Nutty Flavor Blog

Here, in no particular order, is a list of celebrities who have come out in support of the Duchess of Sussex and/or claimed the British media was "bullying" her. Many have some connection to Sara Latham, the Duchess' PR lady of the moment, or to Sunshine Sachs, her high-end PR agency. A few, like Jameela Jamil, are low-level celebrities that seemed to think linking themselves to Meghan was a good way to increase their own visibility. Am I missing any names? In general, the top-down arrogance of this list is impressive. Someone clearly believes that having these people speak on Meghan's behalf will move the needle for her with the public. One has to wonder, however, why this particular public figure requires so much defending. Prince Harry The Archbishop of Canterbury Hillary Clinton Michelle Obama Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez 72 female members of Parliament, lead by low-profile Labor MP Holly Lynch Ellen DeGeneres Oprah Winfrey Gayle King Katie

California is facing a particularly vicious wildfire season this year, with thousands of acres burned and many parts of the state without electricity. More than 50,000 people have been forced to leave their homes, including superstar basketball player LeBron James, who drove around and around with his family in his car, looking for a safe place to stay. The area affected by one of the major fires, the Getty fire, is precisely where Meghan and Harry hope to move. Bel Air, where they were supposedly looking homes, is currently within a mandatory evacuation area. How would Royal security handle this? Fast forward six weeks ahead, or even six months ahead. How would Royal security handle a mandatory evacuation? The RaSP section of the Metropolitan Police Force is in charge with protecting the Royal Family as well as Parliamentarians or Diplomats. It's hard enough to protect Royals when you have a limited area (their living area in London) to control, or a limited time

Before I began journalism school, many years ago, I went to the campus bookstore with a list of required books to buy. Some were classics of the journalistic format - one was John Hersey's searing " Hiroshima ", an onsite interview with survivors of the first nuclear bombing of a civilian population, a book that still haunts me. Another was Darrell Huff's " How to Lie with Statistics ," which came to mind earlier today, when I read that a Tatler survey found " more than half the country believes the Duchess of Sussex has been good for the Royal Family ." The sample with built-in bias Huff's book is 65 years old, but it's still a light and easy read (with cartoons!) and many of the methods it describes are still in use today. For example, the sample with the built-in bias. Huff refers to a famous 1936 home telephone poll, which showed that US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt would definitely be defeated by his Republican challe

Although I'm no fan of Meghan Markle, I've never wished that any physical harm would come to her. If I ruled the world, she'd have a long and uneventful life presenting low-cost jewelry on a home shopping network at 3am. But it's a violent world we live in, and the Royal Family's own history is bloody. Although a major member of the family has not been seriously injured since 1979, when an IRA bomb blew up Philip's and Charles' mentor Louis Mountbatten, the threats are constant. (Princess Anne also fought off a kidnapping attempt in 1974). All members of the Royal Family, from the Queen to Prince George, have been targeted by terrorists, and the Sussexes were the target of  violent images by a racist extremist  shortly after their wedding. Unfortunately, Meghan doesn't seem to take her own security very seriously. The long walk at Royal Albert Hall Earlier this week, Duchess Megan took a long, slow walk through an arena-size crowd at Royal Alb

Here's an open post to discuss Duchess Meghan's speech tonight at Royal Albert Hall, which comes just a few hours after a Sussex "source" told CNN that "the institution around the British Royal family is full of people afraid of and inexperienced at how to best help harness and deploy the value of the royal couple who, they said, have single-handedly modernized the monarchy ." Meghan is wearing a long purple dress and a long dark wig for her speech, which will address a global youth organization.

It's been almost 24 hours since the British airing of Meghan and Harry's documentary about their trip to South Africa - or, rather, about their personal problems, set against a backdrop of their trip to South Africa. On video, the exhausting pair revisited their standard themes: the British media is unfair to them, Meg has it particularly tough because she is (a little bit) Black, and Harry desperately misses his sainted mother, murdered by the press. In addition, the ginger prince added in a swipe at his brother, seeming to confirm rumors of a feud between them. (William quickly responded with a quote delivered to the BBC through an aide, saying he was "worried" about his brother.) What happens next? Family time in California The most common suggestion is that the pair will take their upcoming six week "family time" holiday as a chance to visit and plan a move to the US, perhaps to Los Angeles, where Meghan was raised. The first few weeks of the

In her infamous TV interview with Martin Bashir , Diana, Princess of Wales, describes seeing herself as "a good product that sits on a shelf and sells well, and people make a lot of money out of you." All celebrities are products, to some extent. Media companies use them to draw attention and sell advertising; the public projects their own emotions onto them - desire, anger, fear, hope. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are products, too. And proudly so, which is why they have put so much energy into their @SussexRoyal brand. Their supporters (paid and unpaid) will tell you that they are a contemporary and cutting-edge product, shaking up the Royal Family and moving it into the future with meaningful lectures on environmentalism, multiculturalism, and girlpower. But very few people want this product. The British public definitely do not want this product, which they are nonetheless obligated to pay for. And the American public is mostly indifferent. Nobody is

Here's a fresh post to discuss the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's ongoing tour of Pakistan, various theories about Archie's lack of attachment to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and the Sussex Foundation's latest hire - Kirsty Young, a former radio presenter who is married to Nick Jones, the founder of Soho House. Please be kind to each other! As some of you have noted, I'm not a professional moderator; I'm a writer operating this nonprofit blog purely for fun. A lot of the time I would like to have spent writing I've spent deleting comments in which people are sniping at each other. That's not fun at all. There are only two rules at this blog: you must be willing to seriously discuss this case, and you may not use vicious language about the Sussexes or about each other. Also, you are more than welcome to discuss possible surrogate situations regarding Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. Thank you!

It's been a few slow days of Sussex news, so slow that Meg had to post 4-year-old video of herself speaking at the United Nations to support the International Day of the Girl. Today's Daily Mail online briefly headlined a staff departure on the Cambridge side - one of Kate's body women has apparently "been made redundant", or laid off, due to a downsizing of staff. Not particularly hot news, unless you're Meghan's team and know that her team will be downsizing sharply soon. Samatha Cohen officially left yesterday , but that was long expected - the trip to southern Africa was designed to be her last hurrah. More departures soon? But more departures are expected soon, if Tom Sykes of the Daily Beast can be believed. In an article titled Prince Harry's War on the Media Leaves Him Isolated in the Royal Family , Sykes writes: There is widespread speculation that there may be a new spate of resignations at Harry and Meghan's office, with many

Tomorrow, October 10, is Prince Harry's first public engagement in Britain since his extraordinary attack on the British media , released on October 1. In a statement that accompanied his wife's lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday, Prince Harry said that he was up against a "British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences." Harry (or Meghan, writing under Harry's name) went on to say the tabloids had published "relentless propaganda" which was "knowingly false and malicious" Great to see you again It'll be a fun time when he gets to meet these "intentionally destructive" reporters face-to-face again tomorrow in Nottingham, where he will be appearing at St. Ann's, Nottingham to mark World Mental Health Day. Harry will be interacting with the young pupils of Nottingham Academy to "discuss emotional wellbeing and share his own experiences." Will Harry take th

A long-term friend, a co-star, a former colleague, a friend from Los Angeles, and a close confidante. These are the "five friends" who supposedly spoke to People  magazine to defend the Duchess of Sussex - and who may now be dragged into her court case against Mail on Sunday. This is because the Duchess is alleging that the Mail on Sunday violated her privacy by reprinting portions of a letter Meg sent her father, Thomas Markle.  But some of the five friends, interviewed for an issue that came out in February, were able to quote verbatim from a letter that had been sent in August. This suggests that Meghan not only told them about the letter, but showed it to them, as well as showing them Thomas Markle's reponse.  Since the friends were able to quote the letter word for word, perhaps she even sent them copies.  Or perhaps there never were five friends after all - only Meg repeating her own words to the team at People .  Dragged into court  If the

Yesterday's open post , with more than 300 comments, was fascinating; thank you for everyone who shared their insights, expertise, and gossip. (I particularly enjoyed the rumor that Coutts, the bank of British aristocrats, turned Meg down when she applied for a personal account.) The thread was energized halfway through by Prince Harry's announcement that he was taking initial steps towards a lawsuit against two British news groups in relation to a phone hacking scandal that took place more than 15 years ago. Why is he suing, and why is he suing now? Avoiding unflattering stories The general consensus is that Harry and Meghan are hoping to intimidate the press into agreeing to avoid unflattering stories about the Sussexes, such as their extensive use of private planes while supposedly advocating for the environment. Of course, they may just want a payout or a settlement. The British press has paid out many times in the past, including suits brought by the Cambridges a

It's a quote usually misattributed to Einstein, and it appears on thousands of inspirational posters, tea towels and coffee mugs: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Whoever originally said it , the quote is apt when it comes to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's participation in a TV documentary about their recent trip to Southern Africa. They didn't like us despite all of the flattering magazine articles about us.  They didn't like us after we paid for glossy newspaper and online articles praising us to the skies.  They didn't like us when we seeded commenters on message boards to say that anyone who fails to support us is an ugly racist.  Maybe they'll like us if we release a TV documentary about what wonderful people we are?  What do you expect? What do you expect from the documentary? Journalist Tom Bradby, the man behind the show, says it will "explain a lot."

Have the Duke and Duchess of Sussex finally started to alienate Britain's intelligensia? For much of the Sussexes' tenure, opposition to them could be easily written off as a lower-class vocation - all those mouth-breathers on the Daily Mail comment section! (One of whom was me, but I digress.) They must be uneducated and racist!  Even before Tuesday's announcement of the Sussexes' lawsuit against the press, there were signs that Daily Mail readers weren't the only ones with a problem with Meg.  The Telegraph, a paywall site with a correspondingly wealthier readership, opened up comments on a Meg and Harry story last Friday for the first time in weeks. The story was flattering - Harry and Meghan's tour is a storming success - but the comments from Telegraph readers were brutal.  The Telegraph reader comments numbered over 200 the last time I saw them, and I don't believe that a single one was positive. They have since been removed from the site.

There are more than 200 responses to Open Post Part 1: The Sussex Lawsuit , which means that Google Blogger can get a little difficult to work with. Let's continue here. You can read the original Sussex lawsuit at this link . You can read Piers Morgan's response here .

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are suing the Mail on Sunday. What do you think about the suit?  https://sussexofficial.uk/

The Sussex PR team - which seems to be a group effort between Sushine Sachs, Kruger Crowne, and a few elements of the British Foreign Office - is doing its best to portray the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's tour of Southern Africa as an unqualified success. Others would beg to differ, including many people who comment on this board. Still, it's no fun being a sourpuss all the time, so let's try something counter-intuitive today. What do you think was the high point of the African tour? Tribute to fallen soldier I'll start. I think Prince Harry's tribute to Matthew Talbot, a 22-year-old British Guardsman who was killed in Malawi while participating in an anti-poaching effort, was well-chosen and appropriate. This is the kind of thing the British Royal Family should be doing: honoring someone who made the ultimate sacrifice for the public good, in this case helping to stop the killing of elephants. Harry's participation in the wreath-laying ceremony al