When questions are raised about why Meghan and Harry have been allowed to get away with so much, all roads seem to lead back to Prince Charles.
Charles reportedly calls Meghan "tungsten", an allusion to one of the hardest metals on Earth. (Only diamonds have a harder rating on the Mohs scale - 9 for tungsten, 10 for diamonds.)
That would suggest that he knows very well that Meghan is not the kind, soft-hearted personality she likes to suggest she is.
And Charles must know that she cannot be trusted, given the drama surrounding the wedding, when she insisted that "everything is under control" with relation to her father's appearance, only for it to become a tabloid drama that overshadowed the ceremony.
Why, then, doesn't Charles take action?
Why did he allow Meg to merch cheap jewelry at royal events?
And why doesn't he insist that they publicly unravel the mystery that is Archie, the giant "two-month-old" baby whose face is hidden whenever possible?
As the heir to the throne and the de-facto monarch under his aging mother, his reputation and the reputation of the entire monarchy is endangered by the Sussexes' actions.
What keeps him from doing something?
Charles reportedly calls Meghan "tungsten", an allusion to one of the hardest metals on Earth. (Only diamonds have a harder rating on the Mohs scale - 9 for tungsten, 10 for diamonds.)
That would suggest that he knows very well that Meghan is not the kind, soft-hearted personality she likes to suggest she is.
Press manipulation
He should also know that she likes to manipulate the press, dating back to the time when she supposedly took photos inside Kensington Palace for sale to the tabloids and he sent her on a plane back to Canada.And Charles must know that she cannot be trusted, given the drama surrounding the wedding, when she insisted that "everything is under control" with relation to her father's appearance, only for it to become a tabloid drama that overshadowed the ceremony.
Why, then, doesn't Charles take action?
Foundation, merching, Archie
Why does he allow the Sussexes to set up a foundation that will clearly have commercial implications?Why did he allow Meg to merch cheap jewelry at royal events?
And why doesn't he insist that they publicly unravel the mystery that is Archie, the giant "two-month-old" baby whose face is hidden whenever possible?
As the heir to the throne and the de-facto monarch under his aging mother, his reputation and the reputation of the entire monarchy is endangered by the Sussexes' actions.
What keeps him from doing something?
Comments
1) Charles wishes to appear "woke" - hip to the world at large, an knows that the RF will be streamlined, allowing MM's behavior as a means to an end (making money).
2) Charles doesn't care - as one who married/ divorced, he sees the cycle unfolding and knows that MM will leave. All monies are tied up, and he is aware that MM is unable to do damage (blackmail). He will be there for PH when the time comes.
Humor Me - #2 but..........the amount of damage she is doing now is horrific. the longer she stays, the more damage is being done to the RF reputation.
I guess i feel like the "powers" are getting ready for a big reveal that will totally discredit her on every level. The BUT is, Harry has to be 100% on board with her leaving and i honestly don't know if he is.
I feel like - maybe Harry being unhappy has more to do with things not going as "they" planned vs figuring out she conned him.
Notice: He isn't making an effort to be around her or orbit in her circle. And there was that time to go moment.
Maybe he is afraid of making a bad move which would reflect badly again. His reputation was all not that great leading up to and after the divorce compared to Diana (who almost walked on water). And then, she died and the criticism was thick. Perhaps he fears he might relive that (you are the blame) again and if that happened when he started his reign, that's not how he wants to begin?
Or, personally, I am hoping he is taking his cues from LG and that's the guy with the long game (strategic plan).
Harry is no longer in the short line to the throne (due to Will's 3). Could that be part of the reason there is no shutdown on Harry's behavior/ actions as in the past with Andrew?
I know that someone set up a petition on Change.com that called for a end to public funding for Harkle, but the last time that I checked, they had fewer than 6000 signature.
Charles is too busy to focus on the Sussexes. In no way are they the center of his life. In preparation for when he is King, he is already receiving the "Red Boxes" that the Queen receives. He's got his own work, his charities, and his wife, and he focuses on those things.
Charles is passive and always has been. He's been molly-coddled his entire life, and it would be going against his nature for him to butt into anyone else's private life proactively, especially a marriage, and suggest a course change. He's also, for all the good works he's championed, spectacularly self-centered. I think he would believe his good works, the Queen's 60 years of exemplary duty, and the efforts of the Cambridges will outweigh any chaff a recent arrival to the family can create.
Charles isn't interested in what the public thinks. This is a man who has kept Camilla by his side, legitimately or not, since ... 1980? 1981? Camilla was extraordinarily unpopular, and he stayed with her. I'd imagine he isn't impressed with what the great unwashed think about his second son's wife, if he's even aware of it.
The Sussexes aren't constitutionally important. Yes, they are Senior Royals now, but the focus will be, appropriately, on Charles and then the Cambridges. With each passing year, the Sussexes will become less important. I would imagine Charles believes that the Sussex Foundation will be a clear third behind The Prince of Wales Trust and the Royal Foundation (is that the name of the Cambridges' organization now?) with regards to fund raising, public esteem, and ability to effect any change. And it should be. Why would I give money to the Sussexes when their ability to influence and effect change is going to lessen with every passing year? If it's "pay to play" now, I'd "play" with Charles or William.
Charles may believe that Smirkle makes Harry happy, and he doesn't want to rock the boat (see above re: Charles being passive). Until Harry comes to his Papa and says "What a mistake! HELP!" I can see Charles being completely hands off. He may have learned the hard way, when Harry was wilder in his 20's, that trying to direct his second son's behaviors or actions doesn't end well, and that Harry needs to recognize his mistakes on his own.
If Charles believes at this relatively early date that the Sussexes will end up divorced, he knows Smirks won't get much money. Diana, mother to the heir and the spare to the throne, received (adjusted for today's money) approximately $34 million, after 12 years of marriage. Smirks is married to the 6th in line to the throne and most likely won't make anything close to 12 years of marriage. As a result, her pay out will be relative peanuts. Sure, I'd like someone to hand me a million, but she won't get a lot of money at all. Look up what Sarah got when she and Andrew divorced. It really wasn't much.
All this is my own personal conjecture (except for Charles already getting the Red Boxes. I can't remember where I read that, but it was a legit source).
Princess Anne does literally hundreds of appearances per year - "The Princess Royal, Patron, Northern Lighthouse Board, this morning visited Papa Stronsay Lighthouse, Orkney." "Her Royal Highness this afternoon visited the Cleveland Way, Saltburn Valley Gardens, Saltburn-by-the-Sea, Cleveland, North Yorkshire, to mark its Fiftieth Anniversary."
You could argue that these appearances are unnecessary, but they are probably very important to the people of Yorkshire. I would even go so far as to say these minor appearances are the backbone of support for the Royal Family.
I've long argued that Charles will have to bring, at a minimum, Bea and Eugenie online to compensate for the retirement of elderly royals when it comes to local appearances.
It's a tough time for the UK right now given Brexit, the new prime minister Boris Johnson, and the recent seizure of a British tanker by the Iranians - how embarrassing that the once-great British navy has been so cut back that they no longer have the firepower to rescue it.
So I agree that Charles has more on his mind than Meghan Markle. Still, he should be able to do many things at one time.
I think Sarah's poor settlement had a lot to do with her own poor negotiating skills. Meg would undoubtedly do a bit better.
I also agree that he does not look well, and men on the Windsor side of the family (Elizabeth's side, not Philip's) have historically expired in their early 70s if they die from natural causes.
I also believe Camilla has some serious health problems.
I also think your phrase about the "slow, deadly poison" is apt.
My impression is that his Prince's Trust has done a lot for troubled youth in Britain.
As for Meghan, narcs can suffer terribly when they don't get the narcissistic supply they think they deserve. Perhaps the BRF has hired a psychologist who is advising them that the way to ruin Meghan both financially and morally is to keep her away from the limelight. She will not accept this and will act more and more erratically.
She also frequently cancels engagements for health reasons, and was absent for awhile for health reasons in early 2019, so much so that an Australian tabloid wondered if she and Charles were divorcing.
https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/news/5389/the_windsors_series_3/
It will be interesting to see how they handle the Meghan situation. They're usually pretty spot-on.
While Harry's choice of wife is less important to the future of the RF per se, it is the inability/disinterest of the RF to contain $mirkle's behaviour/spending/merching/publicity seeking that is problematic.
Harry could have married just about anyone as long as he and his wife lived quietly.
However, the more I read and observe, the more I believe that Charles is ok with $mirkle's behaviour.. The only person who could have fixed this was the late Queen Mother... she was ruthless.
I think that $mirkle is here to stay. We will tire of this before she does.
As for the tongue business, she sticks out her tongue frequently. I have seen photo collages of her tongue somewhere, can't remember which site.
LATEST NEWS ON THE ROYALS AND THE BRITISH MONARCHY
Fashion icons and philanthropists who gave the Royal Family a modern makeover: All the ways Meghan Markle is like Princess Diana
Why would Lord Geist send her out only to red carpet events and tennis games but not to genuine charitable events? And in any event, I don't think anyone has any control over her. As someone else stated, in order to be controlled she would need to feel fear or shame and she seems to exhibit neither of these traits.
They will no longer be appearing at the opening of every envelope. There will be fewer royal patronages and a reduced need for appearances.
I think younger people aren't as enamoured of the royal family as they once were. With the internet it's much easier to find information about what they are up to, how much they are spending/paid, scandals, etc. I think many people are seeing fewer and fewer benefits from the royal family and the outrageous expense. When everyone is being asked to tighten their belts and increased fees and taxes for everything, continuing to fund the royal family is unpalatable. Where once the royals were the epidemy of glamour, class, and style, today celebrities have taken over that roll.
If the royal family is to survive, they need to be seen as providing a tangible benefit, not some wishy-washy "they bring in tourist dollars" kind of thing. This is trotted out, but does anyone actually visit the UK, because they think they are going to rub elbows with a royal? No, they go to see the monuments and places of interest.
Charles would have to do a complete turn around to bring in Bea and Eugenie, that's if they would accept. Not the wealthiest royals, but also not paupers. With one married and the other soon to be married, income may not be their highest priority.
The book on Charles and Camilla, mentioned that he wept when he was told to stop seeing Camilla. What kind of a bubble wrapped future king is this? Royalty have access to a range of women, but yet he wept! What would he have lost, nothing really, but yet he showed signs of losing the plot. Past conduct determines future conduct, especially with royalty. Also after he publicly declared his love for Camilla, whilst being still married to Diana ( after her TV interview ), the newspapers headlines stated .....UNFIT TO RULE..... the church stated that he broke his marriage vows and that was unacceptable....NO FIT FUTURE KING STANDS BEFORE THE CHURCH TO DECLARE MARRIAGE VOWS THEN GOES ON RECORD YEARS LATER TO SAY THAT HE ACTIVELY CHEATED!!! For me ,Charles is just a pawn doing what he thinks is right and he has bagged his queen. He wants nothing more. Everything that is unfolding with Harry is superfluous , better to keep an unhappy child occupied than to be attentive to a parents misdemeanors.
I don't understand your post.
I meant that Charles went on record to say that he committed adultery. As a future King, the newspapers and the Church, questioned his capability and ability to rule. Apologies for not stating that clearly enough.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7291079/Harry-Meghan-ban-neighbours-talking-royals-asking-Archie-petting-dogs.html
*I'm being nice here. "Seduce" is not the word I'd prefer to use to describe this unholy rutting.
Of course the church has a problem with it, since adultery is a term straight out of the bible. Personally, I find the term archaic.
I recall that they used the exact same spin to explain $mirkle's "no photos" policy at the tennis match.
Seems too much of a coincidence for this to happen twice.
But even if it was true that these and the previous rules of engagement came from an employee, something is causing employees to believe that H&M need to be shielded from the public even more than does the Queen herself.
So at the root, it's coming from H&M.
On a related but eye-rolling note, some of MMs fans have taken to calling themselves the #MeyHive because that's as clever as it is original.
I just came here to thank you @Elle for the laugh.
Also, I watched that Royal House of Windsor documentary on Netflix this week. Wow. The Windors have a seriously dysfunctional legacy. Execution of the Romanov royal family? Thank the OG Windsor, King George V. Damn. That is one cold cousin!
All that power and money just because they "won" a birth (or marriage) lottery. Of course the BRF is so messed up.
I can see why people are calling for a republic.
Charles as a narcissist also felt quite envious of the attention that Diana was receiving from the public. The narcissist always has to be the centre of attention and lashes out when someone is considered better in some way to him/her.
Charles was also quite cold to Diana's complaints, and had no empathy to her crying. In fact, he made fun of her. He also took any criticism as a personal insult and this caused him to become even nastier. All characteristics of a narcissist.
Some would like to paint the relationship with Camilla romantically, but in fact, Camilla is quite fed up with Charles and they don't spend much time together. He is often at Highgrove when not in London, and she at her family home, which isn't that far away. There's been talk of separation and even divorce, but it wouldn't be allowed because the facade of a desperate love between the two has to be maintained.
Charles and Diana's marriage produced two fine young men, but my goodness! I don't know that you could have found two parents more ill-suited to be together than Charles and Diana. Both had significantly unmet emotional needs, and neither could support the other to benefit each other. It was an absolute tragedy.
I haven't heard any gossip (other than here) of Charles and Camilla living separately, discussion of separation, etc., but I only read Hello! magazine, and they unrelentantly positive on the royals. NOTHING negative is printed by them. I know that Camilla has her bolt hole in Ray Mill House, but I had no idea she used it so often. As far as I know, Charles continues to call Camilla "my darling wife" in public, which he did exactly once with Diana, in the very, very early days of their marriage. That phrase is my "canary in the coal mine"--once he stops using it, I'll believe there's trouble in the relationship.
I also was unaware of health issues with her, but as I said, Hello! is my only source of information, outside of these blogs. I understand Camilla drinks (a lot?) and I'm not sure if she's still smoking or not. That always stunned me. Charles publicly loathes smoking, and yet the love of his life puffed away for years. I mean, I know you have to compromise in every relationship, and from what I understand through books, Camilla is the one who compromised virtually all the time, so for Charles to put up with her cigarettes truly amazes me.
Anyway, I'm loving all the discussion in Nutty's blog, learning lots and hearing different points of view!
Narcissists do not possess empathy and are very envious of everyone else aroud them.
As for Camilla and Charles, it's long been known that they cannot live together, and that Diana was a convenient excuse for them not being able to do so. Charles is such a difficult person that he and Camilla essentially live separate lives.
Like I keep saying, this is not "true love". It's a narcissist finding his narcissistic supply.
He is in a tough position, I know from experience, you don't want to alienate your children (especially adult children) by telling them you don't like they're boyfriend or girlfriend. However, if it came to marriage, I know I would say something if I thought it was a mistake, and my kids know I wouldn't say it if I didn't care. Parenting is tough, but sometimes you have to let them make their own mistakes, it really is the only way they learn.
History is repeating, but not Edward and Wallis. Harry reminds me of Prince George, Duke of Kent (the Queen's uncle) and Kiki Preston. For some good old-fashion gossip and intrigue read up on those two and the Happy Valley set. Prince George died age 39 in a plane crash and Kiki ("the girl with the silver syringe") died of suicide age 48. She also reportedly had his child. (He is the father of the current Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, and Prince Michael of Kent).
Once last thought, Charles, IMO, also genuinely loves his sons, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and other family members, so I cannot see him as being a narcissist, just raised a prince who would one day be king.
https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/lifestyle/prince-william-issued-stern-message-140300097.html
I've been thinking about what I would say, viz. the future Charles III (if he chooses that regnal name--despite the bad connotations from history of the Charleses, I don't think I'll be able to cope with thinking of Chas as anything but his given name. At 70+, it is too late for a name change, for him & us. Elizabeth's father's choice of 'George' made sense--continuity with his father's reign, and, on the brink of war with Hitler, the British monarch could not have the German moniker of 'Albert' . . it just wouldn't have done. There's no compelling reason for Charles to change his name at this stage.)
The nadir of Charles' reputation was 22 years ago, walking behind the cortege of his late ex-wife. I believe the tableau of that wretched little trio was Philip's idea . . ? . . .It does not seem like it would have been Charles's, because Chas. expressed the fear that he was going to be assassinated during that walk. While that could be dismissed as a typically self-absorbed preoccupation from Chas, given the public mood at the time, it was a legitimate concern. Charles knew that he was the most hated man, not only in England, but in the world at that time. I also think that as a father, Charles would have spared his boys that trauma, but as per usual, he bowed to the pressure from more forceful personalities (ie, his parents) in agreeing to do it. A visible 'mea culpa' was demanded from the people by the Royals, for their laggardly response to Diana's death and apparent coldness toward her memory. But actually the public furor had less to do with the family's attitude toward Diana's loss than it did the perceived lack of acknowledgement in * the public's feelings of grief and loss* and what their 'People's Princess' meant to them. It was an extraordinary time to be living through. The only event I could possibly equate it to was the assassination of President Kennedy, which is a cultural event I was not around to witness. The histrionic displays of public grief for Diana eclipsed even that, I'm sure.
It took all of a week for the alliterate former actress to forget the royal intervention about how you treat people to wear off. Apparently this week she went to a shop during business hours and had a security team shoo everyone out because she didn't want to have to interact with anyone.
After the obligatory "Charles is a douche!' whipping-boy period that was the Diana era, and to which I joined in, the passing years have given me a bit more perspective on Diana's contributions to the Wales dysfunction. They were spectacularly ill-suited as a couple. Charles bit the bullet and did his parents' bidding viz. that marriage, for England. His heart was always elsewhere. I believe that his feelings for Camilla are genuine. This liaison with her cost him everything, and were he just in it for the 'king's privilege' of a playmate outside of his marriage, he would have let her go before now, or chosen someone who was less costly. Unlike the staged Harkle 'We two are SOOO in Lurvvve! Look at us!!' photo ops, the ones of Charles and Camilla together depict a genuine delight in each other. This couple are both past 70 years of age; long past the age of faking it for photo ops.
Okay, so I'm three posts in and have yet to address the central question . . why doesn't Charles 'do something' about his younger son, his daughter-in-law and their antics . .?
They likely don't care what the Harkles are up to unless it's blatantly illegal, in which case they will deal with it appropriately when there's plenty of evidence to support legal action (probably behind closed doors). The BRF are simply carrying on, doing their jobs, and not letting Harkle "noise" get in the way. If Her Majesty steps down in 2020 as has been rumoured, they will be incredibly busy behind the scenes preparing for the transition.
We've also got to remember that social media has a way of amplifying everything and making all seem urgent and catastrophic; I very much doubt any of the RF spend much time on it, let alone use it to keep up on the Harkles. They have people for that, and teams of advisors and PR experts that keep them informed of the essentials. They also play the long game; while we foam at the mouth for action right now, they look at what will ensure the monarchy's long-term stability and popularity. Back in the day, I'm sure that Princess Margaret's antics, Diana's tell-alls, Fergie-gate and Charmilla's ongoing scandals all seemed just as threatening. If one looks at the very long game of BRF history through millennia, the Firm has survived far worse than the Harkles, who seem mostly intent on living a celeb lifestyle and making as much private money for themselves in shady ways as they can.
As for Charles personally, we know he's busy, passive, and probably isn't thrilled about intervening in his grown-a$$ son's business. He probably also realises it wouldn't do any good. Even if there have been interventions, we wouldn't know about them. When Harry comes to Charles asking for help, Charles will get involved.
1. Charles is Elizabeth's son. HMTQ's preferred MO is "Do nothing if at all possible. If One must Do Something, do as little as One can get away with doing." ERII was schooled by her grandmother, Queen Mary, in the art of being rigorously neutral as monarch. A dynamic 'take-charge' approach is anathema. I'm sure it is hoped that unpleasant/potentially dicey situations will resolve themselves, given enough time. Many times in the past, this has worked. But then, they've never encountered a Markle before. Markle may prove to be more intransigent and more of a thorn in the Royal side than President Nasser. The whole family is just constitutionally incapable (in both the literal and figurative senses) of dealing effectively with someone who so completely not only disregards their carefully-constructed codes of behavior which they have been trained for generations to live by, but is determined to take a very public dump all over them. It's one thing to have a chaos agent/anarchist attacking them from outside, like Hitler or Nasser . . but to have a traitor to their way of life from within the ranks, like Markle, aided and abetted by one of their own . . .it's shades of the Abdication all over again, and they just weren't prepared for it. A year on, they are still floundering. Charles is getting the brunt of the criticism for the inaction, but he is merely hewing to the values of the system in which he was raised and indoctrinated.
I wouldn't be surprised if Charles and his team have done a lot. He can't stop them from doing embarrassing but legal things, though.
None of this yet compares to UK politics, Brexit, Iran tankers .... so Prince Charles is doing the "Keep Calm & Carry On' fiddle while "Rome is burning "because his father the Duke of Edinburgh was the family bad cop and if the music is playing maybe no one will notice our little shenanigans. PC perception appears of a man mainly of leisure after education & navy stints, with a few more responsibilities added yearly as his parents aged. His involvement in The Prince's Trust, estate and land management seem to be focus along with more esoteric such as architecture, and the arts but he's never achieved that genuine connection to the people his mother, Her Majesty has. His wife Diana had it & overshadowed him, and his sons overshadow him. After Diana he is not remotely interested in anything that will make him look bad so he does nothing during hi-jinx besides a few wrist slaps to William when they overspent, and of course brother Andrew cut adrift as unnecessary in the "slimmed down royal line". Someone else has always handled the "difficulties" which explains LG returning to HM's service. Very little will be publicly done similar to Prince Andrew and his Epstein contact.
Be that as it may, Harry is a grown-ass man of nearly 35 years of age that should be able to conduct his life and affairs without paternal supervision. Given Charles's own father's meddling in his personal affairs, from his schooling to his choice of bride, Charles' disinclination to interfere in his sons' marriages is pretty understandable. Having been denied his own first choice of wife by his parents, Charles seems to have been willing to let Harry have his 'love match' (we wish) . . despite the falllout.
But it's the financial shenanigans that are going to force his hand, more than any protocol gaffes over dress code or deference in the Markle Debacle. It's just a question of how bad it's going to get. There's never been a hint of financial malarkey attaching to Charles and it's will be his reputation on the line by extension when the Sussex Foundation is revealed to be shady. Ultimately, though, the Queen has to be the one to give him permission to act. I wonder if we will be seeing any movement on that score in the next couple of months. I hope so, but this whole situation might be playing out for a long time to come . . .especially if Smeaghan attempts to garner more sympathy/play for more time with the announcement of another 'pregnancy'. I can see that barreling down on us in the very near future. Look for 'Baby Sussex 2.0' announcement by Christmas if not before.
Perhaps taking away the Sussexes income is counter-productive in some way.
It spurs them on to take greater and greater risks in order to bring in money.
This may get me some heat, but I agree with Diana's biographer Sally Bedell Smith that Diana had Borderline Personality Disorder. In fact, I've read that a psychiatrist diagnosed her as such after extensive interviews with her. I'm somewhat familiar with this condition myself. A person with BPD is has little to no sense of their own identity or even of their own existence. They feel they have a giant hole inside them. It's a condition that goes back to earliest childhood and is partly genetic. It can't be blamed simply on an unhappy marriage or on stressful circumstances. People with BPD are good at drawing people to them, and they somehow manage to make it look like nothing is ever their fault. They usually pick a scapegoat in their family whom they blame everything on.
Everyone wonders why Charles couldn't fall in love or stay in love with his wife when she was so on piously attractive. I think he simply couldn't deal with her. Yes, Diana was a caring person but her caring came from her own neediness. For someone with BPD, all the love in the world can never be enough. No human love can fill that void inside.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1158540/royal-news-royal-family-poll-queen-meghan-markle-prince-harry-diana
"Welcome to the vacancies site for The Household of TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall and The Household of TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge."
IDK if the Sussex duo were there previously, but it does appear that if they were, they've been gently and quietly removed. I said slow acting poison is what would do megster in. In the past 48 hours, there have been stories about her providing protocol to the neighbors about how they are to treat a failed prostitute and her favorite customer* and then having customers thrown out of a store so she could shop - that's not even slow poison, so I might have been wrong!
*Also, I agree that this should have been done. Imagine how awkward it is for decent people living on the royal grounds to come upon mm with her clothes on instead of shoved up against a file cabinet or grilling burgers in slutgear... once we saw that we can't unseen it, so best to know how and when to look away.
Charles is wishy washy and will not move against Megs, someone stronger than himself, perhaps Camilla will have to force his hand.
Found it quite telling there were no $ussex Birthday greetings for Camilla.
I quite enjoyed reading everyone’s thoughts and thank you Nutty for the blog, you’re doing a great job.
As for celebrities, the BRF is friendly with a lot of celebrities but they keep these relationships low key. The Queen is friends with ex race car driver Jackie Stewart. Very good friends, in fact.
And, there were a lot of celebrities at Eugenie's wedding, because they are friendly with Sarah, her mother.
The difference between these celebrity friendships and Meghan's is that they are low key. Celebrities and royalty must live discreet lives in order to keep the stalkers and envy at bay, so they do have something in common. However, the more mature realise that flaunting your status and wealth can only lead to problems.
I recall that about one month ago the story was that (1) she would pose for a photo shoot dressed in fashion designed by up and coming designers and (2) that she would have a regular , monthly column in British Vogue.
Regarding (1), if this was ever true, and the editors would have changed their minds after seeing her new proportions.
Regarding (2), Vogue itself denied this rumour, which was obviously started by $mirkle herself. (in the style of "Kate will hold a baby shower for $mirkle " and "Doria is spending Christmas with the Queen" rumours).
I don't know why the story now is that Vogue is happy to announce that $mirkle had finally been convinced to do this, when it is actually far less than she had been hoping to do.
The heir, Lord William Seymour and his wife Kelsey, a commoner has been evicted from their home on the Ragley Hall by his aunt, and his parents. The father is incapacitated with atoxia after an accident in the 80's and is in a wheelchair, so even if Lord William wanted to take over the estate and make decisions, like Prince Charles, he can't yet because his mother and aunt are in charge. For PC that would include decisions over Harry and his wife and child, because the sovereign is still in fully charge.
Everyone who was using the gym appeared to be starring in their own workout video, complete with flattering Lycra two-pieces, spray tans and perfectly sculpted abdominal muscles. I arrived in leggings and an old T-shirt and spent 30 minutes scowling on the rowing machine. This is the thing about Soho Farmhouse: it stops short of being truly relaxing because it is so ineffably smug. Everyone seems to be congratulating themselves for being here, part of a self-selecting elite whose shared DNA is 95 per cent oat-milk flat white.
I also read that Michelle Obama is going to be interviewed by markle for Vogue. What a poor choice. I'm surprised.
Do you think that Chas has cut them off? Or that mm thinks she can do without them?
I don't think that she realizes that politics is not very glamorous. Although she has what it takes to be a real life Serena Myers from the tv show Veep.
Also, the Vogue issue is September and mm declined to be on the cover because "it would be boastful". Uh-huh.
I think I'm going to have to quit following this soap opera/trainwreck because it's too frustrating to watch the BRF allow this trashy woman who did nothing but (fill in the blank) the right rich guy then be given a title, unlimited funds, and be allowed to trash an institution.
Thank you for the info.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7295371/JAN-MOIR-cause-Meghan-Markle-supporting-Foundation.html
JAN MOIR: The cause Meghan Markle is mostly supporting is the Me, Myself and I Foundation
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/meghan-and-prince-harry-may-buy-la-home-so-archie-can-spend-more-time-with-grandma-doria/news-story/28d4d9c2725470c977ef064331ffecf9
This seems to be the PR machine trying to diffuse what happens when they are cut loose.
What are your thoughts on Charles and Cam removing the Sussex’ from the recruitment page? The DE and Google are saying they’ve been cut off without a farthing from the royal wallet. “Prince Harry and Meghan in shock split with Prince Charles - ‘Hows he going to afford it’. Have they really been cut off? Is the supposed trip to Balmoral the royal kiss off ? I’m anxious to hear what y’all think.
I am sure glad that the megster doesn't read what is written about her. And oh, what I'd give to be Lord G's date to the Balmoral Birthday Ball. I so want to watch. But it does seem that if the duo hadn't been dissed (or is that ditched) by KP, this would not be running in the DM and the separation would have been explained.
I don't think it is coincidental suddenly seeing DM articles tearing her apart - whereas before they were cloying all over everything she did.