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.

Why Prince Harry's "Divorce" From the Royals Seems "Final," Insiders Say

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have wasted no time making themselves feel at home in California since moving to the States in July. Between snapping up a sprawling $14 million estate in Santa Barbara and inking a production deal with Netflix rumored to be worth $150 million, the couple has made it clear they're in the U.S. to stay. But according to a former friend of Princess Diana's, it's what Harry and Meghan did immediately after signing with Netflix that signaled their "divorce" from the royal family may be, in effect, final: paying off their royal debts.

In a column for the Daily Mail, Diana confidant Richard Kay wrote that he believes Harry and Meghan's decision to repay the £2.4 million of public money used to renovate Frogmore Cottage, the home in Windsor given to the couple by Queen Elizabeth, is "highly significant" for one reason in particular: They opted to repay the debt in one lump sum. They previously offered to return the money at the rate of £18,000 a month (which would have taken 11 years), as outlined in the Sussexes' final exit agreement approved by the Queen.

But, according to Kay, the debt was weighing heavily on Harry in his desire to distance himself from royal life. "For more than a year, it has been the millstone around Prince Harry's neck, a gold‑plated slice of taxpayers' largesse that reeked of privilege and entitlement," he wrote. "To Harry and Meghan, the £2.4 million of public money—our money—that was lavished on renovating Frogmore Cottage, only for it to be shuttered and abandoned along with the rest of their royal lives, represented something far more intrinsic."

Kay, who was one of the last people Diana spoke to the night she died, said Harry saw the debt "as a chain that shackled them to the land of his birth, inhibiting their efforts to be truly free of the royal family and—crucially—of their media critics."

The royal columnist has been critical of Harry and Meghan's actions since the couple announced their intentions to step away from their senior royal roles. Kay had previously written that, because the couple was "bent on re-writing the rule book of what being a member of the royal family actually means," from the moment they married there was a "disconnect." He cited, among other things, their "secrecy" over their son's birth, and, in the case of the money spent renovating Frogmore Cottage, Kay said Harry and Meghan don't see it as "a loan from a generous nation pleased to be helping this young royal couple find its feet after their joyful wedding, but rather a stick with which to beat them."

Following the announcement that Harry and Meghan had repaid the debt on Frogmore Cottage in full, it was revealed that the couple would no longer be receiving financial support from Prince Charles. In Kay's view, Harry and Meghan severing all financial ties to the royal family is a "signal that their divorce from Britain is permanent, while removing any pretense that they might still have a future role in the royal family."

A Palace source told Kay that the complete repayment of the money spent on Frogmore's renovation came "as something of a surprise" and may have been done because Harry has been "irritated by the criticism that the deal has led to of his finances. No one really knows." The insider added, "But if he thinks that it will make him immune from public and media scrutiny, he is misguided."

A spokesman for the couple confirmed the prince had fully repaid the debt saying, "A contribution has been made to the Sovereign Grant by the Duke of Sussex. This contribution as originally offered by Prince Harry has fully covered the necessary renovation costs of Frogmore Cottage, a property of Her Majesty the Queen, and will remain the U.K. residence of the duke and his family." Harry and Meghan will now reportedly pay an undisclosed commercial rent on the property.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 503October 12, 2020 12:28 PM

Another Palace insider told me that, despite Harry's desire for independence, his ties to the royal family are not so easily severed. "While Harry may believe he is finally free and has escaped his increasingly vocal critics by being financially independent, he is still a member of the royal family, which remains the strongest tie there is to Her Majesty, the Queen, and this country," my source said. "As such, his actions will always be viewed through that lens." And for more on Meghan and Harry's new life, check out The Stunning Details on Harry and Meghan's $14.7 Million California Home.

by Anonymousreply 1September 16, 2020 9:45 PM

It's starting to sound now like the Royals want Harry back, more than he does.

by Anonymousreply 2September 16, 2020 9:46 PM

good to go

by Anonymousreply 3September 16, 2020 9:47 PM

He must have taken his Netflix advance and paid his bills. Smart.

by Anonymousreply 4September 16, 2020 9:48 PM

I agree, R4.

Meghan really is good for him, despite the criticism.

She's forcing him to be on his own and self-sufficient, which is something that most Royals refuse to (and cannot) do.

It was a difficult separation from his family, but maybe he'll be better off for it.

by Anonymousreply 5September 16, 2020 9:49 PM

Harry, it's not too late to do a nude photo shoot. We know you are the badass of the Royal Family, so going spreadeagle would solidify the support of your fans.

by Anonymousreply 6September 16, 2020 9:50 PM

They’ll blow thru that Netflix money. Just watch

by Anonymousreply 7September 16, 2020 9:51 PM

Them? Pay back?

I'll believe it when I see it.

by Anonymousreply 8September 16, 2020 9:56 PM

[quote] Why Prince Harry's "Divorce" From the Royals Seems "Final,"

This is why

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9September 16, 2020 9:56 PM

Is Frogmore just sitting empty or is it being rented out? Before it was gifted to Haz, servants lived there. So they were thrown out for nought?

by Anonymousreply 10September 16, 2020 10:00 PM

It's a tax dodge. He "Made a contribution" to an entity which is taxpayer-funded (the SG) and so will get that amount off his tax bill. Essentially forcing the taxpayer to pay off his debt to that same taxpayer. He did it this year because his tax bill this year is going to be high enough to make a 2.4 million write off fully usable to him.

It has nothing to do with his feelings except it shows, yet again, his contempt for the people of Britain and their many gifts to him over the course of his life.

by Anonymousreply 11September 16, 2020 10:01 PM

I'm surprised he got Meghan to agree to it. Maybe it was a tradeoff: she got plastic surgery, he pays off the house.

by Anonymousreply 12September 16, 2020 10:03 PM

I'm just waiting for him to start doing crossfit. Now that he's a Cali boy he's gotta get those glutes and pecs juiced up.

by Anonymousreply 13September 16, 2020 10:10 PM

Poor R7, R8, R11.

So jealous that Harry is doing so well.

Not only did he get to break free of the Royal Prison Bonds, but he also got to move to the US which is where he wanted to be, AND he gets to live in a mansion that he and his wife bought and PAID for, AND he's $150,000,000 richer now.

But keep on hating on Harry and Meghan.

Meanwhile, they're laughing all the way to the bank!

Jealous cunts.

by Anonymousreply 14September 16, 2020 10:12 PM

Yeah, it's all jealousy, R14. Because that's the natural reaction one has when watching grifters get away with theft.

by Anonymousreply 15September 16, 2020 10:14 PM

Go ahead and explain how H&M are grifters and thieves, R15.

Show your work, provide references, and all relevant links and articles.

Of course you won't be able to. Filthy slanderous cunt.

by Anonymousreply 16September 16, 2020 10:17 PM

Somebody at r14 doesn't understand how options deals work. Unsurprising since everything else in their post is equally uninformed and deluded.

Why are Megstans always, always so psychotic?

by Anonymousreply 17September 16, 2020 10:18 PM

J'adore r9.

by Anonymousreply 18September 16, 2020 10:18 PM

[quote] Not only did he get to break free of the Royal Prison Bonds, but he also got to move to the US which is where he wanted to be, AND he gets to live in a mansion that he and his wife bought and PAID for, AND he's $150,000,000 richer now.

Kate must be hating her life right now.

She has to beg and grovel for every little thing she gets, she had to pump out three brats, she has to attend these boring and stuffy functions that she hates, and she has to put up with a philandering husband.

And at the end of the day, NONE of that money is hers!

Meanwhile, Harry and Meghan are free and clear to do whatever they want to do.

by Anonymousreply 19September 16, 2020 10:19 PM

Who are we to judge, we haven't had his life

by Anonymousreply 20September 16, 2020 10:26 PM

They’ll take him back when his divorce from Meghan is final.

I can’t believe that people don’t see where this thing is headed. You’ve never had a friend lost his balls like Harry has? And then the woman dumps him. Hahaha.

by Anonymousreply 21September 16, 2020 11:07 PM

[quote]They’ll take him back when his divorce from Meghan is final.

I don't think he himself wants to go back.

by Anonymousreply 22September 16, 2020 11:17 PM

He couldn't go back even if he wanted to - the British public loathe him - and especially while that 2.4 million was still owed to the taxpayer. He is persona non grata in the extreme.

by Anonymousreply 23September 16, 2020 11:25 PM

I don’t understand the economics of that Netflix deal. Did they really earn that much money? What content could they produce that would be worth that amount?

by Anonymousreply 24September 16, 2020 11:32 PM

R16, I too want to know how H&M are any more of a grifter than any of the other "royal" moochers. All of them need to get off their ass and actually support themselves which none of them do. I hardly call showing up as the guest at a fundraiser work.

by Anonymousreply 25September 16, 2020 11:39 PM

The number hasn't been confirmed by anyone officially connected to it, r24, so the 150m number is like inflated by Meghan lapdog Omid Scobie, who I believe was the original source of the claim.

Options deals are a right of first refusal, and in return a contractual commitment to pay x amount if the project Meghan and Harry bring to Netflix are accepted by Netflix. So the $150 would not be cash handed over by Netflix, but instead represents the scope of what the Harkles would end up being paid if every single one of their productions is picked up by Netflix. So, for example if they bring Netflix a Diana documentary (and I'm sure they will), then they'd get paid a chunk. If the next thing they bring is rejected, then they get nothing for that one, and on and on for the number of years specified in the contract.

by Anonymousreply 26September 16, 2020 11:40 PM

R24, we do not actually know what they stand to be paid by Netflix or what they will be doing.

R25, if you do not have to support yourself, why would you? Wealthy people, people with the right ancestors, usually don’t work. Slaving away in an office is highly overrated.

by Anonymousreply 27September 16, 2020 11:45 PM

And the lawsuit from Netflix for breach of promise comes "3....2...1..."

by Anonymousreply 28September 16, 2020 11:46 PM

[quote] the British public loathe him - and especially while that 2.4 million was still owed to the taxpayer. He is persona non grata in the extreme.

Clearly, you're illiterate.

The article makes it clear that the money was PAID BACK IN FULL.

But of course, that doesn't fit your little narrative about Harry and Meghan.

Stupid cunt.

Get the fuck over it, and move on.

by Anonymousreply 29September 16, 2020 11:46 PM

Learn to read, r29. I said "WAS owed", not "IS owed".

You Megstans are not only psychotic and delusional, but illiterate as well.

Figures.

by Anonymousreply 30September 16, 2020 11:51 PM

And you, R30, are irrational, psychotic, and jealous.

by Anonymousreply 31September 16, 2020 11:55 PM

Is Frogmore just sitting empty or is it being rented out?

It's still Harry & Meghan's home in Britain and they are paying rent on the property. It's their's to do with as they wish. I'm quite sure they're paying for it to be maintained. It's not like they're never going to go back to Britain for visits.

by Anonymousreply 32September 16, 2020 11:57 PM

Anyone who says the US ins't still umbilically tied to Britain and the Queen is blowing smoke out of their own arse. But, that's a good thing relative to all the destructive things they could be wrapped up in.

by Anonymousreply 33September 17, 2020 12:18 AM

R32 - one of Andres's daoughters is living there - I can't remember if it is Beatrice or Eugenie.

by Anonymousreply 34September 17, 2020 12:20 AM

Does anyone have a pic of their new home in Santa Barbara?

by Anonymousreply 35September 17, 2020 12:21 AM

No, r34 Eugenie is living at Nottingham Cottage at Kensington Palace, which was where Harry and Meghan lived before Frogmore. Beatrice and Edo are at the palace apartment the sisters shared before they got married.

by Anonymousreply 36September 17, 2020 12:33 AM

[quote]What content could they produce that would be worth that amount?

A documentary about Diana, the People's Princess. That is the only reason Netflix signed them.

by Anonymousreply 37September 17, 2020 12:58 AM

[quote] What content could they produce that would be worth that amount?

Meghan's take on BLM

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 38September 17, 2020 1:07 AM

I'm really happy for Harry and Meghan.

They're doing exactly what they set out to do.

by Anonymousreply 39September 17, 2020 1:31 AM

[quote] Following the announcement that Harry and Meghan had repaid the debt on Frogmore Cottage in full, it was revealed that the couple would no longer be receiving financial support from Prince Charles.

Of course, the racist Brits are mad about anything Harry and Meghan do

The brits sit around and think of Meghan and Harry all day long. It's really just black Meg they think (obsess) about. Harry's really just an afterthought.

Any article on British websites will always have a comment about them. Even though the article isn't about them at all. The Sussex haters are just like trump and how he regards Obama

by Anonymousreply 40September 17, 2020 1:37 AM

No, R40, they're just so easy to hate!

And so much fun!!

by Anonymousreply 41September 17, 2020 1:39 AM

Exactly, R40.

The British media is obsessed with Meghan and her race and her success, the way that Trump is obsessed with Obama.

Fucking losers, all of them.

by Anonymousreply 42September 17, 2020 1:39 AM

[quote] Another Palace insider told me that, despite Harry's desire for independence, his ties to the royal family are not so easily severed. "While Harry may believe he is finally free

Dear England,

slavery ended a few centuries ago

by Anonymousreply 43September 17, 2020 1:40 AM

More power to Harry and Meghan. Harry is Diana's son and is doing what Diana didnt get a chance to do, tell the royal family to fuck off and move to America!

by Anonymousreply 44September 17, 2020 1:43 AM

[quote] Harry is Diana's son and is doing what Diana didnt get a chance to do,

Harry wants to drive all the way through a tunnel ?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 45September 17, 2020 1:49 AM

Harry completed the same path his mother took.

Harry also took the same path that the Duke of Windsor took.

I wonder if The Princess Royal is wistful of a path not taken by a remaindered Windsor.

Cutting ribbons at Tesco's must have Anne enthralled.

More power to Harry and Meghan.

by Anonymousreply 46September 17, 2020 1:56 AM

[quote] The brits sit around and think of Meghan and Harry all day long. It's really just black Meg they think (obsess) about. Harry's really just an afterthought.

I think it's more that the Brits think Meghan stole their boyish, rogue Prince away from them. The British public adopted Harry when he became motherless and they feel they need to protect him. And let's be honest, the only thing the Royal Family has going for it is Harry and Princess Michael of Kent.

by Anonymousreply 47September 17, 2020 1:58 AM

R46, Anne has spectacular real estate, an amazing wardrobe, and, reputedly, a past full of male companionship. She's fine.

by Anonymousreply 48September 17, 2020 1:59 AM

[quote] But according to a former friend of Princess Diana's, it's what Harry and Meghan did immediately after signing with Netflix that signaled their "divorce" from the royal family may be, in effect, final: [bold]asking his father Prince Charles to pay[/bold] off their royal debts.

FIFY

by Anonymousreply 49September 17, 2020 2:00 AM

Sunshine Sucks is on the offensive again today. It's sad, actually.

by Anonymousreply 50September 17, 2020 2:00 AM

[quote] Who are we to judge, we haven't had his life

You seem to be on the wrong web forum.

You must have taken a wrong turn back at Albuquerque.

by Anonymousreply 51September 17, 2020 2:01 AM

I love to hate on Meghan and love to hate Meghan, but I have to give a bitch her due. Within 3 years she married a prince, broke away from the BRF, lives in a 15M house in Montecito and now has a 150M deal w/ Netflix (whatever the arrangement is). She played the game flawlessly. Grifter, whore, brilliant - whatever you want to call it, she did exactly what she set out to do. Well done Meghan, you did it. Harry is just along for the ride and his connections, but it sounds like Harry also set out to do what he wanted to do. He's living the life Diana couldn't. The jealousy is real on these threads.

R19 - Kate is fine doing her thing as well. I think she actually likes her role and she's going to be Queen (yes, consort, but still Queen) and she'll be the King Mother one day. She really is perfect for this role and Meghan is perfect for hers. I hope Meghan does pull some antics, because it will get boring if everything is too peaceful around the palace.

by Anonymousreply 52September 17, 2020 2:01 AM

A former friend of Diana's? Like she has current friends? Not likely where she's living.

by Anonymousreply 53September 17, 2020 2:02 AM

[quote]she'll be the King Mother one day

Oh, we'll see about that. She might be the Queen's Mother! I mean, Granny didn't go to all that trouble to change the law so that poufter boy could take the reigns.

by Anonymousreply 54September 17, 2020 2:04 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 r15 - 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 55September 17, 2020 2:11 AM

Poor R49 is so furious at Harry and Meghan's success that the poor troll has to make up fake news to satisfy her anger!

[quote] I love to hate on Meghan and love to hate Meghan, but I have to give a bitch her due. Within 3 years she married a prince, broke away from the BRF, lives in a 15M house in Montecito and now has a 150M deal w/ Netflix (whatever the arrangement is). She played the game flawlessly.

Sometimes a strong woman is what a weak man needs.

People criticize Meghan for being a cold, hard bitch. But Harry would have been a 35 year old child without her.

Now he has a wife, a son, his own home, and his own money. It really could not have worked out better for him.

by Anonymousreply 56September 17, 2020 2:12 AM

The money paid back to the Crown was not for [italic]owning[/italic] Frogmore Cottage but was rather for [italic]renovating[/italic] Frogmore Cottage. they wouldn't have had to pay it back at all in most circumstances, but since the newspapers reported in great detail how costly the renovations were for a house they basically never lived in, they would have looked like grifters in the public eye had they never done any work for the Crown to pay for it. So they were basically forced to pay it back.

I still doubt they paid for it out of their own monies--Charles probably gave them quite a big loan to pay it back. But even so, they're much better off both psychologically and in terms of PR paying him back personally than taking years to pay back the Crown. The expectations on them from the UK are much less now (though they still are pretty well hated by the press).

I do expect Harry (if not Meghan) will come back to the UK for visits. His grandparents will probably not leave the UK ever again, so he will have to come back to see them (even secretly) before they die, and he has said he loves them greatly. And he will of course have to come back for their funerals and for his father's coronation. He is still very close with his father, so I will expect he will also fly back to see him, and Charles will fly to California to see Harry and Meghan and Archie.

Beyond that, there's also the question whether he will ever reconcile with his brother. When his grandparents and Charles go, he will have to figure out whether he wants to be close again, as will William.

by Anonymousreply 57September 17, 2020 2:14 AM

Yeah, it's great to be a narcissist's dumb supply! Yay!

by Anonymousreply 58September 17, 2020 2:14 AM

Why do Meghan fans always talk about racist comments when there have been zero racist comments about her race, r42?

by Anonymousreply 59September 17, 2020 2:26 AM

[quote] Why do Meghan fans always talk about racist comments when there have been zero racist comments about her race, R42?

As is always the case with racist cowards, they have to hide behind little loopholes like "we've made zero racist comments," knowing full well that their INTENTIONS are racist.

How fucking stupid do you think we are?

Americans know full well how this little game is played.

by Anonymousreply 60September 17, 2020 2:31 AM

The lockdown on racist statements will continue until Philip dies.

Most people will agree that Philip has been the most racist member of the RF.

by Anonymousreply 61September 17, 2020 2:46 AM

Harry is 6 or 7th in line and wants his own life. Harry, Charles, and William have all said at one point or another how much they didn’t want the responsibility of being on the throne Harry saw an out and took it. Whether Meagan is a bitch, a grifter, or whatever is irrelevant. They might stay married or divorce he always wanted out and he will just live like regular insanely rich folk he plays polo with who can eat avacados and fly in private jets in peace without having to answer to the British Press. Much better than ending up like Andrew or Margaret.

by Anonymousreply 62September 17, 2020 2:50 AM

"it was revealed that the couple would no longer be receiving financial support from Prince Charles."

Does anyone here believe that? Anywaone? Show of hands?

[Crickets]

by Anonymousreply 63September 17, 2020 3:02 AM

There's no way Meg and Harry aren't receiving some sort of support from Charles, probably in the form of expensive high-level security and maybe some "arrangement" has been made to cover the mortgage of that huge pile.

The fact is, that Netflix hasn't actually given them $150 mil, they've given them a few million in seed money, and that money is supposed to be spent on producing whatever filmed content they're going to produce. If they're spending that money on mansions and paying off debts, instead of actually filming something someone wants to watch, then it's not only going to dry up, they aren't going to get any more production deals offered if they don't deliver. Honestly, from here, their finances look like a mess - they're spending millinos before they earn squat.

by Anonymousreply 64September 17, 2020 3:19 AM

R55, that wasn't funny the first ten times you posted it, let alone now

by Anonymousreply 65September 17, 2020 3:41 AM

I honestly don't mind how they earn their own living as long as they leave public funds alone. If Netflix wants to pay them that amount of money to make content and if people want to watch that content, good for them. It's a fair way to make a living. Much fairer than taking taxpayer money and doing nothing in return.

Meghan seems like she'd be exhausting to be around, and Harry is clearly spoiled and dim, but they've done well for themselves so far. If they pay their own way, they have a right to live how they like.

by Anonymousreply 66September 17, 2020 4:00 AM

They intend to exploit Diana to make millions? That's the only reason Netflix is even bothering with them? According to Smeg, she was Hollywood royalty before Harry. Surely Netflix will pay her billions for a MM stand alone documentary. Billions!!!

by Anonymousreply 67September 17, 2020 4:03 AM

There have already been several documentaries about Diana in the past few years. I don't think Harry has anything new to offer unless he plans to just spend an hour telling unknown stories about his childhood. But that wouldn't really promote his much-wanted privacy.

by Anonymousreply 68September 17, 2020 5:29 AM

R60 no, sorry. You need to check your own racism since you reduce and judge Meghan by the color of her skin, instead of her behaviour.

by Anonymousreply 69September 17, 2020 7:57 AM

R60 None of your points hold any truth, as the comments on the Daily Mail for example regarding other non-white, non-British people aren't hateful. It has to do with Meghan, not the color of her skin. Your argument is weak and ridiculous, and very racist.

by Anonymousreply 70September 17, 2020 8:03 AM

If I was to "judge Meghan by the color of her skin" I'd forbid her from entry into my premises since we have sworn to enforce the rules against Canadians polluting our hallways.; at lest until they come clean and admit that round meat is NOT bacon.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 71September 17, 2020 8:56 AM

Go on now go... walk out the door, don't turn around now cause you're not welcome anymore....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 72September 17, 2020 9:36 AM

F&F.

by Anonymousreply 73September 17, 2020 9:52 AM

r43 It didn't really end. It just went underground.

by Anonymousreply 74September 17, 2020 10:26 AM

Will Harry get plastic surgery now?

by Anonymousreply 75September 17, 2020 10:34 AM

Most importantly, what does Thomas Markle have to say about all of this?

by Anonymousreply 76September 17, 2020 10:34 AM

Love them both.

by Anonymousreply 77September 17, 2020 10:37 AM

I can't stand either of them.

by Anonymousreply 78September 17, 2020 10:39 AM

If Harry and Meghan were truly happy they, and their flying monkeys, wouldn't waste so much time trashing Britain and the royal family. It comes across as sour grapes.

by Anonymousreply 79September 17, 2020 10:42 AM

R69 and R70 sound exactly like Donald Trump, when he's trying to not sound racist. Even though everyone knows that he is.

Rofl.

EXACTLY like Donald Trump.

by Anonymousreply 80September 17, 2020 10:55 AM

My favorite thing about Harry and Meghan threads are the cleaners. They truly know how to stick to their scripts.

by Anonymousreply 81September 17, 2020 11:17 AM

R80 Well I pity your low intelligence.

by Anonymousreply 82September 17, 2020 11:23 AM

"You sound like Trump" is going to be the new "You're as bad as Hitler" -- an insult people go to when they don't have any other argument.

by Anonymousreply 83September 17, 2020 11:38 AM

R80: Not Trumpian at all: nothing Donald Trump says is true.

What R69/R70 says is true.

by Anonymousreply 84September 17, 2020 11:40 AM

If anything, the British criticism might rather be fueled by a contempt for phony Americans.

by Anonymousreply 85September 17, 2020 11:51 AM

Insincerity and grifting is hardly limited to the residents of any one country, R85.

Her sugars need to blame all criticism of her on racism and to label all her critics racist does far more to discredit them *and her* than it does anyone who finds the two of them shallow, grasping narcissists with an amazing ability to always find the target as they shoot themselves in the foot.

by Anonymousreply 86September 17, 2020 12:46 PM

I like that when Charles said he wanted to downsize the monarchy, that Harry said, "Cool, I'm outta here!"

Betty and Phil, and their crotchd-roppings, Wills and Kate and their crotch-droppings.

Done.

by Anonymousreply 87September 17, 2020 12:51 PM

[quote]Go ahead and explain how H&M are grifters and thieves

Oh honey, never ask a troll to do more trolling.

by Anonymousreply 88September 17, 2020 12:57 PM

[quote]the comments on the Daily Mail for example regarding other non-white, non-British people aren't hateful

Girl what

by Anonymousreply 89September 17, 2020 12:57 PM

[quote]She's forcing him to be on his own and self-sufficient, which is something that most Royals refuse to (and cannot) do.

LOL - the ONLY reason he matters and that anyone cares at all about him is that he's Diana's son and grandson of the Queen.

Nothing he ever does for the rest of his life will counter the fact that his celebrity and, subsequently, his wealth are intrinsically tied to his birth as a royal.

His birth is literally his only talent, one for which he cannot even take credit.

by Anonymousreply 90September 17, 2020 12:59 PM

I don't understand why so many posters assume that criticism of Meghan must be racist? I'm sure some of it is - there probably are people who aren't thrilled about a biracial woman marrying into the BRF - but that doesn't mean it all is. Is there anyone in the world who could contribute to a book as ridiculous as Finding Freedom and NOT get mocked mercilessly by the DL? Beyonce is darker-skinned than Meghan, but the many posters here who dislike her don't tend to be automatically accused of racism.

by Anonymousreply 91September 17, 2020 1:07 PM

"Beyonce is darker-skinned than Meghan, but the many posters here who dislike her don't tend to be automatically accused of racism."

Beyonce isn't paying anyone to trash people who don't like her.

by Anonymousreply 92September 17, 2020 1:13 PM

The issue is her hypocrisy and phoniness, not the color of her skin.

Yes the other royals also live off tax payer money, but they have a constitutional job! They represent the government, the state, and the country of the UK. It might not be modern but that’s the form of representation that the people and the parliament of the UK support democratically.

Republicans in the UK aren’t suppressed, they just don’t get any votes.

When Will and Kate do cutesy pseudo-charity jobs for 10min photo ops, they don’t do it to self-aggrandize, they do it because a royal office which works in conjunction with the government of the UK organized this as part of official UK government PR. It’s literally their job.

When Harry and Meghan do it privately it’s fake and phony.

They absolutely did not want out of royal life. She could have said before the royal wedding and becoming a royal duchess that she’s taking Harry with her to the US to live a private life. People would have applauded them.

But Meghan absolutely wanted to be "ranked, not linked".

The contrast between her actions and her words is what pisses people off.

People like r40 only hear her words and are blinded by their own racism. They are dumb as fuck.

by Anonymousreply 93September 17, 2020 2:37 PM

Agreeing to become a royal duchess means agreeing to do a constitutional job, like signing a work contract.

You can’t then just have it your way, be your own boss, and go against your employer.

Many many British people also hate on Fergie and Camilla, but I don’t see any "dark" skin color involved there.

by Anonymousreply 94September 17, 2020 2:43 PM

R89 I welcome you to prove your point. Please do.

by Anonymousreply 95September 17, 2020 2:49 PM

I was hoping that Harry and Megs would go away and just be quiet. I guess not..

by Anonymousreply 96September 17, 2020 2:51 PM

R60 there are many sites which allow comments where there are obvious racist remarks, for example about BLM and looting. Comments about jungles, about monkeys, about "why do blacks always..."

Those are racist comments.

Comments about Meghan and also Harry are always about their hypocrisy.

by Anonymousreply 97September 17, 2020 2:54 PM

The "we want our privacy so we are leaving" claim would have worked if they walked away and were private. A few odd shots of them would have been all that was seen.

When you bring your own photographer to a charity event - that is not seeking privacy.

Giving online speeches (like that uninvited talk to her old high school) is not seeking privacy.

Participating in the publishing of a book called "Finding Freedom" (in whatever fashion they were a part of it or encouraged it) is not seeking privacy.

It's the hypocrisy on so many levels that makes them a target of jeers.

by Anonymousreply 98September 17, 2020 3:06 PM

OMG, she did an uninvited lecture to her high school? Omg, this is comedy PLATINUM. Please, for the love of god, LINK!!!!

by Anonymousreply 99September 17, 2020 3:23 PM

They were all bred like thoroughbred horses every last one of them including the Queen and William. None of them have anything except by accident of birth and because Lizzie’ uncle was a Nazi. None of them did anything exceptional but be born.

by Anonymousreply 100September 17, 2020 3:24 PM

I get it now, they get public funding from the UK for their services of providing incomparable comic relief to the world on these dark times.

And for their service, we thank them. 🇺🇸🇬🇧🇪🇺🇩🇪🇨🇿🇯🇵

by Anonymousreply 101September 17, 2020 3:26 PM

*in^

by Anonymousreply 102September 17, 2020 3:27 PM

Do people really believe they just got handed $150 million? JFC.

by Anonymousreply 103September 17, 2020 3:27 PM

R13, I agree...Harry would be outrageously hot with pumped up pecs, biceps and glutes!💪🏼

by Anonymousreply 104September 17, 2020 3:42 PM

R100 Do you really think Meghan doesn't have the "right" royal blood line somewhere in her lineage? They are all related. Diana was as well.

by Anonymousreply 105September 17, 2020 3:43 PM

R52, there is no such title as the King Mother. Perhaps you mean the Queen Mother -- a former queen consort who, as a dowager queen who is the mother of the reigning monarch, can be called the Queen Mother. (The closest to a "King Mother" is Henry VII's mother, Margaret, Countess of Richmond, who was referred to as the "King's Mother" back in the 15th and 16th centuries.)

by Anonymousreply 106September 17, 2020 4:00 PM

How much did the really get up-front from Netflix, I wonder.

I don't believe for a minute Charles isn't paying for them, saying he isn't is just PR spin because it looks awful for him to still be writing the checks.

by Anonymousreply 107September 17, 2020 4:12 PM

Sussexes’ stans keep moving the goal post over what it the norm/ acceptable. When early rumors started (months after wedding) about representatives of the famewhoring couple looking for LA home for them, stans were apopolect. How dare you suggest that Harry and Meghan want to move to LA to be influencers in show biz?!

They scoffed at rumors about Meg treating staff badly and keeping her showbiz contacts and agent on standby while she and Harry used their platform to gain sympathy for assorted self-induced drama and manufactured slights.

When the couple quit and scampered to Canada their stans applauded at their quest for privacy. They accused racism to those of us who said the couple was bound for LA to be bigwigs there. They said no way would the thirsty couple trade on BRF and Harry’s background in order to become celebrities. The. The stans did a 180 with the announcement of the Netflix deal which saw the couple score producer deal despite having zero experience.

Their stans are okay with hypocrisy and false equivalence of racism if it means that Meg and Dims become the manufactured public figures that they had set out to become all along. I and many here on DL would respect the couple more if they had just been transparent about their grift to become Hollywood celebrities instead of manufacturing drama as excuses to quit the BRF. It’s unctuous to claim victimization and proclaim themselves as humanitarians. Now it’s come to fruition, what we’ve predicted and said all along. Faux SJW-humanitarians living in lily white, exclusive enclave while preaching and virtue signaling to the plebs. This is of course fine with their stans as they keep moving the goal post.

Face it stans, Harry and his camera bulb PTSD and Meg’s cringeworthy humanitarianism are open to scrutiny more than ever now. They’ve become Hollywood producers and no longer immune to criticism as wannabe celebs-open famewhores.

by Anonymousreply 108September 17, 2020 4:20 PM

^^^meant to say “stans were apoplectic”.

by Anonymousreply 109September 17, 2020 4:36 PM

Meg and Harry don't want privacy, they want to completely control media coverage of them! That's why they're so eager to sue, they don't want any unauthorized or unflattering coverage.

And why we aren't seeing pictures of the sprat, nobody's meeting their price for pictures.

by Anonymousreply 110September 17, 2020 4:53 PM

[quote]Not only did he get to break free of the Royal Prison Bonds, but he also got to move to the US which is where he wanted to be, AND he gets to live in a mansion that he and his wife bought and PAID for, AND he's $150,000,000 richer now.

"Show your work, provide references, and all relevant links and articles."

touchè my little sugar; evidence is the key so please link an image of an account receivable from the SG stamped 'paid in full'; otherwise you're simply repeating heresay

by Anonymousreply 111September 17, 2020 5:00 PM

AT first, I thought Meg's critics were racist. Not because she was a saint or anything, but because of all the shallow bitches in the world, they picked her to obsess over and to spend their lives hating on! Which if true, and it probably was true in some cases, would have been an example of unconscious bias rather than conscious racism, they picked her to hate because she was breaking racial norms and "stealing" a prince.

So maybe there was some of that at first, but now, well! The Haters were right about her, they underestimated her!

But I don't hate her, I think she's hilarious. She's done nothing but fuck up ever since she dragged Harry away from his previous owners.

by Anonymousreply 112September 17, 2020 5:04 PM

"He is just following in Diana's footsteps"

Harry will forever be a whiny coffin follower. Second best is Sparkles, who wears dead mummy's perfume.

by Anonymousreply 113September 17, 2020 5:13 PM

r106, The title Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother was to differentiate between her ans her daughter Queen Elizabeth.

After Georgie 5 moved on, Queen Mary kept being Queen Mary. She was never a King's Mother even though she was twice.

by Anonymousreply 114September 17, 2020 5:44 PM

Yeah, the title "Queen Mother" wasn't approved by the College of Heralds or anything, it's just what everyone called Queen Consort Elizabeth to differentiate her from her daughter, the actual Queen Regnant Elizabeth.

When you've got two queens living and they have the same name, well, something's got to be done.

by Anonymousreply 115September 17, 2020 6:05 PM

[quote]Yeah, the title "Queen Mother" wasn't approved by the College of Heralds or anything, it's just what everyone called Queen Consort Elizabeth to differentiate her from her daughter, the actual Queen Regnant Elizabeth.

Kind of like "baby mama"?

by Anonymousreply 116September 17, 2020 6:12 PM

[quote]Faux SJW-humanitarians living in lily white, exclusive enclave while preaching and virtue signaling to the plebs. This is of course fine with their stans as they keep moving the goal post.

This is what people really dislike about them. And now Meghan will be doing some BLM thing for Netflix. Please.

by Anonymousreply 117September 17, 2020 7:15 PM

[quote] I don't understand why so many posters assume that criticism of Meghan must be racist? I'm sure some of it is - there probably are people who aren't thrilled about a biracial woman marrying into the BRF - but that doesn't mean it all is

Shut it. Most of it is racist. And you know it. We've had a hundred threads where people have said Meghan isn't black enough or she's barely black. Almost every public article about them that has a comment section has comments like that

That's disgusting. There's comments about her hair too

by Anonymousreply 118September 17, 2020 7:58 PM

I think the criticism would be even more harsh if Meghan has been 100% white. Her biracial status is actually making a lot of people hold back for calling her out for the grifting famewhore she is, because they're afraid to be called racist. It she were fully whit it would be much harsher.

by Anonymousreply 119September 17, 2020 8:14 PM

We’ll know it’s a done deal when just Harry gets his teeth fixed and a hair transplant...

by Anonymousreply 120September 17, 2020 8:16 PM

Sometimes these couples make it. Usually they don’t, but I know a couple like this where the husband just goes along with whatever she wants and seems to be happy doing so. We shall see.

by Anonymousreply 121September 17, 2020 9:00 PM

Her HAIR?! Her HAIR?!

by Anonymousreply 122September 17, 2020 9:01 PM

[quote] I think the criticism would be even more harsh if Meghan has been 100% white

Sure, Jan.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 123September 17, 2020 9:23 PM

It's true r123.

by Anonymousreply 124September 17, 2020 9:24 PM

She's a bit of a cunt. You're just going to have to accept it. She is not a nice person.

by Anonymousreply 125September 17, 2020 9:32 PM

I agree, R125.

Kate really is a cunt.

by Anonymousreply 126September 17, 2020 9:36 PM

Meghan is the cunt sister-in-law every family has.

by Anonymousreply 127September 17, 2020 9:41 PM

You're trash and you know it, smegs. No amount of money will change that.

by Anonymousreply 128September 17, 2020 9:43 PM

Taking bets on the inflated amount she will claim was paid for Archie's photos.

"Sussex duo score 20 million for baby pics!" (It was really $100.)

by Anonymousreply 129September 17, 2020 9:49 PM

R118 Please show some evidence of that.

by Anonymousreply 130September 17, 2020 9:59 PM

[quote]I don't believe for a minute Charles isn't paying for them, saying he isn't is just PR spin because it looks awful for him to still be writing the checks.

Of course 'Charles isn't paying them' because that's bad optics for the wobbly knee'd son who wants to 'stand on his own'. What is the more realistic story could be is that Charles or TQ have arranged with legal counsel to have a tidy sum of money placed in a Trust registered with some innocuous name like 'The Montecito Family Trust' and H&M have been named as both Trustees and Beneficiaries, so in other words, Charles is not supporting them, the name on the cheques are 'The Montecito Family Trust' payable to H&M. better optics, and they can rightfully say that their money is not coming from Charles.

by Anonymousreply 131September 17, 2020 10:12 PM

[quote]r94 Agreeing to become a royal duchess means agreeing to do a constitutional job, like signing a work contract.

Maybe to the thinking of some from the UK, but Meghan is an American.

Show us the wording in this supposed contract, please.

by Anonymousreply 132September 17, 2020 10:15 PM

R132, playing obtuse is just making people explain over and over again why smeg and her lapdog are horrible people - with receipts. Hardly what your employer wants from you.

by Anonymousreply 133September 17, 2020 10:27 PM

[quote]Maybe to the thinking of some from the UK, but Meghan is an American.

And American she certainly is, meaning she is only a 'courtesy' Duchess while she is married to Harry. When the inevitable divorce happens, she is just another nondescript single mother, however in her case, she will always have the notoriety a highly transparent grifter and be held in derision the world over.

by Anonymousreply 134September 17, 2020 10:27 PM

[quote]r134 And American she certainly is, meaning she is only a 'courtesy' Duchess while she is married to Harry. When the inevitable divorce happens, she is just another nondescript single mother

And that's fine. But she does not have a duty to "Queen and Country"... it's not HER queen, and it's not HER country. We should always be polite when in the company of inlaws, but beyond that there's no need for her to bow and scrape like the rest of the BRF do.

She was a guest in that country and was treated poorly. Why would she want to spend a second more time than necessary there, and expose her child to more of the same?

by Anonymousreply 135September 17, 2020 10:40 PM

Of fuck off. No one treated smeg badly. They didn't give her everything she wanted and it enraged her into Veruca Salt mode.

by Anonymousreply 136September 17, 2020 10:43 PM

Indeed, r136. Veruca Markle has a ring to it.

by Anonymousreply 137September 17, 2020 10:46 PM

"I want what Kate has!!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

by Anonymousreply 138September 17, 2020 10:49 PM

The Daily Mail was unpleasant to her, and the courtiers were snooty. Since the Daily Mail is usually so flattering, and the courtiers are normally so down to earth, you can see why she’d feel she had to leave the country.

by Anonymousreply 139September 17, 2020 10:53 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 140September 17, 2020 10:53 PM

My god, Harry looks even dumber than his father. How is that possible?!

by Anonymousreply 141September 17, 2020 11:05 PM

Rude

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 142September 17, 2020 11:10 PM

Harry takes after dumb and borderline personality Diana. It was always going to be at least one dumb kid with those genes. Turned out it was Harry not William, and I’m sure QE breathed a sigh of relief early on. Early on in that don’t believe the family didn’t know early on what a dolt Harry turned out to be. Cheated through school and couldn’t even take officer’s exam for fear of flunking.

As for hair transplant, I would be weary if I were Harry. Redheads don’t do as well with hair transplants, this from a family friend who is a hair transplant surgeon. He might end up looking worse. Best to go the bald route.

by Anonymousreply 143September 17, 2020 11:13 PM

r120 I'm holding out for a Brazilian butt lift.

by Anonymousreply 144September 17, 2020 11:31 PM

Megixit seems to be nearly complete -- I have seen several references to "Prince Harry and his wife," "Prince Harry and Megan Markle, Actress," etc. Sussex is almost dead.

There was a gossip note that the Harkles are invited to a couple family events in 2021, but will not be photographed with any working royals. This sounds about right, as will permanent removal of Harry's military associations. I think they will relinquish Froggy Holler as they obviously hate it anyway. Using any video footage of royals in their commercial ventures? No.

Any feelings of relief the Harkles have are most likely mutual by his family. Haz has his new father David Foster anyway, so no big deal.

by Anonymousreply 145September 17, 2020 11:38 PM

[quote]There was a gossip note that the Harkles are invited to a couple family events in 2021, but will not be photographed with any working royals.

They really must be livid with him if he's not even allowed to be photographed with them.

by Anonymousreply 146September 17, 2020 11:42 PM

Where is Archie?

by Anonymousreply 147September 17, 2020 11:56 PM

[quote]They really must be livid with him if he's not even allowed to be photographed with them.

I doubt TQ or Charles are livid with Harry. They simply recognize that Harry's place in succession is in the rear view mirror, and that the stars of tomorrow are Charles, Camilla, William , Kate, George, Charlotte, and Louis.

Harry and Meghan could have carved out a place for themselves in some manner, however I believe that Megs couldn't abide with being a supporting actor. So she marched off to LA with Harry's balls in her purse.

I won't be the slightest bit surprised that the titles will be 'graciously surrendered' (eye-roll) at year-end review now that the Palace has seeded their bank accounts in a mind-boggling amount. Effectively a 'nuisance payment' as its known in the bizz. -"Here's a ton of money, now go away and let us get on with things".

Its all worked out well from the Monarchy's point of view, except when the divorce comes, but I'm sure legal counsel has fully anticipated and insulated both Harry and the Monarchy's cash for when that time comes.

Their departure from the Royal circle is a huge relief to all parties, provided they play by the rules of engagement. I expect that they won't be able to stay within those rules long though, when they get desperate and try to market their 'link' to the Royal Family.

by Anonymousreply 148September 18, 2020 12:09 AM

Weeks later, and still nobody cares where that potato headed child is. Why should we? He's another overly rich tater tot in a bubble raised by narcissists. Good luck to his genes.

by Anonymousreply 149September 18, 2020 12:21 AM

I'm sure a PEOPLE magazine cover story is imminent.

by Anonymousreply 150September 18, 2020 12:23 AM

Archie will be kept hidden behind mansion walls and transported behind heavily tinted SUV windows to schools with designated and canopied drop-off areas. All in an attempt to build up his exclusivity and caché. His play date friends will be seriously vetted for the advantages that their parents can provide to H&M.

by Anonymousreply 151September 18, 2020 12:32 AM

She tried and failed to make Archie seem more important than the Cambridge kids.

by Anonymousreply 152September 18, 2020 12:37 AM

Nobody seems to be clamoring for pics of Archie.

by Anonymousreply 153September 18, 2020 12:44 AM

[quote]Nobody seems to be clamoring for pics of Archie.

well, covid 'n everything ... give it a while until the LA and the paps get back on their feet ... you know they'll be 'anonymously' alerted of their every move

by Anonymousreply 154September 18, 2020 12:51 AM

[quote]She tried and failed to make Archie seem more important than the Cambridge kids.

Well, after Betty dies, Archie becomes as important as Loius.

by Anonymousreply 155September 18, 2020 1:00 AM

[quote]Archie becomes as important as Loius.

Uh no, Louis will be 3rd in line to the crown when Charles becomes King.

Archie's a relative non-starter in that field. He best stay in LA and work the corner pockets.

by Anonymousreply 156September 18, 2020 1:15 AM

I have noticed that in official palace announcements or press acknowledgements, M & H are referred in some version of the following ..."the Duke of Sussex and his family".

by Anonymousreply 157September 18, 2020 1:23 AM

I agree that they'll be surrendering the Sussex title at the end of the 12-month grace period. It's possible that the money to buy their enormous California house was part of that deal. It's important to the future of the monarchy to draw a line between what Harry and Meghan are doing (marketing themselves for personal gain) and what the active members of the BRF are doing.

I doubt that the money to pay off Frogmore came from them. It was probably a gift from Charles that they gifted back. They never wanted that house, barely lived in that house, why would they pay a couple of million for the renovations? Charles did it to give Harry some good optics so that he could keep his California career going. It's really in the BRF's best interests that Harry does well, as that will keep him and Meghan contented and away from the business of the Monarchy. It's a kinder, gentler version of what was done to/for the Windsors.

Archie will be raised like a privileged California kid. He will have the offspring of A-listers as his playmates. He may one day have a very successful Instagram or YouTube channel (or whatever the hip social media is in 20 years). He will never use any sort of British title. I would even be surprised if he takes dual citizenship when he turns 18. He'll be American through and through.

by Anonymousreply 158September 18, 2020 1:24 AM

^^that's code for "we can't stand the bitch he's married to."

by Anonymousreply 159September 18, 2020 1:24 AM

[quote] And American she certainly is, meaning she is only a 'courtesy' Duchess while she is married to Harry.

There is no such thing as a living British Duchess who is not a "courtesy" duchess through marriage.

Even the queen, who holds the duchy of Lancaster in her own right by dint of being monarch, is officially the Duke of Lancaster, not the Duchess.

by Anonymousreply 160September 18, 2020 1:27 AM

[quote]Do people really believe they just got handed $150 million? JFC.

Yes, I think there are a lot of people who believe they just got handed $150 million. Many people don't understand how the deal was structured.

by Anonymousreply 161September 18, 2020 1:31 AM

A single flying fuck: if only I gave one.

by Anonymousreply 162September 18, 2020 1:34 AM

[quote] Well, after Betty dies, Archie becomes as important as Loius.

What? After Betty dies, Charles is monarch, and the succession goes as follows:

1) The heir apparent, and Charles's eldest child, Prince William

2) William's eldest child, Prince George

3) William's second eldest child, Princess Charlotte

4) William's youngest child, Prince Louis

5) Charles's second child, Prince Harry

6) Harry's only child, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor

Louis is two steps ahead of Archie in the path of succession, and will be at least that far ahead of Archie until the day he dies. If he has children, they will all inherit the throne before Archie does.

Archie will never inherit the throne, unless Anmer House is taken out by a bomb.

by Anonymousreply 163September 18, 2020 1:35 AM

*Sorry, It's Anmer HALL, not House.

by Anonymousreply 164September 18, 2020 1:36 AM

Was Markle ever considered a sex symbol? She was a briefcase girl after all.

by Anonymousreply 165September 18, 2020 1:37 AM

Can someone explain the Netflix deal to me? Is the 150 million just salary for them if they deliver the content? Or does that 150 million include costs associated with creating the content? I don't quite understand how all this works. Are Harry and Meghan just middlemen who find production companies who have content to sell to Netflix or are H&M actually supposed to create the content?

by Anonymousreply 166September 18, 2020 1:42 AM

Eating a hamburger while writhing around a hot barbecue grill is as sexy as it gets, I suppose.

by Anonymousreply 167September 18, 2020 1:47 AM

They're supposed to create the content.

by Anonymousreply 168September 18, 2020 1:53 AM

r156 and r163, AND Archie becomes a Royal Prince.

And like The Duchess of Windsor never claimed, if they are rid of the Sussex Duchy they would remain

TRH The Prince and Princess Henry.

If I were Meghan and everyone called me Meghan as oppose to The Duchess of Sussex, then being the Her Royal Highness, Princess Henry would be nice. Also a big FU to the Firm.

Things, they will be a changin.

I only hope that Phil goes first. Racist fuck.

by Anonymousreply 169September 18, 2020 1:54 AM

[quote] I only hope that Phil goes first. Racist fuck.

Phil won't go until he sees Harry divorced from the she-devil and safely back in the fold.

by Anonymousreply 170September 18, 2020 1:57 AM

When Charles becomes King, Archie will be entitled to the style of HRH Prince Archie. But just as Louise and James Wessex do not use the styles of HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James, Archie probably won't use the princely title. Though Louise and James could choose to use the titles at 18, it would be rather silly, as they won't ever be working royals. Archie needs the titles even less than they do, as he won't even be living in England or part of that social set. In fact, from a marketing perspective, he'll look cooler and more progressive if he never uses it.

by Anonymousreply 171September 18, 2020 1:59 AM

Netflix should enter into a deal with DataLounge. We create better content than H&M.

by Anonymousreply 172September 18, 2020 2:00 AM

I don't know why the Sussexstans are so obsessed with Archie being a royal prince. They keep going on and on about how motheaten the British monarchy is, how its titles and traditions mean nothing. You'd think they would be eager for Meghan, Harry, and Archie to eschew the titles and just be the Mountbatten-Windsors.

by Anonymousreply 173September 18, 2020 2:01 AM

Let's be real. MM will demand that her son be called Prince Archie. She will teach him to use the title for grifting.

by Anonymousreply 174September 18, 2020 2:09 AM

[quote]r158 It's important to the future of the monarchy to draw a line between what Harry and Meghan are doing (marketing themselves for personal gain) and what the active members of the BRF are doing.

Yeah, RED ALERT...they're really in danger of toppling the monarchy, those two.

For god's sake, some of you make their lives seem much more exciting than it all really is.

by Anonymousreply 175September 18, 2020 2:21 AM

Louise and James, the future Earl of Wessex, will not continue as grandchildren of the monarch. Archie will and it will be a much smaller club.

And considering the decades long animus between Chuck and Phil, it would not surprise me, once Phil is interred, that C3 reinstates the Dynastic name as simply Windsor.

Goodbye amoeba.

by Anonymousreply 176September 18, 2020 2:43 AM

Also, where did this concept of "working royals" are only entitled to the HRH.

Tell that to Drina's nine children.

Codswallop.

by Anonymousreply 177September 18, 2020 2:47 AM

[quote]Louise and James, the future Earl of Wessex, will not continue as grandchildren of the monarch. Archie will and it will be a much smaller club.

What does this even mean?

by Anonymousreply 178September 18, 2020 2:58 AM

“As oppose to” R169?

Why is it that you people can hear but you cannot spell?

by Anonymousreply 179September 18, 2020 9:41 AM

I STRONGLY suspect that the reason Archie is being kept hidden is not "privacy concerns" (I mean really, lmao) but the fact that he may not be photogenic enough to compete with Kate's children.

Perhaps, after some discreet plastic surgery, the tot will be trotted out in designer humblewear by his doting mommy and daddy. And in a few years he'll be competing with Apple Martin Goop for the title of worst bully in LA's private educational system.

by Anonymousreply 180September 18, 2020 10:03 AM

r180 Apple Martin is 16.

by Anonymousreply 181September 18, 2020 2:02 PM

[quote]Louise and James, the future Earl of Wessex, will not continue as grandchildren of the monarch. Archie will and it will be a much smaller club.

The Queen has 8 grandchildren. Charles has 4 at present, and will probably end up with 5 or 6. A smaller club, but not a MUCH smaller club.

It's silly for any grandchild who is not the child of the direct heir to carry the HRH. (You could even make an argument that it's pointless for younger children of the direct heir to have it.) '

It's even more pointless when a younger son's child lives 8000 miles away from the UK and will likely be raised there. An American boy with an American accent and American attitudes.

Harry and Meghan have chosen to live where they live and raise Archie in an American environment. Having made those choices, they'd be hypocrites to then insist he be styled as a prince of the UK.

by Anonymousreply 182September 18, 2020 2:23 PM

R181 I mean historically, not at thd same time, lol.

by Anonymousreply 183September 18, 2020 2:29 PM

"His first divorce"

by Anonymousreply 184September 18, 2020 2:33 PM

Apparently the gossip is that Meghan and Harry via their entertainment lawyers had set up a company for Doria in the summer of 2019. Registered in Delaware and some sort of vague, health consultation services for the elderly. It only takes private, direct cash payments NOT insurance of any type. Money laundering scam or what? Social workers can practice independently but they usually take insurance, none of this private consultancy bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 185September 18, 2020 3:00 PM

I wish all the Meg fans who claim she is only disliked in the UK because she is biracial and from the US would explain why Michelle O is so respected and admired here.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 186September 18, 2020 3:41 PM

You're so nice! I wish "all the Meg fans" would bite me.

by Anonymousreply 187September 18, 2020 5:05 PM

Supposedly this is the sham cash pay only consulting company-senior care management that was set up for Meghan’s mother, Doria. This website is shady as hell. No reputable senior care services company would ever have a professional website like this. Why? Social worker (which Doria is one) private practice websites will have a CV or at least information about the SW, her license number, and work experience including specialty areas if applicable. Looks like it was established by a lawyer who’s not specializing in healthcare but entertainment. What a joke if this is indeed the shell company.

This website has none of those pertinent information, not even who you, as a consumer, would be inquiring for possible services. It just gives out a phone number, not even a person of contact besides the SW. Under the “about us” section, it basically lists a bunch of SW services that one should be able to get via SW services contracted with insurance companies or healthcare providers. If you’re able to pay cash for boutique SW services, then why the hell would you not be able to afford health insurance? Unless this company is after getting rich elderly people’s money by scamming them to think they need concierge SW services. More than half the things listed on the website you can pay a healthcare attendees like a CNA (certified nurses aide) to do. Many rich elderly in LA pay for such staff. Why the need to spring for private SW services?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 188September 18, 2020 9:25 PM

The agent is an entertainment attorney. Someone should be able to dig up more shadiness.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 189September 18, 2020 9:27 PM

Good sleuthing, DL!

"Loving Kindness" is such an odd name though. Could it be code for something? Am I reading too much into this? It still seems to me a weird choice of a name. Keyword search optimisation? Generic-sounding meaningless name of a hollow company?

by Anonymousreply 190September 18, 2020 9:58 PM

R190, This might just be ineptitude rather than anything sinister. Meghan could have given the job to an entertainment lawyer (who would not know what he/she was doing), because she could get the legal services for free.

What’s most disturbing is that Meghan seems to expect her mother to keep working even those she, Meghan, now has serious money. Who does that?

by Anonymousreply 191September 18, 2020 10:03 PM

[quote]I wish all the Meg fans who claim she is only disliked in the UK because she is biracial and from the US would explain why Michelle O is so respected and admired here.

You can't be this stupid? Can You? yes, you can

That list is so funny. Edward Snowden and rapist Julian Assange are on that same list too. And melanie, the wife of the American traitor, donald trump is on it too. Speaking of traitors, that convicted traitor , chelsea manning is on that same exact list as Michelle Obama

We can see all the racist comments from Brits about Meghan in every single article about her on the web

by Anonymousreply 192September 18, 2020 10:11 PM

[quote]r186 I wish all the Meg fans ...

You don't have to be a fan to object to the racist way she was treated. I don't know her, so who knows what's in someone's heart, but from what's reported I don't see she did anything objectionable. She's probably a little spoiled, but who that's succeeded in the entertainment industry isn't? More pointedly, who in the BRF isn't?

by Anonymousreply 193September 18, 2020 10:11 PM

I doubt that smeg expects Doria to keep working. Besides, Doria is the prime caretaker of Archie. No, everything about this, including the odd website that seems to offer something but in fact offers nothing (it reads like a preview) is typical of a screen company.

That's how Eastern European money-laundering businesses go. They set up a perfectly innocent front - let's say, a shoe shop. But the shoes on offer are too few; too expensive; out of fashion. The shop is expensive but somehow invisible; its purpose is not to draw attention to itself.

Luxury is a must for screen companies. An expensive location, costly office decorations and a complicated labyrinth of "exclusive" services allow for wild creativity with the accounting books. This "Loving Kindness" seems to fit the bill.

by Anonymousreply 194September 18, 2020 10:14 PM

(Note how Sunshine Sucks sprang into action with the racism thread-derailing crap the moment we started digging into this.)

by Anonymousreply 195September 18, 2020 10:15 PM

r192. Those are just people that were in the news. Michelle Obama got the votes. Yougov gives suggestions that can be ignored or not and it runs polls over 12 months in many cases.

by Anonymousreply 196September 18, 2020 10:28 PM

R191, I’m not R190 but in this instance this is not not ineptitude but smacks of deliberateness. Let’s assume ineptitude is to blame, that would be just as bad because it would implies the licensed specialist (SW) is incompetent as well. They’re asking people to consult with them about medical treatment/ ethics issues, very private information about the clients’ health, lifestyle, family, and socioeconomic realities. Yet the potential, interested clients are supposed to contact the service not knowing the person of expertise, whether they’re licensed, insured, etc....and possibly diverge these personal information about themselves or their loved ones? To me it goes beyond incompetence or mere ineptitude because crucial, basic background information is deliberately missing. I’ve worked with SWs for years both inpatient and now mostly in outpatient capacity. It’s more difficult to be omit basic information than to just do things the transparent way. That website is sketchy, trust me i’ve been in healthcare for more than 15 years.

by Anonymousreply 197September 18, 2020 10:43 PM

The website says that Loving Kindness is a member of the Aging Life Care Association, apparently a industry certification and lobbying group whose website is shown below.

No idea to what extent the association investigates their member's qualifications, experience or licensure, or if they just cash the check when a new member joins.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 198September 19, 2020 12:22 AM

R198 I read through the membership criteria on the website. It’s easy to join, all one has to have is anywhere from an associate degree all the way up to doctoral/ PhD degree in any of the specified disciplines, including psychology, nursing, OT/ PT, gerontology, health administration, and social work. There isn’t a criteria that applies to specific number of hours you’d have to have in your training or work experience with the elderly. For instance if I wish to get certified as a gerontology NP I would have to complete more coursework and specified number of hours before I’ll be able to sit for the certification exam. So this doesn’t appear to be that kind of certification. I think it’s more of a membership kind of thing.

by Anonymousreply 199September 19, 2020 1:25 AM

[quote] I doubt that smeg expects Doria to keep working. Besides, Doria is the prime caretaker of Archie. No, everything about this, including the odd website that seems to offer something but in fact offers nothing (it reads like a preview) is typical of a screen company

Meghan has joined the ranks of the rich. This is what rich people do. They funnel as much money as they can to friends and relatives. Why pay a stranger to do some easy work for you, when you can pay your mother?

They will be developing projects for Netflix. Doria will be a consultant/expert on whatever issues they are focusing on.

Rich people make sure they make money, coming and going. That's how they stay rich

by Anonymousreply 200September 19, 2020 2:05 AM

R200, so embezzling money and hiding funds is a-okay, as long as you're rich, eh? You Megstans have some beautifully flexible moral compasses.

And what "expertise" is Doria going to bestow upon their projects, pray tell? How to bag a rich husband and isilate him from family and friends? Mind you, that might sell well.

by Anonymousreply 201September 19, 2020 10:53 AM

*^isOlate

by Anonymousreply 202September 19, 2020 10:54 AM

[quote] so embezzling money and hiding funds is a-okay, as long as you're rich, eh?

Embezzling? You come of as slightly retarded. It's not embezzling. You probably shouldn't use words you don't know the meaning of.

Nothing illegal about it. Rich people have been doing this since the beginning of time. You have a problem because Meghan is black. You don't think she should allowed to earn money

You're the lunatic who thinks Meghan should be "punished"? Aren't you?

I guess you expect Meghan's mom to work for free, like a slave

by Anonymousreply 203September 19, 2020 9:49 PM

Yawn. The "worship smeg or you're racist" troll is back.

by Anonymousreply 204September 19, 2020 10:05 PM

updates ignore list

by Anonymousreply 205September 19, 2020 10:07 PM

R203 is moving the goal post again as typical of Meghan stans. Before, it was saintly Doria the mental health expert providing expertise to treat mentally vulnerable people rich and poor, including Royal dolt Harry with his camera flash PTSD. The type of PTSD that responds to no therapy except one that comes in the form of ginormous cash payment from speechifying about dead mum.

Now the goal post is Doria is allowed to charge obscene amount of money catering to concierge LCSW services that only rich fucks can afford, and only the dumb can be convinced to believe they need. It's okay for Doria to say fuck you to the plebs and the poor with and without health insurance, she'll only take $$$ payment from rich and mentally not-all-there elderly patients who won't raise suspicions like those pesky insurance companies or medical institutions that usually oversee what social workers can bill. After all, isn't it enough to only pay lip service to equality, charity, and kindness? What, Black and Latino people are more adversely affected by lack of access to healthcare? Pffff, fuck if Meghan, Doria and their stans care. What really matters is making bank. Fuck trying to advocate for greater healthcare access, cash direct deposit for vague consultant scams is where it's at.

by Anonymousreply 206September 19, 2020 10:20 PM

Meghan and Doria are running waist-deep through the fields of cash and are on the take!

by Anonymousreply 207September 19, 2020 11:42 PM

R203 You're talking shit. Stop.

by Anonymousreply 208September 20, 2020 2:31 AM

[quote]r207 Meghan and Doria are running waist-deep through the fields of cash and are on the take!

You mean ... like the BRF? At least it's not coming from bloodshed, creating laws for one's own advantage, and the exploitations of colonialization, like all British royals' money came from.

by Anonymousreply 209September 20, 2020 3:08 AM

That was a LONG time ago r209.

by Anonymousreply 210September 20, 2020 3:23 AM

But they still use the money -

by Anonymousreply 211September 20, 2020 3:28 AM

Still, there's still a pandemic on, London is facing the possibility of a new lockdown, millions of jobs have been lost and rents aren't being paid.

It's infuriating to think that the future king's spare funds are not going to relieving the sick or jobless or those facing homeless, but to pay the mortgage of a fucking monstrous mansion and enough security to keep all 25 bathrooms safe from intruders. That's just wrong.

by Anonymousreply 212September 20, 2020 3:28 AM

Do you mean Buckingham Palace?

by Anonymousreply 213September 20, 2020 3:42 AM

BP is mortgage free; has been for a few years now Rose

by Anonymousreply 214September 20, 2020 3:53 AM

R206 doesn't understand the world. Prince Charles does the same exact thing as Meg and Harry will do with Doria, but with his party planner. Michael Fawcett

Fawcett used to be on Charles staff, until a big scandal. Charles refused to fire him. Instead he quit and opened his own party planning business. Charles has him plan all his parties now (paid for by the taxpayers and from Charles charity). I'm sure Fawcett channels some of the money back to Charles. Remember, Fawcett is the one who was caught selling gifts given to the royal family. And you know that charles was getting a cut of that money because he refused to fire the guy and has kept him around a few decades since (even with the press screaming for him to disavow him)

And charles recommends Fawcett's party planning services to his rich friends. The Queen does the same thing for Peter Phillips

by Anonymousreply 215September 20, 2020 10:58 AM

There shouldn't be a problem with Meg and Harry. They've left England, paid back the money for their house, got jobs, don't require any more money from the taxpayers or anyone else, aren't using their titles, and you still have a problem with them

by Anonymousreply 216September 20, 2020 11:05 AM

They... paid back the money? Got JOBS? Don't require more money? AREN'T USING THEIR TITLES????

Are we living in alternate realities??

Ok, my 2 cents about the Sunshine Sucks trolls. We just need to ignore them. They won't stop. Their job is to derail these threads and they do it with a strict consistency. So we need to not engage, FF and move on as if their comments don't exist.

by Anonymousreply 217September 20, 2020 11:42 AM

If Harkles' crap PR's job is to derail, they've not been successful. Markle is still BFF with Mulroney, Haz is going to online film producer school -- hahaha.

by Anonymousreply 218September 20, 2020 1:00 PM

R217 I’ve been saying this for a while now. The FF is a lot more effective at flushing them than responding to their nonsense. If we all take that one simple action when you see their paid blather, they’ll disappear.

As it is, theirs is an uphill battle. Look at the posts: about 80 or 90 percent find the Harkles ridiculous. If the SS trolls weren’t here, it would be 90 to 95 percent.

They don’t give a fuck about Harry and Meghan. They’re paid shills and don’t belong here.

by Anonymousreply 219September 20, 2020 1:31 PM

I’ve blocked Meghan stans in past threads. To show you that the same Meghan stans keep showing up on these threads to do PR control for M&H, around 62 posts are missing from my version of this thread. That’s 28+% of the posts so far.

by Anonymousreply 220September 20, 2020 2:00 PM

R219 - completely agree. It's obvious at this point, and I was super sceptical of the "SS write here" theory at the beginning and thought it was a stupid conspiracy imaginary scenario. But no. The steady consistency of these posts - and on MM threads only, nowhere else - the greying out of all MM threads, the incessant laughable accusations of racism and jealousy - make it obvious that this is a consistent team effort and not just one loony fan (I can't believe the Harkles could have more than one).

So yes, lets FF and ignore. There's no other way. Let's make them lose their commissions lol. I can just imagine smeg flying in rage at the terrified interns doomed to write here: "YOU MAKE ME LOOK BAD!!!" 😂

by Anonymousreply 221September 20, 2020 2:04 PM

"...the greying out of all MM threads, the incessant laughable accusations of racism and jealousy - make it obvious that this is a consistent team effort and not just one loony fan (I can't believe the Harkles could have more than one). "

New to the internet, are you?

Yes, there really are loopy fans who will devote all their off-hours to singing the praises of their idol and arguing with their detractors. They see the latter as doing something valuable for their idol, not a complete waste of their lives or anything. Of course there may be paid trolls or unpaid intern trolls joining them, but real nutballs do exist..

by Anonymousreply 222September 20, 2020 3:15 PM

R222, of course they do. For, say, Beyonce or Korean boy bands. No one can persuade me that the pathetic Harkles have managed to somehow inspire such rabid fandom in multiple people.

Plus, this type of obsessiveness is typical for teenagers who wouldn't give a flying fuck for the smeg drama. So no, no way are people doing this for free.

by Anonymousreply 223September 20, 2020 4:46 PM

[quote]No one can persuade me that the pathetic Harkles have managed to somehow inspire such rabid fandom in multiple people.

Everybody I know is just "meh" about them. With everything that's going on right now, nobody seems to care.

by Anonymousreply 224September 20, 2020 4:50 PM

The Sussexes’ fans are insane but I do believe they exist in real life. Case in point, that cunt fan that Meghan called to personally thank her for raising money for charity. But a cursory glance at the cunt dan’s SM posts show her to be misogynistic and unhinged in her attacks against Kate and William.

by Anonymousreply 225September 20, 2020 5:00 PM

I have been one congratulating the Sussesexs on their deal. According to a BI, they did of course reach deal with Netflix but it wasn't anywhere near the sum they disclosed. Meghan's PR team has been putting it out there that it "could be as much as 150M", so could be and is are two different things. According to the BI, the Sussex team was also putting out all the people that were interested in them, but in truth things had been very quiet over the early months of the pandemic, with no offers in play. Still, I feel like they will do fine financially, whatever the sum is. I also read that Kate & William did not tune in to Harry's Bday zoom call, which everyone including The Queen, Phillip, Charles, and Camilla were all present for. Will is upset with Netflix for their upcoming portrayal of Diana on The Crown this season which is said to highlight Diana's bulimia and give us a more realistic view of her. He feel like M&H signed a deal with the devil and the firm is worried that this could have them spilling more secrets.

by Anonymousreply 226September 20, 2020 5:28 PM

R226, what other secrets could there possibly be? We know about tax shelters, Nazism, adultery, rape . . . What else is there? Cannibalism?

by Anonymousreply 227September 20, 2020 5:56 PM

Yeah, I doubt William is "worried" about Diana's mental illness or Dim's projects. And no, Kate is not devastated about Sparkles supposedly not accepting her invisible flowers. And yes the entire BRF is elated to see their backs/flat asses toddle away

by Anonymousreply 228September 20, 2020 6:25 PM

William and Kate clearly can't stand Meghan, so they must be relieved she's not in Britain anymore and won't be participating in events where they would all have to be together. In their previous public appearances together, William and Kate looked very irritated and had the "I smell shit" expressions whenever Meghan was with them. It was obvious what they thought of her.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 229September 20, 2020 6:51 PM

Another pic of them looking miserable...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 230September 20, 2020 6:53 PM

Harry looks like he's ready to kill......

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 231September 20, 2020 6:54 PM

I think it's funny that Prince Friar Tuck used to mock William for going bald. Old pouty face Friar Tuck. With the charming missus.

by Anonymousreply 232September 20, 2020 6:54 PM

[quote]R229 William and Kate looked very irritated and had the "I smell shit" expressions whenever Meghan was with them.

Well, to be fair, it’s really hard to hide deep seated racism... which is as plain as a blackamoor brooch pinned to their faces.

by Anonymousreply 233September 20, 2020 7:05 PM

Oh shut up r233. It has nothing to do with her race. Christ you'd never know she was half black if she didn't tell you, she looks like a white girl with a tan. It has everything to do with her being a transparent social-climbing grifter. William had her number from day one.

by Anonymousreply 234September 20, 2020 7:07 PM

Now just scroll back up to r233 and hit the block button.

by Anonymousreply 235September 20, 2020 7:37 PM

Done

by Anonymousreply 236September 20, 2020 8:21 PM

[quote]if they are rid of the Sussex Duchy they would remain TRH The Prince and Princess Henry.

No, you have that backwards. It's much more difficult to remove the dukedom, once granted. The standing precedent is that Parliament has to vote on it, and even then they can't completely 'remove' it, it would still exist for the heir (Archie, in this case) to inherit it. UK dukedoms exist until they become 'extinct', when there are no more male descendants of the original holder. They merge back with the Crown for future 'recreation' at a later date if needed.

TQ only needs to either create LP (Letters Patent) or publicly state that Harry is no longer an HRH Prince, and voila, it's gone. She retains that power, over royal stylings and titles, by her will.

by Anonymousreply 237September 20, 2020 9:27 PM

[quote]Let's be real. MM will demand that her son be called Prince Archie. She will teach him to use the title for grifting.

Meghan can't demand any such thing. She has no control over who gets to be called/styled "Prince" or "Princess". Neither does Harry, or any else except the Queen.

by Anonymousreply 238September 20, 2020 9:28 PM

Since being a prince did not bring Harry much happiness, I doubt either he or his wife want their son titled as such.

by Anonymousreply 239September 20, 2020 11:33 PM

r238, or in the future, C3

by Anonymousreply 240September 21, 2020 12:54 AM

Meghan’s changing face might have something to do with her being pregnant. Her face has that hormonal pregnancy look. Last thing that Harry’s family would want.

by Anonymousreply 241September 21, 2020 1:50 AM

Would a royal be sent as an emissary to the new baby’s christening in California?

I’d hope is wouldn’t be Pedrew - he shouldn’t be around kids, at this point.

by Anonymousreply 242September 21, 2020 4:00 AM

"[R222], of course they do. For, say, Beyonce or Korean boy bands. No one can persuade me that the pathetic Harkles have managed to somehow inspire such rabid fandom in multiple people. "

R223, I can see why people might like either one of them, or both. I can imagine that some dim bulbs haven't gotten over their crushes on Prince Harry, for instance, he used to look hot and seem fun and maybe some people haven't realized that he's been revealed as mean and stupid.

Others genuinely admire Meg for her social mountaineering and chutzpah. I mean, she was basically an ordinary person, who took a flying leap into the unknown and landed in the social stratosphere for real. There have been some ordinary women, particularly women of color, who've gushed about her breathtaking climb, at least at first they were genuinely thrilled that "someone like me" could become a genuine princess, or drag a prince away from his family. One even said "... this woman flat-out STOLE a prince" in awe and admiration. I'd like to know if this woman still likes Meg, but I cant be arsed to search.

by Anonymousreply 243September 21, 2020 6:15 AM

Say what you will, Meghan always finds the camera. The other 3 look miserable and she is posing. This is what makes Meghan both amazing and awful.

by Anonymousreply 244September 21, 2020 6:16 AM

Meghan has apparently sacked her lead barrister in the Daily Mail case.

He is David Sherborne, the barrister who represented Diana and, more recently, represented Johnny Depp in the Amber Heard case.

She's apparently "replacing him with one of his arch-rivals".

Uh-oh......

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 245September 21, 2020 10:15 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 246September 21, 2020 11:00 AM

Harry is taking a 5-day course on the basics of being a producer and is happy to start from the bottom up. Funny how they are so willing to start from the bottom as they know jack shit about being producers. Yet they insist on being paid top producer salaries. Then they pretend as if they got the Netflix deal without using royal status and connections, as if it was totally normal for a couple of neophytes without producing experience to land a deal of that magnitude.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 247September 21, 2020 3:03 PM

That's big news if true r245. It's never a good sign when you ditch your main counsel mid-way through litigation.

by Anonymousreply 248September 21, 2020 4:15 PM

Christ, Harry thinks that a huge sweetheart deal from Netflix is "starting at the bottom", and that in five days he'll know as much about fil production as anyone.

Fucking dolt.

by Anonymousreply 249September 21, 2020 4:17 PM

No, Sparkles didn't exactly sack her lead barrister -- he was tied up in the Depp-Heard brawl, so another guy in the same firm stepped in, and will continue on. There is some kind of hearing going on - the Mail will have access to 6 months of Sparkles' emails and texts (she wanted five days worth).

by Anonymousreply 250September 21, 2020 4:35 PM

Agreed, r248. It doesn't bode well.

Apparently she ditched Sherborne, Diana's onetime lawyer, for his arch-rival Rushbrook:

"The Duchess’ team said Mr Sherborne, who most recently represented Johnny Depp, had too many “demands on his time” and Mr Rushbrook would replace him as lead counsel."

Very bitchy. Sounds like Sherborne told her something she didn't want to hear.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 251September 21, 2020 4:36 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 252September 21, 2020 4:47 PM

That's the way it's done, r252.

He looks a lot happier, too.

by Anonymousreply 253September 21, 2020 4:50 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 254September 21, 2020 5:00 PM

I would expect better from Gloria Steinem.

by Anonymousreply 255September 21, 2020 5:04 PM

And it's that borderline political meddling that will get her and Harry basically cut off from the BRF and their titles fully yanked.

Getting a Netflix deal and making boring documentaries isn't enough for the TQ to strip them of anything. It's annoying, how they quickly up and left the UK for Cali and took on the celebrity lifestyle, but not threatening to the BRF. Getting involved in direct politics, however, is a whole other ballgame.

TQ retains the power to pull their HRH and Harry's princely title. She needs no other support, she can alter them at anytime for any reason. The Sussex dukedom is more sticky, but I've seen discussions that she may still retain some authority there.

by Anonymousreply 256September 21, 2020 5:05 PM

That lawyer didn't do Johnny Depp any favors. M & H are crazy to get involved in political issues. If it were any other president, it might be different, but trump is the type who would screw with Harry's citizenship/visa

Gloria Steinem is an idiot to get involved with them. They must have a project with Netflix that's she a part of

That's why they invited all those celebs to their wedding, so they can use them as part of these projects

by Anonymousreply 257September 21, 2020 7:50 PM

[quote] TQ retains the power to pull their HRH and Harry's princely title. She needs no other support, she can alter them at anytime for any reason

The Queen isn't going to do that. It's begs the question, 'it's okay for a rapist to be a Prince, but not Harry?"

That would bring up a countrywide discussion, "does England really need a monarchy?"

by Anonymousreply 258September 21, 2020 7:53 PM

What? Who's "the rapist"?? What the fuck are you talking about, r258?

by Anonymousreply 259September 21, 2020 7:55 PM

Prince Andrew. You fool

by Anonymousreply 260September 21, 2020 8:01 PM

What rape has Andrew been convicted of, r260?

by Anonymousreply 261September 21, 2020 8:02 PM

Don't you just love R261, a rape apologist.

In r261's book, raping an underage sex slave is noble and being a biracial woman is a crime

by Anonymousreply 262September 21, 2020 8:06 PM

Andrew is not accused of sleeping with anyone underage. You're clearly a fantasist, fantasising here about this. Get a grip on yourself and on reality.

by Anonymousreply 263September 21, 2020 8:19 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 264September 21, 2020 8:25 PM

Wow. She is very, very much barrelling towards losing this case. If the DM can show she shared the letter with her biographer, she is fucked. That was a monumentally stupid lie for them to tell.

To say nothing of what the family must think, now knowing that it WAS her behind the book....

by Anonymousreply 265September 21, 2020 8:45 PM

Wow! Harry is taking a five day, online course to learn how to how to become a producer! I guess he'll learn how to spell it, at least.

What is this about them stopping to eat at a franchise burger outlet? I thought they were vegans and only allowed the most organic and natural nourishment into their bodies. Meghan supposedly put H on the "correct" diet soon after they met.

by Anonymousreply 266September 21, 2020 8:46 PM

[quote]The Queen isn't going to do that. It's begs the question, 'it's okay for a rapist to be a Prince, but not Harry?"

She can do whatever the hell she wants, re titles. It doesn't beg any other question and even if so, it's her prerogative. That said, there are beginnings of leaked stories in the UK media that they may be preparing to pull Andrew's HRH next. His sleazy stupidity certainly warrants it.

[quote]That would bring up a countrywide discussion, "does England really need a monarchy?"

No of course it won't. The UK public is not going to have this discussion, not with Brexit, COVID, and everything else they're dealing with. The monarchy currently retains record levels of acceptance and positive ratings, TQ is highly respected and Charles well-regarded. They're going nowhere.

Andrew is awful, but there's a reason he's getting much media attention: not many people care. He's managed to maintain a very low profile since last year, which has helped.

by Anonymousreply 267September 21, 2020 9:01 PM

"Gloria Steinem says that Meghan visited her at her house and came up with the idea of "cold-calling" voters, identifying herself and asking people "if they were going to vote?" "

Oooh, I hope Steinem was enough of a bitch to encourage her!!!!

Because if a celebrity called me to nag me to vote, I'd ask them who the hell they thought they were, telling real working people what to do! And that would be celebrities with actual accomplishments, what has Meghan ever done but get married.

by Anonymousreply 268September 21, 2020 9:24 PM

HM can do many things but she cannot undo a BIRTHRIGHT.

As QV said in the 19th Century, there is nothing more beautiful than a Prince of the Blood.

This is why The Duke and Duchess of Windsor COULD have styled themselves as TRH The Prince and Princess Edward.

This did not please Wally and Cookie's decision stood.

Funny how HM made Phil RENOUNCE his Danish/Greek royal status before she made him a prince of GB. A status that made him ideal husband material.

I do not see Prince Henry renouncing ANYTHING.

by Anonymousreply 269September 21, 2020 10:30 PM

If Gran tells him to do something, Harry'll do it.

by Anonymousreply 270September 21, 2020 10:34 PM

And if Meg tells Harry to do something he'll do it.

by Anonymousreply 271September 21, 2020 10:54 PM

But Gran has more money to offer than Meghan has.

And all Meghan has been angling for, in terms of this family, is a huge payoff.

If Gran offers something substantial in exchange for their titles and perks, they'll take it. Meghan wants the money and Harry will want the reduction in drama both in his new and former homes.

by Anonymousreply 272September 21, 2020 11:10 PM

Americans will never understand what the monarchy means to (most) British people. People cheer not for her, but for what she represents. She lives in a gold cage.

It's nice to have this old tradition and pomp and glory. It's nostalgic and sentimental, and quite frankly, patriotic.

Americans should at least get that aspect.

The Duchess of Sussex did not, and wanted no part in this..

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 273September 22, 2020 4:10 AM

^ The speeches etc. start at around 1 min in.

By the way, from a gay perspective, Charles has quite a nice speaking voice.

by Anonymousreply 274September 22, 2020 4:12 AM

Also, I read some typically ignorant American comments deriding the function of national representation.. calling it "smooching off the tax payer and getting paid for shaking hands"...

The President of the US holds both functions, head of state, and head of government, whereas most European countries have those two (highly paid) jobs in two separate people. For example the Prime Minister and the Monarch in the UK, the Chancellor and the President in Germany, the President and the Prime Minister in France etc.

You should spend some time on Wikipedia (it's free education), before showcasing your American ignorance to the world.

by Anonymousreply 275September 22, 2020 4:23 AM

And I'm saying all this from an anarchist perspective. Personally, all governments are inherently criminal. But with the current systems in place, some pomp is nice.

by Anonymousreply 276September 22, 2020 4:30 AM

r273, The only thing Meghan was doing while in the UK was casing the joint.

by Anonymousreply 277September 22, 2020 5:38 AM

I think the payoff has already been made, and that's why they were able to buy the house in Montecito. The one-year review in March is already decided: Harry and Meghan will give up the titles and go about their merry way. Meghan doesn't care about being a Duchess any longer, not now that she's ready to conquer Hollywood. She'll take the money and run. Harry may feel a few twinges, but it's too late to turn back now. If he regrets it all when he's 60, oh well.

by Anonymousreply 278September 22, 2020 1:18 PM

Agree, it's done. Until then, looking forward to the MoS trial, to convene January 11.

by Anonymousreply 279September 22, 2020 2:00 PM

Is that the Ghislaine Maxwell one, where her uncle in law will have to testify/be charged?

by Anonymousreply 280September 22, 2020 2:07 PM

Stop posting r269. TQ can very well "un-do" any of their HRHs or Princely titles. Its the prerogative of the monarch and they've done it many times before. The Duke of Windsor was CREATED HRH by his brother George VI after his abdication, there was nothing written down about him automatically getting that status back. His wife Wallis was never HRH, GVI also explicitly banned her from that status, she famously never had it.

Put down the crazy pipe. TQ didn't make Philip renounce his Greek/Danish titles, he did it himself before he married her (she wasn't Queen then). She didn't elevate him to full Prince of the UK until the late 50s, years after their marriage, but even then she made the decision and pronouncement.

Harry can "renounce" by deciding not to use any of his titles, but only TQ can formally give/take them away. The exception is a dukedom, once given it might take action from Parliament to suspend usage. But even then, it can't be removed from the line and will still be inheritable by his heirs.

by Anonymousreply 281September 22, 2020 6:07 PM

r281, you are wrong.

by Anonymousreply 282September 22, 2020 6:12 PM

No, I'm not r281. But go ahead and explain exactly why with some examples.

by Anonymousreply 283September 22, 2020 6:14 PM

Should read r282, above ^^

by Anonymousreply 284September 22, 2020 6:14 PM

At no time was Bertie ever able to revoke David's status as a prince of the blood.

David could just as easily have used TRH The Prince and Princess Edward.

Mind you it was before Princess Michael. A royal prince is never NOT a royal prince.

And would someone drop a house on you?

by Anonymousreply 285September 22, 2020 6:17 PM

Dumbwhore, I didn't say GVI revoked David's princely status, I said he felt he had to re-GRANT it to him post-abdication, with LP. That's because there was no precedent as to how to handle a living ex-King in the UK. In some political and academic quarters at the time it was discussed that he may not have even have legal rights as a citizen after his abdication, so confusing was the situation. Re-read correspondence from that time, it's online.

Wallis was NEVER HRH, that's a fact and has been discussed her many times. GVI specifically restricted her using that style as David's wife. Wtf does Marie-Christine have to do with it?

by Anonymousreply 286September 22, 2020 6:33 PM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 287September 22, 2020 6:46 PM

"QC for MOS" So Mr Scoob, who told you she pissed in the woods truth or lies?

by Anonymousreply 288September 22, 2020 7:15 PM

[quote]Wtf does Marie-Christine have to do with it?

Your willful ignorance.

by Anonymousreply 289September 22, 2020 7:31 PM

The monarch is the font of honour. She can grant (or remove) the title of Prince; there is no law that says otherwise. Theoretically, a prime minister could advise her regarding a title, with which she would then have to comply; however, it is customary for the prime minister not to get involved in the monarch's decisions about her family. A peerage (e.g., the dukedom of Sussex) can be removed by act of Parliament -- as happened in 1917, when Parliament passed the Titles Deprivation Act, removing the titles Duke of Albany and Duke of Cumberland from German princes who were also male-line descendants of Queen Victoria and George III respectively. Could the monarch remove a dukedom? That's debatable. If so, why was an act of Parliament needed in 1917? As for "princes of the blood," who are they? Clearly, Charles, his brothers, William, George, Louis, Harry, Richard Duke of Gloucester, Edward Duke of Kent, and Michael of Kent are. Because of George V's Letter Patent, the sons of Harry, Richard, Edward of Kent, and Michael are not (although in prior centuries they would have been). What about James Viscount Severn (Edward's son)? He's covered by the Letters Patent as a male-line grandson of a monarch. Charlotte, Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie, and Alexandra are princesses of the blood, but Camilla, Kate, Meghan, Birgitte, Katherine, and Marie-Christine are not. Then, there is the strange usage (or non-usage) of HRH. People have given it up in the past: HRH Princess Patricia became Lady Patricia Ramsey upon marriage. It was granted to the Duke of Windsor (as noted R286, because of the anomaly of having an ex-king) but specifically denied to his wife and potential offspring (although they would have been male-line grandchildren of a king). The Wessex children don't use it, although their status is no different, as offspring of a younger son, than Beatrice and Eugenie. I think that in this, like in other things, Elizabeth II is adapting to changing times, giving her family more choices, and trying to make them happy. Whoever heard of a monarch's son being an Earl (not since the Middle Ages)? And of Wessex? God bless her, Queen Elizabeth II can roll with the punches.

by Anonymousreply 290September 22, 2020 11:22 PM

[quote] God bless her, Queen Elizabeth II can roll with the punches.

Maybe... if you catch her when she’s awake.

by Anonymousreply 291September 22, 2020 11:45 PM

r290. and what changes when the sovereign changes?

by Anonymousreply 292September 23, 2020 12:47 AM

Nothing, R290 - hence “The King is dead. Long live the King”.

It’s a different situation in at least one other monarchy - The Netherlands - where peoples’ titles, styles and membership of the Royal house depend on their relationship to the current monarch.

When the then Queen Beatrix abdicated and was replaced by her son, the current king, there was a bit of shifting around with some family members. Something to do with now being cousins of the monarch, not nieces and nephews. I’m sure that someone better clued up than me can correct me if I got that wrong.

by Anonymousreply 293September 23, 2020 1:08 AM

I thought that when a sovereign dies and the next in line assumes the position that the 'grandchildren of the sovereign' are then a different group of people.

by Anonymousreply 294September 23, 2020 2:15 AM

Oh, do fuck off, R262.

by Anonymousreply 295September 23, 2020 4:51 AM

That’s correct, R294, but in the case of the British monarchy peoples’ titles don’t usually change, except if they’re trading up. Children of the Sovereign have “The” as part of their title (e.g. The Princess Anne, before she became Princess Royal). People don’t lose their titles and styles once they’re no longer grandchildren of the Sovereign, although who the hell knows what will happen under King Charles. The British seem to becoming more pragmatic about these things in an effort to keep up with the times.

by Anonymousreply 296September 23, 2020 6:18 AM

Does anyone know what Harry's escorting fees are?

by Anonymousreply 297September 23, 2020 6:20 AM

Someone with actual knowledge at r290.

[quote] A peerage (e.g., the dukedom of Sussex) can be removed by act of Parliament -- as happened in 1917, when Parliament passed the Titles Deprivation Act, removing the titles Duke of Albany and Duke of Cumberland from German princes who were also male-line descendants of Queen Victoria and George III respectively. Could the monarch remove a dukedom? That's debatable. If so, why was an act of Parliament needed in 1917?

I've seen discussed recently it might be possible for TQ to remove a royal dukedom, specifically one like Harry's that was very recently granted as a personal gift from her, to a close family member. She wouldn't be allowed, for ex, to remove a long-standing non-royal dukedom, Parliament would step in (beyond that they can't really be 'removed' anyways but only suspended, for potential inheritance later)...she couldn't move to remove the Duke of Westminster's peerage, for example.

The 1917 dukedoms belonged to more distant relatives and had been passed to descendants from their 1st iteration. George V was likely advised to throw it to the HofL/Parliament rather then try to apply simple LP...but if QEII were today to move to strip her grandson Harry (as an example) of her Sussex gift, would Parliament intervene to stop? If using 'fons honorum' (and for serious grounds). food for thought.

[quote]The Wessex children don't use it, although their status is no different, as offspring of a younger son, than Beatrice and Eugenie.

I think the expert consensus is the Wessex kids have never had HRH, it was effectively kept from them in TQ's early statement at the time of Edward & Sophie's marriage. Without a public statement by the monarch to the opposite, they will never be HRHs. Charles is unlikely to do this....they are of course still grandchildren of TQ.

by Anonymousreply 298September 23, 2020 7:52 AM

Harry's "dukedom" consists of no property or assets, and some residents there are circulating petitions to have him struck off because they don't want to be associated with him. It is an empty, hollow designation with no history or future, and if the queen removed the title there would be no repercussions whatsoever except inside Sparkles' head.

by Anonymousreply 299September 23, 2020 12:16 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 300September 23, 2020 1:54 PM

They should be stripped of their titles, r300.

And, as unlikely as it seemed before now, after this latest gaffe, they damn well might be.

by Anonymousreply 301September 23, 2020 1:59 PM

I think they want the titles stripped. Or rather, Meghan does, and Harry does what she wants. They can't market Sussex anymore because of the restrictions laid down by the BRF. They could get a LOT of publicity out of being the ex Duke and Duchess, though. The loss of status won't bother Meghan at all, as she has only had the title for a few years. She'll see it as trading one role for a better one. It will probably bother Harry a lot, deep down, but he won't acknowledge those feelings until the marriage comes crashing down in a few years.

by Anonymousreply 302September 23, 2020 2:38 PM

They could have been firced to agree to it already, and she's milking it until March. What a dismal situation.

by Anonymousreply 303September 23, 2020 3:30 PM

But the 'forced' renunciation was probably accompanied by a giant check that let them buy their mansion in Montecito. I'm sure Meghan is fine with it.

by Anonymousreply 304September 23, 2020 4:25 PM

Buckingham Palace has said it won’t comment on the Duke of Sussex’s remarks about voting: “We would not comment. The Duke is not a working member of the Royal Family and any comments he makes are made in a personal capacity.”

Oh dear. There going to be sorry.

by Anonymousreply 305September 23, 2020 6:43 PM

^ they're

by Anonymousreply 306September 23, 2020 6:44 PM

I'm surprised at Robert Jobson and some of the other UK commentators today, who keep stating that H&M still have their HRH but just can't use them. TQ stated in Jan that they will no longer use their HRH as they no longer are working Royals; to me that's akin to retracting them.

They either are HRH or not - there really isn't an in between state - and she said they weren't, as long as they weren't taking on official work. The implication is, if they return to the UK and take on some duties, they may again use TRH/HRH. She doesn't need to do anything other than state this.

I think people believe official documents like letters patent need to be filed for UK styles and princely status to be gained/removed, when that isn't the case.

by Anonymousreply 307September 23, 2020 6:48 PM

If Harry and Meghan really want freedom, they need to give up the titles entirely and take no more money from the BRF--and that includes Charles' private funds. They shouldn't even retain Frogmore, as that's a rental they'd never have access to if they weren't Royals. If they want to visit the UK, stay at the Dorchester.

As Mr. and Ms. Mountbatten-Windsor, Hollywood producers paying their own way and taking absolutely no Royal perks, nobody can say boo to them.

by Anonymousreply 308September 23, 2020 9:22 PM

That's ridiculous. If Daddy wants to give baby Harry money, he will. But in light of BP's statement today clarifying that Haz is not a working royal and is strictly on his own, in March Frogmore will probably be yanked as it's a Crown property. I'm not sure about the ridiculous titles that mean little at this point. The BP statement didn't even reference Sparkles --bye girrrl.

by Anonymousreply 309September 23, 2020 9:45 PM

Of course Charles CAN give Harry money, R309. My point is that if he lives as a private citizen, unbeholden to public funds in any way, he'll have much more freedom to say and do as he likes.

by Anonymousreply 310September 23, 2020 10:56 PM

He is a private citizen; he will never be a working royal again. It's over.

by Anonymousreply 311September 23, 2020 11:11 PM

The Queen won't yank his title, not unless those two do something far more offensive to the BRF than they have so far.

My guess is those two will "voluntarily surrender" the title, and pretend it's all amicable, and for years and years afterwards Meg will act like her title was taken from her by force.

by Anonymousreply 312September 23, 2020 11:23 PM

We shall see what happens when Phil dies.

by Anonymousreply 313September 23, 2020 11:25 PM

She really caught Harry in the nick of time. What was she, 37? Her sell-by date was fast approaching.

by Anonymousreply 314September 24, 2020 5:41 AM

Well, her age isn’t counted in Gay Years, so thankfully, as a beautiful woman in this day and age, she’s got oceans of mileage left : )

by Anonymousreply 315September 24, 2020 5:46 AM

But she wanted a kid, her clock was ticking.

by Anonymousreply 316September 24, 2020 6:10 AM

Her Majesty Elizabeth is HM, not TQ.

by Anonymousreply 317September 24, 2020 6:23 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 318September 24, 2020 1:28 PM

R318 - she's making appearances on America's Got Talent? Oh dear.

by Anonymousreply 319September 24, 2020 1:35 PM

My god, Megz really has had some serious surfery on the upper half of her face! Can't tell what exactly, looks like the hairline is different and maybe an eyelift.

by Anonymousreply 320September 24, 2020 1:54 PM

Surgery, omg

by Anonymousreply 321September 24, 2020 1:54 PM

Sparkles looks quite super frau-y today as she earnestly beams out her message from Harry's suburban mansion.

by Anonymousreply 322September 24, 2020 2:19 PM

And the dangling tendrils are baaack... yayyy...

by Anonymousreply 323September 24, 2020 2:22 PM

Well, so much for the preggo rumors.

by Anonymousreply 324September 24, 2020 3:02 PM

She wants to be Oprah SO much.

by Anonymousreply 325September 24, 2020 3:40 PM

She really does resemble OctoMom, crazy eyes wildly craving validation and all

by Anonymousreply 326September 24, 2020 5:14 PM

despite America being a republic, despite the revolution, it appears that Meghan has deigned herself to be the Governor-General for America. A Governor-General is the Queen's representative in a commonwealth country.

I mean she has no platform whatsoever in America, and certainly the Queen has no Governor-General in America, but that doesn't seem to have crossed Meghan's mind as she pontificates to any deluded soul that would listen to her.

And that video of them on the bench in their backyard! Bwhahahahaha! They look like unemployed shoe salesmen! Seriously, they both look so slovenly. Do they even wipe?

by Anonymousreply 327September 24, 2020 5:52 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 328September 25, 2020 5:04 PM

Harry really does look mentally challenged. I doubt he has an IQ over 75. How convenient for a grifter who knows how to push his buttons and steer him in the direction she wants.

The Scobie book showed that from the very beginning she started manipulating him via incestuous suggestion (Diana's perfume, the anti-paparazzi obsession), playing up his anger issues (staging the "paparazzi are intruding on our privacy and shooting me in my bathing suit" drama), and inventing slights out of perfectly innocent happenings ("that girl", Kate not smiling at her/giving her a ride).

What a truly sad story. I don't like him but wish I could help him and the child out of this trap. This is going to end in so many tears, and soon.

by Anonymousreply 329September 25, 2020 5:12 PM

I wonder what the day to day life is like in that Montecito manse? I bet they fight a lot. I bet she marches around shouting orders at everyone and does yoga in between dashing from one socially relevant cause to another while never actually sitting down to try and write out what the actual fuck they are trying to accomplish. There is no there there.

by Anonymousreply 330September 25, 2020 5:20 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 331September 25, 2020 5:29 PM

DM's Jan Moir weighs in. The two best quotes:

[quote]...it seems just five minutes ago that the Duke of Sussex had very few opinions indeed, except who was his favourite Spice Girl and whether to have another pint of Skull Krusher down at the Dog & Duck (answer: yes)...Somehow, with the encouragement of his wife, Harry has morphed from posh dope into self-styled prince philosopher.

[quote]This boy who was bottom of his class at Eton now has more opinions than Tripadvisor and — even worse — he expects a nation of 330 million people to sit up and listen to them.

by Anonymousreply 332September 25, 2020 5:30 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 333September 25, 2020 5:31 PM

She wants... to be... president of the USA....??

Dear girl, this is not like presiding over your sorority, sis! Wake up! You're delusional again!

I really can't with these two Greek tragedies.

by Anonymousreply 334September 25, 2020 5:46 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 335September 25, 2020 6:31 PM

Meghan's dreams of being President are about as realistic as Diana's were of marrying JFK Jr. and being First Lady.

by Anonymousreply 336September 25, 2020 8:43 PM

Meghan (rooster) and Harry (rat) are a very bad match according to Chinese astrology.

"You have difficulty to be together, since you lack mutual understanding. Although out of pure benevolence and overcare, the female rooster is always nagging about the male rat's weakness, which makes the male rat feel good-for-nothing. For the male rat, his ideal life partner is a person who is considerate and has tender affection for him."

by Anonymousreply 337September 26, 2020 1:44 PM

Haha, he certainly looks like a male rat! But her problem is her personality disorder, not her zodiac sign. Although I have always felt that she deeply despises him for his weakness and British manners, and doesn't find him physically attractive either.

by Anonymousreply 338September 26, 2020 1:50 PM

Rooster Female and Rat Male:

This couple will not go well together. The Rat male will be resentful as the Rooster female goes about criticising the Rat’s shortcomings. The Rooster’s eccentric character and analytical nature annoys the Rat, who will find the Rooster ungrateful. The Rooster’s materialistic nature will also aggravate the thrifty Rat.

Both parties are controlling and independent in their own right. They like to control both people and each other. However, the Rooster has the tendency to preach, coupled with a bossy and inflexible character. This conflicts with the intelligence of the Rat, who thinks independently and is therefore less likely to follow the Rooster’s words blindly. The Rooster can also make the Rat feel inferior by the Rooster’s cocky and arrogant attitude.

The Rat partner will seek what the Rooster partner cannot provide, which is warmth, affection and tenderness. From the very beginning, the relationship is doomed for failure. The relationship has a better chance of success if the Rooster and Rat are more mature, as they are more likely to be more patient which each other.

The chief point of difference lies in the fact that the Rat is at home in a world of social and intellectual engagement whereas the Rooster are more oriented towards the nitty-gritty of material projects. The Rat is easily attracted to the prospect of exchange of ideas and information with fellow beings. The Rooster on the other hand is grounded to what is practical and realistic, often going to the extreme of being meticulous and thorough in every task they take up. This essential difference can turn out to be a source of conflict for the Rat-Rooster pair.

While the former would prefer to lead a busy and varied life based on social interaction and discourse, his/her Rooster partner may see such concerns as excessively frivolous and selfish. The Rat on the other hand may feel weighed down by the extremely serious world view of the Rooster and eventually scurry away to where the music is louder and the lights are brighter. This Rat’s restlessness on the other hand might appear to the Rooster as a lack of a sense of commitment and its deeply responsible nature might decide that he/she is just not worth taking as a life partner.

Then again the fastidious nature of the Rooster may not go down well the Rat who at best is unconcerned with the niceties of domestic décor and at worst may tend towards hoarding things. The Rooster on the other hand is not only particular about what they wear and how they turn out in public but are extremely finicky about neatness which is why their homes are most likely to be tidy and shiny as a new pin. The Rat at the other extreme is prone to clutter their domestic spaces and couldn’t be bothered with the finer points of aesthetic principles. For the Rooster the habit of always arranging or re-arranging things is a direct expression of a personality which holds order and structure in high value but the Rat is likely to see this as being obsessive or compulsive and irritating to the extreme.

Even more significantly, the two may come into conflict over the standards that they hold in life. The Rat is an easy-going, socially charming personality for whom personal satisfaction and safeguarding of interests are important. The Rooster on the other hand lives by very high standards of perfectionism and even altruism – ideals which the Rat may not fully understand, much less appreciate. In fact the Rooster not only strives to live his/her own high standards but is often applies them to others as well and this makes the Rooster rather critical at times, something which is unlikely to go down well with Rat partner who has an ego many times his/her own size.

The only way forward in this relationship lies in each being able to imbibe a little of the other’s qualities. Once the Rat learns to go about things with a little more care and the Rooster is able to loosen up a little, there is every possibility of their being able to complement each other in a healthy way.

by Anonymousreply 339September 26, 2020 1:58 PM

By talking about voting, H & M are in violation of their deal with the Queen. They cannot be trusted.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 340September 27, 2020 2:25 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 341September 27, 2020 2:40 PM

Jewelry maker/yoga instructor/bankruptcy expert St. Doria will be a splendid CEO/CFO.

by Anonymousreply 342September 27, 2020 3:34 PM

I just checked on Doria's social worker license on the California database. Doria isn't even a LCSW (licensed clinical social worker), she's an ACSW (associate clinical social worker). ACSW doesn't have to have any supervised clinical experience to become licensed, they just need to have graduated from an accredited master's program (online or onsite). LCSW on the other hand, necessitates 3200 hours of supervised clinical practice. Thus, ACSW cannot practice independently.

Basically what this means is that Doria, for whatever reasons, never managed to log in her supervised clinical hours after she'd graduated from her program. Really odd, because the would-be LCSW that I worked alongside (when I was doing my psych DNP clinical hours) were very diligent in logging their hours. Why go through the social work degree program only to not complete the required hours to be able to practice independently? Something is off.

So because she can't practice independently, then she can't list her credentials (or lack thereof) on the website, which I'd pointed out in previous post is worded in a deliberately deceptive manner. Evasive is the best word to describe the scammy website. An elder care company that only takes cash and not insurance, one that doesn't feature any credentialed specialist not even saying what type of specialist is in charge. All evidence points to a social work specialty as evidenced by the descriptions of the services provided. For those who wish to inquire about services offered, there's only a phone number listed, not even an individual like a liaison or administrative staff, let alone who the specialist you'll be consulting with. Big fucking red flag! Do not go to any healthcare, healthcare-adjacent services which do not provide CV and easily verified licensure.

by Anonymousreply 343September 27, 2020 5:33 PM

The number listed is a private cell phone. That's not odd, right?

by Anonymousreply 344September 27, 2020 5:49 PM

Not if they're running a money-laundering operation, R344.

Not at all.

by Anonymousreply 345September 27, 2020 6:01 PM

R344 A private cell phone number!? Fucking hell, that's even worse than I'd thought. Anything to do with healthcare and medical history, you have to be very careful with whom you consent to have these information shared. The providers need to be transparent in their training, education, credentials/ licensure, experience, and specialization if any. That website isn't even a joke it looks straight up like a scam. That is not how a legitimate practice or healthcare company looks like as a website. For comparison, I googled an independent practice LCSW in California, the website represents a typical practice that's legitimate. BTW I do not know this LCSW, it's just the one of the first ones that popped up in my search.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 346September 27, 2020 6:03 PM

How does California regulate businesses like this, R346?

by Anonymousreply 347September 27, 2020 6:08 PM

R347 I don't know exactly as I'm not a legal expert, but I do know from my stance as someone who works in healthcare, that website is treading in some murky waters. Between legal and scam. Whoever advised Doria on being the head of a company that puts out a promotional website like that obviously doesn't know shit about healthcare or social work. I hope someone with legal expertise can delve further into this.

by Anonymousreply 348September 27, 2020 6:22 PM

Well I hope that the anonymous bitches of the internet dont dig further into this, because Doria isnt a Kris Ksrdashian, she's an ordinary working person who's been dragged into this mess by strange circumstances. She wasnt earning much before this and cant have much money of her own, ability to do regular jobs has been limited by her daughter's fame (notoriety), and she's been more or less forced into the position of a dependent.

And dont think her bitch daughter won't throw her to the wolves if there are any public questions about her new "job"!

by Anonymousreply 349September 27, 2020 7:49 PM

r349 her new "job" was in part set up with Meghan's assistance, someone posted here that the address associated with the incorporation is her LA-based business manager/agent.

by Anonymousreply 350September 27, 2020 9:12 PM

Too late. The digging is ongoing. Poor St. Doria, a helpless bystander to her dear daughter's schemes.

by Anonymousreply 351September 27, 2020 9:35 PM

[quote]They cannot be trusted.

Was this ever a question?

by Anonymousreply 352September 28, 2020 8:19 AM

Well, well, well. It looks like Meghan and Harry have agreed to star in a “tasteful” reality series on Netflix. Whatever happened to “PRIVACY!!!” and “I am traumatized when I hear a camera click?” Meghan wants to show the world the “real me.” You mean, the grifting, conniving, greedy whore who married the whitest, most gormless, useless thicko she could get her claws in?

My favorite comment comes from the DM: It’s the Meghan Markle Show! Starring Meghan Markle! Written and Directed by Meghan Markle! Produced by Meghan Markle. It’s Meghan Markle all day, everyday! It’s Meghan Markle!

by Anonymousreply 353September 28, 2020 9:09 AM

Here is the article, also on other UK sites.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 354September 28, 2020 9:24 AM

This is what Meghan takes for culture in America. A reality show.

by Anonymousreply 355September 28, 2020 9:59 AM

Aaaand now we know why William isn't speaking to Harry. (By all accounts, he wasn't part of the birthday Zoom with the other Royals.)

by Anonymousreply 356September 28, 2020 11:49 AM

Nothing wrong with taking a break from your sibling, clears the musty cobwebs away. Sometimes a verrrrry long break gives even more clarity.

by Anonymousreply 357September 28, 2020 12:39 PM

Her inspiration:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 358September 28, 2020 12:44 PM

Of course they're doing a reality show. A voyeuristic (if highly edited) peek into their private lives is the only appeal they have for any audience. I'm sure the Netflix deal wouldn't have happened if they hadn't agreed to this. They really are David and Wallis 2.0.

by Anonymousreply 359September 28, 2020 1:56 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 360September 28, 2020 2:29 PM

Has anyone started a thread on Meghan and Harry doing a reality show? They've literally done all that we here on DL have said or predicted they'd be doing, and now culminating with this piece of news. It really is a gift to those of us who view them as gossip fodders and nothing more. Can't wait to see the self-serving, canned speeches and more family fallout to result from this. Good thing for the famewhoring couple, now they won't have to hire their own photographer to film their drop-in charitable endeavors, now they'll just have Netflix camera crew. Wonder how much anxiety meds Harry will have to be on for having cameras in his face. I guess his PTSD only manifest its symptoms when he's not paid for being photographed or filmed.

by Anonymousreply 361September 28, 2020 2:32 PM

Reality TV in LA!

Remember how you wanted to go live in the African hinterlands and save wildlife, Harry? Where you could have some genuine privacy and get your hands dirty and feel like a man in control of his life? How's that going, Harry?

by Anonymousreply 362September 28, 2020 2:41 PM

Maybe there is a reality show being floated around or in early development stage, but the Sussexes want to gauge public reaction to the idea so they/ their mouthpiece leaked the info. Early indications show that the idea is being ridiculed and worse, even their stans who have defended the couple's "privacy" claims are now feeling perplexed.

From the DM article, "But they added: 'It will still be a fascinating insight and Meghan hopes viewers will get to see the real her."

So basically Meg's idea of the "real her" is a series of highly edited segments that show her dropping in at charity events or giving gibberish advice on Zoom meetings.

by Anonymousreply 363September 28, 2020 2:44 PM

Meg does seem to think that if people see more of her, they will come to love her as much as she loves herself.

by Anonymousreply 364September 28, 2020 3:44 PM

Where are all her acolytes now? They seem to disappear from here whenever her real intentions surface and are discussed.

by Anonymousreply 365September 28, 2020 4:08 PM

From Royalty to Reality -- The Harkles' True Story

by Anonymousreply 366September 28, 2020 4:32 PM

I give 50% odds that the show never makes the air, because Meg won't leg them film anything but a hagiograhy.

Although maybe they'll get some good footage out of her attempts to look perfect and saintly and failing, she has a wonderful genius for miscalculating the public response to her actions.

by Anonymousreply 367September 28, 2020 4:46 PM

It will basically be The Comeback: Royal Edition.

by Anonymousreply 368September 28, 2020 4:58 PM

[quote], she has a wonderful genius for miscalculating the public response to her actions.

Yes, but why, exactly? Is it because she's dense?

by Anonymousreply 369September 28, 2020 9:00 PM

Because she is a narcissist

by Anonymousreply 370September 28, 2020 9:29 PM

R369, I think that either 1) she's head over heels in love with herself and doesnt really get that other people dont adore everything she does like she does, or 2) she has no idea what love or affection are, so she doesnt have a clue how to inspire them.

The latter might explain why she doesnt have any better ideas than to have mouthpieces constantly proclaim how wonderful she is, and to imitate the actions of genuinely popular people.

by Anonymousreply 371September 29, 2020 3:52 AM

There were a lot of stories going around Twitter and Tumblr last year that they had been approached several times about doing various types of reality shows, including DWTS, and M turned them all down as beneath their Royal status.

by Anonymousreply 372September 29, 2020 8:59 AM

"Beneath their royal status" = "Before we were broke."

by Anonymousreply 373September 29, 2020 10:38 AM

Doing DWTS is one thing. Being the lead on your own reality show is something else. It gives her the chance to be the Kim Kardashian but (slightly) more tasteful and with a title. Also, think about the money the Kardashian clan has made from their show. Meghan will totally jump at this. She'd see it as the first step towards a global brand.

by Anonymousreply 374September 29, 2020 11:41 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 375September 29, 2020 1:05 PM

Things are not going well...High Court judge has ruled that Meghan can be accused of collaborating with Finding Freedom authors.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 376September 29, 2020 3:00 PM

Oh that's wonderful! It really does muck things up even more. Get yer lawyers on board Scobie and Durand!

by Anonymousreply 377September 29, 2020 3:19 PM

Is she still friends with that Jessica woman?

by Anonymousreply 378September 29, 2020 4:38 PM

Any press is good press

by Anonymousreply 379September 29, 2020 5:29 PM

"It's about being authentic" says Meghan. Swipe for photos and a video.

She sure has a lot of hair. Is this the same striped shirt she wore to Wimbledon?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 380September 29, 2020 7:22 PM

She makes her points about her "true voice", "authenticity" and 'finding a moral compass'. That's all fine - but her problem, one she never mentions or maybe doesn't still seem to understand, is she married the son of the future Head of State of one of the most powerful countries in the world. He (Harry) is still thatclose to the monarchy, was raised by it, in it, and groomed for many years to be a potential "spare heir" to it.

And being that close to the monarchy means being completely subtle, controlled and diplomatically neutral in ones actions, behavior and thoughts - at least in public (privately of course is another matter). One's 'moral compass' and 'authentic voice' really have no place in that context. This has been the crux of her and Harry's ongoing dilemma.

This is why all the howling about getting rid of their titles. It's not a punishment for moving away and making their own lives. That's fine. It's about putting the appropriate distance between themselves and their new "authenticity" and the BRF's total need for public neutrality and non-partisan impartiality of all its main members, of which Harry is still considered to be a part.

by Anonymousreply 381September 29, 2020 7:37 PM

Well put, R381. Let me add that Meghan and Harry's entire claim on the public's attention is due to his birth and her marriage to him. As an actress with a relatively small part on a cable drama, she wasn't in the spotlight. So, the only reason the world pays attention to them is that he is the grandson of the British monarch. What qualifies them to produce video content? What qualifies them to speak publicly about the state of the world? As far as I can tell, she is qualified to be an actress and he is qualified to be in the army, open hospitals and the like, and advocate for veterans. I'm afraid they will learn in time that they can't have it all ways: they want to be apart from the monarchy, they want wealth, they want to be "thought leaders," and they want privacy. It sounds like a contradiction, at best. At worst, hypocricy.

by Anonymousreply 382September 29, 2020 7:49 PM

[quote]She sure has a lot of hair.

...because Kate has a lot of hair .... that's why, and thank you for noticing

by Anonymousreply 383September 29, 2020 7:54 PM

R383 - my point was that Meghan's hair changes every time we see her. Bald patches to luxuriant masses.

by Anonymousreply 384September 29, 2020 7:59 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 385September 29, 2020 8:05 PM

[quote]It sounds like a contradiction, at best. At worst, hypocricy

It is. And is over-reaching and over-ambitious in an attempt to have all things, which isn't possible for anyone never mind a British prince and his wife.

Their 'new life' in the US isn't really the problem, they just need to narrow down their list of goals to something more realistic and less troublesome for themselves and more importantly, other people (Harry's family and his grandmother/father).

Meghan knew what she was marrying into, and Harry being born into his situation/family was even more informed. They tried and found it didn't work out for them - it happens, to many people from all walks. But own up to the situation, and work with the BRF to keep things as benign and easy as possible, with as little fallout. There's been a massive fail there.

by Anonymousreply 386September 29, 2020 8:18 PM

r378 She probably served her purpose and is no longer useful.

by Anonymousreply 387September 29, 2020 8:19 PM

Oh no, that's not true. Markle "checks in" with Mulroney every day and they remain very close. After all, Jess is one of the People Five and Omid's great source for his little fairytale book.

by Anonymousreply 388September 29, 2020 8:28 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 389September 30, 2020 3:48 PM

So when do we get to see Harry's ginger jewels???

by Anonymousreply 390September 30, 2020 4:31 PM

They're in Sparkles' handbag.

by Anonymousreply 391September 30, 2020 5:32 PM

Harry is going to be such a sad human being by the time he's 50.

by Anonymousreply 392September 30, 2020 7:11 PM

[quote]Harry is going to be such a sad human being by the time he's 50.

Yup, soaked in gin and regrets most likely. He must have been a stubborn belligerent hot-head with his family when they tried to talk some sense in to him.

by Anonymousreply 393September 30, 2020 9:53 PM

Lainey was shilling for MM tonight on eTalk Canada, a story about how Meghan has some mantra that she uses when the social media negativity becomes too much. The mantra was something about circling the drain ....

by Anonymousreply 394September 30, 2020 11:43 PM

It's from Georgia O'Keefe: "I have already settled it for myself, so flattery and criticism go down the same drain, and I am quite free.”

So glad she settled that for herself. Did her humility go down the same drain.

by Anonymousreply 395October 1, 2020 12:07 AM

People who feel the need to constantly tell you about their “authenticity” are in the same category as people who want to tell you about how much “integrity” and “honor” they have.

You can pretty much assume they are conmen.

by Anonymousreply 396October 1, 2020 2:27 AM

r392 He'll once again be caught with hookers & blow well before then.

by Anonymousreply 397October 1, 2020 4:33 AM

R396 yes indeed. The reason they do it, is because more "literally minded" people do fall for it. Cult leaders find their cult followers.

If you were looking for the name an artist of a very different but same lyrics cover version of a song, and Meghan fans were Shazam, they’d find you only the original song based on the lyrics.

Subtle psychological nuances that most people easily pick up on, go right over their empty heads.

by Anonymousreply 398October 1, 2020 7:14 AM

Why does God exist? -- Because the Bible says so.

Why is Meghan a humanitarian? -- Because she says so.

by Anonymousreply 399October 1, 2020 7:26 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 400October 1, 2020 1:52 PM

Did you listen to it? Markle admits that she was unaware Britain had a Black History Month, until someone "brought it to [her] attention." (snort)

by Anonymousreply 401October 1, 2020 1:57 PM

And yet she and Harry both want to rail at Britons to end 'structural racism'. These two are tone-deaf and don't recognize they are not the appropriate people (pampered, spoiled former royals) to be pushing this.

The message is fine, but two uber-wealthy aristos with very few accomplishments to their names, living in on an estate aren't the right messengers. I think they are harming the same cause they want to support.

by Anonymousreply 402October 1, 2020 3:18 PM

Boy bye.

by Anonymousreply 403October 1, 2020 3:19 PM

They live in an exclusive gated community in one of the wealthiest, whitest areas in the US. What's this about "structural racism?"

by Anonymousreply 404October 1, 2020 3:27 PM

Well exactly. I think they mean well, and they are entitled to their opinions as much as anyone else. But they are -not- appropriate self-appointed public 'voices' for that movement. It harms the cause.

by Anonymousreply 405October 1, 2020 3:59 PM

I think what is going on in her head is how undistinguished nobodies like the Kardashians became a global brand and immensely wealthy. No doubt she thinks Prince Harry is as important as Kanye West, and she herself has at least as much going for her as Kim K.

Since she grew up in LA and worked as an actress, Hollywood philanthropists like Oprah or influencers like Goop are the model she has chosen to follow.

Will it work? Her credentials as "black" are pretty thin; she put Caucasian on her CV. But MM seems to have unlimited drive and an ability for using and discarding people as required, so who knows? "Just Harry" will soon be collateral damage, along with the rest of her former friends, her family and his.

by Anonymousreply 406October 2, 2020 7:21 AM

[quote]Her credentials as "black" are pretty thin

So are her credentials as an "actress."

by Anonymousreply 407October 2, 2020 7:34 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 408October 3, 2020 2:01 PM

Harry looks stoned and his smile does not make it to his eyes.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 409October 3, 2020 2:37 PM

??? Honestly, we knew all that. We heard it all.

by Anonymousreply 410October 3, 2020 2:50 PM

^^^referring to Lacey's book.

by Anonymousreply 411October 3, 2020 3:48 PM

Boy has had some speaking lessons or the audio was well edited.

by Anonymousreply 412October 3, 2020 5:27 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 413October 4, 2020 6:19 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 414October 4, 2020 6:29 PM

R414 From the story: "Harry, 36, faces paying both US federal and Californian state taxes under the 'substantial presence test' that requires any foreigner who spends 183 days in the country during a three-year period to pay US taxes on worldwide earnings."

Meaning if he's not on a diplomatic visa, he has to leave and stay gone for the next two and a half years to avoid taxation here?

And if he is on a diplomatic visa, what services is he rendering on behalf of the Foreign Office?

Does anyone, anywhere, think he is a person of "extraordinary abilities" besides the extraordinary ability to shoot himself in the foot on a regular basis?

by Anonymousreply 415October 4, 2020 6:55 PM

Harry needs to spend a moth at Frogmore and visit with Gan.

by Anonymousreply 416October 4, 2020 7:48 PM

Meghan and Kat McPhee are old friends from her struggling LA actress days. Here they both are pre-nose jobs:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 417October 4, 2020 7:57 PM

If the Harkles really do spend the holidays with Foster and McPhee, the tabloids will have a field day, since it's been reported that McPhee is a Trumpster.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 418October 4, 2020 8:05 PM

I'd love to eavesdrop on a private conversation between Megs and Kat. Two hard-edged grifters completely devoid of gratitude or empathy. I can't even imagine how vapid and vicious their discourse would be.

by Anonymousreply 419October 4, 2020 8:41 PM

R417 wow! Uh... which one is Smeg? She must have a LOT of work done. Can't recognize her.

by Anonymousreply 420October 4, 2020 9:06 PM

I haven't thought that I would ever be coming to Meg's defense, but in that photo above of her and Kat, it's a backstage photo and they are both in full make up for a stage performance they were doing together.

by Anonymousreply 421October 5, 2020 2:30 AM

r416 Or he can bunk with his buddy Justin in Canada.

by Anonymousreply 422October 5, 2020 3:31 PM

No makeup can hide those noses though.

by Anonymousreply 423October 5, 2020 5:40 PM

She looks SO MUCH BETTER with her real face.

With all the surgical alterations she had, she just looks like any other Hollywood bimbo.

by Anonymousreply 424October 5, 2020 5:46 PM

Will has been invited to take over Harry's role as Captain General of the Royal Marines.

by Anonymousreply 425October 5, 2020 6:23 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 426October 5, 2020 6:35 PM

I predict Harry and Meghan will attempt to break the internet with the announcement that they are having (IVF) twin girls, who they will name Diana and Doria.

by Anonymousreply 427October 5, 2020 6:43 PM

[quote]Boy, what did Will know about Meghan that made him go that far?

William had Meghan's number from day one. He knew she was a grifter and a climber. That's why she never got along with William, he saw right through her.

by Anonymousreply 428October 5, 2020 6:50 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 429October 5, 2020 6:51 PM

Yes it does, R429. Harry and Megan treated their family terribly after they had given the two so much. Clearly in the photo the family was just fucking done with them both.

by Anonymousreply 430October 5, 2020 6:54 PM

Harry and Meghan can attempt to break the internet with such a story, R427, but I wonder if many people will care that much given the state of the world right now. Sure, everyone will click on the baby pics, and then it would be a huge collective shrug.

by Anonymousreply 431October 5, 2020 9:27 PM

If they look anything like their big brother Archie, they'd be the ugliest twin girls in existence.

by Anonymousreply 432October 5, 2020 9:30 PM

Meghan will keep all the children hidden for 'privacy' reasons. Which really means until they are old enough for plastic surgery.

by Anonymousreply 433October 5, 2020 9:58 PM

In the pic at r429, Harry looks full on mentally-ill, with Meghan looking a combination of mental-illness and utter self-delusion.

by Anonymousreply 434October 5, 2020 10:20 PM

Harry looks like he's about to kill someone. Meghan is all "oh! A camera! Hi! Look at me!" William, Kate, Charles and Camilla are totally fucking over it and can't wait for the ceremony to end and GTFO of there.

by Anonymousreply 435October 6, 2020 12:47 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 436October 6, 2020 1:08 AM

[quote]It was William who was the blue-eyed glamour boy at the centre of the so-called 'Glossy Posse' that surrounded the young princes, pouring out the drinks and inspiring all the revels that would coax his younger brother — a full two years and three months younger and still a child — into errant and self-destructive ways.

Oh my fucking God. TWO whole years older, and William was the one who led Harry down the garden path? Even if he did. that was 20 fucking years ago. At this point, Harry is responsible for his own fuck-ups. But man, Harry really hates his brother, doesn't he? He'd do anything to destroy William's reputation. What a massive asshole Harry is.

[quote]As for Harry, he chose a khaki-coloured uniform that, he later explained, he selected for the sandiness of the shirt: he thought it complemented his colouring. The trouble was that the shirt's left sleeve was encircled by a bright red and white armband bearing a stark, black Nazi swastika

Is this for real? Harry picked the Nazi uniform BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS FLATTERING? Is there anybody on the planet who would buy this horseshit?

by Anonymousreply 437October 6, 2020 2:03 AM

Exactly. A "full two years and three months younger" is absolutely not a considerable age gap by any standard. They are close enough in age to hang out together in school and their teen years, it's not at all unusual. What is Lacey smoking? He sounds hysterical in some of these early excerpts. High-pitched and dramatic, and looking for any thin reason to excuse Harry's issues and pass blame onto others.

by Anonymousreply 438October 6, 2020 4:00 AM

Btw, is Harry supposed to be a source for Lacey's book? Some of the information is new and highly detailed, such as the choice of the Nazi shirt due to its "sandy" hue and how he thought it complemented his coloring.

by Anonymousreply 439October 6, 2020 4:08 AM

I guarantee that Harry is the source. God, he's his mother all over again: dim, petty, vindictive. Endlessly wallowing in years- or decades-old hurts, never finding solace or perspective, their sense of entitlement and outrage growing ever-larger.

This isn't going to end well.

by Anonymousreply 440October 6, 2020 11:47 AM

How will he blame his paki and rag head remarks on William? I guess Will told him that's what he should say in the army.

by Anonymousreply 441October 6, 2020 1:32 PM

Poor Harry was livid that William didn't take his side in the Megxit smackdown, and expected his brother to assist him in the negotiations. He us beyond stupid.

by Anonymousreply 442October 6, 2020 2:32 PM

I like to think that in 20 years, an older, wiser, divorced Harry will start to gain some perspective and see that most of his problems were of his own making. Perhaps that's giving him too much credit, though.

by Anonymousreply 443October 6, 2020 2:54 PM

I love how the article talks about William 'disappearing' from Harry's life during Wills' gap year. Like a father abandoning a child rather than a young man taking the gap year that every other young man of his class and culture takes.

by Anonymousreply 444October 6, 2020 3:02 PM

Well, with Chuck slimming down the monarchy, it was going to be the three of them.

Then Hal married a Moor and the racist underpinnings of The Greek could not be contained.

Things will change when The Greek sleeps eternal with his mum at St. Mary Magdalene in Gethsemane.

No Georgie chapel for him.

We will see how C3 treats his 4 grandchildren.

by Anonymousreply 445October 7, 2020 12:09 AM

[quote]Well, with Chuck slimming down the monarchy, it was going to be the three of them.

It really should be slimmed down, there are so many of them on the public dole.

The Queen's cousins, for example. That's really stretching it, especially as there are now three generations under the Queen.

How many of us even knew any of our grandparents' cousins?

by Anonymousreply 446October 7, 2020 12:35 AM

I have to assume that the BRF is counting on attrition to thin the ranks of working royals. I think it would appear heartless to retire someone like the marvelous Princess Alexandra, as long as she's able to continue. Also, these older "working royals" normally have patronages of long standing.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 447October 7, 2020 1:06 AM

Yes, that generation is a dying breed of Royal.

Ironically, Meghan and Harry COULD have been a valuable and vital part of the new slimmed-down BRF. But Meghan didn't want it and Harry couldn't stand the thought of eternally being secondary to his brother, even if that secondary role would have allowed him to do much good in his home country.

by Anonymousreply 448October 7, 2020 1:12 AM

Philip is going to be at St Georges, r445. Or possibly Frogmore, depending on space.

by Anonymousreply 449October 7, 2020 1:13 AM

Not only does Lacey oddly hammer on re William's perceived 'abandonment' of his brother, only two years younger than him - he is seemingly obsessed with the notion that the entire future of the British monarchy rests on "the idea of these two brothers" always being and working together in close harmony. Huh? Weirdo.

by Anonymousreply 450October 7, 2020 1:16 AM

I'm guessing that Elizabeth will get a large private mausoleum on a par with Victoria's. Phillip will be interred in Elizabeth's just as Albert is interred in Victoria's.

by Anonymousreply 451October 7, 2020 1:29 AM

In theory, William, Harry, and their wives working together as the Fab Four could have been a strong asset to the monarchy. Personality clashes soon put paid to that idea, though. And while it would have been nice, things will work perfectly well with William and Kate solo. They'll just pull the York sisters in as needed.

by Anonymousreply 452October 7, 2020 1:31 AM

[quote]In theory, William, Harry, and their wives working together as the Fab Four could have been a strong asset to the monarchy. Personality clashes soon put paid to that idea, though.

Harry is a petulant manchild and Meghan can't get along with anyone.

by Anonymousreply 453October 7, 2020 1:57 AM

Its Meghan who couldn't play second fiddle to Kate, and then she informed hapless Harry he couldn't play second fiddle to William. With no interest whatsoever to 'service', it was all about' being grand' to her.

by Anonymousreply 454October 7, 2020 2:27 AM

When The Greek sleeps, H&M will return.

by Anonymousreply 455October 7, 2020 8:07 AM

Don't forget me, R455!

by Anonymousreply 456October 7, 2020 8:16 AM

☠ WINTER IS COMING ☠

by Anonymousreply 457October 7, 2020 1:21 PM

Was HRH The Duchess of York ever a working royal when she was a HRH?

How many Tesco's has she cut ribbons for?

by Anonymousreply 458October 7, 2020 2:31 PM

The whole country of Greece could be six feet under and H&M still wouldn't return. Meghan never wanted to be a working Royal in the first place--the title, money, and fame were what she was after, and they are what she got. It's becoming clearer and clearer that Harry has deep-seated issues with his family, especially his brother and sister-in-law, and wants nothing better than to stick it to them at every opportunity. When Philip does they MIGHT come back for the funeral, and that will be it.

by Anonymousreply 459October 7, 2020 6:09 PM

*when Philip dies

by Anonymousreply 460October 7, 2020 6:10 PM

R458 - yes, Fergie was a working royal when she was married to Andrew. I remember Andrew and Fergie touring Canada.

by Anonymousreply 461October 7, 2020 6:17 PM

Meghan is only interested in 'being grand'.

by Anonymousreply 462October 7, 2020 6:31 PM

People cover "Battle of The Brothers".

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 463October 7, 2020 7:13 PM

Diana, damaged as she was, loved her boys. She would be devastated over this.

by Anonymousreply 464October 7, 2020 9:36 PM

I wonder what Diana would think of Meghan.

by Anonymousreply 465October 7, 2020 9:55 PM

If Diana had lived, Meghan would never have gotten a foothold with Harry. The boiling Mummy issues he suffers in this timeline would only have been a low simmer in that one, and Meghan just wouldn't have had much appeal outside a dirty weekend or two. Also, Diana knew another narc when she saw one. Biddable, humble Kate would have been no problem for Di, but the camera-hungry Meghan? Di would have seen her booted back to Vancouver in less time than it takes to say 'Althorp.'

by Anonymousreply 466October 7, 2020 10:00 PM

Diana would have put paid to Meghan within two weeks of her first arriving on the scene.

Also, all the signs re Lacey's book point to Harry having been willing to talk to Lacey and William refusing to talk.

Before the Mail began its serialisation, it ran an interview with Lacey in which he said that he always sent his previous manuscripts on the BRF, not for approval but to give them a right of reply before publication. He said that usually the manuscripts came back with some comments or denials or whatever. Then he pointed the interviewer to a huge sealed envelope on his desk and said that it was his latest manuscript, arrived that morning from Buckingham Palace unopened along with a terse letter from a courtier telling him to basically fuck off.

I thought that was odd when I read it. Now that I see that the book reads as Liwwil Hawwy's Lament that all his problems are his brother's fault, I wonder if BP wasn't already aware that Harry was helping Lacey with the book.

by Anonymousreply 467October 8, 2020 12:08 AM

Diana would've recognized Meghan as a grifting user climber, just as William actually did. William is really his mother's son.

by Anonymousreply 468October 8, 2020 12:10 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 469October 8, 2020 2:47 PM

God, they must think integrity is contagious.

by Anonymousreply 470October 8, 2020 4:19 PM

So over that grasping bitch.

by Anonymousreply 471October 8, 2020 4:51 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 472October 9, 2020 1:24 PM

Why the fuck would a 70-something man want to father a child? That's insane.

by Anonymousreply 473October 9, 2020 4:08 PM

.....and pretty damn irresponsible.

by Anonymousreply 474October 9, 2020 4:14 PM

Because his trophy wife wants one. It also makes him feel young and potent again. Men like him never truly believe they are going to die, so having a baby at 75 seems logical.

Tony Randall did the same thing--had babies with his young wife when he was in his mid-70s. He was dead by the time the children were school-aged.

by Anonymousreply 475October 9, 2020 4:21 PM

When you are super-wealthy, you want to have an heir, regardless of whether you will even be alive to know that heir as an adult. You have to leave your fortune somewhere, and while you'll give your wife a good chunk, you don't want to give it all to her, because you might change wives, and you probably already hate her family for living off you by extension anyway. So you want to know, ultimately, that your fortune will at least stay in your true bloodline; and it doesn't matter that you will probably be dead in 10 or 15 years; its the best alternative. This might be the thinking of many men .... Tony Randall ... Andy Cohen ... Anderson Cooper ....

by Anonymousreply 476October 9, 2020 4:28 PM

R476 - The difference between Tony Randall, Andy Cohen and Anderson Cooper is that they were all childless but Foster already has heirs.

by Anonymousreply 477October 9, 2020 4:32 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 478October 9, 2020 4:38 PM

Really, I think people need to be educated that advanced paternal age matters just as much as advanced maternal age. Sperm quality degrade with age and is more likely to have more errors in DNA. More chance for babies born to older men to have congenital defects, risk for psychiatric conditions, and even the health of the mother during pregnancy. " children of older fathers are more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia -- one in 141 infants with fathers under 25 versus one in 47 with fathers over 50", according to the linked article. Same thing goes for autism. We see this phenomenon in pediatric psych patients, kids on the autism spectrum who have older parents, often dads in their 50s who decide to have kids with younger wives.

I find it funny that Ms. Female Empowerment goes on and on about feminism but is herself wealthy/ known by her marriage to a rich and connected man. Her bestie also married for cash and status, fucking grandpa and securing financial comfort by producing a spawn is just a part of the deal.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 479October 9, 2020 6:37 PM

McPhee is such a C-lister, Foster is better known/talented but still has such a skeeve reputation, what with the multiple wives, kids/stepkids, and accidents (he nearly killed Ben Vereen years ago). This is who the Sussexes want to be seen with in their "new life" stateside?

Today Lainey actually asked is Foster was acting as new surrogate father to Harry, given how 'awful' the royals have been to him. WTF?? Foster has had five wives, will have six kids and has had like a dozen stepkids, some of whom have no love for him. What kind of role model is this? Sussex stans have lost the fucking plot.

by Anonymousreply 480October 9, 2020 7:13 PM

Why would a man who's creeping up on 40 need a "surrogate father?"

And r480 is correct. Foster is really skeevy.

by Anonymousreply 481October 9, 2020 7:20 PM

[quote]Why would a man who's creeping up on 40 need a "surrogate father?"

Why indeed. But this is the same man who continuously blames his same-age brother for nearly every fix he's found himself in and for every negative feeling or mood he's encountered.

When he's not blaming his brother, it's his father's or elderly grandmother's fault. The lack of personal responsibility is breath-taking.

by Anonymousreply 482October 9, 2020 7:35 PM

At the rate he's going, Harry might beat out Princess Margaret for the most spoiled, useless, miserable blood Royal.

by Anonymousreply 483October 9, 2020 8:41 PM

The reason the sugars call Foster Harry's Dad is because McPhee advanced thst scenario in an interview., along the lines of 'David is a father figure to H and it's so beautiful.'

Sparkles calls him the Big H now.

by Anonymousreply 484October 9, 2020 8:55 PM

Please . 'The Fosters' wouldn't give 'The Markles' a second thought if the word Prince wasn't in front of Harry, and Meghan wasn't flying the Duchess flag for anybody that will listen.

by Anonymousreply 485October 9, 2020 10:58 PM

I thought she ws Besties with Serena the other month? And with Oprah after that. And then with Jameela Jamil?

by Anonymousreply 486October 10, 2020 2:12 AM

It's been known for years that Cabbage (Lillibet) always wanted a full state funeral for Philip at Westminster or even St. Paul's but that he has always insisted on a regular naval service for his rank at St. George's Chapel and HM long ago acquiesced.

by Anonymousreply 487October 10, 2020 10:30 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 488October 10, 2020 1:27 PM

Phil needs to be rolled into a ditch at Windsor when he dies to let the compound wildlife have their way with his remains.

by Anonymousreply 489October 10, 2020 1:44 PM

Harry will come back for tax purposes only. I highly doubt Meghan will ever set foot in the UK again.

by Anonymousreply 490October 10, 2020 2:30 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 491October 10, 2020 5:51 PM

What an attention whore.

And she was defo NOT the most trolled person in the world back in 2019 - that was, amongst others, Greta Thunberg.

Meghan is so full of herself it beggars belief.

by Anonymousreply 492October 10, 2020 7:42 PM

Jeezus, that pair are simply odious! What qualifications do they possess?

Since it is they that are always reminding any one who will listen to their troubles, it is they that should be on the receiving end of professional mental health therapy.

What fragile psyches they both must have to not be able to cope emotionally with their privilege. Its utterly laughable!

by Anonymousreply 493October 10, 2020 10:03 PM

The Sussex Outlaws.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 494October 11, 2020 1:58 PM

I used to think they would divorce but I think they will stay together because who else could tolerate either of them?

by Anonymousreply 495October 11, 2020 2:04 PM

They will stay together until Meghan is certain she can't get anything else out of the relationship. Then she'll move on without a backward glance.

by Anonymousreply 496October 11, 2020 3:49 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 497October 11, 2020 6:24 PM

So how did the donations to Malala's charity go as a result of the Harkles' massive exposure?

by Anonymousreply 498October 12, 2020 12:05 AM

She sounds so fake in that audio.

by Anonymousreply 499October 12, 2020 12:49 AM

Harry in trouble. Bitch better up his escorting fees.

by Anonymousreply 500October 12, 2020 12:50 AM

What trouble?

by Anonymousreply 501October 12, 2020 3:20 AM

Who exactly watches those hostage videos they put out?

by Anonymousreply 502October 12, 2020 3:53 AM

The vids are not done with viewing numbers in mind, silly. They are the Harkles' resume, to be included in a praise documentary about the inspiring duo.

by Anonymousreply 503October 12, 2020 12:28 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!