REVENGE Part 7 - The Tom Bower Book discussion thread

Halfwit Harry and his harridan are hiring seat fillers and crowds to cheer them next month in the UK. Is that her definition of "modernizing" the monarchy? Hiring Hollywood type extras and background players to put on a fake show?

The real BRF doesn't have to hire crowds or pay for applause.

The Montecito maligners will continue to look pathetic trying to stage their own faux royal engagements.

^It's a performance that Harry thinks will show the Home Office that he merits taxpayer funded security on a level with his brother's.

Lady Jane Fellows' husband was in fact the Queen's Private Secretary in 1979-1980. That's how Diana got up to Balmoral for her first shot at Charles. Jane had just had her first child that summer. As the Queen was in residence at Balmoral, so was her Private Secretary. Diana went up to help her sister with the new baby, which allowed the Queen and Charles to get a first considering look at her. After this, Diana was invited up on her own. It was then that she was spotted with Charles whilst he was fly-fishing on the River Dee.

The Spencer sisters had every right to be at the statue unveiling, but hardly to favour Harry, who looked high as a kite that day. Sarah stepped between the two to keep Harry away from William. She leapt up the steps the instant Harry moved toward William.

The Spencers, whatever the idiot Earl said at Diana's funeral to ease his guilt, are pro-monarchy. I can just imagine their comments about the scenes.

R1 -- I hadn't thought about the possibility of a paid crowd -- how naive of me. I've seen it at concerts, when I could see clearly that the record company had hired people to sit in the first few rows and applaud wildly, standing, hands clapping in the air. They were so obvious that, even as a youngster, I could spot the paid crowd. It reminds me of undercover cops on the streets of New York when I was growing up. You instantly knew who they were. Well, in the case of Meghan, phonies hire phonies.

“The Duchess of Dullness. Lol.

“Revenge” was attempted in her first podcast. The fire that never was and the big bad royal family who made her work after it. Her victim narrative, which was exposed in Tom Bower’s book, continues.

Does this woman have no awareness?

Was the "stepford wife" comment a dig at Kate?

It must be exhausting to be so consumed with revenge 24/7. It must leave them with zero time to enjoy their kids.

R7 One of reviews said that it's clear that the main purpose of her podcast is to settle scores. Kate's only sin against Meghan was that she always more popular. The main reason Kate is popular is because she doesn't talk about herself or her life. That's how the Brit's like their royals (male and female). Turn up, cut the ribbon, give an encouraging speech, look nice, wave, shake hands, and get on with it. Harry and Meghan made the fatal mistake of royalty by thinking they were personally interesting.

Diana was hugely popular until she gave that Panorama interview and then public opinion started getting divided (which we forget now). The moment she started complaining and talking about how hard he had it, people started finding her annoying.

R8 has a great point. Royals are given wealth and prestige by the state. In return, they are expected to be dutiful. Complaining is an attempt to highlight how one has been treated badly. The British consider that bad form in a royal. Prince Philip always believed you should just get on with it. He was annoyed with Charles for feeling sorry for himself, which he did privately (but revealed in the tampon tape). Also, royals are not expected to draw attention to themselves: their position automatically pulls attention toward them. The biggest mistake that any royal can make -- or, for that matter, any celebrity, whether from performing arts or sports, is to believe that their opinions matter. They don't!

The Queen is Britain's Head of State: if an elected Head of State lived in one of those building, the taxpayers would still be paying for the upkeep.

I'd hardly argue that the senior royals within realistic reach of the throne aren't born into very advantageous circumstances, but they are expected to give up a good deal of private life AND demonstrate to the public that whilst they take their job seriously, they don't take themselves seriously.

That last is the fatal mistake that Meghan and Harry keep making: they keep making it about themselves. They just can't stop, especially Meghan, because for twenty years as she tried to climb the greasy pole the whole AIM was to make it about her. She failed to realise that while she may have hit the FAME goal at last, she'd done it in the one landscape within which making it about yourself is to doom yourself to failure.

She hates Kate not only because she's so popular, but because she succeeded where Meghan failed: Princess 101. And to succeed at that you have to have a backbone of steel, enough savvy to know it isn't about YOU, and not to need public adoration for self-affirmation. That ain't no Stepford Wife: that's a savvy, disciplined, tough survivor, who has navigated the narrow space between public and private life with skill.

They don't just cut ribbons: Kate has carried out two major projects in five years, her father-in-law founded one of the most successful youth help charities on the planet 40 years, an arm of which is opening in New York, I believe. Their job is patronage: to use their starry names to draw attention and funding to worthy causes.

The Queen has 1,000 times the humility that Meghan does.

Meg sees all women as competition. She is no feminist. She is obsessed with Kate and getting revenge.

"And to succeed at that [royaling] you have to have a backbone of steel, enough savvy to know it isn't about YOU, and not to need public adoration for self-affirmation."

Maybe that was her mistake in Hollywood as well, because while acting is more "about you" than any other profession, its not entirely about you... it's about the character you're playing, or your persona as an actor. If an actor hits it big and is loved by bazillions, they're usually rather crushed to realize that the public doesn't love them for their true selves, the self that craves love and attention, they love the characters, the actor plays, the false image onscreen.

No wonder Meg's goal has been social media domination, being a social media star is much close to being loved for yourself than being an actor or a royal! Although even then there's the dilemma of assuming a false persona to gain popularity and still feeling unloved when you succeed. And as social media stardom isn't happening, that leaves reality TV as her only option for attention-mongering...

I never saw this closeup video of the duo at St Paul's after they sat down.

Looks to me like M is telling H to stop scowling and smile.

The man in uniform directly behind them is watching and appears to be enjoying it (perhaps he can hear what they are saying).

So, which is the MI5 man who was supposedly sitting near them.

And who is the lady sitting on the officer's right. She's watching them too.

Link doesn't work.

Works for me, though.

Officer behind them is handsome.

Try this link.

Harry and Megs deserve each other, both loathsome creatures.

The book is orderable on Amazon. I am lookng for tbe paperback, to read on the airplane.

I can’t find the quote now, but John Irving wrote this in “The Hotel New Hampshire”. The thing about revenge is that it’s never as bad as the thing that was done to you in the first place (that made you want the revenge in the first place). I don’t think it’s always true, but in many ways it is, here. There’s not much Meghan can do to William and Catherine that will hurt them as much as she’s hurting. That insane bitch is more sick and damaged than anything she can do. She’s like jealous Carrie White, locking sweethearts in a burning gym. She can destroy it all, but it doesn’t fix how FUBAR she is.

Spot on, r19.

Apparently, Meghan’s podcast topped Joe Rogan’s at #1. I’ve heard excerpts and it’s really bad. How did this happen?

Hate-watching (listening), r21.

Who the fuck is paying for all this PR?

I'm beginning to wonder the same, r23. I think they're getting a reduced rate from Sunsucks Sacks.

From Jan Moir -' Like a dumpling bobbing around in a vapid broth of self-reverence, Meghan doesn't really want to help others — she just wants to marinate and exult in her own triumph, and to be admired above all.'

Jan's got the dumpling size and proportion just about right.

The man behind them was an MI-5 Officer.

That scene at St Paul's was echt Sussex: they get there late in order to separate themselves from the second-tier royal crowd, and find themselves 1) the subject of booing that can't be mistaken for being intended for anyone else, and 2) let the world see them arguing about where they will sit, because they've realised too late that being late hasn't gotten them the front row anything, and they're still relegated to the middle of the second row (behind the Gloucesters and Kents, ffs!) on the "wrong" side of the congregation.

And, begosh and begorra, the York girl refused to give up her seat so that the Sussexes could at least sit on the aisle, where they could be more easily seen and photographed.

You couldn't make it up.

Its always and forever she's going to do the memememeeee mememe MEEE gross thing.

[quote] the York girl refused to give up her seat so that the Sussexes could at least sit on the aisle, where they could be more easily seen and photographed.

Story was that the officer who escorted M&H up the aisle told them they (M&H) were assigned to seats 5 and 6. (Seat 1&2 went to Beatrice and Edoardo, seats 3&4 went to Eugenie and Jack.)

Harry supposedly angrily asked the man who told him (the officer) where Harry was to sit. And the man supposedly replied..."YOUR GRANDMOTHER".

Note that in the midst of the upset of seating in the 2nd row, Harry's Uncle Prince Edward (seated in the first row) got up to help settle the matter.

If you watch the clip as they realize where they are being seated you can see (1) M's rictus grin fades as she looks rather shocked (2) H has been looking over across the aisle to where his father and brother will undoubtedly be seated and he looks thunderously angry when he realizes he won't be seated near them.

Who is the woman in the small blue hat sitting behind Jack? She is keeping a careful watch on Harry.

R30, I love that prim little church lady. She’d like to tell them a thing or two. I bet she was burning a hole in their heads.

So, which is the MI5 guy?

There is the lady in the small blue hat seated behind Jack, next is the young handsome man in uniform directly behind H, who is clearly enjoying the Sussex discomfort. Then next to him is an older white haired man.

Is the older man the MI5 guy?

Serves that fartface right to be put in his place

And her streetwalker whore got a cheap cheap price strut at the jubilee.

[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.]

^ Apparently, Harry doesn't like listening to the truth about his wife. No wonder William has washed his hands of him.

[QUOTE]It claims that traumatised staff resigned from the Royal Household and set up a WhatsApp group called 'The Sussex Survivors' Club'.

I hadn't heard this one before. Does WhatsApp save messages or are they deleted in 24 hrs like SnapChat? I'm not familiar with the app. If true, this could have been powerfu evidence in the investigation. Imagine if those communications leaked.

Hey Netflix, here's an idea for a series starring these two that the world would watch, and it would rehabilitate their image, too.

Harry and Meghan temping. Each episode features a temp agency sending each of them out on their own low-level, low-paying job. First we follow Meghan, then Harry, while they try to actually work for a living, We see them get to experience life as a poor first-hand. Have them comment on the drudgery, the low-pay, the awful bosses and customers, while we watch them gradually realize what life is like for the 99%. And maybe - just maybe - they begin to actually understand and appreciate their privilege.

Once they gain perspective and humility, they climb back on the charity bandwagon.

That is an awesome idea, R38. Heads up, Netflix!

It would be very similar to the reality show a young Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie did about their road trip in a pink minivan where they blundered cluelessly through a series of random jobs.

There's a show now in the UK called Rich House, Poor House which always seems to end up with the Rich Person learning valuable lessons in humility and economising and becoming bff with the Poor Person.

Love that idea r38

Harry really fucked up his life but good. I betcha he hates California now

D.M. featuring video of Haz strolling with his arm around Delfina. They sure do know how to stir up Thomas and Doria's spoiled brat.

Aussies have it.

"There’s not much Meghan can do to William and Catherine that will hurt them as much as she’s hurting."

Well that's the thing. In feuding with them, she's not only taking on a man with sense and a woman with "a backbone of steel", she's taking on the whole system of primogeniture!

And Primogeniture is totally unfair, as unfair as she thinks it is. But it's imperviously unfair, unrepentantly unfair, and has dug into the unfairness for so long that everyone's had to accept it because it refuses to go away! And it's given Will and Kate such an overwhelming, unfair advantage, that they don't need to do a damn thing to win.

R32 - former MI5 guy is the Queen's handsome bodyguard

Sorry, R44, but not so.

See link below confirming that the ex-MI5 head, newly appointed Lord Chamberlain (last year), is the man with glasses seated to the left of Major Johnny Thompson of the Queen's Bodyguard.

"Housing unit"

R45 I’ll take Major Johnny over the ex-MI5 head any time - oink!

Mmmmm, a tall glass of water, as they say.

[quote] And Primogeniture is totally unfair, as unfair as she thinks it is. But it's imperviously unfair, unrepentantly unfair, and has dug into the unfairness

It’s as unfair as death or taxes, but just as enduring, because it’s human nature, not law of Parliament. Interestingly, the babies of the family are throwing a tantrum against it because they can’t see their own privilege of birth and position.

Anyway, Harry doesn’t want to be King, does he? He feels sorry for William, who is trapped in his role. Lucky Harry gets to jet all over the world and be a polo star while William is stuck having to be perfect. Why, Just Harry and Just Meghan can enjoy their millions in anonymity and say whatever they like on their global platform. I’d say they got the better end of the Primogeniture stick.

According to those who purport to know, the heater began to smoke, was unplugged immediately and removed, no real "fire" occurred.

South Africans are furious at her imperial dismissal of her lodgings, which by all accounts were. In that part of the world, the height luxury. And her inference that her host's sloppy care endangered her child's life. Their anger is trending on Twitter

Leave it to Meghan to be unable to resist embellishing a non-event to her own benefit, and to blithely ignore the consequences.

And yet, on she goes. It's too bad that out of diplomatic sensitivity, the SA government won't make a public statement describing what really happened, and how regrettable is the Duchess' willingness to disrespect the warmth of SA's hospitality with a recollection that varies somewhat from those predent at the time."

Someone should tell the SA government that at this point in time, the BRF, and the Foreign and Home Offices would consider such a statement as a huge favour.

^*present (not predent) at the time.

Yes, she implied that after a shattering traumatic event, the BRF forced her to carry on working like a poor overloaded donkey.

Oh, the humanity!

I'd forgotten that a deranged Australian student had fired blanks from a pistol and jumped on stage when Charles was about to give a speech. He just played with his cufflinks and looked perplexed. The clip ends with security tackling the kid who was already on the ground because he'd tripped. Did Charles go on to deliver the speech?

The Queen has been shot at. A man broke into her bedroom while she was sleeping. Someone tried to kidnap Princess Anne from her car on the Mall. (Earl Mountbatten and members of his family were blown to bits by a bomb.) Meghan Markle's attempts to overdramatize her experience are easily seen through as an attempt to draw attention to herself and present herself as a victim of "the system" -- the very "system" that gave her a platform. And poor, dumb Harry must think she's a genius and "amazing" (his overused word).

HG Tudor got shut down on youtube for reading the book, copyright infringement.

Just buy the book and support the author.

HG Tudor is back.

R55, not quite.

See his video below for a complete description of what really happened and what's going on now.

Her brother Tom Markle Jr. is wicked pissed on Youtube. He's getting threats on his life and also his family. I think he said letters from Sunshine or lawyers. I wonder if this will push him to spill some beans he was keeping to himself....

He has made about five short videos tonight ranting about threats against him. This is the last one and he's calmed down a bit. He talks about "boats" at the end and how she got on a wrong boat and he's going to do a future video about boats....

Hmmm, what could that mean?

Well, this all makes TJr sound legitimate, right? 😒 Not really. Though he's probably one of those with his ear to some ground.

His other legitimacy is batting a thousand when his letter about Meghan's personality disorder pretty much presaged all of her bizarre behavior I light of someone who should have turned off the self-seeking sign.

R60, thanks for the vid. Never have seen Tom Jr. before, but read his letter about Meghan and recall he was in the news with issues of intoxication with assault (his wife?) some time ago.

He emanates sincerity in the YouTube link, if not frustration. Definitely rough around the edges, but there are reports he’s been there for his ill father unlike Meghan. Samantha and Tom Jr did not have the easiest path in contrast to their half-sister. They were widely mocked and disregarded for their lack of discretion when Meghan rose into the public consciousness.

I’ve since seen journalists and others admit that Tom Jr and Sam were correct despite their early,ill- considered comments about Megs. Let’s face it, there’s a $$$$ and power differential between Megs and the Markles. Considering how abominably she has treated the family of the BRF, it’s not surprising how she has/had treated her father and half-siblings.

Do you think Tom, Jr is referencing Meghan and yachts?

Also is he on a boat during this video? Or is that a whirlpool in the background?

He's staying at a beach hotel in Baja to be close to his father in Rosarito. His other videos, not tonight's, show the hotel room.

His father having treated Meghan so much better than him and Sam had to have bred resentment and contempt. And now the two who got the least are having to do the most for dad in his time of need.

I think he's referencing yachts since he specifically mentioned her and boats. Whatever Sunshine or her lawyers or her squad did to him may backfire and he may start spilling instead of shutting up and going away as they hoped.

There’s talk here in CA that Harry is seriously considering calling it quits. There’ve been several rumours from different sources (the past several days), the odd travels to Africa/Aspen and a pushback on the date of Harry’s memoir. Also Harry isn’t featured much at all on the podcast. The Spotify thing was for both of them. And Harry hasn’t mentioned his wife as he usually does in speeches in either Africa or Aspen. Also, he and Meghan were clearly at odds during his UN appearance this summer.

Markle is purportedly seeing a white, well-connected billionaire playboy in LA.

Is the white billionaire playboy deaf, dumb, blind and stupid?

Hahahaha.

They say there’s a lid for every pot; and in Markle’s case it appears several lids. It sounds incredible. But then I’m reminded of convicted Elizabeth Holmes who is awaiting sentencing. She found a wealthy, attractive!, young guy to marry and impregnate her before her trial. Seems impossible, and a slap in the face to those who can’t/don’t marry even once!

R64 is claiming insider knowledge "here in CA" for what we've been essentially saying in this thread for 60+ posts and innumerable other threads about this idiot, misbegotten pair for nearly the entirety of their postures for humanity.

They fucking hate each other...

Holmes is a perfect example. Those types are like teflon, male or female. Nothing ever sticks and they ALWAYS find someone to charm and manipulate who will make their life easier.

The part about Markle is how you know it's fake r44. I'd bet my house on it.

I said it in another thread --- she wants to hook up with Elon Musk. And Elon is obsessed with procreating, so I wouldn't put it past him to procreate with her. In his crazy mind, siring a half-sibling of two grandchildren of the future monarch of the UK and head of the Commonwealth of Nations would be another brilliant coup.

R64 Well, sorry to play the wet blanket here, but I don't buy it for a moment. After the performances these two have put on in just the last few months, they would look like the world's biggest frauds if they split now. Their ability to market themselves depends on their brand as The Ducal Unit.

Harry is still taking pot shots at his family. If he were really in Ditch the Bitch mode, he'd be more interested in ravelling up the tattered sleeve of Family, not tearing it further apart.

Then there's the up coming quasi-royal events in the heart of the British Lion's Den, Harry's ongoing claims for renewed royal status in Blighty on the taxpayer's back . . .

I don't care what the fucking LaCa "buzz" is. A couple of short side trips doth not an imminent split make. And the Archetypes podcasts were always going to be Herself's territory, for obvious VaJoJo reasons.

It would certainly be an early Yuletide gift to DL of nearly unimaginable proportions (think Hamm's cock), but it's utter bullshit.

Talk to me about splitsville when Harry takes an extended visit to Windsor, moves into FC alone, and is seen driving to the Castle to consult with his Gran, Papa, and other interested parties; the book comes out but curiously devoid of the family fireworks promised; and Harry publically expesses regret about the things he said in the grip of grief and confusion.

Until you see signals like these, rumours of an imminent split, like Elvis seen leaving the building, are greatly exaggerated.

Not, I hasten to add, that I doubt that Harry is miserable, or that after four years, Meghan the Shark has had enough of her pathetic child-man and is feeling the primal urge to keep moving.

As gossip, it's prime quality. As fact . . . Sorry, the real signals just aren't there.

Will Harry cry & whine in the book about how Daddy Mean & Rotty Cam. wouldn't pay for the seat fillers??

I believe Harry is miserable too. But I dont see him leaving her unless he absolutely has to (i.e. she divorces him first). If Meghan finds another cock to climb then I can see her bolting. As per Tom's book she generally doesnt leave unless she has latched onto something better. In Trevor's case she was making more money with Suits and living solo in Toronto. With Cory, she had met Harry.

[quote] With Cory, she had met Harry.

Megs didn't just "meet Harry", like she was walking down Yonge Street and inadvertently tripped over him. Megs prosecuted a calculated, concentrated campaign, auditioning/testing possibilities, haranguing acquaintances to introduce her to someone promiment. Which is exactly how she got her initial intro via Violet von Westenholz to meet Harry.

The Violet story is a cover. Meghan, Marcus, Jessica and Doria set Harry up. Misha was the go between.

We all predicted they would stick around the UK for a few years and then SURPRISE! they bolted much sooner. They may surprise us again.

If Meghan finds someone richer than Harry and who will give her the family she never had, then she won't give a hoot about optics or timeline, she will bolt.

And for all we know, Harry may have already met or may meet a wealthier than him actress or ex-wife of a wealthy Hollywood guy and decide to stay in LaLaLand and be a kept man. If he hasn't had sufficient of batshit crazy women then Angie Jo and her menagerie of kids are available. January Jones is available too. ... Point being if he finds someone in L.A. then he doesn't have to go groveling back to his family...not yet anyway and he can stay close to his kids. My prediction: Harry stays in L.A. when they split.

R75 Bower asserts that von Westenholz was the go-between. With source footnote.

He also states Meghan, Misha and Meghan's college friend discussed her being set up with him. We've seen the creepy Invictus games photos of Harry and Meghan with Jessica, Marcus and Doria, with Meghan clearly setting up pap shots.

[quote] He also states Meghan, Misha and Meghan's college friend discussed her being set up with him.

R78 Bower's stated this in his book?? And if so, what page??

Off topic: I find Princess Anne's husband Tim somewhat attractive.

What do we know about him?

R66 - Funny you brought up Holmes. Yesterday, I mentioned her wealthy muxh younger husband as a potential Harry replacement in one of the other threads. She's being sentenced October 17. Guilty of three charges each of which carries up to 15 years. Billy Evans is nowhere nearly as wealthy as Musk, but he comes from a "good family" in the hotel business and he has an MIT education so there will always be an income stream. For him, Meghan as a mate would be an improvement on the narc continuum. At least Meghan hasn't demonstrated a willingness to put people's health and lives at risk for cash.

Billy Evans, indeed. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[quote] Talk to me about splitsville when Harry takes an extended visit to Windsor, moves into FC alone, and is seen driving to the Castle to consult with his Gran, Papa, and other interested parties; the book comes out but curiously devoid of the family fireworks promised; and Harry publically expesses regret about the things he said in the grip of grief and confusion.

Are we speaking about the same Harry? The man who slapped a stranger across the face (Taylor Hawkins). A man who publicly and suddenly tweaked a stranger’s nipples during a public engagement. Harry has little to no impulse control. This is not a person with well-formed plans. If the guy is pushed to the limit, it’s not unreasonable to think he will bounce: circumstances be damned.

R82 He was clever enough to wait for the woman who fit his needs perfectly. He was smart enough to wait until someone else could provide the excuse for leaving rather than exiting on his own legs. I'll heartily agree that he lacks impulse control, but even Harry, with two kids on the line, isn't going to "bounce" without taking a good look at the chasm under his feet first.

The fact remains that unless he's having a psychotic break, even Dimbo Harry will know that he can't jump without securing some options - just the way, despite his unhappiness, he didn't "bounce" out of the royal family and royal life until he found (he thought) another option.

And lastly, being known for having a volatile nature ALSO isn't proof that his marriage is about to implode.

There simply is not a single reasonably provocative signal of same out there. The book's delay could be down to any number of reasons: constant re-editing, deciding not to compete with Michelle Obama's new book, tying it with Scabies' new paean to the Sussexes, due out in early 2023, differences of opinion amongst publisher/ghost rider/Harry (not to mention Meghan) . . .

Basing the rumours of imminent splitsville because of his books alleged delay and a couple of solo trips is just ridiculous.

If he wants to bolt he'll run to the BRF crying for help as he's incapable of providing for himself. Asking Daddy etc for help will be like a walk of shame though, worse than Cersei's walk of shame in GoT. Well, he only has got to blame himself for it, so LOL.

[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.]

^Needs no text.

Someone tell the rest of us how that Post Redacted shit is done. Maybe we can do the same for any post containing the word "Klan" or "Grannies".

[quote] Basing the rumours of imminent splitsville because of his books alleged delay and a couple of solo trips is just ridiculous.

Surely you know that this is not the primary reason for the talk of divorce. Harry looks like death warmed over when with Markle publicly; only to suddenly reanimate when away from her. The Harkle “brand” has taken hit after hit this year, so one could imagine all is not rosy on the home front.

There is no guarantee that they will divorce, of course not. But your conjecture that we have to have neon light blazing signals of DIVORCE may not be necessary as these two have demonstrated that they don’t follow the usual routes.

The poster who alluded to the divorce also came out with information that Markle was pregnant shortly after her miscarriage/mythcarriage op-Ed. Many - like yourself - disbelieved the rumor stating it was impossible, full of “hot air”, etc. Of course you now know Markle announced her second pregnancy several months later confirming the circulating rumors here.

So, anything is possible and the steadfastness of your belief that certain “signs”must occur before a divorce, does not weigh in the history of the couple or past experience.

^^On second thought:

^^"Foo Fighters drummer Taylor Hawkins, who died on Friday at the age of 50, once had a bizarre encounter with Prince Harry when they met backstage in 2015.

Speaking on The Howard Stern Show in February last year, Hawkins said the 37-year-old royal had slapped him across the face after he complained he was feeling tired before a concert."

Up yours, Pet, dear (not the poster, obviously, but the Klan Grannie/Post Redacted Troll trying to suppress free speech).

The late musician said the slap had been playful but still 'p**sed me off, actually'.

If I were Taylor Hawkins, I would've shoved my drumsticks up Harry's arse and do a bit of whirling with them.

Harry might've liked the whirling up his derriere and we would've been spared La Markle.

RIP Taylor.

Yes RIP Taylor darling man

R88, for the last time:

There is no Post Redacted Troll --- it's Miss Muriel who decided to do with DM links what she has been doing with other links before.

R80 I offer this as totally unverified, second-hand gossip.

In the 80s, Anne was still married to Mark Phillips while Tim served as the Queen’s equerry. They had a fling and when the press started to report on it they were forced to marry for propriety’s sake. Tim wanted to try for kids but Anne was unwilling (can’t find a source for this). Today they remain married in name only.

That said, they do seem to share a sense of humour and work well together at public events. See Tim's speech at the Founders Day Parade for a rare solo engagement.

R87 What ARE you talking about re the miscarriage?!

I assumed she was pregnant when the court granted that extensive delay in her case against ANL. And I turned out to be right. The TIMES article on her miscarriage wasn't the clue, the nine-month delay granted was.

The Sussexes are, in fact, posting neon signs that they are NOT about to divorce. Really, is it feasible that they're going about venturing into "royal events" on their own in England and Germany after the Jubly reception, and he's doing cameos on her podcast, and they never set foot outdoors without clutching each other, that a divorce is imminent?

There are always signs, mate, if you know where to look.

Yeah, he looks miserable a great deal of the time - but that's because he is a fucking hot mess of toxic rage and his attitude to the world is adversarial. And since he's rarely out without her, it's hardly a stretch to figure that he'll often look like the hot mess he is.

The one time I'd say there were real signs of TIP was the UN appearance, when he actually scowled at her and snatched his hand away, and her Soothing Mummy act was so OTT it begged questions.

The rest of the time it's Harry being Harry. That's my opinion. I've never known a relationship that didn't sprout red flags when it was really on the rocks.

Whoever floated the rumour only offered as a basis Harry actually doing a couple of things on his own, and the delay of his book.

Sorry, that's just not enough.

r59 Meghan does like to prevent other people's voices being heard whilst claiming she is a victim of being silenced and losing her voice. Major hypocrite but no coincidence that someone who is so loud about her own right to have her voice hears is so keen to have the voices of others silenced.

r76 The gossip page post on Instagram I read did not mention billionaire Mentioned all the other stuff but not that.

[quote] And for all we know, Harry may have already met or may meet a wealthier than him actress or ex-wife of a wealthy Hollywood guy and decide to stay in LaLaLand and be a kept man.

After reading Bower's book, this was short topic that I meant to mention and then forgot. One of the catalysts for Harry's relationship with Meghan was the knowledge that he knew he had approximately 10 years give or take before his role in the BRF would be significantly reduced. I know this amongst many trust fund kids or kids from wealthy families in general, the fear of getting cut off can be absolutely terrifying if that's all you know. Even though for all intents and purposes, Harry would always be fine, Bower said that Harry was getting extremely nervous that he would lose his annual allocation from Charles in the near future. He absolutely did look to Meghan as the person that would not necessarily "take care of him" but "take care of the situation". Meghan had a plan, she knew how to make opportunities without the privileges of say Chelsy or Cressida and her hustle was attractive to him. He did look to her to save him and obviously she had a plan from the get go. No doubt they were discussing an exit strategy probably from the very beginning and this was very appealing to him. Harry could never go it alone and we saw what happened when Diana tried to do it.

[quote] There are always signs, mate, if you know where to look.

Was there a “sign” that Markle would show up at Uvalde for a photo op?

Was there a “sign” that Harry would pop up in Rwanda?

Point is, anything is on the table with the duo. They have no compunction trashing their families (who have been their financial lifelines), so if they are so impulsive and short-sighted as to have dropped the financial bag of their lives so massively, why is it out of the realm of possibility that they drop the bag of their marriage?

Thanks r92. I had no idea that he had not been previously married nor had children. I'm sure he's not lacking for companionship....

Neither will leave the marriage until they've got something better lined, and well. Anyone who might consider taking eother one on will have to get close enough to see that Harry is a drunken stupid mess, and Meg is over forty with two kids and a waistline that isn't coming back.

That said, if Harry had any sense, he'd get in shape and cadge introductions to Melinda Gates and MacKenzie Scott Bezos. They're probably too sensible to have him, but they've dealt with worse men...

As far as the book delay, maybe Harry is waiting to see what, uh, happens with the Queen in coming months.

If that annoying little Beckham child can snare a millionaire's daughter, I think there's a diamond encrusted lid floating around for Prince Harry.

The same thought occurred to me, R100, around the time of the Jubilee.

But now I think she'll be around for a while.

Wonder what the Harkle financial situation is.

The Harkle financial situation is probably pretty grim, for all the big numbers Netflix and Spotify announced, they probably only put up a few mil in cash for initial expenses. And the Harkles are living big, in a huge estate that has to cost a million in upkeep every year plus the security costs they're always trying to recoup from Harry's family, at this rate they'll have run through Harry's inheritance in a few years.

But they won't be willing to cut back on expenses, other than chiseling pennies out of their staff, because Meg will believe that they have to put up a good "front" like everyone in showbiz does, and the next big payday is just around the corner if they keep up the act, and besides, Elizabeth and Charles can't be long for this world.

I'm with R93. Social media rumours are worth nothing. Did everyone here believe the sudden 'William loves getting pegged, it's the talk of London' rumour from an anonymous submission to Deux Moi, an anonymous social media page that did a still-unexplained hard flip on the Sussexes from critical to fawning a few months back? No? Well good for you, that was the correct call. Anonymous social media accounts are not sources and overwhelmingly do not have legitimate sources. They publish made up bullshit to cater to and garner views from those who either hate or love a given celeb.

Della's in another thread preening (again) over her discernment when it comes to Sussex gossip but this thread and its general willingness to believe obvious utter bullshit because it makes someone you dislike look bad really makes the discussion boring. If you don't believe William loves pegging (and you shouldn't) then you are also obliged not to believe the Sussexes both have side-pieces and are imminently divorcing.

It's even worse because there so much REAL shit they pull to talk about that getting lost in these dumb rumours isn't even necessary.

I struggle to see what they could make a long term success of. She’s so very unlivable and apparently hell bent on insulting anyone or anything that comes to her mind without thinking through any potential consequences. If media was her endgame she’s too boring and self focused, and I don’t see how she has any kind of political future as she insults countries left and right.

Yup R104. I read that Deux Moi was purchased by the Kardashians, so it's pure crap. That narcissist on Reddit who is "in the entertainment bz" and now also suddenly has "deep inside publishing contacts" about Harry's book is another garbage joke. Longing for Dangling Tendrils ambiance again, when the primary sources were posters' intelligence.

While I do believe that not all is well at Montecunto Manor, I don't believe the splitting rumors. Meghs would let Harry go only if she got someone more wealthy at hand by the time of separation --- and who the fucking hell, save for crazy Elon Musk, would be dumb enough to hook up with this entitled and non-secretive grifter bitch at this point?

R97 - Oh, ffs, showing up a Uvalde or any other photo op is NOT an equivalency to a sign that a marriage of four years and two kids is collapsing? On what planet are those equivalencies?

And, frankly, if you'd asked What are the odds Meghan will show up at Uvalde to get herself a photo op? The answer would have been 99% from most of us.

R104 Nailed it, my son.

[quote] It is uncharacteristically insane. My brother is a producer and has worked with many A-list divas who do crazy shit out of their own vanity. At first he didn't give a shit about Markle and when I asked if there was scoop, he'd get irritated and say, "Coke. She is a NOBODY. Nobody knows who she is and those who do know her want to forget her as soon as possible. Then he started hearing shit about her screaming fits and pushing maids into pools and was like, "Okay you were right. This is a side show."

-SecondhandCoke 25 days ago

WHET the Dangling Tendrils threads? I used to see them all the time but never clicked on them because I wasn't interested then. Now I'm sorry I missed them!

R110 fan fiction lover. Why would a tip top producer suddenly start to "give a shit?" I don't believe Markle pushed "maids into pools." Sounds like psyOp

They were mysteriously deleted, R111. Sometimes very quickly. It’s thought Meghan’s fave, Sunshine Sachs, scrubbed them. Too bad, they were good.

R111 There were many parts, dozens, to the thread, starting during the Vanity Fair nonsense. Over time they were routinely infiltrated by their crap PR, who often planted racist tropes to get them closed. I always suspected threatening lawyer letters to Muriel, too, and like the real dangling tendrils, the title kind of faded away.

jinx

Not so far fetched, R112, if Markle’s reputation became fodder for gossip in Hollywood. To be a raging narc in the industry is nothing new. But to hear of behavior so egregious it falls in the pantheon of abuse, then it likely makes the rounds

Much of Tom Bower’s book was “gossip” that he placed into writing. I recall people cynical about the stories of her and Reitman’s which Bower verifies. Bower has stated to journalists that he would be happy to have his lawyer grill her on the trial stand, if she would be so inclined to take him to trial. Speaking of which, he stated that tea was thrown “in the air” on Markle’s Aussie tour. For legal reasons, he did not say it was thrown at staff.....yet again this gossip was confirmed.

Why hasn’t Markle clapped back into response to Bower’s book?

There were also stories (from the same source), R112, that detailed the difficulties Netflix was/is having with The Harkles. The details of the back and forth between the two were interesting. [Meghan wanting “Pearl” to look like her with “Andy McDowell” hair, have a certain tenor to the voice of the character, and other exacting specifications.] Needless to say, Netflix was not pleased and the ridiculous demands were so over the top that they apparently made the rounds in H-Wood. The gossip was the “Pearl” would be axed which it was sometime later.

I wonder if they rue the day they became involved with the two.

r104 I cant remember if it was the same website but about a year ago one gossip website said Meghan just strolled into the office of a big media giant-either spotify or Netflix and seemed to be having an open relationship in front of others with a senior wealthy executive and the marriage was on the verge of imploding.Nothing ever came of that either. I do not believe their marriage will last but I do believe that some gossip details are lies or heavily embroided

Or it could have been less sensational and more like Pearl was a boring story with zero creative juice behind it. It's happened a zillion times in Hwood.

In line with the quality from the "same source," it is said on Twitter that Meghan threw the dog out of the window in yet another screaming fit, and broke its legs. Not true, it was reported in the papers at the time, as was the tea incident.

If she recently pushed "maids" into the pool, we would be reading about the lawsuits in TMZ.

The pushing maids into pools supposedly happened when they were squatting at Tyler Perry's house. I'm sure Tyler didn't want the publicity and $ilenced the maid.

Or, R120, that shit about Meghan mistreating the staff at TP's house never happened. It has never been reported by any reputable outlet to have happened and is just one more thing to add to the list of Totally Made Up Shit From Social Media that drags all Sussex discussion down. Tom Bower's book it out, you know. And the Sussexes haven't sued over it, so it can be reliably inferred that what's in that book is the truth. And there are SO MANY reports in there of meghan treating people like shit. We really don't need to be making up stories about maids being pushed into pools because we already have other, true stories, of her making people cry, of people finding her awful, the worst they've ever worked with etc.

Why even post that, R117? Did you intend it to be proof of some kind, that this Reddit poster has real insider info? You understand that the fact that relations are strained between NF and the Sussexes has long been suspected in Gossipville, right? Reported in the mainstream press, even?

Do you also understand that throwing a few specifics into a general truth is a pretty reliable strategy to make people believe you have some insider info when you don't? For fuck's sake, why do people fall for BS so easily?

[quote] I'm sure Tyler didn't want the publicity and $ilenced the maid.

The million dollar question is were the maids SILENT or SILENCED. I need to know.

[quote] We really don't need to be making up stories about maids being pushed into pools because we already have other, true stories, of her making people cry, of people finding her awful, the worst they've ever worked with etc.

How many do you KNOW it is made up, R121? Point is, there is evidence (See Jason Knauf/Valentin Low) that Markle mistreats staff. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that she mistreats maids at Tyler Perry’s place. To discredit all gossip - especially when much of it ended up in Bower’s book, is pretty closed-minded, R121.

The fact that it was floated Pearl would be specifically cancelled (and not all of the Netflix agreement) before it was ACTUALLY cancelled, suggest that the information is NOT off base.

Don’t with the TMZ stuff, especially as Hollywood powerbroker Harvey Weinstein was involved in all kinds of insidious behaviour that TMZ never touched. TMZ is not the gatekeeper for behind the scenes happening for EVERYTHING in entertainment.

Are R121 and R122 working for Markle’s PR to shut down and deny gossip on a gossip thread? Dangling Tendrils thread redux.

[quote]To discredit all gossip

That isn't what I did, R124, and you know it. I specifically mentioned the existence of metric shit tons of provably true gossip regarding Meghan's treatment of people she perceives as beneath her (which let's keep in mind is everyone on Earth).

As for it being believable that she would mistreat staff? Yes, of course it is. She has a history of doing just that. It's not enough to render every random social media rumour fact. If someone came forward and said it happened to them, or if it was reported even in a UK tabloid (because despite what most people believe they do actually have to vet their stories and risk legal action if they print lies), I would have zero problem believing it happened. That still doesn't mean it DID. And until there is more than the social media rumours, I'm going to remain skeptical of the pushing maids into the pool story.

And yes, it is possible to not believe a snippet of gossip on a gossip thread. It's the people who believe everything that make these threads tedious at times. And the whole "secret Sunshine agent" accusation is as tired as the "Klan Granny/racist" accusation (which I've been on the end of multiple times). Meghan Markle is a spectacularly shitty human being. That doesn't oblige me to believe every piece of random info dredged up from social media.

R125, the Australian “tea” story was hearsay and not vetted by the press. Bower included it in his book.

There are many cynics and critics who decry everything until it is in front of their face. You seem to be one of those people requiring neon signs blaring rather than tuning in to the subtleties of life.

I get it. Let’s agree to disagree and see how this all plays out. Meanwhile, don’t knock GOSSIP on a GOSSIP forum because YOU deem the gossip unverifiable.

[quote] provably true gossip

OxyMoron

The Bower book is full of proven gossip.

Wrong. The Australia kerfuffle was covered in the papers.

The story about the maid at Tyler's house surfaced last year. The story was that the maid brought the wrong towels to the pool and her Royal Highness went ballistic and pushed her, not into the pool, but pushed her. She was Tyler's long time housekeeper of 14 years who threatened to quit. Obviously he had to do damage control. The pushing into the pool version is recent. I tend to believe the original version.

r121 and r122's belligerent indignation only serves to confirm his/her/their PR minion status.

Her reference to “housing unit” to describe residence she was given in South Africa more or less confirms she’s vile to anyone who tries to be kind to her.

[quote] The Bower book is full of proven gossip.

Yes, R128, but it was merely “gossip” before it landed in Bower’s book. He gave credence to gossip stories that had been floating around for years.

[quote] Wrong. The Australia kerfuffle was covered in the papers.

News to me, then, R129. Source please? TIA.

R111. You have to Google to find the threads and access them.

R79 it's on pages 128-129.

Certain things are fairly common knowledge, but the particulars are vague. The bottom line is Meghan has a history of mistreating staff. It could be, as someone said in another thread or maybe it was Bower, the difference between saying "get this for me now" vs. "would you every so kindly perhaps grab that thing for me when you get a minute", but I don't think so.

Everyone knows that Meghan thew a cup of tea at the infamous Melissa T, which is why she got a GLOWING public announcement from the Palace after working with Meghan for 6 months, a fat check, and in NDA. Bower could probably confirm tea cup flying, but probably couldn't get someone to commit to verifying it was thrown at someone.

Kate had to have a conversation about how Meghan treated her staff in the early days.

Rumors abound about Meghan treating Tyler Perry's staff like shit (although this I'm a little less inclined to believe vs. the palace). I doubt she pushed a maid in the book, but it's not out of the realm of possibility either.

[quote] [R79] it's on pages 128-129.

R134 No, it isn't. The original assertion at R74 was who provided the intro, who set up Meghan with Harry. Pages 128-129 deal with AFTER Meghan and Harry had hooked up. The assertion at R78 is therefore erroneous. It was Violet von Westenholz, not Misha Nonoo, who was the go-between.

^^^ assertion at R75, not R78

Read again. The idea of setting Harry up with Meghan did not originate with Violet. She was set up to be used for Meghan's fake blind date story.

[quote] The idea of setting Harry up with Meghan did not originate with Violet

R138 That was not my original assertion. Go back and READ R74. The assertion was that von Westenholz was the go-between. No mention of "idea" or who it "originated with". Megs approached von Westenholz for an introduction to Harry. Von Westenholz agreed, sent Harry a pic of Megs. Bower confirmed this in his book, including footnoted source. Again, the asserion in R75 re Misha as go-between is erroneous.

Well, then, Dlers owe Violet VW a huge vote of thanks.

For sheer entertainment, especially during a pandemic lockdown, you'd go far to beat the Harkles.

And it appears that HM will be receiving the new PM up at Balmoral Monday week for the first time in 70 years. So, no chance of another visit with Gran.

I uh think Harry keeps delaying publication of his book for only one reason: he's afraid that if the Queen is still alive when it comes out, she'll finally do what she should have done after Oprah: take the Sussex title, issue LPs limiting automatic HRHs only to children of immediate heirs, and cancel the lease on Frogmore Cottage.

He's playing a game of chicken with the old lady, and also with the Home Office. Te worse he trashes the rest of the BRF, especially its next Sovereign and consort, the less likely that the new Home Secretary is likely to reconsider the original decision of RAVEC re his security arrangements. Even if the Court does kick it back for another review, RAVEC vsn still issue the same decision again.

I can just see the announcement now, as the Winter of Massive Discontent rolls in, that the HO has changed its mind and either is going go let a rich ex-royal pull police off the streets because he can pay for them, or that the taxpayer is going to see added to its burdens millions of pounds to cater to the delusions of grandeur and raging self-entitlement of Sir Mordred.

Rayner is probably drafting an attack for the PMQs now, just in case. Is Ian Blackford will have some choice phrases, too.

The term "levelling up" would take on new meaning.

It would be mighty to see the reaction in the House.

I don't think Charles will have a long reign, partly because of his health, partly because anti-monarchy sentiment will surge while an unpopular king on the throne, and partly because his dipshit younger son is NEVER going to stop making trouble as long as he's on the throne. Charles seems to be a weak character and he's got to feel guilty about his younger boy, and Harry knows it, and he's angry and can't forsee the consequences of his actions, and he's going to stick the knife in wherever he can.

So once Charles abdicates, "for reasons of health", Harry will be William's problem. And William won't take any shit from him, and the public will be fine with that. The public does make people who've brought up worthless children feel guilty, but so many adults have a worthless or druggy sibling they've had to distance themselves from.

BUT r136 my OTHER assertions are in fact correct. BEFORE she met Harry as well. I noticed you left that little part out. Of course, I expected you would.

Agree, R141. Most people just want the two to go away. With William, they are assured he will not give them so much as an inch.

A new interview. I’m betting someone will make a new thread on it, I’m going to put it here too.

She has still not learned how to pose after decades of trying. She always, always looks constipated and/or has a dumb look on her face. She looks mentally challenged here.

She wants to look smart and sexy in this pic.

She looks neither smart nor sexy. Just incredibly full of herself.

She's really unattractive.

R141 It certainly looks a likely scenario, and I share the opinion that Harry isn't the BRF's real problem, Charles is.

But Charles is also known for holding grudges, and the worse Harry behaves, the more Harry will blunt the edge of any guilt Charles may have felt.

I also believe Charles felt that he had been railroaded into marrying Diana: by the press that had fallen in love with her; how sticky it would have been to end the relationship after a few months of dating (that I think amounted to little more than an extended interview); her family's family pedigree and history with the BRF; and the increasing pressure on him, at 32, to get it over with and produce heirs.

Charles has a petulant side, so along with any guilt he feels, offsets what I would wager he feels was an impossible situation that he tried to deal with, but in the end failed. I don't think he took up with Camilla again lightly, I think he fled back to her to save his sanity.

It was a horrible family situation. At nearly 74, I suspect Charles feels he has paid more than enough for his marital mistake, and isn't interested in drinking any more from the Diana Fallout Cup.

And, Camilla is his non-negotiable, the only thing in his private life, probably apart from Kate and his grandchildren, that has brought him unalloyed happiness. If Harry trashes Camilla in that memoir, don't count on Charles' ancient guilt to save Harry from Papa's wrath.

Wasn’t it that Camilla got tired of waiting for Charles to propose and married Parker-Bowles? Maybe if Charles had got off his ass in his twenties, none of the Diana stuff would have happened.

Or did the Queen automatically nix Camilla in the beginning?

Nobody from his set introduced Harry to a D-list actress with the intention of setting up a marriage. If Violet had any inkling that Harry was going to MARRY that slag, she wouldn’t have done it. Why would Violet owe any introduction to Meghan, anyway?

They left out the “N.”

R144 Thanks. I can't quite decide whether or not that fulsome-seeming article was actually a piss-take!

A piss take, for sure, just written artfully enough she cannot sic what's left of her followers on the author.

R149, Camilla wanted to marry Andrew Parker-Bowles.

So Meghan compared herself to Mandela in a new interview in The Cut. It's insane! Russell Myers twitter thread is awesome

[quote] Why would Violet owe any introduction to Meghan, anyway?

R150 Bower based his assertion on source material. Von Westenholz made the introduction based on Megs request. The rest of your assertion is erroneous assumption.

Yes, R149, like R154, I understood that Camilla didn't want to marry Charles. This is why it always seemed strange to me that she would be his mistress and eventually marry him anyway.

He's Back.

[quote] Bower based his assertion on source material. Von Westenholz made the introduction based on Megs request. The rest of your assertion is erroneous assumption.

Yes, I know that. But why did Meghan feel entitled to be set up with a prince, and why did Violet comply? Would you set up one of your friends with a rent boy?

R157, as I understand it, Parker-Bowles cheated in her constantly.

That's an interesting concept - "to cheat in someone". You have sex with them, but you're actually thinking about someone else?

It's confirmed - Meghan is more toxic than Dump because, at least, Dump doesn't pretend to be a humanitarian. A lie in every other line in this jaw-dropping scoop.

PS. I followed the link from R155

Yes, P-B was a huge womanizer. She lived in their country home while he worked in London and stayed at his apartment during the week. Probably a very typical upper middle class, landed gentry arrangement along with having a mistress(es). IIRC, Sarah Ferguson's father also had such an arrangement (one of the reasons her mother left him for the Argentinian polo player. I think the difference is P-B was very indiscreet, bedding many women in their immediate social circle, including her friends. It seems everybody knew about the other Randy Andy.

Which newspaper did that? Is she deluding again? Bitch is sick

[quote]Why would I give the very people that are calling my children the N-word a photo of my child before I can share it with the people that love my child?” she asks, still ruffled. “You tell me how that makes sense and then I’ll play that game.

R154 - Yes, she did; like most of the other women in their set, Camilla was quite infatuated with P-B, who was alleged to be the best fuck of his generation. He had a torrid fling with, amongst many other, Princess Anne.

But by the time Charles' marriage was clearly a train wreck, so was Camilla's. She'd taken as much of his merry infidelity as possible but she ran out of road with it. The two sought comfort in each other's arms, and the not quite dead flame reignited. As her friends murmured, "Trust Camilla to be able to reheat a souffle."

As far as the The Cut interview goes - my opinion nowadays is that Meghan is deranged - a classic sociopath who feels no guilt, no compassion, incapable of nuance . . . but in the sense the phrase "crazy like a fox" is used.

This interview is Meghan's version of payback for all those who talked to Tom Bower, in lieu of suing his publishers, an enterprise she knows would fail, anyway. She tells, as Russel Meyers observed, a kettleful of porkies, knowing full well no one will bother to reply. No one in the mainstream media press used the N-word about her child, nor did anyone in the BRF. The interview says she listed a wide swath of princes and princesses who are doing the half-in, half-out job that she and Harry wanted to do, and that they were refused "just for existing" and potentially "upsetting" the status quo.

I'd be interested to hear who amongst Europe's royals are making fortunes with media companies on the backs of their titles, whilst keeping a foot in the royal door so that they can keep replenishing their royal auras from time to time.

For those talking of impending divorce, take off your rose-coloured specs. Harry and Meghan are continuing their joint war against the British Royal Family, are still jointly spreading lies, are still playing the victim card, and still sticking knives into poppets as they talk healing and compassion. This interview, in which Harry is mentioned and quoted in tacit agreement, tells you everything you need to know.

Nothing has changed.

She'll never get over not having her halfin/out cakism. She tried to bring Prince Michael and Beatrice and Eugenie into the MoS lawsuit as having that set up. Apart from it was excluded as not relevent to the case, it is patently untrue. None of those do major tours on behalf of the Queen, they just help with bits and bobs , small visits or garden parties etc.

There's some kind of Sussex Marathon going on over at the Daily Mail. Holy shit.

This headline caught my attention:

"Interviewer says Meghan Markle told her to transcribe 'guttural sounds' that she was making during sit down chat"

Also:

"The New York freelance writer also sees Meghan as directing herself in the interview like a 'bachelor' producer as the former actress, who has had a load of media training, does not 'hold back'."

So she acted like a segment producer on a reality show during an interview?? There is something tragically wrong with that Thomas and Doria's baby girl. Did Doria drop her on head as baby while she was high from all the weed Tom Bower said she smoked?

I'm not going to link DM as apparently that pisses Muriel off? I'm already on her bad side and don't want to rack up any more demerits.

^I'd be sorry to hear that Muriel has singled out the DM. In fact, the paper is Britain's most-read, and it has broken stories that the broadsheets refused to dirty their elegant hands with, but later turned out to be true. I'll grant that they aren't Lord Beaverbrook and Albert Schweitzer in one, but they do reach the Great Unwashed, and they have stood up to two people who would like to stifle a free press.

The tabloids in Britain we will have always with us. Frankly, I find the Express far more distasteful and dishonest with their clickbait headlines that often top stories dug up from 25 years ago. I've stopped opening them.

I should add to my post above that this interview is also spiteful payback for the Sussex's disappointment with their Jubly appearance. In her disordered mind, Meghan thinks has paid back Britain (we're so glad we left!) for its citizens having booed her, paid back the Queen for not letting her on the balcony and for seating her in the second row, middle, behind the Gloucesters and Kents, and paid back William and Kate for . . . ah, existing.

I don't think - no, I KNOW - that Meghan is capable of appreciating how ugly she comes off with this shit. But I think she no longer cares. She knows the family hate her guts and will never willingly be in the same room with her again. Why pretend any longer? She sounds bitter, abrasive, fixated, and spiteful.

Say, don't her and Harry's comments about Britain and the royal family present a problem for their remaining English charities?

R165

R168, do you think that the South Africa barbs in her podcast were recorded before or after Harry’s disastrous speech at the empty UN? It feels as though she’s discarded them, but I can’t figure why she’d bother. I’m assuming these podcasts are pre-recorded months in advance.

"There's some kind of Sussex Marathon going on over at the Daily Mail. Holy shit."

SOP for the DM when Meghan hands them some meat.

Dan Wootton's column is interesting. He thinks the BRF ought to fly out there and perform and intervention to get Harry out of Meghan's clutches and/or to start healing things with his family. I come and go with Wootton, but in this case he's lost the plot. No one wants to admit that Harry hasn't "changed": he's simply emerged. Harry's always been angry, volatile, petulant, and vengeful. It's just that the public didn't know it.

A friend of mine has a saying: "You don't talk to mental."

Harry doesn't need an intervention. He needs antipsychotic drugs.

Someone please do a poll on who Meghan's next husband will be.

Harry wouldn't stand for an intervention, and wouldn't take antipsychotic drugs.

The only thing that would get him to leave Meghan would be unlimited and unrestricted access to the family fortune, that's all he wants and all he'll settle for! Giving him anything short of that just pisses him off, because he truly believes he's entitled to all the spending money in the world, with no obligations or restrictions on his behavior.

I will not give The Cut interview clicks but it appears she told quite a few whoppers.The most wicked being that ANY british newspaper called Archie the N word and the other big lie is the delusion the tabloids and photographers would ambush her and Archie when if he goes to school in the UK.That is a lie and also I think illegal.It does not happen with William and Kates kids who are in direct line to the throne.. A few times a year they pose briefly with the kids as they go into school and they are left alone.This is done through choice.No drama, no harrasment no pressure.

There also appear to be aspects of the interview that indicate to me she is trying blackmail shakedown tactics again against the royals as they both did with the Oprah interview.

If Gayle Kings Meghan has receipts comment wasnt a subtle form of blackmail then Im Mary Poppins.

She really is struggling to enjoy her freedom-Her financial freedom plan was clearly 99% based on monetising and explotiing the royal connection she is trashing. She is majorly peeved she was thwarted.

Gayle looks like more of an idiot than usual crowing about those supposed receipts.

[quote] ...crowing about those supposed receipts

Is this a new comment from GK or something from before?

After the Oprah interview. Gayle assured everyone that Meghan had receipts for all of the lies she told.

Nothing in this article is credible. The journalist even mentions that Meg is telling her what to write.

Both kids are ginger with blue eyes? Really? Haven't we seen Archie's real medium brown hair pre-photoshop?

[QUOTE]the former actress, who has had a load of media training, does not 'hold back'."

Isn't the whole point of media training not to give away too much and, in fact, "hold back" as the RF she demonize does? The "less is more" strategy. She's totally unteachable and keeps placing herself in fact checkers crosshairs. I guess she prefers the negative attention and drama to legitimacy as decent human being.

Haven't the Duke and Duchess of Montecito figured out yet that EVERY thing they do is having a negative feedback? Don't they read? They just keep going on one mis-step to another.

Can someone teach Meghan was an archetype is - and what guttural means?

Giving gifts to the journalist interviewing her is just creepy and manipulative. She did the same thing to the guy in Canada, the one whose stutter she commented on.

She supposedly gave Kate a knife as a gift.

I think anyone who has had to interact with her needs to immediately smudge themselves and cleanse the space she occupied with sage and palo santo to remove all the bad energy.

^^^^oops, that was meant for the "Meghan Markle in The Cut" thread....

They don't care that almost every move they make is a mis-step; in fact, they relish telling lies like 'the royal rota call my children N****.' They believe they have done nothing wrong and that they are owed their privilege. R179 stop assuming the Harkles are decent people just making random errors.

R180 I was wondering why “guttural” rang a bell. Where has she used it before when she really meant something else? Trying to remember.

R181 Have a priest bless the space she just vacated.

“Visceral”! That’s the word that she was reaching for.

Harry’s reaction to the Roe v. Wade decision was ‘guttural,’ R184.

Haah... Ugghhh … Aaah… Glegghhh… HORK HORK HORK!

R179 They are so bad at this, it’s so entertaining. Every time she opens her mouth, she looks like a bigger moron.

I'm amused that they've apparently decided Special Guest Star cameos by Harry are an important part of their brand.

Juggling, popping in to discuss hair vibes, and "honey, you could be a model!" What charmingly kooky walk-on will Harry be directed to do next?

He'll trip over an ottoman like Rob Petri every week at the opening of the Dick Van Dyke show? Except it will be a modern take, like tripping over his own dick.

Or maybe like Chevy Chase as President Gerald Ford taking a spill before announcing Saturday Night Live except it'll be "Live from CA, it's ... What was it luv, Meghan? Meghan where are you?" as Harry tumbles around looking for cues and help.

In re-reading the piece (off its original site, I also refuse to give Meghan clicks), I'm inclined to.line up with a growing number of people who think this was a very clever hatchet job - on Meghan.

She comes across as slightly mental, fixated, spiteful, and vindictive. Those are not appealing qualities.It almost reads as if the interviewer realised that the big story wasn't Meghan'sife. Bit her mental state, and went with ot, not even bothering to try to fix it, but instead ho with it.

The portrait that emerges does Meghan no favours. Even Omid Scobie must have been taken aback at her scorched earth approach as he tried to send up a smoke signal that she'd gone too far by insisting that it wasn't his father Harry was referring to, but hers.

Either the interviewer or Scobie don't understand how quotation marks work. If she said, "Harry was saddened that I'd lost my father through this process. and I told him it didn't have to be like that for him, but that's on them" it works have been clear.

That's setting aside the fact that routinely colluding in attacks on said father and family in public (as his wife just did, again) is likely to lead to permanently ruptured relationships.

The staggering lack of self-awareness, the willingness to (again) spread provable lies, the externalisation of all blame, and the aroma of some grapes and the appetite for petty revenge, are not a good look.

She just isn't likable.

Having trashed, yet again, Britain and its Heaf of State's family and still cherished monarchy, it will be interesting to see what happens in London and Manchester.

^*aroma of sour grapes

that the big story wasn't about Meghan's life, but her mental state.

Gayle King is a drunk. Every time I’ve seen her on the morning news, she’s loaded. One day she had some kind of boot on her foot/ankle, and the other shoe was a high heel. And she was walking, standing on it. For a normal woman, if you’ve got an orthopedic shoe on one foot, you wear a flat shoe if you’re walking or standing.

I’m shocked that old souse didn’t fall flat on her orange-wigged ass.

There's a lid for every pot, Meghan:

R193 - drunks fall down a lot, thus the sprained ankle or whatever

Recollections may vary.

[quote]I doubt she pushed a maid in the book,

I was just turning the page!

[quote] I doubt she pushed a maid in the book,

No, she pushed her into the pool.

ALLEGEDLY

R197 Brilliant. simply brilliant!

It's interesting, as others have noticed, that Meghan's behaviour toward The Cut interviewer exactly mirrors the behaviour toward the Vanity Fair interviewer described in Bower's book.

It's too bad that VF interviewer got scared and tried to walk back his verbatim taped interview. Because here is another interviewer (who, by the way, is black) who has got treated the same way. And, it seems increasingly obvious, simply gave a nearly mental and deeply unpleasant woman full scope to reveal who she really is - and not in a good way.

I think this interviewer got Meghan's number quickly and showed Meghan a reassuring affect whilst letting Meghan hang herself in the interview.

As far as mental goes - JHC, the "gutteral" sounds, the menacing voice, the lies about the royal rota reporters (yes, let's have the Sussexes back into the BRF so the royal rota can really finish her off after she insinuated that one of them used the n-word about Archie). And how they had "difficulty" purchasing a $14 million house?!

This is the behaviour of someone who cannot control herself, and whose fury and urges to vengeance obliterate common sense.

Latest YouGov.uk poll out today asks, From what you have read and heard, how much sympathy, if any, do you have for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle (the Duke and Duchess of Sussex)?

None at all - 43%

Not very much - 22%

A fair amount - 15%

A lot - 7%

Don't know - 13%

Meghan has EVERY SINGLE one of these characteristics.

Has anyone tracked down the South African cast member who (allegedly) told Meghan her wedding was as significant as Mandela’s release from prison?

Someone deduced who it may have been, and named him. Surely he can be reached for comment. Does he admit to this encounter? Or is every journalist too afraid to be called racist again?

What % of people will believe her after she said the Archbishop of Canterbury married her and Harry days before the actual wedding. That Kate and that little tot made Meghan cry. That many other royals get the half-in half-out deal that they refused her. That she'd never heard of Harry before she met him. That nobody bothered to explain anything to her about how to do her role. That there were many skype type calls between her little family and Grandpa Charles - oh so sweet - every week! Little Archie looks at two palm trees and calls them Mom and Dad. Come on boys, hold up the trophy though you lost because I need a photo and get that stupid little girl out of my shot - oh and give me that cigar box, boy! oh you want a tug a war do you.....

She's a pathological liar! She lies so much she doesn't know what the truth is any more. There's just "her truth". She'd be a con artist if she had the brains.

J.K. Rowling should write a book called "Harry Windsor and the Lying Sack of Shit."

How long before the demented Duchess alleges the Queen refused to allow her to open Parliament because she is a woman of color?

Yes, Meghan is out for her pound of flesh after not being welcomed back with open arms by the people she publicly lied about and whose reputations, standing, and very identities she is systematically trying to destroy - and without whom she would be a faded d-list has-been actress.

Someone needs to find out why CNN is carrying g Meghan's water for. Its review of her podcast, universally criticized for its amateurish quality of content, self-referentiality, displays of pathological narcissism, and obsession with Britain's royal family.

Except for the BBC, CNN is continuing its crusade not to criticise Meghan or Harry in any way, even of it means circulating misleading information. Dich as, "they were warmly welcomed with cheers" on their first trip back to Britain for the Jubilee. No mention of the audible booing, their fury at where they were seated, and their early departure.

Today they have, like bees to a jam jar, buzzed in their review of the second of these mind-numbingly empty programmes, around Meghan's assertion that dating Harry was the first time she had ever experienced being treated like a black woman.

Of her remarks about herself and Mandela that received a scathing response from Mandela's grandson, the likely outright lie the slung ar the reporters on the royal rota, the lies about hordes of photographers at school entrances on England - of these, there was not the slightest mention.

The likely culprit is CNN's obsession with race. The false slant CNN keeps putting on its coverage of Meghan demonstrates how dangerous to honest reporting is elevating a specific social agenda to dictate how news is fed to the public.

[quote] The false slant CNN keeps putting on its coverage of Meghan demonstrates how dangerous to honest reporting is elevating a specific social agenda to dictate how news is fed to the public.

"Honest reporting" has never existed. It's always been slanted, agendaed. You've noticed it because you have knowledge of the subject's behavior and can gauge exactly how CNN is spinning its reportage to agenda. But that's true with all reportage, regardless of medium.

^* But the media as we know it has never been as pervasive as it is today. And extremes have set in: the TIMES (US), the BBc, the WaPO, the reputational broadsheets, used to observe something of a standard.

Now, these outlets are bemoaning a cultural polarisation that they themselves are helping to deepen.

I remember reading something about an early interaction/dust-up with M and K that centered around M surreptitiously taking photos of K’s kids. Anyone know that whole story? Does Bower address it in his book?…

Yes. MM and Harry were visiting the Cambridges at KP. MM went out of the room to take a phone call and Charlotte followed her. She took some photos on her phone.

Also MM was caught taking pics of private areas in one of the other royal palaces.

[quote] But the media as we know it has never been as pervasive as it is today

R209 Pervasiveness has nothing to do with "honest reporting" or its absence. All it illustrates is that the media today have far more opportunities to horseshit the news consumer with agenda/spin.

^Bower addressed so much shit in that book that even after reading all of it, I can barely remember anything but the high points. I think a more significant one was Bower mentioning the Cambridges' dismay about the way Meghan treated their staff whilst in their home. But the rumour about Meghan taking photos of the kids on her phone and of the environs of other royal places whilst inside were widely floated. Including, I believe, both of them "accidentally" wandering into an investiture of honours at BP by either William or Charles and trying to get in.

r207 The reason she was never looked upon as black prior to becoming involved with Dimwit was because she was identifying as white. She became black when she saw that it would be a great weapon to use against the RF

I think MM knew that some of the BRF, the courtiers, and Harry's friends thought she was white trash, and that stung. Far easier to tell herself that their disdain was because she was black.

R214 - Yes, I think we've all grasped that by now.

Everyone except the KGT, the Squad, CNN, and the BBC.

I thought her taking pictures of Charlotte happened at Amner Hall when the despicable duo stayed with the Cambridges for Christmas before they were married. You know, when Meghan was invited to Christmas as a fiancée when no other fiancée had ever been invited.

Speaking revenge, here is The Telegraph, mind, a broadsheet not a tabloid, regardless of what you think of its position on the political spectrum here (centre-right), printing a column advocating for the removal of the Sussex title.

This is one step from The TIMES doing so.

Further media maneuvers: The MIRROR took down an article claiming that Harry's anger at the disgraced Andrew still getting police protection, and is using in his suit against the Home Office to reinstate that security. Someone on another site, however, managed to get the article saved. Here is is.

It is likely The MIRROR received one of those letters from Schillings threatening a defamation lawsuit.

Memo to Harry: Andrew still lives a short distance to the Queen at Windsor, making all around security parameters a bit broader there, and, of necessity including Andrew so that he doesn't serve as a weak link in that fence. His daughters, however, still do not receive such protection.

In addition, whilst certainly a personal disgrace, Andrew still lives in Great Britain, is likely on the receiving end of as many if not more vile threats than the Sussexes who live 5,000 miles away (Andrew is the only royal more disliked than Meghan and Harry), and has never publicly and deliberately tried to damage the monarchy.

Stay tuned.

I don't get Harry's argument here. Everyone has their own individual security assessment and Andrew's doesn't concern him.

He still sees it as "status" rather than security is how it seems to me.

Harry's experience of losing privileges he has had his whole life reminds me of the Bob Dylan song 'Ballad of a Thin Man'.

[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.]

What a turn of events ... an ill-judged fashion mag interview is doing more damage to MM than the Bower book.

She's really not very good at this lying thing, is she?

"I... I meant the STAGE musical of The Lion King... yeah, that's it. That's the ticket!"

And it was someone in the audience! Now prove that didn't happen, you racist N-word-shouting diana-murdering paparazzi that sometimes show up even when I don't call!

It is literal violence that you are questioning this strong, young, no backfat-having, black mother.

Well she can literally SOD OFF.

Regarding Andrew's continued police protection: another factor influencing Andrew's continued protection might be that he is the son of the sovereign, whereas Harry is only the sovereign's grandchild and not in the one who is in direct line of succession (i.e., William).

Harry's going to be the son of a sovereign before long!

But I bet that if he gets Andrew-level security he'll still be suing for more, it's got to be a status and ego thing with him. And his ego and insecurity know no limits, or shame.

Is Andrew even spotted outside of Windsor Great Park? There are never pap shots of him out and about in London or elsewhere. I wonder who his friends are now. He was always a pompous boor, even among aristocracy who had the sense to find him distasteful, etc., but had to accept his presence in their social circles because he's the Sovereign's son. I wonder how many have used his scandal(s) as a way to distance themselves. While at Windsor he gets the blanket security that comes with the property. Does he really get security when he leaves for private engagements? Anne and Edward apparently don't.

R207, did you see Don Lemon this morning? They dragged his ass to defend her. Her race card is getting worn pretty thin from overuse. At some point it’s going to disintegrate.

Andrew keeps busy rearranging the stuffed animals on his bed.

That's completely absurd, R43. And way to divert. She could have been part of the Firm, a very small but very famous, well recognized group with a lot of power. When a member of that group goes to an event, the royal is given the best that the welcoming group can offer. People genuinely want to be next to them for a chat and a personal photo/video or if sufficiently important, a formal photo commemorating the event. She could have had everything she imagined, but she could not curb her own flaws.

If anyone has a right to bitch about primogeniture, it is Princess Anne. But she got furious, resentful and then she got over it and moved on to do the work but call her own shots. And, thanks to her and the Queen doing such a magnificent job since she took the throne, Charlotte is now in the line of succession. All Meghan did was go to a foreign country and behave badly.

R229 Harry ranks ahead of Andrew in the line of succession. Harry is the son of the next King, and sixth in line. Andrew may be the Queen's son, but he ranks 9th - younger brothers move backward as their older brothers have children. The line goes: Charles, William, William's three kids, Harry, Harry's two kids, and THEN Andrew. The son/grandson issue has nothing to do with it.

Andrew is in the direct line of succession - the "direct" line. The direct line is quite long.

It's the "immediate" line that counts, usually calculated as within six places of the throne. Currently, this includes Harry. The moment one of the Cambridge kids breeds, Harry is out of the immediate and into only the direct line.

That's what Harry tried to pull in his security suit: that he deserved the protection based on his "immediacy" in the line of succession. The judge threw that one out, along with three other causes of action. Harry can only proceed on one of the actions he submitted.

And even the "immediacy" issue a bit specious. Knowing how detested the Sussexes are, Parliament would never allow Harry on to the throne. As Parliament has the sole right to change the order of succession, if William and his kids disappeared tomorrow morning, Parliament would have the succession rearranged by teatime, probably moving past Andrew and on to Edward. Parliament can do as it likes with the succession, the Queen has no power over it.

So Harry's "immediacy" is more smoke and mirrors than anything else. He stands as much chance of inheriting the throne as a resurrected Richard III does through Jurassic Park DNA technology.

What it does confer on Harry is the obligation to obtain the Sovereign's consent for marriage, and make him eligible to serve as a Councillor of State - a problem that many feel needs to be addressed, and soon. If circumstances were not what they are, Harry would also be the likely selection for Regent if William became King but died before George turned eighteen.

That ain't happenin', either. They would amend the Regency Act.

Harry is trying desperately to cling to the last shreds of Important Royal, but it's a short-lived game. He's going to end his life around 12th or thirteenth.

Princess Anne was once asked about her feelings re being pushed down the line by her three brothers. She replied sweetly, "I am absolutely delighted that I never had a sister."

Pity Harry doesn't have his Auntie's common sense.

Why would Princess Anne be angry about primogeniture?

R236 - She really didn't, hence the quote at the end of the longer post above you.

She was only once heard to grumble about being seen as a "tail end Charlie" on joint events with the family. But, in fact, she carved out a terrific life and saw to it that her children were commoners without any titles at all. She has her mother's lack of self-regard, and her father's no-nonsense Get the Fucking Job Done and Shut Up attitude.

A journalist hounding her at a horse show when she wanted to be left alone asked her if he could just have a few snaps. She turned toward him smiling and as he started to click away was dumbfounded to hear her uttering every obscene four-letter word in the dictionary, all whilst giving him his "snaps".

Meghan had better hope she's never left alone in a room with Anne. Anne may be 30 years older, but she's in terrific shape.

If she were the first born, Anne might have been angry about primogeniture or maybe not. Her second born position gave her freedom that Charles didn't have. She was able to choose not to go to university, she married a commoner who didn't have royal or aristocratic roots, she was able to divorce and remarry, she had very successful equestrian career, and her children are part of the RF but not restricted by the myriad of unspoken rules and protocol. The only thing she would have been able to do is the equestrian stuff. She might have gotten out of a higher education because she was a "girl" in the early '70s and society women generally didn't seek degrees, just husbands. No way QE II would have allowed a remarriage if her daughter was to be the future sovereign and had a living ex-husband.

Who was the royal that came between Harry and William at the unveiling of Diane’s statue last year? It was clear back then they all were disgusted with Harry.

R239, it was one of Diana’s sisters.

Anne SHOULD be angry about primogeniture because her good for nothing brothers (Andrew and Edward) are ahead of her in the line of succession, R236.

[quote]Meghan had better hope she's never left alone in a room with Anne. Anne may be 30 years older, but she's in terrific shape.

And she has whips!

The direct line of succession is a term used to denote the individuals who, from parent to child, are to inherit the throne. Harry is not in the direct line of succession. Only Charles, William, and George are. Although one's position in the line of succession is important, closeness to the sovereign is generally more important. Andrew is the son of the sovereign; Harry is a grandson. Yes, Harry is higher in the order of succession, but he still further removed from the sovereign than Andrew for now. The situation will reverse when Charles comes to the throne.

R239 - I think something happened at Philip's funeral or memorial? Anne's son (and Philip's oldest grandchild) Peter Phillips was supposed to go ahead of Harry and next to William -- and Harry rushed up and somehow got next to William -- by pushing Peter aside or racing ahead of him?

Can't remember the exact details but Peter was supposed to be the buffer and Harry intentionally disrupted the plan.

I'm still not sure what the truth is -- but supposedly Meghan and Harry were supposed to go in a bus with the other lesser royals but they were late and therefore got the big entrance at the Jubly church thing. And them being late is why there was a kerfluffle with the seating, with the York girl not willing to give up the aisle seat? But another talking head said that the Queen okayed H&M having their own car and entrance, but still seated in the middle of the second row behind Edward etc.

What a mess. Meghan is always going to be a mess - and cause many messes to come. With those two children, I'm not sure there's any way to completely cut her out of the BRF.

What the last few posters are describing isn't primogeniture per se but male primogeniture. I would grant that Anne should be upset if she were first-born and ineligible for the throne in favor of a second-born son, but her parents' first child was male. The exact order of succession after that is irrelevant, because the only way any of the other children would inherit the throne is if the first one died. And it would be extremely unseemly to get your nose out of joint because of a hypothetical situation that depends on the death of your sibling.

If it weren’t for male primogeniture, Anne would probably have hundreds of thousands or millions of people ahead of her in the line of succession.

When you read Bower's verified account of the way MM treated the people connected with the Reitman's commercial, you understand perfectly why she behaved as she did in the BRF and why she is so outraged by their reaction.

What I could not understand was how she could have treated the technical crew as badly as she did, having grown up in that milieu herself.

I hope we get more stories about her mistreating staff in the "Courtiers" book. Amazon.uk says the release date is Sept 29. Sadly after their trip to make money off of charities next week.

But I think Bower, Cut, her lousy podcasting have done enough - for now.

[quote] What I could not understand was how she could have treated the technical crew as badly as she did, having grown up in that milieu herself.

Megs is not a normal human being. She's a narcissist. She must dominate and control every situation, will only be civil to those who fulfil her needs. She doesn't care about anyone except for how they can elevate and enhance her. Your disadvantage is Megs advantage.

Bower points out many examples of Megs bullying staff and endless arguing with technical professionals until she gets her way. From Tom Bower, Revenge, Pages 99-101:

[quote] On 4th March the arguments (about the Reitman's ad) reached their climax. After ferocious exchanges a few script changes were made, only to be rejected by Meghan again. ‘She bulldozed her way through and never said a nice word,’ complained one of the team. No one stood up to her. As the argument reached a climax, Meghan cut the telephone line.

[quote] Next, Meghan demanded that she be registered in the hotel under an alias, Jane Smith. ‘Her identity must be kept secret,’ said her agent, Lori Sale. ‘Meghan doesn’t want to be hassled by the hotel staff, other guests or photographers.’ The production team were flummoxed. No one in French speaking Montreal knew Meghan. In the event, the hotel refused the request. Registered under her own name, no paparazzi gathered outside the hotel.

[quote] Meghan’s arrival on the set at 7:10am was anticipated. ‘The Princess is coming,’ sniggered one assistant. Hard-faced, Meghan entered the restaurant avoiding eye contact with the crew. Her agent had demanded that only the designated few on the set were authorised to speak to her. That order had been passed among the 58 members of the Canadian production team. With a forced smile, she disappeared upstairs to her dressing-room.

[quote] Two hours had been allocated for completing her hair and make-up and, at her last-minute request, to paint her nails. Animatedly during that session, Meghan talked about life with Felix, her trusted hairdresser. The manicurist, a woman in her late thirties, joined the conversation. According to those involved, Meghan was rude and unpleasant.

[quote] Throughout the day Meghan appeared for her shots escorted by her entourage – Felix the hairdresser and Marco the make-up artist – and then returned to her room. Both were ordered never to leave her side. ‘She was always fed up,’ one crew member noted, ‘sighing, huffing and rolling her eyes at things. It was heavy-going working with her.’ Another noticed that she would be ‘super sweet’ with Felix and Marco and then within seconds turn to the crew and be ‘super-disagreeable’.

R239 - R240 is right, but Lady Sarah is not royal. She was the second born of the three Spencer sisters. They are aristocrats but not royals. Charles and Sarah dated once for a short while. The Spencer's and the Fermoys (Diana's mother's side) had historic ties to the royal family, serving as equerries and ladies in waiting.

It is very likely that with that background, they despise Meghan for her vicious treachery, and are deeply saddened and angry by how Harry went off the rails. And apart from their personal horror, as they remain English aristos, they know quite well which side of the family bread is the butter spread in England.

The speed with which Lady Sarah leapt between the two men spoke volumes.

They showed up at Archie's christening for Diana, not for Harry and Meghan and a kid they know they'll never have anything to do with.

Yes, R249, but every professional knows that the technical people can make or break your image. The 'iconic' photo of Kate arriving at Philip's funeral was because she had agreed beforehand to look up for a photographer who promised an amazing result. in The Cut, Allison P Davis made MM look bad in many ways without MM being aware of what she was doing. So many of MM's styling horrors can be attributed to her personal staff who let her go out in public with visible underwear, dangling price tags, muddy shoes, greasy-looking streaky bronzer, and much more.

R251 The purpose of posting R249 was to illustrate examples of Megs appalling, erratic behavior.

[quote] the release date is Sept 29. Sadly after their trip to make money off of charities next week.

The attention they are getting, and the negative feelings they stir will likely boost Low’s book sales!

What I am saying is that any sane public figure knows not to shoot themselves in the foot by antagonising people who can sabotage their appearance and image. And MM did manage to work well with her colleagues in Suits for 7 years. It's inconsistent.

R247, R251

Many casts of tv shows and movies say they worked well together or even say they were "like family" only to find out years later that was not the case at all. Or they started out hating each other and declared a truce at some point for the sake of sanity.

Her co-stars invited to the wedding certainly weren't going to say anything negative even if there was cause. The positive exposure the pap stroll photos at the wedding provided was worth PR gold to them. Perhaps they had an on/off relationship with her and they happen to be going through an "on" period at the time of the wedding.

Behind the scenes people aren't going to spill if they want to continue working in the industry and be regarded as team players and discreet. Unless they are retired and don't have to worry about reputation.

Meg wouldn't have kept her job on "Suits" so long, if she'd made enemies.

R256, if you have a job, you probably work with a person like Meghan. They brownnose the important people and act imperious with powerless people. You don’t recognize the MO? They don’t get fired; they get promoted! Real-life Nellie Olesons.

I’m surprised that she stayed with the show as king as she did. She’s a rolling stone and doesn’t seem to tolerate obligation very well. Perhaps the hiatus was long enough to assuage her boredom and give her a sense of freedom.

^^ as long as she did.

It does seem that she became more and more of a monster with each bit of fame and success she attained. Even Bower couldn’t find any stories about her being a mean little bully when she was in school. That came later.

Whatever underlying personality disorder she has is fed and aggravated by fame. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time.

R258, Bower's theory is that the constant rejection Meghan received in Hollywood made her, over time, cruel and vindictive. Yes, she had a third-tier job on cable, but she wasn't going anywhere else. She couldn't simply accept this because she had been ridiculously spoiled by her father and believed that everyone who didn't treat her in a similar fashion was wrong and deserved to be punished.

After The Cut I've now come to the conclusion she lies. The reason, for me, is the journal reference of having found it in a drawer and surprised at what she was thinking at the time. Who leaves a country, with no real intention of coming back, and leaves their journal behind where anyone could find it? It doesn't pass the smell test. And then the heater and the Mandela story. She gives every appearance of saying anything and she's been caught out. You can't believe her.

[quote]dangling price tags

How-DEE!

I used to think she is just a bitch and a cunt but for a long time now I've been convinced she is severely mentally ill. Her actions aren't rational, even for a pushy, social climbing, throat cutting would be actress/celebrity.

R256, let's just say she decides who it's important to be nice to. The others, forget it. And when she's done with people she's nice to, she drops them. Classic narcissist. The wonderful thing about Meghan is she's the gift that keeps giving -- an unintelligent, unintellectual narcissist always entertains you with their blatant lies and over-the-top behavior. I just feel bad for her family, Harry's family, and most of all the two children. The children of narcissists suffer the most. I also feel bad for the British people who feel like they lost the Harry they used to love.

Narcissists never give up and they never give in. Which means they will never let go of whatever whopping lie they told. See also: Hilaria Baldwin, government name Hillary Lynn Hayward-Thomas Baldwin..

You’re just now understanding that Meghan is a pathological liar? Did you miss the engagement interview where she claimed to have known nothing about Harry or the BRF? The sit down with Oprah which was one whopper after another?

I don't think she's unintelligent... but I do think she's dumb. She's the absolute worst of her spoiled, helicopter parented, feelings above responsiblity, ever child must have a prize generation. She is one big throbbing I want and it's dumbed her down, so she has made herself an international joke. There is no coming back from where she is now. If his family takes him in again, he might just pull off redemption. She's discredited by her own hand and heading for notoriety. I mean, who takes Sarah Ferguson seriously and she at least has a generous heart and no malice.

R265... yup... that was me and I've been skeptical at best from very early on. But The Cut takes it to a new level. (And in my own defence, it did seem plausible to me that a B-actress from Los Angeles would know little to nothing about the RF - or at least nothing useful. Particularly since she thought it was somehow impressive to boast about it. How dumb can you get?)

Stupid is as stupid does

I don't think she left a journal in a drawer at Froggy Cott. The sentence was strangely worded. It read to me that opening a drawer with, i dunno, some socks still in it, reminded her of her time living there and how she wrote about it in her journal.

I don't think it's so surprising that she kept a journal. It's a very popular pastime in the US. I should think the rest of the BRF keep a diary, as in an appt diary, with brief notes describing their day. And obviously, their secretary keeps a record as well.

Well if she did screw up the sentence, that's the second one in that interview.

Because she is well established as a liar, I imagine she plans to use the "diary" (or the threat of the diary), with its implicit suggestion that it is "proof" of the injustices done to her because it is contemporaneous, as a cudgel against the royal family, as well as to give the press more to write about her. She's probably writing the diary now, completely retrospectively and written to substantiate all of her made-up claims.

I forgot the whopper about the Archbishop of Canterbury doing the pre-wedding wedding.

Some people have diaries, some people have reports of findings following extensive investigation into claims of bullying.

Tomato, tomato, tit for tat.

Revenge is being released in the US later this month with new chapters!!!

Hopefully to include the upcoming series of debacles on their next trip.

Is there a designated booing section? If so I'll buy a block of tickets for our London correspondents.

I hope they get booed next week. Be hilarious.

I like the passel of peopke who are making wads of cash off of these two clowns. It must irritate the Harkles no end

They must be nightmare clients, even if you're a bottom feeder. Though I am sure they are represented only by practitioners of the greatest integrity.

R266 Does Fergie have a generous heart and no malice? Maybe, we don’t know. What we do know is she has a sense of humor, definitely a good quality.

I wouldn't say that continued rejection by Hollywood made MM cruel and vindictive. I think it made her ultra-sensitive to every perceived slight and ultra-sensitive to any further failures, ie, a very, very thin skin.

Sarah seems like an undisciplined pleasure seeker who wants everyone to have a good time, including her.Self. Unlike Meghan, she doesn’t seem to resent the success or happiness of anyone else.

R250 - actually Lady Sarah is the ELDEST daughter/child of the late Earl Spencer (she was born in 1955). Lady Jane is second daughter (born 1957). John was third but he died days after his birth. Then Diana was born in 1961 and then the present Earl Charles Spencer was born in 1964.

I remember the strangest facts.

Jane always looked older, somehow.

R282 - Really? Could have sworn Jane was the eldest - I do believe Jane was the first married, perhaps that's why I thought she was the eldest. I remember reading about her wedding in the early 80s or thereabouts; Jane had to have been married and newly a mother when Diana went up to Balmoral to help with the baby in August 1980.

Very annoying about the new chapters so soon after buying the bloody book! We will be depending on the rest of you lot to fill us in on what the new chapters say.

Twitter Markle Mockery at its best!

This is a serious question. I am a U.K. guy and have been a huge Oprah fan since I first saw her on TV in 83/84. For me since the interview, she has zero credibility.

What is the feeling in the US about Oprah now since the god awful interview?

Oprah's so seldom seen. She's kind of mythic now, riding on the legend. I've never thought about how Oprah's viewed. She's impossible to forget yet not really part of the zeitgeist any more. Does she still intefere with Whale Watchers and publish her magazine? I don't even know.

That Twitter account name is hilarious.

The joy is, most of the commenters appear to think it's her... unless Allison P Davis has elevated the entire reading public to new heights of shade cast.

Whale Watchers, R288? Was that a typo or auto-correct? Or just DL snark?

Snark. Have called it that for years. As a member. And even occasional success story!

"Why would Princess Anne be angry about primogeniture?"

Pretty much everyone who's got the short end of the primogenture stick has been unhappy about it, like through the entire history of humanity. Every daughter who was disinherited by the birth of a little brother and every younger son who was told he'd have to work for a living while his brother enjoyed the family fortune has raged against the system! Harry's feelings are normal, even if his actions are stupid, human like fairness and primogeniture is completely unfair.

In fact, it's so normal for younger sons to be viciously jealous of the heir, that that Ottoman Emperors used to have all their brothers executed when they took the throne! Seriously, this is real history, the son who inherited the throne assumed that his brothers and half-brothers would absolutely try to sieze his power and wealth for themselves, so they prevented endless civil wars and assassinations by just having the younger brothers killed before they could make trouble.

"[R256], if you have a job, you probably work with a person like Meghan. They brownnose the important people and act imperious with powerless people. You don’t recognize the MO? They don’t get fired; they get promoted!"

I'm the person who said she wouldn't have kept her job on "Suits" for so long if she really has spent her life making enemies wherever she goes. Because as has been pointed out several times on this thread, in Hollywood the "little people" can sink an actor's career, make them look like shit or leave their best work on the cutting room floor, and a C-Lister like Meghan wouldn't have been able to survive much of that, if she'd looked like shit she would have been replaced by someone prettier.

IMHO she's an asshole rather than the monster some of you want her to be.

She was not in a position of power on "Suits." That's the difference.

R295, she honestly could not afford to alienate people then. The story that Bower tells is that she hung onto people, often in a rather clingy way, until she felt safely established on a higher rung on the ladder. Her father, for example, had no complaints about her until she dumped him.

She's always said that she dropped out of Suits' final season because of her upcoming marriage. In fact, before her relationship with Harry was known, the producers had already written her out and didn't renew her contract.

R298 Meghan already knew her contract wasn't being renewed after the 7th season before she even met Harry. Patrick J. Adams wanted off the show and the producers had decided to marry his and Meghan's character and have the, move to another city together thus writing them off the show. That's why Meghan was in the market for a rich English husband.

Where's Gary when you really need him?

[quote]IMHO she's an asshole rather than the monster some of you want her to be.

This weird hair splitting reeks of stan-just-clinging-on-by-their-fingernails. I mean, asshole vs monster? What does it matter? Did you read the multiple accounts of her unbelievably bad behaviour towards various people in the Bower book? The Reitman's shoot cites named sources, who could easily be sued if they were lying, and who have no reason to risk legal action by lying about some years-old shoot anyway. She's treated many, many people atrociously and the person who mentions workplace assholes/monsters/vicious nincompoops/pick your word is basically right that these people exist, to varying degrees, in many personal lives and workplaces.

Meghan Markle is a bad person. It's not really arguable any longer. You either aren't following this (which is fine), or you know it's the truth, or you're a desperate stan. I don't even know why this person has stans anymore. If this was some random acting like this in your own life, you wouldn't spend a single second looking for excuses or trying to downplay it.

Wasn't she still on Suits when she treated those people so abominably when she did the ad for that clothing store - Reitmans or something like that?

She, like all NPDs, can behave just fine when they need something from you - but the character is still raging underneath. It's the structure of the personality, probably set by age 5, if not before. If you've ever worked at a preschool, you've seen little bullies grabbing the toys from the others. Experts say at least 50% of it is hereditary. Then environmental factors that either trigger it or temper it.

[quote] Wasn't she still on Suits when she treated those people so abominably when she did the ad for that clothing store - Reitmans or something like that?

While still under contract to Suits, Megs did two ad campaigns for Reitmans in June 2015 and in March 2016.

She also "designed" four dresses. They looked cheap.

Interesting take

Hell, she grabs toys from US.

[quote] she wouldn't have kept her job on "Suits" for so long if she really has spent her life making enemies wherever she goes.

An accomplished grifter never allows the marks in her very compartmentalized life to meet. Megs can spin whatever tale gets her what she wants and reuse successful grifts because there is no one around to "compare notes" or contradict her. Thus her "the family I've never had" grift was used twice with no one the wiser.

Megs grew up in Los Angeles, went to university in Illinois, worked in Canada, hustled in New York, and none of her disperate lives or the marks in them ever overlapped. There is not one person who is constant in her life, who has witnessed her in the different phases of her life, which allows her to control/spin whatever narrative she requires.

Megs marriage into the BRF required a new game plan because her life would become public for all to see, an extremely frightening prospect for someone who has strictly compartmentalized/controlled their life so as to not be held accountable for her actions/behavior. Megs solution was to play the "I'm black" card, her Ace to be used with much success to both counter any negative comments while allowing her to control all situations.

Bower states on Page 96 of Revenge:

[quote] Some members of the Suits team noticed that Meghan’s tone during the filming of the sixth series was sharper, slightly aggressive. Reflecting her frustrated ambition, her prospects after the series were grinding to a halt.

It is also starkly evident in images and footage of Megs how quickly she morphs from affable to seething rage, such as those taken at Tom Inskip's Jamaican wedding. Given this, there are surely far more incidences of people who've had the misfortune to meet the seething Megasaurus. Bower's book precipitated what will no doubt become a deluge.

^^^ disparate

It was during the 6th season that PJA announced he wanted to leave.

Harry was probably the worst thing ever to happen to Meghan. The 11th hour rescue from professional oblivion at 36 by what Danny Ocean would have called "that perfect hand" coming along, probably persuaded her that she was invincible.

Not just invincible, but as the Universe had smiled upon her, obviously Good and In the Right

Continuing failure might have forced Meghan to play ball with reality. But catching Harry only hardened her convictions about herself.

It must have been quite the shock to discover that Queen Elizabeth II had been dealt an even bigger hand, one that trumped snagging the 6th in line.

The DM is reporting what we all know, insiders are saying Spotify is fudging the top podcast chart because they wanted it to appear that all the money they threw at Meghan was not a huge mistake.

Mom, do we HAVE to play "Royal Family" again? This crown thing doesn't fit me and Dad hates doing it because it brings up bad memories and Lilibet doesn't even know what's going on. Your tiara is crooked by the way. Can't we just go to Chuck E. Cheese instead?

I almost feel sorry for her - she’s just so fucking basic. Almost, but not quite.

R310

I've thought this too. She must have felt somehow anointed by the Universe. Then the sudden adjacency to the Crown and all that power, knowing she could be TQ if there was just one disaster, it probably drove her mad. It's happened before.

When does their pretend royal tour start?

What was that event--I think when she was still part of the BRF--big audience, she (no Harry) was standing in the back of the auditorium, was announced, and she wound her way down to the stage in front by a circuitous route that took ages and people had to clap for an embarrassingly long time.

Hope that happens again.

[quote]What was that event--I think when she was still part of the BRF--big audience, she (no Harry) was standing in the back of the auditorium, was announced, and she wound her way down to the stage in front by a circuitous route that took ages and people had to clap for an embarrassingly long time.

I remember that too. She entered walking down stairs like she was on The Late Late Show with James Corden. Her hair was in her face and a mess. The Fake Fake Show with Malignant Meghan.

What event was it? She didn't often do solo appearances.

Here's her grand entrance as referenced @ r316 and r317.

Thanks, r319. I'd totally forgotten that event. The entrance was overshadowed by the awkward, engulfing hug. No the presenter isn't a dear friend you haven't seen in years.

Thank you, that's it. I forgot about the body mugging at the end.

And you'll be pleased? or aghast to learn this performance was for the One Young World conference in 2019, the same deal she's flying over to do next? week. I do hope she tries it again.

One must "play one's cards right," if that is the correct American expression, if one wishes to succeed. And by "succeed," I don't mean in THAT sense.

Yikes! That entrance was cringe-worthy. It needed Madeline Ashton’s “I See Me!” playing in the background…

R319 The squealing saxophone, too funny. She must have been in ecstasy. THIS is what she signed on for!

Brilliant reference by R323, let's all enjoy....

With HM unable to travel to swear in the new PM, Megsie picked the perfect time to announce that she can say whatever she wants. She's either blindingly stupid or an utter cunt.

r311 Shame on Spotify.

Oh lord. That entrance at R319. The woman on stage put our her hand to shake hands, Meghan dives in, both arms open, the woman starts to dip into a curtsy and Meghan grabs on to her for dear life. How embarrassing for that poor woman. Meghan does not understand European culture whatsoever.

As many have said before, I do not think her issues with the BRF and British culture were due to her being black, but due to her being an obnoxious, oblivious American. (and a raging narcissist)

Don't you see? I'm a STAHHHHHH!

R319 -- I can't unsee that entrance! Aside from her LOVING the attention and adoration, the clumsy kiss/bear hug (and attempted curtsey from the hostess), and then, with the host, Meghan can't get the left/right order correct and tries for a third kiss which he ain't giving. It's like a train wreck! You can't look away.

"Harry was probably the worst thing ever to happen to Meghan."

She did manage to land herself in the one place on Earth where kicking-down-and-kissing-up didn't work! Because there were only about five people in the "up" bracket and most of them caught on to her before the wedding, and even some of the people she thought she could "kick down" at are powerful in their own right.

Never go screaming at the staff, until you've learned the difference between an actual maid, and a lady in waiting who is the queen's confidante.

So I have an opposite reaction to the train wreck entrance. I think it showed how insecure she was. Head down, hair in her face... she was someone who made a dream come true just as she planned and if she didn't realize how stupid and pompous she looked, had a feeling she couldn't shake that somehow she'd got it wrong or it was going wrong (or even, this wouldn't happen to Kate.) There was nothing about that elaborate entrance that suggested a member of the Royal Family. It was too... much (and this from a family not seldom accompanied by a marching band in busbies.) She didn't wear it, it wore her. She looked like the faker she is and on some level, she knew it. Seeing her there, bumbling through her overthought, overplanned solo moment, you realized why she's always clinging to him. She's scared shitless. She needs him, his stardust. She didn't even play the Hollywood star properly. It just looked fake and kind of sad. Classic be careful what you wish for.

And another interesting take from Australia

I don't see why she should be held responsible for that entrance at the Albert Hall. It's not as if she would have been the one who planned it to be that way.

You don't think?

That stuff is walked through by staff and the principal is either coached, or in unusual circumstances, approved directly. They do reconnaissance on everything to assure it runs smoothly.

[quote]It's not as if she would have been the one who planned it to be that way.

We are talking about the megalomaniac The Cut writer described as directing their interview like she was a reality show producer.

No staff member worth their salt would want to recommend that entrance. The tripping risk is massive. Imagine that happening to your boss. Then imagine it happening to Meagain.

Congrats to the 'not like the other journos/critics' author of the article at R333. The most pompous take I've read all week.

Um, ok - not sure what me mean, R338

r334 - how do you know it wasn't her idea? The fact that it came off so badly like so many of her schemes suggests it's a Meghan orchestration. Like posters above have mentioned, professionals stage these events and that probably looked weird in rehearsal, too.

IMO, Meghan was intoxicated by the thought of beingthisclose to admirers so she could soak up all the adulation and be revered by the masses. A lucky few might even get to touch the idol. It's the stuff of a narcissist's wet dream. In fact, these sorts of fantasies are a diagnostic criterion for an NPD.

[QUOTE]A preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

Don't tell me she hadn't imagined herself in that sort of a moment since she was a teenager. Except she was probably receiving an Oscar or Emmy in the movie in her mind.

And the beauty and ideal love part. "Ooh, it's beautiful on the outside. Harry, my love, look at those palm trees joined at the base! It's a sign we must live here even though we haven't seen the inside. I don't care if we don't have jobs at the moment. Must have!"

We all know the mantra: "What Meghan wants..." She probably didn't have a fantasy about replacing plumbing at Palacio Prefabricado.

It wasn't a dig at you, R333 - I appreciate people who post articles here, many of which I wouldn't otherwise see. It was a dig at the journalist trying to act like she's above it all whilst rolling around in the gossip muck with the rest of us.

Omg. The poster who compared Smeg to Madeline Ashton is a fecking genius. Every Sussex thread should have that (I See Me!) video.

You’re American, aren’t you, R338?

No, R343.

The journalist at R333 is one of the many who championed MM based on her descent and on her supposed activism, even though it was clear from the outset who Meghan is. The Meghan of The Cut is no different from the Meghan of the engagement-to-Harry era.

In other news, a woman who isn't one of those liberal feminist fawners has also weighed in. Meghan's losing everyone now, and in the Guardian no less.

R345 The Guardian bailing on her is a sign of how badly the "real" Meghan plays.It's prima facie evidence of how badly the Sussexes cocked it up by not playing the royal game the way it should be played. It would have provided an opaque screen behind which their true selves would have been cleverly hidden.

You cannot hide on stage.

I wonder if they'll go on doubling down on the attacks and threats on the family, or if after this they'll finally realise (along with any potential candidates for more fees) that that ship has sailed? Will Harry rethink his memoir?

This has been the worst two weeks of PR for Meghan in the five years since the engagement was announced. And it was all her own doing.

One would love to be a fly on the wall of the huddled conference of PR staff.

Its the Mandela quote. At first the media tried to determine who said it to her but the real story is that she thought it appropriate to relate to a reporter.

[quote]Markle is no activist. Instead, the ex-duchess signifies the sort of empty race politics that is popular among elite American celebrities: she is thoroughly unremarkable – as many celebrities are – and her personal struggles have little to do with those of the majority of Black women who live in the countries she and her husband flitted between in recent years.

Some delightful snark from a columnist at the Torygraph, which you would expect to jettison Meagain:

How puzzling. Still, I’m sure there’s a perfectly innocent explanation. There must be some other, as yet unidentified, person who paid the Duchess that unique and unforgettable tribute. I certainly wouldn’t dream of suggesting that she made the story up. As we know, she places great value on speaking her truth.

At any rate, I do feel for her. Because there is now a grave risk that heartless jokers will start paying her ludicrously extravagant compliments, purely to see whether she’ll repeat them to the media.

If so, I dread to think what her next interview will be like.

“I was speaking to this wonderful guy from England, and he said: ‘Forget Mandela. You’re like Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Gary Lineker all rolled into one.’ To be mentioned in the same breath as those four amazing activists was just so humbling. Jesus is someone whose work I’ve always admired, and if I can achieve even half of what he did, I’ll really feel I’ve made a difference.”

I suppose the next phase is when the advisors and suppliers start bailing and then leaking the you can't believe how we suffered working for her stories?

[quote]I wonder if they'll go on doubling down on the attacks and threats on the family, or if after this they'll finally realise (along with any potential candidates for more fees) that that ship has sailed? Will Harry rethink his memoir?

I think with those two we're probably in last days of the war territory... all is lost, but if I'm going down, everybody's going with me. That won't work either, they're discredited and desperate, but take the high road now?

One thing I dislike about age in which we live is lines like this, from the Guardian: "whose family wealth is the consequence of ill-gotten gains at the expense of millions of Black and brown people around the world." Not an single word of substantiation.... you just breezily throw out the slur and move on, in service of your certainty. Does nobody any good.

The Grauniad also ran this... she's lost them at least for this round....

[quote] It's prima facie evidence of how badly the Sussexes cocked it up by not playing the royal game the way it should be played.

Uh, no. It's prima facie evidence of how racist and hypocritical the media are turning a blind eye, excusing and championing someone solely due to their skin color. The deplorable Gaudrian yet again doubles down on their hypocrisy/racism by hiding behind a validating black critic.

^ "At the moment, Meghan’s podcast is the main thing US media consumers have to go on when it comes to the couple’s contributions to American life. Future guests are said to include actors Constance Wu and Issa Rae, journalist Lisa Ling and comedian Margaret Cho – all likely to spark interesting conversations on gender, race and identity."

But will it? If the appearance is that they are present only to open the doors to me, me, me....

Even the article nails the problem: Kai acknowledged that the current moment in the Sussexes’ campaign for an American celebrity life was a tough one. “I think what we’re going through is the normal celebrity fatigue. You eat it up and eat it up, and then you’re done,” she said.

At the moment, Meghan’s podcast is the main thing US media consumers have to go on when it comes to the couple’s contributions to American life. Future guests are said to include actors Constance Wu and Issa Rae, journalist Lisa Ling and comedian Margaret Cho – all likely to spark interesting conversations on gender, race and identity.

Thompson said that, judging by the podcast, Meghan might aspire to be someone who is already the closest thing America has to homegrown royalty: the chatshow queen Oprah Winfrey. But if that is the case, there is a long road and a lot of work ahead for the royal couple.

Oprah, Thompson said, “had for a quarter-century a daily talkshow speaking to a huge, undifferentiated mass audience from which she could launch sorties into the rest of the culture – a book club, a magazine, movie roles”.

Oprah also had time to learn how to strike a balance between the confessional and personal, and a more neutral role of interviewer as interlocutor between an audience and a celebrity interviewee. “Oprah did it with a degree of skill that didn’t simply hijack the subject back to interviewer,” he points out.

^The racist press didn't make up what Mehhan said.

Her lies are part of the public record - just like the lies she told the Appeal Court last year. Her public apology to save her arse from a perjury charge is part of the public record.

Meghan hanged herself with her own insufferable, lying, posturing, shallow, bitchy persona. No one put those words in her mouth. The Mandela's are black. The CUT interviewer was black. The Guardian columnist is black.

How long do you think you can keep insisting with a straight face that even her black critics are just shills for white news media?

Are you deaf or just so pathetically hung up on race that you're willing to insist that Meghan's lies should be politely ignored by the press because her Mum is black?

Or are you so fucking far up your own racist arse that even when two black men descended from the world's best-known race justice hero, a black African actor, and a black African composer all call her on her lies, that you still think all her bad press is made up shit by white media?

Or are you suggesting that if you're black, you're owed a pass for lying in public?

She's using you. She had no use for blackness, black culture, black men, or black friends until the day she snagged the Pasty Prince and realised it was a useful card.

Especially as she didn't have to stop living her life of luxury due to the white family she married into.

You're pathetic.

Insisting that Meghan isn't responsible for her own words that got her the bad press is to imply that black people are incapable of self-agency or moral self-discipline and shouldn't be expected to have those qualities.

She lied, she threatened, she voiced endless self-pity from a $14 million home, she turned in low quality programming - and she got slammed for it.

Eat it

She really blew it this time. Except for her last-ditch dupes, looks like everybody else is tired of her at best.

If she really wants to change the world she better stop making it all about her and work behind the scenes.

r354 Such a brilliant post I think I might be falling in love with you... !!

The problem for Meghan and the particular role she's chosen as sainted social justice warrior and paragon of virtue, is that she doesn't really seem to care much about other people, can't stop lying, and seems incapable of letting go of her favorite role—victim.

How does she get any satisfaction out of blowing everything up in her face?

To a narcissist, it doesn't matter what other say. As long as they say it, that their complete attention/focus is on her. THAT'S the satisfaction.

Halfwit Harry's only way out of this mess is to force her to dump him.

He needs to find a beautiful 20 something, tall blonde with tits, ass and a waist, head to a motel with her and call in an anonymous tip to Backgrid on the way.

The photos will be front page of Daily Mail the next day and she will dump him. She will also scorch the earth in the process but it will be less scorched than if he were to dump her. He can pretend to be sorry and contrite as he packs his shit and heads back to the U.K. and back to Nottingham Cottage with its low ceilings.

He will be in British purgatory for decades and only see his kids when he flies back to U.S. to see them as she will never allow them out of her sight. But he played a stupid game and thus he will have reaped his stupid prizes.

Maybe it's not an impenetrable alternate universe... .

I wonder how much of Meghan's blatant pathology it will take for Harry to realize that everyone was right about her and that his family was doing him a favor trying to wave him off this obvious sociopath. Unfortunately, at this point, there is no going back. He's completely fucked himself and his kids, who Meghan will continue to use and merch for her own pathological needs.

R362, he wore a Nazi uniform to a party. Recognition isn't part of his truth. And frankly he seems like such a jerk now, he deserves her.

R354, that was an excellent comment.

Also, I’ve seen comments about Allison’s “The Cut” article saying they’re surprised that a black woman wrote about Meghan in a cynical way. Why is that? Black women are supposed throw aside their professional objectivity? Just because some do, doesn’t make it right. Professional black women are supposed to ignore her lies, just because they share some melanin?

Because all white people stick together and unconditionally advance each other?

Well, they've arrived back in England.

Everything's tribal these days, R364. We are post logic, all feeling now. Anything objective doesn't matter. Honestly, we may think we're all that but when the historians and the anthropologists and the lot write us up in a hundred years, I think we will be among the most scorned series of generations ever. We're so full of shit, the lot of us.

R365, yes, that’s true. But assuming that a black writer would have less integrity than a white one. Does anyone assume that Trump or Amber Heard would get preferential treatment from a white reporter?

Harry and Spider Eyes are back in Britain. Archie and Lilibet are probably in cold storage in Oxnard. H&M are staying at Frogmore Cottage, just a 15-minute walk from the Cambridges' new home at Adelaide Cottage. Hope Spider Eyes doesn't need to borrow some Grey Poupon or anything. A chilly reception would be a foregone conclusion. No plans to meet with the Cambridges, naturally, even though Wednesday is a free day for H&M. No plans to meet with Her Majesty either. They've found their thrive!

[quote] just a 15-minute walk from the Cambridges' new home at Adelaide Cottage.

Took her long to enter the Royal Albert Hall.

[quote]someone who is already the closest thing America has to homegrown royalty: the chatshow queen Oprah Winfrey

Excuse us?

She's black? Bollocks. She's tan.

Meghan didn't realize she was black until she dated Harry because she realized that she could finally use her mixed-race to her advantage.

Well yeah it is usually expected that black person wont backstab another black person, they have a group identity whereas whites don’t, for they have always been treated as individuals.

For all of her endless talk about herself, I don't hear her saying anything about motherhood. (Typical narcissistic mother.)

Archie and Lilibet are just bargaining chips.

^^^and merchandise, access to be be bartered, as she did with Archie's first photo.

r376 Of they divorce Harry's lawyers should make not being able to merch the children in future unless both parents agree part of the conditions of the divorce settlement.

It did make me wonder when she was complaining about the royal rota ("“Why would I give the very people that are calling my children the N-word a photo of my child before I can share it with the people that love my child?” she asked. “You tell me how that makes sense and then I’ll play that game") whether it was for justice or about money. Was it give as in hand over for free or give as in why give away what you could merch to a more appreciative audience?

I wondered if they'd both go at each other like hissing cats once they're divorced, but Harry's such a sap he'll just bend over, thinking he's being chivalrous toward his children's mother.

The word choice in the R378 quote could be misconstrued as aggressive, even mercenary. Did she go in too cocky or did she think it was a safe space and got played?

The writer really did do a good job. Her approach reminded me of the stories Nancy Jo Sales used to do for vanity fair et al and maybe still does. She did quite a memorable portrait of Gwyneth Paltrow at the very start of Gwyneth’s career. Totally had her number. I think it was for New York magazine as well.

Prince Dimwit is as much to blame for what is going on as Dumbass. They are working as a team.

Eventually Dumbass, being the dominant narcissist she is, will throw Dimwit to the wolves and destroy him like she is trying to destroy the Royal Family. Being the whining baby he is, he will never see it coming.

He really isn't the brightest bulb in the box.

R382: like Boris and Natasha... the only thing more reliable than their scheming is the certainty they'll fuck it up somehow.

R362 - As Harry functions with a similar pathology, I doubt he'll have a Come to Jesus moment with Meghan unless she really turns on him. If she doesn't, he'll double down on the their joint narrative: it's all someone else's fault, structural racism, the racist press, black people fronting for white supremacists, misogyny. That's the problem with clinical narcissism: it's always someone else's fault. So Meghan will have no trouble with Harry questioning her unless and until she turns on him when she has no more use for him.

So, don't hold your breath.

Does anybody entertain the possibility she won't turn on him?

Every day and night.

[quote]Does anybody entertain the possibility she won't turn on him?

No. Because narcissists have an insatiable appetite for power and grandeur. When she has devoured all he has to offer and is still hungry, she will seek a bigger tub of ice cream to indulge in.

The back fat will out.

Charles, Camilla, Anne and her husband filled in for the Queen at the Braemar Games in Scotland.

And a jolly time was had by all!

Carrion crows!

The Times:

In the 2½ years since they left for America, the couple have accused the royal family of racism, disregard for their mental health, miserliness and bad parenting, with the Queen and Charles passing down “genetic pain and suffering”, according to Harry.

New jibes landed last week in Meghan’s interview with the American magazine The Cut, when she suggested she and her husband were forced into exile because “by existing, we were upsetting the dynamic of the hierarchy”. She added that Harry had “lost” his father in the process. Sources close to Meghan later claimed her comments were misunderstood, and she was referring to her estrangement from her own father.

None of which is what the royal family had in mind when the Sussexes vowed to uphold the Queen’s values. A royal source says: “It is hard to see how what they’re doing would equate to the values of the Queen, who has never encouraged people to discuss deeply personal family relationships in public.” The monarch soldiers on, but as a source who knows her well says: “She doesn’t want to be on tenterhooks all the time, waiting to see what the next nuclear bomb will be — that will take its toll.”

Charles’s friends say the jibes continue to be “painful” for him, particularly after spending time with Harry, Meghan and his grandchildren, Archie and Lilibet, during the Platinum Jubilee in June, which Charles saw as a “minor act of reparation”, according to one friend, after the Sussexes’ explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey last year. The friend says: “For two years, there has been a steady stream of really challenging things said about a man who cannot [publicly] defend himself to a couple he obviously loves and misses. That is incredibly difficult on a personal level. He is completely bewildered by why his son, whom he loves deeply, feels this is the way to go about managing family relationships.”

DL won't like this:

There is no appetite from the Queen to remove the titles conferred on the couple when they married. She has already forbidden them from using their HRH styling and the word “royal” in commercial ventures. As a well-placed source says of the family’s thinking: “You can never un-royal a royal. You can take the HRH away, you could take the ‘duke’ away, but Harry is still the son of the future king.”

Instead, the Palace’s strategy is not to comment on every outburst, but to hammer home the distinction between official working members of the royal family, who represent the Queen, and the Sussexes as “private citizens”

Posting in two threads:

Times: A source who knows the Sussexes questions why Meghan “is constantly looking back at how awful it was to briefly be a royal. What does success look like, is it a number in the bank? Is it that they’ve killed off the monarchy?” Another Palace source says: “Ultimately they are bashing the institution that has put them in the position they’re in, the longevity of that strategy is not sustainable.”

The most interesting thing about The Times article (to me) - other than an obvious attempt to quieten chatter about yanking the titles - is the references to the Queen. It's all about her view, how she sees it... suggesting a lady who maybe can't walk very well but still runs the show sitting down?

Times: The Duke of Cambridge is now acclimatised to the Sussexes’ gripes, which no longer raise his hackles as much as they once did. “He’s not really spending much time thinking about it,” says a source close to Prince William, though friends concede he does not relish the prospect of Harry’s book.

Times: Meghan’s comments sent eyebrows skywards in royal circles. “The whole thing is just staggering,” said a royal source. “Nelson Mandela? Who’s next, Gandhi? There are simply no words for the delusion and tragedy of it all.”

Harry should not publish any book. It could only hurt him, in the long run.

R392, that was never on the cards. No way in hell will the Queen (or Charles, when he becomes King) remove Harry and Meghan's titles. Meghan has already insinuated the BRF are racist. She has them over a barrel.

She does not have them over a barrel. She is now mosquito in a dark room status. What she has is luck. The RF would want neither the scandal nor the precedent.

The last titles stripped were of actual Germans in the family who were deemed traitors to Britain, in the first world war. It's easy for us to real housewives the monarchy but it is serious business to them and the Queen moves deliberately and incrementally. If the Duke of Windsor didn't lose titling for abandoning his throne, Harry won't for being an asshole and marrying the most destructive wife in family history.

R389, what strikes me most about those pictures, is how much better 72 year old Princess Anne's legs are compared to Meghan Markle's.

This from the Telegraph re them acting as advocates for equality while remaining Duke/Duchess. It doesn't work.

Great comment R400

"A progressive duke and duchess is a nonsense, and it always will be. Be a duke or be a progressive activist. You can’t be both: if you try, you betray both your selves, and that is greedy. A duke is an ambassador from - and hopefully an argument for, if feudalism is your thing - inherited wealth and inherited power."

R397 At first, I was of your opinion. But the thing with people like Harry and Meghan is that they dont know when to stop. They have come close to making a case for the Queen doing so that, ironically, make the racism accusations weaker. They have been extremely foolish, and have lost a great deal of popular capital.

I think timing is everything, and the two have been lulled into thinking that it could never happen.

But I thi k it can, now. Remember, the title is Harry's, not hers. Queen takes HIS title, she loses it by extension.

Also remember, Harry has now carried his war into Parliament.

I still believe that that bill being introduced this year and now wending it's way slowly through Parliament that gives the Sovereign unilateral power to remove titles, was not a coincidence.

It's called "The Titles Removal Bill". I mean, really? Just now?

It's typical of the Sussexes to miss that, and thinking they're safe, step over lines that change the equation.

Overreach is the hallmark of clinical narcissism.

If Meghan had any real dirt on the family, they'd have paid them off in early 2020 when they first left the fold. Meghan can only hint at dark secrets because those dark secrets are bullshit. The BRF had her number by the time the engagement was announced, and they never would have spilled any dirt in front of her. She'll go on hinting until she realizes that doesn't get her anywhere, and either move on to something else or tell such a big whopper that they'll sue her.

You don't think Harry has told her secrets about his family?

That's second-hand information, though, and Harry probably has enough dark secrets of his own that he can't chance spilling the beans. Meghan herself has no first-hand dirt other than what she revealed on Oprah, and that wasn't much.

If they divorce, I could see Meghan spilling everything Harry told her, but that would be in the context of a bitter divorce, so who knows if it would be believed. Assuming what Harry told her is true, which is doubtful.

We're all assuming there actually are any particularly shocking secrets, let alone a raft of them. Only to say these people live lives without the usual privacy.

LOL... and like old faithful... Pa Markle's on the front page of a Maul exclusive:

'Meghan didn't lose me, I am not lost... she DUMPED me': Thomas Markle hits out at Duchess of Sussex's magazine claims - and accuses her of showing NO compassion to the ailing Queen as she 'constantly throws the Royal Family under the bus'

Welcome back, Meagain.

R295, I agree with that you said. I watched most of the series over 7 years and she did a good job in what was an ensemble cast. Related to your comments is her increased visibility once she started dating Harry. I find the British press to be even more intrusive than the American press. Every glance or brush of the skirt or half smile is noticed and interpreted. What would allow a person to make some gaffs and get away with them under Hollywood standards for a television star of her rank, changed when her status changed to a person in a relationship with a top royal. So she went from having to stage photo ops to get attention to automatically being on the front page of the social section of multiple top newspapers every time she walked down the street. That meant that as things got more serious, every gaff was detailed on the front pages as well. She didn't have the skills to handle it or to find someone who would advise her properly. And she didn't even seem to realize she needed the help. Those who gave her a chance like Oprah ended up likely regretting it.

With regard to the Bower book, he is like Kitty Kelley. They both collect anecdotes about their subjects. If you become famous, there are people who know unflattering things about you or at least their version is unflattering. Kelley filled her books with information from enemies or frenemies and they were successful. As long as they can back up their comments, they can withstand challenges.

"Last night Mr Markle, who suffered a blood clot on his brain earlier this year, said: 'I am still very ill and trying to recover from the stroke in May. Yet every time she opens her mouth she brings me into [the story]. 'It never ends.'

[quote]You can never un-royal a royal

They have ways.

On the topic of titles, The Cut piece makes it very clear that Meghan and Harry still see themselves as royals (Meghan's BS comments about children seeing her as a princess) and will never give up their titles. Also, Meghan's clear blackmailing attempts IMO are not just about this moment, they are also about the future. If she leaves Harry she'll want to ensure she can keep her Duchess titles like Diana and Fergie.

Meghan is single-minded in what she wants. She has always been obsessed with being a Hollywood star. Even after bagging Harry she was so determined to make big State side she couldn't see the much larger platform being a full-time working royal would allow her. There is no doubt in my mind that had the just kept in the royal fold, the press would've moved onto something else by now and their coverage would've gotten better. She fucked up because she's a chronic liar never happy with what she's been given.

By convention, she can keep the title. Divorced duchesses do. She'd be about the only person on earth taking it seriously, but it's nice to have one more thing to laugh at her for.

Pa Markle says the Meghan he knew was "sweet, kind and considerate". Really? Didn't Trevor, like Harry, announce at their wedding that his family would be the "family she never had"? Sounds like she's been abusing Pa Markle for a while. Also, didn't he give her and Trevor thousands of dollars for that Jamaican wedding? I forgot how much but it's in the book.

R412 There is no "never give up their titles" option. The Sussex title was a gift from the Queen, not one Harry was born with. If she takes that, there isn't a thing the Harkles can do about it. If they choose to keep using them, they'll look a) silly, and, b) worse, desperate, confirming to the world that they aren't about equality, but status, and that they know that without those titles, they're nobodies.

Harry was a fool to go after the government, pissing off both arms of the Ship of State. The government has already gotten petitions to take the titles of both Harry and Andrew, and every time it's punted back to the Queen. I think the government now has some skin in this game and wants shet of the question so that it really DOES rest with the Queen and they can stick it to Harry without getting their hands dirty.

Andrew will be in some danger, as well.

The Sussexes have again and again simply made things harder for themselves. They're like two people in a foxhole who can't think of anything better to do than keep digging.

I'm not sure Oprah, who continues to guide Markle's 'content, regrets it. In fact I think she relishes the challenge

"At any rate, I do feel for her. Because there is now a grave risk that heartless jokers will start paying her ludicrously extravagant compliments, purely to see whether she’ll repeat them to the media."

Who's near Santa Barbara? I dare you!

[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.]

^Imagine that - the day after this article appeared, the Spotify ratings chart suddenly changed. Rogan is at #1, and Meghan at #2. And even THAT is probably a lie, too.

The only thing on record about titles is the content in The Times today that says the exact opposite: the Queen has no appetite for yanking their titles. Titles are legal identities that are created, not just pretty niceties that are announced. They are governed by the Letters Patent that created them and Letters Patent are treated as statute law. The last time titles were yanked was The Titles Deprivation Act of 1917. That set the precedent: an act of Parliament governed. Just as an act of parliament governed the end of primogeniture.

One more thing: precedent, in the UK, is everything because the constitution is largely unwritten.

The sad fact is, that Harry's positioned is going to be immensely strengthened when QEII dies and Charles takes the throne. He's going to be the son of the monarch then... and that means Charles will HAVE to shut him up by any means necessary!

So if Harry and Meg can hold out until then, they'll be able to blackmail Charles for an unholy fortune and a horde of security, although of course they'll never be able to stick to their end of the bargain and keep their mouths shut. But if Meghan can stick it out until the queen dies, then she actually WILL be able to afford that humongous Barbie castle...

Sorry, uncodified. It's all over the place, in writing.

The UK is often said to have an ‘unwritten’ constitution. This is not strictly correct. It is largely written, but in different documents. But it has never been codified, brought together in a single document.

Parliamentary sovereignty is commonly regarded as the defining principle of the British Constitution. This is the ultimate law-making power vested in the UK parliament to create or abolish any law.

The royal prerogative - the powers of the monarch - is now largely vested in the government. The monarch retains four personal powers: the dissolution of Parliament, the appointment of the Prime Minister, the granting of the royal assent to the legislations and also the dismissal of government.

In all other matters the monarch acts on the advice (read at the direction) of the government. Including peerages (from which flow titles.)

Meghan had plenty of people who tried to advise, her, including Camilla. Meghan ignored them all.

It’s true what TM said that was quoted above, R410. Why should she constantly pull him into her narrative/ drama when he just wants to heal? You dumped your “dearest daddy,” we get it, now leave him alone. Compassion in action, indeed.

Daddy Markle needs to apologize to the world for creating this foul creature.

r422 I dont think they have the credibility to make accustions that most would believe so I dont see a blackmail working.The UK authorities are not going to let the head of state be over a barrel and blackmailed by malcontented family member and just accept it.

People are assuming any accusation they make will have strong power and potency.I think that ship has sailed.

How long did Megs and second row Harry actually stay in Britain before they left for California?

2-3 years? How much more material can they squeeze out of that small amount of time.

r428 She was a working member of the royal family for 18 months.Sensible people are already questioning why she cant move on or indeed him too given she has been out of the royal family longer than she was in.

Only 18 months?!? She’s insufferable.

She needs to fade back in obscurity. Fuck you Oprah, Sunshine Sachs and Harry for giving this lying nitwit a platform for her nonsense

After the addition of the Nelson Mandela story which was obviously another big lie, I don't think anyone will believe any outrageous stories she might come up with about the royal family.

Since it's Harry who has the title, the Queen could remove her grandson's title and thereby her grandson's wife would also be without.

Which title? She can't remove his princely title, that's his birthright. Parliament would have to do that. She might be able to remove the Ducal title on her own, since it was her personal gift. That would leave him Prince Henry and Meghan wold become Princess Henry. But she could never become Princess Meghan, as she's been trying to push lately.

I don't see why Charles would have to do anything different once he is king. Yes, Harry will be the son of a monarch, but all of the perks that usually accrue to children of the monarch--the bigger homes, the bigger incomes, etc., are generally part and parcel of their elevation to senior working royals and the properties, incomes, jewels, etc. are all based in the UK. The benefits Charles could easily give Harry if his son were still in the BRF fold won't be so easy at 8,000 miles distance, and the benefits he could dig into his pockets to give him . . . well . . . that depends on how Harry treats his father in his book. If Harry trashes Charles and then it comes out he's given Harry a large private allowance anyway, that will just make Charles look like more of a weakling.

In any case, whatever Harry is going to get he'd better squeeze out of Charles quickly. Charles doesn't look particularly well, and once William is king, Harry isn't getting a shilling.

r430 Yes May 2018 to November 2019 at which point they decamped to Canada an then d one commonwealth service appearance in early 2020

[quote] Black women are supposed throw aside their professional objectivity?

[quote] But assuming that a black writer would have less integrity than a white one.

The "liberal" media, and especially The Gaudrian, consistently uses blacks to criticize blacks, Jews to criticize Jews, believing that the criticism will have greater veracity and will be a shield against accusations of racism/bigotry, while ignoring that this peculiar "tactic" is simply more of the same hypocritical racism and bigotry.

Afer the break, we'll ask Meghan, the Duke of Essex, why she threw a cup of tea at Australia, and why she threw the flowers at Nelson Mandela when Charlotte came to apologize for setting the baby on fire.

The woman at R400 admits her own stupidity: "When they left, I genuinely believed they wanted a small house and a private life. I thought he might become a tree surgeon or a lumberjack and she a lawyer or maybe something in healthcare."

Well, he did cut off part of his family tree and in fact try to topple it, and she did file a lawsuit and is definitely something described in healthcare manuals... so that woman was quite perceptive.

[quote]The "liberal" media, and especially The Gaudrian, consistently uses blacks to criticize blacks, Jews to criticize Jews, believing that the criticism will have greater veracity and will be a shield against accusations of racism/bigotry, while ignoring that this peculiar "tactic" is simply more of the same hypocritical racism and bigotry.

Is there ever a moment they just just call it like they see it?

I wonder how this would have played out if the UK had stayed in the European Union? Would they have been involved or punted it back to the BRF?

The EU would have no standing in something like this. It governs common economic, social, and security policies.

The Daily Mail is stating that the Sussexes will NOT receive police protection while in England. They'll have to make do with their own bodyguards.

The BRF will never take the Sussex title from them. It would give them a victim narrative they'd peddle for decades. They look ridiculous bitching about the family while flaunting the titles the family gave them, and the BRF knows it. The Firm is doing what it always does: Keeping quiet and playing the long game. That's worked for them for centuries, and it's working now.

I've just read that there'll be a "Ring of Steel" of private security around them and the venues they're visiting at all times.

That's totally understandable, because the U.K. is SO dangerous! We were ranked 74th on the Intentional Homicide Rate, whereas their homeland, the U.S., comes in at... oh, wait. The U.S. is 7th.

Anyway, the U.K. has terrible tabloids which - according to Meghan - the U.S. doesn't have. Oh, wait... are the National Enquirer, Star, The Globe, and National Examiner American?

H&M are full of shit. This display is for optics only; it's them saying "look at us! We have security because we're victims!"

The have security because the are SO VERY VERY IMPORTANT!!!! JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE QUEEN!!! And WAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN WILLIAM AND KATE!!!!

Did Sunshine Fibbers hire enough cheerleaders to drown out the inevitable boos and hire enough seat fillers for better optics than their sad little UN excursion?

I personally think it would be impossible to say or do anything more tone-deaf than the Mandela thing, but I’m sure Meghan will prove me wrong.

R416, what is your source for Oprah supposedly continuing to guide Meghan? The last I saw Meghan's vehicle was sitting outside of Oprah's closed gate in Montecito.

R449: Part 1 of 2

R449: Part 2 of 2

R449, I don’t know how to post a tweet, but here’s the text.

[quote] It seems Oprah is involved with producing Nutmeg’s Spotify content. Harpo Exec Producer, Terry Wood who produced PH’s MHealth doc & the O interview is also the EP of MM’s Spotify podcast. Harpo VP, Catherine Cyr is also helping to produce her podcast. They both work for Oprah.

R449, not the poster you are referring to, but Oprah/her team is also involved in the-behind-the-scenes of MM’s podcasting on Spotify.

R444 A great any things have happened to and within the BRF that people said "Never" about. Abdication of a sitting King; divorce and remarriage of the Prince of Wales (and two of the Sovereign's other children and her sister); shit like Oprah . . ..

You don't know what is going on behind the scenes. Everything in their universe is done in code.

The Titles Removal Bill upends centuries of law and custom. It didn't appear this year out of nowhere.

The Palace and the Government have been having some quiet discussions. The Bill, if passed, opens a door that everyone assumed shut. If it was even introduced and gotten this far, it means that the unthinkable is being considered. This kind of quiet stealth approach is classic QEII.

Don't bet on it never happening.

^Oh, and Meghan and Harry are busily turning the BRF into their victims, cf. Meghan's latest interview fiasco.

Savvy old Betty: she knows the old adage of revenge being a dish best served cold.

Not only are they sweeping anyone who would dare boo them out of the way but...according to Baroness Bruck, "the organizations were hoping to get a massive amount of attention but have now been told that H&M’s American PR team is in control

H&M’s team must approve all invited press. Not one media is to be credentialed unless approved by the couple’s people."

I think it's time the organization cuts its ties to these two control freak clowns.

r452 r453 And yet the podcast still seems to be sh**e

r454. It is a private members bill from one of the York MPs who is pissed off about Andrew. The chances of it making it to law are slim to none. The Lords are hardly going to pass a bill that theoretically means they lose their spot on the whim of the Monarch.

r458 I think k the bill might be more nuanced than you think.

Maybe SA, we shall see. As it is it has had a first reading which means nothing. There wil be a vote after the second reading .

They will need a ring of security in case someone yells "Boo!"

Charles has allegedly invited Harry and Meghan to stay with him at Balmoral twice in the past few months and they've said no. Gee it's almost like Harry & Meghan who preach to no end about compassion have zero interest in actually playing nice with the royals. It's almost like they think trying to drop their "truth" bombs every few weeks is more lucrative.

r461 They have a big problem if reality is so problematic to them. r480 Indeed we shall see. I think it gives the power to the monarch to strip titles but each case has to be approved by a parliamentary vote rather than a monarchs whim is my understanding of it. Lady Colin Campbell was furious that mps would have the power to take away titles.

R461 I am absolutely certain if the public were allowed anywhere near the event they would be boo loudly and this time the bells of St. Paul's wouldn't be able to filter it out. They must know how unpopular here but unfortunately for them, they need the content and no American charities are knocking down their doors for them.

r484 I wonder why no US charities are interested in them? They really must be seen as damaged goods or more bother than their worth.

[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.]

Can you imagine organizing a charity event and having it hijacked by these two paranoids? “Yes, we will need the venue cleared of all personnel for 90 minutes prior to the start of the event. No one is allowed within the perimeter who has not been cleared by our security and Archewell staff. No cell phones or recording devices permitted. Metal detectors, X-ray screeners and bomb-sniffing dogs will be placed at both entry points. Submit a list of all charity and venue personnel two weeks prior so the Harkles can run background checks and view their social media. Cell signals will be jammed by our special frequency generators”

And so on.

These people just want to have a banquet and slide show, ma’am.

R466, when your senior citizen mother has a better body than you do. Ouch.

Doria with her pit bull and new tats.

They wont even stop by to see his father and grandmother, yet they claim to be such great humanitarians.

R465 They don’t bring in money nor do they donate jack shit. Archewell is farcial, a “foundation” that can keep 95% of its cash for “expenses.” In the UK, the royals act as patrons of various charities. They put butts in seats at galas. In the US, that job goes to A-list celebs or to their highest donors. The Dullard Prince and the Adventuress are neither.

r463, I haven't read the wording SA. I think more that parliament will have it's hands too full with government business in the coming months to spend time on private members bills.

“Oh, and of course everyone must sign an NDA when they check their cell phones with security. Refusal to sign will result in non-admittance to the venue”

[QUOTE]I wonder why no US charities are interested in them? They really must be seen as damaged goods or more bother than their worth.

SA - Catherine St. Laurent who had previously worked with the Gates Foundation for five years was hired as Archewell's executive director and left after barely a year, ostensibly to start her own firm. Ostensibly, I say because I suspect she began to see through the Ducal unit's superficiality and their goal of self-aggrandizement and enrichment. She sounds like a heavy hitter in the field having worked closely with Melinda Gates. She has an extensive and varied network in the charitable world. An odd look or a muted between-the-lines response from her could be enough to send some charities running.

I forgot to add that Ms. St. Laurent looks like exactly the type of woman Markle would envy and try to bully. Attractive and highly competent in her field (shades of Melissa Toubati?), but because she was a hired hand maybe Meghan saw fit to kick down rather than the kissing up she should have done with someone of St. Laurent's caliber.

I think this is why the Harkles are doing shit like crashing and leaving the scene of a newly formed community grassroots effort in Uvalde for PR and sympathy rather than providing material support and exposure to legitimate charities in like Moms Demand Action or the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. They think an appearance and a party sandwich tray for condolences are sufficient.

No way in fucking he'll would St. Laurent tarnish her professional reputation by recommending these two grifters to legitimate organizations and causes.

Um..... there was a sandwich tray?

R458 - Yes, I know who sponsored it. But it has reached committee stage after two readings. And the Lords will know perfectly well that the target of the titles is not those appointed by members of the government or the hereditary peerage. The target of the bill is very, very clear: members of the royal family carrying actual place names with real people in them. The folk of York have made it clear that they don't want Andrew continuing to carry the privilege of a ducal title, ditto the people of Sussex.

No one in his right mind would suppose that the Bill is going to prompt the Sovereign from interfering either with the HoL or the herediatary peerage.

It's obvious who the intended targets are. The Labour MP may have been aiming initially for Andrew, but the idea that the Sussexes wouldn't be in the scope is becoming increasingly unlikely. As mentioned, Harry carried his "war" to Parliament, most unwisely.

No one is interested in taking peerages away from members of the HoL, and the Lords bloody well know it.

The Bill is aimed at allowing the Queen more power to punish and get rid of rogue members of her own family. Anything else is a specious interpretation.

Hell not he'll at r475

What if they took away Lady Colin Campbell's title?

Who is “they”, in this case, R479?

R480 - the MP's or whoever it would be if they passed the bill in R477.

R479, she doesn’t have a title to take. I learned that on DL. Very few women have titles in their own right, they have only “courtesy” titles as wives or ex-wives.

The Houses of Parliament hopefully have many more important issues to deal with than the courtesy title of Lady Colin Campbell.

Although I’m sure that her ex-husband Lord Colin Campbell would be happy to have it passed.

Here is the Bill's full title:

"A Bill to give the Monarch powers to remove titles; to provide that such removals can be done by the Monarch on their own initiative or following a recommendation of a joint committee of Parliament; and for connected purposes."

Originated in the House of Commons, Session 2022-23 (that's quite recent, so the Bill is moving faster than I thought)

Sponsor of the Bill is Rachael Maskell, LMP for YORK Central.

It is obvious to the blind what the aim of this BIll is for. The government received numerous petitions for the removal of both the York and Sussex titles. Parliament punted back to the Queen, knowing full well that, willy-nilly, under the old rules it would still have to become involved. With this Bill, Parliament can take a backseat role to this by mentioning "recommendations" and "committees", but leave the burden squarely on the monarch's shoulders. This way, the government doesn't risk votes of those who think Once A Duke Always A Duke.

It signals a change in direction that undoes a lengthy history.

No monarch is going to start fiddling with the Lords or the hereditary peerage. Do you envision her deciding to remove the Northumberland title from the Percys?!

The initial target was Andrew. But the idiot Sussexes, pissing off the Home Office now as well as the Palace, are going to make it just that much easier for the Queen, more in sorrow than in anger, to take BOTH titles, even if she has to sacrifice Andrew for it, because the Sussexes are crossing too many line.

The Lords by all odds are as eager to get this antiquated burden off Parliament's shoulders as the HoC.

They are not the target, and they know it.

this picture never fails to make me laugh quite hard

The Queen isn't going to pull Harry's title, and neither will Charles.

The Duke of Windsor died the Duke of Windsor, they allowed him to keep his title but let him spend his useless life floundering and becomeing increasingly irrelevant. That's the fate Harry has chosen.

The Duke of Windsor was a former king, and lived in a very different time.

I doubt there were petitions to remove his title.

Why are there more stories about the despicable duo being invited to Balmoral? Didn't the Palace already put out a carefully worded statement dispelling that rumor?

Is it Sunshine Sachs trying to manifest a photo op? Or are they floating the rumor to give the impression the duo are in control because they "declined" the invitation?

There is no way the Conservatives are going to back an Opposition member's bill, are going to give credibility to the opposition or mess with the Crown. They are Conservatives. At the end of the second reading debate, the Commons decides whether the Bill should be given its second reading by voting, meaning it can proceed to the next stage.

That is where it will die.

Most of the country will be struggling to pay their heating bills in the not too distant future. This bullshit bill is doomed.

R488 Au container. I think this is Palace PR trying to make the Sussexes look even more the hard hearted cruel liars sticking knives into poor old Dad.

This is the UK press giving it to Meghan and Harry as they try to make bank in England, making them look hard and mean.

How Charles actually feels about the Harkles was clear at the Jubly.

The Palace and the UK press are going to pay the Harkles put for the CUT interview and podcast lies.

^*au contraire (not container)

Fucking autocorrect can't manage basic French usage.

Likely the Palace will communicate to the government their views on the matter. And the view will be this: the Crown does not want the ability to do this. No member of the royal family has been stripped of a title in more than a hundred years and then it was by act of Parliament and then because while there was a view the King could actually do it under the powers of the Crown (at the time) no one wanted the King embarrassed by having to do it. So the government took a bill. That set the precedent. Titles became a matter for the government. (Think of the Cabinet involvement in Princess Margaret's love life or the titling and styles of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.)

Why does the Crown not want to be able to strip titles? Because it makes it vulnerable to public opinion in the moment. If the process is not formalized, not clear and not theirs, they cannot be caught between their own preferences or strategic interests and the popular feeling of the moment. We cannot fail to do what we do not have the means to do.

Does Harry see the lies?

[quote]”The whole thing is just staggering,” said a royal source. “Nelson Mandela? Who’s next, Gandhi? There are simply no words for the delusion and tragedy of it all.”

Bravo! I can’t even remember which paper this was from but who cares.

Delusion and Tragedy are great nicknames for the Harkles

There’s another book that will drive the final nail in the coffin: Harry’s book.

The Duke of Windsor was only created Duke of Windsor after his abdication (cf. Wikepedia - "After his abdication, Edward was created Duke of Windsor."). They had to give him another title when he left the monarchy. Prior to becoming King Edward VIII he was titled as Prince of Wales.

Regarding her racism claims - has she ever had a romantic relationship with a black man?

[quote] Does Harry see the lies?

Harry doesn't give a flying fuck about Megs lies. In fact, the more vicious and detrimental the lie, the more Harry squeals with joy. Harry's goal in marrying Megs was to cause as much pain/suffering to his grandmother, father and brother. A goal he has achieved beyond his wildest dreams.

When did Harry develop such a hate for his own family, R499?

What happened to his apparent years of genuine closeness with William and Kate (whom he called “the sister he never had”)?

I just never saw him as hating his family (even his elderly grandmother and grandfather?) and never got that “vibe” from him in all the years before Meghan.

But—I have to admit—his repeated behavior over the past 3 years only does make *some* kind of emotional sense if he truly does want to hurt his own family (which I still don’t understand).

R500 Harry is a very damaged little boy who has spent his life blaming others for his discontent and misfortune. His entire life is a lie propagated by his grandmother, father, brother and the media. In Megs, he saw a vehicle to once and for all royally fuck them all as he perceives he's been royally fucked by them. And here we all are.

Harry is not the sharpest tool in the shed so with his relative wealth and relative fame he was an ideal target for a manipulative succubus such as his wife.

R502 Don't kid yourself. Harry is manipulating Megs just as much as Megs is manipulating Harry, each pursuing their own agenda. Sociopaths often pair up with their own kind to enhance the thrill of the chaos and destruction they cause. This is the same.

It might help to ignore the media spin and focus on Harry's actions over the years.

Harry is too dumb to be a sociopath. He would have taken the form of any woman he hooked up with because he's an empty vessel.

He was "love bombed" by a manipulator - you know, the N word. What did grandpapa say - you screw showgirls but you don't marry them!

Just bad luck - and being stubborn and dumb. William must be frequently fuming.

It could resolve if she would just run off to greener pastures (she's shit on so many). Some old guy in New York City - oh wait, where is Maralago. She might make it as "Florida Woman" and decide to defect to the deplorables (they'll take anybody)

I keep thinking of that meme where Harry makes the mike drop and says "BOOM" when sitting next to his grandmother. Does he now do that every time and his wife attack a family member?

On second thought, aren't there a bunch of hopeless loser has-been actresses/singers past their prime in L.A.? There are probably gigolos looking for easy living (on the alimony and child support she'll get).

And there was the rumor of a new house in Bel Air.

Who is most like Meghan? Angelina Jolie? Amber Heard? Madonna? (out of her league but still...) Roseanne? Anne Heche, ahem. Pamela Sue Anderson? Like Shirley MacLaine screaming that they've run out of creme brulee? Cher or Barbra with the mall in the basement? -- most of those were really somebody (at one time) but having married into the BRF, maybe she's a "somebody" now who can age in weird obscurity, yelling at staff and a few deadbeat husbands?

I just can't fathom which one she'll end up like, but I cannot imagine them married for a long time - he has nothing except those polo guys and he isn't even in the Santa Barbara team I don't think - just some celebrity charity outfit, and that's not enough of a life.

I'm trying to predict where she'll end up - finding it hard. Any ideas?

She never had the success of Cher, Barbra, Madonna, or even Angelina Jolie. I don't think she will be as disgraced as Amber Heard. I can see her ending up like Jerry Hall marrying some old very rich guy.

In terms of character rather than circumstance she is most like Angelina Jolie. And like her, will go to extreme lengths to salt the earth of Harry's soul - and alienate him from his children - should he ever dare to leave.

I'm intrigued to see where she ends up. Having children whose siblings are direct heirs to the throne - and being Duchess - it does give some wacky cache'

I just want her and Harry to divorce. Not sure why I'm so desperate for that lol. I guess I feel sorry for the guy, such a fish out of water, and if he's back home in England, I think there's at least a chance his kids will have a better future.

But then, you've got a point R509. Is Harry the type to give up his life just to be there for his kids. Even living there, can she put up with him? Somehow, I see her getting sick of him and taking off (with the kids, of course, sadly)

* COUSINS not siblings - oops

[quote]Is Harry the type to give up his life just to be there for his kids.

I think he thinks he is. But I don't think he is.

Charles bewildered because he thought they were working towards reconciliation

I do feel sorry for Charles. It does appear that he's a well meaning man, but he's no match for Meghan's scheming.

Luckily, he's not alone and has a team of experts - arguably among the best in the world - to help battle the incessant victim hood and attention-seeking dramatics of the terrible two. The Queen, Charles, William etc. will be fine, it's Harry who will ultimately suffer.

Charles seems bewildered a lot. Bewildered and befuddled. Thank god for Camilla who is sharp as a tack.

William won’t see him because he can’t trust him to reveal their discussions per Daily Mail

I have to say I was shocked that Charles blew a kiss to Kate at the church memorial. And I don't think he even looked over at the Harkles to even acknowledge them. OUCH. Seems like the action of a very pissed off man.

No, not like Jerry Hall. She seems to be a genuinely nice woman liked by everyone. Not a diva. She never even trashed Mick in the press, even though he hurt, humiliated, and ultimately swindled her.

One thing struck me in the Oprah interview - MM's biggest grenade, the accusation of implicit racism in the unnamed member wondering what their child's skin colour would be - I would have replied that it's normal and typical for family members to say that especially in mixed-race marriages.

I wonder if Oprah deeply regrets having been involved in the Sussex shitshow.

Someone posted in this thread of one of the other Harkle threads that Oprah is involved with the Spotify podcasts coming from Archewell

Or one of the other Harkle threads

I come from a mixed background myself and it's very normal to discuss what color babies will be. Some of my nephews and nieces inherited gorgeous dark olive skin, some with dark eyes and hair, some with fair eyes and hair. My cousin was lucky enough to be born with a very strong resemblance to our grandmother: figure and colouring. The same grandmother who adored the Queen and was determined to make it to 100 so that she'd receive a letter from her. That letter was so precious to her. My grandmother was one of nine and she, her brothers and sisters all had children running from white to dark and everything in between

[quote] I wonder if Oprah deeply regrets having been involved in the Sussex shitshow.

Not in the least. Oprah made millions pimping Megs and Harry. For Oprah, that's always been the name of the game.

^Oprah was paid $7 million for that interview.

And, as Oprah is kind of over as a Thing, getting involved in the endless drama that is the Harkles perhaps gave her public profile a needed shot in the arm.

The story about the raging inferno in Archie's room in SA has already died down.

Such is this case with narcissists. They tell a tall tale today creating chaos and causing outcry. Then the next day they tell another whopper diverting attention from the whopper they told yesterday. It's impossible to fully address any of their lies because they just keeping coming out with a new one each day. Life with and around these types of people is like having balls coming at you at full speed in a batting cage or from a tennis machine. Can't possibly hit them all.

Trump was the same way. Spewing new crazy each day causing media to abandon yesterday's crazy to try and address today's crazy and so on and so forth.

R517 Yes, that escaped no one's notice. Now, the PR is painting him as a sad, pained, bewildered father.

The Sussexes look bad either way. There would be too much danger in coming out and stating that no such open invitation was ever proffered, so the story sticks and puts a pin into Meghan's "forgiveness" balloon, without coming out and stating that she's full of shit and if they two of them really wanted to make it up, they'd stop spreading lies about the family because they didn't get what they wanted when they wanted it.

It's a clever change of direction, and directly aimed at the Sussexes painting themselves as the victims who want to make it up but are being stymied by the BRF's refusal to engage with them.

Whatever works on the day.

I wonder if Meghan sees that her current course with the BRF is not sustainable? The BRF is grey rocking her, and without any more interactions to complain about, the victim narrative will get stale fast--arguably it already is. How many more fulsome interviews can she do where she vaguely refers to "healing" and "forgiveness" before we all start rolling our eyes? My eyes are rolling already.

Once Harry's book comes out, they've pretty much shot their wad. Any further books will have diminishing returns, unless Meghan divorces Harry and writes her own.

Perhaps that's why the book keeps getting delayed. They must know at some level that that's the end of the "Brave Sussexes leaving the BRF behind to make a more authentic life in America and heal the wounds of the past" bullshit.

My money on the book's delay is hoping the Queen will die first, additional material being added from the Jubly, avkidancecof competition with Michelle Obama's book AND the American publication of the Bower book with bee information, and one eye on Judicial Reviee of his case for taxpayer funded armed security.

It wouldn't help his case much by a memoir trashing the nation's Head of State, two future Heads of State, future Queen Consort, Britain generally, and it's oldest (and still approved) institution.

The delay is obviously tactical, but I doubt any dialing back of the only headline grabbing thing Harry has to sell is part of that.

It's a last grab at big bucks for this story before the public is done with it, and the Sussexes need money.

Possible theory: Markle came into it thinking she would make a go of it inside the monarchy but when she realized what a malleable loose cannon she had on her hands, hatched an escape plan instead? All the money, none of the hats and pantyhose. She gave every appearance of playing the game early in the marriage. Was everything a phased campaign? Harry had the festering, lingering resentment, only the manifestation had to be shaped? Maybe?

If they need money you'd never know it—private security, private jets, designer wardrobe for Meg, plenty of staff. Not sure where it's all coming from, but they seem to have plenty.

I don't believe anybody would be feeding the Sulksexes any information about the Queen's health. Who would? Why? Among the consistent reporting is nobody trusts them to keep their mouths shut.

Judging from photos out today, Meg told Harry to be sure and smile.

R506 I hated that at the time. Thought it was so undignified. It was as if the queen was indulging Harry.

She's a mid-range narcissist.

R528 judging from the pics of Meghan's baggy pants, evidently they can't afford an iron.

The wrinkled clothes are strategic. Meg is auditioning for a P&G commercial for that Downy Wrinkle Release Fabric Refresher.

[quote]Sociopaths often pair up with their own kind to enhance the thrill of the chaos and destruction they cause.

They had better be careful.

Are they getting paid for these appearances? Or is all the publicity what they are after?

Both of them are insufferable. Harry is so unattractive. Those little corn teeth and bald head. Ugh. Nobody wants his ass now. Megs looks like she has black face on.

Meg is taking "woman of color" literally

[quote]American publication of the Bower book with bee information,

That's Queen Bee to you!

R528 It's called dressing for the job you want instead of the job you have.

R538 - Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

"new" information . . . but you knew that.

That look in her spider eyes.

"He fell for it! He fell for it!"

When Harry's book finally does come out, will we have to suffer a barrage of interviews and promotional events in which he yet further blasts his family? I don't think I could take it.

Of course there will be. Nobody wants to read a book by Harry that isn't full of dirt, and the promotional tour will capitalize on it.

He'd better hope the book is a bestseller, because if it contains the dirt the public wants, his family isn't going to give him a pound once it's out.

Poor things had to take the train to Manchester, I assume to try to turn the PR ship around. MM's now dressed as Timmy C at Venice for her big moment. The DM is covering it live; they know where their bread is buttered.

How large are the adoring crowds?

Kate should wear the Queen Mary bandeau sometime just to troll her.

They made an extra long entrance walk onto the stage today akin to her Royal Albert Hall walk.

She looks thinner but her face looks harder. Aging? Work?

Is Meghan wearing blackface?

[QUOTE]I wonder if Meghan sees that her current course with the BRF is not sustainable? The BRF is grey rocking her,

Fun fact: I Googled "Grey rocking" since I wasn't sure if this is a Datalounge term or more widely used (this is the only place I've seen it). And what do you know, who has the first entry? CHIMPO Harry's Silicone Valley faux mental health enterprise, Better Up! Or Butter up for a financial kill, as Harry advised the faux Greta Thunberg.

How much did they pay Google to come up as the top search item surpassing publications like Psychology Today?

Livestream of Meghan's cringey One Young World Speech. She's talking about herself, of course...

Different day, the same look. One is miserable, the other has a strange grin on her face.

I listened while I emptied the dishwasher. It was seriously all about her. Where's her PR?

I kind of feel sorry for the wannabe Obamas sitting through this model UN stuff, with her in designer clobber.

What other expertise has she got?

R514 Charles gets a lot of unfair coverage IMHO, and I'm not really a fan of his. To people who know him well, he's apparently a bit of a "softy" very sentimental and a bit timid. In fact, it was this soft side that often put him at odds with Prince Philip who was a more traditionally "macho man." Charles was also closer to Harry than William and was more supportive of Meghan joining the family than William, Philip and Anne who all allegedly saw her act. Charles may have been a more distant father in terms of not being around often, but he was a loving one to Harry (though over indulged him) and I think he truly wants to mend fences and be involved in his grandchildren's lives. So I can see him being hurt and totally confused by Harry's behaviour as prior to the jubilee Charles was reportedly making efforts to try and heal rifts. Sadly, I think Charles needs to take William's approach and close all doors to Harry while Meghan is still in the picture.

I posted this in another Meghan the Narc-related thread. Apologies up front if the formatting has turned out weird:

Every time Meghan bleats about herself, her truth, her experience, etc., I'm reminded of George Harrison's song "I Me Mine" on the Beatles' last album "Let it Be."

All through the day I me mine, I me mine, I me mine

All through the night I me mine, I me mine, I me mine

Now they're frightened of leaving it Everyone's weaving it Coming on strong all the time All through the day, I me mine

I me me mine, I me me mine I me me mine, I me me mine

All I can hear I me mine, I me mine, I me mine

Even those tears I me mine, I me mine, I me mine

No one's frightened of playing it

Everyone's saying it

Flowing more freely than wine

All through the day, I me mine

Harry would not have made a good "working royal" anyway.

R544 I don't know, it's hard to tell because of the "ring of steel" outside (that's to keep the booers away, not the terrorists). Indoors, who knows? I think the place holds about 3,000. From the photos I saw, it wasn't sold out, but it's hard to tell.

She looks appalling in head to toe red. The pieces themselves are nice, but without much of a waistline, it's better to break it up. And I see she's ditched the "natural" look she used for her podcasts with black women.

Over to you, Mr De Mille.

Her spray tan would make Donald Trump blush...

R551 Good lord, it really is. He looks like he'd rather be down at the local having a pint, she looks like this is the only environment that makes her really happy.

And she looks ten shades darker than she did at the polo matches in the summer.

And to think they haven't hit London yet.

Ah, well. DL won't be dull, at least.

Very telling about public mood in the UK, there were only about 50 people crowding to see them as their cars drove by leaving the event. This is in Manchester which is probably the most liberal city in the UK outside London.

R560 Is that so? Well, the security probably put them off. But that really is a small crowd. Manchester was about 30% minority in 2011, but is likely greater now, and it's mostly Muslim. I don't think they relate to or care about Meghan the way the black community might. And, one might be surprised by how patriotic they are, according to studies. I think it's condescending to suppose dwellers in places like Manchester and Birmingham are any less loyal Queen and country than other areas of Britain, which is true I think of other immigrant populations, as well. It's the jihadists and groomers that make the news, but I think on the whole they are little different from the rest of the population in their views on the monarchy and on the Sussexes.

And we know where the latter stand in the popular statistics.

Anent the support for the monarchy, I did read that at the last Jubilee, the Diamond in 2012, support for the monarchy in the north generally was 66% or so. As The Guardian ruefully put it at the time, polls that Ed Miliband and David Cameron could only envy.

R562 Public support for the monarchy in the UK is around the 60% mark. Strongest in England, weakest in Scotland (but still majority support). Only about 23% support becoming a republic - a number that hasn't changed really since the 90s. Support is strongest among people over 40 and weakest with people under 25.

R562 - Well, as pointed out (although I hesitate to open that can of worms again), people get more conservative socially as they age. The people in the age group who MOST support the monarchy . . . were the kids from the Swingin' Sixties. I was there. That's my generation. It's amusing to see how "Never trust anyone over 30" and "Angry Young Men" and that lot are now in the group most supportive of tradition.

But where the Sussexes are concerned, other issues come into play - in and of themselves, they're so horribly unlikable and so transparently greedy for fame and attention. So disliking them might not be directly related to supporting the monarchy.

They're just so bloody unappealing and so hopeless at hiding their shallow ME ME ME bullshit. Without Britain and the BRF, he'd be pumping petrol somewhere and she'd be working the makeup counter somewhere . . .

I have a hard time believing Charles is sympathetic or soft towards them.

He wanted to issue a point by point rebuttal after the Oprah interview. Called her "tungsten" early on. He appeared to be telling them to leave during that garden party right after the wedding. Charles fought with the ginger brat during that fifteen-minute meeting that the Queen mandated ginger brat have before he could meet with her back in April. Papa Charles also didn't advocate for them to get any better digs than Frogmore.

Oh and the kiss. The kiss he blew to Kate says it all.

Wasn't Meghan supposed to speak about gender equality at the Youth World thing?

I just listened to it and she said not one word about gender equality. She just told some anecdotes about herself, and told the audience how awesome they are for being young and inclusive and young and curious and young.

Are you surprised, R566? This is Meghan Markle we're talking about here. She's as deep as a puddle and incapable of talking about anything other than herself.

r567 The funny thing is that she clearly thinks that public speaking is her wheelhouse......

I pity the two children.

The scene outside the venue is nearly empty, huge crowds definitely did not show up for these two. And the DM spotted a couple of protesters holding up a sign that said, "FO Megha and Harry Fake Royals".

Nothing about gender equality, stage outfit ok but still too much of a good thing (someone on another site said all she needed was horns and a pitchfork with all that red), and the train outfit, for all its expense, was awful, especially the trousers.

And that's today's Big Nothing That Was Supposed To Be Something.

Germany refused to pay for the Sussexes security in Dusseldorf; the two are having to bring their own privately hired security detail.

[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.]

^Here it is, the only memorable photo from the gig.

Silent booing.

According to the DM, there were "supporters" in the crowd, as well, but given how sparse the crowd was, the whole thing is kind of . . . pathetic.

I think there might have been 60 people there.

I'll be interested to see the crowd in Boston and New York when the Cambridges appear there. I somehow doubt it will be only a few dozen.

At bottom, the Sussexes ARE pathetic. It's just that they try to hurt people whilst being pathetic.

And don't take every story about how Charles is feeling seriously. The tabs make shit up from one day to the next.

He made himself clear at the Jubly. I doubt anything has changed. But why not take advantage of an opportunity like the one Meghan gave with her vicious lies and threats, and put about his pain and bewidlerment?

Why ever are they going to Boston and New York? Building on the success of Harry's UN speech to at least an audience of a dozen?

And I think the PR that H&M refused invitations to Balmoral makes them look bad (and worse if the Queen dies before next summer- that the petulantly refused to go see her when invited, nor did they bother to bring the children to see her or their grandfather - and at the Jubly, apparently didn't bother to introduce the children to their uncle and cousins)

* Oops you said the Cambridges. Sorry... I get confused remembering their names vs their titles.

Obvs I'm not a monarchist.

[quote]And don't take every story about how Charles is feeling seriously. The tabs make shit up from one day to the next.

Totally. Personally I credit what I read in The Times and The Tele(Tory)graph. That guy from Sky seems reliable, too.

Snark in the Maul, but unfair?

"As for gender equality, she didn’t mention it once. But no matter. She was grateful, she was humble, her pantsuit was awesome. It ended with a short fanfare, followed by Harry hastily ushering her toward the exit, pausing briefly for a few selfies.

The audience, of course, loved her. And she was undoubtedly impressive: Beautifully turned out, wonderfully poised. But it’s hard to come across as genuinely self-deprecating, genuinely modest – when all you’re really doing is talking about yourself. Again."

Consistent references to Huffy's scowling and glaring and general angry look.

What's up his ass?

R575 No worries.

Th Harkles were BOOed on the way in. Hope the Netflix caneras caught it.

[quote]What's up his ass?

I'm guessing they had a huge fight in the car. Probably he wanted to do something and she said NO.

"FO" stands for fabulous outfit!

William is coming to the US to support his conservation photo charity, I forget the name. The last I read, he's coming alone, without Catherine.

Chelsy was hot in her way. When they were dating I always thought she had a wanton look.

Earthshot Prize. I thought Kate was going along, at least to the NY bit.

Chelsy looked quite trashy to me. There are rich girls who do. Still, she seems to have grown up to become a normal woman doing normal things. He would have been better off with her, but she’s smart enough to have dodged that particular bullet.

According to the DM, the Sussexes were roundly and audibly booed getting out of their car and into the venue by about 100 protesters behind the barrier.

So much for reinvigorating their royal status in Britain.

Don't know if this has been discussed by Allison P. Davis who wrote The Cu[N]t article appears to have been fired.

Ouch... front page of The Telegraph:

The booing story is the headline on the DM, authored by Rebecca English. It's true/reliable.

[quote]Harry and Meghan were met by demonstrators as they pulled up at Manchester's Bridgewater Hall, despite using a decoy car and entering through a back door.

So they went out of their way to avoid being seen going inside. They knew what was going to happen. Hopefully someone's cell phone footage will make it online within the next day or so.

From R589:

As our self-anointed moral arbiter took her place behind the podium, you might as well have handed her a shovel, sat back… and watched as she dug herself in deeper with every sentence.

If there is one word every public figure would do well to look up at this precise point in history, it’s self-awareness. The underrated and long forgotten ability first to know where you (and your litany of First World woes and joys) stand in relation to everyone else, and then to tailor your actions and pronouncements accordingly. Self-awareness is particularly useful when visiting another country, as William and Kate are set to prove in December when they head to the US for their first official visit in eight years.

As our self-anointed moral arbiter took her place behind the podium, you might as well have handed her a shovel, sat back… and watched as she dug herself in deeper with every sentence.

Advertisement

ADVERTISING

If there is one word every public figure would do well to look up at this precise point in history, it’s self-awareness. The underrated and long forgotten ability first to know where you (and your litany of First World woes and joys) stand in relation to everyone else, and then to tailor your actions and pronouncements accordingly. Self-awareness is particularly useful when visiting another country, as William and Kate are set to prove in December when they head to the US for their first official visit in eight years.

I don’t need official stats to corroborate the national perception of Meghan, summed up by a New York Post headline last week as a “toddler in a tiara”, or a recent poll to confirm that “Kate is now twice as popular with the American public as Meghan”. As they flicked through their copies of US Weekly, real, manicured Americans have been telling me that for years.

Disrespecting the Queen – who is adored to a touching degree Stateside – was the Sussexes’ first mistake.

That Oprah interview – with its carefully choreographed dig at Kate – the second. Yet 18 months on, as they bring their alternative royal circus to Britain and continue to stir up division wherever they go, the Sussexes still don’t seem to have understood that their narrative is failing them. That by ditching their royal statuses and then airing their dirty laundry in public, they have disqualified themselves from every lofty, glossy position once available to them – certainly the A-list they so desperately want to be a part of.

R588, that reads as though she’s actually going on a long vacation, not that she’s been fired.

R592 a "forced, long unpaid vacation" .... aka fired!

I want to see the vid.

R592, it’s odd that she would want to drop off the map just after publishing something that got her a lot of attention.

What are you doing, R593? Nowhere in the Tweet does the Cut author use the word "forced." And the idea that she would be fired about the most viral article The Cut has likely ever published is absurd on its face. Are you a secret Marklestan?

(also enjoyable: the sugars in the comments - Twitter comments - pretending they loved the article through gritted teeth. they know they can't attack a black woman.)

Non-filtered, you can see her filler chipmunk cheeks and weird jaw.

Echoing what r593 said—nowhere does it say it was forced.

Davis was not sacked. She is writing a book and took unpaid leave to work on it. Her bio is still up on the website.

[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.]

Redact all you like.

Perfect story to end this thread.

"That by ditching their royal statuses and then airing their dirty laundry in public, they have disqualified themselves from every lofty, glossy position once available to them "

Honestly, there was really no way the whole celebrity-philanthropist thing was going to work. In order for the public to love someone as a celebrity, they need something other than philanthropy as a hook, actors may get publicity out of their supposed charity work but the public loves them for their work and their film persona. But philanthropy is boring, even if it is admirable, and nobody wants to use their spare time to check out someone's philanthropic efforts on social media, when they could be checking out someone's travel, fashion, lifestyle, family, whatever interests them.

So really, Harry and Meg had a choice between being known as celebrities or being known as philanthropists, and being philanthropists would have meant less public exposure and more networking with the rich people who are serious about this stuff, which of course is a great way to benefit one's self financially. But Meg at least wanted to be a celebrity, but you can't build a celebrity brand with nothing but glimpses of your kids ever other year, boring-ass podcasts, and occasional mealy-mouthed charity speeches.