Harry and Meghan are the Most Influential People

Good? He seems to be either hiding behind her or using her as a human shield and she looks like the fucking Lion King.

Is this a joke?

He looks like such a bitch Standing behind her with his arms on her shoulders

R2 it is not

Caption: Please! Take my wife!

They gave him his hair back and made him look more like the actor who played him in the lifetime movie

Here is the article from Time

He looks amazing

They influenced me.

To be nicer to my family.

He looks like a self important hairstylist showing off his layering technique on a hair model

They look squished from the top down.

They influenced me.

To ignore Time.

R10 nails it.

But, it can't be. This has to be a hoax. A mockery of the Time 100. Harry and Meghan's contributions to any endeavor worthy of any attention is utterly non-existent. They are irrelevant people on the world stage.

Lol! She looks a mile wide and like she has no torso.

His head looks photoshopped on.

Terrible cover.

In what world are the Obamas ever not influential?

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have said they are 'humbled' to be the cover stars of Time magazine's 2021 list of the 100 most influential people on the planet in a feature that includes an 'awkward' photoshoot and a gushing tribute from a friend who praises them for 'giving a voice to the voiceless' and 'running toward the struggle' rather than living a quiet life in their California mansion.

One critic, a fellow photographer, tweeted: 'Terrible retouching job. They look CGI'.

Others wrote: 'This photo looks photoshopped. Also, the way they are positioned is very revealing: it's the Meghan show and Harry is just the supporting actor'. One critic said: 'Harry looks completely awkward peering behind his wife like this'.

'They turn compassion into boots on the ground through their Archewell Foundation. They give voice to the voiceless through media production. Hand in hand with nonprofit partners, they take risks to help communities in need—offering mental-health support to Black women and girls in the U.S., and feeding those affected by natural disasters in India and the Caribbean.

'In a world where everyone has an opinion about people they don't know, the duke and duchess have compassion for the people they don't know. They don't just opine. They run toward the struggle'.

There is no mention of Harry and Meghan's rift with the Royal Family.

---------------------

Looks like her ass is growing.

So they’re the same height?

This is how you sell magazines

Ballpark, how much do you think this cost them? $5 million?

R20, I would have guessed two.

Yup, probably $5 million and exclusives on upcoming tell-alls...

R19, who’s going to buy that, seriously? I’m sure bazillions of people will click the link, but no one is rushing to the newsstand or supermarket to get it.

What a fucking joke. They are not influential. They are scandal- and trouble-ridden telling lies about everything. Someone needs to open their books and see how much money they have donated to anyone. It's minimal. They have influenced no one. It's all been self-centered bullshit.

Time Magazine ought to be ashamed of itself for allowing this self-indulgent nonsense. Sunshine Sachs obviously badgered the hell out of Time to include them and horrifyingly give them the cover. Outrageous and disappointing especially for others who may actually deserve a place on the list. These two grifters have done nothing. And their behavior toward family and the media has been dishonorable and atrocious.

Some of you are such haters. A lot of people love them.

The social media reaction to this seems to be overwhelmingly negative.

R25 Where? The Newsweek Poll from two weeks ago had their support in American around 40%. In the UK it's below 30%. Outside of the SJWs, Brand Sussex seems DOA.

One is not amused

He has a face like a slapped arse. With his Blue Steel glare and sulky grimace. They bought this cover, What is wrong with Americans that they can’t see how grotesque these two art.

SJWs?

R27 Yup! Despite what their PR is trying to sell the public, they are no where near as popular as they're trying to make it appear.

These listy things are always a laugh. They have maybe 5-10 individuals who are truly worthy of recognition, and then just spin the lottery wheel of faces in the news to fill out the list.

Everybody knows this. Its all a shit-show to sell copies.

Cheesy. Looks like a wig or hair club for men advertisement.

R30 Social Justice Warriors.

The woke twitter mob seem to be the only people really into H&M. Everyone else it ranges from indifference to dislike. Then there is a small but vocal minority of deranged haters. In all honesty, I can't think of a single influential thing they've actually done. I mean they gave the Oprah interview.....what else .........

Imagine the sheer mental disassociation necessary to bald-faced stand there posing and demanding the viewer to believe that they have any merit in this edition whatsoever.

"Harry seems to have sprouted more fur on his head and Meghan seems not to be wearing the hair of twelve Indian virgins as usual but twelve hundred." ~River

LOL

She looks like Cousin Itt.

Nailed the fey eunuch look.

Meghan is starting to look like Yoko Ono with all that awful hair, and not just act like her.

[quote] Outrageous and disappointing especially for others who may actually deserve a place on the list.

Exactly. It’s some bullshit.

Just for the Record: William & Kate have been on the Time's 100 twice already (2011 and 2017) The Queen has been on it numerous times Prince Charles three times I believe. Hilter once.

No mention of them putting the boot in to a 95 year old woman who knew she was spending the last moments she would ever have with her husband of 73 years, then?

R42 There is no mention of the Oprah interview or the feud with the royal family.....very telling.

Love them.

I’m confused by you guys being upset. They really are super powerful and influential worldwide.

Would that be the Hilter who tried to wipe out the Wejes?

What have they influenced? The most remarkable thing about them is the sheer audacity.

Survivors of bigotry and racism — good for them.

R44 Oh, is that why her book flopped and their poll ratings are so bad?

One wondered.

Love these two survivors.

So many jealous people in this thread!

R44 I liked them at first, but they clearly nothing more the PR obsessed celebrities now. What have they actually done that is influential. Besides the Oprah interview, I can't think of a single thing they've actually done.

A Time Mag somebody got a boatload of dosh for this one. Time has now consigned themselves to Laughingstock pile. Mags. with them on covers are always the full ones in stores. No one buys them. Notice even People cutting back. Americans were amazed the Brits. fell for the LA Basic Bitch Grift. If Time has a board they should follow the $$ on this one, for sure.

So R50, R49, R47, R44 is the same person right?

Surviving on unearned privilege and daddy's cash.

R52 Time is owned the same company that runs People and Entertainment Weekly which all do regular business with Sunshine Sachs ... if they didn't pay for it was a deal with their PR company basically if you put H&M on the 100 Influential List we'll give you exclusive access to a number of our clients.

Harry looks like they put a ginger merkin on his head.

r50 you're just comical. They are being roasted alive online and rightly so. Absolutely no one of any importance is paying attention to them. For reference, Kate and William were listed here twice and Kate and Pippa even once together. Its honestly comical how you think people envy someone with their looks and level of talent. When we have Catherine???

Lovely. I have had a fucking jippy tummy for hours and now I see this. Vomitorium...

Does everything on these two need a new thread? There are MULTIPLE active H&M Threads

r53 nope, but please don't let that interrupt your fantasy that only one person disagrees with your unhinged misogynistic hatred of this woman and her husband, or that we're all paid shills from a PR company they haven't used in almost two years!

Is that whore Elizabeth 2nd also on the list?

[quote]Does everything on these two need a new thread?

Yes.

That CGI cover certainly gives Harry a fivehead. You could show an imax movie on it.

R 53, Hi Megs. or Scabies. We know Harry can't write with anything besides a crayon & mostly tracing his letters, so it's not him posting. Member Birth certif. debacle Name of father etc. Sad when you don't even know what your name is.

I have never found one person with close set, small eyes to be trustworthy or of strong character. YMMV

I don't get the hatred for Harry and Meghan but I also don't get people who can't see this two are just fame whores.

I wonder if they were even photographed at the same time because this picture is just wonderful . Harry's ever changing height , the way he suddenly has a a full head of hair again and all that while hiding behind Meghen who looks like she's heading right into a strong headwind.

Sarah, Duchess of York actually does a huge amount of philanthropy and charitable work in various places around the world. She doesn't always get credit for her work, but she's out there often. She's not all that influential, and I'm not suggesting she be included in Time Magazine, but she does the work. Harry and Markle do not.

R53 Yes.

But it's not the Pet. Her English isn't that good. LOL

Probably some of her compadres on Korsinsky or Kandinsky Street or wherever the bot factory is.

They're on the cover because no one knows who most of the others are. And they're sure as hell not going to put Britney Spears or Parton on the cover.

So it's a Woke list of people the public don't give a tinker's curse about, and TIME knows it. But they have to put a "name" on the cover.

They might have gone with Osaka but she's already past her sell date with Radacanu making Osaka look a whingeing twat, as Radacanu smiles her face off for the press.

[quote]Chef José Andrés said: 'The duke and duchess have compassion for the people they don't know'

But they don't give a shit about their families!!! ha ha ha ha

Time and all the shitty celeb-obsessed magazines can go suck rancid ass. Influential is partly right, as in the Sussexes WANT to be influencers, but the in reality they are the antithesis of humanitarians as they, Time, and PR-sourced articles portray them to be. Genuine humanitarians do not publicize every deed nor do they pay lip service instead of actually do things. The couple has literally helped or enriched no one except themselves. Hell, they’ve done less than the typical overworked ICU nurse in the past couple of years.

So Time, fuck you for promoting this entitled couple as humanitarians.

Harry looks shorter because he’s half sitting in the stone wall. It’s a terribly composed photo. D+ rating.

They don't actually DO anything except bitch and moan. Why would somebody Meghan's shape decide to wear pleated pants and stand like she's about to let a big fart rip? They both look awful.

Those comments are 99.99% vicious and hilarious. I hope they lost a lot of $$$ on paying for that cover.

Her body is just weird. It looks like she only has tits but no abdomen.

Page Six was kind enough to print the various tweets and comments roasting the cover. And then they included some positive ones.

“The magazine released the cover picture of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on Wednesday, in which they appear with eerily glowing smooth skin, creepy bright eyes and, in Harry’s case, suspiciously fuller hair.”

Love them. They’re survivors! We should all show some love.

And our Meg thought the British tabloids were bad—-

What the hell? Trump is listed as is Joe Manchin.

(And Biden and Kamala Harris)

No need to ask me if I'm okay. I'm doing great today.

Thanks for the love.

[Quote]Why would somebody Meghan's shape decide to wear pleated pants and stand like she's about to let a big fart rip?

It's questions like these that keep me coming back to Datalounge.

they aren't on the actual official cover, they're on one of the covers. every person on the list gets their own version of the cover. not sure how that will shake out on newsstands but you can, if you want to, get your issue with Billie Eilish on it. if that's what you're into.

R84 not everyone gets a cover.

[quote]Just for the Record: William & Kate have been on the Time's 100 twice already (2011 and 2017) The Queen has been on it numerous times Prince Charles three times I believe. Hilter once.

You mean they're tied with Hitler?

The person who photoshopped or okay’d the cover either has a snarky sense of humor or hate the couple, or both.

[quote]Please. Can you name one real-world, practical application deployed by these two phonies that’s served anyone but themselves?

Are they "speechless"?

i stand corrected. you're right (R84) - there are only 7 covers. but there they are, which, yuck. still, you can get your billie eilish.

Only one cover is getting attention

The 7 most influential get a cover

I can’t believe they print 100 different covers, R84.

"Meghan said their focus right now is being of service, and that attending glitzy events like the MET Gala is wasted time and energy that could be put to good use towards those suffering and in need,' the source added."

Wow, way to burn more bridges dumbasses.

So they were not invited to Obama's bd party and the Met Gala.

OMG! ha ha ha ha ha

R94 not vaccinated or not invited .

Were they winners in the Grifter Cunts category?

[quote] Love them. They’re survivors!

Yes cockroaches do persevere

They wasted their money. This is making them out to be an even bigger joke than before.

If they could just embrace a bit of subtlety, people might give them a second look. They try way too hard to be something they're not.

If the recent Met Gala is so unimportant why is she leaking about it?

Oooo, they're on the cover of a MAGAZINE. What's a magazine?

It's just beyond parody at this point. They're circus folk.

This "Chef Jose Andres" has made quite the name for himself. For what exactly, I'm not sure.

Those hair weaves!

Who knew that Chef Jose Andres was such an expert at making word salad? I think Meghan wrote the Chef's sycophantic review for him and just emailed it to him to sign. It sound exactly like the usual rubbish they churn out.

They run towards the struggle? Hahahahahahaha!!! Oh my sides.

If by "struggle" they mean "$5 on the end of a stick" then yes, they do run towards the struggle.

Is she eating a hamburger in any of the pictures? Or writhing on a hot grill?

I do love their response about feeling "humbled" by their inclusion.

Such a brave couple, struggling to live as jet set humanitarians who must now pay for their own security and publicists. Now having to cope with being left off of guest lists for thirsty celeb events, Obama party and Met Gala. It really tugs at one’s heartstrings, their emotional anguish must be immeasurable, all the suffering around the world simply do not compare.

Harry is crouching down to look her height and he's holding on to her for dear life. Pathetic stupid twat.

That frumpy jumpsuit or whatever the hell she is wearing, does her no favors. She wears white, he wears black (the better to blend into the background, nonentity that he is).

Will he ever come to realize what she has done to him? That she de-balled him and makes him look and sound more stupid than he already is?

They didn’t waste their money

BUMP

pura cagada

Look again. Harry isn't crouching down. He's sitting on a low fence type wall behind MeAgain.

What nobody knows is that she tried to push him off, ala A Kiss Before Dying, after the shoot.

Do these two ever leave the house?

Time Magazine is a joke today, the brand has been eroding for 25 years. Meanwhile, the Markles look like some new youngish couple in Arlington. I’m surprised there isn’t a Houlihan Lawrence SOLD sign staked to the ground in the background.

They do not look "youngish."

What's Time Magazine?

Why is she standing in front of him?

Pearls before swine or age before beauty?

The couple in action getting directions to a struggle to run towards.

I guess they put them on the cover to sell magazines. But I don't think that will happen. They're apparently getting "roasted" for this latest stunt. The picture is funny as hell. He's hiding behind her, his hair is suspiciously thicker and fuller and she looked photoshopped to high heaven. They look ridiculous. What the hell is WRONG with them?

I can't believe Harry wants....this. Just astonishing.

[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.]

Simply dreadful.

Fuck her x100.

Here’s my take on Meghan.

I’m biracial. I refer to myself as mulatto because that’s what I was called growing up. Somewhere along the way, it was deemed offensive. I’m used to using biracial now but I dislike it because it’s “other” and ambiguous. It’s like being LGBTQIAA+. I’m fucking gay just like I’m fucking Mulatto, I have nothing in common with a transgender person or someone who’s Asian and white (also biracial).

Mulattos are erased but they’ve broken barriers. Halle Berry won the Oscar, Obama became President, Meghan married Harry. Mariah Carey, Drake and even go back to Frederick Douglass. Malcolm X’s mother was Mulatto and it had an impact on his ideology. I can go on and on but we identify all these people as black.

In America, everything is black or white. I’m from Boston, there’s tons of black people and tons of Irish people and yet people say it’s “interesting” that I’m half black and half Irish and yet black and Irish is one of the oldest American breeds in the US. Irish and black people have been consensually marrying and having children documented into the 1700’s. Theres Irish on my black grandmothers side and it was consensual. George Wasnington’s slave Ona Judge was from a black slave mother and an Irish indentured servant father. It’s very frustrating to be erased but whatever.

With all of that said, as a mulatto, I feel like I can see Meghan is white. She identifies as mixed but show me a photo of her with a black person besides her Mom and the rally of A-listers who became friends post-Harry. She grew up white, she dates white men, ran away from the racist UK to live in a racist white suburb in California that’s 1% black, she had a Hollywood career where as a biracial person, managed to dodge black cinema and TV, which is odd as hell and no coincidence if you ask me. There’s no doubt she rejected the chitlin circuit (as they call it) because she sees a white woman. It’s her prerogative because she’s just as white as she is black despite people seeing a black woman.

I think she was resentful of being identified as a black woman by the British press and upset at the racism that came with it because I don’t believe she experienced it. I’ve never experienced racism. Sure, ignorant comments but never all out racism. Most people don’t know I’m half black. Being called a black man would shock me because I don’t share the same experience whatsoever.

What annoys me is the article pointing out she helps black women’s mental health. To her, it’s apart of her white savior complex and that’s what made me go on this rant. She doesn’t see herself as a black woman, she’s helping all the poor black women who worship her because they see themselves in her when she sees a white woman.

Next think you know, they'll buy a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame!

By plastering Ginger Megs on its “100 most influential people” cover, in addition to its other agenda-mired “influential” choices, Time reiterates its degeneration into a medium geared to social media simpletons.

R128 Only if they can con someone into "donating" the $50,000 cost.

Uncanny....

"Elliot" page, now them. When did Time Magazine go down the shitter?

R131 Jesus Christ!

It's getting a lot of negative publicity but I doubt that will translate to actual sales for TIME, even for their fans.

But that photo nails it R131 and I bet Meghan was well aware of it.

sMEGs is obviously mentally ill.

Okay this whole thing is just becoming farcical now and merging into pathetically desperate. They are trying to build a "powerhouse" brand and it's landing like a lead balloon. Ironically, they would've had far more influence and long-term relevancy had they remained within the royal family. Yes being a royal means you are not supposed to engage in the political BUT the soft power the royals carry is often more powerful than anything a politician or celebrity can do. Diana understood this, her shaking the hand of an AIDS patient did more for the breaking down of stigma around AIDS/HIV than anything Hollywood (even Elizabeth Taylor) did for AIDS. When the Queen speaks, people listen.

The Aussie media AIN'T having it LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

R127, as part of the “world”, I didn’t see MM as a black woman, nor a biracial woman. I never watched Suits, only saw her in a Reitman ad, and always assumed from that, that she is white. I didn’t find out she was biracial until I saw a photo of her mother.

They allegedly paid £1.5 million for this cover and they get that? I don't see anyone taking it seriously. I don't see the Obamas suddenly realising they've been wrong to ignore them. Everyone knows how Time works.

If that and Meghan's birthday thingy were supposed to launch their "Era of Visibility" then they're off to a shaky start. Unless they're so desperate and thirsty they'll take mockery if it means they'll be talked about. But that's worse than their lives as 3rd couple in the monarchy.

TIME’s “Most Influential” is like People’s “Most Beautiful”.

I.e., “Highest Bidder”

I think they’ve started the slide into mockery and ridicule. They’ll be sketches on SNL soon.

It looks like a VC Andrews book cover.

As I understand it, this is TIME advertising it's own product-didnt they do two podcasts for TIME last year, or much earlier this year?

The reaction everywhere has been brutal, not least toward the photos.

The photos, in their glaringly and badly doctored look, unintentionally reveal the truth about Harry and Meghan: they're totally inauthentic.

The two pieces of text that accompany their profile are also so badly chosen that they are already the stuff of parody;

One, that they "ran toward danger" - backed by his title, his $40 million trust fund, and the extra $3 million his Papa gave him, always surrounded by security, and never housed in anything less than grand residences.

Two, that they showed compassion for people they didn't know, INSTANTLY calling up their cruel treatment of his family with lies whilst marketing their connection to his family, and especially their self-serving brutality toward his grandmother whilst her husband of 73 years lay dying.

Those memes are what will live on from this particular bit of PR. Handled with, as usual, mind-boggling tone-deafness to the distaste these two are generating in the public, borne out by polls on both sides of the Pond.

You really have to wonder at their backers making the same mistake over and over: trying too hard to make two unlikable self-regarding twats look good, and ending up pointing at, rather than away, from the elephant in the room.

Join me please in donating to the GoFukMe account for these noble humanitarians. What a joy & honor it is to donate to this couple. Never have I seen two people doing so much good!!

Just think, this is Meghan's vision. It's kind of fascinating, a peek into her psyche.

I continue to question the source of all of the money that the pair are spending and their tone-deafness. They seem to be aimed, by some unknown financial interests, at the monarchy. Mercifully, they have missed the target, widely. They are buffoons, but I really want to know who is funding them. It's not the paltry amounts from inheritances and "Daddy money."

Russians? They hate the Monarchy & the English. The English always pull their covers.

Soros? He hates the English. Look what he did to the pound, after they took him in after WW3 & educated him. He always bites the hand that feeds him. The Hungarians who shielded him in WW2 Where he is born. Israel who are his 'people'. Where he can go always & be welcome because he is a Jew. America where he got to grow his $$ & depravity in freedom.

The Ozzies seem to despise them a heap!

Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, have posed for their first joint magazine cover, gracing the front of the Time issue devoted to the 100 most influential people on the planet, and the result is … astounding.

Astoundingly bad, that is.

Those olive green outfits are a horror.

Inspiration, another grafting rip off of a true talent.

Grifting!!

Boom!

Do any Brits remember when Jade Goody referred to herself as "the twenty-fifth most infullencial person in the world"? This isn't that different. I doubt Harry is much more intelligent than Jade was; he just has a posh accent.

Uh, oh -- we have a Soros is the anti-christ. QAnon loon aboard.

Who wore it better?

Eek. Seeing them in direct comparison like that with very similar outfits. Megs will never compare. And I say this as someone with an unfortunate body type myself, but I'm not putting myself out there as a fashion plate either.

R71 - If Thomas Markle or the Windsors were my family, I would not have anything to do with my family either.

Hair today, gone tomorrow. Or vice versa.

Hand to god, her face looks pregnant again. That seems implausible but, who knows? I like her hair color.

She cannot escape Thomas Markle. Those pleated pants are proof enough.

The Spectator has what looks to be a biting piece up about TIME 100 and the Harkles, but it's paywalled. The title asks if the TIME profile of them is a parody.

Anyone able to post the article? They do let guests have 3, but I'be used all mine up.

The title of the Speccie article seems to confirm that the TIME piece generated similar reactions across the board: the Harkles are phonier than $3 bills and there's no hiding it.

Two of the world's 'most inconsequential people' by DL magazine, they are just our daily entertainment.

She truly is the smuggest woman in the universe with absolutely nothing to be smug about.

The Spectator Part 1

Of course the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are named in Time magazine’s 100 most influential people of 2021. And of course their listing, which makes the publication’s front cover, is accompanied by a lavish citation and photos of the pair put together by Hollywood A-list stylists. Did we really expect anything less? Time truly has it all. First there are the photos. The couple are groomed beyond the imagining of mere mortals, their clothes carefully co-ordinated. They are artistically positioned in order to comprise both a beautiful image and a political statement. Yes, indeed! These are no ordinary celebrity snaps. They are Harry and Meghan’s meaningful portraits. The cover shot symbolises equality. So Harry is kitted out in black, while Meghan dons a white trouser suit. Harry is in the background, Meghan to the fore. Harry perches awkwardly on a ledge so they appear to be the same height, his hand resting supportively on her shoulder. They’re equals, geddit? Most married couples take their equality for granted. But for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex this, apparently, counts as making a brave statement. And so they both stare fearlessly into the camera.

Part 2

And so they both stare fearlessly into the camera. Their lack of self-awareness holds strong Other pictures show them wearing matching bottle green, standing in front of an open window or under a tree. The message now is ‘equals who are at one with nature’ – while still able to throw a power pose. Honestly, it’s such a delicious mash-up of absolutely everything we have come to associate with Harry and Meghan it’s almost possible to imagine they are not in on the joke. But no. Their lack of self-awareness holds strong. How else to explain the citation – which you would expect, at the very least, for them to have been given a prior glance at. Chef José Andrés is credited with coming up with the words. And oh what words they are! We kick off with reminders of Harry’s service in Afghanistan but not, oddly, Meghan’s role in US TV drama Suits. Instead we’re reminded, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, ‘has long been an active humanitarian and a powerful advocate for women and girls’. So far, so sort-of factual. But we’re soon spinning off into hyperbole. Harry and Meghan, we are told, ‘turn compassion into boots on the ground’. They ‘give voice to the voiceless’, ‘mental-health support to Black women and girls’ and feed ‘those affected by natural disasters’. Okay so maybe not with five loaves and two fishes, but ‘hand in hand with nonprofit partners’. In short, ‘They run toward the struggle.’

Part 3

Or should that be fly? They fly toward the struggle, right? And the ‘struggle’ is a charity polo match in Aspen and the flight is a £45million private jet. The ‘voiceless’ now being given a hearing can surely only refer to the Duke and Duchess themselves: certainly it’s the case that since leaving the royal family they rarely miss an opportunity to remain silent. And the ‘springing into action’ must mean firing off a quick text to Netflix or Oprah, or, more likely, their lawyers. The Time profile is so dripping in Harry and Meghan cliche it could be mistaken for parody. The uber-privileged couple representing ‘equality’. The private jet loving Prince symbolising ‘nature’. The attention-grabbing, self-obsessed Duke and Duchess espousing self-sacrifice. What’s bizarre is that Time magazine takes this stuff seriously enough to print. But maybe Time has it right, after all. The Duke and Duchess are certainly influential and very 2021 indeed. They epitomise today’s woke elite: fantastically wealthy and privileged yet comfortable preaching to the masses about the importance of sacrifice and compassion. Like the Californian celeb-set they have bought into, they co-opt the language of political struggle to direct attention to their own moral superiority over the plebs. It’s no coincidence that the issues Harry and Meghan choose to highlight – race, gender, mental health, the environment – can all sit comfortably alongside immense privilege. To the woke elite, social class and wealth inequalities are barely worth considering. If pushed, they shy away from talking about economic or political solutions – Heaven forbid! – but prefer discussing the need for yet more ‘compassion’. They’ll happily be photographed demonstrating equality, or make a speech via Zoom, but actually rescind the titles and inherited wealth, give up the private jet flights and the designer clothes? Not on your life. Charges of hypocrisy never land on this thick-skinned group who seem to think genuine lifestyle change is reserved for the little people. So perhaps Time magazine deserves praise for publishing such sycophancy. It offers us yet more hilarious insight into the bizarre world-view of the woke elite. Harry and Meghan’s loyal fans will no doubt lap it up. The rest of us, meanwhile, can enjoy a laugh at the oblivious duo’s expense.

Good, trenchant read, R165. Thanks for posting.

Even on Instagram (which has been somewhat more pro-Sussex) the reaction has ranged from negative to just laughing at them. Honestly, I think Haz & Megz have unintentially become the King and Queen of Farce.

I suspect Meghan fancies herself an expert on semiotics. Every word or image has to convey “meaning,” or occasionally a dog whistle. No such thing as just taking a nice picture.

R165 Thank you, thank you!

R162

R170, you may be right, so the reason she's wearing white and he's in black is supposed to be symbolic...

I agree with this looks like a V. C. Andrews cover.

Apparently the theme for their podcast is going to be the Stevie Wonder/Paul McCartney classic “Ebony and Ivory”.

LMAO

R172 white is savior, redeemer, goddess. I remember Hillary did it on some magazine cover back in the early 90s. People laughed at it then.

[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.]

WTF is up w. the picture they are using for their site? Like this is the best pic. they could find? Those weird hanging short hair bits on her. Looks like rats gnawed the 'stensions' cause bacon grease was used instead of real hair grease. Harry's hair obviously fake. He looks bloated & unkempt. Is the coordinated military green an 'omage to his sterling military career? God this gets funnier by the minute.

Please, please Hazmat, move to NYC. It will be epic what Page 6 will do to them & then everyone else will pile on, as only NY can do..Laughter for the whole dull winter. Who cares if you get snowed in, they will be the comedy relief for days.

She's wearing one of those toilet hugger rugs on her head.

This very one.

There aren't any backers. That's a loon theory from Tumblr and Skippy.

So, they have a money tree in Monteshitto.

Uh oh, we have an uninformed ignoramus at loose! Quick! Get sleepy joe to the rescue! Hunter, bring some crack! Soros is evil dear. Just because you're dumb, doesn't mean it isn't true.

Agree R180, there are no shadowy "backers" - just a spoiled ex-Prince with Mummy's money and a wife he is almost certainly going to come to regret. Like it or not, they have money. It's because of who Harry is, not because either one of them are worthy of it. But have it they do.

R182 is why it's hard to be a Harkleskeptic sometimes. Please go rant about great resets and Covid not being real elsewhere.

They couldn't have airbrushed the queef stain out of her pant crotch? What the fuck.

The only "backers" they have are those poor unfortunate souls who donate funds to the scammy 'Archole Foundation'.

Excellent post R127. I know Meghan is biracial because it was one of the first things noted in the initial articles about her when they were first reported to be dating. But other than that technical knowledge, she has never seemed anything other than white to me. Culturally and socially she is white. She sounds white. If someone had told me she was white I never would have questioned it.

You got me thinking about something I first wondered about during the wedding, though. What do you think she made of that preacher and the choir and the what I believe were well-intentioned but somewhat clumsy attempts to include Meghan's "culture" in the ceremony? Not clumsy because African American culture is clumsy but because...I mean, I guess we're just not gonna talk about the fact that none of that "what foreigners think of when they think of African American culture" (and as a foreigner I can confirm that firey preachers and raucous church services are part of it) ever applied to Meghan? Who appears to have long presented in every way I can think of as a white California girl?

I dunno I just remember thinking "who is this for?" during the ceremony. Was it for Meghan? Was it for the BRF, so they looked all progressive and avoided getting yelled at?

Why does she insist on that ridiculous hair?

This should have been Time's cover.

Aww....she's trying to copy Kate's hair.

Dittio for Doria r158.

The Harkles don't sell here in the U.S. at all. Their recent TV flop was beat in the ratings yet again by re-reuns. They don't sell magazines here either.

Nobody has commented on the reverse "ebony and ivory" clothing choice for the cover. Meghan in all white and Harry in all black. How BRAVE. I cannot believe Meghan, "legs for days", Markle would wear such unflattering pants. She looks huge, She is never going to lose that baby weight. Doria has a better body than she does.

"I've seen better legs hanging over the side of a nest."

It’s just so tiring when people state that a dislike of MM is either due to “jealousy” or “racism.”

She's untalented, and homely. Always has been. WTF is there to envy? Her childish embarrassing ugly husband?

Those two should never have been allowed to breed.

The hair is ridiculous. And to be posing as someone passionate about helping and charity while wearing a couple 100k in jewelry is in really poor taste.

"What do you think she made of that preacher and the choir and the what I believe were well-intentioned but somewhat clumsy attempts to include Meghan's "culture" in the ceremony?"

R186 - I think idea the preacher and the choir originated with Prince Charles.

R191 - How many people actually watch Lifetime Chanel? All original Lifetime movies are fairly cheesy.

[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.]

R200, I don’t really care if she’s wearing a ring from a scumbag. I don’t care if they take private jets everywhere. Don’t care WHAT they do as long as they mind their business. When they start lecturing the plebes for doing what they do, they open themselves up to criticism.

R189 That was my thought, too. "Look, mine is longer, fuller, BETTER!"

I still say she should chop it off into a cute 1960s Natalie Wood style. She'd distinguish her look and BREAK THE INTERNET.

Meghan, darling, take my advice. It would look so fresh and fab.

Unless she gets a head & body transplant she will never look fresh & fab.

Me-Again is too fake to look fresh and fab. Now, fake is something she can pull off.

I'd bet good money if she gets into the Met Ball next year she'd be all over it like a hobo on a ham sandwich.

Sometimes you really can tell there are women on this thread. "No! She's ugly!" Sorry, ladies, she's ridiculous but she is pretty.

I agree....diabolical on the inside... I deplore her... but she's undeniably attractive... I think pretty is the right word... not striking, not beautiful but all the elements of her face blend prettily. Of course, waist down she's starting to look like a billboard on the interstate.

Yeah, I don’t understand how anyone can consider her “homely” or “ugly”. She’s pretty.

At least on the outside.

A person's eyes and smile can make them attractive but her eyes are not warm nor is her smile which is the smirk of a self satisfied manipulator. She's not attractive in my eyes. As for her body, professional stylists can make most people's bodies look good like the Suits person did for her. But like the Royal advice she refused, she obviously is also refusing good wardrobe advice and does her body shape no favors.

She doesn't have any ugly physical features but she doesn't have any above average ones either.

I agree - she is pretty. Harry wouldn’t have gone anywhere near her if she hadn’t been and we wouldn’t be talking about her now.

What she’s not (imo) is stylish. I am surprised how often she gets it wrong. She looked much better on Suits than she ever has done since.

R180 I don't know who Skippy is, but I wouldn't be so sure there aren't some quiet "backers" making sure the Harkles keep getting saved from the ruination of their public images that, if left to themselves, would have finished them off already.

They seem to keep getting in front of things despite falling poll ratings, a public generally uninterested in anything about them except their connection to the BRF, and blunders like telling provable lies on international media.

The place they first stayed in after they left in Canada was alleged to belong to Yuri Milner, a notorious sleazy and very, very rich Russian oligarch; he has a family foundation, by the way, that supports the Breakthrough Prize in the Sciences - which recently announced that one of Cambridge's scientists had won the prize for a breakthrough in DNA sequencing that could impact advances in anti-aging , which is now of great interest to billionaires interested in seeing if their money will buy them the ultimate in luxury: immortality. And surprise, surprise, one of the other backers is the founder of 23andme, Anne Wojicki, as well as Mark Zuckerberg - the DNA genome industry knows that somewhere down the road, and probably not too far down it, many billions are to be made.

The Harkles, in my opinion, are busy forging connections behind the scenes that can help them stay in the game that on their own, they'd have lost already. No one can figure out how they are carrying a $9.5 million mortgage, extremely high property taxes and insurance, a fortune in home and grounds maintenance, more upcoming huge legal fees as ANL fights for an appeal of the initial Summary Judgement, and paying an ever larger staff, all on what they've pulled in on advances from a couple of First Refusal contracts, his book advance and hers - which flopped dismally - and his Papa's last three million quid, unless he's really destroying his trust fund.

And don't forget the extremely powerful entities at Netflix who need to ensure that their investment in these two clowns pays off.

Their bills, that huge mortgage, her clothes, her jewellery (the pinky ring she is wearing in the TIME photos costs about $62,000), their staff - where the fuck is that money coming from?

If he's really decimating his trust fund, as he suggested in that stupid interview, sooner or later he's going to run out. They're running a foundation. How are they paying staff? They haven't yet filed a Form 990 as they're required to so that the public know how much money it has, who they funded and in what amounts, and what the five highest paid members of the staff are.

There is something odd about them and the shadowy life they're living. I'm not so sure that wondering if they're isn't some backer with an agenda helping them along is as bonkers as might appear at first, even granted that the Tumblr crowd are loons, and I assume this Skippy is a member.

The Harkles are at a juncture now. They've seen over the last two years that absent their connection to the BRF, they're jokes; no one gives fuck all about their philanthropy or TIME's 100 - those stories disappear in a day. They can't really make it on their own as Harry and Meghan. They can only keep it going as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex - the Queen's grandson, Charles' son, Willeam's brother.

So, I dunno. They should have flunked out miserably by now given their track record. Something or someone is helping to keep them viable. Netflix has powerful connections everywhere. I do find something mysterious about it all.

[quote] Of course, waist down she's starting to look like a billboard on the interstate.

Tee hee

^*wondering if there (not they're) isn't . . .

I don’t find it mysterious at all, R211.

Harry has the residuals of his trust fund. They probably got hefty “welcome” payments from Netflix & Spotify (nowhere near the amounts suggested in the media, though). An advance for the shitstain “The Bench”, now advances for Harry’s memoir and whatever crappy book Markle is planning

Then there’s the Oprah interview. They may not have been paid an “appearance fee” but there’s no fucking way they got nothing. I bet they made quite a few million as “producers” or something.

I think all of this has been enough to fund them till now….but it’s not sustainable, imo.

I give them a year at the most before they start to have serious financial difficulties.

She is pretty. She has clear skin, and her facial features are well proportioned and symmetrical; those are the hallmarks of beauty in our society. If she weren't pretty, she'd never have been cast on a television show. Whoever keeps denying that she's pretty has extreme standards.

Her personality isn't pretty, even though she applies a ton of make-up to it. If she were invited, she'd stay away from the Met Gala next year. It didn't work out too well for AOC this year.

They were going to be one of covers so it’s not farfetched to think she was styled for the photo, as in the ring and some of the other jewelry were lent, even the clothes could’ve been borrowed as the brand names eventually “leak”.

[quote] If she were invited, she'd stay away from the Met Gala next year. It didn't work out too well for AOC this year.

Are you kidding? If there's one thing she's proven she actually will run toward it's an error in judgment.

It totally worked out for AOC. She got a shit ton of attention and approval. Meghan probably observed with great interest and envy.

'Tax the Rich' is not music to the ears of Met Gala attendees who paid $35,000 apiece to be there, plus $200-300,000 for a table.

Someone should tell AOC.

R219 Disagree, I think there’s a disconnect there. They like the subversive message, as I’m sure Meghan and Harry do too. It’s something they don’t think applies to them, or that they can maneuver around.

I think MM is attractive, was even with her original nose. But it’s an average attractiveness. Nothing special. I can walk in the streets of my city and see 30 girls prettier than her.

Will we find out which of the seven covers sold the most?

Because if Grim & Dim sold the least I will laugh for a week.

(And sulk if they sold the most).

Seriously, who buys physical magazines anymore?

Doctors & dentists?

These are the real "Influencers" as nominated by William's Earthshot Prize. They actually DO something to improve the world. Doubtful that any of these people fly around in private planes to play polo for a couple of hours.

Thomas Markle strikes again.

She was a homely child who became a cute adult. She was never sexy or striking.

Her rat eyes, weird body shape, and emaciated legs cancel out all her average cuteness. But above all, she's truly ugly from the inside and it shows.

R215 Clear skin? She has very average to terrible skin in real life. As we see on the Time cover, she’s addicted to photo filters, and she has used them abundantly in her videos. Don’t be fooled.

^ She looks like one of those bananas she likes to grafitti.

Some more of her “clear skin”:

You can see her natural hair texture in that photo.

One more for laughs:

The photo is a little less obnoxious than this one:

R229 I agree. She has indifferent skin, a wonky eye, a ski jump nose that has been lifted at the end, chiclet teeth that represent thousands in dental bills, and one of the worst figures any wardrobe department had to dress: stick legs, no waist, thick middle, broad shoulders, and low-placed breasts. And that's before the brutalised, dry, and clearly half-fake Morticia Addams hair.

She looked quite nice in her early Suits days, as they knew how to dress her, and she still looked youthful, and the hair was still nicely cut, shaped, and conditioned.

But she seemed to have some sort of image meltdown once she got into the BRF. It was like her only aim was to try to out-dress impeccably tailored tall, slim Kate with her nice legs and small waist, and compete with Kate for the longest possible straight hair.

You could see Meghan falling apart from how bad she looked as she reliased that she was out of her depth this time. God, remember the lampshade dress and how horrible her hair looked, not least because she'd refused to wear a hat that day?!

I think Meghan was obsessed with Kate, not William. Meghan's main focus of competition is other women. She uses men, but she is threatened directly by women, especially ones who seem to have gotten what she wants but without having to claw their way up, fuck creeps, and market themselves 24/7 the way she had to.

It's too bad she didn't realise she'd landed fabulously at last and could stop hustling for more.

She should've only worn her watch and wedding ring for the photo. New money parades the whole jewelry box. She knows this but can't help herself. She probably removed a necklace just before the photo session so as not distract from face, face, FACE.

Wasn't Coco Chanel who said when you dress to go out, remove one accessory before you leave?

^ Wasn't it Coco

Influential my skinny behind. Wasn't he gonna go out and solve all the knife crime in the UK a few years ago? Too busy saving the whole world to go to the Met, they think we're that stupid!

An artist's rendition of the Time cover. I love the Harry's Bag of Nuts.

I doubt she looks that "pretty" without the hair extensions, heavy makeup, designer clothes and photoshopping.

Yikes!

R 242..Thank you, thank you, You are my Hero. OMG I can't stop laughing. My Bad...

I think she is just churning through his trust fund before she leaves him and he just believes everything she says about how there'll be more than enough money coming in to pay it all back. Remember, he knows nothing about money and how the real world works.

She won't get all his cash in the divorce, but she can get it from him while they're still married.

" Meghan said their focus right now is being of SERVICE,and that attending glitzy events like the MET gala is wasted time and energy that could be put to good use towards those suffering in need."

I wonder what they did that night then. Were they out at a needle exchange or a homeless shelter? Maybe cooking up meals in a soup kitchen?

We know the answer.

This was Nutmeg on the night of the MET gala.

Musings on the cover shot.

William must be laughing himself sick at this cover.

Her number one fan, still trying to look Korean

Notice he is wearing Black and she is wearing White.

Please, no photos of the plastic gremlin.

Has the revised edition been released?

The now legendary day out with the Queen, and minus the hat that would she was gently instructed to wear ("The Queen will be wearing a hat tomorrow." [hint hint]), didn't, with the result that the world could see how awful her hair really is. Not to mention the lampshade dress, never seen again, but costing the UK taxpayer thousands.

The article is hilarious in light of subsequent events.

Really, TQ is either a saint or a fool.

If I were the art director..Harry must remove the tacky and distracting bead bracelets. Then I would have them photographed looking off, or at each other, but never directly into the camera lens. Appear cross eyed at times, both, but their phony comes straight through.

Question word salad experts: on website read “creative activations” is that word play same as creative actions?

Who knows what her own hair looks like...mostly falls, extensions, weave, wig. So not fair to say. She could try Natalie woods wig, not have to cut real hair. Lots celebrities, most change looks for fun or attention. If she has the wispies, does she do that to appear carefree and natural to public, like she’s a natural beauty? Everything is calculated. She’s no beauty but uses what and who she can very well...the best.

Admittedly, if I were in a similar position and someone said to me, “ The Queen will be wearing a hat tomorrow.", I’d think, well, ooookay, that’s nice. Because the queen always wears a hat.

Is there some reason they can’t be forthright and say, it’s customary to wear a hat if you’re with the queen because she’ll be wearing one. There’s no reason to be vague unless you’re passive aggressive.

I'm no Meghan fan, R256, but that is super passive aggressive. "The Queen will be wearing a hat." So? Just tell the girl to wear a fucking hat if you want her to wear a hat.

A Brit would understand immediately that he/she was being told to wear a hat. I would hazard a guess MM’s assistants told her to wear a hat, but politely, and she chose to ignore.

Like with that mouth of hers she wouldn't have said, "Bitch are you telling me I have to wear a hat? Cause if you are doing that you better remember who the fuck I am."

I don’t believe that it was left at “The Queen will be wearing a hat”. Markle had advisors who would have told her that meant she needed to wear one - I think she just refused. Just like she was told the Wimbledon dress code and ignored it.

Arrogant cunt.

[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.]

Thanks to r10 I've had "If you don't look good, we don't look. If you don't look good, we don't look good. Vidal Sassoon!" playing on a loop in my head. Curses!

This is how I see their relationship. From Harry's perspective, it is what 14 yr olds experience. But he is stuck there. Arrested development. Meghan, meh, she is guiding that little sailboat, and is all in for a certain objective. Well...kids, even Bryan Adams got out of the game because 14 yr old groupies are embarrassing (and dangerous) when you are like 40. I mean...everything has a lifespan and this flower is long on the bloom.

What genre of spiteful comments do you think wound them the most? That MM is fat? That Harry is dumb and whipped? That they are a joke?

R263 here. I forgot, because I was listening to that damn hook from Bry again. What was the risk that Meghan took, and what was Harry's? In their relationship? Meg = 0, Harry = Everything (I do it for you).

I would have thought that being called fat would be the most wounding to Meghan, but she just allowed herself to be photographed in pleated pants, so maybe not.

Like, did Harry never get laid before Meghan? I don't get it. Poor fucking bastard.

I wonder if he misses Chelsey Davy and the kind of carefree camaraderie they seemed to have. Now life is so urgent and important and, suddenly two kids.

Suddenly gay men think she is pretty lmfao r206. Are you sure YOU are a man? Now ask some straight men. The good looking ones, not fug Harry. She is fug too. Always has been. That's just a fact. Giant fivehead, ski slope nose, fish hook mouth, her real hairline is receding, her body shape is square with no tits or ass and wheelchair legs. Look at the men she dated, look at Trevor, not attractive. BOTH Meghan and Harry are average on a good day. How bad is your taste or how ugly are you that you find her attractive?

Her "beauty" is on full display in all of these photos r233 hehe...just gorgeous! Seriously, is her PR here again today? Has the poster who stated "She wouldn't be on TV if she weren't pretty" not seen the numerous non pretty people on TV the past few decades?? Lens Dunham anyone?? Please.

R258 is right, that's a genuine cultural difference there - a Brit *would* understand what that meant (and that it wasn't ambiguous). If it was any other American I could buy that they genuinely didn't understand. I'm not sure I have any generosity left for Meghan, plus surely she will have had people around her (multiple, qualified people apparently) who could have explained when they realized that she did not intend to wear a hat?

Also, yeah, she's pretty. I think she was prettiest on Green Revenge Dress Day, fresh from her post-Archie weight loss and brand new fillers/Botox after going without for months.

There's that infamous photoshoot from her early 20s where she looks every inch the unpolished, ever so slightly not-skinny struggling actress she was. She's prettier now than she was then because she has had very, very good tweaks done but she was never ugly. The clothes and the 90s brows, the embarrassing poses etc. aren't helping her back then but she was still above-average. She's actually a good example of what good work can do for someone who is just above average. But work or not, she's a very pretty woman. In the latest shots she's still carrying baby weight but she's vain af and I 100% expect her to emerge freshly thin and injected sometime around Xmas/early 2022.

It doesn't matter, either. Her being pretty doesn't make her a better person or not an absolute narc mess. I don't think her stans would be as rabid if she was ugly, but I would dislike her just the same.

R264 asks a very good question!

I think she’s most insecure about her humble roots. I think Harry is bothered most about being called a spare.

I think what bothers her the most is them being laughed at. I bet that's the thing that digs right deep down in her soul, that all her dreams of being worshipped and envied and defended as an untouchable icon of goodness and philanthropy are going to shit and the internet is making memes out of her. Being laughed at is, for people like her (and Harry), much worse than being hated.

Here is the best use of a white costume by people who actually have achieved and are excellent. Receipts don't lie.

Being an actress, MM is very good at controlling her facial expressions. Very seldom do you see the mask slip. Thanks to fillers and botox, she does have a fresh, open, youthful face. She looks like she'd be warm. Her frequent smile, with the white teeth and full lips is meant to provoke a positive response. But once you know her, the effect doesn't work, specifically that she has a foul mouth, bullies employees, and abandons friends and family.. The smile seems fake, like on ballerinas, beauty pageant contestants and Las Vegas showgirls.

However, as much as I like Kate, I think this is one area where MM surpasses her. Kate's thinness, plus her smoking, and especially that she has had no theatrical training, often cause her to show her negative emotions on her face. Putting up with Will's peevishness must become wearing.

The hat thing is an example of how they're never the ones in the wrong. Meghan was asked to wear a hat on an engagement with the Queen and her staff would have been under no illusions about that but she didn't want to so she didn't. Just like she was advised to stop winking to the press about the relationship before they were married with necklaces and instagram posts but no, no "male, pale, stale" assholes weren't going to tell her how to run her life!

Yet she goes on Oprah and complains that no one tried to help her and they tried to shut her down because they were so jealous. If it's what they want to hear it's great support, if it's advice they don't want to hear it either doesn't exist or people are trying to bring them down.

R277 I thought you can see the mask slip a lot on Meghan and that fake cheesy smile she wore at other times convinced a lot of people she was fake. Very little seemed natural.

R277 is a clear sunchine sachs troll. Nobody on here writes like this except them. They always say the opposite of what is true.

Trolldar is your friend, R279.

R277

R278, no, you don't see the mask slip often, R278, at least not in photos. It is comical when everyone else in the photo is scowling, eg the event where she had on the green horror. But when you know what she's actually like when the cameras stock clicking, you know the whole thing is fake.

R277

R277 Yes you do. You can see it when she's talking to all sorts of people. She did it with the person who said "yes we know, we get the news" when she told them she was pregnant in a nursing home she looked furious, when she was handed "presents" that she wasn't interested in by school kids, when she looked bored out of her skull at a garden party, when she was on the balcony and Princess Anne blocked her from standing next to the queen, when Harry said something she didn't like, when her own mother started saying something at her book launch....

There were a lot of times when she noticeably wasn't happy with what had just happened. The other half of the time when she had that perma grin on her face fooled no one because it looked pretty unnatural, just like when she clutched at Harry every time they went out together. Maybe the first few times it worked but it was too OTT to be believable long term. That's why most royals opt for "polite interest" as their default. Meghan did not have that and that's okay since she was new.

Even today one of the biggest things they struggle with is authenticity. Which isn't helped by apparent bandwagon jumping, fake royal events and terrible posing.

Her smile has a smug, smirking quality to it, not warm at all. Her mask slips plenty, and she does a rapid fire eye blink when she’s enraged.

Her smile sure slipped on the balcony during the Trooping The Colour ceremony. Harry told her to "turn around" a couple of times because she was talking and moving a lot during the National Anthem.

There's no evidence Kate smokes. It's the swap out for her skirts. Troll.

Kate’s been photographed smoking, as has William.

May have given up now but she certainly used to.

The thing is Meghan had an agenda when she married Harry. Other women, when they marry into the BRF, attend openings and things and smile for the cameras. Meghan had to look like she was in charge, Doing Things that no one else thought to do. It was all about her. She was making stuff happen!

You can see how tiresome that would be.

Re: mask slipping. There was hardly a time when I *didn’t* think she was a phony grifter, so, to me, it’s as if there’s no mask at all. The most delightful examples are the wedding in Jamaica where she’s cunting at the waiter and glaring at another woman.

Someone just made a great video of the numerous times her mask slips. She's a terrible actress so its always been obvious what she was about. Both Meghan and Harry have been photographed smoking r286, Meghan as recently as summer 2016. No wonder she has such bad skin.

I think Meghan peaked in terms of looks during her Suits days through her engagement. The best photo I have ever seen of her when I thought, "she looks amazing", is this often used photo where she is wearing a blue dress with Jessica Mulroney pre-Harry. Archie really killed her body and filled out her face. I will say she is one of those people where the nose job makes all the difference for the better - completely transformative. Ashlee Simpson was the same way. She had that nose job and became stunning for a while. She has the Tom's body, not Doria's.

r211 I have read numerous twitter threads among scientists, scientific journalists etc and most if not all think these endeavours towards immortality are deluded laughably and scientifically impossible. I guarantee this is bullshit wasa phrase used a few times with great scientific details given supporting their points. Jeff Bezos is trying a similar thing.

Immortality they described as unscientific idea but one that if carefully presented with selected details about the research can have average people with no strong scientific background buying into it as a possibility. Healthy ageing, optimised ageing , better health and ability for years more than average Yes. In developed countries making it possible for more than half the population to live to 100 and a smaller minority beyond Yes. But you have to ignore a he'll of a lot of scientific evidence and facts to leap from that to anything like immortality.

Nothing points past breaking the extremely barrier in current existence of around 120 is. Even if you got everyone in first world countries living to that age ,which you won't, that's still not immortality. Being physically healthier and more robust into later years with better quality of life . Yes it even that is a complex path. Below and this Russian guy are getting older and if they are deluded as some suggest they have started to panic because it has occurred to them one day they will fie and they will no longer be able to lead this grand king of the castle life. Their money won't save them and so they use their wealth to try and buy the impossible. The beneficial by product of that is research that could improve health and quality of life more generally but immortality no. Only a fringe beyond a fringe group of scientists believe that is remotely possible. One of the threads I read on two said that none of the scientists on the Bezos project believed there would be big breakthroughs within their lifetime. Or Bezos lifetime. They were too smart to believe that and any benefits that come beyond that would be life enhancing within limits not the delusion of immortality. The paychecks his foundation offered them , mainly for part time consulting roles was so generous they took the paychecks with zero commitment to the hyped up outcome.

Back on topic I think it's much more likely that Harry and Meghan have a big debt of IOUS to Sunshine sacks who gave them that perk because they believed wrongly the couple would be bigger and more successful than they are.

[Quote]I think this is one area where MM surpasses her. Kate's thinness, plus her smoking, and especially that she has had no theatrical training, often cause her to show her negative emotions on her face.

Are you saying Kate gets cranky because she's anorexic and jonesing for a ciggy? 🤔

I don't know about the smoking, but if you've seen pics of her in shorts at some sailing event and noticed her thighs -- damn they're thick and muscular -- the sort of thighs that would mortify someone with an eating disorder. Her face doesn't look gaunt (though drawn and tired-looking at time) and she's had three healthy kids. In other words, she has a body type.

Kate's not had theatrical training, but she's almost certainly had media and public speaking training (and received them gratefully). So what if she's displayed negative emotions as long as she's not an asshole to people, collects herself, and doesn't dwell on them and yap about them on international TV? Negative emotions and learning to deal with them appropriately are part of life. Certainly better than guessing at what's behind the mask.

Meghan may have had theatrical training, but has it really helped? The mask slips a lot. Also, if you hear her speaking publicly as she did at the reception for the Grenfell cookbook (which is a fantastic idea, BTW), you'd think not. She clearly wasn't following a prepared speech. She was not only using hand gestures like the younger royals do, she was dramatically waving and flinging her arms about distracting from the word salad she was delivering. (This is on the video right before she momentarily looked enraged at Doria when she deigned to speak to someone and ask questions. She didn't know she was being taped from afar).

I don't think Meg seriously considered public speaking or media training or accepted and listened to it as evidenced by that messy display. Narcissists don't accept advice because they think they know better and are smarter than the collective of expertise surrounding them.

R291 - SA, you don't have to convince me, talk to the billioinaires, including Elon Musk, who also just started a company looking into the anti-aging stuff. I think it's bullshit, too, but clearly they don't, and as they have money to burn and think they really ARE Masters of the Universe, they probably don't care that it's bullshit.

I always remember that line from "On A Clear Day You Can See Forever", when the Dean of the university (I think it's Bob Newhart) where Montand is carrying out his research expresses his contempt for the idiocy of the reincarnation discovery Montand is now trying prove. Montand asks in bewilderment, "Then why are you approving funding it?" Newhart shrugs and replies, "I could be wrong."

I think that's the line they're taking. And remember, it's not just immortality: huge fortunes will be made as treatments for horrible diseases are also uncovered using genetics and bio-engineering, as well as in calculations using health DNA on insurance and other costs. There's a good reason the Blackstone Group bought a controlling interest in Ancestry.com last spring, and it's not because they want to know where all their employees' ancestors came from (which Ancestry is crappy at, too - 23andme's process if more reliable, in my opinion).

R211

To the matter at hand - actually, we do know what her real hair looks like - she hates it and has been trying to hide it for the last 20 years.

Poor dears! I think we have enough reasons to dislike these two clowns.

Kate is extremely thin, but she's really athletic. There are plenty of bikini photos where you can see she is really toned. People with eating disorders don't have muscle tone.

R295 You can even tell in the photo of her getting her COVID vaccine that she has a lot of tone in her arms. She, like her mum, is just naturally thin.

Also it is believed Kate and William were smokers in their youth (as are/were numerous members of the royal family and huge swathes of the British public) but both allegedly quit after they got married.

The Harkles look like they smell bad.

[quote]Being an actress, MM is very good at controlling her facial expressions. Very seldom do you see the mask slip. Thanks to fillers and botox, she does have a fresh, open, youthful face. She looks like she'd be warm. Her frequent smile, with the white teeth and full lips is meant to provoke a positive response. But once you know her, the effect doesn't work, specifically that she has a foul mouth, bullies employees, and abandons friends and family.. The smile seems fake, like on ballerinas, beauty pageant contestants and Las Vegas showgirls.

She looks like she would be warm. Yes. That photo above, the close-up of her face in the green dress, I look at that photo and even knowing who/what she is I have to briefly remind myself. It's interesting - and uncomfortable - how deeply looks matter. Right now in this very thread people are defending Kate's looks. *As if any of it means anything.* As if Meghan currently being prettier than Kate somehow damages Kate's reputation or invalidates her or her work. Which - it doesn't. Kate is clearly the one out of the two of them who is a good mother, who cares about and endeavours to do the right thing, who is loyal and dedicated to her work and her family, who is willing and able to do her duty without (public) complaint.

And yet it matters so much that she has a few wrinkles and sometimes looks tired and gaunt! Meghan stans are so gleeful about it, and those who dislike Meghan (me!) are often perturbed by it.

Ask yourself who would you rather be? Who has the happier life? Who is more content in her skin? Who will be eaten alive by the realities of aging?

I'm not passing judgement on anyone here. OK, that's not true. I do judge the stans, for being blinded by looks and their own shallowness even as they strain to convince themselves their worship of an unaccomplished grifter is about anything except her looks (Meghan would have no stans if she wasn't pretty - she wouldn't be married to harry, either). But really, some perspective is in order. Her looks have nothing to do with her character. Which isn't to say looks don't matter because any adult human knows they do.

I'm just saying there's really no need to defend Kate. She has almost every advantage over Meghan - and if it still sticks in your craw that Megsy is a pretty one, perhaps it will provide some comfort to know that her vanity will almost certainly, as she ages, lead to her overdoing it (she's already on the borderline with that ridiculous hair) and becoming freakish at some point.

Saying Meg is "the pretty one" or that she is better looking than Catherine is wishful thinking. Being California cute does not compare to being genuinely beautiful.

I don’t think Catherine is beautiful. But neither is MM. Both are attractive women, but so are millions of women.

I think Kate has a grace of manner and an inherent, evident gentleness that will ultimately prove more lasting and resilient than any looks Meghan is currently (and temporarily) bringing to the table.

Kate isn't ugly. She's quite pretty, actually. Slim and tall etc. She's also almost 40. People age. They lose their looks. There's something to be said for not being seen to desperately fight it.

Kate's striking, I think, but she has big facial bones... I don't know how else to describe it.... her face is... big. Meagain's features are more compact. I would say Meagain is conventionally prettier (and it pains me to say it) but Kate makes the bigger impression, because she is striking. Kate also knows how to dress better and has the better frame for wearing clothes. Poor Meagain looks like a TV tray doing a handstand.

Kate is ten times prettier than Meghan. And she doesn't look manufactured the way Meghan does. She has a lovely figure, gorgeous hair, small nest features, and she looks good on jeggings, tailored suits, and evening gowns.

Ask any 20 women who they'd rather look like, and I can tell you Kate, especially in the hair and figure department, would get 19bput of 20 votes. And the other one lying out of DNA loyalty.

No woman on earth wants Meghan's figure, hair, and ashy skin.

Whatever cuteness Meg had was ruined with all the fillers, botox and kids.

I agree about Meghan's body R302 (and I'm one of the one's saying she's pretty). She doesn't just have an average body she has a distinctly below average body and it's an inherent shape/proportion thing, not something that can be solved with weigh loss/gain.

The extremely short torso and boxiness is unfeminine and it means she carries her pregnancies terribly (remember her in that cream couture caftan on some foreign trip during her first pregnancy? she was visibly lumpen in the strangest places because the weight gain and pregnant belly literally had nowhere to go except around her back and up under her boobs and armpits).

When it comes to their bodies Kate is the clear winner. Even at her ideal weight Meghan doesn't have a good shape.

Meghan only really looked great when she was starving herself, pre-Harry. Having extra weight on just makes her face look round and puffy. All the latest fillers are not helping either.

Google MM in a bikini and you, too, will be salivating. You will question your sexuality.

Here's an example of how any extra weight on her body makes her face rounded and puffy.

R306, eww. I have never seen ankle straps floating that loosely around ankles.

She looked absolutely stupid, Halloweenish that green get up w. the cape & that weird hat w. veil. Like the female Green Lantern or a female Leprechaun. Where has she been all these years? She's from Hollywood FFS & she can't get some help if she can't figure out how to dress. My female co-workers are always saying how they would love a make-over. To have someone take you in hand & make you look good, like a dream come true.

This photo? She's fug here. Her Suits days really were her best but she was never pretty, or cute. Not even the California kind. She's extremely plain and unremarkable. Cindy Crawford is pretty. Not Meghan Markle. Put Markle or her photo next to an actual pretty woman and it really stands out.

MM thinks she is god's gift to the world. She will not listen to anyone because she thinks she knows best. One very foolish belief is that the more expensive the clothes, the better it will look on her. She also thinks that the longer the hair, the sexier/younger she will present.

R311, she had those very defined bulimia muscles showing.

Let’s not forget that Meghan spent a fortune on plastic surgery to get to “reasonably attractive.” She was a 4 or 5 at best in her young adulthood. The multiple nose jobs did wonders for her, but like any plastic surgery, it loses its refinement at the 10 year mark thanks to gravity, aging and pregnancy. Her nose certainly spread during pregnancy and due to age, hence the not-so-straight bridge and wider base than in her Suits days. The legs are positively tragic. Polio legs. In the middle picture of R306, she looks terrible, boxy, stomach sticking out and these bony chicken legs. I’d wear pants if I was her.

Kate isn’t a legendary beauty but she’s firmly in the elegant sphere, fit, and naturally girl-next-door pretty. The hair looks natural (even with a few extensions, she never overdoes it like Markle) and her legs are gorgeous.

Kate doesn't have extensions, that's her natural hair. Meghan was not above a six in her prime. Yes, she looked better, but her nose is still a ski slope and her features are unattractive. That jaw alone is hideous.

Are you saying that her head basically turns into a basketball when she gains weight?

^^ Pretty much, yes. Just look at all the photos of events she attended during and after her pregnancy.

R315 Let’s not be so naive, dear. She’s utilized hair extensions on occasion and she had a very subtle nose job as well in her early twenties. But it’s all very conservative and well done.

Absolutely brilliant new Time cover!

Oh sweetie, I'm far from naïve r318, unlike yourself dear. I'll wait for your links to the proof.

Google is your friend, R320.

Like I said, it was done, but very discreetly and tastefully.

Ih well that’s definitive, r322. /s

I don’t think Catherine has had a nose job. I think her weight loss changed her features, slightly.

That hardly compares to the morticia hair worn by mm.

I haven't plowed through all the posts in this thread but has anybody mentioned Markle's diamond pinky ring? It was made from a "gift of diamonds that the couple received from the Middle East." It originally given to Dimwit, who of course gave it to Markle, who gave it to celebrity jewelry Lorraine Schwartz to "rework" them. The NY Post said that " the exact provenance of the diamonds — and the identity of the person who gifted them — is unknown" but it's for certain that they were "still working royals" when they received the gift. The NY Post went on:

The mystery over the pinky ring comes after Markle was criticized earlier this year when it emerged she wore a pair of chandelier diamond earrings on her tour of Fiji in October 2018 that were a wedding gift from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.

The crown prince, known as MBS, has been accused of ordering the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Michael Eisner, who heads up a human rights group founded by Khashoggi three months before his death, said: “Those earrings were bought with blood money and given to her by a murderer … she has no business wearing them.”

The Chopard earrings were presented to the Queen by the crown prince as an official gift for Markle on her wedding day to Harry in 2018.

Markle’s lawyer has said she had no knowledge at the time of the reports linking MBS to Khashoggi’s death.

The crown prince, who is Saudi Arabia’s deputy prime minister and day-to-day ruler, has said he bears responsibility for the murder “because it happened under my watch,” but has denied prior knowledge of the execution.

The Dawn human rights group, run by Eisner and Hatice Cengiz, Khashoggi’s fiancée, last year filed a lawsuit against MBS and 20 alleged co-conspirators in a US court.

This is the owner of Time Magazine....even he's laughing!

The Daily Mail article on the ring is basically an exercise in using more words in order to avoid calling someone a liar, but still calling that person a liar. I think the DM knows - Page Six likely does, too - that the ring (or just the stone in the ring) is dodgy af. The fact that Meghan hasn't really been held to account for the earrings (which we KNOW were from a fucking murderer - and which she and everyone around her knew too, hence her being warned off wearing them - and ignoring the warning) isn't a good look for the stans or for leftie publications but it's also not a great look for us tbh.

Even on the DM story most of the comments were along the "who cares?" lines and I dunno, i feel like this is a different level than ill-fitting underwear or obvious leaks to Omid Scobie. This bitch is straight ordering us to accept her as a global humanitarian and she's wearing diamonds from middle-eastern thugs and dictators? How is that being allowed to fly in ANY quarter?

OH SHIT R326

Oh that isn't going to do anything for the Montecito Society For The Preservation of Crockery at all.

It's real, too. The head of Time magazine is making fun (light, yes, but a gentle ribbing is still a ribbing and you KNOW Meghan has zero sense of humour) of these 2 clowns. Oh this is fucking DELICIOUS.

r327 The woman and her dumbo sidekick are completely phoney and more and more people are realizing hence their falling approval ratings and the waning interest in them. They are not victims and they are not sympathetic to most people. She is about as much a global humanitarian as I am straight.ZILCH A big fat zilch.

The thing is….if they received the diamonds as working royals then they belong to the Crown, not the Harkles.

Any gift worth over £100 that is not from a personal friend is Crown property.

Have they stolen them?

I remember Richard Palmer at the Express saying that they had tried to avoid handing over the Saudi earrings so I think they have form.

[quote] This bitch is straight ordering us to accept her as a global humanitarian and she's wearing diamonds from middle-eastern thugs and dictators?

Yeah, how about that? I think wearing diamonds that came from those sources is appalling. Some "humanitarian!"

They were counting on Orca to win that emmy for their interview. They wanted to title themselves the emmy award winning couple.

r332 I was convinced Oprah would win.Why do we think she didnt win and why didnt she take Harry and Meghan to the Emmys ceremony?

YES, R311. Bitches of the DL BRF threads, I am making a declaration. Photo at R311 is the absolute prettiest, hottest Meghanhas EVER looked. This is her absolute best. I've seen it all and this is her absolutely peak.

That's her best? Not much to write home about is she?

Ew no, the pic at R311 predated her jaw refinement surgery

R328 For Times this is totally a "any publicity is good publicity" situation. I mean lets face it, people have talked about the magazine more in the past few days than in the last decade or so. For H&M this is probably an ego blow. They clearly take themselves very seriously.

That interview was a pile of steaming shit.

Oprah lost the Emmy because squaddies and bots can't vote. (They are screaming racism, though.)

I was shocked Oprah lost. I think secretly, quietly loads of people are sick of a lot of the ridiculous shit going down...everything is all racism all the time. Gets tired real fast to be harangued at all the time. People nod to your face then try in any way possible to fuck you behind your back. The quiet revolution there have been a few.

I'm LMFAO at you r320 and your pathetic attempts to smear Kate. Using silly PR articles as "sources" omg, hahaha....you're very gullible. Now, somebody please tell me why anyone would ever in a million years think they would go to the Emmy's and that this interview would win. Its like people here honestly don't have critical thinking skills. Why on earth would they? They are global laughingstocks.

Harry and Meghan are proof positive that all "royalty" should be immediately abolished! Then they'd no longer have their titles and neither would any of the others! No one should ever be addressed as "Your Royal Highness" in this day and age. Think about what those words actually mean. You are high above me by dint of birth. Pure rubbish.

Totally agree r341. Its absolutely ridiculous.

R341 Point's out something I don't get about Meghan and Harry supporters who love them but hate the monarchy. H&M refuse to give up their titles and until they do, they are still part of the monarchy even from a distance.

Have there been any Archie sightings?

[quote] Have there been any Archie sightings?

I think I saw a picture of him recently. He's an unprepossessing baby. No sign of the the girl child, though. I wonder when they'll reveal her to the public? Maybe they're waiting until the price is right.

Archie is possessed?! No wonder he never comes out.

Re the earrings in Fiji, for anyone else curious, the murder happened very early in October although there was still a lot of confusion as to what actually happened, the guy clearly never walked out of the Saudi embassy. The dinner where she wore the earrings was mid-October. In fact, they left on the trip after the murder was in the news so why were the earrings even packed for the trip? I know they plan the wardrobe way in advance (cue the poorly-fitting clothes as she was pregnant by then) but seems like they had time to sub in a different pair of earrings.

R341 Yay, mission accomplished!

Her staff say they advised her not to wear the earrings but she wouldn't listen. So that's probably why they were packed. And contrary to what they said in the interview courtiers can't force a member of the family to do or not do anything.

She shouldn't have WANTED to wear them, big believer in free speech and standing up against cruel royals that she is!

To say nothing of the fact that her "friend" she posted about on the Tig, Loujain al Hathloul had been kidnapped by Saudi officials and was being tortured for campaigning for women's rights.

Y’know, that’s a question Oprah could’ve asked. She asked about the avocado toast.

R350 Because the Oprah "interview" was nothing more than a PR exercise designed to make the couple look like victims and to line Oprah's pockets with money.

Harry and Meghan are a joke. It also shows what trash Time magazine has become. I do love the fact the Benioff, owner of both Time and Salesforce, a huge Silicon Valley player is dragging them (even good naturedly) makes me smile. Rebuffed by the general elite via Obama's lock of invite and now the punchline by a titan of tech, it doesn't look the M&H will be taking the Bay Area by storm after all. Is Harry still holding those positions with those tech organizations as a consultant or board member? Haven't heard much of that. H&M jump on the bandwagon of everything and then let it fall by the wayside. I assume the 40x40 is an afterthought now too.

I'm still laughing at the 40x40 thing. Who publishes a press release to recognize their own birthday? Not even members of the royal family think they're special enough to do that.

The balls of her to imitate Obama's 44x60 bday theme. She just can't help herself, which at the end of the day makes Meghan so much fun to hate.

Lol, R352. These positions Harry "held" (or holds) are honorary. They want to bring attention to their org by associating with someone famous. He's an idiot who couldn't pass high school without the royal family stepping in. He's not college educated. Do you really think he'd be of any use to some tech company except for his name/title?

Wonder how quickly any Company that utilized any part of either of them or their shell companies(looking at you Starchwell, etc.)are slowly backing away from them. They have to drop them slowly in hopes that people won't remember how quickly they signed them up as "spokesperson'. Like didn't any of these idiot companies ever check out Harry actually speaking off script, or struggling to read the cues cards? Megan having to interrupt or provide physical prompts, wrist taping, hand grabbing, back touching so he can carry on? I can envisage Oprah doing the classic Mariah Carey head shake, Don't know her meme really soon. That interview is now a stinky albatross around Big O's neck as well. Seems about right. Love when Justice is swift!

The baffling part is did Harry really believe the PR image created for him by the RF? Did Meghan believe it? Didn't they realize that this shit they spout with all their documented history was going to blow up in their dumb , too much botox faces?

R330 Not if they were wedding presents.

Queen Elizabeth and her sister were both given gifts of top quality loose diamonds on the trip to South Africa just before Elizabeth's engagement to Philip was announced. The jewellery made with those diamonds I don't think has ever been publicly identified, and remained the personal property of both women all their lives.

I suppose we'll never see that phenomenal sapphire and diamond suite the Saudis gave Diana as a wedding gift ever again.

What a shame.

Not only did the Times owner tweet the L'Oreal meme, he also retweeted the meme of Harry singing I Want to Break Free from behind Meghan.

They're a joke.

[quote] Not if they were wedding presents.

Sorry, but you’re wrong. It was all explained quite clearly when the hullabaloo over the Saudi earrings happened.

If they received a gift (for their wedding or anything else) from an individual not personally known to them & that’s worth over £100 then it’s the property of the Crown.

This stands to reason if you think about it. Why would the Saudi royal family send people they’ve never met an expensive wedding gift? They wouldn’t…they are sending it as a mark of respect to the royal family. In other words, sending it to the “position” rather than the person.

The BRF are also not allowed to profit from their positions….accepting hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of jewellery from strangers is profiting….strangers who are only sending such gifts as a matter of diplomacy.

It’s different if it’s from a friend - Elton John gifting a £1m necklace would be fine, as he knows Harry. But from a foreign dignitary who has never met either of them, it is not.

The recipient of these gifts is allowed lifetime use, but they belong to the Crown. I don’t know anything about the jewels you’re talking about but they are either owned by the Crown and used privately (as is normal) or gifts from people known personally.

Markle herself confirmed she didn’t own the Saudi earrings when she bit back at the criticism, so I don’t know why you think she does own them. She doesn’t. And if she was gifted diamonds from people not previously known to her in the Middle East as a direct result of her association with the BRF, then she doesn’t own them either. Which would make her a thief.

It is quite a statement about the Harkles that TIME's owner made fun of the cover of his own publication.

Have her stans noticed? Has the DM yet?

Her being a thief would shock, Who? Would even surprise anyone? Doubt it. Of course manifesting aka grifting is more ego enhancing & a great cop out to help feed your own denial & delusional system. Hate to break it, but Manifester aka grifter is a fancy moniker for bloody thief. And we all know both Megs & her mom are thieves, whoops Manifesters. Hint: Don't leave your purse open around them or they might manifest a few things from it.

Yeah, none of us like her (or him) on this thread, R361, but you sound completely unhinged, to be honest.

I guess it's win-win for TIME as it keeps the story in the news and generates clicks and engagement and everything. And he's also showing he's in on the joke or whatever so TIME gets more publicity for being meta. For the Sussexes however it's less of a win since this was supposed to launch them as a serious power couple who command global respect and now it's a meme making fun of them and a lot of talk about the write up is faker than the pictures.

They also don't have social media so they can't participate in the joke and show they're good sports too.

They're out of the their minds if they truly believe the "power couple" talk. He's a moronic prince; she's a former Z list actress. Why would anyone serious take them seriously?

r364 gets it. Its astonishing to me that anyone ever thought different.

R356 I don't know if Harry actually believed the PR that Edward Lane Fox created for him but he definitely seems to have believed the hype that came from that image. That he could carry on topping the opinion polls on members of the BRF into Hollywood and megabucks. She did too.

Listening to Harry's recent interviews it seems that he hated actually showing up to do engagements and felt he was being overworked when he did 100 engagements a year - his aunt, father and grandparents doing 300-400 a year each. So he wanted all the perks and praise but resented having to do anything to keep popular. Which seems to be their current trajectory where everything they say/do is awesome and everyone who disagrees is a troll, jealous or racist.

Critical thinking about his life doesn't seem to have ever crossed his mind.

R358 He also retweeted a post from Murky Meg before deleting it after being bullied by Meghan supporters.

For those discussing MM's fat, round head when she puts on weight, see proof.

Remember that pregnancy contract that she wrote up in her first marriage? It had a lot of provisions for getting back into shape after birth that I guess the husband was supposed to pay for (not sure why they wouldn’t split the cost or have co-mingled funds but, Hollywood). I wonder if she had the same agreement with Harry?

I doubt it. That contract was created when she wasn't done climbing and she thought she needed to stay in fighting shape to land a higher mark.

The salient point is that it was never about others taking them seriously, but a out how seriously they take themselves. That last is what gives them their hubris.

And fair play to them, that hubris, backed by high visibility royal connections, has gotten them farther than the real talent of either one merits.

They'll roll along for the foreseeable, creating periodic waves as they continue to milk their royal adjacency whilst pretending to be about something else. They don't care that they aren't quite either Bill Gates or William and Kate. Some foggy position that's a shadow of both has gotten them a life of wealth and comfort that Meghan could never have gotten in her wildest dreams strictly on her own merits. She's not only no Diana, or even Kate, she's no self-made WOC success like Viola Davis, Winfrey, Serena Williams . . .

And, by the way, the term grifter does have slightly criminal undertones.

It's someone who gets something or gets somewhere by presenting a false front and conning marks.

Cf. The excellent film, "The Grifters", with a marvelous performance by Anjelica Huston.

I don't agree at all, R371. I look at their bungling with disbelief. Everything they do misfires or backfires on them. They are so disaster-prone, it's comical.

A couple of years ago, when it really began to dawn on the public how horrid these two are, I asked someone here who had worked in Hollywood PR what he would recommend to rehabilitate the Sussexes tattered image. He replied, 'Charity, charity, charity'. But charitable endeavours must be seen to be congruent! You can't lecture the public, which tries to escape from rainy miserable Britain for one sunny week in Spain, whilst taking four private jet flights in 10 days. You cannot exhort others to kindness and compassion whilst your own elderly relatives are grieving, ill, or lonely and your own domestic staff quits in droves.

R372 Sounds about right. There's an angry, scolding air about them, it's not positive and doesn't make anyone feel good.

I agree with R371 and R372 in parts. They don't take themselves seriously, she does. She's got this unfounded vision and will be become something. He does as he's told. He is weak, dumb and damaged and she knows how to play it. But their hubris is their undoing. They have too much ick factor. I argue it too late for charity, charity, charity. Everything is self-serving. Nothing seems genuine (whether it is or it isn't and now it's too late for genuine not to be mistaken for self-serving.) They should have stuck with Invictus. There was a respectable, worthy idea there they could have owned for their lifetimes. They're the blundersons now.

The Media sharks are smelling the blood in the water & are circling. How bad is it when the guy who owns the magazine you were on the cover of is Publicly mocking your sorry asses. Mocking you, Not once, but twice. If this wasn't the dog whistle to call in the pack to tear them to pieces, I don't know what is. Have to wonder if the dying Time Mag. wasn't playing these 2 dullards like fiddle. Got everyone talking about Time & wondering was Time deliberately doing this to mock them too.

If you are extremely wealthy or privileged, to be taken seriously as a charity spokesperson, you have to have a personal connection with the charity's cause. Kate is clearly very family-oriented, both with her close family of origin and her own three children, and so people don't question her apparent sincerity in advocating for child well-being. Camilla has a personal connection with osteoporosis. The Camerons had a profoundly disabled child and much contact with the NHS as a consequence. When there are these personal connections, people are less prone to to question their commitment because of their social or economic status.

Megan has a deep connection with plastic surgery victims. She ought to advocate for that. Harry should advocate for Special Olympics.

But in MM's case, banging on about racism against black people does not fly when she has done everything possible to disavow her black heritage, including declaring herself as Caucasian.

Neither is it possible to suspend disbelief when you hear Prince Harry lamenting how his father cut him off financially at age 36 and he had to dip into his £40,000,000 inheritance to support his luxurious lifestyle. What next, Your Royal Highness, a GoFundMe campaign?

R376

r378, Skint Harry's "woe is me I am so poor" was shockingly bad. MM with her racism crap ,another bullshit. Teenager MM didn't pick up on racial tensions in LA,? She went to Uni and joined a white sorority, was never involved in student politics ever.

As far as I can find she never once went on a march or did anything for equal rights whether on grounds of race,gender or sexuality. Yet we get spoon fed this shit that she has been a life long activist. If people like Gloria Steinam and whoever buy that crap then shame on them.

When she was an actress, MM had her PR people get her two charity tourism gigs, in Africa and India, never went back or continued the association but she made a bunch of speeches that impressed people who don’t know that this “spokesperson for hire” is quite common. There are plenty of people in Hollywood who pick a charity that has actual meaning to them personally and consistently fundraise and make appearances for that cause. MM wants to be a power broker with her foundation.

Fucking foul the pair of them.

r372 and the charity gigs can't benefit them . because right know everything they do comes back to them and has them in the center . It comes across , not as genuine charity but as a PR exercise to get them attention with whatever case or charity as a supporting player .

R375 it really feels like the coverage (even in America) is finally flipping on them. The Time Magazine article has landed with a massive thud because most logical people can see it was nothing more than self-diluted nonsense. Even the CEO of Time was retweeting jokes about that cover which to me says they know it's a joke but any publicity is good publicity given the magazine industry is dying.

Oh and apparently sources close to the couple are saying they "opted not to go to the Emmys" just like they opted not to go to the Obamas or the Met Gala...

All that's really left to them now is shady deals with shadowy rich foreign gangsters.

Meghan failed as a royal not because of racism but become of her own self-importance. The truth is the key to being a successful royal is understanding it's not about you, you're actually not important or special had you no been born (or married) into the institution. The Queen gets this, Prince Philip got it, I think William and Catherine get it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...Meghan would have been set for life if she just rolled up her sleeves and just got on with it. Harry was the most popular member of the royal family below the Queen when he got married. The British Royal family is the biggest and oldest brand in the world. Once you're in, you're always going to be famous. I know their egos couldn't handle being behind William and Kate in the pecking order BUT Harry would never have been come an Andrew because his and William's relationship had a much different dynamic. William would have always ensured Harry had an important role partly because I'm sure he'd want George to not have to be burdened with royal duties too early. Meghan being the first biracial person to marry into the royals would have always been a source of interest.

Hollywood is harsh, particularly to women...they peaked with the Oprah interview and it's all down hill from here despite what their PR people put out.

[quote]Harry should advocate for Special Olympics.

Bahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Hilarious.

She has such a mean face and mean eyes. She can barely fake a smile. How could people be fooled by her? Remember when Kathy Griffin did those attention whore visits to the troops abroad that were all about publicity? Markle did that kind of shit too. Certainly everyone in Hollywood knew what her trips abroad were about: publicity, not humanitarianism. Watch Kathy’s Life on the D List and you will understand Markle.

That's what bugs me about her, R367. She goes on and on about being kind, but she seems like such a mean person. I would like her more (not much more) if she didn't try to fake it. Kate, whatever you think of her, has a kind face.

That Reitman's collection she got after meeting Harry had a commercial shoot, and the director publicly said on Instagram that she was the meanest person he had ever met. It was on one of Gary Janetti's posts. Speaking of him, watch his show The Prince on HBO Max! They literally rip on her and Harry non stop. She is portrayed as a desperate nobody and he is portrayed as being really dumb. Its actually hilarious, their scenes haha...HBO Max is also half price for ad free for 6 months if you are a new customer. I cancelled my account and signed up as a new customer with a different email. You gotta see them in this show hahaha.....

Whoa. I thought she had the Reitman's gig before she met Harry? I always wondered how a random z-list actress like her managed to get herself in a commercial. Wow this bitch got every single gig in her life by using men.

Yet she likes to pretend that she was this huge star before her involvement with dimwit.

The Reitman commercial is super bizarre with people all around her being starstruck over a nobody cable actress.

The “Kate effect” — selling out fashions worn by the Duchess of Cambridge — is well established, as are the frenzies stirred up by offspring George and Charlotte’s sartorial moments. Canada’s own Reitmans may be mobbed when the second Meghan Markle capsule collection launches Thursday on the heels of romantic rumours linking the TV star to one very eligible, very red-haired prince.

Six days before that gossip bomb landed, an impromptu celebration took place at Soho House in Toronto, though the reason is now virtually eclipsed by the Prince Harry factor. Palace-worthy cut-glass coupes appeared magically at the leather-rimmed round booth, followed, also via invisible hands, by champagne.

Markle, who plays paralegal-turned-law student Rachel Zane on the filmed-in-Toronto smash legal series Suits, had received some big news on her way to this interview: she had surfed past one million followers on Instagram earlier in the day. Just imagine what will happen to her Insta numbers now?

The excitement comes at an all-around swell moment for this California girl, who turned 35 over the summer. The collaboration with Montreal-based Reitmans “is totally an extension of my personal style,” she says, which she describes as, “Aspirational Girl Next Door.”

She was “deeply and passionate involved in the design process. I’m a brash American and if my name is going to be on something, I’m going to have my say.”

The five-piece line is modelled after what she wears in real life, running from day to night engagements, on and off of planes. It is also “an accessible version” of the glamorous duds she wears in character.

It is cast in sophisticated shades and includes two cashmere ponchos (grey and white), snug skinny trousers and a sexy pencil skirt both in chamois-soft black vegan leather, silk blouses also in grey or white and a fitted black bodysuit that riffs on Donna Karan’s revolutionary 1985 contribution to practicality and sleekness in women’s workwear.

Every piece in the line rings up at less than $100. “These girls go in to the store with their hard-earned money,” she says, of the fans who made her first Reitmans dress collection this spring a virtual first-day sellout. “And I care about that. I was not a girl who grew up buying $100 candles. I was the girl who ran out of gas on her way to an audition...

More self congratulatory nonsense follows, the doll story, etc etc. Some fun things I saw later in the story:

“Rachel Zane is a very classy Upper East Side gal,” says Markle... What??? Hahahaha....she IS Rachel Zane and Rachel Zane is a wannabe cheap whore with no standards.

Today, the online trolls are policed by Markle’s very own army of young female fans, who shame away the nasty comments before she sees them....interesting....is this an admission that she employs them?

The collection (all 5 pieces, sound familiar?) came out November 2016. This article was actually dated November 1st, 2016 about a day or two after it was outed that they were dating. She's always been a scammer and user, but we have to laugh really hard at her comical zoolander faces! Oh honey, you can't do ANYTHING requiringeven a modicum of talent, can you?

That interview say a lot more about her than she probably likes.

"The collaboration with Montreal-based Reitmans “is totally an extension of my personal style,” she says, which she describes as, “Aspirational Girl Next Door.”

"She was “deeply and passionate involved in the design process. I’m a brash American and if my name is going to be on something, I’m going to have my say.”

Ok, my bad I guess there was an earlier collection that came out around the same time they started dating, in April. I wonder if she leveraged meeting him into this deal.

Of course she used his name. She was the one leaking shit from day one. It enraged her that she wasn't chased by paps like Catherine was. That is why she made that shit up about the press breaking into her house and harassing her.

I suspect Jessica Mulroney got her the Reitman’s contract. Some of the pieces sold well, but Reitman’s is the Canadian equivalent of Dress Barn.

Was she a failed actress because she was genuinely untalented or because she was a cunt?

She is not a very good actress.

I haven't seen that article at r392 before,and agree with the comments 93-8,

"I'm a brash American...I'm going to have my say". This right here is why she is so disliked. So what that some Americans are more forthright than Europeans, that is a world away from brash, which is insultingly rude. Did she have some self awareness or a lack of vocabulary?

She seems to have a deep-seated need to express herself always.

[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.]

Will the Sussexes be in NYC physically or will it be a live satellite link?

Everyone needs to read the interview posted at r392. The word “girl” is used a lot. She also hits her resume highlights: racism, humanitarian, calligraphy and Cory is already in her rear view mirror.

Also, can someone extract meaning from this sentence?

[quote] Palace-worthy cut-glass coupes appeared magically at the leather-rimmed round booth, followed, also via invisible hands, by champagne.

R402 - if you actually read the article, you would know that H & M will be AT the event in NYC's Central Park.

Kate made an appearance this morning, she’s got the crazy long wavy hair as well. She and Meghan seem to be in some kind of staring contest (or hairing contest, nyuk nyuk). They’re both too old for it, but don’t ever post that comment on Instagram or a flock of screeching frauen will swoop down upon you: “This isn’t the FIFTIES, women can wear their hair whatever way THEY feel comfortable and sexy!”

Historically, women wore their hair long. Catherine has great hair and looks good still with long tresses. MM doesn’t, primarily because her hair is usually messy looking.

[quote]Palace-worthy cut-glass coupes appeared magically at the leather-rimmed round booth, followed, also via invisible hands, by champagne.

My take was that Harry arranged for 'only the best glassware and champagne' to be sent to her table to celebrate. I'm sure she arranged it all to impress the interviewer and use it as an excuse to be coy about who actually sent the champagne.

Ugh. But now that you mention it, it’s even more likely that SHE planned it—would it even occur to Harry?—and coyly implied it was Harry’s idea.

I'm confused by what she's done to her face. Pre-Harry and very early in the marriage, she had a sharply defined jaw and cheek areas. A poster pointed out that she had likely had botox injections into the masseter muscle causing it to atrophy and shrink. Now she wants a puffy filler face? Or did pregnancy permanently alter her face?

She was a lot thinner then.

R406 And because Catherine's is really hers.

Meghan's is a deadly embrace of weaves, extensions, and her natural African hair so brutalised with "relaxing" that it's probably all fallen out.

Meghan's wigs are hilarious! She's NEVER had hair like that in her life lmfao. She really is insanely jealous of Catherine. I can't wait to see them get mocked on the NY trip. If she thinks NY will be the place for her, she's crazy. They are old money there and similar to the British upper classes in how they view people like her.

This NY appearance seems to play to the rumor that they are eyeing a move to the East Coast.

I wonder if they'll show up? Apparently H&M were no shows for a Time Magazine event they were originally supposed to attend.

r414 Their showing all the signs of floundering badly as they try to resist the tide of their waning.

What makes so many of their antics so hilarious is that the pair of them seem to have absolutely no sense of humor about themselves. They take themselves sooooo seriously.

If they were at all clever (and they're not) they could respond to some of the mocking they are receiving (about the Time cover picture for one thing) with good humor.

But then, it's probably too late for that.

Old money in New York? Like who anymore? It's not as if Brooke Astor and Babe Paley are around to size them up.

Where is Gunilla Garson Goldberg when we need her?

The Queen is possibly the only 95-year-old in the world who would actually shock people if she died tomorrow. Most people assume she'll make it to 100.

I adore The Queen.

R419 It's funny Prince Philip was 99 and for the last few years of his life looked like death warmed over and yet I was shocked when I heard he died. The Queen actually looks like she's in better shape than her mother when she was 95. Barring something like COVID, I think the Queen could have another decade in her.

Apparently Meghan and Harry are meeting with the Mayor of New York tomorrow at the new WTC. These two are still acting like they are VIPs.

r422 Well the mayor of New York is partly to blame for being an enabler.

[quote]Apparently Meghan and Harry are meeting with the Mayor of New York tomorrow at the new WTC.

Massively impressed. Will the Duke and Duchess be doing a walk-about? I'm excited to see which longtime friend she will choose to be her lady-in-waiting on this tour. The flower bouquets are sure to be to much for even one lady-in-waiting! And Ido hope Meghan will have opportunity to perhaps give a public address to us all; her thoughts on current global affairs are vital words upon which world leaders perk up and learn from.

So basically they went up to the top of the World Trade Center, took a photo and left. WTF was the point of this.

Wouldn't be surprised if they paid a visit to that Harlem – school was it? – that Diana visited in the 90s.

Meghan and Harry instruct US Ambassador to the UN how to run the world.

She's so fat!

I am telling you, she's either pregnant or wants people to wonder.

R429 No, she's just a 40 year old woman who gave birth a few months ago and can't seem to get rid of the baby weight. Women, particularly those referred to as geriatric mothers (women over 35), have a much harder time losing the weight after each child. This is why she is wearing dark colors and turtlenecks.

They talk about the irrepressible Windsor genes.... I'd say the Thomas Markle gene is asserting itself - with a vengeance.

You can shun, but you can't hide, princess.

New York Gov Hochul and de Blasio suck up to the new American royalty Harry and Meghan.

OMG someone hem those trousers!

She looks really butch, actually, in that horrible navy blue outfit.

Do you think members of the Royal Family literally hate and loathe Meghan by now? Like really despise her?

R435 I think William absolutely loathes her for sure.

HELL YES R435. What's not to loathe?

Proof that her hair from the Time cover was only rented. 😂

She can't divorce him now. Her dreams and schemes are crushed beneath the weight of Thomas Markle's hips!

Every time she pulls on her stretchies she must see Kate in skinny jeans.

[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.]

LOL, for story time, she read "The Bench" to the school kids. Her own book. They must have been bored as hell to read a book with no plot and a bunch of abstract bullshit beyond their understanding.

She looks so frumpy in that red coat.

NYC temps were in the 80s Heavy overcoat is an odd choice.

I’m starting to think she’s pregnant again. Bit embarrassing given their grand delaration that they’d only have two.

Yup, when you can't draw a crowd on your own merits, just have your PR managers arrange a school visit; the kids will scream like they're meeting a rockstar, they don't know any better, they're just thrilled to be out of the classroom.

As if even half those kids even knew who these two losers were. Their families have real world problems, not made up issues like the Sussex's.

When the kids were told a circus was in town and a couple of clowns were coming to visit, this wasn't quite what they had in mind.

She's not pregnant again...I think she's having a hard time losing the weight she gained with Lili. Many mothers have a harder time losing the baby weight after a second child compared to the first particularly if they are older. Hence the reason she is wearing big coats despite it being hot out.

Are you her gynaecologist, R449? No. Then you have no idea whether she’s pregnant or not, do you.

But thanks for stating the fucking obvious that she’s dressed in blankets to hide that she’s a fat pig. We can see that for ourselves.

Is Markle aware of how much the public loathes her?

Neck thicker than a sea lion at the aquarium

The speculation about Beatrice's baby name has reminded me of the tour de force the Sussexes pulled off in naming their daughter. They publicly slag off the royals, then give the kid a name that will, for the rest of her life, remind everyone that she's the great-granddaughter of the longest-serving British monarch. And they co-opted a nickname which is highly personal to the Queen, one which anyone who didn't have the privilege of royal ancestry would be mocked incessantly for. I'm almost in awe of their brass necks at this point.

I hate that sleazy-looking mole over her lip.

But everybody is laughing at them for that r453. That's NOT something to be proud of, or look up to. This is one of the reasons people find them so incredibly distasteful and off putting.

They want to live "private lives" but but the NY Post reported that:

"Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been secretly taping their NYC visit for a rumored Netflix documentary about their lives, Page Six has learned.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex brought their own videographer with them on their whirlwind trip this week, and he was seen accompanying them around the city. He ran ahead of them as they stepped out before a tour of the 9/11 Memorial Thursday morning.

They also brought their own photographer, Matt Sayles, to document them, we have confirmed.

Harry appeared to be sporting a mic during his visit with his wife to iconic Harlem soul food eatery Melba Friday. He had a wire around his neck, which was then seen tucked into the pocket of his chinos as he hugged restaurant owner Melba Wilson.

Despite the hot Big Apple weather, Markle brought a wardrobe of heavy winter coats and jackets for all of their engagements — thick enough to hide any mic."

"Private lives?" If these two aren't the biggest hypocrites in the world I don't know who is.

Glad to that they've been exposed for recording their interactions. I wonder if they disclose and get agreement from the people they are meeting with. I wouldn't meet with them whatsoever if they were mic'd.

Local NYC news ran a story this morning about the “ROYAL” visit to Melba’s and interviewed Melba herself. I couldn’t tell if the story was to benefit Melba or Meghan and Harry.

Why didn’t they donate anything to the school they visited?

Who will watch this documentary of this pair doing their pseudo royal thing? I can't see the demographic for this at all.

Sorry I haven’t bothered to find an appropriate thread but I’m looking at pictures of Kate and William on the red carpet and OMG Kate is swathed in sparkly gold and has swept and piled her hair into the towering updo of my dreams.

R460 my jaw dropped! Kate looks STUNNING!

I read somewhere that they donated a box of vegetables to the school. Poor kids.

[Quote]This is why she is wearing dark colors and turtlenecks.

Turtlenecks accentuate double chins, hence r452's comment. She could have worn a simple tailored white shirt that doesn't need to be tucked in and a short gabardine coat, not freaking cashmere in 80 degrees. An interesting neckline could have diverted attention down and away from her burgeoning chin bump.

And why does she insist on wearing too long, billowing palazzo pants? Unless you're 5'8" or taller don't bother.

Tack a hem up, it takes about a dozen stitches,but we all know it's an effort for a princess.

^ A white sail, surely?

[quote]And why does she insist on wearing too long, billowing palazzo pants? Unless you're 5'8" or taller don't bother.

What Meghan wants, Meghan gets. Even to her detriment.

You can see how wide Meghan's middle area is here.

Double chin alert!

Meghan has gone from chicken legs to thunder thighs. Here is her Sponge Bob boxy midriff.

That's my girl!

Holy shit. What Meghan tries to do with thousands in 3 hdeous outfits, fake portfolios, unnecessary huge security details, and moronic statements . . .

Kate does in one dress.

Apparently Kate's golden dress cost just over 1/3 of what Meghan's ill fitting plum pyjamas cost and much less than most other outfits she wore on their big tour. How does she manage to keep getting it so wrong? There must be stylists willing to help her look her best with the baby weight.

William and Kate look regal.

Harry and Meghan look like their playing dress-up.

I noticed, Kate's dress is the same pattern as other ones she has had from JennyPackham(sp). Same with her coats,always the same pattern. This makes it cheaper, they just buy the fabric and tweak the styles.She doesn't buy all the runway crap.

Oh, William is definitely getting out his royal sceptre tonight

Kate's gown even has a hint of that "naked" look in the upper legs - just enough but not enough even to approach vulgar.

Her hair looks fabulous, the gown fits her like a glove, and the makeup is glam but not overdone.

She looks utterly fantastic, but more to the point . . . she looks royal.

No matter what Harry and Meghan do, they come across as second-rankers trying like hell to pretend they're actually on a level with the Cambridges.

The Global Citizen's Event from New York was a ratings bust - it did worse than the Tony's, which did dismally.

From Variety:

"On another ratings front, the scammish Global Citizen concert scored just 1.55 million viewers showing clips from their egregious day of spending millions on rock stars and nothing on the poor or the hungry. The rock stars are using Global Citizen to look like activists and get attention for their music. The Global Citizen execs are using the rock stars for big salaries and hobnobbing. The whole thing is absurd."

Everything the Sussexes touch turns to brass.

^*Sorry, that quote is from Showbiz 411, not Variety.

I was gonna say, that's pretty rough for Variety.

[Quote]You can see how wide Meghan's middle area is here.

And YET she tucks a shapeless shirt into ugly sansabelt pants (remember those DLers who grew up in the '70s?) No, no no!!! A tailored shirt that doesn't tuck in and worn over flattering tailored trousers are called for. Why that weird fabric worn so closely over the totally burgeoned abdomen that makes it look like an aircraft carrier's landing deck?

Pat Morita wore it better.

r475 I think so too and I hope he impregnates her!

Meghan needs to have a consult with Stacy and Clinton.

^^ And Nick Arrojo and Carmindy.

Harry showing his dirty chonies to the Harlem schoolkids. Compared to his regal brother, the ginge is a fucking mess.

Meg, LARGE and IN-CHARGE

Dem thighs!

She FAT!

Kate shows up to a movie premiere, walks the red carper in a stunning dress for five minutes, doesn't say a word, every media outlet in the UK and US is talking about her...just saying.

Megs looks so luxe in red! Like a classy, comfortable sofa!

But that sofa doesn't look overstuffed.

I must say, that red suede sofa is gorgeous. MM looks the worst I have ever seen her in that red get-up.

Something nice: that cranberry red is a fantastic color for Meghan. She looks good in saturated colors.

It’s still way too warm outside for those layered get ups.

I can’t fault her for not losing the baby weight fast enough but there’re better ways to disguise it.

R482 - You need to stop with that, SA. She's going to be 40 in four months, three kids are plenty, they'll come in for criticism for having so many kids eating up enormous planetary resources. She doesn't need more and neither does the RF. With the Queen fading and Charles pushing into his mid-70s, Kate can't afford another lengthy maternity leave - especially after the pandemic. The senior royals, especially the Cambridges, need to be out on the road, being highly visible, being seen to be busy.

Kate isn't going to have another baby. The Cambridges are into the next phase of their royal progress: the pre-Prince and Princess of Wales phase. The breeding phase is over. Give it up.

Sorry about that, but, really, it's the last thing Kate and William need now.

I don't see them having more babies now either r495. Louis is at nursery school and will be full time next year. Kate comes from a family of 3 kids. I think they are done, she's not Queen Victoria with no birth control.

[quote]Something nice: that cranberry red is a fantastic color for Meghan. She looks good in saturated colors.

Yes, miles of it.

She's got to hop on her private jet to lecture at a pay per view event when - seriously - an opportunity is staring her in the face. She's obviously struggling to lose the baby weight and her body structure and paternal genes are such that she may never be thin or attractive again, in the sense that matters to her. So she could devote her energies to that - to providing sympathy and support and conversation to her fellow fatties, rebuilding their self esteem, showing them ways to adjust to their new plus size. Who is standing up for those women? Nobody. But where she could do some actual good on a topic on which you can see for yourself she actually knows something, she offers nothing. She's got a peculiar knack for making herself a bigger and bigger joke.

R496 - Especially with the Harkles now trying to set up their own "court" in America and seeking every "humanitarian" limelight opportunity.

Kate is hugely popular in the UK now. She and her husband run 2nd and 3rd in the polls and they're only a few percentage points apart.

They have momentum in the UK public eye now. They have to keep it going and build on it, after the pandemic forced a semi-retirement from the public stage.

The game, as the man said, is afoot.

From Express (yes it’s a tabloid, so what?):

“ The Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped out in public for the first time since their daughter Lilibet was born in June to carry out a number of high-profile meetings under the banner of their non-profit organisation Archewell. ”

I maaaaybe heard one mention of “Archewell” in conjunction with their trip. A Google search turns up very little. Sunshine Sachs didn’t really get the name out there.

Didn't she have this same weight problem after Archie? If she follows the same trajectory, she'll be thinnish again. I think her hips and ribs will be wider forever, but she will lose the weight.

Her face spread too, and that didn't go back to normal. No matter, her face is not attractive. Not that Harry is a prize either, but why would he be attracted to such a plain homely woman?

She'll definitely lose the weight. Her vanity knows no bounds, and that extra flubber will be banished with the same resolution with which she banished her dad, her family and her husband's family too. There will be a coming out event like the one in the UK (with the blue dress, the red dress at the military thing and then the green dress at the Commonwealth event) to showcase her new skinniness when she has achieved it.

I'll not that in the shots taken from behind in the blue dress (the one she was wearing when the famous raindrops photo was taken) she still looks dumpy. She really has a body type that must maintain rigourous thinness at all times if it is to look half decent in clothing. Even at her thinnest she's still broad and, post-children, beefy-arsed.

I agree she will lose the weight, given she’s Hollywood adjacent. I give her a pass in the weight now, but she should have dressed to the body she has now. She’s still thinner than the average American woman, and could have looked good, rather than the hot mess she presented.

I think she might have to have lipo and surgery to get back to being thin again. If it's true and shes older than she says, it's going to be incredibly hard to get it off without some kind of medical intervention.

Couldn't happen to a nicer person. It must be killing her to see the photos of Kate at the Bond premiere.

At least now she and Oprah can really share lunch and shopping.

She didn’t get thin after Archie. She got less fat. It’s going to take her years of extreme dieting to get thin again. She won’t be fat, but I don’t think she’ll ever be as lithe as she was.

If she says she's almost 40 she is. She can eat nothing but rescue chicken feathers and she cannot reverse Thomas Markle's revenge. I love it. She's turning into the thing she hates most. It's like some kind of cosmic, karmic Dorian Gray meets reality television.

Fantastic article here written by one of Harry and Meghan's Montecito neighbors.

[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.]

I love that Kate's wearing a turtle neck and pantsuit but doesn't look like a shapeless sea-lion.

I bet she wore that on purpose

LOL @ shapeless sea-lion.

William and Kate are on the cover of People (which is usually a sloppy bottom for Sunshine Sachs) but there are some very interesting claims in it. According to the article, William is increasingly asserting himself and wielding more influence. Allegedly, unlike the Queen and Prince Charles, he is less concerned about mending fences with the Harkles feeling that as long as Meghan is in the picture there is no appealing to Harry's (limited) better judgement. He supposedly put his foot down about Lilibet being given a christening in the presence of the royal family and he is also dead set against allowing them to come to the UK for the Jubilee. He feels it would be giving legitimacy to a rival court in America and prolong the monarchy's agony but giving them the spotlight to milk for a while longer. Additionally, he is rallying with Charles to have Andrew and Fergie kicked out of Royal Lodge at Windsor and gently trying to urge the Queen to see that Andrew is now a huge liability.

What? People magazine in the U.S. scooped the entire U.K. corps of royal journos? 😒

I highly doubt that either Charles or the Queen can direct the Crown Properties to break a 99 year lease that Andrew signed. Under what grounds? Did he have a party that destroyed property or violated HOA rules? It sounds like typically uninformed American reporting.

^Agree. He has a lease - they can’t just kick him out.

It appears to be Robert Lacey peddling the stories that appeared in the UK press a few weeks ago about Andrew's house, the Christening, Jubilee and Christmas. Last year he blamed everything on William not becoming a mother to Harry, which was almost hilarious. Harry is due back in the UK for the Diana awards, we'll see what happens then.

R509 - Very interesting! Thanks for posting. Given that it's the Santa Barbara NEWS, does anyone think the Harkles will read it?

R515 The Queen can kick anyone out of a Crown Estate property, and inform anyone in said property that their lease is being cancelled. I wouldn't be surprised if the Sussex lease on Frogmore Cottage is not renewed come 31 March. The Queen has the disposition of the Crown Estates in her power, although they are jointly supervised with the government. But who gets to live in them is up to her.

Andrew does have a long lease on Royal Lodge, and he pumped more than a million of his own money (he has a very large trust fund of his own) into its renovation when he took it over. But it is also true that Fergie has been living their free of charge for two decades, and with Andrew's disgrace only growing, the Queen can certainly exert some pressure on him to "downsize". But I doubt she will. She remains a soft touch for Andrew, which is one reason why he turned out the way he did.

She'd do better to remove his ducal title than kick him out of Royal Lodge if he is convicted in civil court, even in absentia. Disgracing his title is far more damaging than disgracing his home.

What's more, if she took his title, she would come in for less cries of Racism! if she took Harry's, which she should have done the moment the Sussexes bailed.

Meanwhile, the last of the Sussex's possession were removed from Frogmore Cottage months ago. The lease ends on 31 March.

Re William and the putative Windsor christening: this looks like the tabloids stirring the pot, as no one close enough in to know would talk to the press about it. That said, it's makes complete sense that no one at the senior levels thinks it's a good idea to give the Sussexes more photo ops to nail their royalty to the mast, whilst they keep monetising it and trashing it at the same time.

Does anyone really suppose the Cambridges would show up smiling to take one for the team again the way they did at Archie's christening, by which time everyone inside knew the Sussexes had one foot out the door and the other on a banana peel?

The Sussexes really thought that after their endless trashing of the family through Omid Scobie, Oprah Winfrey, Gayle King, and Dax Shepherd, they could just walk back in at a time of their choosing.

Just the way Diana thought the Morton book would bring Charles crawling back to her, boot Camilla out the door, and have the Windsors grovelling at her feet.

Harry is his mother's son, all right: in all the worst possible ways.

^*living there (not their)

Before I get Oh, deared.

[Quote] if he is convicted in civil court, even in absentia.

Civil courts don't convict in criminal actions and criminal courts do not convict in absentia let alone indict or conduct trials.

R520 I didn't mention criminal conviction. OJ Simpson got "convicted" in civil court, remember? The issue is damages, but it is still a verdict against. If the judgement goes against Andrew, it will be the last nail in the coffin of his life as a visible member of the British Royal Family.

I doubt his mother will try to make his life any worse, if it occurs, but she's 95. His older brother is likely to be willing to do the brutal necessary.

You don't get convicted in civil court. You are found liable. Guilt is strictly a criminal term.

R518 Almost everything you’ve said in your post is completely untrue, especially regarding Andrew’s lease.

[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.]

R513 Well , William is not wrong . He's been put in the position of Harry's babysitter for too long , even when he was a teenager himself and obviously is no longer willing to coddle Harry . And he also understands what the Harkles are after which is the royal connection , they don't have anything else to offer, She's an aging d list actress and he's an intellectually challanged ex soldier who would be flipping burgers if not for his title . So Meghan and Harry need those royal christianing pictures , they need that balcony appearance .

R523 Really? Why don't you give us a list of corrections.

He didn't pump a huge sum of his own into its renovations in return for that sweetheart lease (check Wikipedia, you'll find it's true)?

The Queen doesn't have the right of disposition of who gets to live in those Crown Estates places (who the fuck do you think "gave" Frogmore to the Harkles and told them NO when they suggested space in Windsor Castle)?

Do tell us your version, I know we'd all love to hear your far more expert and intimate knowledge of the facts.

^*R518 in signature line, not R523

R526 Oh dear…where to start?

First of all you clearly have no idea how leases work in the UK. So let me help:

Put simply, when you lease a property it becomes (to all intents and purposes) yours for a fixed term.

There are various forms of lease - most ordinary renters sign a an assured short term agreement which gives you an assured (aka guaranteed) term - usually 6 months - before the landlord has the right to seek possession.

So, Jane Doe rents a flat & is given an AST agreement. She is guaranteed to be able to live there (provided she doesn’t break the terms) for 6 months. After the 6 months is up she can continue to live there but her landlord now has the right to seek possession for any or no reason after serving the relevany notices. Almost all UK renters have these agreements.

Another form of agreement is the Assured Tenancy which is what Andrew has. These are very, very rare these days and are only given when the tenant is expected to be there for a very long time. Andrew was given 75 years & he IS GUARANTEED (assured) the right to possession provided he does not break the terms of the lease.

We don’t know what the terms are exactly but we do know that he paid a significant sum from his own pocket for refurbishment and maintenance. Ordinarily it is the freeholders responsibility to maintain the property so, in recognition of the fact that he funded this himself, he was considered to have “bought off” the lease - iow, paid all (or a significant proportion) of any rents due.

Andrew cannot legally be required to vacate Royal Lodge until his fixed term is at an end…unless he breaks the terms of his lease agreement. I very, very much doubt he has done this.

It should be noted that only a court can end a tenancy or lease agreement. This is a mistake many people make. When ordinary renters are served a S21 notice this doesn’t mean they are legally required to leave on the date given.The notice simply informs them that if they are still in residence at xx date the landlord can ask a court to formally end the tenancy and evict them.

The Queen has no right to ask Andrew to leave. If she tried, she’d be guilty of an illegal eviction - a criminal offence which is punishable with massive fines and/or imprisonment. If she or her agents want him out they have to go to court and prove that he is in breach of the lease agreement, and it will be up to the judge to decide whether he gets evicted or not.

With regard to the SkidMarkles it’s likely they were also given an assured lease agreement, but we don’t know the terms or how long their fixed term was. There’s been no formal eviction (civil courts are public arenas so we’d know if there had been) but I suspect they are either subletting or have voluntarily relinquished the lease, which can be done if both sides agree.

Since there was no legal requirement of any kind for them to pay back the Crown Estate for the money laid down in renovations (it is legally the responsibility of the freeholder) the fact that they did suggests to me that they retain the lease and have sublet to Eugenie & Jack. They may now have a similar situation to Andrew’s where either no rent or significantly less is due. But there’s no way to know.

Your assertion that their lease is up on March 31 is pure fantasy. Show me a copy of their lease agreement.

So, sorry R526, for all of your sarcasm and snippiness, I do know considerably more about these issues than you.

All well and good and plausible, R528, except for two things. One, no one is trying the Queen for anything. When it comes to law, she has considerable flexibility. See Regina v. Burrell. Second, granted an assumption but perhaps a plausible one, do you really imagine that lease doesn't have some kind of escape clause?

Also, I'm not R526.

And your theories are correct, R528 - if your assumptions about the nature of the lease are correct. I don't want to get into a pissing match over it, your own sarcasm and snippiness are far too intimidating for me.

R528 - The Crown Estates property do not work as ordinary leases do because the Queen exerts more power than most landlords. That's number one. Because, oh, dear: only the Queen decides who can live in one of those properties, it is her decision. Do you really think someone would sue the Queen for politely suggesting they hop it because she wanted to dispose of the property otherwise?

Because that's exactly what she fucking did with Anmer Hall. The lease of the tenant living at Anmer Hall was still in force when she decided to give it to William and Kate as their country estate. And when she politely told the tenant to fucking hop it: he DID, and fast, without a murmur. Did you notice any lawsuit occurring as a result?

I never suggested that a lease on the Crown Estates properties wasn't "fixed". I'm sure the Gloucesters had a fixed term lease on Apartment 1 in Kensington Palace. But when it became clear to them that those rooms would be needed for the Cambridges for their reception rooms and staff offices, the Gloucesters quietly picked up and left, citing their "empty nester" status. They simply vanished.

The Queen can unilaterally decide NOT to renew the Harkles' lease on Frogmore Cottage, and she CAN exert quiet pressure on tenants to leave . . . just as she did the tenant of Anmer Hall - who also had that same fucking legal fixed term lease.

Meanwhile, here is the information on Andrew's lease and renovation agreement - which you will see was ALSO correct:

"In August 2003, The Duke of York was granted a lease agreement by the Crown Estate for 75 years. The property leased included the Royal Lodge, a Gardener's Cottage, the Chapel Lodge, six Lodge Cottages, and police security accommodation in addition to 40 hectares of land.

The lease agreement required Prince Andrew to carry out, at his own expense, refurbishments estimated at £7.5 million at September 2002 prices, excluding VAT (this sum was in fact exceeded). It also provided for a premium payment of £1 million.

The National Audit Office (NAO) report into the lease agreement states that the Crown Estate's independent advisors had advised that the refurbishment work would cost at least £5 million and that the prince should be given the option to buy out the notional annual rental payment (set at £260,000) for £2.5 million.

Once the prince committed to spending £7.5 million on refurbishment, it was decided that no rental would be required as he would be treated as having effectively bought out the notional annual rental payment because he exceeded the minimum £5 million required for refurbishment. As a result, only the £1 million premium was paid to the Crown Estate.

There is no provision for any further rent review over the life of the 75-year lease agreement (unlike the rent reviews provided in the case of Bagshot Park, residence of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, also leased from the Crown Estate).

The lease agreement provides that the prince may not benefit financially from any increase in the value of the property as the freehold belongs to the Crown Estate. . ."

I never suggested she would boot him out. In fact, I stated the opposite, that I doubted she would. But, believe me, she can exert pressure if she wants something, and no one is going to tell her to go fuck herself, least of all a criminal court and least of all her stupid son.

Just like the tenant of Anmer Hall with HIS fixed lease, if she wants someone out, they'll leave. As I said, I doubt she wants to make his life any more miserable than it is, but I wouldn't put it past Charles.

There's the law for the plebs, and then there's the Queen getting what she wants. Just ask the previous tenant of Anmer Hall.

I freely and proudly admit I am cunt on the basis of low tolerance for fools - I currently have 16 people on ignore, which is low for me. I support intolerance of stupid. But I have never understood, particularly on the royal threads, how worked up people have to get about being right and showing what they know and asserting that what they know is exactly how any particular member of the Royal Family or the Royal Household would act. We none of us know as much as we think about this world and what we think we do know in 99% of the instances we could all draw or infer from published information. The 1% may as well give up in advance because nobody's going to believe you anyway. I know this post won't change anything. It's just the grandness of some you - and I'm mean and rude but not grand - mystifies me. Get a fucking life. I mean, if you need that much to be so right on DL - sort it.

R531 Sandringham is not part of the Crown Estate . It's owned by the Queen personally (as is Balmoral Castle ).

Christ almighty.

You are all 100% wrong regarding Andrew’s lease.

Regina v Burrell? Are you insane? That was dropped because new evidence came to light, not because HM being above the law, decided not to prosecute. He was being tried for theft. When it emerged that he’d told HM that he was looking after some of Diana’s stuff then any prosecution would have failed, so it was dropped.

Andrew has a legally valid lease, Sorry if you don’t like that but it’s the truth. And an “escape clause” needs both parties to be in agreement. There probably is an escape clause given the length of the lease, but it can’t be used to break the law and evict him from a property he’s in legal possession of.

R531 I can’t be bothered to read your essay in full because the first paragraph proved that you have no idea what you’re talking about:

[quote] The Crown Estates property do not work as ordinary leases do because the Queen exerts more power than most landlords. That's number one. Because, oh, dear: only the Queen decides who can live in one of those properties, it is her decision.

WTF? That’s the same for any landlord, you utter moron. All landlords are the only people who can decide who lives in their property.

Please provide evidence for your fucking stupid assertion that Crown Estate leases are different from others. The LAW decides what is necessary when it comes to various lease agreements. It’s written into statute. What on earth makes you think the Crown Estate (owned by the people of the UK, btw…NOT the Queen) is above statutory requirement? It’s not.

You truly have no idea what you’re talking about…but then you never do. You are the same poster who continually lectures others about titles, jewellery & gift etiquette and yet you get everything wrong every single time. And the problem is, the other posters are as ignorant as you so can’t see all your mstakes.

Get a fucking life…or an education. But in any event, stop talking about things you know nothing about.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

R532 You may be a generally clueless person - and seemingly proud of it - but not everyone is.

R532 is entirely correct.

OK, R534, you're exactly what I was talking about. Over invested.

And make that 17.

Can we please just get back to insulting Markhole and Farkhole? Take your boring bloody royal property debates to another thread!

Someone on twitter got banned for posting Sparkle's sagging camel toe.

As per R524, Dan Wootton describes MM's NY outfits as KAFTANS. I think old Dan is here on the down low!

If she hadn't worn the coats, the press would have had a field day dissecting every lump. I wonder how H is dealing with the weight gain mockery.

She could have worked with a stylist who know how to dress post partum bodies without drowning herself in fabric. She squeezed herself into a too tight LBD for the Lion King premiere post Archie and now she's done the opposite. At least worn short sleeves or lighter material. Or had her PR plant sympathetic stories about how she doesn't want to starve herself and this is part of being 40 as she was so proud of last month.

The Lion King dress was fitted, wasn't it? That is different than too tight.

She had even burst a seam on that Lion King dress. Her fat was bulging out all over.

It was way too tight.

It looked like she had 4 boobs, the seams were at breaking point. A wrap dress would have worked fine then and been a lot more comfortable. She had red marks on her neck where the fabric was rubbing.

Was that the black satin number that resembled a barrel of oil by the time she poured herself in?

R533 - I never said it wasn't. I didn't mention any of the other Crown Estates except Frogmore Cottage and Windsor Castle. I know perfectly well that Balmoral and Sandringham are personally owned by the Queen. That's why the renovations on Anmer Hall were personally paid for by her, as opposed to the renovations on Frogmore Cottage and Kensington Palace, which were paid by the Sovereign Grant.

R534 - Look you fucking prick: the fact remains that when the Queen wants someone out of one of the Crown Estates, they FUCKING LEAVE. Even if they have leases in force. I was right about Andrew's lease and the payment for the renovations that he made, which you seen to have oddly overlooked.

If she wanted him the fuck out of there, she'd get him out of there, and he wouldn't say jack shit about it.

When the Cambridges and the Queen wanted the Gloucesters out of Apt 1 in Kensington Palace, OUT they went.

The point is, she gets to decide who gets to live in those residences, they are at her pleasure and her disposal. Naturally, she's not going to make a habit of it, she's not a fool. And as I said repeatedly, although you're ignoring that, too, I don't expect her to boot Andrew out, either. She's a fool for that pompous twat and always has been. But if she wanted him out, you can bet your ARSE he'd get out.

She wields a certain, shall we say, "influence" that trumps everything else. She may not use it often, but she can use it.

As I said, just ask the tenant of Anmer Hall who "graciously" moved out when the told him she wanted the property back for William and Kate.

Oh, and I've blocked you, so don't bother replying unless you insist upon grandstanding for the boredom of the rest of the thread.

And back to Meghan's absurd clothing choices . . .

She is mental. The inability to see oneself realistically in a mirror is glaring sign of a problem with reality.

Her clothes were so badly chosen, so ill-fitting, and so unflattering that they serve as a badge of the emotional morass that is her psyche. Between his strange blend of rage and eunuchism, and hers of delusions of grandeur built on a determination to conquer the world, I feel intensely sorry for those children.

If Harry thinks he inherited some "genetic pain", wait until his kids hit adolescence and he sees what his mental bullshit and her pathological narcissism and self-absorption have done to his kids.

R550, it will be interesting to see how that all works out. I suspect one kid will be a model child and the other will go off the rails in spectacular fashion.

The daily mail reported that the two flew back to California on a private jet owned by Guthy-Renker. This led to speculation that the company was wooing the couple for a possible collaboration in the future. Maybe.

It’s just as likely that they paid for a charter flight. Owning a private jet is expensive, so companies will rent them out or charter them. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

Let those two battle out Property Bothers on block. Zzzzzzz.....

[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.]

If they ever go to Australia, they better hope their car doesn't break down, because I don't know if anyone would help them. The Australians in particular seem to have no tolerance for their nonsense.

"Just like the tenant of Anmer Hall with HIS fixed lease, if she wants someone out, they'll leave. As I said, I doubt she wants to make his life any more miserable than it is, but I wouldn't put it past Charles."

R531 - Anmer Hall is QEII's personal property as part of the Sandringham Estate and she paid the former tenant to vacate the property and leave or, as is said in the USA , QEII bought out the lease. The former tenant, a high end kitchen designer & contractor, stated as much to the Daily Mail.

"t’s just as likely that they paid for a charter flight. Owning a private jet is expensive, so companies will rent them out or charter them. I wouldn’t read too much into it."

R551 - Your explanation, quoted above, is exactly what happened.

R556, it’s the only thing that made sense. I suppose G-R could have offered and they could have accepted, but I can’t see them doing infomercials just yet.

But DM will use any pretext at all to get those clicks. They’re never going away because people love to read about them, whether they’re fans of the couple or not. I like to!

R557 - Most airport FBOs have a list of private and/or corporate jets/planes that are for rent.

Well, they've sort of painted themselves into the 'what-have-they-done-now?' corner, so, yes, they're in a tough spot in terms of their coverage. Most of which they earn, anyway, they're so dumb.

In fairness to the Mail, if you scroll down to the bottom of the story, you’ll see that the reporter found out that the company does lease the jet through a leasing company. And a spokesperson for the leasing company said the jet hadn’t been rented that weekend. So the Mail concluded that the Harkles must have been guests of this Guthy-Renker (sp.?) business.

^^^ Sorry, my phrasing is confusing. Guthy-Renker rents out the jet through a leasing company.

The scapegoat and the golden child r551. Classic toxic narcissistic "parenting".

She is going to fuck those kids up badly. Harry is going to sit back and let her do it, too, which makes him equally culpable. If the daughter is pretty, Meg will hate her for it. If she's ugly, Meg will hate her for it. And it will be the son's job to tend to Mommy's every emotional whim and flutter.

^^^^^^^^^

Odds favour those kids becoming Grimaldi West.

Did the other thread about them get deleted?

Was it because I called them Judas and Jezebel?

[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.]

Of course she did! She was obsessed with Diana her childhood best friend (of 30 years) told us. That's another person she shit on too, even after Ninaki's family took her on a trip to Europe.

Well, on some level Meghan was telling the truth: she knew nothing about English history and the role the monarchy played in it, nor about its Prime Directive: you cannot be yourself on your own terms.

She was well-informed about its celebrity, cachet, and cash.

But she understood nothing of the framework that is critical to supporting those 3 Big Cs.

Including the realities of a hierarchical institution.

If she did grasp it, she rejected it, licked the sugar off the pill, and then found out there wasn't that much sugar without the pill.

As ever, she's a good short-term tactician, but a lousy long-term strategist.

R569 Bravo, 100%. Also, I think Meghan is very money hungry and while the royal family as an institution is wealthy, royals are not very wealthy (at least not by Hollywood terms) individually. Outside of Charles, Most of the royals depend on the Queen to fund (or gift) their living arrangements and lifestyle. I honestly believe Meghan was abhorred by the fact that royals do not get paid for their work nor can they make money off of their work. They are funded by the state, but that money does not go into their pockets. I think she envisioned Palaces and massive wealth and when it quickly became clear that was not the reality of being in the royal family, she decided to try and cash in on her titles rather than slug out of life of tiring duties that as William & Kate's kids get older would be increasingly ignored.

r570,I think they genuinely believed their own hype. She was going to get all these Hollywood roles and they would be rich as Croesus.

This is why I dislike them.They never would have wanted for anything.Overarching greed is beyond disgusting. They are disgusting.

Its comical how she thinks of herself. She completely ignores her lack of looks or skill in her chosen profession.

R572 - Well, fair play to her, given her lack of any talent except for determination, self-promotion, and an eye for the main chance, she's ended up rich and famous, living a life her intrinsic talents would never have achieved for her.

Meanwhile, here is a very savvy column from the Daily Beast that describes why Kate, in her quiet way, has done so much better than Meghan. In fairness to Meghan, much as I dislike her coarse pretensions, she may have realised very quickly that what is described here was the future, and that Meghan not only couldn't compete with it, she didn't want to do what she what would have had to do to fit within it.

I actually don't blame the Sussexes for opting for a life outside the constraints of working royalty. What I blame them for is their dishonesty in trying to build their exit on misery, victimhood, and lies about the very people who put them where they are. If they'd had the guts to say, "Listen, it's 2021, we know that in future the core group of working royals will become smaller and likely not include our children, and we wish the monarchy and William and Kate and Charles the best, but we're going to head out on our own. And, we remain deeply grateful for the family's support. And, of course, the Sovereign and the monarchy will always have our support!"

How different would things have been if they had just had the courage to admit they wanted wealth and freedom, instead of having to justify themselves by wrecking the entire connection between them and the entity that gave them their privileges?!

The problem, of course, was character: Harry is a ball of inchoate rage and sullen resentment, and Meghan is a power-hungry narcissist.

Heraclitus was right: Character is destiny.

It could all have gone so differently, with grace and amiability and intact connections - with an eye to the long game of an embracing family and a foot still in the family door, balcony appearances, etc. But, no, they just had to wreck it all to salve Harry's fury at being second and Meghan's narcissistic rage at anyone having rank over her.

The article here details just how savvy Kate is, and how, unlike Meghan, she knew how to play the long game.

Paywalled.

Well said, R573.

My BS meter went into the red zone after watching (some of, anyway) the engagement interviews. (For amusement, check out HG Tudor's Youtube analysis of the engagement interview). I thought from the beginning that the whole thing was not going to work.

But I never would have suspected that the pair would have behaved sooo stupidly from the very beginning of their "exit". After claiming they wanted their privacy, their PR pushing them into the public's consciousness so frequently made a complete lie to their privacy claim for all but their most intently delusional fans.

Add to that their stunningly tone deaf actions at the Lion King Premiere (not to mention the obvious insult to the UK military who had contacted Harry a YEAR before to ask him to attended that memorial service.) Does anyone doubt that Disney's Iger would have been shocked and stunned by their idiotic approach to him and that the Sussex's actions at that event would have greatly diminished the very "brand" that they were, even then, plotting to establish.

Their behavior, in a similar way to her consistently unfitting and inappropriate wardrobe choices, boggles the mind.

The list goes on and reader of this thread could add their own additions.

Could it really be that they are shocked that people who matter, who really are serious and know how to make real things happen, give them a wide birth?

I think you missed the point, R574. The victimisation/trashing the BRF was part of a Mexican stand-off, a preliminary shake-down attempt. Sort of like cutting off a kidnap victim's ear and sending it to his family... If the BRF had caved to their earlier demands, the Sussexes would have been sweet as pie...

Omg. Did H really demand a job for M at the Lion King premiere?

R577 - No! Harry did not "demand" Disney give Meghan a job.

Not demand exactly. When they got to Iger in the receiving line, Harry said something to the effect of "Did you know my wife does voice over work?" and basically shilled her. When watching the video, I reflexively felt second hand embarrassment before the amusement kicked in.

[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.]

Dan Wootton is a poor excuse for a journalist. He is nothing but a click-bait hack writer for the Daily Fail.

He's not wrong though.

^^Ah, Danny boy, and we're surprised because...?

R581 he's a very good tabloid journalist though.

He's a big MARY! hysteric.

But anything that irritates Dumb and Dumbest can be endured. Because you know they see it.

r577, take a look at this video of Harry pimping out Meghan's voiceover "skills."

R586’s video is probably the most cringe-inducing thing I’ve ever seen from them. It’s several layers deep.

Isn't there another longer version of that Iger incident on video where MM goes up to Iger while Harry is speaking to him and MM says something about the reason they are there is because they are making a "pitch" to Iger? So, who cares about a military memorial service when there is a "pitch" to be made?

I wonder what his grandmother thought when she saw this video gem.

R588 here.

To clarify my last post (in all fairness)

This below is my comment , not from either of the Sussex pair.

[quote] So, who cares about a military memorial service when there is a "pitch" to be made?

Here’s part of “the pitch” to Jon Favreau. So cringeworthy.

Yes, R590, that's the other clip! Thanks.

MM says...

[quote] That's really why we're here...to pitch.

Yeah, but she's kidding, r591, or at least pretends that she's kidding. Moron Harry is upfront about it.

Iger's wife's expressions when they are discussing it after the grifters have moved onto Beyonce is hilarious.

But she was a famous successful person in her own right. Why would she need H to do this?

I cannot watch those videos from that red carpet. I *cannot*! Meghan jumping in with the "we're here for the pitch" joke doesn't save it at all because they actually ARE there for the pitch and she is instead of joking just stating the truth.

Oh, so cringe.

I can't watch them either! The cringe is so bad.

Did she rip her dress from the back?

Everyone seems hyper aware that they’re being recorded, so they’re extra perky and animated and agreeable.

^^ You could slide in there and complain about your bleeding hemorrhoids and the VIPs would just smile and nod emphatically. “oh yes, yes!”

That video really has it all, Fat Meghan oozing out of her dress, Fat Elton John shoved at the back on a chair, an imprecise, unwieldy line of presentees, 'that's why we're here, to pitch'... they really are useless.