Harry and Meghan meet with Oprah again

Oh, I hope so, just to watch them dig themselves deeper. It'd be nice if Oprah flipped on them but it doesn't matter either way.

Maybe Oprah is selling them a pair of her ridiculous oversized glasses. She must harvest aliens in those things.

Why does Oprah always conduct interviews at her home? Do you have to eat her pussy or something to get an interview.

Driving two gas guzzlers while preaching about climate change.

They need a convoy of security to go from one million dollar mansion to another 5 minutes away? Are they insane?

Yes, because just EVERYONE is dying to know the comings and goings of fucking Oprah's house. Meghan obviously set this one up. This ought to stick in Nexflix's craw if they spill the beans again in an exclusive with anyone but them.

Back to the well, I guess. Gosh, how did the photographers know about this five minute drive.

How did the photographers know to even be there?

If they "walk away" from Spotify another big media event will be needed.

The COO of Archewell is with them so maybe this is “charity” related?

Although I hope they burn their bridges with the Royal family, Netflix, the public, etc. by spilling all the dirt to Oprah.

Hairless Harry

I hope it's a christening.

Google tells me that Oprah released an interview via Netflix in April 2022. One has to wonder if Netflix isn’t demanding a second Oprah interview about Jubilee so they can at least get some sort of damn content out of those two leeches. It would be even more fun if it was an actual interview where Oprah asked questions about the lies but it’s Oprah so that isn’t going to happen.

Okra should tell the Ginger cretin & Pecan Tan to go scratch.

Probably just a charade to stick the knife into the Royal Fam and Netflix. Why else would you take a convoy 5 minutes down the road unless you wanted to be seen.

Harry looks like a fool.

^A deeply, deeply, DEEPLY unhappy fool.

They'll claim William is illegitimate and Harry and Meghan are actually the future King & Queen.

The environmental warrior, using two giant gas guzzlers to drive five minutes.

Backgrid took the photos. That means it was a setup, they've been Meghan's go to app setup people for years.

Yes, I'm sure this is an attempt to signal.another potential Payback Time! interview. Or at least the mirage of one.

After all, with Netflix, Spotify, and, if word on the street is to be believed, Penguin Books, not quite panning out, desperate measures are called for.

Perhaps Harry really is planning to renounce his titles. Oprah would be the perfect launch pad. He could drop the grand bombshell wnd wax eloquent about how his family's cruelty showed him what an empty trap things like titles are.

"They BOTH jumped on my fucking couch, Gayle!"

^*pap (not app) setup

Fucking autocorrect.

Oprah's dumb if she does another softball interview like the last one.

They'll never give up their titles. The people of York want Andrew to give up his title and he won't.

Oprah's not dumb and wouldn't be to do another interview. The first one is the only thing the Sussexes have ever done that was legitimately huge in terms of viewing numbers. Oprah made BANK off that interview and she has no hard news reputation to protect. Of course she would do a second one. The morons in that scenario would be the Sussexes themselves, once again convinced that this will be the thing that turns it all around for them and then confused when it just results in even lower popularity ratings.

They'll wait till his book is published later this year, then have another big tie-in shocker Oprah interview.`

Recollections may vary, but dear Harry and Meghan remain much-loved members of my family and all issues will be addressed within the family sphere.

I think so too R23. And maybe do the oprah interview via Netflix as well to get them off their back. Kill at least 3 birds with one stone. Only question is have they learned their lesson about coming for the BRF? Or not?

If it's on Netflix, will Oprah dare to broach the emotionally devastating subject of Pearl being aborted?

It's actually a violation of the International Bill of Human Rights to bring up Pearl's cancellation, R26. I'm sure you didn't know but please don't make the same mistake again if you wish to keep the FBI from your doorstep.

They're arriving to be executed by a firing squad led by Oprah for lying to and making a fool out of her.

As long as they keep getting invited back as beloved family members this is going to keep going on, and on. What will they give us for the Queen's funeral? "They made us sit in the third row, and no one asked if we were ok!"

Harry looks henpecked

🚨 OMG OMG OMG 🚨

I wonder why?

Every time I see Archewell it makes me want one of those chocolate marshmallow Snackwell cookies.

I cant wait for whatever these 2 loons have up their sleeves to blow up in their faces,like everything else they try .

This will end in tears.

This is only going to end when Harry finally can't take it anymore, and leaves her. I used to think she would leave him first, but she loves being The Duchess of Sussex more that she does anyone else. She has also been sucking up to Nacho's wife Delfina, so she might be cooking up a new man trap networking scheme, like she did with that Mulroney woman, and prove my theory wrong. Either way it's sure to be very messy, and public. She got a taste of fame,and notoriety. She will always be chasing that high.

Nacho is yummy, Harry is getting really hard to look at.

Jesus everyone in that car looks absolutely miserable.

If they are doing a second interview it would be stupid, it won't change any minds and just further solidify people against them. At a time when women's rights and LGBTQ+ rights are under serious threat in the US, I don't think the American public gives two shits about a spoiled Prince and his delusional wife. If they want to improve their image, maybe put something out there like a podcast or a Netflix show or something because really in the 1.5 years since the Oprah interview they've done zip all. Harry's 96 year old grandmother who can barely walk anymore has done more work in the past month than he has in the last two years.

Harry's a fool but he will grow tired of his black hag and move on without a second thought. You can't have slaves around the house because idiots like harry will screw anything. Back to Africa.

Meghan Markle has a huge anus.

If I understood Lady C correctly - yeah I know... train wrecks you can't look away and all....

IF Meghan and Harry divorce, Meghan can style herself, Meghan, The Princess Henry.

Ugh. But it's Lady Colin Campbell (her husband was Colin, Lady C's first name is Georgia, I think)

She woudn't like Princess Henry though - it's like a Ru Paul name - she turned down Earl of Dumbarton for Archie because, well, "Dumb" you know.

I noticed the thread about Prince William chewing out the paparazzi has been deleted. Is it being discussed elsewhere?

Prince William explodes at photographer for 'stalking' his kids while on a 'peaceful' bike ride in a viral leaked video

Prince William has burst into a fit of rage after a photographer started filming his family while they were on a quiet bike ride near their home in Sandringham, Norfolk.

The three-minute video, which was uploaded last week but filmed in 2021, showed the Duke of Cambridge telling the man off for "stalking around" his kids.

His wife Kate and their three children, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, are off camera nearby. In the leaked footage, the Duke of Cambridge, who was wearing a down jacket, green gloves and a tweed cap, said: "You came out here looking for us".

The photographer defended himself by saying he would have stopped filming if he had realised who it was.

"You drove past our house, I saw you," Kate can be heard saying.

"How dare you behave like you've done with my children. How dare you," William said. "You were stalking around, you were looking for us and our children. I'm out for a quiet bike ride with my children on a Saturday and you won't even give me your name.

"You're outrageous. You're disgusting. You really are. How dare you behave like that."

The video, which has been viewed more than 20,000 times on Monday, was posted to the YouTube account of Terry Harris - a drone operator and photographer based in Peterborough.

"Thanks for ruining our day," William said, after making a call to his security to explain he had had an "altercation" with a photographer.

"You knew exactly what you were doing. I thought you guys had learnt by now." Kensington Palace has responded to the incident by arguing it was a breach of the family's privacy, The Telegraph reports.

It was not the first time the Duke of Cambridge has been hounded by paparazzi, who he blames for playing a significant role in his mother Princess Diana's death.

In 2017, Prince William spoke candidly about his mother's reaction to paparazzi in an HBO documentary about the Royal Family's struggle with media attention.

"If you are the Princess of Wales and you're a mother, I don't believe being chased by 30 guys on motorbikes who block your path and make a woman cry in public to get the photograph," he said.

"I don't believe that is appropriate."

Oh that was Sky News. Can't find the video. Well and truly expunged?

Apparently, KP is trying to get it removed. It's off the pap"s YouTube.

Can't say I blame them for their frustration, especially since the guy was staking out their house and seemingly waiting for their movement. I wonder why they didn't have security handle. Maybe William decided to exercise his BDE and said "No, I'll take care of it myself."

The thing that's a bit scary about this guy is that drone photography is a specialty. He could, theoretically, track their movements.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

Huge r22? Those numbers weren't even half as much as her big interviews used to get.

I'm ready. I'm ready to despise them and Oprah more than ever. Bring it on. * s i g h *

R38, LGB rights are under threat thanks to the TQ+.

Oh, and women's rights are under threat thanks to the TQ+ too. Apparently, not only women need abortions.

And the trolls keep asking why there are so many royal/Harkles threads.

Well kiddies. You're looking at people who called Backgrid to make sure the world saw them take a convoy of gas guzzlers to drive five minutes to the home of the channel of their most notorious moment in the sun. Carrying, as we well know, a freshened sense of injury.

Really, only the Mother Superior of the most contemplative Order on the planet could possibly miss it.

And that is far from a description of DL.

So, let's see: Tom Bower's book about Meghan is out in July. That should be good for three 600 post threads right there, es specially as we L OW excerpts will run for a week or two on any one of the TIMES, DM. SUN, MIRROR.

The book about the courtiers is out 29 September.

Harry's book has been pushed to next year for reasons unknown.

The Queen could wake up dead any day. If she does. you know what follows: a massive state funeral, a coronation the following year, and the Invrstiture of William as Prince of Wales.

Wills and Kate take up residence shortly in Windsor and get thrown a huge Joint 40th party in Windsor Castle by the Queen.

Face it; this family and DL were made for each other.

Maybe they are asking Oprah for a payday loan since the Bank of Charles shut down.

They will try to use their tenuous Netflix deal as collateral. Will savvy Oprah see through their machinations?

Stay tuned for the next episode of One Life to Thrive Not Just Survive!

I thought Harry's book was due in September? Maybe they're waiting for Lizzie to begone.

Charles is in a bind with sacks of money for honors - HONOURS - or some such ha ha ha. He's so pitiful why can't we jump to BDE Wills? Why can't Haz check into rehab? Where's that damned reality show??

People complain about the threads here but how many "What's your favorite mayonnaise from 1970?" threads can we endure? More trans shit? Which 1930s actress was the prettiest/bitchiest/most forgotten..... I mean, really, these are the current Kardashians and others will come and go. Message boards are dying so this is it folks - unless you can crack reddit and if you can, you're a better a man than I am Gunga Din.

The woman in the front seat of the SUV was Janina Gavankar, Sussex defender. She must have been thrilled to have been chosen to visit Oprah.

They only stayed an hour, so how much could have transpired during that time? Meghan did seem to be crying and Harry looked disinterested. Janina looked as though she were arguing with Meghan.

Smeg was probably “suicidal” again.

Oh yay - Meg crying! Oprah must have turned them down.

The 29 September pub date for Harry's book was cancelled for an unknown date "next year". Word on the street was that even with Moehring on board it was a mess. Other theories: the slant has to be redone in light of the "humiliation" heaped on the HRkles by the BRF at the Jubly. Big New Decisions are on the horizon about their future now that it's clear the bridges really are burnt, and that they really aren't Much Loved Members of My Family.

Take your pick.

The Charles story really isn't one. The Qatari Sheik doesn't need "honours", the money was duly, legally, and correctly logged, documented, and given ti the named charity. The method was a stupid look, but the media, never known for exactitude when a juice opportunity presents itself to lob one at hapless Charles, doesn't care that there is not, in reality, the slightest evidence of impropriety in this transaction.

Gormlessness, yes; impropriety, no.

I think it's Valentine Low who wrote book on the workings of the Palace "grey men" that is due out on 29 September?

If so, it will be juicier than the topic might indicate. Low is a respected TIMES journo, not Anxfew Morton or Paul Burrell or Tina Brown.

Low broke the bullying story, stood by it, and the TIMES stood by the story.

So it will probably be very worth one's attention.

Perhaps that's one reason Penguin pulled Harry's book: too much saturation . . . Brown's book in May, the Jubly, Bower's book in July, Low's book out on the day Harry's book had it pub date in September.

With any luck, the Queen will hang on for another year.

And die the same day as the next Oprah interview

Think of it: the nation in official mourning, the grieving family draped in black, heads of state and the other crowned heads dusting off the black crepe and pouring out tributes to No Longer to Teign O'er Us" . . .

Whilst Harry and Meghan pour venom over it all.

Stock up on popcorn and lots of excellent claret now.

^*Reign (not Teign) O"er Us

Fucking autocorrect.

Thank you R57! Can't wait for Low - and in the meantime, Bower may suffice.

Harry? Pffft. He's slightly deeper than she is - but my god is that a low bar.

Obviously they went to Oprah's to borrow a cup of brown sugar for the organic apple pie Meghan was baking.

Wow, she looks like shit. Is she under the influence? She looks kind of drunk. Or stoned.

They want the unseen footage from the first interview so they can give it to NetFlix. Otherwise they don't have any footage at all. If the money's good enough, Oprah may agree to it. As long as she doesn't look stupid.

Does Oprah do sharing sugar?

She aint no sugar no more.

We haven't had a fall from grace this delicious since... uh, Kathy Griffin? Roseanne?

Oh the drama.

They are all tiresome.

Gavankar: "Madame Duchess, you know what you need to do ... Oprah is VERY fond of chicks taking special care of her pussy."

They give every appearance of accomplishing nothing. Driving around...

Made you look!

They have such a weird life now.

Harry, cosplaying Alpha Male. Leading the totally dangerous mission. Leading the huge special Ops. Mission driving the lead Huge, Wildly Difficult SUV. Sort of like driving a 20mule team. They had to have Janina upfront next to Hapless.

Janina: "The pedal on the right makes the car go." " The one in the middle makes the car go slow."

Harry: "What is on the right?" " Does that mean it is right, or is it really wrong?"

Janina: "The one near me will make the car go."

Harry: "Go, but Mummy said this morning that we should do right, not wrong!!"

[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.]

Does this mean that a previous director resigned or was fired or that this documentary has been in the works and shooting for a year without a director?

Serious question: are they just grifting? The podcasts are invisible, the Netflix deal has led to nothing, and they just seem to hire and fire people without any results. Are they just holding onto cash without producing anything?

R72 Isn't more the replacing continues.

R74 Yes of course they are grifting. They are creating the appearance of doing things but ultimately accomplish zip. They will like put out the bare minimum they are required to in order to keep the money.

R44 I'm totally team William on this one. The Cambridge kids are entitled to privacy.

Happy Pride from William and Catherine! I'm shocked Megz and Harry haven't said anything about Pride.

Did Meghan have implants during “Deal or No Deal” or just a push-up bra and padding?

R77 there are rumours she had her alleged implants removed before she married Harry.

Mr. and Mrs. Harry Mountbatten-Windsor of Montecito, California, USA have a real problem finding their niche:

1. Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor is copying whatever her in-laws do. She "checked in" with the family of the Uvalde teacher killed last month. Well, Prince William, we learned last week, wrote to the widow of the LEO killed January 6. William's actions came to light much later. Not so with Mrs.Mountbatten-Windsor. Her actions, honorable though they may be, were touted to promote her.

2. Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor sent snacks to some protest group. Snacks? Wow! 'Nuf said. She signed herself "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" on monogramed paper embossed with a coronet. Is she still an American citizen? Or is she now a Briton? No matter the answer, Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor should know the US Constitution recognizes no foreign titles. We are a republic. Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor should sign "Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor" or "Meghan Markle." She's now using the title for personal gain. So is he. Shame on them!

3. They do nothing of substance. Go back to Britain.

Liz Garbus was announced as an Executive Producer on “Pearl” (along with, notably, David Furnish), on July 14, 2021. Then, apparently, was skulking around NYC with the Sussexes in September 2021.

There’s nothing in her IMDb or production company’s website or the trades that indicates she’s working on anything with the Sussexes. Her bread and butter is documentary film. (A friend who’s an EP hasn’t heard a peep about any Sussex projects.). Usually people

Was she spotted at the Invictus Games?

It seems to me that they’re just dropping this woman’s name all over the place and there’s nothing behind it. Isn’t anyone fact-checking?

Bower's book is the one to wait for,although sadly it's been pushed back until November 25th. Pre-order begins November 1st.

Would Oprah be so stupid to trust these two again? They blatantly and obviously lied to her, duped her besides using her.

[quote] Oprah made BANK off that interview and she has no hard news reputation to protect. Of course she would do a second one.

I strongly doubt Oprah cares at this point about making more bank from whatever she'd make from a second interview.

It would strongly damage her reputation if she did a second interview--she would be seen as their spokeswoman, and people would look at her suspiciously. She already damaged her reputation quite a bit with the last interview (because she threw them softballs).

Moreover, what would she get them to talk about in a second interview--and at this point, who would even watch? The Sussexes have pretty much shot their wad, unless Harry publishes especially nasty (and so newsworthy) things in the book about Charles and Camilla and William and Kate and the queen. But I even doubt that will happen, since he'd almost certainly lose his funding from his father if that happens, and they are NOT going to be able to continue living in this style without his father's money. Their corporate deals have fallen apart or look to be dead-ends profit-wise.

The constant problem the Sussexes have, as many people have pointed out again and again the last three years, is that their attractiveness to consumers depends upon their closeness to the Crown, and they shut that door behind them by being nasty to the Crown in their previous interview. No one cares much about the thoughts of the sixth in line to the throne, or about the thoughts of the mother to the seventh and eighth. And the older George, Charlotte, and Louis become, the more irrelevant Harry and his family will become.

R81 - Ah, that's interesting. Too bad, I was looking forward to it for summer reading, but what it probably indicates is new material became necessary after the Jubly, and, more importantly, to the bullying report being kept private. Perhaps Bowers also got wind of a few other things, as well: a possible Oprah 2.0, stuff related to the titles.

I can't think of any other reasons for the delay.

The delay in Bower’s book possibly means it is seen as a favourite for the Christmas market. I bet it is going to be good…

Where are we hearing Tom Bower's book has been pushed back? Google seems to have nothing on it...

Meghan has jumped into the abortion debate (as expected). I am 100% pro-choice, but this is not something a member of the BRITISH royal family should be commenting on. I think the time has come for the Palace to say either you keep your mouth shut on political matters or you cannot use any of your titles.

R87 Yeah, and especially not that issue. Fraught.

We all knew she was going to comment on this, but yeah this way too much of a hot button issue for a British royal to be touching.

All kidding aside, if the British monarchy as an institution wishes to survive, it will need to cut ties with these two. Tell them, they cannot use the titles, if they are going to weigh in on contentious issues in a country, in a country that does not recognize foreign titles.

It's obvious that she is still an American citizen, and Harry resides here as a resident alien married to an American citizen.

Let me be clear: Meghan Markle or Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor...private citizen...can weigh in on this issue, if she wants, as an American citizen.

Meghan, Duchess of Suffolk, is a member of the Royal Family (working or not), commenting on an American issue. It reflects poorly on an entity that is supposed to be above politics in the UK.

They are loose cannons. Cut all ties to them. If they want to discuss these issue and let their opinions known, they should do it as Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor.

Whoever is advising them is giving them asinine advice!

The original post by Vogue had her listed as Meghan Markle. Some time later, it was suddenly changed to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" which isn't even correct. It's just The Duchess of Sussex, the title isn't hers, it's a courtesy title of her husband. So of course she called and had them change it. People are questioning why she was included. In the article Gloria talks about how Meghan hunted her down at a friend's house where she was staying nearby. Her desperation is just comical.

Oh who gives a fuck what Meghan Markle says about the latest thing she thinks she can latch onto to look like the good person she has utterly failed to convince us she is? Hilarious to see Steinem proving everything Camilla Paglia ever said about her (cliquey starfucker famewhore etc.) correct, as well.

In less than a week no one, not even Meghan, will remember what she said about this.

You forgot to add the photo provided by Smeg in which she looks completely devastated. You know she worked on that pose for hours.

Planned Parenthood will be expecting snacks from duchess doritos.

I'm pretty sure Meghan never finished the residency period required to become a citizen of the UK.

Oprah’s hilarious. “I’m such a victim because I’m black. Now check out my mansion.”

They arrive with more pomp than many heads of state. This is hilarious. And so eco friendly! I can't imagine that Oprah will do another interview. Are there any news at all? Oprah is undoubtedly business savvy and I cannot imagine that another softballing interview like she did already will benefit her brand. I might be wrong so if it happens, I'll enjoy reading about it on the DL, but I won't bother watching. (I only watched a small excerpt of the first interview.) I asked that before on another thread but... What is their source of income at the moment? How can they afford their entourage, planes, cars, polo horses etc.?

Why should member of the British royal family even be commenting on politics in the US, r87? If Markle, as an American citizen and a woman, wants to publicly support abortion rights in the US, then she should do it as Meghan Markle, not as "the Duchess of Sussex".

Interesting, r91.

The only noteworthy line in Meghan's, as always, exceedingly pompous performance, was her use of the term "gutteral" to describe Harry's reaction to the ruling.

"Gutteral" refers to hoarse sound made from the throat.

What she meant was coarse language, i.e., gutter language.

She hasn't the faintest awareness of how comically she comes across, especially when she's trying to sound seeious.

She's the Leo Gorcey of the BRF.

R95 No. You're right, she didn't.

But she's still waving a British royal title around that she has because it was gifted to her husband on their wedding day by QEII, a foreign Heaf of State. The title was given with certain understandings attached, all of which Harry and Meghan have violated.

And her correct title is Meghan The Duchess of Sussex.

It's printed that way on the spine of that farce of a children's book she wrote, in letters so big there was no room for the title or the publisher's logo.

^* Head of State

No, her correct title is just The Duchess of Sussex. R100. The way she is using/abusing it and putting her name first is incorrect.

The Vogue piece is strange--Meghan avoids connecting herself with abortion in any way other than advocating for it to be available. Indeed, she highlights "how fortunate I felt to be able to have both of my children. I know what it feels like to have a connection to what is growing inside of your body." Sounds more like a pro-life line.

The misuse of "guttural" is funny, but Gloria's assertion as to why it's important that H&M speak up is just as funny: "Because what they both have is trust. We trust them .... We can see things on television and not believe them or not trust them. But when people like these two tell us, then we trust it."

Steinem has met and knew, or knows, many famous Americans, as she is herself one.

I know something else about Steinem. She walks the walk.

She was a good personal friend to someone (now deceased) that was my friend, too.

He was an activist here in Wisconsin. If he called her to appear at some event, even if it wasn't glamourous, ignored by the media, but it was a cause she supported, if her schedule permitted, she'd show up.

Steinem, whatever she can be criticized for (and, to me, at least one thing comes to mind, but that's OT) nevertheless, is truly is an old-school, sincere, hard-working activist.

She's taken Markle's measure. She knows who she is dealing with. In service to a cause, however, she'll do what is necessary, even if it means you create "friendships" to do so.

It is funny to imagine feminist Harry grunting emotionally over the news.

I so love her misuse of guttural. She really is a dope, isn't she. What was she doing at Northwestern? BJ's for the rich & famous?zI love how often they put their foot in the steaming pile.

Wonder how embarrassed Starfucker Steinham was when she saw her latest star to ass kiss saying Guttural in print. Whoops old Glory Hole, you thought you were hitching your wagon to a Duchess. You were. Unfortunately, she is The Duchess of Douche nozzle.

I skimmed that conversation between Meghan and Gloria. It’s pretty nauseating.

The distance of celebrities from reality is fascinating.

Steinem appears oblivious to the fact that even in America, the Sussexes, especially Meghan, poll at under 50% approval. Half of what they said on Oprah was rapidly shown to be untrue.

And, lastly, in the recent past Meghan had to apologise to an English court for her "lapse of memory" about email exchanges that proved she and Harry had lied to the public about colluding with Omid Scobie on Finding Freedom.

In fact, a significant portion of the public either don't care or don't trust anything Meghan says.

So, GS attaching herself to the statement of a known perjurer, half of a basically intensely disliked pair, is rather like insisting that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east

In a publication that has been objectifying women with impossible standards of beauty, and endorsing styles mostly dreamt up by gay men and then hung on emaciated air-brushed women.

GS is either a moron or a dotard.

GS was & is a starfucker. No one else of note wants her glommed onto them like a leech.

Della, why do you suppose Gloria Steinem has gotten anywhere near MEGHAN THE DUCHESS OF SUSSEX? It’s a grave mistake, because it makes me question Steinem’s judgment and powers of discernment. Did she owe a publicist a favor? Is her own star power fading and she needed a boost from the association with a shameless stunting phony?

It’s not the first time. Other women have appeared in conjunction, or linked, with Markle (Mellody Hobson was my first thought), but rarely do they give such lavish praise.

I hate to see Gloria Steinem get Markled.

On second thought, I don’t. If Steinem thinks we should trust these two, after all their demonstrable lies and sneakiness, she goes on the pyre with them.

Steinem is not a trustworthy sister.

"Meghan, 40, went fresh faced and makeup free during the trip." As if! And based on what -- a goggle-eyed blur in the backseat, snapped with a telephoto lens?

LOL

She may or may not have been makeup free (and how could one really tell from those pap photos), but even is she was, I'd bet my pension the result wasn't "fresh-faced".

"fresh-faced" HAHAHAHAHA

The DM is taking the piss again and while that rag is truly egregious, I totally love their snark in that particular case.

I like Meghan's feminist costume she created for that character. In her mind being serious about woman's issues, means you have ugly yourself up a bit. Feminism for Meghan means "I can't get by on my sex appeal" for her. She is very studied in her mannerisms, and dress, which is why she looks so drastically different from public appearance to public appearance. She really does have to create an entire persona for every thing she does. Once you notice it, you will always take note on how contrived she dressed for an event.

Growing up reading books and articles about Diana, she probably took note of how Diana would dress to convey messages.

What questions would Oprah even have to ask them? Somehow we know everything about them.

R93 That picture cracks me up. Someone was "conveniently" there to snap that photo when the Roe V Wade decision came down....sure, sure, sure.

The Vogue post on IG has only got 1000 likes compared to the 500K for a story about Ryan Gosling and the comments are almost universally negative. Beyond her bandwagon jumping and her desperation to keep herself in the headlines, it's not appropriate for a member of the BRF (even a non-working one) to comment on a such a major political issue particularly in another country. Yes, you can make the argument that Meghan is a American and she no longer lives in the UK, but so long as she insists on using her title, she is still royal by marriage and should remain apolitical. If she wants to dive into politics, that's cool but she needs to give up her titles.

Forty year old females don't have fresh faces.

Meghan really isn't as intelligent or cunning as she think she is.

Did Meghan mean it was gut wrenching for Harry instead of guttural? Don’t feel like reading the Vogue article but I did see a DM headline where they say Meghan wants to get into politics.

R121 Megz has been hinting at entering politics for ages now. The thing is, she can't run for office in the US while holding foreign titles.

I’d love for her to run because you know she’d aim high, US Representative, but not ultra-high (the Senate). But no getting down in the trenches of the state government for her. It’s the 24th district. Look it up, I’ve never heard of the guy.

She loves her Duchess title too much to REALLY enter politics. Her entering politics is nothing but all talk no action.

Which has been her MO her entire life.

They are being MOCKED - most severely.

The mocking continues...

R99 I think she meant visceral reaction. She has too many leaves in her word salad repertoire and can’t pick the right one.

Although…maybe Harry did have a guttural reaction. I can certainly picture him grunting on the ground in a simian fashion, making throaty, unintelligible sounds.

Meghan or Harry, can't even accomplish a simple soft interview without doing something ridiculous, or saying something outrageously stupid. It's made even worse because they take themselves so seriously. I can only think of less than a handful of times, they managed to pull off not looking like complete fools. If people wonder why she gets called out so much, it's shit like this. Fuck the Uvalde kids, and gun control! Meghan is the new face of women's rights now!

[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.]

R116 Did Meghan seriously claim that she grew reading books and articles about Diana? That doesn't jibe terribly well with her saying that she had no idea who Prince Harry was when she met him as a saintly, wide-eyed ingenue who was only in it for love.

[quote][R99] I think she meant visceral reaction

Yeah, that was my first question about Little Miss Misverbose after several misfires. I couldn't quite figure out how gutteral would have fit into the context other than Harry not being able to utter basic human feelings, so he was "gutteral" like a caveman? Urgh!,. GRUNT!

What a fucking train wreck of a prancing human.

Talk about stupid. I see two scenarios.

Maybe Harry finally gets how much he screwed up and wants to make an apology. But she will seem to go along and then sabotage the whole thing. And just make it worse.

Maybe this is to air how horribly they believe they and their children were treated. And just make it worse.

Silence for at least a year is their only chance.

Harry is in California and his family are in Britain. Isn't he "keeping his distance"?

Gloria Steinem the Great Feminist wouldn't give Meghan Markle the time of day if it weren't for the wealthy aristocratic man she married. The irony is so obvious if this was a TV show you would think less of the writers.

R104 Dells: agree. Meghan is a useful, self important idiot in this case. If only one of Meghan’s nitwit followers goes to the polls in November to rid this country of GOP monsters as a result of the Vogue article, I’m all for Meghan spouting off and taking credit for saving the country.

Aside from the unintentionally hilarious use of "gutteral", the "Well, Gloria, looks like we'll be heading to DC together. . ." Was the other shoe dropping.

It was either an ambush on GS ( who made no reply), or a hint that MM wants to shift her PR tactic in America.

I'd be curious to hear what she thinks she can do. Or, if, as is often the case with Meghan, she was just blowing smoke up the world's arse.

The issue here is a woman trying, yet again, to have her cake and eat it, too: plunge into politics on the basis of her American citizenship, but brandishing a British royal title.

The GOP has already scoffed by bringing up 1776 and how Americans don't need to be told what to do by a member of the family they divorced 230 years ago.

As always, this looks very much like a potential own goal by a woman famous for them, because her thinking is never deeper than a rain puddle.

I was annoyed at Gloria but she's 88 !!

I can forgive her aligning with the Douchess.

I guess.

BTW, wasn't Gloria a Playboy Bunny, back in the day? Waaayyyy back?

The first interview with Orca managed to kill off the old coot Philips, so who's the target of the second interview? The frail Queen?

Blees her soul, sMEGs, the kind humanitarian Duchess.

If that woman is registered to vote, and actually does vote, I’ll eat my fucking hat. Ask her when the next assembly race in her district is. Ask her what district she’s in.

That performative cunt has no fucking CLUE. Not a single blessed clue. She probably doesn’t even know the name of the mayor of Santa Barbara.

I can't think that he actually enjoys living there, but it was clear Meghan had no plans to stay in England, despite marrying British royalty.

Surely it'll end soon enough?

I’ve seen many people say that Oprah is probably in Hawaii now, that she spends most of her time there.

Oprah is going to interview a Very, Very tan Meghan. It will be announced at that time, she is running for some top flight position. Nothing less than Senator(Bye Pelosi). They will demand that the law be changed, so she will run as the Duchess of Sussex. If the law is NOT changed claims of racial discrimination will be taken to court. There will be vague threats of rioting if the law is not changed.

Juicy Smollet will write her campaign song & sing it. Harry will juggle his balls while on his polo pony, while being guttural. Gloria Steinem will endorse depends as the diapers of real feminists. Oprah will eat waffles & fried chicken.

So they went to see Gayle at Oprah's compound? Or do you mean Oprah probably left for Hawaii since her meeting with the Douchess and Pramse of Montyshitshow.

I know I shouldn't even start on conspiracy theories - but why is everything around the births of her kids so shady? This recent retirement of her pretty-young midwife in California? In England, she said she was having a home birth - changed her mind - didn't come out for the obligatory pictures with the baby coming out of the hospital -- I mean, she copies Diana in every way imaginable, yet no new baby presentation on the hospital steps -- her nemesis Kate has complied!

Even the names? What kind of nincumpoop names a child in line for the throne, never mind he's 7th - but Archie? Like the comic strip?? Like an obvious nickname for Archibald or something with dignity? Then she outdoes herself with Lilibet, lying that the Queen was onboard - that was Hazbeen Loser's claim, wasn't it? Generally he's been quieter about the lying that she is - marginally. This is just disgusting - and then there's arrogant dimwit Andrew throwing tantrums when the maid doesn't line up his Teddy Bear collection just so one morning.

Proof that this monarchial institution creates spoiled stupid brats? I know they serve a purpose - well Elizabeth has done well - but some of the others are such an embarrassment, how can they really help "hold the country together"? I guess that's what they're for?

I'm trying to remember... I think Sarah Ferguson wanted to name her daughter Alexandra but it was vetoed by the Queen. So she must have been picky - at least when she had the power to be.

I know it's not important but poor old Liz must be horrified at Harry's kids' names, both of them.

Fergie and Andy wanted to name their daughter Annabel, which at the time was the name of the most popular nightspot in London. The Queen wouldn't allow it.

Oh thank you R145! It was bothering me that I couldn't remember the story properly. Interesting that the Queen could veto Annabel but not Archie and Lilibet lol. I guess Sarah was more obliging. Isn't the Queen rather fond of her? despite Philip despising her. That philanderer should have been more tolerant imo.

Classy.

R144 I believe you may be thinking of Prince George. Catherine, and William wanted to call him Alexander for his first name. Liz said "no dice", and the name Alexander got bumped to a middle name.

Oh thank you, r148. Interesting that Kate, like Fergie, was obedient. Good for her! If you're gonna join the firm, join the fucking firm! I bet even dingbat Harry is starting to see all the wonderful perks of the life he threw away.

I don't think Andrew is capable of that. I guess he thinks he's gonna get it all back because dammit, it's what he wants, waaa waaa waaa, as he screams at his valet and chambermaid and Sarah and mummy.....

Get him, Charles, William -- god I hate that man more than I should. Need to get some therapy. He's worse than Meghan - well, maybe....

Oh and thinking on it, George is really an ugly name imo, and quite dated I think. Hell, Archibald would have been better - it has a certain rococo charm. Especially considering the baldness in the family lol, though I'm pretty sure that's inherited from the mother so Archie probably won't have the William/Harry head issues. Though maybe he will sport a fro - if mummy Megsy lets him. I shudder to think of her dragging those poor children to plastic surgeons if they don't turn out as gorgeous as she wants - and she'll have hair stylists working on them every fucking day, to get them picture perfect.

Who can save the children ?? I once thought Doria but the more I hear about her... never mind.

George is the name of several Kings of the UK, including HM's own father and grandfather. Of course she found it satisfactory.

r137 Gloria was a Playboy bunny for a story when she was a reporter.

I think Gloria probably doesn't keep up with gossip and doesn't realize how MM may be not so liked.

It's understandable. Meghan is mixed race, presents ok if you don't keep up with what she's REALLY up to. She's probably already figuring her out - it wouldn't take too many meetings for any sentient being to peg Meghan as an airhead egomaniac.

Oooh I sounded racist. I meant 'mixed race' to be a GOOD thing - that would make you want to like the person more than you would otherwise because the society is so racist. Well, you know... I need to do better with off-hand comments. Sorry.

R154, we’re not Meghan. We won’t sue you

I’m sure the Queen didn’t need to say very much more about the name Annabel than, “Oh. Like the nightclub, then. I don’t know about that one.” Message received. At least that’s probably how it used to work.

r156 Fergie doesn't seem to have much shame though.

I doubt very much William and Catherine wanted to give their son, heir to the throne, a name that no British monarch has ever had, r148. William had probably been planning on naming any future son he had George for decades. But, even if they had wanted Alexander, I doubt the Queen would have vetoed it.

Why would the Queen have vetoed the name Alexander, r144? When exactly did she have this power?

Random question: do you think if there's sustained civil violence in America (as a lot of us are predicting is going to happen now), do you think H&M will moved back to the UK for "their security?"

Not if we get them first!

How will they go back to the UK? The plebs despise them, and the BRF members don't talk to them. Maybe, they will go to Africa until it's all water under the bridge, sMEGs nabs herself a new husband, and then H can return to the UK.

I think Harry could go back. If Andrew can plod on - so can Harry.

Meghan wouldn't be happy there anyway. She's very American and she can probably find some people who'll put up with her just because she's famous - or infamous, what's the difference?

Andrew lives in the UK, r162. Harry doesn't, so returning wouldn't be "plodding on".

Classy (and smart) move of William and Kate to call their first-born George, irrespective of whether it was at the Queen's suggestion or not. The Queen idolises her father.

I don't see Meghan snagging another man. She got very lucky with Harry. Without him she'd be an aging nobody.

Not only is it a nightclub, but the name is associated with a bit of a scandal. The club was named after the owner, Mark Birley's wife, who had a very open secret affair with Sir James Goldsmith, her husband's best friend. She eventually went on to marry him. Later near the end of her marriage, Diana spent a lot of time at their country place . Goldsmith, incidentally, is Jemima Khan's father.

I would be. Very surprised if the Cambridges had been obtuse enough to try on Alexnadercas the name of the 3td online for the throne. They would have gone, from the outset, for the name linked to history (the last two King Georges were higley popular), and especially dear to the Queen's heart.

But the Annabel issue, I believe l, was true.

You have to remember that at the time, Andrew was 5th in line. Now, he's eighth and no one would give a damn if the two girls were named Tansy and Bluebell

Kate is nothing if not astutely aware of such things.

I call bullshit on that rumour. If it had been a girl they'd have named her Victoria. Safe, regal, tied to a notable and fairly recent reign.

Archie was 7th in line, and by the time Lilbet was born the Harkleswere done and dusted and it was pointless to do anything but shrug. And, as it was, the Palacevstuck it to the two for it by leaking that HRry hadied to the public about having discussed it with HM or that he had a video call with her right after the birth.

No one really cared what Archie was called, which is rather the point.

The Cambridges' first was an entirely different matter, which Kate and William well knew

I like the name George. Its non-trendiness is exactly its appeal. Alexander would have been pompous. The kind of name the nouveau riche solicitor in Richmond bestows on his son.

If he were named Alexander, George would've been one of several royal Alexanders and Alexandras. King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands and future Queen of Norway, Ingrid-Alexandra, are the ones that are coming to my mind in an instant, but there might be other Alexanders and Alexandras among European royalty.

Wasn't Archie Prince George's handle among the BRF's security detail? I can remember some story where a very young George introduced himself as "Archie" for fun, I guess he picked up the name overhearing some security guys talking and thought it was pretty funny since everybody else calls him George.

Oh that's right! Could be Meghan being mean by stealing George's nickname. The mind boggles.

So, here's the plan. Everyone, I mean everyone needs to keep pumping up the fantasy, Megan has a real shot at dethroning Queen Pelosi for senate seat. Meghan will get Harried & Hapless Har to renounce all titles. Mission accomplished.

Win win all around. If she loses, Oh well. If she wins. Cat fight on camera. Megs vs. AOC for top wokester in D.C. But best of all..at the funeral of HM, they sit in the last row.

Nancy Pelosi isn't a Senator. Dianne Feinstein (89) is the senior US Senator for California.

I remember during the height of Diana's antics reading that she expressed an idle fantasy of marrying JFK Jr and ultimately becoming First Lady -take that, Charles! True or not, be funny if Harry had similar daydreams of rising to power in the US just to spite his family.

R 173, Thanks even better. For sure if elected there will be hairpulling & face scratching with AOC & Meghan in the same room. Might even start watching the news. Wonder how well it will be suppressed. you know some nasty Repug will be filming the fight with their phone & leaking it in real time.

I smell popcorn.

If Meghan couldn't stand the scrutiny she received as the 6th in line's Duchess wife second-tier royal, does anyone really think she could stand the heat of an actual political campaign?1

She is thin-skinned, self-regarding, demanding, and dishonest. There are enough skeletons in her closet to stock another Harryhausen film. Her vulnerability to smears would dwarf what she experienced at the hands of the UK tabs and, to some extent, from the BRF's handling of her brief time inside.

Meghan also has a long track record of not learning from her mistakes.

She hasn't the stomach, she would have to give up the title, which is problematic, as it isn't hers to surrender. She would have to persuade the husband whose title it actually is to give up the thing over which he is currently suing the Home Office of his grandmother's government.

And even if he did surrender the Sussex title, she would simply turn into Princess Henry of Wales, and once William becomes Prince of Wales, that wouldn't apply, either. Plus, she will be toting two kids who carry the style and title of HRH Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.

Harry would have to give it all up and file for American citizenship to make the prospect of running for office on Meghan's part anything but farcical.

Meghan doesn't want hard work, she doesn't want intense scrutiny, and she doesn't want to stop being royal.

She wants status, position, celebrity, and a veneer of influence.

She wants the name without the game.

She is no more temperamentally fit for the rigours of political life than she was for the (by comparison), less complicated rigours of performing as a second-tier royal.

I wouldn't put it past Harry to be considering giving it all up after what happened at the Jubly, as he realises now that he and his wife burnt every bridge in sight.

But even that isn't the real issue: the real issue is that politics is a far harsher taskmaster than royalling, and takes a tougher skin than Meghan has evidenced.

[quote]Fergie doesn't seem to have much shame though.

But that's not defiance, she's just stupid. And a huge pleaser. If the Queen didn't like it, she'd concede.

Alexander was a popular name for European nobility at one time. Maybe she just didn't think the name was English enough. To all the people saying you can't all a king Alexander, are failing to realize monarchs pick a regency name. The queen's father's regency name was George, but his actual name as Albert. Charles when he becomes king could call himself William, and William could call himself Phillip. By the time Archie came along he was far down enough, to where it didnt really matter what his name was, and it's not like Meghan would have listened to anybody. She would have doubled down, and likely named him something worse if they asked her to think of another name.

Most popular boys' names in the UK for 2021... a mix of traditional and modestly untraditional. George was 4th most. The posh like their traditional names, even if they're off piste a bit like Hugo or Ivar or dull like Arthur. For Kate and William, George was one of the Queen's father's given names, her grandfather's as well, and one of Charles' given names.

R178 I thought they had to pick one of their names. I think Charles is actually Charles Arthur Philip George.

But they can just pick any name they want? Or maybe that's what you're saying - since Philip is one of Charles' names.

I’ve come to like George. It’s neat and elegant.

R189, not R178, but yes, they can pick a name. Queen Victoria chose Victoria... her first name was Alexandrina and her mother called her Drina as a child. Edward VII's first name was Albert. Edward VIII's first name was David. There was speculation Charles might have reigned as George VII but he now has lived so long and so visibly as Charles the tradition has probably died. With the other examples, back in the day, obviously way less media and they would have been referred to then largely, maybe only, by title: the Prince of Wales etc. etc.

Sorry, ^ for R180.

R182, the Queen's father -- George VI -- was named Albert and called Bertie by his family and wife.

I bet Charles chooses to be George VII. He's so mired in the past...no matter how old he is or how the tradition is meaningless to contemporaries.

It supposedly started with Edward VII, because his mother Victoria did not wish any future king to share the limelight/memory of her dearly departed husband.

There were rumors for years and years that Charles was going to chose Arthur as his regnal name but I think it's pretty well settled now he'll reign as Charles III.

Edward VII was described to be as eager to put a space between himself and his sainted father as much as his mother sought to glorify him.

The other thing in the Meghan Runs for Office story is that America really does have a free press, unlike Britain. Attempts like the ones the two tried in Britain's courts to control their public narrative won't work in the Land of the First Amendment that Meghan's husband so wirelessly publi ly mocked last year.

It's been confirmed that Charles and Camilla met the Sussex children.

How much did The Harkles charge them?

Does a “senior royal aide” mean that this came from the BRF or Meghan’s PR people? I’d assume that this person is an employee in one of the palaces and is authorized to make a public statement.

It doesn’t say much for any of them that people have to drill down this far to question the veracity of anything that any of them say.

R158 The Cambridges wanted and they did name their firstborn Alexander - it’s his middle name. It completely stands to reason that they might have wanted to go with Alexander as a first name but succumbed to the wishes of the Queen who wanted the future king be named after her father. The same way they wanted Louis to have Arthur as a first name, but went with Louis after Lord Mountbatten to appease Philip and Charles who idolised him. Do you think they chose to name their child after dodgy relative neither of them even knew properly? And btw R167 they have a daughter and no, they did not name her Victoria, even a little bit.

I cannot imagine that there was anyone who thought it was “wonderful” to see THEM. But if Charles was able to see the children, that is very good news and I won’t shit on that. No matter how things are between the adults, there is (or should be) love and fondness for the children.

But I remain skeptical that this even happened.

I wish people would stop talking about this ridiculous woman going into politics. There is less than zero chance of her being elected to any office. She does this to stay in the headlines.

I can't imagine anywhere she could run that she would also be elected. She can't even argue she's at least got a law degree. A very unlikely candidate, given the nature of her fame. It's not she was an astronaut or a Nobel winning scientist.

She may not have a Nobel, but she bought herself an NAACP award. Does that count?

Why would the Cambridges want to call their son Alexander, r191? Especially William, who in everything he does shows that he believes in and wants to enhance the stability and continuity of the royal family - as exemplified by the name George. Why would William want to choose a very unusual name for a British monarch? If they were so intent on giving their son the first name Alexander then they could have called their other son Alexander, or their daughter Alexandra. Just the very fact that Charlotte is named after her grandfather, great-grandmother and grandmother and Louis is named after Louis Mountbatten itself shows that desire for family and continuity (same with giving George the middle name Louis).

The Queen gave her son and heir the somewhat unusual name of Charles - yes, there are two previous Charles, so there is precedent for the name, but Charles I was decapitated and Charles II represented a jolly good but decidedly hedonistic era. Charles II had a dozen illegitimate children but no legitimate heir. So, I don't think she's too stuck on names. Oh, and you also know that William and Kate also wanted to call Louis Arthur but again were somehow prevented from doing that! If Charles really cared that much about his descendants being called Louis then he could have just named Harry Louis instead of Henry, which is not the most delightful name.

But, you just know for a fact that not only did William and Catherine want to give their firstborn son the first name Alexander, but that the Queen vetoed it.

She can run on a platform of snacks for all!

I bet she wants to run for President.

Feinstein has submitted the FEC paperwork that would allow her to run for the 2025-31 Senate term, though she has not officially commented one way or the other on whether she'll run.

She'll be 91 on Election Day 2024 and that six-year term would end a few months before her 98th birthday. (Whether she'd get the nomination is another question.) Plus she could die before the end of her current term.

Chances are she wouldn't survive the full '25-'31 term, judging by reports of her health and just plain probabilities.

All this to say that the Governor of California may have a temporary seat in the US Senate to bestow in the not-too-distant future. I think that Meghan no longer has the cachet that would put her in with a chance, though she does have the qualifications (young, female, not 100% white). There was a time when she might have been in with a shot at getting an interim appointment, e.g. had Feinstein died of Covid early on in the pandemic, shortly after Meghan and Harry left Britain. Her capital has decreased immeasurably since then. Now she's just a punchline.

[quote] I think that Meghan no longer has the cachet that would put her in with a chance, though she does have the qualifications (young, female, not 100% white).

There will be a large number of women with experience who also tick those boxes.

Indeed, R200. All Meghan has now is a number of the qualifications but she no longer has the popularity needed to make up for her many deficiencies.

R201, she has no qualifications. What would you think would qualify her to actually hold office?

She's also not young.

The "qualifications" I mentioned in R199 (i.e. young-ish, female, not 100% white). Obviously I think Meghan is wholly unqualified though, to some, there was a time when these characteristics and a certain amount of goodwill could have taken her far.

R203, as far as the Senate goes, Meghan would be young. She'd be second-youngest, next to Jon Ossoff. In all other contexts, she is not the young ingénue she would like to be, I agree.

A few years ago I read an article about House members in DC. There’s a “war” room somewhere filled with desks and phones and in their spare time they have to go, sit there and make fund raising phone calls for hours. This is while Congress is in session. Otherwise, they are flying home to make fund raising speeches every weekend. They have elections every two years so it is a non-stop grind.

Charles Phillip Arthur George r180. During her wedding vows Diana called him Phillip Charles Arthur George.

My messages to the plebs, bitches. I'm so excited when that day comes.

The UK media, whisi is mostly to say the DM, will not let go of the bullying report story.

It is keeping the "where there's smoke, there's fire" tactic alube as ling as it can. In place of an outline of changed policies or a discussion of the investigation in the Sovereign Grant report, the DM is keeping alive the meme of a craven BRF sacrificing its honour and the loyalty of its staff and the public's right to know on the altar of fear of more drama from the mental Sussexes.

The public, actually, doesn't have any inherent right to know ik this case. The Queen paid for this personally, if Meghan's psycho fans were able to ID who talked, their lived, especially Touabti's, could literally be in danger.

It is OVER and I rather agree with HM that since it is over and the Windsor drawbridge is now fully up re the Harkles, everyone should just move on.

The truth will be leaked with less opacity than hints at changed HR policies at some point without the Palace having to lift a finger.

But the DM is doing its level best to keep that shadowy finger pointed at Meghan as long as it can.

[quote]It is keeping the "where there's smoke, there's fire" tactic alube as ling as it can.

Good post but I laughed out loud at this bit.

R208, and you don’t think she’s a bully? Staff at Tyler Perry’s mansion and the high turnover at Archewell must be wrong, too.

And for the record, I don’t think it’s any walk in the park to work for the BRF. I don’t think they’re paid very well, and the “prestige” of working for royalty is somehow supposed to be part of the compensation. Like getting an unpaid internship at Goldman Sachs.

And remember when the Harkles “moved” to Frogmore, staff had to park their cars even further away because the Markles didn’t want to look at their cars when they looked out the window.

Obviously bits of the report will leak as needed to keep Meghan in line. Also would not be surprised if there were some unsavory parts in it related to Harry as well.

[quote] The same way they wanted Louis to have Arthur as a first name, but went with Louis after Lord Mountbatten to appease Philip and Charles who idolised him.

I think they also went with Louis simply because Pippa's son's name is Arthur.

Obviously you're American, r211.

I think they used it to take the Sussexes big mouths hostage. Here's what we found... your choice... have a nice Jubilee visit.

Would they really have a King Arthur? Would he be King Arthur II or is it unclear whether Arthur existed or was actually king?

The Palace is not going to release the bullying report for four reasons:

1) The report probably looks bad for BOTH H&M and the Palace. It likely shows that while the Palace was aware of Meghan's alleged antics, it sided with her and probably was more concerned with keeping it out of the media rather than actually protecting staff. It may also highlight the bad behaviour of other royals like Andrew who is allegedly a diva himself.

2) Releasing the report will look like the Palace is throwing mud at H&M. Even if the report were to suggest Meghan was a fucking nazi to work for, it will be framed by many as a racist attack on a "strong woman of colour." Also by not airing the report in public, it plays into the Royal Family's apparent strategy of killing the Sussexes with kindness.

3) If it were to be released, it would be next to impossible to keep the staff who came forward anonymous. The media would pick it apart and it's very likely they would be bullied and threatened by H&M's more deranged supporters. Also, Meghan would probably also try to do what she could to destroy their reputations and she likely wouldn't be able to resist commenting and airing her side of the story. Basically, it would become a shit show.

4) Finally, the Palace is not stupid. They know that one way or another, the details of Meghan alleged bullying are going to leak out eventually. Richard Kay in the Daily Mail already spilled some details today and I'm sure more will becoming. This leaves the Palace in the perfect position to just say "we do not comment on confidential reports." They effectively leave Meghan out to dry while just appearing to be neutral on the whole thing. Leaving this dangling over the Sussexes' heads does give the Palace a bit of leverage.

It's an internal report. There is no need to or even public interest in publicising it.

When Harry met Meghan, he changed...

Another reason it's not getting released is that Meghan's lawyers have likely seen the report and if it cleared her, she's be calling for it to be released.

Meghan's people are trying to spin it today that basically the fact that Buckingham Palace is not releasing the report proves she's innocent. But the Palace never let her off the hook, in fact they acknowledged changes had been made. They wouldn't have made a single change if there wasn't reason to.

^ They always have to comment when it would be better to be silent.

Burying the report doesn't let her off the hook, silly. It muddies the water and leaves a cloud of suspicion. Duh. How simple minded do they think people are?

R210 I might not blame them about the car parking thing.

R209 Gawd bless ye, sir!

R208

They'll keep the lid on it for an appropriate period of time then slowly leak it so they are under less suspicion of how it got out to the media.

As the aerial show featuring the Royal Air Force aerobatics team captivated the nation, the couple were already making their way back to Frogmore Cottage, their Windsor home, to see their children Archie, three, and Lilibet, one.

Although prevented from watching from the balcony, they could have joined their fellow “non-working” royals on the roof of St James’ Palace for the display by 70 aircraft including Typhoon fighters, but opted to go home instead.

The swift exit meant the couple also avoided a family lunch with royal cousins, including Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips, after watching the parade of pomp and pageantry together from the Major General’s Office overlooking Horse Guards.

According to several sources, the cousins had planned to pay Harry and Meghan a visit at Frogmore later that day, but the “celebratory” lunch went on much longer than planned. As one insider put it: “It was quite boozy and went on well into the early evening, by which point there was no time to get to Windsor to see the Sussexes.” -

The couple had hoped to bring their own photographer to capture the first meeting between the sovereign, whose family nickname is Lilibet, and her great-granddaughter.

However, the Queen personally intervened to prevent an official image being taken, apparently advising the couple that she had a bloodshot eye and did not want to feature in any pictures for public consumption. It came after aides expressed fears that publicising a private meeting could set a dangerous precedent, not least if any photographs were shared with US television networks or Netflix, with whom the couple have signed a multi-million dollar contract.

The Duke is thought to have expressed a desire to get an official photograph of the two Lilibets together at some point in the future. - The Telegraph has also learned that the Sussexes’ decision to take a solo walk down the lengthy aisle of St Paul’s Cathedral for the service of thanksgiving on June 3 “raised eyebrows” behind palace walls - not least when they could have walked with Beatrice, Eugenie and their husbands, who were seated next to them in the pews.

One of the reasons the couple were spotted leaving Clarence House that Friday morning was because they were in a security “pod” with the Duke of York’s daughters, having apparently expressed concerns about their level of protection throughout the whistlestop visit.

Clive Alderton, the Prince of Wales’ private secretary, was strategically seated at the end of the row behind the Sussexes - who had no contact with the Duke of Duchess of Cambridge during the hour-long service, nor throughout the weekend. - Although the wider family were invited to Lilibet’s first birthday party on the Saturday, only the Tindalls’ and Mr Phillips’ children attended, while their parents spent the afternoon at the Epsom Derby.

According to one source: “There was a bit of reluctance among the royals to admit to having any involvement in Lilibet’s birthday party.”

They make me SO happy ! Never a moment that they cant somehow fuck up. Never an instance where they try to be in the spotlight and something catastrophic occurs and knocks them way down the interest polls ! They have such shitty timing I cant believe they actually pay people to advise them . Obviously Smeg runs the whole show. Everything they do had her oblivious little fingerprints all over it.

[quote]According to several sources, the cousins had planned to pay Harry and Meghan a visit at Frogmore later that day, but the “celebratory” lunch went on much longer than planned. As one insider put it: “It was quite boozy and went on well into the early evening, by which point there was no time to get to Windsor to see the Sussexes.” -

It's worse to be forgotten than held in contempt. They expected their cousins to visit them at their Frogmore Cottage court [italic]during the Queen's Jubilee [/italic], as though the cousins had nothing better to do than battle traffic to get to Windsor on such a highlight day of their lives? Did the Sussexes really expect that?

And Harry wanting an "official" portrait of the Lilibets? How many times have the Cambridges, Yorks, or Wessexes publicly, through a leak, clamored for individual, official portraits of their child with the Monarch?

There are not enough own goals or foot bullets in this world to cover the Sussex idiocy. They are incapable of learning and keep compounding their problems across multiple audiences as their union sunsets from public interest.

These

Plus, they were pissed. In vino veritas.

Here's the full Telegraph article with what R227 is referring. Also one other piece of gossip here: The Queen managed to stop an official photograph with Lilibet being taken because she had a burst blood vessel in her eye (something that was noticeable during the jubilee weekend).

Like there was ANY doubt in anyones mind that H&M wouldnt sell a pic of Lilibucks and the Queen to the highest bidder so fast your head would spin. They really are so self involved they think theyve outsmarted the whole world.

What must little George and Charlotte think about not even seeing their first cousins? Especially if they heard about a birthday party that their Uncle Harry was giving for his new baby daughter? I'm assuming Archie, Louis and certainly Lilibet are too young to notice or care - but the two older ones?

Did William's children really need to go to Wales?

OTOH though, why should they skip the Wales visit just because nasty Uncle Harry and his wicked wife refused to stay a week or so, so that a nice visit could be arranged that wasn't so inconveniently arranged right smack dab in the middle of the Jubilee weekend, like the birthday party was. It doesn't matter which particular day it was -- could have been the following Wednesday, to give everyone a chance to be available - the children, anyway.

So why on earth didn't Harry and Meghan stay an extra few days so a play-date type visit could be arranged between the first cousins - the only ones on dad's/the royal side? Will they ever meet? It's all so weird and dysfunctional - much like Meghan and her birth family and half-sibs.

There's no evidence any royal children were at that party, or even if there was a party. I can't see Anne's grandkids there after she used them to merch that tacky ring. Mike and Peter gave them both a cold shoulder.

The report isn't "buried" r221. It was never intended as a public inquiry.

Wow, Meghan really is plumbing new depths in her cack-handed attempts to strongarm the Queen and the RF. Will the penny ever drop for her that she has made a complete and utter mess of things?

You mean you think it hasn't?

R218. Haha. Her food obsession is out of control! It and the open letter are the only gestures she knows.

[“ Meanwhile, friends of the former actress were gushing to People magazine that Meghan had always prided herself on being a good boss. On one occasion, they related, she had paid for an ice cream stand to come to provide free treats for the staff. But over time these explanations seemed increasingly threadbare.”]

No, I don't, R235. I believe that Meghan exhibits the self-protection mechanisms used by narcissistic people to justify to themselves why they are right and others are wrong. In Meghan's case, I would imagine that this involves her attributing her own failures to the racism and sexism (or 'misogyny') of those around her.

Exactly r237. Momma taught her well.

R219 Meghan's lawyers have assuredly NOT seen the report, as they haven't a legal leg to stand on in demanding to see it as what they knew was an empty gesture. They tried that already. They were pleasantlt told to fuck off.

This was an internal investigation into ,company HR practices. It was paid for personally by the Queen, who owns it. No one else in the Known Galaxy has a legal right to see it.

What Meghan and her lawyers likely do know is what has already been stated on two threads at least twice: it's to both Meghan's and the Palace's advantage that this story disappear in the rearview mirror as quickly as possible. Neither come out looking good, as all the report would do is confirm that the Palace ignored legitimate complaints about Meghan's horrible behaviour, AND put staff, especially Melissa Touabti, in danger of vicious persecution be Meghan's "fans".

In asserting that policy changes were made in response to the report, the Palace has pointed a finger, ever so delicately, at Meghan.

But Meghan and her lawyers also know that confidential documents can be leaked. It is, therefore, now to the Sussex's advantage not to poke the Palace hornet's nest again, and to move the fuck on, as the BRF has.

Because this is OVER. They're out, they're going to stay out, the drawbridge is up, and the two gobshites are free to go on making fools of themselves in America to their heart's content.

And that's why Meghan and her lawyers have remained deafening silent on this.

Because suspicion of bad behaviour is better than confirmation.

Cogent, reasonable, and most likely what's the actual scoop on all of this.

[quote]Because suspicion of bad behaviour is better than confirmation.

If this theory is so, it's only a matter of time before the pattern repeats in America... with no one to restrain or manage around the behaviour, it would be inevitable, wouldn't it?

[quote] ...before the pattern repeats in America

What makes you think the pattern hasn't already repeated in America?

The supposed treatment of staff at Tyler Perry's house when H & wife were staying there after they jumped ship from Canad may be one instance.

Given their habit of lawsuits, anyone they hire at Montecito might be required to sign iron clad NDAs.

Nothing will be "leaked". It's nonsense to think that's how the royal family operates. They're also not interested in getting into games with Meghan and Harry, as leaking would be.

OK, obviously that should be "Canada", not "Canad".

I agree with R243. If they buried this thing, and they have, it stays buried.

I wonder how legit this is. If so, does this signal the beginning of the end?

^That would amount to thr couple being separated in all but name, and would feed a frenzy of marital speculation that Meghan especially could not possibly want.

And what about the kids?! Yoy don't seriously suppose Meghan would let them spend half the year under the influence of the Windsors?!

He couldn't possibly make a persuasive case for living apart from his wife for half the year because he "misses England".

No one, anywhere, would believe it.

It's total bullshit.

I think it's fiction too. Their adolescent body language was cringe for all to see at the Jubilee. They're as mesallianced as ever.

Why would you assume Harry would take the children with him R247? Mothers usually keep custody - especially when we're talking about a one-year-old.

Harry's not going back (assuming this is true) to be a stay-at-home or even closely-involved daddy. He wants to see his friends, do his drug of choice, start getting out and about again... in other words, get away from that nightmare of a wife and life he has in California.

That's my guess, anyway. Who knows with her? She may be fed up with him because... well, she gets fed up with everybody. Every. single. body. I think I know this type like the back of my hand - and living with them is hell on earth.

* I meant to say one-year-old GIRL -- though any toddler being given custody to the dad - would have to mean some serious dysfunction, like rehab level drug use and a clearly better situation with the dad. She'd fight him to the ends of the earth to keep him from "winning" on that front - and he'd just say fuck it, thinking he'll see them when he can.

Taxes. If he is still classified as a visitor by IRS, then I think there is something like a maximum number of days/months that he can spend in America without paying US taxes. The six months don't have to be contiguous, it is the sum of time spent in the US each year.

R243 It's not the Palace who is going to leak but H&M's disgruntled former staff likely will eventually and the Palace knows it.

Absolutely r252. Valentine Low comes to mind. As does Tom Bower.

That's my point. If he does NOT take the children with him, the PR will be ghastly. Absent legal action, which the rumour does not mention, the word "custody" has no meaning in the discussion.

He can't simply pick up and leave for 6 months without the kids and try to pretend the marriage is fine, all is well, he just misses England and wants to re-bond with his family.

He could make a plausible case for wanting his children to get to know their heritage and family - but not without his wife.

The only way they could swing it is to say the kids need to get to know their heritage blah blah and Meghan will be visiting regularly but has to remain in America to continue working on their projects. She will spend one week every month there, something like that.

They'll have to do some fancy footwork to make it sound plausible.

But everyone, especially the tabloids, will suppose, with some justice, that Harry is miserable hustling for money amid the sharks he has to please, and needs to get away from it all, including his demanding wife.

Because it's a safe bet that behind the scenes, Meghan treats Harry the way she treated the Palace staff. Which, by the way, is how Diana treated Charles behind the scenes.

With her two insurance policies, Meghan knows thatvwhayrver happens, she'll still ha e vastly more than she came in with.

I guess I have an antiquated view of upper class English parenting. The nannies do all of it until you can suffle them off to boarding school. Then visit -- maybe -- at Christmas and perhaps a summer holiday. Deadbeat Dads are us!

Let's not even think about a narc mom and her little insurance policies/legal weapons. Wonder how many nights Miss Megs will tuck them in and read The Bench yet again?

I'm just hoping she has a manager or somebody who'll hire decent nannies -- and the best thing for the kids is to stay as far away from Mommie Dearest and Daddy Dumballs as possible.

* shuffle

But, but didn't they just reach "financial independence"?

The only reason he would go back to England is to make money or getting more "royal" material for their Netflix doc. Oh wait, that's pretty well the same thing.

If the disgruntled former staff leak, then it will be traced straight back to them. Do they even have copies?

Harry won't go for that kind of parenting: that's what he blames for his problem, despite the fact that even he and William weren't raised that way. The Cambridges aren't going that route, either.

The more relevant issue is that Harry is used to being deferred to, not having to defer to.

And for Meghan, it's the reverse.

It was much easier for her to turn imperial than for Harry to stop reflexively expe ting things to don and for and given to him.

He thought it would be fun, like a new game at which he would invariably win.

I don't believe the story absent better evidence. But I'd easily believe Harry needs a break and after the Jubly is re-examining his choices, especially with regard to his family and his kids.

Only the Tindall and Peter Phillips' kids showed up at Harry's daughter's little birthday party. Along with the evidence of Charles' close relationship with the Cambridges and their kids.

Maybe Harry is realising too late what he and his bitch of a wife did to their kids, not just in terms of family, but also possibly re Charles' estate.

Oprah and Nacho and David Foster are n oi t replacements for a very rich adoring Granddad who us Britain's next King.

The shortsightedness of the Harkles never ceases to amaze.

Weaving those kids back into the family Harry and Meghan trashed is the only good reason for him to start spending half a year in Britain.

An attempt to pry the drawbridge down a notch, as it were.

Pure speculation, all of it.

[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.]

There's a lot to what you write, r259.

If viewed in the best possible light, perhaps the Sussexes are at that age that most adults reach when approaching early middle age- the immediate reactions and beliefs we had about the behavior and words of immediate family members: negative, angry, puzzled - upon maturing, we, in retrospect, see them with adult eyes, and can place them in an entirely different light.

I venture to posit that aging adults have a shared experience. That is, throughout your life, you see your parents and siblings in absolute ways- they're either right or wrong.

Then, one day the scales fall from your eyes. Suddenly, you see family members as the whole human beings they are, flaws and assets, and you find it easier to forgive and understand, just as they've had to forgive and understand me.

I think Prince Harry may have been, for a while, moving in that direction. The Jubilee may have been that moment for him. Meghan, who knows? She's used to moving on.

It's a nice idea, Della, but I can't see any evidence of Harry softening. All that's emerged is he's playing polo again, which says to me he's bored and purposeless. They are about to enter the Duke and Duchess of Windsor louche years.

If he goes back to England for six months, how do they survive financially? Would he ask Prince Charles for support?

She got away with the bullying for so long because of black privilege.

We've all seen it, especially at work. There is always at least one black (usually female) who is perpetually angry, a literal black hole, unapproachable and a shitty worker who gets away with the most outrageous behavior, cuz, you know, calling them on their shit would be racist.

Good lord, I doubt he's going back for a strict and uninterrupted period of 6 months.

I think what might be floating around is the taxes he will have to pay to IRS if he stays in America more than 6 moths of a given calendar year.

So, if there is any validity to the '6 month' rumour, I would foresee him sporadically flying back and forth to the UK to ensure that he only accrues 6 months on American soil, thereby avoiding US taxation.

It would be a good plan, he flies back to Frogmore, sometimes with the kids and nannies, sometimes with that woman he so stupidly married, and the kids can become more familiar with their cousins and their heritage. (Also allows for more surreptitious footage for Netflix, which pays the bills).

Harry eventually does the odd Royal appearance, and through time gets his (woefully unnecessary) security reinstated. Also, he gets treated like a Royal agin, which he doesn't just miss, but has to have in order to feel normal.

He gets to hang with the lads and do the lad stuff without the oppressive prying eyes of the grifter wife, and eventually he has a few affairs until he finally divorces,

The problem with your rose colored scenario, R265, is that Harry has shown that he, himself, is not to be trusted.

So, who of the old "lads" crowd would ever be as comfortable with him again?

Not with the proven past that he has no problem "tattling" to Mrs. Harry who uses his tales.

[quote]So, who of the old "lads" crowd would ever be as comfortable with him again?

I'd wager there is a lot of lads that would love to go on a pub crawl with a Prince, if only to to give themselves more cred with the ladies.

^ he'll be the old souse at the Soho House bar, spinning stories to his enthralled hangers-on and yes-men.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the process you describe at R261, Della. I'm saying that's an ideal. It's a healthy maturing process, but it isn't automatic and I see zero reason to believe Harry is experiencing it - and a few solid reasons to believe he isn't and that if anything he is more and more stuck in his self-destructive ways.

Toxic people and toxic ways of relating to others exist. Toxicity prevents the process you're describing for some people.

I find it hard to believe the Tindall and Phillips kids went to the birthday party at Frogmore since both Mike Tindall and Peter Phillips gave halfwit Harry and his harridan the cold shoulder on the church steps.

Seems like more PR spin and they know the BRF won't refute it. Not immediately anyway.

Oh no, r269. I took no umbrage at your replies to my observations at r262.

I do think, however, maturity ( assuming he does mature) is going to really bring it home to him how much he has spurned.

I wonder where they're getting the dough-ray-mee to maintain the lifestyle they have. The operational and landscaping costs alone on that mansion must require annual maintenance costs running into thousands of dollars.

[quote]Harry eventually does the odd Royal appearance, and through time gets his (woefully unnecessary) security reinstated. Also, he gets treated like a Royal agin, which he doesn't just miss, but has to have in order to feel normal.

And which defeats everything everyone set out to do. The whole point was the Queen (rightly) decided the half in half out model didn't work. He's out. They've moved on from these controversial bunglers. Why open the whole circus up again?

^You may be right, that's just what I read.

What isn't in any doubt is that not a single adult member of the BRF attended, least of all the "important" ones that the Harkles wanted.

At any rate, none of us really know what is going on behind the closed doors of Montecito, except that even to the outsider, things never look natural.

Anything Harry earned in America was taxable in America these last two years, so if he wanted to get away from those by spending half a year in Britain, he'd have been doing that already.

The story is nothing but rumour. The time to spend 180 days a year in Blighty to retain a grip on Councillor of State or the like, I think, is rather over.

The real questions remain the same: Harry's memoir in re the BRF holding the bullying report in reserve as a weapon if he attacks again, how close to the bone Bower will dare to get in his book, whether Low's book on the courtiers will include their interactions with the Harkles, and what Netflix and Spotify are doing.

And, where's the money coming from.

The Queen's "job description" has just been rewritten because of her "mobility" (i.e., health) issues. Opening Parliament is no longer listed as one of her duties. This is another acknowledgement that no one expects her to reign for much longer; perhaps it's even meant to prepare the public for the hitherto unthinkable Regency if HM is inconsiderate enough to hang on stubbornly in her mortal coil.

Charles is under fire again for his dealings with a very rich Tory MP who bailed out Charles' eco-village project.

I dunno. I still think shoes haven't done dropping.

[quote] I wonder where they're getting the dough-ray-mee to maintain the lifestyle they have. The operational and landscaping costs alone on that mansion must require annual maintenance costs running into thousands of dollars.

I've been wondering this too. The insurance on that place must be huge as well. And who is paying for the health insurance of his family? Does he get that through that eco-travel business that he's the Ambassador for? Or is Meghan still able to get insurance through SAG-AFTRA?

So why the strong incentive to film and air the Oprah interview when she and Harry knew full well Philip was dying? We hear this week from Lady Campbell that Meghan knew full well a bullying probe and investigation was underway at Buckingham Palace where the HR

Klan Granny thread.

Klan Granny troll.

Fucking LOL at Meghan's face at R275. She is a terrible actress, her expression of hurt little girl woundedness reeks of insincerity.

KGT (Klan Granny Troll) nobody is forcing you to read or post in the H&M threads yet here you are again. *yawn*

^^^ that was directed at KGT at r276 since I know they are reading

"Let's see....I think I'll go for the Wallis Simpson look with a touch of Panorama Diana around the eyes. Yeah, that's the ticket!"

[quote] I'm trying to remember... I think Sarah Ferguson wanted to name her daughter Alexandra but it was vetoed by the Queen. So she must have been picky - at least when she had the power to be.

The Queen would have had no problem with Alexandra--that's the name of her great-grandmother, and has full royal precedent. As someone else said, the name she actually had vetoed for Beatrice was Annabel--it had no royal precedent, nor special reason for why anyone would want it--it was just a trendy name Fergie liked. The queen wanted the top six heirs to the throne to have names with royal precedent if possible.

[quote] I doubt very much William and Catherine wanted to give their son, heir to the throne, a name that no British monarch has ever had, [R148].

It's not unheard of: Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden's daughter was born second in line to the Swedish throne after her mother, but she was given a name no Swedish monarch has had before her: Estelle. She will one day reign as Queen Estelle. (Victoria was also given a name no Swedish monarch has ever had, but when she was born it was not expected that she would necessarily rule one day, because Sweden had royal male primogeniture until Victoria was quite a bit older.)

The last British monarch to be given a name without the precedent of a previous monarch's name was Queen Victoria.

Her uncle, King George IV, had full say over what her name would be. Victoria's mother Victoire, the Duchess of kent, wanted to name her "Georgina" after the King, but he insisted she could only name it after herself and also after the then-visiting Tsar of Russia, Alexander. So the baby was christened "Alexandrina Victoria," and was always called "Drina" by her older relatives.

The Tindall and Phillips children weren't at her fake "birthday party".

NOBODY was at the fake party.

I still don't think they brought their kids when they visited for the Jubilee. They count on the Royals not saying anything to the Press to discount the rumors they put out there about the kids meeting people and the birthday party.

I agree r286. I'm wondering if they even have children living with them. They never bring ANY children ANYWHERE.

R286, I don’t think there was a party, either, and I am not even sure the children were on British soil.

The 2021 taxes on their mansion are $141,000. (The year prior, it was double, I don’t know how you get your property tax bill cut in half.). Gawd knows what security, insurance, maintenance, utilities, staff would cost. That’s just their residence. Things like healthcare, cars, child care, her upkeep like clothing and manicures and facials, personal trainer and such; you know she’s not economizing on those things. Children that age aren’t expensive, actually, unless you want them to be. Childcare is, though, and I’m pretty sure she’s not nice to the nannies.

They brought their kids. There have been solid stories about Charles meeting the newest one. For the royal family there's no upside to being party to a lie about nonsense like this, which would inevitably get out.

I know how you get it cut in half. R288 Major deterioration of the house and/or property in some area, or damages/structural problems. This happened to a house we inherited. Basically a house needing MAJOR work.

Hope the kids don't get too attached to their nannies. The Harkles seem to cycle through staff fairly rapidly.

We know they dragged Lilibet to the UK in hopes of getting a photo with TQ to perch. Did they leave poor Archie at home?

They left him in his box.

Don't forget the upkeep of the chickens.

If Diana truly is in touch with Harry from the great beyond, as he claims, even she must be sick of this by now.

It is pretty fucked up that they saddled their daughter with what seems like a spite name and one that involved a degree of deceit involving her great grandmother.

R286 According to the Telegraph, there was, and those we ed the kids who attended. That said, the issue of whether or not there was a fucking birthday party for a little girl shows just how mental the aura around the Sussexes is.

It's just a kid's birthday party? How does it get to be a secret on the order of induction into the Masonic Order, complete with a glaringly poorly retouched photo that shaved Meghan's arms of several pounds of flesh?

Why does everything they do, from the simplest, monst mundane shit, turn into a reality challenge?!

They are so fucking abnormal.

Mike Tindall called Harry a “bell-end” after the Sussexes used his children that “shushing” publicity photo, but sent his children to a birthday party hosted by the Sussexes? And Princess Anne didn’t warn against her grandchildren going to the party?

AND these kids were unaccompanied by their parents?

Really.

Harry and Meghan lied 17 times in the Oprah interview, with their own mouths. (The one about their private wedding was refuted by the AoC.) Meghan lied to a high court, for Pete’s sake.

But they are definitely above allowing a “source” to mislead a newspaper. They’ve NEVER done that. Unless a Tindall or Philips confirms with a declarative statement (they won’t), I’ll continue to believe this is one of their face-saving porkies.

R296. Because they want to pretend Harry is as important as William, but no one else will join in their fantasy.

[quote]Because they want to pretend Harry is as important as William, but no one else will join in their fantasy.

There is a lot of truth to that. The Harkles are utterly deluded about the realities of their existence. harry thinks he should be treated like the heir to the throne, and Meghan thinks she should be treated like an acclaimed actor and a saint to all of humanity.

Can someone do a recap about when the child shushing photos were taken?

It was during the Trooping of the Colour. Harry's first wife got close enough the window she was captured doing a smiling-shush to Peter Phillips' girls. Or at least one of them. Those Phillips kids are going to be hellions, I bet. They don't really behave.

[quote]and Meghan thinks she should be treated like an acclaimed actor and a saint to all of humanity.

The thing is, if she had played the game, she'd be the royal patron for the National Theatre and have bragging rights to any woke productions they decided to do.

Peter Phillips is one of my secret crushes.

But why was Meghan doing a shush motion? Trooping of the Color is an outdoors event. Weren't the kids just hanging out waiting for their parents to come back? Sorry if I'm being a bit thick. I didn't follow this part of the Markle-Windsor saga.

The thing is, if she had played the game, she'd be the royal patron for the National Theatre and have bragging rights to any woke productions they decided to do.

But in the end, she just didn't have the mettle to rise to the occasion. They're both just griping peasants when its all said and done, even with one of them being 'of the blood'.

I think the only reason Oprah is tolerating these morons is that she is waiting for everything to explode in their face. Then, Oprah will come in like the best friend ever with a microphone and cameraman behind her back for their tell-all woes and tales of abuse.

R305... the members of the royal family who are not participating watch from in the Horse Guard's building overlooking the event.

The photo showed them having a "fun," "playful" side that intimated that they were an integral part of a jovial family gathering. It also enabled Meg to merch the ring she was wearing. Unplanned, I'm sure!

Meghan was supposedly "shushing" the children she barely knows so that her rings could be seen and merched.

Thanks, r308. I didn't realize. I thought they were in Buckingham Palace.

Harry shushed the kids, too.

And then the parents of those kids who were used for a “sweet, playful” photo op went to Lilibet’s birthday party. Because Harry and Meghan just loved those loud little bastards so much they wanted the badly-behaved little pests bouncing around their precious Lilibet.

That jewelry shop in London that ran an ad featuring a photo of Meghan shushing the kids while wearing the item they were advertizing -- wouldn't that have to have been arranged when they were still in California?

Was Meghan contact merchants saying she would wear their product in a photograph with the royals? Or did she hire and agent to find a jeweler who'd pay her to produce a photographic advertisement for them?

I'm simply gobsmacked. And are they THAT hard up, money wise?? Also, she doesn't have an inkling about how tacky that was?

* God my grammar. Was Meghan CONTACTING merchants... or did she hire AN agent...

Oooo ! I had no idea that pic was used in advertising ! Damn,that bitch is ruthless !

Oh and to add insult to injury - Harry does the same damned shushing action with those poor kids at the window. WTF?? They couldn't come up with a separate idea for him to get his photo made by their photographer down on the ground watching for them to appear at the window, as per prior arrangement.

At least he wasn't wearing a bracelet or ring that same jeweler was promoting - at least I don't think he was.

The company ended up having to take the ad down -- I don't know how long it was up but I saw it, and I think it had the address and email link to the place where you too could order the pinky ring that her excellence Meghan was wearing at the window!

OMG that is astonishing R316 ! Im howling ! Megs is too much !

I posted this before in another thread. The IG post by the jeweler is still up. They turned off comments though, as there was a deluge of negative messages about this charade.

R318 beat me to it. She’s merched for that company in the past. Fucking gross.

OMG that's it!! What about the "more to come soon"?

There were further plans to merch using the royals? Oh shit. And did they? (might be privately on display at the shop or something)

Maybe another company that mikes people up to record others is privately bragging that they provided those services at St Paul's for H&M?

Maybe that would explain why you could see the cord coming out of her collar up to her hair -- and also that coin-like thing on her chest which was clearly visible. If she were working for a detective agency, promoting their products, you'd probably want to see some proof that they were miked up.

Otherwise, it would be ridiculously stupid to make it so obvious.

Meegain when asked about her merching, "Well, half a loaf is better than no loaf." Talk about having no sense of decorum! But we all knew that. But no sense of embarrassment. Actually thought, I think the booing at St Paul's & the shouts to go away got to them. I think that and the unfiltered girl lookalike a Frigidaire photos was the cherry on top. They fled like the trash they are. Why wear the sparkling white of a frig, when you're built like that. Off white or beige would have been better.

I kept thinking is Bess Myerson going to open that door.

R321, They even bragged about getting footage smuggled in a tampon by a female soldier. They love this cloak and dagger shit. He thinks he’s James Fucking Bond.

They suck at it, because The Duchess kept furtively fiddling with her collar (Harry even checked it) and he kept fiddling with something under his necktie.

That’s one of many reasons why I doubt the claims that are rolling in money. They assent to some really petty and pathetic stunts for a few dollars.

[quote] Harry does the same damned shushing action with those poor kids at the window. WTF?? They couldn't come up with a separate idea for him to get his photo made by their photographer down on the ground watching for them to appear at the window, as per prior arrangement.

Harry is too dim to come up with his own ideas

They turned off the comments because everyone was tagging Mike Tindall.

There was once a poorly written half finished article on a shitty web site stating that there have been over a dozen assassination attempts on Meghan and her kids.

A dozen of them and they managed to keep them all out of the news? Please.

The Sussex Squad is fucking nuts. You know it's going to be like Christmas and New Year's for those assholes when The Queen dies. They're just as bad and deranged as Trump supporters.

If a member of the public tripped within the vicinity of Meghan, dropped their drink, had the plastic cap fly off and hit M in the ankle, I guarantee there would be a press release about the attempted assassination, complete with quotes about how Meghan is focused on her healing journey, within 2 hours. Ain't no one tried to assassinate this pair of dorks.

She just wants the security to keep people from rightfully coming up to her and calling her a cunt.

The sewage squad thinks that to criticize the Harkles means attempted assassination.

R330 I know. It's literal violence!

These are past their sell by date women calling themselves "sussex squad?" That is so embarrassing.

According to the latest gossip (based on a CDAN blind), Harry's memoir is being held back because its focus is going to be "fact based" accusations that, indeed, his family had his mother murdered because she was pregnant with Fayed's baby etc., etc.

The fact that both children didn't like Fayed, and that Diana may have been crazy but wasn't stupid and would never have tied her life to someone her kids, especially William, hated, and that there wasn't a shred of evidence (confidences to friends, especially) that she was either pregnant or using Fayed as anything but a fill-in to show she had a life whilst Charles went merrily off with the woman he really loved, doesn't seem to factor into the BI.

The BI asserts that that's why Harry's memoir keeps getting put back, because he wants the Queen to die before it comes out with this nonesense.

Anything CDAN puts out has to be taken with 100 bucketsful of salt. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the stuff CDAN put out there that turned out to be complete bullshit made up out of whole cloth.

A moment's thought would bring up the legal quicksand in such a public accusation, not to mention making a case for how mentally ill Harry is, and how convenient a case it would make for the BRF to request that Parliament remove Harry's titles and remove him and his children from the Line of Succession.

So I think the story is bullshit, but there it is, for consideration.

The Telegraph sticks it to Meghan.

I have no doubt the publisher was disappointed with the lack of shock value. I can't say what levels of intelligence or ethics drive his decision making or how much money he needs. If he does anything to ignite controversy around Diana, how does William forgive that?

BTW, are those weekly video calls still happening, where William admires his sister-in-law's parenting? It must be hard to get them together with the time zones and the engagements and the polo and the podcasting and the book writing.

If the blind holds any credence and deranged Harry goes the bizarre "my mother was killed" shock value route in his book how does he explain naming his daughter after the head of the family he accuses of this heinous act? Why does he want to "protect and make sure the right people are around" the woman involved in the nefarious plot alongside her now deceased husband? How does he explain why Phillip and the Queen would execute this plot in a foreign country, France a country that has not always been an ally, rather than in their own country where they would have the protection of the military and government that Granny herself heads? Why are he and his harridan so hellbent on keeping the titles granted them by these awful people who supposedly killed his mother?

Inquiring minds want to know. Questions Oprah will never ask.

R337 Because the BI and the rumour are total bullshit, like so much of the stuff the media put out to keep this pot stirred.

That BI is pretty outlandish, even for CDAN.

I am so curious what Moeheringer's assessment of Harry is after spending countless hours with him. I suspect he's spent more time with him than any of his therapists and confided in ways that he hasn't with others except his wife

The book is delayed because it sucks (even with Moehringer supposedly working on it). And perhaps Harry is trying to shoehorn in a bunch of conspiracy theory stuff into his “memoir” and Moehringer doesn’t want to write that shit. There’s some sort of tussle. If there’s a delay because they want to include the Jubilee events… how long would that take? It was a month ago. I could write that shit up in a month.

No doubt al-Fayed might like to collaborate with Harry and stick it to the BRF, but he doesn’t NEED Harry. He can commission a documentary crew and get it done all by himself. It’s probably more that

Ack. My dog made me drop my phone and I posted prematurely. To continue from r339:

Moeheringer was an interesting choice. Supposedly, Harry liked the sympathetic Agassi autobiography and asked for him specifically. I've read that M is in recovery which might present an interesting conundrum for him: How does he write a book about someone who is not sober, has no insight, has an under-developed intellect, and comes from a position of grievance and victimization? If M is in AA and goes to meetings, he has heard the whole spectrum of life stories from the honest and heartfelt to those full of self-pitying BS. He must have sussed Harry out out pretty well by some point during their collaboration. Maybe he's having misgivings or concerns that his subject has not been forthcoming with him and this is stalling the publication? His reputation will be on the line, more so than Harry's, which is pretty trashed be this point

R340 -. I was writing as your post came. Looks like we're of the same mind. I'm working on a hunch. Do you have any insider information?

That thing in 12 step programs about "practicing rigorous honesty" (if someone takes recovery seriously) might get in the way of writing a salacious book that furthers the Sussex agenda. And the Sussexes have quite a track record of mendacity.

As of a year ago, Tatler wrote about Moehringer:

[quote] The Pulitzer Prize-winner is currently working with George Clooney on an adaptation of another of his books, and also wrote Andre Agassi's explosive life story.

Interesting that the “Heart of Invictus” producer also worked on a Clooney project. The Sussexes seem to want to glom on to whatever the Clooneys and Obamas do, and hire their people.

Like it or not, it is a prestige project for the writer, and probably quite lucrative.

R342, no inside information. Just a hunch and logical deductions. Moehringer isn’t a hack. And he most likely wants to keep his reputation intact, and stay out of court. I can just imagine a fevered Harry, worked up into a lather, wanting to put his conspiracy theories into a memoir, and Moehringer refusing. “This isn’t relevant. We can’t prove it. Let’s focus on the man you’ve become (tee hee)”. I imagine ghostwriting with a paranoid isn’t much fun. I also imagine that Meghan is giving lots of input and notes, but that’s just my speculation.

But who knows? I’m just speculating.

I'm sure briefing with Harry was one big whine fest. I'm sure whatever his complaints about his childhood and youth the motives of the people involved weren't ill intended, even if everything didn't go to plan. If Harry is one of those people who feels monumentally sorry for himself, it must be quite a job trying to write his life story - if you're thinking, it actually wasn't that bad, day in and out.

Notes? Meghan is probably writing full-on chapters and insisting they go into the book with no editing.

Harry doesn’t need to make any direct accusations. All he needs to do is allude to the conspiracies, which ensures media coverage, which will embarrass Charles. Charles must be dreading this book so much.

[quote]If Harry is one of those people who feels monumentally sorry for himself, it must be quite a job trying to write his life story - if you're thinking, it actually wasn't that bad, day in and out.

And Moeheringer is precisely the sort of person who'd have a personal basis for thinking it actually wasn't that bad. He had a hard-scrabble background and pulled himself up by the bootstraps. He comes across as someone with a lot of empathy, but his background makes him street smart.

Harry probably knows a lot about William (and Kate). That's what the public would be interested in, imo.

Everybody has figured Meghan out. But some honesty from Harry about his mental health or a few salacious goings-on in his youth -- that might be interesting. Or if he opened up about Diana and Charles personality failings.

The boilerplate stuff - school, Afghanistan, Invictus, how beautiful Balmoral was when he played on the grounds as a child... blech.

Charles shouldn’t even worry. Diana’s death will always be a topic of conspiracy theories. Like JFK, JonBenet, the Lindbergh baby (people are STILL discussing it!) If paranoid Al-Fayed hasn’t toppled the monarchy with his truth bomb, Harry won’t be able to. If I were Charles, and asked about this, I’d just shake my head sadly.

Even alluding to those conspiracy theories, which Fayed spent millions trying and failing to prove, will only make Harry look as mental as we all think he is, and embarrass Charles but hardly fatally.

But what the slightest suggestion of Harry putting any faith in them will do is make the case for a final and complete booting out.

People forget that these absurd stories are attempts to undermine Britain's Head of State by accusing her of complicity in murder.

It's one thing for one of the most corrupt men in Britain to have tried to shift the blame from his son and faulty staff and the feckless Diana dismissing her RPOs.

But it's quite another for her son, who named his daughter for said Head of State, to go there.

There's a story there, but only if he's open and honest.

Which he won't be. Or would be but she won't let him. Never tell the truth when you can lie - says the narc puppeteer.

So the book will be fluff or outright devious lying venom. Hope the smart alky guy won't let that happen - nor Penguin. Like was said, everybody has her figured out. I mean, ask Trump to tell the honest truth about his life - he couldn't with a gun to his head because he lives in a fiction of his own making, and so does she.

Harry I can't figure out - other than he seems to be a dimwit.

Meghan and Harry are trying to pick another fight. They’ll probably wait until the Queen is dead so they can’t be sued for libel.

If I were the BRF, I’d give a big yawn and keep plodding on in my boring and stable way.

The problem with the waiting til the Queen is dead theory is she could die next week or at 101 in 2027. Five years on is a long time... likely well past their best before date. Pretty sure they already are.

It seems unlikely to be a huge seller. Even if it is salacious, the information will be consumed in the press and online. They also aren’t as popular or noteworthy as Diana. I can’t imagine it selling as well as books about her. Diana’s claims also had greater surprise value. No one is going to be shocked if the book trashes his family.

Diana is all he has got at this point. Because let's face it, apart from being one of Diana's sons, there's NOTHING interesting about him at this point. He blew the possibility to make money off his royal affiliation (being the son of the future king and the brother of another future king) with his dumb antics. Meghan has clearly brought out the worst in him. Not that it wasn't already there of course, but she's the perfect tool to make his personality even worse than it already is. Congrats, Harry.

I really think his story - that would work - is a tell-all about William. People are getting more and more enthralled by the handsome king-to-be who isn't a doddering old fool.

Though Harry could pepper the story with more about Charles and Diana - but probably still needs to tie it in with his biography of his brother, lol. There are bound to be things about William that he knows that others don't, and I don't necessarily mean getting somebody pregnant or anything salacious -- just an honest picture of William from Harry's vantage point.

Now THAT woud be very wounding to Harry - realizing that people care a lot about your brother's life, and not much about yours. (but it's the truth - and will continue to be more and more interesting to people as he gets closer to the throne - and that would mean selling books in the future.)

But maybe I'm wrong and he never paid William any mind. There are siblings like that I guess (I'm an only child so I wouldn't know - I just assume as the only brother, you'd know a lot)

I am curious what The BRF will do once said book is out ? Will they sue? Will they deny ? Will they ignore? Or another devastatingly simple "recollections may vary" ?

Megz Cheerleader Omid has just posted this. Clearly there is a lot of dishes being smashed in Montecito.

Credible reporting doesn't include the first person.

R360 Wow, they appear indeed spitting mad!

R360 I'll give him this, the public aren't stupid...which is why Meghan and Harry's approval ratings have drastically fallen...most people see right through them....

How interesting that Scobie forgot about Jason Knauf's emails, Meghan perjurimg herself in sworn court papers, the verifiable lies that were told on Oprah, the Melissa Touabti fracas, the revolving door at Archewell, and the fact that whilst Charles may look a bit feckless, thevstory really died because it became clear that despite the media6best efgieys to suggest illegality - there wasn't any to be found.

Of course, nothing that Harry and Meghan overdid could possibly be responsible for their plunging polls.

Like putting the boot into a 95 year old woman with a dying husband.

The lies they told.

Their grandstanding

"I'm going to fight to my last breath for Lilibet to grow up in a more equal world!"

(As long as I get to keep my title and my kids get the HRHs they got coming to them when the old lady croaks!)

The public isn't stupid, Scobie. That's why the Sussex polls are so low. It's you no one believes. You're a hired hand. Everyone knows it.

Yeah, lots of Palace staff talked to Meghan's hand-picked mouthpiece. Sure.

Pull the other one, you bottom-feeding Pinocchio.

^*despite the media's best efforts to suggest

Embalmed Omid trying to deflect from what happened on the steps at the Service of Boo-ing.

Someone please send the Duchess of Doritos some cheap snacks from a gas station convenience store to soothe her pain. That's what she sends people going through difficult times, cheap snacks.

Geez. They are so childish. Everyone knows Scobie speaks for them. That article is particularly savage. How childish do you have to be to beg at one minute that your family embrace you and the next minute savage them? How stupid do you have to be to savage the very institution you use to market yourself?

LOL Again with the stupid tale about suicidal Meghan going to HR(!) rather than asking her own husband for help. The Harkles and their handmaiden Scoobie must think WE are stupid.

Charles and Camilla were mobbed in Wales today. Large crowds waited hours to see them.

Someone forward that footage ^ to Omid.

I still don't get why they threw it all away. So, you smile, shake hands, accept flowers & gifts from people who are thronging to even get a glimpse of you. Shouting your name, thrilled beyond belief to see you. Like how bad is that? Then you get swooped up to one of your nice pads, relax as staff bring you whatever you want. You don't have to merch, look like an ass, while showing your ass(Harry presenting hole at polo) or squat on the street,like a homeless woman taking a dump in public, being photoed, for Ellen. WTH were they thinking?

Simple: they were thinking of all the money and fame that were to be had cashing in on the royal connection.

Virginal Diana became the London town pump from 1984 onward. Quite the transformation! I hope Harry puts that in his book.

R371 Here's my theory. Maybe they started out willing to see how it went, whether the royals would let them take center stage and do their social justice things. But when that didn't happen, they got caught up in the unrest that that was brewing when they got together and really blew up in 2020. They figured all the evil institutions would fall and a new order arise, and imagined themselves – the ultimate symbols of radical change – as powerful, influential global leaders. Icons! Bigger than Diana! Burning it all down would also nicely satisfy their own individual personal grievances and ambitions, and they could make some serious money. So, thinking themselves bold and brave and righteous, they took a big leap. Oprah was the peak. While they do have their fans in this arena, for the most part this was delusional and they've fallen flat though they haven't given up. Just my 2c.

R371, Harry was aggrieved already. Meghan wanted to be Diana 2.0 x Gwyneth Paltrow.

Two days after the Sussex engagement was announced, she had registered a trademark for sundry merchandise. She had one foot out the door before it was in.

They ditched a sweet guaranteed FOR LIFE ensemble gig thinking they would do better on their own. They wanted to be the STARS of their very own solo show and not have to share the spotlight.

Soon she will be doing kitty litter commercials like Katherine Heigl who also bit the hand that fed her and was a raging bitch to everyone. I don't even know what halfwit Harry can do....maybe reverse mortgage commercials?

They are already over the hill in tinsel town and have no substance, depth or experience to do anything of value in the world. They should have kept the guaranteed for life gig but alas their egos wouldn't allow it.

Why didn't Harry juggle for those little blonde girl cousins to keep them entertained?

Because Meghan didn't give him his balls.

I agree that H&M need to strike now because they are already aging out. In a few years the younger generation will look at Harry as some old bald man and not see the charm he had (even if it was an illusion) in his youth. Meghan is already over the hill for an actress and she definitely is no Meryl Streep.

I think they already shot all of their lucky bullets - Megxit, a son, a daughter, tell-all books, an Oprah interview and the Netflix&Spotify deals. Some wsy or another, they fucked up each and every one of these shots to fame and glory. I see nothing left save maybe a move into politics, but as stated upthread, this is very unlikely to happen.

So what's left for them needs to be something really outlandish. Are you taking notes, Omid? It has to be something out of the blue, crazy and unexpected, like them becoming barefoot hippies, throwing all their worldly possessions to the wind and starting a new life as Neanderthals on a small island in the Tahitian archipelago. Now that will attract attention. Maybe they could make a reality show out if it.

She's not even a Glenn Close.

R 371 here again. Well, thanks for your input. The delusions of grandeur & dosh as head of the Woke army, seems about right as the plan inspired by the right combo of drugs. However, as someone who did many a drug in my day, I still don't get it.

if I were her, I would have stuck like glue to the RF. I'd: "yes'd, & thank'd you, till my ass fell off. My hand would up first for: I'll cut that ribbon at the Staines Leisure Center. How much worse is that then sucking off a down market Weinstein type for some part in a third rate TV show. The squatting on the street for the Ellen show like a homeless woman taking a dump w. a guy standing over me laughing at me, all on camera on national TV. Shudder..Whew!! That would have been point of maximum humiliation, that would have had me publicly apologizing on my knees to the entire RF & the people of the UK. Followed with a please take us back letter.

^Forgot the pictures to go with my post, here it i

She couldn't show off enough there though. She loves the money, sure but narcs HAVE to show off. R371 that's a big part of it too.

She was proud to show off with the squat. She genuinely thought it was a good look, cute as a button and fit to boot. Such a twat.

Lol! It's hilarious how she thinks she's good looking and "hot" omg.

Narcs have to be in CONTROL.

As a royal family member, unless you're the monarch, you have to be a team player. Meghan is incapable of that. Remember when she was so well received on that trip but bitched to high heaven that it was 100% about HER and what she wanted to say and the platform SHE wants to present. Can't even remember where it was - Australia, Africa... anyway, that trip when people were so excited about how well they'd done.

She was PISSED. Isn't that the one where she said, "Nobody asked how I was doing!"

* that it was NOT 100% about her

R387, that was on their whinefest tour in Africa. I still can't get over the gall of this bitch: They've been to a place with poverty-stricken people and where a girl got raped brutally and butchered to death, and all this obnoxious cunt is on about is that one mustn't be just living but also thriving and shit like that.

That was about as asshole-ish as her stunt in Uvalde.

Yeah, a person was raped and that's so so sad. But I didn't even get a new wardrobe for this tour and that is the real tragedy.

That right there told you all you needed to know. We tried to warn you!

It occurs to me that Smeg has never done an interview, whether she is the subject or not, in which she doesn't moan about being a victim. She even managed to make Uvalde about how unfair the press treats her. What is wrong in her head?

It looks like the Sussexes were in Jackson Hole, Wyoming on July 4th. I see H & M and Archie but not Lilibet. Maybe she was hidden in a stroller.

Archie looks exactly like his dad. Lilibet does too. Meghan's genes seem to be weak.

Why are they standing in a crowd? Don 't they need extensive security everywhere they go???

You're much safer in America than the UK, because of the gun laws.

Why aren't Meghan and her Doritos in Chicago offering care and comfort? She went to Northwestern so she should have some connection to the town.

My god this netfli sries of "Royalling in America" is going to be so dreary. Virtually every British sleb has done some form of USA roadtrip telly, even Stephen fry.

Watch as a British Prince celebrates Independence Day! Be astonished as he looks bored at a Texas rodeo! See a prince and princess confused by American football--why does this fucking rugby last so long?

They just had to go to posh Jackson Hole where the stars hang out. Lake Tahoe just wasn't good enough. Does Oprah have a ranch in the Hole by any chance? Any of their other rich "friends" (David Foster, Russian oligarch?) who have a summer place there?

[quote]She even managed to make Uvalde about how unfair the press treats her.

What did she say. I managed to miss that one.

R400, there were several things wrong with that trip.

One that stands out is that the press interviewed a woman who said, “Meghan just showed up and started setting out bottles of water. She was just like us and I didn’t even recognize it was her.” I can’t remember if it was the same woman, but somebody said something like, “The Duchess told us how unfair the press is to her.”

What was totally missed was this dummy woman sees this mixed race girl with bad hair show up and doesn’t realize she’s not a member of the community? She just arrives with a camera crew and takes over setting up a bottled water stand and nobody questions her?

The press is bad to MM because she tries to pretend “I’m just like you” and then switches into superstar mode.

I think the Jackson Hole appearance is interesting.

First off, it's the watering "hole" of the very rich and very white

Second, Archie was born in the UK and christened by the Archbishop of Canterbury with two future Kings of Great Britain in attendance.

And, yet, there he is in his red, white, and blue cap waving an American flag at a celebration of American independence from . . . his country of birth, his father's country of birth, and the country from which his parents derive all their marketable celebrity, not to mention their titles, and Archie's current and future titles.

One wonders if the message is the Sussex announcing their final separation from Blighty.(but, will the titles follow?), or is it just a bit of PR to pander to their American audience in tandem with a casual Fuck You to the family to which they owe everything they are and have?

And, speaking of Blighty, tomorrow the High Court renders its judgement as to whether or not Harry can proceed with his case against the Home Office - i.e., whether he has a reasonable case to make.

Never a dull moment - and that's in addition to the British government collapsing as we speak . . .

^*Further to that - parties involved in such suits are usually informed of the judgement before it is publicly announced.

Thus, I wonder if this display of Americanism might be based on Harry knowing he's lost the case, the High Court refused to let him move forward, and Harry sending a signal that he really is through with Britain and is planning to stay in America, file for American citizenship, raise his children as Americans, and thus ipso facto, give up the titles.

Because there really is something unusual about them allowing Archie to be photographed in public for the first time since he is a few months old in Africa, waving an American flag and attending a 4 July celebration in the American West.

The symbolism isn't exactly subtle, is it?

Would Harry and Meghan really be sending this message if they had the remotest intention of any life in Britain going forward? And would Harry remotely consider any life in Britain if he lost the case for UK taxpayer-funded armed 24/7 security when he visits Britain?

And let us say for the sake of argument, that my hunch is correct: Harry would have no more reason to hold back in his memoir for fear of losing his title or standing in the LoS or invitations to important family milestones: he'd be so out he doesn't have to care any longer, and all he'd have to worry about are lawsuits based on defamation/slander.

I think the Sussexes are arseholes, r402, but it's the 4th of July, it's no big deal if Archie carries an American flag on that day or wears that cap. Red, white and blue are also the colours of the Union Jack.

R403, I think you are severely overestimating Hazza's ability to think up and send cryptic symbolic messages with complex underlying political meanings.

Even Meghan, who likes to send visual messages via pap shots, has never been so subtle and, imo, lacks the intelligence to concoct something so fine-tuned.

No, their message is usually simple - look at me, I am such a saint and/or victim, bow to me, you scum. That's as far as it goes.

I agree. Sometimes the 4th of July is just the 4th of July.

The 1922 Committee is holding an Executive election Monday. At that point, the new regime can tell Boris that if he doesn't resign, they WILL change the rules and allow a new Confidence Vote, which Johnson will assuredly lose, and that could occur as early as next week.

Larry the cat is sitting outside 10 Downing on the steps. Kevin McGuire said, "Look! Even the cat is leaving!"

Oh, dear, that post was meant for the Downing Street fiasco thread. Apologies!

R407

Did Haz's security coordinate with Jackson Hole police to conduct a rooftop sweep to determine if any Robert Crimo types were lurking about with a high power rifle? Something Harry really shouldn't be concerned about during his British sojourns even without Met security. And yet there he, his beloved, and son were available for potshots from our very own domestic terrorists.

R409, per Wikipedia,

[quote] Effective July 2011, Wyoming became an unrestricted concealed carry state (for residents only), following the example of Vermont, Alaska and Arizona.[5] Concealed carry permits will still be issued to be used as reciprocal permits in certain states.

Must be very scary when they go to these states with people carrying guns everywhere (TX, too!).

You can forget about all this surreptitious strategy and gamesmanship you think the Harkles are deploying.

They have no strategy. They know what they want (money, fame, deference), but have no vehicle or brainpower to reach their goals.

Of course they had it all when they were working royals, but were too stupid to realize that some sacrifices have to made to be in that club. But hey, Meghan had to 'speak her truth' (barf).

I agree with R411. This is their life now. A series of ill thought out PR stunts, some bigger than others, some smaller. There's no long-term goal, both crave short term flattering headlines and to be seen to "win" against the BRF and the Cambridges in particular. Neither is smart enough to realize they've already failed.

How can one fail when everything is always someone else's fault?

Will and Kate at Polo today and suddenly H&M photos from an even three days ago appear….

That is not Meg. The woman in the picture is very slim and has a completely different frame/body and smaller feet. Different hair texture as well. Who posted this anyway?

Remember when they posted pics of Harry helping a female vet in Africa with a sick elephant and claimed it was Meghan? She too was too attractive to be Spongebob.

T411. I agree. You shouldn’t take it for granted that Harry realises the US is a former British colony or that the Fourth of July has anything to do with the country’s independence from Britain.

They should reveal who said Archie could be black, especially if it was that weasel William.

Give me a break with that bullshit.

R418, they don't because it never happened. They're nothing but compulsive liars and attention whores.

Go to the Mail and you can see contrasting photos of Kate and Spongetom at the polo. Kate looks so elegant and summery.

R420, I’m starting to think you’re right. Unless they have a recording of the person saying it, it’s a baseless (and the details are vague) accusation. So far, the only solid proof of any racist remarks are the ones from Harry’s own mouth.

Of course the skin color thing was a lie. They two dolts couldn't even get the story straight between them when they were spinning tales to Oprah.

[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.]

So it's safe to go to a July 4th parade in the fucking United States - but not safe on the grounds of, wherever Frogmore is. You couldn't make this shit up.

Everything his legal team has put forward today makes him sound more petulant.

This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with seeming IMPORTANT

And of course H&M choose to go to an outdoor holiday parade in god damned WYOMING. One of the gunniest states of all the united states of GUNS. I mean, look at the stats below. Has Harry lived here all this time and never fucking heard of mass shootings! And yet Blighty is oh so way too dangerous for him's widdle self. Afghanistan? Fine. Wyoming? Fine. Frogmore (and the limousine from the airport that witch rolls down the dark window of!!)- OH HELL NO !!!!

The top states by gun death rates are: Mississippi – 28.6. Louisiana – 26.3. Wyoming – 25.9. Missouri – 23.9. Alabama – 23.6. Alaska – 23.5. All of those states with the highest gun death rates are among the ones with the highest gun ownership rates. Mississippi -- 50% of adults live in a household with a gun. Louisiana – 48%. Wyoming – 59%. Missouri – 48%. Alabama – 50%. Alaska – 59%.

It wasn't Wyoming, just Jackson Hole. Places like that are different than the states in which they lie.

But Jackson Hole is a short ride to all the potential mass killers who might live in Wyoming, and 59% of the population there own guns. I don't think their gun laws are very strict either, compared to Montecito. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Highland Park wasn't the Southside of Chicago either, but still...

Are they saving the kids for Netflix? Archie looks cute from what little we see of him. If Harry does let the kids be filmed for Netflix then he is a hypocrite.

[quote]First off, it's the watering "hole" of the very rich and very white

You’re right about it being very rich but you’re wrong about it being just wealthy white.

Doesn't Harry realize that attacking the Queen's aide is actually attacking HER? Duh.

Does he think that the aide made the decision himself without consulting with Her Majesty? The aide does what he's told from the Boss.

Harry really is DUMB.

Sorry to beat a dead horse.... but just saw this, "Effective July 2011, Wyoming became an unrestricted concealed carry state (for residents only), following the example of Vermont, Alaska and Arizona"

Vermont ??? WTF? Not Socialist Bernie Sanders' state? I thought they were saner than most of the rest of us.

R434, that blew my mind too.

They are mere minor celebrities now, I don't understand the expectation of security, regardless if he pays for it or not. I doubt the BRF or British public has much interest in them visiting. They are the relatives everyone hopes never comes to Christmas or any other family gathering, they not being worth all the fuss and bother.

I wonder what tech bro invited them up there. I assume one of Harry's "co-workers". Can this finally put the myth to rest that Archie has bright red hair? He looks to have the same color as my niece who is a brunette, but it looks reddish in direct sunlight.

R433 His can't go out and attack the Queen directly because it will damage his reputation, far more than it has already been damaged anyway, but in reality attacking Sir Edward Young the Queen's Private Secretary, he's attack the Queen. When it comes to the operation of the monarchy, Edward Young is the most important person in the firm. All of his actions should be assumed as coming from the Queen.

Here's the thing, Young likely had no actual say in whether Harry and Meghan got security, rather it's likely his role was to advise RAVEC as to what, if any official royal Harry would have in future. The answer is none.

I also don't believe Harry's lawyers saying he didn't know a member of the royal household was involved in discussions with RAVEC. Harry was told, this has reported several times, if he left as a working royal he would not get public security.

[quote]Not Socialist Bernie Sanders' state? I thought they were saner than most of the rest of us.

Clearly you’re not aware that the NRA mobilized to help elect Bernie back in the day. And in return, Bernie has voted against most major rest legislation.

[quote]I wonder what tech bro invited them up there.

Why assume it was a tech bro. Oprah’s friend, Tyler Perry p, has a house there.

If the rumors are true, Tyler Perry would not hire someone to piss on Meghan if she was on fire.

He’s practically invisible here in the UK now. I know no-one who cares a jot for anything he or his wife say or do. And the most striking thing is that those who are most in favour of the monarch (and who were therefore most well-disposed towards Harry) are those who now feel greatest distaste towards him.

They're not celebrities in the U.S. r436 they're a laughingstock.

Vermont until very recently was home to a good many people, especially up north, who hunted for food. Its gun laws have not resulted in a high rate of gun homicides. It was known not as a "liberal" state, but an independent one. It was the only state to vote against FDR in the 1930s.

It has always prided itself on its curmudgeonly character, bot on its ultra liberal one. That is far more recent and was ushered in in the1960s, and liberal urbanites from other states began moving in. Now, for the first time, Vermont is home to more people who mi ed there from outside than were born there.

The change has not been entirely beneficial in many Vermonters' eyes.

The fact is, the people carrying guns in Vermont are part of a very different culture than those going so in Wyoming.

Vermont's problem isnt guns.

It's drugs.

That's what's killing people in Vermont.

R438 I agree. All of what you pointed out would be obvious to the Court and the Home Office.

Harry's attempts to upgrade his royal status via security arrangements are, in my opinion, becoming evidence of mania.

Bringing Young into it now seems to me to have some alarming echoes of his mother's paranoia, which in the end led her to dismiss the highly trained RPOs who might have prevented her death.

In attacking Young, Harry is, however, attacking the Queen. If he does file a suit against the Palace, it will be interesting to see what the Palace's response will be.

And given that the Tory government just collapsed, and the next Home Office is likely to be run by Labour, and thus even less likely to consider sticking the UK taxpayer with the huge cost of security for a nonworking, nonresident, 6th in line who is intensely disliked.

If Labour carry out its threat to force a vote if bo confidence in the government, and the government loses that vote, a snap general election would be inevitable as well as a likely change in government.

If Harry Hope's that such a change would give him new hope, he should think again.

A Labour government will be, if anything, even less likely to indulge Harry, let alone in the midst of the worst economic crisis in 50 years.

The man is mental. His assertions on thos case expose someone so our of touch with reality as to be somewhat frightening.

Along with the appearance the day before the security case in an Emglish court in gun-totin' Wyoming at a 4 July celebration with his little British-born Earl waving an American flag,

Something about Harry's public persona lately is evidence, in my layman's opinion, of a splintering persona. I fuckng hope his kids are OK, because the whole thing is starting to give off an aroma of danger.

^*If Harry thinks a change in government will give his case new hope, he should think again.

Archie holding the US flag during a 4th of July parade, is no different than Americans holding the UK flag during the Jubilee. It's just something to wave around when you're trying to enjoy yourself. It's not that deep R445. After all the kids are going to be culturally American, no matter where they were born.

R447. Americans waving British flags—-and very, very few do—-wave them as private citizens. If Harry is done with the UK, let his son wave the American flag, let Harry renounce all titles for himself and his family, have Harry stop demanding any expenditures from British taxpayers, and have his whole family stop attending any royal events. For two people on the lunatic fringe of royalism like Harry and Meghan to celebrate American independence publicly is weird, stupid, and shameful.

R448 I agree. The deliberately photographed appearance and the soon to be Prince Archie waving an American flag at a 4 July celebration, in an area hugely symbolic Great American West, where they do not even live?! The day before a court hearing based on Harry's Britishness and his British royalty?!

That was no coincidence. The Harkles don't do that kind of coincidence

I think Harry iz struggling in the coils of an impossible mental dilemma: he wants an excuse to give it all up. He wants to be able to blame giving it all up not on his betrayal of his country, family, and Sovereign, but to make it look as if THEY have him no.choice.

This case isn't like the privacy case. Its weakness is written in print that can be seen from outer space.

He wants to lose this case. He wants to make return impossible. But he also wants it to look, as usual, as if he were the victim rather than the aggressive acting party.

By the way, his ex, Cressida Bonas, has penned an extremely touching column in The Spectator on how an induced coma deprived writer Abi Morgan (if you liked The Hour, that was her work) of her husband, as hecawojevwith no memorybof her ie their relationship.

I was only able to read the first two paragraphs but if someone else van get behind The Speccie's paywall . . .

But even two paragraphs is enough to show the difference between Bonas and Meghan.

Harry, like his mother, made every possible mistake, took every wrong g turn, learned nothing from his mistakes, and is doomed to unhappiness as his early demons are still dictating every move he makes.

[quote] And given that the Tory government just collapsed, and the next Home Office is likely to be run by Labour, and thus even less likely to consider sticking the UK taxpayer with the huge cost of security for a nonworking, nonresident, 6th in line who is intensely disliked.

There is virtually no chance that the next Home Office will be run by Labour. The Johnson government collapsed this week because Conservative MPs withdrew their Labour and confidence, but the Conservative Party retains an 80+ seat majority. The idea that dozens of Conservative MPs are going to vote to precipitate a General election which they would almost certainly lose is extremely far-fetched.

If Labour move a motion of no confidence, it is extremely likely that the Conservatives will simply tell Johnson that the game is up and that he has to be replaced immediately by a caretaker PM.

With regard to Harry’s ridiculously entitled claims for security, no British government of any party will agree to it. Government security services are not just handed out to anyone willing to pay, just as no UK citizen could demand Secret Service protection in the US.

Thank you, R443, I stand corrected!

- R436

R449, I don’t see it behind a paywall.

Every once in a while, a book comes along that causes me to undergo a genuine shift in perspective. Abi Morgan’s This is Not a Pity Memoir had exactly this effect. Abi’s partner and father of her two children, Jacob, was put into an induced coma after his treatment for multiple sclerosis had caused a series of seizures. When he regained consciousness, he recognised his family and friends, but insisted that Abi was a stranger, or, worse, an imposter. The story is heart breaking, profound and even funny.

Abi describes the challenge of caring for someone who no longer remembered her. She found the journey of making a new life when so much had changed to be terrifying. But at its heart this is a love story and that’s how Abi wants it to be read: 'There are no such things as pity memoirs, only words on pages and if they mean something to someone, they are worth being said.'

Morgan reminded me of the things that matter: the importance of family, the inexorability of time and how, even in the bleakest of circumstances, hope somehow remains. Jacob’s plight made me wonder: What are we without our memories? Relationships are based around shared experiences. Without memory to anchor us to the individuals around us, our personalities can change.

Prior to my Granny getting dementia, I remember a person with enormous grit and determination. Her father was a miner and after losing her mother at the age of eight, she was brought up by her eldest sister and later became a respected choir conductor. She had a powerful presence, she was always direct and often quite frightening.

I remember visiting her and I would always be on my best behaviour. She loved talking about music and dogs. Her decline saw the strength in her eyes gradually replaced with confusion and sometimes panic. Eventually, she was moved into a care home. She repeated herself and her mind wandered. She seemed to live in an altered state of consciousness, insisting that my father (her son) lived in a fairy tale castle. There were days when shewould vividly remember details of her childhood. This made it all the more confusing when she couldn’t recall who came to visit her an hour ago. She would ask my dad why he had come to see her when she saw him the day before. When someone eventually forgets who you are and they live in a world that we can’t reach, do you go and visit that person when it seems to no longer makes a difference to them? Then there are feelings of guilt and shame, the thought that death might be a kinder release.

Recently, I walked past my neighbours’ house on the street where I used to live. The old couple are still there. I didn’t know them very well, but we always said hello. I learnt that they got married young and had no children. She had dementia and he was caring for her. I couldn’t help but look through their window as I passed. He was calmly brushing her long grey hair whilst she sat on a wooden chair and stared blankly ahead. A simple and soft gesture that you would usually see between a parent and child. There was love in every stroke of the brush.

R449. I don’t think Harry wants to give up anything. Thats his problem. He wants every mutually contradictory desire satisfied.—the perks of being prince without the stuffiness or the duties, financial independence without the work, fame and influence without criticism.

These kinds of ambitions are not unusual in children or in adults in their daydreaming moments, but as the very public mission of a middle aged man it’s breathtaking.

[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.]

Their friends always seem to be in a commercial relationship with them.

Rural areas always have guns.

Wait. Meghan has a coach? For that body???

R457, it’s a law that if you live in California that you must have a Pilates coach.

Our friend Gav is running for POTUS to write it into the Constitution. The Pilates Coach lobby group is unbelievably powerful.

Pilates is so yesterday.

Everything about Meghan is yesterday. Or day before yesterday.

Harry is really calling into question what exactly royal and titles mean. Do they require a different standard to be lived by? Do they come with the expectation and requirement of service to the subjects and country as The Majesty has said and lived all these decades? Is real royalty earned?

Harry is a pathetic, disloyal, untrustworthy, immoral, vindictive, angry, immature, useless piece of shit. What, exactly, exactly is "royal" or princely about him?

While we're at it, so is Andrew.

The idea that people are born "better" than other people is just disgusting. And not only "better" but worthy of being treated like deities - bowed to, cutsy'd to, addresses in a ridiculous way like "Her Royal Highness" or whatever.

PUKE

* addressed in a ridiculous way

I wish I shared R450's certainty.

The Tories only have an 82 seat majority if every single MP returns after resigning. And the polls indicate that in a GE held today, the LDs would take 24 seats off the Tories - including Johnson

Remember what happened in Wakefield and Tiverton. The LDs overturned a 24,000 vote majority by a healthy margin of 6,000.

A hung Parliament is another likely scenario.

I think after 12 years in power the Tories are up against it.

Starmer and Rayner got let off the Partygate hook today.

I agree that Labour might be taking a risk if they shoot goe a No Confidence vote, but, er, we're living in strange electoral times.

Harry won (very narrowly) his defamation case against ANL today, also.

Kate passed her husband and Prince Philip in YouGov's second quarter total popularity poll published today, to occupy second place riight behind the Queen. I believe that's a first.

[quote]What, exactly, exactly is "royal" or princely about him?

Nothing is royal or princely about Harry now. He has chosen to be a bogan celebrity.

They're such every day people. You know...traveling 800 miles to go to a parade as though there weren't...1000s of parades taking place across the country.

There is a saying, "To those whom much has been given, much is expected."

Mrs. & Mrs. Markle's version is: "To those whom much has been given, much more should be given."

[quote] Harry won (very narrowly) his defamation case against ANL today, also.

Ah, so many lawsuits.

Which one is this? What was his complaint this time?

Haznoballs didn't win shit, other than permission to continue making a fool of himself in court.

That photo is either manipulated to death or that is not her. Compare below.

They love to play these games.

Oh, the photos are definitely manipulated, R471! She simply saw how boxy she looked in Uvalde and decided to take action. As a result, she Photoshopped her thighs into blue fiddlesticks.

I want whatever diet made her look 30 pounds lighter while completely changing her frame, hair texture, and foot size.

What skin color did she choose for Jackson? Light Egyptian or Shimmer Bronze?

Jesus has an interesting take on the supposed 4th of July photos

I can't find it now, but somebody put the latest profile of Harry next to a guaranteed-true photo of his profile, and the noses were different! Flatter in Wyoming, longer and pointier in the real one.

Maybe Meghan's jealous of his Anglo nose? Or he wasn't there??

Also this Instagram said they were there, but rude and aggressive to each other (and workers) plus drinking a lot. Not sure of this account but it's good tea anyway.

Occam's Razor says the photos were edited rather than body doubles being deployed (which is kind of insane tbh).

R455 Because they have no real friends.

Harry did not win his case btw. The judge agreed that the Mail may have committed slander by stating Harry's PR team tried to spin his court case against the Home Office into a positive, but the judge stopped short of saying the DM lied. He is allowing the DM to respond before he decides if the case should go further.

R465 Good on Kate, it's well-deserved. Kate was never unpopular but I think up until 2020 she was seen as a little too passive almost boring, but it's become clear she's come into her own and really is a force within the monarchy. I think the antics with H&M have also allowed people to appreciate Kate more low-key approach and her modelling herself after the Queen rather than trying to be a new Diana.

Could someone cut and paste the Instagram account at r476, please? It's requiring sign in, but I don't have IG or Facebook accts.

They're friends with whoever is useful at the time. Safe to say that Tyler Perry is no longer friends with them.

Tyler Perry lent H&M his LA McMansion at the request of Oprah. When he heard the reports from his LA staff of their gross mistreatment by H&M, he told them to get out.

They always look like they don't bathe.

See if this works r479

Thank you, r483! Not sure what to make of it. It sounds like she hasn't personally witnessed it, but talked to people she knows there The part about the nannies not being seen and not becoming friendly with the other nannies gives a little pause if they're only there for a holiday weekend. Why would they on a short stay? Or have they been there since H's last polo defeat and long enough for their bad behavior to be noticed?

[quote]There is a saying, "To those whom much has been given, much is expected."

r468, you've made a word salad worthy of Meghan Markle herself out of the aphorism, "From those to whom much has been given, much is expected."

R478 Thanks. I'm somewhat taken aback, as the headline said, Harry Wins Case Against . . . The bits of the judgement I saw, although clearly cutting the defamation agreement very fine, didn't day anything about a further step in the case.

The other pending case is the one against the Home Office, asserting that the HO applied the law wrongly re his security entitlements, and requesting a judgement ordering the HO to review his demand again. That judgement is expected by end July.

No one really expects Harry to prevail in that one, but even if he does, all it means is that it gets kicked back to the HO for another review, and the HO can say NO again.

It is rumoured that Harry is planning to die the Palace because the Queen's PS. Edward Young, sat on the RAVEC. Harry CV alums that because ofvtensions between him and the royal household, Young persuaded RAVEC not to grant his demand for the kind of security the top tier working royals get

And that Young never told RAVEC of Harry's offee pay, despite the fact that Harry and his lawyers know that the offer is irrelevant: it is illegal for a private individual to "hire" a public service for his personal use.

Despite knowing this, Harry's lawyers continue to present a case for a second review based in part on Harry's claim that Young didn't tell RAVEC of Harry's offer.

So, Harry now wants to sue the royal household, which really means the Queen, accusing it/them of interfering in his pursuit of a government ruling in his favor for 24/7 armed security whenever he and/or his family visit the UK.

And, as hiring the police isn't negotiable and Harry knows that, he also knows that if granted, the HO would be sticking the UK taxpayers with an extravagantly expensive bill.

Hence the strange spectacle of a man leaning on his privileges as a British royal, on the eve of said hearing, at a 4 July parade in the Great American West, and sticking an American flag in his kid's hand.

And then permitting the sale of the photos of said appearnce clearly showing their child's face - to the DM.

^*planning to sue the Palace

based on the claim that

Fucking autocorrect.

Diana's wedding dress designer isn't impressed with Meghan's style.

LOL, R488! Wonderfully bitchy.

R488. I welcome as much as criticism of Meghan as possible, but I don’t think the designer of Diana’s ridiculous wedding dress has much standing to criticise Meghan’s relatively reasonable Jubilee attire.

I loved Diana’s dress at the time, but it hadn’t aged well. It was of it’s time.

Meghan had had some terrible outfits and a few that were great. She does casual best.

^^ autocorrect fucked me on that comment at r491. Hasn’t. Its.

Well, for bespoke tailoring, the back yoke flaring out instead of laying flat was strange.

"She's a B-list TV actress that's all. She's not Glenn Close,"

At last, some love for G!

Calling her B-list is generous.

I also thought it was extremely generous. D-list at best.

Did Meghan send Oprah some snacks to help her cope with the passing of her father?

D List is too generous. She wasn't even close to that. She was z list all the way.

[quote]Did Meghan send Oprah some snacks to help her cope with the passing of her father?

The Duchess of Doritos sent her usual convenience store snacks. She's thrifty like that.

Why would Oprah care if her father died? Didn’t he molest her and get her pregnant?

Meghan sent Oprah some Slim Jims and grape soda.

The Emanuels have been defensive about that wedding dress for decades.

That said, it seems Meghan is functionally incapable of pulling together a perfectly tailored ensemble.

The Abbey service was no exception.

This outfit would have been appropriate for the Commonwealth service where the women wear red, white or blue. Instead she chose the horrible green thing with excess acreage of fabric. But special and unique, you know...

Meagain reminds me of those hideous little Olsen twin trolls. Can take a $20,000 designer dress and make it look like a garbage bag. Anyone else get a little thrill when H+M pop up with fresh replies ? I dont care about the troll who says we have too many,I enjoy them all.

R504, it’s uncanny.

Some people can make jeans and a tee shirt look great. She has the opposite effect on clothing. Personally I think she looks best in casual outfits, that sort of J Crew or California casual look. And having her scrawny legs covered is a good idea, too.

Something that appears to have been overlooked, although I think someone on another of these threads caught it, is that in her submission to have her sister's libel suit dismissed, Meghan stated that the statements she made on Oprah were "opinions, not facts".

It appears that recollections do vary quite a bit.

I'm surprised this hasn't been jumped on by the DM. I don't believe, from the bit I saw, that Meghan clarified that only the statements she made about her sister were opinion, not facts.

This should be up in the tabloid headlines.

How is "He asked what colour tge child will be" an opinion and not a fact? How is "Kate bullied me", "I was suicidal" and "We were mistreated" opinions and not statement of facts? Huh? Meghan?

R507 - Yes, exactly.

I did not see the full Motion, but from what I read she didn't clarify it narrowly to refer only to what Meghan said about her sister.

And even if Meghan had clarified it narrowly, she had to have known that absolutely no one would believe that, because after the Oprah interview, the lies Meghan and Harry told were uncovered quite quickly.

It's just so odd that the DM would have missed that, given the lines referring to "Recollections May Vary" would write themselves.

Well, someone needs to contact the Daily Mail and TELL them.

Did Meghan’s lawyers also claim that her lies about Samantha are opinions and not based on facts?

I don't think Mrs. & Mrs. Markle are capable of stating a truthful fact or opinion.

[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.]

R511 LOL. Tips on "mental fitness" from a man who can't stop talking about his mother, now dead a quarter of a century, whom he characterised a couple of months ago on television as "having helped my brother, she's now moved on to helping me . . ."

Righty-oh.

A nearly 40-year old man who whined about not getting his allowance from daddy is giving tips on mental health?

Harry Krishna is at it again.

Here is some info on the Bower book, from a post on Quora:

" . . . It was originally set for release in May, but there are suggestions the lawyers have already been called in. We don't know how true this is, but if it’s the case, nobody would be surprised.

Tom Bower is a clever barrister, a BBC researcher, and a trusted journalist who has earned the reputation for being excruciatingly careful with the information he uses. He hasn't lost one of the law suits that previous subjects (Robert Maxwell, Conrad Black and Richard Branson) have brought against him.

The actress is said to be shaking in her shoes – and she should be. She has told friends, she is dreading it. During an exclusive interviewed on GB News – (and remember, this TV channel is ‘anti-Markle’ and waiting to crucify her when the time is right) - he said, “Meghan Markle has trampled on others on her way to the top and her ‘victims’ will tell all in my book.”

He revealed, “The book will contain the ‘untold story’. I have found out things which are really quite extraordinary about her.”

Tom Bower claims the public perception of her will be either confirmed or outraged. He reported that people were initially reluctant to speak to him, saying, “She and her lawyers had done very well to keep people silent, but I got through to enough of them.”

The following warning from Tom Bower has sent Meghan Markle into meltdown. She knows her already soiled reputation will hit rock bottom… “The victims are keen to talk, and they have spoken. And it’s a really gripping story.”

Many people are waiting for this book. We are told it will be explosive. I would suggest it isn’t just the actress who is worried. The Royal Family will have an inkling about the subjects that will be covered. Many senior Royals will be quietly hoping it will extinguish the stain on their Family, known as Ms Markle, but they also know she will try her best to implicate the Monarchy. Interesting times ahead!"

R511 Harry is pretty much the last person I'd take mental health advice from.....

He should talk about how to cope with living with someone with NPD.

Such a public display of mental illness. Harry has the diarrhea of mental illness.

So apparently it turns out that Oprah wasn't at home when Harry and Meghan went to her compound, on IG both Gayle and Oprah have basically confirmed Oprah has been in Texas with her father since mid-June.

R519, that is hilarious. Oprah must be fuming that they pretended to be meeting with her, using her as publicity as she was with her dying father.

Maybe she’ll be able to impart some wisdom to Harry and Meghan about losing a father, even when he’s not The Perfect Daddy. The man Harry’s become should be able to reconcile his daddy issues.

^So. er, what was the point of that 5 minute drive in two gas guzzlers to the gates of Oprah's estate?!

They went there to feed Oprah's pussy.

...

Oprah loves her kitten, you know.

Judging by Meghan who looked as if she had been crying, she might have had to, ahem, "feed Oprah's cat" indeed.

From OP's linked article: "Sources told DailyMail.com the trio spent an hour at the palatial estate . . . "

Did they just sit in their Range Rover in front of the closed gates for an hour?

R524, I bet they were tiptoeing around the property, peeking into windows and quizzing the landscapers. “Oprah; no esta aqui? Ooooopraaaah. No? Se fue? Escuchame, estupido! Donde esta La Gorda?”

Nobody wanted to call the cops because they promised to keep things cool and not antagonize the neighbors.

R514 Harry Krishna and Woko Ono.

I'm loving these two. They are a hysterical shit show that never stops giving, and giving better each time

R526, it keeps getting better and better.

I guess Oprah had people at her house looking after things - maybe even a social secretary (or business assistant). That person might be aware of Oprah's feelings on the H&M front, or might even have texted Oprah or something -- and IF it's true Meghan was crying on the way out, maybe they were told NO or "probably" NO to any future interviews.

It makes no sense that they would just motorcade up the road hoping that Oprah was home so that they could drop by and say hello.

I wonder if Harry is aware that he's shilling for a company that sells coaching to big companies who use it to keep their employees "at peak performance" (ie, working hard for the man)? Or does he think this is just the glamorous, American version of the charity work he did when still a working royal?

Order on Amazon UK. They will ship to the U.S. I paid $40 and some change including shipping and the exchange rate. Just ordered today. It releases there July 21st. They said it will arrive by August 4th. I can't wait!

New thread about the book.

In case you needed a good eye roll

I think she's trying to make "Princess Meghan" happen. The sewage squad failed with "Duchess Meghan."

If she divorces Harry and doesn't remarry, can't she style herself "The Princess Henry"?

Sort of the way Lady C keeps her ex-husband's name "Lady Colin Campbell" instead of Georgia Zabadie or whatever her maiden name was.

No r535. She can't. She could use the Sussexes title though if it didn't get removed in the divorce.

R535 No if she gets divorced she'd likely be titled the way Diana and Fergie were after their divorces (e.g. Diana, Princess of Wales or Sarah, Duchess of York).

Meghan would become Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Meghan is not an "HRH or Princess" in her own right (e.g. through birth) and as such the precedent established by the Queen is that former spouses of royals cannot retain those courtesy titles.

It's forgotten now but for a time there was some debate about Diana being even allowed to keep the Princess of Wales title. There was talk of only giving her permission to use the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall (which ironically now Camilla uses). The Princess of Wales title was ultimately allowed because it was seen by the Queen that Diana was the mother of the future King.

There's also the fact that Meghan isn't a British citizen, which may affect what she would be allowed to keep.

And also, Diana was the mother of the heir's heir and Fergie, for some reason, still had allies in the family. Meg has none of those cards to play.

She will scream from the heavens that she is mother to children in the line of succession!.

R539 who isn't???

You don't get it. Archie and LilD are more important than William's kids.

Ahem.

What business meetings does she have? Wasn't she supposed to put out a podcast last month on women's role in society?

R543, it was supposed to be out earlier this month.

It’s been two years since that deal was announced, six months since the production company was hiring producers for podcasts.

That shit is not happening.

Per hotpodnews, March 18, 2022:

[quote] Spotify finally gets a royal podcast

After more than a year of waiting, Spotify will get its first podcast from Archewell Audio “this summer.” Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s production company signed a deal to host and produce shows for Spotify back in December 2020, but so far, that’s only resulted in a single holiday special episode — which surely is not what Spotify was hoping for.

There were plenty of rumors about the arrangement turning kind of rocky around the end of 2021 as Spotify recognized the deal’s lack of progress… and then things got even rockier in January when that whole Joe Rogan situation blew up. (Is that officially over? Over for now? Over till the next time?) In response, Archewell announced that it had raised concerns about COVID-19 misinformation spreading on Spotify.

Now the company tells me it has been meeting with Spotify’s team “as well as their senior leadership” on “policies, practices, and strategies meant to raise creator awareness, minimize the spread of misinformation, and support transparency.” They declined to share whether there were any specific changes being made on their behalf, but Archewell Audio spokesperson Toya Holness said the launch of Meghan’s first podcast comes as a result of those meetings.

There are no details yet on what the show will be about. But rumor is Gimlet is playing a role in producing the series, per a report in The Sun earlier this year.

n.b.: Toya Holness left Archewell recently. Of course she did.

Is Oprah ever really going away or she going to continue to linger?

R546, she’s on a mission to destroy Whitey. She should just go enjoy her bazillions and Gayle’s labia.

When you’re dead, lie down!

She's going broke fast, that's why.

So. Cutting through the latest blitz by the Harkles' mentally challenged PR machine:

They took two gas guzzlers to drive 5 minutes to Oprah's estate, only Oprah hasn't been home since mid-June. Object: to scare the BRF about a possible second Oprah interview.

The keynote speech to the UN General Assembly isn't one. It is an informal plenary session to msrk Mandela's birthday, one of several people to mark some comments, and it turns out the appearance was entirely orchestrated by the South African Mission to the UN, where they made a couple of contacts last year. The UN itself did not invite them.

The buzz around Meghan preferring to work on her podcast and all her other MAJOR MAJOR irons in the fire at the Pink Palace in Bel Air is already being interpreted as TIA, and confirming suspicions that Meghan isn't particularly maternal but thankfully, Harry is.

9 bedrooms, 16 bathrooms, a guest house, a nanny, and she has to go to a hotel in Bel Air to "work".

Whilst Harry gets up at the crack of dawn to get the kids bathed dressed and fed.

What does the bloody nanny do?

Do they ever realise how these moronic stories make them look?

If MM uses the title Princess or in a divorce uses Duchess without permission, what can the Queen do? Is she going to send the men in grey suits to the US to break MM’s kneecaps?

What can she do? And Charles certainly won’t take any action.

Charles will concede that one, and let her use whatever title she wants. With a gigantic settlement and a few terms like using the title, he will have gotten off cheaply to get her out of their hair.

R548, isn’t it interesting how many stunts these two pull? It was only a month ago that they were prancing about the Santa Barbara Polo Club, hoisting undeserved trophies and PDAing with Nacho and Delfina.

[quote] confirming suspicions that Meghan isn't particularly maternal but thankfully, Harry is. 9 bedrooms, 16 bathrooms, a guest house, a nanny, and she has to go to a hotel in Bel Air to "work". Whilst Harry gets up at the crack of dawn to get the kids bathed dressed and fed.

Harry is being depicted as the doting father while Meghan's famewhorery is highlighted. Separation is probably not that far off.

The looming fight for custody upon the couple's "conscious uncoupling" (LOLOLOL) shall be interesting to watch.

R551 and everyone else in this thready (except for the Sussex shit squad looming), here's a question:

Can Charles give his son another title and at the same time renounce the Duke of Sussex one?

I know he can create him ANOTHER style like Duke of Wherever or Earl of Whothefuckcares additionally to Duke of Sussex (HMTQ did with Edward who was created Earl of Forfar a while ago), but can the Duke of Sussex style be rescinded and replaced with another title available.

Meghan needs a pied-à-terre in L.A. to work when Spotify just unveiled their sprawling podcast hub in downtown L.A.? I'm sure they also have private spaces where she can diligently labor away from prying eyes and distractions. I'm sure they also have interns to provide the room service functions that five star hotels provide.

Why, oh, why does Meghan need her special space at the Pink Palace? Maybe it's because hotel staff are instructed to be discreet about celebrities?

What does TIA mean?

Thanks In Advance

R555, employees of Spotify would be bound by the same confidentiality and non-disclosure, I’d think. But I see your point.

She doesn’t want to shit in her own nest. Hotel employees are disposable and relatively anonymous, and they are legion. If she loses her temper and throws a lamp at a hotel maid or bellhop, they just send a new one the next day. If she does that at Spotify, it’s a whole different story.

What I really dont understand is WHY everyone seems to be catering to these 2 when its painfully obvious who the fuck they really are . Has been out of the gate. So what if Harry is a prince ? If you dont produce at a job,your fired. Why doesnt these companies just kick them to the curb and move on?

Every single thing about her is shady. Where the kids are born, when, with whom, pictures? Asked to wear red, white or blue - wears shockingly bright green. Makes Charlotte cry, makes Catherine cries, claims she's the cry-ee. Leave a damn meet-and-greet with the poors - is fucking pissed! (that they're poors? that nobody's genuflecting? who the fuck knows?? And has anybody asked how she is?) Needs uber privacy and security but rolls a darkened limousine window down so all those terrifying terrorists near Farnborough can get a better shot. Harry says the baby color came up before the marriage - she says while she was pregnant. They took her passports but she has a baby shower and other trips abroad. Nobody cares that she's threatening suicide never mind she's 40 fucking years old and Harry's already been in therapy - they don't have psychiatry in England! Needs millions of pounds t re-do Frogmore - oh wait, we hate the place - leaving right away. Hell no to Earl of DUMBbarton but they took my babies' titles and there will be NO fucking security when we go to the gun capital of the West in Wyoming to be out in public at a parade, Netflix Pearl, well, not really - Spotify right away, uh not really - cameras at the Jubbly - who, moi? - birthday party in the middle of Jubbly because we never heard of other people being busy at the Queen's 70th anniv.....

We could all add 100 things - not even starting with her family and previous husbands and jobs, including yachts....

Oh and what happened to Canada ?

It is so entertaining reading the comments of DLers obsessed with the Sussexes.

R559, she’s a proud woman of color, so don’t be racist.

R556 TIA means Trouble in Paradise.

In other words, the marriage is in difficulties and the working in Bel Air is a cover for they need to get away from each other.

It also means Thanks In Advance but not in relationship gossip parlance.

Shouldn't it be TIP?

R565 Yes, my initial typo! No wonder poster got confused. Mea culpa!

[quote]It is so entertaining reading the comments of DLers obsessed with the Sussexes.

More correctly: It is so entertaining reading the comments of DLers OBSERVING the Sussexes.

And your obsession with strangers who discuss the Harlkles is deranged.

She's not getting a gigantic settlement r551. Not even close!

Why do they need to give her a big settlement, r551? To what end?

She's so completely discredited that any accusation she makes now will bounce of like water off a duck's back.

There is no question of her keeping the kids, as they are her meal tickets, and anyway the BRF don't know and have never known either of the kids, so they're never going to cough up cash to get more access to them. Especially since the kids will likely be poisoned against the BRF, and especially when there is already a small army of BRF grandchildren and great grandchildren running around the UK.

So what would they pay her off FOR? She has nothing to offer them.

Pity the children.

I feel about them the way I used to feel about Michael Jackson's kids.

What the fuck do they do all day? Harry must be bored out of his mind because he is not an intellectually curious person.

Hello polo! (and affairs with blondes?)

Oh wait, he's up at dawn, diapering, bathing, feeding the kids, and if he goes out, he makes sure to get back as fast as he can to get back to the children! The Nanny Prince of Bel Air, I mean Moneystheshitshow.

For the podcast, she can interview Harry about potty training!

Of course she needs a hotel suite. She can’t really entertain her gentleman callers at home

Aint nobody fucking that Sponge Bob Square Pants bodied bitch ! Not even Harry.

The "working in a hotel suite" story is just obviously BS, covering for either: A: Fucking around B: Living Separately OR.. C: Both

Nobody would believe she's actually working.

Maybe, money wise, it's hit the point of, "Have bed will travel" "For the right price you too can plug a princess."

There were rumors that she’s been staying in a hotel in Montecito. She’s decided to take one in LA now? Also she’s dining out in WeHo?! Come on, bitches. No one has heard about this?

If Oprah plugs Harry's shitty lie filled memoirs for her book club I am done with her.

Dry land yacht girl.

Princess?? Haha....omg....haha.....

Ouch!

Has Rupert Murdoch been staying in any of the same hotels as Meg? He is recently back on the market....