Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand's Finding Freedom (HarperCollins:$27.99) starts out on the shaky ground with a fake Ralph Waldo Emerson quote. The acclaimed American poet never wrote or said: Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/06/19/new-path/
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001/q-oro-ed5-00019835
It is embarrassing that neither of these two authors nor their editors checked the veracity of the quote.
Before going any further, let me say that I like Harry and Meghan. I have written and tweeted about the racist and xenophobic coverage of Meghan in the British press. In all fairness, not every article was racist or xenophobic but it didn't take long for Meghan to become the British tabloid press' whipping boy.
[The whipping boy refers to "A scapegoat. One who is singled out for blame or punishment." To learn more about the origin of the phrase, see this https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/whipping-boy.html ]
She was not the first royal bride to be subjected to negative articles. The late Diana, Princess of Wales, and Sarah, Duchess of York were also subjected to nastiness by a certain element of the press. The attacks on Sarah began soon after her marriage to Prince Andrew.
It is wrong to say that Meghan was a breath of fresh air when she married Harry. She was a royal bride, the wife of the younger son of the Prince of Wales. Meghan is well-educated, well-spoken, and a woman who is largely confident in her own skin. She aced her royal engagements as she engaged with the crowds and the hosts.
Prince Harry, who served in the front lines in Afghanistan, was beginning to carve out a role in the family, and he was in love with a gorgeous wife at his side. But it appears that this was not enough for Harry.
Understandably, Harry would want to protect his wife and young son. But this protection seems to have backfired. The negative press coverage has not abated and privacy is largely non-existent in the United States once you walk outside your front door. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and little Archie would be a lot safer behind the fences in Windsor Great Park.
This book has been subject to a lot of press on both sides of the Atlantic. Some good, some bad. Some not worth reading.
Finding Freedom is not a biography. It isn't a hagiography either (as neither Harry nor Meghan are saints.) What it is is a mishmash of love, romance, dinners, dresses, tours, more dresses, more food, and, oh, and the consistency of a not-so-fine whine. The authors did not provide citations for their references to news articles nor did they include a bibliography. Most egregious is the lack of an index.
HarperCollins can afford to hire indexers. It is difficult to take seriously a "biography" that does not include an index. Reviewers, journalists, and historians should not have to resort to using bookmarks to go back to when writing the review.
The authors claim that they did not talk to Harry or Meghan while writing this book, but they did talk to their friends, palace officials, past and present, and others, and claim they verified each statement twice.
 |
| @Marlene A Eilers Koenig |
I think Harry and Meghan would have become a powerful couple within the context of the royal family. Yes, there were ruffled feathers between the Cambridges and the Sussexes. Harry, however, had some nerve when he complained about William calling Meghan "that girl," when he referred to Angela Kelly, the Queen's dresser, as "this woman," when he complained, according to the book, in "heated" tones to the Queen. Harry believed that Kelly was making it difficult for Meghan to get access to the tiara she would wear at her wedding.
Meghan's hairdresser had flown over from Paris to run through the hair design, so the bride and groom had hoped to borrow the tiara. Harry had a hissy fit because he thought his fiancee was being slighted. This was not the case. Jewels are delivered to the bride closer to the wedding. Catherine Middleton's hairdresser, Richard Ward, used a plastic tiara when he practiced Catherine's wedding hair design.
It is understandable that Harry and Meghan, given their popularity, wanted more of a say in their engagements. Harry did not understand or want to accept that as the second son, his wants and desires were not paramount. Popularity and precedence are two different things. Popularity comes and goes, but precedence usually stays the same.
It was certainly time to break free of the Kensington Palace office, but they were disappointed when the Queen would not allow them to have their own office. Although they had their own staff, the Sussexes' new office came under Buckingham Palace's umbrella. The Queen's three younger children and her cousins' offices were also in Buckingham Palace.
Perhaps the most honest chapter is the one that focuses on Thomas Markle's machinations as he dissolved from a loving father to an absolutely awful man, who showed no love for his younger daughter as he accepted blood money from the tabloids and betrayed her. He was certainly encouraged and abetted by his odiferous elder daughter. I cannot imagine how this affected Meghan in the days before her wedding.
She is also right to sue the Mail on Sunday for violating her copyright. The recipient of a letter has the right to show the letter, but no one, including a newspaper, can publish the letter without permission of the copyright holder, which, in this case, is HRH The Duchess of Sussex.
Harry and Meghan used surrogates to tell their story. There is no doubt in my mind that the sources, especially the friends, talked to the authors with the Sussexes' approbation. Unfortunately, the storytellers are not up to the task. At one point, I felt like I was reading a Harlequin Romance, which moved to whines and grievances, never acknowledging that Harry and Meghan were also responsible for their situation. (I am not talking about the racist articles. The only ones responsible for those are the writers and their editors for allowing the articles to be published.)
Harry was the one who was looking for an out from being a working, first-string royal. He is well aware of his popularity and he was keen to embrace a philanthropic life, which, I must add, is normal for a royal. But I also think -- it becomes apparent in this book -- that Harry was the bull in the china shop. He met a lovely well-educated woman, three years his senior, and quickly fell in love. Hindsight being 20/20, Harry should have been circumspect and let Meghan learn about what her royal role would be.
It is a bit selfish for Meghan to say she gave everything up when she married Harry. No, you gained the opportunity to do so many more things within the context of being royal.
I have said several times that Meghan aced her engagements. She was an asset whose soft power could have been harnessed and used, again within the context of being royal.
 |
| both photos @Marlene A Eilers Koenig |
The press office should have been more vigilant in addressing the racist comments in the press. It must be stressed that other royals, past and present, have been subjected to negative press, and just ignore it. Harry is a bit too thin-skinned, in my view. Digressing of course, but this becomes more apparent in the book, which acknowledges the differences but puts the blame firmly on Kensington Palace, Clarence House, Buckingham Palace, and never with Harry and Meghan.
Finding Freedom needed a good fact-checker as well The authors say they fact-checked the quotes. Perhaps they should have also fact-checked parts of their text.
The authors also do not mention that the Luce Guidelines, named for Lord Luce, were offered to Harry and Meghan to be working royals and make money. The guidelines were established in 2001 by the then Lord Chamberlain Lord Luce to allow the earl and countess of Wessex to combine royal duties with paid work. Edward and Sophie decided to give up their careers and become full-time working royals. The Luce Guidelines remain extant but have never been implemented.
Several news articles reported that the Luce Guidelines were offered to the duke and duchess. It was also confirmed to me by someone who had full knowledge of the negotiations with Harry and Meghan.
Let's look at several examples where the authors missed out by not fact-checking.
Page 110: the authors refer to Meghan's first marriage in 2011 in Jamaica. This was not a legal wedding. Meghan and Trevor were married on August 16, 2011, most likely in Los Angeles, a month before the celebration in Jamaica. The date of the marriage appears in Meghan's divorce application from her first marriage to Trevor Engelson. They divorced in 2013.
Page 151: "Meghan was thrilled to finally be sharing a zip code, W8 4PY." Zipcodes are for US addresses. The British use postal codes.
Page 155: "The rule that the monarch must approve marriage for the first six in line to the throne has existed since the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, whose younger brother, the Duke of Cumberland, secretly married Lady Anne Horton, considered to be the disreputable widow of a commoner."
George's brother, Prince Henry was the Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn. For another, the Royal Marriages Act did not limit the need for permission to the first six in line. Far more people, royal, non-royal, were required to seek permission to marry: "That no descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, signified under the great seal, and declared in council, (which consent, to preserve the memory thereof is hereby directed to be set out in the licence and register of marriage, and to be entered in the books of the privy council); and that every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever."
The Royal Marriages Act was superseded by the Succession to the Crown Act (2013), which limited permission to the first six in line.
Page 158: "Meghan had fully expected Kate to reach out to her." That is not how it works. Meghan should have reached out to Catherine, as well as the Countess of Wessex, to ask the important questions. "Could we get together as I have so many things to learn and would love to talk with you for your guidance? Lunch would be my treat."
The burden was on Meghan, not the Duchess of Cambridge. This is not a negative comment, just an observation of how things are done.
Page 201: Alexandra Knatchbull is described as a family friend. Her father Lord Brabourne (at the time, he is now the 3rd Earl Mountbatten of Burma) is said to have "fallen ill at the last minute," when Charles was asked to give Alexandra away at her wedding. Lady Alexandra Hooper is a goddaughter of the late Diana Princess of Wales. Lord Brabourne's godfather was the Duke of Edinburgh. His mother, Patricia, the 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma, was one of Charles' godmothers and the Duke of Edinburgh's first cousin.
Family, not a family friend. Lord Brabourne had been ill for some time and was being cared for on the Broadlands estate. He and his wife, Penny, a carriage driving partner of the Duke of Edinburgh, had been estranged for several years due to his infidelity. Lord Brabourne is one of the Duke of Cambridge's godfathers. The Duke of Edinburgh is his godfather. A year older than the Prince of Wales, the former Norton Knatchbull was for many years a close friend as well as Charles' second cousin.
Page 221: "and though the Frogmore House setting -- a stately 230-year-old house once inhabited by King George III..." Work began on Frogmore House in 1680 (which makes it 340 years old.) The first tenants were Anne Aldworth and Thomas May, the nephew of the architect, Hugh May. George III purchased the Greater Frogmore estate in 1792 for his wife, Queen Charlotte. He did not live in Frogmore House. Charlotte used the house as a retreat with her daughters. At Queen Charlotte's death in 1818, the estate passed to her daughter, Princess Augusta. In March 1841, the Crown purchased the estate from Princess Augusta's executors, An Act of Parliament brought the property into the "royal domain at Windsor."
[It helps to have a copy of Frogmore House's official guidebook and several books on British royal residences.]
Page 244. The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester did not move out of Apartment 1 at Kensington Palace until September 2019, some months after the Sussexeses moved into Frogmore Cottage. The 21 room apartment next to the Cambridges' Apartment 1A, was once the home of the first Duke of Sussex, a son of George III.
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester were given the apartment after the deaths of his older brother, Prince William, and his father, the duke of Gloucester, in August 1972 and June 1974, respectively. Much needed renovations, including the roof, began even before Harry met Meghan, but it was not a secret that the empty-nester Gloucesters were going to downsize and move into the Old Stables on the Kensington Palace grounds.
Page 246: Yet again, why was Meghan depending on Catherine to reach out and "check on her during her most difficult times with the press." The ball was in Meghan's court, not Catherine's. She should have taken the initiative to reach out and contact Catherine and seek her thoughts and guidance.
Page 252: The late Diana, Princess of Wales never wore the Vladimir tiara.
The authors are largely accurate about how the Queen offers jewels for use by other family members. Tiaragate is a good example of why Meghan should have reached out to Catherine, who would have told her that her hairdresser used a plastic tiara for the hair trial. Harry did not need to have yet another hissy fit and have a "heated" exchange with his grandmother about how he believed Kelly, who worked for and reported to the Queen, was ignoring Meghan.
Page 314-316: It is unfair to include Zara Phillips and her husband, Mike Tindall, as an example of not attending Christmas in 2017 as they are not royal. Zara's mother is a Princess, but her children are not royal. The Tindalls also don't often attend Trooping as it is not required for the children of a Princess.
The authors make it clear that Harry had an "urgent need" to change things for him and his wife, as they felt used. This is where Harry comes off as someone who felt he and Meghan were more important than the monarchy itself. Popularity comes and goes, but all members work for the Sovereign. They have a privilege that allows them to serve the country, not themselves.
The use of Prince Michael is a poor example of a working royal. As a younger son of the late Duke of Kent, he knew that he would not have an official royal career. He represented the queen abroad on five occasions, most recently in 1986, when he and his wife attended the coronation of King Mswati III of Swaziland. As he did not have a private fortune, Michael had to earn a living first as a director of companies.
The authors made a bad choice to use the Queen's first cousin to defend the Sussexes' decision to leave stop being working royals. Michael was never a working royal and he had to earn a living. Michael's working career has not always been a success due to poor judgment, bad and alleged shady deals.
The Duke of Sussex is the younger son of the heir apparent, an entirely different situation than Prince Michael, whose father was a younger son of King George V.
Harry got his knickers in a twist because the Queen did not include a photo of the Sussexes and baby Archie in her 2019 Christmas speech, Perhaps the authors should have looked back at photos of earlier Christmas speeches, In the 1950s, the queen included photos of her children, Did Margaret have a conniption fit when she watched the speech? I doubt it.
On occasion, the Queen has included special events in her Christmas speech, such as Harry's wedding, but the usual display focuses on immediate family members, especially the heir and spare, Someone's nose was out of joint and he decided to bolt.
Page 337: Harry was devasted to "step down" from his military honors, but he has only himself to blame for this. Did he expect that the Queen and the Prince of Wales would acquiesce to all of his demands? The Crown always wins. There is a bit of hubris in Meghan's comment to a friend: "...You can see how much he means to them, too. So why? The powers that be are unfortunately greater than me."
Meghan was referring to the Queen and the monarchy. Did she really think that as the wife of the second son of the heir to the throne that she had more power than the Queen? I doubt she does, but it was a truly insensitive statement to make to a friend. Did this friend provide the quote verbatim to Scobie or Durand?
Finding Freedom is not a great book, not even a good book. The authors have done a disservice to their subjects. The statement to Tom Brady last fall about no one asking how I was doing fell flat. I do not believe Meghan is a narcissist, but I do wonder why she needed to put the focus on herself.
The Luce Guidelines would have allowed the couple to continue as working royals. They also would have been allowed to earn money and do projects outside the royal world. Unfortunately, COVID-19 put a damper on their plans. As they have now settled into a real home of their own, the Sussexes with new projects and ideas. Some will be a success, other ideas will not come to fruition. That's life.
Life is not fair. No one should expect or believe otherwise.
The title, Finding Freedom, is innocuous as the couple will never free. Living in the United States will mean more press intrusion due to our limited privacy laws. The British tabloid press will continue to write about the Sussexes as they are still members of the Royal family. Prince Michael, a non-working royal, has been the recipient of numerous in-depth articles about his alleged questionable deals.
I want them to succeed and be comfortable in their lives. But their lives are now fair game, just as it was after Edward VIII abdicated and lived in exile as the Duke of Windsor. But unlike the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's lives will have a purpose and they will do things that will benefit others.
It is up to you to decide whether you want to read Finding Freedom or not. I glanced at Lady Colin Campbell's Meghan and Harry: The Real Story. A cat litter box liner book, and knew it would not be serious from the get-go as she claims right at the start that Meghan did not curtsey to the Queen at the wedding. Everyone with a brain knows that this is a lie, that one of the producers erred by having the camera moved, thus missing the moment when the new Duchess curtseys to the Queens after the signing of the register.
I will also give a miss to Tom Quinn's Kensington Palace: An Intimate Memoir from Queen Mary to Meghan Markle. If you read his salacious, error-filled "biography" of the late Duke of Westminster, you will understand why I will not read this book.
Finding Freedom is not a fine whine and it will not age well.
