Here, in no particular order, is a list of celebrities who have come out in support of the Duchess of Sussex and/or claimed the British media was "bullying" her.
Many have some connection to Sara Latham, the Duchess' PR lady of the moment, or to Sunshine Sachs, her high-end PR agency. A few, like Jameela Jamil, are low-level celebrities that seemed to think linking themselves to Meghan was a good way to increase their own visibility.
Am I missing any names?
In general, the top-down arrogance of this list is impressive. Someone clearly believes that having these people speak on Meghan's behalf will move the needle for her with the public.
One has to wonder, however, why this particular public figure requires so much defending.
Prince Harry
The Archbishop of Canterbury
Hillary Clinton
Michelle Obama
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez
72 female members of Parliament, lead by low-profile Labor MP Holly Lynch
Ellen DeGeneres
Oprah Winfrey
Gayle King
Katie Couric
Elton John
Beyoncé and Jay-Z
James Blunt
P!nk
George Clooney
Priyanka Chopra
Anna Wintour
Edward Enninful, editor-in-chief of Vogue UK
Dame Julie Andrews
Whoopi Goldberg and the ladies on The View
"Five Anonymous Friends" speaking to People Magazine
Serena Williams
Kim Kardashian
RuPaul
Jessica Mulroney
Joanne Vitiello, mother of Meghan's ex-boyfriend Corey Vitiello
Jameela Jamil
Lorraine Kelly, UK talk show host
Nacho Figueres, polo player
Master P, rapper and entrepreneur
Petra Murgatroyd
Lili Reinhardt
Sabrina Dhowre (Mrs. Idras Elba)
Princess Tessy Antony of Luxembourg
Paul Burrell, Princess Diana's Butler
Wendell Pierce, who played Meghan's father on "Suits"
Brene Brown
"The View" host Abby Huntsman
Naomi Campbell
Helen George, UK actress
Olivia Coleman, "Crown" actress
Daniel Radcliffe, "Harry Potter" actor
Many have some connection to Sara Latham, the Duchess' PR lady of the moment, or to Sunshine Sachs, her high-end PR agency. A few, like Jameela Jamil, are low-level celebrities that seemed to think linking themselves to Meghan was a good way to increase their own visibility.
Am I missing any names?
In general, the top-down arrogance of this list is impressive. Someone clearly believes that having these people speak on Meghan's behalf will move the needle for her with the public.
One has to wonder, however, why this particular public figure requires so much defending.
Prince Harry
The Archbishop of Canterbury
Hillary Clinton
Michelle Obama
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez
72 female members of Parliament, lead by low-profile Labor MP Holly Lynch
Ellen DeGeneres
Oprah Winfrey
Gayle King
Katie Couric
Elton John
Beyoncé and Jay-Z
James Blunt
P!nk
George Clooney
Priyanka Chopra
Anna Wintour
Edward Enninful, editor-in-chief of Vogue UK
Dame Julie Andrews
Whoopi Goldberg and the ladies on The View
"Five Anonymous Friends" speaking to People Magazine
Serena Williams
Kim Kardashian
RuPaul
Jessica Mulroney
Joanne Vitiello, mother of Meghan's ex-boyfriend Corey Vitiello
Jameela Jamil
Lorraine Kelly, UK talk show host
Nacho Figueres, polo player
Master P, rapper and entrepreneur
Petra Murgatroyd
Lili Reinhardt
Sabrina Dhowre (Mrs. Idras Elba)
Princess Tessy Antony of Luxembourg
Paul Burrell, Princess Diana's Butler
Wendell Pierce, who played Meghan's father on "Suits"
Brene Brown
"The View" host Abby Huntsman
Naomi Campbell
Helen George, UK actress
Olivia Coleman, "Crown" actress
Daniel Radcliffe, "Harry Potter" actor
Comments
Other than talking about that she is bullied (often vague groups) and never ever a specific example, it is another example of talking heads lecturing us on how we ought to behave.
Nope, not buying what they are selling. And, I'm "educating" people now in thanks to their efforts.
You forgot the long-suffering (?) Prince H
I'm taken aback by how strongly 'the Markle effect' comes into play for me personally. If someone I admire defends her, that's it. They're done. So finding the Archbishop of Canterbury defending her was a blow, simply because of my respect for the role.
There seems to be no limit to her toxicity in our national life. She's now drawn in the royal family, representatives in the House of Commons and the church. She is simply not worth all this strife. And she's only being allowed to cause strife on this scale because the Queen has not acted and Prince Charles won't act.
Prince William is said to be quite a power in the BRF already. If he makes a decision, he sticks to it. He evicts anyone from his household he perceives as a threat to privacy. If he doesn't want to do something he doesn't do it. Journalists in that old documentary I found about Harry (previous post), already visibly respected his status and tenacity when he was barely 20. He's now stepping up to Duchy of Cornwall business. Maybe he's the only one with the character to deal with it. He should get Camilla on side. Meghan operates through alliances. The BRF need an effective alliance of their own.
I know that Smarkle's five "best friends" told People magazine that Smarkle was "deeply religious" (or words to that effect), but to what religion.. she has had several. And her breast flashing does not say "deeply religious" to me.
Again, a real head scratcher.
Serena Williams? Then again, maybe not after the US Open.
Noted by their absence: Anyone who she met on her Australia and South Africa tours
Anyone from Smart Works, the animal charity, the Royal Theatre
The people of Sussex and Dumbarton
Trevor Engleson's mother
The Queen of England
Noted by his absence: Edward Enninful
I don't think they make the left hand (Andrew) and right hand (M) connection with the Queen.
I think it is more they get a call from their agent asking them (money may or may not be exchanged - IDK) to put out a statement about how this poor American marries into the BRF, had a baby, having trouble adjusting to it all and people are now making racist statements about her ... so if you don't say something, you would be siding with the racists. Can I count you in and I'll take care of it?
On the other hand, the wife and daughter of former Labour MP were threatened with rape because of Mann's speaking against anti semitism in the Labour party, driving him to quit the Labour party.
But I suppose Markle doesn't care about these women since they are of no benefit to her.
"Noted by his absence: Edward Enninful"
I thought he had supported her?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7297767/British-Vogue-editor-Edward-Enninful-says-Meghan-Markle-hands-beginning.html
I can't help wondering if, and how much, Cory & his parents were paid off to maintain their silence about the pre-Harry Meghan. The only thing I have read previously attributed to Cory's mother was her saying that she and her husband were stunned when Cory called to tell them that Meg had moved out and onto some other guy because they were under the impression that their son planned to propose imminently after a 2-year relationship.
Mama Vitiello is more forgiving than I, because if my son was jilted by his girlfriend who we had welcomed into our home and who'd been living with him for two years (and accepting his financial generosity and gourmet cooking and celeb contacts for the duration, and not only did she break my son's heart, but I found out that she'd been sleeping around with other guys she deemed 'bigger fish' while my son was paying her bills and under the impression that she would be his future wife . . ?
There would be no pay-off large enough to compel me to say nice things about a person like that. At best I would remain stonily silent and only if compelled by court order to do so. Otherwise you can bet I'd be singing like a canary.
"Five days ago, Meghan and Harry posted a photo together attending a round table discussion about gender equality. However, what was meant to be an educational post about the duke and duchess’ time well spent ended up turning into a roasting session for Meghan. Fans were quick to comment in response to her interview and her outfit choice (the lambskin skirt), and the duchess has not appeared on the couple’s Instagram account since."
Checked Sussex Royal Instagram and comments I've read are mainly negative:
https://www.instagram.com/p/B4CtjjRpLKa/?hl=en
After that every post looks to be about sport. If I was her, I'd keep away from social media altogether. She can't censor the whole country.
If there are any Outlander fans out there, I was amused watching a mini-interview with the actor who played war chief Dougal MacKenzie, chatting about who would win a fight with Dougal in a series of hypothetical encounters across popular culture. When asked if Dougal could beat the English he asked "What, all of them?" He decided Dougal would just work his way through them. Must be Meghan's game plan.
"I meant nothing since the pity party documentary."
True, nothing since then but he was and probably still is one of her supporters.
"Prianka dumped her (or vice versa) shortly after the wedding, I believe."
Yes, she's been very quiet. I would really like this to be true.
https://perezhilton.com/meghan-markle-prince-harry-stripped-royal-titles-queen/
When I click on her account, it's locked and her tweets are protected - unless she's allowed you to follow her. I'm guessing you're a follower? :)
Many celebrities in US voiced their support for Hillary during last presidential election. Their actions probably turned more people off.
>> Royal blush <<
You kiss the Queen with that mouth?
If you've ever heard the phonecall that Prince Charles had with Camilla Parker Bowles about being reincarnated as her tampon, you'll know he has a filthy mind – but we didn't know he had a mouth to match.
Prince Harry was supposed to do an event with Charles recently, but ended up pulling out at the last minute. This caused some unhelpful complications for the event staff but when an organiser complained about it, Charles suggested they cut the boy a bit of slack.
Why? Because, he said, Harry is a little "cunt-struck" right now.
Popbitch 2:
>> A legal enquiry <<
Some friends in low places
Elsewhere in royal drama news, Thomas Markle is looking to see if he can sue the paparazzi agency that staged the pre-wedding photos that cemented his rift with Meghan.
Word from his camp is exactly as you'd expect it to be: that he's furious about being stitched up, he had no idea they'd be used the way they were, he feels ripped off, etc, etc. We have no idea if that's truly the case – but there was one interesting comment that caught our ear.
Apparently Markle Senior has been advised that his suit might have some extra merit because the pap agency that set up his pictures (Coleman-Rayner) was the same one working on a retainer for the National Enquirer to dig up dirt on Rose McGowan for Harvey Weinstein.
I guess it is the companion word to “dickmatized”, which I hear quite a bit. “She won’t hear a bad word about her boyfriend- she is totally dickmatized.”
Thanks for everyone’s suggestions of names. I will add them to the list shortly.
My grandfather worked tirelessly for the Labour Party all his life and received an award for his services at party conference. No shoes except for school and left school at 14 to work in a factory. I'm glad he's not here to see this.
After the first few statements, someone interested in keeping a low profile (or who valued privacy) would make sure that no further public declarations were made. But, that didn't happen.
It actually makes her look weak. It's not empowering to delegate your battles to others. Several of these battles are self-inflicted. If she truly asked to access her hotel from the side like the story in Cosmopolitan, then she had to be aware that a lavish baby shower was bad optics. As was going to the states to watch a tennis match. As was introducing Archie to South Africa but not the UK.
This, to my mind anyway, highlights MM's flaws to an even greater degree. There seems to be a steady rising tide of detractors for the duchess and what appears to be a large number of defenders to match yet when you look closely, her defence is actually flimsy and superficial.
And why did Meghan personally call this MP Heidi Lynch (I had never heard of her until a few days ago, and I suspect the same is true for most Brits) to say how 'lonely' she is feeling? The royals are strictly forbidden from becoming involved in politics in any way, particularly so close to what is going to be the most hotly contested election in years. If she wanted to thank her for her 'solidarity', why not get one of her minions to write a nice thank you note? This really looks very bad for all concerned.
She has hardly gotten unfair press treatment. If anything it's been a bit easy considering. So maybe that is a little MM defense from DT?
Just to establish parameters: the people on this list are people who were famous in their own right apart from Meghan and were quoted in the media supporting Meghan.
Date of support is not important - in other words, Serena Williams is on the list.
Goodness. Well, it's true. They teach some really earthy and interesting terms in a British public school.
If Charles said that, then that makes me like him more, because he's not oblivious to the problem, and like his ancestor George III, displays an earthy sense of humor.
I can believe that Harry was C struck in the early days, but if they haven't been sharing a room or even a house since the Australia tour 5 months after their marriage, is he still struck? According to some sources I have come across, that striking was well over by the time she ambushed him at the Tom Inskip wedding, some months after he'd attempted to break it off, and that they have never lived together at all since she moved to London and ostensibly into NottCott. Soho House all the way, baby, is what these sources say, and Meg is in one of their properties now. God only knows where Haz is kipping these days.
If there is credence to the theory that this has been a contractual show marriage from hte very start, conceiving Archie if they hadn't had carnal knowledge of each other since December 2016 would be miraculous indeed!
I paused when I read that the story was in the Ottawa Citizen...that made me go “ hmmm”
The Queen can’t remove a Duke or Earl-ship given in Letters patent as has been said, BUT ,The Queen does have the power to remove titles...the ONLY Title that matters to the BRF and Traditional Britain ...HRH...the one Diana was stripped of , HRM also has the power to strip them of all royal prerogatives and honours pertaining to representing the crown, privy council , honorary military positions etc Royal protection officers, Royal homes, financial support and kick them out of the Buckingham Royal Household.. Then we will be hearing form “ sources within the Noble household of Soho Cottage 5a , report Harald and Roquelle Bumbarton ..... were not fueding with Mitzy Van Walden Ham, they were simply appalled that their laurel hedge was removed and informed Mitzy about it....”
I do believe ,between an incompetent bothersome parliament and never ending family drama, HRM would snap at this stage of the game, especially behind closed doors. Have you seen her lately ,she’s pissed that her Scottish Getaway was hijacked! Tittle Tattle leaking from various royal households happens all the time,. People didn’t believe the flood coming during the Diana / Charles years..in the end it was true. I do believe that people working for Buck House feel emboldened to slagg Harry and Rachel , and express the Queen is fed up, even if they used their own word s to say it. I do believe they would fight the SS on their home turf of “ Not Britannia “.
Interesting claims that Kate is portrayed as the dutiful peace maker, Meghan’s sugars have hated Kannot and Willnot long before there was a Meghan Markle. I experienced that first hand when I defended the Katherine after I personally experienced the Cambridge diplomatic pixie dust spread all over BC. Kate was always hated by a rabid type for being “ Home Counties” . I would point out that as the ethnic “Home Counties “ithey detest is in fact indigenous to Britain , that that is racist! Kate has eaten it in SILENCE for years, and she is coming into her own despite the huge criticism she has received. Meghan can take a page from Camilla and Kate, let your actions speak for you...shut up and do the work.. I loath Meghan’s for her actions to date, they speak volumes about her, not her alleged skin tone.
I don’t doubt William loves his brother, but clearly he is NOT having any of the Sussex Bullshit .
Rachel has always been a Venal , self regarding ,mercenary...she’ll be fine regardless how this Unedifying spectacle ends.
Her Mage...is in the twilight of her reign, she shouldn’t have to deal with this selfishness, from her family and her MPS , while the Union is facing a crisis not seen since WW2. She will have to make a choice sooner rather than later since the Harkles are dragging the neutral Monarchy into the political sphere...then the two dimwits will be just like every other Noble floating around Britain, No money, no prestige , no protection from prosecution dancing for their supper .
Arch Bishop Welby, has previously expressed doubts in the Existence of God....a position which didn’t seem to dissuade him from snatching the golden crown of Anglican hierarchy , so his opinion isn’t worth much like every other “ woke “ fame.. whooore that loves the sound of their own voice . Screw him!
Because no matter what the subject, it's always about her.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/10233656/queen-hands-pockets-new-photo-royal-fans-praise/
Meg “doesn’t want people to love her” apparently 😂😂😂
don’t they teach history at North Western?
Absolutely. You have to be willing to take it however. (and think about more than just this or that test).
And, you are absolutely correct that there is a big difference between popular and respected/loved. Celebrity and Royal.
Plus, check out Yankee Wally today. She points out that a lot of the politicians on that letter's list have been busted in the past for some scam or other by the press, then blamed the press for outing them!
What is UP with Megs and all of her bogus letter writing? She has used her letter writing since she was a kid to prop up her victimhood self. Then later lied about the ways and means of that letter to a soap company (it was a class assignment). And she was well known to write companies to complain and get freebies, then brag to classmates. It's her go to weapon. She ghost writes letters to or from "friends", makes up the five friends, and now an "open" letter from some shady MPs. Crazy woman.
https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a25746893/meghan-markle-prince-harry-relationship-to-friends/
"Journalist Bryony Gordon, a friend of the couple's who interviewed Harry in April 2017 about his mental health and his seeking help after his mother Princess Diana's death, talked on ITV's Lorraine show in the UK about her impressions of them."
"Gordon also talked about her impressions of Meghan, who she had lunch with recently. "She’s lush!" Gordon said. "
And from the article to which you linked, Royal Fan:
So Smarkle doesn't want to be loved, she just wants to be heard? Well, we heard her.. over and over and over again.. and now we would like to hear less from her. She doesn't seem to realize how boring and meaningless her word salads are.
So maybe technically this is true.. she does't want to be called the Duchess of Sussex.. plain ole' Duchess will do.
Apparently his deal is: he's doing it out of solidarity with Harry (who also served in the military) and he doesn't actually know all the details. (Which makes sense, do we really think James hangs around Nutty's blog reading about the time Meghan told victims of domestic violence to "fight their abusers" whilst munching his sandwich during his lunch breaks? He's so far removed fron the tea, he's probably unaware of the interview in which Meghan claimed she "didn't even know who Harry was." LOL.)
I'm also getting that when he finally becomes aware of what he's publicly defended, he'll be deeply embarrassed for making an ass of himself. I'll still listen to his music, he really means well (I don't think he's doing it for clout or to suck-up/social-climb or anything like that).
*FEPO, obviously~
Now onto the physical-world forensics: It seems out-of-character for James Blunt, because did co-write "Annie", check out the lyrics: https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jamesblunt/annie.html
For the most part, James is a sweet songwriter (he's not Maroon 5 LOL). "Annie", however... It's passionate enough there's NO WAY I will ever believe it's not based on a real person (fameheaux) he knew.
I have strong memories about that song "Annie" because I remember being at the James Blunt concert in Jakarta, and in front of me was this couple where, from outside appearances, the dynamics/balance looked way out-of-whack (white older sugar daddy type with a younger local girl—if you're familiar with Southeast Asia, you know what I'm talking about) and I distinctly remember the man tensing up and being really awkward (stiffened up, stopped swaying to the music, you could actually FEEL his angry energy from behind) as James performed the song.
Also, what's this about the parliamentarian (?) talking about "hanging-out with rich rapists"? She's not referring to another one of Sunshine Sachs' clients, is she? Effing clueless. Ugh, as if!
People who dislike her aren't hanging out with "rich rapists", they're calling her out for claiming she's a fiminist and then working with Harvey Weinstein's PR firm who mainly did clean-up work after the #MeToo blow-up.
Apparently if you run "sisterly solidarity" (in plain UK English) through Google Translate, it actually translates to "opportunistic pragmatism" (in Politicians' English).
I'm going away again on social media hiatus (I really can't handle the politicians' involvement thing—they're very bad vibes people, I only came to say something nice about Mr. Blunt).
I realise it's probably a fangirl bias, but I'd give James the benefit of the doubt.
Be nice, he's technically a war vet. 💜
Please please please please PLEASE I'm pleading can you please produce an "Ab Fab"-like show based on the Tatler staff?!
PLEEAAAAAAAASSSEEEEE. I would get a Netflix subscription to watch that!!!!!!
Also, can we please have French & Saunders' "Let Them Eat Cake" back?!
TIA.
Love, light, and lawsuits,
- Lucia 💜
(Your Favourite ☕Javanese Anglophile🇬🇧)
Also noteworthy, for someone who self-proclaims about her intelligence and how articulate she is, she's astonishingly quiet about these very issues other than vague references to how it's hard or it isn't fair or a number of phrases that you might us in the schoolyard, but certainly not the language of someone who is supposedly brilliant and educated. She cannot even speak up for herself. She never addresses the criticism because how can you defend appearing in a 38,000-pound dress for one photo op? Or a 100,000-pound dress for an evening. Or the conflicting stories or or or. The absence of any "real" people in her life aside from her husband speaks volumes, IMO.
Take care, you all.
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-11-01-melinda-gates-has-an-uplifting-message-for-all-women/
'the foundation that at the end of 2017 was reported to have an endowment of $50.7-billion, making it the largest private foundation in the world' (Anyone visiting this blog think that M&H can attract that kind of money?)
'It’s her call to put women at the centre, not because it’s the nice thing to do, or even the right thing to do, but because investing in women is the essential component that can lift lives, families, communities and the world. Gates’ book joins these dots explicitly: of the transformation that comes from giving women access to contraceptives, to the power of collaboration and information for women farming co-operatives, through to equal education for girls, and even women in workplaces making room for other women.' (Meghan uses this rhetoric in trying to sell herself as a feminist empowering women through her Sussex Foundation)
'Gates returned several times to the necessity for strong data and monitoring and evaluation. This informs the dozens of global interventions undertaken by the foundation. “It guides how we organise and is what can be measured over time.”' (This seems to be the missing link with Meghan's 'work' ... no investment in data gathering, monitoring and evaluation.)
'money doesn’t necessarily make problems go away and that humility and learning, unlearning, and learning more matters. For Gates, to “see poverty through the eyes of the poor” meant following Rosling’s example of being on the ground, not making assumptions from her Seattle mansion. At the very least, it meant making deep listening a practice, something she learnt from Rosling, who became a mentor and friend.' (Methinks that Meghan prefers listening to talking, so I wonder what she can offer through her foundation.)
I am in total agreement with you here,but we are talking about a Meghan ... a narcissist!
What I find interesting is that she has abandoned any pretence of working for the firm, supporting the queen or representing the UK a while ago (the tour was for the foundation and getting someone else to pay for it, as are the commonwealth positions). How can the firm justify subsidising her life in any way anymore? (Offices, staff, transportation, RPOs, clothing and entertainment allowances, home ...). All funding must stop and they must move out of home and offices unless they agree to pay premium rent. (Just my opinion.)
I mean, given that:
A) They're defending someone who's practically tyring to silence the media.
B) The Guardian types are the ones usually trying to shut others down by labelling people "racist", "sexist/misogynist", "anti-avocadoes", or whatever before the other person even has a chance to say anything.
Not that I think the "woke" crowd think that kind of thing through, or ever think for themselves for that matter (they're practically zombies). Did you know that 55% of Millenials worldwide believe they should be entitled to receive a participation trophy every time they retweet something from The Guardian. Zombies!
It's so absurd that I've wondered if this whole marriage was some kind of social experiment and we're being played? I'm getting a little dizzy now...
I'm just an Anglophile, I don't deserve to be made this confused.
And also, if Meghan wins her case over that letter she wrote to her father, what do you think will happen to that site "Letters of Note"? I can't remember if it's .com or .net or .co.uk (it's been a while, I vaguely remember being obsessed in a particular F. Scott Fitzgerald letter in 2013) but at one point their "franchise" had a physical book where they'd put dead people's letters in the book to sell. Does Meghan even HAVE a case?!
Please feel free to tell me to go away and deport me now. 💜 Following this funded-by-British-taxpayers reality show has shifted into masochistic territory for me now. It's more frustrating than entertaining.
Bye.
Thank you for your kind words. It's just that this is getting to be a masochistic pursuit for me. LMAO.
Notice that she has no real entourage. If she did, she'd have them all cannibalizing each other in no time at all. She can't hold a single thing together, let alone a marriage or motherhood.
Here's the letter: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/07/youve-got-to-sell-your-heart.html?m=1
I'm going to save this as PDF and kill some trees by printing this on paper in case Meghan Markle gets her way and the English legal system takes the entire site down. (You know how they role in the common law systems! Jurisprudence FFS.)
They already stole some random civilians Instagram handle. Who knows what next!
@punkinseed: Ever since they took that man's Instagram handle, I've really disliked them. IDK if I should be more angry at Facebook/Instagram for letting them lawlessly do that, or if I should be more angry at them for reaching out to Facebook/Instagram to have them do something about it (I personally would never have thought to do something like that). The man who originally owned @SussexRoyal took it like a classy gentleman and was super chill about it (all he wanted was to be left alone and allowed his privacy). If it were me, I'd be bawling my eyes out!
I really shouldn't have compared him to Maroon 5, that was a very unfair comparison (I mean you could replace the frontman Adam with Deadpool and you'd never notice the difference).
Last revision. Bye. 💜
The random celebrities, I think most celebrities would not be so outspoken about their real feelings about Meghan Markle the woman as she is. But being diplomatic and nice about the duchess of Sussex is the safest bet if they are cornered into giving their opinion about it (case in point, Kim K).
There are some who do it because of their allegiance towards Harry (James blunt, Nacho) Some are doing it because it keeps them in news (Paul the disgraced Butler, Idris Alba's wife, some of the stupid MPs)
At this point it's very much turned into a war between poor Meghan and the stuffy old royals and that's a woke bandwagon many a has beens and wannabes would want to jump on (Jameela *big-wig* Jamil).
What's surprising to me is that it's been a couple of days since the MP letter and we still haven't heard anything from the BRF, not a quote via sources, no palace says this/that nothing. I thought surely this would force their hand. Maybe they wanted to wait till Charles' documentary pt-2 had aired. We know pC was absolutely pissed when pt-1 was overshadowed by the whinomentary.
It's strange that so many news outlets and bloggers are talking about the 'queen has finally given them the boot' article. That's was so ridiculous when it first came out that no sane person would believe it at first glance.
I've added RuPaul to the list, plus Wendell Pierce, who played Meg's dad on Suits but didn't get invited to the wedding, as several other cast members were.
With regard to the female MP’s this was an interesting article by columnist Stephen Glover in the DM.
This article is solely about the MP’s who wrote Meghan an open letter. Interestingly Stephen Glover highlights the fact that neither Harry (in his tirade against the press etc), and MP’s give any examples of the claims they make against the press, I quote Stephen, ‘ They have made charges without foundation — without, indeed, bothering to adduce any evidence at all. Their cunning purpose is to disseminate the idea that newspapers are not to be trusted, and so should be regulated.’
Harry wants the press stifled, shut down all criticism.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7632649/STEPHEN-GLOVER-cynical-MPs-claim-sisterly-solidarity-Meghan-Markle.html
I tried to post this yesterday, but I got caught in a ‘I’m not a robot’ loop and it wouldn’t acknowledge my answers...I’ve had to wait till today to try again. Had changes been made to the blog/comments?
Why is she at the bakery? Why is she still wearing the smartworks inspired wardrobe at a bakery?? Does Meg have only one belt, the tan one? Are those the infamous Wimbledon jeans?? And most importantly, why is she giggling so much?? How is this a Royal patronage , btw?
Also, this is visit is not going to help with her weight related "false stories". She has clearly been a big fan of the luminary cakes these past several months and it shows. Was this Meg's cheat day, and is that why she is so excited???
I suspect the December 12 election will sweep out some of the pro Meghan MPs. I noticed that the British media isn't really dissertating the letter as most of what is in the news is about the election. Pollsters are saying the election will be very unpredictable and anything can change overnight. I really hope those who spearheaded the letter lose their seats.
I saw it too, in The DM, I haven’t read the comments though...wont be good after banana-gate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7637673/Meghan-Markle-opens-hopes-fears-insecurities.html
But of course we know why she's there, and it's not because of the women running the cafe. SS told her to get out and be seen 'doing good', because this woman at war with the media cannot stand to be away from the cameras. Speaking of which, does she have any official events scheduled? Harry is off to Tokyo for the rugby world cup this weekend, but I doubt she's going with him. What actual bona fide royal engagements does she have coming up?
I also believe that the Thanksgiving break is basically the.workinvbin the Oprah series and some appearances planned for her in UsA.
The title-stripping article appeared in my local/not really local newspaper briefly. Online the headline is still there but the link is dead, as someone else memtioned. Imagine my horror when they actually quoted Radar in the article. Like the first time I saw a "legitimate" news source quote TMZ.
All this support for a woman they do not know personally is just so high school. Look at all the important people who love me. Etc. That someone is able to play these juvenile antics on the world stage is deeply disturbing. And, I believe that MM is a bully of the tallest order. When Harry had difficulty walking onto the stage in S.A. I had a fleeting moment wondering just how he got hurt .... how much damage could a thrown teapot inflict?
It's so funny because the last time they were asking him question like as Meghan's online dad what advice would you give her? Would you give Harry the dad talk? Lol
@charade , I also thought the letter wetung business seems.odd. so many letters everywhere. Everyone seems to be writing letters to each other, and open letters at that, which is so passive agressive and wannabe. Just pick up the phone and talk. Or send a WhatsApp. This letter idea is all Meghan in my opinion, it's seems like just the kind of dated, passive agressive, pseudo intellectual drivel mm would be calling her "modernizing the monarchy feminist trailblazer idea" she would be using since the 1990s.
"Harry is off to Tokyo for the rugby world cup this weekend, but I doubt she's going with him."
I read this morning, (can't recall where) that Sparkle will be watching the rugby on TV with little Archie, who will wearing his ENGLAND onesie.
I wonder if we'll get *cute* photos for Instagram?
Oh I don't doubt Meghan will find some way to make it all about herself on Sunday, even though she won't be in Tokyo and I doubt she'll even watch the game on TV.
I do think this is part of yet another ill-advised PR move, this time with an aim to winning over the British public (as if!) Fist we had the MPs' letter, but as they were nearly all Labour MPs, she needs to 'balance' it with this saccharine piece in The Telegraph, otherwise known as the Torygraph. And now the reference to little Archie in his England onesie!
Thing is, it's all laid on so thick nobody is going to fall for it. As I've said before, if she really wants to get the British people on side, it's really very simple: Lay low for a while, avoid 'leaking' to the media, don't post on Instagram but do attend a few unglamorous events in Swansea or Middlesborough, preferably wearing affordable outfits by British designers and generally not making it all about you. It won't work instantly but as has been shown with Kate and especially Camila, it will work over the long term. And royalty is all about the long term.
Unfortunately for her, Meghan simply doesn't understand that. She's wedded to the American celebrity way of seeking to dominate the day's news cycle and Twitter trends. That's why she's doomed to failure. She just cannot stay away from the spotlight and always thinks she knows better than those who have been 'managing' the royals for decades.
What she doesn't want to be is probably Harry's wife and Archie's mum. It must be effing irritating to have a constantly whining husband, who is going down the rabbit hole of numbnutness so spectacularly.
There does not seem to be any reason for this visit other than for her to show off her wig with her coat sitting on her shoulders like a cape and to try to prove once again that Smarkle is just a jeans and shirt kind of girl.
But mostly it gets to show her interacting with women of colour, something that we have not seen much in her past, and promoting her new victimhood agenda. The cupcakes may say "you are strong", but now Smarkle's message is that we are all victims:
"Speaking to Tanya, a woman who was stabbed repeatedly by her violent ex-partner, she said: 'I was talking about this with someone the other day.
'We get into this habit of wanting things done immediately nowadays. There's a culture of instant gratification, of the instant fix.
'But we aren't mechanical objects that need to be fixed. You're a wounded creature that needs to be healed, and that takes time.'"
You see, a woman beaten by her spouse, the Duchess of Sussex.... they're exactly the same.
"Our lives may be different, our backgrounds, our experiences, all varied, but I find that in these moments of connection it becomes abundantly clear that our hopes, our fears, our insecurities, the things that make us tick…. well, those are very much the same. And there's comfort in that.'"
I can't. I just can't.
Seems to be the same thing happening here. She has done a 180 degrees from the $70,000 dresses and Cartier watches to "Meghan, she's just like you".
It's from one extreme to the other.
I think it's more likely the Palace doesn't want her to do any more standard royal stuff. They probably don't want to touch her with a barge pole. Also, I don't think they'd have many people turn up so walkabouts would be embarrassing, and it's more than likely they'd encounter people raising their complaints about them to their face. You know how ruinous it is for politicians when they're button-holed by a member of the public. It's bound to happen again in this election campaign.
Separate matter - like others I'm surprised that Radar nonsense about the showdown with the Queen has been picked up by other outlets. just like that saying - a lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on.
@ Raspberry Ruffle - about the 'I'm not a robot' loop. 'I'm not a robot' never works for me but I found doing the audio test rather than the eternal traffic lights is much easier and quicker. The things I go through in my resistance to Meghan. We all go through. Would be easier for me to just stop reading it all and writing here and on DM, but then she would be getting away with it. I know our impact is tiny, but every little bit helps somehow. It's the public she wants to shut down after all, so the DM is sued because it gives ordinary people from all over the world a voice, through the comments section.
Also, if we just acquiesce the Palace would be happier. I often think Andrew survives, despite having such a bad reputation, because people like us just don't want to go there. No one does. No one wants to think about him or write about him in any depth. He's saved because he's so unsavoury. I know it feels as if the Palace is immovable re: Meghan too, but I think of them as a dam and we're a trickle of water escaping. DM comments are another trickle of water. One day the dam will just give way.
Yes, the visit to the bakery was simply a photographic accompaniment to that awful puff piece in the Torygraph. Again, using people who have been through terrible experiences as props in a photo op..... just despicable. I do wish the women would have told her where to go but they're probably too polite and god knows what they'd get called if they did.
I highly doubt this outing was sanctioned by the palace. Every single thing she does, it's all about her. Every time.
I've been lurking for a long time and have finally worked out how to comment so here goes …
Looking at the latest pics of MM in the DM, I really think she has now hit rock bottom re official engagements. Going by what she's wearing, this is certainly not an official engagement and I seriously doubt her work diary is over-full - rather the reverse.
I shall save my comments re the 72 misguided MPs until I have recovered from my present Crohn's episode. Expending a tsunami of vitriol will be most beneficial for me as I celebrate my recovery.
In short, if you are a sad , depressed, downtrodden, hard on her luck woman, like me, just stuff your faces with more cake, because we all know thats the best way to take care of your mental health.
What the H is she talking about?! Meghan is the living, breathing, constantly talking example of instant gratification! Why is she so hell bent on taking up mental health as her latest pet cause??? Is she actually jealous that her husband highjacked that for himself with the Oprah deal or is this just a big build up to that? Whatever happened to meghan the educationist, Meghan the thespian, Meghan the dog lover, Meghan the food sorcerer??
Next we know she'll be teaching krav maga to domestic abuse victims because she once caught off a violent predator with nothing but 10 inch heels and her wig as self defense tools. I'll be damned if she even mentions hashtag MeToo.
Meghan Markle Breaches Royal Protocol with One-on-One Newspaper
Do an event of her own choosing, specially designed to showcase her wonderful wokeness, tell nobody except her own personal photographer, personally select the most flattering photos and video footage, and then release on the Sussex Instagram. Companion puff pieces with a hand picked 'journalist' like the Torygraph nonsense are an optional extra.
In other words, total control of the coverage. Not even A listers get that. And the notion that a member of the royal family - a public servant who must be subject to public scrutiny - should demand such censorship is rather disturbing.
I've been thinking, when Diana made her mental health problems known, I can't remember the public getting annoyed as she was so much more privileged than others. We didn't have the online sites we have now, but I don't remember a single friend or colleague saying anything, whereas Meghan is deeply unpopular with them. It may be that we were aware Diana had always been privileged as an earl's daughter so she knew no different, whereas Meghan has hustled her way up and continues to hustle for yet more luxury she can rub our noses in. Diana had also been so young when she married and became a mother. Most of all, she worked hard, did tons of workaday engagements and actually achieved things that matter. But I'm still interested that we didn't seem to begrudge her many expensive clothes. I've read in several places that her personal grooming costs were stratospheric. I wonder, if we had had the internet as it is now, if people would have been more inquisitive about that? Maybe being such a senior royal would have defused that. After all, Charles reportedly spends a fortune on Camilla's clothes and grooming and no one says anything.
"Wishing you all a very safe and happy Halloween from our family (and little pumpkin ) to yours." signed TRH
(Their Royal Highnesses?)
It would have been a perfect opportunity to appease their followers and generate some seasonal goodwill by posting, oh, I don't know, a snap of their 'little pumpkin' in a costume or not.
Instead, she posts a photo of she and Harry (pre-pumpkin) during last year's tour of New Zealand, flanked by women in native dress. So . . .the implication being . . Maori dress constitutes a Halloween costume?!
Another incredibly tone-deaf insensitive PR move from HRH.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B4SuZJFpXAr/?utm_source=ig_embed
I agree, it would have been so much better to take a picture of Archie in a pumpkin costume. PLAY on the words Meggy, ya dolt!
" After all, Charles reportedly spends a fortune on Camilla's clothes and grooming and no one says anything."
When's the last time you saw Camilla in custom Givenchy or Dior? To the best of my knowledge the clothes she wears are quite reasonably priced and usually British. But Meghan, although she's toned things down recently, spent a vast amount on clothes in her first year as a duchess, and mostly by non British designers. So I don't think you're comparing like with like.
"I've been thinking, when Diana made her mental health problems known, I can't remember the public getting annoyed as she was so much more privileged than others."
Again, you're not comparing like with like. Diana spent years building up good will with the public. Even when she was miserable, she rarely let this show in public and went about her duties impeccably. The famous Panomara was done over a decade after her marriage. If Meghan had done all the royaling stuff modestly and appropriately for several years, nobody would mind her talking about mental health. It's just that from the moment she became a royal, if not before, she's been making everything about her and flouting royal traditions. Totally different to Diana.
"But I'm still interested that we didn't seem to begrudge her many expensive clothes."
Her clothes weren't actually all that expensive. Most were designed for her by her favourite designer, Catherine Walker, who also had the advantage of being British. Obviously they'd be outside the means of most women but we expect that from royals. We don't really expect to see them wearing Primark. We know they have incredibly luxurious lifestyles, but so long as they don't shove their privilege in our faces and represent the country with dignity, we mostly don't resent it.
You also have to remember that Diana was Princess of Wales and expected to be the future queen. Meghan is much less important. So that will also make a difference in what is expected of them, and the degree of expenditure that is tolerated.
Another incredibly tone-deaf insensitive PR move from HRH."
I didn't notice that before but... you're absolutely right! Of all the pics they could have chosen, they chose THAT one?
And the ironic thing is, their fanz tend to be the super-woke types who scream 'cultural appropriation' at the slightest perceived offence. If any other member of the royal family did such a thing they'd be clutching their pearls big time. But because it's St. Meghan, it's all .... oh her little pumpkin! How CUTE!
The bin symbol is for deleting your comment should you need/want to.
And I add to it by thinking about the idea of "fake it until you make it" driving some of the behavior now - that if only she could do the fun stuff that she thinks she is good at and likes, the rain would stop, the music would start playing, the people would cheer and the plan would be back to where it needs to be.
I thought she might be high at the bakery as it was just a little too happy happy, clappy clappy. I wasn't even listening, just watching the video.
I think Liver Bird has a good dissection of Diana versus M.
Interesting thought Alice that Harry might be the one vetoing the baby pics everywhere. Maybe it began as a joke or extension from the wedding ones but ... I still think there is something hickey about it from start to now.
MM's appearances resemble this rollout to me. Instead of inviting people to meet with her, she goes to the site (or worse, makes a "surprise" appearance) and gives a preachy speech. Lots of photos ensue with her dead center most of them. I think she has her "system" down to a science now, which is why we are seeing so many of these. Change part of the formula (don't allow photos, or don't allow her to speak) and I think she'd decline to show.
FWIW, I have suspicions that her "wounded animal" assessment may be a projection. I have been through a lot in the past month, including a hospitalization and surgery, but it has made me more thankful than ever for what I do have. I don't consider myself wounded in the slightest. I am incredibly grateful and have a fraction of the money and resources that MM has. But gratitude in general eludes MM, so maybe this is why she assesses us as "wounded animals" who need to be saved.
Lol Diana's left shoe...I can't stop laughing at that
"Our lives may be different, our backgrounds, our experiences, all varied, but I find that in these moments of connection it becomes abundantly clear that our hopes, our fears, our insecurities, the things that make us tick…. well, those are very much the same. And there's comfort in that.'"
This is just like her statement in SA that "everyone is going through the same mental health problems, no matter where they are" (paraphrase, not a quote). By her own logic, the Duchess' past experience of attending prep school and working on a TV show means she has the same fears as someone who was stabbed. RIGHT, Meghan!
It's not as if the idea hasn't been presented to Meghan. Even the comedy series "The Windsors" had a character responding to Meghan's pseudo-meaningful ramblings by saying sarcastically, "Oh, do talk like that. British people don't find it at all irritating."
Perhaps Meghan can't figure out what would appeal to the British populace. Then she should try scripted remarks for awhile - scripted by someone who does understand the UK a bit better - until she can get the hang of it.
I realize that Meg is more interested in appealing to the US media market than the British citizens who pay for her food and lodging, but she also seems to be upset by her lack of popularity in the UK. As other commenters have said, she's lashing out at the media because she can't lash out at the public.
I'm open to correction here, but I believe the cookbook project was not Meghan's. Other people came up with the idea and did all the heavy lifting. She just wrote the foreword - which surprise surprise was all about herself - and took the credit.
So who do you think developed and tested the recipes and who do you think believes she did equal amount of work and takes full credit? LOL!
So as far as MM is concerned, she is simply getting the recognition that she thinks she has always deserved. To her, it doesn't seem odd that only 3 years ago she was a not very successful actress that most people hadn't heard of. And yet now she is now flying over the world telling people what their faults are, and that she has the solutions. To her, MM has finally arrived at the level of exaltedness that she believes she is worthy of.
Marrying into the royal family, with the idea that they are respected simply because they are of the correct bloodline, is probably something that she believes about herself. She is too good for her own family after all. Or her old friends. She honestly thinks she is better than that, and marrying into the RF gives her this validation, without really having to work for it. Which probably proves in her own mind how destined she really is to take on this role of protector/global philosopher.
And of course, her reaction to finding out that people don't quite have the same high opinion that she has for herself has led to all the various shennanigans we see now.
To put it simply, MM's ego is far larger than we can imagine because we are normal people. And it is being fed by fellow egotists, attention seekers and those who try to utilise the spectre of bullying or 'unfairness' in order to avoid focus on their own clear failings as people. Let alone the fact that they too are far removed from normal life.
Let them eat cake indeed.
Hahaha. Thank you for that gem.
"When's the last time you saw Camilla in custom Givenchy or Dior? To the best of my knowledge the clothes she wears are quite reasonably priced and usually British."
Actually, I think that many, if not most, of Camilla's clothes are bespoke items from little known (to the average person) UK designers. and therefore expensive. However, because they are made to measure, they fit her impeccably and give her the "royal" look that we expect and admire. She doesn't just buy expensive clothing for the sake of flashing "labels".
We also don't see her clothes being hawked on "Camilla's closet".
Expensive? Sure. But not even close to the level of bespoke couture. Plus, her outfits are always appropriate and she never makes events about her rather than the people she is visiting.
And sniggers at 'Camilla's closet'!
Contrast to the Duchess of Cambridge, Camilla and Her Majesty herself, who are all pictured LISTENING to others, followed perhaps by a specific question (which proves that they were actually listening).
Smarkle says that she wants to be "heard". Well guess what, Smarkle.. Everybody wants to be heard and the best thing that you can do to help other people is to LISTEN. Even if you can't help them, people feel good when you LISTEN to them.
"she needs someone who understand the UK better"
You know the old saying 'you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink'? I think that's what's going on here. Meghan will have had the expertise of royal advisors since the day her engagement was announced, if not long before, who would have been more than happy to educate her on British, and more specifically, royal, ways.
But she thought she knew best. And more than that, she simply doesn't care about Britain or its people. In her mind she's never left the US. British people just aren't important enough for her, and when they didn't rush to welcome her as the new Diana, she turned against them.
Speaking of the US, there's a puff piece in 'People' about how happy she is to be going home for Thanksgiving, and a few lines about how she's so unhappy in the UK. Since it's well-known that 'People' is basically used as a PR outlet by Meghan, you can be fairly sure she will have given at least tacit approval to that claim. So I suspect the move to the US - for her if not for Harry - is coming sooner rather than later.
Stop. Just stop, Smarkle.
Just had a look at Meghan's Mirror for the first time in my life!
You're right - her blah outfit is already up there. It's so obivous, isn't it? An event which wasn't sanctioned by the palace, with no media except her own photographer, and details of her outfit announced exclusively by her own (because we all know she's involved) fan site - complete with links to purchase.
She's a semi-detached royal. She has the title and all the perks, but does her own thing, for her own purposes. It's a shambles.
Sadly, another name to the list - Dame Julie Andrews.
I just saw a short clip on YT
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_BCfN5vSMHw
She at the end mentions tabloids and Whoopie then mentions MM.
Dame Julie then says that she hopes MM wins against the tabloids.
Re. the "Halloween Photo"
>>>I didn't notice that before but... you're absolutely right! Of all the pics they could have chosen, they chose THAT one?
And the ironic thing is, their fanz tend to be the super-woke types who scream 'cultural appropriation' at the slightest perceived offence. If any other member of the royal family did such a thing they'd be clutching their pearls big time. But because it's St. Meghan, it's all .... oh her little pumpkin! How CUTE!<<<
I just had to laff to myself. Megsy lives to Instagram, I thought. For her, if something isn't on Insta, it didn't happen. She's spent years crafting this carefully curated social media image as a stylish influencer with such a fabulous life. Now that she's a "Royal", with influence like never before, and her own personal Instagram platform, everything she puts up is so slapdash. After the twin debacles of 'Baby Archie doll feet against stock image of bluebells' and the truly frightning Sepia Father's Day FU shot with a terrified Archie cowering behind Harry's flipped bird finger . . she hasn't handcrafted any more pictorials for the IG that I can recall. This woman went to the lengths of staging an entire visit to a deserted pub to bolster her lie that they had a family lunch there on a Bank Holiday in August--not with that many empty tables ye dinnae, lassie, what are we STUPID?--but how hard would it have been to snap a family photo at home with the little pumpkin?
Well, I imagine quite difficult if (as I have suspected):
1. She does not live with Harry and hasn't seen him since their little jaunt to the Windsor round table. Haz in in Tokyo, isn't he, or getting ready to leave.
2. 'the little pumpkin' was only on loan in SA and she doesn't live with him, either.
Still, rattling around in her luxury suite at SoHo house with a camera phone . . you'd think after a bottle or two of the Tig and some nose candy the Duchess might get inspired to trot out her burger-grilling ensemble again for nostalgia to wish everyone a Happy Halloween . . or where's her friend the photog with the junior collegiate Photoshop skills? He mocked up a presentation photo with HM and PP and a christening tableau. A family shot posing with some pumpkins and leaves in front of Toad Hall shouldn't have been so terribly tough. Harry and Archie needn't even have been present.
Rachel suffers from a complete lack of imagination which is a cruel symptom of her narcissism. She chose acting because she thought she was cute enough to work it for attention, not because she has an actual creative bone in her body.
"Contrast to the Duchess of Cambridge, Camilla and Her Majesty herself, who are all pictured LISTENING to others, followed perhaps by a specific question (which proves that they were actually listening).
Smarkle says that she wants to be "heard". Well guess what, Smarkle.. Everybody wants to be heard and the best thing that you can do to help other people is to LISTEN. Even if you can't help them, people feel good when you LISTEN to them.
-----
THIS A THOUSAND TIMES THIS. Listening vs being heard. Meghan sees these events as opportunities for her to speak. Meghan thinks she's so clever with her PR, but her true nature always comes out because she cannot fathom the problem with being the expert and spokesperson for any and every issue.
Given that this obviously unofficial visit took place earlier in the week, I'm wondering why they chose today to release the pics and the unctuous 'article' in the Torygraph? I would have thought she'd prefer to overshadow Harry's visit to the rugby match on Sunday, but perhas she's got something else planned for the weekend?
Of course Camilla's clothes are expensive. She's a future queen. But they're appropriate, modest and she's not getting kickbacks from merching them on a fan site.
Nothing here to see.
Arh!! I never saw that nor noticed the publish button before. Thank you for that, much appreciated.
>>>Smarkle says that she wants to be "heard". Well guess what, Smarkle.. Everybody wants to be heard and the best thing that you can do to help other people is to LISTEN. Even if you can't help them, people feel good when you LISTEN to them.<<<
The self-absorbed tediousness of this woman has no end. It is bottomless.
You make the excellent point that LISTENING is actually more important than talking, in communication. Those people who are consistently praised as excellent conversationalists actually excel at listening. This allows them to engage others by then asking questions about what they have absorbed through listening. People come away with a sense of just having had a great conversation when in fact they have done most of the talking.
Rachel does not converse--she doesn't know how. All she knows how to do is snatch the microphone and monologue.
Adding to the art of LISTENING, I would say that in order to earn the right of BEING HEARD, one must HAVE SOMETHING SUBSTANTIVE TO SAY. Rachel wants everybody to 'hear' her but what is she saying that is either original or worth listening to? She's like a broken record, same inane sh*t cycles over and over out of her mouth.
Having speed read the book, ignoring dates,and useless information, and disregarding abdication horrors, coincidentally Wallis is not unlike Markle. Flaws are evident as stated by those who observed.
With all the current talk about Common wealth countries and California etc, does anyone know why Paris /France was ever considered as being the chosen place to hide for the Windsors? And why the Markles have never expressed a similar thought about spending their 6 week recuperation in France? Or if not 6 weeks,then longer? Also they visited Elton John? Surely they were looking to extend their visits at a later stage!
https://blindgossip.com/jerkiness-and-your-first-priority/#more-99453
regarding Harry's Vegas party and the missing pics
Yep! Most people could not be bothered to actually read the accurate books that have been written about Wallis and David, but simply repeat the inaccurate gossip (and sometimes elaborate on that).
Wallis was being threatened and so left England. She travelled by car to the south of France, frantically stopping at every village to use the public telephone in a booth (no cellphones in those days), trying to stop David from abdicating. He did anyway, and when he told her, she collapsed, saying something like she would now be the most hated woman in history.
She did not want to be queen. What she really wanted was to stay married to her husband (Simpson?) and be the mistress of the king. However, David threatened to kill himself if she did not marry him, and after he abdicated, she really was in a corner. They went on to have a good life together as they were actually very compatible.
Wallis and David were not Nazi sympathisers. Those who make those accusations do not do the research and provide the context for that appalling visit to Germany.
1. Appeasement was, for many years, the policy under Chamberlain. It is only with hindsight that this policy, at best, is now seen as one of weakness and 'hiding your head in the sand'.
2. The horrific memories of World War I were still fresh and people were inclined to choose diplomacy over confrontation.
3. David was still thinking like a king and trying to establish a meaningful role for himself. His decision to visit Germany was a very bad one. Courtiers and government would have stopped him if he actually had been king, but he either was cut off from such advice or refused to listen to it. (Reminds me of Meghan!)
4. Yes, Hitler did want to use David in a plot to take over the UK, but there is nothing to indicate that David or Wallis knew of the atrocities or madness of Nazism (actually, at that time, no one knew). It was a different world in which the democracies and freedoms we take for granted (and sometimes abuse) existed alongside monarchy and absolute rulers.
If you want to understand Wallis and David, you have to read the details and fully understand history and context.
This is frigging rich. People are hearing her! What they are hearing is insincere drivel, a narcissistic whine about herself and her woes, a world where she bemoans being one of the most privileged people on the face of this planet, and the same platitudes that she has been spouting off for years. No substance. No original thought. A bouquet of plagiarized quotes that she's lifted from everyone else because she doesn't have an original thought in her head. People are hearing you loud and clear, Ms. Markle. They hear you whining about being called on your faux environmentalism when they are struggling to find change to pay for their tube ticket. People are hearing you when you say motherhood is so hard, when they do not have nannies, where they are forced to put their children in day care to make ends meet. They hear you when you say that we all have our travails as you wipe away crocodile tears and equate your spats with the BRF like they are akin to a country in a constitutional crisis. Why should they lie down prostrate in adoration and awe when they are struggling to put one foot in front of the other while you are tripping in your merched Jimmy Choos and merched Manolo Blahniks. You are the problem. You speak in word salad. You cannot utter a speech without couching every single sentence in how YOU are feeling. Everyone around you is telling you to listen. You say you don't want that love and adoration. Why do I find that that so ludicrous? Perhaps it's because every speech you utter is a paean to yourself?
Lots of juicy behind-the-scenes stories from the pre-Meghan era in the BRF.
The interesting thing about all these supporters of Meghan and Harry is that I don't think there is one among them who has the sort of information that Kenneth Rose had. Even if you stitched together the anecdotes from everyone on the list, I think you still would not get an interesting tell-all book.
This just occurred to me, Will and Kate while in their Pak tour decorated a cake to celebrate 3 birthdays at the orphanage they visited. Meghan's seems to have remember and wanted that for herself because now there are pictures of her decorating that 3 tier cake with fruits. She seems so Petty and shallow.
She's so completely tone-deaf, she must be a PR nightmare. I've worked in PR for 25 years, and let me tell you, I wouldn't want a client like her for a million dollars. She makes mistake after mistake, but refuses to listen to anyone who might guide her because she remains stubbornly convinced that SHE knows best, about everything.
Also, I can't imagine her beloved hippie-dippy woke millenial language is going down well in the UK. No one wants to hear her talk about how she's got a wounded soul or how she's a victim. Heck, I live in Texas and no one wants to hear that crap here. It may go down well with her lefty, SJW Hollywood set, but the average person on the street is not interested.
Now she's giving one-on-one interviews to newspapers, and again, as far as we know, NO ONE takes her to task for breaking royal protocol. She gets away with doing whatever she wants, with zero consequences. Why doesn't the BRF take a stand? I know it's not their way to air family disagreements publicly, but surely they can see how weak they look here?
I'm not sure. She hasn't been seen in a designer gown for months. And she had just two appearances since the Africa tour, both related to an existing patronage. The bakery visit clearly was not sanctioned by the palace. And she'll be off on her 'family time' in a few weeks, so that will make quite a stretch with no official engagements.
I do think the palace are sidelining her. I also think they are very aware that in the grand scheme of things, she and Harry just aren't that important and that this will blow over. The queen has been through much worse and survived.
I plan to keep the list updated if additional celebrities come out to support Meghan.
Sun journalist Dan Wootton interviews Anneliese Dodds, one of the MPs who 'signed' (though as I've said before none of them actually signed) the Poor Meghan letter. He repeatedly asks her to give one single example of all this awful coverage of Meghan. She cannot provide one. As he says himself, it's rather telling.
https://twitter.com/danwootton/status/1190328760844849154/video/1
There is a very simple explanation:
The Royal Family taking action against another RF member is like elephants mating - it's all done at a high level, there's a load of trumpeting and you have to wait absolute ages for a result.
I hope this observation helps.
I would release a statement that the Sussexes have, after much thought, decided to live their lives as private people. They will have no patronages, no public appearances, and no support from the public purse. Prince Harry removes himself and Archie from the line of succession.
They will continue to live at Frogmore (as if that's where they've been this entire time), and will pay rent, as other members of the extended family do for their accommodations. Or, they can give up their titles and live in the USA, their choice. Their income will be from Harry's inheritance and whatever PC decides to given them from the Duchy of Cornwall. In addition, as they are no longer "working royals," this will enable them to lend their names to companies as "consultants," as royals like Zara Tindall do. That way MM can merch to her heart's content, but the British taxpayers won't be supporting her and whatever they do will be independent of the royal family.
I don't see the family completely cutting them out. The optics of that would be terrible. But I do think presenting the two of them with the above as a fait accompli is the only way to deal with the situation, if Harry persists in remaining married to MM.
Also, I don't see MM sticking around for long if the above were to happen. So while I think that Harry is a prat in his own right, the greatest problem, MM, would no longer be a member of the royal family. And if she divorces, she loses all titles and the queen requires Archie to remain in England for the majority of the year.
That's just my two cents and professional recommendation.
I don't think they will forsake Harry but they may be inclined to do the tough love bit. Texshan's suggestion is brilliant. They have been blubbering long enough about wanting private lives so giving them their wish could not be easily derided nor crtisized as racism. Let Harry figure it out and maybe gain insight and maturity in the process. Also, when (not if) they divorce as private citizens, it will be much less of a headache for the RF.
Re: the Telegraph interview many are saying she definitely broke protocol this time. And some on Tumblr have pointed out that, even though the setting is a restaurant where no one conveniently notices her, (kinda like the pub outing ) the photos seem to have been taken in the bakery. Another faux setting ... Like implying she had the chicken tacos face to face with MO. She just can't help herself.
It also seems like the MP Holly .. ? is caught in the Sparkle web and is denying she said that MM was lonely or some such and Piers is holding her feet to the fire. Everywhere Porky Pies.
Interesting thought: if Harry were to follow this advice, Andrew would move up to sixth in line to the throne. Should he exit at the same time (a very good idea!) that would put Beatrice in the Top 5 whenever the Queen goes on to her reward.
Beatrice has long been thought of as spare parts, but she might be one to watch for the future. Edo too.
I know people say "it isn't done" in the British Royal Family, but people abdicate all the time in the Dutch and Belgian Royal Families (top monarchs), and the Japanese emperor recently abdicated, so Royal Families are changing.
With Harry, Archie, and Andrew out of the way, it seems like a no-brainer to bring the York princesses up to full-time Royal status.
pH and mm don't seem.likely to be around for much longer nor do they seem too keen on being very royal or serious about their royal duties. They can audition for britians got talent for all I care and show off their speech giving skills.
And I agree A is a problem. But take a look at the court circular and see what A has done in the past year. I can't see either sister (or Harry) doing many of those events. Will, maybe although it wasn't that long ago he bragged about not reading his briefings.
https://www.royal.uk/court-circular?text=&mrf=2919&date%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=2%2F11%2F2018&date%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=2%2F11%2F2019&id=
Individual royals can't just remove themselves from the line of succession, or give up their titles. That would require an act of parliament.
Even those royals who have no titles and are private citizens - Zara Tindall for example - remain in the line of succession.
I think Meghan is absolutely determined to go back to America at least part-time. She has never made the effort to fit in in Britain. Whether Harry goes with her, or how long he stays with her if he does, is another question entirely. It's Harry that the royals care about, not Meghan. She is irrelevant.
I suggested about a week ago here that the York daughters should be elevated to full working royals, as a lot of the current working royals are getting quite elderly and the Cambridge children won't really be taking on solo events for close to 20 years. I was told by several people that that was a no-go because of Charles's determination to slim down the monarchy, and Andrew's current issues. I still posit that within the next 5-10 years there simply aren't going to be enough royals to cover all of the events they do now. Beatrice and Eugenie are personable, somewhat "glamorous," and princesses of the blood. Plus, Andrew has ALWAYS wanted his girls to be working royals, and if Charles made them so, I think it would go a long way in repairing their relationship.
Gayle King
Michael Buble
Mandy Moore
Katharine McPhee
Abby Wathem, met as actresses thru Trevoron Random Encounters
1st "friend" to speak on BBC engagement video
Vivica Fox
John Legend (John had a chat w/ Dan Wooton to make him stop writing abt Meghan & her dysfunctional family. Chrissy lied(tweet) said she'd never met her but she's VERY protective of her.We have the photos. They met same time Serena & MM met via Creative Artistists PR at the Celebrity Beach Bowl & at Deal or No Deal
Vickie Arbiter, Dickie's daughter
Pharrell (they don't make it easy)