Did you mean Tom to say William let it be known that he did want to reduce pomp & ceremony? With a stripped down working royal team this is probably necessary. Some of the aristocracy will probably be disgruntled - remember the outcry at Charles' coronation? The outcry stemmed from the decision to drastically reduce the number of hereditary peers invited & to limit the traditional pageantry, including the wearing of tiaras.
William definitely presents a more democratic (not meant in the political sense but in the general sense of being "of the people") than his predecessor Monarchs. And also tons more sincere (beyond even considering the commercialization context that Harry chose to pursue & who has then become like a paid talking head) than Harry when speaking about mental health & more relevant. William is also better educated & more intelligent.
I feel that William intends to break from the "ostriching" (avoiding uncomfortable, but necessary, conversations) of the past, signaling a more open, "here & now" approach to the monarchy & most importantly transparent. Which given the York scandal i hope means no coverup of Royal misbehaviors & shady dealings - in fact, encouraging this open & credible approach from the outset discourages this kind of behavior from the get-go.
But beyond these fresh, updated & undoubtedly popular changes, the Monarchy needs to go a few steps further to survive: overhaul the FOIA as related to the records & information related to the Monarchy & royals - Andrew Lownie has spoken about this at length & i fully agree. Greater financial accountability - such as publishing tax returns on the two duchies & make their payment of tax more formal & documentable. Examine the constitutional "conventions" that give perks to the Monarch such as the ability to veto proposed Parliamentary bills that affect the Monarchy & change these where undue favorability is shown to the Monarchy/Royals. Strengthen & support the Commonwealth countries & bonds - not in the sense of loyalty to the Monarch necessarily but giving more oomph to economic diversity & independance, trade agreements, standard of living & education of young people in Commonwealth countries. Dispelling any lingering trace of colonial hangover. All things i feel that William's team is probably thinking about & intends to address.
Yes, I think if Charles can or will do one thing to save the monarchy on steroids, releasing the docs Lownie discusses hidden in the Royal Archives to the National Archives, would be it.
Not holding breath.
If I were William's crisis manager, I'd persuade him to leak his intention to do that ASAP. Maybe monkey-see-monkey-do Charles would follow suit.
I have long fantasized about the Commonwealth as the alternative to membership in the EU. How great would it be to see the royal family educate itself on development economics and drill down on that, as the Queen broke her rosy pink butt to do. Charles has almost got the idea at Dumfries House, in what he called "heritage-led regeneration". But he has wildly and imperialistically misinterpreted it, not least to pay off the £20M loan he took out to buy the place. The cut-to-the-chase critique of his econ regeneration of the depressed local economy is, he's training the local youths to be butlers, farriers, Never-Never Land extras for the support of royal amenities of life. Training the aborigines to be domestics at the aboriginal boarding schools in Australia is correctly considered to be genocide, maybe not the smartest move for developmental econ.
If the above is not done as a first priority in William's reign, then anything else such as removing titles from loathed dud royals is just putting lipstick on a pig. That's the test for William. Unless the causes of bloated privilege are permanently removed, another Andrew, another Harry will come along in the next generation or the one after. However, I think William should be working in tandem with government or a commission to re-draw the Sovereign Grant and other perks as well as remove exemptions to FOIA, and the other issues you mentioned. That's the challenge, isn't it, to remove long-held bounty that the family has benefited from.
It may take some time for William & his team to accomplish the changes needed as there will be so much to do but yes the challenges are to examine & change long-held privileges that unfairly protect & shield the Royals from any oversight & accountability.
Tom, thank you so much for posting about this very important subject today. I am a Californian (NOT from Montecito!) who as a social services practitioner dealt with severely depressed and sometimes suicidal young people. When world leaders such as Prince William take the time to address mental health issues with care and concern they give hope to those suffering as well as their families.
I also want to thank you for your thoughtful, well researched reporting. You provide credibility in a field that too often reports with wild speculation and false narratives. (And, especially when you host Paula, your posts are so much fun!)
I am definitely interested in the productive role, if any, ritual plays in society. Been trying to get to the bottom of that for years. I belong to a group we call the Merry Mystics, and we discuss stuff like this over chile and eggs (we live in chile land) every Friday.
My argument is that ritual gets you into the Zone/the flow faster than anything else. (Always interested in the process, what's in it for me:
I fo believe it is within the monarch's remit to reinvent ritual, as Charles attempted, to honor the earth and all God's children. It really is the place to stand against racism in British life, and Charles did that, to a degree. Plus there was Johnny the Bonnie undressing and dressing the king, wow.
Not sure less ritual is more, although William is channeling some of Diana's healing touch -- the princess magic, the king's magic that really exists and should not perish from the earth.
As for ostriching and transparency, these are definitely House of Windsor demons William deals with in the workshy critiques, which persist (Robert Jobson gave the most recent shocking example). Transparency, I think his practice of leaking nuclear strikes on Harry (authorizing and permitting Jason Knauf to leak the Meghan bullying emails, and accusing Harry of being mentally ill in the Myers book) indicate transparency will never trump devious in his book. Which is curious, because unlike Harry, William has the power to be transparent yet invulnerable.
Interesting, thank you, for the informed speculation, as always.
The global viewers - either in person or via electronic media watching both HMQEII's funeral & King Charles' coronation were immense. As well as the commemoration of the 'person' this also speaks to people's huge & lasting interest in ritual & ceremony which has been a part of the human race since it evolved. I hope that William will keep the meaningful ritual & ceremony. So you are definitely not alone & i applaud your interest & research. I'll give that book a look. Thank you!
Let me know what you think. I beat the bushes for years looking for a source which would fairly define and evaluate its components, instead of just saying it's witchcraft, I kill you, or it feels so good it must be true. Opiate of the people, all that, a true but undiscerning remark of somebody who, despite his atheism, was very much into the numinous. Not least via the many bottles of wine he made Engels send him.
But that's another substack.
I've always thought the immense global viewership of Charles and Diana's wedding was extremely significant in ways I haven't been able to articulate. That this massive affection and good will toward them represented our granting them moral authority, which Charles basically pissed away. Very bad juju.
I respect Tom Bower. Alone among reporters, he dug out the Markle debacle at the shoot for the Reiterman's commercial in Toronto, in which she displayed such megalomanic talents her agent in Hollywood told her to write apology notes to cast and crew. She did not. His account of Charles' palace efforts to intimidate inspector Maxine de Brunner, the police investigator, and Sarah McCorquodale, the plaintiff in the Burrell case, are a similar example of old fashioned shoe leather reporting which yields absolutely damning information. He was a lawyer before he became a reporter and earns every solid scoop he gets.
I've hobby-written (not professionally) for some local history groups i was a member of in some of the communities i lived in while working for the USFS. But thank you so much for the compliment. I do so enjoy your posts too.
Very well put Tom. Both W & H have had their share of emotional hardship, losing their mother at a very young age & being left with an emotionally absent father. The difference being William always makes it about other people, Harry always makes it about himself or Meghan.
William's years flying air ambulance and in real service made a huge impact. He as an adult responsibly dealt with his trauma. Harry, on the other hand, is stuck at age 12 or so, and Mugs has used it to her profit and narc benefit.. I can sympathize having lost my own father to cancer at age 10, but I was very lucky in finding a way to move past that in my early 20s, in that my life was mine to make and that he would expect me to do so.
So sorry you lost your dad at such a young age, I can’t even imagine how traumatic that must’ve been. Spot on ref. Harry, he’s living in the past & I think that does suit Meghan, she uses his trauma to control him.
Hopefully everyone finds their way...that is both the beauty and difficulty of dealing with mental health and behavior. I often think that if Harry had been directed young to a religious vocation, one that emphasized silence, self-control, faith, and good works for others, he would have a far happier life removed from This Modern World. Perhaps in an African mission. But he has not a chance now.
I always thought driving an ambulance and ferociously defending his wife against Markle were about saving Diana.
Harry too is ferociously defending his wife. It is more than sad to think their fight to the death over that is part of the trauma of their mother's life and death. William used to tell her he wanted to be a policeman when he grew up so he could protect her.
Again, it's how you use the trauma, from which none of us escape. Harry's way is toxic. He chose wrongly. William must not only defend his family, but also the institution of the monarchy. He chose correctly.
I have come to the conclusion that Harry speaks the truth, not “his” “truth”. His book is full of small details you could not make up, which create a persuasive atmosphere for the larger witness. For example, when he first met Camilla, she did not make eye contact with him — he interprets this as her making it clear to him he was the spare. This is so in keeping with other accounts of the 21st century’s most unscrupulous and successful social climber that the rest of what he says grows plausible. There are so many other examples in his book, I can tell you from experience as a reporter, his ghostwriter was eliciting, and checking back and forth on, to establish his reliability as a witness.
Whether or not he should have said it, is arguable. I think he had to say it, or die. I think it provides a credible and important critique of the monarchy, which will be being read 1,000 years from now as few of the other accounts will be. This all separate from Markle's narcissistic manipulation of Harry, which *is* toxic, tragic and, in my opinion, the reason William and the RF oppose reconciliation. I think all but William would take him back in a heartbeat, but want no contact, as is correct, with the narcissist.
I think the animus against Harry by the British press is appalling, not least because he does all their work for them. The real story — of the palace complicity in Andrew’s serious crimes against the state, the witness intimidation, the documents destruction and tampering, is too difficult and cuts off their access to a notably irascible king and media-manipulative queen. Not to mention the control freak Catherine and phone-hacking victim William. Calling for Harry’s — death, basically — is so much easier and less dangerous than doing their work, which is holding power — which Harry eponymously never had — to truth.
Andrew Lownie is talking about reformation of the British press, which for the past 25 years has not done its job on Andrew. My point is the animus against Harry is fake news. All arguable, I understand, but calling Harry toxic is not the position from which a fair argument begins.
Jeanette, you are a well known pro-Sussexer and are entitled to your opinion. I'm not wasting my time rebutting you. Harry's 'truth' has been rebutted so many times by others far closer, I need not waste my time.
Not a well-known pro-Sussexer. I am just as well known -- this makes me laugh -- for calling Markle what she is, mentally ill with the personality disorder of narcissism. As I write here practically every day, she does not know better and she will not do better, no matter how many times she is lectured by sanctimonious reporters.
Please familiarize yourself with my comments before drawing conclusions which are opposite to the reality of what I say here. Which is clearly not well *enough* known even to an expert like you.
Also, spelling my name correctly would add credence to your discernment of what I do in this venue.
I thought Tom was very insightful on this, and how the position of the monarchy allows for sincerity vs. having to sell something. I don't think Harold had the brain cells to see what this would do. Your comment also reminds me of how politicians can be -- I remember Biden doing things like meeting fire or flood victims and would "relate" by mentioning "we once had a fire in our garage....." or "once we had a flood in our beach house". These are just hypotheticals but that was the kind of thing -- thinking he was "relating" but really both making it about himself and showing how entirely out of step he was.
I am sure there is a remote BOT (British Overseas Territory) that needs a new Governor! South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, perhaps? They are both collapsing along with the rest of California and Hollyweird. I don't believe that Ari Emanuel is far behind Wasserman in the JE files....
Ha ha. You’re not going to get rid of them that easily but thank you for your patience, we feel your pain. Never considered Ari Emanuel but I suppose any of the wealthy & powerful men in the world could be implicated, if an ex-prince can be held to account then they can no longer think they will be protected.
Less Ermine & more Aston Villa shirts. Good on him, the institution needs to be dragged into the 20th century let alone the 21st. Chapeau William for talking about & raising awareness for such difficult issues. 👏
As someone who adores the pomp and ceremony, even I can see it is looking a bit ridiculous. I am sure I will hate some of the changes William will make, but I know they must be done and I trust him to do the right thing.
Many of the ideas started with W&C. Catherine was the one that suggested their focus should be on MH that is why W&C can be more articulate on the subject matters because they know the reasoning behind chosing the subjects and both are also more educated and empathic it is less about having to make money they just do not want to make it about themselves Sussexes make everything about themselves. my opinion.
Tom, this tracks closely with my own feelings - and with what I’ve written here about William. Your read is spot on. I listened to the interview. What comes through isn’t “brand warmth,” it’s a rarer thing in public life - unselfconscious presence. He manages to be personal without being performative, and vulnerable without turning vulnerability into a claim on the listener.
I also think you nail the institutional paradox. The monarchy’s last remaining comparative advantage is that it can signal without selling - the absence of a direct profit motive changes the moral temperature of the room. William understands that, and he uses it well. He doesn’t deny privilege, but he doesn’t monetize confession either. That’s why his “toolbox” language lands as practical rather than therapeutic theatre, and why his repeated deference to clinicians/charities reads as respect rather than abdication.
And your point about stiff upper lip is crucial. He treats emotional reserve as historically conditioned - wartime trauma, communal stoicism, inherited coping - not as a cartoon villain. That tonal discipline is, ironically, a form of modernity: empathy without contempt. If this is the register he carries into kingship, it suggests a monarchy that survives not by louder pageantry, but by quieter legitimacy. And as far as Catherine (I've taken heat for this here before), I think the world of her
It's a small ray of hope, but the past few Governments have succeeded in stripping the British of their traditional rights and instituting an authoritarian regime run by a fresh set of elites. Whether you will overthrow them and take back your country is not looking likely.
Charles needs to abdicate to William and Kate in my opinion.The thought of Charles and Camilla being king and queen for another even 5-10 years makes me think the monarchy will just keep declining in support.People just don’t like Charles and Camilla.No amount of articles or engagements will change that I don’t think Charles and Camilla themselves realise it.Millions of Brits hate them because of Diana.We need William as king who is a strong,kind man with changes in mind unlike his weak father
Also, serious investigations are just starting into Andrew's probable misbehavior [sexual and trade envoy corruption to name just two]. He's an ongoing embarrassment to the RF. What I'm reading and hearing is that there's going to be drip, drip, drip of largely negative information over the rest of the year as the investigation by law enforcement continues. So far, there's nothing exonerating him. No one is defending him. Charles has given tepid lip service to cooperating with law enforcement, but few believe it. Charles and Camilla would wish to ignore bad news.
Whatever Charles has, it is very possible his time is short. He is quite unwell. If he were not so focused on me-me-me, he would abdicate in the most positive way, create a smart transition, and be remembered for that rather than his indecision and waffling on Andrew. W&C and the children need also a little more time to be ready for the huge change in their lives becoming K&Q will make.
I thought Charles said he was getting a lot better?He could still have another 10 years and in my opinion the longer he is king the more the monarchy will decline in support
He announced a reduction in treatments. It remains that whatever he has continues. It also could be that his treatments continue on as palliative care designed to reduce pain and allow him to be active for as long as he can manage. That being said, he doesn't look good. Pain turns you inward. Your original point is 100% valid--that he should be preparing for a transition NOW when he can mentally manage it, not cling to the Crown and doom the monarchy as an institution because he would not let go....
Good points. Because he's been explaining little, one wonders... were treatments curtailed as part of a transition to palliative care, or is his cancer now considered to be in remission?
That was what he said. Is it true? He's not been very forthcoming about his cancer, what kind it was, the nature of the treatments and his prognosis. It's not that he's obligated to explain personal health issues, everyone is entitled to privacy, but he is the monarch and an awful lot rides on his health, or lack thereof.
Sentiment like this will just engender covert and overt attacks against William from Charles and Camilla's camp.
Charles will not abdicate, so there is no point in putting this sentiment out there - other than to make Charles and his courtiers trepidatious, to the point of inspiring sabotage and attacks.
I really like his work with getting farmers help for their mental health. I never knew the rate of loss of farmers who unalive themselves. He defers to the Professionals but provides the access for them to get help. It is so important.
As a mother of two sons I am so pleased attention is being given to this cause by Prince William. Suicide is the leading cause of death for men under 45 and the fact that one young man commits suicide every 90 minutes is staggering. Those working in the emergency services like William did need to be properly supported.
It is so timely & statistics back this up: Suicide rates among young people aged 10–24 increased by 62% from 2007 to 2021, making it a leading cause of death & a critical public health crisis (from a Yale article). The causes are complex & complicated but a leading reason a lot of cases end in suicide or mass shootings accompanied by suicide is that TREATABLE underlying mental illnesses are not recognized by parents, peers, schools, church or other orgs that might be in place in a young person's life - which makes it doubly sad.
I watched the interview, and Prince William comes across very well, realistic and sincere. Having said that, can someone tell me what this constantly iterated phrase, 'mental health' actually *means*? It's the new, fashionable catchphrase, but what does it refer to? What's 'good' mental health, as opposed to 'bad' mental health? It's a meaningless phrase unless there's a definition, and parameters.
Catherine, Mental Health is not a new or fashionable catchphrase. The term has been around for over 50 years!
AI gives us a quick and succinct definition of Mental Health: " Mental health is the state of emotional, psychological, and social well-being that influences how individuals think, feel, act, and cope with life's stresses. It is more than just the absence of mental illness; it represents a state of thriving, enabling people to realize their abilities, work productively, and maintain relationships."
I was referring to the fashionable insistence on the rather vague phrase 'mental health' which has appeared in the last decade, without any practical definition of it. Jeanie Jenkin's definition makes more sense to me than what 'AI' says, since mental 'wellbeing' is subjective.
But, that is just my point. The term is not vague (and I have never thought of it as fashionable) and appeared way before the last decade. I remember discussions about mental health back in the 1970s! Take whatever definition works for you. I see what Jeanie was saying as mirroring the AI definition. If you are not a fan of the AI definition, there are plenty more out there.
Truly, this is not a new concept at least in the US. Perhaps it is newer in the UK. I just don't know about that.
You're right & it can seem like the 6 blind men trying to understand the elephant by touch. Modern understanding emphasizes resilience, self-realization & the ability to work productively. Mentally healthy individuals realize their abilities, navigate challenges & contribute to their communities. NOT going off & doing a mass shooting at a school, concert, synagogue, LDS church ---> I think the emphasis on mental health is hugely motivated by the examples we see today of unbalanced, mentally unhealthy people harming & killing others in serious ways. But is waging war good mental health? Why not concentrate on the big ticket items like that?
I noted, the group appearing on the BBC radio show with William.. were all men. There's no female representation. Too often, women are ill represented in such discussions. Are they deemed too emotional, too weak, somehow are they not as important as men with mental health issues? It's not that I feel men should not be discussing their own mental health, but why exclude women? Are their problems that different? Young women face complicated challenges and some lose the battle. Edited to add... Substack is bouncing around comments with little rhyme or reason. I meant this as an observation after reading Tom's article and viewing the photos and text. It's independent of any other discussion.
Men have traditionally been far less likely to go to a doctor for their physical health, let alone mental health. Perhaps the emphasis is on destigmatizing for men talking about their emotions and seeking help.
Your view makes sense Angela. I admit to a particular sensitivity about women getting the short stick in medical attention. Medical research often uses male models instead of including women despite their different physiologies. Women's symptoms are often called "hysterical" or emotion based instead of their suffering normal mental health symptoms, women are far too often not offered pain killers for extremely painful tests and treatments... the list is long. And of course, women also become depressed, anxious, have ptsd, etc. Both men and women may feel themselves helpless and not know where to turn for help.
Yeah there's is definitely a gender gap in researching care and providing quality of care. Men do get superior care.... Provided they ask for it. And then there's the racial gap, for men and women...
It’s exciting, at a time when there is such gloom and doom and pessimism about the future of the monarchy, and even about its relevance, to think there might be a whole new direction and purpose for the institution. Not just bringing in tourist revenue, but of highlighting urgent social issues and signposting ways, people, and organisations that can help.
Once again you make sweeping assertions with no evidence. What evidence do you have of the Prince of Wales's 'unresolved anger and rage at his father and brother'? What evidence do you have for him being 'cold'? What evidence do you have for what you refer to as 'white boy elitist behaviour', and what's your definition of such behaviour?
Your strictures against the Wales family for 'shoving their kids in front of every tabloid in the UK for "dare I say" commercial clicks and eyeballs" and trying to couple them with the Sussex chancers are nonsensical. The Prince and Princess of Wales are our future King and Queen, Prince George the future Prince of Wales, and our King in the fullness of time. They are part of our Constitutional Monarchy, which is to say, our *government*. They're aware that the people of the UK have a right, and a desire, to see pictures of them, including Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis. They have sensibly come to terms with the natural public desire to see pictures of the family by negotiating a deal with the media, whereby in return for photos at specified times and events, the children are left alone at other times. They are aware they, and their children, are part of the fabric of government, and have absolutely no need to display them commercially.
The Sussexes, by their own choice, are no longer part of our Royal Family in any real sense, but in order to push their rather dubious 'celebrity' and 'brand', they in fact *do* hypocritically commercialise their children via instagram, which in other contexts, by others, they condemn as exploitation. Their meretricious greed and hypicrisy is blatant.
Very well said Catherine. In so many ways Harry & Andrew are the shame of Britain (tho for different reasons) & William & Catherine are the pride of Britain. The polls reflect this. In the U.S. coverage of the royals is much less of course, but Meghan Markle & Harry have been near the top of the polls of most disliked celebrities for several years. Andrew entered those ranks this year too after all the revelations from the Epstein files.
Robert Lacey, considered an upper middle reliable source, in *Battle of Brothers*, pp 288-9, widely reported. Lacey goes on to describe other incidents of William's anger against his father, including his unwillingness to say he was a good father in interviews on the 20th anniversary of Diana's death. Nuthin' unresolved about it:
"But let us not underestimate the anger. Harry has confessed to his own blazing temper from time to time — and, as for his elder brother, well, he has proved no sweet William when roused. In the years after her 2005 marriage to Prince Charles, Camilla has recounted to her own family and close friends her surprise at discovering this unexpected side to Prince Charming — “the boy’s got a temper!” Charles wife has been horrified at the ranting and raving that on occasion William has unleashed against her husband in her presence.
"The rows have been earth shattering, by Camilla’s account, with WIlliam doing the shouting and Charles submitting meekly on the receiving end. As she has described it, William holds nothing back. The prince can summon up a wrath to match the importance he attaches to his own role as the future king, and if his father fails to live up to William’s view of the job, the young man releases his fury."
You don’t know them personally either, nor does Tom Sykes….
You just made my point, Sykes doesn’t know the workings of William’s mental health or his treatment, it’s all speculation and guess.
At least Harry was honest about his struggles and his behavior to try and make amends, looks genuine.
Remember, Meghan was seriously having depressive thoughts while in the Firm, with the constant vitriol thrown at her and her infant! She was asking for help, but told she couldn’t because it wouldn’t look good.
I’m happy she took the leap with Harry to get the hell away from that toxic mess!
By the way, my medical training looks at behaviors, it’s easier to assess!
Since her husband had therapists on speed dial it should have been easy to get help. Her Mom is/was a social worker and should have helped. I do not believe a word of the Markles. And yet they do nothing in their giant leap but pretend they are still Royal. They are a joke here in the States and have blown every chance given.
Well, neither do you. I note you make no comment on my point you have given no evidence for your assertions, so clearly you have none.
Your assertions about H & M re their 'honesty', and their 'struggles' and Meghan's claims about her 'depressive thoughts' are subjective; the one because you clearly like Sussex and dislike the Prince of Wales, the second because you're assuming Meghan's claims are true. You're perfectly entitled to like Sussex and dislike the POW of course, what you're not entitled to do is to make wild assertions without evidence. Re Meghan's claims she was refused help, these are patently nonsense; firstly she says she went to the Palace HR, which is for employees, not RF members. Secondly, she was pregnant at the time - she would be closely monitored by her medical team, gynacologist etc, for any signs of depression. Thirdly, her husband has stated many times his experience of therapy, so would have been in a position to get her the best possible psychiatric/therapeutic help. Given those points, Meghan's veracity is highly unlikely.
I don't know what 'medical training' you claim to have, but if your claim is genuine, you should be aware of the points I just made. I quite agree it's imperative to look at what people do, not what they say, but you're not doing that. I also absolutely agree it's a very good thing they both left, they would have been a huge liability as working Royals, since Meghan has no idea how to behave in diplomatic settings, and Sussex enables her rather appalling behaviours.
You mean when Meghan went to HR for her mental health issues rather than her husband? Her husband how had gotten mental health care encouraged by his brother? When she went to HR when she had access to the best doctors available? Yes, that makes sense. I too am happy that she took her toxic nonsense, and her toxic husband, away from the BRF.
LOL hilariously you seemed to have blithely missed all the times Madame has shoved her kids onto her Instagram for "commercial clicks and eyeballs." Also, hilariously, you accuse the Royalist of enabling vile behavior and then say vile things about William. Perhaps you are auditioning to be one of Meghan's little online hate warriors? Good luck, with that darling!
Did you mean Tom to say William let it be known that he did want to reduce pomp & ceremony? With a stripped down working royal team this is probably necessary. Some of the aristocracy will probably be disgruntled - remember the outcry at Charles' coronation? The outcry stemmed from the decision to drastically reduce the number of hereditary peers invited & to limit the traditional pageantry, including the wearing of tiaras.
William definitely presents a more democratic (not meant in the political sense but in the general sense of being "of the people") than his predecessor Monarchs. And also tons more sincere (beyond even considering the commercialization context that Harry chose to pursue & who has then become like a paid talking head) than Harry when speaking about mental health & more relevant. William is also better educated & more intelligent.
I feel that William intends to break from the "ostriching" (avoiding uncomfortable, but necessary, conversations) of the past, signaling a more open, "here & now" approach to the monarchy & most importantly transparent. Which given the York scandal i hope means no coverup of Royal misbehaviors & shady dealings - in fact, encouraging this open & credible approach from the outset discourages this kind of behavior from the get-go.
It was comforting to see that even a great writer like Tom can make an error! Make that one myself too frequently!
LOL, i too make all sorts of errors & am not even aware of it at the time & go back & see errors & smack myself in the head. We all do. 😃
But beyond these fresh, updated & undoubtedly popular changes, the Monarchy needs to go a few steps further to survive: overhaul the FOIA as related to the records & information related to the Monarchy & royals - Andrew Lownie has spoken about this at length & i fully agree. Greater financial accountability - such as publishing tax returns on the two duchies & make their payment of tax more formal & documentable. Examine the constitutional "conventions" that give perks to the Monarch such as the ability to veto proposed Parliamentary bills that affect the Monarchy & change these where undue favorability is shown to the Monarchy/Royals. Strengthen & support the Commonwealth countries & bonds - not in the sense of loyalty to the Monarch necessarily but giving more oomph to economic diversity & independance, trade agreements, standard of living & education of young people in Commonwealth countries. Dispelling any lingering trace of colonial hangover. All things i feel that William's team is probably thinking about & intends to address.
Yes, I think if Charles can or will do one thing to save the monarchy on steroids, releasing the docs Lownie discusses hidden in the Royal Archives to the National Archives, would be it.
Not holding breath.
If I were William's crisis manager, I'd persuade him to leak his intention to do that ASAP. Maybe monkey-see-monkey-do Charles would follow suit.
I have long fantasized about the Commonwealth as the alternative to membership in the EU. How great would it be to see the royal family educate itself on development economics and drill down on that, as the Queen broke her rosy pink butt to do. Charles has almost got the idea at Dumfries House, in what he called "heritage-led regeneration". But he has wildly and imperialistically misinterpreted it, not least to pay off the £20M loan he took out to buy the place. The cut-to-the-chase critique of his econ regeneration of the depressed local economy is, he's training the local youths to be butlers, farriers, Never-Never Land extras for the support of royal amenities of life. Training the aborigines to be domestics at the aboriginal boarding schools in Australia is correctly considered to be genocide, maybe not the smartest move for developmental econ.
If the above is not done as a first priority in William's reign, then anything else such as removing titles from loathed dud royals is just putting lipstick on a pig. That's the test for William. Unless the causes of bloated privilege are permanently removed, another Andrew, another Harry will come along in the next generation or the one after. However, I think William should be working in tandem with government or a commission to re-draw the Sovereign Grant and other perks as well as remove exemptions to FOIA, and the other issues you mentioned. That's the challenge, isn't it, to remove long-held bounty that the family has benefited from.
It may take some time for William & his team to accomplish the changes needed as there will be so much to do but yes the challenges are to examine & change long-held privileges that unfairly protect & shield the Royals from any oversight & accountability.
People will give him the time if has the resolve to something material. It's a big call but the monarchy will be strengthened for it.
Just want to clarify, does Prince William want to reduce the pomp and pageantry. I thought he does.
Yes i think Tom just made a typo...
Tom, thank you so much for posting about this very important subject today. I am a Californian (NOT from Montecito!) who as a social services practitioner dealt with severely depressed and sometimes suicidal young people. When world leaders such as Prince William take the time to address mental health issues with care and concern they give hope to those suffering as well as their families.
I also want to thank you for your thoughtful, well researched reporting. You provide credibility in a field that too often reports with wild speculation and false narratives. (And, especially when you host Paula, your posts are so much fun!)
The ‘not’ made it confusing.
I am definitely interested in the productive role, if any, ritual plays in society. Been trying to get to the bottom of that for years. I belong to a group we call the Merry Mystics, and we discuss stuff like this over chile and eggs (we live in chile land) every Friday.
My argument is that ritual gets you into the Zone/the flow faster than anything else. (Always interested in the process, what's in it for me:
https://www.ucdavis.edu/curiosity/blog/research-shows-people-who-have-flow-regular-part-their-lives-are-happier-and-less-likely-focus#:~:text=What%20it%20is%20like%20to%20be%20in%20flow?,Flow%20experiences%20are%20intrinsically%20rewarding.)
Others in the group argue it's about magick, which strikes me as true but more of a cosplay hobby than a useful and accessible brain function.
Aaaaaanyway, this highly recommended book has been on my digital night table for years. I wish someone would read it and tell me what it says.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005H0CCPO/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title
Here’s a free pdf of the above linked book, Catherine Bell’s masterpiece on ritual theory:
https://web.vu.lt/rstc/a.pazeraite/files/2014/09/Catherine-Bell-Ritual-Theory-Ritual-Practice-Oxford-University-Press-USA-2009.pdf#:~:text=Catherine%20M.%20Bell's%20profound%20insight,of%20acting%20in%20the%20world.
I fo believe it is within the monarch's remit to reinvent ritual, as Charles attempted, to honor the earth and all God's children. It really is the place to stand against racism in British life, and Charles did that, to a degree. Plus there was Johnny the Bonnie undressing and dressing the king, wow.
Not sure less ritual is more, although William is channeling some of Diana's healing touch -- the princess magic, the king's magic that really exists and should not perish from the earth.
As for ostriching and transparency, these are definitely House of Windsor demons William deals with in the workshy critiques, which persist (Robert Jobson gave the most recent shocking example). Transparency, I think his practice of leaking nuclear strikes on Harry (authorizing and permitting Jason Knauf to leak the Meghan bullying emails, and accusing Harry of being mentally ill in the Myers book) indicate transparency will never trump devious in his book. Which is curious, because unlike Harry, William has the power to be transparent yet invulnerable.
Interesting, thank you, for the informed speculation, as always.
The global viewers - either in person or via electronic media watching both HMQEII's funeral & King Charles' coronation were immense. As well as the commemoration of the 'person' this also speaks to people's huge & lasting interest in ritual & ceremony which has been a part of the human race since it evolved. I hope that William will keep the meaningful ritual & ceremony. So you are definitely not alone & i applaud your interest & research. I'll give that book a look. Thank you!
Let me know what you think. I beat the bushes for years looking for a source which would fairly define and evaluate its components, instead of just saying it's witchcraft, I kill you, or it feels so good it must be true. Opiate of the people, all that, a true but undiscerning remark of somebody who, despite his atheism, was very much into the numinous. Not least via the many bottles of wine he made Engels send him.
But that's another substack.
I've always thought the immense global viewership of Charles and Diana's wedding was extremely significant in ways I haven't been able to articulate. That this massive affection and good will toward them represented our granting them moral authority, which Charles basically pissed away. Very bad juju.
Tom Bower also gave a less than lukewarm evaluation of William in a recent discussion with Kinsey Schofield, as in an ordinary bloke, not deep, etc.
I respect Tom Bower. Alone among reporters, he dug out the Markle debacle at the shoot for the Reiterman's commercial in Toronto, in which she displayed such megalomanic talents her agent in Hollywood told her to write apology notes to cast and crew. She did not. His account of Charles' palace efforts to intimidate inspector Maxine de Brunner, the police investigator, and Sarah McCorquodale, the plaintiff in the Burrell case, are a similar example of old fashioned shoe leather reporting which yields absolutely damning information. He was a lawyer before he became a reporter and earns every solid scoop he gets.
Very eloquently put Jeanie, so I reckon you’re a writer then. Did I get it right this time?
I've hobby-written (not professionally) for some local history groups i was a member of in some of the communities i lived in while working for the USFS. But thank you so much for the compliment. I do so enjoy your posts too.
Very well put Tom. Both W & H have had their share of emotional hardship, losing their mother at a very young age & being left with an emotionally absent father. The difference being William always makes it about other people, Harry always makes it about himself or Meghan.
William's years flying air ambulance and in real service made a huge impact. He as an adult responsibly dealt with his trauma. Harry, on the other hand, is stuck at age 12 or so, and Mugs has used it to her profit and narc benefit.. I can sympathize having lost my own father to cancer at age 10, but I was very lucky in finding a way to move past that in my early 20s, in that my life was mine to make and that he would expect me to do so.
So sorry you lost your dad at such a young age, I can’t even imagine how traumatic that must’ve been. Spot on ref. Harry, he’s living in the past & I think that does suit Meghan, she uses his trauma to control him.
Hopefully everyone finds their way...that is both the beauty and difficulty of dealing with mental health and behavior. I often think that if Harry had been directed young to a religious vocation, one that emphasized silence, self-control, faith, and good works for others, he would have a far happier life removed from This Modern World. Perhaps in an African mission. But he has not a chance now.
I always thought driving an ambulance and ferociously defending his wife against Markle were about saving Diana.
Harry too is ferociously defending his wife. It is more than sad to think their fight to the death over that is part of the trauma of their mother's life and death. William used to tell her he wanted to be a policeman when he grew up so he could protect her.
Again, it's how you use the trauma, from which none of us escape. Harry's way is toxic. He chose wrongly. William must not only defend his family, but also the institution of the monarchy. He chose correctly.
I have come to the conclusion that Harry speaks the truth, not “his” “truth”. His book is full of small details you could not make up, which create a persuasive atmosphere for the larger witness. For example, when he first met Camilla, she did not make eye contact with him — he interprets this as her making it clear to him he was the spare. This is so in keeping with other accounts of the 21st century’s most unscrupulous and successful social climber that the rest of what he says grows plausible. There are so many other examples in his book, I can tell you from experience as a reporter, his ghostwriter was eliciting, and checking back and forth on, to establish his reliability as a witness.
Whether or not he should have said it, is arguable. I think he had to say it, or die. I think it provides a credible and important critique of the monarchy, which will be being read 1,000 years from now as few of the other accounts will be. This all separate from Markle's narcissistic manipulation of Harry, which *is* toxic, tragic and, in my opinion, the reason William and the RF oppose reconciliation. I think all but William would take him back in a heartbeat, but want no contact, as is correct, with the narcissist.
I think the animus against Harry by the British press is appalling, not least because he does all their work for them. The real story — of the palace complicity in Andrew’s serious crimes against the state, the witness intimidation, the documents destruction and tampering, is too difficult and cuts off their access to a notably irascible king and media-manipulative queen. Not to mention the control freak Catherine and phone-hacking victim William. Calling for Harry’s — death, basically — is so much easier and less dangerous than doing their work, which is holding power — which Harry eponymously never had — to truth.
Andrew Lownie is talking about reformation of the British press, which for the past 25 years has not done its job on Andrew. My point is the animus against Harry is fake news. All arguable, I understand, but calling Harry toxic is not the position from which a fair argument begins.
Jeanette, you are a well known pro-Sussexer and are entitled to your opinion. I'm not wasting my time rebutting you. Harry's 'truth' has been rebutted so many times by others far closer, I need not waste my time.
Yeah, I thought so.
Not a well-known pro-Sussexer. I am just as well known -- this makes me laugh -- for calling Markle what she is, mentally ill with the personality disorder of narcissism. As I write here practically every day, she does not know better and she will not do better, no matter how many times she is lectured by sanctimonious reporters.
Please familiarize yourself with my comments before drawing conclusions which are opposite to the reality of what I say here. Which is clearly not well *enough* known even to an expert like you.
Also, spelling my name correctly would add credence to your discernment of what I do in this venue.
I thought Tom was very insightful on this, and how the position of the monarchy allows for sincerity vs. having to sell something. I don't think Harold had the brain cells to see what this would do. Your comment also reminds me of how politicians can be -- I remember Biden doing things like meeting fire or flood victims and would "relate" by mentioning "we once had a fire in our garage....." or "once we had a flood in our beach house". These are just hypotheticals but that was the kind of thing -- thinking he was "relating" but really both making it about himself and showing how entirely out of step he was.
Harry is also hampered by his low IQ and evident 'on the spectrum' since birth. He and Mugs need to be exiled, and not in the US.
We in the UK are quite happy for you to keep them!
I am sure there is a remote BOT (British Overseas Territory) that needs a new Governor! South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, perhaps? They are both collapsing along with the rest of California and Hollyweird. I don't believe that Ari Emanuel is far behind Wasserman in the JE files....
Ha ha. You’re not going to get rid of them that easily but thank you for your patience, we feel your pain. Never considered Ari Emanuel but I suppose any of the wealthy & powerful men in the world could be implicated, if an ex-prince can be held to account then they can no longer think they will be protected.
And not to Canada! 😳🤭🙄
Less Ermine & more Aston Villa shirts. Good on him, the institution needs to be dragged into the 20th century let alone the 21st. Chapeau William for talking about & raising awareness for such difficult issues. 👏
As someone who adores the pomp and ceremony, even I can see it is looking a bit ridiculous. I am sure I will hate some of the changes William will make, but I know they must be done and I trust him to do the right thing.
Many of the ideas started with W&C. Catherine was the one that suggested their focus should be on MH that is why W&C can be more articulate on the subject matters because they know the reasoning behind chosing the subjects and both are also more educated and empathic it is less about having to make money they just do not want to make it about themselves Sussexes make everything about themselves. my opinion.
Tom, this tracks closely with my own feelings - and with what I’ve written here about William. Your read is spot on. I listened to the interview. What comes through isn’t “brand warmth,” it’s a rarer thing in public life - unselfconscious presence. He manages to be personal without being performative, and vulnerable without turning vulnerability into a claim on the listener.
I also think you nail the institutional paradox. The monarchy’s last remaining comparative advantage is that it can signal without selling - the absence of a direct profit motive changes the moral temperature of the room. William understands that, and he uses it well. He doesn’t deny privilege, but he doesn’t monetize confession either. That’s why his “toolbox” language lands as practical rather than therapeutic theatre, and why his repeated deference to clinicians/charities reads as respect rather than abdication.
And your point about stiff upper lip is crucial. He treats emotional reserve as historically conditioned - wartime trauma, communal stoicism, inherited coping - not as a cartoon villain. That tonal discipline is, ironically, a form of modernity: empathy without contempt. If this is the register he carries into kingship, it suggests a monarchy that survives not by louder pageantry, but by quieter legitimacy. And as far as Catherine (I've taken heat for this here before), I think the world of her
Thank you
Brilliant Article ,Mr.Sykes.....
Please keep us informed.
One starts feeling positive, and excited about BRITTAIN 'S Future in William and Catherine's hands.
It's a small ray of hope, but the past few Governments have succeeded in stripping the British of their traditional rights and instituting an authoritarian regime run by a fresh set of elites. Whether you will overthrow them and take back your country is not looking likely.
Charles needs to abdicate to William and Kate in my opinion.The thought of Charles and Camilla being king and queen for another even 5-10 years makes me think the monarchy will just keep declining in support.People just don’t like Charles and Camilla.No amount of articles or engagements will change that I don’t think Charles and Camilla themselves realise it.Millions of Brits hate them because of Diana.We need William as king who is a strong,kind man with changes in mind unlike his weak father
Also, serious investigations are just starting into Andrew's probable misbehavior [sexual and trade envoy corruption to name just two]. He's an ongoing embarrassment to the RF. What I'm reading and hearing is that there's going to be drip, drip, drip of largely negative information over the rest of the year as the investigation by law enforcement continues. So far, there's nothing exonerating him. No one is defending him. Charles has given tepid lip service to cooperating with law enforcement, but few believe it. Charles and Camilla would wish to ignore bad news.
Whatever Charles has, it is very possible his time is short. He is quite unwell. If he were not so focused on me-me-me, he would abdicate in the most positive way, create a smart transition, and be remembered for that rather than his indecision and waffling on Andrew. W&C and the children need also a little more time to be ready for the huge change in their lives becoming K&Q will make.
I thought Charles said he was getting a lot better?He could still have another 10 years and in my opinion the longer he is king the more the monarchy will decline in support
He announced a reduction in treatments. It remains that whatever he has continues. It also could be that his treatments continue on as palliative care designed to reduce pain and allow him to be active for as long as he can manage. That being said, he doesn't look good. Pain turns you inward. Your original point is 100% valid--that he should be preparing for a transition NOW when he can mentally manage it, not cling to the Crown and doom the monarchy as an institution because he would not let go....
Good points. Because he's been explaining little, one wonders... were treatments curtailed as part of a transition to palliative care, or is his cancer now considered to be in remission?
That was what he said. Is it true? He's not been very forthcoming about his cancer, what kind it was, the nature of the treatments and his prognosis. It's not that he's obligated to explain personal health issues, everyone is entitled to privacy, but he is the monarch and an awful lot rides on his health, or lack thereof.
So true, Joan. Especially at THIS time, as the police cars mass outside of Sandringham re Andrew.
Sentiment like this will just engender covert and overt attacks against William from Charles and Camilla's camp.
Charles will not abdicate, so there is no point in putting this sentiment out there - other than to make Charles and his courtiers trepidatious, to the point of inspiring sabotage and attacks.
I really like his work with getting farmers help for their mental health. I never knew the rate of loss of farmers who unalive themselves. He defers to the Professionals but provides the access for them to get help. It is so important.
What a brilliant watch - I just really like this guy. Thanks for sharing, Tom.
As a mother of two sons I am so pleased attention is being given to this cause by Prince William. Suicide is the leading cause of death for men under 45 and the fact that one young man commits suicide every 90 minutes is staggering. Those working in the emergency services like William did need to be properly supported.
It is so timely & statistics back this up: Suicide rates among young people aged 10–24 increased by 62% from 2007 to 2021, making it a leading cause of death & a critical public health crisis (from a Yale article). The causes are complex & complicated but a leading reason a lot of cases end in suicide or mass shootings accompanied by suicide is that TREATABLE underlying mental illnesses are not recognized by parents, peers, schools, church or other orgs that might be in place in a young person's life - which makes it doubly sad.
💖
I watched the interview, and Prince William comes across very well, realistic and sincere. Having said that, can someone tell me what this constantly iterated phrase, 'mental health' actually *means*? It's the new, fashionable catchphrase, but what does it refer to? What's 'good' mental health, as opposed to 'bad' mental health? It's a meaningless phrase unless there's a definition, and parameters.
Catherine, Mental Health is not a new or fashionable catchphrase. The term has been around for over 50 years!
AI gives us a quick and succinct definition of Mental Health: " Mental health is the state of emotional, psychological, and social well-being that influences how individuals think, feel, act, and cope with life's stresses. It is more than just the absence of mental illness; it represents a state of thriving, enabling people to realize their abilities, work productively, and maintain relationships."
I was referring to the fashionable insistence on the rather vague phrase 'mental health' which has appeared in the last decade, without any practical definition of it. Jeanie Jenkin's definition makes more sense to me than what 'AI' says, since mental 'wellbeing' is subjective.
But, that is just my point. The term is not vague (and I have never thought of it as fashionable) and appeared way before the last decade. I remember discussions about mental health back in the 1970s! Take whatever definition works for you. I see what Jeanie was saying as mirroring the AI definition. If you are not a fan of the AI definition, there are plenty more out there.
Truly, this is not a new concept at least in the US. Perhaps it is newer in the UK. I just don't know about that.
You're right & it can seem like the 6 blind men trying to understand the elephant by touch. Modern understanding emphasizes resilience, self-realization & the ability to work productively. Mentally healthy individuals realize their abilities, navigate challenges & contribute to their communities. NOT going off & doing a mass shooting at a school, concert, synagogue, LDS church ---> I think the emphasis on mental health is hugely motivated by the examples we see today of unbalanced, mentally unhealthy people harming & killing others in serious ways. But is waging war good mental health? Why not concentrate on the big ticket items like that?
Great piece, Tom.
I noted, the group appearing on the BBC radio show with William.. were all men. There's no female representation. Too often, women are ill represented in such discussions. Are they deemed too emotional, too weak, somehow are they not as important as men with mental health issues? It's not that I feel men should not be discussing their own mental health, but why exclude women? Are their problems that different? Young women face complicated challenges and some lose the battle. Edited to add... Substack is bouncing around comments with little rhyme or reason. I meant this as an observation after reading Tom's article and viewing the photos and text. It's independent of any other discussion.
Men have traditionally been far less likely to go to a doctor for their physical health, let alone mental health. Perhaps the emphasis is on destigmatizing for men talking about their emotions and seeking help.
Your view makes sense Angela. I admit to a particular sensitivity about women getting the short stick in medical attention. Medical research often uses male models instead of including women despite their different physiologies. Women's symptoms are often called "hysterical" or emotion based instead of their suffering normal mental health symptoms, women are far too often not offered pain killers for extremely painful tests and treatments... the list is long. And of course, women also become depressed, anxious, have ptsd, etc. Both men and women may feel themselves helpless and not know where to turn for help.
Yeah there's is definitely a gender gap in researching care and providing quality of care. Men do get superior care.... Provided they ask for it. And then there's the racial gap, for men and women...
It’s exciting, at a time when there is such gloom and doom and pessimism about the future of the monarchy, and even about its relevance, to think there might be a whole new direction and purpose for the institution. Not just bringing in tourist revenue, but of highlighting urgent social issues and signposting ways, people, and organisations that can help.
Well it wouldn’t be an article by Tom, without shading Harry & Meghan. Geesh, your incredible bias is showing!
William isn’t a picture of mental health! He constantly shows unresolved anger and rage at his father and brother!
He is cold and has his entitled white boy elitist behavior wherever he goes.
And these two are shoving their kids in front of every tabloid in the UK for ”dare I say” commercial clicks and eyeballs!
The Royalist is an enabler of this vile behavior!
Once again you make sweeping assertions with no evidence. What evidence do you have of the Prince of Wales's 'unresolved anger and rage at his father and brother'? What evidence do you have for him being 'cold'? What evidence do you have for what you refer to as 'white boy elitist behaviour', and what's your definition of such behaviour?
Your strictures against the Wales family for 'shoving their kids in front of every tabloid in the UK for "dare I say" commercial clicks and eyeballs" and trying to couple them with the Sussex chancers are nonsensical. The Prince and Princess of Wales are our future King and Queen, Prince George the future Prince of Wales, and our King in the fullness of time. They are part of our Constitutional Monarchy, which is to say, our *government*. They're aware that the people of the UK have a right, and a desire, to see pictures of them, including Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis. They have sensibly come to terms with the natural public desire to see pictures of the family by negotiating a deal with the media, whereby in return for photos at specified times and events, the children are left alone at other times. They are aware they, and their children, are part of the fabric of government, and have absolutely no need to display them commercially.
The Sussexes, by their own choice, are no longer part of our Royal Family in any real sense, but in order to push their rather dubious 'celebrity' and 'brand', they in fact *do* hypocritically commercialise their children via instagram, which in other contexts, by others, they condemn as exploitation. Their meretricious greed and hypicrisy is blatant.
Very well said Catherine. In so many ways Harry & Andrew are the shame of Britain (tho for different reasons) & William & Catherine are the pride of Britain. The polls reflect this. In the U.S. coverage of the royals is much less of course, but Meghan Markle & Harry have been near the top of the polls of most disliked celebrities for several years. Andrew entered those ranks this year too after all the revelations from the Epstein files.
Robert Lacey, considered an upper middle reliable source, in *Battle of Brothers*, pp 288-9, widely reported. Lacey goes on to describe other incidents of William's anger against his father, including his unwillingness to say he was a good father in interviews on the 20th anniversary of Diana's death. Nuthin' unresolved about it:
"But let us not underestimate the anger. Harry has confessed to his own blazing temper from time to time — and, as for his elder brother, well, he has proved no sweet William when roused. In the years after her 2005 marriage to Prince Charles, Camilla has recounted to her own family and close friends her surprise at discovering this unexpected side to Prince Charming — “the boy’s got a temper!” Charles wife has been horrified at the ranting and raving that on occasion William has unleashed against her husband in her presence.
"The rows have been earth shattering, by Camilla’s account, with WIlliam doing the shouting and Charles submitting meekly on the receiving end. As she has described it, William holds nothing back. The prince can summon up a wrath to match the importance he attaches to his own role as the future king, and if his father fails to live up to William’s view of the job, the young man releases his fury."
You don’t know them personally either, nor does Tom Sykes….
You just made my point, Sykes doesn’t know the workings of William’s mental health or his treatment, it’s all speculation and guess.
At least Harry was honest about his struggles and his behavior to try and make amends, looks genuine.
Remember, Meghan was seriously having depressive thoughts while in the Firm, with the constant vitriol thrown at her and her infant! She was asking for help, but told she couldn’t because it wouldn’t look good.
I’m happy she took the leap with Harry to get the hell away from that toxic mess!
By the way, my medical training looks at behaviors, it’s easier to assess!
Watch what they do not what they say.
Since her husband had therapists on speed dial it should have been easy to get help. Her Mom is/was a social worker and should have helped. I do not believe a word of the Markles. And yet they do nothing in their giant leap but pretend they are still Royal. They are a joke here in the States and have blown every chance given.
Well, neither do you. I note you make no comment on my point you have given no evidence for your assertions, so clearly you have none.
Your assertions about H & M re their 'honesty', and their 'struggles' and Meghan's claims about her 'depressive thoughts' are subjective; the one because you clearly like Sussex and dislike the Prince of Wales, the second because you're assuming Meghan's claims are true. You're perfectly entitled to like Sussex and dislike the POW of course, what you're not entitled to do is to make wild assertions without evidence. Re Meghan's claims she was refused help, these are patently nonsense; firstly she says she went to the Palace HR, which is for employees, not RF members. Secondly, she was pregnant at the time - she would be closely monitored by her medical team, gynacologist etc, for any signs of depression. Thirdly, her husband has stated many times his experience of therapy, so would have been in a position to get her the best possible psychiatric/therapeutic help. Given those points, Meghan's veracity is highly unlikely.
I don't know what 'medical training' you claim to have, but if your claim is genuine, you should be aware of the points I just made. I quite agree it's imperative to look at what people do, not what they say, but you're not doing that. I also absolutely agree it's a very good thing they both left, they would have been a huge liability as working Royals, since Meghan has no idea how to behave in diplomatic settings, and Sussex enables her rather appalling behaviours.
You mean when Meghan went to HR for her mental health issues rather than her husband? Her husband how had gotten mental health care encouraged by his brother? When she went to HR when she had access to the best doctors available? Yes, that makes sense. I too am happy that she took her toxic nonsense, and her toxic husband, away from the BRF.
LOL hilariously you seemed to have blithely missed all the times Madame has shoved her kids onto her Instagram for "commercial clicks and eyeballs." Also, hilariously, you accuse the Royalist of enabling vile behavior and then say vile things about William. Perhaps you are auditioning to be one of Meghan's little online hate warriors? Good luck, with that darling!
Back to the bot farm with Sunshine Sachs.
Hi Megs.