Us Weekly obviously runs a number of sugary royal stories, almost as if they’re trying to work out the code of what their audience wants to hear about certain royals. Us Weekly and People Magazine are genuinely “nicer” in their coverage of royals across the board, especially in comparison to the British media. So here’s the question: are people actually interested in sugary stories about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex AND the Cambridges equally? Because that feels like where we’re headed, at least with People and Us Weekly. Speaking of, here’s a light story about how Harry loves his daughter.
A doting dad! Four months after welcoming daughter Lilibet, Prince Harry already has a sweet bond with the little one.
“Harry adores Lili and loves reading her bedtime stories and rocking her to sleep,” a source exclusively reveals in the new issue of Us Weekly. “He has a real magic touch.”
The insider notes that “every day just gets happier” for Harry, 37, Meghan Markle and their 2-year-old son, Archie, with Lili at home, adding, “There’s just so much love and gratitude and they couldn’t ask for more.”
Harry spoke about Lili for the first time a month ago, telling Ed Sheeran that having “two [kids] is definitely a juggle.”
The former military pilot went on to say, “She’s very chilled and seems happy to just sit there while Archie is running around like crazy. [We’ve] been very lucky so far.”
As for Meghan, the Deal or No Deal alum gushed that Lili is “beautiful” when asked about the 4-month-old during a September New York City trip.
For what it’s worth, I believe Harry is a hands-on dad. I think he’s more hands-on than probably any royal father before him. He’s always seemed more like his mother, always happy to have a baby in his arms, happy around kids in general. His brother… um, does not have that. Unfortunately. And I doubt William is reading bedtime stories or changing diapers or any of that. It’s clear that William has always seen that as Kate’s job or the nanny’s job.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Instagram, cover courtesy of Time.
I have heard these “quotes” or some variation thereof from literally every person raising two children.
Also: Breaking news! Parents read to their children and two year olds are crazy.
@ LaraW, thank you for that!! I needed that laugh!!
Seems like they’re stating the very obvious about Harry; he’s had a Midas touch with children since he was a teenager, they love him whenever he goes without question. It’s truly a gift & I know he’s enjoying every minute of fatherhood because he’s wanted it so badly for so long.
I honestly think House Montecito is filled with happily squealing children, barking dogs and clucking chickens all while Harry & Meghan manage to turn everything they touch into gold with their projects.
I want Granny Doria in that portrait of domestic bliss, too!
Absolutely! I wonder if she’s moved into a wing of the house for security and just to be closer to Meghan & the kids.
I hope Harry is enjoying having a maternal figure nearby too. A happy home must be absolute bliss for him.
I hope Doria is living in the guest house and teaches everyone yoga on a daily after an exhausting day of zoom calls and running their world!
Totally agree. That video of him and the little girl stealing his popcorn is something I will always stop and watch. You can’t fake the vibe he has with kids. It truly is a gift.
Children can sniff out a terrible person lightning fast, the fact that they run to Harry says a lot about him.
@Robyn I immediately thought of that popcorn video, too! That’s one of my favorite Harry moments. It was hilarious! I wonder how Bill would have reacted to the little girl if he’d been in that situation.
I can totally believe this about Harry. And about Meghan too, I believe she’s a wonderful mom
I’m just thinking, if Better Up’s valuation is now worth 4billion, up from it initial worth of 1.7 billion before Harry was hired then, that means whatever shares Harry got as a senior executive is also worth a good chunk of change. H&M just keep on winning and I’m here for all of it.
Isn’t the whole point of saying “the such-and-such alum” to explain who they are talking about? I mean, Meghan is a global superstar as the Duchess of Sussex. Why mention she was in Deal or No Deal? To cut her down, that’s why. Grrrr.
I just said the same thing. I have absolutely no problem if they refer to her as a former actress, because that is what she is. But to belittle her as some girl who was on deal or no deal with no further accomplishments is just demeaning.
I don’t think we’ve ever heard Kate referred to as a “former lingerie model” have we?
Because the Firm and blue bloods in general have no accomplishments of their own. They don’t understand how people respond to self-made, hardworking people like Meghan.
They could call her a Party Pieces alum.
Kate Simpleton, the Party Pieces alum, is to star in her own Netflix series, the Real Housewives of Windsor. It will give an inside view into the rigours of palace life and the duties the Duchess of Cakebridge undertakes on a daily basis to keep the monarchy running and to support her husband, Prince Consort Baldingham.
Lara, you actually have to have WORKED in a place/job to be referred to as an alum. We all know Kate never “worked”. She may’ve snapped a pic for Mummy Pimp CarolE, she came and went at Jigsaw at TOBB’s whim, but she never *really* “worked”. So there’s nothing to refer to as a working past/alum.
To be fair, I don’t think this was aimed at insulting Meghan. I’ve read so many articles where celebs have been referred to as the “alum” of some really old work they’ve done, rather than whatever work they’re best known for. For whatever reason, they feel the need to take it back as far as they can.
Infuriating and reprehensible. Such a vulgar move by US Weekly to describe the Duchess in this way.
@ Grace B., I’m sorry to burst your bubble but yes, it was intentional and was to undermine Meghans accomplishments after that job. Any opportunity to dismiss or degrade Meghan will be made to keep Baldingham and KKWeen Dud in their court.
I was going to say the same thing. She was also on a more prominent show where she did more then just stand there and look awkwardly pretty. Why didn’t they at least say “Suits alum”?
Exactly, it’s meant to be condescending. So rude and infuriating.
That was a shady dig at Meghan. Also, it seems they were just reading Twitter to come up with this article.
Yes, this is tremendous shade: “As for Meghan, the Deal or No Deal alum gushed that … ”
And notice that it’s cute when Harry is all excited about his daughter, but it’s gushy if Meghan even says her daughter is “beautiful,” which is all Meghan said.
Can we please note how they are referring to Meghan. Deal or no deal alum???
YES! What’s that about??? Is there yet another secret contract where they write about the Sussexes but have to be shady towards them to keep the phone lines open with the UK?
I know Meghan fans know she had a stint on the show but I don’t know if the general public does. It will cause casual readers to look it up online— a blatant attempt to try to make her look cheap and thirsty, possibly to counter the Dior moment she’s having right now.
Rereading the story, I don’t think they’re being positive about the Sussexes. They’re being positive about Harry. Still feeling a deep need to minimize and erase the black Madame Duchess. In some ways there are kind of disturbing parallels to reporting about Kate. She’s consistently reported as a “hands on,” devoted mother, with royal commenters talking about the children’s personalities. Lo and behold, the same thing can be said of Harry!
Its like William and Harry were raised in two households.
@Noki I think you are correct. The BRF has done this forever, but I truly think Diana’s intervention in how they treated Harry helped him, even if it only lasted 11 years.
BRF parenting:
Heir – special treatment resulting in narcissistic personalities
Spare – the scapegoat tortured and expendable, resulting in either beaten down resignation or empathy for those suffering.
William is Dursley and Harry is Harry Potter
Yep. People can grow up in the same household and have two different childhoods as is the case with Harry and Burger King.
You are SO accurate with the Harry Potter analogy!
@Noki: They were, especially after Diana died.
They were always treated differently, by staff and even by Diana. She didn’t stop the nannies from mistreating Harry and raising up William. It was her friends who leaked the info about her telling Harry he always had to support William. William’s life was going to be so much harder, he’d always need his brother at his side. She selfishly took her own issues about her brother’s lack of support out on her younger son.
It would explain why Harry has such a hard time letting go and I imagine William used that to manipulate Harry. Harry probably feels he’s disappointing Diana in some way if he doesn’t protect William. May be why he won’t name the “royal racist”.
That’s been my take as to why he put up with it all for so long. His beloved late mother told him he had to stay, had to make his brother’s life easier, had to support him at every turn.
All of you are so spot ON about the dynamics of Harry and Baldingham!!! This explains their dynamics perfectly!! Now it is all making more sense with regards to Harry going back to Salty Island of Petty People. Harry will always try to be the bigger person in the dynamics of the Royal family, ie, Baldingham and his father!
Diana sought her own freedom yet had a blind spot when it came to how supporting William would put severe restrictions on Harry being in that same situation when seeking his own way out. Yet she left him that inheritance which allowed him to afford the security needed after being cut loose. Maybe she just knew that the situation between the two would eventually become untenable. Nevertheless no sibling should ever be expected to sacrifice his own happiness and well-being for the sake of another sibling.
Wait, why is Meghan the “Deal or No Deal alum”? Sure let’s overlook every other thing she has done and go for what we think is the “low class/skeezy” job. And it’s not even the British Media!!!
I agree! Plus they would call her sister in law either Duchess Kate or Princess Kate and yet poor Meghan gets the maiden name treatment or this. Why not say Duchess Meghan?
I hate that, too. I obviously don’t know how Meghan feels, but the constant use of her maiden name, which came from her sleazy, fame-whoring, narcissist father who has betrayed her trust every time she tried to mend their relationship, really bothers me.
I hate that they say Markle, but I have to admit that they often (used to?) call Kate “Kate Middleton”. It’s so weird; I used to think it was because no one was sure of the Primces’ last name (Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor) plus royalty usually only use first names. Seems so snobby to the wives, though.
@Miranda— I can completely see your point and agree, if Meghan had remained in the UK. But now, I think she’s transcended the negative connotations (or maybe that’s just me in my celebitchy echo chamber). She IS Meghan Markle, and it’s iconic. Now that she’s in the US, I kind of like the way she’s associated with her maiden name— the same way so many women in business, law, government, finance, etc retain their maiden name because it’s what they built their professional reputation on. Or at least, this seems to be fairly common practice where I am.
I don’t think referring to either by the name they were born with is an insult. It suggests that their past was erased once married and that is patriarchal nonsense. However, they need to apply the same rule to both and not elevate one with a title and not the other. Also using deal or no deal alum was just being snarky. Why not call Kate a yacht girl because unlike what the mugxits project, it was only Kate who worked on a yacht. Former Suits actress would have been more than fine to use.
It’s some kind of Midas Touch – US managed to make Harry and Meghan boring.
Harry and meghan could never be boring. They just aren’t seen often. But when they are they are definitely more interesting to look at than the the other pair
Decent Man Takes Good Care of Own Child – Film at 11!
That said, it’s nice to read *something* nice.
US Weekly needed a story for clicks so they came up with stating the obvious. The quotes come from Harry’s attendance at the Wellchild Awards in June and Meghan was caught on camera telling someone that Lili was beautiful at the school visit in NY. No one actually spoke to US Weekly.
@ Amy Bee, of course not. No one speaks to these rags of lies, not even the British rags. It’s either something someone overheard or a complete lie, like those across the pond. US Weekly isn’t some place I would go to for anything remotely true, either.
What insider? US mag looking for clicks. I doubt the people at Deal or No Deal, remembered Meghan was on the show.
In the US no one looks down on people working for money, unlike other places where they have tittles and have to open their homes to the public to pay the heating bills.
If Harry ever wants to raise lots of money for a favorite charity he should record himself reading children’s stories. He’d probably win a Grammy!
Harry is reading to his daughter and loves being a dad? Talk about breaking news!
Us Weekly definitely cant figure out which side to play here.
Well, for a “royal” father, it IS big news. I can’t imagine Phil, Charles, or TOBB “taking delight” in the chaos kids bring, the noise, the mess. I can’t see them with the kids cuddled on their laps, being read to, unless it was momentarily, for a photo op, then passed back to nannies. There is such *coldness* in all three, no warmth in their souls, hell…no warmth in *any* interaction with other people (ok.. maybe Charles in his tampon moment, but that was for HIS OWN feelings, not Cam’s).
Other than his mother, Harry seems to be the only one with any real ability to connect on a *human* level with *any/everyone*.
US Weekly also had a cover story a few weeks ago about how lonely Harry was, and how Meghan controls him.
I just came in to ask if this is the same US Weekly who said that Harry wanted out.
They put that out before the NY trip. With Harry and Meghan looking obviously in love and happy, Us Weekly got (further) exposed.
Do people actually read books specifically to their 3-4 month old baby? Maybe you’re holding the baby while you’re reading to your toddler, but I don’t think reading to babies that tiny is really a thing, is it? Talking to them, singing to them, rocking them, yes. But I wouldn’t really read to a child until they’re old enough to actually sit up on their own and look at the book, so maybe 6-9 months old and then it’s mostly just those plastic teething books where you read the page that’s says “red,” and then baby takes the book and eats it.
@Amytoo, reading to your baby is a thing. My baby is 5 months old now, but i have been reading to her every day, since she was born.
I did too. I thought everybody did.
Actually yes. With both my nephews, we read to them, or told stories during feeding time, from day 1. Before nap times, they were always cuddled up for a story, and when they were a bit older, they’d reach out and touch the books (remember “Pat the Bunny” kind of books? Tactile touch for babies). They also had waterproof books for bath time.
Those were some of my favorite times 😊
It is. There are people who read to the baby while the baby is in the womb yet. It’s never to early to start reading to a baby/child.imo
https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/reading-babies.html
I admire you guys finding the time to read to a newborn. There is so much to do that if they have been fed, get them to sleep and then start to do chores or get something to eat.
My (ex) husband read children’s books in French to my bump even. Once born, books in English and French. Our son said “chat” before he said “cat.” Once my son started talking, he often spoke in paragraphs, starting with baby gibberish and then later in words.
Yeah — we started reading to our kids literally as soon as we brought them home from the hospital. I was a bookworm as a kid and still have a love of reading, even if I don’t have as much leisure time for it as I used to. I wanted to pass that on to my kids as early as possible.
I did 47 years ago. I thought that reading nursery rhymes and simple stories would accustom my children to the “flow” of the language and the way poetry–even Mother Goose rhymes–can help children to appreciates the cadences of language. It takes a bit longer for them to appreciate the illustrations.
Wow, I had no idea people were reading to newborns. I’ve only had one child and when he was that young he was usually either crying or sleeping or eating. He’s fall asleep while nursing so nap times and bedtimes (which happened like 4 times a day when he was that little) was basically change diaper, wrap im blanket, feed, sleep. Once he was older and was awake more often and crying and feeding less often, then he had toys and books and id read to him. I read to him during the day during playtime when he was 6-12ish months old and then every night, well beyond the time he could read himself. He’s a teenager now and he still has an hour of reading time before bed. I just can’t imagine reading baby books to a 3 month old. Talking to them, making yo stories, singing to them, yes. Even reading my adult book out loud to them sometimes so they can hear my voice. But reading a baby book to someone who has their eyes closed most of the time, so they wouldn’t be able to see the pictures, that wouldn’t occur to me.
US weekly is trash. The consistently shade the Sussexes. Then throw in something sugary to try to fool people people that their not anti Sussex. Also, as mentioned above this article like so many completely erases Meghan. Take note of how Meghan is never given acknowledgment for being a loving mother. There have been so many claims by them they the past few months that were just ridiculous. The magazine conpletely embarrassed itself with the Meghan wants to do a doc about Catherine story. And last weeks Trapped by Meghan COVER was so awful they ended up burying it themselves. I’ve noticed that most platforms have stopped using them as a reference even for benign stories like this. Count me as a person who doesn’t want to read even so called boring stuff like this from an outlet like this using so called insiders especially anything related to the children. Because I have no doubt that at some future date they will make up some BS that could potentially draw negative attention to them. Lastly, referring to Meghan as a Deal or no deal alum is definitely an attempt to demean her. Whenever she does something that demonstrates how substantial she is like having meeting with the UN the trolls trot out the Deal or no deal photos like she should be ashamed of it. US is copying a troll tactic which tabloids and certain platforms often do.
Yes to ALL of this.
Cosign all of this. US Weekly, like many others, is another outlet that is far off from what it used to to be. Especially since AMI(A360) bought it.
While it is demeaning and she’s come a long way since then, at least Meghan WORKED and came by her jobs honestly making a living rather than biding time in made-up bespoke jobs waiting for her prince.
I hate that being a doting dad is headline worthy. I get that it totally is for the RF, but it’s kinda gross. Like, yes Harry seems like he’s a wonderful husband, father, and human being, but being a loving father should be so normal that it’s not noteworthy.
US Magazine may seem sanguine towards the Sussexes however if you read the comments, the majority are out for blood and Team Kate. US Magazine is just happy to have clickbait.
US Weekly like Faux news is definitely controlled by the British media . They host shady podcasts called royally us several times a month. They are in cahoots with the so called royal reporters and bring them on their show specifically to talk trash about Meghan.
That baby girl must be the cutest thing! Can’t wait for a good pic to come out.
I say look for who owns these so-called tabloid mags and you will discover the enemy within.