Earlier this week the Nordic Council Literature prizes were given out in Sweden, and in the audience was Mette Frederiksen, the new prime minister of Denmark.
Mette is almost the same age as Meghan Markle - she is 41 - and she's accomplished a fair amount in her lifetime, most of it without draping herself over a man. Now she's the head of (small) country, in charge of its finances, its educational system, and its military.
When you're in the spotlight like that, not everyone is your fan.
In fact, the winner of the Nordic Council Literature prize was not Mette's fan.
"You are the head of a racist government of a racist country," Jonas Eika, a 28-year-old Danish writer, said in his speech to the woman sitting right in front of him. "You claim to care about children, but you tear families apart. You claim to be left wing, but your policies are no better than the policies of the right wing."
Was Mette pleased? Probably not. She didn't applaud when Jonas Eika's speech was over.
But did she go home and get a bunch of female MPs to sign a letter saying she'd been treated unfairly? Did she complain that Jonas Eika, a man, was abusing her because she was a woman?
No, because big girls who are in confident in their positions of power don't need to silence their opponents. And big girls who have chosen to be in public life realize they won't be universally liked.
When it comes to nonviolent dissent or even rudeness and insults, big girls don't cry.
At the very least, she wants her political ideas to be heard, much more than she wants to be loved, as she told a syncophantic reporter for The Telegraph this week. She regularly encourages other woman to "use their voice."
"Women don't need to find a voice, they have a voice, and they need to feel empowered to use it, and people need to be encouraged to listen," Meghan told last year's Royal Foundation Forum.
Since that forum in May, Meg has directed her team to repeatedly attack the media and the British public for being inadequately supportive of Meghan and her choices.
Apparently women should be "empowered to use their voices" as long as they say things Meghan agrees with.
She is widely acknowledged as the writer behind the large blocks of text and squiffy grammar on the @SussexRoyal Instagram account.
In addition, Meghan uses her voice indirectly through proxies like her PR people, the "five friends" who spoke to People Magazine, sympathetic journalists like Omid Scobie, and Twitter accounts that may or may not be her.
Meghan is certainly getting a chance to have her say.
It distresses her, however, that other people are also getting to have their say, particularly when they say the wrong things, at least from Meghan's point of view.
Part of the definition of bullying, however, is that the bully must have more power than his or her victim - the physical strength of the playground lout, or the economic strength of the vicious boss or co-workers.
It is hard to argue that the members of the public who express their dislike for Meghan (and that is whom she is really going after with her suit against the 'bullying' media, the tens of thousands of Daily Mail commenters who openly detest her) really have more power than she does.
The elderly female bloggers who were "doxxed" at Meghan's prompting last year certainly weren't part of any power structure.
Being disagreed with and disliked is part of life for people who choose to be in the public eye. As long as physical violence, stalking, or unauthorized medical or intimate photo release is not present or threatened, it's very hard for a self-promoted celebrity to justifably claim bullying.
No doubt when her divorce settlement comes through, it will come with the form of an "ironclad" non-disclosure agreement, or NDA.
But NDAs aren't as powerful as they once were; plaintiffs suing for transgression of NDAs are being required to show real monetary damage from the information disclosed, for example. Could the British Royal Family meet that level of proof?
NDAs are also being put aside for social justic reasons: NBC, for example, recently released all its employees from their NDAs to allow them to discuss sexual harassment they may have been subject to at the company, and FoxNews employees are seeking a similar release.
Meghan does love to imitate Diana, Princess of Wales - who released enormous amounts of damaging information "anonymously" via author Andrew Morton.
Another strategy might be to release damaging information online through one of her shell accounts, have a few confederates retweet or share it, and then claim the information was already public when confirming it in person.
(The William and Rose rumors may have been a dry run for this tactic.)
At any rate, free speech is a right Meghan intends to make full use of, and no doubt hopes she can profit from.
She's less enthusiastic about free speech rights for anybody else.
Mette is almost the same age as Meghan Markle - she is 41 - and she's accomplished a fair amount in her lifetime, most of it without draping herself over a man. Now she's the head of (small) country, in charge of its finances, its educational system, and its military.
When you're in the spotlight like that, not everyone is your fan.
In fact, the winner of the Nordic Council Literature prize was not Mette's fan.
"You are the head of a racist government of a racist country," Jonas Eika, a 28-year-old Danish writer, said in his speech to the woman sitting right in front of him. "You claim to care about children, but you tear families apart. You claim to be left wing, but your policies are no better than the policies of the right wing."
Was Mette pleased? Probably not. She didn't applaud when Jonas Eika's speech was over.
But did she go home and get a bunch of female MPs to sign a letter saying she'd been treated unfairly? Did she complain that Jonas Eika, a man, was abusing her because she was a woman?
No, because big girls who are in confident in their positions of power don't need to silence their opponents. And big girls who have chosen to be in public life realize they won't be universally liked.
When it comes to nonviolent dissent or even rudeness and insults, big girls don't cry.
Meghan needs protection
Which leads us back to Meghan Markle, who is often said to be politically ambitious herself.At the very least, she wants her political ideas to be heard, much more than she wants to be loved, as she told a syncophantic reporter for The Telegraph this week. She regularly encourages other woman to "use their voice."
"Women don't need to find a voice, they have a voice, and they need to feel empowered to use it, and people need to be encouraged to listen," Meghan told last year's Royal Foundation Forum.
Since that forum in May, Meg has directed her team to repeatedly attack the media and the British public for being inadequately supportive of Meghan and her choices.
Apparently women should be "empowered to use their voices" as long as they say things Meghan agrees with.
Using her own voice
Meanwhile, Meg is empowered to use her own voice in many different ways. In addition to the usual Royal speeches (and writing some of Prince Harry's speeches), she has done exclusive print interviews and exclusive documentary interviews.She is widely acknowledged as the writer behind the large blocks of text and squiffy grammar on the @SussexRoyal Instagram account.
In addition, Meghan uses her voice indirectly through proxies like her PR people, the "five friends" who spoke to People Magazine, sympathetic journalists like Omid Scobie, and Twitter accounts that may or may not be her.
Meghan is certainly getting a chance to have her say.
It distresses her, however, that other people are also getting to have their say, particularly when they say the wrong things, at least from Meghan's point of view.
Bullying versus dissent
Bullying exists, and it is devastating for its victims.Part of the definition of bullying, however, is that the bully must have more power than his or her victim - the physical strength of the playground lout, or the economic strength of the vicious boss or co-workers.
It is hard to argue that the members of the public who express their dislike for Meghan (and that is whom she is really going after with her suit against the 'bullying' media, the tens of thousands of Daily Mail commenters who openly detest her) really have more power than she does.
The elderly female bloggers who were "doxxed" at Meghan's prompting last year certainly weren't part of any power structure.
Being disagreed with and disliked is part of life for people who choose to be in the public eye. As long as physical violence, stalking, or unauthorized medical or intimate photo release is not present or threatened, it's very hard for a self-promoted celebrity to justifably claim bullying.
Meghan won't be quiet
The great irony of Meghan trying to silence her critics is that there is little chance that she, personally, will ever be quiet.No doubt when her divorce settlement comes through, it will come with the form of an "ironclad" non-disclosure agreement, or NDA.
But NDAs aren't as powerful as they once were; plaintiffs suing for transgression of NDAs are being required to show real monetary damage from the information disclosed, for example. Could the British Royal Family meet that level of proof?
NDAs are also being put aside for social justic reasons: NBC, for example, recently released all its employees from their NDAs to allow them to discuss sexual harassment they may have been subject to at the company, and FoxNews employees are seeking a similar release.
Releasing damaging material anonymously
All an NDA can do is provide a penalty after information is released - but it can't prevent the release of the information, particularly through anonymous sources.Meghan does love to imitate Diana, Princess of Wales - who released enormous amounts of damaging information "anonymously" via author Andrew Morton.
Another strategy might be to release damaging information online through one of her shell accounts, have a few confederates retweet or share it, and then claim the information was already public when confirming it in person.
(The William and Rose rumors may have been a dry run for this tactic.)
At any rate, free speech is a right Meghan intends to make full use of, and no doubt hopes she can profit from.
She's less enthusiastic about free speech rights for anybody else.
Comments
She needs to understand that silence can often be the most effective method of disarming your opponent. Maybe this 6 weeks off will give her the opportunity to try that out. The long-suffering public and our bleeding ears would appreciate the rest from her pontificating too.
The fact that she will not be silenced, but expects all the people that dislike her to be silenced is sickening. I really have no desire to hear anything more from her. I wish Harry would divorce her as soon as possible. I have no idea how she lives like this, with no shame for all her horrible actions.
My Crohn's "episode" is passing and I now feel able to make another comment.
@Nelo, don't hold your breath re the RF taking down MM. I made a comment on the last Nutty post but it was right at the end and I don't think anyone saw it, but FWIW I shall repeat it here:
The RF taking down another member of the RF is like elephant's mating - it's done at high level, there's a lot of trumpeting and you have to wait absolute ages to see the result.
So please don't hold your breath, I wouldn't like you to harm yourself.
@Disgusted Turnbridge Wells
I agree with you that a period of silence would be great for Meghan - "please go away, so we can miss you!"
But she doesn't seem able to do this; attention is everything to her, and she cannot see that the overwhelming number of PR stories being put out about her is a turnoff to the public, even those who might otherwise be sympathetic.
In addition, when she and Harry are in California, she's going to want to be photographed with as many celebrities as possible. Awards season is coming up, with the Golden Globes kicking it off on January 5.
Won't Meg want to show up in a fancy gown for one of these ceremonies?
It will be fascinating to see which designers are interested in dressing her.
Maybe her recent wardrobe economy is so she can save up for some banging award season gowns. I don't see any big name designers chasing her down. Maybe Kanye!!!! Omg just made myself laugh!
As regards the Duchy of Cornwall documentary, didn't you people find it strange that a billion pound investment like that makes just about 20 million pounds profit yearly? Charles has been in charge of the Duchy for 50 years, yet they make a paltry 20 million profit yearly. It means he's not even a good business man. I don't have hope in him and I'm of the opinion that his reign will be lackluster. He won't be as loved and respected as his mother. Heck, who is Meghan to disrespect her father in law and the future King? If Meghan can blantantly snub him when he needed her for his documentary, then there's problem.
You nailed it. She is not being bullied by a bunch of racists who hate her (the same racists who were cheering at her wedding and waving flags? I am confused.)
Also making a note to check out what’s going on in Sweden. A left wing women in charge and it’s still not progressive enough for some journalists? Heavens.
Here's the DailyMail story about the doxxed bloggers. .
It seems to be shorter than the last time I read it, so maybe the DM has taken some stuff out. They originally published a photo that included one blogger's husband, and my understanding was that he got a nice payout for invasion of privacy. Now the photo has been cropped so it only shows the blogger.
Isn't that the most obvious Instagram photo ever? If they do have custody of Archificial, put him in the onesie and take the picture! So strange that they don't.
@Veena
"I'm sorry it is hard to take someone seriously who has vinyl hair on their head."
Ha ha ha! Yes, Meg's had some very bad wig days recently.
Many Royals wear hats. She should consider it.
I really detest this new culture whereby anything critical said about anyone - paricularly a woman, particularly someone from a minority group - is 'bullying'. The MPs' letter was a classic example of trying to shame the public into silence. I urge readers to take a look at the link in the last thread, wherein one of these MPs was asked to provide examples of this 'bullying' and was unable to do so. Of course.
As you said, bullying almost by definition requires a power imbalance of some sort. However, when you are a royal Duchess, almost nobody has the power to 'bully' you. Certainly not the press or the general public. Moreover, Meghan and the other royals have an option which others don't have - the option to simply not read any of their press! That's a real luxury. Elected politicians, celebrities etc, have to be aware of what is being said about them because it affects their career. However, royals have the 'job' for life so really have no need to worry about what the plebs think. Hence 'never complain, never explain'.
Of course, nobody should be subjected to racsim no matter who they are. But as the inablity of the MP to actually name examples of the above indicates, there has been very little racism directed against Meghan in the press. Unpalatable though it may be to Meghan, the criticism isn't about who she is but about the things she has done. She was very popular at the time of her wedding. Hard to believe it's not much more than a year ago. Must be some kind of record for squandering good will so very quickly.
The word bully has in itself been bullied and abused so much that it rarely meets its true definition anymore. I think it's used to create a chaos of clichés in order to distract and deflect, obfuscate by Megs et al. To add to the cluster f*k of word meaning misuse, it's as though the bully card, along with the race card is all part of the deck used constantly by those who desperately seek approval, fame and fat bank accounts via libel/slander lawsuits.
Michelle Malkin coined an on target phrase a few years ago: "The culture of the perpetually outraged," after identifying and proving the "outraged" women were really paid crisis actors.
Megs and her paid PR are simply making a few twists in their victimhood bullying scripts starring herself and her crisis actors. The recent MP letter is all part of the PR scheme.
Along with the chaos and histrionics played out in this twisted ongoing drama, it's time to ask, "Who Benefits?" Que Bono!? I will attempt to answer. Megs of course benefits. She's created in her Sussex Royal et al, et ux, et vir, a new business: The Bullying Humanitarian Industrial Sussex Royalty Complex, funded by the perpetually outraged "victims" who donate to her causes by $ or in kind contributions like the 72 MP's "letter" on stolen letterhead.
What people have a hard time understanding about people with NPD is that they can't get by for very long without creating chaos. But it's not just the chaos that fuels their craziness. Oh no. It's worse. From my experience with the Narcissist I survived from is they without fail, always destroy and tear down, blow up, ruin every single thing they acquire or achieve, even when it's a good thing. When they are done with something or someone, they always eventually blow it up.
I really detest this new culture whereby anything critical said about anyone - paricularly a woman, particularly someone from a minority group - is 'bullying'. The MPs' letter was a classic example of trying to shame the public into silence. I urge readers to take a look at the link in the last thread, wherein one of these MPs was asked to provide examples of this 'bullying' and was unable to do so. Of course."
Isn't this the real danger of modern identity politics? It completely masks power dynamics. Social, political, and institutional power in modern Britain is a lot more complicated and neuonced than simply 'woc = victim'.
Absolutely this. I've said before that a lot of the discourse around Meghan is very American, with this obsession with race. I'm certainly not saying that racism doesn't exist in Britain because it most certainly does, but class and wealth are much bigger dividing lines. Even back in the 19th century, the upper classes didn't much care what race you were provided you were rich. Plus, the most significant non-white minority in Britain are those of South Asian descent, not blacks, who they outnumber by more than 2 to 1.
As a member of one of the most famous and wealthy families on earth, Meghan is massively privileged no matter what colour her skin is.
The 'colonial' remark puzzled me. She's a member of the royal family, that same family who were at the very apex of the colonial system. If the queen and Philip had their way, the empire would still exist. So how can criticism of her have 'colonial overtones'? My guess is they wanted to say 'racist' but thought better of it at the last minute.
Speaking of last minute, I do wonder if it's of any significance that none of the 'signatories' actually signed the letter. Looks like a rush job to me.
As proven by this piece in HB, Meg's 'surprise visit' to the Luminary Bakery was solely to merch the shirt and earrings she wore, as an advert for the identical button down appears at the end of the article.
The video clip shows the Ducha$$ repeatedly touching her faux hair (I lost count, but probably half a dozen times at least) both *before* and after using her bare hands to put sliced strawberries on a cake.
Yes, Rachel, constantly fiddling with one's unkempt fake hair really sends the message that you are an empowered woman with lots of meaningful things to say. Not to mention how it bolsters all the food hygiene education which the apprentice bakers receive. She's always doing that, too--fingering food with her dirty hands that winds up on a community dish--after touching her hair.
These are either insidious nervous tics of hers or else she is just demonstrating how much of an F she does not give about anything resembling manners in public.
Her reign of terror on the RF is sad to see unfold. IMHO- the Queen is at the point in Life she does not care to intercede: all her children with exception of Edward have divorced and/ or re-married. She had learned from Charles/ Diana she cannot stop the personal grievance from airing. BUT - she can stop the blatant dissing of the RF and the lack of protocol on the part of MM, and Harry. It is for this point I am sad that she is apparently allowing it to continue. I do not understand this from a woman who placed service above self her entire Life.
The reproduction of the letter I saw appeared to have 17 signatures on it . .unless there was a whole other page(s) of the remainder which were not shown. I thought 72 sounded like a gargantuan number . . apparently there are currently 208 women serving in the House of Commons for a total of 32%--an all-time high. Of these, 34% support Meghan, if the 72 figure is valid.
In contrast, there are currently 127 women serving in Congress, for a relatively measly 23.7% of the total. Of these, 106 are Democrats and only 21 are Republicans. MM holds the views more likely to get herself elected to Congress 'as a woman', to use one of her favorite terms, but in actuality the UK and other nations are considerably more progressive than the United States when it comes to awarding positions of leadership in government to women. How many nations have already had female heads of state (multiple times) while the U.S. has never even had a female VP? When Pakistan boasts a female leader (sadly assassinated, tho) before the U.S., we have serious catching up to do to be more 'woke' than some other places. Meg should take that under advisement. Let's see if 34% of Congresswomen and Senators would be willing to affix their names to a letter supporting this expatriate whinger.
i think she likes to keep the hair loose because it’s part of her ‘I’m a victim, a helpless ingenue’ act with the puppy dog eyes, and longing looks she gives to PH and photographers. which is counterintuitive to her ‘women empowerment faux feminist’ act.
What frustrates me no end about MM is that she doesn't seem to understand in the slightest that her JOB, now that she is a senior member of the BRF, is to be the voice for her charities, her patronages, and of whatever else her BOSS, aka Her Majesty the Queen of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Head of all the Commonwealth Countries, wants her to say. That's where MM's voice needs to go.
To be sure, the BRF tries to take into account personal interests--You like kids? Right, you'll be patron of this Children's Hospital--etc., but MM just cannot grasp that she isn't there to pontificate on her personal thoughts and feelings.
When MM attends any work event, her focus and her verbal statements need to be on the organization, not on herself. It's the incessant Me, Me, Me that drives me around the bend with this woman. "I think..." or "When I was a little girl..." and "I feel..."
We should be hearing "Organization XYZ has done such wonderful work with blah, blah, blah... YOU should be commended for blah, blah, blah...we can all take inspiration from YOU for blah, blah, blah... If any focus on herself comes into play, it should be along the lines of "I look forward to sharing the exciting and ground breaking efforts Organization XYZ has made with Her Majesty, who is greatly interested in YOUR marvelous efforts..."
She isn't Duchess of Sussex to be a mouthpiece for herself. She is Duchess of Sussex to represent Her Majesty.
Why is this so hard for her to understand?
Smeg was raised in an era of participation trophies and gratuitous praise, otherwise the little dear's self-esteem may be damaged. Anyone else remember when self-esteem was the big buzz word? She then came of age in a time of "girl power!" Rah! RAh! Girls can do everything boys can do, with or without the education, training, or skill, they must be given a seat at the table to participate. By her 30's she wrapped herself in cancel culture. She is now trying to stifle any negative opinion and criticism. Smeg is the culmination of fawning praise and rejection of reality, so any criticism is considered a brutal attack.
Reading what she said, "Women don't need to find a voice, they have a voice, and they need to feel empowered to use it, and people need to be encouraged to listen," is such drivel. No one is telling women to shut up. If anything, women have taken over discourse on just about every topic and shutting out any opinion that is critical of women or goes against woke group think. Smeg needs to take her own advice to heart and start listening... but I don't hold out much hope considering how much she loves the sound of her own voice.
>>>When MM attends any work event, her focus and her verbal statements need to be on the organization, not on herself. It's the incessant Me, Me, Me that drives me around the bend with this woman. "I think..." or "When I was a little girl..." and "I feel..."<<<
Her point of reference is herself at the center of the universe. No one has ever told her it's not all about her. It is also a sign of someone with limited experience, creativity, and intelligence, when the only subject she can discuss is herself.
Yes, absolutely. Her 'job' such as it is, is a very simple one: she is there to represent HM. That's it. To most of us, working maybe 1 day a week shaking hands and being fawned over sounds like a dream job, but to Meghan, it's a hardship if she can't make it all about HER. When's the last time you heard Anne or Sophie or Kate talking about themselves at official events? If they can manage it, why can't Meghan?
Besides, she's most certainly not an expert on the environment, domestic violence or any other of her 'causes'. So why not just listen to what the actual experts have to say, and recognise that your role is, though your status as a member of the royal family, drawing attention to those causes? Not to yourself. I remember reading the itineary for the Cambridge tour and being impressed by how often the phrase 'The Duke and Duchess will learn about....' was used. They weren't pretending that they had anything of value to contribute. Just that their presence might mean that those who do know what they're talking about gain a larger audience. But Meghan is simply incapable of such humility.
Marvelous post Nutty.
For me, when I get criticism, as painful as it is, I start with: Could there be some truth here that I need to hear?
Critics are usually pretty good at spotting areas of weakness and reality is that if it is a weakness in your argument, then what can you do to address that?
Showing up and representing The Queen is her job and that they don't have her listed as such is quite telling.
And the idea that if you don't agree with me/my point, then the act of you telling me that you disagree shows me that you are a bully logic is frightening. Racist is tacked on like sprinkles on a cake. Or that words can indicate micro-aggression (personally, I think that if you are seeing a lot of micro-aggression then it is more of a When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail).
Sigh. Crazy world we live in, huh?
He looks well rested and happy. Hmm...
The woke folks over at CB ate this right up, proclaiming it was high time that MM sue the press for being so mean to her. This is surprising since many of CB crew claim to be lawyers and have other hotshot jobs (that apparently allow them to post quite a bit. I only work 2 days a week currently, so that's my excuse).
What MM and the CB posters are saying does not make sense. In the adult world you cite SPECIFIC interventions for specific cases. It's a slippery slope to sue a party because they haven't been nice to you overall. The same way a banker can't just hand you a wad of money and a doctor can't pass you a handful of pills. As Wooten says, it's "telling" that no one wants to get down to brass tacks regarding this matter.
Internet lawyers everywhere!
To simplify your comment, MM has to earn the right to have her opinion to be respected. We have no choice to listen and that is another unearned privilege that she doesn't recognise. You speak more sense than she does and yet all you have is a blog.
Life is so tough for MM isn't it:)
"I agree with others that it's extremely problematic that the MPs will not cite specific cases or name newspapers. On the Dan Wooten show the MP said she feared "retaliation" if the papers were named. Really?"
I actually felt a bit embarrassed for her. What kind of 'retaliation' was she expecting? The RRs to stalk her at Westminster? And surely if you make a point of 'signing' a public letter to a Duchess and making broad accusations against the press, you should be prepared to give examples and cope with any 'retaliation' that comes your way as a result? Otherwise, why do it? MPs are public figures and come in for all sorts of criticism - it goes with the job - so surely someone in such a position should be well able to deal with any unsepcified fallout?
"The woke folks over at CB ate this right up, proclaiming it was high time that MM sue the press for being so mean to her. This is surprising since many of CB crew claim to be lawyers and have other hotshot jobs"
Yes and they're always 'experts' in whatever is under discussion! CB used to be a guilty pleasure of mine but now I only hesitantly head that way to get a view of how the other half lives, so to speak. I always find myself quickly running away from that site because the insanity - I mean that literally - is scary. A woman none of them gave a toss about 3 years ago is now Angelina Jolie, Michelle Obama and Mother Theresa combined. And all because she married a dumb white prince, who only a few years ago was known for falling out of night clubs and getting caught playing strip poker in Las Vegas. The inevitable divorce is going to hit those loons so hard. But just as they immeditately turned on Brad Pitt, who they had hitherto seen as the perfect man, they'll do the same with Haz. They are so full of their own 'wokeness' they have no idea how shallow they and their idols are.
They also seem to be very intent on guilting people into supporting Mm. By now they surely know that they can't possibly defend any of the hypocrisy, shadiness about Mm so they are trying to box her critics into categories no one wants to be associated with :
* Critics are racists, so naturally black people feel emotionally blackmailed into supporting her.
* Emphasis that Mm is a woman, so any haters are misogynists and women feel compelled to support her.
* the new mommy card
* embellish her career because that instantly separates her from the women in the BRF and she looks accomplished all on her own, so that nails the non royalists down.
* Colonial - this term, I believe, is being used to emphasis her being an American and the colonial haters are white British folks, because obviously it's the British who hate her. So obviously the Americans feel it their patriotic duty to stand up for her.
Now,I understand that all of the above is beyond logic and has loop holes but her PR is still hell bent on this tactic because their intention seems to be to divide and rule.
I agree with your post but I wonder how sustainable this is for her?
The Luminary bakery 'appearance' wasn't an official engagement. If it was, she would not be allowed to pick and choose who gets to 'cover' it, nor could she hand-pick the most flattering photos to be released on her own Instagram at a time of her own choosing. She would not get away with excluding or playing favourites with the press at an official royal event.
So how long can she keep this up? Is she simply going to stop doing official events where she can't control the press? If so, how long will this be tolerated?
"Wouldn’t clipping her wings be as simple as curtailing her royal engagements to zero?"
In a way that might be playing into her hands. She can just continue doing tailor made 'appearances' like the Luminary Bakery where she gets to control everything, which wouldn't be possible with an official engagement. So essentially she'd be getting all the perks of being a 'working' royal with none of the (very few) drawbacks.
I really believe the royals don't know what to do with Meghan. Just as they didn't know what to do with Diana. I'm guessing, like the rest of us, they are biding their time for the inevitable divorce. As long as she remains married to Harry, there really isn't a whole lot they can do. That's why I always wonder what people really expect to happen when they say the queen isn't doing enough to deal with her? Reality is their options aren't that great.
Am I a bad person for being glad that the usual curse of Markle’s fandom has struck again, and England lost?
I have LOTS of questions about this upcoming “break” but that’s for another post.
Check the Court Circular, which is the official royal family diary. If an event doesn't appear on that, chances are it is not official.
I posted yesterday, or the day before, not sure, that royal titles have previously been striped. It appears that the title can be stripped using letters patent, but the former title holder can "style" themselves as First name, formal title. This was done when Diana and Fergie divorced. Diane's former title was HRH Diane, The Princess of Wales. After the divorce she was Diane, Princess of Wales. She lost the HRH and the The, meaning she was styled as Princess of Wales but was not THE Princess of Wales. Same with Fergie. She was HRH Sarah, The Duchess of York prior to the divorce. After the divorce was was styled Sarah, Duchess of York.
What the Queen grants, the Queen can also take away. There were also cases arising during WWI where 2 dukes fought on the German side. Their titles were revoked and have not been granted again.
" And from what I am reading, it is not as simple as releasing her from her royal engagements. So what can be done to at least curtail her incessant need to be in our faces almost everyday?"
That's the thing. There is very little they can do. They can cut down on her official engagements, cut back on her budget but when you've got someone who's more than happy to hand pick 'causes' which fit her woke feminist agenda, and who will accept freebie clothes for merching, what really can you do? I guess they could take away the 'working' royal status but then they'd have to do it to Harry, the future king's son, too, which would be a major move that I'm sure they'd very much like to avoid. As long as she remains Harry's wife, they and we are stuck with her unfortunately.
How do you solve a problem like Rachel?
Divorce and deportation.
An act of parliament is required to revoke a royal dukedom.
And let's be real here: What the Sussexes are doing is tacky in the extreme, but it doesn't begin to compare with being a traitor! I think that's something we have to remind ourselves: at the end of the day Harry just isn't that important. The queen has survived much much worse than the American wife of the spare to the spare to the spare merching and issuing word salads on Instagram. I'm sure she's concerned and disappointed with all these shenanigans, but I doubt she's even considering any 'stripping' of titles. This will blow over and the monarchy will go on. The Sussexes are embarrassing but essentially irrelevant. The queen knows this, even if some of their idiot followers on Instagram do not.
He's going to be hurt when he hears that! There will be more tears.
When Diana & Fergie divorced, did Parliament have to approve revoking their titles? Everything I've read seems to state that it was the Queen's ultimate decision and a point of contention in the negotiations between Charles & Diana. Diana could have kept the title (HRH) but Charles didn't want her to.
Of course that goes against the Sussex claim of wanting privacy, but we lll know that MM is a hypocrite and really thrives on media attention/ adoration/ celebrity.
The BRF are in a catch 22. If they cut the sussexes loose and drop them from the payroll, the sussexes become wild cards and eventually desperate for money and could end up doing all sorts of really more embarrassing things.
Maybe the plan is to give PH a lot of jobs/ appearances out of the country ( and away from MM) because he really seems happier/ pleasant/ more relaxed/ easy going and not miserable like he is with her. And keep her away from him as much as they can, in hopes of him seeing the light. And keeping the Brit people still liking their old PH. It’s obvious in pictures when he’s away from her, he’s a different person.
No because their titles weren't really 'revoked'. When a woman marries into the royal family, the title is really her husband's - she just gets to use the female version of his title by virtue of marriage. So when she is no longer married to the duke or prince, she can no longer use his title, though she may 'style' herself with her previous title. No 'revoking' was required, because the title was granted to the male royal, not to his wife.
" Diana could have kept the title (HRH) but Charles didn't want her to."
HRH is technically a 'style', not a title.
On a side note, thinking of all this archaic nonsense - whereby women who marry into the royal family automatically take on their husband's titles, whereas men who marry female royals don't get any titles at all unless a special dispensation is made - really shows what a nonsense Meghan's claims to be a 'feminist' are. What 'feminist' would allow herself to be automatically considered lesser than her 'royal' husband, simply because she is a woman?
Yes he looked in his element at the rugby in Japan. I think that's the kind of 'laddish' environment he's most comfortable in. But wasn't it only a few weeks ago he was telling us that he finds camera clicks to be traumatising?
I'm also kind of surprised that Meghan didn't find a way to upstage Haz with some Instagram word salad or pic of one of Archie's random limbs.
His appearance and demeanor when he's not with Rachel are remarkably changed--for the better.
Harry can still be an asset to the Royal family, but only during those times he can be separated from his toxic Narc wife. These pictures show a relaxed and smiling Harry (not so smiley during the rugby loss, though he paid a gracious congratulatory visit to the SA locker room after the match) who is neatly dressed and groomed and easily connecting with people like the old days, the old Harry. He even appears to have more hair.
Harry's seatmate in the stands was not the new Emperor as several commentators have assumed. Crown Prince Akishino is the Emperor's younger brother, who often deputizes for his brother at public events. Presumably the newly-ascended Emperor has more pressing concerns right now than taking the afternoon off for a rugby game. Akishino is being given higher profile assignments because he and his wife Kiko are the parents of the heir presumptive. Their 13-year-old son is the only male child in the line and therefore will ascend to the Chrysanthemum Throne after his uncle, unless the Japanese Parliament follows the lead of the British Parliament in altering the rules of succession to include females in the primogeniture. The Emperor and Empress Masako are the parents of one child, a daughter.
I wish we could have *this* Harry back full-time . . Haz looked on good form. Surely he must realize how much being with his Controller alters his behavior? When he's solo, he does not give off the vibe of a man who'd be so easily cowed and * whipped by a petite woman.
Above the pictures on Skip's page there is a charming recollection by a man who was a college student working the ranch in Montana where William spent an idyllic vacation as a 10-year-old in 1992 learning how to be an 'American cowboy'. Well worth reading. But it is a rueful reminder how differently Diana's boys were treated from the start. Diana arranged this getaway to Big Sky Country to get William away from the intense media scrutiny surrounding the Waleses in the wake of the very public break-up of her marriage. 8-year-old Harry would have been in the scrutiny, too . . but he was probably deemed too young to go to a foreign country without Mummy. I hope he got some special Mummy-and-Me time while William was off having his special treat.
Whoops.
We can likely agree that Smeg was never a "real" feminist. She's used men her entire life to get where she wanted to go and discarded those men once they were no longer useful.
She's problematic as a feminist... uses men to get ahead, offers up Harry to fight her battles and retreats when it gets too hot in the kitchen, or hides behind Harry. I don't consider myself a feminist because, most feminists sit around yakking about oppression and how hard women have it, while other women are out there supporting themselves and their families, carrying on and making huge strides for women without expecting an award for it. Another problem is the sense that she thinks turning up, carelessly dishing out a few platitudes with no real substance, and a photo op are "change." She's part of the activist by hashtag crew, but never gets her hands dirty with the real work.
I have taken the liberty of coming up with my own title. Enjoy!
"'TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE PAYDAY"
By Her Royal Wokeness, Rachel Meghan, Duchess of Suxxit
Tired of Trevor’s mindless devotion
Ms. Meghan decided to seek a promotion
Contact FedEx and off with the rings
With one little package, “a New Life,” she sings.
Where shall I go, she said with a sigh.
I’m tethered to no one, I have no real ties.
“An Englishman” she quickly thought.
“Anyone Famous.” I can be bought.
And so she jumped across the pond.
Good Bye, USA, I haven’t a bond.
Time’s a wasting. I’m getting old.
Gotta be fast. Gotta be Bold.
Harry Windsor was still on the shelf.
She’d next turn him into her personal elf.
He twice denied; no college degree.
The plan was soon hatched. They’d soon become WE.
Off to Botswana and off with the dress.
Less would be more, she had to confess.
Harry was smitten. He’d had quite a ride.
Meghan called Mama. Her voice filled with pride.
I’ve closed the deal, Mama. I have special skills.
The Palace, the money, oh so many thrills!
The Queen I can handle. She’s no match for me.
I am an Actor, and that’s all that she’ll see.
I’ve managed to work for a very short time.
Now I can live on the taxpayers’ dime.
I’ll get rid of Dad. Put Kate in her place.
If people talk smack, it’s because of my race.
The Baby is key. It must be born fast.
The kid guarantees that the party will last.
Harry is mine; I’ll tighten my grip.
I deserve this and more. Oh, what a trip!!!!
Other than the bowing and curtseying, what comes along with the HRH designation?
Are you sure that's true? Harry has always had the HRH styling, since birth. So his wife would have the same. And it was always expected that he would be accorded a dukedom on marriage. I don't think the queen did them any special favours with this.
But that only applies to Charles' grandchildren, not his sons, both of whom have been HRH since birth.
I also understand that the title at marriage is left solely to the Queen's discretion, so Harry didn't have automatic right to Dukedom. Even Edward, Queen's son, is only an Earl, not a Duke. So I think HM has been very generous to Harry and his wife.
Yes, but that's only because he is expected to assume the title of Duke of Edinburgh once Philip dies, and so was given the lesser title of Earl in the meantime.
"So I think HM has been very generous to Harry and his wife."
I agree in general, but it was always expected that Harry would be given a royal dukedom on marriage, no matter who his wife was.
I came across some other interesting tidbits, but not sure how accurate. Since Beatrice and Eugenie are blood princesses, they rank higher than Smeg if Harry is not present, so Smeg would curtsy to Beatrice and Eugenie. However if Harry is present, Beatrice and Eugenie curtsy to Smeg as she assumes Harry's title of Prince of Wales.
Smeg also has to curtsy to Katherine in all circumstances, because Katherine's titles in her own right and as future queen are higher.
In a royalty group, some MM sugar claimed that she was worth $40 million. I said no, there's no way she was worth that much. I was then promptly called jealous, racist, and delusional.
I spend most of my time on FB interacting with anti-vaccination, anti-science, and anti-medical doctor groups. One supposed nurse claimed she was so "vaccine injured" that she was no longer able to work. I responded that I was glad she was no longer able to work as a nurse, if she's that stupid. She reported my comment, and I was thrown in FB jail for 24 hours for "bullying" her.
Out of all the royals, however, Harry and Megs so far have created the more chaos and outrage than any one of the black sheep royals in the past combined.
It's one thing to break some of the petty rules like wearing wedge shoes or black nail polish, but quite another to pay millions of dollars for PR firms to crank out endless daily press releases that undermine other royals, and the longest list of lies, merching, fake pregnancy, getting celebs like Ellen to lie to the media about the baby and Frogmore, crossing the line into and being in contact with politicians, ..... it's such a long list and it's only been what? Two years?
If they do go on hiatus to the US, I don't think the UK taxpayers will support their hard earned taxes supporting a staff, security and home in Malibu. No way. In fact, if they are not going to perform their royal duties as assigned and scheduled like the other royals do, then the queen and Charles need to end their lines of credit and allowance from the royal accounts. I think the funds would be better used if they gave the funds to support the York sisters. They both want to be part of the public appearances and would work hard to support the royal family.
Smeg isn't worth 40mil... she'd have to do A LOT of yachting to even make a few million. Best estimate I've seen is that she may have earned $1.5mil per season of Suits, but with taxes and fees paid to agents, managers, PR, lawyers, she would be lucky to see 1/3 of that. Now deduct living expenses and it's unlikely she put much aside. She owed the IRS @$900US at one point and fought it on her own, without hiring a tax professional or tax attorney... what does that tell you?
FB needs to start reviewing their reports to see who is behaving badly to whom. It also makes me wonder if some of the first amendment haters will wake up when they find their own words being censored. Perhaps it's high time for the writers to start cranking out a lot of scripts and other media to show the violence and horrors when censorship is enforced. How about beginning with a modern version of Fahrenheit 451! ( I still love watching the old version with the cute little model fire truck).
I am wondering if UK taxpayers will be on the hook to pay for a 6 wk leave to the US. I know it would cost a fortune for them to stay in secure housing along with cost of RPO's. I think the public here would object to paying for their costs. Meghan is delusional if she thinks she will win the hearts of the average American (no one wants to talk to me about these two that is why I come here, lol).
As an American, I feel so ashamed and sorry about what Meghan has and continues to do to the BRF and UK/Commonwealth public. I can only hope a divorce happens and soon (which I think will happen).
It's my understanding that the City of New York paid for security provided by the NYPD. Typically cities pay for security when politicians, celebrities, dignitaries visit, in so far as they provide police, but any additional security would likely be her personal responsibility unless she gets someone else to pay for it rich friends.
I don't doubt it was millions $$$. This should anger every taxpayer. We kicked the crown out (no offense to our British friends, we do love you, though not being ruled by your monarch) and as an added bonus we don't pay for royals' upkeep and security. If they do come to the US, imagine the outrage it would cause when taxpayers find out they are footing the bill for security. The ONLY way they could possibly come to the US, be secure, and avoid backlash is to pay for their security.
Isn't the foundation registered as a business in Arizona and not a charitable organization? I'm sure they will do everything imaginable to keep the finances private if this is the case.
Advertising, education, administrative expenses, outreach. Charities come up with very creative ways of hiding their spending.
She didn't bother to listen to anyone when she tried to fight the IRS in the past over what? $800? Such an idiot. I think she couldn't hire counsel for that suit because lawyers won't represent if the amount owed is less than … $10K I think. Some kind of minimum like that. By fighting it, she probably ended up having to pay double because of late fees, interest and fines. Doh! Like jumping over a dollar to save a dime.
My take on this Foundation scheme: it sounds to me like a flimsy front for tax evasion/money laundering scheme of some kind. Why else would she feel the need to set up a foundation at all? It really makes no sense.
i agree charities can be very creative like you said but still, the expense has to be for the purpose of the charity meeting stringent IRS rules. I dated two IRS auditors and one specifically was an Auditor of 501c Corporations (charities) and he was ruthless and went out to even small tiny charities to look into their books and activities, Harry could, for example, write off his SA trip if it fits with the purpose of the Sussex Foundation, but I don't see these PR puff pieces on Meghan as qualifying if they are just for her personal good.
Well if the foundation got that 3 million from Disney Exec then the Sussex Foundation I think has been created I would believe. Maybe they are waiting till 2020 to start projects.
Smeg+1 as the faces of the foundation will claim the pr pieces are part of advertising the foundation. The existence of the foundation has to get out there for people to donate. The interesting thing is that on a very pro Smeg+1 website, it stated the foundation is a non-profit organized to produce an income. This leaves the door wide open to merching. Everything Smeg merches can be run through the foundation, with a cut to Smeg as expenses. They can set themselves up on the payroll, expense travel, accommodation, clothing, even meals while away from home... all paid for by the foundation. They could also expense security for any appearance related to the foundation.
Well, I am going to say goodnight as I am particularly tired tonight and I keep making mistakes (leaving out words). Thanks for the chat!
I see what you are saying and it is clever but it doesn't meet the basic 'smell test'. I am going to research this tomorrow because I would like to see if I can discern if what you give as examples might be construed as legitimate. But fundamentally I need to know what the articles of incorporation say in order to get a feel as to what would be allowed (in the case of the items you mentioned).
Goodnight, thanks all!
NYC is hemmorhaging the billionaire and millionaire business owners (as well as small business owners) that provide the bulk of the tax revenue.
If was an official visit, then the host nation contributes towards security costs....but a private one. I’d haphazard a guess, me and we the British tax payer pays. Just from reading the comments in the DM and talking to people I know... no-one is happy to fund their 6 week (jolly) ‘break’.
There's a couple of comments I would like to make so here goes:
@Nelo, like you I am not a great fan of Prince Charles and, yes, I do think it's about time he pulled his younger son into line. However, on the subject of the Duchy of Cornwall's profits are you aware that, although the Duchy only provides a £20m clear profit, it actually brings in much more revenue but a heck of a lot is ploughed back into Duchy projects, like Poundbury, another new village being built from scratch and the buying of other properties, etc, which will ultimately raise even more revenues. He also spends a lot of the revenue in helping his tenants and creating new housing and jobs for their families. That's why Duchy tenants are so fond of their landlord.
Regarding the Harkles - has anyone else seen the 29 October post by DanjA zone? In this post she puts forward the idea that Harry is only letting Meg's lawsuit go ahead as this may be the only way he can end their relationship. I can't remember the whole post verbatim and this idea came right at the end but it makes very interesting reading although I am aware that it probably all came from "anonymous sources". However, I have noted in the past that her posts seem to contain a few grains of truth. Could this be a case of smoke and fire?
Great post, Nutty. One of the hallmark signs of the current culture is trying to silence your foes. Meghan is all for that, which fits her controller mentality. She doesn't trust the people to figure it out, she wants to make sure they reach the desired conclusion, by silencing those who don't agree with her.
Background on myself: I am a middle aged man who lives in the USA and is from the USA. I am pretty familiar with the royals, particularly the more well known of them (Diana, Charles, the Queen, etc). I have had romantic and friendship relationships with women from just about every different racial and ethnic background you can think of. It doesn't matter to me what group the person is from, only how she is individually.
I came to this blog because I was very put off by how Meghan and Harry act, as well as how they are covered (particularly by the USA press). Most here feel just as I do, so I don't need to explain much. I believe Meghan to be something along the lines of a scam artist, and it's annoying when that isn't understood or explained, in my view.
I want to lay out a few points about Meghan and Harry. Everything in this post is my own opinion, and I realize some may disagree with it and I could be wrong in some of what I feel. But these are my feelings.
1. I do not find Meghan to be very physically attractive. I'm not saying she's homely, but she's not radiating gorgeousness either. There are a few concrete issues I could say here, but I want to try to be as kind as possible. Meghan has nice eyes and a nice smile, and her hair can look good. Those are the positives. And Meghan seems to try hard on her looks. But the concept of her as some incredible beauty is ridiculous to me.
Kate is a much better looking person than Meghan is. It's not all about looks and I don't want to focus on this matter too much, but I think this is pretty evident.
2. The royal family will survive this moment in time. It could hurt things (already has) and it may take time to heal, but the moment will pass. The royal family is much larger than any one entity, especially one who is essentially a minor figure in the family.
3. Meghan and her supporters seem to view Meghan's ancestry as a very important part of how they think about her. As I said earlier, I try to focus more on the person than whatever group they are from. That being said, in general I think that it IS a good thing that the royal family now has a well known member who has some non white heritage. Good. However, I don't think one's background should be used to deflect any criticism of a person (unless that criticism is coming from an obviously prejudiced source). Every person is responsible for his or her actions, regardless of who they are and what their background is.
4. Meghan is not a star, she is a tool. Nutty did the post recently about the list of people who have stood up for Meghan. Very few of those people would have said a word about Meghan, I would think, before she married Harry. Meghan does not seem to bring viewers and she does not seem to move magazines. She has a unique role in the royal family, she knows that, and I think those who publicly support her are often interested in what Meghan can do for them and interested in what they believe Meghan represents to the public (and attaching themselves to those things).
5. Meghan seems to have a bastion of paid trolls and commenters working at her disposal, perhaps through Sunshine or another pr organization. I think much of her online supposed support falls into this category.
My name is Vince. I just made a blogger account so I have to fix all the things on it. Not done anything with it before.
6. As we have seen in this story arc so far (looks like every day gets us closer to Harry and Meghan heading to the USA to live, at least part of the time), I believe that Meghan is slowly running out of gimmicks to use and tricks to pull on the public. The wedding and the birth of Archie were the two big high points. Now what? She and Harry's constant pr seeking forays are so blatant, obvious and poorly conceived. Even the supposed great trip to Africa had many bungles. At some point, the public simply doesnt care and wont listen. No matter what you do. I think Harry and Meghan are rapidly approaching that point. Many people just seem to want to avoid them, avoid stories on them, and avoid thinking about them.
7. Harry is complicit in all of this. No matter what Meghan may have done to potentially hook Harry, we are long past the moment where Harry is free of blame in all of this. Right now, all of this is on him, IMO.
Harry has always been the misfit in the family. The afterthought. The meaningless one.
I think Harry is, to some extent, loving things now. He "single handedly modernized the royal family." He is seen by some as more popular or more important than king to be Will. He and Meghan are getting all the attention, not Will and Kate.
At some point, Harry will wake up out of the stupor he is in. I don't know when that will be, or whether he'll have the courage to make things right. But for now, at least in his private moments, I think Harry loves what is happening. He finally found a way to matter. He finally got the attention his brother always got.
I feel horrible for the Queen and the rest of the family. Imagine having to deal with all this? That said, I think the family has already walled off the Sussexes to a good degree. And that includes the Cambridges. Harry and Meghan may make a lot of money and get news coverage, but the rest of the royal family is moving on and doing their duties as they are expected to do. Will and Kate grasp the circumstances, and it is only going to get better for them going forward.
Agree with just about everything you have said, especially 2 and 4. The Harkles saga is not a major crisis for the monarchy. It doesn't compare with the death of Diana and certainly not with the abdication of great uncle David. Harry's relevance is declining all the time, and 10 or 15 years from now he'll be another divorced middle aged royal. Meghan will be just a footnote in history. The crown always wins.
Also agree very much with this: "She has a unique role in the royal family, she knows that, and I think those who publicly support her are often interested in what Meghan can do for them and interested in what they believe Meghan represents to the public (and attaching themselves to those things)."
This is so true. From those mostly unknown MPs who 'signed' that ridiculous letter, to silly journalists writing pieces about how the poor dear is being 'bullied', to Oprah or other 'celeb friends' trying to get a piece of the action, this is all about what Meghan can do for people's image or career, not out of any affection for her. Most of them have never even met her. By superficially aligning themselves with Meghan they are showing their 'support' for a mixed-race new mum ensnared in the racist royal family and the horrid British press. They're all hoping nobody will scratch the surface and realise that things aren't quite so simple, but of course as Meghan is finding out, they cannot control the discourse. As it becomes increasingly clear what type of person Meghan is, her 'friends' will desert her. In fact they may already be doing so. When's the last time her great friends the Clooneys leapt to her defense? They couldn't shut up about her last year.
Still no sign of the photo of Archie in an England rugby shirt - the photo that was supposedly sent to the English rugby team members before their match in Japan.
Totally bizarre. If you're trying to keep your kid "private", you don't send a shot of him to a bunch of rugby players you've never met.
Alternately, if you're a public servant, you share images of your seventh-in-line-to-the-throne kid with the public.
I think if England had won the Rugby Cup Final she may have honoured us with a photo.
But we lost, so why would she want to associate Archie's image in an England shirt with a bunch of losers?
Privately, to the players before the game was fine but AFTER their defeat? No way!
Also, there is a good chance that such a picture never happened. I wouldn't put it past her to just spouse some nonsense to seem like a cool mum. I mean, honestly does anyone actually think for a moment that a 6 months old baby sits in front of the telly with his mum (who doesn't have a single sporty gene in her entire manufactured body) while wearing an all-england jersey because his dad who is a patron is visiting Japan to watch the game?? A six month old baby?
pursued Meghan before she met Harry. He called it nonsense.
Oh dear!
I doubt the captain of the England rugby team would be bothered to lie on camera for the Harkles.
Just caught a new piece in the wall street journal of all places.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-american-duchess-takes-to-the-barricades-11572623662?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/C6Zm9n85qk
I saw that too and wondered the same!
"Meghan Markle For President?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaI3FZzZO3g
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7644293/Ellen-DeGeneres-reveals-Meghan-Markle-texted-tell-great-viral-dance-duo.html
Harder to merch clothes for humans when you are visiting an animal charity.
Animal charities are also not great places to wear your spike heels, tiny jewelry, and vinyl wigs.
have any of you seen this before? Found it on "keeping up with the Banana drama"
As to what HM can do to control/deal with MM--lots of things!!! MM is still an American citizen; is she paying taxes on those Foundation withdrawals?!! They can cut off all funding to her. The BRF has powerful connections the world over. They have intelligence agencies. Find out the truth about Archie and let it be published. The fake pregnancy would make her a laughing stock. It's not rocket science people; just tell the truth about her and it will be plenty damning.
To take up where we left off, I did some checking and first if it is true that Harry/Megs foundation has been set-up in Arizona, then they will have to reporting obligations to the IRS (and as such the annual reports can be accessed by the public). I imagine their foundation will be a 'Private' one as opposed to a Religious; for instance. Yes, they can get salaries but the foundation is not to benefit the individuals primarily. Also, they are supposed to fulfill the purpose of the foundation; and can anyone say what that is exactly. The bylaws would tell the nuts and bolts of how the operation would run but none have been disclosed and they may be able to keep them hidden from the public. Nonprofits aren't allowed to generate too much income that is unrelated to the purpose of the nonprofit.
Yes, and it is true that as such they won't be able to endorse a political candidate with financial support or verbally or in writing. Nor would they be allowed to oppose a political candidate. This goes for candidates at every level. local, state or federal. Guess Meghan will have to keep her lips zipped.
I think such a high profile foundation will cause them to be scrutinized by the IRS. One of the men I dated was an IRS auditor and he spent months on his big corporate cases (he never disseminated info to me tho). Certain activities the IRS will pay particular attention to...ie. awhile back business owners claiming home office expenses would get scrutinized more so than usual. So I have faith in the system in that the IRS would "shine a light on their force for change". LOL
Nope, I think the BRF are biding their sweet time although I have no doubt MM will go down when the time is right. She’s ticked off too many people in too many places.
Personally, I ‘d like to see the American tabloids spill the beans when the time comes, you know darn well they’re digging and perhaps that is what the BRF is waiting for. Hopefully their UK counterparts will aid and abet with their information after all she’s done to besmirch their coverage of her. The stories breaking in the US would effectively kill her reputation in both countries and she would not be able to counter that it’s the evil racist UK press agenda against her.
Meghan’s title at this point is what I understand to be a courtesy title because she is married to Harry, even though she does not hold British citizenship at this time.
Question: If they divorce BEFORE she becomes a British citizen, how would there be any way she would be allowed to keep ANY sort of title as a citizen of the United States when her title was only due to the marriage to Harry?
It was given because it was assumed the marriage would last a lifetime, and she would eventually obtain UK citizenship. In the event of a divorce before she becomes a citizen, then a non-UK citizen possessing a royal title doesn’t make sense. I wonder if it would be legal in the UK? Any comments? Thanks!
Your suggestion that Meghan could not complain of racism if American tabloids spilled the beans while hopeful, in theory, I think it could be even worse. I DO believe US sources could be more ruthless but Megs would have Ophra et al to cry loud and clear that it is, in fact, blatant racism (especially because of our slave history). Whereas the Brit MP's have gingerly said "colonialism" here it would be a big 'R' letter for Racism. In this case, I could even imagine seeing Doria on the front line defending her little daughter and grandchild against the bad bullies....oh what pathos! Groan!!
Just MO.
All women who marry into the royal family receive titles as an extension of their husband's, regardless of nationality. If they divorce, they retain a 'style', not a 'title'. For example, during her marriage Sarah Ferguson was HRH The Duchess of York. After her divorce, she is Sarah, Duchess of York. This is a style, not a title. Were Andrew to marry again, his new wife would be HRH THE Duchess of York. The woman's nationality is irrelevant.
In any case there would be no need for them to pay her, as there were plenty of other benefits to her from the visit. A chance to look like lady bountiful for a cause which fits in very well with how she wants to portay herself - a feminist helping women (preferably from ethnic minorities) to 'find their voice' (ugh). Also, with it being a non official engagement she got to control the media entirely to her specifications, complete with the companion puff piece in the Torygraph. Oh, and she got to merch her drab clothes too.
To repeat once again: Sarah Ferguson did not keep her 'title'. She is free to 'style' herself as 'Sarah, Duchess of York' but as I said in my post above, that is not a title because she is no longer THE Duchess of York. And - also to repeat - the title was never really 'hers' because as a woman married into the royal family, she automatically acquired the female form of her royal husband's titles. She was never given any titles in her own right. Neither was Meghan. Nationality is irrelevant.
", I'm not sure if the same would apply to MM, as an american citizen"
If you can provide any evidence for this, I'd be genuinely interested to read it.
Now, how will she respond?
Consider yourself lucky...in a prior thread, it was pointed out that I "sin" by a poster. Whoops, I guess I belong on the 'naughty step' too. Is there room for both of us? lol
It's not too difficult for charities to stay within the law while at the same time lining the pockets of its executives and board members. There is NO federal law that requires a certain % of funds raised by a charity to be spent on the charity's mission. Everything involving any foundation activity can be expensed to the foundation for reimbursement... travel, accommodation, meals, clothing, personal care to be camera ready for televised appearances. You name it, it can be expensed and classified in such a way that it's does not appear to line the pockets of any person connected to the foundation. Charities hide a lot of compensation and perks by classifying the expense as educational.
Now, consider the causes... environmentalism, mental health, empowering women. Harry flies halfway around the world to make a short video with a celebrity and spends 5 minutes discussing mental health. The entire expense can be classified as educational and within the mission of the foundation. Harry then flies to another location and gives a 5 minute speech on the environment... entire expense classified as educational and within the mission of the foundation. Smeg visits a bakery known for empowering women and is photographed holding a tray of cupcakes. She can expense hair, makeup, clothing, among other expenses, classified as educational and within the mission of the foundation. Smeg then flies to L.A. to appear on Ellen to discuss how women are treated in the workplace. She can expense travel, accommodation, meals while away from home, hair, makeup, and clothing for the appearance. All classified as educational and within the foundation's mission.
If they name themselves as executives or board members, they would also draw a salary. If they can generate donations on the scale of the Clinton Foundation, the salary could be in the millions, while at the same time making it appear on paper that the % spent on administrative expenses is very small.
Consider yourself lucky...in a prior thread, it was pointed out that I "sin" by a poster. Whoops, I guess I belong on the 'naughty step' too. Is there room for both of us? lol
Lol lol and triple lol, "sin" gutted I missed that :) There are many posters on here that have far better knowledge than me, especially on constitutional matters and I value everyone's input. However,a casual observer like me, doesn't know it alll, so i ask questions and am happy to be corrected when I am wrong. As I say to my team at work, there is no such thing a a stupid question, if you dont understand, ask me "stupid" questions all day long. There's always room on my naughty step for another :)
I agree about how they could attempt to make money like this and that is what I think (financial gain) is what
s fueling their efforts. I read where HRC received a $50,000 honorarium for a 10 minute Skype talk to big Pharma.
You name some disparate causes "environmentalism, mental health and women empowerment" which is going to be difficult for them to seamlessly meld them with a cohesive purpose. Like would Meghan advise 'depressed women facing environmental problems to be empowered for change'?
As for her merching, I think she is bad news to designers as she looks so horrid in her clothes, unkempt hair and manic body movements. Who wants a deeply sad person (how she is portraying herself) as a symbol for your products. Heck, she could make money off Archie and she is not bright enough to do that (unless Harry has said 'No").
By classifying expenses for travel and accommodation, grooming, clothes as educational, they can obscure what the money is really being spent on. It makes it look like the foundation is using the money in furtherance of the mission and not as compensation or administrative costs.
>>>Like would Meghan advise 'depressed women facing environmental problems to be empowered for change'?<<<
I know this is tongue in cheek, but we are already seeing it.
Yes, I am the same way about deferring to others with facts. My training is as a scientist but have been in business (even owning some), real estate, environmental gov't., acted as my own attorney so I only have some facts, but make educated guesses at times and then just my opinions which are no better than anyone else.
I have been so pleased to learn things here as there definitely are astute knowledgeable posters here and they are generous to let me share. I find that so-called 'stupid' questions sometimes lead to the best answers.
Instead she completely screwed it up with her and Haz's selfishness, sense of entitlement and ego.
Salary would depend on her involvement in relationship to another person in an equal position (like she could command an Executive salary commiserate with a like executive, but she doesn't work but for 30 minutes every 3 weeks at best. Her going to SA was on behalf of the Queen and I don't see how she could claim anything. I am trying hard to see if there is anything she has done as a charitable project/activity with respect to SussexRoyal Foundation in America.
Big Agree! It is almost treasonous how she did things to spite the Queen/BRF and the goodwill of her subjects.
I can't wait until the fall...and surely it will happen. Poor little Harry will run back to his family with his one testicle tucked between his legs,
I'm talking laundering, and I don't mean clothes.
If she's making an official appearance on behalf of the foundation, then yes, it can be expensed. She's doing the work of the foundation.
>>There is no way the IRS would let her expense $10,000+ dresses.<<<
Unlikely, but you never know. It could be hidden under "misc. expenses."
>>>Salary would depend on her involvement in relationship to another person in an equal position (like she could command an Executive salary commiserate with a like executive, but she doesn't work but for 30 minutes every 3 weeks at best.<<<
Sure she could doesn't matter what her involvement is, there are other flunkies to do the real work. Many, many executives and board members get paid an astronomical amount and no one bats an eye. Not to be political, but Biden's son was making $83K per month sitting on the board of that foreign company and he never even visited the country, never met with the board.
>>>Her going to SA was on behalf of the Queen and I don't see how she could claim anything.<<<
If every engagement she made was on behalf of the Queen, then she would expense everything involved, care of HRM the Queen. If any of the engagements were not on behalf of the Queen, she then expenses anything pertaining to those engagements to the foundation.
Expensing her wigs, makeup that she uses also for personal use think would be called into question if expensed to the foundation. She is converting foundation money for personal use. Just my opinion.
Biden's son is for a foreign board my comments were if Meghan acts pursuant to US regulations for the Foundation registered in Arizona.
Greetings everyone.
Some interesting, good points made, and no doubt more on the way.
This was an interesting point by someone to Skippy about the differences between doing something for fun/display/show versus professionally about the bakery visit.
https://skippyv20.tumblr.com/post/188792375139/about-that-luminary-bakery-visit
Jdubya, that was an interesting link. There is a part of me which thinks there could easily have been a conversation somewhere sometime about what and how she could be Diana 2.0, upend protocol and play dress up to her heart's content. That he technically would not have the authority to grant such a "future work position" might have escaped that progressive thinking.
Thanks for the welcome
@Liver Bird
Thanks for the welcome
You said: "This is so true. From those mostly unknown MPs who 'signed' that ridiculous letter, to silly journalists writing pieces about how the poor dear is being 'bullied', to Oprah or other 'celeb friends' trying to get a piece of the action, this is all about what Meghan can do for people's image or career, not out of any affection for her. Most of them have never even met her. By superficially aligning themselves with Meghan they are showing their 'support' for a mixed-race new mum ensnared in the racist royal family and the horrid British press..."
It's really sickening, isn't it? A bunch of silly virtue signaling for the 'just' cause of the day (Meghan). You nailed it, very well said.
All these 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' celebs standing up for Meghan understand the situation completely, as does Meghan. It's ridiculous. But this kind of thing has been very, very common in the USA over the last decade. This precise kind of thing. It's tedious.
Most people have learned how to navigate this terrain (whatever you want to call it. some might call in political correctness), but it's still grating and draining. It should seem obvious that people can disagree without one person being a bully, racist, misogynist or something similar. But that's where thing are at today, this kind of set up, and so we all have to deal with it. And the scam artists know the landscape better than anyone, and how to exploit it.
Someone mentioned about how popular Meghan is in the USA. I don't see it at all. I'm sure she is more popular in the USA than the UK, of course, but I don't see any real star power from her. She just isn't that interesting. She is a pioneer, of sorts, if you want to think of her that way, but her actual person just isn't particularly compelling. In my opinion.
We all know how the ladies at Lipstick Alley feel about her. Meghan does have a group of dedicated fans, I'm sure. And that group is almost certainly a global entity. But the overall numbers just aren't that big, I don't think.
Diana was a true star. Huge star, even in the USA. She had real charisma. Meghan could never come close to approaching that aura. To be fair, very few other people could either. But Meghan is definitely not among those who are at that level.
If Diana did a documentary like Harry and Meghan did about the Africa trip, I'm guessing that show would do at least 5x the ratings in the USA that Meghan and Harry did.
Here's a helpful comparison. ABC (USA tv network) did a special on Diana in 2017. 20 years after her death. And they got 6.1 million viewers. Isn't that about double what the Harkles documentary got? And we're talking about someone who has been gone from this earth for 20 years.
Yes it is! I agree that Meghan has no star power and will fall flat after her obligatory interview on Ellen and Oprah. No one here (US) wants to talk to me about them. That is why I come here, to vent my frustration! LOL
The reason that MM is less hated in US than UK is because we don’t need to pay for her expense.
She has no original thoughts and she is very pretentious. I don’t know anyone in my circle like her.
Very much agree. Even Ellen, who is a big star and has a big social media following, is not going to be able to rescue Meghan from her irrelevance, I think. Oprah is past it and trying to hold on, in my opinion. Oprah would attach to Meghan in hopes of reviving her own floundering career, but very doubtful it would work for either of them.
Hilarious that you have to come here to talk Harkles because no one in the USA cares. I am in the same boat myself! lol
The Lipstick Alley ladies are not big fans of Meghan, it seems. And I don't blame them. People who live their entire lives in one sphere can get annoyed when someone else comes along and decides to enter that sphere when she deems fit and for her own enrichment. That kind of thing can rub people the wrong way.
I'm not speaking for all the women at Lipstick Alley or any other group of people, but I certainly understand why Meghan might annoy a variety of people or groups.
@Himmy
Very good point on the UK folks having to pay for Meghan's expenses. That would certainly make things more frustrating, I'm sure.
I agree about her having no original thoughts. So much of her talk seems like California and woke language. I'm all for helping people and doing what's right, but the constant (and hypocritical) wokeness is a bit much, in my opinion. And I agree with you, no one in my circle is like her.
As for MM herself, I wonder if she subscribes to the "fake it 'til you make it" school of thought/cognitive therapy. I am of the school of thought that if you don't know what you are doing, get out of the way and let somebody that does know what to do demonstrate how.
Only individual’s born within the commonwealth can ‘use’ (or be referred to) a title etc The Queen has given knighthood’s and a Damehood’s to non Commonwealth nationals, Steven Spielberg and Angelina Jolie both we’re honoured, but they are not legally allowed to be referred to as Sir or Dame.
I’ve said it from the day Meghan was married..it takes between 3 to 5 years to gain a UK citizenship, so surely she was/is not legally entitled to use the title of Duchess...or did the Home Office fast-track her application ?! Because at the time of her marriage, she’d only known Harry for 2 years, and not spent that time in the UK either.
If they divorce? As Liver Bird said, all other divorcees kept their titles...but they were born Brits....Meghan might have hers revoked if she’s still American (not dual nationality).
I wonder if the queen really did tough love Harry and told him and grifter woman to go scratch.