There's been a great deal of discussion about a Blind Gossip article from Monday suggesting that Meghan is holding off sharing images of Archificial until she can find someone willing to pay for them.
According to the article, Meg hopes to "monetize" the first full-face and full-figure images of Archie, which is why she has been partially hiding his face in his rare public appearances.
Unfortunately, she's been unable to put together a deal, according to Blind Gossip, in part because too many people knew about her plans to donate just some of the income to charity and divert the rest to a private account.
But the question I'm intrigued by is : what type of company would consider paying to feature the first clear images of the seventh-in-line to the throne, and what would they hope to get from it?
The magazine industry has been in crisis for more than a decade, so it seems unlikely that Meg will be able to sell her Archie images to a publishing house. And the unimpressive ratings of her Gayle King specials will dampen the enthusiasm of TV producers.
Who else might be interested?
A big-name company, like Proctor & Gamble (which sells Pampers) doesn't need this kind of distraction, or the distraction of Meg's thinly-disguised political views.
An up-and-coming diapers company, perhaps one with biodegradable products, might be interested. But would they have enough money to satisfy Meg?
Could an investment company use the Sussexes as an example of a thoroughly modern family that serves as an example for others? "No matter what type of family you have, it's important to plan for the future" or some similar tagline.
The problem is that any company with this much money to spend will also have enough money to spend on research, which will show that Meg isn't universally admired and is becoming less popular every day.
Harry is still well-liked, which means he would be key to structuring a deal with this type of advertiser. In fact, an image with just Archie and Harry might be worth a lot more than one that includes Meg.
That's if Harry would agree to it.
Maybe they would - but probably not if Meg also wants to be in the picture. Her fashion appearances in Givenchy have been memorable for all the wrong reasons.
Again, these brands might be willing to shell out for an image of just Prince Harry and Archificial together, particularly if both of them wear the company duds. (Father and son Burberry? At least it's British.)
But Archie on his own is just a baby.
And Archie photographed with just his mother feels a bit Kardashian-like. It lacks the exclusivity and snob appeal that people who buy designer kids clothes are looking for.
In fact, Meg's grifter reputation might even turn off people who would otherwise be interested in the brand.
What type of company do you think would be willing to pay big money for images of Archie?
According to the article, Meg hopes to "monetize" the first full-face and full-figure images of Archie, which is why she has been partially hiding his face in his rare public appearances.
Unfortunately, she's been unable to put together a deal, according to Blind Gossip, in part because too many people knew about her plans to donate just some of the income to charity and divert the rest to a private account.
But the question I'm intrigued by is : what type of company would consider paying to feature the first clear images of the seventh-in-line to the throne, and what would they hope to get from it?
The magazine industry has been in crisis for more than a decade, so it seems unlikely that Meg will be able to sell her Archie images to a publishing house. And the unimpressive ratings of her Gayle King specials will dampen the enthusiasm of TV producers.
Who else might be interested?
Baby goods?
The most obvious answer is a company selling baby goods - baby food, toys, diapers. But wouldn't using Archificial in their advertising call up all sorts of questions about his birth and parentage that would distract from your product?A big-name company, like Proctor & Gamble (which sells Pampers) doesn't need this kind of distraction, or the distraction of Meg's thinly-disguised political views.
An up-and-coming diapers company, perhaps one with biodegradable products, might be interested. But would they have enough money to satisfy Meg?
Financial companies?
Insurance and investment companies often produce "family values" type of advertisements, showing the continuity of family and the importance of structuring your own family's finances.Could an investment company use the Sussexes as an example of a thoroughly modern family that serves as an example for others? "No matter what type of family you have, it's important to plan for the future" or some similar tagline.
The problem is that any company with this much money to spend will also have enough money to spend on research, which will show that Meg isn't universally admired and is becoming less popular every day.
Harry is still well-liked, which means he would be key to structuring a deal with this type of advertiser. In fact, an image with just Archie and Harry might be worth a lot more than one that includes Meg.
That's if Harry would agree to it.
Baby fashion?
Children's fashion is big business, and Meg might be hoping that luxury brands like Burberry Kids, Young Versace, Armani Junior or Kenzo Kids would be interested in featuring Archificial in their advertising.Maybe they would - but probably not if Meg also wants to be in the picture. Her fashion appearances in Givenchy have been memorable for all the wrong reasons.
Again, these brands might be willing to shell out for an image of just Prince Harry and Archificial together, particularly if both of them wear the company duds. (Father and son Burberry? At least it's British.)
But Archie on his own is just a baby.
And Archie photographed with just his mother feels a bit Kardashian-like. It lacks the exclusivity and snob appeal that people who buy designer kids clothes are looking for.
In fact, Meg's grifter reputation might even turn off people who would otherwise be interested in the brand.
What type of company do you think would be willing to pay big money for images of Archie?
Comments
There's something about the novelty of a senior Royal Family member appearing in an ad, although junior ones have done so. You can see Zara Philips and one of her daughters in an ad for strollers (iCandy by Land Rover) on YouTube.
Zara, however, is likeable and clearly upper-class. With her sunny disposition, her rugby hero husband and sweet family, she's someone new parents can aspire to be. Meg, not so much.
Maybe her PR folks think it's better to go with the "holding out for more money" than "she lied and manipulated millions of people with the story of a fake pregnancy and birth, as well as the photoshopped christening photos......"
I can't really see why any one would pay top dollar for the photos. I honestly don't care what the kid looks like, I only care that there's this web of lies being woven around Archie that you just don't see with other Royal babies, or even celebrity babies. It's just so very odd.
Also, back in the day, you had to buy a physical copy of a magazine to see the photos. These days, you pay for the photos and they're reproduced online everywhere in the blink of an eye.
That's why I think the only people willing to pay will be people who want the Sussexes to bring attention to something else. Dubai tourism? Archificial on the beach?
As for 'merching' Archie, I think so long as she is an HRH that will be impossible. She has got a way with a lot, but that would be a bridge too far. And much as Harry has been complicit, I do not think he would agree to his son being monetised.
After the divorce though? All bets are off. But how much interest would there be in another Z list celeb kid who doesn't even have a title? Especially as the Cambridges have 3 cute kids, one of whom will be king.
Well, one group that certainly will NOT be giving them money is the private plane industry.
I think I see what you’re doing here Nutty and I love it - hello all you big name sponsors reading here trying to gauge public opinion.
On her ThisLittlePetal not so secret Twitter she is freaking out about some hilarious cheeky images somebody put together of little Archie’s face ( well, one of his six faces) onto a baby surrounded by money and merch. We see her next move and she doesn’t like it one bit! Because she’s so insanely smart, how could we possibly see through what she is so ineptly doing?
I don't think it would get past the BRF. Full stop.
She may have asked for too much money. Being first is great but they need to get their investment out too...so how given that many papers don't have much of a paywall on the net? Given that they (H&M) have strangled the press by their control, the terms may have been too onerous.
I think the boy (versus girl - so cute dresses) and the lack of title made it a harder sale.
She is not known for her display of good family values so the comments about her being the distraction is a viable concern for any potential company. This is well known and has been for some time so it's not like someone can say: Oh, but she's changed. Look at this.
And, I think Paula is on target, that ship sailed and is out of sight.
The question I have is: Given all the issues, drama, problems of producing a baby (team if there is a baby, it isn't from her), what is the chances she will start talk of another one but this time a girl?
At some point Harry will have to wake up to what MM really is.
Only one that does not do any market research or focus groups prior and that has the financial ability to withstand the adverse impact of the spectacle de merde that would inevitably follow. It would need to be a company whose reputation and image would not suffer as a result of the markle taint. Also, it would need to be a company that did not care about maintaining even the most tenuous and superficial connections to the BRF. And, of course, one with which markle's image and "celebrity" status align well. Given all that, TMZ is probably the best fit with markle's image and the likely choice for Princess Greasy-Pole Climber's picture pimping. I think she may have a long run with TMZ.
In a nutshell!
Though I'd add that even in Britain, most people don't much care about her either way. I think British people are much more indifferent to the royals than is commonly believed. Your average Brit goes from one end of the year to the next without giving any of the clan of Mountbatten-Windsor too much thought.
And I agree that she might try to use Archie to front some sort of 'charity' initiative for her dodgy 'foundation'. But even then, I think the palace, and maybe even Harry himself, would clamp down on it. Her own tacky merching is bad enough, but dragging her innocent child into it? Nope.
My guess is Megs would merch and exploit the baby to anyone who would pay her what she feels she is entitled to, like prams or life insurance. If she does go through with such a scheme, BP would react upon it like their response when Diana did the Panorama interview. Exploiting Harry's baby for profit, even if all of the money was given to a charity, would be a bridge too far.
After so many charity scandals in the past, including big ones like the Red Cross, people are very skeptical about them anymore. There's a lot of mistrust.
Shame on her if she's using her baby, or any baby, for financial gain like that.
Wasn't there a blind recently that touched on or hinted at if Harry and Megs split, that he would stipulate that he'd never ever allow her to let the baby be photographed, filmed or seen in public? It was posted some time last week.
They would be the obvious choice to - targeting British royal followers, and have sister publications abroad. They're completely safe - they never publish anything negative. A recent poll they did was designed in such a way that the answers had to be favourable to the royals. In fact, although things have changed a bit, the Spanish owner of Hello! bought up compromising photos of Diana - so they wouldn't be published.
The trouble is Hello! is seen as a bit declasse - although Princess Anne gave them an interview at the start. Peter Phillps got into trouble for selling them exclusive rights to his wedding at Windsor and that seems to have scared other royals away. They do have ties to Ella Windsor. I doubt that being declasse would bother Meghan - that baby shower defined vulgar - but there would be a huge outcry with such a deal.
https://blindgossip.com/she-is-not-in-control/#more-99194
Maybe twenty odd years from now “Archie” sightings will occasionally be dripped, like Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot sightings!
Anyway, Lainey is yet another North American who hasn't got a clue about Britain and its people, and is trying to superimpose American race politics onto Britain. As I said above, most people here really don't care much about the royals one way or another. And if she thinks Meghan's 'Smart Set' launch was an unmitigated success, she obviously hasn't read beyond the fawning headlines.
She is also angry that people want to promote Catherine, but she's doing promoting for Meghan? And she calls Meghan "black". Meghan self-identifies as Caucasian!!!
Lainey used to say that she kept her gossip items light and funny because there was too much dark stuff going on in the world of celebrity and she didn't want to go there. Funny how she loves to "go there" when it comes to Andrew. And it hasn't been proven that Andrew did anything illegal but just hung out with a pedophile. Perhaps he knew but that will be hard to prove. Andrew did have sex with a young person who seemed to be the age of consent in the country involved. The SJW don't seem to care about facts or legal niceties and love to ruin someone's life on the basis of hearsay and rumours, and Lainey is among those.
Don't ever interact with Lainey. She will doxx you and it will be a one-sided fight as she has all the contacts in the media.
Lainey herself has psychological issues having been raised by a narc mother. I think Lainey is a narc herself because she thinks that the stunts her mother pulls are funny rather than tragic and has even written a book about it.
I can't think of anyone who would be more compatible with Meghan than her Toronto friends - Jessica Mulroney and Lainey Lee. All very materialistic, very ambitious, social climbers!
Keep in mind that it was reported a few days ago that Meghan is renewing the trademark for her defunct blog The Tig through 2021. She might be doing it just to keep someone else from using it. HOWEVER: The most important part of the story is that she has added a trademark for Tig Tots. So she is playing the long game as she does so well. I think she has her eye on doing a blog about raising children, childrens fashion and accessories including toys and furnishings such as cribs, strollers, etc. at some point in the future.
She might realize her days are numbered in the RF, but I think she will still try to stay in it long enough to have another baby next year or the first part of 2021. She will probably be pregnant by this time next year or due to the speed she moved with Archie, might even have had a second child by this time next year. She is truly a piece of work.
For example, we all find Meghan to be of dubious character, so we, and everyone like us, are more likely to find that her uneven skin tone is "crap". That's why celebrities/famous people have to watch their grooming and behaviour. Because if you notice that celebrity X has horrible hair, you are more likely to find that you don't like their behaviour or their movie, and so on.
As for Lainey, she has achieved wealth and fame much beyond her qualifications. She hasn't written a best selling novel or acted in anything. And despite her being from a minority. But she still shits on the society that has provided this to her as though she had to wash toilets despite being a PhD to get where she is.
Check out the article entitled "Meghan Markle owes success of Smart Works charity fashion launch to sister-in-law Kate Middleton" Its damning MM with faint praise.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/9930192/meghan-markle-fashion-launch-kate-middleton/
It is a perfectly crafted criticism of MM. Basically saying MM has blundered all over the place and she knows it. Whoever wrote it had one intention and that was to annoy the hell out of MM.
I think Harry was on board with the notion of selling photos of Archie, I can’t see how she could have done that behind his back, without him not finding out...then again he isn’t exactly the brightest spark, and is somewhat naive.
they are tolerated; they aren’t doing too well at the moment!! 😩
She is also a co-host on an entertainment television show with Ben Mulroney, who is Jessica Mulroney's husband, and the son of the ex-PM of Canada, Brian Mulroney.
She was famously photographed with Meghan a few years ago when she was secretly dating Harry with a few other people - Jessica and Ben, of course, and with Marcus Anderson. I forget who the other smug people gathered around the table were.
I think she was one of the first to drop hints that Meghan and Harry's relationship was serious.
In fact, I'm surprised that there hasn't been spew re Princess Pole Climber's "capsule collection". That polyester nightmare of a dress is a sale of a sale castoff that no one wanted and polyester is notoriously bad for the environment and the body. Also, the totes are made in India (can you say "child labor!" three times fast). Also, I would love to know the "source" of the leather. If it's from China esp, there's a good chance it is cat or dog leather (it's why I will not buy any leather from China ever no matter what.) There are potential scandals all over that "collection".
The best thing about that 5-piece fashion wonder is its mediocrity, and the *only* surprise to me re that polyester pile is that the pants aren't crotchless.
In addition, each state has varying levels of accessibility re access to birth certificates. Birth certificates are Vital Records, not Public Records. Big diff.
A birth certificate is also one step closer to any kind of identify theft, too. It would be far too handy if those could just be PRRd by random members of the public.
Still, I'm surprised the media hasn't leapt on this potential hell unleashed. It would wipe out global-eco-warrior princess, animal-welfare princess, and feed-time princess titles in one easy bitchslap.
I am currently reading: Overdressed: the shockingly high cost of cheap fashion by Elizabeth Cline. I wanted a different one by her but this was what they had.
I subscribe to Tatler, I wish they’d put that article in their printed mag....they usually do. Maybe next month?! 🤔
http://dorothycrabtree.blogspot.com/2019/09/archies-newest-christening-photo-whats.html
@AbbyH, once I found out about the potential "fur trim" and "leather" from China, I was way over buying it, but I think that this is a potential minefield, if the media wanted to dig in. When we were suggesting things that could make the markle wholly unpalatable and forever disgraced, pimping dead dog and cat skin handbags would sure do the trick. And Ms. Oh-So-Woke won't be able to hide behind "didn't know" because it's "her" "curated" "capsule collection" (excuse me while I go throw up a little in my mouth now.)
And yes, cheap fashion and all that it says about our culture offends me.
http://dorothycrabtree.blogspot.com/2019/09/archies-newest-christening-photo-whats.html
Yesterday I tried several times to post a slightly off topic mention of the upcoming Glamour magazine Women of the Year gala in NYC on Nov.11 at Alice Tully Hall in Lincoln Center. The tag line is right in Megs' wheelhouse: 'Celebrate the leaders & changemakers who are pushing the world forward.' My guess is Megs is working on an acceptance speech. I wonder if she'll be acknowledged in any way. Don't know if Glamour is one of the outlets that puts out her little puff pieces.
The collage pic is photoshopped beyond belief -- and so badly, too. Is this her fantasy, where bewitched Harry kneels before Murky-as-Kate and ZombieBaby, in a hazy, dreamlike vision? Wonder how much pink water and party supplies it took to create that?
If there were a healthy baby, showing it in public would end a lot of the bad press.
I normally don't care about the royal family.
As another reader mentioned, it is the mystery that keeps my attention. Situation gets more and more surreal.
I didn't know fake baby bumps and real doll babies were a "thing"
Think they should go camping again in Africa -ha. Can't imagine that MM is a happy camper!
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/meghan-markle-nephew-names-marijuana-strain-after-archie.html/
I believe that if she had full access to a baby, that baby would be everywhere. She'd be merching everything from baby clothes to breast shields. Instead of all this speculative PR about why they didn't go to Balmoral and upstaging Princess Charlotte with that sad little clothing collection, there'd be a thousand and one pictures of Archie a day.
The fact is Megsy missed her opportunity already. Interest at the time of his birth was huge, and continued till the odd christening. After that there were just too many questions. No reputable company will pay her what she wants now.
That's how it's done these days. Look at the Kardashians.
Celebrity gossip is such an 'un-woke' pursuit. I wish people would just own up to it.
At least I admit to following stories that I project on. AND I'm self-aware that it's all due to my pettiness.
I can actually relate to the whole "who-gets-to-wear-which-tiara" drama. I'm super petty like that. 🍹
Here's some CA info on birth certificates: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/pages/vital-records.aspx
Here's a link to CA statutes: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/ that will tell you more about PRRs.
Each state handles disclosure of adoption information differently. Birth certificates and other vital records are used to determine identity, for example.
Re ceiling and floor, for example, the 4th Amendment gives us our "floor" level rights re search & seizure, so warrant requirement. But each state can set the ceiling. So, for example, SCOTUS held that roadblocks / sobriety checkpoints are permitted by the constitution, but a number of states' constitutions ensure greater rights of privacy and do not allow roadblocks. Same is true with many things. FIOA is one of those things. States have codified their own public records statutes. But birth certificates are Vital Records, not Public Records, and what is found on sites like Ancestry is from public records and updates from others. This may or may not be valid. According to deep background checks on the best databases, my ex is my brother and my brother is not even listed. So always beware the public information on Ancestry sites and if you don't have the official record, do not consider it to be fact.
I've had offers for collabs on my cats' Instagram (which has only about 55 followers) after posting some photos of my cats' birthday celebration of my cats in kimonos/bow-ties. I didn't respond because I had mixed feelings about it. I might change my mind if it means my cats get pampered and it doesn't add clutter into my home.
Also, I don't want to sound like an ungrateful a-hole but I also didn't respond to an influencer offer on my planner/stationery account for free pens... Because I'm trying to reduce the amount of disposable pens and my goal is to only use refillable pens I 2020. FTR, I only have about 100+ followers on that account.
These days companies will work with anybody. The mainstream media likes to report how everyone's a wannabe influencer & they're approaching businesses for free stuff... But I find in reality companies seek you out and will slide into your DM pretty hard... So if Meghan can't get anything, it must be bad.
To be fair, I can tell you for a fact that there are people out there who genuinely like Meghan Markle. I know you probably would rather believe all her supporters online are bots but I know at least 2 real humans on Instagram, one with a verified account because she's a well-known social media manager guru/stylist... Except she's an a-hole. I subscribed to her email newsletter and she threw a friend under the bus. I was flabbergasted. IDK if she was trying to stir some manufactured housewives-style drama for clicks, but I can tell you it reflected badly on her (professionally). Not saying all stylists/SMMs are vapid, but this one seemed to value clothes mkre than humans... So yeah there are people who genuinely like Meghan, but they're not what I'd consider wonderful human beings.
https://www.lavote.net/home/records/birth-records/birth-records-request/who-can-obtain-a-copy-of-a-birth-record
Who Can Get an Authorized Certified Copy of a Birth Record?
--The registrant or a parent or legal guardian of the registrant
--A child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse or domestic partner of the registrant
--A party entitled to receive the record as a result of a court order, or an attorney or a licensed adoption agency seeking the birth record in order to comply with the requirements of Section 3140 or 7603 of the Family Code
--A member of a law enforcement agency or a representative of another governmental agency, as provided by law, who is conducting official business.
--An attorney representing the registrant or the registrant's estate, or any person or agency empowered by statute or appointed by a court to act on behalf of the registrant or the registrant estate
So, certain members of the family that Markle never had could get it.
You can also google re the accuracy of Ancestry & other sites' information. It "should" be good, but it's not to be considered fact. You can't go to court waving Ancestry.com info to the judge as proof of your birthdate, for ex.
We are thinking of merching opportunities, but in the world she inhabits (in her head) social media clout is everything. And she had been well aware of the fact that she is so well liked. She wants to be the favoritest of them all. And a baby pic is one of her trump cards.
During their upcoming tour, she will want to be all over the media coverage. And people are already curious with the will they/won't they show archie. That's the kind of interest she wants to generate and is counting on, so that she can finally drip.feed his images. Once we see a cute picture of his, she is basically above reproach right?! (According to her)
There could be so many ways she would want to control his reveal, money or no money ..
1. Africa tour - at an AIDS hospital, orphanage playing with the kids
2. An appearance on Ellen's talk show where she will show pictures on the baby.
3. The US elections are coming up. At a fundraiser/fun charity event.
4. Her (supposed) children's book launch.
5. She could enrol him in a preschool. And show pictures of the first day. (Merching for preschool)
6. Most likely sometime during the Africa tour so she can "break the internet" with those pictures and say that their tour was super successful.
Informational Certified Copies
Those who are not authorized or do not wish to submit the notarized Certificate of Identity may receive an Informational Certified Copy. Informational Certified Copies have the words "INFORMATIONAL, NOT A VALID DOCUMENT TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY," imprinted across the face of the copy
So it might resolve the question of age. Personally, I think she was born in 1981 b/c the BRF would've checked. I just think she looks "ridden hard and put up wet" as they say re horses (and it's not a compliment) and much older than her age. That, to me, is far worse than actually being 40something. Far worse.
A thought did occur to me then, and now after reading your comment makes me think that poor Harry might just have been describing his own feelings in a very round about way.
Regina George did it.
All I know is that she tagged a for-profit (?) yoga retreat her friend owned when the post should've been about mental health.
I was under the impression you Brits mostly wanted to take them down 1789-style, except for:
- the dish-buying crowd (you know the ones with the photo of royal wedding couples printed on them)
- the ones sucking up to the Queen for a knighthood
The Jilly Cooper side of me wants Harry to be rescued by some quiet beauty from the shires who loves labradors and babies and all will be right in the end. But it ain't gonna happen.
I wasn't around till the 1960s, but I miss the old days I see when I read old Tatlers or about the lives of the Queen's parents and relations. The impression I get from speaking to older relatives when I was a child, is that it was rare for someone to resent the BRF, even though their own lives were much tougher than now. They just wanted peace and continuity and people to behave properly. As we do now. I'm not attracted to the alternative, as the only people I would like to fill that position in a republic wouldn't want to do it.
Since MeGain is such an accomplished um, prevaricatress, I’m wondering if her PR people know that she really doesn’t have a child? It seems she would have to level with them but then she’s letting even more people in on her secret. It seems that only her sugars are defending her motherhood now so it’s an unspoken truth that there is no baby. How much longer before msm let’s the cat out of the bag?
There is simply no way that the royals are going to publish a photo of a doll baby on their official website, yet they did with the queen and Archie. He is also placed in the official line of succession as 7th in line. The idea that senior members of the royal family are going along with an attempt to deceive the British public is absurd.
I'm not saying Kate is perfect but there has been a general shift away from Diana-type activism to wanting them to be away from the headlines and working with charities in a strictly limited and rather old-fashioned way. Also, now Meghan has been so extravagant and thrown her riches in people's faces, the spotlight is on the entire BRF. How many private flights, how big are their houses and how many do they have, how many holidays etc. etc. So there is now a limited number of things they can speak about without being charged with hypocrisy, because Meghan has made their discreetly concealed, privileged lives more visible. Even Diana didn't do that. She spent a fortune on makeup, personal grooming and clothes but I don't recall any national outcry about that. It didn't clash with her charity work. But now we've experienced Meghan, it would.
So there needs to be a national debate about what kind of royalty do we want, how many are we willing to fund and, if they are funded, what kind of work can we countenance them doing, especially work providing additional income.
For me, I think William and Kate's family already looks like modern European royalty. Which is my ideal. A contained unit, smart and professional, who seek lives of reasonable moderation for their position, with a healthy balance between work and home. Which is what we should all be seeking. I can accept funding privilege to that limited group. The monarch and the heir and his/her family, the focus always being on the oldest in the family. We can't take Charlotte and Louis behaving like Harry in 20 years time. People think the Queen Mother was cruel to focus on William and ignore Harry, but maybe she was being clear-sighted and recognising how things are. If she saw Harry now, she would say I told you so and lay the blame at Diana's door.
I see the reign of Charles III as incapable of delivering real change and I can't for a moment believe he would become less extravagant than he is now when he becomes king. It is just an inevitable period to get through, becoming shorter every day the Queen remains with us. But to ensure sufficient numbers continue to support the BRF as a whole, Prince Charles has to rein in Harry and Meghan, particularly regarding commercial activities as they already have enough to live comfortably, and he mustn't flaunt his wealth as monarch. Otherwise I honestly think they will lose the support of the people, who may then push seriously for a republic. The UK parliamentary system is already being tested to its limits and calls for a written constitution are getting stronger. No reason why this questioning should not spread to the monarchy also.
Which is one of the reasons I started to dislike Meghan early on. I'd been annoyed by the weird hatred of Kate for years, but Meghan was presented as the second coming, the new Angelina who can do no wrong. Everything she does is confirmation that A) She's a goddess and B) The world doesn't recognize her greatness b/c of the patriarchy/racism/something something. Meghan played right into that with her language. Even then I could have grudgingly admired her if she put her money where her mouth was, no matter how much I maybe disagreed with her on some things, but Meghan's even more shallow than her sugars. She's a yachter on a delusional power trip. Woe to the rest of us.
I don't think Charles is paying for all of these couture gowns. I think she gets them free to merch. That would also explain why they are often so poorly fitting and out of season, and why she rarely wears British brands who wouldn't risk it.
Re: the monarchy. A poster on this blog mentioned that the queen gets the authority to rule from god, which most monarchies all over the world throughout history have claimed. The current Japanese monarchy, which I believe is even older than England's, makes the same claim. The comment immediately got pushback, because, 'nobody believes in god anymore' blah, blah, blah. It's certainly true that organized Christianity has lost followers in a big way in recent decades, but I think what the commenter who said Elizabeth's reign is related to god meant more that the monarch is supposed to represent accepted morality, what's considered right & decent in Britain. She's an historical, cultural and social figure who is the Monarch for the entire British family, everyone, without breaking them down in little political 'isms.' Globalists want to imagine a meritocracy without any regard for national borders or traditional cultural values. That's what the Brexit argument is about, & what used be called 'the first world' is having so much trouble dealing with. There are new power centers globally. Who calls the shots, not just politically & economically, but socially & culturally? I don't think people mind adding kabobs & curries to their diet, but does it mean they must give up scones & clotted cream as well? Who knows? I think if Megs had any natural grace or empathy, & had embraced her adopted home more fully, she actually could have been much beloved & done Britain & the royals a big favor. I just don't see that she has the natural chops for it.
Unless it's for true love.
But like why would you hang around people like Harry in the first place if you were so woke?
William, you cunning gold-digger...
Wonder why these photos have dropped now, 3 weeks after the 'event'? Surely if someone wanted to make money from them they'd sell them right away, not after everyone had already forgotten - that is if they'd bothered to take notice in the first place. Could it be anything to do with Harry's supposed interview with Oprah about mental health, which just today is being talked about in some papers? I ask because there's always something with these two.
I would imagine that since everyone knows about the company, and their daughter is the future Queen consort, the business is probably doing well.
As for that movie, I only stayed to the end in the theatre to watch how she would twist history. You realise that she inserted people of colour to play roles of people who were in fact, white. To be politically correct! So you can imagine what else she may have changed. There was a big outcry that she was changing history so she could be woke. I hope no one else follows this trend. I, for one, like to see history as it really occurred.
Yup, looks and sounds like a set-up.
Dead on with your descriptions about how people really feel about the Royal Family. Most don't care at all. The interesting thing that I have found is that when I talk to people like that who don't care too much, all of them think that MM is fake.
There was no Asian lady in waiting to Queen Elizabeth I and the person that she portrays is a real person, who happened, as 99.99% of the population of Elizabethan England, to be white. That person's name was Mary Seton.
Also, the English ambassador to the Scottish court, several members of the Queen's council, and even just peasants in the background.
White looshorts.
I'm not into the whole follow someone because they say this or that is a great product (influencer sounds a little too close to Jamestowny for me) but if one is looking for that to be your next act, then always look so pulled together that there are no potentially lousy photos of you because the seller wants the person to step right in without missing a beat.
The other problem with the idea of influencer as a career move is, what do you do for the act after you have lost your influence? It is really hard to pay for what you used to get for free. And, the lifestyle is one of consumption, not savings.
Even if it isn't influencer but talk show hostess, reality show, the same problems exist.
https://www.tmz.com/2019/09/18/prince-harry-meghan-markle-archie-public-outing-pub/
https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/status/1174252742463959047
lower down on the thread.
Furthermore, it’s plausible that the RF could say they sought guidance from medical professionals / psychiatrists on how to handle the situation (which again, has probably happened). The RF could then easily take the position, that with concerns over drug and alcohol misuse, and mental health issues, MM was unfit to have custody of the child.
Every mummy and granny in the country would nod in agreement that removing the child from an unstable mother (and keeping it quiet to protect the baby), was in the best interest for Archie and the birth mother given the furor that would inevitably erupt if it ever went public.
"Accounts released by Clarence House, the Prince of Wales’s household, reveal that Charles is spending more money than ever on his sons and the Duchess of Cambridge, who are now full-time working royals. Charles spent £4,962,000 this year, compared to £3,529,000 the previous tax year, roughly a 40 percent hike. The amount is billed as ‘’other expenditure,” and while a spokesman declined to elaborate further on the figure, the increase coincides with Prince Harry’s engagement to Meghan Markle. The couple carried out a number of official engagements around the country ahead of the royal wedding, funded by the Prince of Wales. Now that Meghan is a member of “the Firm,” the Prince of Wales will finance all of her official royal activities, her staff, and her working wardrobe."
And apparently the British press which Harry hates so much is not publishing these pics because they are 'too intrusive'. Yet the American press which he and his wife pander to has published them. Figure that one out.
@Swampwoman: to be clear, the information *could* be correct on Ancestry. We just can't know with certainty without the real thing. There are ways to manipulate any data and, of course, there are probably ways to fake a certified birth certificate, too, but if it's from the LA County Recorder's office, I'd think it less likely. However, if Princess Greasy-Pole Climber produced her own copy, I wouldn't put money on its validity lol. I would believe an unofficial copy straight from the county, however. I just don't believe that she lied about her age. I like to believe she is just looks hard-and-been-around-lots-of-blocks :)
Agreed.
However, the child could have been surrogate born and bred. The BRF would have plausible deniability because the royal doctors never examined her, the "baby" was delivered by who knows who, and none of the BRF physically examined markle, most likely. So how would they know? They might suspect. They might have found out thru back channels. But at this point in time, it does seem a surrogate birth would be possible and the BRF would still have plausible deniability when that came out. Markle rejecting the royal doctors was big news and the birth was a bizarre spectacle de merde, so how would the BRF know? That's what I keep coming back to. I'd love to have it proven one way or another. What are your thoughts?
BTW thinking about it again there is no way that on duty RPOs would be eating and drinking. Not only would their attention be diverted from their job, but their hands would not be free. Look at the RPOs in the photos of Megs at Wimbledon. They all have their hands free and are clearly on high alert.
So either these people - the two men and the blonde woman - are not in fact RPOs (which begs the questions of where the RPOs are) or they are RPOs but feel free to look relaxed as they know it's a set-up and the pub is empty and has already been screened. Either way, these photos sream FAKE! Is this really the best SS can come up with?
The only alternative would be that she's selling them on immediately at a higher price because they still have the labels on. Incidentally I also read references to Meghan having £5M, or even £7M in one article, blithely saying she has so much money of her own she doesn't need to worry about paying for clothing (this is around the engagement time). Where do they think she got so much money? She rented her house and there were lots of signs of an luxurious lifestyle. She wasn't paid enough to build such a fortune unless she lived like Scrooge. Why has no one investigated this properly? Any competent journalist could dismantle all or most of her claims before marriage to Harry, including the actual extent of her philanthropy and social activism. The claims that created such a misleading image.
Sussex Royal Instagram
https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/08/royal-baby-archie-will-popular-name-uk-2025-9458008/