat that their privacy is being invaded. It may not be right, but it's a fact.

[andy-hughes]

New Judge - // ... would be to keep themselves to themselves and not subject themselves to a grilling by Ms Winfrey. //

Firstly, it's highly unlikely to be anything approaching a 'grilling'.

Second, I would suggest that Ms Winfrrey's show is absolutely the perfect platform for the couple to express their thoughts and views in their own words, a rarity for people who have every thought and gesture second-guessed by complete strangers all around the world.

Ms Winfrey is universaully trusted as being fair, and this presents a chance for the couple to speak as candidly as they wish, and be heard without spin or mischief, so I am sure they welcome the opportunity.

// People in their position cannot pick and choose when to court publicity and when to bleat that their privacy is being invaded. //

Why not?

What is the mechanism that means that the right to privacy is somehow removed by dint of a birthright or a choice of familial direction. How does that work?

// It may not be right, but it's a fact. //

There is not 'may' about it, and as long as the tiny minority who even give a moment's thought to the gross unfairness represenented by this situation, simply shrug their shoulders and say, well that's how it is ... the situation is never going to change.

[New Judge]

We're discussing what is and what ought to be, Andy. The debate is insoluble.

People in the Sussex's position can do a lot to alleviate the invasion of their privacy and they can do a lot to aggravate it. They seem to have chosen the latter.

[naomi24]

It’s fair to say that famous people who court publicity - something Harry and Meghan do incessantly - get publicity - and the more controversial they are the more publicity they will attract. Just as they can’t be royal when it suits them, neither can they be famous when it suits them. Had they chosen to disappear into relative oblivion and enjoy the privacy they claim they seek they could have done it.... but they didn't.

[Apc2604]

It seems pretty obvious that he Oprah interview and their recent declaration were planned. I am expecting something like the Dianna interview which will cause yet more publicity. I agree with Naomi on this.

[Khandro]

Oscar Wilde — 'There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.'