It's so incredibly delusional I'm stuck between feeling distaste at the arrogance or viewing it as comedy gold and indulging in a fit of giggles.🤔😆
Allegation that Meghan Markle claimed she gave up her entire life for the royal family. WTF level of delusion is this?
|by Anonymous||reply 128||Last Sunday at 9:38 AM|
I'm glad she's living her best life now
|by Anonymous||reply 1||07/24/2020|
Was a new thread necessary?
|by Anonymous||reply 2||07/24/2020|
This shit isn’t remotely believable. Why do you post garbage like this?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||07/24/2020|
They make me ill.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||07/24/2020|
I read in a Meghan article today that when she and Harry were having dinner at Kate and William's house, Kate caught Meghan taking cell phone pictures of Charlotte when they were in another room. WTF? Where does Meghan get the balls to do that? So inappropriate and bizarre.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||07/24/2020|
I'm curious as to why people are so obsessed with saying such nasty things about these two. This site wants them to just go away, yet a new thread is made almost daily about them. Kate gets all the support when she sued over being shirtless while sunbathing, but Meghan is called a money grubbing whore for suing over images of her son.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||07/24/2020|
They inspire hatred and contempt. Are you totally ignorant of their behavior?
|by Anonymous||reply 7||07/24/2020|
Can someone please post the paywalled Times article?
|by Anonymous||reply 8||07/24/2020|
More from the book.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||07/24/2020|
They keep posting because they aren't gay and don't give a shit about this site. It's known who is pushing these threads. They can't be named for legal reasons due to upcoming filing of suits.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||07/24/2020|
Who fucking cares? They are all boring.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||07/24/2020|
Klan Granny thread. F&F and block.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||07/24/2020|
Meghan probably thought that she was going to be bombarded with lucrative offers once they left the BRF and considered the comment about the beauty product line an insult. Now it’s clear she’s all talk and has no real business acumen, even for self-promotion. She’s no Kris Jenner or even Goop or Jessica Alba.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||07/24/2020|
From her latest appearance with the enlarged lips and extra-long extensions, MM looks like she's morphing into Kim Kardashian. Are butt implants next on the agenda?
|by Anonymous||reply 14||07/24/2020|
Why isn't it believable r3?
|by Anonymous||reply 15||07/24/2020|
r10 I am 100% gay
|by Anonymous||reply 16||07/24/2020|
[quote]I read in a Meghan article today that when she and Harry were having dinner at Kate and William's house, Kate caught Meghan taking cell phone pictures of Charlotte when they were in another room. WTF? Where does Meghan get the balls to do that? So inappropriate and bizarre.
She's certainly producing a musical "Diary of a Windsor Chambermaid." To think about it, it would be even creepier if she took photos of Prince George in the loo.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||07/25/2020|
Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand: Meghan was always going to ruffle feathers
It’s no surprise that the Duchess of Sussex had a hard time in the House of Windsor, the authors of Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family say
Andrew Billen Saturday July 25 2020, 12.00am BST, The Times
Andrew Morton was nearly 40 when in 1992 he wrote Diana: Her True Story, the book that revealed the Prince of Wales to be an adulterer and his wife an unhappy bulimic who had attempted suicide. Omid Scobie, the royal editor of Harper’s Bazaar, has just turned 33 and with his co-author, an American television journalist called Carolyn Durand, is about to publish a biography that rivals it.
Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family is a detailed account of the past four years of the life of Charles and Diana’s second son and his, as the authors would have it, much traduced wife, Meghan. These were, of course, years that some might say came nearer to breaking than making the House of Windsor.
The authors’ inspirations, says Scobie when I meet this well-groomed young man for coffee in a non-royal London park, are weighty American political biographies. Everything in the book has at least two sources: not for it the unchecked tittle-tattle of courtiers with an axe to grind. “It’s not all from Harry and Meghan’s perspective, but I do think that for the first time we do actually get to hear what’s been going on in their minds,” he says. It is a big claim, and it prompts a question. Morton was vilified until The Sunday Times discovered that his book had an impeccable source: the Princess of Wales herself.
Are Scobie and Durand’s ultimate sources the Sussexes? Press rivals, after all, refer to an “authorised biography” and The Mail on Sunday has claimed that the couple granted the authors an interview before they left for their self-imposed exile in north America.
So did Omid and Carolyn have a sit-down with Harry and Meghan? “The book doesn’t claim to have any interviews with Harry and Meghan. And nor do we,” Scobie says. But did they have them? “I don’t claim to have interviews with them.”
But did he have them? “There are no interviews with Harry and Meghan.”
Was there, perhaps, an off-the-record talk? “You’ve read the book. There’s no on-the-record interviews with the couple.”
Was there an off-the-record discussion with them? “No,” he says more quietly, “and I think that you can tell from the reporting, my time around the couple is enough for me to know my subjects.”
The couple have not read a proof. Indeed when later I talk to Durand she says she is not sure whether the Sussexes will read the book when it is published next month: “If they choose not to then I certainly understand.”
Durand, who worked for ABC News in London and knew Scobie from royal events and as a contributor to the chat show Good Morning America, approached him about writing a book two years ago at the time of the couple’s wedding. The ceremony was a public relations success but the run-up, largely owing to Meghan’s father’s press appearances and no-show at the service, was redtop frenzy.
Scobie and Durand planned to “correct the record” and, they say, focus on the couple’s charities and campaigns: his championing of mental welfare and the Invictus Games; her advocacy of female empowerment. They are convinced that their subjects are forces for good.
It may no longer be the consensus view. In Britain, Scobie, long identified as a cheerleader for the duchess, says things have sometimes become so ugly online that he has called the police. Even before anyone has read the book, there have been attempts to discredit it. It has been claimed that it paints Prince William as the “bad guy” (it doesn’t), that, for unspecified reasons, it had to be redrafted (it wasn’t) and that Amazon has “slashed” its price (standard big bookseller practice for a lead title).
|by Anonymous||reply 18||07/25/2020|
Times Part 2
Scobie is convinced that courtiers hostile to the couple have been hard at work. “I’ve been in this game long enough to know who some of these people are. Does it surprise me? No. Does it disappoint me? A little.”
What Scobie has experienced is, he suggests, nothing to what the Sussexes have endured, not just from journalists and social media but the royal palaces themselves. The House of Windsor has many mansions, and each pursues its own agenda.
“You’ve got Clarence House, Kensington Palace, Buckingham Palace, and the different offices within Buckingham Palace. They’re very loyal to their principals but that often means throwing others under the bus. Let’s say, for example, hypothetically, a negative story about Prince Charles is about to run in the papers. Well, perhaps someone working for Charles might throw a nugget about the Cambridges or another member of the royal family, to keep that story out of the press. There’s a lot of bargaining that goes on behind the scenes. I do think that Harry and Meghan have been victims of that.”
For the leakers it is a risk-free game as the royal family traditionally does not comment on or complain about press reports. Harry and Meghan believed they should respond, but were told to “fall in line”. When people question the “freedom” in his book’s title, Scobie points to the moment when, after their departure to America was announced in March, President Trump tweeted that the US would not pay for their security. Harry and Meghan immediately responded that privately funded security arrangements had been made. “For them it was like, ‘Wow, OK, this is what it feels like when you’re in control.’”
So what, exactly, is Meghan supposed to have done wrong? “I think existing, in some cases. I think royal women have it really tough. You go in and you play the game or you lose, and I think she went in and she didn’t want to play the game and she was married to someone who said, ‘We’re not going to play the game.’ A lot of people try to say that Meghan has taken the reins and has convinced Harry that his family is horrendous but actually it is Harry who has found someone who’s emboldened him to find that courage to take a step outside of the bubble that he grew up in.”
Can this really be all there is to the hostility, however? There was plenty of gossip that once Meghan became a princess she turned into a Red Queen demanding courtiers’ heads. The rumours began in November 2018 when Melissa Toubati, the couple’s assistant, “quit” six months into the job after allegedly being reduced to tears by her boss. “That’s so not what happened,” Scobie says, although for legal reasons he cannot say what did happen.
And what of the night nurse for the Sussexes’ newborn? She did not survive her second night with Archie before being “let go” for “unprofessional and irresponsible” conduct. Scobie tells me what that was. If true, I would have “let her go” too.
The authors’ contention is that “Duchess Difficult”, as Meghan supposedly became known, was simply “Duchess Different”. If Charles emailed staff at 5am he would be praised for his assiduity, but she was American and female. There were things going against Meghan from the start. Unlike Kate Middleton, she was old enough to have had a life, a high-profile career as an actress and, indeed, a divorce before meeting her prince.
“I think that was ripe for exploitation by certain tabloids in the way that they do with any public figure these days, but particularly women. And royal women! I mean, they’re probably treated the worst of the lot.”
And a black woman? “Absolutely. She was a biracial woman stepping into the House of Windsor. That was going to ruffle feathers. We only need look at the Duchess Difficult narrative. What is ‘difficult’? Difficult is pushy, aggressive. It’s all the things that we throw on black women as a society regardless of what their actual personality is.”
|by Anonymous||reply 19||07/25/2020|
Times Part 3
Scobie speaks with personal feeling. He is the British-born son of a Scottish father who runs a marketing agency, and an Iranian mother who works as a child-welfare professional. He left his first job at Heat magazine after an executive called him a “Paki” in emails. A member of staff at Buckingham Palace once said that he was “surprised” to hear Scobie, who went to a public school, speak with received pronunciation.
“I can understand how difficult it must be for a mixed-race American woman to step into that household and be treated as an equal, in an institution which lives by hierarchy.”
Is he saying the household is racist? “No, I’m not. I’m saying that I have had experience myself from one particular household member.”
Does he think racism fed into how she was treated by the household? “I would say that there are certainly individuals there who may like to take a look at how they view the world.”
The book dates the rift between Harry and William to the day the older brother asked if he was sure Meghan was The One. “I only have my own perspective on this and the perspective of those that we’ve spoken to, but it seems that William genuinely wanted to make sure that his brother was making the right decision. That said, I’m not sure if Meghan was welcomed with as wide arms as perhaps [former girlfriends] Cressida [Bonas] or Chelsy [Davy] would have been. I think that’s perhaps because she was older and she came with a history and . . . I think coming from, being American”.
Unconscious bias? “I certainly wouldn’t want to suggest that.”
The “optics” of the family’s final public appearance at the Westminster Abbey Commonwealth service in March were terrible. “To purposefully snub your sister-in-law or your brother or brother-in-law in Kate’s case . . . I don’t think it left a great taste in the couple’s mouths.” The explanation, he says, is that William was (and remains) angry at the Sussexes’ unilateral announcement on Instagram in January that they were stepping back as senior members of the royal family. The lockdown that has stranded them on opposite sides of the Atlantic has “slowed” any healing.
Yet, over a private lunch in March between, as an aide put it, “granny and grandson”, the Queen made it clear that Harry and Meghan could return at any time? “But will Harry and Meghan be in a place where they’ll want to come back? I very much doubt it because I think everything is going to plan for them in terms of the new chapter that they’ve begun.”
So he doesn’t predict another royal divorce trundling down the line? “I can’t see that, no. If anything, I think having weathered this storm they’re stronger than ever. I think they’ve got battles up ahead. I think what they’re trying to do with this situation with the press you know, he’s taking on The Sun [and the Mirror over alleged phone hacking] and she has this case with Associated Papers [over a breach of privacy] that’s going to be really testing for them.”
People, I gently suggest, will say that Scobie has fallen in love with the duchess.
“That’s definitely something I’ve seen a lot of online and in certain newspaper commentary. I certainly connect to this story in a way that makes it more meaningful to me. I’m a biracial royal correspondent. There aren’t many of us.”
In the evening I phone Durand in Connecticut, where she is sitting out coronavirus. She is an American but after 18 years working in London turns out to be a far sterner royalist than her British co-author. We almost come to verbal blows when I accuse Meghan of materialism. The book is full of designer labels!
The book keeps name-checking designer labels (perhaps, on reflection, a consequence of its obsessive attention to detail). “Well, I think there are all sorts of British people that wear designer labels. I think that actually she’s been quite keen in many of her fashion choices to pick sustainable labels.”
|by Anonymous||reply 20||07/25/2020|
Times Part 4
But when she goes off to Manhattan, to meet her friends, the first thing they do is go shopping! “I don’t think she does go off to America and the first thing she does is shopping. I don’t think we say that in the book either.”
(The book says that in the final trimester of her pregnancy Meghan went to New York and “looked forward to five nights of shopping and good food with some of her closest and most loyal friends” and that on the first day in the city she bought “baby clothes at the Fancy French children’s store Bonpoint”.)
Was Meghan’s joining the royal family always doomed to failure? “I don’t consider this a failure. I think that members of the royal family and Harry and Meghan are trying to create a situation that’s going to work best for them. I wouldn’t say that they’re doomed to failure. I’m not sure that that’s accurate. I think in five years or ten years we can maybe make a more accurate judgment on where things stand and if this is the right thing for Harry and Meghan and the right thing for the royal family.”
From a family perspective and from a royal perspective, I say, we have lost an extremely likeable, active and socially conscious prince to America. Two brothers who were close are close no more and Harry no longer performs royal duties. It’s not a success story from that point of view, is it?
“Obviously this has just happened. We’re just three or four months in and with Covid it’s not a normal situation. We’re not able to see what Harry and Meghan intend to do in the future. However, they remain the president and the vice-president of the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust and they’ve said that they’re committed to upholding the ideals of the Queen.”
This, I think, is an unusual instance of an author underselling her potential bestseller. The rupture is what makes the Harry and Meghan story so sad, and so compelling.
In contrast, Durand’s collaborator is in no doubt about what their book has anatomised.
“I think the timing of this book has worked out really well because we’ve been able to follow what has been a momentous, seismic moment for the royal family,” Scobie says.
“This couple that married with so much hope and so much to offer was somewhat failed by the institution and is now doing its own thing, and doing it well and thriving.
“Unfortunately, I feel like it’s the royal family that lost, because the Sussexes as a couple and Meghan as an individual represented a level of modernity that we hadn’t seen in the House of Windsor before. She did represent inclusion. She was representative of a different demographic. That doesn’t exist any more.”
|by Anonymous||reply 21||07/25/2020|
"There were already 14 active threads about this so clearly I had to start a new one."
|by Anonymous||reply 22||07/25/2020|
Can this be a cunt-face?
|by Anonymous||reply 23||07/25/2020|
Thanks, R18, for copy/pasting the Times article. Funny how much the two authors speak and write with what sounds just like Meghan's voice ("five nights of shopping and good food with some of her closest and most loyal friends"). And how is a half Scottish, half Iranian "bi-racial"?
The book's reception will be interesting. I think it will go under in the coronavirus/Trump media landscape and any attention it does receive might not be to the Sussex's favor.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||07/25/2020|
R3 - What do you mean, it's not remotely believable? Everything Meghan Markle has said and done since the BRF put her on the global map supports it. Remember her video from Africa where standing in the middle of one of the poorest countries on earth, she wept about how she was only existing, not "thriving"?!
You think it not remotely believable that a book clearly meant to lionise and justify her and her husband's actions would quote Meghan as saying that she "gave up entire life for this family"? You think it not remotely believable that a former d-list actress facing professional oblivion at 36 or so would actually believe that it was she made some tremendous career sacrifice to become far richer, far more famous, and to now live like a 1%er after, what, nine months of actual work on the job?
Meghan and Harry have made many of the mistakes Diana made - the parallels continue to amaze me.
Now that Scobie has done their dirty work for them, they formally announce that they had "nothing to do with the book" - which is what Diana said at first when the Morton book came out.
When it became obvious that she had cooperated with him, she was booted out of the BRF and forced into the divorce she said on camera that she didn't want.
And here is her son and his bitch of a wife trying the same tactic.
No one would believe so transparent a lie. Those "sources" were either prompted by Meghan, or came from Meghan herself. She's shown she doesn't relinquish control of any narrative about herself without a fight.
The book, from the excerpts I've read and the interview with Scobie I read in the TIMES, has the not unexpected impact of making the Sussexes look more petulant, obtuse, self-serving, ungrateful, and narcissistic than most of us already suspected they were.
Can you imagine it? Meghan was SHOCKED, SHOCKED! to find upon marrying the sixth in line to the British throne and getting world-fame, a royal title, a free home, a million dollar wardrobe, and global fame . . . that she had to take a secondary seat to the future King and his wife, and that moreover, her FIRST and most important duty was to the Crown that gave her all that . . . and not some chimerical "wider voice" and a political platform of her own.
Really - you couldn't make it up.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||07/25/2020|
R6 - YOU want them to away. Most of the site is having a blast gossiping out them.
You're free to leave any time. Go read about Froylan and Richard Madden.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||07/25/2020|
R6 - Kate was off duty at a remote private residence in the French countryside; a magazine photographer climbed a tree with massive telephoto lens to get the shots. He was rightfully sued and lost.
Meghan isn't being called a money-grubbing whore over her lawsuits: the damages, at least in the UK, are limited in such cases to 60,000 quid, which isn't really a great deal of money. It's the legal fees that mount into the seven figures, and so far, she and Harry have had to pay the other party's because of the stupidity of their Complaint.
Then she moved to Hollywood, the pap centre of the known universe.
What she's being called is a hypocrite, which she is.
As for money-grubbing: what would you call that shameful 15 minute talk about his Mum and his mental health issues to a group of investment bankers at JPMorgan for a nice fat check so they could pay legal bills that they brought upon themselves?
Or how she defrauded the UK taxpayer whilst knowing all along she hated Frogmore Cottage and had no intention of spending her life there - after all why should she, when she could live for free in huge mansions at the kindness of strangers?
Whatever stones are being hurled at her, she earned.
What she isn't earning these days, is actual money from her own efforts. Without the Bank of Charles, she and Harry would be crawling back to Frogmore Cottage on their knees in sackcloth and ashes.
Only, having spent nearly the last two years smearing the BRF, including in Meghan's legal papers, never mind the nasty stories leaked by her PR machine, it's unlikely that even sackcloth and ashes will get them back into the fold.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||07/25/2020|
Every time SurvivingAngel creates a thread, I’m reminded why I hate him.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||07/25/2020|
OMG The Daily Mail has about 15 stories about them right now, as headline articles. I kid you not.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||07/25/2020|
R29 more popular than Rona she is!
|by Anonymous||reply 30||07/25/2020|
Meghan is taking a page out of Diana's book. Diana once said (I paraphrase) "the things I fucking did for this family"... Meghan knows how to manipulate Harry.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||07/25/2020|
In the final Megxit negotiations, Harry was mad that he had to deal with the business courtiers. He had no idea about working in 2 countries, taxes, etc and expected his bro and daddy to fix it for him.
I thought he was dumb, but really he is DUMB dumb.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||07/25/2020|
One expects this from a half caste.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||07/25/2020|
I read the Times excerpt and I don't understand how the book is supposed to help them. It's pretty astonishing that Meghan would say "I gave up everything for this family" when we see an endless parade of couture gowns, luxury travel and hobnobbing with A-list stars that wouldn't have been available to her as a cast member of Suits. She did give up her privacy but her sphere of influence is so much greater now that it would seem to be a fair trade.
For those who didn't read the excerpts from "Finding Freedoms, the couple's beefs with the Royal family are as follows: The Sussexes wanted a separate court, meaning a household staff to promote their interests and were denied that even though they did have their own PR representation. Their projects had to take a back seat to those of other family members ahead of Harry in the line of succession. At some event in their farewell tour, they weren't part of the procession and Kate was frosty to Meghan. There was huge resentment of their star power which was confirmed even by social media interest in them. The Queen was vindictive for taking away Harry's honorary military patronages, which are positions of influence within charities, after Megskit. Harry was eager to leave the family and Meghan had little to do with it. The staff was subtly racist and sexist to Meghan--the example given was they joked she was going to start her own cosmetic line when she left the UK. Will had urged Harry to slow down in marrying Meghan. No one took their complaints of unhappiness seriously.
I get that they weren't happy but this stuff and the lawsuits seem incredibly petty. Do they know what other people's lives are like?
|by Anonymous||reply 34||07/25/2020|
r28 Somebody needs to lighten up and get a sense of perspective! I post threads on a variety of subjects. If you dont like then dont read them. From the struggles the gay scene may face in the future, to Loretta Lynn, Joni Mitchell, Joan Collins, Raquel Welch , same sex IVF, predictions for events and upheaval in the 2020s, Dallas actresses Susan Howard and Victoria Principal and hunky actors like Josh Brolin and fandom for Princess Alexandra. Etc What's the problem?A real pick and mix of options.
Lighten up .Stop taking yourself and here so seriously.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||07/25/2020|
Two stupid cunts
|by Anonymous||reply 36||07/25/2020|
R32, that's why Harry is so angry. He's never experienced the real world the rest of us are in - of having to pay bills, pay taxes, submit applications to bureaucracies, wait in queues, ask directions, book tickets, find what we're looking for in the supermarket - just the boring daily life stuff that we have to do if our lives are to function smoothly. Now he's having to do it all (some of it, at least) and he's shocked and outraged at what real life is. He doesn't understand that this is what the rest of us have to do every day.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||07/25/2020|
It is possible to withdraw from a situation that isn't working for you without drama, leaking, threats, disparagement, on-camera performances. It seems they felt they needed to get out a story about why they had to leave, which would assign blame to the palace, the press and the readers of the Daily Mail. They were also angry that they were not allowed to be fabulous royals in absentia after the Queen laid out conditions for their withdrawal. Maybe it wasn't a great idea to notify the Queen via Instagram post that they wanted out. This is a preview of what their divorce will look like. The battle will be waged in the press and the fault will be all Harry's and his family's.
It's interesting that the proof of racism is that people didn't like her but the things she was accused of --bulldozing, not listening, self-centeredness, childishness--are more often seen as American or Hollywood attributes rather than being identified with Black women.
Clearly, the wrong situation for them and for most Americans but why put all that venom and anger in print? There's no doubt where most of this stuff is coming from. Do they think that styling themselves as victims is going to make them popular here and rake in the bucks?
People have put all kinds of psychiatric labels on her but I think the apt one is histrionic personality disorder where we have to know what she thinks every single day because we're her audience and where everything requires drama. Bet if someone digs around they'll find a lot more there.
This is the stuff of reality TV.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||07/25/2020|
R38 - Well said.
And as for the "drama" bit - that was typical of Diana as well. In fact, Charles allegedly warned Harry that if he married someone dramatic, his life would be constant drama.
And that's exactly what has happened.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||07/25/2020|
R36 should have been their book title.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||07/25/2020|
Is my memory failing, or do I have a vague recollection of Meghan at the engagement interview, replying to a question about "giving up" her private life, responding that she didn't think she was giving up anything?
|by Anonymous||reply 41||07/26/2020|
The comments by Graydon Carter, then editor of Vanity Fair when the Wild About Harry cover piece was done, are priceless (see related thread). Only Meghan's most rabid stans could claim that she would have landed herself a VF cover if she hadn't been dating, and expecting to marry, Harry Windsor.
In life as in cooking, timing is everything.
The Scobie book couldn't have been published at a worse moment for the Sussexes. The virus has deprived them of momentum for their "plans", they're clearly not earning millions hand over fist, they haven't got a home of their own, their "charity" plans are still mostly hot air, and they're still reliant financially on Charles, who is bound to be outraged on the attacks on his elder son and his wife.
The Queen has probably, with this publication, just as happened with the Morton book, been forced to realise that the damage can't be undone and that the strings have to be cut for real and for good, and I doubt one person on the planet, let alone Harry's Gran, father, and brother, believe that the book wasn't Meghan's doing, just as as 25 years ago they knew the Morton book was Diana's doing. And Diana was in a far more powerful position at the time then the sixth in line and his American divorcee and their 7th in line kid that Meghan has ensured the Windsors have no relationship with, could hope to be.
The only advantage the Sussexes have is that they jumped before the book came out, and probably that was one reason for their haste to get out of Dodge. They knew they'd need all of MI-5's resources to hold off the pitchforks and torches if the book had come out whilst they were still in England.
What an incredible spectacle. Truly one of the major gossip stories of the decade.
Unless Cavill decides to come out . . .
|by Anonymous||reply 42||07/26/2020|
R37 - Harry is also angry that he wasn't born BEFORE William. Jealousy, envy, resentment and rage are all part of his inner psyche over the years and it's increased since marrying Delusional Meghan.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||07/26/2020|
r43 I wonder how different Harry's choice for a wife would've been if he was first born?
|by Anonymous||reply 44||07/26/2020|
The front page of the DM today is, of course, a virtual battlefield, with multiple pieces up on the allegations and assertions in Scobie's book.
What I thin k is interesting about the pieces is that they reveal the DM's long-successful strategy of appearing to present one thing whilst presenting quite another.
The DM blares out the assertions in the book against Kate and William and the court, ostensibly publicising the Sussex's "side" - but as they do so, exposing without stating outright the staggering extent off the Sussex's self-delusions, their extravagant expectations of the importance of their roles as the sixth in line couple, their view that they could have gone political whilst retaining their royal status and bennies, their vituperative spiteful jealousy of the Cambridges, and their stunning ingratitude to the Queen and Charles for their immense great fortune because they couldn't shape it exactly to their liking.
It's clear the Sussexes got out of Britain quickly because they knew the book would finish them off in the eyes of the UK public, who are all that matters vis-a-vis the monarchy.
In that sphere, the Cambridges and the Queen are now the top of the pops, whilst Meghan's and Harry's popularity has plunged, and this book will make that worse, not better.
The DM has been at this for a long time. It doesn't have to say Meghan and Harry come off like a pair of whingeing entitled delusionary twats (although the review in the Telegraph does). It only has to let the Sussexes damn themselves out of their own mouths, which is what everyone knows the book is.
It's a clever strategy.
Although I wait with interest for Jan Moir's inevitably column on the Sussex's "side" as presented by Meghan's personal lapdog, Omid Scobie.
Unfortunately for the Sussexes, karma worked against them, the virus has stopped their momentum, they haven't become multimillionaires in their own right, don't have their own home, and are still dependent upon Charles, who will now be angry at the mud slung at his son and heir and a daughter in law he likes and respects.
Word is in some corporate quarters that they are now reluctant to hire the Sussexes because they are "too controversial".
Meghan and Harry aren't the Obamas.
At the year-end review of their status and situation vis-a-vis the Windsors, this book won't help the Sussexes. They probably assumed, stupidly, that they wouldn't need anything from the Windsors by then.
As it is said, revenge is a dish best served cold.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||07/26/2020|
r45 An absolutely fantastic post
|by Anonymous||reply 46||07/26/2020|
Meghan is obviously too thin-skinned and too much of a grudge match wielder to ever do anything of consequence. She married a guy who was a professional ribbon cutter and now seems to be spending all her time excoriating the one thing that made Harry interesting.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||07/26/2020|
R47 - I agree. And the thing is, she's displaying those characteristics in neon - but to precisely the people she wants to think her a great hire.
She's now tagged Trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with P which stands for Payback.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||07/26/2020|
And yet more interesting news: the barrister Mark Stephens, often quoted on the ongoing suit against the MoS, and who correctly predicted that the court would strike out the attempts at slander from Meghan's privacy case, and has also predicted the court will rule against her in the request for injunctive release re the identities of the PEOPLE Five, is now suggesting that the Scobie book will be used against Meghan in her lawsuit because it contains so many intimate levels of detail that do not support her claim of non-involvement.
Excerpt from Telegraph article:
"The new biography of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be used as evidence against Meghan Markle in her legal claim against a tabloid newspaper for breach of her privacy, The Telegraph understands.
.... Among extracts published in a Sunday newspaper, the book disclosed intimate details of Meghan's final attempt to contact her father on the eve of her wedding. It reads:
"Sitting in a bath later that night, FaceTiming with a friend, the bride-to-be said she had left her dad a final message, adding: 'I can't sit up all night just pressing send'."
According to The Sunday Times, the book also claims to know Meghan's "perfect pose" in a yoga position after discussing marriage with the Duke while on holiday in Africa; the expression on Archie's face when he was born; the previously undisclosed name of the couple's labrador, which has been kept a closely-guarded secret; and "sensitive conversations with members of the royal family".
Mark Stephens, a leading media lawyer and partner at Howard Kennedy solicitors, said: "I think this book is really interesting. The Mail on Sunday lawyers will look to introduce this book as similar fact evidence.
"Private briefings and curation of her reputation is going on through anonymous spokespeople and friends and the allegation with regards the People magazine article is that five of Meghan's friends – she says without her knowledge – spoke about matters that were confidential, including the letter."
The hearing on the requested injunctive relief I believe is set for Wednesday.
Could it get any more juicy than the MoS bringing in the "set the record straight" book against Meghan in the lawsuit?!
No, it could not.
Let's see what the Court says on Wednesday.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||07/26/2020|
R44 Had Harry been the future king, it’s likely some willowy, blonde British beauty would have fallen in love with him. As it was, Harry was known in upper class circles as rather dim, needy and overly emotional. No one with beauty, money and status was interested in taking him on for only the perks of being married to the second son.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||07/26/2020|
A lot of her fans are POC who love her because she is mixed race and they assume that if you don't love her, it's for the same reason. People see what they want to see when they look at Meghan. I was repelled when she said in that South Africa film, "not many people ask how I am." After all, she was in South Africa, where life is still brutal for so many people and she was complaining about surviving, not thriving. Apparently, her benefactor Tyler Perry was very touched by that line and decided to help her on the strength of it.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||07/27/2020|
With Hatkle complaints about security and subsequently putting up a cheapie mesh fence, Tyler might be rethinking the wisdom of offering up his place to the Sussex Squatters.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||07/27/2020|
[quote] the previously undisclosed name of the couple's labrador, which has been kept a closely-guarded secret
Just one more detail that shows how insane they are. They probably bleated that they got the dog from a shelter, but they refuse to disclose its name? Are they afraid the dog’s family will be embarrassed by association with them?
|by Anonymous||reply 53||07/27/2020|
Piers Morgan mostly hit it out of the park today, with gusto.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||07/27/2020|
I think Scobie is going to score on this just as Andrew Morton did. The book is selling very well pre-publication.
Morton bought a house and sent his kids to good schools thanks to the Diana book - he certainly didn't have to twist her arm, I'm not blaming him for making money off a deluded and delusional woman, and I doubt he has the remotest twinge of conscience about it. It made his career.
Scobie doesn't have kids [sic] of course but he'll do very well out of this - but the Sussexes won't. They can't make money off it or everyone will know they really wrote it, so the damage to their images and their relationship with Harry's family, just as his mother's ill-advised Tell All did will go the Sussexes . . .
and the money to Scobie and Durand.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||07/27/2020|
One very big different between Morton and Scobie. The internet is everywhere now. The book will be pirated almost immediately and tabloids like the Mail will have all the meat published on their sites with 72 hours. The Kindle version of the book will be on pirate sites by that morning.
Scobie will make more money than he ever has, most likely, but it's not gonna set him up for life by a long shot.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||07/27/2020|
I want to know who cares what they did on their first date or who was the first to say "I love you." I just don't find these people that interesting.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||07/27/2020|
It makes me so happy to imagine Harry sneaking next door to tie one on with Adele while Markle plays Game of Thrones.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||07/29/2020|
As the "Markles Claim Invasion of Privacy" thread has been paywalled, I'm forced to raise the Tiaragate story here.
True to form, and making it clear that there was a to-do over the tiara, Scobie claims that there was no conflict at all between the Queen and Meghan re the tiara, instead suddenly, out of left field, in fact, out of some other galaxy, asserts that it was Harry who got angry because the Queen's beloved dresser and close friend, Angela Kelley, "dragged her feet" about giving Meghan access to the tiara for her hair trial before the wedding.
As a smokescreen, this absurd tactic of trying to find someone to throw under a bus for "damage control" has more holes in it than Bonnie's and Clyde's corpses.
First, it acknowledges that there WAS tension over the tiara; it tries to contradict the story that Charles himself never disputed when it was included in Robert Jobson's cooperative biography of Charles released for Charles' 70th birthday, but so lamely that it virtually confirms it.
Second, of all the people to throw under a bus, Angela Kelley was the wrong one. Meghan may think Kelley too low level to worry about, but like many long-time dressers, Kelley has become a confidante of the Queen and has earned her affection and trust. Kelley's loyalty to the Queen and the BRF is unquestioned and longstanding, which is more than can be said of Meghan. Picking on one of the peasants because you can is a very bad look for the Sussexes.
So, the only real issue on the tiara is not that Meghan wanted emeralds and didn't get them, and didn't act high-handedly when she didn't get them, and Harry didn't go down the corridor yelling, "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets!"
It was just this little itty-bitty thing about Kelley not getting Meghan the tiara at the moment Meghan demanded it, right?
Oh, that looks good, Meghan and Harry and Scobie! That looks really really good!
Throw the Queen's beloved dresser under the bus in a lame attempt to offset a story left undisputed by Charles in a biography with which he cooperated?
That should do the Sussexes great favours at their "year-end review".
First rule of noblesse oblige: never treat the peasants like peasants.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||07/30/2020|
The really sensible thing to do re Tiaragate was ignore it and let it die.
But nooooooooo - they have to make it worse by blaming the Queen's dresser, who would be within her rights to sue the Sussexes for libel.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||07/30/2020|
ignore it and let it die would have been the sensible option for a lot of things . Instead they went and confirmed them all for this book .
|by Anonymous||reply 61||07/30/2020|
Wait, wait. The dresser wouldn't give Megan what she wanted? When she wanted it? I suppose she didn't even ask how Megan was feeling, did she! How could Megan have been expected to bear abuse like this???
#RacistDresser #CancelTheDresser #JusticeForMegan
|by Anonymous||reply 62||07/30/2020|
The "Dresser" is a designer, steward of clothing and jewels, and confidante of the Queen. Her work is highly respected; she's been on the job for quite awhile, and is the author of authoritative books about the Queen's closet. Not really a peasant by any measure.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||07/30/2020|
Angela Kelly is one of the Queen's most trusted advisers and friends, and was selected as one of the people to serve HM while she is social distancing. She's the one who persuaded the Queen to attend that fashion show where she sat with Anna Wintour. They're picking the wrong fall-guy. (She's the lady on Anna's left in the attached photo).
|by Anonymous||reply 64||07/30/2020|
The Queen needs better stockings. Bruised legs are unsightly.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||07/30/2020|
Do Scooby's 'sources' come out and say, or just heavily imply, that Ms. Kelly is a racist?
How lucky HRH is, to have Megan and Harry and assorted 'sources' identify and publicly humiliate this vile, viperous racist in her very bosom! How #blessed!
|by Anonymous||reply 66||07/30/2020|
R66 - That's HM (Her Majesty) not HRH (Her Royal Highness) to you, sirrah.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||07/30/2020|
Drat! Thank you for the correction, R67. Duly noted!
|by Anonymous||reply 68||07/30/2020|
Incredibly dumb of them to choose the Queen's closest confidante under the bus, all while confirming that they were demanding Divas regarding the tiara.
But, what have these two done, in the last two years, that wasn't incredibly dumb? The ongoing constancy of their jaw-dropping stupidity is one of the things that makes The Harkle Show THE gossip story of the century.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||07/30/2020|
I can't decide if I'm abreast or aghast at the Sussexes' commitment to taking the short "win" over a longer victory. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||07/30/2020|
The Vladimir looks like a major tiara, the last one I would choose to avoid appearing ostentatious. The bandeau selected for Meghan by the queen was beautiful, fit the occasion and perfect for her.
I think since the piece has been rarely seen made it a very special selection by the queen to loan for the wedding. Obviously the thoughtfulness was lost on this pair.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||07/30/2020|
Why are you guys so shocked that Meghan threw QE’s confidante under the bus? She and Harry threw William the future king under the bus. They come across as mean girls, a couple of 40 year old mean girls, how sad is that?
|by Anonymous||reply 72||07/30/2020|
r64 Angela Kelly is a born and breed scouse lady. Anybody who knows anything about Liverpool and scouse women will realise that Angela would take no crap of Meghan Markle and could easily hand her her arse in any argument. Scouse women are not to be messed with and are very tenacious, forthright and no nonsense who would have no tolerance for any arrogant delusions of grandeur from a social climber like Markle. If she fuc*** with a scouse woman like Angela she made a big mistake!
|by Anonymous||reply 73||07/30/2020|
R73, I've read that HM is a gifted mimic, and can do an excellent scouse accent. I learned a bit about scouse women on some amusing threads about Cilla Black.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||07/30/2020|
Is Ms. Kelly friends with Anna Wintour then, R64?
If so, ohhhh my! There goes Megan's chance at hosting the MET Gala. Or being invited to the MET Gala. Wasn't that one of her goals (and Lainey was telling reader how Megs would dominate it, lol).
She and Harry are total morons.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||07/30/2020|
My take on Tiaragate, from the new details, is this: Meghan decided, and maybe had herself set, on wearing a tiara with emeralds at her wedding. Either she or Harry requested this, either of TQ or Angela Kelly, up front. However, there are really on two tiaras that contain emeralds: the major Vladimir, which was off limits as its worn only by TQ; and the Greville Kokoshnik eventually worn by Eugenie (tiara trolls here will correct me if wrong).
Since wearing the former was never in question, and the latter out of the running due to already being chosen by Eugenie (recall she was engaged and planning her wedding 1st, but deferred her date out of deference to Harry & Meghan) , TQ offered up alternatives as is her right. Meghan got disappointed, and Harry threw a fit as he saw it as an affront to them both, not thinking clearly re the situation or being grateful to Eug and Jack for delaying their plans. TQ called him in for a dress-down, and then presented Meghan with the appropriate alternate choices, one of which was the QM Art Deco tiara she ended up with.
The story re an emerald tiara with "unknown provenance" was a cover story, probably to keep Eug's name out of the whole mess. There was no way TQ was going to yank the choice of her own blood granddaughter away for a g-daughter-in-law, and not after Eug had graciously delayed her own plans for Harry.
I mean Kate wore the relatively tiny Cartier Halo, which is one of the smallest in the royal collection. Why would Meghan feel she was get something larger or more elaborate? More importantly, why would Harry? He is the born royal, with some knowledge of these rules/traditions and how they work in the BRF. Why wasn't he schooling his non-royal future wife?
|by Anonymous||reply 76||07/30/2020|
Good point, r75. And even if Anna isn't 'close' to Angela Kelly, she would never want to make an enemy out of her. Angela Kelly may not be Royalty, but she is someone the Queen clearly trusts and loves. That makes her very powerful, in her own unique way.
The Harkles can't seem to manage anything except repeatedly shitting where they eat.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||07/30/2020|
I’m sure in the next iteration of her book, when Meghan has even less to lose, she will say that she was trying to salvage the relationship with the family by shifting the blame on someone else, while in reality it was all evil doings of TQ who is a real Monster-in-law. MM and Omid Scobie probably thought is was such a slick move - let’s blame the help!
|by Anonymous||reply 78||07/30/2020|
If its after the divorce, she'll just blame Harry, R78.
Harry, who happily commercializes his mental illnesses. Harry, who is content to be both ringmaster and sideshow for the crass entertainment of people from whom he ought to be cultivating respect, instead. Harry, who she'll shift all blame onto, as their marriage fails. I can see it now...
"In an excerpt from his second blockbuster novel, Scobie shares that the Duchess initially had no idea who was behind the hurtful and racist plot to keep her from the tiara of her choice, thereby ruining her dream wedding, utterly. It was, in fact, Prince Harry who sussed the villain: a viper by the name of Angela Kelly, the dresser of Her Majesty! Meghan, being the meek and humble, yet strong-willed and independent biracial icon that she is, attempted to put the hateful and racially motivated attack behind her but her Harry was furious! Ranting and raving against Ms. Kelly and other palace insiders, behavior she found flattering at the time but would come to feel differently about, the longer they were married..."
|by Anonymous||reply 79||07/30/2020|
It will be years and years before they divorce, not just because the bills are piling up and she needs to get them paid first, but also because she is busy collecting "evidence" of how "unsafe" she and Archie are around "unstable Harry. Doria living with them will help with this "evidence-gathering" endeavour.
He will delay divorce too, if he ever cottons on just HOW fucked he is, as he will be incredibly embarrassed and will favour of a secret separation for a few years in order to minimise his humiliation and put off the day when he has to admit publicly that he was wrong and that she's a whore.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||07/30/2020|
If the story about Angela Kelley isn't what Scobe's book says, he'd better clear it up fast, because one of Meghan's other lapdogs, Lainey, thinks it's quite true and is also jumping on the Let's Throw the Scouse Woman Under the Bus:
From Lainey Gossip:
“'Among the behind-the-scenes insights in the book is Harry's frustration in dealing with the Queen's longtime dresser, Angela Kelly. Scobie and Durand write that Harry felt Kelly was dragging her feet in helping Meghan obtain access to her chosen tiara for a hair trial in advance of the big day on May 19, 2018.'
Angela Kelly is always around, and her intimate access to the Queen puts her in situations where she is privy to so much information. Not only that, since her job is to manage the Queen’s wardrobe, she’s often alone with the Queen or at least in the Queen’s most private quarters, so you can imagine, if she wanted to whisper some sh-t, well, she has plenty of opportunity to do. And the whispering can go in multiple directions. How far do those whispers travel? Who does she whisper to and with? "
Nice, very nice.
And they call the courtiers "vipers".
When the Queen takes the last remaining shit away from the Sussexes, they can look back at this kind of outrageous scapegoating of Kelley as one of the points at which the last shreds of HM's tolerance for their bullshit evaporated.
I hope Kelley sues.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||07/31/2020|
For anyone interested, the TIMES (UK) has reviewed "Finding Freedom" (done by Valentine Low) in which he points out several outright lies in the book (excerpt from the review below):
". . . However, for a book that sets out to put the record straight, there are curious omissions. There is nothing on the controversy over why they refused to divulge the names of Archie’s godparents, or what happened when she had an apparent meltdown on an official engagement in a market in Fiji. Their decision to set up their Megxit website on the sly without telling any of the royal family is skimmed over.
Some of it is just plain wrong. When they flew to Canada to get away from everyone in November last year, it wasn’t on Air Canada, as the authors claim, but a private jet (whoops). The authors use a couple of jobs undertaken by the couple to berate the press, complaining that coverage of their first trip to Wales omitted to point out that the reason they were an hour late was because their train was delayed. Not true: every newspaper said that their train was late. Instead of the couple being “pummeled with criticism”, the coverage was overwhelmingly positive. The Daily Mail, bête noire for Harry and Meghan, said she passed her initiation “with flying colours”.
A few days later, she wore a trouser suit to an awards ceremony. The book says she was “lambasted” for her fashion choice — in fact, she was widely praised. Laziness by the authors, who could have checked? Or cynicism?"
Low also points out the tinsely shallowness of Meghan's actual interest in Britain:
"It is quite a journey. It takes us from Meghan landing in London in June 2016 when, apparently, she was a woman on a mission: no, not to bag herself a prince — that was to come later — but to go shoe shopping. Off she goes to Selfridges where, we are told, she enjoyed looking at her favourite designers, including Stella McCartney, Chloé and Marc Jacobs.
In between shopping trips, she is busy networking. Within a few days she is being set up with a blind date with Prince Harry.
. . . . The main complaints, as far as one can tell, is that the Sussexes sometimes had to take a back seat in the royal pecking order when their proposals clashed with initiatives from Prince Charles or Prince William.
Did no one explain to Meghan that Charles is the heir to the throne, and William the next in line? And that the concept of monarchy is built upon the notion of hierarchy? If not, it was a woeful omission.
. . . On and on it goes, detail after exhausting detail: the food they ate, the designers she wore, the finer points of Meghan’s packing technique.
This is not to say that they weren’t genuinely unhappy, or that they did not feel unprotected by the Palace. They did. But this book has only one story to tell: how Harry and Meghan are the innocent victims of a wicked Palace and an even more wicked media, and it’s all everyone else’s fault. It cries out for a decent account of how things really fell apart."
In other words, everything most of us suspected all along.
The timing of the book's publication in the environment of an intractable world-wide pandemic, with millions losing jobs and life savings and lives, depressed economies, whilst two people without any real visible job continue live the lives of 1%ers thanks to Harry's name and family connections could not have been worse, or made them look more shallow, self-regarding, or irrelevant.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||08/01/2020|
"Who fucking cares? They are all boring." Not to hundreds of posters here. This thread is further evidence, were any more needed.
"Klan Granny thread. F&F and block." It again. Ignored again.
"This shit isn’t remotely believable. Why do you post garbage like this?" If it's not believable, why have you been so thoroughly refuted so often here?
"I'm curious as to why people are so obsessed with saying such nasty things about these two. This site wants them to just go away, yet a new thread is made almost daily about them. Kate gets all the support when she sued over being shirtless while sunbathing, but Meghan is called a money grubbing whore for suing over images of her son." You've already been handed your hat on this yet you keep coming back. And no one, anywhere, has said this site wants them to go away. Why? They're comedy gold and filling these pages day after day with reactions to their ridiculous antics. She's being called a money-grubbing whore (and an opponent of free speech) because she has no money, needs lots, and is getting desperate as a consequence of all the disastrous decisions she's made.
"They keep posting because they aren't gay and don't give a shit about this site. It's known who is pushing these threads. They can't be named for legal reasons due to upcoming filing of suits." This from the ultimate loon who keeps promising us lawsuits are underway - the only place they're upcoming is in her mind.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||08/01/2020|
Why are you quoting that garbage? I have it blocked so I don't have to listen to the droning.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||08/01/2020|
An article from today’s New York Post. She’s always been an entitled bitch with histrionic disorder. Though not mentioned here, I do remember the director of her corny Canadian Reitman’s ad calling her “the meanest person he had ever worked with.” A fucking Hallmark actress lording it over everyone for the equivalent of a Kohl’s shoot. You can’t make this stuff up.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||08/01/2020|
R85 - Well, you know the old saying, "Dress for the job you want, not the job you have."
|by Anonymous||reply 86||08/01/2020|
R86 But what was the job you were aiming for while duchessing ? Sausage ?
|by Anonymous||reply 87||08/01/2020|
Don’t mess with Angela Kelly! The Mail on Sunday has a very detailed reply on tiara gate ... this leak is coming from inside the, er, palace.
The Queen gave Prince Harry a dressing down for using offensive language about her closest aide, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
The scolding came after Harry, 35, flew into a rage when the Queen's dresser and confidante Angela Kelly was unable to meet Meghan's sudden demand to visit Buckingham Palace with her hairdresser to try on a tiara that the couple had chosen for their wedding.
When it was pointed out that protocol dictates an appointment must be made to access the Queen's jewels, Harry is understood to have used offensive language about Ms Kelly as he heaped pressure on courtiers to persuade her to travel to London and unlock the cupboard where the tiara is kept.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||08/01/2020|
R88 - You HAVE to know this was a leak directly from Buckingham Palace, probably on direct orders of Her Maj.
This is what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you. As usual, Meghan underestimated the capability of the Palace to play dirty, and seeing staff abused by name as a coverup for her and Harry's hugely entitled behaviour, the Palace lost patience and authorised the leak of what really happened and left the Sussexes and Omid Scobie with more egg on their faces.
No one, anywhere in the solar system, except for the unhinged SussexSquad, believes the Scobie Poor Meghan the Victim version. Everyone else knows which version has the ring of truth and which rings the lame excuse bell.
They were fools even to bring the bloody tiara issue up again.
Meghan never learns. She just - never - learns.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||08/02/2020|
Two questions re: Tiaragate. Is “hair practice” a thing now?
And when one is woke enough to hector the great unwashed about their profligate atmospheric carbon production and how they should reduce it, is it really a good look to fly your hairdresser across the channel from Paris for the day (unsuccessfully, it’d seem) for the “ hair practice? And presumably again for the wedding?
Obviously not in retrospect, but what were they thinking then?
|by Anonymous||reply 90||08/02/2020|
Yes. A "hair trial" with the head pieces, to make sure it all works together, is standard OP - not new and of longstanding . .
That wasn't at issue: what was at issue was Meghan and Harry showing up and demanding on a moment's notice to gain access to one of the Queen's personal collection of historic and valuable jewellery at a moment's notice.
Just more evidence of what a pair of self-entitled twats they are.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||08/02/2020|
How embarrassing for the French hairdresser, creatot of the atrocious dangling tendrils "style." Supposedly cost £13,000.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||08/02/2020|
|by Anonymous||reply 93||08/02/2020|
Just Harry moved to the right country, after all. Other than his pedigree, his actions with Ms. Kelly and palace staff sound like he could be any ignorant Chad who been caught on video recently, screaming and spitting at old ladies or supermarket workers when he doesn't get his way.
Megan and Just Harry ought to look into a partnership with Walmart. They fit right in.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||08/02/2020|
Plus, do we think the Queen was impressed with the schedule of a celebrity hair dresser from Paris? Harry comes off as a right royal ass who blundered about too stupid to realize he was actually trashing his fiancée’s reputation by making her look shallow and entitled. I’m not excusing her, she IS shallow and entitled, but it’s ironic that Harry is the one who shone the light on her behavior with his own temper tantrums.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||08/02/2020|
Excerpt from Jan Moir's priceless take on the Scobie book:
" . . . Each time they attempt to wrest control of the narrative, they only expose themselves to more ridicule. Sometimes one wonders if they ever stop to smell the roses or read the room or even consider the deep ignominy of their own situation.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex like to portray themselves as a deeply woke couple who fashionably concern themselves with the sins of the past and the turpitudes of history, particularly the awfulness of what went before versus the enlightenment of today.
Yet if they truly believed in any of that, they would be against hereditary royalty in every form. They would be ashamed to take their place in such an elitist conspiracy of privilege.
Yet here they are, as portrayed by sympathetic journalists in this laughable book, cavilling at every lackey or brother or newspaper who failed to deliver due deference or give them the esteem and status they feel they deserved.
They may have found freedom, but in airing these ten-a-penny gripes, they have lost even more respect."
Share or comment on this article: JAN MOIR
|by Anonymous||reply 96||08/02/2020|
r96 Lost respect and dignity and in the long run any influence or clout. I normal dislike Jan Moir but her description here is spot on.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||08/02/2020|
I like Jan Moir. She’s the one who famously called their piffle “fridge magnet philosophy.”
|by Anonymous||reply 98||08/03/2020|
R98 - I've been dining out on that "fridge magnet philosophers" phrase since the day I read it.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||08/03/2020|
So far, the Scobie book has not only done no favours for the Harkles, but has functioned as more like an own goal.
However, that's in Britain.
It doesn't get published formally in America until 11 August. How much attention it gets, whether the authors start a standard PR tour to hype it up on the morning shows, what sorts of reviews it gets there, remains to be seen.
But certainly the response in the UK makes it clear that the pair are finished in the UK and have burnt the last bridges left to get back even if they wanted to, which I doubt Meghan does, at any rate. She's let her application for UK citizenship lapse unless she's made some secret visits back that we don't know about, and the Cambridges would as soon occupy the same space as her as with a pit viper. She knows the country more or less loathes her when they think of her at all, and the Queen could no more shoehorn her back into "official" work than she could Prince Andrew.
Harry might be a different matter if things continue to go badly for their plans due to COVID, and how much less compelling they are as speakers, guests, patrons, film work, etc., than they expected.
They left a safe, secure life of not terribly hard work, paid for security, paid for home, and membership in one of the most exclusive and influential families on the planet for depending on squatting for free in the entertainment biz, dependent financially for the foreseeable future on a man who is by all odds now angry at Meghan on behalf of the institution he is sworn to uphold, the feelings of his elder son and much liked and admired daughter in law, and the disrespect to his mother.
The Harkles counted their roast chickens before they hatched, assured themselves the Universe would see that all outcomes would fall out as they had ordered, that their book would turn them into martyred heroes rather than self-regarding twats, and bit the hands that fed them before they were able to feed themselves in the style to which both are now accustomed. Seven figures likely spent on flailing at media windmills - if they're lucky, the Court will return that, but there's no guarantee.
Bad planning, bad timing, short-term thinking, arrogance, and tone-deafness re what the rest of the world is really focussed on right now.
The combination is lethal.
And her lawsuit against the MoS hasn't even come to trial yet.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||08/03/2020|
I imagine that Gayle King is going to have to show some interest in it. She did a fawning (and low rated) special about the American royal. There's an obligation to keep covering Meghan. I have no idea if King has been keeping up as the drama has unfolded or whether American talk show hosts will accept the contents of the book uncritically. They're probably not up to speed. I have no idea if the shows will do the background research. The very least they could do is read the Times and Telegraph reviews.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||08/03/2020|
Or, R101, at least have someone on staff suggest they take a look at the reviews here...
|by Anonymous||reply 102||08/03/2020|
So surprising with all of the consultants, aides, assistants, mentors and friends, these two never developed a plan B, much less plans C- F.
If they were going to exit, and with all of the early reports of COVID-19 severity, they made a major mistake leaving Canada. They both could be involved in positive programs (Yoga with the Duchess for fitness and stress control during quarantine, yoga for seniors, yoga fun for kids, healthy eating with Meghan) or the Prince presents (any topic from a developed list, using links with experts of all types for positive, informative programming during COVID times).
Something low-keyed, but consistent outreach that would have their names on widespread social media platforms every day. They would have been unbeatable when this stuff starts winding down.
It would have require a lot of work, instead of flights of fancy and wokeness every day.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||08/03/2020|
I don’t believe Harry wants to do anything that requires a lot of work.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||08/03/2020|
R104 of course not , he left the army when he would have to put in some desk work for the next step on the ladder ( Andrew and Philipp both did) , he still expected to be promoted though.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||08/03/2020|
Harry is such a shocking disappointment.
I never realised what a complete waste of space he actually is until Meghan helpfully revealed it to the world for us.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||08/03/2020|
True. Revealing Harry is something we can thank Sparkles for.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||08/03/2020|
The most popular royal. Not HM. Not Harry. Not Meghan. Not William. Not Phillip or Anne or Edward and certainly not Andrew. Nor George, Charlotte, or Louis.
But rather, their mother: Queen Kate.
Suck on that, Megstans who trashed her. All your idiotic bleating was for nothing.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||08/04/2020|
I note that the BRF cannily wished Meghan Happy Birthday! today - careful not to leave any impression of anger or play tit for tat or spitefulness.
But as they did so, each pointedly leaving off the HRH and addressing her as Meghan The Duchess of Sussex - as if she were already divorced from Harry.
They also posted really lacklustre photos of her, particularly the Queen's message, which had HM in the center in bright spring green, with Meghan off to the side in that hijus lampshade dress the visit to Chester where Meghan refused to take the polite hint and also wear a hat, which left her hair on one of its worst days visible to all.
That's the way you handle things until the time comes to lower the boom.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||08/04/2020|
r109, from what has now been said, I reckon that day was "showing" Angela Kelly that she won't take orders from servants. So instead she went out looking like a holy show.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||08/04/2020|
R110 - My guess is that MM doesn't take orders from anyone, including the Head of State of the country to which she has applied for citizenship, who also happens to be her grandmother-in-law, the Sovereign of said country, and from whom her husband got the ducal title that Meghan has been allowed to use as a courtesy, jumping up a common L.A. d-list actress to Somebody.
It's too bad MM didn't ever learn that discretion is the better part of valour.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||Last Wednesday at 3:48 AM|
My guess is also that the BRF sent those birthday messages not just to establish a track record of not being the aggressors here, but for Harry's sake, as he remains blood family - not for Meghan.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||Last Wednesday at 3:50 AM|
Did any of Megan's BFFs wish her a HBD like TRF did? Any posts from the Trudeax, the Obamas, Oprah, Serena Williams or the Carters?
No doubt they all celebrated the day with her, 'behind the scenes'!
|by Anonymous||reply 113||Last Wednesday at 7:35 AM|
That's a good question, R117. Or Serena Williams (who said something to the effect of "I'm not getting into that" when asked about Megxit). After all Meg made such a to do of attending her Wimbledon and U.S. Open matches. Or Gayle King who attended her baby shower. I tried to check Twitter myself but I was instructed to run a app update that's taking forever. I wonder if Meg stayed glued to her devices to see who did or didn't send greetings that day.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||Last Wednesday at 8:11 AM|
^Sorry. Didn't see you had Serena on the list
|by Anonymous||reply 115||Last Wednesday at 8:13 AM|
When are Meg and Harry getting an Instagram account back? I rather miss them, and I’m sure they miss having an outlet.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||Last Wednesday at 11:23 AM|
Well, we'll just have to continue the lawsuit discussion here.
It's nice to see, Muriel, how you reward people for doing their damndest to keep threads on topic, exclude the usual hate blather, and address a major international news story here.
We'll just keep opening the threads and I don't want to hear any complaints from people about why there are so many threads on Meghan Markle.
Nor will stop discussing the suit.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||Last Wednesday at 3:14 PM|
Omid Scobie is likely to be subpoenaed now, both as the author of the book which will be used as "similar fact" evidence, and about careless remarks he made some time ago about the letter and the expectation that it would find its way into the public sphere, and equally careless stuff in the FF book, such as ". . .after analysing texts Harry sent to Meghan . . ."
Harry's friends had and shared with Omid Scobie texts he'd sent to Meghan?
|by Anonymous||reply 118||Last Thursday at 2:20 AM|
I suspect 33-year old Scoobie will be delighted to appear at the trial -- he'll get his pitcher in the paper!
|by Anonymous||reply 119||Last Thursday at 6:00 AM|
r119, I do hope they bring that up in the witness box to reference his relationship to the truth. lol. " is it true Mr Scobie , you cleared your social media going back 12 years to remove any mention of your true age ? and that you are in fact 39."
|by Anonymous||reply 120||Last Thursday at 6:14 AM|
The way Markle is messing around in plain sight on this lawsuit is mind boggling. She can't be trusted...watch your back Scoobie.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||Last Thursday at 7:00 AM|
R118 I suspect that's the reason why the MoS's attorneys have put him officially into the casefiles now.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||Last Thursday at 12:54 PM|
Love it that the court mentioned in the ruling that the Claimant had leaked information about the filings to the media.
Mr Justice Warby has clearly put Meghan on notice that he views her actions with distaste, is well aware of her games, doesn't like them, and threw her a bone with this ruling but reserves the right to take the bone back AND has exposed her dishonesty about passing private info to the media when it suits her . . . so to speak.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||Last Friday at 3:36 AM|
So what papers have been the beneficiaries of Sussex leaks?
|by Anonymous||reply 124||Last Friday at 5:05 AM|
The more one reads into Justice Warby's ruling last week, the savvier and more frustrated he sounds. He wants the case to move forward, he's made it clear to Meghan that the privacy ruling is only for the moment and that as soon as they're called to testify and they become part of the court record, that confidentiality benefit is out the window, and he actually brings up the need for transparency around trials so the public knows it can trust the justice system.
Thus, this really is only a temporary reprieve and you can practically hear Warby on the brink of losing his temper at the bullshit being pulled by Meghan, and to a lesser extent, the MoS.
This leaves Meghan and her five "friends" (one of whom may be Bettina Litt, after all, as well as Serena Williams, both of whom should have known better) in an interesting position: if they're subpoenaed as witnesses, they become part of the record and are publicly identified, anyway. If they refuse to testify, the public assume they're just avoiding having to perjure themselves to save Meghan's case; if they do testify, they will come in for grueling and very public cross-examination by White, known as the best in the business at cross. The ruling already identifies at least two of the five as living in North America (which covers Canada).
They have, I suspect, all lawyered up, especially if they intend to ignore a subpoena and/or figure they'll end up testifying. If they have lawyered up, it's a safe bet they've all been advised to cut off contact with Meghan.
And the other big question that the PEOPLE article raises is not just whether Meghan deliberately shared her father's letter with them knowing they would reference it in the article, but why, if it breached her privacy rights, she didn't sue PEOPLE? It also breached her father's privacy rights and defamed him. Only he doesn't have the money to sue - instead he gave the letter to the MoS in an attempt to give his side of the story.
There is a very large risk here of the non-moneyed father unable to obtain the legal help his daughter is accessing due to her husband's wealth.
It's really ugly all around and even if she wins the suit in the end can't do anything but make Meghan look worse.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||Last Saturday at 4:43 AM|
R125 I still doubt that Serena Williams is one of the five friends. She’s be a brain dead dolt if she put her neck on the line. But you never know...
The Sun had put out a speculative article over who the five friends are. I think this is their way of confirming.
Lastly, it must have killed that stooge Scobie to have been named as “someone called Omid Scobie” in Justice Warby’s decision. What a deliciously British denigration!
|by Anonymous||reply 126||Last Saturday at 11:33 AM|
R126 - Four of those women are either 38 or 40 years old, and a fifth, Rafferty, is 47, nearly menopausal. Describing them as "young mothers" is hilarious. Meghan herself had what in medical terminology is called a "geriatric" pregnancy: i.e., any pregnancy in a woman 35 or over, especially a first one.
Meanwhile, either The SUN is just milking the story, complete with another wearisome rundown of the timeline and content of the filings, or someone at the MoS leaked the names to as a favour to tabloid Fellow Travellers. This does a favour for The SUN, and leaves the MoS to escape being nailed for defying the Court whilst sticking it to Meghan and the Five.
All The SUN had to so was state it as a question rather than a fact, and the journos will be after those five women despite all Meghan's efforts. They can now issue public denials or No Comments responses when the calls start coming in.
If this was a leak from the MoS, it had better have covered its tracks really, really well. If is was a leak by the MoS and can be proven, Warby's Wrath will come down like thunder, and the MoS will only have helped Meghan.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||Last Sunday at 4:50 AM|
For her friends, being hugged by Meghan is the equivalent of a Mafia kiss.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||Last Sunday at 9:38 AM|