Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Prince Harry and Meghan Sign Megawatt Netflix Deal

(I did a couple of searches and could not find anything on this--if it is up elsewhere, at least I tried.)

I love their use of made-up words like "impactful" in their meaningless woke corporate babble.

[quote]“Our focus will be on creating content that informs but also gives hope,” the couple said in a statement. “As new parents, making inspirational family programming is also important to us.” They added that Netflix’s “unprecedented reach will help us share impactful content that unlocks action.” Netflix has 193 million subscribers worldwide.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 600September 13, 2020 6:51 PM

It will be very interesting to see what they come up with.

I'll bet this is a mega-deal moneywise.

by Anonymousreply 1September 2, 2020 6:06 PM

I'll bet that undisclosed sum is astonishingly low.

Covid market is not a 'talent' market.

by Anonymousreply 2September 2, 2020 6:08 PM

R2 - you're WRONG.

by Anonymousreply 3September 2, 2020 6:10 PM

🤮.

by Anonymousreply 4September 2, 2020 6:10 PM

These two are insufferable

by Anonymousreply 5September 2, 2020 6:12 PM

[quote] I did a couple of searches and could not find anything on this--if it is up elsewhere, at least I tried

In case you’re interested, OP, see link below. It was a few posts below your new thread on my feed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6September 2, 2020 6:14 PM

We are so thrilled about our new upcoming series "Ananya Teaches About Recycling." It's an ongoing series about a young girl of Indian descent who goes around Manchester teaching various people how to recycle more efficiently. It's sure to be a huge hit with children.

by Anonymousreply 7September 2, 2020 6:17 PM

Manchester, New Hampshire or Manchester, England, R7?

by Anonymousreply 8September 2, 2020 6:20 PM

Ah - it's an option deal. No money changes hands until Netflix likes the finished product.

So Charlie better get ready to hand out a LOT more cash to his little darlings. Production insurance in the age of Covid is now doubly astronomical.

by Anonymousreply 9September 2, 2020 6:33 PM

The deal makes more sense if they paid Netflix for the right to announce that Netflix has taken an option.

by Anonymousreply 10September 2, 2020 7:18 PM

Can't these people do anything right? Should they have stayed in England and become increasingly irrelevant, salaried members of TRF performing "royal duties"? So they and their children could wind up like the Yorks? I'm no fan of theirs but I honestly don't understand all the hate.

by Anonymousreply 11September 2, 2020 7:33 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12September 2, 2020 7:34 PM

$150 million is kind of high. But let’s say it is that amount, then in reality it’s $75 million after taxes and agent fees. Still a nice change and it remains to be seen if they’re pocketing all of that or putting a big chunk of it into their foundation like the super wealthy people with foundations do. Those folks don’t go around begging for seed money for their foundations, they contribute their own seed money.

by Anonymousreply 13September 2, 2020 7:38 PM

[quote] Should they have stayed in England and become increasingly irrelevant, salaried members of TRF performing "royal duties"? So they and their children could wind up like the Yorks?

Well, you picked your example to weigh the case towards your argument. Why do they have to be like the Yorks? Why cannot they be like the Gloucesters, or the Kents, or Princess Alexandra and her husbands?

If they are receiving money from the British nation through Harry's birth position, and they still want to hold onto their titles, they should stay in the UK. Otherwise they should reject all their money from Charles as well as their titles.

by Anonymousreply 14September 2, 2020 7:40 PM

Nah - the Fail says "up to" $150 million and we all know what "up to" means.

Savings of "up to" 75% and then it turns out that it's mostly 5% with two shitty items at 75% off.

These kinds of deals are not $150 million up-front, not even for President and Mrs. Obama. They got a lot more than Harry and Meghan but they are more established, more serious, more famous, have stronger track records and are both best-selling authors with proven fan-bases who have come out for them again and again over many years.

Harry and Meghan, alas, have none of that. We'll see how this goes.

by Anonymousreply 15September 2, 2020 7:44 PM

$u$$exe$ making Megha bucks.

by Anonymousreply 16September 2, 2020 7:53 PM

There’s nothing in the actual announcement that suggests what they will be paid. They reportedly wanted $100 million—who doesn’t?—but Disney and Apple passed on that.

by Anonymousreply 17September 2, 2020 8:01 PM

Didn't it turn out the Obamas got a $50 million dollar deal? If that's true then how on earth would Ginge and Cringe get even half of that, much less than three times that?

More PR spin.

by Anonymousreply 18September 2, 2020 10:37 PM

Why should a dumb prince and a conniving actress necessarily have great ideas about what people want to see on television? I just don;t understand the thinking here.

"Do you want to watch this new 12-part documentary series about pollution in the world's oceans?"

"It sounds worthy but unspeakably boring--I'll pass."

"But it was produced by Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan!"

"Harry and Meghan were the producers? Let's watch right now!"

by Anonymousreply 19September 2, 2020 11:19 PM

Everything will be sub-contracted but the Sparkles will have top billing.

by Anonymousreply 20September 2, 2020 11:23 PM

r18 the difference probably is that the Obamas got that much upfront from Netflix, given their education, profile, and accomplishments over many decades.

The $150 million quoted for today's deal is an options deal, whereby they give Netflix first view of any content they produce and Netflix can decide to purchase it. I believe it will only pay for completely produced content though - not fund it. If I'm wrong someone will correct me.

by Anonymousreply 21September 2, 2020 11:30 PM

Charles should cut them off totally as they are now no longer in need of his money.

by Anonymousreply 22September 2, 2020 11:32 PM

The deal is rumoured to be for 150m. You Klan whores swore up and down that none of the TV companies would be interested and they have a deal with one of the biggest.

by Anonymousreply 23September 2, 2020 11:51 PM

On the contrary, r22, Charles is now on the hook for at least an extra few million a year to cover production costs.

by Anonymousreply 24September 2, 2020 11:54 PM

I'm sure this will go over well with British taxpayers. Don't they pick up for the bill for the RF?

by Anonymousreply 25September 3, 2020 12:04 AM

Yeah why would Netflix pay that much to those two boring uninteresting grifters. What have they done to greatly benefit the world?

by Anonymousreply 26September 3, 2020 12:05 AM

LMAO!! They are a joke.

Does someone here think they are getting paid $150 million or something like that. This isn't some salary. They have to produce content and either netflix will put the money up for production costs or they will buy their "content" after it's done which leaves it up to them to fund it.

by Anonymousreply 27September 3, 2020 12:08 AM

Who wants to watch Harry and Meaghan blathering on about inspiring topics? They have no credibility or particular talent. I think the general public is pretty smart. People see the money grabbing and grifting-this is going to bomb.

by Anonymousreply 28September 3, 2020 12:09 AM

There’s been no substantiated report about what this deal is or isn’t worth. There have been vague statements asserting that it could be worth “up to” $100 million or whatever, but that’s probably true of every agreement Netflix makes. Sure, you might make money, but nothing is guaranteed, and if they don’t see quick results they will cancel your ass.

by Anonymousreply 29September 3, 2020 12:10 AM

They likely signed a 9-figure deal. These grifters are set for life.

by Anonymousreply 30September 3, 2020 12:11 AM

It will be Netflix's first royal shitshow, yet another shitshow from from the streaming giant. Don't they have enough shit in their shitter already? All the Mexican movies/series they have just released are shit and I didn't even bother to leech them.

by Anonymousreply 31September 3, 2020 12:12 AM

R31. True. A lot of the foreign movies and tv shows are shit except when the characters are naked.

by Anonymousreply 32September 3, 2020 12:13 AM

This sort of ruins season 4 of the Crown, because now we know that Diana will be treated with kid gloves so as not to offend Prince Harry.

No depictions of her thousands of nighttime hang-up phone calls to Oliver Hoare, no throwing herself down the stairs when pregnant with William, not attempt to kill her step mother....Damn what a missed opportunity that will be.

by Anonymousreply 33September 3, 2020 12:17 AM

Didn't think of it that way r33. I think the producer of that show works pretty independently - we'll still see shit.

None of the money will be upfront. We'll get details of the deal itself in the coming days, as people on both sides of it leak like sieves. Patience my friends.

by Anonymousreply 34September 3, 2020 12:30 AM

I hope you're right, r34. I love the Crown and how they show some of the more difficult sides of the characters. That's one thing that makes it so good.

by Anonymousreply 35September 3, 2020 12:51 AM

Netflix isn't paying them ANY millions upfront or anything like that. They'll only make money if Netflix buys the show. Neither Disney nor apple nor NBC wanted to sign them on. This is a misleading article. If they were paid "millions", they would've bragged about the amount.

Netflix hasn't ratified what harry's PR is saying. Read and you'll see that they say that they're happy harry chose them. Netflix didn't go after them. When neither Disney, apple nor NBC would work with them, sunshine got them registered in the approved production company's list

by Anonymousreply 36September 3, 2020 1:06 AM

'Why cannot they be like the Gloucesters, or the Kents, or Princess Alexandra and her husbands?'

Because they're all dry and dull and staid as fuck, traipsing around cutting ribbons in the rain while the Cambridges get the few glamorous jobs available. Would you rather do that, always in William's shadow, or live in southern California and front and produce your own Netflix documentaries?

by Anonymousreply 37September 3, 2020 1:11 AM

'This sort of ruins season 4 of the Crown, because now we know that Diana will be treated with kid gloves so as not to offend Prince Harry.'

They've already filmed Season 4 so I wouldn't worry about that. I don't think S4 even covers the later years when Charles was unfaithful and Di started to spaz out.

by Anonymousreply 38September 3, 2020 1:13 AM

'It will be Netflix's first royal shitshow, yet another shitshow from from the streaming giant. Don't they have enough shit in their shitter already? All the Mexican movies/series they have just released are shit and I didn't even bother to leech them'

The Scat Troll is back. Mind filled with manure.

by Anonymousreply 39September 3, 2020 1:14 AM

R39 - eat shit and die, Meghan. Your show will be a shitshow and no one will even want to t0rrent it.

by Anonymousreply 40September 3, 2020 1:21 AM

Presumably they will be taking advantage of the US/UK double tax treaty. CA is quite aggressive in its taxes too. I don't know about Montecito/SB but I read somewhere that the property taxes on their pile are $220K per year.

by Anonymousreply 41September 3, 2020 1:23 AM

When you think they can’t sink any lower.....

by Anonymousreply 42September 3, 2020 1:26 AM

Trouble is that Hal is aging badly, fast. He is gonna get fat real soon; and he'll be bald; hardly photogenic. I assume part of the divorce will be that he let himself go (no mention of Windsor-Spencer fucked genes) and imperiled the family's earning capacity. Rigt now Harry needs his teefs straightened.

by Anonymousreply 43September 3, 2020 1:30 AM

[quote] This sort of ruins season 4 of the Crown, because now we know that Diana will be treated with kid gloves so as not to offend Prince Harry.

Season 4 has been finished for weeks now; shooting for it finished months ago (right before the shutdown).

Even if I believe this would affect that show (which I enormously doubt--it's Netflix's most prestigious show, with prestigious stars and a prestigious showrunner), it would not affect it until season 5--which in fact has already been written over the summer. (Diana will be dead in most of season 6) Netflix is not going to fuck with their prize show just to please Harry, who as so many of you are pointing out may not even produce good content for them that they will use.

by Anonymousreply 44September 3, 2020 1:36 AM

I also think good for them. If they can get the money, why not?

by Anonymousreply 45September 3, 2020 1:38 AM

Ryan Murphy's Netflix deal was $300 million, so $150 million for Meghan seems reasonable.

by Anonymousreply 46September 3, 2020 1:39 AM

B U M P

by Anonymousreply 47September 3, 2020 1:40 AM

'eat shit and die, Meghan. Your show will be a shitshow and no one will even want to t0rrent it.'

[ Check out the cretinous trailer trash who thinks you still go to Blockbusters to rent videos. People subscribe to Netflix and access all its programmes. M and H are guaranteed a huge audience who are already captivated by Netflix shows like The Crown. Of course they'll choose to watch their beloved Harry.

by Anonymousreply 48September 3, 2020 1:53 AM

'He is gonna get fat real soon;'

He'll be the first in his family to do so, then. More likely to stay trim living in a climate where you can run, hike and surf year round.

by Anonymousreply 49September 3, 2020 1:55 AM

I seem to remember Netflix used to send us DVDs in the post. Is this the same company?

by Anonymousreply 50September 3, 2020 1:56 AM

[quote] Ryan Murphy's Netflix deal was $300 million, so $150 million for Meghan seems reasonable.

He's produced and has run several successful shows so far for multiple networks; and she's produced and has run exactly... zero.

by Anonymousreply 51September 3, 2020 2:58 AM

[quote] If they can get the money, why not?

Thank you for weighing in, President Trump.

by Anonymousreply 52September 3, 2020 2:58 AM

Well, I was hoping that the Harkles would fail. Can’t stand either one of their sanctimonious, self-righteous asses. However, this is a step forward toward success even if there is no upfront money just yet.

by Anonymousreply 53September 3, 2020 3:16 AM

r37 I really must protest !Princess Alexandra is divi6not staid!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 54September 3, 2020 3:20 AM

Divine!!^^^🙈🙈😁

by Anonymousreply 55September 3, 2020 3:21 AM

I think when it comes on I'm going to cancel my Netflix for a little while. When I cancel and they ask for a reason. I'm going to put their names. Doesn't Netflix realize that people are sick of them? And we didn't want them to move to the states in the first place.

by Anonymousreply 56September 3, 2020 3:22 AM

I had the interesting experience of working as assistant to one of the editors (yes, there are more than one) of the recent HQ release "Finding Freedom". I thought you guys - especially the Crown sympathizers like r11 - might like to know that while the British Royal Family does occasionally come across rather poorly in the book, there were also definitely bits that, while verified to be true by numerous sources, were in the end kept from the finished draft. This was done mostly at the behest of one of our senior editors, who in addition to being quite old is also conservative.

For instance, it was left out that one of the main reasons Prince Harry and Meghan Markle left the U.K. is the noxious stench that fires from QEII's practically decomposing cunt. There is absolutely no way to remove it (the smell) from any room she's entered. This is one reason Miss Markle wanted to use air fresheners in St. George's Chapel at Windsor the day of her wedding. The Prince had warned Markle what it was like to live with this fetid, all-pervading stink but she had no idea it could be so bad. Ultimately, she felt it was best to raise her child away from the toxic reek, which court doctors still do not understand.

Anyway, ask me any questions if you like. My contract with the publisher's up.

by Anonymousreply 57September 3, 2020 3:39 AM

[quote]OP: I love their use of made-up words like "impactful"

The word [bold]impactful[/bold] came into use in the 1960s.... you know, during the Civil Rights era?

I guess you missed that.

by Anonymousreply 58September 3, 2020 3:44 AM

R58, “impactful” is associated, not with the civil rights movement, but with bad writing. “Impact,” in its many forms, was used constantly by the Pentagon during Vietnam briefings (“our decision was impacted by . . .”).

by Anonymousreply 59September 3, 2020 4:20 AM

It’s in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Dig yourself deeper - -

by Anonymousreply 60September 3, 2020 4:31 AM

“$150 million is kind of high. But let’s say it is that amount, then in reality it’s $75 million after taxes and agent fees”

Fuck that!

by Anonymousreply 61September 3, 2020 4:33 AM

I'm definitely not a fan of the Susseces, but if they're able to develop a successful income stream, then good for them. I wouldn't pay for their 'product', but I suppose someone might.

by Anonymousreply 62September 3, 2020 4:39 AM

"Impactful" is absolutely bad writing. It's a terrible jargon word.

by Anonymousreply 63September 3, 2020 4:52 AM

I wish Harry and Meghan good luck in their new venture. They are trying to do something good. Are you? In whatever small way, what are you doing?

by Anonymousreply 64September 3, 2020 5:12 AM

I want to work with them. How do I go about that? Advise, DL.

by Anonymousreply 65September 3, 2020 5:18 AM

R64 the "Doing something good for humanity" part comes a very distant second to "leveraging Royal status for shitloads of money and fame". Let's be real.

by Anonymousreply 66September 3, 2020 5:25 AM

Exactly, r66. They're utterly repulsive.

by Anonymousreply 67September 3, 2020 5:27 AM

Those who start the sentence with: I'm not a fan of... but...., is in fact a fan. If you are not a fan, you don't have to mention it. Stupid people who can't lie. Same as those despicable Trump defenders on DL.

by Anonymousreply 68September 3, 2020 7:53 AM

This story needs much more gay sex and/or cock pics

by Anonymousreply 69September 3, 2020 7:55 AM

Does pegging count, r69?

by Anonymousreply 70September 3, 2020 8:05 AM

R70 - not really, but provide more details so that we may judge.

by Anonymousreply 71September 3, 2020 9:52 AM

$150 million? Haha, not even close. At least they're getting slightly more realistic with their numbers. Remember when they tried to tell us they were worth a billion?

by Anonymousreply 72September 3, 2020 9:57 AM

The New York TIMES covered the story with a tad more balance and reality than the tabloids did:

"Harry and Meghan sign production deal with Netflix | News | The Times. . . .

A source said that the couple wanted to create programmes “about stories and issues that resonate with them personally . . . enabling a more compassionate and equitable world”.

A senior industry source said that Meghan would “believe she’s getting full creative control” but that the executive producer’s credits she was likely to receive were “thrown around like confetti”. “TV networks, Netflix included, don’t let the lunatics run the asylum,” the source said. “Meghan will no doubt want to cast herself as Mother Teresa but that’s not how it’s going to pan out.”

Tom Nunan, a former studio executive who lectures at UCLA’s graduate school of film and television, predicted that the couple would receive an exclusivity fee of at least $5 million. He said that Netflix would also probably cover overheads and the cost of hiring producers and employees at the couple’s company. “What you are buying is either talent or access,” he said. “The duke and duchess have unique access, not only to the upper reaches of British society but around the world.”

Alan Wolk, a founder of TV Rev, which analyses the media industry, said that social justice and documentaries were “evergreen” for Netflix, adding: “It also helps their image that they support orphans and lost puppies or whatever.”

OK, cards on the table: would you subscribe to Netflix to watch a show made by Harry and Meghan (Carol Midgley writes)? A venture that is being dubbed — and I doubt it is flatteringly meant — “woke TV”?

I will level with you, if I wasn’t a journalist I would not. And I am not even a shouty member of the anti-Sussex brigade. The couple’s statement alone, brimming as it is with meaningless management speak, is enough to put anyone off. What is “impactful content that unlocks action” when it’s at home? What can we expect from “powerful storytelling through a truthful and relatable lens”? Can a lens be relatable? The couple say that their programmes will “give hope”. Here’s what I hope: that their shows are snappier than their press releases.

However, they must be careful. No one likes to be preached to, especially if the preachers happen to be living in a $15 million mansion in Santa Barbara. It is difficult to imagine the couple won’t be seen or heard, even if it is just Meghan doing the voiceovers as she did in the Disney documentary Elephant. In his review for The Times Ed Potton said, incidentally: “Boy does she lay it on thick.”

Do viewers want their “resilience built” when they watch TV? I think they just want to be entertained."

Meghan doesn't like being told what to do. The $150 million the tabs hysterically threw out there is likely bullshit, and $5 million up front is more likely, and the content still has to be approved and bought - and then has to sell on Netflix.

And the real story here isn't so much the deal itself, whose worth remains to be seen, but the glaring truth that marrying Harry was just a stepping-stone for Meghan: this is what her endgame was all along.

Fair play to a successful con artist, and it really does make the BRF look like a pack of gullible fools.

by Anonymousreply 73September 3, 2020 11:27 AM

Now, these two realize that such an undertaking requires a certain level of skill and a degree of hard work? Right?

by Anonymousreply 74September 3, 2020 11:40 AM

Never mind all that. Whatever Sparkles makes will "enable a compassionate and equitable world," just remember that. So sooooo Important.

by Anonymousreply 75September 3, 2020 11:46 AM

R74 - They're not providing "skill", they're providing "access". That's the deal; Netflix will rewrite, edit, and polish their "work product" and the Harkles will get their names on it. What Netflix is paying for is name recognition (thank you, Betty Windsor!) that it hopes will pull in audiences and ratings and make the company lots of money.

That's how this game is played. Without those titles, does anyone really think Meghan would have been able to sell Netflix anything?

And, they were in talks for this same sort of deal with Apple, Disney, NBC - they all turned the Harkles down.

Proof of the pudding, and all that. We'll just sit tight and watch.

by Anonymousreply 76September 3, 2020 11:56 AM

Oh, bullshit. They’ll be doing D-list reality shows is 3..2..1.

They have no nuance or sense of creativity. All of their projects will be some form of lecture on (fill in the insufferable topic). And they will fail. So they’ll resort to producing crap just like 99% of Producers.

by Anonymousreply 77September 3, 2020 12:01 PM

They have burned so many bridges it's difficult to see what access they could procure for Netflix. Anyway this will all go down in flames when Meghzy realises she does not have control over production - "fuck the $150m, I demand CONTROL."

by Anonymousreply 78September 3, 2020 12:41 PM

Whatever these posers crap out is going to be so bad the contract will be cut.

Unimaginative, entitled and over their depth in all things.

Except grifting. Only the first rule of grifting is to keep it out of the public eye.

by Anonymousreply 79September 3, 2020 12:43 PM

We’re all in agreement that Meghan is— or soon will be— fucking around on him, right?

She will try to “trade up” for some mega Hollywood type (who might be briefly intrigued until He realizes that the only interesting thing about Meghan is that she’s married to a prince), and it will not end well, for either Meghan or Harry.

by Anonymousreply 80September 3, 2020 1:19 PM

This is excellent new.

Good for her, that she was able to hoodwink another group of suckers. I’m actually Team Meghan on this one, because schadenfreude. Some dope(s) think they can come out ahead by partnering with these grifters. You can’t cheat an honest man.

A close family member is a TV producer, so I have a teeny measure of insight into how much work it is to produce content (a LOT). One thing Meghan has in her favor is that she’s a demanding personality who can manipulate and kiss ass. It’s not foolproof, but it helps.

by Anonymousreply 81September 3, 2020 2:24 PM

R80, Meghan is over 40. Ain't nobody chasing her old ass. Prince Harry must be gay, otherwise he would have married a hot young thang to have his children. His current beard is like expired milk. Nobody wants it.

by Anonymousreply 82September 3, 2020 2:35 PM

R45 Why not? Because it goes against everything the queen and the british monarchy stand for.

by Anonymousreply 83September 3, 2020 2:35 PM

It will probably be some insufferably preachy documentary.

by Anonymousreply 84September 3, 2020 2:42 PM

Good insights here, I didn't believe they were being given $150 mil upfront. The reality is, this is their one-shot deal: if it works out well and the content is viewable and sells, they'll have earned a beginning reputation and gained a toehold to do more work.

However if its all bland or if it sucks: get ready to return to Blighty for the next Trouping and a visit with Dad and Gan Gan. Their lifestyle at this point is so expensive, it's all or nothing in terms of their success needs. They've rather boxed themselves in, financially.

by Anonymousreply 85September 3, 2020 2:44 PM

Why don't they make a movie TOGETHER? Say, a remake of "Brief Encounter"....or, better, "Of Human Bondage." Meghan would be the perfect Mildred, ensnaring a clueless idiot. She'd win awards! And she wants awards, badly.

by Anonymousreply 86September 3, 2020 2:46 PM

There is nothing about Harry that gives the impression he could produce anything, or even know the first thing about that kind of work. The man is so dim he's almost borderline retarded. As others have said, it's likely other people will be making the decisions and doing all the heavy lifting.

by Anonymousreply 87September 3, 2020 2:48 PM

[quote]Check out the cretinous trailer trash who thinks you still go to Blockbusters

What is Blockbuster, Auntie R48? Some ancient place you rented videos from when you could still go out of your house?

by Anonymousreply 88September 3, 2020 2:54 PM

There are waay too many news stories about how they increased their net worth recently. They seem to be more concerned about telling the masses about how loaded they are. And with their supposed pet causes, such as empowering poor women, the environment and support for marginalized people, it just smacks of hypocrisy. Its just weird, because you only see speculation about the Obamas and most other people. They act like hillbillies who just got a windfall.

by Anonymousreply 89September 3, 2020 2:58 PM

It's self-delusion on the toxic duo, so they don't feel so miserable about their grave mistake of leaving the BRF. Just sad.

by Anonymousreply 90September 3, 2020 3:09 PM

[QUOTE] We’re all in agreement that Meghan is— or soon will be— fucking around on him, right? She will try to “trade up” for some mega Hollywood type (who might be briefly intrigued until He realizes that the only interesting thing about Meghan is that she’s married to a prince), and it will not end well, for either Meghan or Harry.

This is painfully stupid. Her marketability rests on her being married to Harry. Netflix aren't going to pay for documentaries featuring Meghan and some random billionaire.

by Anonymousreply 91September 3, 2020 3:11 PM

Why don't they make a movie TOGETHER? Say, a remake of "Brief Encounter"....or, better, "Of Human Bondage." Meghan would be the perfect Mildred, ensnaring a clueless idiot. She'd win awards! And she wants awards, badly.

They can produce a show, perhaps called "Tate Biddleton" about an evil queen bee, worst than Hitler, who is forever doing cruel things like just sending flowers, not offering rides around a city block or not calling high maintenance pregnant women.

by Anonymousreply 92September 3, 2020 3:13 PM

180m bitches

by Anonymousreply 93September 3, 2020 3:13 PM

180 meters? Is that how far her vag stretches when fantasizing about windfalls while diddling herself?

by Anonymousreply 94September 3, 2020 3:17 PM

R94 - W&W for you! Thanks for the laugh!

by Anonymousreply 95September 3, 2020 3:19 PM

She is coming out of the film industry. Natural she would look into getting into the production end of things. Good move.

by Anonymousreply 96September 3, 2020 3:43 PM

Jealous, bitches!?

by Anonymousreply 97September 3, 2020 3:46 PM

R93, it will be at least $200 million by the end of the day.

by Anonymousreply 98September 3, 2020 3:46 PM

Meghan just keeps suing tabloids even though, in this case, I suspect that she called them to photograph her. The shots stopped AFTER Harry came home.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 99September 3, 2020 3:56 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 100September 3, 2020 4:25 PM

Meghan is now worth over $100 million! She's the most successful social-climber in the history of the world.

by Anonymousreply 101September 3, 2020 4:35 PM

Maybe they'll do what Chelsea Handler and Zac Efron did - a superficial "let's talk to people who are changing the world" show which is really just an excuse to travel the world on Netflix's dime.

by Anonymousreply 102September 3, 2020 4:35 PM

1.) Why are your posts always so needlessly long, r73?

2.) re:[italic] “ would you subscribe to Netflix to watch a show made by Harry and Meghan (Carol Midgley writes)? A venture that is being dubbed — and I doubt it is flatteringly meant — ‘woke TV’?” [/italic]I don’t think Netflix has to worry so much about attracting new subscribers (the pandemic took care of that) but about providing a variety of content for the huge number of subscribers they already have.

It’s just another show in their line up, not something that will make or break the product that is Netflix.

by Anonymousreply 103September 3, 2020 4:38 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 104September 3, 2020 4:53 PM

Netflix proudly presents, a Sussex Royal production, based on a true story

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 105September 3, 2020 5:04 PM

Omg... I would LOVE it if they did a documentary like Queen of Versailles set in their Montecito McMansion where Megs takes all their old clothes to good will and Hal does the McNugget run in the Bentley.

by Anonymousreply 106September 3, 2020 5:33 PM

re the news at r99: do she and Harry have some kind of bottomless pit of funds for lawyers? This is insane, the huge amount of litigation they are piling up.

And those shots in Vancouver were clearly staged and planned.

by Anonymousreply 107September 3, 2020 5:48 PM

I'm sure the photographer and photo agency have documentation of contacts with Meghan's minions and Sunshine Sachs. The photos themselves tell the story. She obviously spotted the camera and smiled broadly for it.

And who straps a baby to their chest to walk the dog?

by Anonymousreply 108September 3, 2020 5:55 PM

People magazine must be on Sunshine Sach's payroll. They have fawning articles constantly.

by Anonymousreply 109September 3, 2020 5:58 PM

The tabs are milking the price tag for all they're worth, deliberately omitting a few inconvenient facts: Netflix is paying them for "ideas" that other people hired by Netflix will "develop", the Harkles are probably just going to get a few million up front for outlines of their "ideas", and further profits depend on how well the shows sell and how big an audience they attract over time.

That's where the huge sum is buried, not up front. So the people screaming for them now to pay back the renos on Frogmore in a lump sum are spitting in the Dover Straits.

Meghan and Harry are carrying huge monthly expenses, and are pursuing four separate lawsuits using high-priced legal counsel.

The best thing the BRF could do for itself is to cut the Harkles loose based on their "huge" contract with Netflix, pay off Frogmore, and get the two hypocrites off the BRF's back.

Meghan won't care any longer: she got what she came for and couldn't get on her own talents. Harry may feel a twinge or two, but he also got what he wanted: a final act of revenge on a family upon whom he projected all his own problems. Neither he nor Meghan wanted to spend their lives as working royals, but both of them needed exposure As A Royal Couple before they could jump ship.

The Queen and Charles were conned like girls at the fair gaga over Billy Bigelow.

Maybe they deserve it. But even if they do, it doesn't make the Sussexes look any better.

It's been a fascinating show, all right.

If I were Meghan, I'd pull the lawsuit. She's got what she wanted, Britain is over for her, it should be fading into the mist - unless, of course, the benighted BRF is still clinging on to Harry in desperation and lets them return and get more Look We're Royal! photo ops . . .

You couldn't make it up, you really couldn't.

by Anonymousreply 110September 3, 2020 5:59 PM

R108 - Not only that, but who straps a 14 month old facing inward so he can't enjoy the view, AND unstraps half of his carrier so she can shove his head sideways so the paps can get a good shot of her smiling face? Not to mention, who glues on false eyelashes (they were very obvious when the photos were looked at closely) to take the kid and the dog for a walk, wearing hiking boots and a braid under a woolly hat?!

Answer: someone who knows she's going to be photographed but doesn't want the kid's face to show.

by Anonymousreply 111September 3, 2020 6:06 PM

The Spectator (UK) has gotten on the scoreboard with a withering assessment of the Netflix story:

Excerpt:

"Joanna Williams What’s galling about the Sussexes’ Netflix announcement 3 September 2020, 7:40am

". . . . What’s galling about the Sussexes’ Netflix announcement is not the platitudes or even the programme proposals – we have come to expect all this from the quote-a-woke twosome. No, as always, it is the gulf between their overblown rhetoric and reality that grates. For all the talk of giving hope and inspiration and building resilience, it turns out that if you want to head-up a television production company then what you really need is to be born – or marry – into vast wealth. A contact book that includes Hollywood’s finest A-listers, world leaders and former presidents seems to help too.

Like his uncle before him, Harry has no experience whatsoever of working in film or media. Meghan’s stint on Suits and voiceover for a Disney documentary on elephants provides her with some familiarity with life front-of-camera. But it’s all a world away from production.

The message this sends to teenagers about to start a BTEC in media studies at Bolton Sixth Form College or students about to run up huge debts in order to gain a degree in film-making at Manchester Metropolitan University is anything but inspirational. They will no doubt be disappointed to discover that no matter how hard they work, how much hope, determination and resilience they have, to achieve their aims they would be better off marrying a Prince."

I wonder if Netflix factored in the howls of derision at the glaring hypocrisy that follows the Harkles wherever they go?

And what happens when the same howls of derision that met the publication of "Finding Freebies" are aimed at programming "produced" by the Harkles?

by Anonymousreply 112September 3, 2020 6:24 PM

If she discontinues an English lawsuit she pays the defendant's costs on top of her own. Perhaps it will all eventually be produced on Nutflux by our intrepid duo: "The Trials of Meghan Markle, Wokewoman and Duchess."

by Anonymousreply 113September 3, 2020 7:00 PM

Its a cartoon apparently which I wouldn't have predicted in a million years since at least dealing with other actors is at least in Meghans wheelhouse. Maybe Harry has been watching Rick and Morty?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 114September 3, 2020 7:14 PM

This thread brings to mind another I just read about why Pete Buttigieg is disliked because he makes people cringe.

by Anonymousreply 115September 3, 2020 7:23 PM

Impactful means we take a private plane to fly all over the world to take a meeting; however, you fly coach on your own dime or Zoom in. Hope that works for you. Ta-ta dahling.

by Anonymousreply 116September 3, 2020 7:42 PM

Duchess of Woke: do as I say, not as I do. And give me that tiara, now!

by Anonymousreply 117September 3, 2020 7:44 PM

I can’t wait to be taught about equality by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex! They are the perfect people for the job! Can’t wait! Awesome!

by Anonymousreply 118September 3, 2020 8:18 PM

A cartoon to inspire women? Lol

And its well known for 20 years that Harry is as thick as pig-shite, he'll be paid millions to do nothing but agree with what his flunkies and wife come up with or steals from others.

And why was Meghan smiling so much in that "instruive, destructive" Vancouver snap?

by Anonymousreply 119September 3, 2020 10:12 PM

All their public statements are in banal, meaningless corporate-speak. For that alone they should be shunned.

by Anonymousreply 120September 3, 2020 10:17 PM

[quote]A cartoon to inspire women? Lol

I'll stick with Big Mouth on Netflix, thanks. That's a cartoon that's hysterical.

by Anonymousreply 121September 3, 2020 10:18 PM

Cartoon to inspire women? Why do women need to be inspired by whom? Who decided that women need this at all except morons who regard women as less-than or incapable of thinking/ doing shit for themselves? That they then have to be inspired by a couple of rich morons is just insulting.

FYI moronic duo, women are not monolithic block, get that into your entitled, thick heads.

by Anonymousreply 122September 3, 2020 10:24 PM

[quote]R110 Harry got what he wanted: a final act of revenge on a family upon whom he projected all his own problems.

Even if that were true, he also got a gorgeous, sophisticated wife he loves.

And I bet she’s a hell of a lot better in bed than the drab Kate (!!)

Straight men like that.

by Anonymousreply 123September 3, 2020 11:33 PM

I feel like this is a way to funnel money to them from some unnamed and unnameable source. It's like the numbers bandied about the Kardashians-- they strain credulity. There is no way that these two would generate that much profitable content. If Netflix really thinks there's $150 million in a partnership, Hollywood companies would be lining up to work with them in some form or another. I am not a Meghan hater or a CDAN nut, but I do not believe this announcement tells the full story.

by Anonymousreply 124September 3, 2020 11:54 PM

It's designed to inspire women in Namibia. It will be shot in Chateau Meghan-Montecito and its grounds. After that she will run for governor.

by Anonymousreply 125September 4, 2020 1:20 AM

Apparently I am not the only one with doubts.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 126September 4, 2020 1:20 AM

R126's link suggests they get $2m a year on this deal which I assume is exclusive either because Nutflex required that or because there were not other takers. With their expenses, $2m is not going to mean independence from the BRF. Pathetic.

by Anonymousreply 127September 4, 2020 1:29 AM

I find the Quibi story more interesting. First of all, the stories in Vanity Fair and Page Six has nearly identical wording and quotes by the same “insider”.

“Meg and Jeff actually went to see Harry and Meghan to get them to sign…but it’s no surprise they went for Netflix,”

This quote reads as characteristically makes-droppy and vindictive to me. It’s just the kind of bridge burning she does. I wish I’d been a fly on the wall during that meeting. I bet they insulted her in some way, and she thinks she’s getting back at them.

by Anonymousreply 128September 4, 2020 1:32 AM

^^ name-droppy

by Anonymousreply 129September 4, 2020 1:32 AM

I wonder if Meghan somehow screwed over Boprah with this Netflix deal? That would be epic

by Anonymousreply 130September 4, 2020 1:42 AM

You don't screw Boprah and live.

by Anonymousreply 131September 4, 2020 1:43 AM

R130, oh god, I hope she did!

What happened to the Spotify gig? Is that in tandem with the Netflix gig?

by Anonymousreply 132September 4, 2020 1:48 AM

R130, Oprah has some deal with Netflix.

by Anonymousreply 133September 4, 2020 1:49 AM

Harry is starting to look like a ginge Drew.

by Anonymousreply 134September 4, 2020 1:54 AM

They should get the same treatment that Edward and Wallis got. Cut off all ties but they can come back for the family funerals.

by Anonymousreply 135September 4, 2020 1:56 AM

This seems to be a good assessment of what the deal is all about.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 136September 4, 2020 5:26 AM

[quote] The Queen and Charles were conned like girls at the fair gaga over Billy Bigelow.

Now THERE'S an up-to-the-minute cultural reference!

by Anonymousreply 137September 4, 2020 6:08 AM

[quote] Why don't they make a movie TOGETHER?

"The Song of Bernadette"

STARRING: Meghan Markle as Bernadette Soubirous

Prince Harry as Bernadette's vagin-otized idiot husband

and the late Princess Diana as the Blessed Virgin Mary

by Anonymousreply 138September 4, 2020 6:13 AM

Meghan's new manager is the cutthroat Irving Azoff! Nothing can stop her now.

by Anonymousreply 139September 4, 2020 11:49 AM

The Telegraph article is excellent and lays out both the pitfalls and possible advantages of this deal, and brings down the overblown $150 million claims. It also points out that if Netflix turns down an idea for a project, the Harkles can't take it elsewhere. It's a very luxurious cage, but it's still a cage.

However, I think the Telegraph was off on this:

“They might also find a good project that’s already under way and have the couple add their brand. If they’d signed this deal a few years ago, I wouldn’t put it past Netflix to have them introduce The Crown.” And it’s not too late to get the pair involved: the final, sixth series has yet to be filmed, and is expected to end with the death of Diana, Princess of Wales."

I imagine that the Palace would intervene swiftly on something of this nature, because the "review" of any commercial deals the Sussexes made outside the monarcny was inserted into their "agreement" (to which there was probably much more that the public were not informed about) to ensure that they didn't capitalise on their connection to the monarchy.

Of course, one of Meghan's trademark characteristics is "better to ask for forgiveness than permission:. She's done it before and in some cases it has worked well, and in others she has ended up cutting off her nose to spite her face.

The real issue looming for the BRF and the Harkles is whether the Queen and Charles will just cut their losses, leave the Sussexes their titles, and ignore them as far as possible from hereon in. Or, will the Queen and/or Charles insist that if the Harkles want total "freedom" the price is their titles and any claim to royal patronages, all future rights to Frogmore, and no further support from Charles that can be traced back to the UK taxpayer.

My guess is the BRF will take the former tack. Taking their titles is too hard and will create yet another controversy. If they make enough money, the BRF won't be able to leverage much financial pressure, either.

The time to take their titles was when they bailed, especially as the BRF knew full well that their mouthpiece, Scobie, would soon be publishing a book filled with mud-slinging.

This was another "appeasement" failure on the Queen's part; or perhaps Charles begged for some mercy for his son.

Whatever the case, the BRF has ended by looking like victims of a con artist - except for William and Kate. William comes out looking tough, and Kate looking dignified, slandered by a hard-arsed, opportunistic, narcissistic, petulant bitch who couldn't stand being #2, and suited for true royal status as Meghan never was.

by Anonymousreply 140September 4, 2020 11:51 AM

[quote]Why don't they make a movie TOGETHER?

How about A STAR IS BORN?

by Anonymousreply 141September 4, 2020 12:09 PM

Meghan will be the Stacey Dooley of Neflix and Harry will be the Ross Kemp. Plenty of controversial topics for them to get their teeth into. Harry's military background wins him respect wherever he goes and Meghan is ridiculously charismatic compared to dowdy Kate.

Netflix already has a captive audience of Royal watchers who love The Crown. They know what they're doing.

by Anonymousreply 142September 4, 2020 12:15 PM

[QUOTE] William comes out looking tough, and Kate looking dignified, slandered by a hard-arsed, opportunistic, narcissistic, petulant bitch

William comes out looking mean and cold, and Kate comes out as docile and downtrodden.

by Anonymousreply 143September 4, 2020 12:30 PM

William comes out looking insightful, perceptive and not easily swayed and Kate comes out looking the opposite of ME! that is, a mature, responsible, dutiful adult with ego in check.

by Anonymousreply 144September 4, 2020 12:42 PM

Kate has smoker's skin and looks like a transwoman. She and MM launched themselves into the world of work at exactly the same time. MM managed seven years on a long running TV drama series, now available on Netflix, and Kate was employed as a buyer at Jigsaw for three months.

by Anonymousreply 145September 4, 2020 12:46 PM

Everyone criticizes Meghan, but is she any worse than Pippa Middleton was with her post-royal wedding attention-seeking - appearing on Today and publishing a Martha Stewert would-be book on giving parties? I think Pippa eventually saw the futility of it all and married someone rich and withdrew from the spotlight.

by Anonymousreply 146September 4, 2020 1:06 PM

The Grift is strong in this one.

by Anonymousreply 147September 4, 2020 1:14 PM

The Telegraph article contained typos galore. Editor!

They should produce a “Digging Up Diana: Dining Out On Death” documentary. Introduction by Kato Kaelin.

by Anonymousreply 148September 4, 2020 1:37 PM

There's a DM story that states the Palace has to approve this Netflix deal as per their Megxit agreement.

by Anonymousreply 149September 4, 2020 1:48 PM

[quote]Everyone criticizes Meghan, but is she any worse than Pippa Middleton

Yes.

by Anonymousreply 150September 4, 2020 1:50 PM

Not too long ago we had a thread about casting Ryan Murphy's woke miniseries of Gone With the Wind for Netflix. Meghan came up for Scarlett with Harry as either Ashley or a Tarleton Twin.

by Anonymousreply 151September 4, 2020 1:53 PM

R149 - I think that clause is window dressing. The Harkles, as always, will do whatever the fuck they want. They had to give in on SussexRoyal because it left them open to litigation by the BRF. Also, they still needed Charles' support.

But the BRF can't in any real way "forbid" the Harkles from signing any such contract. The Harkles are free agents, as everyone predicted, free agents walking around monetising titles to get through the Big Doors that far more qualified people have no hope of getting through.

Only if and when the content the Harkles put up gets increasingly political (which personally I think is a given) will the BRF be faced with the conundrum that other saw right away with Meghan from the beginning: she doesn't feel the rules about separating the BRF from political positions that dilute their ability to represent the country as a whole should apply to her.

She's out of reach already. She'll go on thumbing her nose at them and their rules till the end of the chapter. The Queen and Charles should never have believed a single promise she made - she couldn't even keep her word on not trampling on Camilla's big domestic abuse speech in March - after agreeing not to release photos of herself at the NT and that school until the day after Camilla's speech, Meghan went ahead and released them the day of, anyway. People may have noticed that Camilla didn't exactly greet the pair warmly in the Abbey on that last day, either.

If the Queen didn't see the handwriting on the wall by then, odds are she's never going to move beyond this point, which is unfair to Charles, as he will start his reign with the Harkles still slinging mud and thumbing their noses at the monarchy.

The last good thing the Queen can do for her family is take the hit herself and cut them off from their titles on the basis of their desire to politicise their "work". She has enough good will capital stored up with the public at this point, and every poll taken shows the UK public in favour of the Harkles losing their titles. The public of other nations doesn't matter to the monarchy.

But I doubt she'll do it.

by Anonymousreply 152September 4, 2020 1:59 PM

The Queen is advised by the Prime Minister and her Private Secretary. Unfortunately the Prime Minister is unreliable. However if the Harkles become overtly political the Prime Minister may advise her that as they are behaving like private citizens they should be stripped of royal titles. I know you old queen thinks that the Queen rules but in most public things she does as she's told by the government including, generally, who gets what titles.

by Anonymousreply 153September 4, 2020 2:28 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 154September 4, 2020 2:40 PM

^^Well, that was a shitty thing to do.

by Anonymousreply 155September 4, 2020 3:00 PM

[quote] Everyone criticizes Meghan, but is she any worse than Pippa Middleton

Pippa is not a member of the BRF. She is a private citizen.

Meghan is a member of the BRF, and entered her position willingly.

by Anonymousreply 156September 4, 2020 3:02 PM

There’s so much jealousy in this thread!

by Anonymousreply 157September 4, 2020 3:07 PM

if the Harkles would enter into a deal marketing royalty (like putting their name to "The Crown"), they'd be in big trouble. They are still getting money from Charles and they are still allowed the title of Duke and Duchess of Sussex; but both those privileges could be taken away (Charles is responsible for the money personally, and the monarch is the font of all titles and privileges).

There's a clear parallel with Prince Edward's film company in the 90s and early 80s, Ardent. When it started, Edward was only going to do classy productions, but not much materialized, and he was reduced to doing royalty-themed projects to keep going. When Charles got wind that Ardent was following William around his college campus for a documentary project on the education of monarchs, he was horrified, and the project with footage of William was kiboshed. Within a month Ardent closed its doors, and it's widely agreed upon by royal watchers that Edward overstepped his boundaries and was set back in line.

by Anonymousreply 158September 4, 2020 3:10 PM

When you make my Oscar, the engraving should read "Duchess of Sussex".

by Anonymousreply 159September 4, 2020 3:17 PM

It cracks me up whenever I read about the Harkles not informing the Royals of their plans. I bet none of them give two shits what H&M are up to, and probably have a few chuckles about them over breakfast daily, No one even got a chance to bond with Archie, so he's not even a consideration.

by Anonymousreply 160September 4, 2020 4:02 PM

I actually really liked Meghan on Suits, and this was wayyy before I knew anything about her personal life and her dating Harry. The way she portrayed Rachel reminded me of lots of young people I knew in the white collar professional workforce. I would rate her acting as effective and believable. That whole cast was very strong though.

by Anonymousreply 161September 4, 2020 4:13 PM

[quote]A source said that the couple wanted to create programmes “about stories and issues that resonate with them personally . . . enabling a more compassionate and equitable world”.

... preaching to the great unwashed about 'an equitable world' from their multi-million mansion in Montecito.

by Anonymousreply 162September 4, 2020 4:16 PM

[quote]they will launch a yet-to-be-named production company, and Deadline reported that in development so far are a nature docuseries and animated series celebrating inspiring women.

... so celebrating Oprah.

Meghan needs to make friends in the hood ya know!

by Anonymousreply 163September 4, 2020 4:18 PM

Financial arrangement have not been made public. These two are not getting the same deal as the Obamas.

by Anonymousreply 164September 4, 2020 4:24 PM

[QUOTE] last good thing the Queen can do for her family is take the hit herself and cut them off from their titles on the basis of their desire to politicise their "work".

I doubt they will use their titles as producers/presenters, and this rule that royals should show no political bias doesn't apply to H and M because they've left the brf.

by Anonymousreply 165September 4, 2020 5:05 PM

They will DEFINITELY use their titles as producers/presenters, r165. And the non-political rule still applies to them until their 'review period' ends in March.

by Anonymousreply 166September 4, 2020 5:08 PM

It will Charles' and Williams' decision whether to pull the titles, If it happens, The Queen will just rubber stamp it, telling Harry that she just wants peace in the family, and asking him to understand.

by Anonymousreply 167September 4, 2020 5:13 PM

[QUOTE] They will DEFINITELY use their titles as producers/presenters

How the fuck do you know? I think they'll go by Meghan and Harry Mountbatten Windsor.

by Anonymousreply 168September 4, 2020 5:13 PM

You Klan creeps are obsessed beyond all reason with the Queen removing the titles from these two. It's not going to happen while her pedo son is still the Duke of York.

by Anonymousreply 169September 4, 2020 5:16 PM

Are they going to make scholarly-type documentaries that Ken Burns used to do for PBS? Or are they gunning for Anthony Bourdain type shows that feature themselves as the star along with topic at hand? Because those are very different genres. They say they want to create content to inspire women and educate children, which means the shows will be a collection of celebrities showing how relevant they are to changing the world for the better. Sort of like Meghan’s Vogue inspiring women list, which consisted of mostly celebrities.

by Anonymousreply 170September 4, 2020 5:24 PM

Preaching to the masses from their multi-million $$$ mansion in a gated community in one of the wealthiest, whitest enclaves in America. That's some unbelievable chutzpah!

by Anonymousreply 171September 4, 2020 5:52 PM

Thank you for that astute assessement, r161. We'll certainly take that on board during our OSCAR Hall of Fame deliberations next year.

by Anonymousreply 172September 4, 2020 6:00 PM

Pippa's self-marketing was short-lived and a failure. She wisely realised that her best bet was to snag a rich well-connected husband and settle down, and that's what she did. And you haven't heard her trumpeting herself all over the place since, have you?

Pippa sought something to do and someone to marry.

Meghan sought a permanent place in the limelight. If Harry had married Pippa, he'd have ended up with a nice wife thankful for her leap up the ladder, contented with being #2 to her sister, eagerly carrying out official events - and they probably WOULD have given THAT Duke and Duchess of Sussex the grand Apt 1. in Kensington Palace.

But nothing is ever good enough for Meghan Markle.

Pippa and Kate know when they're well off. Meghan doesn't.

by Anonymousreply 173September 4, 2020 8:47 PM

Wow- just imagine IF he had married Pippa, how different his life would be right now. He'd still be a hero to the people because his petulance and temper tantrums probably wouldn't have surfaced (tiaragate). He'd be happily hanging out with his former best friends and his family. He and Wills and Kate and Pippa would have been a solid, loving gang. His kid would be being raised in safety and security with his cousins. The media would not be obsessing about his wife (aside from making comments about her ass) because she'd behave beautifully.

It's amazing what this marriage has done to him, but he deserves every bit of it. Harry, after all is an asshole. He doesn't deserve a nice wife. He deserves Meghan.

by Anonymousreply 174September 4, 2020 11:12 PM

Haha, r174’s last paragraph made me LOL. Absolutely true.

I’m glad he met Meghan. It’s been absolutely nonstop fun since Day One. Those two are entertaining af.

by Anonymousreply 175September 5, 2020 1:02 AM

r165 If they still want to keep their titles then practically, legally, constitutionally and psychologically and emotionally they haven't left the royal family fully.

by Anonymousreply 176September 5, 2020 1:26 AM

'Preaching to the masses from their multi-million $$$ mansion in a gated community in one of the wealthiest, whitest enclaves in America'

It works okay for the likes of Oprah and Clooney.

by Anonymousreply 177September 5, 2020 1:42 AM

[quote]R169 You Klan creeps are obsessed beyond all reason with the Queen removing the titles from these two. It's not going to happen while her pedo son is still the Duke of York.

Exactly. That would start the biggest shit storm ever, even amongst people who are neutral about H&M.

It would be shockingly distasteful, and thrust the old pedo back in the limelight as people lobbied to have him stripped, as well. (Not that he shouldn’t be.)

by Anonymousreply 178September 5, 2020 5:19 AM

R178, I thought we had cleared this up. Andrew is not a pedophile. He’s a rapist.

by Anonymousreply 179September 5, 2020 5:30 AM

In the eyes of the public he is.

by Anonymousreply 180September 5, 2020 5:37 AM

My darlings Harry and Meggs-

Please be careful of cashing in on your fame through cat and mouse games. Look at what happen to me when I crashed in a free trip to Paris.

Mummy

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 181September 5, 2020 5:37 AM

[quote] If it happens, The Queen will just rubber stamp it,

No way does the Queen ever just rubber stamp what Charles and William tell her to do.

by Anonymousreply 182September 5, 2020 6:04 AM

Harry had an out and he took it. If you’d grown up in that musty, dusty den of vipers, you would, too. Especially if it meant you didn’t have to go work as a street sweeper, somewhere.

I think everyone here who’s agog at royalty doesn’t understand how stiflingly boring it would be to be trapped with that crowd of inbreds for decades.

In true DL tradition, Harry said, “Enough!”

by Anonymousreply 183September 5, 2020 6:09 AM

[R183] : do you mean, he's 'had sufficient?'

Doesn't appear to be in his wife's vocabulary.

by Anonymousreply 184September 5, 2020 6:14 AM

^^ oh, you think she wants to move back in with his racist, dimwit in-laws??

by Anonymousreply 185September 5, 2020 6:18 AM

Meghan Markle gorgeous and sophisticated??? Bwaahhaahaaa! That's hilarious r123! I'll bet you're the same embarrassing poster that thinks there's so much "jealousy" on this thread of that homely unsophisticated no talent toad. How incredibly embarrassing for you.

by Anonymousreply 186September 5, 2020 7:34 AM

R186 is the fucktard Celebitchy Troll.

by Anonymousreply 187September 5, 2020 10:53 AM

R165 - But they haven't left the BRF. They've left off being working members of the BRF, which is not the same thing. They tried to create a foundation called SussexRoyal, remember? The Queen put paid to that swiftly. Meghan made a point in their subsequent "Agreement Manifesto" of mentioning Harry's place in the line of succession, retention of "royal" patronages, and her son being raised to be familiar with "the royal tradition into which he was born".

What they want is to retain their connection to the British monarchy but without any of the onerous responsibilities to the source of their cachet:, one of which is political neutrality.

They may have left physically, and they may not be using their (still operative) HRHs in public, but as long as they retain the titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and those HRHs lurk behind the screen, they remain members of the British Royal Family, now trying to straddle the fence between monetising that connection whilst ignoring any obligations to it.

The ball is now in the Queen's court, if you'll pardon the expression.

HM can ignore them, or finally swing the axe she should have swung last year so that the rest of the BRF, and especially the Cambridges, can just get on with it, and she can also pretend there's nothing wrong at all and have them to Sunday dinner and the Trooping the Colour.

But the next response is the Queen's. At the moment, judging by what is in the public's view, game goes to Meghan Markle, dragging the dimwitted, lax hubby in her wake.

The Cambridges came out of this looking good to the public. But the Queen and the monarchy do not.

Stay tuned for the "year end review" in spring 2021.

by Anonymousreply 188September 5, 2020 1:09 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 189September 5, 2020 1:37 PM

More whining from these two!

by Anonymousreply 190September 5, 2020 1:48 PM

So they're suddenly producers now?

by Anonymousreply 191September 5, 2020 1:51 PM

Instead of making passive aggressive remarks about Prince Andrew through their PR, Meghan and Harry should have criticized Prince Andrew openly for victimizing underage females. That would have been ethical and admirable, but it would also antagonize the Queen and Charles, who gives them money. If the Queen strips the Harkles' titles, Meghan and Harry will go off the chain against Prince Andrew, so the Queen is allowing all 3 losers to keep their titles. The Queen is a pussy and should leave the throne.

by Anonymousreply 192September 5, 2020 1:53 PM

It's pretty clear that William had Meghan's number from day one. He knew exactly who and what she was.

by Anonymousreply 193September 5, 2020 3:45 PM

R192, traditionally titles given by the monarch could be revoked by the monarch. However, in the aftermath of World War I, it took an act of Parliament to remove the titles from traitors. The general consensus now is that the monarch can request Parliament to act, but cannot remove titles herself.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 194September 5, 2020 3:59 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 195September 5, 2020 5:13 PM

r195 Summary conclusion Meghan is a self serving phoney.

by Anonymousreply 196September 5, 2020 5:15 PM

r188 summarizes the dilemma. H&M have left, and need to become financially independent as they promised, but have limited means of doing so in their positions and with their limited skills. This Netflix deal was a lucky break for them, now they need to show what they can produce from it and how long they can sustain the workload. It's the "True test", where the rubber meets the proverbial road as they say. We'll see.

The dilemma is that they would've never gained this deal without their royal rank and title ("Duke and Duchess of Sussex"). No way would Ted Sarandos have dealt with them if they were going by plain Harry and Meghan Windsor - he'd be interested sure, but bite down for a deal? A pair of former royals without any producing experience, and overall limited professional experience?

If they cross the line and end up at deep loggerheads with the BRF, and have their titles pulled (the Dukedom), what value do H&M have in Hollywood? Where's the 'magic sparkle' or 'pixie dust' that the royal connection brings? It's gone, and hence so goes much of their current value (unless they prove to be talented producers - big question). Because of this make no mistake, they're still beholden to QEII and the BRF in the short term.

It's an ongoing dance.

by Anonymousreply 197September 5, 2020 5:30 PM

The Queen won't lift the Sussex title, as it would cause too much trouble for too little gain. The ex-Sussexes would give a victim tour the like of which the world has never seen. The Sussex title isn't like the York title, with a long and storied history. Like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, the Sussexes will be free to market their status even if it degrades the title. Archie will not be a Royal duke and will probably never use the title anyway, so Sussex can go into mothballs after Harry dies just as Windsor did. In a hundred years they can recreate it if they want.

Harry and Meghan have essentially given up the HRH, which is what really marked them out as working members of the Royal family. The BRF was clever there--they didn't strip the title but it can't be used, which makes it as pointless as if it were really gone. If Harry ever does come back, he can pick it up again, but Meghan won't ever get to use it again.

What Charles and the Queen will probably do is taper off any financial support over the next couple of years. The Sussexes can't bitch publically about that since the whole point of leaving the UK was to become financially independent. If they dare to bitch, the BRF can point out that they have this wonderful new Netflix deal they've told everyone about! Why would they need financial support?

It's a delicate dance the BRF is doing, but so far they're doing a pretty nimble job.

by Anonymousreply 198September 5, 2020 5:49 PM

I wonder what Diana would've thought of Meghan.

by Anonymousreply 199September 5, 2020 7:10 PM

Diana wold have felt in competition with both Kate and Meghan for her sons' affection. But Kate she would respect a a good mother and partner for William, while she would have shunned Megs even before the wedding and given her the silent treatment, something Megs would have cried abt in FF. I can see her now rushing to embrace Harry and Archie while obviously ignoring Markle... Haha

by Anonymousreply 200September 5, 2020 7:58 PM

[quote] Archie will not be a Royal duke

We don't know that for sure. It's very complicated.

Archie'spaprents have said that, like the Earl of Essex's children, Archie will not be styled as a prince until he is 18, and then he will be free to make up his own mind if he wants to use it (it should be noted he is from birth Prince Archie of Sussex in fact, even though his parents choose not for him to use the styling of "HRH Prince"--similarly, the Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and her brother the Viscount Severn are in fact HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince James of Wessex, though they do not use those stylings, though they can if they choose when they turn 18) . Since having Archie not the use the HRH styling precedes the decision for Harry and Meghan not to be able to use the HRH styling, it is not clear whether or not that decision applies to him as well as to his parents.

It could well be that in 17 years his parents are divorced and his father is back in the UK and using his HRH styling again. Archie could decide to go to college in the UK and assume use of the HRH Prince Archie styling--Meghan could do nothing about that, since it would be his decision once he reaches the age of legal majority

by Anonymousreply 201September 5, 2020 8:10 PM

Under those circumstances, R201, Archie could do that. However, after all those years of parenting by Meghan, I'd be surprised if he did.

by Anonymousreply 202September 5, 2020 8:14 PM

Well, we're not even sure she'll wind up raising him. Accidents are known to happen to women who marry into the Windsor family and then don't toe the line.

by Anonymousreply 203September 5, 2020 8:16 PM

r201. You are completely wrong. Archie is not a grandchild in the male line and so is not HRH Prince. That does not extend to great grandchildren.

by Anonymousreply 204September 5, 2020 8:17 PM

You're right, r204--he is a great-grandchild, so he is not a prince.

The second the Queen dies, however, he will become a grandchild of a king and so will become Prince Archie in fact if not by styling. And that's less than ten years away.

by Anonymousreply 205September 5, 2020 8:21 PM

Assuming that Charles doesn't predecease his mother, which could happen. In that case Archie, never having been the grandchild of a monarch, would never receive the HRH unless Uncle Wills gave it to him--and we know the likelihood of THAT.

by Anonymousreply 206September 5, 2020 8:27 PM

I keep thinking this thread is about me.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 207September 5, 2020 8:27 PM

Oh dear, I foresee lots of Very Special Episodes where Harry learns that racism is bad, and Meghan learns that she really should adore herself more...

by Anonymousreply 208September 5, 2020 8:27 PM

An LA-raised Archie won't want to go to college in the UK. He'll be UCLA-bound, or perhaps Stanford if he turns out to have brains. In that case, the east coast Ivies are also possible. But he won't matriculate at Oxbridge, not after years of stories from Meghan about how ill-treated she was in the UK. Even if his parents divorce, Meghan will see to it that his time in the UK is very, very limited. He'll never really know that half of his heritage, and it's a shame.

by Anonymousreply 209September 5, 2020 8:31 PM

Where have all the Harkles sites gone?

by Anonymousreply 210September 5, 2020 10:19 PM

^threads

by Anonymousreply 211September 5, 2020 10:20 PM

Archie does not automatically become a prince after the Queen's death, r205. King Charles would have to issue Letters Patent in order to make him one.

So, the Harkles had better be nice to Charles.

by Anonymousreply 212September 6, 2020 1:21 AM

Turns out that Harry and Meghan hawked a Diana documentary as part of their offer to Netflix

Because of COURSE they did

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 213September 6, 2020 1:29 AM

[quote] An LA-raised Archie won't want to go to college in the UK. He'll be UCLA-bound, or perhaps Stanford if he turns out to have brains.

There's no way you can possibly predict any of that.

by Anonymousreply 214September 6, 2020 1:29 AM

What if Archie turns into a horrid LA brat when he gets older, like Brody Jenner or some of the other useless celeb spawn?

by Anonymousreply 215September 6, 2020 1:58 AM

I think you all are wrong who are saying that Archie won't want to be a prince, etc. I remember hearing his mother had a fit when she found he was not automatically given a title when he was born (remember, H&M claimed it was their decision). She will want to be the mother of a prince, believe me, even if she's on her umpteenth husband by then. It will help keep her in the press because the paps will be following him. So she will make sure it happens.

Also, I guess this news cancels the proposal they floated a week or so ago of spending up to 2 or 3 months in the UK next year? Which was followed by the report of an upcoming Spotify deal (supposed to be worth"the sky's the limit" although much later alleged to be a $1million?). What's next?

by Anonymousreply 216September 6, 2020 2:00 AM

'How are they now operating...as grifters, mercenaries?'

They're operating as A List celebrities producing and presenting documentaries for a huge TV company.

by Anonymousreply 217September 6, 2020 2:05 AM

Archie won't be going to prep school or boarding school like spazzy George and Louis. He'll live an LA kid's life with plenty of sunshine and beach time. They'll send him to school with the kids of all the other A listers.

by Anonymousreply 218September 6, 2020 2:06 AM

[quote]What's next?

I expect that we'll hear that they've changed their wireless carrier from Verizon to AT&T!!!!

by Anonymousreply 219September 6, 2020 2:08 AM

'Archie'spaprents have said that, like the Earl of Essex's children, Archie will not be styled as a prince until he is 18, and then he will be free to make up his own mind if he wants to use it (it should be noted he is from birth Prince Archie of Sussex in fact, even though his parents choose not for him to use the styling of "HRH Prince"--similarly, the Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and her brother the Viscount Severn are in fact HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince James of Wessex, though they do not use those stylings, though they can if they choose when they turn 18) . Since having Archie not the use the HRH styling precedes the decision for Harry and Meghan not to be able to use the HRH styling, it is not clear whether or not that decision applies to him as well as to his parents.'

FUCK OFF TEDIOUS TITLES TROLL

NOBODY CARES ABOUT STYLING AND LETTERS OF PATENT

YOU ARE SOOOOOO BORING

by Anonymousreply 220September 6, 2020 2:23 AM

[quote]R205 the second the Queen dies, however, he will become a grandchild of a king and so will become Prince Archie in fact if not by styling. And that's less than ten years away.

Frankly, it can’t happen soon enough.

Big Liz has long outlived her purpose.

by Anonymousreply 221September 6, 2020 3:39 AM

Dead wrong r212. As things currently stand Archie will automatically become an HRH/Prince at the Queen's death, as he will then become the male-line grandson of the monarch. Letters Patent would have to then be issued (or a similar public statement) by King Charles stating he WON'T be an HRH, in order to put that change into effect.

H&M do not make this decision - the monarch does. They of course can discuss it with him to effect the changes they may desire, in terms of how their son is styled/titled until age 18.

Oh and hi r220 (waves gaily).

by Anonymousreply 222September 6, 2020 4:41 AM

Sorry for you, desperate Megstan at r222, but that is simply not true.

Had Archie been born when Charles was already King, there would be no question.

However, since Archie had the misfortune to be born under a great-grandparent Sovereign and not under a grandparent Sovereign, the incoming grandparent Sovereign will have to issue Letters Patent in order to take the child into the fold.

I know you want it to be otherwise - but that's the way it is.

by Anonymousreply 223September 6, 2020 5:35 AM

Not a Megstan, dipshit at r223. I criticize her 90% of the time here, do a search. And you of course are wrong, no LP needs to issued when TQ dies. Archie automatically becomes HRH at that moment, per the 1917 LP still in effect today.

His title isn't fixed at birth. He'd only miss out on the HRH is Charles dies before TQ. Its dependent on his relation to the sitting monarch: once Charles becomes King, he is a male-line grandson of the monarch and becomes HRH.

Much like his grandmother, the Hon Diana Spencer at birth, became Lady Diana at the death of her grandfather the 7th Earl Spencer.

by Anonymousreply 224September 6, 2020 6:03 AM

Andrew is neither a pedophile nor a rapist, R179. He is an alleged ephebephile and someone who was accused of having sex with an underaged prostitute who was not considered underaged where the incident(s) allegedly occurred..

by Anonymousreply 225September 6, 2020 8:03 AM

^^ enabler perv

by Anonymousreply 226September 6, 2020 8:26 AM

"Letters Patent?" What are you, the College of Heralds? Who gives a shit? They gave the kid a nickname for a name and after a comic book character.

It's appalling that these two navel gazers who just bought a $15 million dollar mansion in the most exclusive part of California have inked a $5 million deal to preach to us about inclusivity, sustainability, and assorted other topics du jour.

He's an unlettered buffoon, and she's a second rate actress.

If I were a British politician with any balls, I'd push through "Act of Parliament" (Not meaningless "Letters Patent") to have their titles stripped from them and have them barred from the succession to the throne.

They do nothing for the "British Royal Family" (who should join the rest of their assorted toppled cousins and kinsmen). They no longer even reside in GB.

If between now and November this coddled "celebrity couple" utters any opinion on the US elections -- one way or the other -- they should be deported back to GB where his grandmother can issue "Letters Patent" to send them to live on a Council Estate in Birmingham.

by Anonymousreply 227September 6, 2020 8:52 AM

Thanks, R227, for your delicious post.

In particular...

[quote] What are you, the College of Heralds? Who gives a shit?

And

[quote]He's an unlettered buffoon, and she's a second rate actress.

And

[quote] they should be deported back to GB where his grandmother can issue "Letters Patent" to send them to live on a Council Estate in Birmingham.

by Anonymousreply 228September 6, 2020 9:17 AM

R209 Oxbridge are much more meritocratic than the Anerixan elite schools. You don’t just go to Oxbridge just because you have a very strong socio-economic background (see Harry). So Archie has a much higher chance at the top American schools.

by Anonymousreply 229September 6, 2020 9:23 AM

"Prince Archie" has a nice ring to it, don't you think? And to think Kate couldn't name her firstborn Alexander because TQ didn't think it was regal enough.

by Anonymousreply 230September 6, 2020 9:27 AM

There is nothing regal about the name Archie. Sparkle can stay butthurt about her son not getting a title like the Cambridge kids.

by Anonymousreply 231September 6, 2020 9:35 AM

Archie is the name of an alley cat or the guy who stands outside the 7-11, hoping you’ll give him some change for holding the door open.

by Anonymousreply 232September 6, 2020 9:54 AM

She's pissed that no one cares about Archie. She has been trying to sell his photos to the highest bidder but no one will pay what she is asking. She will get very little but then "leak" that she was paid millions for Archie photos.

by Anonymousreply 233September 6, 2020 10:06 AM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 234September 6, 2020 10:18 AM

If a cop shoots your husband in the back, you sue. If a drunk driver hits your dog, you sue.

If a pap you called takes a photo of your baby, you... sue?

by Anonymousreply 235September 6, 2020 10:37 AM

Have they adopted any foreign orphans yet? Surely, it's time.

by Anonymousreply 236September 6, 2020 10:57 AM

I hope every single parent of those kids at the LA pre-school she crashed with Harry and her personal photographer in violation of California's set school rules on CV19 sues her on the same grounds she's suing the BC paps.

by Anonymousreply 237September 6, 2020 11:09 AM

R12 - For the umpteenth time, Andrew was not, even by Giuffre, accused of "having sex with underage girls". Guiffre was 17 at the time, the age of sexual consent in New York where it allegedly happened. She has never once offered any convincing evidence of same or included it in any legal papers.

It shows Andrew as a sleazy dirty old man with lousy values, low inhibition controls, and the brain of a cockroach, but he is guilty neither of statutory rape nor paedophilia - the latter refers to people sexually interested in children UNDER THE AGE OF TWELVE. That is the legal and psychological definition.

Both Andrew and Harry should be pressured into surrendering their HRHs, their titles (in Andrew's case, at least the title Duke of York, which eventually will be designated for Prince Louis) so that both titles can go dormant for decades and lose some of the taint Harry and Andrew have pasted their honours with. Titles are often mothballed for long periods before being resurrected. The Sussex title was in mothballs until the Queen resurrected it for Harry.

And, both should surrender their places in the line of succession, Andrew for obvious reasons, and Harry (and his son) because his primary life and concerns now lie outside Britain. His son has dual citizenship, and Harry himself is now virtually only a visitor to the UK. He cannot, due to living more than half the year outside the UK, even serve as a Counsellor of State.

So their titles are farcical at this point, just vanity window dressing. With both Andrew and Harry and Archie out of the lineup, the monarchy will be cleaned up and slimmed down for the start of Charles' reign.

It's best for all concerned. Meghan can run for Governor or California and if Harry makes a spectacle of himself sitting meekly behind her on the dais looking up at her adoringly in classic Spouse of the Candidate fashion, at least the monarchy won't be tainted with the spectacle.

HM needs to take these burdens off Charles' reign sooner rather than later. The longer the infection festers, the harder it will be to clean it out.

by Anonymousreply 238September 6, 2020 12:28 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 239September 6, 2020 1:14 PM

[QUOTE] For the umpteenth time, Andrew was not, even by Giuffre, accused of "having sex with underage girls

He was accused of raping girls who had been sex trafficked, you pedo apologist.

by Anonymousreply 240September 6, 2020 1:24 PM

[QUOTE] HM needs to take these burdens off Charles' reign sooner rather than later

Elizabeth Windsor is weak. She allowed the first in line to the throne to divorce Diana and marry a divorcee. This is way worse than the sixth in line renouncing his ribbon cutting job and moving to LA to work for a major TV company. She probably feels she's been tough enough already, possibly too tough considering Pedrew retains all his titles and military rankings, plus all his original property.

by Anonymousreply 241September 6, 2020 1:31 PM

[QUOTE] H & M are pulling the plug on an huge fundraiser for the Invictus Games.

BAD optics. Out of all the things to pull out of. This is supposed to be Harry’s favorite charity, he even got The Queen to do a commercial with him for it. All for Meghan’s vanity projects with Netflix. Shame!

They should have had their lawyer put that into the verbiage of the Netflix deal, that they had a commitment to a rival and they needed to honor it.

by Anonymousreply 242September 6, 2020 1:33 PM

[QUOTE] Elizabeth Windsor is weak. She allowed the first in line to the throne to divorce Diana and marry a divorcee. This is way worse

Charles always loved Camilla and by all accounts it’s a very successful love marriage. Diana had emotional issues and other than her aristocratic family had nothing in common with Charles. She didn’t even like horses or dogs. The Queen actually did Charles a service by allowing him to finally marry Camilla, she’s been a model royal duchess in the years since marriage.

by Anonymousreply 243September 6, 2020 1:37 PM

You know you're in Tinhat Alley when people are claiming that every set of HQs is a set up. You dunderheads really think M would go to the expense of suing photographers if she knew they had a record of herself or her staff alerting them to her whereabouts?

Make it make sense, Klan Grans.

by Anonymousreply 244September 6, 2020 1:37 PM

[QUOTE] worse Charles always loved Camilla and by all accounts it’s a very successful

You are missing the point. For ten centuries, the monarch was not allowed to divorce or marry a divorcee. Charles smashed up ancient rules and should have been removed from the line of succession and replaced by the only one of Liz's sons with a successful first marriage: Edward.

Charles is an agent of moral decay and he knows it. Next to his trangressions against tradition, Harry looks like an angel.

by Anonymousreply 245September 6, 2020 1:45 PM

r245- reincarnated Thomas More at a keyboard.

by Anonymousreply 246September 6, 2020 1:50 PM

I think Charles' determination to make Camilla queen is a real sticking point, there are many people in Britain who still feel that she would be taking Diana's rightful place.

by Anonymousreply 247September 6, 2020 2:03 PM

true R245, but then Windsors have always tried to modernize things. For example members of the royal family almost always married other royalty, but Queen Mary allowed her children to marry into the Peerage instead to avoid hard feelings with their subjects for marrying Continental royalty after WWI.

and The Queen would be cruel to not allow Charles to marry the woman he loved, as her sister Princess Margaret was unhappily married and later divorced after being denied marriage to the divorcee that she loved, leading her to an aimless alcoholic life.

by Anonymousreply 248September 6, 2020 2:04 PM

It's getting to the point of 'Diana WHO?' The Wakes' divorce is about number ten million on the relevancy list.

by Anonymousreply 249September 6, 2020 2:09 PM

Camilla becomes queen automatically once Charles is king; they could not use the title, but she would still be queen. The majority of Brits these days have no problem at all with her being queen - they'd find it weird if she wasn't.

by Anonymousreply 250September 6, 2020 2:11 PM

[quote] Oxbridge are much more meritocratic than the Anerixan elite schools. You don’t just go to Oxbridge just because you have a very strong socio-economic background (see Harry).

That's not necessarily true. Both Prince Charles and Prince Edward are somehow Cambridge grads, yet neither of them (certainly not Edward, who was a weak student) had the grades to send them there.

by Anonymousreply 251September 6, 2020 5:52 PM

[quote] Camilla becomes queen automatically once Charles is king; they could not use the title, but she would still be queen.

Not true. They COULD use the title, and they almost certainly will.

And even if it needs Parliamentary assent to make it official, there is no way Parliament would deny the fifteen-years wife of the king the title of queen.

When they married in 2005, they announced Camilla would be known as "the Princess Consort" if Charles ever became king, but that was supposed to be a sop to Diana's still many adoring fans. Clarence House has since backed off that statement, and it's pretty well understood she will be crowned queen when Charles is crowned king.

by Anonymousreply 252September 6, 2020 5:56 PM

[quote] For example members of the royal family almost always married other royalty, but Queen Mary allowed her children to marry into the Peerage instead to avoid hard feelings with their subjects for marrying Continental royalty after WWI.

Actually, Queen Victoria was the first to break the tradition of having king's children marry royalty in modern times. She realized her daughters were running out of eligible minor princelings they could marry, so she pushed Parliament hard to approve the marriage of her daughter Princess Louise to the extremely handsome marquess of Lorne (who later became Duke of Argyll). Victoria continued the tradition by letting her son Bertie's eldest daughter Louise (whom Victoria knew would become the Princess Royal one day) marry the Earl of Fife (who was then raised to the title of Duke of Fife by the queen).

Once that pattern was set, King George and Queen Mary let their sons as well as their daughter marry British aristocrats. And then Elizabeth II allowed her children to marry actual commoners, like Mark Phillips , Sarah Ferguson, Tim Laurence, and Sophie Rhys-Jones.

by Anonymousreply 253September 6, 2020 6:05 PM

It was very smart of them to get rid of the "you can only marry other royals" rule since they were all disgustingly inbred. All the inbreeding was already causing physical and mental problems back then, imagine if it had been allowed to continue.

by Anonymousreply 254September 6, 2020 6:14 PM

[QUOTE] Actually, Queen Victoria was the first to break the tradition of having king's children marry royalty in modern times.

exactly, hence me saying “almost always” since George and Mary allowing three of their children to marry into the Peerage after the ravages of WWI is a more compelling story than Victoria allowing one single child (out of nine) to marry a Peer.

by Anonymousreply 255September 6, 2020 6:42 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 256September 6, 2020 8:34 PM

A great deal of work has been done on the Amazon Invictus benefit to precede the Games next year. Is it sound business practice for Harry to bring the event to his little Netflix deal? Can't tell exactly what's going on yet.

by Anonymousreply 257September 6, 2020 8:38 PM

So Netflix told Harry he couldn’t be involved with Invictus?

Huh.

by Anonymousreply 258September 6, 2020 8:49 PM

That’s some powerful contract they signed. Did no one explain to Harry what a non-compete clause is? Did he not know, or not care?

And can’t he just do whatever he pleases, being a PRINCE and all?

by Anonymousreply 259September 6, 2020 8:51 PM

Harry was just a front for all the people doing the real work. Of course he is more interested in being a 'Hollywood producer' than doing what it takes for some unfamous veterans.

by Anonymousreply 260September 6, 2020 8:54 PM

R260, *gimpy* unfamous veterans. Who can’t do anything for them, except some good PR and photo ops. And Meghan has that covered now, so...

by Anonymousreply 261September 6, 2020 8:57 PM

Invictus was the last thing Harry had in terms of being appreciated by the British public. The very last thing.

It was beyond stupid of him to allow his new contract to get in the way of that.

Who is advising him? They ought to be kicked to the kerb.

by Anonymousreply 262September 6, 2020 9:04 PM

R262, if I had to name some things that made Harry “Harry”, I’d say: wearing military togs, Invictus, Africa, ladding about genially, mental health.

They’re all forgotten.

by Anonymousreply 263September 6, 2020 9:13 PM

Who is advising Harry? His wife, Marcus Anderson, etc., but the ultimate advisor is himself. This is all on him, the guy who considers himself a "smart businessman" and "leading entrepreneur."

by Anonymousreply 264September 6, 2020 9:19 PM

[quote] Prince Archie

Gay Str8 Outta Compton

by Anonymousreply 265September 6, 2020 9:29 PM

You misunderstood me, R253. They could, if they chose to, not use the title queen, but she would still be queen (just as now she is Princess of Wales but doesn't use the title) is what I was meaning. I see how it could be ambiguous.

by Anonymousreply 266September 6, 2020 10:33 PM

Re the Invictus fundraiser cancellation story...

Does this mean that Sparkle and Dim are not permitted to attend or speak or participate in any way?

Or does it mean that the whole fundraiser is now cancelled?

by Anonymousreply 267September 6, 2020 10:35 PM

I think it means they can't participate due to their new contract with Netflix, which precludes them from working with or doing any business with competitors including Amazon, which was sponsoring the event.

The event isn't cancelled but from what I read the loss of H&M (esp Harry, who heads up Invictus) is a major blow to them.

I can't believe neither of them made sure to have their attorneys vet the Netflix deal to allow for things like this - already scheduled - to happen. I'm guessing in their rush to sign, they just forgot about it. Lazy.

by Anonymousreply 268September 6, 2020 10:38 PM

I'm guessing Harry easily negotiated Invictus away because it's really not important.

by Anonymousreply 269September 6, 2020 10:50 PM

Meghan would be behaving inconsistently if she consented for the lawyers to insert an exception for something that links Harry to his past. If it's something of Harry's where Harry will be surrounded by former friends AND it gets in the way of her career aspirations, then its got a double strike against her ever allowing it to go ahead.

And also, so what if injured veterans lose out because the fundraising gets fucked by their not being there? I'll bet Meghan's regard for injured British veterans is beyond nonexistent. Gawd - Meghan seems more and more Trumpian by the minute.

by Anonymousreply 270September 6, 2020 11:02 PM

R268, it’s possible that the lawyers introduced future engagements as a possible roadblock and she told them to fucking deal with it and get it out of our way, that’s what you’re paid to DO.

by Anonymousreply 271September 6, 2020 11:44 PM

Are these injured veteran crybabies paying our BILLS? No? So we don’t owe them shit, Harry. God. You’re such a simp. Put them before this deal that’s going to put food on our table? This isn’t Buckingham PALACE, Harry, in case you haven’t noticed.

by Anonymousreply 272September 6, 2020 11:47 PM

What a difference a week makes! It was only last weekend when they were floating their going to Britain for a few months next year and Harry was happy that he would be back for the Invictus Games. I don't think he dare show up now.

by Anonymousreply 273September 7, 2020 12:11 AM

Not really surprising. They are proven liars.

by Anonymousreply 274September 7, 2020 12:16 AM

R245 but Edward is gay.. that would have been really interesting actually.

by Anonymousreply 275September 7, 2020 12:32 AM

Is Edward gay or just English? It can be very hard to tell sometimes.

by Anonymousreply 276September 7, 2020 12:37 AM

R248... but she didn't let Charles marry the one he loved. They made him marry Diana, who he hated (or at least, never loved). Making Charles renounce the line of succession and making Edward the official heir to the throne would have had exactly that effect, that Charles would have been allowed to marry Camilla (after her divorce) without causing anti-traditional drama.

Don't forget the BRF and especially so heirs to the throne have constitutional roles (they live FOR the state / nation / government of the UK), which is why their lives "have to" follow rules.

by Anonymousreply 277September 7, 2020 12:37 AM

It would be another major coup for the Cambridges to pick up Invictus and run it out of their office.

by Anonymousreply 278September 7, 2020 12:39 AM

R278 a major coup in what way?

by Anonymousreply 279September 7, 2020 12:40 AM

R276 he's gay. Is it hard to tell for you if Charles is gay?

by Anonymousreply 280September 7, 2020 12:42 AM

I hope Invictus asks them, r279. It's a good cause and it's a shame for it not to have someone high profile and militarily-connected on board to promote the charity.

by Anonymousreply 281September 7, 2020 12:43 AM

If Harry is too lazy (he is) to head it up, then it would certainly be a a tremendous gesture for the Cambridges to acknowledge the event's relevance to the British people, and as such run the whole organization out of their office.

by Anonymousreply 282September 7, 2020 12:44 AM

Ginge and Cringe's PR is trying to spin it that it's really Coronavirus that is making them cancel the benefit (which was due to happen next spring).

Even though the organisers said that the Harkle lawyer who called them to cancel actually SAID it was because of a a conflict with their Netflix deal.

Harry must be feeling mighty embarrassed if he set the PR spin dogs onto it and had them tell such an obvious lie.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 283September 7, 2020 12:53 AM

R283 but his continued actions kind of shows that he isn't guided by embarassment.

by Anonymousreply 284September 7, 2020 12:58 AM

No show for scheduled Invictus fundraiser now? JFC these two. You couldn't make this shit up. Btw is MM still patron of the National Theatre? Any remaining organizations should relieve them of their patronage immediately. There couldn't be more than one or two left.

by Anonymousreply 285September 7, 2020 1:31 AM

'if I had to name some things that made Harry “Harry”, I’d say: wearing military togs, Invictus, Africa, ladding about genially, mental health.'

Just because he stopped fundraising for Invictus, doesn't mean he won't still represent it. You have no idea whether these documentaries they're creating will focus on Africa or mental health. It's far more likely that they will.

by Anonymousreply 286September 7, 2020 1:32 AM

What. a. cunt. !!!

by Anonymousreply 287September 7, 2020 1:36 AM

Maybe William (in uniform!) and Catherine should pick up Invictus. It would serve H&M right.

What a bunch of cunts

by Anonymousreply 288September 7, 2020 1:36 AM

' Is it hard to tell for you if Charles is gay?'

Fuck off, illiterate Welp Troll.

by Anonymousreply 289September 7, 2020 1:41 AM

R286, how is he going to represent a charity if he can’t be a part of the fundraising? He created (well, you know, he’s credited with it, we all know how it really works) Invictus Games. That’s his pet charity. It’s linked inextricably (or so we thought) with Harry. And he had his lawyers dump them.

by Anonymousreply 290September 7, 2020 1:47 AM

Now MP's are demanding they stump up the full 4 million dollars (2.8 million pounds) for their Frogmore renovations instead of in 11 years of monthly installments:

(note: Telegraph stories are not paywalled this weekend)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 291September 7, 2020 1:52 AM

A DM commenter made this observation: “ The Mental Health Summit Harry had planned with Oprah that was supposed to be streamed by Apple is likely to be the next casualty of the Sussexes path to riches.”

Is that true? You can flake on the crippled veteran nobodies, but how you gonna flake on Her O-ness? Oh, sorry, Oprah. Our new masters forbid it. You understand, right?

Or is it not an issue?

by Anonymousreply 292September 7, 2020 2:06 AM

I wonder what her chicken taco friend Michelle Obama thinks of this move? Is it kind? Did she go high?

by Anonymousreply 293September 7, 2020 2:07 AM

The Harkles are now in competition with the Obamas to get their projects picked up. I doubt Michelle cares too much, but she might well avoid them after this.

And if they fuck over Oprah, that will end them, Netflix deal or not.

by Anonymousreply 294September 7, 2020 2:10 AM

[quote] Making Charles renounce the line of succession and making Edward the official heir to the throne would have had exactly that effect,

I don't think anyone can renounce their places in the line of succession. You are in the line of succession whether you like it or not. Once the crown comes to you, you could abdicate it; but not before. Once upon a time you could in effect renounce your position by converting to Catholicism or marrying a Catholic, but I'm not sure that's still true.

In any case, Andrew (and his line) is after Charles and before Edward in the line of succession.

by Anonymousreply 295September 7, 2020 2:14 AM

[QUOTE] Oh, sorry, Oprah. Our new masters forbid it. You understand, right? Or is it not an issue?

It’s not an issue. O is a media billionairess, she understands these things. O would no more condemn Harry and Meghan as she would Barack and Michelle, Angelina Jolie, Bono, The Clooneys, or whoever the fuck else is in on the global humanitarian grift.

by Anonymousreply 296September 7, 2020 3:23 AM

You can't expect Wm and Kate to do Invictus and everything. There are limits. But who else is there? Perhaps bring the grand old duke of Pork out of retirement.

by Anonymousreply 297September 7, 2020 10:27 AM

Yet again, rinse, repeat: even aristocrats are "commoners". Anyone who is not royal is a commoner - Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was a commoner, Lady Diana Spencer was a commoner.

No HRH or HM: you are nonroyal and therefore a commoner.

Archie Harrison Mountbatten Windsor is a commoner, which galls his "linked not ranked" Champion of Equality Mum to no end.

The custom of royals marrying only other royals did begin petering out at the end of the Victorian era, and slowly royals marrying at least members of the nobility began petering out in the 20th century and not just in the BRF.

Sarah Ferguson, Diana, Mark Phillips, Sophie Wessex, Crown Pss. Mary of Denmark, Queen Maxima of The Netherlands, Queen Letizia of Spain, Prince Daniel of Sweden, Crown Pss. Mette-Marit of Norway, the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg (once a delicate slip of a pretty Cuban girl, now a seriously portly matron of a troublesome family) - all commoners.

The Earl of Harewood, a grandson of Queen Mary and King Edward VII, marries a Jewish concert pianist, Marion Stein, long before Pss. Margaret married Tony Artmstrong-Jones and Anne married Mark Phillips.

The BRF, by the way, looked down their noses at Marion Stein, but ended up liking her, appreciating her distinction and discretion, and siding with her when her husband treated her so very badly. The ex-Countess of Harewood apparently had a death wish where men were concerned, as her next marriage was to the man at the centre of a homosexual scandal, Jeremy Thorpe - later played by Ben Whishaw in a film of the story.

Anyone nonroyal is a commoner. I'm always amused when the tabloids refer to people like Zara Tindall, Peter Phillips as "young royals". Their mother went to great pains to keep them nonroyal, and once said testily, "They are not royal. They just happen to have a grandmother who is a Queen."

by Anonymousreply 298September 7, 2020 11:54 AM

Invictus is Harry’s creation, according to Wikipedia. (Of course we all know it was created for him, to rehab his image and give him a sort of job., but let’s let him have this.)

This is like a deadbeat dad skipping out on his kid’s 9th birthday because dad’s girlfriend wants to go to Disneyland. “Divorce isn’t going to change anything between us, little buddy. I still love you. But Meghan’s never been to Disneyland, so... you understand, right?”

by Anonymousreply 299September 7, 2020 11:55 AM

Harry has now betrayed everything.

by Anonymousreply 300September 7, 2020 12:00 PM

You can voluntarily surrender your place in the line of succession - BUT it requires Parliamentary consent to ratify it.

Andrew and Harry could easily ask the Queen to put such a bill before Parliament. It is likely that given that neither has acted in the best interests of a monarchy the UK government has very good use for, and the constant headaches both have presented in times when the government has enough on its hands and the view is that a smoothly running monarchy offering some soothing counterpart to governmental turmoil, and the public's likely taste for that slimmed down monarchy, there would be much resistance.

As for being a "pedo apologist" - fuck off and try separating unsupported unproven accusations in the public arena, and look up what the term "paedophilia" means. The accusations against Andrew were struck out of the Complaint in 2015. Robers, as she was then, was at the age of sexual consent. People coming out and using the word "rape" and "underage" girls haven't offered anything but hearsay and know perfectly well they will never have to prove anything of the kind in court.

It's the law that counts, not tabloid fodder.

What you are, is an apologist for vigilante justice without proof. Between what is more dangerous, the sleazy Andrew or vigilantes slinging around words whose actual meaning they choose to ignore and with no more proof than tabloid gossip . . . vigilantes like you are far more dangerous to society.

by Anonymousreply 301September 7, 2020 12:03 PM

^*wouldn't (not would) be too much resistance

by Anonymousreply 302September 7, 2020 12:04 PM

The Queen can't put a bill before parliament.

by Anonymousreply 303September 7, 2020 12:10 PM

[quote] Archie Harrison Mountbatten Windsor is a commoner, which galls his "linked not ranked" Champion of Equality Mum to no end.

Archie could have been royal if his parents had given him a title, though, couldn't he? He would have been HRH Archie, Earl of Dumbarton.

by Anonymousreply 304September 7, 2020 12:12 PM

The benefit of removing Andrew's and Harry's titles and places in the line of succession becomes more obvious the more it's discussed. It would bump up the bland York girls who could be eased in slowly for minor events. Archie could when he comes of age petition to be reinstated, only by then it will be meaningless, as Prince George and Princess Charlotte will both be over 18 with public attention focussed like a laser on them, and no one will care.

It will also go against everything his parents will have bee touting for the previous two decades, way out there in California where Archie will have been brought up, his father by then likely an American citizen by then, as Harry's ties to Britain and his family and the monarchy appear to be fraying by the week.

Take them out now, in a few years the fuss will have died down.

She can't leave them permanently in America, engaging in activism, but still waving their Dook and Dookess flags.

There was an item, I think in the SUN, that the Harkles aren't taking money from Charles any longer. The piece is somewhat misleading, as when read, it says they aren't being funded by the Duchy of Cornwall revenues any longer - which although technically Charles' private income, practically speaking is still monies being generated by taxpayer work.

It does NOT say that they aren't taking money from Charles' personal fortune any longer.

by Anonymousreply 305September 7, 2020 12:16 PM

Like Trump, they have complete disdain for soldiers and veterans.

You can’t make this shit up.

by Anonymousreply 306September 7, 2020 12:18 PM

R304 - No, Archie couldn't have been HRH Earl Dumbarton. An earldom doesn't carry an HRH, only the Queen could have given Archie an HRH, just as she gave William's three children HRHs because they were in the direct line of succession.

His parents couldn't "give" Archie anything. The child automatically has a right to use his father's subsidiary title, Earl Dumbarton, but his parents decreed when he was born that he wouldn't be using it. They probably knew by then they were leaving, and Earl Dumbarton wouldn't go down well in schools and playgrounds in California, where it is now clear Meghan was always headed. Britain and the BRF were just a necessary temporary stepping stone to fame and wealth.

Archie only gets an HRH if, when the Queen dies, Charles allows it (as a grandson of the Sovereign in the male line, Archie would rightfully inherit the HRH when Charles becomes King, just as Edward's children have the right to do and at 18 choose to do so).

However, Charles could issue Letters Patent that possession of an HRH will henceforth be limited only to those in the direct line of succession, and that his grandson, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, "at his parents' request", will not assume the style of HRH. The "direct" line means father to son/daughter . . . not uncles and nephews and grandchildren of younger sons and daughters. Charles, William, and George are the direct line now. Harry is in the numerical lineup but doomed to be pushed further and further back as the Cambridge kids marry and have children. Handing out HRHs like confetti was the problem King George V saw coming down the pike.

All that said, should things remain as they are, Archie stands automatically to inherit his father's ducal title and with it an HRH, and there isn't anything Charles could do about that - another good reason to take the titles and places in the line of succession NOW.

But what also happens if Harry dies as things stand now, Meghan will lose her royal title entirely. It was never hers by right, as she's an American citizen. It was just extended to her as a courtesy. If William died tomorrow, Kate would still be the Duchess of Cambridge.

If Harry died tomorrow, Meghan would be Meghan Markle, Duchess of Montecito.

by Anonymousreply 307September 7, 2020 12:31 PM

Throw the cripples under the bus, we need those $millions.

by Anonymousreply 308September 7, 2020 12:34 PM

R307 is generally wrong.

by Anonymousreply 309September 7, 2020 12:43 PM

What I know about titles: if Meghan doesn’t get to use a title, her kid sure as hell isn’t going to. She’s no Stella Dallas.

by Anonymousreply 310September 7, 2020 12:59 PM

R227 for the win.

by Anonymousreply 311September 7, 2020 1:09 PM

R227 - I don't know what you're bitching about. No, I'm not the College of Heralds, but in case you hadn't noticed, the only reason William's kids ARE HRHs is once Kate was safely past the first trimester with her first child, the Queen did just that: issued Letters Patent decreeing that all the Cambridge children would be styled Her or His Royal Highness.

Otherwise, George would be carrying his father's subsidiary title, and Charlotte and Louis would be Lady and Lord Cambridge. End of.

That's why Archie isn't an HRH, and the only way he gets to be one is 1) his father dies before the title is removed and Archie inherits Harry's title of HRH Duke of Sussex, 2) Charles becomes King and does NOT issue any Letters Patent and Archie automatically becomes HRH Prince Archie.

The Queen on her own can strip them of their HRHs. But she can't on her own deprive Harry of his ducal title, it takes an act of Parliament to strip an inherited peerage away. And ONLY Parliament can change the order of succession.

But Parliament won't do anything of the kind unilaterally, absent a major act of treason which is what the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 was legislated to address, without working with the Sovereign. It could, theoretically, but it won't. Alignment between the government and the monarchy have to be visible.

So, I'm not sure why you're being insulting about the "College of Heralds" when it's pointed out how the bloody thing really works.

Especially as, all that said, I'm in complete agreement with the rest of your post.

by Anonymousreply 312September 7, 2020 1:20 PM

I’m still cracking up at the Megawati photo. Every time I see “Megawatt” I think of it.

by Anonymousreply 313September 7, 2020 2:05 PM

Anyone other than The Sovereign and Peers of The Realm are commoners. Diana’s father was not a commoner, but Diana was. Diana was even a commoner as an HRH. Because she was neither The Sovereign nor a Peer(ess) of The Realm.

by Anonymousreply 314September 7, 2020 2:55 PM

[QUOTE] Meghan will lose her royal title entirely. It was never hers by right,

It’s never ANY wife’s by right. It’s ALWAYS by courtesy, no matter who the wife is, unless she married into the family with her own HRH like Princess Marina of Greece didn’t

On Harry’s death, Meghan will be styled HRH The Dowager Duchess of Sussex, unless some other arrangements are made by The Sovereign.

by Anonymousreply 315September 7, 2020 2:59 PM

like Princess Marina DID

damn autocorrect

by Anonymousreply 316September 7, 2020 3:00 PM

Enough with the titles. Let’s talk about the Netflix deal!

So there is a strict non-compete for their unnamed company, employees thereof and Meghan and Harry as individuals? That seems kind of... proprietary. If their production company makes a documentary, Netflix owns it?

I’m too stupid to understand the intricacies, but it sounds like something Meghan would chafe at, after a while. She doesn’t like being told what she can and can’t do.

by Anonymousreply 317September 7, 2020 3:26 PM

Is there a time limit on such a contract? I wonder if the restrictions/results as far as Invictus were a surprise to Dim or did he just go along even knowing what would happen?

by Anonymousreply 318September 7, 2020 3:30 PM

R317, we don't know the specific terms of the Netflix contract, but it seems as if Netflix will pay them the right of first refusal to any of the video content they produce, and may also have the right to prevent them from working with any competitor.

by Anonymousreply 319September 7, 2020 3:33 PM

It's an Exclusive Option Agreement, where anything that is refused cannot be taken elsewhere.

by Anonymousreply 320September 7, 2020 3:58 PM

R307

[quote] If William died tomorrow, Kate would still be the Duchess of Cambridge.

But if William died tomorrow, his eldest son would become the Duke of Cambridge. Should he then marry, his wife would become the Duchess of Cambridge. Would there be two Duchesses of Cambridge? Doesn’t sound likely.

by Anonymousreply 321September 7, 2020 4:23 PM

[QUOTE] Would there be two Duchesses of Cambridge? Doesn’t sound likely.

yes of course. There would be The Duchess of Cambridge, and The Dowager Duchess of Cambridge.

by Anonymousreply 322September 7, 2020 4:28 PM

Hello magazine is stating that H & M have repaid the money spend on Frogmore. Yeah, I need to see the receipts to believe this story.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 323September 7, 2020 4:33 PM

^ spent

by Anonymousreply 324September 7, 2020 4:34 PM

[quote]Hello magazine is stating that H & M have repaid the money spend on Frogmore. Yeah, I need to see the receipts to believe this story.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 325September 7, 2020 4:40 PM

I can only imagine what having Meghan for a boss will be like. Nightmare micromanaging bitch from hell.

by Anonymousreply 326September 7, 2020 4:41 PM

Maybe what you hear is the sound of Charles reaching into his own pocket to avoid the embarrassment.

by Anonymousreply 327September 7, 2020 4:52 PM

R321, wouldn’t she be the “Dowager Duchess of Cambridge”?

by Anonymousreply 328September 7, 2020 4:52 PM

Preaching to the masses about diversity, inclusivity, helping the downtrodden and the environment all the while living in a multi-million dollar sprawling mansion (what's the carbon footprint on that?) in a gated community in one of the wealthiest and whitest areas in the US. And they only associate with one percenters.

They hypocrisy is astounding. Seriously, fuck these two.

by Anonymousreply 329September 7, 2020 4:55 PM

[quote]I can only imagine what having Meghan for a boss will be like. Nightmare micromanaging bitch from hell.

Don't forget cunt and entitled psycho.

by Anonymousreply 330September 7, 2020 5:01 PM

If they've repaid the Frogmore money, then good for them.

by Anonymousreply 331September 7, 2020 5:15 PM

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that a few days ago a couple guys in Parliament noted their MEGAWATT deal and demanded they pay it back. Sheer coincidink.

by Anonymousreply 332September 7, 2020 5:47 PM

Don't forget the texts and emails at 5am. Don't forget Producer Harry screaming, "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets." Don't forget the NDAs, carbon-copied from the Trump WH.

by Anonymousreply 333September 7, 2020 7:16 PM

Yeah r333, I imagine working for these two would make even the sanest person want to jump out a window.

by Anonymousreply 334September 7, 2020 7:42 PM

They'd better watch out if CA has strong employment laws protecting employees.

by Anonymousreply 335September 7, 2020 8:05 PM

I guess the Netflix deal has already bought money in the coffers for legal threats. The Royal Forums has effectively banned all discussion of the Sessexes unless it’s Godlike worship

by Anonymousreply 336September 7, 2020 8:57 PM

It's interesting that they only stumped up the Frogmore money (or Charles did) when Members of Parliament began to call for full repayment post-Netflix deal.

Parliament is the body who can strip them of their titles. The moment MPs started complaining about their taxpayer funding, suddenly the Sussexes acted quickly. Coincidence? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 337September 7, 2020 9:02 PM

R336, that's their brand: they are against free speech.

by Anonymousreply 338September 7, 2020 9:06 PM

What R338 said.

by Anonymousreply 339September 7, 2020 9:07 PM

[quote]Parliament is the body who can strip them of their titles. The moment MPs started complaining about their taxpayer funding, suddenly the Sussexes acted quickly. Coincidence? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Parliament is the body who can strip them of their titles. The moment MPs started complaining about their taxpayer funding, suddenly Prince Charles acted quickly. Coincidence? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 340September 7, 2020 9:53 PM

Look at the photo at R337. We've all seen it, but there is something so loathsome about her very attractive photo/face. What is it and why do I hate her so?

by Anonymousreply 341September 7, 2020 10:08 PM

R340 - I think that's what happened. When the news of how rich they are going to be broke, they had to pay off Frogmore and announce they are no longer taking money from Charles either personally or through the Duchy of Cornwall revenues.

I don't think they had a choice left. It was either pay up or take an unbelievable amount of bad PR.

However, the official announcement also says that they will be paying rent on Frogmore Cottage going forward so they can retain it as their UK "home" when they visit Britain for "work".

I'd have liked to be able to see this as the Harkles slowly but surely cutting all ties with Old Blighty and the BRF.

The Netflix deal must have been a sure thing when they bought the house. Everyone knew that on the resources they were known to have, including Charles, the down payment and huge mortgage didn't make sense.

Now, it does. Fair play to them - as long as they stay far away from the family they betrayed and then slung mud at.

by Anonymousreply 342September 7, 2020 10:16 PM

I agree. If they pay their own way and quit slagging off the BRF, I'll have no problem with them. I don't want to watch any of their Netflix content, but if other people do and Netflix wants to pay them to make it, good for them.

by Anonymousreply 343September 7, 2020 10:27 PM

I'm not sure how the Dowager Duchess thing works. If William died tomorrow, Kate would remain a Princess of the United Kingdom and Duchess of Cornwall. Prince George even though underage would presumably inherit his father's ducal title immediately and Dowager Duchess would make sense - she's his mother, not his wife.

If William died whilst King, then Kate would be the equivalent of the Queen Mother, which I suspect would be the preferred mode, and which would reflect reality: she would still be an anointed Queen but mother of King George VII.

If William died whilst Prince of Wales, with Charles still on the throne, I'm not sure what arrangement they'd come to. Dowager Princess of Wales? William's former ducal title would be empty and not passed on to Louis, who is destined to be Duke of York. She could revert to Duchess of Cambridge whilst her eldest son assumed the mantle of Prince of Wales.

Just guesses.

by Anonymousreply 344September 7, 2020 10:27 PM

^*Damn, "still be Duchess of Cambridge" (not Cornwall, that's Camilla)

by Anonymousreply 345September 7, 2020 10:29 PM

If William dies tomorrow, Kate remains Princess and Duchess.

If Charles dies tomorrow, Camilla remains Princess and Duchess.

If Harry dies tomorrow, Meghan becomes a Mrs. This is only because she is not a British citizen. Had she become one, she'd be in the same position as Kate and Camilla in terms of titles - she would hold the title herself. Because of her citizenship, she is only styled as a courtesy. Her "title" (she doesn't actually have one in reality) disappears when the marriage does, either by death or divorce.

by Anonymousreply 346September 7, 2020 10:36 PM

R341 it's the phony smile with 1000 teeth and the furry hair that make Sparkles unappealing. She was attractive for a brief moment 6 or 7 years ago, but the massive botox fillers and facial implants are in full swing, so her future is all plastic.

by Anonymousreply 347September 7, 2020 10:54 PM

R341 - It's the smug look.

She's an attractive woman, but that laser like attraction to cameras which has been so obvious from the beginning as well as the "Me, Me, Me" smug look that is really ugly.

by Anonymousreply 348September 7, 2020 11:11 PM

The wording is weaselly. Harry made a “contribution”?

by Anonymousreply 349September 7, 2020 11:18 PM

A lot of people are noticing the weirdness of the statement: They made "a contribution" to cover "the necessary refurbishment". What about the unnecessary refurbishment (ie 80% of the refurb).

One theory as to why "they made a contribution" is that they are seeking a tax break for their "donation" - which could leave them open to charges of defrauding the taxpayer.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 350September 7, 2020 11:26 PM

R346 You (I assume that it’s you - the wording is the same very fucking time) keep saying that Meghan’s style and title are tied to her citizenship, and they’re just not. Every time that you trot out “by courtesy” because she’s an American, you’re wrong. She is a Duchess by courtesy because she is married to a Duke, not because she’s not British. If Harry died today she’d still be HRH The Duchess of Sussex. If Harry died and their son was married, Meghan would be referred to as HRH The Dowager Duchess of Sussex, with their son’s wife being “HRH The Duchess of Sussex”. If Harry and Meghan were to be divorced, whether or not he had remarried, she’d be “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” in the same way that tragic old Fergie is “Sarah, Duchess of York”.

That’s just how the system works, because the higher orders have always embraced multiple marriages, divorces and multiple wives and ex-wives. It has nothing to do with nationality and everything to do with marital status.

Let it go, sweetheart!

by Anonymousreply 351September 8, 2020 1:47 AM

So now it seems Harry is suing The Times over the Invictus games story

by Anonymousreply 352September 8, 2020 2:18 AM

No, r351, Fergie is a BRITISH CITIZEN and that is why she gets to keep the title after her divorce. Meghan won't, unless she becomes a British citizen, which she won't. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

by Anonymousreply 353September 8, 2020 2:24 AM

I don't think he is suing yet; he has filed a whiny complaint.

by Anonymousreply 354September 8, 2020 2:41 AM

R354, yes, he’s filed a complaint with an “oversight commission” that many newspapers belong to. It establishes media standards but doesn’t have the power to legally sanction anyone.

by Anonymousreply 355September 8, 2020 2:44 AM

R341 the loathesomeness is the insincerity which shines through in every pic. Well said R351: I blocked that citizen/courtesy-title cunt as too tiresome and ill-informed but from your post I guess s/he/it is still ranting.

by Anonymousreply 356September 8, 2020 3:17 AM

What exactly is his complaint, R355?

Was there an inaccuracy in the story? If so, how was it inaccurate?

One thing about Ginge & Cringe and their constant lawsuits, and complaints about the press... this pair's actions serve to reinforce the rationale where the RF don't comment on stories.

by Anonymousreply 357September 8, 2020 3:17 AM

The press complaints procedure does not expose the Harkles to costs, unlike an English lawsuit. So they have learned something: don't sue the press if it can reasonably be avoided; the press are insured, unlike most litigants and The Harkles who have to sell Harry's Purdy guns to pay the MoS.

by Anonymousreply 358September 8, 2020 3:24 AM

But didn't Harry's own lawyer reveal they dumped Invictus due to the conflict with Amazon?

by Anonymousreply 359September 8, 2020 3:37 AM

Meghan's dad Thomas Markle should go ahead and release a tell all about her. Meghan will never repair their relationship or be open to communication. And he can forget about ever seeing Archie. They're telling the BRF to f-off; Meghan will never associate with any member of her white trash family again.

by Anonymousreply 360September 8, 2020 3:43 AM

r353 is correct, r351. Remember also that Fergie worked out a special deal that was said to be one of a kind; same with Diana. There is zero certainty Meghan could work out the same deal.

by Anonymousreply 361September 8, 2020 4:02 AM

R360 eh, they all suck. Tom's adult grandchildren say he hasn't met all of them and was a sporadic grandfather to the ones he did. Him whining over Archie can hardly be taken as sincere.

by Anonymousreply 362September 8, 2020 4:19 AM

No, R61. Whatever special deal that poor old Fergie worked out, an ex wife of a peer is always known as FirstName, style and title.

E.g. Sarah, Duchess of York.

Nothing special, standard nomenclature. Nothing special if she’s English, American or Martian.

You queens need to let it go and stop spreading misinformation. You don’t know what you’re banging on about.

by Anonymousreply 363September 8, 2020 4:32 AM

Wrong, r363. Entirely, completely wrong.

I know you want it not to be that way, but that's the way it is. Accept it, and move on.

by Anonymousreply 364September 8, 2020 4:55 AM

May I ask a polite question, please? Wallis Simpson was 'Wallis, Duchess of Windsor'. Did she ever become a citizen of the UK? I don't have a horse in this race (Titles), but I appreciate the discussion.

by Anonymousreply 365September 8, 2020 5:06 AM

[quote]R347 She was attractive for a brief moment 6 or 7 years ago, but the massive botox fillers and facial implants are in full swing, so her future is all plastic.

Oh, cut the shit. M is easily the most beautiful woman in that family, from the 20th Century on. (I’ll cut the earlier generations some slack because photography was so crude in the 1800s, and their barely-there makeup style - and seeming unfamiliarity with eyebrow tweezers - makes the women often look bad to us now, while they might have seemed lovely in person.)

If you’re stopping to criticizing M’s looks, you’ve really run out of ammunition and hit rock bottom.

by Anonymousreply 366September 8, 2020 5:28 AM

R364 Simple solution - show me the Letters Patent that specify how the Royal (or formerly royal) female spouse of a royal duke is styled following their divorce from or the death of their royal ducal spouse. Otherwise how the the non-royal female former spouse following their divorce from or the death of their non-ducal (or Marquess, Earl, Viscount or Baron) spouse is styled?

Here’s a little tip for you, simpleton - try Debretts Peerage - they’re pretty well acknowledged as the experts in this esoteric area.

Then get back to me.

Then you can resume babbling on about that of which you know very little.

Looking forward to your response, you pompous ill-informed twat.

by Anonymousreply 367September 8, 2020 5:33 AM

[quote]R341 there is something so loathsome about her very attractive photo/face. What is it and [bold]why do I hate her so?[/bold]

Jealousy?

Seriously, you should try to do something about that; it’s extremely bad for your physical and mental health.

by Anonymousreply 368September 8, 2020 5:33 AM

R365, Wallace Simpson became a British citizen during the First World War. So, despite being hated by the BRF, she got to keep her title after David/Edward died.

by Anonymousreply 369September 8, 2020 5:48 AM

^^ she also got to keep the royal possessions and old jewels they squirreled out of the country.

by Anonymousreply 370September 8, 2020 5:58 AM

R369, Thank you! I'm afraid I got lost trying to answer my own question.

by Anonymousreply 371September 8, 2020 6:28 AM

Do the various Klan trolls understand that only the British government can strip H and M of their titles? How likely are they to be seen persecuting a biracial woman in 2020, year of BLM? Fergie has already set a precedent for a divorced royal who keeps her title and makes money out of it. Face of Weightwatchers, children's book author. M and H are off the Civil List so what they're doing is comparable to Fergie now.

by Anonymousreply 372September 8, 2020 9:58 AM

Its the Klan Granny Troll! The one who comes here to make nonsensical wordsalad threats against anyone who dares to criticise Meghan Markle.

Oh, by the way: Hello, Meghan.

by Anonymousreply 373September 8, 2020 10:04 AM

[QUOTE] she would hold the title herself

I’ll say it again. NO wife holds the husband’s title themselves in the BRF. They get their title by courtesy, unless they have one of their own. Meghan and Catherine (and Marie-Christine and Catherine Kent, and Bridget Gloucester, and Sophie Wessex) all owe their titles and styles to being married to their husbands. When their husbands die they become “The Dowager” affixed to their style and title. If they divorce they become Firstname, Title” like Diana and Sarah.

Meghan being an American doesn’t change any of that. American-born Wallis Windsor remained Her Grace The Duchess of Windsor until she died. American-born Queen Noor is still Queen Noor, even as a widow.

by Anonymousreply 374September 8, 2020 11:41 AM

The Queen didn't have to issue Letters Patent following the divorces of Diana and Sarah Ferguson re the removal of their HRHs. The Queen can unilaterally revoke and HRH just as she can unilaterally bestow one, as she did on William's children as they were great-grandchildren in the male line, not grandchildren, and thus weren't automatically entitled to one. Ditto Archie: a great-grandchild but already only 7th in line, so, no HRH.

The use of HRH was agreed to on the Queen's insistence as part of their divorce deals. It's unlikely that either, as higher-ranking UK citizens, would have defied her in this regard - and risk her actually issuing those Letters Patent. But had the Queen not insisted on the loss of those HRHs, the two women after their divorces would have carried on being HRH Diana Princess of Wales and HRH Sarah Duchess of York - with the possibility that in the event of their husband's remarrying, there would be two HRH The Duchess of Yorks around, and that's why the removal of those titles is important.

Meghan IS a different case due to being an American citizen. She doesn't have to care. In the event of a divorce, it will be imperative that she drop the HRH or, if Harry remarries, there will be two HRH The Duchess of Sussexes about, which is impossible.

So if it takes a Letter of Patent the Queen can and will do it. If Meghan surrenders the right in the interests of a big settlement, fine. If she doesn't, the Sovereign can issue Letters Patent depriving her of the HRH.

The title gets removed from Meghan only if it gets removed from Harry, which can only be done with the assent of a Parliamentary committee acting for the government as a whole. Personally, I think this a likely eventuality, the tides appear to be moving in that direction.

I doubt Whitehall, far more than the monarchy, is interested in high-profile royals carrying British royal titles campaigning in American politics.

by Anonymousreply 375September 8, 2020 12:25 PM

^*the LOSS OF use of HRHs

by Anonymousreply 376September 8, 2020 12:25 PM

^*The Queen DID issue Letters Patent bestowing HRHs on William's children, by the way. I think she had to.

by Anonymousreply 377September 8, 2020 12:26 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 378September 8, 2020 1:18 PM

I don’t really understand how the Netflix people think they’re the exception. Everyone who’s gotten tangled with Meghan Markle has been burned and dropped.

by Anonymousreply 379September 8, 2020 1:35 PM

[quote] M is easily the most beautiful woman in that family, from the 20th Century on.

I'd say Kate and Meghan were roughly equally attractive when they were younger, although Meghan is aging better.

by Anonymousreply 380September 8, 2020 1:58 PM

[quote]I don’t really understand how the Netflix people think they’re the exception.

Netflix only signed them to get access to Harry for a Diana series. And they'll have a professional work on that and just give Harry and Meghan producer credits. I doubt we'll see any other content from them.

by Anonymousreply 381September 8, 2020 2:01 PM

[quote] If William died whilst King, then Kate would be the equivalent of the Queen Mother, which I suspect would be the preferred mode, and which would reflect reality: she would still be an anointed Queen but mother of King George VII.

I think Kate would be known as Queen Catherine after William's death, while George's wife (if he had one) would be THE Queen.

by Anonymousreply 382September 8, 2020 2:01 PM

Kate will be known as Queen Mother.

by Anonymousreply 383September 8, 2020 2:02 PM

Meghan has a very pretty face. Not sure I’d say “beautiful”, but very pretty. Sadly, that’s where any of her loveliness ends.

She’s mercenary.

by Anonymousreply 384September 8, 2020 2:10 PM

Not necessarily, R383 - the current Queen’s mother was known as ”Queen Mother” because she shared a first name with her daughter so, to avoid confusion upon the latter’s ascension, chose to be styled as such.

Otherwise, she would have been styled in the same way as previous widowed queens, such as Queen Mary and Queen Alexandra, with the wife of the monarch referred to as “The Queen”.

In the royal households, while she was alive, she was always referred to as “Queen Elizabeth”, with her daughter as”The Queen”.

Finally, in the period between the death of King George VI and that of his mother, there were three living queens, which was pretty rare: Queen Mary, Queen Mother and The Queen.

by Anonymousreply 385September 8, 2020 2:14 PM

Good God! More of this Letters Patent shit. You Queens are worse than a pompous peer upset at the Earl Marshal because a mortar baronet has a better vantage point than he at the State Opening of Parliament!

Parliament will tell the sovereign what prerogatives he/she possesses, and the sovereign will listen to Parliament if he/she wishes to keep his/her head.

Where did they get this money to pay off the British taxpayer for the millions spent on the home whose roof they will never sleep under again? From a deal with a streaming service for documentaries yet to be produced? And to obtain that, they have turned their backs on injured veterans!

I issue "Letters Patent" that this unlettered buffoon and his wife are a couple of grifters who may say that they are "financially independent," but who are far from earning incomes through actual work. And they just hoodwinked the world about this.

In an earlier post, I suggested that Mr. and Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor should be deported back to the UK and his Granny should banish them to a council estate in Birmingham...

In all seriousness, here is a quote about Birmingham today from "The Guardian:"

[quote]But for Asif Mohammed, 24, regional chair of Unite and an inner-city resident, a lack of leadership had contributed to the rise in violence in Birmingham. “The city has become desensitised to knife crime. Local policymakers have traditionally ignored the inner city, and the only time when they care is when it makes the headlines,” he said. “I think West Midlands police has failed to take the violence seriously. I don’t see the police [and] crime commissioner or Birmingham city council visit our areas. It is almost for the community to be left with tackling drugs and violent crime.”

If these two were really interested in "connection with the people and organizations that make the world a better place," they would return to the UK, contact leaders from both parties and offer their services to help that and similar problems in the UK. But neither one is interested in that...

No...they want the titles, but none of the responsibility. They want to be left alone on a $15 million estate, "producing" documentaries whose labor production is not their own, and appear every once in a while to plant "Forget Me Nots" in memory of a woman, who may have divorced herself from the family but who never forgot her responsibilities that went with the title she kept.

by Anonymousreply 386September 8, 2020 2:26 PM

Apologies for wading into the argument (I self-style as the "Titles Troll" from time to time here), but r346/r353 are likely correct. I believe there's an arcane rule someplace about ROYAL courtesy titles (*not* non-royal courtesy titles, held by divorcees in the general UK Peerage), only being held by UK citizens, either naturalized or at birth.

I can't find such proclamation at the moment despite Googling, but it has been discussed in several previous threads here, esp around the time of the marriage. In other for Meghan to keep the courtesy "Duchess of Sussex" title after a divorce, she's has to have taken UK citizenship - which was supposed to have taken minimum of 5 yrs from her marriage, if she had stayed most of the year in the UK (which doesn't appear to be a priority now to her, apparently).

If this is true however, imo I believe that QE, a King Charles or even (yes) King William would probably issue a statement that Megs could continue to be *Styled* as "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" as she would have been had she stayed in the UK and gain citizenship. For family peace sake, and possibly for Archie's. Just my op.

by Anonymousreply 387September 8, 2020 3:03 PM

If Harry and Meghan divorce, I doubt she'll want to keep the title. Her post-divorce narrative will be all about freeing herself from the shackles of royalty and her bad marriage, etc. etc. She'll get a lot more publicity from surrendering the title than by keeping it, and publicity is what she cares about. Besides, if she does dump Harry, it's probably because she's snared a much richer, more important husband. Meghan would much rather be Mrs. Musk or Mrs. Bezos than Duchess of Sussex.

by Anonymousreply 388September 8, 2020 3:09 PM

[quote]Meghan IS a different case due to being an American citizen. She doesn't have to care. In the event of a divorce, it will be imperative that she drop the HRH or, if Harry remarries, there will be two HRH The Duchess of Sussexes about, which is impossible.

No its not impossible. There can be, and have been, many instances of multiple "Duchess of X" hanging about, due to expanded lifespans and the rise of divorce in the past century.

This has happened many times with non-royal peers: the late Sunny, Duke of Marlborough as an example was married something like 5 or 6 times. Several of his exes re-married, and so lost their courtesy "Duchess title", but had they not there very well would have been several "Duchess of Marlboroughs" walking around.

It's not impossible, it happens. It may not be desired (too confusing) but its allowed. It could easily happen in the BRF as well, especially if the women live very long lifespans and/or divorces and re-marriages occur.

by Anonymousreply 389September 8, 2020 3:10 PM

^^ should correct my post above to say that there can only be one current "HRH Duchess of Sussex" at any time, but multiple non-HRH "Duchess of Sussex" if say, Harry were to re-marry several times in his lifetime. Just correcting as someone will inevitably point this distinction out.

by Anonymousreply 390September 8, 2020 3:38 PM

I know that the current Queen's mother became known as "The Queen Mother" or "The Queen Mum" when Elizabeth's father died, but is "The Queen Mother" an official title?

Queen Elizabeth's grandmother, Queen Mary, was mother to both Edward VIII (aka The Duke of Windsor) and George VI (the current Queen's father) and I don't recall her ever being known as "The Queen Mother".

Wasn't the term "The Queen Mother" used after George VI died, to distinguish between the 2 Queens (the current Queen Elizabeth and her mother), who were both named Elizabeth?

Was it even used before?

It seems that it is wholly identified with the woman who had been married to George VI.

I would doubt that the Duchess of Cambridge would be known as "The Queen Mother" when her son George becomes king. Unless, perhaps, his wife is also named Catherine.

by Anonymousreply 391September 8, 2020 3:49 PM

Can we talk about Harry’s immigration status? I suppose the rules don’t apply to him.

I totally agree, r388. Harry will be of little use to her soon. I’ve said it from the beginning: he’s a stepping stone.

by Anonymousreply 392September 8, 2020 3:50 PM

Well? What is his immigration status and how does he have the right to work here as a 'producer'?

by Anonymousreply 393September 8, 2020 3:59 PM

r391/r393 I'm assuming Harry's immigration status in the US would go the same way as other wealthy UK emigres in years past. He'll gain citizenship after the required number of years working and living her, paying taxes and "contributing" to the economy as a Hollywood producer. His wife being a citizen will also "anchor" him during this time.

Look at all the British rock stars, actors and producers who have lived and currently live in CA and elsewhere here. Many aren't married to Americans either, as Harry is. They receive special immigration status due to their wealth and "special talents" brought here.

Will throw in a response to r391 so as not to make separate post: the Queen Mother's title was an unofficial styling she used, it isn't an "official" title or rank in the UK. She wanted to make a distinction between herself and her same-named daughter, Elizabeth II, to avoid confusion.

Queen Mary was also technically "Queen Mother" after she was widowed, but chose not to use that styling as she allegedly felt it made her appear "older" or in advanced age (per a biography from several yrs ago). It's a personal choice.

by Anonymousreply 394September 8, 2020 4:08 PM

Definitely there's a special immigration category of I'm Just Rich.

by Anonymousreply 395September 8, 2020 4:12 PM

Meghan is cute. Cut the shit. She isn't beautiful. Barely pretty- but the definition of a cute girl with the freckles and little nose and big toothy smile. Kate was cute, she is absolutely prettier but she is aging badly. Meghan is thicker, Kate pretty ano- pick your poison.

Don't delude yourself with your stanning. Meghan will never be beautiful.

by Anonymousreply 396September 8, 2020 4:13 PM

R395, many countries have this: if you bring x amount of money into the country, you’re good. I believe in the US it’s called an Investor’s Visa.

by Anonymousreply 397September 8, 2020 4:16 PM

Massive photoshop can't correct Sparkles' lifeless smile around 1000 teeth atop teeny chicken legs.

by Anonymousreply 398September 8, 2020 4:17 PM

Oddly there were remarkably few 'Queen Mothers' in British history between the 16th and 20th centuries - really only Henrietta Maria, Charles I's widow, who lived in France most of the time. There were more dowager queens, widowed queens who were not the mother of the next king, though there weren't that many of them either (Catherine of Braganza, Queen Adelaide).

by Anonymousreply 399September 8, 2020 4:31 PM

A suggestion for the 'title/styling' queens ... start your own thread and thrash each other for the rest of eternity. I can see the fascination with the speculation of what will become of Meghan's titles, but its getting over the top on this thread.

by Anonymousreply 400September 8, 2020 4:58 PM

He's got Melania-Einstein green card. Seriously?

by Anonymousreply 401September 8, 2020 4:58 PM

If Rod Stewart can have one all these many years r401, so can Harry.

by Anonymousreply 402September 8, 2020 5:05 PM

She’ll style herself anyway she dares to after the divorce. She’s out for bigger fish as in filthy rich types, no way will she try to hustle for more than a few years. It’s hard to stay relevant and successful in the industry and there’ll be a time when dimwit Harry lose interest snd get tired of being the sycophant. He’ll resent the fact that within that circle, he’s not the feted one but the one kissing other bigwigs’ asses in order to get work.

by Anonymousreply 403September 8, 2020 5:10 PM

So, it's true then, that Sparkle & Dim have paid back all the Frogmore costs? According to the article linked at R78.

That's good.

But it's accompanied by more whining from the Whinging Gringe about how the Sovereign Grant money was used to control him.

How was he forced to accept money from the SG? Weren't he and Cringe given the choice whether to be working Royals or not before the wedding?

Curious to know where the payback money came from? Did Harry get it from the money he got from his mother? Or was their upfront money from Netflix?

I know nothing about Hollywood deals, etc. Would the pair have received lots of money just for signing on the dotted line? I wonder who their lawyer works for? Harry or the spouse.

by Anonymousreply 404September 8, 2020 5:15 PM

Netflix paid the money directly to the Queen. She insisted.

by Anonymousreply 405September 8, 2020 5:19 PM

r404 it was discussed upthread or elsewhere on this board that the Netflix deal likely paid H&M a smallish upfront signing fee, perhaps $5 to 10 million. They may also be on the hook for partial financial support for H&M's office space, salaries, and other costs of their production house. But the big money won't be paid out until they purchase the finished product and stream it. Basically it's a hybrid "first look" deal.

by Anonymousreply 406September 8, 2020 5:25 PM

Such a woke, modern feminist took her husband's name and titles upon marriage, and no addition of Markle or Ragland in her son's names anywhere. Hmm 🤔

by Anonymousreply 407September 8, 2020 5:42 PM

^^^ yeah isn’t it the African American tradition to use your mother’s name too? Like, Dr Keisha Withers-Hooks or Professor Darnell Washington-Small. I thought it was to pay homage to the unfortunate fact that most AA families are matriarchies now.

by Anonymousreply 408September 8, 2020 5:59 PM

"M is easily the most beautiful woman in that family, from the 20th Century on."

Oh, my sides!!!!!

Diana outclassed them all, bar none, and Margaret was quite beautiful in her late teens and early twenties, but lost it quickly.

The 35 year old barrel shaped stick legged short ashy skinned woman with the mess of hair weaves was better looking than the tall, blonde, photogenic miracle with the huge blue eyes and legs like Ann Miller's.

I may fall right out of this chair laughing.

by Anonymousreply 409September 8, 2020 8:24 PM

I laughed too r409. What can you do? Some people have taste, some people not so much.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 410September 8, 2020 8:31 PM

Meghan has a pretty face and a nice smile. Her figure is not particularly well-proportioned, though, and she's on the short side. If she wanted to look her best, she'd dress the way they dressed her on Suits: In simple, tailored clothes that don't overwhelm her figure.

by Anonymousreply 411September 8, 2020 8:33 PM

[quote]I thought it was to pay homage to the unfortunate fact that most AA families are matriarchies now.

Not our fault!

by Anonymousreply 412September 8, 2020 9:06 PM

[quote] Diana outclassed them all, bar none, and Margaret was quite beautiful in her late teens and early twenties, but lost it quickly.

I agree Margaret was beautiful as a young woman. I'd put Diana in the same category as Jacqueline Kennedy - attractive and elegant, but not a conventional beauty. Diana's main asset was her charisma. None of the current royals come close in that respect. Harry and Kate come across as quite charming, but not charismatic.

by Anonymousreply 413September 8, 2020 9:58 PM

[QUOTE] The 35 year old barrel shaped stick legged short ashy skinned woman

I agree with misshapen and stick legged, and her hair is a mess. But I wouldn’t call her ashy by any means. She’s not dark enough, you can only see ‘ash’ (which is just dried skin cells sloughed off, a normal human process) on darker skin people. Viola Davis and Whoopi, for instance, need to slather tons of moisturizer on else they’d be ashy in an instant. Me Again is fair enough that it would be hard to see anywhere except maybe her knees.

by Anonymousreply 414September 8, 2020 11:48 PM

[QUOTE] None of the current royals come close in that respect.

Well, fuck you too!

by Anonymousreply 415September 8, 2020 11:49 PM

Meghan will not marry another man richer or higher in status than Harry. When they divorce, she will be in her menopausal 40s and her reputation as a gold digger will block any great catch from getting involved with her. Think the stigma of Monica Lewinsky x 10.

by Anonymousreply 416September 9, 2020 12:03 AM

She might snag a Russian rich guy, ugly as fuck but loaded.

by Anonymousreply 417September 9, 2020 12:13 AM

'Oh, my sides!!!!! Diana outclassed them all, bar none, and Margaret was quite beautiful in her late teens and early twenties, but lost it quickly. The 35 year old barrel shaped stick legged short ashy skinned woman with the mess of hair weaves was better looking than the tall, blonde, photogenic miracle with the huge blue eyes and legs like Ann Miller's. I may fall right out of this chair laughing.'

Jesus fucking Christ, Adolf Hitler came on the thread at R429 to defend his beloved Aryan princess against the 'ashy skinned' biracial woman. And you Klan cunts say you're not racist.

You're NAZIS.

by Anonymousreply 418September 9, 2020 12:36 AM

R417– The problem there is that when he’s done with you, you don’t get a massive settlement. You “accidentally” fall out of an open window. I doubt Meghan wants that

by Anonymousreply 419September 9, 2020 12:36 AM

'The 35 year old barrel shaped stick legged short ashy skinned woman with the mess of hair weaves was better looking than the tall, blonde, photogenic miracle with the huge blue eyes and legs like Ann Miller's.'

Racist cunt.

Dumbass, fucked up Diana looked like a transwoman, - no waist, huge feet, towering over everybody. She was also dumb as mud and semi literate. Failed all her O levels. Meghan has a college degree and is a hundred times more articulate than mentally ill, bulimic DIE-ana.

by Anonymousreply 420September 9, 2020 12:42 AM

All about branding with these two cunts.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 421September 9, 2020 12:44 AM

I love that that article opens with: "They really are royal pains."

by Anonymousreply 422September 9, 2020 12:54 AM

What on earth could these tow ignoramuses have to share with any decent person? They've only proven themselves to be tabloid trash.

by Anonymousreply 423September 9, 2020 12:55 AM

That stringy coal black witch hair is disgusting. Imagine finding one of those hairs in the bathtub.

by Anonymousreply 424September 9, 2020 4:10 AM

This is an amazing story to watch play out. They're both so unlikeable, and so greedy and so selfish. And he threw away being the most beloved person in Britain to become the second most hated person in Britain after meeting her. I hope they stay together forever. So long as they do, this is the gossip carcrash story that gives and gives and then gives again.

by Anonymousreply 425September 9, 2020 4:18 AM

He was the most popular royal after the Queen, the public loved him. What a shame to throw away all that goodwill.

by Anonymousreply 426September 9, 2020 4:23 AM

Ginge pubes are hella wiry dental floss, so what do we think? Is Harry a groomer? Is it trimmed up nice or shorn?

by Anonymousreply 427September 9, 2020 4:45 AM

Meghan actually reminds me of Reese Witherspoon. A type-A control freak and majorly uptight, and completely unlikable. Also, a total nightmare behind the scenes.

by Anonymousreply 428September 9, 2020 4:48 AM

He is whatever his wife tells him to be, r427

by Anonymousreply 429September 9, 2020 4:48 AM

Tbh, I think that venus fly trap has closed up on his Dick and that's how he is being dragged around.

by Anonymousreply 430September 9, 2020 4:56 AM

I know and it's glorious, r430. And by such an utter, complete scumbag of a woman too.

It's SUCH a good tale. It will be retold as a cautionary one until the end of time.

by Anonymousreply 431September 9, 2020 5:59 AM

R428 excuse you I am successful

by Anonymousreply 432September 9, 2020 6:27 AM

Face-wise, MM is probably the most attractive living royal, although she looked better before her most recent change to her teeth. Pss Michael when she was younger was beautiful and she and her husband are still the most elegant of the lot. There are plenty of royal-adjacent stunners though - the Spencer girls, Arthur Chatto. Not a fan of Lady Amelia Windsor, though she's big on the runway.

MM's hair, body and atrocious taste pull her way down however.

by Anonymousreply 433September 9, 2020 7:28 AM

AWWW Harry has become irwwitated:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 434September 9, 2020 8:26 AM

[QUOTE] He was the most popular royal after the Queen, the public loved him. What a shame to throw away all that goodwill.

He is still more popular than the next monarch in all the polls.

by Anonymousreply 435September 9, 2020 9:11 AM

Harry is uxorious in the extreme. There won't be a divorce but there probably will be a second child.

by Anonymousreply 436September 9, 2020 9:14 AM

Oh,,,, r435... oh.

Harry, just stop being an international cuck.

Just stop. Being a cuck.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 437September 9, 2020 9:27 AM

R435 AS IF..

by Anonymousreply 438September 9, 2020 12:07 PM

Diana wasn't a classic beauty, but few women are, even the beautiful ones. It's more about whether the whole is greater than the parts, which in Diana's case, absolutely was the case.

She had gorgeous skin, beautiful eyes, beautiful hair, spectacular legs, beautiful teeth (her own, as it happens, you can tell from her late teen-aged photos), and commanding height. That's quite enough to go on with in the beauty line.

Meghan looked like a million cute Latino girls in L.A. She destroyed her natural hair with straightening and weaves, her teeth are clearly veneers, she's had her lips done recently and a nose job much earlier, she has terrible legs, no waist, and a short thick middle. Unretouched photos show ashy skin, forehead wrinkles, moles, and grey hair at the roots as her natural hair grows in. In those Zoom calls, she's clearly being seen through layers of fiters.

by Anonymousreply 439September 9, 2020 12:19 PM

R435 - Yes, he's more popular in those polls than his father, but then so are his grandmother, older brother, and sister-in-law; in fact, the latter three are now more popular than he is, and that poll was taken before Finding Freebies was published.

In the most recent poll taken after the Netflix deal announcement (also done by YouGov) only 15% said they had any interest in watching anything produced by the Harkles; 85% said NOT.

My guess is that next year, those polls will show increasing distance of Harry from the people of his natal country.

Not that he or Meghan care about that. They'll put in regular appearances so they can hold onto their so very UnWoke titles. When Meghan thinks she doesn't need the title for wealth or pull anymore, she'll ditch Harry.

by Anonymousreply 440September 9, 2020 12:23 PM

R440. I don't think anyone cares about Meghan and Harry outside Twitter and celebitchy.

by Anonymousreply 441September 9, 2020 12:50 PM

R441 - If that were the case, the tabloids wouldn't be running every possible story on them on a nearly daily basis. They're getting tens of thousands of comments and therefore, ad clicks.

If it were only Twitter and Celebitchy, we'd be afflicted with far less coverage of them.

by Anonymousreply 442September 9, 2020 1:16 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 443September 9, 2020 1:25 PM

Doubtful, r417. Too bossy, hot-headed, litigious.

by Anonymousreply 444September 9, 2020 1:45 PM

I'm so glad I don't have a Netflix account so not a penny of my money is going in these sanctimonious phonies pockets.

by Anonymousreply 445September 9, 2020 1:48 PM

R444, and too old.

by Anonymousreply 446September 9, 2020 2:54 PM

Netflix is going to regret this. These two thin-skinned vexatious litigants haven’t changed their spots.

by Anonymousreply 447September 9, 2020 2:57 PM

I love how part of the Sussexes’ stipulations for speaking appearance includes knowing details of event sponsors and attendees. God forbid the wrong sort of attendees are associated with these events. I also laugh at them wanting to be paid directly from the organization and not third party/ LLC entities. Another case of do as I say not as I do.

by Anonymousreply 448September 9, 2020 2:58 PM

Let’s go back to talking about their grifts, the speaking gigs and producer roles.

About the speaking engagements, it’s too farcical that they’re give a place at the table at all. Aside from the fact that they see themselves as renowned experts with valuable contributions to various issues of importance, there is zero substance or experience to gain them entrance into the discussion other than as attendees at such conferences. That they’re being promoted as esteemed speakers is bad enough, but these two narcissists have to one-up it by demanding royal decrees to control every minutiae of the events which they’d gracefully consider headlining. It reeks of type-A control freak narcissism.

With their newfound roles as producers, what this means is that they’ll hire actual staff with producing experience but they’ll take credit for the final product. Nothing but exercises in vanity and getting paid handsomely for it. No doubt they’ll have the actual producers sign confidentiality agreements to keep the lies going. That’s their idea of what producers do, they think it’s just coming up with trite ideas and have their underlinings do the actual work. It’s why rich morons all over the world head to Hollywood to become producers, they think it’s easy. The Dodie Fayeds of the world think all one does is to act like bigwigs and that is all that’s required. Now add dimwit Harry and thirsty Megs to the list.

by Anonymousreply 449September 9, 2020 5:04 PM

Who would be interested in hearing them speak about anything? What are their credentials? I can't imagine anyone in the audience at a corporate event i.e. hard-working, educated professionals with years of experience in a particular field would find anything they had to say of any value.

by Anonymousreply 450September 9, 2020 5:39 PM

R450 I think attendees of events that feature Harry and Meghan as speakers should also be entitled to an attendees bill of rights. Attendees of these events should expect that the organizers properly choose experts that are actual experts, or short of that, speakers who have discernible talents or experience. Attendees should expect that discernible talents fo not mean propensity for self-aggrandizement or ability to sue media outlets.

If I was a member of an organization that hires these two cunts to lecture me, I’d be pissed off and demand full accounting of money wasted on paying these grifters.

by Anonymousreply 451September 9, 2020 5:46 PM

They are devoid of any merit whatsoever. No achievements beyond the reach of any moderately capable person.

Being born to the royal family is not an 'achievement'. Both had less than mediocre 'professional' careers ('soldier', 'actress'), and they both exited those careers when the writing was on the wall.

Devoid of any merit. Case closed.

by Anonymousreply 452September 9, 2020 5:49 PM

>>Being born to the royal family is not an 'achievement'.

I'd be willing to hear Prince Charles speak. I wouldn't pay a lot, but I'd be interested in what he had to say.

by Anonymousreply 453September 9, 2020 6:02 PM

I'm very sorry that Harry lost his mother so prematurely, it was a truly tragic event. That being said, a) it was nearly 25 years ago and b) lots and lots of people lost a parent in childhood but they had to move on and make a life for themselves and they didn't have any of the resources that Harry had.

by Anonymousreply 454September 9, 2020 6:11 PM

R441 I have never met anyone that gives a fuck about those two grifters outside gossip blogs. They are famous among certain fraus that read gossip blogs so the tabloids will document their every moves. They are kind of royal and those cheesy tabloids will love them.

by Anonymousreply 455September 9, 2020 8:06 PM

The Netflix boss says “it’s going to be epic entertainment” which describes the Sussexes to a T, so I guess he knows what he’s doing.

by Anonymousreply 456September 9, 2020 8:13 PM

Is this when Netflix jumped the shark?

by Anonymousreply 457September 9, 2020 8:16 PM

OT but - is anyone else's Search function here not working, as mine is? I can't get any DL search results, on any keyword I put in, past the last day of August (Aug 31).

Is Murs aware?

by Anonymousreply 458September 9, 2020 8:43 PM

'm so glad I don't have a Netflix account so not a penny of my money is going in these sanctimonious phonies pockets

Thanks for confirming your Klan GRANNY status. Netflix is aimed at 20-50 year olds, NOT 70 plus.

by Anonymousreply 459September 9, 2020 9:14 PM

One of the bigwigs at Netflix is promising that the Harkles' programming will be "epic entertainment".

Obviously he has been in a coma for the last three years, or he would know that nothing could surpass the epic entertainment H&M have already served up - especially over the last year or so.

And, quelle surprise! Scobie is filming with Netflix, too!

There's a right shock.

by Anonymousreply 460September 9, 2020 10:43 PM

They aren't concerned about the "wrong sort of people" attending their talks.

It's called networking. They want to be sure any audience is packed with people who can do them good through connections.

These two people have no moral compass: their compass only points in one direction: S (for Sussex).

It Genghis Khan swept down on L.A. and took over, Meghan would be at his door the next morning with some home-baked banana bread.

by Anonymousreply 461September 9, 2020 10:46 PM

R455 - Oh come off it. The broadsheets have been covering them as well. They've been making headlines endlessly. I don't know people who "care" about them, either.

Not "caring" about them covers most of us, in truth.

Gossiping about them is another matter.

They don't get out of bed in the UK thinking about the Queen, either. Or Boris Johnson. Or whether Scotland is really breaking off soon.

But they take notice when headlines break about those.

And, in case you hadn't noticed, this IS a fucking gossip site. Do you think we all get out of bed or know dozens of people with two fucks to give about Richard Madden? Timothee Chalamet? Sam Heughan? The Kardashians? Armie Hammer?

Guess again. Just the same, here we are gossiping about them.

by Anonymousreply 462September 9, 2020 10:50 PM

Apparently Finding Freedom is an international bestseller so maybe Netflix feels there's an audience for whatever the Sussexes produce. They have been the one of the most entertaining soap operas in quite a while witness the number of threads here on them.

by Anonymousreply 463September 9, 2020 11:11 PM

"International best seller" in BRF category, right?

by Anonymousreply 464September 9, 2020 11:17 PM

Bestsellers aren’t a gauge for popularity nor quality. I mean Bill O’Reilly has written bestsellers. Whether that translates into streaming views, it remains to be seen.

by Anonymousreply 465September 9, 2020 11:46 PM

Last night at dinner, I asked a family member who is a reality TV producer if they knew about the Markle/Netflix deal. She started to say something and someone else brought something else up and we all talked about that. That’s how much other people think about it.

I wanted to hear what she had to say, but didn’t want to perseverate. Another time.

by Anonymousreply 466September 9, 2020 11:56 PM

'I wanted to hear what she had to say, but didn’t want to perseverate. '

Oh, dear.

by Anonymousreply 467September 10, 2020 12:41 AM

Netflix has millions of subscribers who love the brf and salivate over The Crown. They will all watch anything featuring Harry. Haters of Harry and Meghan like the Klan whores on this thread will also watch anything they feature in so they can tear it apart on their chosen gossip site. It's win win either way.

by Anonymousreply 468September 10, 2020 12:43 AM

Criticism of Meghan isn't because she's black Klan Granny Troll. The reasons why people dislike her have been spelled out repeatedly.

My opinion is that if Meghan were 100% white the criticism would be even worse over her antics, esp. in the mainstream media.

by Anonymousreply 469September 10, 2020 12:46 AM

“Perseverate” is a word. Look it up.

by Anonymousreply 470September 10, 2020 4:44 AM

Key longtime executive announces exit from Netflix hot on the heels of the Markle deal announcement.

Hmmmm.

by Anonymousreply 471September 10, 2020 4:49 AM

r459

You are wrong. I am well below 50 and thus part of Netflixs target audience.

What is this glan Granny nonsense? I am male and childless and therefore nobodys granny!

by Anonymousreply 472September 10, 2020 5:33 AM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 473September 10, 2020 10:01 AM

I’m guessing Omid was taping his contribution to the Digging Up Diana documentary.

by Anonymousreply 474September 10, 2020 2:07 PM

Harry will be 50 and still be riding on the Dead Diana gravy train. He will marinate in the awfulness of losing a parent at age 13, the more money you pay him the more he will marinate and stew in how awful it was. Having a dead princess for a mum makes for good business model. Of course being born into royalty helps too. Alas, dimwit will believe he’s a trailblazer for the downtrodden because he had the courage to find freedom in Hollywood, where flashing bulbs from paps cast a warm glow upon him as opposed to previously asserted PTSD symptoms.

by Anonymousreply 475September 10, 2020 2:34 PM

R463 - The book fell off the bestseller list in two weeks.

Michelle Obama's book is still on them.

by Anonymousreply 476September 10, 2020 2:35 PM

That Scobie guy has had so much scary plastic surgery he looks like an extraterrestrial.

by Anonymousreply 477September 10, 2020 2:41 PM

Scobie has nothing on me, he’s just a wannabe.

by Anonymousreply 478September 10, 2020 2:48 PM

Plasticman Scobie said yesterday he is a "royal" reporter based in the US. Make it make sense!

by Anonymousreply 479September 10, 2020 3:14 PM

I will be shocked if anything more comes of this association than a wan and biased documentary about Diana. He’s a one-trick pony, and Markle has a rich husband to snag.

by Anonymousreply 480September 10, 2020 5:00 PM

[quote]Plasticman Scobie said yesterday he is a "royal" reporter based in the US. Make it make sense!

bwwwhahahahahaha, more like a gaslighting grifter riding on the coat tails of super-grifters

America fought a war to break away from British rule, and the meritless people with 'titles' lording over others.

Their pomposity is astronomical.

by Anonymousreply 481September 10, 2020 5:26 PM

Meritless people like Trump.

by Anonymousreply 482September 10, 2020 6:01 PM

Do you obsessives have to drag Trump into every fucking thread?

by Anonymousreply 483September 10, 2020 6:07 PM

Water seeks its own level, r483. They invite lots of comparisons to Wallis and Edward, too.

Oh, and the Kardashians.

by Anonymousreply 484September 10, 2020 9:43 PM

The Harkles have to keep Scobie on side and get him jobs, otherwise he might start talking.

by Anonymousreply 485September 10, 2020 10:09 PM

I wouldn't want to be associated with someone like Scobie.

by Anonymousreply 486September 11, 2020 7:32 AM

They don't have a choice now, R486 - lie down with dogs...

by Anonymousreply 487September 11, 2020 8:08 AM

How long is that contract? Things are moving very quickly for Meghan. It feels as though she’s been shot out of a cannon.

One thing that I can’t reconcile is that she was on “Suits” for seven years. How did she last at the same job for so many years? I feel like she’s always moving forward, aiming toward the next thing.

by Anonymousreply 488September 11, 2020 8:58 AM

I bet the Sussexes will dump Scobie a they did Jessica M, saying he had made a whole career out of his r'ship with them.

by Anonymousreply 489September 11, 2020 9:22 AM

R481 - Their pomposity is particularly comical given the furore of Netflix's "Cuties" film (I can't seem to find the thread on that, although I could swear I saw one).

The timing of the Sussexes continues to be nearly pathologically ill-starred.

They sign up to a media giant to get paid for programming that inspires women and five minutes later the media giant is getting slammed for a tasteless show that uses child actresses to illustrate the dangers of sexualising young children.

It's like, as someone on another site mentioned, torturing animals onscreen to demonstrate the evils of animal abuse.

For the record, in Britain we have laws that limit what actors under a certain age can play onscreen.

#Cancelnetflix now a Trending Thing - the week after the Sussexes made that insufferable statement about "impactful programming that unlocks action".

Oh, and for our dear Klan Grannie Troll: you really need to do some fucking research before you make an ass of yourself for the umpteenth time.

Boycotts, and organising boycotts of companies, is not only not illegal or actionable, but has a long and honourable tradition as political activism.

The phrase "Cesar Chavez + Grapes" ring a bell, pet?

As for obecting to tying in the Sussexes: get real, dear. A week ago their deal with Netflix (without the slightest qualifications on their parts while people with experience and training in "production" can't get through the door) was in headlines from the TIMES to the Mars Daily Journal, in which that unbearably pompous statement they released got jeers you could hear on Mars.

It's entirely appropriate to link them with Netflix's tasteless hypocrisy.

by Anonymousreply 490September 11, 2020 1:05 PM

NetFlix lost some subscribers over Cuties, and I think their stock slid some, too. Enjoying the lingering crotch shots of the 11 year olds Sparkles?

by Anonymousreply 491September 11, 2020 3:26 PM

I’m sure they like to think that they’re elevating the level of discourse on Netflix.

Netflix, no longer the movie rental company. Now it’s home to Tiger Kings, pussy-patting Third-graders and Kardashians.

It’s like having the only trailer with an above-ground pool in the entire trailer park.

by Anonymousreply 492September 11, 2020 6:52 PM

[quote]that insufferable statement about "impactful programming that unlocks action".

That is such smarmy bullshit corporate-speak. Ugh. And they're going for a general audience! PR 101 would tell them not to use phrases like that when you're aiming for such a broad demographic. Fucking idiots.

by Anonymousreply 493September 11, 2020 6:57 PM

Andrew, Sarah, Charles, Camilla, and even Diana...they've all proven the BRF's reputation is overrated and they're as trashy as a bunch of drunk travellers.

In hindsight, I have a lot of respect for Meghan. She gets a royal title and a spot in the history books while not having to do any of the work. Plus, William and Catherine will never be worth as much as Harry and Meghan as long as they remain working royals. She won.

by Anonymousreply 494September 11, 2020 6:59 PM

[quote]Plus, William and Catherine will never be worth as much as Harry and Meghan as long as they remain working royals. She won.

William and Catherine are going to be KING and QUEEN, dipshit. And George, Louis and Charlotte are going to be getting all the attention from the press once they reach young adulthood. Harry and Meghan (if she's still married to him) will be very much in the background by then.

by Anonymousreply 495September 11, 2020 7:02 PM

R494 aka Megh moron, just fuck off. Seriously, are you fucking joking? Who do you think you're kidding?

by Anonymousreply 496September 11, 2020 7:09 PM

[quote]I have a lot of respect for Meghan. She gets a royal title and a spot in the history books while not having to do any of the work

Seriously? To me that makes her the worst of the lot.

William and Kate will be worth more than Harry and Meghan as soon as Wills becomes Prince of Wales. The Duchy of Cornwall is a very big plum, and one that will continue to pay dividends long after Netflix has moved on to the next flash-in-the-pan.

by Anonymousreply 497September 11, 2020 7:17 PM

Harry and Meghan better hope they make a pile of mega-millions with Netflix or whatever other ventures they're trying to launch, because once William is in charge of the purse strings shit is going to get very real.

by Anonymousreply 498September 11, 2020 7:24 PM

Sorry, I would rather have financial independence and spend hundreds of millions however I want, as opposed to being beholden to British taxpayers and only worth hundreds of million on paper. Also, while I respect The Queen, you couldn't pay me to trade places with her. She has spent her entire life in service of her country, doing a job that killed her beloved father. Even if Harry and Meghan are inherently stupid and selfish (him the former, her the latter), at least they get to enjoy life on their own terms.

by Anonymousreply 499September 11, 2020 7:27 PM

Cigarettes killed King George VI.

by Anonymousreply 500September 11, 2020 7:47 PM

I agree, R499. However, the poster saying that they respect Meghan for being the most successful grifter of them all clearly has a skewed sense of morality.

by Anonymousreply 501September 11, 2020 8:01 PM

R499 makes the assumption that Kate and Camilla and Fergie and Diana didn't enjoy life on their own terms.

What is forgotten is how desperately Diana wanted to be Princess of Wales, Fergie wanted to get out of her sleazy nowheresville life and marry Andrew, and Kate wanted to be royal. Camilla is the exception: she actually loved Charles, she's too down too earth to give a fuck about pageantry.

And no one wanted "in" as much as that two-bit brass-plated grifter from L.A.

They ALL got what they wanted in one way or another. Diana at least put in ten years of work.

If your only criterion is getting the goods and sticking it to the givers, I'd say that's a pretty low bar. And as for enjoyment: Meghan is never happy for long, and Harry is clearly depressed, angry, and tied up in knots emotionally.

And they haven't made $100 million yet. They've been given a retainer for first refusal of programming they have yet to come up with. Then Netflix buys it and makes back the retainer and sees if it succeeds with audiences and it starts making money. Only then does the money start rolling in for the Harkles.

And you know what they say about Lady Karma . . .

by Anonymousreply 502September 11, 2020 8:48 PM

[QUOTE]Harry is clearly depressed, angry, and tied up in knots emotionally.

Harry has left the life, the only life he's ever known, is a new father, in a "foreign" country torn apart by politics, in a State with uncontrolled fires, managing a mega mortgage, with no defined role except to pitch concepts (hers) and hope they pan out. That's a pretty volatile and unsettling introduction to marital life in this chapter of his life (nearing middle age). No expertise, no credentials (academic, professional etc), no history except for furtive forays into "Invictus-type" charities, they are shilling based on precious little in the intellectual property sweepstakes. That Hollywood is falling for this is no surprise. Longer term? That's the question. How long can Harry sustain the charade? That's the question. Fun watching him try though.

by Anonymousreply 503September 11, 2020 9:07 PM

R502 can you elaborate on Fergie's "sleazy nowheresville life?" She grew up wealthy -- there are pictures of her as a child with the Queen -- went to boarding school, ride horses etc. ???

by Anonymousreply 504September 11, 2020 9:23 PM

Furgiz' father was a sleazy brothel creeper. Her mother preferred horsehung Argentines and abandoned the family. Not wholesome if not sleazy.

by Anonymousreply 505September 11, 2020 9:26 PM

Errr... Fergie's father went to Eton, Sandhurst, served with distinction in the Guards, and then became a world-famous Polo manager.

Her mother did leave him to run off to Argentina with another famous polo player. Scandalous, yes - but not "sleazy". Everyone involved were on friendly terms with the Queen and the BRF for the entirety of their lives. Fergie was a family friend and considered very suitable by the BRF.

by Anonymousreply 506September 12, 2020 1:47 AM

[quote] Eton, Sandhurst, served with distinction in the Guards, and then became a world-famous Polo manager.

None of that negates the sleaziness. In his case it merely emphasizes the sleaziness.

by Anonymousreply 507September 12, 2020 2:41 AM

Regrettably Harry is a spoilt brat and has a temperament like Philip's. Both Harry and Philip are used to people fawning over them listening to their crap because they are royalty. Philip kept going with the BRF. Harry has fucked it all up because Meghan did not understand why people listened to and fawned over Harry.

by Anonymousreply 508September 12, 2020 2:51 AM

Yes but Philip was not spoiled, r508. And he served for real in the Navy, unlike Harry whose PR claimed he flew an Apache when in fact he only rode in an Apache. Harry was regarded as dead weight that had to be coddled and sheltered in the Army. A pain in the ass who they couldn't wait to get out of Afghanistan.

Philip was adored by everyone who served with him, and was known to 'muck in' with dirty jobs and to not shy away from danger. He was tough as old boots and very amusing. Everyone loved him.

Harry may have a temper but that's as far as the similarities with his grandfather go. Harry is completely Diana, through and through, but without the massive charisma or instinct for PR.

by Anonymousreply 509September 12, 2020 4:06 AM

Yes but Philip was not spoiled, r508. And he served for real in the Navy, unlike Harry whose PR claimed he flew an Apache when in fact he only rode in an Apache. Harry was regarded as dead weight that had to be coddled and sheltered in the Army. A pain in the ass who they couldn't wait to get out of Afghanistan.

Philip was adored by everyone who served with him, and was known to 'muck in' with dirty jobs and to not shy away from danger. He was tough as old boots and very amusing. Everyone loved him.

Harry may have a temper but that's as far as the similarities with his grandfather go. Harry is completely Diana, through and through, but without the massive charisma or instinct for PR.

by Anonymousreply 510September 12, 2020 4:06 AM

The Harkles are not about to become TV producers, any more than Victoria Beckham became a car designer with the Range Rover Evoque.

Netflix will put together a team of people whose role in life will be to run around after MM's woke whims while Harry sits in the background doing his impression of those nodding dogs that you used to see on cars' parcel shelves.

I do not expect to see anything of intellectual, cultural or artistic merit come out of this. I have in my mind some form of 'augmented' reality TV. Something that builds on the 'accidental' CCTV of Hazza delivering pizzas to the community's needy. Stand by for some excruciatingly saccharine fly-on-the-wall stuff where the mere presence of MM will be the catalyst, nay the 'magic', which changes people's lives for the good ("Here you are, pleb, have a million of Netflix's dollars and send your daughter to university.").

That, or carrying on Saint Diana's work - merely by pointing at a field and shouting "Begone!" Meghan will be filmed appearing to deactivate any anti-personnel mines buried there. (Ignore that one of the production team just lost a foot by stepping on one. We'll edit that bit out later. Play the music. Quick, FFS - play the music!)

This really is a long way from Kansas, Toto. It's even farther away from any notions of taste.

by Anonymousreply 511September 12, 2020 5:38 AM

Has anything BRF or Sussex-related or noteworthy happened in the last couple of days? I haven't read this thread in a few days and suddenly, it's almost to capacity.

by Anonymousreply 512September 12, 2020 5:44 AM

Is there any chance they could actually pull off a decent documentary like "Athropocene", which I thought was fantastic/harrowing? It would be great if these two could actually let talented people do the work and not try to drive the bus themselves. Is there any chance they have learned from past mistakes?

by Anonymousreply 513September 12, 2020 6:11 AM

[quote] Also, while I respect The Queen, you couldn't pay me to trade places with her.

But we were just about to!

by Anonymousreply 514September 12, 2020 6:24 AM

Harry is scared of Meghan, and mistakes the butterflies in his stomach for love.

by Anonymousreply 515September 12, 2020 7:42 AM

I doubt many people would want to trade places with HM. All the more credit to her for carrying the job that was none of her choosing with as much dignity, dedication, and unquestionable love for her country as she has. (Her parenting, of course, leaves quite a bit more to be desired.)

Meghan and Harry come across as always angry about something. Victimhood and hectoring, lecturing, and moralising are their calling cards.

It their lives are so great, why don't they ever look really happy?

by Anonymousreply 516September 12, 2020 10:58 AM

Because all their lives people have been kissing their arses, R516, and they feel they are now under constant siege from the vicious tabs and the public.

by Anonymousreply 517September 12, 2020 11:23 AM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 518September 12, 2020 1:28 PM

Sarah Ferguson’s family were upper class, of the ‘country gentry’ that Jane Austen wrote about in her novels. They were wealthy landowners and also had aristocratic connections, as Sarah’s great grandparents on both sides of her family were Peers. Sarah grew up being very familiar with the royal family and was considered a completely appropriate and logical choice of a bride, she was already well vetted having spent her life on the polo fields with her parents and with the royal family. Had she not married Andrew no doubt she would have married a Peer, or else a wealthy man from the gentry class to which she belonged. She may ACT classless, but the truth is Sarah comes from very good stock.

by Anonymousreply 519September 12, 2020 2:02 PM

R518 - Meghan's hair looks like a horse tail. What has she done to her lips and face?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 520September 12, 2020 2:06 PM

wow, it looks like Me! had surgery to make her features look blacker

by Anonymousreply 521September 12, 2020 3:21 PM

I wonder how S4 of The Crown will portray Diana. Filming wrapped ages ago, so the fact that Harry is now signed to Netflix will have had no influence.

by Anonymousreply 522September 12, 2020 3:42 PM

Cosmetic procedures or pregnant again?

by Anonymousreply 523September 12, 2020 3:56 PM

Okay, just looked at R518's IG pics and will answer my own question: pregnant again.

by Anonymousreply 524September 12, 2020 3:59 PM

[quote]pregnant again

if so, very stupid move Harry, very stupid. Although he probably was not consulted, lol...

by Anonymousreply 525September 12, 2020 5:12 PM

Nah, just fillers in her face and filters on the photos.

by Anonymousreply 526September 12, 2020 5:16 PM

She is now looking very, very Kardashian. Suppose it was inevitable.

by Anonymousreply 527September 12, 2020 7:56 PM

She looks like any other Hollywood bimbo now. Suppose it was inevitable.

by Anonymousreply 528September 12, 2020 8:05 PM

Joan Crawford make up in that latest vid.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 529September 12, 2020 8:13 PM

Kind of looks like her Spitting Image.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 530September 12, 2020 8:22 PM

Definitely preggo face. It's good timing since she can mostly stay home and hide her growing belly, and no one will question it due to COVID. She's 40 next year, and if she wants her little Diana, now is the time. Of course, unless they did sex-selected IVF, Baby #2 could turn out to be another unmerchable boy.

by Anonymousreply 531September 12, 2020 9:09 PM

R528 yup, very generic. That's not "preggo face," it"s botox making irregular eyes and lumpiness. A whole mess.

by Anonymousreply 532September 12, 2020 9:14 PM

I guess we'll know in a few months. If she is pregnant, this time those baby photos are getting auctioned off to the highest bidder. She was reportedly livid that she couldn't do that with Archie.

by Anonymousreply 533September 12, 2020 9:17 PM

If she's mansion-bound at least we will be spared the tedious gut-clutching I'm expecting pics.

by Anonymousreply 534September 12, 2020 9:21 PM

This is the 25th time this year megstans have pushed the preg storyline because Markle looks so terrible. The eyebrows! The lips! The endless forehead! The 1000 teeth! The bad wigs!

by Anonymousreply 535September 12, 2020 9:29 PM

nails, hair, hips, heels!

by Anonymousreply 536September 12, 2020 9:37 PM

She can't have cosmetic procedures like botox while she's pregnant, so that will be, or already is, a big tell.

by Anonymousreply 537September 12, 2020 9:39 PM

While I think most people would be insane to get pregnant right now, it makes sense for the Harkles. They can't really go anywhere, they have plenty of money and access to healthcare. If you're gonna lay around a mansion for the rest of the year, why not?

by Anonymousreply 538September 12, 2020 9:42 PM

They will have three kids, to match the in-laws.

by Anonymousreply 539September 12, 2020 9:50 PM

Didn't they make a big deal about only having 2 children because it's better for the planet, etc. etc.? Of course, it was also a way of throwing shade at the Cambridges.

by Anonymousreply 540September 12, 2020 9:53 PM

Pregnant. Or a filter.

by Anonymousreply 541September 12, 2020 10:06 PM

Definitely pregnant, and pretty far along. She has the same look she had in this picture: wide faced, glowy, swelling in the nose and jaw.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 542September 12, 2020 10:16 PM

Do her security have an evacuation plan (mudslides/wildfires/earthquakes/COVID)? Now is not the time for pregnancy.

by Anonymousreply 543September 12, 2020 10:16 PM

She's loaded with botox, and Haz has been dabbling too. Don't forget to pack a good supply for the evacuation, Markles!

by Anonymousreply 544September 12, 2020 10:54 PM

Will they catch on fire? I don't know the geography of California very well.

by Anonymousreply 545September 12, 2020 10:58 PM

I assume they're adequately insured. The $m lender would have insisted. Anyway if there's the slightest hint of danger no doubt the SAS will swoop in to rescue our intrepid SJWs and their personal photographer; pics copyright Mehgan Markle (Montecito) Inc.

by Anonymousreply 546September 12, 2020 11:08 PM

Her lower lip is unevenly filled.

by Anonymousreply 547September 12, 2020 11:47 PM

[quote] Her lower lip is unevenly filled.

Don't worry R547, her lawyer is working on it.

by Anonymousreply 548September 13, 2020 12:02 AM

[quote]What has she done to her lips and face?

Industrial-strength filters.

by Anonymousreply 549September 13, 2020 12:40 AM

Catherine Cambridge has a botox looking brow too, though.

by Anonymousreply 550September 13, 2020 12:43 AM

The two women are not connected, to say the least. The topic is the MEGAWATT Meggy and her puppy Harry, busy taking online lessons on how to be a producer.

by Anonymousreply 551September 13, 2020 12:49 AM

The difference is that, unlike Meghan, Catherine does not look like Kim Kardashian.

It's good to see Meghan looking more like the grifting, pointless whore that she is.

It's now literally all over her face.

by Anonymousreply 552September 13, 2020 1:20 AM

Everybody does Botox and fillers now, it's hardly an expensive procedure. Middle-class people can easily afford it.

by Anonymousreply 553September 13, 2020 1:20 AM

I knew she was going to go for that trashy Kardashian look, she’ll have her hairline lifted soon too just like them.

by Anonymousreply 554September 13, 2020 1:23 AM

I think it's just contouring, but I swear she "reshaped" her nose to look a bit wider, more "black".

Wow.

by Anonymousreply 555September 13, 2020 2:13 AM

[quote] Everybody does Botox and fillers now

No they don't R553.

by Anonymousreply 556September 13, 2020 3:00 AM

Many do r556. Even middle class people get it now, I think it's pretty dumb in 2020 to still make a thing about Botox and fillers when it's so common.

by Anonymousreply 557September 13, 2020 3:02 AM

Her nose is wider because she's pregnant. It happens to lots of pregnant women, and it happened to Meghan when she was pregnant with Archie.

She'll keep the public guessing as long as she can and then merch the hell out of the baby pictures. If the baby is a girl, she'll be the star of Meghan's Instagram for the next 20 years.

Poor Archie.

by Anonymousreply 558September 13, 2020 3:08 AM

I'd love it if MM had a girl as comically ugly as cross-eyed Archie.

by Anonymousreply 559September 13, 2020 3:10 AM

The girl will be called Dyhana, by tradition.

by Anonymousreply 560September 13, 2020 3:18 AM

Robert Barone got Botox back in the day. After that, I didn't want it anymore.

by Anonymousreply 561September 13, 2020 3:20 AM

If she has a girl, I hope it looks like Aunt Sam.

by Anonymousreply 562September 13, 2020 3:21 AM

The girl will be black as the ace of spades and be brought up an LA princess. Woke mother and daughter will be BBF, very publicly for the rest of your miserable lives, bitches.

by Anonymousreply 563September 13, 2020 3:25 AM

Genes are tricky. You wouldn't guess that Tamera Mowry's kids have 3 white grandparents.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 564September 13, 2020 3:29 AM

Yes, but given how fair Archie is, it's likely that any other Sussex babies will look the same. I know that sometimes there are variations among siblings, but I'd be surprised if Baby #2 looks anything but white.

by Anonymousreply 565September 13, 2020 3:31 AM

"The public" is not "guessing" anything about Sparkles' uterus. More like her 3 stans are deflecting as usual about another crappy PR week for the ratchet Dumbartons.

by Anonymousreply 566September 13, 2020 3:33 AM

"The public" is not "guessing" anything about Sparkles' uterus. More like her 3 stans are deflecting as usual about another crappy PR week for the ratchet Dumbartons.

by Anonymousreply 567September 13, 2020 3:33 AM

[quote] Sparkles' uterus

Sugar walls to you toots.

by Anonymousreply 568September 13, 2020 3:45 AM

R565– The irony being that if the baby turns out to be anything but lily white, Meghan will kill herself

by Anonymousreply 569September 13, 2020 4:45 AM

Ideally, a bi-racial child is caramel coloured with caucasian features. Really unfortunate is white skin and negroid features and hair, bonus points if the hair is ginger.

by Anonymousreply 570September 13, 2020 5:01 AM

Meghan is 2/3s white and Harry is the whitest person who ever lived, so, like Archie, the next kid will be white as porcelain.

All while Meghan does a Dolezal to make herself look ever blacker in order to do a race grift. Except her hair. She'll never allow her hair to go natural. She'll slather on the self tanner, puff up her lips and contour her nose to look black, but she'll never allow her only real black feature, her hair to go back to natural. Why? Because she wants to 'be' white, and only 'appear' black for money.

by Anonymousreply 571September 13, 2020 7:59 AM

Wow, the hatred for Meghan is so strong, I actually saw a post praising Kate Middleton's makeup! She did her own makeup for her 2011 wedding and, I'm sorry, she looked like a Vegas stripper. To this day she goes way too heavy on her eyeliner, mascara and eyebrows. Light and fresh are curse words to her.

Not sure why the Sussexes have to be the villains to the saintly Cambeidges. William is just as fucked up as Harry...maybe worse sense his behavior indicates he's a first-rate asshole versus stupid and impulsive. Meanwhile, Kate gets accolades for knowing her place, but she's done the absolute bare minimum her role requires. Comparing her and Meghan to Diana is overdone, but I think it's interesting that one views her husband's mother as a cautionary tale...while the other goes overboard in trying (and failing) to replicate her star quality.

by Anonymousreply 572September 13, 2020 8:11 AM

No shame in botox and fillers. And clearly MM has been partaking in both since her return to LA. All that said, in the video stills above she looks like she has pregnancy nose. However, she uses so many filters who the hell knows.

by Anonymousreply 573September 13, 2020 9:01 AM

Botox and fillers must be done judiciously.

It's a fine line between attractive and 2020 Madonna

by Anonymousreply 574September 13, 2020 9:28 AM

Two big differences, R572 - one, the Cambs do not lecture the public on equality and carbon footprinting whilst visibly wallowing in luxury and privilege and two, Kate does not appear at a women's shelter wearing £5000 of European designer gear. For ordinary appearances, she often wears low cost high street clothes and so do her children.

by Anonymousreply 575September 13, 2020 11:15 AM

What the fuck, R570?

by Anonymousreply 576September 13, 2020 11:36 AM

Don't know why Megstans jealously keep bringing up the BRF. Haz is related but hates his family, and has nothing to do with them except when he takes their money. And the sentiment is mutual - the Harkles are invited to some family events in 2021 with the stipulation they will never be photographed alongside senior members on official occasions. It's OVAH Megstans.

by Anonymousreply 577September 13, 2020 12:00 PM

I agree R555, I think she is trying to reclaim her black roots and “keep it real” and she knew she couldn’t do that with a Barbie Doll nose.

by Anonymousreply 578September 13, 2020 12:38 PM

R518 - I was about to ask the same question - Jesus, she looks like she had her lips filled, her eyebags done, and where are the freckles she made such a fucking fuss about?!

She looks like a completely different person. And she's clearly being video-ed through five filters; and there she is talking about "inner confidence" and being yourself, whilst sporting what I believe has come to be known as "L.A. Face".

The hypocrisy of these two is beyond belief. First it's the "we can all do better" and then a house with 16 bathrooms. It's all about "being yourself" and "inner confidence" as she realises she's going to be 40 next year and runs for the camera filters and the face work.

Then it's "linked not ranked" as she hangs on to a royal title that she only has because of her husband. Talks about "kindness and compassion" and releases a book filled with mudslinging, self-aggrandisement, and not a few outright lies.

They really are disgusting.

by Anonymousreply 579September 13, 2020 12:39 PM

Is this the new 'blackface'?

by Anonymousreply 580September 13, 2020 12:42 PM

I didn't realize Markle got the eyebags done. My goodness, she's had a complete overhaul!

by Anonymousreply 581September 13, 2020 12:48 PM

She sees Oprah and sees $$$. Meghan is taking over Oprah's market. Hell she's 1/3rd black and there's money in that.

by Anonymousreply 582September 13, 2020 1:23 PM

[quote] Meghan Markle ‘planning Black Lives Matter’ movie as part of mega Netflix deal

Here we go.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 583September 13, 2020 2:26 PM

[QUOTE] Really unfortunate is white skin and

the biracial ones with white skin, but red colored wavy textured AA hair, AA noses and lips, and a face full of dark freckles, must sort of feel like outcasts in either community of their heritage.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 584September 13, 2020 2:33 PM

Wow R583. Is the world ready for Prince Harry to come and save it?

by Anonymousreply 585September 13, 2020 2:40 PM

You talk about saving the world R585. My wife can do that, it's part of what she does, really.

by Anonymousreply 586September 13, 2020 2:43 PM

Meghan's BLM film will be about one woman's struggle to find a foundation that matches her skin tone. The working title is "Her Darkest Hour."

by Anonymousreply 587September 13, 2020 2:46 PM

Meghan is about to make a lot of black women very mad with her patronizing behavior.

by Anonymousreply 588September 13, 2020 2:52 PM

I don't understand why some people are so resistant to the idea that Meghan is pregnant. She only has a brief window left to get that second baby in, and this is the perfect time to do it if you are wealthy and able to isolate except for chauffeur-driven trips to the gyno. With an estate that big, you could even set up a birthing room and give birth at home.

by Anonymousreply 589September 13, 2020 3:21 PM

[quote] chauffeur-driven trips to the gyno

No. She doesn't drive any more even with a chauffeur. If she can't take a private jet (at someone else's expense) then forget it. The gyno comes to her at Chateau Meghan-Montecito-Mountbatten.

by Anonymousreply 590September 13, 2020 3:29 PM

R587 Or an autobiographic film titled "My Struggle," on her devastation that no one ever asks her how she is.

by Anonymousreply 591September 13, 2020 3:42 PM

“My Struggle”? R591? No way!

Even in translation, she’s not going to share a book title with Hitler!

by Anonymousreply 592September 13, 2020 4:28 PM

She's worse than Hitler.

by Anonymousreply 593September 13, 2020 4:44 PM

Any more info on Harry's online producer's school courses? He has had such an illustrious academic career in the UK, so here's to more stunning success in America!

by Anonymousreply 594September 13, 2020 4:52 PM

how does anyone become a producer? How did Ellen, Heidi Klum, Merv Griffin, or fucking Bette Davis ever become producers?

by Anonymousreply 595September 13, 2020 4:54 PM

[quote] "According to the Daily Mirror Prince Harry has begun a series of online film production classes to help with the couple’s Netflix project. The paper reports he has been inspired by the legendary Hollywood director Ron Howard." link@R583

Aren't they called 'executive producers' R595? "Executive producers vary in involvement, responsibility and power. Some executive producers have hands-on control over every aspect of production, some supervise the producers of a project, while others are involved in name only."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 596September 13, 2020 5:01 PM

[quote] Prince Harry has begun a series of online film production classes

Studio: "What qualifications do you have as a producer?"

Harry: "Uh, well, I've just begun a series of film production classes online."

Studio: "Ok, we'll call you."

Harry: "But wait, I am a prince of the blood royal."

Studio: "Well, of course, that changes everything."

by Anonymousreply 597September 13, 2020 5:04 PM

Executive Producer sounds just great for Harry. Very impressive. He has called himself a "leading entrepreneur," so I guess this is a manifestation of it that's been unlocked..

by Anonymousreply 598September 13, 2020 5:11 PM

[quote] While education is one way to begin a career as a film producer, experience is also required to land a job. Internships are a great way to gain experience while in school and give students a solid foundation on which to build their career. Many internships are paid, which enable students to earn money while gaining hands-on skills from industry professionals. Through internships, students get to network with people in the film industry as well. This pays off in the end when looking for jobs after school. Once an internship is over, the next step typically will be to land a junior position, such as a production assistant. Although rates can vary based on a producer's role and the location of filming, the average salary can start anywhere from $20,000 to $70,000, even doubling when working in Los Angeles. The average annual salary for a producer in the U.S. is $109,844. When examining more than 15,000 producers in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, the average annual salary is $138,640. Producers can also have an agreement to take a percentage of a movie's sales.

Studio: "Where did you do your internship?"

Harry: "Uh, British Army?"

Studio: "Outstanding, cut a check for $150m and issue the same number of press releases."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 599September 13, 2020 5:12 PM

So, Harry is dragging Ron Howard into his faux career.

Ron Howard has been in the business since he was FOUR YEARS OLD. His first appearance was in a movie called "The Journey" with Yul Brynner. He played to son of Anne Jackson. He did a bit part when he was TWO.

Howard talks about his start in this interview, including Brynner.

Does Harry think he's in Howard's class at all?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 600September 13, 2020 6:51 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!