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
If you google 'what is metadata' you'll find some great info, but basically, it's data about the data. Whenever you create a data file (document, photo, etc.) the specifics of the time/place/user/source/etc. are recorded automatically and stored with the data (document, photo, etc.) you created. So, for example, if I type a letter to you using Word and attach that document to an email and send it to you, you can go to backstage (on PC) or Mac (file properties) and see when I created it, the name of the person who created it, how much editing time I spent, etc. It is important to ALWAYS strip the data before you send a file anywhere unless you really, really do not care to have that info left available. I always strip mine JIC. It's easy to do, so let me know if you want to know how to do it.
I worked with someone who didn't know anything about metadata. When that person tried to pass off something as their own work, it was thru metadata that I was able to find the actual source of the information. It became a thing, one more nail in the coffin lol.
say is, thank heaven nations can have elections these days. This comment isn't showing up where I meant it to, & apologies to the Brits here for telling them stuff they already know!
https://support.office.com/en-us/article/remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-by-inspecting-documents-presentations-or-workbooks-356b7b5d-77af-44fe-a07f-9aa4d085966f
The process is different on a Mac.
What is pretty much certain is that these photos are fakes, and not very good ones either. Remember that the Rose and Crown explicitally denied that they were there. Not a 'no comment', a categorical denial. Why would they deny it if it could later be proved false? And wouldn't it be great for business to hint that they might have been there without intruding on their 'privacy', which a 'no comment' would have done very nicely?
And speaking of 'privacy' why would a couple who are supposedly obsessed with their son's privacy drag him out to a pub on one of the busiest weekends of the year?
"According to information from the US site, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex seem to have blended perfectly into the set. While Prince Harry and his wife enjoyed a homemade roast chicken, the latter drank beer when Meghan Markle stayed in the water. Still according to our colleagues, the little Archie seemed to take a nap, delicately wrapped in a blanket. The son of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle would have remained silent during the two hours the family was there, and even when the Duchess of Sussex would have changed her son, he would not have flinched ..."
That's how the article ends. Why say the baby would have remained silent for two hours and would not have reacted to being changed? I know babies can sleep deeply and be oblivious to everything, but this seems to feed the freakier speculation about the baby. If anyone reading can read French, the article is here:
https://www.gala.fr/l_actu/news_de_stars/meghan-markle-et-harry-au-pub-avec-archie-les-photos-enfin-devoilees_434871
That is so fitting! I will forever see her as Warrior Princess.
And the normal procedure is that the 'celebrity' borrows the garment and then returns it to the designer. That would explain why they are so poorly fitting.
Now, I'm no expert on babies, but I'm pretty sure that no 4 month old - no matter how placid - remains quiet for 2 hours, in what would surely be a very noisy and unfamiliar environment. It just doesn't happen. And again with the nappy thing? Like I say, did the Duchess change her baby's nappy in public? On the table? And no photos? Or was she stalked into the bathroom, with no protest from the RPOs?
I swear any of us here could do a better job at PR than SS. And cheaper too!
https://www.gala.fr/l_actu/news_de_stars/meghan-markle-et-harry-au-pub-avec-archie-les-photos-enfin-devoilees_434871
is the link to the original French article. This is the language "...serait resté silencieux..." and "...aurait changé..."
In theory, the translation is correct, I guess (not going by TMZ, but the actual French piece) but as Mischi explained, usage means something a little different.
And as a person whose hobby is learning languages, sometimes the mindset helps you understand the meaning. The logic behind the use of the conditional is "if the person who is being cited is correct, then..."
And the French do love their ellipses ...... The French journalists do it all the time.
So tired of people complaining of racism. I am a woman in a very male dominated profession and although I've experienced sexism many times, I don't use it to define myself.
I am almost always the only woman in the office or the meeting, and yet I have to hear about some overly ambitious person with few credentials yammering about racism because they aren't the CEO yet.
It's the same with Meghan. She wants to climb over William and Kate and is using racism to explain why that isn't happening.
Too bad crowns aren't awarded on temperament. But I am a firm believer in how birth order influences personality development. Charlotte (and Anne and Margaret) could be irrepressible and outgoing *because* they were second-borns. If they had the burdens of expectation of the eldest, that would have made them more serious. David and Bertie were something of an anomaly in that David acted a lot more like a second born and his younger brother got the shyness and devotion to duty.
Every single one of the American Presidents has been an eldest son or an only son. 45 out of 45. Onlies are like firstborns to the 10th power. I find this so fascinating. The drive to succeed in conventional channels like politics, adherence to societal institutions . . again, like politics . . an ingrained sense of authority (younger sibs call it 'bossiness') and belief in one's own ideas (or, 'know-it-all-ness' :p) are all qualities which stand politicians in good stead.
Yes, how true that is. My French family had some fun with us re that lol. Ditto for some of the French friends we made.
For those of you who are wondering about a baby being quiet in a restaurant for two hours, it's possible, but unlikely. My husband loved to go out to eat on the spur of the moment, & I've had lots of experience taking infants to restaurants, both in England & in France. They usually require tons of attention, & I almost always had to let another person hold the baby while I ate my (getting cold )meal. LOL. Babies get thirsty, they need changing, they get air bubbles, etc. 2 hours of peace & quiet sounds very suspicious. I've had loudly crying babies during meals. In England, some fat businessman would complain loudly, in France, they'd just make sure that I was attending the baby conscientiously, & politely ignore the noise. They're very into motherhood in France, at least in those days. When I saw the polo photos of Megs & sprog, I found them very alarming. That baby was huge & looked heavy. She seemed very uncomfortable carrying him, and so did the baby. My children were much older when they were that big, & I would have used a stroller because they could sit up & didn't need the support. What was really was disturbing was how still & inanimate the baby was. Babies wave their little arms & legs & move their heads to avoid the sun & so forth. That baby should have had a sun hat, or been placed somewhere in complete shade. Some of my friends used to give their infants Benadryl (an antihistamine) when they flew long distances with them, to make them sleep. I was too paranoid to do it, but can see the temptation. So I wondered if Megs had sedated the poor baby somehow. To do it for a brief outing like that seems inexcusable, if she did.
So silly.
She says that the worst of the Meghan stories are kept from HM because the lady is 93 years old but that Lord Geit is slowly bringing her up to speed.
She also says that she heard rumours that Meghan lied to HM and said that she had invited her whole family to the wedding.
The rumours are that HM will invite Thomas Markle and the whole family to BP for a visit to make things right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJVJxmOwmWA
Thank goodness. I've wondered/worried what that would do to her stress level!
The rest, not so sure. That sounds a little out there, but maybe.
She thrives and feeds on controversy. She revels in telling lies and enjoys the responses, especially from reporters like Piers Morgan when he calls her and Harry out on them.
I am beginning to believe that Meg's Rasputin is her mother, Doria. There's a lot of adverse information surfacing about Doria now, so I suppose we can expect more reveals shortly; especially now that it's being said that Wills is investigating foundation financials. Plus, Wills recently had some in depth training with MI5 and MI6.
I think the baby exists, but Megs was never pregnant with him. She's used dolls now and then to toy with the media and her detractors. She loves to feed on the spin, most of all negative spin, she creates as she enjoys that such behavior really gets to anyone she feels has offended her. She's loves to keep everything around her in chaos.
Screw flying helicopters and saving lives.
I'd patronise that business, dude's got 3 kids to feed.
"What type of company do you think would be willing to pay big money for images of Archie?"
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."
So off, yes.
To clarify: my French family = the family with whom I lived while studying in France.
My ancestry on my mother's side has been well-documented, but I was able to add to the tree on both sides. The more "recent" lines are Welsh/Irish/Scottish/English, but prior to that, Scandinavian, of course, and French, Spanish, German. When I had my DNA test done, it was interesting that the Spanish DNA showed up so strongly. But no Australian.
I'm leaning towards surrogate and that's why we have all this palaver and why Meghan managed to convince Harry to go along with it, if there was a surrogate and it becomes known there is a major problem which wouldn't apply to the average person and why it would be completely necessary to dupe the Queen and Philip and the rest of the world re the birth.
A surrogate birth means Archie cannot inherit the Duke of Sussex title or any other of Harry's titles. The circumstances for inheritance in the letters of writ are very clear the child must be 'Born in lawful wedlock and of the body' …….meaning Harry’s wife must give birth to the baby, a surrogate birth would be regarded as the child of a mistress, as there has been no change in the legal definition ‘of the body’ and never likely to be. Therefore the child of a surrogate even though completely 100% Harry/Meghan DNA does not fulfil the requirements for inheritance.
I could see both Harry and Meghan taking desperate measures to ensure their child (if there is one) inherits.
However as the child is Harry’s , Archie would still fall under ‘The Grand Opinion of 1717’ Act regardless of birth circumstances and Meghan would have a slim chance of gaining custody of him. The jury is still out on whether the Act encompasses great-grandchildren; it does say ‘minor grandchildren of the Monarch ‘(great-grandchildren were as scarce as hen’s teeth in 1717) but it will still eventually cut in when Charles is Monarch and he becomes legal guardian of Archie. The Queen might have anoher 10years in her but eventually......
The one piece I haven’t puzzled out is why Meghan went to hospital to deliver (if she did) as it would have been so much easier to fudge if the birth took place at home. Did the surrogate have complications and require hospitalization and where do the doctors/hospital fit into the scam? I don’t think that a simple ‘patient confidentiality’ spin would work, someone would blab anonymously.
Excellent blog Nutty, I have been reading the entire thing and compliments to the sleuthing commenters.
A piece of gossip just received is that the ‘fixer’ is very ill, perhaps that, Philips ill health and the Queen’s well known disinclination to become involved in family confrontations is why we are seeing less action on the Meghan front than we would have expected in the past. Dithering Charles is unlikely to be much help either, if things get really dire the most he would do is cut their funding and he would be too concerned that would make him look bad.
A lot of their photo spreads show a woman in an evening gown but the man in more casual clothes - Harry and Meghan's engagement photos were pure Hello!
* Gushing article by one of the Smart Works models (not one of the less fortunate women you note, like the one who didn't feel so well-treated by Meghan) about how phenomenal and welcoming Meghan was. I've read somewhere that she only likes talking to pretty ones.
* An article about the latest inspirational quote on their Instagram. Although it notes some criticism in passing it gives the lions-share of the space to reactions by sugars and speaks of how H&M have been weathering the storm, as if it wasn't purely of their own creation.
* Misha Nonoo's revelation that Meghan hasn't changed at all since she married Harry. (Well we could say that too but not in a good way.)
* An Australian model from the Vogue shoot receiving a heartfelt handwritten note from Meghan telling her she was a 'true force for change' (Obviously being a model is the way to go with Meghan.)
* The wedding makeup artist pops up again just because he wished Harry happy birthday. Nothing of note to report but gives an opportunity to repeat again how much Meghan loves Harry and how he inspires her every day. (Well we certainly see them becoming ever more alike).
*An article about the Tig that seems to be giving space for a repositioning of the story:
"Meghan's spokeswoman told The Sun that 'The lasting trademark is to prevent false branding, to avoid others purporting to be the Duchess or affiliated with her.' [...]. 'Of course it’s understandable she wouldn’t want an entrepreneur using the name without her involvement.'"
That's one way to look at it.
* An article about the previously unseen christening photo. This entire article is so OTT I just have to give quotes:
[...] "sees the Meghan and Harry cooing over their little boy in an adorable behind-the-scenes picture."
"The post, which racked up 55,000 likes in just 10 minutes, reads: 'Wishing a very happy birthday to His Royal Highness Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex!'. It continued: 'A birthday message from The Duchess of Sussex: 'Your service to the causes you care so deeply for inspires me every day.'"
I love the wishing happy birthday to the Duke of Sussex from the Duchess of Sussex. Makes you think of them in a Ruritanian fantasy castle, one at each end of a long long dining table, Meghan asking the butler "Could you ask the Duke of Sussex to pass the butter?" Then Harry "Could you ask the Duchess of Sussex to pass the marmalade?" Excuse me. I forgot myself.
Oh dear, I'm up to the text limit so I'm cutting it short. I'm not saying the DM doesn't cover criticism, but what takes me aback is how crass the deliberate PR is. If a child wrote it as a spoof for an essay assignment it would be no different. People aren't buying it in the UK. Each story is like setting up a new coconut at a fair, for people to throw things at. So I guess we're back to the point that what fails here may work in the US. My mother made an interesting point. Sunshine, used to the US, may not realise just what a small country the UK is and how quickly opinions spread to saturation point. It's like using a spray-gun to distribute PR. What may be a fine, even speckle over the US, in the UK turns into a splat.
So chances are the photos were taken in late August. But still begs the question: Why is the pub totally empty except for them and their RPOs? Where is the '53 year old businessman'? Why was someone allowed to take several snaps of them without the RPOs intervening, esp as Archie was there? Why did the pub categorically deny their presence? Why were the photos not released until now?
In answer to the latter, I guess maybe you COULD say that whoever took them tried to sell them to the British press but found no takers as they won't publish 'unofficial' photos of royal kids. So maybe it took a while to find an American publication to take them, since the photographer was presuably just an ordinary customer. Maybe..... But I still think it screams set-up, and not a very clever one at that.
"I'd love someone to explain just how Meghan could have [£5]M or [£7]M or whatever the amount is this week. She was not a leading actress, had a tacky acting CV, was just an ensemble player in Suits and she didn't own her own house. She also lived well if the Tig blog was anything to go buy. Diptyque candles, Jo Malone fragrances and cashmere throws don't buy themselves. And her favourite wine the blog was named after is around [£]40 a bottle. So please explain. I'd love to be in on the secret."
Only likes received so far. I really want an investigative journalist to dig deeper.
BTW I'm commenting a lot as I'm at home with shingles. I can hardly be rational to be spending my time on Meghan but as others have said, it's like watching a car crash in slow-motion, in real life, and so far everyone's just standing by.
TMZ were the ones who faked the Thomas Markle paparazzi photos.
A very quiet baby that doesn't kick or wave his arms or respond to multiple stimuli at that age would certainly be suspicious of some type of developmental disability to me.
For those who are not aware, there are two vaccines for shingles. The newer version is considered better (I have the older but will now make a push to get the other).
Talk to your health insurance hotline and find out if they will pay for this for you as this is something you don't want if you can avoid it.
See this video from youtube: A very royal narcissist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_XgqOOHDWY
This guy knows what he is talking about: he's a narcissist himself.
Is a set of data describing and providing information about rights and administration of an image.
It allows information to be transported with an image file, in a way that can be understood by other software and human users.
The pixels of image files are created by automated capture from cameras or scanners. Metadata is stored in two main places:
Internally – embedded in the image file, in formats such as JPEG, DNG, PNG, TIFF …
Externally – outside the image file in a digital asset management system (DAM) or in a “sidecar” file (such as for XMP data) or an external news exchange format document as specified by the IPTC.
Administrative – creation date and location, instructions for the users, job identifiers, and other details.
Descriptive – information about the visual content. This may include headline, caption, keywords. Further persons, locations, companies, artwork or products shown in the image . This can be done using free text or codes from a controlled vocabulary or other identifiers.
Rights – identification of the creator, copyright information, credits and underlying rights in the visual content including model and property rights. Further rights usage terms and other data for licensing the use of the image.
It’s important that the metadata stored in an image file stays with the image. Metadata is essential for identification and copyright protection. Metadata are also key to smoothing workflow, easily finding digital images via search – online or offline – and tracking image usage - it is extremely difficult to fake metadata and In all my career of analyzing these things I have only seen a couple of times when the attempts were almost successful.
Also, the Microsoft Office data is easy enough to strip before sending. Is there a way to recover that? Digital images seem to be much more difficult based on what you've said. Is that the case? (Sorry, I know you're not a tutor, but I'm interested.)
I'm almost grateful to Meghan for distracting me from the pain. She keeps us busy with new material, you can say that for her.
And thank you again for your best wishes, and to Nutty for her new thread. This must be the greatest number of comments yet. It's a real community and we have such a variety of contributors. And we're really thinking about this, not just dashing off a sarcastic line or two. It's great.