REVENGE III: The Tom Bower Book Discussion.

...Looking forward to the US release of Revenge. Should be fun.

More ! More ! megs is the gift that keeps on giving. Has anyone else noted that every article and even this book seem to paint Harry as an unwilling participant ? As if he was being used but is so dim he didnt "understand" the ramifications. Bullshit,hes just as culpable.

I'm reading it now, and I am only on chapter 5. Bower has a way of implying things without actually saying it. Like the part where Doria had pictures all over if her and other women. "Ohhh, she's bi...." You walk away with the idea that it was her that taught Meghan the foundation of using your "charms" to get what you want.

[quote]Has anyone else noted that every article and even this book seem to paint Harry as an unwilling participant ? As if he was being used but is so dim he didnt "understand" the ramifications. Bullshit,hes just as culpable.

She's an easy villain because she's such a phony, but as others have wisely observed on other threads, Harry married her precisely because she was a blunt instrument he could beat his family with while crying racism if they hit back. Now he's learning that he's subject to her blows too and she no doubt blames him for failing to support her "royal" style

There are some unintentionally hilarious quotes from her. What an awful, deluded person she is.

P77; Styling herself as an Angel of Mercy, Meghan did not question the (Rwandan) president’s largesse. Overnighting in air-conditioned luxury, she visited the wretched Gihembe refugee camp to ask the distraught women how they coped with life. Their replies were barely listed. Back before nightfall in Kigali, the capital, she recorded on her Instagram account about the trip, ‘This type of work feeds my soul.’157 She did not appear to be troubled by the contrast that a short distance away impoverished people barely survived. ‘My life shifts from refugee camps to red carpets,’ she wrote on The Tig. ‘I choose them both because these worlds can, in fact, coexist.’

[quote]‘My life shifts from refugee camps to red carpets,’ she wrote on The Tig. ‘I choose them both because these worlds can, in fact, coexist.’

Well, to be fair, Darfur Orphan has said this many times. He/she (they?) are waxing on one minute about all the flies on their eyes & in the next minute, talking about the sad state of couture fashion

If Meghan had kept her grift within her own lane you could forgive her. Prior to Harry, she just floats from one grift to another. She scammed a free trip to Malta courtesy of Elle Magazine to research her supposed roots- roots which were a total fabrication. Where it becomes distasteful is when she forces her way into communities already suffering; Grenfell, Rwanda, Uvalde etc and she just uses them as a photo op. I have no qualms with her taking advantage of magazine editors, fashion brands etc who are using her as much as she uses them, but leave the ordinary everyday people alone.

She really is full of shit, isn't she? In a country where 35% of the country is hungry, she's talking about feeding her soul? Clueless and full of shit.

A tried and tested method. Harry is thick AF to fall for this. A man who has had women throw themselves at him all his adult life, falls for the worst possible candidate. Wonder what story she gave him regarding the breakdown of marriage no.1. And he publicly repeats verbatim, words husband no.1 uttered at their own wedding; she's part of the 'family she never had'. Well if it worked once, why change the script?

The best part of the book so far is all the quotes from The Tig. Dear lord, I’d forgotten how corny she is!

In honour of R10's mention of The Tig, there's this howler, written on her 33rd birthday.......

"You need to know that you’re enough. A mantra that has now ingrained itself so deeply within me that not a day goes by without hearing it chime in my head. That five pounds lost won’t make you happier, that more make-up won’t make you prettier, that the now iconic saying from Jerry Maguire – “You complete me” – frankly, isn’t true. You are complete with or without a partner. You are enough just as you are. So for my birthday, here’s what I would like as a gift: I want you to be kind to yourself. I want you to challenge yourself. I want you to stop gossiping, to try a food that scares you, to buy a coffee for someone just because, to tell someone you love them . . . and then to tell yourself right back. I want you to find your happiness. I did. And it’s never felt so good. I am enough.’

^these excerpts require some dramatic reading, preferably by someone sucking on helium

There’s a quote from her Working Actress blog, making fun of aspiring actresses who get veneers on their teeth and boob jobs. I’d include a page reference but the links in the index of the iBook aren’t all correct.

[quote]You are enough just as you are.

And in some cases, far more than enough.

[quote]”I want you to stop gossiping“

Don’t hold your breath, honey.

Enough of her!

Every time I try to imagine what Harry could possibly say in his stupid book - I mean what? Whining on and on about his sainted mother Diana? Bitching about Camila? Whatever negative things he says will put more nails in the coffin of his future away from the wicked witch who's already booked the Pink Palace Hotel as a home away from home - and/or signed a lease on a second home in BelAir. WTF is going on?

Why does she need both to do a damned podcast, that's been in the works for over a year? Get a guest, write up some questions, go to their place or vice versa, and just do the fucking thing! Could even do it remotely. She's done nothing - except some Christmas sneak preview of some kind that I haven't seen. And Spotify is paying her to do.... nothing?

REVENGE!!!

[quote]'Who told you to tell me where to sit?’ [said Harry] ‘Your grandmother’, says the usher. And then Prince Harry goes in the middle.

[quote]And then they did in the end really control it. No photographs on the next day meeting for the Jubilee, meeting in Windsor castle, and all the rest of it.

[quote]The Queen sees through [Meghan and Harry]. And I think Charles and William have encouraged her to do so. I think, however, they hope for peace.

Harry can't live with them but can't live without their titles and all the perks of being in the monarchy. Meghan picked a right winner there.

Worked with a bitch just like this!! Wow....

"(Meghan) searched for a dog, as she wrote, ‘to keep me company in Toronto. In December 2012, she headed for Spot Rescue, a pet adoption agency in Los Angeles offering rescued dogs. She chose Bogart, a six- week-old yellow ‘Labrador mix’. But there was a problem. The same dog had been chosen by someone else. To beat her competitor, Meghan recruited Priddy and other friends to bombard the agency in an email chain in her support. The dog, wrote Meghan, was guaranteed happiness in the ‘Suits Family’. ‘I felt that she was playing the Suits card,’ recalled Priddy, ‘to try to get what she wanted. I felt she had developed a sense of entitlement because she was on the show. It left a sour taste in my mouth.’

Several days later, Meghan recorded her success on Instagram. Posting a photo of herself holding Bogart, she thanked the American daytime TV talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres for sending her to the agency: ‘You told me to adopt this sweet pup yesterday, and I’m so happy I did. Thanks a million!’ Dropping names on Instagram, Meghan realised, boosted her importance. By February 2013, in successive Instagram posts Bogart was anointed by Meghan as a social media star ‘showered with love’.

Quotes like the one at R5 about "feeding my soul" against the backdrop of some of the poorest people in the world are so damning. You can tell she doesn't even realize it, either. Like she didn't have to set aside her concern for the people she visited that day in order to write what she did - because there never was any concern. You could use material like this to teach undergrad psych students about narcissism. It really is textbook.

On the Vogue issue guest edited by Meghan;

That left the important decision of the cover. Meghan wanted to feature on the cover, just as Kate had done in 2016 to mark Vogue’s centenary. But during many discussions the editorial team persuaded her that it would be ‘boastful’. In public, Enninful would say that it was Meghan’s decision not to appear on the cover because she wished to remain ‘humble’. The staff recall the decision being forced on her. The cover was given to Salma Hayek, a Hollywood star married to François-Henri Pinault – a French billionaire who happened to be one of Vogue’s leading advertisers.

I have a hard time imagining anybody would presume to refer to the Queen as "your grandmother." Other than that, seems believable. I remember Bowers book on Charles being quite disputed. This book seems a bit sloppy to me. For example the text referring to Kate crossing the corridor at Kensington Palace. That isn't how it works. They were in Nottingham Cottage.... a separate building. Kate lives in 1A, attached to the main part of the old palace. Little things like that pop out. Doesn't matter, and yet it does. This feels rushed.

r23, in enclosed old guadrangle-based institutions, the word "corridor" is often used for any outside "pathway" that is covered in any way. For example, at some of the older Oxford colleges.

That's Omid Scobie's hot take from this book at R23.....the usage of 'corridor'?

That does not appear to be the case at KP, R24.

Simmer down, R25. I'm no fan of Markle but I try not to be blindly raging either.

^ Has Della stopped signing her posts?

^ Fool.

I'm sorry if I insulted you, r27/r29, by comparing you to Della. It's just that she makes a point of claiming that her own criticism of Meghan (whom she calls Markle, I believe, which you also did) is much more reasonable and nuanced than everyone else's. Also she's been taking flak recently on these threads, so I wouldn't be surprised if she'd stopped signing.

You have no way of knowing that, r26. Kensington Palace is olde enough that a pathway could have acquired the name before the tree that covered it dies or was chopped down. It will retain it's name. I have no idea, but you pretending that it's impossible just shows that you have no idea how the nomenclature at these sorts of places works.

I feel extremely sorry for any person attached to this soulless creature. She has absolutely no interests outside of fame and money. She loves no one but herself. No idea what H sees in her.

OK, OK, put the thesaurus down, R31, nobody needs to stroke out. If it's that important to you, take the win.

[quote] I feel extremely sorry for any person attached to this soulless creature.

Thank you. Can you adopt us, please?

Actually, looking at the picture of Kensington Palace shown at r26, it looks entirey likely that Kate would have had to traverse several indoor corridors in order to get to Nottingham Cottage, so either way, Scobie, your analysis is a fail.

Take your meds, R35, and if you can't learn spelling at least master spell check, ye olde paryenoide.

"Meghan had become a divisive agent. To please her, Harry had split from his old friends. He had even changed his telephone number without telling his family. William authorised an aide to tell the media about his hope that Harry and Meghan were ‘all right’"

I'm dyslexic, r36. It's very typical of you vicious Sussex Squad members to put someone down for something they were born with.

And how would I know that?

The sewage squad is claiming that Emma Watson "endorsed" Smeg's cookbook.

I wasn't aware there was a cookbook.

R40, she wrote the forward to a cookbook and let people assume it was “her” cookbook.

LOL @ the sewage squad.

r37 so she complained nobody in the family asked her if she was alright when it seems they likely didnt have their new phone numbers? how were they supposed to ask by smoke signal? What a piece of work she is.

Excellent point, SA!

r44 Thank you Kind Sir! I like to think all my points are excellent but I rather suspect that is a minority opinion on here LOL!!

It occurs to me that Meg is right back where she started. Having to hustle and even pay for publicity. People still find her uninteresting, untalented and ordinary.

Just my hunch, Meghan is setting the stage to leave Harry. I think she purposely sets him off right before public engagements so he looks miserable and angry, while she plays the loving doting wife. That way when she leaves him she can be like he was so angry all the time an emotionally and physically abused me.....

r47 I dont think she has the ability to hold the marriage together for appearances sake if the Queen lives to 100 which is quite likely.I think she is holding on for now for financial benefit and possible titles for the kids but I dont think she planned for the Queen to live so long. I think that would complicate her plan. It would seem worthwhile hanging on if she was going to die in the next year but I dont think she can hold it together beyond that.

The thing about sociopaths, and I think she has all the signs, is they get so restless and inside they're empty. They crave excitement, ego boosts, adventures (uh, like affairs), chaos. When just going through a ho-hum day, they're miserable. If all hell is breaking loose, even if it's negative, they're revved up and feel alive. Otherwise they feel dead.

Lots of "ifs" and lots of ways to stir things up without affairs - but these rumors about a hotel room reserved for her alone and the possible lease on a different house -- I was just reading she was still living with husband #1 when Harry got set up in a different house that she'd, uh, visit... in Toronto I think. Sure sounds familiar.

I bet there are men in SoCal who might not even be interested or attracted by her - but screwing the prince of England's wife? Hey man - that's a big-ass deal!

Posted by me at tail end r599 of last thread .So called Trump hating virtuous Meghan and Harry were introducded to big time Trump supporter , friend and billionaire Tom Barrack by Oprah Winfrey.They accepted his personal hospitality and visited his home and watched The Crown Netflix series with him at his house.

What total and utter two faced hypocrites and phoneys Meghan and Harry are. Their words are less than hollow.

r600 from last thread what is the significance of Brett Ratner launching her career please?

i loved the book. Like most of you - most of the stories and anecdotes I had heard or read before - some others that were not in there - but having it all put together in one place is really something else. Some of it - like flying first class to Rwanda to do 'charity work' and bringing a fashion photographer with her - I did not know and was appalled. However, she take a private plane to Uvalde like the day after that awful shooting and was even photographed checking pictures of herself after she lay flowers and that really rankled with me too (that is not in the book). There are things in there - like how she treated people on the Reitmans shoot that I knew about - but it was nice to see that truth come out. I've long believed that she is a mean girl just like her BFF Jessica Mulroney - and it is the sheer hypocrisy of her constant mantra of "Be Kind" that makes me crazy. Someone who worked for her (who is in the book) told a friend that MM is the most difficult client she's ever worked with because 'she never takes any advice or listens to anyone- she always knows the best' and I would say that explains a lot of the PR disasters we have seen unfold so far - as well as their shockingly high staff turnover (which is an indisputable fact). I will say this tho - I don't recommend reading it all in one sitting as I did - it is rather depressing that way. It's like this relentless diatribe against someone and you end up feeling kind of sickened by it. I wish her no ill will - but I believe she has been cruel, hypocritical and has regularly and blatantly lied. Sure, you can say 'oh here's another angry old white man" (tom bower) coming after this wonderfully progressive woman of color and you would be right. I get that and that sucks. But it doesn't negate the fact that most (if not all) of what this somewhat decrepit looking toff has written is actually true

sMEGs's Anthem, should be played wherever she goes.

Delusions of Grandeur

The cathedral's glittering on coronation day

Crowned heads and cardinals under military sway

I approach the altar slowly in a humble shroud

to receive the acclamation of the loyal crowd

***

Give me power over people in a palace

with a permanent guard

and the flags unfurled

Give devotion, dedication, celebration

not some cheap charade

and I'll rule the world

All of these delusions of grandeur

because they said 'We don't understand you'

and I want revenge

R51, he’s connected to a lot of casting couch/sexual assault allegations.

r54 OMG- thank you.

I'm up to Chapter 21. I think Bower paints a coherent picture of this woman, despite a few sloppy mistakes. So far, I have three impressions:

1. As has been stated here before, how really basic she is; how shabby her ambitions are and how utterly lacking in discernment she is in achieving them, without any kind of moral compass. There is clearly nothing she won't do to succeed. She is truly a product of our degraded times. She reminds me of Hugh Hefner's girlfriends in that oddly addictive tv show of theirs.

2. Her persistence in working toward her goals despite repeated setbacks impressed me. She was disciplined enough to behave professionally and retain the goodwill of all her colleagues on Suits, for SEVEN YEARS.

3. I am at a complete loss to understand how counterproductive and destined to fail her decisions are; she is truly her own worst enemy. Eg, if you have a public presence, how could anyone not realise how fatal it is to treat people badly? Even the best PR cannot suppress disgruntled former acquaintances', friends', colleagues' and service personnel's public denunciations. This is at odds with her professional behaviour described above, truly self-sabotage.

Second, all the easily discovered lies she has told.

And third, and this may be a true character flaw, her inability to foresee inevitable disastrous consequences of certain acts and statements. Eg, her decision to give the Oprah interview as Prince Philip was dying and the 95 year old queen was under maximum stress, saying that attempts to get her to postpone it on that basis were just to control her. That will always be remembered and held against her.

And more...the £56,000 dress she wore for her engagement photos.

The four private jets she took in two weeks after preaching about climate change.

Her continued bleating about kindness whilst ignoring her elderly, ill father who supported her throughout.

And on and on and on.

r56 I am so tempted to buy this book but I might wait for the paperback. But it does seem she kisses ass of those who are wealthy and willing to help her and kicks those below her. Not a nice person at all. Kissing up and kicking down are among the worst types of human.

There are a few instances so far (I'm not finished reading) of her perceiving what are usually attempts to help as attempts to control. And when it comes to her brief time in the BRF, she actually whined to Oprah about how no one helped her! There are multiple tales in the book of people - including other royals - who stopped by to chat etc. and who she was very abrupt with. Someone mentioned the Queen's friend who was basically told to fuck off. It's a very borderline trait to misinterpret good faith/good will gestures like that as something negative,

I haven't read the book but I plan to. She's been transparent since day one. She clearly loved Harry's title and pedigree but not Harry. She's conniving, manipulative, and a desperate social climber. She reeks of desperation and reminds me of one of those insufferable mean bitches who who is always casting bait so she can play the victim card. It's not surprising considering how dysfunctional her family is and what a lying social climber she is. She's elated that she's driven a wedge between Harry and his family. And the lies.....wow they never stop. The fact that there was no bride's side to the wedding was a huge red flag. No long-term friends, lone family member and a few celebrities (one whom we now know didn't consider her a friend attending their wedding, shows who she really is. Her entire family are grifters. Her pandering to the Queen is transparent and self serving. William sees right through her. Total fake bitch who has done everything to erase her racial features but plays the race card. How awkward it must have been for TRF to watch her cast her net over Harry.

She is a SOCIOPATH of the highest order. This book is a manual that future generations of grifters and gold diggers will use for reference.

It's all so basic and it boils down to a few simple rules of humanity; most men think with their dicks; Husband no.1, Brett Ratner, Rory McIlroy and yes Harry. Many women are avaricious and use sex to their advantage; Misha Nonoo, Meghan, both stand out in this book as that type.

There are others who facilitate for these 'arrangements'; John Fitzpatrick, Markus Anderson. And then there are the acolytes who gravitate towards sociopaths like Meghan and become enthralled, flattered and feel special- Jessica Mulroney, Omid Scobie. The whole thing is very sordid but we could give examples of Meghan and Harry dating back millennia.

r60 Who is John Fitzpatrick please?

Did she really think she would get an appearance free for performing royal duties? I find that almost impossible to believe even of her?

John Fitzpatrick was interesting insofar as Bower implied that they were fucking but he also referred to him as a “confirmed bachelor” - I.e. journalistic shorthand for “homosexual”.

Was John Fitzpatrick a fixer at a social club like Markus?

[quote]the sheer hypocrisy of her constant mantra of "Be Kind" that makes me crazy

That's pretty standard celebrity behavior, for most celebrities who go the "nice guy" route. Rosie O'Donnell was the queen of nice, until she wasn't. Ellen Degeneres was known as being fun and nice, until she wasn't. Gwyneth Paltrow was super chill and nice and cared about others, until her grifting became too big to hide.

[quote]I will say this tho - I don't recommend reading it all in one sitting as I did - it is rather depressing that way. It's like this relentless diatribe against someone and you end up feeling kind of sickened by it.

It's "like" that because it actually IS that. Most books of this type are specifically designed to overwhelm you with negative feelings about the famous person in question. Kitty Kelley made millions doing it, and to this day, her lies are still floating around as accepted truths.

Anyone who has been into gossip in general for a long time recognizes exactly what kind of book this is. I get that Meghan Markle haters may not, because almost all of them are not gossip mavens. But when I see all these stories about Meghan, I'm reminded of, say, Lee Israel's book on Tallulah Bankhead, or David Stenn's book on Clara Bow, both of which were well researched, but both of which used the truth to sneak in quite a few lies. Kitty Kelley was less subtle, but did the same.

All of these hit-piece books include some nasty implications where they hint at outing someone. It's a standard trope for these books. It did not surprise me to see Bower implying Doria is bi or lesbian. Once you realize there are certain notes these books always hit, certain tropes they always engage in, you start to realize that the books are more about following a tried-and-true pattern that guarantees sales, than they are about reporting the truth.

[quote]Sure, you can say 'oh here's another angry old white man" (tom bower) coming after this wonderfully progressive woman of color and you would be right. I get that and that sucks. But it doesn't negate the fact that most (if not all) of what this somewhat decrepit looking toff has written is actually true

Also, you love it. You bought it and you read it because you wanted to, because you love everything this book represents.

Most of what Bower says in this book, R66, has appeared in multiple places across the media before. None of it is untrue. If it makes grim reading it’s because it’s about a grim woman.

“Meghan Markle haters”? Pathetic teenage language. Grow up.

To be honest, isn’t all the information about her in the public domain just as negative as the information in the book? It’s hard to see the book as a distortion. Is there a positive side to her that the book ignores? Her public nastiness (berating a highly popular figure like the Queen for refusing her request to profiteer from and corrupt her royal titles) is entirely consistent with what is described of her private behaviour. If a person would berate a 95-year old woman in public for upholding the ethical responsibilities of her positon, it’s easy to believe that she might bully a small child in private. It’s also easy to believe that a woman who would squat on camera like she needed the toilet and who would exploit the murder of small children for fame is a fame-obsessed simpleton in private.

It’s often happens that a person who is nice in public is not nice in private, but I’m not aware of many people who are vicious and stupid in public who are kind and brilliant in private.

Is there some evidence in the public domain that would lead you to believe the picture of her in the book is anyway exaggerated?

R65 I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Markle haters are stupid, know nothing about gossip but love to hear the lies??

I love Markle gossip and I'm not ashamed of that. The woman called me a racist. She's never met me, knows nothing about me but on the grounds that I live in the UK, I'm racist. Imagine how our Black and Minority citizens feel about that. It's downright offensive.

She said that she would have done 'anything' to make it work. Except follow protocol, listen and use advice given to her, understand why traditions are important here. She did nothing to adapt to our culture and she told lots of lies.

She said she had no interest in titles. Until she got one and now she insists on using it everywhere she goes.

So I love the gossip and I find it a lot of fun. Do I care if it upsets Princess Pinnochio? Not one bit. If she doesn't want to be criticised, then she should stay out of the public eye. And she should stop lying. The blatant hypocrisy should go too.

It is likely Thomas Markle was paid for his participation. I wonder how much? I would have asked for a percentage of the profits.

I'm here for the snark but agree with R65. There doesn't seem to be anything earth-shattering in the book--we all knew she was a social climbing, basic A-list wannabe. Bower's written a book for those who want to see all the negative stories in once place. I doubt anyone who is a fan of hers will find anything there to change their minds--it will all be dismissed as misogyny/racism/whatever.

I understand people not liking her, but I don't understand those who try to make her worse than she is, flinging around extreme adjectives and diagnoses.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make either, R69.

You seem to be saying that everything in the book is lies & that “Meghan Markle haters” like it that way.

I don’t think the book has any lies in it, to be honest. Although I agree with the previous poster that the relentless negativity males it a hard read (or listen - I have it on audiobook).

I'm liking that he is confirming much of the stuff that has been circulating for a while now. He is known for confirmation, since he is a legal person & has been sued & never lost.

Doubt she will leave Harry. That title will have to be pried from her cold, dead hands. Publicly humiliate him with affairs, why not? Might add cachet to her Femme Fatale Image(as if). I can't imagine what she really looks like with those rachety 'stensions, botox bumps, when she isn't camera ready, shudder.

Harry seems drug addled. He has a long history. He is in LALA Land. Any drug or fetish you want if you got the $$$ & the connections. Thought SOHO Sluts Are Us, boy Markus is Mr. Procurer of anything your heart, head or genitals desire. Most rich famous folk have a procurer on speed dial & sometimes travels or camps out with them. Hell, Harry & Meg ain't gonna to hit S. Central looking to score.

R65, you have some good points. I despise Meghan, for the record. Sadly, maybe the book was overhyped, because I don’t think it is “meticulously” researched. I find myself wondering who said what, and wondering if there was an editor. Regarding John Fitzpatrick, for instance: is he gay or not? What is Bower saying? Why even bring it up, because it’s not relevant. If he’s gay and out, say it — or don’t. Same goes for Doria.

On the whole, I’m enjoying it, but there are some issues.

R70. I don’t think anybody is trying to make worse than she is. Nobody’s saying she’s a murderer or anything like that. All the criticisms seem to be based on specific facts.

Rumour is one thing, confirmation is another.

The book matters because it's put on unchallenged record the details from people who talked.

It's the accumulated weight of the evidence that makes this book valuable.

Yes, most of the public, as polls on both sides of the Pond show, see through her and Harry.

But they keep getting platforms because of who he is.

Perhaps this book will help to make those considering giving them platforms think twice.

It's too bad Bower isnt also writing one that focuses on Harry, whose former public image was entirely a creation of the Palace machine Harry so publicly deplores.

Angry, prone to viciousness, a penchant for physicical violence, blended with a huge toxic cocktail of entitlement plus insecurity, obsessed ef other his dead mother . . .

Between the two Sussex closets, there are enough skeletons to refilm that famous Harryhausen scene in The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad.

It's past time for those closet doors to be opened.

Bower did leave some things out which should have been included. Eg, where was Doria during the years MM lived with Thomas? If she was the last to leave Brett Ratner's sleazy parties, was she ever play for pay? Why didn't Bower interview more of her family, eg her sister? Why did her brother write that damning letter warning Harry not to marry her?

How does he explain the difference between her professional treatment of her colleagues on Suits and her abuse of others such as on the Reitmans shoot?

And there are still people on DL who don't understand gossips and hyperbole? Oh my... Such naivety.

R61 R63 R64 John Fitzpatrick is a big wig Paddy in the US. In with the Clintons, Obama and the Irish American community. In the book he comes across as aiding the Meghan and Rory McIlroy relationship. He's your typical gauche paddy making himself invaluable to the worst type of people. I say that as an Irishman myself. His type are EVERYWHERE.

Bower's very good book omits one important piece of the puzzle; Tom Inskip's wedding in Jamaica. It's surmised that Harry had broken up with Megs and attended the weding with "a friend". It is known that Megs gate-crashed the wedding and was asked to leave several times, but refused. There are plenty of photos of a shit-faced Harry looking uncomfortable around Megs and Megs visibly angry at her treatment both by Harry, who was doing his damndest to ignore her and those who attempted to kick her out. Those photos also show what has become Megs control trademark; physically glomming on to Harry, rubbing his back, repeatedly grabbing his hand.

What went down in Jamaica, or soon after, that caused Harry to participate in a reproachmment with someone who obviously made him uncomfortable?

Several years ago, I got drawn into the "Dangling Tendrils" threads about Meghan. (They've all been deleted; they'd make interesting reading now). Back then I thought that the posters were crazy, projecting malevolent intentions onto Meghan that couldn't possibly be there. I was wrong; those posters predicted almost everything happened, right down to the flight to L.A. That's why the book gets such a strong reaction here: it vindicates the internet gossip ecosystem. I'm sure that there are nits to pick here and there, but that's nothing in the scheme of things.

^^^ Desole. r e p p r o a c h m e n t

^^^ Oh for fuck's sakes. w e d D i n g

I don't hate Meghan Markle, but really enjoy gossiping about her and H. The nicknames are simply joy and fun.

Mazel tov!

R79, the Inskip wedding received only scant coverage but it does mention Harry going nuts at the sight of a photographer hidden in the bushes- possibly there because of a tip off from Meghan? All his friends at the wedding disliked her entitled behaviour but she successfully alienated him from them.

[quote] What went down in Jamaica, or soon after, that caused Harry to participate in a reproachmment with someone who obviously made him uncomfortable?

She probably told him she's pregnant. A certain kind of women is prone to using purported pregnancies for getting what they want (the ring on the finger, that is).

Markle Stans can do down the book all they want, but it will make no difference to its impact.

The point of Bower's work here is that he has not only uncoverered some unreported aspects ( the deal with CBS as early the time of the wedding, the influence of Oprah on the couple from the beginning, Anti-Monarchist John Fitzgerald's largw role in getting her into the circles by which she could set up a blind date with Harry, and so forth), but, importantly, that has fact checked and double-sourced stories which appeared in the news, lending them confirmation.

The acid test of the book will be if Markle sues. If she dares to sue, which she might, the further test is whether she will fare better than any of the much richer people who have sued Bower before.

So far Bower has a perfect record for winning every libel suit that has brought against him, owing to the precision of his sourcing and quality of his research.

My guess is that Meghan is only in for deeper humiliation if she attempts to sue.

Would love to see that shit sue, if she sues. Of course, she will not heed anyone's advice. Might me the time for a new, large size popcorn popper.

r63 Thank you

r65 Kitty Kelley has never been successfully sued or to be more accurate ever been sued at allI think?

She'll defo sue for every aspect of the book she might end up successful in court. The stuff she will NOT sue Bower for is much more interesting though. There are lots of stories about her (and Harry) she never went to court for and which turned out to be true after a while . . .

If she doesn't sue, it must be true.

r88

First, The Royal Family never sues for libel. Secondly, Kitty Kelley's books on the Royals, if memory serves, were never published in the UK. Third, libel is almost impossible to sue for in the US owing to the First Amendment which is why no one bothered to sue her, even though some of her books' revelations, I understand, have not stood the test of time.

I’m not *criticizing*, but I’d like to hear more about Soho House and those connections. It’s a thread running through her story consistently. Markus Anderson was recently seen at a polo match at SBPC, so I’m assuming Meghan is keeping him close. I’d love to know more about his influence and why she hasn’t Markled him yet.

r90 I know the royals don't sue but Nancy Reagan, Oprah, the Bushes and others she has written about have not sued her either.

r89 I don't think she'll sue at all. She'll have Sunshine Sachs put out a smokescreen statement that she is "seriously considering suing", full in the knowlege that she never will, because she can't risk him providing the court with the full extent of his sources and backup research.

r90 lots of wealthy Americans sue through the UK courts.

SA, there is very little hope of winning a Libel suit in the US, even if you can prove that someone published lies about you. Mad but true. It's one reason the US media is so insane.. The US couldn't be more opposite from Britain in terms of Libel laws and their practical applications.

She wont sue, all the deep shite about her would come out then

r94, Yes, but that makes the cost of a trial is almost double than the mere hundreds of thousands of dollars it would be in the US. Also they have to get standing. It's a massive undertaking for an American to sue for libel in the UK. It can be done, but its an overwhelmingly resource-consuming task.

Why do H & M feel the need to photo shop a tree into their picture?

I can't imagine that Megs will sue Bower because the lionshare of the book has already appeared in one medium or another. And the details that haven't appeared have been source footnoted. I also can't imagine Megs wanting to walk into an English courtoom after having been exposed as a liar.

^^^ lion's share

R98, the tree in question.

There is something so off about her. I've met people before who I suspected were narcissists, but she takes it to another level. Her poor decision-making skills could almost be classified as reckless. I don't know how to explain it, but it's like she's empty inside except for greed, ambition and neediness. Would love to know what her actual diagnosis would be, if examined by a professional.

R79 Meghan Markle “gatecrashing” the Inskip wedding is not “known” at all. It has never been anything more than a Tumblr rumour which is clearly and obviously bullshit. Fuck knows why you believe it.

[quote] Meghan Markle “gatecrashing” the Inskip wedding is not “known” at all. It has never been anything more than a Tumblr rumour which is clearly and obviously bullshit.

R103 Bullshit? According to whom? Take a look at the photos of Harry and Megs from the wedding. While social media may lie, photos don't.

On Ivanka:

"she secured an introduction to Ivanka Trump, the daughter of the New York property tycoon. ‘When we have drinks,’ she told her followers, ‘I will make sure I order whatever she does – because this woman seems to have the formula for success (and happiness) down pat.’ Ivanka’s ‘beautiful designs’ of shoes, furniture and clothes were afterwards embraced on The Tig. Not mentioned was Meghan’s rejection of Donald Trump’s invitation to party with him while working on Deal or No Deal."

"In the run-up to the 2016 presidential elections, she also praised her friend Ivanka Trump as ‘staggeringly beautiful . . . but so incredibly savvy and intelligent that she’s not just carved a niche for herself under her father’s famed Trump notoriety, she’s undoubtedly created her own empire. It’s so easy to knock girls who come from privilege . . . but I always remember Ivanka being different."

This is all pre-Harry. Once she 'met' him (July 2016), it was goodbye to sucking up to Ivanka.

R104 Which photo shows her “gatecrashing”?

God, you’re stupid. I bet you think her kids are dolls too. Yet another middle aged woman on a forum for gay men. Just go away.

R106 You obviously have reading comprehension problems. No surprise.

[quote] her father’s famed [...] notoriety

Wow, Meghan sho is dumb!

What did Harry ever see in her anyway?

She's not a great beauty. Not sexy or alluring. Not kind, caring or loving. Was he looking for a substitute Diana figure?

R108, but she does a lovely bit of fancy handwriting- she always seemed to be advertising it!

"The challenge was to find a platform to launch her rebranding. She chose Elle magazine in America. One eyewitness described how Meghan ‘breezed’ into Elle’s office and met Justine Harman, one of the magazine’s editors. At one moment in their conversation Meghan sought to ingratiate herself, and offered to write the place-cards for Harman’s wedding. After successfully pitching her idea for an article, Meghan embroidered it with a twist. Meghan suggested to Elle that she should travel to the island of Malta to search for her mixed-race roots."

I feed my soul with the desperate eyes of starving children.

Bower writes that billionaire T. Barrack, charged with expionage by the US, is a special friend of the Harkles.

I want to be the girl with the most cake I love him so much, it just turns to hate I fake it so real, I am beyond fake And someday, you will ache like I ache

Actually, the royals do sue. Charles sued ANL over privacy successfully, and Diana did the same against the MIRROR. And, see link below, Diana also sued for libel and got a settlement decision.

Generally, though, the shit spread about them on a daily basis by a media that knows that only in the most egregious situations will the Palace bother, or they'd be suing year in and year out, they ignore it all.

But the Palace does step in: it totally left egg all over Harry's face last year by informing the BBC that Harry had lied about discussing naming his daughter with her family nickname before the event. Harry's letters threatening legal action about the claim, naturally, dried up and died after the Palace refused to back his story up.

What Harry claimed was a complete lie: claiming that the Queen approved the name in advance. The Palace disposed of it without resource to legal action.

The fact that Harry was willing to threaten legal action on the basis of what he knew to be untrue tells you something about Harry and his mental state.

That is, if his wife's extraordinarily OTT behaviour at the UN hadn't already. Either she hates his guts already and is undermining his manhood on purpose under the guise of loving support, or she values a eunuch husband more than she values being seen a woman hooked up to a manly man; or, she's really that obtuse.

[quote]To please her, Harry had split from his old friends. He had even changed his telephone number without telling his family.

Wow, that is a classic sign of an extremely bad marriage or relationship. When one cuts off the other from his family and friends.

She rims me good, tongue all the way in.

^ That really could be part of it, R116. People like Meghan do not have any intrinsic relationship with their sexuality: sex is just another tool to get what they want, so, if there's a big enough payday to be had from pegging Harry (or whatever else they might do), she will do it. It's not that she'll force herself to do it, she'll do it gladly if she gets something out of it.

R109, Harry certainly seems not to have processed his mother's death, partially due to his low cognitive functioning and also the fact that the Palace probably had to coddle him to keep him (somewhat) within bounds. Whether consciously or not, Meghan must have seen him as an ideal mark: connected, dumb (judging by reports of his schooling and army days) and easily manipulated (particularly by a "vulnerable" woman).

I still think the biggest dis of Markle was Tina Brown's noting that she was only 6th on the Call Sheet of a C list cable show.

I lost my 1st true love in 1994,and even though its been 28 years there are times when I think of him and it still hurts. I get Harry not bveing completely moved on from losing his mother but come on Harry! Adults learn to cope with trauma and not drag it around for 40 years. If he has in fact been under pschiatric care for years,his shrinks mnust really suck because he acts like Diana died last week. At this point hes just using her as an excuse for his own arrested development .From the beginning I found it very odd that he had to marry a z list nobody when he should have been able to pick from the highest social circles in England. Makes one assume they all knew something about Harry we didnt,like hes bonkers.

Harry, you want your salad tossed?

Not anymore she doesn’t, r116. She’s gotten what she wanted and doesn’t have to anymore.

R117, that’s a fun game they play. To the world, they’re a brash and demanding bully. But to their very special “soulmate”, they’re a lost little puppy, a wounded bird. They know the “real” person inside. Harry’s special because she trusts him to know the “real” Meghan.

She’s as vulnerable as a rhinoceros.

[quote]Whether consciously or not, Meghan must have seen him as an ideal mark: connected, dumb (judging by reports of his schooling and army days) and easily manipulated (particularly by a "vulnerable" woman).

Well, she told her agent that she'd googled Harry and done deep research about him and former friend Nikki Priddy, with whom she went to London, said she was a Diana obsessed teen. She must have aware of his intellectual deficits and known how to exploit them. Meghan was smart enough to get into Northwestern. Unlike straight men, one thing most intelligent straight women have a hard time with is a partner who's not very bright. It's uncomfortable because it's obvious. Meghan knows and cynically and gladly puts up with as long as she thinks she's getting what she wants. I think she's fully conscious about it.

R104 Of course photos lie. You squint off into the distance to look at something, get snapped ~ voila, you look angry.

Sunshine Sachs is not the prestigious agency the public is led to believe.

Professional "fixers" representing the likes of Weinstein and Michael Jackson.

Bottom feeders with henchmen on staff. Skeevy.

R124 Squinting? Furious anger??

R3, did he get any cooperation from royal sources (unnamed, of course) for anecdotes in this book? Possibly in return for making her the villain. I agree with your assessment, but I think if he dumped her, the RF and the UK public would take him back. He'd be at the bottom of the ladder, but could work his way back up. Catherine and Camilla would probably help him when possible while trying to repair his issues with his dad and brother. Who knows if this will happen, but I suspect insiders serving the royals want to prepare for any contingency. Having her look like the real problem would help in that regard.

[quote]There doesn't seem to be anything earth-shattering in the book--we all knew she was a social climbing, basic A-list wannabe.

While not earth shattering what the book surprised me with is how basic she is. I think a lot of us thought she was this Mata Hari/Wallis Simpsony mastermind... the ultimate manipulator. The content makes me see someone who is very basic and lucky... she can get exceptional places but doesn't know what to do with them... Machiavelli is safe.

[quote]I know the royals don't sue but Nancy Reagan, Oprah, the Bushes and others she has written about have not sued her either.

I guess a lot of times there's truthiness to it, enough that you'd win the lawsuit but it would be a phyrrhic victory.

Also to say the Telegraph's review tapped into the unrelenting negativity of the book and found it heavy going as a result. The Telegraph wouldn't be inclined to be sympathetic to her.

Agree with R128, Meghan's technique is so basic, what is shocking is that so many go/went along with her simplistic machinations.

I am really disappointed. I thought she was so cunning. She's just basic.

R102 I think she may be a genuine narcissist. It's clear her mother wasn't around during much of her childhood. Not hard to imagine Doria was busy doing Doria and her father was busy working. She turned inward as narcissists do.

[quote]Most rich famous folk have a procurer on speed dial & sometimes travels or camps out with them.

"Hello, Mr. Smith? This is the Queen. I'm in Kingston, Jamaica, and I want a man for the evening. Yes, someone muscular and hung again..."

She's textbook narcissist R132. Agree with the lack of a mother figure, see also Madonna.

R127, it doesn’t seem that Bower has anything positive thing to say about Harry. He at least had a clue that he was a part of an institution and he betrayed that, not just individual family members.

Pure speculation but Bower doesn't seem the type to make deals about tone and after the Charles biography it seems likely there would be a lot of reticence about him on the palace side.

Plus, everybody was expecting a hatchet job. Bowers had to deliver that, though it seems he did so based on concerted effort.

r105 Does Ivanja know that Meghwaa her friend? r112 Now that deserves and needs a lit more scrutiny and attention especially of the media.

Sounds like it was a very one sided 'friendship'- Meghan chasing clout and trying to ingratiate herself into Ivanka's orbit.

It's not nothing when Ivanka Trump rejects you.

Not a single mention of Anna Wintour in the book. One would have thought Megs would be targeting her.

So are all the Royals and the friends in their set devouring this with glee at their summer houses right now?

Wonder do the royals have a whatsapp group-Wills, Chas, Camilla, Anne, Edward and they're copying excerpts from the book as we are on DL.

Louis is making time for some serious summer reading.

R140 - and speaking of Anna Wintour...

My God, that is one hideous frock that woman is wearing!

R144, battle lines have been drawn. Wintour is wisely Team Cambridge. Enninful opted for Team Sussex and was still shafted. Losers gonna lose. In that video clip they did include some of Kate's best recent looks.

Meghan revealed for what she really is - a Kardasian. Yikes!

R147, that column was devastating and the charge, to those of us in the general public, that she is a Kardashian, seems valid. A closer look, however, and it appears she would be lucky to be one. The fortunes go up every day for the Kards, with appearances in Vogue, with recognition by Wintour, who also gave that recognition to Mayor Pete, that raised his image socially. Financially, I believe that the Kards are now billionaires, while the Harkles will be looking for quarters under the sofa cushions before long. Kim is portrayed as working toward a law degree, while Meghan is looking more like a liar and grifter who can't get anything right. She made it to the big league only to blow her advantage in ways that only the very very rich or the very environmentally limited would do. I would love to see her Foreign Service exam results and test document. Even with a private school education and an overseas posting as part of her education, she couldn't pass it. I'm not familiar with the exam but I would love to know where she fell down. Was that test performance a prescient example of how she's doing today?

R147's article is one for the ages!

Spotted on t-shirts soon (hopefully); "Meghan is no humanitarian. She’s a Kardashian."

R120 She was trying to deflect media attention from The Dog Poo Hat.

The most fascinating part for me is the Vogue debacle involving her guest editing.

"During the last weeks before publication, Meghan offered advice on publicity. She spoke about ‘lighting up the internet’ inspired by leaks. Enninful was unimpressed. Secrecy, Enninful repeated, was essential for a blockbuster launch. Nevertheless, the Sun regularly published snippets of information about the issue. The editorial team suspected the source was a friend of Meghan’s, a female publicist in London."

[quote] Not a single mention of Anna Wintour in the book. One would have thought Megs would be targeting her.

I thought I read that Anna Wintour hated “Suits” and that’s why Meghan wasn’t invited to the Met Gala. Someone removed the pirated copy so I can’t check.

No mention of it in the pdf I downloaded R152.

Wow re the Post column. I mean obvious an axe to grind that Lizzie Borden would covet but...

[quote]Lacking talent, charm, intelligence or class, her only way up through marriage, Meghan lashes out at the very people paid to make her life easier, better, happier.

OUCH!

[quote]even Prince William intervening and telling Harry that his wife’s behavior was “unacceptable”

Anybody know that this was about? In all the chatter about the book I have never heard that one yet.

[quote] If anything, this book ratifies the world’s growing disregard for these two hypocrites

Their brand's epitaph. They have reached thread closed status.

(Though not here, obviously.)

R154: The Sussexes and Cambridges shared offices and staff, originally. I think they were supposed to be the “Fabulous Four” and it didn’t quite pan out.

Their offices became separate entities. Apparently Meghan was terrorizing some of the staff (and being chummy with others, as those people like to do: splitting).

In my opinion, that’s what that was all about. People were threatening to quit, and some did. As they continue to do at Archewell.

Is there any discussion in the book of her belief/ assumption she could demand to live in Windsor Castle? Is that true? What about Wimbledon where she sat there like a buffoon alone with her “friends”

Meghan has exploited Harry's weaknesses. For this I admire her.

She wanted a sea view at Frogmore....

"As the house neared completion, the contractors gained the impression that Meghan was unhappy. The new building, she appeared to suggest, was good enough for the staff but where was the Duchess’s palace? Frogmore’s kitchen was small, the living-room was cramped and there was no view of the ocean. On top of that, life under the flight-path to Heathrow was horrendous. Her dissatisfaction came to a head when she unfavourably compared Frogmore not only to the £4.5 million William and Kate had spent renovating their Kensington Palace apartment, but to the Californian mansions inhabited by Hollywood’s celebrities".

A sea view? I'm hazy on my geography but last I checked Windsor is not a coastal town?

LOL...the sea is 65 miles south.

What a maroon.

They could have moved it to the coast. But who wants to live in a cottage? I deserve at least a castle, if not a palace, for all I've done. But a cottage?

There have been so many clangers recently between the pair of them, the book happily reminded me of this car crash.

For the record: Building work on the interior of Apartment 1A, the former home of Princess Margaret, has cost £600,000, with another £400,000 spent on repairs to the roof.

Royal aides defended the cost of refurbishing the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s new home, saying the “vast majority” of the £600,000 spent on the interior was for the removal of asbestos, which was necessary “whoever moved into the building”.

Nothing that they gave her would do because at that point, she was spoiling to go back to CA - her turf - where she was the insider, not the outsider living in less that regal settings & forced to deal with stuffy rules & stuffier people. And she had Harry by the balls at that point, so he'd do whatever she wanted.

I wonder if in the middle of the night Harry wakes up thinking "you know, that cottage really wasn't that bad..."

Ellen and Meghan were made for each other.

Before Meghan I had no opinion, knowledge, like or dislike of William and Kate.

Meghan's machinations have made me root for William and Kate and their kids.

I thoroughly enjoyed when William scarved Meghan. This dark comedy has become Meghan's spin off of Suits, "Scarves".

Meghan really has been the best gift to William and Kate. I used to read royal news before she came on the scene and there were negative tabloid stories about William and Kate all the time. Now there are mostly only glowing ones.

[quote]Her entire family are grifters.

Well, to be fair, the Windsors are grifters, too, in their own way.

She wanted an "ocean view" at Windsor?! Please, say it ain't so.

As for Kensington Palace, it's a Crown Estate property just like Frogmore. It had asbestos in the roof and hadn't been renovated in a very long time. As with the Sussexes, the taxpayer funded renovations were roofing, bringing HVAC up to code, and, by the way, KP is open to tourists and brings in revenue that goes back into the Treasury to recompense the taxpayer.

The Cambridges paid for the fixins. Which is probably to say that, as with the Sussexes, Charles generously did, or William dipped into his trust fund.

At Anmer Hall, however, the taxpayer paid nada for the renovations, because the Queen owns that outright: so she paid personally.

The Queen lives under the same Heathrow flight path that the Sussexes did. I bet if they'd given the Sussexes Frogmore HOUSE rather than FC, Meghan wouldn't have complained about Heathrow.

And last, but not least, having shown everyone before the ring was even on her finger that she was a bitch with a chip on her shoulder, and that she and Harry were coming in as the Adversarial Couple, why the fuck would Meghan have expected to be treated the way the future Princess of Wales and Queen Consort was being treated?!

Meghan really is the most obtuse, nasty, self-regarding narc whore God ever made.

As you sow, so shall you reap, Megsy. Next time, don't pick fights with the Queen's best friend, don't abuse the future Queen's todder daughter at the wedding, and try a bit of humility and some of that fucking compassion and kindness you and that eunuch you married keep bleating about.

Maybe the Queen would have let you have something nicer, Mrs Sixth in Line.

^*toddler (not todder) daughter

Harry must be one stupid fool to have married this idiot. She will destroy him.

r171 They will destroy each other.

R155 the staff problems didn't help, but the main impetus for the quick split-up of Foundations was MONEY. Bower goes into good detail.

Also, Enninful is not pro-Sussex. He was a quite helpful source, and again, the mess that was Sparkles' fashion editing career is clearly laid out. You won't be surprised to know that altnough she planned to grace the Vogue cover with the other 'women making a difference (according to her -- one of them was the person who hired her for Suits, for instance), she was gently denied it by the editors. I've read only excerpts... the Vogue one is outstanding

I'm surprised she let the cover thing go. Wonder if next time was dangled?

She wanted an Ocean View from Windsor?

More like she wanted Anmer Hall, which has Ocean views aplenty because it is right at the edge of the Norfolk coast....

The embarrassing Harry call where he thought he was taking to Greta washername and said he thought the world didn’t need a foundation from them changed quickly when he saw the financial upside.

R175 Anmer isn’t right on the edge of the Norfolk coast. It’s about 12 or so miles away.

Still a lovely spot though.

But it has sea views, r177. That's the point. THAT's why Meghan was demanding a sea view from her landlocked cottage.

If Meghan had just waited until the queen died, they would likely have been given a country house with a sea view if they wanted it when Charles became king. (For example, why would be as king still need the Castle of Mey, which is his private property and overlooks the sea almost directly?)

She was too impatient.

R179, Charles, famously, needs at least seven homes at any one time. He's not cheap when it comes to himself.

I don't know, r179. She was abusing staff from nearly the beginning, as well as members of the family. I very much doubt that had they stayed they would have got any sort of upgrade. Their behaviour was far too foul.

[quote][R179], Charles, famously, needs at least seven homes at any one time.

He will have dozens of homes as monarch, in addition to the ones he already owns.

In fact he will be expected as monarch to reside in Windsor Castle, Buck House, Holyrood Palace (the residence of the monarch in Scotland), and Hillsborough Castle (the residence of the monarch in Northern Ireland). In addition, he will inherit from his mother both Balmoral and Sandringham.

He already has Clarence House as his and Camilla's regular royal residence, plus he owns outright privately Highgrove, Llwynwermod in Wales, the Castle of Mey in Scotland, and Tamarisk House in the Scilly Islands.

You think she wouldn't have seven homes if she could figure out how to game it?

R182 I think Charles has said he will reside at Buckingham Palace when he is King not Windsor. Windsor apparently will go to William and his family when his is Prince of Wales. That's why the Cambridges are moving there soon and settling their children in school in the area. William getting Windsor Castle has been on the cards for awhile hence Meghan's obsession with living there and having Archie presented to the world there

R78 No person who is Irish would call another Irish person a "Paddy" maybe Plastic Paddy but never Paddy

R102 I used to read a great blog about narcissists years ago called "Now we are Six" which isn't around anymore but I found an excerpt of it online, it basically explains the maturity level of narcissists.

Uhhhh - not in my experience, r185. I'm not the poster you're addressing, but when Irish people want to mock other Irish for selling their Irishness to, say, eager Americans, they're ALWAYS called "something Paddy"

R126 For all we know, the other gal was talking about something very serious or repugnant. Maybe 10 seconds later the subject changed and everyone laughed. We have no clue. I find Harry and Meghan's actions despicable but trying to interpret still photos is just silly.

I tried to go through all 3 threads, but I didn’t see anything about this…

R189, that has been discussed. A mention of it on another thread drew multiple rebukes and insults, so I assume that it actually happened.

R178 Go and look on google earth. It doesn’t have sea views unless you use a telescope. It is not close to the coast at all..it’s quite far inland.

Bower was referencing movie star type Californian mansions with sea views as a reference for what Markle actually wanted, not anything she could get as a royal.

But it’s funny that while W&K had two mansions she was stuck with a commuter style house under a flight path.

Then why are they always pictured at their private beach, r191. Anmer Hall is huge, tall and on an enormous amount of acreage, some of which is coastal.

Again, just look at Google Earth. You can see…it’s not on the coast.

And I should think that when they want to go to the beach they get in the car and drive there!

Anmer is very close to Sandringham, essentially in the grounds. And Sandringham is 17 miles from the coast.

Oh, and it’s not their private beach. It’s as public as any other beach, but just not used much.

She’s an empty person who fills her massive void by belittling those who have no power. But the real villain is Harry. He’s no innocent dupe. He allowed—encouraged—her to take over his life and disparage everyone he held dear.

To me, the most despicable part of the Oprah interview were her pointed attacks on Kate. There is no way in hell that she didn’t practice those pre-interview. By all accounts, Harry considered Kate a big sister and loved her as a selfless protector. Yet he did not stand in the way of Meghan shredding her in that interview.

Wouldn’t you just love to hear Princess Margaret’s thoughts on all this?

Meghan repeating the “Waity Katey” nickname on American TV was the cruelest part. “They used to call her waity katey” that would have killed her. And Harry let her do it. Creep.

“Wonder do the royals have a whatsapp group-Wills, Chas, Camilla, Anne, Edward and they're copying excerpts from the book as we are on DL.”

I know for a fact they (wills and dad) have a W A. Group Thing is, Harry used to be in it. Clearly not anymore. I bet it’s wills kate Mike and Zara

You know what Charles said ab the wedding at a private dinner a day or two before Harry and Meghan married? “The poor lad is cuntstruck” actually a fair description I think

No he didn't. Source?

I know someone who knows someone who was there’. They told me this before the wedding . Yes he did.

@199 That’s rich! Coming from a man who was also cuntstruck.

I thought the same

[quote]Wouldn’t you just love to hear Princess Margaret’s thoughts on all this?

They can SOD OFF. The lot of them can all SOD OFF.

Elizabeth, might I have another martini?

They can SOD OFF.

Just finished Bower's book. Despite his detailing all of the lies, duplicity, appalling behavior, mean-spiritedness, and just how abominable Meghan and, to a lesser extent Harry, were and are, Bower, whether he meant to or not, leaves the reader with the sense that both Harry and Meghan admirably achieved exactly what they most wanted. In Meghan's case, to be "the most famous woman in the world" with the concomitant power/control/wealth. In Harry's case, to exact the most painful and lasting vegeance for all of the perceived slights and ill-treatment by his grandmother, his father and his brother. That was always the end game for both Meghan and Harry. The future cost of their behavior to them and their children is completely irrelevant.

[quote] Wouldn’t you just love to hear Princess Margaret’s thoughts on all this?

"At least she's not one of those tiresome Jews."

I don’t think MM is the most famous woman in the world.

I also don’t think Charles is cuntstruck. I think his relationship with Camilla is far more about how she treats him, not sex.

R205 . . . to themSELVES and . . .

R200 I don’t know if it’s true or not but Popbitch reported this. Read down.

Admittedly, I have not read his book, but what stuns me most is, apparently, Doria's unexplained TEN year absence from her daughter's life? DL and NOBODY has been able to fill that huge blank. I sure the author has much information from compromised positions he cannot publish.

R172 No, people like Meghan are like vampires. After they suck the victim dry, they move on. Unless you put a stake through their hearts, they are cumning survivors.

Harry, however, lacks her survival skills. He is already ruined. Only money and privilege are propping him up. And, of course, her.

The man you saw at the UN is a shell. All that's left to him is lawsuits and rage.

One can only imagine the geelings of Charles, Camilla, William, and Kate watching that footage of Meghan at the UN clutching and patting and soothing her child-man.

It was pathetic and frightening.

To quote Eliza Doolittle, "She done him in."

^*feelings (not geelings)

The thing is, we never know what we don't know, and that is what catches us out.

MM did not know the reality of the BRF and she overestimated its cachet in the US.

Meghan also did not know that her abusive behaviour would be exposed by dozens of people she mistreated in the last 20 years, confirmed in books like Tom Bower's.

Harry did not know the US at all and had no plan in place as to how he would function there.

They clearly believed they could get permanent funding from the BRF by threats and extortion without understanding how powerful a force the BRF is in the British public's mind, and therefore not vulnerable to being undermined by nasty revelations.

They did not know how easily their lies and hypocrisy would be discovered and exposed.

They did not know that Covid restrictions were going to seriously derail their launch in the US.

They did not know that current events leading to shortages and high inflation were going to make their hypocrisy even more unacceptable to both the British and American public.

They did not know that lucrative deals like Netflix and Spotify could vanish as quickly as they appeared, as could 'friends' like Oprah, the Clooneys, Serena Williams and Ellen.

Harry and Meghan know NOTHING. So they don’t need to evaluate what they know and what they don’t know.

[quote] But it’s funny that while W&K had two mansions she was stuck with a commuter style house under a flight path.

No, you're wrong.

William and Kate will one day by King William V and his wife Queen Catherine. Meghan and Harry will never be anything more than the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

You're making the same mistake they keep making--to think they are somehow on an equal level as William and Kate in the way the Queen apportions favors, as if the fact that William and Harry are both Charles's sons and should therefore get equal favors.

That is just not how royalty works. it's entirely hierarchical, and it depends not on skin color, nor on beauty, nor even likability: it depends entirely on birth order. William hit the jackpot. Harry always gets less.

Charles not more than his siblings did; Elizabeth got more than Margaret did; Edward VIII got more than his siblings did.

According to the book, MM "designed" a few dresses for Reitmans. Everyone, including the Mulroney clown, thought the dresses looked porno-ish.

Cuntstruck? Where was Cher when they needed her to slap him and say. "Snap out of it?"

R185, a Paddy here. Yes we use the term paddy- generally in the denigrative for those with a perceived character flaw- John Fitzpatrick being one. He is definitely not a plastic paddy as he was born in Ireland and spent his teenage years there. Joe Biden screams plastic paddy and his anti-British rhetoric is cynical and hollow.

R225. Harry and Meghan and their supporters are just not too bright or well informed. They think every child of a king and their children should receive the same level of privilege and recognition, not realising probably a third of the UK population is descended from a British king.

^ and their descendants, not children.

Since she obviously knew all about the royal family despite what she said, do we think she used the “Waity Kaity” thing to push Harry to propose? Not in those words, but “I have a ‘career,’ I can’t wait around for you …”

R215 I’m “wrong” about what?

I find it funny that W&K have two mansions while Markle had a relatively small house? That is funny, given Markle’s grandiose delusions and jealousy of Kate.

I have made no mistake - I know who is going to be King and Queen. But if seniority is what it’s all about where housing is concerned, just look at the size of the mansion Edward and Sophie have.

God, I am so sick of you arrogant Americans trying to sound like royalty experts. Find another path to validation, you posturing fool.

Maybe, r221, but in one of the "William at 40" articles in the Daily Mail, it goes into the brothers' breakdown and specifies that when William said "Why not slow down and take your time with this girl", Harry responded that he **had** to marry her as soon as humanly possible because she was in *such* danger that she needed the level of security afforded to senior Royals as soon as possible.

So my guess is the what she really used to get Harry down the aisle as fast as she did was her cosplaying Diana and then constantly claiming, in not so many words, that if she didn't have full VIP security she would die like Diana and it would be all his fault.

Meanwhile the paparazzi at that point had no idea who she was and never even clocked her, much less chased her Diana style.

Meghan is beyond vile. She was afforded far more passes than Kate when the latter first entered the fray. The tabloids delighted in referring to her mother's career as an air stewardess, the druggy uncle in Ibiza, the play on 'Middleton' and 'middle class'. The 'waity Katie' nickname. Meanwhile not a word on Doria and the missing years of her life- Clit Clink? A cult? Or just bumming around on peoples' sofas? We'll never know.

I should add that the William at 40 articles came out after Bower went to press, so those salient details are not in this edition of his book.

It's odd about the missing Doria years. It's odd because people know, or at least have a good idea of the nature of what it was, and the people who know are blabbermouths. But they're not blabbing about this one. That would be Thomas, but even more so, those crazy older kids of his. Thomas keeping his mouth shut, I get it. He loves Doria, even though it fell apart. During the run-up to the wedding the paps caught him driving by her house and leaving a pot of flowers at her doorstep. He was making a sweet gesture to the mother of the bride before the wedding of the little girl they had together. He's an absolute mess, but he is too gallant to tell.

But the older kids know--or at least they know the general nature of what it was, if not the specific details. And they haven't blabbed. Does this suggest it is something that would really be horrifying, or at least, so horrid no one has the heart to do that to Doria?

Good point, R233.

The NYPost article is entertaining, all right. But let's temper this with awareness that Maureen Callahan is a right-wing conservative sock puppet. She never loses an opportunity to blow fertilizer all over anyone progressive, or even center-left. She has made a cottage industry of spewing on Hillz. Basically, her only useful moment has been socking it to Jussie.

Narcissists never give up and they never give in.

If you wound them in any way, real or perceived, major or minor, they will seek REVENGE forever. Game was on with Kate the moment Kate didn't offer her a ride to the shops before the marriage.

tRump will be seeking revenge on Rosie O'Donnell until the day he dies. He will be ranting and raving about how fat and ugly she is on his deathbed.

[quote]constantly claiming, in not so many words, that if she didn't have full VIP security she would die like Diana and it would be all his fault.

I wouldn't be surprised if she *did* say it in so many words. It's not like Harry would have realised he was being manipulated. That's the beauty of her choosing Harry as her mark. She was able to get away with so much more.

R228. It is an unfortunate truth that in America especially it has been the extreme right that has been the most aware of the fact that Harry and Meghan are disgraceful and willing to proclaim it. The left was so embarrassingly naive and unprincipled in their support. In the UK the contempt for them has been more bipartisan, as it should be since, in most respects, they are the most retrograde and right wing figures imaginable. No one on the left should want to adopt the 17th century view of royalty Meghan and Harry espouse.

Bu...but....but...Meghan is a feminist. SHE accomplished everything she now has from...walking all over an indulgent father, rinsing husband no.1, sucking Rory McIlroy, ankles behind ears for John Fitzpatrick, grifting Harry. Long live millennial feminism.

When did “right-wing” turn into an insult? Do you even know what it means? It’s a perfectly respectable political leaning. As respectable as left-wing.

It’s a measure of how inane, childish and ignorant public discussion has become that someone can caution others that a columnist is “right wing”. So what?

Frankly, anyone who spews at “progressives” (aka virtue signalling, egomaniacal bigots) deserves a round of applause.

(And I am, and always have been, left wing. But the “progressives” have left me politically homeless. I am sick of you cretins).

Defining right wing is difficult since it really has no principled or consistent platform. For example, the current Republican Party favours high government spending, political violence , protectionism, excusing personal failure on the basis of race, and vehemently opposes attempts to make people take personal Responsibility. As you say, it’s not clear why this inconsistent jumble of policies is right, left, or centrer, but since the people who espouse them call themselves Republican, conservative, and right wing, I respect The designation

So when I talk about how horrifying the right wing and conservatives are I am directing that at people who call themselves conservative and right wing and not based on some theoretical conception of conservatism, which potentially not be as objectionable

R231 Well said.

Re how Edward and Sophie live: they've been working for the monarchy for their entire 20 marriage, Edward for far longer, and is the Queen's son, not her grandson.

And their mansion is half shut up, it. Costs too much to run otherwise. They certainly live well, but he IS her son and Sophie after a few missteps went to work for the monarchy with enthusiasm, un complaining knowing full well she'd never be where Charles' children and grandchildren would be, Edeard accepted a lower rank title and their children have been brought up quite modestly, and their daughter last year declined to take up the HRH she was entitled to at 18.

Comparing the homes isn't the issue: comparing the couples is. The Wessexes proved themselves loyal. The Sussexs began making trouble as soon as she got her foot in the door.

Lady Louise is the Queen's granddaughter, not her great-grandchild as the Sussex kids are.

At every crossroad, the Sussexes invited the treatment and lack of trust they received, as did the Wessexes.

Anne also has a beautiful home. She's also the Princess Royal, the Queen's only daughter, and has racked up more work for charity in 50 years than the Sussexes will in two lifetimes.

The walls of Frogmore Cottage also carried pieces generously loaned by the Queen from one of the world's finest personal art collections.

Odd how in her complaints, Meghan always forgot to mention that.

But, then, aesthetic awareness has never been one of Meghan's forte.

The Sussexes got exactly what they deserved.

^*as the Wessexes earned the favour and trust of the Queen

Frogmare Cottage's walls may be adorned with the Queen's priceless collection, but I guarantee you that Meghan seethed at them in resentment because they were not outright gifts which she could conceivably get in any future divorce.

And anyway her favourite wall decorations are the inevitable "Live Laugh Love" ones she has doubtless put up in every room.

R185. My Irish friends would call Fitzgerald type Irish: "Paddy-O Furniture."

Fitzgerald seems like a grade-A scumbag. Just like her Soho House pal Markus.

R222 DL is full of know-it-all Americans (or as I like to call them - “Americans”) who have become self-appointed experts in all things BRF, based on binge-watching “The Crown” and reading downloaded copies of “Finding Freedom”. They get it wrong again and again and yet cannot be convinced that they have gotten it wrong. I find it best to just smile and move on from their idiotic posts.

R197 I hadn't caught the "waity Katey" reference. That was indeed a vicious passive-aggressive dig. Would be like Kate going on TV and saying "It was simply frightful the way people called Meghan a gold-digging adventuress." William and Kate must have been as the English say incandescent with rage watching that interview. I mean really, what a way to talk about the future Queen. No respect or deference at all, which is the point I guess.

All this chaos because a frau got jealous of her sister-in-law. I think that's a big part of it, at any rate. So basic.

R226, I think it was a cult. And/or it’s possible that she was strung out and being pimped. This is the only area where I feel a little sorry for Meghan, because when your mother is a mess, it affects you deeply.

What nobody talks about is Doria’s alias. When Meghan first burst upon the scene (heh heh), her mother’s real name was ambiguous. Just google “Doria Radlan”. Several early articles still exist, calling Meghan’s mother by that name.

I haven’t bothered to do a deep dive because Doria deserves privacy, and she hasn’t done anything to anybody (except inflict Meghan on the world).

R243, that information might have come from Meghan. She may not have wanted her other relatives discovered; she may have done it for some other paranoid reason.

[quote] And I am, and always have been, left wing. But the “progressives” have left me politically homeless. I am sick of you cretins).

Same here. It’s probably good to examine one’s beliefs and values from time to time. Lately, I have been asking myself “Am I still a liberal? I feel like a right-winger!” and then I do a check-in. The requirements seem to have changed.

Meghan Markle and Hilaria Baldwin are so similar in their methods. Lock a guy in with kids, set themselves up as humanitarians, behave with a batshit craziness and scream sexism/racism when challenged.

Loyalty is a big one. If the BRF were anything like the old-school Mafia, Harry would be sleeping with the fishes.

I thought TQ gave Gatcombe Park to Anne as a gift, and Bagshott Hall, where the Wessexes live, is on the estate. It is ginormous, but they have said they only live in a handful of rooms because of the heating costs.

(I live in France) That is pretty typical of people who live in castles here. They basically live in the kitchen all winter because there is an enormous fireplace.

[quote] Harry responded that he **had** to marry her as soon as humanly possible because she was in *such* danger that she needed the level of security afforded to senior Royals as soon as possible.

She probably told him she was pregnant.

"Hawwy, I need protection, THEY want to kill me and your baby like THEY did with your mother!!!"

[quote] And anyway her favourite wall decorations are the inevitable "Live Laugh Love" ones she has doubtless put up in every room.

Her favourite wall decorations are pics of herself.

I read the reason they gave to hurry into marriage was her age and the possibility of having trouble conceiving children.

^ Well, she ended up conceiving three times in quick succession, all while knocking 40. Yet another respect in which the marvellous Meg rises above mere mortals.

I would love to hear Chips Channon onthese two. His are such brutal elegant insults .

R252.....if we believe the miscarriage story. Yes, that is a very RHOBH Kyle thing to say, but there it is.

"Harry, I think I'm pregnant ... we need to marry asap!"

... and once she had that engagement ring on her finger, she was like "Oops, I lost the baby ... but let's marry asap anyway, I soooo want to give you children and now we can make sure those children of ours will be born legitimately!!"

Being dumb and pussywhipped, Harry was gullible enough to believe literally everything she said. Just as he still is.

I have no evidence for this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if pregnancies 2 & 3 were IVF. Having already announced they were only having two, I can’t see her risking Mother Nature giving them another boy.

I forgot about her preachy 'two kids is enough' schtick. Christ, the bitch is soaked in vinegar, the most passive aggressive cunt you can imagine. If Kate had said two kids was enough Meghan would have countered with 'a house full of kids is a house full of love'. She is toxic.

I think Doria’s lost years aren’t that relevant. It’s a side alley, while interesting, detracts from the more important gossip.

Can anyone remember the event, in the last couple of years, where Haz and Meg were in the UK at some sort of reception with the other royals and tried to walk ahead of Charles, Cam or Wills & Kate and had to be politely held back while the more senior royals made their way through the meets and greets/

R259

Commonwealth Service, March 2020?

50th anniversary of Charles' investiture as Prince of Wales where they were photobombing the main event (the exhibition of the investiture crown and stuff)

[quote] I forgot about her preachy 'two kids is enough' schtick. Christ, the bitch is soaked in vinegar, the most passive aggressive cunt you can imagine. If Kate had said two kids was enough Meghan would have countered with 'a house full of kids is a house full of love'. She is toxic.

Also, one child is a hobby; two kids is a family.

R259, and then Harry gestured to Charles “you first, old chap” as if he were being magnanimous and ceding his right of way.

R258, they seem relevant in that they probably contribute to the narrative that resulted in two of M’s husbands declaring they would provide the home she never had.

I thought Doria was in prison for some kind of embezzlement related to her father's home? No idea if true.

Spot on R260 and R262!

Reality hit two days later, on 9th March. A monumental argument blew up after Harry was told that he and Meghan could not join the family’s procession through Westminster Abbey for the annual Commonwealth Day Service. Although the order of service listed Harry and Meghan walking behind the Queen, Palace officials had revised their decision. Suspicious about the Sussexes they decided to publicly humiliate them. Harry was told that having stepped down from royal duties, he and Meghan would sit and wait with the congregation. The prospect of the televised image of their isolation in the Abbey appalled them.

By then they were keenly aware of Kate and William’s antagonism. William had not offered a brotherly welcome and Kate was outright distant towards her sister-in-law. Eventually, to end the dispute, William and Kate agreed they too would wait with Harry and Meghan. As the members of the Royal Family filed into the Abbey, the frayed relationships could not be concealed. Kate had blanked the Sussexes and William’s greeting was cold. Harry looked strained. Meghan’s face showed bemusement.

During that same day, Meghan bid farewell to the last few members of her staff. In Omid Scobie’s version, ‘Staff who had been with the couple from day one were in mourning at the end of what was supposed to be a happy story.’ Especially invited by Meghan, Scobie also watched her last private engagement in Buckingham Palace. After meeting 22 students who had received Commonwealth scholarships, he wrote, ‘Reality finally set in as I gave Meghan a goodbye hug . . . Tears that the Duchess had been bravely holding back are free to flow among familiar faces.’ Meghan apparently said to Scobie: ‘It didn’t have to be this way.’

Even on her last day, Meghan did not want to understand that the Royal Family could not compromise. To the end, she could not understand why her demands were not met. ‘I gave up my entire life for this family,’ she apparently told a friend in London. ‘I was willing to do whatever it takes. But here we are. It’s very sad.

In general, men love to be the protector. While Megsie's woeful. lie-filled tale of her sad upbringing, is certainly not original, it is obviously very effective.

Gave up her entire life. Didn’t she do 72 engagements? I’ve been with my current employer 15 years. I guess I gave it many lifetimes.

Reminds me how In one of those tapped phone conversations, Diana complained, "After all I've done for this fucking family." While hilarious, the comment is a turnoff. Beware of people who bitch about "all I've done for you."

Agreed. The family did a quite a bit for Diana as well. Without them she would have been some sad, obscure bulimic on her fourth marriage.

^^^^^ She probably would be alive and enjoying her grandchildren and lovely home, however...

Ankles behind ears for J Fitzpatrick. a gay man? I suppose it could happen..

R270. If the grandchildren were speaking to her. Also nobody in the royal family made her date a low life with a drunken chauffeur.

Here’s a morsel that no one is discussing and it deserves attention! During the Vanity Fair article that Mrs. Danvers character—Marcus of Soho House—just happens to pop over. The VF writer realizes, of course, that the pop in was planned.

Then! Meghan tells the writer that Marcus will drive him to the airport! The writer refuses and takes a cab.

Pretty obvious that Meghan cooked up this scheme to have Marcus feed the writer a script of good-hearted Megs written by Meghan herself. And, I suspect to fill in the writer about the relationship with Harry so that it didn’t come directly from Meghan.

Also, according to the book, Meghan big play before meeting Harry was to get on the UK reality show Chealsea Wives. So, yep, Real Housewives is in her post-divorce future.

R270. And what lovely home did she own in her own right?

I need the book for my vacation reading.

How the hell did Meghan convince all of these people to do favors for her?

R162 I’ve never watched Meghan’s appearance on Ellen before. Wow! So Meghan actually requested to be in one of Ellen’s mean spirited pranks. Doesn’t surprise me at all that Meghan would relish making unsuspecting people uncomfortable.

And so devoid of a sense of humor, of course she’d think this would think this “playfulness” would create the illusion she has one.

She and Ellen are the prefect combo.

Bless you, R273 - there’s no “Chelsea Lives”.

There’s “Made in Chelsea” (rich young morons yelling at each other) and “Ladies of London”, which is essentially a real housewives rip off. That’s the one Markle was hoping to get on, I believe.

It’s quite an entertaining show - she’d have ruined it.

R276, I think that if you ask someone to do something, at least 50 per cent of the time they will do it. Meghan was incredibly pushy and persistent; she was always out selling some image of herself. A lot of people, frankly, get by doing that.

True, R279. But wanting to be introduced to Prince Harry is a huge ask. She really is Eve Harrington.

The investiture anniversary thing I mentioned in R260 wasn't in 2020 but the year before though. Meghan was still cradling her baby bump back then.

In 2020, at the Commonwealth service thing, she wore that awful green cape dress that made her look like fucking Kermit the Frog.

R276, narcs are brilliant at love-bombing and sucking up to the right people, that is to say, people who are considered to be helpful in achieving the narc's social climbing goals. People who aren't are being discarded and dumped in case they were once considered useful or get treated downright nasty when they're deemed superior by the narc in question.

How can Meghan be cancelled?

She can't R283, unless she does something truly despicable related to the Queen. Meghan is like Ellen, Hillaria Baldwin and all these other toxic bitches who are exposed- they have a solid fanbase of fraus.

R282: Some marble stairs might do.

Oops, R285 was in reply to R283, not R282.

#meghanmarkleisamonster

is trending on Twitter right now.

She called Charlotte chubby? Oh dear.

She pulled the same bullshit on her former husband Trevor

Beautiful to behold.

she is cancelled, ss and her just dont realize or wont admit to themselves yet. She is done.

R288 in case it's true, this is yet another reason why I do not have any qualms calling her fat and comparing her to a gnomish Spongebob Squarepants.

Maybe she can be friends with Chrissy Teigen.

Hilaria and Alec would like a couple to hang around with.

>>>No other member of the Royal Family had suffered as much embarrassment from their own family as Meghan.

What are we, chopped liver?

[quote]It’s a perfectly respectable political leaning.

David Foster Harry's supposed father figure, his wife is a bit of an attention ho too. I have to wonder if she and Meghan like each other?

Trevor is smart to stay out of it, but I wish he would dish some dirt.

Sorry, R265, I'm a bit late to this conversation - looking at the footage of Commonwealth Day 2020, did Harry and Meghan jump the line at the exit from Westminster Abbey, to get ahead of Edward and Sophie, and place themselves right behind William and Kate. It looks as though they did an end run around the seat rows to move into the next place after W&C. If so, they are really a couple of passive-aggressive shits!

She played the part of not having a family with Trevor too. I don't blame Pa Markle for being hurt when he supported her all those years.

[quote]they only live in a handful of rooms because of the heating costs

That won't be a problem in the future!

[quote]She played the part of not having a family with Trevor too. I don't blame Pa Markle for being hurt when he supported her all those years.

Truly insane to claim this to Trevor when Bower's books says Pa Markle gave them money for the wedding, 20k?

Her fans on Twitter claim that anyone who speaks out about Meghan is racist. Can't she just be terrible person regardless of race?

No, R303. No black - sorry, Black - person is capable of doing wrong or of being a bad person, at least not without Whitey being somehow to blame.

Her Twitter fans are at the more trivial end of a spectrum whose more political end includes people who believe that black people should never be arrested/have the cops called on them.

R296 How embarrassing- your gif didn’t work. But I get the gist. You do not in fact have the faintest idea what right-wing actually means, as I suspected.

[quote] Find another path to validation, [bold]you posturing fool.[/bold]

I beg your pardon, but in your spare time, do you happen to be a Marvel Comics supervillain?

Her thick skin and entitlement reminds me of when Heather Mills McCartney was having her past life exposed in the UK tabloids, no stone was left unturned and all that woman's lies were exposed but she still protested and protested.

She goes in vag first, and if that doesn't work, pushes Haz up to the front

Wonder how soon others will feel empowered & pile on. Like a mountain slide. Bowers is the large big slide many have been waiting for. If the Markles moan or sue & get smacked down, you just know there are so many others they have pulled their shit on who will jump out of the shadows to pile on.

Thanks for the amusement during this hot afternoon. They are better than most comedies at this point, well except for Chapelle, perhaps.

R307 Meghan does remind me of Heather Mills. Both desperate golddiggers who'd do anything to get famous. One of them exploiting an old man who was too kind and the other a dumb entitled brat. Annoying as shit.

r309 Bower told the Times Online podcast that he hoped the book would create a #metoo movement of Meghan's victims, (many of which he had come across but was unable to include in the book for lack of iron verification) and that they would feel empowered to come forward because of it.

We know the Palace victims won't come forward, because they've settled and signed the inevitable NDA, but who knows how more are out there somewhere? This whole thing could get more interesting still over the coming year.

What did Heather Mills do that was so awful? Serious question.

Mills was - like Meghan - a pathological liar and fantasist, making extravagant claims. Her ex-husband said she was such a liar if Heather said it was raining, he'd go outside to check. She constantly attacked Stella McCartney. Stella was her Kate Middleton. Mills blew through a reported $30 million divorce settlement in a couple of years. The fact that she has since then shut up, must mean she got an additional settlement from Paul which hinged on her keeping her trap shut.

Well, I have a soft spot for Heather. Anyone who could come back from such a terrible accident and bag the best/richest Beatle must have some good qualities. I'm sure Princess Stella could take care of herself.

[quote]Also, according to the book, Meghan big play before meeting Harry was to get on the UK reality show Chealsea Wives. So, yep, Real Housewives is in her post-divorce future.

If something like that did happen it would suggest the incredible capacity for disconnect between what I want and what I get that's been mentioned. Real Housewives are not about ideas or good causes or empowerment or anything of like that “be the light” babble. They are documentaries starring the oblivious saying and doing stupid things for shock value and money. Nobody watching Housewives or anything like it watching to find the path to a better world.

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

I'm gay (AF), but holy shit that stripper had some figure on her back in 2012.

He certainly met all the best people in Vegas. All this time it was spun as chivalrous gentleman stands in front of naked girl to prevent her being photographed, at his own expense.

A decade later a stripper's selling his underwear and casting shade that's hard to argue with.

Kate, I know you get really sick, but maybe just one more kid, for the benefit of us all? That line of succession can't be long enough between the Cambridges and Montecito Center for Bad Decisions.

I don't wish to derail the thread, but check out Beatrice, daughter of Heather and Paul McCartney! She is weirdly the image of both parents.

Tbf, with the exception of the fake boobs, her figure looks like Kate Middleton's.

Perhaps that's why Harry was so delighted with what he saw.

Oh yes, Kate, take one for the team and provide us with another Baby Cambridge. That would be hilarious indeed.

Boy: Philip Arthur George

Girl: Alice Elizabeth Mary

Heather Mills struck when Paul was a lonely widower. Like Markle, she had a sob story and pretended to be a philanthropist. Men who’ve been married so long will tend to remarry immediately. Ask any elderly woman.

Heather is largely forgotten now, but she was a person like Markle. Lying manipulative waifing cluster B who pounced. She also claimed that Paul abused her. By the book, they all do the same thing.

Remember in an interview when he described Kate as the sister he never had? That was probably more genuine.

I thought the same thing, r320. She has nearly the same build.

There was a LOT of goodwill for Haz back around the time William and Kate married. Stories about them not wanting him to to feel like a spare wheel and including him in as many activities as possible. This was peak popularity for Harry. Sad what the interference of an outsider with malicious intent can do to a family.

So. when she returned the rings to Trevor, she didn't even include a note.

Just stuffed the rings in the FedEx envelope and shipped them on their way.

She is one cold bitch.

She had to get rid of them pronto, r326 because she had already moved in with the chef and needed to get them out of the house.

Regarding Trevor, I find the overlapping of anecdotes to be disturbing- particularly as Harry is in agreement with what she says.

"Shortly before flying to celebrate in Jamaica, Trevor and Meghan married on 16th August in a civil ceremony in Los Angeles. Neither Thomas nor Doria were invited, and the date was deliberately classified as ‘confidential’ by the couple to prevent outsiders – without a court order – discovering the details."

That's the shit she told Oprah about her wedding with Harry and which the Archbishop of Canterbury denied happened. How is Harry allowing these flagrant lies to fly?

Interesting that Corey V’s mother thought she was wonderful. I wonder why she kissed up to HIS mother and not Trevor’s family.

She probably changed her mind when she found out that Meghan was banging dozens of men behind her son’s back.

Corey apparently comes from money, r329. That's why.

R328

"Hawwy, if you don't let me tell all those bogus stories, I'll commit suicide, killing myself AND THE BABY GIRL! And YOU will be at fault! And I will tell EVERYBODY that it was YOU who killed me and Baby Lilibet Diana!!!"

...

You know, if that suicide threat worked once (back when she was pregnant with Archie), why not use it any time when deemed necessary?

Why did she destroy the video of her Jamaica wedding to Trevor? Pa Markle's photos are the only photos available.

The wedding to Trevor is weird on all counts. She destroyed video evidence of the event for whatever reason. She gifts the guests little bags of cannabis- with both sets of their parents present- as if she was weakening everyone's defences. Forbade the taking of photographs. Sounds like the wedding from hell.

R332, that is very odd. Right after the wedding, too. Usually a gal waits until after the divorce to do that.

I love the pic of Haz and his delicate lady hands tracking a few yards bebind the blonde stripper. Va va boom baby, yeah!

She never had any sentiment for Trevor, R334. Who erases their wedding video immediately after the wedding? A person who was truly in love could not erase those memories that early in the marriage. Icewater in her veins.

[quote] What did Heather Mills do that was so awful? Serious question.

She was always putting her foot wrong.

[quote] She gifts the guests little bags of cannabis..... Sounds like the wedding from hell.

Megan is by no means someone I like, but being given little bags of cannabis is certainly not my idea of hell!

Heather Mills’s middle name is Eileen.

If Kate were to take one for the team and have another baby, she and William should take a page out of the narc’s playbook and steal a few names…

If it’s a girl: Princess Tiggy Sunshine Sachs If it’s a boy: Prince Tungsten Thomas Harkle

That way, the child serves as a living reminder of Uncle Harry’s betrayal and stupidity.

Serious question:

Suppose Harry and Meghan finally realize what a mess they've made of their PR, fire their current representatives, and star over. They hire someone really good and very prestigious, who says to them basically:

"Okay, I'll take you both on, but from now on you have to follow my script, not your own. There will be no more controlled interviews with only softball questions like Oprah's; there will be no more flattering obsequious biographies by people like Omid Scobie that you cooperate with; there will be no more attempts to scold people in public speeches for the planet's ills, since no one feels you are quilified to do that and it just turns people off; there will be no more attempts to resume Harry's princely duties in the USA by putting wreaths on tombstones since he's so longer a prince. All those strategies have clearly only alienated people all the more against you If we're going to rehabilitate you, you have to behave, and you cannot bully me nor my subordinates."

Do you think they could do it?

R341, in a word, NOPE.

Not a hope in hell. Narcs know best.

What would be left for them?

LOL Does Meghan have emotional attachments to anyone or anything? And no, photos of herself don't count. She destroyed her wedding tapes because obviously she didn't give a shit and was already planning her divorce. Brrrrrrrr!!!

r332 That is seriously creepy, psycho and emotionally disturbed.

[quote]She called Charlotte chubby? Oh dear.

I guess we know who's going to orchestrate Meg's final downfall.

r341 Under no circumstances. She's the expert on everything from statement writing to philanthropy to making money, to leaking to the press, and she knows best.

So which of them will be the one to leave? Their ship is sinking and they must be tearing each other to pieces in private.

Betcha Harry is the one to actually call it quits, but that Meg will release a public statement saying she threw before he's able to start his car. And she'll claim he was abusive, she's probably got a statement and some pictures of the children shrieking all ready to load.

Meg isn't going anywhere until QEII passes on and those kids of hers get their HRHs. She'll also want to wait to see if Harry gets any $$, property or art that she can get her claws on.

Exactly, r350. And if Harry has two brain cells and a working synapse left, he'll GTFO before that happens.

Because she is not going anywhere.

The world needs a billionaire to fool this grifter like she grifted Harry, then dump the bitch so publicly she will finally run off and hide FOREVER !

[quote]Meghan does remind me of Heather Mills. Both desperate golddiggers who'd do anything to get famous.

Splendid!

Yeah, that Heather cost an arm and a leg.

Yes but Yoko, for all her faults, came from considerable family money. She didn't "need" Lennon the way that Heather and Meghan needed their marks.

The Royal Family is losing this fight.

r356

Sure, Jan.

Are they, R356? It isn't helping their cause when the papers detail all their numerous lavish residences and the high price of every outfit the DoC wears when the public are struggling. Given Charles' relative unpopularity, they would have done well to prevent Harry from marrying MM, as anyone could see it was going to have considerable blowback for the BRF.

But the rot has been in for a long time - Margaret's affairs, Diana's and Fergie's behaviour, Andy's shady business dealings, plus Charles' and Camilla's affair leading to Diana's death.

I'd say they have had a pretty good run, considering all that. Pigs at a trough, apart from the queen..

I disagree r356, and polls also suggest you’re wrong. The BRF is relevant to the UK and the Commonwealth. H&M are not popular in the UK or much of the Commonwealth.

I also don’t think the BRF spoke to Bower, though his contacts within the palace talked.

[quote] H&M are not popular in the UK or much of the Commonwealth.

Nor in the USA right now, according to recent polls.

[quote] Given Charles' relative unpopularity, they would have done well to prevent Harry from marrying Meghan.

They would have had zero power to do so. He was of legal age.

Oh... Charles & co could have EASILY paid Meghan off not to marry Harry if he had offered enough (as in A LOT of) cash, but he was himself very excited to have a mixed race person in the family as he felt it gave the family some diversity credibility.

Additionally the family could have denied Meghan and Harry any Ducal titles or a job, and then the deal would have been that much less attractive to her, because she could never take the "Princess Henry" title with her after the divorce, among other things.

They could have stopped it by leaking what the security services knew about Meghan early on, but they didn't.

No - the BRF actively wanted Meghan in that family, fools that they are.

Harry has a real bug up his about security, doesn't he? Is he really afraid for his life if he isn't constantly protected, is it an ego-and-status thing, or is it part of his mommy issues?

One thing, I'd say his desire to have the royal security people follow him and his family around for the rest of his life would imply that he thinks the BRF had nothing to do with his mother's desk... or would in the mind of someone with minimal critical thinking skills. I doubt Harry's thought that part out.

r358 Charles and Camillas affair did not lead to Dianas death.That is a very oversimplified view of how life works.

r361 Actually anyone in the higher orders of the line of succession has to asks the Queens permission to marry. She should have said ask again in a year when you have known her better and longer.Otherwise you can still marry but you have to give up your place in the line of succession.But Harry likes his royal priviledges doesnt he despite what he says?

r363 inHis bid for security he asked for his security people to be given access to intelligence information on the royal family .That coupled with his association with tom Barrack who is facing charges of working with as a foreign agent and Harry is starting to look a bit shady.

She's been daily gaslighting him about how physically "unsecure" she felt and linked her feelings to his mother. He now firmly believes that everyone is out to kill her and that he's not keeping her or his kids "safe" unless they have the top level of security available in the world.

This is what he told William was his chief motivation for needing to rush his marriage to her - that she "needs Senior Royal security"

Meghan has got nearly all her big "win" on the basis of telling Harry day in and day out that she "needs higher security" - she got the wedding that way, she got Megxit that way, and she got the huge Motecito house that she'll get in the divorce that way.

I once read that Heather used to fuck Paul with her stump leg. It's probably not true but I've known more than one amp tramp over the years.

Another bit from Bower's book that is rather puzzling is the three appeal judges' decision finding in Megs favor in her suit against the Mail. From Bower's description, the decision of the judges was far more personal/political than judicial. From Revenge, by Tom Bower, Page 367-368:

[quote] As a class, Britain’s judges were unsympathetic to the Mail newspaper group whose 2016 headline ‘Enemies of the People’ had damned the judiciary for alleged prejudice against Brexit. In Meghan’s trial case, the three judges’ lack of sympathy for the Mail was apparent from their impatient expressions as Caldecott (the Mail's barrister) outlined his case. ‘You’re wasting court time,’ was the impression the judges gave.

[quote] Caldecott spelled out the importance of Jason Knauf’s statement. He argued that Judge Warby had been misled by Meghan’s misleading statement to the court. He also showed how Warby had ignored some of Thomas Markle’s text messages. The judge was wrong, Caldecott said, to deny the Mail the right to cross-examine Meghan and produce the testimony of the Palace Four in a trial. The judges openly dismissed Caldecott’s argument about the importance of Jason Knauf’s description of his ‘multiple’ discussions with Meghan. The judges preferred to latch on to Meghan’s excuses for her misleading the court in her signed statement.

[quote] ‘I had forgotten about the email exchanges I had with Mr Knauf,’ wrote Meghan in a new contrite statement, ‘and his meeting with the authors.’867 She continued, ‘When I approved the passage . . . I did not have the benefit of seeing these emails and I apologise to the court for the fact that I had not remembered these exchanges at the time. I had absolutely no wish or intention to mislead the defendant or the court.’

[quote] The judges accepted Meghan’s explanation. Her misleading statement, said Vos, was ‘at best an unfortunate lapse of memory’. The newspaper lost its appeal. According to the judges, Meghan was empowered to determine the narrative and the media were not allowed to challenge her truth in a trial. Meghan’s right of privacy was more important than press freedom and the public interest. The newspaper would not be given the chance to defend itself.

That's interesting, R369, thanks for posting it. I don't claim any familiarity with the English legal system but I remember it striking me as strange and unfair that Meghan was the one suing and the judges essentially barred the Daily Mail from defending itself. Is such an outcome possible in an American court? Can I sue someone and then ask the judge to rule in my favor even if the person I'm suing has shown they have a defense to present? She was very lucky to get that ruling, and I am curious to see if she'll sue Bower. There was a time during that previous trial when it really looked like her "5 young mother" friends and various palace employees were going to be dragged in to testify in open court about M's machinations.

And Meghan essentially being given a slap on the wrist for lying to the court in official documents was also something I suspect would not have occurred if, rather than a duchess, she was instead some 18 year old chav.

r369, The judgement was widely deemed to be considered "puzzling" at the time. Reading between the lines in a Specator piece on it, I came the conclusion that it was being heavily impkied - although never said - that it was assumed in legal circles that the Palace had somehow intervened on Meghan's behalf. I thought that sort of thing could not possible happen, but the commentariat on the Speccie certainly seemed to take it as read.

I suppose we'll never know.

I'm getting the sense that Bower and Co rushed the book out a little unpolished because they know interest in H&M is waning and they need to cash in.

There's really nothing revelatory in it. In fact, it sort of proves how unexceptional Meghan is. Someone here said basic. Her PG campaign was just Daddy doting on his princess and she still thinks it's an epic moment in her life. She was obsessed with Diana. (Who wasnt?) She was a crappy d-list actress desperate for more success and lovebombed a prince when they crossed paths. She didn't have a grand plan, she isn't a master manipulator, she's just an average nobody who throws shit at the wall until she gets her way. She only looks genuinely happy when the cameras are flashing, without even realizing how basic that looks.

Her villainry has been demystified.

As someone on YouTube said - Harry didn't just marry his own stalker, he married his mother's stalker too.

Not just that, r372, but he was swerved by all the huge publishing houses with which he normally had worked because at the time he was pitching it, Meghan and Harry were still untouchable and bathing in woke BLM glitter. No house wanted to take that on at that time.

All credit to the tiny house that took him on - they won't be tiny for long as a result! - but one reason a huge established publisher is so preferable is not only for the massive marketing canpaigns (turns out that he was right and he hasn't needed any), but because their sub editors are the best in the world.

It will all be rectified as the printings continue, but I take your point: Woodward Hills instead of Woodland, one mention of "Omar Scobie" instead of Omid, as was got right elsewhere in the book, and I'm sure more.

Writers, even great writers, usually need great editors - and Bower (an ok write, but an investigative journalist first) is clearly no exception to that rule.

Having said all that, this book is already the blockbuster smash of the year, and it looks like it will stay at the top for quite some time, because interest is very clearly NOT waning on the two of them. The questions only increase by the week.

Yes, and what about me? I am gay, but certainly not trans!

I am really wondering why Samantha and Tom, jr Markle were not interviewed. They sure as hell were not backward about coming forward before.

Writers do need great editors and Bowers clearly didn't have one.

I assumed it's because they plan to write their own books, r377.

^^^^ The above was addressed to r376

[quote] Not just that, [R372], but he was swerved by all the huge publishing houses with which he normally had worked because at the time he was pitching it, Meghan and Harry were still untouchable and bathing in woke BLM glitter. [bold] No house wanted to take that on at that time.[/bold]

Not R372, but appreciate your point, R373.

[quote] Having said all that, [bold]this book is already the blockbuster smash of the year, and it looks like it will stay at the top for quite some time, because interest is very clearly NOT waning on the two of them. The questions only increase by the week.[/bold]

Bower has confirmed what many intuited or experienced firsthand; yet were stymied by the defensive tsunami of PR and paid publicity to squelch.

Would not be surprised to see more individuals coming forward with stories to solidify and expand on Bower’s take.

Remember all the Dangling Tendrils threads that had pertinent information here on DL? They were whitewashed (pun intended) away. And as they popped up in number (e.g., Dangling Tendrils Thread 11, 12, etc.), the rapidity with which they vanished was alarming and rather creepy.

One discovery with Harry/Meg is the façade of image and brand propped up by nefarious players. So very clear with these two. They’ve unwittingly exposed the repellant antics of Sunshine Sachs....as if Harvey Weinstein wasn’t repulsive enough.

Agreed on all points, r380. especially how creepy it was to see the Dangling Tendrils threads disappear into thin air. That was indeed creepy.

Also the nefarious players involved. I think there is MUCH more yet to come.

After all, Bower wrote a second, separate follow up volume on his Maxwell biography....

Also to add, r380, Bower told Piers Morgan in his interview that he hoped this would start a "MeToo movement" and that other Markle victims of bullying would be encouraged by it to come forward with their own stories, so your assessment is bang on.

[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.]

🐰 ♨️ 🍲

[quote] Bower told Piers Morgan in his interview that he hoped this would start a "MeToo movement"

ABSOLUTELY!

The toxic duo have threatened and intimidated innumerable others: their families, former acquaintances, former employees, and basically anyone they used and abused (even online they’ve doxxed and attacked others who disagree or are critical of them). All this whilst preaching “kindness”.

It’s grotesque. They are grotesque. And all those that support and enable them are increasingly coming under the microscope.

Example: Oprah. Oprah’s interview with them was a complete sham and farce. I now view her in a completely different (unflattering) light.

There is such a thing as the Reverse Midas Touch. It’s called Being Markled.

"My Stuggle" indeed, r383.

It is all but guaranteed to be hilarious.

Lolz

William's expression in the background of R387's gif. LOL. He knew who she was. It seems almost everyone except Harry knew.

Wow, r388. He really did. I missed that on first viewing.

Tom Bower should have discussed the grim expression on the faces of the entire BRF at that wedding, especially the queen.

My impression, r390, is that Bower includes absolutely nothing in the book, even his own personal observations, for which he does not have secondary or tertiary sourcing which would stand up flawlessly in a court of law.

He's not some Kitty Kelley type, after all.

[quote]The world needs a billionaire to fool this grifter like she grifted Harry, then dump the bitch so publicly she will finally run off and hide FOREVER !

Rupert Murdoch is recently available....

How's this, R391?

That's pretty good, r393

Or this?

That one is very good, r395.

Oh, my. I've never seen it before. Each face tells a tale.

And Philip's expression - He knew. Just like Her Majesty knew.

I love that photo, r393. I was going to post it myself. HM always had Meg's number. She'd lived through Wallis Simpson.

Meghan is a far, far worse in character than even Wallis Simpson.

And at least Wallis had genuine charm and style.

R259 You are probably talking about this gem, the anniversary of the investiture of Charles as Prince of Wales in March 2019. Go to 1:57 and watch from there and turn it up. So much is going on in this clip, first of all it's obvious the Megs and Haz should have already gone into the other room but they turn up wanting to push in. Willian says something like "not allowed" when they try to push in, then cock blocks them from coming over. William says "does it for attention" and then you can hear Camilla say "so awkward". In the background two of the Queen's equerries come running out of nowhere to wrangle the pushy duo and keep them away.

R399. And you f do isn’t even mention their ostentatious clutching of one another and the womb cradling.

Ah - I remember when that first surfaced on here. There was some DL-er who had professional audio gear who was able to eliminate background noise and turn up the voices.

William says something curtly like "NO. NOT allowed."

Then the (black) equerry tries and tries to usher them urgently to where they are supposed to be in the next room but the Markles linger and linger, while the poor equerry looks increasingly desperate, poor man.

Meanwhile as the Queen and Charles look at the items and Camilla stands with William and Kate in the background there was apparently some sentence containing "Can you believe.." from an eye rolling Camilla and a short "I know.." from either William or Kate, with Kate slightly shaking her head.

Then, of course the Queen is done and ready to proceed to the main room and all her seated guests, but guess who is nearly blocking her way - the Idling, Meddling Markles!

Massive cringe factor in that video. That one was the first time it truly became clear to me that whether the Queen knew about the Markles antics or not, the rest of the family Definitely Knew.

^^^^^Oh, and I just remembered one other thing. While Camilla talks to William and Kate William's voice can be heard saying either "She" or "They" "want to be in the pictures."

Most damning bit of all to hear, at the time.

R401 Actually it was me who first put it on here and there was no equipment involved just one of my daughters who has very good hearing. I sent her the link to watch Harry and Meghan in the background but she noticed what William and Camilla were saying!

Really, r403!

Well kudos to your daughter!!

That was a fascinating bit of detective work on both your parts - you can see I remember your contributions to this very day!

Thank you, and please thank her for us!

MM looks like she is blinking back tears at the end.

R403, how old is your daughter? If she's still young, make sure she won't mess up her hearing by listening to music too loudly etc, that hearing ability might result in her getting a well-paid job at the FBI, CIA, or wherever such excellent sense of hearing is needed.

Also, at the beginning of the final segment of the video, the two of them are in the doorway and Charles turns to them and says, kindly "Just go back around" before escorting the Queen into the exhibition room.

They ignore him, do not go around but wait and wait and try to muscle in so they can enter the hall with all the seated guests via the same door via which the Royal Family will enter. At the end they finally get at least part of their wish and are able to walk directly behind William and Kate.

They pulled things like this at other times: at the end of their last Commonwealth Service, where they bounded in front of Edward and Sophis so they could be photographed walking out behind the Cambridges. Again they attempted to pull something similar when the intentionally showed up late at the Jubilee Service, so they would be centre of attention and seat themselves in a place whereby they could file out directly behid the Cambridges. However, the family was ready for them that time, and soundly thwarted their tacky little plans.

Such petty little tricks. And for what? To boost their status in photographs? Ludicrous creatures.

R404 R403 You're welcome, it was such a good discovery and glad you remembered. There was so much going on it was easy to miss the whispers between Camilla, William and to a lesser extent Kate. My daughter is an adult and a lawyer.

I'd forgotten about it until that poster asked was there an event H &M tried to push in on and remembered this glorious event. Obviously everyone knew what they were like including the Queen's own staff/equerries. Charles is polite but keeps walking, not sure what the Queen thought or if she noticed.

That’s almost as embarrassing as her intrusion into the polo awards ceremony. At least this time she didn’t clap to herself to demonstrate that she was enthusiastic and unembarrassed.

The decision by the High Court in the ANL case was timed badly, and "looked" suspicious, but a totally wasn't. Knauf & Co. appeared too late in the day to be effective in for ing a trial for one thing. Knauf forwarded the martial he did to ANL in the Appeal process because he acknowledged feeling bad about not coming forward earlier.

The that the Palace "intervened" on Meghan's behalf on that case is ludicrous. It would be the end of the monarchy if it got out. What would the Palace have done? Bribe the judge? Blackmail him? Threaten him?!

ANL got its day in court via Appeal. But the bottom line was that ANL was, by the letter of the law, in the wrong from the get-go. It clearly violated the one-third law when it printed the letter and out itself on the back foot legally immediately. It traded the likelihood of another lawsuit for the chance to do more damage to Meghan, who, as she VF always does, managed to antagonise the UK press before she even got here.

The fact that Meghan clearly perjured herself about certain facts she swore to in court papers, 1) could be proved NOT to have been an "at best, an unfortunate lapse of memory", and 2);wasn't relevant to the narrow Did ANL or Didn't ANL invade her privacy by printing more than the legally allowable under the Fair Use rule?

Well, it had, and eventually, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal ended up at the same place.

The DM. In my view, shouldn't scree h about "free speech" when it sacrifices a golden opportunity to strike a blow for it first a few days of bigger headlines and clicks.

Instead, it broke a rule it was quite well aware of and ended bu damaging the free speech issue here.

True, the appeal process did get into the public re ordering what cynical amoral liars the Sussexes are, that could have been accomplished without putting themselves in the wrong right off.

The only way in which the Palace might have intervened was to indicate that it rather preferred its staff to stay out of the affair. Obviously, that may have changed in December, but it was too late

Itcwas on that basis that the Appeal Court agreed to let ANL defend itself, and then Knauf brought out the information about their involvement in Scobie's book.

But, in the end, the Appeal Court had to come to the same decision: the additional information simply didn't change the fact that ANL was in the wrong as to the privacy law Meghan's case hinged on.

The High Court also threw our Meghan's attempts to attach a de facto defamation accusation to the privacy case, and so it was reduced to the narrowest possible basis, and on that, ANL was bound to lose.

The DM knew all this. It has in-house and expensive, top-notch outside counsel.l, and has been pursued in court many times it has much money, it doesn't care.

The court, however, only awarded one fucking pound in damages to Meghan. She recovered a goodly portion of her legal fees, but sent a message to Meghan via the damages award.

ANL's bravado damaged the case for free speech and let Meghan get away with perjury.

There are certain popular rumors that are endlessly repeated--ie, disappearing Doria during MM's youth, date of actual first meeting, crashing the Inskip wedding, throwing the tea at staff in Australia--that I hoped the book would really nail down and it doesn't.

Young Meghan's home life is oddly formless, living with her father but maintaining contact with her mother's family is vaguely sketched out. Doria is alluded to, she floats in and out, very unlike the serene, dignified person we saw at the wedding.

The Inskip wedding focuses on the pap hiding in the bushes and Harry's rage but doesn't answer the question: were they broken up at the time? ie, did she crash? Just a sentence that she was standoffish and complained about the food. Can't even summon up a specific complaint.

The Australian chapter just says "a teacup was tossed in the air". What? Was she juggling? Playing catch? Was there *tea* in the tea cup at least? There is one bit of news, the sudden departure at the Fiji market, the rumor was it had something to do with a UN group there and it is revealed that previously MM had schemed very hard to be appointed a UN "ambassador" and was miffed at being turned down. However, she seems to have gotten over her pique these days.

The timeline for when she met Harry is still fuzzy but the book alludes to Harry first staying with Jessica. That's just being cautious, not an indication that Corey's toothbrush was still in the bathroom. At least we found out who introduced them. Being coy about that because it reveals a certain bit of calculation by Meghan.

Between the still unsubstantiated rumors, Bower builds a portrait of Meghan that is unflattering and uncomfortable but it's not the devastating tell all that was hyped.

^* 2) could NOT have been proved to be a lie and not a lapse of memory

While R410's assertions may be adequate from a legal viewpoint, the spectre of "intervention" remains pertinent. As R370 opined, would the judges have been as indulgent of perjury and dismissive of ANL's case, if it had been some council estate chav rather than a duchess?

Thank you R399, that's the event I was thinking of!

r410, The Speccie commentariat never once suggested that the Queen "threatened" or anything even remotely nefarious or the like.

They all seemed in general, resigned agreement that a favour was likely asked in a case that could have legally gone either way, since it was entirely up to the judge's discretion.

That was all. None of them seemed very shocked by the idea, I must say.

Don’t feel sorry for her, or them. The blinking is rage, not sadness.

Bower's adequately filled in the "where was Doria?" blanks as well as how Megs father, working 18 hours a day at the studio, cared for her while Doria was not around. Bowers also provided details about Tom Markles two brothers, whom Megs met for the first time in 2011, as well as the fact that no one from either her white or black families (besides Doria) were invited to the wedding, obviously so that Megs could again use the "poor little family-less girl" lie again.

^^^ Bower, not Bower's

Again, I think this book is very worthwhile and impeccably researched - everything in it is something Bower is absolutely certain he can defend in court.

Having said that, its clear the original draft contained much, much more, which is why the reader is left with these annoying senses of gaps. A good editor could have papered over these cracks, but all the "good editors" were too terrified to take the project on at the time it was pitched.

Here's an example of what I mean: In the "Harry's friends thought Harry was bonkers" excerpt, we read in some detail of the shooting weekend at Sandringham. We read that Meghan was extremely forthright about her americanised and very "right on" views and that she challenged her guests loudly and at every turn.

It's notable that there is another story about that very same weekend, briefly mentioned in tabloids but ignored by Bower, and its FAR more explosive. It's about how Meghan treated the staff that weekend, leading up to a near full-rebellion and a mass-quitting of her KP household.

Bower left it out, I presume, because Bower was unable to actually speak to anyone who was involved - this makes sense since by the time Bower was writing, Buckingham Palace was officially conducting it's official investigation into Meghan's bullying, and no one being interviewed for that would ever accede to being simultaneously interviewed by Bower.

Imagine how many other stories he had to leave out? He says as much in the Times Online podcast.

Well, anyway, I expect him either to write a sequel, or to publish an expanded version. He makes it clear that there is far more to tell.

R411 The only reason you have all those “unanswered questions” is because you’ve have accepted, without the slightest attempt at common sense, every Quora nd Tumblr rumour that you like the sound of. How is that Tom Bower’s problem?

There has never been any evidence at all that H&M were “broken up” at the time of the Inskip wedding and that she “gatecrashed”. None. If the rumour has persisted it’s because it circulates almost exclusively amongst people as stupid and credulous as you.

That wedding had massive security. Anyone not invited…including Meghan Markle…would not have got in.

You are on the same level as the twats who are angry that he didn’t “comfirm” the surrogacy &/or fake children narratives. It never seems to occur to you brainiacs that he can’t confirm something that is not true.

Try using those few brain cells of yours for once and you won’t end up so perennially disappointed.

R415 Agreed. The Spectator never suggested, or even hinted, that the Queen personally intervened in a court case. No credible news source has - because it’s not true. And something like that could never be true. The UK legal system has no room for such corruption, no matter how many clueless cretins think it does.

We may not like or even agree with that verdict but that does not mean it wasn’t legally sound. That’s how the law works…it’s often interpretive, especially at the high court level. If they got something substantially wrong legally, there are paths for remedy - not least the European Court of Human Rights, which ANL could have headed for. They didn’t because their grounds were too slim. This is a clear indication that, as disappointing as the verdict was for them - and us - it was not so wrong that corruption could be suspected.

And to the American asking whether the same thing could happen in the US - the denial of a trial - yes. US lawyers frequently ask for either dismissal (if they argue there is no case) or summary judgement (where there’s no prospect of the other side prevailing). Probably slightly different rules and requirements apply but it amounts to the same thing.

r420, I referred to the commentariat below the article, not to the author of the article. I am a regular commenter there, as I have been for a long while. That group has rarely been wrong in my experience, but I never said it was fact, I said I knew that it was what was being bandied about by that group at that time.

I see you are very, very proud of having (recently?) become a lawyer. Congratulations.

However, you lack attention to detail and any ability to convince, so I take it that you are not a barrister.

R399 is so fascinating/entertaining. It is hard to focus because there is a lot going on but watch William... the body language strongly suggests they were where they were not meant to be, loitering at the door with those silly 'who, us?' looks on their faces (hoping for an invitation to the conga line.) I'm not as confident in the interpretation of what's being said only because they're so saavy about hot mics, having been burned more than once, but I do read something into the whispers between Camilla and William, both of whom plainly saw what was up.

One of my amusements in life is Meghan Markle's fixed, glazed semi-smile when a plan backfires or she's surrounded by people who've got her number and she has absolutely no idea how to fix it. Improv isn't among her acting skills, it would seem.

Harry the "Professional Victim".

Ahhhh, r423. Nana Akua!

She is nothing short of absolutely tremendous.

Thank you for that. I'd missed her show today somehow.

Yes r420 I am a twat with few brain cells. You got me. How silly of me to expect more detail than "she acted princessy" and griped about the lack of vegetarian options. Must hasten over to Quora and add to the rumor mill. Toodles!

It's hilarious that Harry claims his book will be "wholly truthful," when he and his spouse don't seem to have any relationship with truth whatsoever.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, failed barrister r425. I was merely responding to comments you had directed at me.

I would be very remiss, however, if I failed to say "Toodles!" back to you, and to wish you happy mid-level Solicitor-ing.

Indeed, r426.

How can Harry's lawyers have truly given it the all-clear when there is doubtless no one from his former life who will have cooperated in the production his upcoming tome? How can the lawyers be certain that there are no porkies in there?

Answer: They can't. They're merely relying on the good ol' "Never Explain, Never Complain" ethos which he himself has so spectacularly abandoned.

[quote]Charles' and Camilla's affair leading to Diana's death.

[quote]he thinks the BRF had nothing to do with his mother's desk

Charles and Camilla picked up an axe and smashed Diana's desk!

[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.]

R430 Vaknin asserts nothing new about the narcissistic personality that hasn't been posted right here on DL for the past 4 years.

At least you never really heard Heather Mills complain about all the lame (no pun intended) jokes at the expense of her real physical disability.

Meanwhile, I don't know what to say about Harry and Meghan. We'll get his book, and then their Netflix show, and then they will have kind of shot their wad as a team.

Oh he did tell me something new: "The narcissist sees his victim as another version of his mother", r430.

That assertion applies to this particular situation in all KINDS of interesting ways....

R79 Fuck also wonders why you do not display the slightest embarrassment in supporting these two clowns. Talk about backing a loser. Or pair thereof.

I spent most of the day yesterday reading this book, and I must say, Bower did a great job. What I haven't seen many comments on is why it took the Royal Family so long to catch on to the fact that Dimwit and Dumbass wanted to go their separate ways. Here's how I see most of the principals after reading the Bower book.

Dumbass - Manipulative and narcissistic, but not anywhere near as smart as I thought. She really could have destroyed them all, but the Queen and Charles finally decided to do something. William had been on to her from the beginning. Very basic actually, that's why most of her schemes have turned to shit. She actually thought she was marrying a important person, not a small cog in a very big wheel. The very second she figured out she wasn't as important as Kate, and that she could not merch and make big money, she wanted out. She wanted to be the STAR, but the line in front of her was too long.

PRINCE DIMWIT is a narc also. People tell themselves he was her victim, but he was a willing participant. He also wanted to be a star, but he was always in William's shadow, always the bridesmaid, never the bride. He also knew with each child William and Kate had he was becoming less and less relevant. Wanted all of the privileges of being a prince without doing any of the work. He was unhappy, he resented his older brother, was ambivalent about his father, and he wanted out. Megs was using Harry, but he was using her too, in his own way. She was the rocket he launched to cut the ties with his family. He didn't have the guts to do it on his own. Pompous ass who is very arrogant, wants what he wants, and treats people like crap.

William caught on right away. Dumbass was already on his radar, but the second she insulted his daughter and made his wife cry he was done. He really didn't play along for any of the Fab Four BS, which is why it failed so miserably.

Charles was trying, but he was in a bad place. He had just started talking to his boys, who resented him for how he treated their mother. Meghan showed up at an opportune time, because they were basically a fractured family. Nobody was on the same page, and the father and sons weren't really talking to each other. Harry was drifting and she caught him and held on to him with the jaws of life. I think the Queen knew what she was dealing with after Tiaragate. She gave them Frogmore Cottage as housing. Denied them an Oprah interview with a CBS exclusive for Archie's birth. But they were popular (at that time) and the response became to give Harry and Meghan enough rope to hang themselves with.

Very well said, r435

[quote]Yes but Yoko, for all her faults, came from considerable family money. She didn't "need" Lennon the way that Heather and Meghan needed their marks.

That doesn't make me any less greedy or any less of a golddigger! The rich are the most greedy people of all.

The DM has an interesting article up about security breaches in Montecito. Some are reading it as the Markles trying to prove they need security but I took something else away from it entirely.

Way back when Mr and Mrs Smith was being filmed there was a blurb in US weekly about Jolie having a BBQ and at the every end it mentioned Brad Pitt had attended. I immediately thought to myself,: Affair.

I was right.

In the DM article about H&M its mentioned the police went to the house twice. Once on the Markles fourth wedding anniversary and again a few hours before they flew to London for the Jubilee. My very first thought: Domestic Disturbance.

Those are high stress trigger days and it seems to me like the Markles fought, someone pushed the alarm, and then they covered it up with an intruder complaint. The article just had a certain tone.

Except for William, seems the BRF has enabled Harry and Megs. The Queen may have been dutiful in her official role, but her late years have highlighted how her her ostrich-like behaviour in her familial responsibilities impacts the monarchy: as her offspring demonstrate increasingly foul and destructive acts.

Looking at you, Andrew, Harry, and Meghan.

[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 in fairness to the Queen, since Markle reached the point of no return in 2018 (engagement announced)... she was no younger than 92 years old and she was widowed after more than seventy years of marriage... if she picks her battles, she's entitled. She will have feelings for both her son and her grandson, particularly given he had some major traumas in his early life about which she would have greater knowledge than us. She will have a natural human inclination to seek out the best and rationalize the worst about people she loves, and their wives, because that's what we do as humans. All three examples you cite seem to have a capacity to do end runs around her no matter what she does. There is no existing mechanism for her to do much with regard to their titles or standing and what she could do, she has done. To strip titles would be a major rupture and major process within the family and the Family and the political system. Yes, it's a step at hand, but it's akin to disowning and more families than not have tried everything twice before they go that far. She is also a person, with conflicts and feelings.

Andrew's in a category it's hard to describe. As a mother and family they seem to have taken a view we will not go further than the proven facts, which at this point, no matter what we all think, are an accusation and a settlement, which is not a legal admission of guilt. With the Sussexes, the strategy I see don't provoke attacks and weather the storm, retaining the high ground (in the minds of thinking people) as a result. I'm not sure there's a better strategy (barring exiling Andrew in some fashion, which may or may not be on the cards. Even when she brings down the hammer, she brings it down slowly so as to achieve a painful result with a minimum of emotion.) I'm not even sure there's a good strategy to the problems of the Sussexes and Andrew, because family and Family are intertwined.

R440, what a weird donation to boast about.

[quote] Oh... Charles & co could have EASILY paid Meghan off not to marry Harry if he had offered enough (as in A LOT of) cash, but he was himself very excited to have a mixed race person in the family as he felt it gave the family some diversity credibility.

Can you imagine the optics of that? Once Harry heard about that he would have gone right to the press and said, "They're preventing me from marrying the woman of my dreams because she's black." That would have been a disaster.

[quote] Additionally the family could have denied Meghan and Harry any Ducal titles or a job, and then the deal would have been that much less attractive to her, because she could never take the "Princess Henry" title with her after the divorce, among other things.

And the optics of that would be even more public and worse. "We've given everyone else who is the son of a monarch or the son of the heir to the throne a royal dukedom at marriage, but we won;t give it to you as you marry a black wife."

That just would not have happened.

Does the book explain who in the royal family refers to Meghan as "Harry's showgirl"? That still cracks me up.

Had to be Prince Philip, R444, or someone of that generation.

Agreed, R443. If people are going to insist on woulda, coulda, shoulda it should least be in the realm of the doable.

Saw this very interesting tweet today. Not sure if it's real/true but Marcus was definitely acquainted with some questionable high rollers through soho house. The plot thickens? I'd love to know more about him. Born in Peterborough Ontario in 1978. Interestingly Andrew attended a school near Peterborough for a semester in 1977. . .

Some more fun wild speculation here

They're desperate, R442. Who wants to be associated with them? I bet even the small-time outfits of the kind they used to send cakes and miniscule donations to are not responding to their entreaties.

The Nexflix docu is reportedly in the can. I think Netflix was partially responsible for lining up gigs for them (Harry, mainly) in order to build content for the docu. As the docu is done, it will be more difficult for Harry and Meghan to maintain a public presence without some front group such as Netflix making the connections. Even more so if Netflix was partially paying Harry and Meghan's Sunshine Sachs bill.

Bower's book may not be the final nail in their coffin, but it may not need to be. Spotify is Meghan's only remaining gig. If she even manages produces anything, it will be laughable, boring and soon forgotten. Harry has Travalyst, Netflix, his CHIMPO role and his memoir. Those who have seen the Netflix trailer say it is boring. So, it seems to be a standard docu that will quickly fade into oblivion. His memoir, even if sensationalistic, will only last through a few news cycles. Travalyst is a dead-end that garners no notice except for those of us closely following this saga. BetterUp? I cannot imagine Harry will bring much more value or interest once his other ventures are completed. I assume they will cast him aside once the publicity surrounding the memoir and the docu subside.

If you think about it, all of their lucrative deals were signed years ago. They haven't announced any substantive deals in ages. Books such as Bower's and word of mouth have and will prevent them from gaining any more partners. Which means we are in the home stretch. The memoir is set to be released in November. The docu will probably be in the fall or Christmas season. Shortly thereafter, BetterUp will quietly "wish Harry well as he seeks new ventures" via a late-afternoon Friday news dump before a holiday weekend.

This period of feigned importance these deals afford Harry and Meghan has dragged on too long. Bring on the messy desperation when Harry fully realizes the money is running out and Meghan realizes her opportunities for attention whoring are dwindling!

Oh there are plenty of pics of Prince Andrew and Markus out there. What has been disproved is a photo of both men on a yacht with a brunette who someone suggested was Meghan.

Link the pic or stfu

r418 Don't forget Valentine Low has a book out soon on Meghan and Harry and he is the journalist who broke the bullying story.

r452 Meant for r419 ^^^

She's got one more card up her sleeve. Her memoir. One thing I have always wished someone would do, with or without an axe to grind, is write the story of what it is like to be a senior member of the royal family. If she could be objective she could write an invaluable history of that experience. I'm talking granular. What's the process for a balcony appearance? How high is the balustrade? Who stage manages it? Who herds them into their carriages? Where do they go after a balcony appearance? What are the politics of the pecking order? Do they all just accept it? What's it like to stay in Buckingham Palace? Can you hear the traffic? If you want a sandwich, who makes it, how long does it take to get there? Balmoral, Sandringham, Windsor, Highgrove, Christmas, you could who, what, what, where, when and how to whole life and make a ton of money writing something that doesn't light a firestorm. There's an opportunity there, but it's got to be in your nature to take it.

Do you think she's smart enough, calm enough, to go granular? Did she notice details, does she remember them? What's that got to do with self aggrandizement (which is the only reason to live, don't you know?)

Another hiccup is that Finding Freebies is considered to be her memoir, albeit through Scobie. She is too focused on emphasizing how she has been wronged to provide any interesting details. She is also a terminal bore.

R455, not at all. Not at all.

Meghan being Ivanka.

I love this image so I'm posting it again. The future King of the United Kingdom is in the background - struggling to both (A) hold back tears and (B) stop himself from bursting out in laughter - simultaneously.

R454 Yes! I’d buy that book and find it utterly fascinating. Would love to know the tiny details and minutiae of the Royals day to day life and how it is all arranged and accomplished. But no, it couldn’t come from MM. For example, she would only notice if there were plenty of mirrors in which to gaze upon her wondrous reflection but she wouldn’t notice if the mirror was beveled or gilded framed or Venetian!

The book referred to by R454 would be an interesting read. Meghan would never be the one to write it. You have to be aware of details at the time of the event, and Meghan is focused on Me, ME, ME!!!!!!!!!

[quote] One thing I have always wished someone would do, with or without an axe to grind, is write the story of what it is like to be a senior member of the royal family.

What do you think Diana would have made of Meghan?

Do you think that in 2018, Diana would have approved of Harry marrying Meghan?

[quote] Do you think she's smart enough, calm enough, to go granular? Did she notice details, does she remember them?

"All through my wedding, all I could think about was how distractingly fat little Charlotte looked in her flower-girl outfit."

--from ME, MYSELF, AND H: A DUCHESS REMEMBERS (Random House, 2028)

[quote]Do you think that in 2018, Diana would have approved of Harry marrying Meghan?

I think she would see through Megs in a hot second. On presumes if Di had lived, Harry would be slightly less troubled, though still unaccomplished. She'd probably would've counseled him to be realistic about his prospects & he'd marry some rich foreigner so he'd still have a hand in the BRF, but would no longer reside in the UK full-time. So I don't there'd be a Megs

I now need to Google Charlotte flower girl images to see if she too has backfat.

Here

[quote]I once read that Heather used to fuck Paul with her stump leg.

Not only that, she came in through the bathroom window.

Enough with the Heather jokes. They don't have a leg to stand on.

The Kindle edition of the book is now available in the U.S., although you have to search for it by its ISBN #, which is 9781788705035. It's clearly the story of someone who overreached. If Meghan understood that she was just smart enough and just attractive enough to be a minor actress and an "influencer"/lifestyle blogger, she would have led a very comfortable life. Her little schemes and lies would never have caught up with her. But she had to climb one rung too high.

Or if she had realized what was being offered to her by Harry and had played her cards right, she would indeed have a comfortable, luxurious life today.

We shall not comment on who will be "chubby" 20 years from now.

Meghan is an actress and was offered a role in the BRF, for which she would have been richly rewarded had she played the role properly. But she chose not only to play it, but play an entirely different role, which nobody had written into the script...

Good analogy. Meghan is the actor in a hit series who concludes in the second season that she’s too big for the role and deserves her own spinoff.

R 471. She cannot realize what she was being offered by the RF. She is the poster child for that Yorkshire Description, "Ungrateful". Also my fav. Miss use em', squeeze em' till there's nothing left...Then try em' away.

Second season, R474? More like towards the end of the first episode of season 1.

Meghan really single white femaled Ivanka! That is crazy.

Some of those outfits are identikit!

R477 Oh, my.

[quote]Which means we are in the home stretch.

I disagree, R449, we're nowhere near the home stretch. Second or third inning, maybe? Not that I disagree with any of what you're saying, I just don't think this is anywhere near its end. This is what we're going to be getting from the Sussexes (either together or apart) for the next 2+ decades. Remember what they said after the Oprah interview? That now it was done they were never going to speak about Harry's family again?

Except they don't have anything to speak about except Harry's family. So...a 4 book deal. A memoir, endless interviews, endless "will they/won't they" leaked speculation in the tabloids about whatever royal event is coming up next, Meghan's own book (her second print version of "my truth" after FF, and surely not the last), more appearances based on their status as royals/former royals. The children will be co-opted into this, with speculation about whether or not Charles is going to "honour" the convention and bestow them with HRHs or prove his own vicious racism and issue new Letter Patent to slim the monarchy and strip the little Sussexes before they've had time to enjoy their new status.

What we've seen since Megxit isn't a rehearsal or a preview or some kind of pre-real-life stage for the Sussexes. It IS their life now. This IS what they're going to do.

R480. Divorce and bankruptcy will intervene.

R443 is right, there is nothing the BRF could have done to stop the wedding without being openly attacked and portrayed as racists. Hell, they went out of their way to be seen to welcome Meghan and were STILL smeared as likely racists worried about their precious white bloodline.

R459: this is mine...

[quote]Meghan is an actress and was offered a role in the BRF, for which she would have been richly rewarded had she played the role properly.

With all the back and forth about the Harkles and their nonsense, the reason for their receiving the Sussex title is often overlooked:

From Wikipedia - The title of Duke of Sussex was first conferred on 24 November 1801 upon Prince Augustus Frederick, the sixth son of King George III. He was known for his liberal views, which included... abolition of the slave trade. In 2018, the dukedom of Sussex was recreated and granted to Prince Harry, the grandson of Queen Elizabeth II and great-great-great-great-great grandnephew of the previous Duke, to mark the occasion of his wedding to Meghan Markle, who thereby became the first ever Duchess of Sussex.

QEII deliberately chose the Sussex title for this pair in order to emphasize the link to the first Duke's anti-slavery views. It was a way of saying that their role in the Royal Family could be to advocate for people of color in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

This was an extraordinary honor and if only these two dimwits took a moment to appreciate the value of what had handed to them, they would today be perhaps the most visible and popular members of the RF among the world at large.

Instead they pissed it away in favor of their tawdry schemes to monetize the title, which were quickly squashed by HM. Now the Sussex name is virtually meaningless in the context of their present life.

But this is tryingnottolaughapalooza.... One big OMFG! Check out W especially.

R482. It’s also another symptom of Harry and Meghan’s delusions of grandeur. Even if the royal family were obsessed with the “purity “ of the royal bloodline, his branch of the family is completely relevant.

It was The Sun that broke the story about the "intruders," R438, and this is what they had to say about the specific details:

[quote]Police records show there have been six security alert calls to their US home in the past 14 months.

[quote]Both calls in May were logged as “trespasser”, “property crimes” and “suspicious circumstances”.

[quote]There were four other calls to cops in the past 14 months. On April 9, 2021, officers were sent at 2.52am after a call, but were called off as “no assistance was needed”.

[quote]On New Year’s Day this year, at 1.43am, the alarm was “mistakenly tripped” and a squad car sent.

[quote]Cops were then called on April 8 at 10.41am, but did not attend as the call “belonged to other agency”.

[quote]Then, on June 8, there was a “miscellaneous dispatch” at 1.17pm, but again cops did not attend.

Do people think something is being implied here? I saw this story as coming from Sunshine Sachs, as a way to portray their clients as victimized and in danger.

^ irrelevant

R485 Zara’s expression is especially great.

I’d forgotten just how awful MM’s wedding hair was. Truly bizarre. She did indeed look like she just rolled out of bed. Wonder if she showered???

I guess that was her “Oscar” moment.

^ and the bad skin.

Watching that vid, it's such a shame to see a lovely looking lady like Meghan, well educated, adoring father (albeit uninvited), with many advantages in life, but she's just a raging, psychotic c**t.

[quote] So in fairness to the Queen, since Markle reached the point of no return in 2018 (engagement announced)... she was no younger than 92 years old and she was widowed after more than seventy years of marriage... if she picks her battles, she's entitled. She will have feelings for both her son and her grandson, particularly given he had some major traumas in his early life about which she would have greater knowledge than us. She will have a natural human inclination to seek out the best and rationalize the worst about people she loves, and their wives, because that's what we do as humans. All three examples you cite seem to have a capacity to do end runs around her no matter what she does. There is no existing mechanism for her to do much with regard to their titles or standing and what she could do, she has done. To strip titles would be a major rupture and major process within the family and the Family and the political system. Yes, it's a step at hand, but it's akin to disowning and more families than not have tried everything twice before they go that far. She is also a person, with conflicts and feelings.

Realize The Queen is human, but her parental skills seem wanting. The issues with Andrew and Harry did not begin last week, last month, or last year. They have been a long time coming. Let’s face it: HMTQ has had issues with her children: including her heir. Understand she wants to perceive the best in her family; but her ability to evade and ignore family problems has spilled over into the running of the monarchy.

She comes across as Tom Markle: enabling and passively supporting vile behaviour. There comes a point when actions become so repulsive that it is necessary .....even for a family to say.... “Enough”!

With Harry suing his Grandmother’s government, badmouthing her, and demanding monies from the British taxpayers to fund his luxurious lifestyle, we have hit that point.

It’s reckless and indulgent for the BRF to stand by as if helpless and feed into the their nearly 40 year old’s sense of and entitlement.

The Queen’s inability to address these issues will be a blight on her reign and saddle her already questionable heir.

Am a monarchist, but seeing more and more reasons to join the Republicanism movement.

I wish I had followed the Dangling Tendrils.

Could a kind DLer please tell me about tiaragate?

And what does TW mean?

Apologies, R480, as my post was a bit confusing. By 'home stretch', I meant we are nearing the end of the period where Harry and Meghan are partners in legitimate, conventional business transactions. There is still much more to come with this saga, but I truly think they will never again land deals with entities as large as Netflix or Penguin Random House or the like. If I had to guess, most of their current business partners will come nowhere near recouping their investments in these two. Also, the loss or completion of their current business deals will cause lack of interest from smaller outfits due to the lack of cross-promotional exposure.

They're toast. I don't even think they could get QVC at this point. Maybe Real Housewives or some other reality program that showcases their carnival sideshow qualities.

It’s reckless and indulgent for the BRF to stand by as if helpless and feed into the their nearly 40 year old-family-member’s sense of [bold] victimisation[/bold] and entitlement.

(Wish DL had an edit function!)

Tiaragate: Meghan was presented three tiaras to choose from to wear at her wedding by the Queen's dresser, Angela Kelly. Meghan rejected all and demanded to wear another tiara. Her demand was rejected (On the stated reason that the tiara was of Russian provenance but, in reality, because the tiara was in the Queen's rotation. Nobody wears the Queen's tiaras but The Queen.) Harry threw a tantrum, raged at Kelly and infamously said "what Meghan wants, Meghan gets". The request was again denied. Meghan finally selected a tiara from the presented choices. Meghan demanded she be provided the tiara prior to the wedding on the stated reason that her hair dresser needed the tiara to figure out her wedding hair style. (More likely, she probably intended to take pics for Oprah or Vanity Fair or what have you.) This was also denied. (After all, Kate apparently used a costume tiara to figure out her hair.)

R452 - Low's book is not about Harry and Meghan, it is about the world of the Palace courtiers. Any such book might indeed have a chapter on the Sussex story (as well as on Diana and the other royals around whom the courtiers flock, try to direct, clean up after, etc.). But the book isn't, per se, about the Sussexes.

In fact, the book's title is COURTIERS.

Blurb: "'Courtiers' reveals an ever-changing system of complex characters, shifting values and ideas over what the future of the institution should be. This is the story . . ."

It's probably better researched, written, and more interesting than the Lacey, Brown, Bower, and Harry Memoir rolled up together.

R496 - The problem wasn't Meghan demanding the tiara so her hairdresser could work with it, the problem was that she and Harry showed up without an appointment and demanded that Angela Kelly drop whatever she was doing for the Queen and produce the tiara instantly. When Kelly demurred, citing the need for advance warning so that the tiara could be accessed by the appropriate security people and transferred, Harry went ballistic, called up his Gran and shouted at her, insisting that she "make this happen" for his bride.

It was this incident that sent Harry bawling through the corridors yelling, "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets!"

You have to grasp the significance of incidents like these, not because they were in and of themselves hanging matters, but because they demonstrated to the family that Harry and Meghan were coming in on a tide of adversarial feeling.

One would think that a sixth in line and a divorcee not young and fresh bridge would have done everything they could to establish their bona fides to the immensely famous and influential family.

Instead, the only bona fides the Sussexes established was the likelihood of catastrophe not too far down the road.

^*not young and fresh BRIDE (not bridge)

R499, she does remind me of Tower BRIDGE though as she's really good at spreading those legs, ahem, opening those bascules.

Well,we know in advance that whatever Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee come up with to counter act the effects of this book will blow up in their faces spectacularly. Always has,always will. God love them !

R501 - That is the most interesting thing about the Harkles: how much blows up in their faces.

What I believe the reason to be, is that everything, absolutely everything that they do, is nakedly performative. They aren't skilled enough to disguise the wholly performative nature of everything they do. The result is that you can't miss the insincerity.

Meghan's OTT emasculation of Harry at the UN, caught for eternity on video, is the poster illustration. It was so performative, so calculated, so exaggerated, that the only possible conclusion is that either she's an even worse actress than anyone suspected, or, she was paying him out for something.

Such as, for instance, being the only one of the two of them getting to make a speech at the UN.

Something clearly had occurred that prompted her panto of slicing off his balls and tossing them into that large purse she carried.

And unlike others, I don't believe it was mere overacting on her part or that she even intended it to signify the depth of her love for him. I think she intended to stick it to him by treating him like that, because she wanted to be up there on that stage. She paid him out for not insisting that she make a speech too, or at least stand up there with him and add her voice to his.

No woman with any respect for her man would have treated him like that in so public and prestigious a forum.

No man with any self-respect would have stood for it.

And there they are: the UN as a venue (even if it was half-empty and of the 18 people in the seats, at least half were ignoring him), and what do the public really remember?

Meghan exposing Harry as a eunuch.

Well, maybe he is. But that's surely not what they expected or hoped to get out of that UN appearance.

TW= an embarrassing frau acronym.

History Rhymes

All that was missing from the UN clown show was for Harry to get on the back seat of a motorcycle that Meghan was driving. Yes, he really is the Bitch on the Back at least in public. He signed on for it. Now he's got it. Yup Harry the Ball-less Bitch on the Back!

Enjoy the ride!!

Hahahahaha You think that's funny. She's always had my balls in her handbag

I agree with the ever-imperious poster at R420 that the reason the Bower book contains no bombshells about crashed weddings, break-ups, surrogate fake babies and yachting is because none of those things happened and all those stories have stayed firmly in the realm of the conspiracy theorists, never even making the pages of dregs like the Express.

I stick to my guns on the court case, that the outcome was unfair. I accept that "unfair" does not mean "legally improper" (which I never claimed and wouldn't have done so due to my not being a lawyer) and I was never one of the posters who thought the royal family had any kind of input into the outcome. I do still believe a Duchess has a better chance of getting away with lying to the court (she lied. I know we can't "prove" it because what if she really did forget that major detail that no one without dementia would forget etc. but in that case no one can ever be proven a liar because we can all just say we forgot. Also, most people don't have Schillings behind them...which was part of my point re: poor vs rich, Duchess vs chav).

BUT all of that said I forgot to be clear about one of my reasons for my iffy thoughts. It is always presented as black and white that the DM violated her privacy. I understand why. Because apparently there is a law that says if you publish more than X percentage of a private document then that's a violation of privacy, the end. The DM published more than that percentage of the letter, it was a violation of privacy, the end.

But wasn't the whole argument that the letter WASN'T a private document and that she always knew/intended for it to be published? Wasn't that the point of the Jason Knauf e-mails (i.e. to show that she knew it was very likely to leak and that she wrote the letter the way she did to "tug heartstrings" etc.)?

Do you see what I'm asking? How can it be a violation of privacy if the document in question was never intended to be private - was in fact expressly written with a public audience in mind? Of course no one here can answer that, only the court could - but it was the court itself that denied the Mail the chance to argue that the letter wasn't private in the first place! I think that was fucking unfair. ANL should have been permitted to make their case. If in the end the judge/court didn't buy it then OK but it's just so odd to me that ANL was saying look, we have a good, solid argument that says this letter was composed with a public audience in mind (i.e. that this letter cannot be said to have been "private") and they were denied a hearing.

It's the difference between:

judge: your client published 90% of a private letter, that violates the law

lawyer: yeah but my client had an upset stomach on the day so it doesn't count!

judge: no, sorry, the law is the law, 90% is a violation, you lose

and:

judge: your client published 90% of a private letter, that violates the law

lawyer: we can make a solid case that the letter in question was never "private" in any meaningful (legal?) sense

judge: cool, don't care, you lose

I don't agree with the wild conspiracy theories, but I think there is probably a lot of material left out because everything has to be legally backable, so if he couldn't get a source to speak about incidents like the mistreatment of staff on the Australia tour, then it's not included because he can't stand by it, even though he might have believed the story.

An EFA, R503? Is that what you mean?

(tee-hee)

I'm missing something here. I think her pawing him, clawing him, grabbing him, etc., makes HER look bad. She could have done that to any of us, sitting by her, and it would be our fault that she was acting like a demented koala bear looking for a branch to hang on to.

He did not look happy about her bizarre behavior - he looked about as miserable as I've ever seen someone look, sitting next to his spouse.

The same with the court case - no matter how the judge decided, it makes her look ridiculous, pitching a fit about one of her letters being exposed. And the notes about it she wrote further make HER look like a lunatic. Except she's worse. If she were bipolar or schizophrenic, it would be understandable (and forgivable.

She's just selfish, cruel, and stupid. And not so stupid that it's to be pitied - at least not where paired with her extraordinary arrogance. Now his stupidity is more on the pitiable side, imo.

* it wouldn't be our fault that she was acting like a demented koala bear...

The chef she was living with while pursuing Harry, I'm sure he could tell some tales and I wish he would.

She will never be at peace or happy. Narcs are always hunting.

r496 for all the planning for her hair it looked terrible with flyaways. I was shocked how bad she looked on her wedding day. She looked so much better for the after party.

If the Netflix series is only about their "charitable" contributions it is going to be a snooze. Netflix would be better off doing an exposé on them.

Gurl, I took one look at that terrible wedding hair, makeup, and dress and knew she was cray.

Meghan reminded me of Will Smith, in her shining moment it's like she tried to sabotage herself by looking bad. Her hair, makeup, dress were sloppy in the moment she would be most photographed.

R487 Yes those dates are interesting as well. April 8th and 9th 2021 the cops were called to their home. (The world found out Prince Philip died on April 9th, 2021)

June 8th the cops were called. This was the release date of Meghan's book, The Bench, which was widely panned.

Interesting.

Ah, a bunch of knock-down drag-out fights, a la Depp and Heard.

Oh please, Harry, get the fuck out and go back to Blighty with your tail between your legs. Be Andrew, the next generation.

I'm seriously worried about his survival, at this point. I haven't seen him as evil -- yet. So I want him to get free! Go home and be a dopey prince, it's a time honored tradition!

R149, I took the Foreign Service exam and didn't pass, either, despite my generally acknowledged brilliance, ha ha. I don't know if MM failed the written test to qualify or passed it and failed the interview, which is a group and individual interview that assesses your experience and aptitude for the Foreign Service. If the former, then I can tell you it is, or was at the time, a standardized test that I passed with high marks, but if the latter, then I can't fault Markle for failing. It's a qualitative assessment and requires a certain kind of aptitude, and they never tell you why you didn't pass the interview, just that you didn't. Many people fail it the first time. I know a career FS officer who did and passed the second time, though I didn't feel like trying again myself.

I meant R148, dangit. I knew I was going to do that.

Sorry to digress here, but what are the little lamps by each person for in this photo? Is the ambient lighting in Westminster Abbey that bad? Or is each person doing some little sewing project or completing a math problem, for which they need their own little lamp?

[quote]All credit to the tiny house that took him on - they won't be tiny for long as a result! - but one reason a huge established publisher is so preferable is not only for the massive marketing campaigns (turns out that he was right and he hasn't needed any), but because their sub editors are the best in the world.

[quote]Writers, even great writers, usually need great editors

Thank you, from a subeditor. It's nice to be appreciated.

R522, that’s “just” St. George’s Chapel, but, yes, old churches tend to be dark.

R522 That picture is such a trip ! Shes grinning like a demented fool,and they all look so grim .Pretty much sums up the entire relationship in a nutshell.

R507 Actually, we can answer that here.

The Knauf emails containing verbiage that indicated that Meghan sent the letter hoping her father would put it out there via the press STILL DOES NOT GET ANL OFF THE FAIR USE HOOK. The choice to print more than one-third of it was the paper's.

If you buy a book, you own the book physically. But you don't own the contents: the author does.

Her father owned the letter physically, but Meghan owned the contents.

That was what the copyright arm of the lawsuit dealt with: did others have a significant enough hand in its drafting to invalidate the copyright infringement claim. The court found not.

None of the information was enough to get around the 33% rule.

The moment the DM did that, it was bound to lose.

The DM is usually sued by wealthy celebrities, so saying the court let her off the hook because she was a Duchess doesn't hold up. And, the court in only awarding one pound in damages did stick it to her. Not to mention the deathless phrase, "At best, an unfortunate lapse of memory" also let her know and the public that the court knew she'd perjured herself.

That Meghan hoped her father would sell the letter just doesn't get around the rule.

The court can't afford to ignore the letter of the law because it knows the Complainant is a conniving bitch.

Printing the letter was the paper's choice. They hanged themselves and I agree, it's unfair that that led to Meghan getting away with perjury.

But law and true justice are, unfortunately, not always mutually inclusive.

R522 - I'm surprised to see Elizabeth and Prince Philip in the second row.

r522, It's so people can read the hymnals. Lots of singing in the Anglican church.

It's well deserved, r523.

God knows how often I myself could use a good subeditor when I post on here!

Harry isn't freaking out about security because he's scared. Otherwise he wouldn't live in crime-ridden Southern California. He wants the A list movie star status of being surrounded by bodyguards. Also, when they were in Vancouver, he and Meghan were using their security detail as servants - walking the dogs, picking up takeaway, etc. Cheap labor.

It’s only $6 on Amazon Kindle in the US. I thought it’d be priced a lot higher.

It's not on US kindle, r531.

But you knew that.

How hard is it to produce one fucking podcast?

These two fools are at the end of the gravy train.

It is on US Kindle - I bought it this morning. You need tO search by isbn number not title

[quote]The Knauf emails containing verbiage that indicated that Meghan sent the letter hoping her father would put it out there via the press STILL DOES NOT GET ANL OFF THE FAIR USE HOOK.

OK (and thanks for the caps, condescending use of caps is my sexual fetish), but the person above, and I don't know if it was you, appeared to be talking about the privacy aspect of the case. I understand that if the percentage-beyond-which-any-use-is-illegal rule is about copyright and *not* privacy then the letter possibly not being private in a legal sense (which remained untested) has nothing to do with that specific aspect of the case. But then I don't understand why the DM seemed so eager to make its case that the letter wasn't private.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree with regards to the judicial system's treatment of rich vs poor people.

R532, what a weird thing to say. Search this thread for the ISBN and go to Amazon. There it is.

[quote] OK (and thanks for the caps, condescending use of caps is my sexual fetish), but the person above, and I don't know if it was you, appeared to be talking about the privacy aspect of the case. I understand that if the percentage-beyond-which-any-us - e-is-illegal rule is about copyright and *not* privacy then the letter possibly not being private in a legal sense (which remained untested) has nothing to do with that specific aspect of the case.

Periods are your friends, r535.

Link it, r536

Eat my ass, R538.

Cunts like you can do the work yourself.

#princeharryisatraitor

is trending on Twitter now.

You're lying. r539.

What an odd thing to lie about.

I can only presume you're one of those psychos who lie about everything for attention.

Reddit Saint Meghan has the link. It looks like Amazon is trying to hide it.

I'd read Harry's book if it was "My Struggle Against Meghan."

I can't believe there's somebody here asking posters to PROVE IT that the kindle is on USA amazon, instead of simply looking for himself.

Surely it's not Dum-Dum Harry posting, is it?

R522 that’s where HM always sits in St George’s Chapel. The seat in front of her is always kept vacant so as not to spoil her view.

Why does she always sit there? NFI but she’s The Queen so maybe she just likes it.

Here you dumbass @R538, although it might have too many big words for you.

Remember not to get crayon on your kindle screen.

I think the book was a misfire. It's quite harsh and has some easily verified errors that the Sewage Squad has already picked up on.

Tom Bower and Scooby Doo are preaching to their respective choirs. No one is going to be converted by either of them.

Tina Brown's book I think was much better. It was harsh but not aggressively so, far more likely to sway people in the middle on their opinion.

Thank you r526 , now I finally understand why Meg’s hope that her father would publicize the letter had no bearing. I was also getting hung up on the fact that she showed it or quoted it to friends who then referred to it in a People magazine story. Turns out it was cut and dried: 33%.

Now, the £1 in damages, is that a common verdict?

No Darling,that was a big FUCK YOU to Meagain.

Some sort of book on royal protocol is needed.

There really should be. Both JFK and Jackie misaddressed The Queen and Prince Philip by the wrong titles when the First couple first visited Buckingham Palace.

Megs and Cory, slow slide to The End. From Revenge, by Tom Bower, Pages 74, 89, 95, 97, 105, 123:

[quote] Meghan had decided that her long-term future was not with Cory. She had set her sights higher. New York, she decided, was the key to her ambition. She wanted to emulate her idols, Angelina Jolie and Emma Watson

[quote]Cory was weary of Meghan’s prima-donna behaviour. Entering restaurants she demanded a special table, the entitlement of every famous actress; and her name-dropping whenever she returned from New York was becoming insufferable. ‘You’re not Nicole Kidman,’ he snapped at her.

[quote] Meghan faced not only a professional challenge but a personal crisis. At 35 she wanted children. Although Cory Vitiello was a good man and would be a good parent, he was deemed to be unsuitable as the father of Meghan’s child. A chef with limited ambitions in a country which she perceived as unglamorous, Cory’s horizons were too limited. ‘There are only so many times you can discuss a recipe,’ a friend reported, echoing Meghan’s sentiment. ‘And then there is nothing else.’ Although it was Cory’s social importance in Toronto that had propelled Meghan’s status, the chef’s value had dwindled. He could not further Meghan’s ambitions. She wanted real celebrity, many millions of dollars and personal glory.

[quote] Her high-octane visits to New York sealed the fate of their relationship. After every trip, he (Cory) cursed her ego as ‘out-of-control star-fucking’. She recoiled. For Meghan, life with Cory, as with Trevor, had become unfulfilling. She would only live with Cory on her terms. After one divorce she would avoid another mistake. Repeatedly, she asked a friend whether she should end the relationship because, she revealed, she no longer loved Cory.

[quote] Meghan had reached a turning-point. After spending a few days with Cory in New York she was certain their relationship was over. Getting him out of their jointly rented house would be difficult, she suspected, and Toronto’s gossips would enjoy a damaging field-day. In addition her frustrating failure to find an exciting career follow-up to Suits, and her weariness of life in Canada, all coalesced during two days in Montreal in spring 2016.

[quote] Before the filming of Suits broke for the summer holidays, Meghan and Cory once again discussed how to end their relationship. He would need to move out of their joint home. Some thought she was hedging her bets. Others believed her subsequent explanation for the breakdown that Cory ‘didn’t want to settle down.’ In truth, Cory was relieved that she had taken the initiative before she left for Europe.

[quote] At the end of the week, after he returned to London, Meghan was convinced that her spell was cast and the relationship with Harry would be sealed. She told Cory that their affair was over. Unaware of the circumstances, he was relieved. The final months had been unpleasant. Packing his belongings, he moved in mid-July into an apartment with Richard Lambert, a British-born friend renowned in Toronto as an owner of bars and nightclubs. Meghan stayed in the house, removing the evidence of Cory’s presence. She awaited Harry’s first visit to her home.

[quote]Otherwise he wouldn't live in crime-ridden Southern California.

Montecito is not Inglewood.

The sleuthing at work in R438, R437, and R518, nailing the records of the numerous police, security, and other call-outs to the Harkle menage, the subtle variations in the ways those calls have been labeled, and the way some of the call dates coincide with events in their lives . . . it's new heights for the DL.

[quote] Montecito is not Inglewood.

True. But there is crime in Montecito. I live in Santa Barbara, and no place is completely isolated or free from crime in the US. The last several years have seen an uptick everywhere here: especially within the ever - widening gap of haves and have nots.

With The Harkles’ arrogance and smug sense of entitlement, this does not bode well for them.

I love the fact that a book about Meghan is priced at $0.00.

Eamonn Holmes' interview with Tom Bower - in which they mention the Sussex Stans! Lolllllll

R535 It’s not that difficult.

There were two claims against ANL - privacy and copyright. Two,separate but linked claims.

Copyright - Thomas owned the letter, Meghan owned the words. Exactly the same as owning a book. You own the book and can loan it out to whoever you like, but you cannot republish the words as they remain the intellectual property of the author. There is a fair use clause where you can quote from the book/letter, but no more than is necessary (depending on context’.

The court agreed that ANL had the right to republish some of the letter to allow Thomas to challenge the gist of the People article. But they published more than was strictly necessary so she won on copyright. We don’t know how much the court awarded her but, despite what Scobie says, I don’t think it was a substantial amount. It was hardly a grievous infringement if the court agreed that ANL were justified in publishing some of it. If she got £10k, that would be good going.

Privacy - did she have the right to expect the letter to remain private and unpublished? The court decided yes, even though there was evidence that she not only expected it to be leaked but anticipated it. This wasn’t enough to prevent the court from upholding her basic right to privacy. Nothing she did in the delivery of that letter indicated that she wanted it to go to anyone other than Thomas and, given the intense media interest in their relationship, it could be argued that it was only sensible precaution that caused her to anticipate a leak and craft accordingly - just in case. So, she won on this claim too.

The £1 damages were the very least she could have been awarded -£0 is not an option. This says it was a technical win only - she had not actually been damaged by the leak in any significant or harmful way. There is no such thing in the UK as punitive damages, as such, but an exemplary amount can be awarded if punishment is required. The court didn’t feel this was appropriate either.

These aren’t terrible findings based on the evidence. Where I think some judges may have determined differently is by allowing the case to,proceed to trial. When a claimant can be shown to have supplied unreliable evidence there ought to be an opportunity for the defendant to test them with cross examination. But the court determined that ANL did not provide sufficient evidence that testing would reveal significant new imformation, enough to result in a different finding.

Regarding perjury - prosecutions for this are very rare and require solid evidence to prove. People lie in court - it’s almost expected, despite the oath they swear. The courts would never do anything else if they went after every perjurer.

I would have given my eye teeth to have witnessed (or read about) Markle being cross-examined. She’s an arrogant cunt and much would have been revealed about her character if she had been, but oh well. She’s so litigious that we may have the joy some day.

The point is, this was a disappointing result but nothing so outrageous so as to make anyone wonder about judicial corruption.

How does this whole Meghan saga end? Divorce, like Diana or Sarah Ferguson? Death of one or the other? Or happily ever after for HazMat?

I've been saying this since the day Archie was born. To get those kids as far away from Megs as possible. When she feels she's hit bottom, there's nowhere left to go, she'll take out herself and her kids. The ultimate narcissistic fuck you! to everyone who has wronged her, especially her mother, the Queen, Charles and William.

I enjoyed the book, but was irritated that Tom Bower kept talking about how the Americans fell for Meghan BS interview on Oprah, American men fell for Harry’s BS on getting in touch with his feelings. I’m American and I don’t know anyone who pays the slightest attention to them other than the occasional eye roll. We find them as ridiculous as British audiences. At least, most do.

What's odd is that after 5 years, they still haven't found an advisor who would dig them out of the hole they're in, and get them on the right track to reach their long term goals. They do pay advisors - lawyers, PR, agents. But so much of what they do seems destined to fail, eg, telling easily disprovable lies, putting down a wreath at an American cemetery, visit to Uvalde, doing stupid stunts on Ellen, and much more.

I agree, r561. The British press were really slow on the uptake with that - or were they?

By quite soon after the marriage I sensed that much of the UK press were becoming increasingly aware that there was something really wrong with her - and with him - but most of the UK press were also desperate to hang on to defending her because to do otherwise would open them up to accusations of racism, which in the UK would get them fired at best, or, at worst, potentially put on trial for hate speech. Piers Morgan was fired from a show which he had brought up from the bottom of the ratings to the top in one year - a record in UK broadcasting - merely for saying he did not believe her statements. That fear meant that UK journalists took a very very long time before they were willing to take off the velvet gloves, instead keeping up with the pretense that she was a "Breath of fresh air" and a "fashion icon" and 99% tried as hard as they could to promote the positive.

The reason I mention all this is because I strongly suspect that in order to assist in keeping up appearances for her, they constantly used the American press' fawning of Meghan to support their own rather synthetically cheery articles on the Markles. They would constantly refer to, for example, People magazine articles as if People was a legitimate publication, when all of Fleet Street is well aware that People is nothing more than a PR mouthpiece.

In other words, the UK press was strongly motivated, through their fear of being falsely accused of racism, to always find the positive reports made in the supine american media, and I think that long-term habit of seeking out positive US stories gave them the genuine impression that there was real admiration and affection in America as a whole for the couple.

Yes, Piers dubbed her Princess Pinocchio, which along with our very own Duchess Whoresides, is probably the best nickname ever for MM.

I loathe Piers Morgan but it remains outrageous that he lost his job over what happened, and that Meghan herself personally had a role in it (calling the head of ITV, who is apparently known to be sympathetic to the Sussexes).

[quote]There were two claims against ANL - privacy and copyright. Two,separate but linked claims.

I know. I just thought we (or whoever I was initially talking to) was talking specifically about the privacy claim. And I am not the person who thinks the court was corrupt and/or leaned on by the BRF. I specifically *don't* think that happened.

I'm wondering if Meghan will sue over anything in the Bower book. I want her to, because I still want the trial we were denied, and all the delicious discovery and testimony that would likely have come with it. I want to say her lawyers are probably strongly advising against suing, but it's Schillings so maybe they're all sitting around the phone in London, wiping the drool off their chins and panting as they wait for it to ring.

[quote] they still haven't found an advisor who would dig them out of the hole they're in, and get them on the right track to reach their long term goals.

They've reached their "long-term goals". At least Megs has. The World According to Megs, complete control over what is said/written publicly about her and the dominance of Megs "truths", as reiterated in her "victory", despite perjury, against ANL. She's finally become the only star in her galaxy. A very lonely place.

Duchess Whoresides! That was one of the best bits of that crooked trial.

How does it end? R559. Let's hope that it won't be Family Annihilation.

It ends with the Family Triumphant, a remarried Harry living in Africa, and the fake Duchess on Real Housewives, from which she gets booted for being the least popular and most facially plasticised cast member.

Then perhaps on to some American home shopping network where she hawks her wares in the middle of the night, smiling unconvincingly through her many inches of facial fillers.

[quote]I enjoyed the book, but was irritated that Tom Bower kept talking about how [...] American men fell for Harry’s BS on getting in touch with his feelings.

Wasn't Tom Bower being facetious here? To me, those lines read as if Mr Bower was pretty clearly taking the piss out of whiny Harry.

How long until they take up the monkey pox cause? Or is it too…disfiguring?

I read the PDF version of the Bower book. I was so looking forward to it, but found it to be fairly blah. There are a few gems (the Vanity Fair and Vogue backstories were delicious) but otherwise a rehash of Meghan's known awfulness and Harry's stupidity. He relies too much on Thomas Markle for backstory, and Markle is only interested in portraying himself as a victim and not on giving any true insights (like father like daughter).

Tina Brown's book also was a rehash, but she colored in the details with her wicked editorializing, which made the book fun. People close to H/M won't start spilling the beans until the divorce -- then the flood dams will break and we'll get the good stuff.

I find the real-time ongoing commentary on H/M's almost daily stumbles much more entertaining than the Bower book. And I'm grateful for the distraction these fools have provided from the dark times we're living in.

Steerpike: Did Meghan Markle Terrorise A Three-Year-Old?

The Spectator, July 26, 2022

When it comes to bullying allegations, Meghan Markle is well versed. But in Tom Bower’s latest book, Revenge, the claims are so damning that even Steerpike was gobsmacked.

Reducing a royal aide to tears is one thing, but investigative journalist Bower now claims that Markle’s wrath knows no limits. Meghan reportedly picked on Princess Charlotte, who was then aged three, causing her mother Kate Middleton to burst into tears at Meghan’s bridesmaid fitting.

It’s long been rumored that Meghan made Kate cry over the unacceptable length of the bridesmaid dress that Princess Charlotte was told to wear during Meghan’s wedding to Prince Harry, which was not in line with royal protocol. Kate apparently asked Meghan to allow the three-year-old to wear tights with the ill-fitting shoes that she was worried would cause blisters, but to no avail. After multiple palace sources leaked this account to the media, Meghan turned the story on its head when she claimed in her infamous Oprah interview that it was actually Kate who made her cry during the disagreement.

Bower’s new book corroborates the original claims that Meghan reduced Kate to tears over the length of Princess Charlotte’s hem:

"Kate thought it was too short, and anyway did not fit. Melissa Toubati, Meghan’s assistant, and the dress-fitters employed by Givenchy’s Clare Waight Keller, witnessed Meghan emphatically reject Kate’s observation. Compromise was not a trait Meghan embraced. The stand-offs, Kate decided, confirmed the complaints by Toubati and other members of staff about Meghan. Kate burst into tears. Kirstie Allsopp, a friend of Camilla, would later confirm that Kate was reduced to tears by Meghan bullying her staff."

Bower’s book also claims that Markle 'compared Princess Charlotte unfavourably to her best friend Jessica Mulroney’s daughter,' who was also a flower girl in the wedding, causing further tensions between her and her sister-in-law to be. Kate had given birth to Prince Louis a short time before the fitting and was reported to be 'too fatigued to cope' with Meghan’s unwillingness to compromise.

Meghan later claimed during her Oprah interview:

"A few days before the wedding, she [Kate] was upset about something pertaining — yes, the issue was correct — about flower girl dresses. It made me cry, and it really hurt my feelings. I thought, in the context of everything else that was going on in those days leading to the wedding, that it didn’t make sense to not be just doing whatever everyone else was doing, which was trying to be supportive, knowing what was going on with my dad and whatnot."

Meghan has consistently denied she ever bullied anyone at any time. Now, Steerpike can’t say whose version of events is the correct one, though he’d bet a pretty penny on which duchess made the other cry. But one thing is for sure: the first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.

----

Morgan was vindicated later when the Office of Press Complaints found for him in that panel dispute, not ITV. The decision was touted as a victory for Morgan andxa free press, and left ITV and Meghan with egg all over their faces.

Morgan declined to return to ITV after the decision. He had plenty of other offers and was not likely to starve as he left ITV.

As always, Meghan overplayed her hand, and what the public remembers is not anything said on that panel, but that Morgan won and exited in triumph backed by the organisation that acts as the media's "court".

The ANL case? All people remember are those emails she tried to hide. She won the case technically? She can join the club of many such re the DM.

Harry gets to speak to the UN, even on a half-arsed day? All people remember is that truly scary footage of Meghan symbolically castrating him by him like a toddler.

The Oprah interview? When the dust settled, they came put of it looking like vindictive liars persecuting the soon to be widowed noble Queen.

The Ellen show? Well, that went down a treat, didn't it?

Add the attempt to big themselves up at the Abbey during the Jubly, and get a solo entrance by arriving late? Opportunity for the audible booing and catcalls.

Uvalde appearance? That didn't go down well, either.

They never learn, do they?

R573 left out the best part/speculation. From Revenge, by Tom Bower, Pages 189-190:

[quote] The tension troubled Kate when she arrived with Charlotte, her threeyear-old daughter, at a fitting for the bridesmaids’ dresses. By then, Kate was irritated by complaints of Meghan bullying her staff. One had complained that she was offhand. Another that her temperament was haughty, displaying little sympathy for those outside her circle. W.H. Auden, the poet, had summarised this kind of dilemma: ‘Private faces in public places are wiser and nicer than public faces in private places.’

[quote] Since she had just given birth to Louis, Kate was too fatigued to cope with a disagreement about whether the bridesmaids should wear tights. Following protocol, Kate believed they should. The Californian was uninterested in royal tradition. Her insistence was supported by Jessica Mulroney, present as an advisor and the mother of another bridesmaid, Ivy. Some would say that Meghan compared Ivy favourably against Charlotte. Others were surprised by Meghan’s close attachment to Mulroney. That disagreement was followed by an argument about the length of Charlotte’s hem. Kate thought it was too short, and anyway did not fit. Melissa Toubati, Meghan’s assistant, and the dress-fitters employed by Givenchy’s Clare Waight Keller, witnessed Meghan emphatically reject Kate’s observation. Compromise was not a trait Meghan embraced. The stand-offs, Kate decided, confirmed the complaints by Toubati and other members of staff about Meghan. Kate burst into tears. Kirstie Allsopp, a friend of Camilla, would later confirm that Kate was reduced to tears by Meghan bullying her staff.

[quote] After leaving that unhappy scene Kate decided to make amends. She crossed the Kensington Palace corridor and presented Meghan with a bunch of flowers. Kate also told Meghan not to speak rudely to her staff. ‘That’s unacceptable.’ What followed can never be irrefutably established. In Kate’s version, Meghan slammed the door in her face and threw the flowers in a dustbin. Meghan would tell Oprah Winfrey that the tears were shed by her, not Kate, and the flowers were an apology.

NB: My vote's for Megs slamming the door in Kate's face and binning the flowers.

Steerpike usually sticks to Westminster gossip, or, when he veers, he focusses on something non-Westminster that is the talk of Westminster's denizens.

The fact that this has been published in his column is meant to imply that Bower's book is the talk of SW1....

The whole thing about Charlotte and the other bridesmaids's shoes and wearing tights is added to with the following details:

1. Charlotte standing with Kate on the steps and doing the wave over her shoulder thereby stealing the spotlight from JM's much hoped for ass shot (JM practiced and was trying to copy (of course) the Pippa's amazing shot at the Kate & William wedding).

2. Charlotte fiddling with her obviously uncomfortable shoes.

3. The report in the news that MM's gift to the bridesmaids was their shoes!

4. DL's comment at the time that Charlotte probably opened the car window on the ride home and threw the shoes out the car window.

Harry sleeps with this psychotic bitch and has had children with her. This woman who went on Oprah and openly lied about the bridesmaids debacle. Surely he knew the truth from staff palace or directly from William and Kate and he supports this woman who could be easily caught out on a lie. He's worse than she is IMO.

Poor Harry is cuntstruck.

-- Charles, Prince of Wales

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

I wonder if he still is, R579. I bet he can barely get it up for her anymore.

R580 I am pmsl at the Mail over the last few days. They've plonked in 'articles' such as 'how to spot a narcissist' and '10 signs you're being gaslit'! Definitely a deliberate move since the book was published. They are in effect, the journalistic equivalent of Megs!

There was a comment regarding their children further up the thread where the poster said they should be removed from her as soon as possible because she might possibly do harm to them.

Narcs destroy, and I mean completely obliterate. I posted a long time ago that my brother was married to one. No matter what you do for them, it's never enough. You can give them everything they want, it isn't enough. They have to completely destroy before they move on. Bower refers to that in his book. Whenever Meghan was ready to move on, she would consult her friends, who only had her version of events. Narcs destroy your reputation and turn people against you when they leave. The children - well they mess them up too. The little ones are never really sure of Mommy's love because from an early age they are pitted against each other in a game called "who is Mommy's favorite". The game never ends until the narc is dead. Give the song "Perfect" a listen sometime, by Alanis Morisette. Because nothing the kids do is ever good enough either.

As far as the Daily Mail, they knew when they published that full letter that they would be sued. Nothing will convince me otherwise. They knew the 33% rule, and purposely did not follow it. They knew it would end up in court, and that they would most likely lose if it did. But Dimwit and Dumbass contribute hugely to the Daily Mail coffers, articles attract those both pro and anti Sussex. They figured what they lost in court could easily be covered by the revenue. They were probably right.

Angelina Jolie has all the hallmarks of the narc you describe R583

R561 The only place I see any real discussion about those knuckle heads is on here ! Im loving it too. Never ending source of amusement. I predict they will crash and burn sooner rather than later. I think its going to be Harry who sets the ball rolling. He hasnt looked happy in years.

R585, Meghan is controlling. She’s always the one who ends relationships. She’ll want to stick with that pattern here; she can’t change now. It will get very unpleasant if he tries to flip the script.

She'll make sure that it will Harry who's leaving so she can cry victim again. ("He left me and my young children, and even without at least providing proper protection! Who will protect me and my fatherless children now!!!")

My feeling (from what I've read) is the same as R572. Tina Brown was able to make it a story. Tom Bower doesn't seem to be a good writer and/or had a bad editor, and what's left is a litany of tendentious anecdotes. That's fine for the DM but not for a hardcover book.

We've all been watching a great social climber (albeit one with basic tastes). It's too early for the good behind-the-scenes gossip.

MM is a real piece of work and I've no doubts about the majority of the bullying claims against her, but in the case of the bridesmaids dresses and shoes she was kind of within her rights. It's her wedding, she can ask the girls to wear what she wants and how she wants (within reason, of course). Asking them to go bare-legged in summer, or the hem length, is her choice. There really isn't anything to 'compromise' about with Kate or anyone else. Most people don't get firm input into someone else's wedding plans.

The custom in the UK is for flower girls to wear white tights, for whatever reason, but Megs fancies herself as a rulebreaker.

It wasn’t strictly ‘her’ wedding, though. She was marrying into the royal family, an institution with protocols. With security paid for by British citizens. Surely there was room for compromise. And the fact that she relied for fashion advice on Jugs Muldoon tells you all you need to know.

I've noticed that she uses the "I am Ameican" excuse a lot for her bad behaviour, both in Cananda and Britian. Such a great represrntative. As she wants the international respect that Michelle O has, it might not be a bad idea to observe her manners and attitude.

Wasn't it more than just a tights debate for the bridesmaids? Didn't Medusa call Charlotte fat or chubby and goad the other bridesmaids to tease her? I think Bower didn't specifically state the "chubby" part to spare Charlotte and so as not to have it in writing in perpetuity that she was called chubby as a kid.

Michelle Obama craps all over the Meghans, Hilarias, Angelinas, Gwyneths and other humanitarians. She used her intellect and education to achieve what she has. These other whores married well, trod the red carpet and used the casting couch. They are first and foremost grandes horizontales.

Normal wedding pictures aren't dragged up in the press forever. If Charlotte was showing her knickers that would be shown for the rest of her life as she will probably be The Princess Rpyal one day.

What if there are 2 daughters of the monarch, and neither is the heir - which one gets to be The Princess Royal? The eldest?

I couldn't agree more r594, those fools thought they were equal to Barack and Michelle though!!( 592)

Yes eldest daughter r596

R598 I don't think so. The elder sister would be heir apparent; only upon her becoming the monarch, she could appoint her younger sister Princess Royal, but only in case there's no one still having that title (e. g. some aunt).

r599. obviously the last one has to die first and they usually leave years brfore naming the next. t is daughter od the monarch, not sister.

Mrs. Obama des not "crap" all over other women.

That's someone's distorted brain at work. One woman's success is not something to prove other women's failures.

One more?