Vogue Reports Meghan shopping around a tell-all "post-divorce" book.

It's not Vogue.

From the VF article, Spotify staff required therapy after working with Megz.

The autour is kind of an idiot, but some of the gossip reporting is okay.

What’s so funny is whether it’s Meghan Markle or Lizzo or Blake Lively, it doesn’t matter how many people come forward about how horrible they are, they will always be protected being women.

Then what was all that hand-holding last weekend during their disaster tourist stint while inspecting the fire ruins of Pasadena?

I can't believe the VF writer is claiming the non-existent high-speed chase is an example of a "clear danger to the family's safety."

[quote]There are clear dangers to the family’s safety—a person who worked closely with them says strangers take Lyfts to their house, and in 2023 the couple was involved in what a spokesperson called a “near catastrophic car chase” with paparazzi. (There were no injuries, collisions, or charges filed.)

I think I'm going to barf.

[quote]“They are so hot for each other,” the person who worked closely with them said. “Like, you know how you meet those couples where you’re like, the way they’re looking at each other, I should probably not be here right now?”

[quote]From the VF article, Spotify staff required therapy after working with Megz.

I’m not sure who to loathe more in that situation.

Cliffs from Vanity Fair:

- Both wanted to do a podcast because celebrities did them.

- Staff had to sign "non-disclosure agreements" even though Meghan proudly boasted that she never had to and it freed her so she could tell the truth.

- Meghan and Harry wanted a podcast that would focus on "big ideas" but when pressed further could never elaborate.

- Spotify waited almost two years before pressuring the couple to create a podcast "that people would listen to".

- People had no idea what Harry was interested in other than Polo.

- Harry thought about doing a podcast on sociopaths, because he pondered why he never became one after Diana was killed.

- Bill Simmons, who worked with them at Spotify said the podcast should have been called "The Fucking Grifters"

- Rumors are that she asked Beyonce and Meghan Thee Stallion to appear on her show and both declined.

- Meghan wanted controversial topics and titles for each episode including "Bitch" and "Slut" with the episodes deconstructing what the term meant, but walked back her ideas. She wound up interviewing Mariah Carey for the "Diva" episode and Paris Hilton for the "Bimbo" show.

Basically both sat around navel gazing for two years to come up with something "profound" only to come up with the same shit that fifty other celebrity podcasters have been doing, and some doing, much better.

Meghan comes off as warm and effusive but turns cold and distant the moment something doesn't come off the way it was planned. Harry, a distant, lonely man who misses his family.

[quote]"His family didn’t do a very good job of inculcating him into the family legend partially because he didn’t care; partially because he was just kind of abandoned at the age of eight.”

Oh, he was not. A lot of the stuff from "sources" sounds like it came straight from a Sussex.

There's the obligatory cheap shot at Kate, too.

[quote]“How many years has Kate been talking about early childhood development, like 11 now, 12? We still haven’t really seen anything.”

Henry gets the kids.

Wow.

Delicious! Just the news I needed to get thru Trump’s inauguration without killing myself. This gives me reason to live! Bring it on, Meghan!

In June 2021, The Princess of Wales launched The Royal Foundation Centre for Early Childhood, which will drive awareness of and action on the extraordinary impact of the early years, in order to transform society for the future.

The Centre focuses on three key areas of activity:

Research: promoting and commissioning high-quality research to increase knowledge and share best practice; Collaboration: working with people from across the private, public and voluntary sectors to collaborate on new solutions; and Creating Change: developing creative campaigns to raise awareness and inspire action, driving real, positive change on the early years.

I know it's not a podcast or jam but...

Please blowtorch Montecito. Send Oprah and all these people to hell.

"As Bloomberg reported, Harry wanted to host a series where he interviewed powerful men with complicated stories, like Mark Zuckerberg, Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump. The concept wasn’t just that the men shared challenging early lives; it was that their experiences made them into sociopaths, or so Harry envisioned, one person familiar with the ideation process says. (The person who worked in media confirms there was a “sociopath podcast.”) The person who worked closely with the couple on audio projects recalls Harry saying, “I have very bad childhood trauma. Obviously. My mother was essentially murdered. What is it about me that didn’t make me one of these bad guys?” To implore a season’s worth of world-famous sociopaths to talk about how they developed sociopathy would be what is referred to in access journalism as “a booking challenge.”

The source who worked in media projects says Meghan’s own relationships with employees tended to follow a familiar pattern. She would be warm and effusive at the beginning, engendering an atmosphere of professional camaraderie. When something went poorly, often due to Meghan and Harry’s own demands—such as a teaser for Archetypes being released five months before the show premiered and before there was any tape to promote—Meghan would become cold and withholding toward the person she perceived to be responsible. The source says it was “really, really, really awful. Very painful. Because she’s constantly playing checkers—I’m not even going to say chess—but she’s just very aware of where everybody is on her board. And when you are not in, you are to be thrown to the wolves at any given moment.” In practice, they say, that manifested as “undermining. It’s talking behind your back. It’s gnawing at your sense of self. Really, like, Mean Girls teenager.” Marie had a different experience with Meghan: “She’s just a lovely, genuine person,” she said.

The person who worked in media projects read stories in the tabloids about Meghan “bullying” palace aides and couldn’t imagine such behavior actually happened. After working with her, though, this person realized, “Oh, any given Tuesday this happened.” While it beggars belief that Meghan actually shouted at a palace aide, as has been reported, a person who interacted with her professionally says, “You can be yelled at even if somebody doesn’t raise their voice. [It’s] funny that people don’t differentiate between the energy of being yelled at and literally somebody screaming at you.”

Maybe I read it too fast but I couldn't make sense of that article. At points it seemed like a gushy love letter, at others a hatchet job. Was the soft prose sarcasm and I missed it?

R18, the gushy stuff seemed to be there to show that the author was “balanced” and willing to include quotes from everyone they spoke to. The pro-Sussex comments were empty banalities. The criticisms were damning and specific.

“You can be yelled at even if somebody doesn’t raise their voice. [It’s] funny that people don’t differentiate between the energy of being yelled at and literally somebody screaming at you.”

It’s possible that the people M&H employ are less credible than average.

[quote]Marie had a different experience with Meghan: “She’s just a lovely, genuine person,” she said.

Marie Osmond?

Harry intended to explain that these men were sociopaths WHILE he was interviewing them? Putin, Trump, Zuckerberg. WTF? While wondering why he is so special and wonderful that he was exempt.

I know he's stupid, but good lord.

R22, the fact the Harry thinks he has been through such appalling trauma that he could have become a sociopath is breathtaking. “I had nothing but one caring parent, an adoring public and a devoted staff!”

I'd love to read that book. She is such a dope, she's so clueless that she always reveals the insanity of her own psyche. No one believes a word she writes or speaks. The divorce will be quite ugly and drag on for years, her goal to stay in the headlines as long as possible.

Since he was a member of the RF when they married certainly there's an exhaustive prenup that runs volumes.

SHE IS THE ONE telling him he is not a sociopath.

Fergie is more relevant that she would be after a divorce.

It's like claiming to have the inside scoop on an organization after working for them for a week, the getting fired.

Thank you, OP.

I saw the same story in MAD Magazine!

R19 the only explanation I can see is that they started out with a Sussex-approved article, and then regularly inserted another point of view, also known as the Truth.. The last section particularly stuck out as written in another voice.

She’s a piece of work.

Qui, s'il vous plaît ?

But R23, he was abandoned at the age of eight!

I hope their kids didn't inherit his smarts.

The VF article is pretty limp. A few good digs/insights, a lot of positive stuff from their friends/"allies", some same-old, same-old stuff about brave Meghan's dastardly treatment at the hands of the awful BRF and 2020-style naive political commentary. The "bullying" stuff is the same weak shit as what was reported from the UK. I'm sure she's awful to work with because she's vapid, but no one is claiming any real bad behavior.

The best parts were about Harry's uselessness.

[quote]Meghan comes off as warm and effusive but turns cold and distant the moment something doesn't come off the way it was planned.

That's your classic narc. They want everyone to love them, so they try to woo everyone, but the minute anyone crosses them it's like Elsa took off her gloves: the ice is thick and fast-spreading.

[quote]“They are so hot for each other,” the person who worked closely with them said.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Prince Harry sex tape, as long as Meghan isn't in it.

I can’t stand her.

Maybe he should pair with another guy and do a podcast about polo and horses. She could do something in regards to something.

I could see him missing his former home, but he’d miss the California sun more.

I don’t follow them, but do they have close friends?

I wonder if there will be chapters on the surrogates they hire. to have their children.

Or the time she spent yachting prior to meeting Harry.

Or a chapter on the sex workers Harry allegedly would physically assault while serving in Afghanistan. His family would need to cover things up for him.

I wonder what her reaction was to Obama’s love letters to his first love being published in 2023 where he stated that “ he fantasized about being intimate with a man constantly”. It couldn’t have helped the relationship.

[quote]“I have very bad childhood trauma. Obviously. My mother was essentially murdered. What is it about me that didn’t make me one of these bad guys?” To implore a season’s worth of world-famous sociopaths to talk about how they developed sociopathy would be what is referred to in access journalism as “a booking challenge.”

Maybe Harry's subconsciously trying to understand his wife but his fears haven't surfaced consciously and he's projecting in trying to understand how sociopathy develops in those *other* bad guys.

I never understood why Spotify and these other companies forked out so much to get Meghan and Harry onboard and had no idea what they'd actually be producing for them.

[Quote] he’d miss the California sun more

Gingers don't "miss" sun.

It seems as if Vanity Fair has finally turned on them. Meghan’s publicists had been using Vanity Fair for years to publish puff pieces on them. What a warm humanitarian she is, and how popular she is etc

You've got to give it to the Windsor's handlers and press office. They managed to make Harry seem relatively sane and normal with a bit of a wild streak as his only problem for 35 years. Meanwhile he was wandering around Clarence House stroking locks of his dead mothers hair and taking online "Am I a sociopath" quizzes.

I read the full VF article and found to be rather strange. It accepts certain Sussex assertions as facts (the royal family's racism, the car chase), put takes off the gloves about Harry. It's take on Meghan is mixed -- a bit critical but a fair amount of praise. I got the feeling the article had gone one way but then the editors told the author to bring it another way. I understand the person above who says it felt like part was written by a different person. It was as if the author couldn't make up his or her mind whether this was another puff piece or a serious critique of the Sussexes.

'My mother was essentially murdered.'

By whom?

The Queen?

Prince Philip?

The Queen Mother?

Charles?

Camilla?

Dark and Malevolent forces such as the gay courtiers?

Oh darling. We'd have used something more flash than a white Fiat Uno.

lol, r47.

WME, ominously for the Sussexes, must have weighed the scales.

Do we use leverage (access to other celebrities in their roster, etc.) with VF and cut a deal to make this another puff-piece?

Or not?

"Or not" implying they're a lost cause and WME isn't bothering.

Harry has suffered a lot with the rumors that Prince Charles isn’t his father. He should know better than to let the surrogacy allegations hang over his children. The children will have to deal with this their entire lives. Harry needs to address this.

Even if he was moron enough to address it publicly, no one would believe it because we're idiots with the internet. This cannot be won. We're gross. And I say that as someone who thinks they're gross.

I’m sure no one is spreading false rumors about the couple.

One of the many things Harry never understood is that "the staff," although endlessly deferential to the royals, know that they live in a democracy and that the royals are just people too AND that they can screw the royals royally through leaks and other mechanisms. Elizabeth, Charles, Anne, William, and Catherine understood this and are consistently kind to the staff. Interestingly, although Harry and Meghan claim to be "for the people," he has allowed her to be mean and denigrating to staff. Why is it we have never heard stories about staff unhappiness from the staff of the rest of the royals, except Andrew?

btw, here’s an archived link to the entire article.

R48 It seems like VF is trying to make this appear to be a "balanced piece" rather than a full out hit piece. The reality is that it's becoming harder for fluff pieces about the Sussexes to be published with all the evidence to the contrary.

I agree with the posters mentioning the article's wobbly tone. There is nothing new in it except for the anonymous complaint from someone needing therapy after Meghan's abusive treatment.

It's hard to write an intriguing piece with such weak sauce as the Markles make. There is nothing remotely interesting about them since they rejected the only aspect of their lives that people cared about. They are too dull and guarded for a either a bona fide scandal or an original idea. The most astute analysis is the anecdote about Meghan unable to say the words bitch and slut on her podcast even when that was the topic. She wants to come across as real and genuine yet won't, or can't relinquish the stiff formality of being the proud Duchess. I chuckled at the observation that Prince Harry would be happy if Meghan made the money and he devoted all his time to charity work. Sounds like a typical English toff. Good luck with all that.

Just the basics.

She is a whore.

Harry wanted the whore pussy.

Now, they tolerate each other.

Separation is inevitable.

Why do they need so much money? Just shut up and check out! Have a nice house, just a couple good babysitters to help you raise your kids and a cleaning lady once a week, do simple things like go watch the polo or in her case... well, run your MODEST Tig thing online like Erma Bombeck or something. If she was willing to show her bitchy side on it, she'd probably get plenty followers, but if it doesn't work, just STOP and do nothing! We know Harry's brilliant at that - learn from him, Megsy!

I know... she could relaunch on Big Brother or Survivor, establishing her bitchy personality as her calling card - then the offers would flow from there, a la Real Housewives. She has a path - right there in front of her - but she keeps on trying to be Barbara Walters or Martha Stewart which are both a million miles away from who she really is.

It's a pretty deftly crafted piece-- it damns the Sussexes not by going out of its way to be snarky, but by letting their constant unfulfilled aspirations speak for themselves. My favorite part is when the source close to the Markles says,

[quote] “I think there’s one thing that no one could take away from Meghan is how hard she works, how much effort goes into everything that she does. Ultimately that’s all she needs. And I think that’s why American Riviera Orchard probably will be a massive success. Even if in two years’ time it doesn’t exist anymore and she’s on to the next, it will have that moment. There’ll be no way that you can say that it wasn’t successful.”

But of course it has been promised for months and yet it has still failed to launch, as the wrier knows. And so also have many of their other big plans never moved off the ground (like [italic]Pearl [/italic] on Netflix and now apparently [italic]With Love, Meghan[/italic]). Almost everything else they've done (like [italic]Polo[/italic] and [italic]The Bench[/italic] have been laughed at as uninteresting and poorly-done failures. The only things they've done that were successes completely capitalized on his connections to the BRF, like [italic]Spare[/italic] and the documentary [italic]Harry and Meghan[/italic].... and now that well has run dry too.

What constantly surprises me ifs not their failure to produce anything but that they still have a little circle around them who apparently thinks they're sure to take off one of these days. But they have no ideas and nothing to sell, other than who his father is and who his mother was. They're both still fuckable, but even that won't last forever now they're in middle age.

Well, DL had a divorce clocking in at around seven years when people were becoming familiar with her antics in the first year of tge marriage. The wild card here is timing and the King's health.

I don't know how much Harry has now to pay her off in a divorce, but it's certainly not going to be sufficient. Charles had Duchy of Cornwall revenue and a personal stock portfolio that he liquidated to pay off Diana. Harry will have to rely on his father for cash. I very much doubt King William would crack the wallet open, and I can't blame him.

Meghan has to tread carefully. She needs the King, but he has to be healthy enough so it doesn't appear like she's a vulture swooping in to take advantage of a weakened and frail monarch encountering his end. We've seen that already, haven't we? It didn't go over well when Philip and the Queen were ailing...

But this is Meghan we're talking about -- a woman who seems incapable of self-reflection and learning from her mistakes. Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results has typified Meghan's approach to life. Who knows, maybe she's Machavellian enough to think she can manipulate a weakened and wustful Charles to extract more cash.

^ "wistful," not what Elmer Fudd feels when he encounters Bugs Bunny in drag.

R59, there are new things in the article. A spokesperson from Netflix went on the record to shoot down the “$100 million” figure for their deal, and, as OP points out, just a few years ago Meghan was shopping a tell-all about her possible divorce from Harry. So the article confirms that the two of them put out fake information about how wealthy and in love and “compassionate” they are.

R66 The Netflix thing wasn't new and the rumor about a 'post-divorce book' was simply that--not a Meghan post divorce, just 'post-divorce'. This was two years ago. Again, weak sauce.

I thought Meghan's book was supposed to be part of Harry's book deal with Random House. He also owes them another book, IIRC.

It all comes down to her narcissistic needs, compounded by Harry's misunderstanding of his value. He continues to believe the state should provide for his protection even though he has quit the job of being a member of the royal family, i.e., they should ensure his safety just because he's the king's son. But the state no longer protects Andrew, who was a monarch's son, nor do they protect Beatrice or Eugenie who are both princesses. In fact, security for Anne or Edward, etc., only happens when they are on duty. What Harry and Meghan both have is hubris. Let's face it -- South Park got it right years go, as did those who retitled his book "Waaagh!"They might regain people's respect if they both got 9-5 jobs and got off their asses.

[quote]What constantly surprises me ifs not their failure to produce anything

They can’t figure out what they want to be: homespun or fabulous. Their name American Riviera Orchard shows this. I’m assuming “Rivera” is based on the French and Italian rivieras to show wealth and celebrity but then you have “orchard” which lends itself to farmers’ markets and pie baking contests.

[QUOTE]“I think there’s one thing that no one could take away from Meghan is how hard she works, how much effort goes into everything that she does. Ultimately that’s all she needs.

Her productivity ratio sucks then. The amount of effort and work she puts in is enormous and disproportionate to the trickle of output. That's stupid and inefficient. IRL, as an employee of a creative production company, she'd be canned.

The zeitgeist and the public have largely moved on from this couple but they can't see it Their self importance and delusions are a shield from facing this reality.

They still sell though. Clicks. But now it's notoriety.

The "Netflix thing" IS new. For five years the Markles thought they were impressing people with their $100Mil!! Ntflx!! Deal!! There has been buckets of bandwidth spent trying to make sense of it, to the point that clueless deal-maker Ted Sarandos was ridiculed to his face at the Emmys. Now finally, Nflx denies the obvious $100Mil lie, and time will soon tell if the Markles' big money relationship is over. The topic is HOT sauce.

[quote] It’s a very common discursive move,” the scholar says. “Locating racism in individual bad actors or locating it in the past.... Queen Elizabeth becomes a kindly grandmother. She’s in the back of a car [or] her carriage, under a blanket. There’s that story, which is really kind of sweet that Meghan tells in the documentary, but [it] can’t connect that with the larger ideology of England—and thereby Queen Elizabeth—being like, ‘We are the natural rulers of the world.’ And that includes the segregation of people of color.”

At least the article’s author is upfront about being a moron.

R23 And grandparents who loved him. He was offered an excellent education.

[quote] What’s so funny is whether it’s Meghan Markle or Lizzo or Blake Lively, it doesn’t matter how many people come forward about how horrible they are, they will always be protected being women.

You'd think that would be true, but no.

R64 [quote]...I don't know how much Harry has now to pay her off in a divorce, but it's certainly not going to be sufficient. Charles had Duchy of Cornwall revenue and a personal stock portfolio that he liquidated to pay off Diana. Harry will have to rely on his father for cash.

Charles had to borrow money from his mother, the Queen, to pay off Diana. And he had to pay it back. He had the ongoing income from the Duchy of Cornwall to later pay off what he had borrowed from the Queen.

Given that precedent, I strongly doubt that Harry can rely on his father for cash for any possible divorce. What ongoing income does Harry have that would guarantee repayment to his father? Or will he have?

(Harry apparently inherited money from his great grandmother, the Queen Mum, not long ago. If he was stupid enough to combine that inheritance with marital funds, it became community property and Mrs Harry would be entitled to half. Only if he kept that inheritance apart from their joint funds would it all be his to keep.)

Seems unlikely that Charles would just give his money to Harry with no strings attached when Charles had to repay money to his mother that he (Charles) had borrowed to pay off the divorce settlement with Diana.

Sorry for the error in the post above.

The entire 1st paragraph above is a quote from R64.

Wonderful start of the year. Let this be the beginning of their downfall.

Meghan's next move will be dragging the late QE2 through the mud. She sort of tiptoed around Her Majesty, but MeAgain is growing increasingly desperate.

A "prenup that runs volumes", you say, R25? Leave it to Prince Dimwit to say, "To hell with that, I found my true love! What's mine is ours, this will be forever!".

I could see Harry returning to the UK. Once MeAgain has left his side for her ultimate sell-out tour, there will be nothing, and no-one, left for him in California. Talk about a 'duck out of water'! He will find a sensible English lady, white, of good pedigree. MeAgain will fade into obscurity, with the occasional appearance on a talk show and the publication of yet another tell-all/memoir.

[quote] The Centre focuses on three key areas of activity: Research: promoting and commissioning high-quality research to increase knowledge and share best practice; Collaboration: working with people from across the private, public and voluntary sectors to collaborate on new solutions; and Creating Change: developing creative campaigns to raise awareness and inspire action, driving real, positive change on the early years.

Word salad.

[quote] Elizabeth, Charles, Anne, William, and Catherine understood this and are consistently kind to the staff

Yes to Elizabeth, William and “Catherine”; no to Charles and Anne. The Queen’s children are belligerent and fussy.

R80, the RF, so they say, doesn’t do pre-nups. They’re not legally binding in the U.K., they’re only considered “guidance” to the court. In any event, the only money at risk would have been Harry’s, she can’t get anything from Charles.

[quote] They still sell though. Clicks. But now it's notoriety

Meghan keeps the lights on for journalists and content creators. That’s why this article exists. More actual dirt would have been nice.

No one will go into specifics about how she is mean. Just that when the going is good she is nice, and when things go wrong she seems like she’s yelling when she’s not yelling. But the writer never makes the obvious conclusion that Meghan is not a good manager, because it’s all generalities.

[quote] Was the soft prose sarcasm and I missed it?

Yes, it’s plausible deniability sarcasm. I can’t believe you are all missing it, maybe you’re used to the British press with its sledgehammer subtlety.

[quote]There are clear dangers to the family’s safety—a person who worked closely with them says strangers take Lyfts to their house, and in 2023 the couple was involved in what a spokesperson called a “near catastrophic car chase” with paparazzi. (There were no injuries, collisions, or charges filed.)

The final sentence in parenthesis speaks volumes. She thinks people taking ride-shares to their house is creepy, but concludes that the car incident was not serious. ( I don’t necessarily agree with her and most of DL that no injuries/collisions/charges filed is indicative of them not having a very bad night with that paparazzi. As someone with road rage, I would be extremely pissed if some fucker on a motorcycle followed me all over the city, taking flash photos into my car).

R84, the “car chase” was the subject of, to put it mildly, extensive journalistic inquiry. Their claims, which obviously were meant to invoke Diana’s death, damaged their credibility.

But it was and would be a genuinely annoying and probably all too familiar thing to experience to be followed around by a motorcycle trying to work out where you are sleeping that night. Or even being followed at all. I get annoyed spending more than 4 minutes looking for a parking spot. I don't deny Harry his irritation.

But Harry actually believes sharing the stuff he believes will “make a difference” and doesn’t realise that publicly reliving his trauma is the stuff of the therapist’s office, not press releases. If at some time later on he had rolled his eyes and called the photographer a cunt, that’s at least relatable.

But him expounding on an extended papparazzi incident leads to, as usual, mockery from the British press, pent-up hysteria from Harry and weary disinterest from everyone else. In other words, same old, same old.

[quote] He was offered an excellent education.

That's a bit like offering a dirt floor a Dyson.

I'm Anderson Cooper and my guest on Griefapalooza, my podcast about loss and whatever else happens to consume me at the moment, will be Prince Harry of England. Yep, that's right, we're just gonna talk about ourselves and our grief in every episode of 2025. Join us, or don't, because we're going to do it no matter what, but a big part of the process is making other people listen. Griefapalooza, new episodes every hour, seven days a week.

Diana was hugely popular and the mother of the future king, so she was well placed to demand an excellent divorce settlement. Meghan would get what she's legally entitled to, and that will be it, unless Harry wants to personally pay more to avoid the prospect of an unflattering tell-all. I doubt his father or brother will care enough to keep that book under wraps by digging into their own funds.

It's a good question, R89. Has she at this point so overplayed her hand and damaged her personal credibility that whatever her memoir contains, it won't do any significant damage? She's already named the royal "racists" so isn't anything else petty in comparison? (A distinction I would guess she won't make. Her publisher certainly won't.) Diana, despite setting off a few bombs herself during her marriage, managed to retain huge public affection. Markle consistently lands at the bottom of the rankings in polling. The family may shrug and let her do her best. It's a hard sell when almost everybody will react with "do you think that's really what happened?"

[quote] It's a pretty deftly crafted piece-- it damns the Sussexes not by going out of its way to be snarky, but by letting their constant unfulfilled aspirations speak for themselves.

Agree 100%, r63.

That stuff about their unpopularity in Montecito, and, moreover, the cited reasons for why (marketing themselves by drawing attention to Montecito thereby drawing in riff-raff) makes me chuckle.

Oprah, Rob Lowe, Jeff Bridges, Natalie Portman are celebrity show-folk trash, too, just like the Sussexes.

But, apparently, Meghan broke a Montecito rule- you ply your trade and maintain your vulgar stardom elsewhere, you don't bring it home.

What a paradoxical contradiction. Up is Down. Here, it's the Royals, the Sussexes, who besmirched the wealthy, exclusive insularity of Montecito while the established Show-Folk are aghast and annoyed.

Tick, tick, tick, time marches on, aging marches on, the circling water in the drain helpless against gravity...

I don't think the RF will give one red cent (or pence, in this case) to a divorce settlement. They have already shown that their steadfast strategy is to remain completely silent on the matter. They have not blinked even once in the face of all of their shenanigans and accusations. I doubt the threat of a "tell all" will make them act any differently. She's been out of the RF for 5 years now, has no contact with them, and has already spilled whatever dirt she thought she had so I'm not sure that whatever she thinks she is sitting on will make much of a splash. Her credibility is in the toilet at this point.

Nothing she could say would hurt the BRF more than Harry's revelations in "Spare," and they weathered that.

I have a feeling the Royal Family will never tolerate her presence again. They have had sufficient.

[QUOTE]But the writer never makes the obvious conclusion that Meghan is not a good manager, because it’s all generalities.

I disagree. Her repeated failures at anything that does not involve RF gossip is indicative enough. As far as the Archetypes podcast, the closest she got to some success, it's clear that if Spotify hadn't put it's foot down and had Gimlet step in, they'd still be waiting for a product because she constantly changed her mind, waffled, and blamed staff. All a sign the manager doesn't have the skills and temperament for the role.

The BRF always wins. ALWAYS.

R87 My point.

I know, consider the source, but I wouldn't doubt if she had surrogates for both children

How would her father know if she used surrogates? Theyhaven't been in touch for years, I don't think she used a surrogate for Archie as she gained so much weight and took a long time losing it. It's possible she used a bump early on to exaggerate the size since she was always cradling it.

It seems extremely unlikely that she used a surrogate, but who cares if she did? Why is it anybody’s business? Outside of cradling a bump she’s never played up her pregnancies that much, has she? It’s not like she’s trying to sell books about pregnancy or complaining about terrible morning sickness or a difficult labor.

I might have missed some of her shenanigans, though.

Their problem is basic. They think they're quite clever but they're not.

He's quite dim which isn't saying a lot since he's a Royal and they do tend to breed them. He sadly takes after his Uncle Andrew and Great Aunt Margo, all classic Spares.

She's less dim but only by a little. She wants to be rich, famous, beloved but isn't willing to put in much work to achieve those things. She's also not endowed with the talent, charm, charisma or brains to pull it off.

I think she has an idea that once she dumps him, she can be free to achieve her goals while being funded by the Royals but she's deluding herself. Diana got a big payout because she had stories she could tell and she was the mother to the future king; she had leverage. MeAgain wasn't around long enough to gather much dirt (which Dim has mostly revealed in Spare) and she's the mother of....minor royals.

And, you know she LOVES having a title. She can keep using that title as long as she doesn't remarry but you know she yearns to snag an even richer husband. She can't have both.

She’s running up against the clock wrt a rich future husband. Even if she were to land a billionaire, if she can’t produce a child she isn’t going to get a huge payout. I don’t think she has enough time left.

R100, a child born to a surrogate can’t inherit an aristocratic title and cannot be in the line of succession. I think a lot of the suspicion about the children is due to how uncaring and unmotherly she seems to be.

Queen Bey will be on the cover of the next US edition.

R103 is right. The 1701 Act of Parliament that put the House of Hanover on the throne ("the Act of Settlement") says only descendants of the body of Electress Sophia of Hanover are eligible to inherit the throne. If one or both of Harry's children were born via surrogate, he, she, or they are not eligible to inherit the throne. If it's true, and if it were to come out, it would be an enormous scandal.

Realistically, in 20whatever, would the government/Palace have taken that risk?

Her dad gave an interview where he mentioned she had a hysterectomy before meeting Harry.

I wonder if she’ll include a chapter on the years she spent yachting prior to meeting Harry.

That story about Harry and the sociopath podcast idea almost makes me feel sorry for her.

Almost.

People who marry for money usually end up earning every penny.

Posted this in the other thread.... doesn't bode well for long term contentment if you ask me... if the money dries up, what's left?

"Even after all the water that’s gone under the bridge, poor “socially marooned” Harry still told someone in 2023 that he hoped his family might get in touch. Estranged from them and many of his English friends, the article cites Meghan herself as saying that he has made no new friends in California. He “doesn’t know what real life really is”, has no interests beyond polo and definitely no “inner life”. He doesn’t want to be famous. He basically wouldn’t know a decent business idea if it whacked him round the head with a polo mallet. He pitched up at Spotify’s office in Los Angeles and asked for a hot chocolate, which kind of sums up the whole sad, sorry enterprise: Harry’s a hot chocolate sort of man in the land of the skinny oat latte. It’s a wonder he didn’t ask for squirty cream. He said he would be interested in interviewing Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which is nice. He struggles to grasp the philosophical concept of earning a living."

One of the people who make a decent career out of stalking/ridiculing Meghan (Kinsey Schofield or Stef the Alter Nerd) said that they thought it was revenge on the part of Vanity Fair because Meghan called them racist several years ago.

Dan Wooten had Lady Colin Campbell on yesterday and she said the British people (and Commonwealth) had a right to demand that Meghan prove that she herself had those babies (and didn't use a surrogate). They have a law that people in the line of succession can't be bastards (she used that word on Dan Wooten's channel 'Outspoken')

Yes, I know I should be ashamed of myself for getting in so deep in the asylum with this shit but it's fun to point and laugh (while Rome... I mean America burns)

To be in the line of succession, you have to be "born of the body," which would exclude children who are born by surrogates.

[quote]Then what was all that hand-holding last weekend during their disaster tourist stint while inspecting the fire ruins of Pasadena?

R5

AC-TINGGGGGG !!

[quote] they thought it was revenge on the part of Vanity Fair because Meghan called them racist several years ago.

Yeah, I missed that Megs called VF racist. Did that actually happen?

R114 Careful! The Klan Granny Troll will swoop down and attack you for suggesting that Meghan has ulterior motives!!! Any criticism of the Duchess is an obvious indication you're not only racist but an elderly one!!!

R114, it actually did.

That's such a a crock of shit. What else can you use with Harry?

Thanks r116. Well Megs is backpedaling again. Her relationship with Harry was still supposed to be under wraps and unofficial at that point but she decided to force the issue. Claimed they wanted to interview her about Suits 100th episode—which is laughable—and then oops, the writer asked her about Harry and, well she couldn’t lie. The palace was furious. Harry was pissed. Working frantically, Meghan diverted attention from her error by calling the headline racist because it was sometimes performed in blackface. Also more recently Harry Truman used it as a campaign song when running for president. And then Michigan J Frog sang it!! (You’ll remember him from his rendering of “Hello Ma Baby”). So they were comparing Meghan to a cartoon tap dancing frog in a top hat!

Look, I think it's obvious who she is and what she's about, but there are two things I have never seen sufficient evidence for and believe to be just flat out malicious fiction, like the one about Wallis Simpson having a dick at birth or whatever the story was. First is the yachting. I just can't believe there aren't photos out there and the type of girls who yachted but didn't manage to marry up would sell for a tidy amount of money. It doesn't make sense.

The second is the surrogate allegation. What credible evidence is there to suggest this is anything other than internet detectives at their worst?

Believe me, I wish we'd never heard of this climber and more the gang of no hopers who scurry around the internet crying klan granny for lack of anything substantial to say to make up for her antics, but I have never bought either assertion because I've never seen anything to credibly substantiate it.

Agree r119 about the yachting and surrogacy.

And even if there existed credible information out there that she was yachting or used a surrogate, Big Whoop.

I'd give her even more credit, if those 2 things were true, for snagging Harry and not ruining her figure.

[quote] Believe me, I wish we'd never heard of this climber

I've, all along, had a different reaction to Markle. I agree with Dominick Dunne when he observed, "I like climbers. They're interesting".

The problem is, the only thing that was interesting about her and Harry is what they threw away with both hands by shoving all their chips in on that stupid Oprah interview, Spare and the Netflix nonsense.

I still observe and comment on them only because they've managed to turn their diminishment into entertainment.

There are plenty of photos of her with a floating moonbump, a slipping moonbump, her squatting down with a very large moonbump (which no pregnant woman could do).

The Sun also used it when Harry was born, R118.

So what she used a bump? A rando frau's inability to "squat down" is not proof of surrogacy, but the Megixters often proudly use a negative as "proof" of something. Their SM "sources" that bolster the teeth gnashing about Surrogacy and Yachting are embarrassing, but it's a mutual hamster wheel situation all around I guess.

Glad she was able to attend the inauguration of our most DEI Vice President—-a disadvantaged white man with a sob story.

Meghan might have used the casting couch here and there, but she could never be classified as a yacht girl. She's not even attractive enough to cater-waiter an event where yacht girls would be present. Her looks are above average compared to flyoverland but are mid at best in Miami or Cannes or any of those locales.

Whether she carried or not, she definitely wore prostheses. It was strange enough for someone in her role, but she acted like a fucking weirdo during that whole time. She was as sloppy about the whole thing as she is with every other aspect of her life. It wasn't some carefully thought out life decision. It was just more of her nuttery in the Mad Hatter's tea party that is her life. There is something wrong with her and it is more than just her collection of Cluster B disorders.

[quote] , she definitely wore prostheses.

Link please

[quote]So what she used a bump?

It's just a weird thing to do. I do think she augmented her belly sometimes, it would get bigger, smaller, sometimes it was oblong.

I don't know why people wear baby bumps but they do. Remember when Katie Holmes was supposed to be pregnant with Tammy's baby? There was a least one time she stepped out with what must have been a balloon under her shirt. Only a virgin and a gay man would think that was convincing.

IF she wore them, I could see it as part of her campaign to thwart the press and the palace (as evidenced by the botched timing of the birth announcement). She wanted the image of a lively, energetic young mother-to-be, effortlessly striding around in stilettos well into her pregnancy when most women past a certain month have swollen feet and feel like beached whales. Then by the time she really felt like a slug, she’d be on her maternity leave with no one to see her.

And the fake pregnancy weirdo crazies derail the thread.

You don't have a shred of evidence for Markle faking her pregnancy except the random nutty neurons in your brain.

Besides, who fucking cares?

NOBODY.

Go fuck yourself, Della. I didn't say she faked her pregnancy, I said she sometimes augmented her belly for whatever reason.

Half the time you're on here busting Megan's chops too, so don't pull this strident shit on me.

[quote] Go fuck yourself, Della.

I have. With pleasure. Many times, r130.

Fine. Here-

And the augmented her belly & fake pregnancy weirdo crazies derail the thread.

You don't have a shred of evidence for Markle augmenting her belly and/or faking her pregnancy except the random nutty neurons in your brain.

Besides, who fucking cares?

NOBODY.

PS : When I'm busting the chops of the Sussexes, it's based upon credible reporting I've read. True, I could pull shit outta my ass and just report it but what's the point of that? There's enough of what is ACTUAL about them to gossip about.

It's just not a real thread without Della showing up to scold and lecture.

There are plenty of photos with Meghan clearly wearing some kind of fake belly. Whether you choose to believe it is fake is entirely up to you.

I don’t think she faked the pregnancy. I do believe she might have padded her belly to make her pregnancy more apparent. She clearly thought the first pregnancy made her super special. She obsessively held and fondled her belly in public.

Like with Msrkle, when Della shrieks. you get in line.

I can see her playing games with padding to stymie attempts to date her pregnancy, but it seems unlikely. And women have all kinds of weird shaped bumps that change dramatically over the course of a pregnancy. The ideas that you can definitively identify padding vs. a pregnant belly by looking at a photo of a woman they don’t even know and that it’s impossible for a a pregnant woman to squat are bizarre.

I’m not sure I buy the bullying accusations, either. She is almost certainly incredibly frustrating to work for, but I am not convinced she intentionally bullied people. One of the bullying accusations I recall is that she sent emails at all hours. Not that she expected a response at all hours, just that she sent them. So what? She’s the boss, she can shoot an email off to you if she wakes up with a stupid idea in the middle of the night. You address it in the morning when you see it.

The yacht girl thing is especially weird as Kate DID work on a yacht. She was a different kind of yacht girl, I guess.

R135, the bullying accusations have been extensively reported both in the UK and the U.S. The emails, if they featured at all, were a trivial part of it. She was accused of targeted cruelty by quite a number of employees.

What, exactly, was the targeted cruelty she was accused of?

I’m not saying I don’t think it’s possible, it is. I’m just saying I’m not convinced and that’s partly because all the accusations seem sort of vague. But I may have missed some. And, again, I bet she is a huge PITA and makes it very difficult for efforts to succeed. Which could really be demoralizing and help to derail a career. But it doesn’t necessarily rise to the level of intentional bullying.

Uh, many bullies don't think they are bullies. A narcissist just thinks they're 'keeping it real'. Or, 'I have high expectations and expect results'. All the usual bullshit.

They're actually the worst bullies of all.

I have my doubts that Meghan was a professional yachter. Or, if she was, she was low end. She is/was very attractive but she doesn't have that skinny fancy hooker look that the Yacht types prefer. She's a bit too 'cute but bitchy sorority girl' for that.

Now, I certainly think she used her charms to climb the ladder but...that's how you do it. I mean, if you're not hugely/obviously talented you use what you have.

I also think it unlikely she could get away with surrogates for those pregnancies but padding/bumps does seem very much like something she would do. She's all about projecting image and she very much wanted to project herself as a "madonna". No, not the singer, but the glowing mother of god, thus all the tummy cradling and showing up wearing maternity wear when she was far from needing it.

Meghan's biggest problem is, she acts like a cliche character in pot boiler fiction about a social climbing diva clawing her way to the top and looking insincere along the way. Well, that and she apparently is terrible at reading the room or listening to any kind of sensible advice. She's her own worst enemy.

R135 doesn"t "buy the bullying accusations," too funny! Must not have bothered to read the OP, or the Hollywood Reporter. Oh well.

She tried to bully Queen Elizabeth, one of the most beloved public figures, in public. She lied about the family for financial gain as Prince.Philip was dying If she’s that disgusting in public, I’m sure she’s a monstrous bully in private.

Today Prince Harry reminded me of Donald Trump. Say anything ("I will ever settle") then do the opposite and claim victory.

R140, and then there's that nagging little detail about how back in 2018 Meghan's treatment of two royal aides caused a whole investigation by the Palace.

Harry posing with firefighters, those two are so shameless

He also had nannies, r22 and r23.

He really does deserve an award for the idea of the sociopath podcast: Dolt of the year.

The men he mentioned will have heard about this by now so he needs to avoid balconies and windows on multi-storey buildings.

I would love to know how Putin reacted when he learnt about this.

Hawry,

I... am (deeeeeep holllllow breaaaaaath....)

your fawwwwwtherrrrrr.

I don't know enough about the surrogacy drama to think she did or didn't, but it is weird no official Palace figures witnessed the birth.

I don't want Harry or his kids in line for the throne and I think other people who feel same way are using the surrogacy rumours as an excuse to exclude them. It is working because most people (myself included) used to dismiss the very concept as over the top, but traction is being gained.

As for the article, while I do not believe Meghan was treated badly by the BRF, the Palace or most of the UK press, it was a good idea for the article to pretend she was so that clapbacks from the Montecito duo don't insist she was and take the focus away from the bullying, Harry's epic stupidity ("Mr Putin, Prince Dimbo would like to ask you about how your childhood caused you to be a sociopath..."), and the divorce book.

She cannot eradicate the bullying rumours, Harry is as dumb as the box he keeps of his mother's hair and their relationship is transactional for her.

I don't think they will ever divorce.

They share too many secrets and also have too much dirt on each other.

They will stick it out til the bitter end like Edward and Wallace. And Meghan will ignore Harry on his deathbed just like Wallace ignored Edward on his deathbed.

I feel bad for those kids. Because you know at some point, she's gonna decide to go the Kris Jenner route and use the kids to create some sort of brand.

"The House of Sussex" coming to Bravo in 2035.

If Meghan used a surrogate, especially for Archie where she was in the public eye throughout the pregnancy, then how did she make all her features swell like that? Her face when quite out of shape, in a way that those of pregnant women sometimes do, and she gained a lot of weight. A key point of using a surrogate is to maintain your svelte figure. Meghan didn't get hers back until Ozempic hit the market. So I don't care what her bump did or didn't do: I don't think for a minute she faked that pregnancy. She was less visible for the second one but there's no evidence of anything different.

Not a fan, but you girls do sometimes get hysterical about stuff you don't understand.

Having worked with pregnant women 2 years in a row, their belly size changes all the time- it depends how the fetus is positioned in the womb-and they are very active, having seen videos of their sonagrams.

Meghan markle used a surrogate for both children. Remember in between both kids when she announced to the world that she had a miscarriage? She was frazzled by all the surrogacy attention she had received with the first surrogate. She wanted to prove to the world with the miscarriage announcement that she was capable of beating a child.

How often do celebrities announce miscarriages in the first trimester to TMZ?

How often are celebrities as narcissistic and obsessed with their own victimhood as Markle, R152? It's a big field, but she's out in front a couple of lengths on her own.

Correction: she's out in front with the President.

But one thing he has never pretended to be is pregnant, so in that sense she's on her own.

She was so devastated by her alleged miscarriage that she had to plagiarise another woman’s narrative for her NYT essay describing her own. Too stupid to realise that if you’re going to plagiarise, it helps to change some words here and there.

But plagiarism is her thing - remember “The Bench”? She didn’t just copy the words, she pretty much lifted the cover as well. Narcissists never think that they’ll get caught out but just double down when they are.

>>She wanted to prove to the world with the miscarriage announcement that she was capable of beating a child.

Not snarking on r152 for a typo so much as wondering if she has beaten a child. Her brother said to keep her away from children and animals.

I hope those kids have a good nanny but I'm thinking MeAgain has probably gone through 8 or 9 of them.

Those poor kids. Is there any way they come out of this as sane, well adjusted non assholes?

They have a double whammy of having both parents being absolutely ghastly.

[quote] the bullying accusations have been extensively reported both in the UK and the U.S.

I don’t believe the bullying accusations. The accusations revolve around sending emails in the early hours and telling underlings they are not doing their jobs well.

That’s not bullying, that’s poor management by someone out of their depth operating at the level she is at.

Meghan should not be trying to make movies nor have a lifestyle brand, she’s not cut out for it. Her level is more as an influencer or in PR. There’s nothing wrong with that, she would actually be ok at that , but if you want to run things, you need to be able to play a good social with the people who report to you and she can’t doesn’t have that ability.

Mind you, because I haven’t discussed her apparent surrogacies or extensive past as a yacht whore, I will probably be accused of being an intern at Archwell.

[quote]I don't know enough about the surrogacy drama to think she did or didn't, but it is weird no official Palace figures witnessed the birth.

I don’t think that’s down anymore, fam.

Can’t imagine some courtier staring up Kate Middleton’s vag.

R158 = delusional and drunk on box wine by 11 am.

r158, are you high? Meghan, PR?

The Reitman's campaign?

[quote] The accusations revolve around sending emails in the early hours and telling underlings they are not doing their jobs well.

r158, Jason Knauf, an aide on the staff of Buckingham Palace also reported verbal bullying by Markle.

Q E II herself ordered an internal investigation and report. I'm not persuaded that a report would be ordered unless there was more to it than just emails.

I dislike both Sussexes, but I've been fair. For instance, assuming the report actually exists (Buckingham Palace staff were directed that it is not to be released) I'd love to read it.

For all I know, its findings would show no inappropriate behavior by the either or both of the Sussexes.

Yet, even if it were only emails sent by Markle (and I agree with you, that's poor management which gets me to the point I'm making now) at her early stage of being a working Royal, don't you learn the job yourself in order to know when it's appropriate to admonish veteran staff who've seen it all?

Maybe it's just me, but I'd learn the damn job first. Only then would I feel justified in admonishing staff.

Markle has some sympathy from me for her time when she first became engaged to, and married Harry.

Markle was in way, way, over her head. Let there be no perception by that I mean as a human being she was inferior to members the BRF. That's what makes Monarchy inherently ridiculous- the notion some human beings, by dint of ancestry, are superior to others. Nonsense.

But that Royal environment of wealth, status, position, would intimidate anybody. Michelle Obama and Barack are on record as saying they didn't know what to expect before meeting QEII and were unsure. There are countless accounts of the wealthy and powerful expressing how nervous they are meeting Royalty.

Again, it seems farcical, but those reactions are real.

I also know that women are especially hard on other women. Still, I don't think Kate intentionally picked a fight with Markle.

I won't watch the Netflix show Harry and Meghan. I haven't read Spare.

But I did watch that ill-advised Oprah interview. I watched a video of Meghan meeting with technician about her wedding dress.

To me. Markle is just plain unlikable. She comes across as phony, artificial.

And, based upon her referring to Kate as "Waitie Katie" during the Oprah interview, although she was shrewd enough to try to cloak saying those words in false sympathy, Markle is a Mean Girl, too.

[quote] Markle was in way, way, over her head. Let there be no perception by that I mean as a human being she was inferior to members the BRF. That's what makes Monarchy inherently ridiculous- the notion some human beings, by dint of ancestry, are superior to others. Nonsense.

It’s the official position that royals are superior human beings or that’s what Markle imagined? I did not know they were superior

I thinking of "Divine Right of Kings", r163.

At the very least, you can compose emails at 5 am if you’re an early riser but it a clever manager would check the delay delivery option so staff can at least take their coat off and sit down before the morning deluge.

[quote] I’m thinking of "Divine Right of Kings",

Is there any country that still has that? Certainly no European monarchy.

You don't have the high rate of turnover that they have had in staff, plus people getting therapy after working with Meghan, for the "abuse" to be little more than emails sent in the wee hours of the morning.

R166 - Thailand has Lèse-majesté laws which make insulting or diminishing the king a serious crime. I don't know if this stems from their supposed "divine right."

[QUOTE]I hope those kids have a good nanny but I'm thinking MeAgain has probably gone through 8 or 9 of them.

Like mother, like daughter-in-law? Diana was known to go through nannies when William and Harry were toddlers and young children. Not because she was shrewish or unreasonably demanding, but because she couldn't abide the boys developing strong (or any) attachments to their caretakers.

[QUOTE]don't you learn the job yourself in order to know when it's appropriate to admonish veteran staff who've seen it all? Maybe it's just me, but I'd learn the damn job first.

You and Michelle Obama. She was inevitably asked about Meghan when she first came on the scene (before their fictitious "lunch over chicken tacos." during an interview for British Vogue). The specific question was "Do you have any advice for Meghan?" Her answer "Take it slow and take the first year or two to adjust and learn the job." Great minds, right?

[quote] Great minds, right?

Thank you, r168.

[quote] Like mother, like daughter-in-law? Diana was known to go through nannies when William and Harry were toddlers and young children. Not because she was shrewish or unreasonably demanding, but because she couldn't abide the boys developing strong (or any) attachments to their caretakers.

That was really cruel to those boys. They needed all the love and support they could get, especially with Diana's failed marriage to their father.

The rumors of bullying have been around for a while, but what did she do?

Did she make an underlying get her coffee three times because the ratio of milk to coffee wasn’t right in the first two? Did she throw the 3rd cup? Did she berate an employee during a group meeting for failing to update a website even though the employee had reminded her multiple times that they were waiting for Meghan’s sign off on the changes? Did Meghan make a pregnant employee with a bad back change a flat tire in the rain because she (Meghan) was late and couldn’t wait for AAA? If she’s really a bully, not just incompetent and annoying, why are there no specific accusations?

Could it have something to do with NDAs? Maybe the employees are willing to complain generally, but fear that relating a specific incident would make them identifiable and open them to some kind of bonus clawback or legal action? Or just make them unemployable by other high profile people who require employees to sign NDAs?

Until I hear about some specific instances with details I’m not assuming the bully accusations are true.

The Divine Right of Kings hasn't existed for about 500 years.

R162, I don’t think that proximity to God has anything to do with it. Instead, I think that the royals and all of their foibles represent the UK’s ties to an idealized past, a pretty agrarian world where, as someone said, everyone knew their place but everyone *had* a place. Are some of the royals unimpressive? Damn straight, and that’s just the way it is. Americans will never really get it, and we’re not meant to.

I know, r172.

At r162, I was referring to whatever is its contemporary approximation that forms the basis for that particular family to be seen as set apart from the masses, the riff-raff.

It's inherently ridiculous.

But I still adore keeping up with the BRF. And I do respect that that King Charls is, in the eyes of the British, Head of State.

[quote] was referring to whatever is its contemporary approximation that forms the basis for that particular family to be seen as set apart from the masses, the riff-raff.

It’s an act of parliament, actually.

It’s just a system that’s been in place for a long time that most people are happy with/can’t be bothered to change. Given the recent incumbents, it has worked pretty well. It certainly has provided better results than the American system. There no reason to criticize the institution for what you misunderstand it to be.

[quote]it’s inherently ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than giving a public role to somebody who happens to be married to the president

Believe you me, r175 and r176, the USA is in no position, most of all right now, be critical of any other country.

I admire that you're defending the UK's institutions.

I adored QE II and I've always liked King Charles, going back to when he was ridiculed for his environmental beliefs. I knew even then he'd be vindicated one day.

I'm looking forward to William getting in there and reforming the monarchy. He's a no-nonsense kind of guy and smart. I think he's well aware that "monarchy" is idiotic but he's also not going to kill the family legacy. But, I see him streamlining it. There's zero need to have a pack of royal relatives getting paid to cut ribbons and be "patrons".

Auntie Anne will have a gig as long as she wants it and I think the Edinburghs are safe to live out their lives in service but he doesn't need silly Harry. And, if dumb MeAgain thinks she's getting much from William, she really is stupid. And, Archie and Lillibet are probaby sadly headed to Hollywood brat/douchy influencer trashcan land under ghastly Mother Meghan Jenner-Kartrashians guidance so they'll be a headache for William but since Megs seems adverse to leaving the TMZ, they'll be a long distance problem.

George of course is in he monarch track (poor George...he already looks worried) with Charlotte in the Princess Royal track and she's obviously the perfect fit fort that role.

Louis is a classic "spare" but I think Will and Kate are determined to give him the care and attention he needs so he won't be the typical bitter spare ala Harry, Andrew and Great Auntie Margo.

Why is it a “monarchy” and not a monarchy and what makes it idiotic?

If you think subscribing to a model of having hereditary rule is a good thing or useful or anything other than quaint, then you really are stupid.

R180. Hereditary rule would be ridiculous. What on earth does hereditary rule have to do with this topic?

I assume you are American?

R178, Prince Louis is not the "spare." If anyone is "the spare," it's Princess Charlotte, who follows George in line for the throne.

R180 mistakes rule for reign. The government "rules," if you want to call it that. It enacts and enforces laws. The monarchy has very severely restricted powers and has a diplomatic function acting on the behest of the government hosting and visiting other Heads of State. Royals are supposed to be apolitical without commentary about such topics . They're not "rulers."

Does electing a Head of State each time power transfers from one party to the other make more sense? A partisan HoS like we have now on Trump?

Whether there's any domestic value in having royalty or they're just "quant" should be a question addressed to the charities and groups for which they're patrons. Are their visits worthwhile in terms of morale, PR. and influx of donations and volunteers? It's not too hard to assess.

R178 I'd love to know what you think William is going to do to "reform the monarchy". We don't live in Tudor times anymore. The monarch can't just do what they want. It has to go through Parliament. I understand this is an alien concept for Americans.

Leave it to Americans to pronounce on foreign institutions that don’t concern them based on their own moronic assumptions about them.

Well, I'm educated enough to know that William very much can make changes to the monarchy when he's king. He's the one controlling the dole to the other family members for starters. If he decides there's no need to have royals at every ribbon cutting in the country, he can stop that. And, yeah, I'm aware Charles has already cut back on this sort of thing.

The British Royal Family are the ones who created this concept of working royals....creating the illusion they're out there "working" in exchange for money from the Civil List/Sovereign Grant. Under Elizabeth, they worked hard to create the idea of a large, hard working Royal Family doing their best for the UK and the Commonwealth. Well, those days are over and Charles and William both realize that. Things are getting downsized and they'll continue that way.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if William decides to dump Sandringham as part of the annual "Royal Tour". Charles has some sentiment for it but the whole annual regimented round of visits that Elizabeth did isn't likely to continue much longer. Certainly, Sandringham and Balmoral don't play the same role in today's Royal Family as it did before. Obviously, both of those huge estates have enormous value and I'm assuming they both continue to generate money for the Windsors. But, it they don't, William isn't keeping them for sentiments sake. He's not that stupid.

r178 Was Princess Margaret bitter about not being Queen??

R186 You're not very educated at all. The working royals aren't paid by the monarch. They're paid by the government.

William's country home, Anmer Hall, is a part of the Sandringham Estate. You don't know what you're talking about. You're an idiot.

r178 - please educate me. How many are in the "pack of royal relatives getting paid to cut ribbons", who are they and how much are they paid from the public purse?

As you believe yourself to be so well informed.

Watching The Crown is not an education. There’s hardly anything in your list that isn’t stupid.

Fuck it gets tedious educating Americans on the DL about the British monarchy, especially when you all wrongly believe yourselves to be experts.

1. King Charles is not just the Head of State of the UK.

2. His role is not just recognised by the citizens of the UK but by every nation which recognises the UK and the other realms of which he is Head of State.

3. The "current pack of royal relatives who receive funding are:

King Charles and Queen Camilla - funded by the Sovereign Grant. They live in multiple castles and houses owned by the State - they can't sell them. The King also personally owns Balmoral and Sandringham - left to him by his mother.

The Prince of Wales - funded by the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Princess of Wales - funded by her husband.

The Princess Royal and the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh (the King's sister, brother and sister in law) - funded by The King from the Sovereign Grant for their time performing royal duties - think of it as being reimbursed for that time - they don't get reimbursed 24x7.

The Duke of Kent, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester (King's first cousins once removed and the Duke of Gloucester's wife) - funded by The King from the Sovereign Grant for their time performing royal duties. The Duke of Kent is sadly almost literally on his last legs.

Princess Alexandra - still nominally a working royal although she is confined to a wheelchair and seems to have largely retired.

The cousins get "grace and favour" housing which is theirs for their life but they don't own it. Anne owns her estate (gift from Queen Elizabeth), The Waleses own Anmer Hall (gift from QE2) as well as grace and favour houses in Windsor and Kensington and the Edinburghs have Bagshot Hall (gift from QE2) and (I think) a flat in St James's palace.

And that's it - fast forward ten years and you'll be left with King Charles (possibly) and the Queen, the Prince and Princess of Wales, the indefatigable Princess Royal and the Edinburghs.

I'll ask yet again - why do you Americans care? I understand the interest because you've all seen The Crown and you know best but if you are that interested why do you get it wrong so often? Why do you feel the need to talk about getting rid of system of government in another country?

Get your own house in order FFS - these days the USA is hardly a shining beacon of democracy, rule of law and good governance. How's that offer to buy Greenland coming along?

[quote]If anyone is "the spare," it's Princess Charlotte, who follows George in line for the throne.

Keep telling yourself that.

“Auntie Anne”, R178? You got that from “The Windsors”, didn’t you? I suppose it makes a change from treating “The Crown” as a documentary.

R171:

The couple’s communications assistant at the time, Jason Knauf, reported the behavior to Prince William’s then-private secretary, Simon Case, in October 2018.

“I am very concerned that the Duchess was able to bully two PAs out of the household in the past year. The treatment of X* was totally unacceptable,” the HR complaint read.

"The Duchess seems intent on always having someone in her sights,” Knauf reportedly continued. “She is bullying Y and seeking to undermine her confidence. We have had report after report from people who have witnessed unacceptable behavior towards Y.”

There were also stories that she said something to a staff member along the lines of "if I could get anyone else to do it [a task] but you, I would."

When Prince Albert was alive, he got a lot done. He kept getting Victoria pregnant so that he could basically rule as an uncrowned king.

From The Great Exhibition- a fantastic event in and of itself to promote trade and display new inventions - funds generated led to the V&A museum and other institutions.

Whoever serves as monarch - excepting Victoria for a long periods and Edward VIII - usually works their butt off. Edward VII (aka Edward the Confessor) turned out to supposedly be a valuable diplomatic asset, particularly when it came to France, which is just as well as he was so fond of Paris brothels that at least one of them made a special piece of furniture so he wouldn't squash the prostitutes he favoured.

They don't represent a political party and can unite the nation more than a president or prime minister. Is it fair? Not really, but it has survived, so most people must be okay with it.

Rupert Murdoch supposedly wants to see the end of it, but The Sun claimed on a front page that ERII wanted Brexit, when they had no evidence of such a thing.

Is this OK?)

Do YOUR research. The monarch DOES get to decide how to divy up the money received from the Sovereign Grant. It replaced the Civil List which specifically listed out who got what but the Grant is government money that the monarch distributes. There's more than one book out there that mentions this. The Queen reportedly rather enjoyed doling out the yearly allowances.

R191 Shut the fuck up. You don't even sound British...you just sound like an asshole. Which is sometimes the same thing.

R198 I don’t “sound British” because I’m not. I never claimed to be. Of course being an American you can’t possibly consider that I’m neither American nor British. It’s not necessarily binary, you parochial idiot.

If you read my post (while mouthing the words and following with your forefinger, no doubt) you’ll see that I stated that Charles is not just king of the United Kingdom. I am a citizen of one of the other countries for which he is Head of State, and I’ll say what I like, starting with the fact that you sound like a typical stupid American who thinks that he knows a lot on this subject but who actually knows very little.

R178 / R198 - still waiting for you to answer my very simple questions, as you are so well informed on how the British monarchy operates.

[QUOTE][R178] Was Princess Margaret bitter about not being Queen?

I'm not sure bitter would be a correct description about not being Queen, but she wasn't happy being treated as less than. She received the type of education young women of her day typically did while her sister was being tutored by Oxford dons about history, constitutional matters, etc. From what I've read about her, she had decent intellect and felt a bit stung by the lesser treatment.

[quote]Edward VII (aka Edward the Confessor)

Is this a joke?

Your regular reminder that there are other countries than just the UK and US.

The 'weak President, strong Prime Minister' model is a much better alternative to the monarchy than the US system which combines the roles of Head of State and Head of Government in one. In countries like Ireland, Spain, and Italy Presidents accomplish the ceremonial and procedural aspects of the job largely without fuss and definitely without trying to recreate a royal family like the US and more recently French presidencies have.

That the position of Head of State should be the hereditary possession of one family is obviously absurd and obscene, but the British royals have dealt with this by making themselves into unlikely celebrities and by relying on the English tradition of deference.

It is of course, several light-years dumber to make the position of Head of State the hereditary possession of one family who live 10,000 miles away (looking at you Australia and New Zealand).

Princess of Wales to become official Royal influencer, per King Charles. Poor Meghan, is she still peddling her jam?

Edward VII is known as Edward Rimchair

We didn't "make" the Royal family our head of state, R204. We are the product of British colonialism, being until 1901 a group of individual States each with a British Governor. Our actual head of state has for many decades been an Australian Governor-General, who is certainly a representative of the monarchy but who is always Australian and usually an esteemed non-politician (war hero, retired judge, retired bishop famed for social work: that sort of thing). The Governor-General, like the Queen, takes action and signs papers at the behest of the Prime Minister, and does nothing major without consulting the Prime MInister. The one time this fell apart was when the Governor-General fired the Prime MInister in 1975, primarily for his own reasons but with the complicity of the Palace, and that caused a long scar in the Australian body politic. The papers showing that the Queen knew about it in advance were suppressed until only a couple of years ago.

But it was still not enough to move to a different system of government, and this is why. A referendum to do so requires a majority of all voters AND a majority in each State (add to which we have compulsory voting). Nobody has been able to put forward a model of government that could convince that many people it was better. Having seen what's happened over the last 10 years in the US, and to what extent the US system of government is propped up by nothing more than tradition (which I'm sure has been a rude shock to the thinking US public too), it's unlikely anyone will even propose a change for years to come.

Oh c'mon now, its all worked out beautifully. A virtual kaleidoscope of the human condition!

Thanks for clarifying for those on the thread, R208, but just to clarify further - the Governor General of Australia is not the Head of State, s/he is their representative in Australia, which is why Queen Elizabeth was complicit in Sir John Kerr’s sacking of the sitting PM Gough Whitman. The fiction that she knew nothing about it was just that, as you said.

The hoops to be jumped through to get to a republic - again as you explained - are too complex to make it likely, which is exactly how changes to the constitution were originally set up. It’s a similar setup in Canada but even more complex given that Canada has more provinces and territories than we do.

R204 it’s sad but as the number of living Anglo old ladies in Australia continues to drop and more Australians aren’t of Anglo background with each generation of migrants, so does support for an Australian monarchy, but I can’t see how the status quo can be changed.

^^^ apologies that was for R207 not R208

No ladies! I just keep looking forward to the Promulgated, Bouchard

R207 I get the colonialism point but you did vote to keep it which just seems incomprehensible to me. Charles will visit Aus & NZ, what, maybe once or twice more max during his reign?

R212 To clarify, Australia voted in 1999 to retain the monarchy, NZ has never had a referendum on the matter. I can't speak for Aus or NZ but here in Canada most people view the monarchy with ambivalence BUT the distrust of politicians is so high I doubt people would vote in favour of a new system that would be ultimately be drafted by politicians (this is the reason Aus voted to retain the monarchy because the alternatives proposed gave politicians more power).

R212 The Australian PM at the time was a staunch monarchist and a very clever politician. He had the referendum worded in such a way (giving more power to the Parliament) that the majority voted to keep the status quo.

R214 speaks truth. That is exactly what happened. Plus an Australian referendum will never get up if both sides of politics aren't behind it. We didn't vote to retain the monarchy, so much as vote that the alternative was not clear enough, and from what we did know we weren't sure there wouldn't be loopholes of the kind Trump has just shot through the American system. I don't know whether the Republican movement really was clear about its model and the PM and his media buddies blocked a proper explanation, or whether there really wasn't enough detail to satisfy voters.

Everyone views the Governor-General as the head of state, even though in theory the King is. Even in the case of the Dismissal, where things got more practical, I do believe the Palace would never have unseated a sitting Prime MInister if the idea had not been raised and urged by the Governor-General. The monarchy has never done such a thing in Britain since the formation of Parliamentary democracy there. (If I'm wrong, Brits feel free to contradict me.)

Thanks R215 - R214 here.

Analysis that I’ve read recently about why 1999 didn’t get up and what needs to happen if it’s ever going to happen is that we (Australia) should have taken the following steps:

1. Either a referendum or plebiscite asking “Are you in favour of Australia becoming a republic?”.

Followed by, assuming a “yes” vote:

2. A referendum (because I think that plebiscites are binary) proposing which model people wanted.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1998, two models emerged as favourite - the first, supported by John Howard, was for the Head of State to be elected by the parliament. The second, supported by (later PM) Malcolm Turnbull was a Head of State BP voted for by the people.

Howard being the cynical old cunt that he is, supported the “elected by parliament” option, not because he believed in it, but because he knew that the people wouldn’t support giving more power to parliament. And the referendum failed, as he wanted.

I agree that a referendum would require bipartisan support, but what about a non-binding plebiscite? That’s the model that brought about Marriage Equality, which definitely didn’t have bilateral support, and was overwhelmingly successful?

Apologies to all for disappearing down this rabbit hole when we should be discussing Meghan’s latest exploits. I was at the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1998 (yes, oz eldergay here) so it continues to resonate.

R202, I typed Edward the Caressor, but autocorrect...

Sorry.

[quote]That's what makes Monarchy inherently ridiculous- the notion some human beings, by dint of ancestry, are superior to others. Nonsense.

Della, that's what Americans think, unless they're talking about, say, The General Society of Mayflower Descendants or the Colonial Dames of America or maybe the Order of the First Families of Virginia. Nobody with any sense has really thought royalty are superior to others for fifty years at least. Yes, royalty by nature is apart, officially. But it's a fiction anyone seriously thinks they're descended from God or truly superior to others. They are just people doing a unique job and performing a role in the life of the nation, above the sausage making of politics.

Every country has a head a state. Every country has a system for establishing and maintaining a head of state. Every country has protocols about how you behave around the head of state and address the head of state. In Britain the traditions and protocols are much older than anything you understand. It is for each country to choose what to maintain. No democracy is saddled with a head of state system they don't want. But even America has titles, hence The Honorable. This is not directly comparable to inherited titles but indicative of the fact that the Lord works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform and lo and behold, differently countries can do things differently than they do them in America.

And before you raise the spectre of how you fought a revolution to rid yourselves of a tyrannical king in favor of democratic representative government, I would encourage you to consider the last two weeks and the hellscape that yawns before you.

I was previously leaning towards Australian becoming a republic. Then it was pointed out to me that it's better to have a relatively politically inert figure serve as head of state than a total cunt like Dump or Scomo.

Well, Scomo was only Head of Government. If the model was for the people to elect a Head of State from a list of politically inert figures put together by a bipartisan Parliamentary committee (in effect, exactly the same sort of people who have been Governors General over the past couple of decades) then that would work for me.

R220, I was imagining if he was head of state. That fucker claimed he and his fellow plotters were taking part in prayer meetings in the evenings prior to the coup.

[quote] If the model was for the people to elect a Head of State from a list of politically inert figures put together by a bipartisan Parliamentary committee (in effect, exactly the same sort of people who have been Governors General over the past couple of decade)

Yeah, well, what Trump has shown is that you better legislate and closely define "politically inert", or the first cynic who thinks he can get away with it will stack the committee and start nominating only cronies. Under the far Right, anything that is left to tradition or trust is up for grabs. ScoMo proved that himself at PM level by making himself MInister for Everything and not notifying anyone (including the people he'd already had sworn in as those MInisters). We really are probably better off with a hereditary Head of State who lives on the other side of the world and honestly doesn't give a rat's who we elect to govern us.

[quote] And before you raise the spectre of how you fought a revolution to rid yourselves of a tyrannical king in favor of democratic representative government, I would encourage you to consider the last two weeks and the hellscape that yawns before you.

lol, r218 (and that's a bitter laugh). Point well taken! Yup, the USA has it all figured out. Why can't all of you see that?

In my defense, right now, typing these words is the first time I've EVER written here that corny, self-regarding "We fought a war to get rid of you guys" stuff.

Nope. They fought a war to keep the North American stolen land spoils to themselves.

land and spoils ^

R215 I did have quite a heated confrontation with Parliament at one point, it dragged on for some years.

Canadian here. I like that the head of state isn't elected or spawned by politics. Usually, in appointing the Governor General, (and I've seen it done now by both major parties) the PM usually strives to appoint someone of symbolic (one might say DEI) and personal accomplishment. We've had a Black woman, an Asian woman, an old white guy (loads of them obviously) and right now, it's a Nunavutian woman (it really is.) It's a nice system that to one degree or another (not perfectly) avoids the partisan. The problem is, they have very low visibility in the media so the PM is I think perceived as head of state (and God knows JT seemed to relish it.) Some times I think it's so low key and unfussy that it's actually perfectly Canadian - there couldn't be a better embodiment of the state.

Trudeau (who right now I both respect (after last night's address to the nation) and loathe (for his endless peacocking and general performance in a job he really wasn't capable of doing well) especially let the presence of the Crown wither in Canada. Even Australia, indifferent, republican Australia, twice as far away, has had an official visit from the new King. Us, nothing. That's a choice. Anyway, as usual, the system outlasted the politician. Opening our constitution is so high risk in this country I think the Canadian monarchy will outlast me too.

ahem, this thread was created to be all about me!

Are you OK?

Harry's gotten himself into quite a pickle. Strangely, he never realized his book "Spare" would permanently alienate his family. His perceived need for security requires him to make a lot of money. His wife's need for celebrity requires him to live in an immense house that requires him to make a lot of money. Yet the money-making activities are drying up. No more whining about the royal family, because that's just hurting their "brand." Meanwhile, his wife has failure after failure in her attempts to make money. Perhaps there is tension between them, but what can he do? He can't go back to London. And there are two children involved. He's in more of a pickle than was the Duke of Windsor, who also made a mess of his life.

I was just at Kerry Washington's birthday party! Suck it jealous peasants!

Perusing Miss Alba's social, mystical materials seem to have been presented for sale alongside Miss Washington's birth day. We meditated, we manifested, we moved on.

A set up, r231? I suspected money or favours were given in order for Meghan to be invited. What a wank.

Jessica Alba doesn't need the money, due to her Honest company- the internet guesses her net worth to be around $340 million.

^Doubt that. For a long time "the internet" insisted she was a billionaire. I sense she was a Billy much like Meg Narkel was a Milly upon her marriage to Dummy.

[quote]It is of course, several light-years dumber to make the position of Head of State the hereditary possession of one family who live 10,000 miles away (looking at you Australia and New Zealand).

It doesn't matter. None of us care. The king is just a figurehead that comes to visit every 15 years. Nobody cares either way. Getting rid of him means we have to implement a new system which is expensive. Another reason why we didn't change our flag after a referendum - it doesn't matter enough for us to spend that money when it could go to education or healthcare.

Prince Harry is bracing for the possible release of his US visa records as the case is heard in court for the first time since Donald Trump became president.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, sued the Department of Homeland Security demanding access to Prince Harry’s visa documents to determine whether he made false statements about his past drug use.

Harry, 40, admitted in his 2023 memoir, Spare, that he experimented with cocaine, cannabis and psychedelic substances, which he would have been required to disclose on application forms filed before he relocated to California with his wife, Meghan, in 2020.

Judge Carl Nichols agreed to reopen the case and ordered lawyers for all parties to appear in court on at 2pm on Wednesday. It will be the first test of whether the new president will force through a change of stance at the department in charge of immigration, which has so far refused to hand over the duke’s records.

Trump has the power to order federal agencies to release documents.

Trump has previously said he would consider deporting Harry if he had lied in his application, saying that officials would “have to take appropriate action”.

“I wouldn’t protect him. He betrayed the Queen. That’s unforgivable. He would be on his own if it was down to me,” Trump said in February last year.

Nice to now Dump might be good for something.

One single thing.

If Harry is booted he’d probably go to Canada.

I think he'd high tail it back to London - where I'm sure he has at least some friends left, and Diana's family haven't been that harsh on him, have they?

Who/what does he have in Canada?

You mean Diana's asshole brother? I think her sisters are in S Africa, but not exactly dynamic relationships there. His cousins I don'f believe give a toss about him, his annoying entitled personality has done him no favors. Isn't Meg Markle his everything?

Canada's Head of State is King Charles.

If Harry is deported, a thing I don't find to be at all far-fetched because Trump would love to use Harry to say, "See? It's not just brown people getting kicked out.", it would make sense to at least go to Canada first.

I'm sure that would be unpopular with many Canadians to have to take in Harry, but Trump is hated by many Canadians, too.

I think the potential to deport Harry is serious. That's not to say it will happen, but still.

It's an interesting thing to ponder because of the "special relationship" between the UK and the US.

Both Trump and Melania brag about their contacts with the BRF. Melania stated in her book that she's "pen pals" with King Charles. Trump has stated how impressed he is with William.

I know some will disagree with me given the relationship between Charles and Harry, but I think KC may make the gesture of asking Trump to put on hold any decision about showing Harry the door.

King Charles is well aware that would hand Trump a golden opportunity to rush to a microphone and say something like, "At the request of King Charles, I'm allowing Harry to stay, blah, blah, blah."

But hell, I don't know. If Trump boots Harry, Charles might stand on the respective sovereignty of both the UK and USA and wash his hands of it because there is nothing he can or should do about it.

[quote] It's an interesting thing to ponder because of the "special relationship" between the UK and the US.

I wasn't clear that the special relationship consists of the official diplomatic protocols between the two not just between the Trump and the BRF.

Gurl is fucking nutz

Couple of things re. Della's post (which I always find reasonable and well reasoned and usually agree with)... but to further her thinking:

Canada won't take him, Canada doesn't want him. We've had our own bruising experience with Trump as you know and while we're not afraid of him after that, we don't want anything more to do with him than we have to. I don't think you can adequately capture the hostility Canadians feel toward Trump and, frankly, the whole country. Sorry, but we didn't start the fire. So we're not getting involved in the mess of deporting Harry, which I think will be semi-orderly. I can't see ICE carting them away, but they could be rough enough to give them 48 hours or something, because if this happens, Team Trump will want the drama. Plus, there is no goodwill toward him in any particular measure in Canada. In fact, who feels sorry for him anywhere, other than a few places for losers on the internet? One asshole messing with another asshole. OK. So, it's a day ending in day.

The King cannot intervene directly with Trump on a family matter, because it has political implications and the monarch cannot be connected to politics. He would have to advise the Prime Minister. Go back. Even in the days of Wallis and Edward, everything was officially handled by the government, including any back channels. The sovereign doesn't make calls. Even if it didn't conflict directly with the fundamental principles of constitutional monarchy, if it got out, the King in bed with Trump to help Harry of all people... the blowback would be extremely problematic and not worth it after the hard line they've taken all this time. Charles would probably be happy to be in a position to say "but, darling boy, I cahn't do anything, I'm afraid."

Charles only option is to raise the issue privately with the British Prime Minister. But Trump is threatening tariffs on the UK at present as well. Nobody wants to muddy the waters with Harry's fate. There is nothing about his fate that serves the national interest and it's not like he's going to be jailed. So Harry's fucked for friends on the political front.

I don't think this will happen but I really think it could. One of Trump's gestapo will think the optics are great for them in the event Harry's public statements don't line up with his official undertakings on the paperwork. And it will be a very useful diversionary spectacle, which Trump relies on, oh, pretty much daily. And Trump savours the notion of the Queen. He likes revenge. It's the kind of distraction that would pump him up too. So maybe it will happen, just for kicks.

They can go first to almost any country on earth that has a six month tourist visa. Then they'd probably go to Portugal, if they don't go there first, which has the investment visa allowing people with money to stay (as do many other countries. I've no doubt they've got enough money to find a place to bunk under a golden visa program.) Wasn't there a story recently that said they'd bought in on a place with Jack and Hugenie's vacation property business?

But then what? Three problems: marketing, marriage and money.

Marketing: isn't getting booted out of the Divided States of MAGA pretty much the last straw for a lifestyle brand? They've Pacific Palisaded their reputations, isn't deportation the we're so fucked of bad luck and worse decisions? Whenever I'm rushing to flee a country, I like Samsonite's self locking suitcases... durable casing made from recycled tires, TSA friendly and easy on the budget...

Marriage: does she really want to live anywhere but the states? Without work, other than her hate memoir, what is she going to do all day except glare at the fucktard who blew up in her face? Even if, per Vanity Fair, they're so in love, as some point don't you have to accept this is not how I thought it was gonna go. And then the resentment starts....

Money: Do they have enough? (They surely do.) For how long? (Depends on how you manage it.) Can it be made to last long enough and live the private jet life? (See you in the Admiral's Lounge, babe, where everybody's phone has a camera.)

Oh, Thank you both r244 and r245.

I carefully read both of your posts a couple of times. I know I'm much better informed for having done so.

The Duchess of Disaster is getting DRAGGED for that cringey video looking high AF telling that obviously made-up story.

[quote]How often are celebrities as narcissistic and obsessed with their own victimhood as Markle, [R152]? It's a big field, but she's out in front a couple of lengths on her own.

Challenge accepted!!

I don’t think a much shorter video done with a happy smile and matter of fact attitude with the pointed goal of thanking Billy Eilish and including a shout out to whoever else helped would be so awful.

But, as noted, her demeanor is bizarre. How would you describe it? Barely constrained hysteria? Performative barely constrained hysteria?

Poor thing should drop out of sight for a year. That video is so many levels of cringe, a gift to the Meghan-hate industrial complex.

I find Markle to be very, very odd.

There are plenty of celebrities out there who like to have their pictures taken. Show them to a red carpet and they're ready for their close-up. Also a few "on the street" or "in the parking lot" pictures which may (or may not) be prearranged.

But to apply the word "obsessed" to Harry's wife doesn't come close to how her behavior comes across.

It was obvious early on that her idea of being a member of the Royal Family bore no resemblance to what the job really was when photos clearly showed her seeking out any cameras within range with the intent of a heat seeking missile.

Since their removal from Harry's former life, she seems even more obsessed with being photographed. Wherever, whenever. No matter if it involves murdered school children (Uvalde) or catastrophic city destroying wildfires in Los Angeles.

She seems to have absolutely no boundaries. No dreadful occasion is too dreadful for photo ops. Very, very strange.

And given that her husband has said that he is triggered whenever he hears the click of a camera because it causes memories of his mother's death to remind him, I wonder if he even knows that her obsession and his triggers are completely at odds.

What a bizarre pair.

Washing machines are reduced to ash in fires?

R252, I had the exact same thought.

They were biodegradable washing machines.

I think her behavior has something to do with the fake "false self" the people with severe narcissism develop. IOW she's a basket case, especially now that her phony front, hiding a mean girl/bitch personality, has been found out and widely reported.

Ha ha ha.

Keep in mind, King Charles is a public servant marching to the orders the government. Do you really think Queen Elizabeth II really wanted to host Trump and his spawn back in 2019?

HM had previously hosted Mr and Mrs Ceauscscu and spent much of the visit hiding from them in the Windsor Castle shrubbery, so had experience playing nice with pig ignorant dictators.

How can I fix broken chair? Glue? Nails? Screws? The handsome boy nextdoor has suggested a trip to IKEA

And fixing a cracked toilet? I should sue for that one. They shouldn't sell toilets that can't handle a normal sized bum.

Also need advice about patching those huge cracks in my front walk where I fell.

I am a regular poster with all you on these Meghan threads so I expect you'll help me out.

R251 If you notice in many public photos she is always turning to the side smiling a huge rictus grin at a specific camera while everyone around her is ignoring them and looking straight ahead.

She also has a habit of appearing made up and heavily airbrushed on magazine covers looking like an earthy angelic goddess dressed in white or neutrals with lighting adjusted to give her an ethereal glow or a halo.

The walking cum waterfall loves the smell of her own queefs. I'm pretty sure cooking Harry chicken on their first date was code for her giving him what he thought at the time was the best head in his life.

I didn’t believe it when I first read it so I checked. Billie Eilish has a store on her website selling merch. No name dropping video necessary. Just order, pay, ship.

r252, if cars can be reduced to husks, so can washing machines.

For an actress she over does the enthusiasm. Everything is so big and over the top. You know what that mother and daughter would probably want just slightly more than a T-shirt they can order online...four fucking walls and a roof over their head. Maybe Megz and Harry could spare one of their 17 bathrooms?

R261, once your credibility is gone, everything you say seems false. It spirals.

Husks are not ashes, but keep trying Megbot

I am (slightly) Team Harry, but nevertheless I will laugh for days if Trump actually kicks him out.

I guess his anchor babies won't spare him in the new climate?

R158 You are uniformed. Sending emails in the early morning doesn’t drive people into long term therapy.

R158 She's done multiple horrible things to them to warrant therapy the email thing was the least offensive out of the whole bunch.

Who ya gonna believe R267, a hundred people with direct experience, or a sad lonely PR intern?